president and the big rally in florida tomorrow. kennedy is next with doug napolitano. judge napolitano. judge: thank you, trish. president trump tonight gearing up for what could be one of the toughest re-election campaigns in modern american history. it all begins tomorrow night at a massive rally in orlando, florida, where the president is expected to announce he's running for a second term. but some new polls have team trump on edge, so how can he chart a path to victory? i'm judge andrew napolitano in tonight for kennedy. the president claims 100,000 people may show up tomorrow, the arena holds 20,000. in fact, some people have been camping out all weekend to get good seats. political analysts say trump should focus his campaign on the economy, his strong point, and

the president says democrats only have one point, this is the president now, pushing for collusion. he really means conspiracy and obstruction. here he is. >> look, the republicans in the senate, every single one of them that i see, know that this is a witch hunt. they get it 100%, and that's what matters. the democrats are going to do it only because they might think it helps them. i think it actually hurts them in the election. but there's never been a time in the history of our country where somebody was so mistreated as i have been, and this should never, ever be allowed to happen to another president again. judge: we'll have more on the impeachment push in just a few minutes, but

welcome, my friend. >> thanks for having me, judge. judge: how unified are the democrats in their urge to have trump out of office? >> well, it is interesting. we've seen the former vice president biden take a commanding lead as the front-runner from the day he entered the race, and he is losing support. you can see in the polling this is the one ray of light for trump and his supporters, that biden is losing steam. he would be the most formidable nominee against president trump, but this new polling that shows 3-1 democrats are looking for steady and reliable leadership, and that's why they favor biden, that is the kind of factor that doesn't seem like it will go away. is -- while elizabeth warren seems to be stealing some bernie sanders' voters, democrats seems to be united in trying to be pragmatic, and that's why so far they have consistently favored joe biden.

judge: how many does the trump camp fear the most? >> joe biden, no question. judge: and that's because he is a centrist, and he would have a field day against bernie sanders or elizabeth warren. >> right. i think most people who are not democratic grassroots, left-wing activists look at bernie sanders and elizabeth warren and listen to their language about overhauling the entire system, changing the country, it sounds very radical. even though i guess elizabeth warren is not technically a socialist like bernie sanders proudly is, she's still talking about radical change, and i think that it's going to be hard to hold the middle and get a majority in this country for either one of those candidates. judge: do you have a feel, a.b., for how the rank and file democrats feel about impeachment? not mrs. pelosi and not jerry nadler and not the folks that

are on the house judiciary committee, but rank and file democrats whether they're blue collar, whether they're socialists, whatever they may be, moms at home, soccer moms? >> well, the voters, as you know, are very concerned with health care. it was the number one issue in the midterm elections, it's going to be a huge liability for president trump next year. many in his coalition, his supporters in 2016, expected obamacare to be repealed and replaced, but they're still in the exchanges, prices are skyrocketing, their choices are growing fewer and fewer, and it's a disaster. there are going to be pocketbook issues that concern them. what they're talking about on the trail mostly to candidates is really that kind of thing, prescription drug prices, the price of insulin -- judge: a.b., i am hearing you, ask you're not mentioning the word impeachment. does the rank and file not want to go there? >> the rank and file lawmakers, till only a quarter of the democrats in the house, want to go to impeachment. but what's really interesting, and i think you'll appreciate this, is the democrats in trump districts when you talk to them privately, the media keeps talking about how they don't want to impeach president trump because they need to hold on to their majorities, republicans voted them in in their

districts, and they will lose them if they pursue impeachment. many of them have national security backgrounds, they are not lifelong politicians, and they are not actually as focused on keeping their jobs in politics. so what's interesting about the conversations taking place now is they're not ready to support it now, but some of them could see later on the idea that it would be necessary to make sure the president was not above the law. judge: okay, last question. can joe biden till be at the head of the pack a year from now? the. [laughter] >> it's a long year. [laughter] i'll tell you this, judge, the thing is he's not going to have a coronation. it's going to be a very difficult battle. the party is divided. but the person with the support of african-american voters becomes the democratic nominee, that's what happened with hillary and bernie, and everyone before that. right now he has rock solid support in that community, and until and unless that changes, i think he stays the front-runner.

judge: thanks, always a pleasure. the president might be shifting his sights towards 2020, but he's still not out of the woods in 2016. a new fox news poll released yesterday finds the support for impeaching the president is grow thing. listen to this. according to one poll, 50% of americans are in favor of impeaching the president. that number includes 43% who want him impeached and removed and 7% who want him impeached but not removed. i don't know what that gains. 48% did not support impeachment of any kind. house speaker nancy pelosi has been trying to slow the impeachment parade in her own party, but freshman congresswoman, the ever- alexandria ocasio-cortez -- ever-present alexandria ocasio-cortez told abc news it might be too late, too late. take a listen. >> i believe that there is a very real animus and desire to make sure that we are, that we are holding this president to account. judge: so should the democrats keep trying to avenge the 2016 election, and could it cost them

big in 2020? here with me now, caldwell strategy consulting founder, my good buddy, gianno caldwell, and co-host of the five, juan williams. this irrepressible urge on the part of democrats to make life miserable for the president by waving the impeachment flag. >> waving it, you don't mean waving it away, you mean actually -- yeah, 70%. the polls are pretty clear, 70% of democrats would like to see him impeached. there's a key distinction, do you want him removed from office. a lot of people think if you impeach someone, they're automatically gone. in fact, that's not the case. you have to go to senate, get a conviction, and pelosi's saying that's highly unlikely in a republican majority senate. judge: is her best strategy not to permit this to get started, or the sam irvin against nixon strategy with the drip, drip, drip of bad news, reduce nixon's

popularity down from the 70s to 30s? >> i think that's exactly right. and i think that's what we're seeing now. she's allowing jerry nadler and others to pursue investigations, try to say we're not at that point yet, that's why she's not for impeachment yet, but she's not saying that point right not come soon. judge: when bill clinton was impeached, the republicans who were responsible -- with the exception of lindsey graham -- were voted out of office, and clinton left office with higher approval ratings than before the impeachment started. is that a lesson from mrs. pelosi to take into account? >> i think, i think he does view that as a lesson, and juan just mentioned a 70% poll. 70% of americans want president trump impeached, and i'm just not familiar with where that -- judge: i think he said 70% of democrats, jionno -- gionno. >> there was a poll that came

out sunday with "the washington post" and abc that said 49% of democrats want to see the president impeached. i think this has been running along party lines because independents and republicans don't want to see him impeached. and we're seeing nancy pelosi rightly so telling her caucus with over 60 mens that want to see this -- members that want to see the president impeached that they shouldn't. that will be an almost guaranteed stamp for president trump to win re-election. they may not like his behavior, they may not like what he does on twitter, but they don't see what he's done that rises to level of high crimes and demeanors. judge: well, if you want to go there, bob mueller has listed between 10-11, obstruction of justice which was -- >> if that be the case -- judge: go ahead. >> nancy pelosi, if that be the case, then nancy pelosi should run the impeachment then, but they don't see it as such, because if she believed that was, in my view, true, she would

run the impeachment. >> she's too smart, i think, to run the risk of damaging the party just to get an impeachment vote in the house that'll go nowhere in the senate, am i right? >> that's the whole logic right there, you just nailed it. so what we see in the polls is that more and more people say the president should cooperate with the congress. he should not be resisting their request for information, for interviews and the like. so this is a rising tide. and what we saw in the poll that you put up at the segment, judge, is that you see a large number of americans now, you know, 43 plus to 7, 50% saying even if it's a remove or not remove, that he should be impeached. i think that's growing, and that's growing, by the way, because you have this persistent number, 70% of democrats, but also more independents who feel like, you know what? this is just, the president has to cooperate. judge: gianno, you live in a state that doesn't even have a serious organized republican

party. >> no, because -- judge: what pulse are you feeling in southern california? do democrats want to see him impeached, or do they want to see him defeated in to -- in 2020? >> absolutely, they want to see him impeached. we can talk about what happened in orange county where there's no republicans in congress right now, and there always was. juan mentionedded something fairly interesting. he said, hey, americans want to see president trump work with congress and provide information, but we saw president obama do some of the similar things. we can talk about benghazi, fast and furious, we can talk about the irs situation, we can talk about numerous scandals. and 2014 cnn did a poll showing almost 60% of republicans wanted to see then-barack obama, president of the united states, impeached. we've got to have a very honest conversation on the other side with our democratic colleagues and friends over there d.

judge: got it. >> -- and make sure that we're giving real information. judge: all right, thank you. >> my pleasure. judge: guys, we'll do it e again. the pentagon is sending 1,000 more troops to the middle east as trouble escalates with iran. for what? and now the iranians oh, yeah, that's gonna be a good one. ♪ (playing) did you know that nationwide has customized small business insurance? huh-uh. maybe that's a song. yeah, maybe. (peyton) did you know nationwide is america's #1 provider of pet insurance, farms, and ranches? now that's a song. yeah, maybe. oh, that's gold right there. did you know that nationwide has an interactive retirement planner? (music stops) are we there yet? ♪ (nationwide jingle)

it's nice. ♪ you got this! ♪ woo! ♪ ♪ ♪

let's get down to business. the business of getting it done. the business of road trips. the business of getting everyone back together. the business of hustle... ...and hard work... ...and whatever this is. modernized comfort inns & suites have been refreshed because whatever business you're in, our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold.

what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not.

♪ ♪ judge: the pentagon this evening announcing it's sending a thousand additional troops to the middle east as tensions with iran continue to escalate. in a statement acting secretary of defense patrick shanahan said, quote: the united states does not seek conflict with iran. you can judge that for yourself. the action today is being taken to insure the safety and welfare of our military personnel working throughout the region and to protect our national interests. then he goes on to say: we will continue to monitor the situation diligently and make adjustments to force levels as necessary given intelligence reporting and credible threats. okay. the move comes in response to attacks on two oil tankers in the gulf of oman last week, neither tanker was american. but the united states is blaming both attacks on iran. this afternoon the united states military released images of what it says are iranian forces removing a mine that did not detonate on one of the ships.

the pentagon yesterday accused iran of trying to shoot down an unmanned u.s. surveillance drone that was flying over the damaged ships. earlier today iran stoked the flames further by announcing it will exceed the limit for its uranium stockpile that was agreed to under the nuclear deal -- the one negotiated by john kerry -- that the united states pulled out of last year. everyone in the administration says the u.s. wants to avoid war. do you believe that? but all the signs are pointing to view that a fight is inevitable. the panel is here. young americans for liberty president cliff maloney, comedian and head writer for this show, very gifted monday-haired italian -- [laughter] and "forbes" media chairman and editor-in-chief and my longtime friend, steve forbes. are we itching for war? do donald trump and john bolton want war in the middle east? >> you have to separate the two. judge: okay. >> donald trump does not want war. he wants u.s. strength, he wants

iran not to be the hegemonic power in that region, but he does not want war, and he proved that the in a way that raised a lot of eye brows when months ago he announced unilateral withdrawal from syria. judge: that resulted in the resignation of his then-defense chief, didn't it? >> it did, and some others in the state department as well. because it opened the way for a new isis, opened the way for russia. so trump is not, if anything, if you want to be accusatory, you could say he's really at heart an isolationist, strong america. he does not want any foreign entanglements. judge: what do we care, cliff, if two foreign ships were bombed by a different country? are we the world's policeman? >> absolutely not. i agree with steve. look, in the america first foreign policy is what it's supposed to be all about, and trump has those inships. what the -- instincts. he's surrounded himself with neo-cons. these people are so excited for war, and the one thing i'd say to any of these folks who are

pushing to put troops into iran, how do you come to terms with the fact that we've lost nearly 8,000 folks in iraq and afghanistan and look at this and not say maybe we should actually debate these unconstitutional, endless wars? judge: jimmy, are the american people ready for soldiers in body bags again? >> no, that sounds horrible. i finally saved up enough money for a beach rental on the streets of hormuz -- [laughter] i got a deal. [laughter] yeah, that's another -- judge: but to be serious for a moment -- >> i feel for the president. like cliff said and steve articulated, he's in a position where he himself is not pro-war. he's not the pro-conflict president we were told he was. but that being said, he does have john bolton in his ear who would bomb canada -- [laughter] he'll bomb anybody.

judge: we both know john bolton, and john bolton is tugging the president toward a military conflict. in fairness to john, he believes that'll keep america safe. in fairness to president, that's the opposite of what the president promised he would do -- >> but the key thing is, how do you achieve the goal of a non-nuclear iran? you don't want every other country feeling they have a green light. we saw that with north korea, and now we're trying to face the consequences of that. judge: okay. >> so withdrawing from the deal was a good thing and making very clear that iran's not going to be the hegemonic power, curb your ambitions and start growing your economy. if not, you're going to pay a price for it. but you can use sanctions. you don't have to use war with iran. that economy e is weak, its currency is weak, they need to sell oil and can't. you could get regime change. judge: all right. for 50 years the sanctions in cuba did not change the policy of the government. do sanctions ever change the policy of the government? >> well, i think sometimes we get rid of a dictator we don't want. but the quote goes, and it's always the truth, you know,

look, when you put these sanctions in, when goods don't cross borders, soldiers will. i think people turn to sanctions as a less than, hey, let's not put all these troops on the ground because of the ramifications. but at the end of the day, i mean, sanctions, to me, haven't been working, and you've got to look for alternatives. and is it our job to be the world's policeman? i would say, no, i don't think we need to have a role in all of these countries all the time. judge: so secretary shanahan, who's the acting secretary of defense, today quoted this unbelievably credible source in the middle east that iran did attack those two the ships. the source? mohamed bin salman, the dictator and murderer who runs saudi arabia. why are we hanging around with that crowd? >> i don't know that that's the guy we're supposed to trot out as a character witness on the issue. that being said, i do find it interesting that trump did catch a lot of heat for having the

gall to question our intelligence community related to russia, but a lot of people are conveniently outraged or questioning the intelligence community themself. there's a little bit of a habit both ways. listen, we want this to resolve itself in the best way possible. judge: can you guys stick around? >> yeah, why not? judge: okay. a supreme court ruling today could spell trouble for the president, but is it bad n ♪ limu emu & doug look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta.

it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

♪ ♪ judge: today the supreme court of the united states ruled that the same criminal event can trigger two prosecutions; one by the feds and one by the state. in the case of an alabama man who illegally possessed a firearm -- one that he didn't use, by the way -- he technically violated both alabama law and federal law. but the constitution has a clause in the fifth amendment, we all know it as the double jeopardy clause, and it was written to prevent repeated attempts to convict. in the case of this fella from

alabama, he pleaded guilty in alabama a state court, believing that the feds would leave him alone. yet they indicted him, and he challenged the indictment arguing that he has already been punished for the firearms violation, and double punishments -- just like repeated prosecutions -- are unconstitutional. today the supreme court of the united states let that federal prosecution and the potential double punishment move forward. but the whole purpose of the double jeopardy clause has been to prevent this. this was the practice of british officials in the colonial days of repeatedly trying folks for the same crime until they got the verdict and the punishment they wanted. we fought a revolution over abuses like this, and we wrote a constitution to prevent them from happening here, and here we are in 2019. if the feds fail to get you, the state has a shot and vice versa. why should you care about this? well, one reason, it is the hallmark of tyrants to try folks repeatedly for the same crime.

it is utterly un-american. here's another one, it may affect president trump and those he may choose to pardon. take paul manafort, for example. he pleaded guilty in federal court in virginia for defrauding a new york bank, a federal crime and a new york state crime. if the president pardons him, that pardon only relieves him of the federal prosecution and the federal punishment. he can till be prosecuted by -- he can still be prosecuted by new york state authorities. if convicted in new york, he'll be punished twice for the same single crime. no matter what you may think of manafort, this is grossly unfair. here's another wilder example. president trump has boasted he can pardon himself. now, nobody knows if he can do that, because it's never happened or been tested in the courts. but if he does, it would only apply to federal offenses. if the pardoned crime is also a state crime -- we'll use the manafort example, bank fraud -- the state in which the alleged crime occurred can still

prosecute him. this business of double prosecutions for the same event and double punishments is bad law, and it's un-american. the supreme court should be in the business of protecting our rights, not upending them. how about upholding the constitution? this you go, steve. the panel's here again, cliff, jimmy and steve. you're as furious about this opinion as i am. >> it just spits in the face of the constitution. every state in the union going to go after you doing little permutations on a similar crime? but they're saying, well, it's not exactly the same as it was in pennsylvania, so we'll haul you in in alabama, tennessee, wherever. so they can try you forever. and another way the supreme court went wrong years ago was in these liability cases where -- not permanently liable, but they sue you civilly and then fine you $50 million and destroy you that way. the constitution was very clear. i don't know why alito the, doesn't he know how to read the constitution? [laughter]

judge: you're talking about our fellow princetonian. he said that the federal government shouldn't big foot the states. do you buy that. >> no, i don't buy it. and in the understanding, i read gorsuch's dissent, and in order to try you in multiple venues, they have to show that a different crime was committed or different evidence was committed to achieve the secondary conviction. but this is literally the same conviction twice because -- judge: because. all right, so let's pretend this is the guy, my pen. the guy in alabama's holding the gun, he gets arrested. suddenly, instead of 5 years in jail, he can face 15. is that a fair? by any measurement? >> no. and thank god for neil gorsuch. i'm really disappointed -- judge: and before you say neil gorsuch, who defended women? >> ruth bader ginsburg. [laughter]

judge: somewhere scalia's happy. [laughter] >> the one thing i would warn right now as partisans, you know, be careful getting on the side of, well, the fifth amendment, we want it to apply because manafort might be, you know, with these folks, and it's like, well, we don't always have to jump. the constitution should always be the gold standard, and we're -- judge: correct. it doesn't matter who's harmed or benefited by it. [inaudible conversations] >> by that logic, they can throw out the 14th and 15th amendments. judge: well, they can -- >> states' rights. judge: they can word their way around almost anything which is, i'm sorry, sam -- justice alito -- they can word their way around almost anything. that was part of the gorsuch dissent. if the fifth amendment was written for anything, it was to prevent double prosecutions and double punishment. so we'll see where it goes, but that's the law, 7-2, it's not going to change. >> if i was trump, i'd be concerned. judge: i don't think the

president is worried about this, i just through that in there. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] judge: jimmy, do you know what today is? today marks 25 years since o.j. simpson captivated the entire nation with his infamous white ford bronco chase. do you remember where you were? it began shortly after he was charged with the murders of his ex-wife, nicole brown simpson, and her friend ronald goldman. of course, a jury found him not guilty in the trial of the century, and now the juice has joined twitter where he announced he plans to set the record straight. >> for years people have been able to say whatever they wanted to say about me with no accountability. but now i get to challenge a lot of that b.s. and set the record straight. judge: all right. are you ready for this, jimmy? he already has more than 600,000 followers. but maybe we shouldn't be surprised given the cultural impact that the trial had on the

country. it is often credited with starting the modern 24-hour news cycle as well as the wave of reality tv, and it's also sensitized us to problem of violence against women. it's hard to imagine it's been 25 years, and it's the harder to imagine he got off. so should o.j. be hamming it up on twitter or out hunting for the real killers as he once vowed he would do? >> he said now he can tell the truth. well, you could have told the truth after 1995. chose not to do so. he was going to hunt the guy down. did the he ever post a roadway ward to find out who did it? we all know the answer to that. judge: so the civil lawsuit, you talk about criminal and civil, civil lawsuit before another judgement, a no-nonsense judge, resulted in the verdict of $25 million. now, of course, the goldman family cannot get his pension, but they got a book that he wrote called "if i did it." they own the rights to the book, so they changed the title to "i did it." [laughter] they tried to sell the book to

see if they could earn money from the book to pay the $25 million. i don't think they made much money. >> i think the most shocking thing you could reveal about the o.j. chase to younger viewers is that it happened when the new york knicks were playing in the nba finals. [laughter] that is so stunning to a lot of people out there who couldn't even fathom. judge: [inaudible] >> a lot of knicks fans are googling the word finals right now. they don't even know -- [laughter] but to o.j. point, twitter has some standard of admission these days, doesn't it? oh, you're a conservative blogger, get out of here. oh, you killed two people? judge: welcome aboard. you are probably too young to remember this, but the other stun thing thing about the chase is it went about 15 miles an hour. it wasn't a chase. [laughter] when we see chases on sixth avenue, you can hardly go across the street. everybody was interested, the helicopters were watching, you could hear the conversation between the police officer in

one of the cars and o.j. in the other in the bronco. he wasn't driving the bronco, his friend was driving the bronco. would anybody take that seriously today? >> i mean, look, you wake up, it's 2019. you're thinking there couldn't be anything crazier, you find the juice is loose, and he's trying to get revenge on twitter. should he be banned? no, i think he should be on there. but my gosh, is it just a moment to see look at the type of feedback you're getting, 600,000 followers. judge: we are having a lot of fun with this, should we? because this is a dreadfully, deathly serious situation. he got away with murder. the evidence was overwhelming. i covered that case for cnbc in the time before i was at fox. the prosecutors were terrific, the judge was a done -- >> it gets to something that's happened to courts especially with civil suits is judges don't control their courts anymore. judge: right. >> they allow the most idiotic things to go before it, they see themselves as referees instead

of determining what's legitimate to come before the court and what isn't. judge here's a trivia question. o.j. never testified, but what two words, jimmy, did he utter to word when he put on the gloves? too tight. that's a mistrial right there because if a defendant says anything, the government gets to cross-examine him. he was up for re-election, judge ito, remember that? another defect in the system. what have we learned? what should we learn from this? >> what we should hearn is he only did nine years. judge: for an unrelated event. >> the craziness in our criminal justice system right now that a guy who gets convicted for robbery does nine years, and ask and you have people behind bars 20, 30 years for nonviolent marijuana possession, i mean, that was what really sparked me -- >> the reason he got nine years instead of two or three was this

was partially payback for getting off for murder. judge: he was actually facing 33 years. he got 9, he served about 6 and a half, i'm not sure exactly -- >> well, they cited him for time served for having played for the buffalo bills -- [laughter] count that. judge: jimmy, god love ya. [laughter] >> judge doesn't. [laughter] judge: i do, i do, i do! i would be nowhere without him. coming up, rumors continue to swirl that michigan republican congressman and my good buddy justin amash could run as a libertarian and challenge the president, be a nightmare for the president particularly in michigan. but one former marine is already running for the libertarian nomination. there he is. look at that handsome face. and wait until you hear what he plans to do on his first day in the white house. you do not want to miss it, you ♪ ♪

ahhhh! ♪ we're here. ♪ ♪

after my ...i wondered,... is another one around the corner. or could it be different than i thought? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk

if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis. will transform not just the automobile, but mobility itself. an autonomous-thinking vehicle protecting those inside and out. and it's the mercedes-benz of today that will help us get there. the 2019 e-class, with innovations that will change the way we drive from this day forward. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional lease and financing offers. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed now from $899,

intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts... to keep you both comfortable. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. plus, 0% interest for 48 months on most beds. ends wednesday. with licensed agents available 24/7. it's not just easy. it's having-a-walrus-in-goal easy! roooaaaar! it's a walrus! ridiculous! yes! nice save, big guy! good job duncan! way to go! [chanting] it's not just easy. it's geico easy. oh, duncan. stay up. no sleepies.

♪ muck. judge: limited government is one of the guiding principles of the libertarian party and of the constitution of the united states, and if you're watching "kennedy," you know that. that's because a smaller government means more personal freedom, fewer taxes and less regulation. but one libertarian candidate for president's going one step further, and he claim that is if he wins -- are you ready for this? i wish i had a drum roll. he will dissolve the entire federal government on his first day in office and then resign as president. so then what happens? joining me tonight, libertarian candidate for president adam cokerr, former marine, good friend of mine, friend of the show, friend of the old show freedom watch. adam, good to see you. >> you'd outstanding. thank you so much for sneaking us past the censors -- [laughter] thank you for the help in nevada with the bundy case last year.

we really appreciate the stands you've taken over the years. judge: thank you, adam. are you serious that you will run for and win on a platform of abolishing the government? >> yes, judge. it's a little more comply catted but, yes, it's time for us to be united in freedom instead of government. and my proposal is the localization of the federal government, dissolving it new a bankruptcy process in a peaceful, orderly, responsible manner that would leave us with 50 independent states and, of course, up to 562 sovereign native nations. so in terms of getting rid of it on day one, it's a little more complicated but, yes, i would be resigning on day one. i think the only thing you can do when you're handed the ring of power is throw it directly into the fire. judge: how popular is this view, and will you get the nomination of the libertarian party? if you get it, i think, you're in on the ballot in all 50 states. >> i think we do, there'll be a

struggle. it's a fundamentally different approach to freedom. instead of saying let's have a president who gives freedom to entire country, let's instead localize government so everybody gets what they want out of it. and that is really unifying people. that brings people together. localization is the cure for polarization. you see americans fighting at the extremes left and right, and it's so silly when you can just say let's instead the respect each other's right to develop the communities that are based on our values. judge: adam, you and i have known each other for years, we share the same principles. how you argue to an american public that is addicted to getting free stuff from the government in. >> that's a very good question. i think, again, the answer is to stop arguing about what government should be. libertarian 'em for too long has been playing their game, playing politics saying it's about this issue and that issue, and

instead we should be saying you can have as much government as you want, as long as it's voluntary, as long as it's the local, as long as it's based in a community, and you're not forcing it on someone. you want this, you want that, when government is localized, y'all can have it. everybody gets what they want. i think that's the ultimate -- i think the american people are ready for a truly revolutionary campaign like in that really could be seen as the promise fulfilling the first american revolution. judge: you are an ex-marine. what will become of defense in your system? >> former. judge: i know that, i know that. just the premise to question. what will become of defense? what will become of the military? what will protect us from invasion? >> well, judge, as you know, there are a lot of founders of this country who were against the very idea of a standing army. and you know that a decentralized mill a shah-based defense -- militia-based defense is more efficient, more effective, and as they would say, the only legitimate defense

of a free people is a well-armed population that refuses to be governed by anyone. localizing the military to states, getting it focused more on defensive rather than offensive and world policing type forces, that's a first step in the right direction. and remember, getting rid of the federal government, we're only talking about getting rid of three million out of twenty-two million employees who work for the government at state, local and federal levels. it's just trimming this layer of fat off the top. judge: thank you so much. >> i just want to say to everybody out there. please, join the libertarian party, support the candidates for president. we've been setting records for fundraising and media. it's going to be a big year. thank you, young. judge: coming up, amazon pays it workers more than the $15 minimum wage most progressives demand, but there she is again, alexandria ocasio-cortez, still claims the tech giant is paying employees starvation wages. so is there any amount that will

satisfy the left, or is aoc herself just starving for attention? there's my friend. get it! get that butterfly! you know those butterflies aren't actually in the room? hey, that baker lady's on tv again. she's not a baker. she wears that apron to sell insurance. nobody knows why. she's the progressive insurance lady. they cover pets if your owner gets into a car accident. covers us with what? you got me. [ scoffs ] she's an insurance lady. and i suppose this baker sells insurance, too? progressive protects your pets like you do. you can see "the secret life of pets 2" only in theaters.

"the secthe ♪exus es...s 2" ...every curve, every innovation, every feeling... ...a product of mastery. lease the 2019 es 350 for $379/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited...

anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.

♪ muckjudge: so everybody's least favorite democrat, alexandria ocasio-cortez, now renewing her beef with amazon and accusing it founder jeff bezos of getting rich off the backs of his employees. watch this. >> it's his being a billionaire, it's predicated on paying people starvation wages and stripping them of their ability to access health care. and also it's his ability to be a billionaire is predicated on the fact that his workers pay food stamps, so i'm paying for him to be a billionaire -- >> do you think that's why he's a billionaire, because he pays his workers starvation wages? >> i think it's certainly part of the equation. judge: in a statement to fox business, amazon called the accusations, quote, absurd and touted its efforts to raise salaries for its warehouse workers and provide comprehensive health care benefits as well as tuition assistance. so does aoc have it out for the world's richest man, or does she

have a point about corporations in this country? joining me tonight, conservative libertarian columnist and author of how do i tax thee, let me count the ways, and my dear friend, kristin tate. [laughter] always a pleasure to work with you, thanks for coming here. >> it's great to be with you. judge: isn't it true that, in fact, amazon pays about $7 or $8 an hour more than the minimum wage that she wants to be the law of the land? >> yes. well, aoc and her ilk love to pander to low information voters by blasting breedty corporations and -- greedy corporations and rich people. it is shameless. and it's also a poisonous mindset for americans. yes, judge, you're right, she's just completely dead wrong about amazon. last year amazon set their minimum wage to $15 an hour. that's more than double the federally-mandated minimum wage, and they offer very competitive benefits to their workers as well. not only that, but amazon and

jeff bezos have been very vocal about their wish to raise the federal minimum wage as well. aoc has never run a business in her life, she's never had to balance the books for a large corporation. it seems like she just thinks money is printed out of thin air like it is in the government, and i gotta tell you, it's terrifying that people like aoc are gaining traction in our political system -- judge: maybe i'm not the one to be asking this question because i'm filling in for kennedy tonight, but why do we give this woman so much attention? why is it every time she makes one of these socialist comments, we take the time to talk about it and further yet again her misrepresentations about the way the economy works? >> because in the anti-business agenda has become very trendy among far left progressives, but i've got to tell you, judge, i don't think that this messaging will be successful among the general population when it comes time for the election in 2020.

we've seen joe biden and elizabeth juan saying -- warren saying very similar things, going after amazon as well. but it's the free market that should determine wages as we know as libertarians. when i was in high school, i was desperate to work for walmart because i wanted to earn some extra money, but i wasn't able to get a job because of the competition. a lot of the people in my town wanted those jobs. it's competition that determines fair wages. judge jblg we have less than a minute left. does aoc's message resonate with young people? and if not, with whom does it resonate? >> it resonates in very deep blue pockets of the country, and that includes many young people who live in those deep blue pockets. but right now the economy is doing so well, judge, for all of trump the's flaws, the one thing he's done well is purring economic growth -- spurring economic growth. so as more young people get jobs and start making money, i think that this message is going to

fall flat. did you know with vanishing deductible, you can earn $100 off your deductible for every year of safe driving? sing that. ♪ vanishing deductible, you can... ♪ ♪ earn $100... ♪ earn $100 off... ♪ off your deductible. ♪ deductible. ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ ♪ for every-- for every-- ♪ ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ what are you-- what key are you in? "e." no, no, go to "g." "g" will be too high. not for me. ♪ vanishing deductible. oh, gosh. sweet, sweet. when it comes to type 2 diabetes, are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c, so i should be all set. actually, you're still at risk for a fatal heart attack or stroke. that's where jardiance comes in. it reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and known heart diseas. that's why the american diabetes association recommends the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration,

genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. ask your doctor about jardiance today.

now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. [laughter] ♪ ♪ "i'm okay." ♪ ♪

judge: it is so much fun doing this show. thank you very much for watching tonight. you can follow kennedy on twitter and instagram @kennedynation, on facebook, kennedy fbn, and e-mail, kennedy fbn@foxbusiness.com. it's been a pleasure to fill in for her. she'll be back here tomorrow.

her guests include mike baker and dave smith, one of the funniest guys this side of jimmy. [laughter] from new york, defending freedom every day of the week, so long, america. ♪ the following program is a paid commercial presentation for total gym fitness. [music] everybody work out. feel the energy. build a better body. the best you can be. another body easy as 123. oh. ahh. better body as easy as 123 with total gym. i feel fabulous and when you feel good about yourself, you feel good about your work, and your marriage, and your family and your kids. in a month from now, i