the supreme court. connell: we should find out in just a few minutes. sorry to cut you off. what the president does on that issue. susan: the market-moving news as well. rates should be coming down. connell: susan, thanks. thanks to everybody for joining us. "bulls & bears" starts right now. david: wow. winning big-time on wall street. in case you missed it, folks, take a look at this. the dow soaring today, closing at a brand new record high and above 27,000 for the very first time ever. thanks to a rally in health care stocks, the s&p 500 also ending at a new record high, just a tick short of 3,000. it is a very busy hour. we've got a lot of breaking news as well. president trump is expected to make a major announcement that could intensify the already heated legal battles over whether to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. this after holding his social media summit. the very latest on all of this

coming up. this is "bulls & bears." i'm david asman. joining me on the panel, as we await the president's remarks on the census, liz peek, kristina partsinevelos, jonathan hoenig and gary kaltbaum. first, let's go to edward lawrence at the white house. edward, multiple legal setbacks for the president on this. what kind of action do you think he could take today? reporter: yeah, it went all the way to the supreme court, got kicked back. sources are telling fox news that the administration will plan to sign an executive order here directing the commerce department to find another way to figure out how many citizens are in the united states. my sources are telling me that it could be an option that they have been looking at in an ongoing basis, the so-called alternative option they have looked at. that would be the administration's plan to link the census system with other systems like the tax system and social security system as well as other federal and state systems to figure out how many citizens are actually in the united states. now, senator chuck schumer says the citizenship question itself

is very cynical by the president towards minorities and not very moral. david: edward, i thought we were going to get a sound bite there. reporter: we were. david: i don't think we got it. go ahead, finish up your report. reporter: one more thing. the president then started joking now about the fact, he did that within the last hour, about how you can't even ask the question about citizenship on this. republicans are on his side. republicans think the administration is well within their rights to figure out how many citizens are in the united states. now, whatever happens, house speaker nancy pelosi says that this will be challenged by democrats or other groups, no matter what the president does. now, right now the citizenship -- the census form is being printed, it is being printed without that citizenship question. david: just a quick question, edward. i hold in my hand from the census bureau something called the american community survey. that goes out to three and a half million households every

year. it's kind of the short form of the ten-year survey. might that be something the president is looking at? reporter: that is also on the option, that could be one of those other sources, when you talk about linking the systems. i have heard that specifically, that they are looking to put the question on that form in particular. but that could again be this linkage of systems in order to figure out exactly who is a citizen and who's not, linking the census form with these other documents. david: again, folks, in this hour, we should be hearing from the president about what he plans to do now. so let's bring in right now former federal prosecutor, doug burns, on this question. doug, we heard there could be different routes that the president could take, but what strikes me is what chief justice roberts, who was credited or blamed, depending on your point of view, for stopping this question being put on, he actually is not opposed to the question, as are, by the way, 67% of americans think it should be on the census or could be.

chief justice roberts said, i'm quoting, that decision was reasonable and reasonably explained, particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census. so if roberts is not opposed to it being on the census, why did he vote the way he did? >> you read my mind. this is a classic case of a legal opinion that can be misconstrued in media reporting. in other words, when an injunction is issued in a case, very often they won the case, no, it's an injunction. here, what happened was the supreme court specifically said that you came forth with a rationale for this question that's not acceptable to the court. okay, you said that you were preparing to engage in voting rights litigation and we don't really accept that as a genuine, valid reason so please go back to the drawing board, essentially, and come back with another one. so everybody's got to be crystal clear that the supreme court opinion, i'm not editorializing, it's not political sound bites, basically didn't say it's not acceptable. it said the reason you gave wasn't acceptable, go back to the drawing board.

david: liz, go ahead. >> one more option on this. david: go ahead, edward. just a second. reporter: we are hearing from the white house now that they are actually going to abandon trying to put this on the census itself. so all of this litigation could essentially go away because if the white house doesn't go forward with trying to put it on the census, the litigation might not make sense. >> i was just going to say, obviously in hearing the reporting, it's an excellent explanation. in other words, if the census form itself, but there are other ways, other means that the government could ostensibly determine how many citizens there are. by the way, another point, not editorial or political, it was on the form from 1890 to 1950, something people aren't advertising all that much because again, we are in a politically toxic discussion. but it was there. so again, i think in the end, crystal ball, i don't think the president's going to come out and sign an executive order directing that the citizenship question be on the census form, as you said, distinguish it maybe some other manner, some

other methodology of getting that information. >> doug, it's liz peek. let's agree this has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with political power. i think the estimates are that basically if undocumented people, illegal aliens, were not included in the census, were not included in determining the number of seats a given state has, california would lose nine seats. i don't think most americans understand this count determines how many representatives you have and it's in california's best interest, for example, to have as many illegals as possible in their state. but that said, is it the norm for the supreme court to care about motive? it seems to me something is either legal or it's illegal. why should the motive have become such a big issue here? >> that's a good point, actually. first of all, to your initial observation, of course obviously the two complaints are that it's going to affect congressional

districting and then it's going to affect potential federal funding. we agree on that. and it is highly political. for me as a lawyer it's always interesting, because you have to go through the political discussions but as far as motive, you're right, generally speaking courts aren't going to go into that. for some reason here, it's interesting, i didn't really study the opinion that closely and i'm going to, but the point is, the court i think was a little bit bothered any time a litigant steps forward with an explanation and says we will be engaging in voting rights litigation and the court just didn't buy it at all. >> i have a comment on the role of the media. you have the census bureau saying nine million people will be discouraged from filling out this form but i wonder, since we keep talking about it on all media channels, that it's actually discouraging in itself, causing people hey, they are talking on tv about not filling it out, maybe we shouldn't fill it out. i wasn't planning on not filling it out in the first place. that's a side comment. the question i have is how to overcome the lower courts that are blocking this question.

the executive order doesn't necessarily mean that that can overcome the lower courts, right? >> well, you are raising a very interesting question which is that a lot of legal scholars, not to get all in the weeds, have been very upset about these national injunctions, in other words, a lower court, a united states district court which is a trial court, issuing an injunction stopping, precluding the entire national federal court system from doing something. so to your point, you know, the lower courts, what generally happens obviously is there may be a split among lower courts and then it goes up taall the w to supreme court of the united states and gets resolved. but again, as liz says, it really is way more political, to my statistic that was on the form for 60 years. >> super political. let's go back to the constitution and evaluate the politics. checks and balances. congress is supposed to handle the census, not the executive branch. if you want to take the literal strict constitutional interpretation. why is it that it is so

important for the president to know the number of citizens, when the constitution specifically talks about counting the number of persons, not counting the number of citizens? >> well, first of all, the census bureau is in the commerce department. it's in the executive branch. but you are correct, obviously, that constitutionally, it's set up in terms of congress. you're right. as far as the president, you know, i have often said on this show that some of these questions are above my pay grade, meaning, yeah, you want to have political discussions all day long, and you're right, i don't disagree with you. >> it's just a political ploy, essentially. it's just a political ploy for the president. you don't see a legitimate need for this information. >> well, you said that. >> jonathan, i take issue with that for a moment. in fact, in the constitution, it talks about every person but it specifically excludes indians as being non-taxed. people who are undocumented, are in the country illegally are

non-taxed so they should not be included in the census if you follow the logic of the original mandate. >> but here's the outcome now. the problem for the president, he can talk american community surveys, he can talk about doing something to tax returns or some other thing but if they're not doing something on the census, there goes the try for reapportionment around the country and there goes what their goal was in the first place, and we are back to square one again. so he can talk all executive orders. i suspect, you can correct me if i'm wrong, nothing will get done on this as we move forward. >> yeah -- >> we will be talking about this, to your point, we will be talking about this for a very long time because once whatever the president does with this executive order, it will be challenged again. that starts the legal process all over again. david: it does look to a lot of people like this is micromanaging from the bench once again, and we are already clogged up. the last thing we need right now is more clogging from the courts

on these executive decisions. doug, thank you very much for being here. we appreciate it. again, we will be watching the white house very closely. we will bring you the president's comments live as soon as they begin. that is going to be happening this hour. in the meantime, is former vice president, 2020 front-runner joe biden benefiting from tax breaks that he's actually running against? sounds strange, but seems to be true. what newly released tax returns just revealed and why some are calling him a hypocrite.

i had no idea why my mouth was constantly dry. it gave me bad breath. it was so embarrassing. now i take new biotene dry mouth lozenges whenever i'm on the go, which is all the time. new biotene dry mouth lozenges. freshen breath anytime, anywhere. lick fast like a cookie dough ninja. apply that same speed to the ford hurry up and save sales event. for the first time ever get 20% estimated savings on select ford models, plus earn complimentary maintenance through fordpass rewards. it all adds up. don't you love math? so get here asap because tasty deals and summer go fast. get in or lose out on 20% estimated savings on select ford models, plus earn complimentary maintenance through fordpass rewards.

david: just a reminder, we are awaiting live remarks from president trump at any moment. he's expect toed to take some k of action on determining how many people in the u.s. are citizens, whether he does it through the census bureau or something else, we just don't know. that's why the president is

speaking. that's why we're going to bring it to you as soon as it happens. meanwhile, according to newly released tax returns by the biden family, joe biden and his wife used a loophole that the obama/biden administration wanted to get rid of to avoid paying about $500,000 in taxes on his millions of dollars of speech and book income in 2017 and 2018. biden and other 2020 dems criticize, of course, high income elites for exploiting tax loopholes but it's okay when they do it. >> you know, it is definitely higher taxes for thee and not for me. first of all, congratulations on joe biden for earning $15 million in the last couple of years, and yes, joe biden said it was a patriotic act to pay more in taxes. i'm a little surprised he hasn't followed up on that. but this is not the first person. we know bernie sanders took advantage of some tax breaks also to reduce his taxes.

look, we have several of these people who are the most insistent that income inequality is the greatest sin of america, including elizabeth warren, who are millionaires and they're all doing just fine and they don't want to pay any more taxes than the next person. so is it hypocritical? yeah, i think it's a little bit hypocritical. >> i have absolutely no money -- no problem with biden using the tax laws to save a bunch of money using an s-corp. what doi hai do have a problem these people continue to be capitalists with their money, socialists with our money. the continued demonizing of other people who are making a lot of money and who are successful. the utter height of hypocrisy, it's not just biden, it's a bunch of them who keep whining and complaining about the successful while they're politicians and now worth $20 million to $50 million as

politicians. amazing to watch and underreported. >> i think, to your point, you just said those people. i'm assuming you mean joe biden is one of them. funny because in iowa last month, he said, i quote, everybody should start paying their fair share a little bit. when i'm president we're going to have a fair tax code. however, the fact we have talked about the tax loopholes that have been given to the wealthy under the recent revamp in 2017 under the president, the fact that the carried interest rate is now taxed as a capital gain, the fact that you have the alternative minimum tax which is not as harsh as it once was, the estate tax is easier to avoid, so all of ou tyou on the panel, go after democrats and all this, but why not look at the entire problem, the fact that there are so many loopholes for the wealthy and for them to avoid taxes? >> because the democrats are always the first ones to say that the rich should be paying more, the rich aren't paying enough. the rich should pay more. yet at the first opportunity, whenever they make any money, they want to pay as least as

possible. i don't blame them. look -- >> so do capitalists. so do business owners. david: remember when president trump said in the debate with hillary clinton, she said you know, you didn't pay taxes. he said because i'm smart. and the american people voted for him. >> why aren't we sharing his taxes, either? the president's? >> joe biden or any candidate could be advocating for a flat -- look, we spend way too much time even trying to understand what we owe and to your point, yes, the rich can hire accountants and take advantage. you say the loopholes but it's part of the law. we need a flat easy to understand tax law that doesn't penalize wealth, doesn't penalize -- >> i have been yelling and screaming at the tax code that's like 70,000 pages and tens of millions of words. it's almost like a bunch of people got in a room and said how can we confuse the living heck out of the public when they do their taxes and make them spend a you know what amount of money to comply with it. that's where we are at this point in time.

that's why we're in this situation. fairer taxes. whatever happened to the little postcard that everybody was promising us for 30 years? david: yeah. actually, that was the missing piece of the tax -- >> that's missing because it would have made it so much easier. i have a question for the entire panel. should the president release his income taxes? >> yes. david: there's nothing in the constitution -- look, the american people voted for him without having seen it. so i don't think that's the issue. i think actually, you got close to the issue, when you were talking about getting rid of the deductions. i think everybody here, i'm channeling steve forbes, he was here yesterday, he says go -- get rid of all the loopholes, get rid of all the deductions for individuals and corporations, and just have a flat tax rate. [ speaking simultaneously ] >> they like confusion. they don't like doing things like that. they like more and more regs, more and more pages of regs. david: all right.

go ahead, bottom line, quickly, liz. >> bottom line is surveys showed after trump promised lower taxes and a postcard sized tax code, that was the most popular point. not lowering taxes, but putting it on a postcard. david: hopefully we will get it some day. meanwhile, the growing rift between house speaker nancy pelosi and some progressive democrats now exploding. this as ocasio-cortez accuses pelosi of quote, singling out women of color. for criticism. the speaker responding. details next. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions

whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. i wanted to consolidate my credit cards in to a personal loan to pay them off faster. lending tree made lenders compete for my business and i ended up with a loan that saved me over $9000 and no more credit card debt. i mean $9000!

can't see what it is yet.re? what is that? that's a blazer? that's a chevy blazer? aww, this is dope. this thing is beautiful. i love the lights. oh man, it's got a mean face on it. it looks like a piece of candy. look at the interior. this is nice. this is my sexy mom car. i would feel like a cool dad. it's just really chic. i love this thing. it's gorgeous. i would pull up in this in a heartbeat. i want one of these. that is sharp. the all-new chevy blazer. speaks for itself. i don't know who they got to design this but give them a cookie and a star. xfinity mobile is a designed to save you money. whether you use your phone to get fit or to find the perfect gift, you'll use less data with a network that automatically connects to millions of wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else.

so you save hundreds of dollars a year on your wireless bill. xfinity mobile has the best network. best devices. best value. simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today. david: been kind of a soggy day in the northeast as you look at them zooming in on the presidential seal in the rose garden. that is where the president is expected to make live remarks at

any moment. of course, we are expecting this announcement on exactly how the president plans to get around the courts in determining how many people in the u.s. are citizens. we are going to bring you his comments as soon as they begin so stay right there. as you can see, they are taking their seats right now. unity is our power and we have a big fight and we are in the arena, and that's all i'm going to say on the subject. david: speaker pelosi saying she has no regrets about her comments made to freshman representatives behind closed doors, yet congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez says that pelosi's comments quote, are outright disrespectful and that pelosi is singling out women of color, gender and race now being brought into the democrat divide. how will all this play out heading into 2020? >> the word unity comes to mind, and clearly it's a little bit scary to see these public fights come out into the open. david: i think it's kind of fun. >> it gives us something to talk

about. with ocasio-cortez, there were some members of the democratic party that thought that maybe she went a little too far. however, pelosi did tell buzzfeed this quote, too, in every family you have your moments. do you not have your moments in your family? which there's some validity to that. if i'm fighting within my family it's not something i want the entire world to know about. yeah, unity. it's a very concerning word for me when it comes to the democratic party. >> remember interestingly when they won the house, how nancy pelosi went on a speaking tour talking about how unified the party was. my guess is she saw this coming. but she has to protect those democrats who flipped republican seats and who created the majority, who created her speakership. that's what she is all about. by the way, when she's talking, two things i think are interesting. one, disrespect? who is being disrespectful? alexandria ocasio-cortez is in her first term. she knows nothing. she's not a senior person in this party.

>> that's a hard statement. >> come on. she is outwardly critical of the speaker of the house. >> she is vocalizing just like the president. i'm not defending her but it's a harsh statement to make. >> she's essentially suggesting that nancy pelosi is being racist. you think nancy pelosi is being racist? who talks about race, who sees everything through the prism of race? racists. >> poke hcahontas? that familiar? >> it's never about ideas. i just think we have jumped the shark now on calling people racist, the fact that there in-fighting within the democratic party. >> it happened at the debates, kamala harris went after joe biden, saying he's not a racist but. now you got this, to some people everything is about racism. jonathan's right. i have to tell you something. i just came back from england and they got bbc and sky news

and the other international channel. i have to tell you something. in the five days i was there, not once did i see nancy pelosi on tv. i saw aoc about 50 times on tv. it seems to me it's speaker of the house ocasio-cortez right now. she has the biggest voice in the party and that is a big problem for the party if this continues. david: and let's face it, speaker pelosi wants to remain speaker pelosi, and she is trying to steer her party from the far left which aoc represents to somewhere in the middle or at least less far left than aoc represents. but i don't think it's -- look, there are still democrat candidates, some of the leading ones like liz warren who are in favor of the green new deal which would do everything it could, i mean, would triple the federal budget. it would essentially get rid of the free market as we know it in the united states. so she has -- i know she's one person, there are four of her, these very far left women, these

new entrants into congress but they have a lot of power. >> i want to go back to this whole comment about women of color. there are dozens of women of color in the house of representatives. she basically is a squad as they call them of four. she was called out because they were disrespectful because they didn't abide by nancy pelosi's leadership. i think she just has to tone it down. i do think it's pretty remarkable she and nancy pelosi have not had a one-on-one conversation since january. david: i got to push back a little bit on you, liz. i got to push back, because what president trump has been doing is pushing back on the establishment. what these ladies are doing, and i don't agree at all with their ideology, they are so far to the left, but nevertheless, they are pushing back on the establishment. nancy pelosi, speaker pelosi, was accustomed to her first term as speaker where everybody stood in line, followed her through, look at obamacare, you have to

vote for it before you read it. i mean, that's what she was accustomed to. these ladies are pushing back, maybe not all of it, but -- >> it worked. david: it worked -- >> keeping that party unified was important to getting stuff done. she's worried about they're not going to get anything done. david: if it's more obamacare, i would be happy that they don't get anything done. >> it will be aoc and the bernie sanders wing, if they win out on the party, that's party for them. they can never win a general election if that continues. they will get destroyed by the independents. these people are not just left. they are left of left of left. some of their ideas just are so i illogical. >> they are focused on the idea. that's what's so offensive about this. aoc is influential. her endorsement by some measures is even more important than nancy pelosi's endorsement. for her to focus on skin color, my god, take a lesson from

martin luther king. talk about what's inside people's character, the content of their character, not the color of their skin. for her to pull this person of color busy think is really disappointing for a lot of people who believe in individual rights. david: that's got to be the last word. coming up, france taking aim at big tech, approving a digital tax on american companies despite threats from the u.s. the impact this could have on future trade negotiations coming next. like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ if ywhen you brush or floss, you don't have to choose between healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax has 8 designed benefits for healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax.

♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century.

the volvo xc90. 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.

david: if you are just joining us, welcome, first of all, and what you're looking at is the rose garden in the white house. we're awaiting live comments from the president. he of course is pushing for an accurate account of how many citizens there are in the u.s. he's getting a lot of pushback from various courts, including the highest court. he's expected to outline a whole new plan on how he's going to accomplish this. we are going to bring you his comments, as you can see, they have mostly sat down there in the white house. it's been raining all day in washington. there was a brief moment where it stopped raining so everybody got seated. the president should be coming out soon. we will bring that to you live as soon as it happens. meanwhile, the french government approving a new digital tax on tech giants, applying 3% on revenue of companies like alphabet, amazon make in their country. the u.s. government is now launching an investigation to see if this new tax discriminates against american companies and you know what could happen then. could this cash grab lead to a

new trade war? what do you think? >> oh, those french politicians never seen a tax hike they didn't like, never seen a tax cut they did like. by the way, let me add that the french now just put in a tax on airlines flying out of france. that's going to hit the consumer also. leave no doubt for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. that's called president donald trump. if this does occur and hits our companies, expect some pushback and guess what that's going to be? jonathan's favorite tariffs. >> i hope -- why would he put tariffs on americans? that's what i don't understand. he's going to have a trade war now with france because france is taxing american companies? he's going to tax americans who -- look, anything but -- instead of more taxes, why not get rid of taxes? that's the problem here. france is this big tax, big entitlement state. they haven't had unemployment below 7% in france since the early 1980s.

gary, to your point, they are literally running out of people to tax. their highest tax rate is already basically in excess of 50%. so the u.s. response should be outrage but it shouldn't be to raise taxes on americans. but to lower taxes on big tech and everyone else. make america the low tax haven that owl corporatiall corporatio business in. >> i think this is sort of a willy sutton tax in the sense they are going after the big tech companies because that's where the money is. >> that's where the money is. yes. >> as you pointed out, they really can't go anywhere else. they have a huge v.a.t., huge taxes across the board and the really frightening thing to the french people is this is a pro-business president, macron at least was elected to kind of start dismantling some of the bureaucracy and labor laws and cumbersome taxes that have stymied that economy. it only gets worse from here. by the way, i think americans should be outraged. this totally targets u.s. companies. >> to your point, the quote from the french economy minister is

tech giants have the money and they make big profits, thanks to french consumers. right on the dot there. i think it's great that i can use the word bipartisan because right now there's bipartisan support at the white house for this investigation into this 3% digital tax that would bring in roughly $845 million into france retroactively starting from january 2019. i think it's concerning, though, that really what they are trying to do is push forward to have a consensus amongst the e uconn census around the globe. i know we were talking about this during the break but more specifically for the eu, they tried to figure out how to tax information companies and they failed to come to an agreement amongst all of them. david: bottom line, french officials say they are pledging to repeal the tax if the whole world gets together on a worldwide digital tax. meanwhile, president trump is talking. let's listen in. >> i just can't answer that question and that's after spending billions and billions of dollars. there used to be a time when you

could answer questions like that very easily. there used to be a time when you could proudly declare i am a citizen of the united states. now they're trying to erase the very existence of a very important word and a very important thing, citizenship. they're even coming after the pledge of allegiance in minnesota. i'm proud to be a citizen. you're proud to be a citizen. the only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word citizen. today i'm here to say we are not backing down on our efforts to determine the citizenship status of the united states population. i stand before you to outline new steps my administration is taking to ensure that citizenship is counted so that we know how many citizens we

have in the united states. makes sense. we will defend the right of the american people to know the full facts about the population, size of citizens and non-citizens in america. it is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the u.s. population. imperative. knowing this information is vital to formulating sound public policy, whether the issue is health care, education, civil rights or immigration. we must have a reliable count of how many citizens, non-citizens and illegal aliens are in our country. the department of commerce sensibly decided to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census. as has been done many, many times throughout the history of the united states. unfortunately, this effort was delayed by meritless litigation,

as shocking as it may be, far left democrats in our country are determined to conceal the number of illegal aliens in our midst. they probably know the number's far greater, much higher than anyone would have ever believed before, maybe that's why they fight so hard. this is part of a broader left wing effort to erode the rights of the american citizen and it's very unfair to our country. the supreme court ultimately affirmed our right to ask the citizenship question and very strongly it was affirmed, but the supreme court also ruled that we must provide further explanation that would have produced even more litigation and considerable time delays. the case is already in three federal district courts that have been, to be totally honest, extremely unfriendly to us.

these delays would have prevented us from completing the census on time. it's deeply regrettable but it will not stop us from collecting the needed information, and i think even in greater detail and more accurately. therefore, we are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population. today, i will be issuing an executive order to put this very plan into effect immediately. i am hereby ordering every department and agency in the federal government to provide the department of commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and non-citizens in our country. they must furnish all legally accessible records in their possession immediately. we will utilize these vast federal data bases to gain a full, complete and accurate count of the non-citizen

population, including data bases maintained by the department of homeland security and the social security administration. we have great knowledge in many of our agencies. we will leave no stone unturned. the census bureau projected that using previously available records, it could determine citizenship for 90% of our population or more. with today's executive order, which eliminates long-standing obstacles to data sharing, we are aiming to count everyone. ultimately this will allow us to have an even more complete count of citizens than through asking the single question alone. it will be, we think, far more accurate. the census bureau can use this information along with information collected through the questionnaire to create the official census. in other words, as a result of today's executive order, we will be able to ensure the 2020

census generates an accurate count of how many citizens, non-citizens and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. this will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions. this information is also relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population. indeed, the same day the supreme court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility. with today's order, we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights and representation

in congress. in everything we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. and congratulations on today's executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and non-citizens live in our country. as the supreme court recognized, it would be perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the united states and it's entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and non-citizens there are in the united states. in fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions relating to citizenship ever

since the 1820s. but while the supreme court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the commerce department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 census. because as the supreme court recognized, the defect in the commerce department's decision was curable with a better record, the president asked me to work with secretary ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. i did so. in my view, the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the supreme court, and therefore, there is no question that a new decision to

add the question would ultimately survive legal review. the problem is that any new decision would be subject to immediate challenge as a new claim in the three ongoing district court cases. in addition, there are injunctions currently in place that forbid adding the question. there is simply no way to litigate these issues and obtain relief from the current injunctions in time to implement any new decision without jeopardizing our ability to carry out the census. which we're not going to do. we're not going to jeopardize our ability to carry out the census. so as a practical matter, the supreme court's decision closed all paths to adding the question to the 2020 census. put simply, the impediment was a logistical impediment, not a legal one.

we simply cannot complete the litigation in time to carry out the census. one other point on this. some in the media have been suggesting in the hysterical mode of the day that the administration has been planning to add the citizenship question to the census by executive fiat without regard to contrary court orders or what the supreme court might say. this has been based on rank speculation and nothing more. as should be obvious, there has never -- this has never been under consideration. we have always accepted that any new decision to add a citizenship question to the census would be subject to judicial review. turning to today, i applaud the president for recognizing in his executive order that including a question on the census is not the only way to obtain this vital information.

the course the president has chosen today will bring unprecedented resources to bear on determining how many citizens and non-citizens are in our country, and will yield the best data the government has had on citizenship in many decades. that information will be used for countless purposes, as the president explained in his remarks today. for example, there's a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for apportionment purposes. depending on the resolution of that dispute, this data may be relevant to those considerations. we will be studying this issue. congratulations again, mr. president, on taking this effective action. >> thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much. david: okay. there you have it.

sort of an ingenius way of getting around what the supreme court has forbidden the administration from doing. the attorney general made it very clear, he said scotus, the supreme court of the united states, has closed all paths to carry out the census with that question included. so they decided to go around putting the question on the 2020 census form and instead, through an executive order, will have every one of the departments of the united states government, the executive power of the government, to deliver to the department of commerce all the data they have on citizens and non-citizens living in the united states, and there is a lot of data to be had. the president's suggestion was as much as 90% of those people could be accounted for through the department of homeland security, the social security administration, et cetera. doug burns is with us now. doug, the main question i have is whether the courts will try to block this executive decision. >> this was interesting.

exactly as you said, they said look, if the supreme court says we can't do it on the form itself, guess what, we will do it in another manner. the legal argument's going to be you're just dodging and running the supreme court decision by trying to use these other agencies. that's going to be sort of a close call. but in the end, you know, little prediction, i think the administration will probably win out. but there was some very interesting messages real quick. the attorney general made it crystal clear this was not on the merits, the question's perfectly fine legally, interesting message, which was what the supreme court said in any event. but this was a logistical issue about the timing of getting the forms printed, literally, and then of course, i'm kind of smiling, the other thing was a little dig at the supreme court itself. that was interesting. from the executive branch, you know, you're the guys who fouled this up on a technicality as it were, as opposed to on the merits. then the last little subliminal message i caught was the president himself implying this will be more effective to do it

this way than on the census form. i thought that was interesting. >> to that point, i think the same thing. if you think consolidation, wouldn't this be good? all the departments are now finally sharing their information so we have a better understanding of who lives in this country, regardless of the census question? but the question for you, the a.g. said specifically, i quote, ample justification, they could plainly provide rationale. what do you think he meant by that? >> well, no, again, back to the supreme court decision itself. it was crystal clear, you know, to any lawyer looking at it that there's a world of difference between this question has serious problems or it's invalid versus you stated the wrong justification and it was crystal clear that there were other justifications that would back it up and make it viable. that's what bill barr was saying. you know, again, it's like, you know, real quick, when they went for trump's tax returns they said with a straight face we're conducting oversight on presidential returns and of course, that was sort of a laughable rationale. so here, by analogy, a little

bit, they're saying don't tell us you are going to be litigating vote rights cases. come on. david: by the way, trying to figure out what underlying intent is, is a very difficult thing. even chief justice roberts said decisions are routinely informed by unstated considerations of politics. so he admitted that you can never really get into the mind of the people who make these things. >> so by the year 2023 and 40 different court cases, maybe something will get done and we will get some numbers. my main question is, we know what the goal is but how do you get to that goal when you have so many departments putting together so many numbers? to me it feels like a little rubik's cube going on here. >> great point. obviously we just digested this five minutes ago, and we are going to have to analyze and talk about how are we going to coordinate, you know, social security, department of homeland security and all of the agencies that he mentioned. but that was the same thing in the travel ban thing. in other words, he just put

these sweeping things in and everybody is like look what's going on at the airport, the border. same type of thing. >> that's interesting -- >> you mentioned -- >> any political worry that this comes back to bite the president again, the use of political executive orders? a lot of republicans were very critical of obama about that use of executive orders. trump is doing it again. could that come back to bite him politically? david: very very quickly. >> orders are fine when you like them, horrible when you don't like them. david: that's the last word. president trump also hosting a social media summit at the white house today. no doubt you heard about that. but none of the big social media companies were actually there. so what was accomplished? we will discuss that coming next. >> i'll tell you a lot of bad things are happening. i have people come up to me, sir, we want to follow you, they don't let us on. it was so different than it was even six, seven months ago. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios.

fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. ♪ corey is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/ her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole.

patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections .. abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. corey calls it her new normal, because a lot has changed. but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance, the number-one prescribed, fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.

>> it goes up. sometimes it comes down substantially. a number of months ago i was at a certain number. many million. then all of a sudden i was down over a million. then i came down. i said what's going on. you checked, dan, and you said they say they are doing adjustments and don't like some of the people. david: president trump hosting what the white house called a social media summit. jim, what was accomplished? >> we talked about how to lead the counterattack against viewpoint discrimination by the major tech companies. we have a plan to use the powers of congress and use the

executive agencies investigative powers and look at their practices and show they can no longer blithely discriminate against viewpoints they don't like. >> don't you have to legally identify these companies as media companies to have the fairness doctrine apply to them? it seems to me congress has to get involved, yes? >> if you want to do a fairness doctrine, perhaps. you can look at whether they are providing an in-kind donation to democratic candidates by stifling conservative voices and you can have the fcc look at whether they are acting as publishers. >> does this mean you are pushing forward for government intervention? >> no, we wanted investigation and they should be treating

everyone fairly. they are not. we want them to do that. we don't want the government to have to act to do that. investigation is not action. maybe that will prompt them to do the right thing. david: with all the breaking news, we have to leave it at that. appreciate you being here. jonathon, i know you wanted to get in. >> the gop is completely out to lunch. property rights include the right to discriminate. just the way the baker doesn't have to make the gay cake. if twitter doesn't want certain people on their website, that's their right as a private company. so they are going after private companies. >> nothing will come of this meeting. lit put them on notice to do possibly better. i am sure there will be more of

this. there will be infights back and forth. i am sure there will be by as. i have seen it time and time again. david: the president said he is going to meet with the leaders of these social media companies. that's it for us. thanks for watching. liz: breaking news on the fight about the citizenship question. president trump just blew up the swamp. he said he'll issue an executive order to change the way the federal government discloses information. let's get to i'd ward lawrence. this is revolutionary what he's doing. he's saying all federal agencies have to share information with the commerce department about any information they have on citizenship and who is legal and not legal with the commerce department. that's change how washington operates, edward. >> he's linking