my mistake entirely. all eyes glued to facebook at 4:00, all eyes glued to the fox business network at 4:00 this afternoon, because we got the facebook numbers for you. i'm ought of time. neil, it is yours. neil: always accept anything good that happens as your doing. anything bad happens is your staff's doing. a word of advice. meantime robert mueller is in front of the house judiciary committee of the as stuart is saying he will soon appear before the house intel committee. as he pointed out it is not going well for either mr. mueller or for democrats hoping to capitalize what he said. it is still early. anything can help with the intelligence committee. if they're looking for something to stick, stick back to the president, it isn't happening. stocks are going down as boeing says the 737 max production could be entirely shut down except for a little while. now they're saying permanently.

now boeing is the most expensive stock in the dow, when it cascades, close to 10 bucks a share, disproportionately has a weight on the dow. accounting for half the loss we're seeing in the dow about 135 points. roughly half of that is just boeing. meanwhile the justice department is ramping up a probe into big tech. here is what is amazing, the nasdaq is in record territory, it is doing that without the likes of amazon, apple or google. you don't see that very often. we're awaiting a new statement from the the new prime minister of britain, boris johnson, indicating he will go full speed ahead with the plans to break away from the european union by hook or crook within the next 60 days. we'll see what happens on that front. deal or no deal he wants out. first to the bob mueller hearing, how lawmakers are looking at a situation is not living up to how it was billed. hillary vaughn with the latest. hey, hillary. reporter: neil, the house

judiciary committee, lawmakers sitting on the committee heard a lot of this today from robert mueller. >> i'm not going to speak to that. i'm not going to speak to that. not going to get into that. i'm not going to answer that question, sir. reporter: democrats trying to dig up new information but special counsel robert mueller has been sticking to the script, his report as planned. part of the democrat strategy has been to walk mueller through his report, detail ways they think the president threatened or tried to obstruct justice and obstruct the investigation. mueller's investigations, but miller did not play ball. congressman ted lieu asked mueller based on evidence they detailed today, if a reasonable person would conclude that the president did indeed obstruct justice. mueller replied saying he does not want to go through line by line and try to cook up a case that he did not determine in his

special counsel report saying he does not subscribe to what the democrats are trying to prove through this hearing, obstruction of justice. congressman ratcliff said he used burden of proof, claiming the report does not exonerate the president even though they did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the president colluded with the russian government. he says mueller is robbing the president one key right, innocence until proven guilty. >> nowhere in here does it say, write a report about decisions that weren't reached. you wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that were not reached, about potential crimes that were not charged or decided donald trump is not above the law. he is not but he damn sure shouldn't be below the law. mueller was stumped by the top republican on house judiciary committee, doug collins whether or not collusion and conspiracy are synonymous after mueller opened his remarks today saying

the word collusion was not a legal term. >> in the colloquial public context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct? >> no. >> you chose your words carefully. are you contradicting your report right now? >> not when i read it. >> so you would change your answer to yes, then? reporter: republicans also asked mueller a lot about the steele dossier and fusion gps and continued to question why it was not a larger part of the investigation and included in the report but mueller says that other people are looking into that and he pretty much refused to give no additional information on that. neil. neil: hillary, thank you very much. the action will change in a little more than an hour or so to the house intelligence committee asking the questions here. you might have a little more savvy legal questioning. the jury is still out whether it will move the needle. if you dislike the president,

you will continue disliking him. if you like him, you will continue liking him. the smoking guns we thought would appear from the hearing not evidenced themselves. he seems to be just sort of one step behind some of the questioners. it is just not a good day for bob mueller. that is just a quick read of things. a lot of people look on the corner of wall and broad, see the selloff going on, attaching significance what is happening at these hearings. i want to add boeing is here accounting for a lot of this. boeing indicating it might have to halt 737 max production indefinitely, if not permanently. that and we have caterpillar down on trade fears. we have trade worries in general, given more bellicose talk out of china. the doj rounding the wagons on big tech. that is really accounting for selloff what we're seeing here. you take boeing out of the picture, we would be nominally impacted. these hearings are not having

impact some thought they might. "wall street journal" editorial board member james freeman. james, what do you think of that? >> that has been the story of the trump presidency. a lot of noise in washington. a lot of claims that our democracy is in deep danger, markets providing a bit of reality check this is 100% driven by particular company news and general trade news. this is another market non-event out of washington. neil: you know what i'm curious about, you follow the ins and outs from the whole mueller saga from the beginning far better than i, he seems just clueless. i don't mean to disparage him, great respect but i'm beginning to wonder did this guy have as much of a hands-on role might have been the assumption? maybe he delegated a lot to his staff a lot that he didn't know. he kept boeing back to the report, read the report. i get that. but in so doing he left me wondering, how much of this do

you know? how much did you trust your people to write for you? >> i think everyone is wondering that. i think they're also wondering how this happened, this committee hearing. this certainly cannot be what the democrats were hoping for, whether they were hoping he would step beyond what was in the report or whether they were thinking that perhaps dramatic reading of certain passages would underline for americans the points that they thought were important. they're not getting it. and i would think there is going to be a lot of discussion among democrats who remember, judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler persuaded his colleagues to make him the top democrat on that committee in late 2017. he said i'm the impeachment expert. i know how to do this. i know the process for how you make the case. this is an enormous setback in that effort. neil: obviously the president is seizing on this to say, this guy is a disaster, democrats are

looking desperate. they were hot to trot to make sure mueller would testify. mueller, you and i recall was not keen on the idea. there is the report, do with it as you will. they are obviously going to regret that. i'm wondering what happens to this movement to go beyond this, to set the stage for impeachment hearings? i would imagine that gets stymied now? >> i don't know how they can go anywhere from here. you already saw pretty clearly, "wall street journal," nbc poll, you saw the real erosion over the last month -- neil: amazes you guys still do that with nbc. that is another conversation. go ahead? the real decline down to 21% of americans who want impeachment hearings to begin. this is the hardcore of, i would say the hard left anti-trump segment of society. you saw that with john delaney, the democratic congressman, former democratic congressman, running for president, saying in

the last round of debates, no one is asking me about this he talked to me how people in iowa and other places are concerned with kitchen table issues. now that this hearing, i would say worse than a dud because i think, i think the republicans drew some blood showing how mr. mueller had bias on his team, how some of the decisions made -- neil: he didn't know about the bias or didn't know that was so rampant. >> that is the question. neil: i think he is answering honestly. >> you're wondering which is worse, did you assemble a team of partisan political actors on purpose and why? and if you really had no idea that you were hiring a bunch of obama-clinton donors to do this, is that, again i don't know if that is better or worse is i hear you. >> this is not just, not just what they had hoped. i think it's a setback. neil: thank you my friend, as

always. we'll talk about doing stuff with nbc at another visit. i'm kidding. he is the best. >> do more. neil: there you go. one of the things that is interesting, we'll look at the dow. we'll go to this in a second with deirdre bolton here. but there is a view here if things are fine for the market, and they're making money hand over fist which lately they have been, nasdaq is now in record territory, they like that, you don't want to disrupt that. this is not a political statement. it applies to when the republicans were going after bill clinton, trying to impeach him. the markets rebelled at that. didn't like the prospect of that happening. what was the wind then at president clinton's back was the good economy, the strong markets. no one wanted that disrupted. when i talk about wall street not being red or blue, i mean that. these guy are greedy and green. they love making money. with this president they are making a lot of money. they don't want anything to get in the way of that. nothing to james' point in this

hearing indicate that will be disruptive. now they like that. today it might seem like a quirk here we're down to the degree we are. has nothing again to do with these hearings going on and one soon to come with the house intelligence committee. there are other forces at play, factors at play. deirdre bolton with more on some of them. hey, deirdre. reporter: i'm watching three stocks that you mentioned responsible for the dow's decline. you called them at the top of your showing. boeing, caterpillar, unh. boeing is on the headline as you've been talking about with your guests. the idea boeing may have to suspend the 737 max model, maybe indefinitely is the implication there if the planes cannot return as planned during the fourth quarter. boeing, said, well, we're not really sure that pushed that stock down about another half a percentage point. it was already down. it opened lower after that huge earnings miss, no other way to

say it. both on top line and bottom line. that is the trading pattern with caterpillar as well. huge miss on earnings. a less huge miss on revenue. but a miss all the same. those stocks weighing heavily on the composite. then unh. if you look at entire sector, all insurers are moving lower. we heard from unh's competitor, anthem health, oddly enough anthem talked about exceeding expectations on the top and bottom line, reiterating earnings, essentially a blowout quarter plus good guidance. normally you would see green on the screens on that. the company is saying rest of the sector should feel pressure. talking about rising costs, rising costs they saw in the second quarter. i will quote from the press release. elevated medical costs in medicaid more than a few states this is letting investors know going forward, it will be more

difficult in this current environment for these companies to make money. the whole sector is trading lower. i would be remiss if i didn't talk about big tech. we're highlighting nasdaq, very next to near all-time highs. it is funny this is happening one day after the u.s. doj took a really i won't say unprecedented step but unusual step of bringing an antitrust investigation, the company didn't or the doj didn't names. but said market leaders. we have to assume it is apple, amazon, facebook, it's google. all the stocks are moving lower. that is not bucking the overall sentiment. facebook of course as we know, neil, basically paying $5 billion, a huge slap on the wrist for the cambridge analytica scandal and doj says we have the right to monitor business. neil: thank you very much, deirdre bolton here. bob mueller wrapped up his testimony before the house judiciary committee.

next he moves to the house intelligence committee. it is simply not been a great day up for him. we're also separately learning that democrats on that committee did not have a chance for extended conversations with mr. mueller. keep in mind, he was opposed to doing this in the first place. he said he would stick with the script and stick with the report. he is true to that but in so doing he caught a lot of his democratic backers off-guard. they simply had no idea he would be this bad. more after this. carvana is six years old this year and is the fastest growing place to buy a car in the nation. it's because we have thousands of people working hard to make our customers' experiences the best.

it's because we have tens of thousands of cars ready to be delivered to your doorstep. and it's why hundreds of thousands of happy customers have ditched the dealership and bought their car online, earning us an average 4.7 stars in the process. so if you didn't know about us before, you do now. we're carvana, and we want to give you the car buying experience you deserve. at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary.

take your business beyond. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

neil: the ftc announcing a five billion dollar settlement with facebook over privacy concerns. one of the catalysts they hope to see proven here, the company

will prove it, certify on that, prove that they are doing what they have been punished for to correct and fast. fox business's jackie deangelis with the details. reporter: neil, great to see you. that's right, five billion dollars, that is the ftc fine, the settlement it has come to with facebook. it is the largest civil penalty paid to the ftc. related to a 2012 order. ftt says facebook violated that order, continuing to share user data. what is key here, it's a settlement, not an admission of guilt. it will have to set up a independent privacy committee to oversee privacy. mark zuckerberg will have to certify himself that privacy requirements are being met on an orderly and annual basis. if he is not forthright he will be subject to criminal penalties as well. and whatsapp, because they are facebook owned and any new

products facebook may offer. some of the new restrictions include these, the company is banned using phone numbers to enable security. there has to be better oversight over third party apps. it has to be noticed that facial recognition if used, cannot use email passwords for other services it is incorporating into the facebook platform. the chairwoman of the ftc told fox business, the order creates a robust system of checks and balances and spreads accountability and for consumer privacy. facebook responded saying in part with a statement, the agreement will require a fundamental shift the way we approach our work. it will place additional responsibility on people building our products at every level of the company, end quote. neil, i think the statement rightly says it there, fundamental shift for facebook. neil: they have to prove it. this is one of those deals where we want to see tangible evidence you're doing what you say you will do. that gets into the legal sticky wicket there. we'll watch it closely. thank you, jackie.

reporter: sure. neil: justice is opening up a antitrust probe against big tech. at the same time, big names whether they're getting too big for their britches. a former quinnepiac law professor where this is going. we mentioned earlier, john, it is interesting, if the markets are shuddering on this, they have a funny way of showing it. amazon, apple, certainly google. the ones would likely be the target of government wrath, they are down, not a lot, they're down. but you know nasdaq 100, technology index and nasdaq rich the technology names that is flirting in and out of record territory. it is not having the effect a lot of people thought, but what do you make of that? >> not yet, but i mean, you and i forgot we've been talking about this for a while. we're finally here. i have to believe the folks who cover these companies, whether they're analysts or investors, we knew this day was coming. i think what was interesting about the announcement from the justice department, neil, is

that, this investigation is, i mean it is pretty broad. this goes back to bill barr's comments he made during his confirmation hearings where, you know, he said straight out. he thought it was high time that the justice department took a look into the entire tech industry and, with the lens of, have some of these companies gotten too big? and whether or not they're engaging in intentional anti-competitive activities which are two different things. they all relate to the same thing. i want to say one thing, neil. this is a major event. i know we had the mueller hearing today but when you took a look at events that happened, that really shaped the course of our economy, of major industries, i believe that this investigation is going to have the same level of importance as when you go back to the standard oil case and standard oil got broken up. it wasn't just about standard oil. it impacted how the whole petroleum industry matriculated,

grew, who got into refining, who got into retailing this will be a major, major investigation. it will have major impact i think. neil: liken it up under the reagan justice department the breakup of at&t. i wonder, spillover of that we don't appreciate yet. you say it could be significant? >> it will be i think it will be huge. in terms of, i think google is one the most at risk, right? they really do have different companies, the platform, android operating system. they have got a bunch of different businesses. so that is one where i think government will probably focus in on the most in terms of breakup. in terms of who is engaging in anticompetitive activity. that is whole other ball of wax. you're looking at actions and activities that really have an anti-competitive intent to them. there could be other repercussions there. you're right the at&t case, the standard oil case, outcomes of

these seminal kinds of investigations and cases, they just don't impact these companies. they impact all of us. neil: absolutely. >> when it comes to standard oil, we all use gasoline, at&t, we all use phones. now with technology, all the different facets of our lives impacted by these different companies they will be affected by whatever comes of this. this will be bill barr's, what he will be remembered for. this will be his legacy i think, this investigation. neil: this is significant. it is not just one companies. a series of companies. john, we'll watch this. particularly your warning there is great gravitas with this. speaking of amazon, secretary mnuchin this is his quote here, destroyed the retail industry. that is not unbiased review of amazon. they are the people policing all of this. we are letting the world know, we don't tough them. more after this.

nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ a cockroach can survive heresubmerged ttle guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah. not getting in today. terminix. defenders of home.

neil: all right. so far so not so good for bob mueller. disappointing a lot of democrats by not having a stronger performance today. some republicans who wanted him to explain what prompted his investigation in the first place today. neither side got that. let's go to blake burman live at the white house, how the white house is taking all this in. hey there, blake. reporter: neil, robert mueller right off the bat in his prepared testimony before even started taking questions he would not answer questions on a couple issues. one of then being the origination of the russia investigation and also he said he wouldn't answer questions as it relates to the steele dossier, the thinking or reasoning for mueller earlier today, those topics are currently under review by the department of justice. however, it was this exchange right here with republican congressman steve chabot who left many with questions afterwards. watch. >> when you talk about the firm that produced the steele

reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was fusion gps. is that correct? >> i'm not pham with that. >> it was. it is not a trick question. it was fusion gps. reporter: now the steele dossier does appear in the mueller report. republicans were making the case repeatedly that mueller should be answering questions about it but he repeatedly passed. >> as i said at the outset this morning that was one of the investigations that i could not speak to. >> i can guarranty you that the american people want to know. i'm very hopeful and glad that ag barr is looking into this. reporter: neil, we're getting first reaction, not specifically from the white house side of things but from the president's personal attorney, one of his outside personal attorneys, jay sekulow, who just put forth the following statement, i will read it in full to you here. quote, this morning a es

testimony exposed troubling deficiencies of the special counsel's investigation. the testimony revealed the probe was conducted by a small group of politically-biased prosecutors. he goes on to say as hard as they tried, were not able to establish obstruction, conspiracy or collusion between the trump campaign and russia. it was clear the special counsel conducted his two-year investigation unemimpeded. they also the issue is over and understand the case is closed. that is from one of the president's personal attorneys. round two before the house intelligence committee. after that the president is scheduled to leave the white house at 4:00. that departure, neil might be must-see tv. neil: i didn't even think of that. he will take questions, certainly volunteer some views of his own on the mueller testimony today. thank you, my friend, very, very much. >> you got it. neil: look what is happening at the corner of wall and broad.

the dow is down 125 points, not a pickup in new home sales, 7% in june, following 1.7% decline in existing home sales. they don't necessarily dovetail each other that is a classic example here but even the 7% surge under stated what some thought would be a stronger reading. having said all of that what is really going on with housing? we had a number of real estate experts here on this very show talking about certainly anecdotal and other signs that point to a slow down, homes on the market longer than usually the case. what is really going on here? let us find out what ultimately is going to happen right after this because the housing stocks are getting buffetted by this. a lot of mortgage lenders are getting buffetted by this of the this has a widespread effect that goes beyond these key players. stay with us.

>> i say yes there will be difficulties though i believe with energy and application they will be far less serious than some have claimed but if there is one thing that is really sapped the confidence of business over the last tree years, it is not the decisions we have taken. it is our refusal to take decisions. for those who say we cannot be ready. i say do not underestimate this country. neil: you know, i keep saying this, i can't stress it enough boris johnson chosen as the

leader of his party yesterday, the next day he moves into 10 downing street. that is someone elected president of the country on tuesday in november, the next day moves into the white house. a uniquely british experience. he is uniquely british leader. many are fashioning him modern-day maggie thatcher. nile gardiner would know that very, very well. he would be able to see the challenges he faces, how he will respond to brexit, maybe this iranian situation with the british tankers. hes who has a full plate, doesn't? he. >> he certainly does, neil. bore -- boris johnson off to flying start. he sent the right message on brexit, pledged to deliver brexit, deal or no deal on october 21st. a warning shot to the european union today. this is very strong, extremely positive, optimistic by the

prime minister. a huge contrast with very negative approach taken by theresa may, who approached brexit as damage limitations exercise. boris views brexit as tremendous opportunity for great britain and the united states through a u.s.-uk free trade deal. we'll look for robust relationship with president trump. iran is the biggest immediate challenge for the prime minister. you have a british flagged ship currently held by iranian terrorist dictatorship. boris johnson needs to stand up to iran and work closely together with president trump in applying maximum pressure against the iranian regime. i expect we see movement on the british front in the next 48 hours or so on this. neil: what is amazing to me, i wish we had more time, nile, how he is putting the european union on notice, with or without you helping us we're out of this

whole union thing. we always slated this on defense or believing worst scenarios, you can't move around europe. you know if you're in northern ireland or ireland you won't be able to move period. there is this panic and fear you can't get back into the country, he is saying that is all nonsense i don't know if it is the case but playing quite differently. he is playing offense, not defense, that is distinct difference. >> absolutely. boris johnson demonstrated churchhillian style grit. britain will do fine in the brexit era. the british people voted for brexit. boris johnson is determined to deliver the will of the british people. britain is the world's fifth largest economy. it will do extremely well out side of the european union.

the european union is a sinking titanic. neil: i think the european knows that. i'm sorry, my friend. the european knows that, or doesn't want the britain or the world to know that. painting britain at disadvantage knowing full well if britain revolts the sun will come up the next day. >> it certainly is. neil: all the stuff people were hand-wringing about, will not materialize and maybe the europeans will be panic stricken. >> they fear the success of brexit. that is a massive game-changer. britain is lifeboat off the titanic. britain will prosper. high-taxed mentality inside of the eu will be a complete disaster. so the british people said enough is enough. they want their freedom, their sovereignty back. the ability to trade with countries across the world. this is tremendously positive future for great britain. i think boris johnson is the right man to lead britain into

the future at the moment. neil: nile, very good capitalization of what is going on. nile gardiner, former maggie thatcher advisor. margaret thatcher center for freedom. we should hasten to add, many in the european community fear that if looks like britain will live to fight another day, just live another day period, other countries in similar disarray, not being part of that club will want out. italy comes to mind, portugal comes to mind. spain comes to mind and greece at top of mind that could be the dynamic that changes in the weeks ahead. we'll see. not again as much as media presented. it's a more blunt story. nothing nuanced about it. meantime to china and treasury secretary steve mnuchin planning talks beyond the big news yesterday, that they will talk in china and now, incations

this could last a while. edward lawrence with the details. hey, edward. reporter: neil, a renewed sense of optimism from the administration about a trade deal with china. talks are on for next monday through wednesday. treasury secretary steve mnuchin says the chinese wanted the talks moved to shanghai. he reads importance into that, because the history of the city the shanghai communique in 1972, that said the u.s. and china would work to normalize relations. the treasury secretary said china will buy more agriculture as a goodwill gesture. >> it is very important to us they are back in the markets to buying a culture. they made those commitments to us. we want to see the commitments fulfilled. i wouldn't respect we'll resolve all the issues. the fact we're back at the table at the direction of the two presidents is important. reporter: back at the table but mnuchin would not confirm if the chinese will put back concessions they deleted from the agreement. the chinese also want to see

tech sales to huawei again. commerce secretary wilbur ross says 50 applications to sell to huawei have been filed by 35 companies but the process to make sure nothing violate national security concerns will take three to four weeks or more. the chinese also want huawei off the entity list all together. i should point out that the chinese added a hard liner to the team. that is their commerce minister who will be at the table next week of the chinese also considering sending the army to stop protests in hong kong. for the past two month the uprisings have grown, become violent at times. a spokesman for the defense ministry is saying some radical protesters are challenging the central government's authority to that one country two system rule. people are upset about the amendment that would send suspects to main mainland china for child. neil. neil: edward lawrence. following all of that. meanwhile taken as a given since republicans and democrats, both signed off on that debt deal, in

other words to raise the debt ceiling hold it for two years so they don't keep dealing with this, what seems like every few months or so technically every year, that the president would sign along with it. that's not a guarranty but looking like it is, after this. . key portfolio events. all in one place. because when it's decision time... you need decision tech. only from fidelity. you need decision tech. dto experiencer gthe luxury you desire on a full line of utility vehicles. at the lexus golden opportunity sales event. lease the 2019 rx 350 for $389 a month, for 36 months, and we'll make your first month's payment. experience amazing. at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward.

♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford? let's hear what actual customers are saying. - with the hartford, not only did i get a better policy and better coverage but i got a better rate as well. hundreds in savings. - [matt] in fact, four out of five aarp members aged 50 and over who switched to the hartford from companies like allstate, state farm and geico, got a lower rate with the hartford. - when i first called the hartford, they couldn't have done anything better. he said were we able to save you some money? i said absolutely and he goes i hear that quite often. - [matt] not only are people saving hundreds when they switch to the hartford, they're getting amazing benefits,

like lifetime renewability. it's the hartford's promise not to drop you even if you're in an accident. - it's a great feeling and a very comfortable feeling to know that i'm not gonna get dropped. - [narrator] drivers 50 and over can save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. to get your free, no obligation quote, call the hartford at the number on your screen or go to the website on your screen. - [matt] did you know that the hartford has the only national car insurance program endorsed by aarp, in fact, they've been working together for over 30 years. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. - i would recommend the hartford to friends, relatives, anybody. - certainly when we needed them, they were right there for us. it was pretty impressive. - [matt] see for yourself why 96% of customers recommend the hartford, based on their claims experience. - try the hartford, if you don't, you're missing out.

- [narrator] to get your free, no obligation quote and see how much you could save, call the hartford at the number on your screen that's the number on your screen. or go to the website on your screen. the buck's got your back. neil: this was the money shot committee after the judiciary committee. the house intelligence committee, as the names implies would get down to the real nitty-gritty. that might be a moment of fireworks. that might be a bit of a jump. bob mueller getting ready for his second big testimony of the day for his committee, it might not matter because he didn't wow a lot of people, either republicans or democrats with his comment. cautious, very calm, to be fair to mr. mueller he was not a fan of doing this at all. wanted to go by the report.

there it is 438 pages. i will not veer from that. true to his word he kept it. he has since not veered from anything that would imply going beyond the letter and the intent of that report. and that has produced these sort of popeye moments where we seem to be caught off-guard, when in fact i suspect it wasn't being caught off-guard, i'm not going to get into that. that is not part of the reason i'm here. so democrats might be regretting all of this. as to the president of the united states, it says all you need to know, he is loving what is unfolding before his eyes here. we'll follow this very closely. this could vimlycations beyond -- implications what is happening in the committee room, to markets the market is down, has nothing to do with this, but has everything to do with bumpy earnings and particularly disturbing news boeing lost money this latest quarter than it ever lost in history.

and now thoughts that the 737 max jet could be sidelined possibly permanently. that is a separate issue. then there is the debt, the president is expected to sign off on that, because of the way this is all unraveling on capitol hill, the mueller hearings that looks little bit more likely now. chad pergram is here to explain why that might be the case. hey, chad. reporter: start with house speaker nancy pelosi, liberal democrat trying to target this hearing to get to the attention of nancy pelosi to pub for impeachment they missed their audience. i spoke with the speaker a few moments ago if she was asking, watching this? she said a little bit. she is doing other things around the capitol, final version of the 9/11 bill, so on, so forth. look at debt ceiling. start with something very important what jerry nadler said. at beginning of the hearing he asked the special counsel did you exonerate the president. he said no. that set up the exchange from a republican texas congressman. >> you managed to violate every

principle the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. reporter: why is this important? ken baucus, republican congressman from colorado. he said, you believe you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? and mueller said, yes. why is this important? because as this plays out in the judiciary and intelligence committees, they are trying to get the votes to raise the debt ceiling and also pass this spending caps package here. that is a wild card. i spoke with one republican senior senator couple days ago, could this inflame the president? if he is seeing and hearing things he doesn't like, the senator said blank yeah. many conservatives think the president gave up the farm on spending here. i asked kevin mccarthy house minority leader here said if all

his leadership would vote for it. he said i don't know, neil. neil: if you had to be a betting man, you have this debt measure waiting for the president to sign, you know, normally he would hold off on something like that if there is expected temper tantrum or he is upset, not all the time, but some. time, why this question comes up, there is nothing certainly happening today on the outside that would prompt that, right? >> right. but they're trying to get votes here. the longer this sits out there, there is old expression about how guests and fish, if they start to sit around for days they start to stink. steny hoyer, house majority leader intends to put it on the floor, tomorrow, can they move it through the united states senate. that is the other issue, neil. you could see a scenario where republicans start to back off because they don't like there is not enough deficit reduction in this and it is big spending and can't get the right vote matrix there because the president has a history of reneging on deals,

that concerns a lot of republicans here on capitol hill, even though people say they believe he is locked in. i asked steve scalise, the whip if they had the votes yet, he said we're still working it. neil: just for that comment on house guests, i'm coming to your place, staying late. raid your refrigerator and order a lot of pay-per-view movies. >> can you raise my debt ceiling? neil: whatever is necessary. thank you, my friend, very, very much. we're in middle of all of that. so a lot of things can happen dovetailing the latest developments. white house press secretary, stephanie grisham on all of this. the last three hours have been an epic embarassment for the democrats. expect more of the same in the second half. white house is feeling pretty gung-ho about this. this is the committee to worry about. this is the committee has a plan going into it. not to say the judiciary committee didn't but this one we know does after this.

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.

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.

neil: all right. he is back, bob mueller now before the house intelligence committee. this one, the same drill as the house judiciary committee. these might be more pointed questions in trying to get to, you know, a stream of events here that might be more specific. we're told that the democratic members of that committee have already mutually agreed what will be their areas of focus. so they are a little bit more organized, we're told than certainly the judiciary committee. i think it is safe to say, whether you like bob mueller, don't like bob mueller, whether you're republican or democrat, that didn't go as planned, certainly in the eyes of many who seemed to see it as opportunity for democrat to advance the impeachment ball here. that does not appear to be the case. still early, a lot can happen. stocks not exactly riveted one way or the other. what selloff we're seeing is

really because of boeing. that is counting more than half of the decline. that because boeing not only came off one of the worst quarters, the worst quarter it has ever had but the 737 max jet, it might never fly again, it might never resume production. that is a separate issue. what we know as well, trade related issues also taking it on the chin. some big technology companies like amazon, apple, google, might be the target of an administration cabal to go after them, they have gotten too big for their britches. that is weighing on those issues. i might not point out, nasdaq in and out of record territory. interesting about that, it is all happening without the big names. they're all selling off. it is the rest of the sort of the indians, not of chiefs, that are accounting for this technology runup that we is largely the nasdaq. jonathan hoenig maybe on significance of all of the above. first on the mueller reaction. i'm sure, this is my opinion if

this were looking really bad for the president, or this is, closer to formal impeachment hearings, setting the stage for that maybe the markets would be a bit more >> no, they don't seem to be that rattled at all. not since the late 1990s, during the clinton investigation, lots of talks, lot of speeches from politicians but otherwise, a pretty strong economy. investors focused on how effective companies are doing, how good their earnings are, what interest rates are doing and what trade looks like moving forward. to your point about boeing, that's spot-on. microsoft, i can't emphasize enough, as you talked about big technology stocks, microsoft is the best example. that stock was a growth stock up until the point the antitrust suits began in the late 1990s, its stock was moribund for 17 years. that's a real fear now moving forward that we could be seeing the same thing with big tech this time around.

neil: the irony this time, microsoft isn't the one caught up in this. >> right. neil: this is a separate series of big name technology companies that are getting caught up in that. are you worried about that, that government stepping in here and maybe playing a deleterious role that can hurt this whole technology wave? >> yeah. without question. that's really where the growth has been in this economy, in the better part of the last decade, and it has been these big primarily consumer oriented technology names. that's where the multiples have been, that's where the growth has been. it's been one of the areas of the economy interestingly that has been largely absent from a lot of government control. people might say that's for better or worse but there's no question, when you look at the reaction just historically, whenever antitrust begins, the stocks always tend to suffer. alcoa is an example, but microsoft is probably the best example, again, the stock hit within the 60s in the late 1990s, it didn't create that price again until 2016 until

almost essentially two decades have gone by. that's a real fear for names like facebook. they will continue to grow but you won't see the stocks perform as they had because you are not just having to analyze the economics but government as well, that whim of government regulation, and it's not unlike nuclear power in the 1980s, that was public enemy number one. now it's big tech companies. that's why these stocks are under pressure. neil: the irony is the united states going after them. this isn't like a european kind of thing although they have their own issues. let me ask you about the ongoing hearings with mueller. i only ask because i think there is this perception on wall street that it's a republican bastion, they love money, they don't like democrats. the irony is these guys gathered to a man or woman back in the impeachment hearings with bill clinton and said impeachment would be a disaster, they loved what bill clinton was doing at the time, the internet boom and everything else, whatever their personal issues would have been,

they loved making money. i have always said these guys aren't red or blue, they are about green. they love money, money, money. i'm wondering if the same backdrop is helping donald trump. i know you are not a political guy but i'm thinking this is beyond politics, if there was something here that made it look like wow, this guy could be thrown out on his fanny, they would be panicking more and they're not. what do you make of that? >> well, i think -- i think there's some credence to that but quite simply, we haven't seen it yet. one of the basic indicators i look at is the advanced decline line, the number of new stocks hitting new highs as against hitting new lows. we haven't seen the panic just yet. there's been a lot of reasons to panic, whether it's uncertainty in washington or even uncertainty in the middle east. from my perspective, you have to bring it down to the individual investor. what worries me is even as we continue to notch the new highs, a lot of investors have taken on more debt than since the global

financial crisis. i'm not a cassandra, i don't think we are due for economic collapse like elizabeth warren and others have suggested but now is a good time for every investor, no matter which side of the aisle you're on, to get your financial house in order because we are long in the tooth when it comes to this economic expansion. neil: do what, sell your stocks, raise cash? >> more than anything, a great place to start is that consumer credit card debt. it's not very sexy but paying down that credit card is like giving yourself an instant 10% return on investment. when you look historically forward, especially with the federal reserve if it starts cutting interest rates, those types of returns might not be available in fixed income. give yourself that immediate raise, pay yourself first, pay down that credit card debt. it's just a thing we saw in 2005, 2006, 2007, by the time the warning signs apply, by the time the warning signs appear, it's oftentimes too late. neil: i'm too young to remember that. speak for yourself.

thank you very much. jonathan hoenig. great reader of the markets for many, many years. meantime, hillary vaughn with the latest on capitol hill and the ongoing hearings. so far, there is that old expression, they haven't laid a glove on him, but in this case, maybe that wasn't the intention because he's laying the gloves on himself. how do you describe what's happening? reporter: well, we have been hearing reaction from democrats sitting on the house judiciary committee after their hearing wrapped up with mueller, and we heard from elijah cummings, who says this hearing, in today's hearings, are really about informing the american public, at least those people that didn't read the report. he thinks that these hearings will maybe get their attention. democrats on the house judiciary are convinced this hearing has convinced the american public that it's time to move forward with impeachment proceedings. house democrats' main goal today was essentially building their own case on obstruction of justice by the president to lay the building blocks for

impeachment proceedings, but special counsel mueller was not jumping on board. >> based on the evidence we have heard today, i believe reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of social injustice by the president occurred. >> i want to add as i'm going through the elements with you do not mean or does not mean that i subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements. reporter: republicans called into question why special counsel robert mueller left out a few key parts in his special counsel report, including the steele dossier and fusion gps, the group that funded the informati information. in one exchange with congressman matt gaetz, he pushed mueller to explain why this did not fall in the purview of his investigation if his investigation is about the russian investigation and russian misinformation, the

steele dossier should be part of that, but mueller's only response to that was that other people are investigating and following up on that, and he didn't think that it fell under his purview. neil? neil: hillary, thank you very much. we are waiting for his opening statement before the house intelligence committee. i assume it will be a little different than the one he had before the house judiciary committee. ahead of that, we have bill mcgurn here, former bush 43 chief speech writer. also, liz macdonald. then dan is just a great accountant, good with numbers, so he can make sense of how the numbers move on this. dan, i ended with you on this and whether it's moving the market needle at all. forget about the political needle. i don't think it is. >> it's really not, neil. i think this is in the rear view mirror of the markets. they are so far past it, as are many of the american people i think in general. i think this has really become

just the same song that's been played on the radio over and over and over again. neil: there are no bombshells to make people think differently. >> no. there was nothing that came out today that we didn't already know and therefore, there isn't going to be any impact on the market and there hasn't been. neil: lizzy, i was mentioning the economic environment has a lot to do with potential impeachment proceedings. watergate was pretty bad for richard nixon already but it didn't help that we were in the middle of a recession, stagflation, all that. bill clinton, like this president, enjoying good market times, good economic times, helped bill clinton. i suspect it's a good backdrop for donald trump. >> that's the point, right. what you're saying. four incumbents, four incumbent presidents have lost because of recession so going back to taft -- neil: don't get me started. >> i won't get started on william taft. so, you know, is this the

backdrop we should be talking about, yes. i'm really intrigued that the democrats thought they were going to get this john grisham movie out of mueller to convince the american people that hey, there's something here. you can't underestimate the intelligence of the american people when it comes to the polls. they know what's going on here. they said no collusion, they saw no evidence -- excuse me, no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, then they turned to the weedy, wonky obstruction part of it, all right, we're not going to go there. what i'm saying is the dems underestimate the intelligence of the american people thinking they needed a hearing with robert mueller. i think what's swamping the headlines right now is the fact you had hyperventilated, hypercaffeinated politicians going after an esteemed man who served this country well. that's what's swamping the headlines right now about robert mueller's performance so it's knocking out all the other issues. neil: i'm wondering, too, whether there's something that maybe we were prepared for a

different mueller. impressive career as a war hero but he just looked like he lost his fastball. those images. >> i'm tempted to say that question is outside my purview so i shouldn't have to answer it. but i think that's what we saw kind of hesitant bob mueller. it does raise questions, though, w who wrote the report and it puts more focus on his staff which were all democratic and hillary partisans. the president is constantly getting in trouble for tweeting 12 angry democrats and a witch hunt. i think he's substantively right in that regard. if bob mueller wasn't driving this report, he said he wasn't familiar with fusion gps and so forth, then who was? neil: i don't think he was lying or deliberately being vague. i think he was as honest as he could be but it did raise the concern again, how much was delegated, how much did he know and i know he wanted to stick to that report, the findings of the

report, but in so doing, he kind of locked himself. >> i don't think he was lying on any of his answers. however, i do think that the report is troubling. for one thing, it's troubling for a prosecutor to say i'm not going to prosecute but here are all the slimy things you did. that's what james comey did to hillary clinton and it was beyond the pale. then there are little things, some of the congressmen said you know, we have to go by the report, but you start to look at some of the details, for example, a phone call from john dowd at the white house, it looks like he's improperly fishing for confidential information. if you read the report version. if you look at the transcript, it's clear it's just one lawyer to another. so i think it's focusing some questions on his staff and his decisions, particularly he's not given a good answer to why he didn't say crimes were committed. obviously olc guidelines say you can't prosecute, but he could have said we found these crimes.

neil: maybe as he goes around with the house intelligence committee he will. let's dip into this if we can, guys. this is bob mueller's chance to do before the intelligence committee what so far, many of the people who back him and are criticizing him say he failed to do with the judiciary committee. >> we are here to ask director mueller questions. he's here with counsel. our side is not going to be directing any questions to mr. zebley and we have concerns about his prior representation of the hillary clinton campaign aide, so i just want to voice that concern that we do have. we will not be addressing any questions to mr. zebley today. >> i thank the ranking member. i realize as probably do mr. zebley that there is an angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here today, but it is up to this committee and not anyone else who will be allowed to be sworn in and testify, and you are

welcome as a private citizen to testify, and members may direct their questions to whoever they choose. with that, director mueller, you are recognized for any opening remarks you would like to make. >> good afternoon, chairman schiff, ranking member nunez and members of the committee. i testified this morning before the house judiciary committee. i ask that the opening statement i made before that committee be incorporated into the record here. >> without objection, director. >> i understand that this committee has a unique jurisdiction and that you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our investigation. so let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counterintelligence matters. as we explained in our report, the special counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of

united states attorney. as a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. we did not reach what you would call counterintelligence conclusions. we did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counterintelligence information on to the fbi. members of our office periodically briefed the fbi about counterintelligence information. in addition, there were agents and analysts from the fbi who were not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files and to disseminate that information to the fbi. for these reasons, questions about what the fbi has done with the counterintelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the fbi. i also want to reiterate a few

points that i made this morning. i am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. it is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. first public testimony could affect several ongoing matters and some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. and consistent with long-standing justice department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. second, the justice department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the justice department, and deliberations within our office.

these are justice department privileges that i will respect. the department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. i therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that i know are of public interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the opening of the fbi's russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment. or matters related to the so-called steele dossier. these matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the fbi or the justice department. third, as i explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. the report contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. we stated the results of our

investigation with precision. i do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. as i stated in may, i also will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. i was appointed as a prosecutor, and i intend to adhere to that role and to the department's standards that govern. finally, as i said this morning, over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. the russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. i am sure that the committee agrees. now, before we go to questions, i want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lieu who said, and i quote, you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion.

that is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report, and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. with that, mr. chairman, i'm ready to answer questions. >> thank you. neil: that was minus that final comment there, almost verbatim how he started out his testimony to the house judiciary committee, saying he would be limited to what was in the report, that wasn't going to go beyond the report, that he was restricted by exactly how much he could charge a sitting president with, those were all limitations. you might have heard a comment about his own personal lawyer there, the president had ripped that as being very unfair, very unusual and in legal terms before these type of committee hearings, almost unprecedented, not entirely. there were many watergate witnesses, for example, who did have their own lawyers with them. john dean comes to mind, for example. but having said that, the gist

of his remarks pretty much were the words before the judiciary committee, that is a lawyer is there advising him not only on how to answer certain questions but again, invariably to get back to the report itself. i only mention that kind of nuanced difference to state that the presence of that lawyer and the caution that you have been seeing out of mr. mueller might be respected by lawyers, but it is unnerving a lot of democrats who really wanted more bang for the buck from the prosecutor and i'm reminded of that, back with my panel, bill mcgurn, elizabeth macdonald of "evening edit" and ann gelter, bestselling author, that this is not going to script, this is not going to plan and i'm wondering, we are hearing separately reports that this committee, the democratic committee, wanted to meet with mueller ahead of time just to sort of go over things.

he did not want to do that. what you call practice or drill sessions, i don't know. that is true, it goes back to his reluctance to even have to testify at all, and could explain the fact they were not expecting the bob mueller who is appearing here. >> i don't think they were expecting it at all, neil. look, i think people fall into four different buckets here. people that are for trump, people that are against trump, people that don't care and people that are trying to figure all this out. i don't think based upon what we're seeing going on today, anybody moves in any direction. there's no clarification here. we're seeing a regurgitation of what was in the report, to the extent he even understands what was in his own report because as we were talking about before, how much input and how involved was he in the writing of this report. he's making himself look bad, he's losing credibility and i think in the end, everybody walks away frustrated on all sides. neil: you know what you look for

in something like this, where it goes from here. assuming that this event with the intelligence committee plays out like the judiciary committee, the idea of building impeachment hearings off of this, that might be a tough sell. maybe not. anything can happen in washington in the summer. but your take on that? >> you're right, what's next, right, because even adam schiff, chair of the house, democrat who is chairing this committee, says we should be very circumspect about how catalytic an event this will be with mueller testifying because people are already dug in in their views in the matter, will this affect the 2020 race? the one with the most stake in this is elizabeth warren, she said yes, she's read the report, she's taken to the senate floor making speeches about the mueller report, she's dug into it in the campaign trail, so the 2020 democrats are also going on about this. i will say this. what's really interesting about these hearings are as follows.

mueller and the doj said you have to stay within the four corners of this report. there are an awful lot of footnotes that are also within the four corners of that report, and those footnotes show how much james comey's notes and memoranda mattered to this probe, and what triggered the probe. there are lots of questions that still could be asked that they haven't asked already about what started the probe, what started the surveillance of the trump campaign. so i think you're right, what is next, do we go to impeachment is still an open question. neil: you know, for a lot of people, who don't read everything like you do, this is new to the american people. they know about james comey, they know about the president not flipping over james comey, a good many know that the president fired james comey, then they discovered oh, this guy is good friends with james comey. so that's kind of widely known but in the general community, a

lot of people say that doesn't sound right. i think democrats were waiting for more of this stuff that doesn't sound right that helps them, not that helps republicans. >> right. look, i think they didn't get it for several reasons. what they wanted, they got mr. mueller to repeat certain thi s things, that not finding evidence of a crime does not mean he's innocent. then they got him -- neil: that's how it started out. >> they got him also to say that in his response to ted lieu the reason he didn't indict was because of department of justice rules, which he clarified later. so what they were hoping for was -- neil: other lawyers have questioned that, by the way. >> what they were hoping for was to breathe life into this, into the mueller report to make it part of impeachment but this is an impeachment drama. it's everything but actual impeachment. i don't think they are getting that from this report. look, i just saw a tweet from

lawrence tribe where it said democrats had hoped this would breathe life into the report and it sucked the life out of the report. so i don't think it's serving the purpose which was politically theater to get -- i think mr. mueller doesn't look so good answering some of the tough republican questions as you raised. if he's just going to say it's not in my purview, a lot of stuff was in his purview, you know, a 10 or 15-year-old financial case against paul manafort. i think this is going to be a big dud. i think you're right about america. most americans, you know, were satisfied with the bottom line of the mueller report, no collusion, no underlying -- >> you know what else is going on, the report is coming out the democrats really hung their hat on the impeachment hearings because half a dozen other probes within congress against trump ain't going anywhere. they are kind of stalled out because the president is blocking them and they are trying to go to court to revive them. so this was sort of their last ditch push on the mueller hearing to get all of the other

probes restarted and jump-started again because those are dying on the vine. neil: you think about it, i know we've got to go to break here, but a smoking gun requires that you didn't have a script ahead of time, right? unless he says something that goes off that report, or way beyond that report, there is no smoking gun. >> no. this is quite rehearsed, although the dress rehearsal right now isn't going so well. he clearly didn't practice quite enough to make himself come across as credible. but look, i think there's absolutely no chance unless something crazy happens this afternoon that we're going to impeachment proceedings based upon the mueller report. i think this is over and i think the american people have made a decision to move on. i don't think it will have any impact on 2020. neil: if you didn't like the president, you still don't like him. if you did like the president, you still like him. you might be right. in the end, that's it. guys, i want to thank you for your patience through all of that. we will continue to monitor the hearings as well, keeping an eye at the corner of wall and broad,

where we have the dow down about 113 points. boeing, the overwhelming, better than half of that right now. its 737 max could be disbanded entirely here. it's way too soon to say but boeing just completed its worst quarter in its entire history. that and what's happening with caterpillar, with united health, put them all together and that's pretty much your dow right now. having nothing to do with this. after this. $4.95. delivery drones or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade.

(past them because she didn't sknow they were talking to her.g and she would just walk right

(deborah) i just could not hear. i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair, but nobody even sees them. (avo) our nearly invisible hearing aids are just one reason we've been the brand leader for over 70 years. (deborah) when i finally could hear for the first time, i started crying. i could hear everything. (avo) call 1-800-miracle to start your 30 day risk-free trial and schedule your free hearing evaluation today.

neil: we are so focused looking at the dow and the triple digit drop we're not paying attention to the nasdaq which is on pace for a record close right now. this despite all of this justice department probe of big tech. kristina partsinevelos has the details on all of that. kristina: that's why you have reporters, we are here to look into it for you. you have this antitrust review, the first time that the government is going to be reviewing big tech. they haven't named specific companies just yet, but of course, you can assume that it's the big players like amazon,

apple, facebook that you are seeing on the screen as well as google or alphabet, the parent company. what they're looking for specifically is did these companies engage in any monopolistic behavior, did they harm consumers, did they take advantage of user data. they will be looking at search, retail services as well as social media. of course, this has weighed negatively on a lot of these stocks today. you are seeing all of them trading lower. i spoke to one trader who said he sold apple yesterday when the news came out, he's looking to get back in in the near term but he's concerned that some of these major companies are going to slow down and possibly halt any new ventures. we reached out to big tech. no one is really commenting but a google spokesperson did refer me to a testimony from a google director who said, i quote, in our core search business, consumers can choose among a range of option, bing, duck duck go, yahoo! and many more. specialized search services are strong competitors including companies like amazon, ebay, kayak, travelocity, yelp and

others, pretty much saying they do not engage in monopolistic behaviors, very similar to what tim cook did when he said apple didn't engage in monopolistic behaviors. last but not least, you are getting political complaints about these big companies. you have republicans that are saying they are stifling conservative views. you have some democrats like elizabeth warren saying they should be breaking up big tech and all of this comes after the eu has been scrutinizing american technology companies over the same thing, antitrust issues. so the case in the united states could potentially go on for many years to come. back to you. neil: who knew that it would start in the united states? kristina: i know. neil: kristina, thank you very, very much. to her point, obvious targets are the ones they are looking at, amazon, apple, google, all those issues are down. you have the nasdaq still up so if you are a bull, you look for bullish signals. that could be important to say that the chiefs who led that parade stepped back and some indians come to the fore like semiconductor chips, those that

feed the big names, they are making up for their collapse. that alone could be a bullish development. that's a separate issue. in the meantime, there is boeing and the big sell-off going on there after reporting its worst quarter in history. the 737 max production itself, forget about slowdown, how about shutdown. jeff flock following all of that. that's a big deal. reporter: yeah. to me, you know, the funny part of this, if you look at the stock right now, it's down about 3%, just short of 3%. to me, the interesting part is even though they did announce the numbers and the worst quarter in history, yeah, 2.94 billion loss, $1.6 billion was the biggest before that, in 2009, just after the recession, but the stock didn't really go down until dennis muilenburg in the earnings call said this. listen to what he said. he's for the first time

mentioned the possibility of actually shutting the 737 max down. listen. >> in the efforts to support the 737 max's safe return to service continue, we will continue to assess our production plans. true to our estimate of the anticipated return to service change, we might need to consider possible further rate reductions or other options including a temporary shutdown of the max production. reporter: that's the first time he's made a reference to that possibility. now, that's not the way they see it. here's what the production schedule look likes. they think they are going to get back in the air sometime early q4. now they make 42 a month, they are going to make 57 a month in 2020 and ramp it right up and it should be no problem. and they tried to point to some positives about this, not only this plane but their business. he said they've got $474 billion worth of orders in the pipeline. i tell you, the focus is on that plane you're looking at right there, the max.

the earnings loss as a result largely of that, take a look at these numbers, boy, not pretty. a year ago earnings per share, $3.73. they thought they would cut it in half. that was the estimate. what was it? they lost $5.21 a share. that's almost an incredible miss. the revenue was also a miss. they made $24 billion this time last year. the estimate was for about 18. the reality was about 15. you know, nobody has even touched to me the big elephant in the room which is even if it gets back in the air, are people going to want to fly it. are they going to say you know what, i'm going to take a different plane, different airline. don't know. neil: it's a very good point. think about it, all the airlines that say they do want to rally around it and fly it again, who's going to be the first brave man or woman to do that of the carriers? because then your lawyers are probably telling you not a good idea, right? reporter: right. right. even if half the people say i don't want to fly that plane, that's going to screw things all up.

yeah. neil: one final thought, too. i wonder your thoughts on this. the guidance or lack of it rattled the street so we don't know exactly how much in legal costs they're looking at. i know they said and you reported very well on setting $15 million to $100 million aside just for victims of those two flights but the fact of the matter is that is going to be a drop in the bucket. reporter: nobody likes uncertainty, and even dennis muilenburg said today we've got a pile of uncertainty. this is in the hands of the regulators. we don't know when we will get back in the air, it's out of our control in some ways. nobody likes uncertainty. neil: no, they don't. no, they don't. thank you, my friend. great as always. jeff flock following this very, very closely. we are also following puerto rico very closely. apparently there is talk ricardo rossello was going to step down. he's not stepping down just yet. they may have gotten ahead of themselves. protesters are saying he better step down or else.

truecar is great for finding new cars. you're smart, you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice.

a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... you have to pay for that. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. review aarp medicare supplement plans

and their rates in this free decision guide. call united healthcare insurance company or go online. visit aarpmedsuppfacts.com to request yours. even apply online... any time. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile...enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. learn more with this free decision guide. call or go online to request yours. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice.

it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call or go online and find out more. neil: so t-mobile and sprint, is an approval coming soon? the guy on this before anyone, charlie gasparino back with the latest. >> thanks to my producer, we were the first to report yesterday, right, on claman's show about how the justice department was imminently going to be doing something on the tech companies. literally it came out after the bell. lydia had sources on the hill who basically said listen, we

are hearing this and they are going to focus on big tech companies, google, facebook. kudos to her. she did a great job. stocks did go down after hours. neil: very nice of you to be so magnanimous. >> that's what you're supposed to do, when people do good work -- neil: if i have a good show, it's me. if i have a bad show, it's ralph. >> right. right. by the way, so you are the s and he's the m. neil: something like that. please continue. >> we will make a transition. lydia's reporting on t-mobile and sprint mobile has been stellar as well. sources told her today that after the bell today, we are likely to get a media advisory from the justice department setting the terms of when they are going to unwind this whole thing. what we are going to see probably, you will get the media advisory, we understand the justice department in all likelihood will make some announcement tomorrow, where they are going to explain this whole thing, what it means for

the economy, what it means for the deal. the first thing is that the deal, they are going to approve the deal with conditions. the conditions will be that they have to divest, meaning the merged companies, a lot of assets to create a fourth carrier. they are going to pitch it as listen, this is not anticompetitive because we are creating this fourth carrier based on what charlie ergen of dish is going to do. he's going to buy these divested assets and it will be great -- neil: he's got to do something with them. >> apparently they are going to have him from lydia's reporting, he will have conditions on this. he will have to do something with it. he can't just resell it. there will be a timeline on that. also, what you will see out of the justice department is an economic rationale for this merger. we need this merger and it's what people in the white house and the economic staff, like larry kudlow and steve mnuchin will tell you we need it because these two companies together, a strong t-mobile/sprint, will be able to compete on price but also compete with the chinese in 5g. 5g is going to be a massive -- neil: 5g is at the epicenter of

all this, right? they don't want anything that slows at least the united states. >> just so people understand it, 5g, this super-fast internet, is supposed to create a gazillion jobs and supposed to have national security implications. it's used in espionage. you don't want the chinese getting a leg up. that's what we are going to see. look after the bell for the media advisory. watch tomorrow. this thing is going to be unveiled. we should point out t-mobile has earnings tomorrow so they will have a conference call which they will talk about this stuff. and fox business has been ahead of it. i wish i could take all the credit. because my contract is up and i want it, but i can't. my producer deserves a little credit. neil: you are like batman and robin. great job, as always. >> which one am i, robin or batman? neil: well, i'm thinking that, maybe not. very very quickly, what are your wall street buddies saying about how mueller is doing? >> i think it's like a non-story to them. he came out with his report, he didn't indict him, he's not going to indict him. neil: not moving the needle,

then. >> you think it is? neil: no. >> they are more worried about like cutting interest rates. neil: i'm feeling for him here. he's like staggering. but that's me every day. >> just so you know, a friend of mine went before mueller, said it was kind of a scary process. i will give you a little story. the guy said he leaked a story to me he was going to appear before mueller. andrew wiseman starts screaming at him. mueller sat down in the meeting when they were sitting down, wiseman apparently was screaming at him, so my friend turned to mueller and said mr. mueller, i'm sorry i leaked this, you believe in the first amendment, don't you? and mueller literally stood there and looked at him like this and just stared him down. the guy was so scared. so he is in private a pretty tough scary guy, ex-marine. when you're before the kleig lights with all these people, this is not like a great moment for him. neil: people are that way with you. >> how would i do in there?

neil: i don't know. i don't think you would be, you know, desperate to come up with words, though. >> no. i would be scared about cursing. neil: yeah. yeah. the first testimony. thank you, my friend. charlie gasparino. if he's right, maybe after 4:00 p.m. as the market closes, the details on all this comes to light. >> advisory setting the details for tomorrow. that's what we hear. neil: meantime, tech is still on a roll and the nasdaq is still in and out of a record. it's doing that without amazon, without apple, without google. that in and of itself is a big deal. here you go little guy.

a cockroach can survive submerged underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow.

not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home.

neil: on capitol hill right now,

bob mueller is speaking before the house intelligence committee this time. a lot of democrats are on defense, republicans on the attack over the steele dossier and all of that stuff, but it has not been a strong day for bob mueller. now, to be fair to mr. mueller, he didn't want to do this, didn't think it was necessary, wanted to go by the report, leave it at the report. there were to be no practice sessions or come in, felt, unfairly to the advantage of democrats on that panel so they seem to be surprised as others that he is sticking to what he said would be the script of that report and therein lies the rub and the surprise for them. the former deputy assistant attorney general tom dupree on all this. he warned them, didn't he? >> de. he did. he said in the clearest possible language his testimony was the report. he said it about 50 times over the course of this morning, look in the report for the answer to your question. neil: you know, you know him, you know this process far better

than i, but as you also know, i watch a lot of legal shows so i think i qualify as an expert. my first impression was maybe we were giving him too much active hands-on role twhans han was ore case. maybe he did delegate a lot. maybe he isn't aware of a lot of details in that same report, features of which might have been written by staffers or delegated to other people including the very letter to attorney general barr on his summation of the report that apparently his group found wrong. what do you think? >> that was one of the aspects of the hearing that surprised me, too, frankly. i was struck by how at a number of points in the hearing, mueller seemed strangely disconnected from his own report, as you point out. there were questions where he just didn't quite seem to have the familiarity with his report. i was sitting there watching it thinking i know the answer to this, bob, it's on page 219, footnote seven, and he didn't know. he also said a number of points that he just wasn't present for

a lot of the interviews which in and of itself doesn't shock me. there were a lot of interviews. he's got a lot going on. but it was just emblematic of this scene ththeme coursing thr testimony that it was his staff guiding this investigation and he was somewhat of a very distant hand at the till. neil: i know he's a lawyer, a very good one, very good prosecutor, maybe he figures i'm going to be very cautious with everything i say, make sure i dot the is, cross the ts, i'm not going to risk saying something that goes beyond that. but in so being, you leave people saying wow, you are cautious to a fault here. >> yes. and to be fair, this is why you don't put prosecutors before a congressional committee. neil: he said i don't want to do it. >> he said i don't want to be here and one thing that struck me from the hearing is as you know, the democrat strategy was to basically read the greatest hits from volume 2 about the alleged acts of obstruction by

the president. a classic prosecutorial technique where you get the witness to confirm facts, confirm facts, confirm facts, but then the final step in that process is to say therefore, don't you agree that the president committed obstruction of justice and not only did mueller refuse to take that final step, but at two points in the hearing, he affirmatively contradicted the questioner's premise. he said look, i understand what you're getting at, i don't agree with that, which is fascinating to me because it was actually going outside the bounds of his report but in a way that was not favorable to the democrats. neil: the view was real quickly, it would lead to further hearings, impeachment hearings if it could. i think that's going to be difficult now but what do you think? >> i totally agree with that. i think the democrats needed a home run. they didn't even get a single. it was a weak ground-out at best. i suspect if they wanted to stir the pot, stir up the passion for impeachment to a boil, they fell far short of that goal today. i think this is the end.

neil: you're the best. thank you, tom dupree. through the whole process, an amazing legal mind. meantime, we've got speaker nancy pelosi sitting down with alexandria ocasio-cortez, all set for tomorrow. then what? after this. this is the couple who wanted to get away who used expedia to book the vacation rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go. exp♪♪ia. ♪♪

♪♪ 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.

everyone knows the values that flag represents. it stands for freedom and free speech and habeas corpus and the rule of law and above all, it stands for democracy. that is why we will come out of the eu on october the 31st because in the end, brexit was a fundamental decision by the british people that they wanted their laws made by people that they can elect and they can remove from office. neil: all right. no sooner than he takes over

leadership of the conservative party, the next day, the next day, he's at ten downing place. it always amazes me. i know i talk about it a lot. normally we are waiting two and a half months after the president is elected here just for him to get his cabinet together, all that. not in britain. anyway, back with us, bill mcgurn of the "wall street journal," "evening edit" host liz macdonald. obviously the message is i might not have all my people together. i know this, that i'm here because this brexit thing has got to be done and it's going to be done, whether there's a deal or not to go with it. what do you think? >> by the end of october, that's what he's saying right now. pretty forceful that he comes out right off the bat and says that. we are hearing that he's assembling his same team he had on the brexit referendum in 2016. neil: to be fair, he was always pushing this. wasn't like theresa may, who was kind of all right, it's the will of the people. >> theresa may had competing disparate voices on her team. these guys are all on the same

page. neil: who needs this more? the rep you hear about the brits right now is they are the ones who suffer more than the europeans but i always wonder, the europeans are concerned, you know, they just might leave and people will discover life goes on merrily for the brits and they are more worried right now than the brits are. >> i agree entirely. look, i wish boris johnson well. one of the things is he's the first prime minister who actually believes in brexit. theresa may was a person saying i'm going to implement it, but she didn't vote for it, she's not for it. so we'll see whether he can do it. i think the future for the british is to leave the european union and try to forge a free trade deal with the united states. i don't think there's any reason why they can't prosper. neil: know what's interesting, i was thinking about the emergence of populists again, if you want to just summarize johnson that way, but i'm thinking the

australian prime minister re-elected, hanging into power there, very close friend and confidant of donald trump's. the world is not recoiling from that approach. if anything, it's doubling down on it. >> yeah, i agree. i think that people all around the world quite frankly are sick of the way government operates. i don't think the united states is the only government that has such divisions going on. great britain has the same issues that we have. i think boris johnson is facing the same issues that donald trump is, besides sharing the same hairstylist. neil: why does this guy not comb his hair? >> i think he doesn't want to look too much like donald trump so he kind of goes with that i just got out of bed look. but i think a lot of people are fed up across the globe, and hence why you have the rising of

the populists. neil: let me switch gears a little bit and get this meeting scheduled tomorrow between alexandria ocasio-cortez and the speaker, nancy pelosi. they are going to just try to hash things out, i guess. but it's been a fractious relationship. how do you think it goes? >> i think the blood feud between them is way too deep. what this is about is about floating a headline that they are okay right now, that civil war is over. aoc calling nancy pelosi racist is the worst thing that you could say about anybody in congress right now, particularly nancy pelosi. she's not racist. aoc also supporting the anti-israel dbs resolution, you know, that's a big thing along with omar and rashida tlaib, where nancy pelosi said that's a bigoted thing to do. i think the scars will not be healed rapidly between these two. neil: the racist thing gets old after awhile. can't charge everyone with that. >> lizzy and i were talking before in the green room.

you know, as father of three girls who all went to a "sound of music" stage and watched it, as you grow older you start sympathizing with the baroness. i find myself sympathizing with nancy pelosi here. i think she's fighting a losing battle because the press loves the squad, they love these people, and i don't think they are going to be repentant at all. they might put out a unifying statement tomorrow but just like they had that resolution where they came together donald trump's a racist, what did ilhan omar do the next day, drop this pro-bds legislation. it's not going to pass but it's changing the democratic debate. neil: we shall see. so tempted to sing. not going to do that. we will follow the market right after this. stay with us. fidelity. a visual snapshot of your investments. key portfolio events. all in one place. because when it's decision time...

you need decision tech. only from fidelity.

. .

neil: bob pull letter still testifying before the house intelligence committee of the president already tweeted about

this saying it looks like a bad day for democrats, certainly for mr. mueller. in the eyes of beholder. mr. trump will comment on the way out to west virginia for a fund-raising effort. there will be opportunity to talk to reporters about what he thinks is a good day for him. here is charles payne. charles: thank you, neil. appreciate it. good afternoon, everyone, i'm charles payne. this is "making money." breaking, the second an final hearing featuring robert mueller wrapping up after explosive questioning. >> the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely, totally exonerated him but that is not what your report said, is isn't. >> correct. it is not what the report said. >> there is a lot more where that came from. we'll have complete coverage throughout this hour. plus new all-time highs on wall street. despite disappointing earnings from big names you know like boeing. we're all over this market. because it is