on for god knows how long. it's an amazing discovery l. temperature and water vapor heat. >> i'm glad we had this time to discuss this. >> breaking news, you're watching live at the white house now where trump is expected to address house republicans tonight. if he makes any comments on his way out, it would be the first time he spoke on camera today and you can bet he will have a lot to say. we will bring you his comments as soon as they come in. meanwhile, stocks inching closer to record highs today and mixing on the trade front. white house has plans of chinese imports but this comes just at the mid-level trade talks reportedly reviewing next week, new reports that china is

eking a major change in trade negotiations. joining me, jonathan, liz and john. thank you for joining me. china is pushing back on the "wall street journal" report that they are seeking to move national security issues to a separate transfer at a later time in trade talks. one of the president's top trade advisors think the president will allow for steel. what you make of this? do you think any deal is a good deal? >> all i can tell you is i'm getting a lot this right now, last night we got that they were

going to push tariffs a couple of weeks with a goodwill gesture. this morning there was something about advisors telling the president that we will put off the trade war for now and then they changed that an hour later. i don't know where they are. i just wish they would get something done. you know what i think of tariffs, they are a big mistake. we are now 15 months into it and amazingly, we are still talking about it and it seems like we are just at the start again. i just worry we will be here six months from now talking about this. >> we didn't get here overnight. the thing is, i thought about th long and hard, if i come down to how this deal is actually structured with respect to realistic, to make a wholesale change overnight? >> of course not but top priorities, the technology for us to stop the partnerships, trying to get some reprieve on

intellectual property. last but not least, zero tariffs. we could put all that on the table, i think it's unrealistic to think china would immediately stop their subsidies as well as other things they do like currency manipulation. we probably need to say what's immediate and what can we actually extend and give them opportunity to comply? >> when the president is encouraging this on twitter, almost every day with the federal reserve, it's a long time to get into this. i have to say i disagree with that. the whole premise we are losing on trade over and over again is fundamentally wrong. it's a trade deficit which was the present original benchmark. the budget deficit, the spending has widened a trillion dollars now. it's a very real cost.

>> it's about jobs. we've already lost. if it goes one more year, it could be nearly 1 million jobs. >> i disagree, i think they are legitimate reasons to engage in this confrontation with china. i think we should have done this ten years ago. what i think is happening now is both sides are slapping on some really big penalties for upping the war on trade. what we might see now is the beginning of a multistep resolution. first step probably will be increased purchases of agriculture, products, whatever, begin to narrow the trade deficit and also allowing foreign companies into chi.

i think that's something they are willing to do. i think what we saw today and we will see a lot more in the coming months, there are places we are not going to get to anytime in the near future. both sides are saying, this is our reasonable progress we can maybe backup a little bit on property theft and things like that, we will take what we can get. it doesn't mean they will back off but the administration will say no, but they are willing to expect that this is a graduated resolution. >> its full circle open, does that mean you bieve there may be a small concession made, let's say in the coming month or so or before 2020 elections, that's still considered a win because that's -- >> why wouldn't it be? if you're going to gain anything from this back-and-forth, it would be win. >> than what it is? >> so what would constitute a reasonable win in the near term?

not resolving all of these problems, some measure and how we control intellectual property theft, even if it is just public opinion around the world now being very aware of what china has been up to and with us to confront that. i think that is huge. >> there's some real world stuff going on without mention who, i know somebody very well, major shape and he says this is driving him up the walk because every other mth things are changing and he does not know how much the supply or about workers. we really cannot plan. we've got to get some sense of certainty back in the seventh storm.

eight years with obama was uncertainty. we got to get back to certainty. he did it with lower corporate taxes, we got to get rid of whatever we are going through right now. it feels like we are starting over again. >> i agree with you, it's all about uncertainty. i agree one 100% but you cannot imagine this would have been an easy thing to be done in three months. >> he said it would be. >> in the newsroom right now, jackie you've been looking at the relationship with china over the years. how do you think aunt? >> that's the big question. we looked at it by the decade, this is only really been trade, it's not that long. the markets are tired right now. the fact that you saw the dow well over 27000, we sat down and talk to him about setting the stage for trade in the 70s

working to prepare richard nixon to get that ball rolling. we asked him if we think it was possible. he's been to china more than 100 times and really understands the culture and what the back-and-forth is like. >> can you develop a framework to enable these two countries to compete actively with one another and advanced 21st century technologies but do it on the basis that avoids confrontation? because if we have a disruptive environment, it's going to be a mutually assured destruction. >> mutually assured destruction. the markets know this, are concerned about a recession right now, they're worried the spending will flow in the u.s. the economy is slowing, fundamental here in the u.s. are

decent but where they stay that way? it wouldn't say it's fair if it's not having an impact. companies aren't certain about the future. they are being cautious, they are not spending as much on expansion. the markets are very optimistic but the problem is once the barr is set so hi, if it's not reached, you have a lot farther to fall and of course, that's the big concern. the question is, how do you put this together or other reports that we heard today that it's possible to get this deal in part more realistic? >> i don't think we can answer that. thank you. we are going to move on. a house divided as one committee takes the most significant step yet toward pursuing the impeachment of president trump. we'll tell you where things stand right now in a live report from capitol hill.

stay tuned.

pushing beyond the known horizon. passing through... "hey mom," "can we get fro-yo?", >>"yeah, fro-yo." "yes." the all-new 2020 ford explorer st. with intelligent 4wd and terrain management system. it's the greatest explation vehicle of all time.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. all right brad, once again i have revolutionized the songwriting process. oh, here we go. i know i can't play an instrument, but this... this is my forte. obviously, for auto insurance, we've got the wheel route. obviously. retirement, we're going with a long-term play. makes sense. pet insurance, wait, let me guess... flea flicker. yes! how'd you know? studying my playbook? yeah, actual.

house judiciary committee, taking a major step toward impeaching president tom. he's gone closely from capitol hill and joins us now. >> since the rule going forward for the impeachment proceedings, fiduciary committee for the house, this is really one of the first things the house democrats did in his committee when they got back from recess. >> for these procedures, when we have finished these series, there's much evidence as we are able together, we will then decide whether to refer articles of impeachment. >> the chairman there, nadler sang the president can submit in writing a response to this investigation, republicans on the committee calling this smoking mirror.

>> this resolution is yet another example of the majority utilizing this taxpayer funded committee to influence the 2020 presidential election. that's all it is. it's a show. >> developed to go forward with 24 -- 17. this is the hungry impeachment for the democrats because growing convoys of moderates in the democratic party. john, who made red blue, he said it bucking the air out of everything else the democrats are trying to do. the good stuff, during the press conference nancy pelosi got hired from answering questions about impeachment. she said she's not going to answer any more questions on this budget. the vote today allows them to go forward and also allows the committee to interview witnesses

as well as documents and evidence that is confidential. there's little doubt is the first or the next hearing december 17 and this will carry over into next year. back to you. >> what you make of this? is this quicksand? is this a winning political move? >> i think it's the best they can do. i think they want to creep toward pretending kind of sort of that they will have an impeachment hearing and this will change the republicans, absolutely nothing in terms of whether or not they are serious about going forward here. nancy pelosi got pretty hot because people kept pressing her to say whether it's an inquiry, investigation or what is this? nadler answered that question by saying it was engaged in investigation as to whether the

launch t the investigation. >> i think it highlights the strain on much among the carcass right now. many reports show the democrats can't decide on what to do. they impeach, should they not? what we are seeing is that they are going to look into the findings that they are looking into the trumps corruption. the efforts to host the next summit, the fact that mike pence stayed at one of the hotels in ireland, a cost of $600,000 in transportation so looking at his pardon, these are things measured better to look at when they consider that. >> democrats getting bogged down in all of this minutia. even during an election year, they're trying to bring it up to trump, it backfires. >> the same thing my southern

neighbors say, bless your heart. the thing is that, they gave present trump a huge deal, what is it? going to bolster his fundraising. more important, in addition to that, he's going to get out the vote. they probably voted for the first time in their life, those are the hardest to energize again back to back. the president does the president's job. >> they are balancing this thing. moderates versus progressive and trying to make everybody happy. that's extremely difficult. >> i've decided to have my brains explode today by reading about all of this. i have to tell you, this is how this will run. they set up a committee to come up with the subcommittee to decide on having another committee to see if they will have an investigation on

investigation when they have nothing in the first and to decide on whether they can't vote if they will not have a vote but if they do, they will vote impeachment and then it will go to a senate and the senate will blow out in the democrats are going to waive the republicans and more republicans welcome out to vote in 2020. that's why pelosi would not even say the word impeachment today. at least pelosi has it right. >> she said it raises bipartisan, but you said, they need to focus, not trying to get the president down from the white house. >> but he said it right, it's all a political shelf but it will work for trump, not the democrats. >> we will be watching. >> well, the show continues. ceos nearly 1150 mriage or u.s. companies are urging the

republicans to pass stricter gun laws. now take that up right after this. >> i own a handgun just in case. and that's not right. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from anyone else.

why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ )

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay forly getwhat you need.e. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

nearly 1150 ceos of american companies, royal caribbean now demanding action on gun control. sending a letter to the senate pushing new laws they say could reduce gun violence. this is present trump expected to make a major announcement what legislation he would support in the coming days. so should these companies be getting involved on this or any

political issue? >> a lot of the corporations are winking about gun control but overall, this is about big brains and political activism. two reasons why we are seeing a trend from the digital world making a little bit more transparency, you can see the core values and companies right in front of you. it has to be immediate and the second thing is employees are placing a larger value on what companies are doing and how they are reacting. we saw several examples, google not getting the ai technology to the military. nike, ben & jerry's ice cream and focusing more on cleaner energy. the list goes on. instead of having the government getting involved, corporate america is getting involved. you think that's the right thing? >> all corporate america is are individuals, corporations or groups of individuals. they have the full freedom of speech right so they can write

their congressman, speak out and talk about these issues. employees for whom these issues are very important. the risk they run however is alienating their customers. many of which might be for the second amendment. interestingly, walmart has banned open carry and a lot of their stores. they are among corporations not signing this letter. it's a moral decision they have to make. >> if you look at the list of companies, i don't think a single one has any vested interest in the gun industry. retailers, banks that might be lending to these companies are noticeably absent from this list. remember the business roundtable put out a statement redefining corporate purpose just a few weeks ago and they tried to

position corporate america is more involved in social and political issues. i wouldn't be surprised if there was some congruity to that. this part of why we are seeing this letter circulate. >> i can sum this up briefly. companies don't like it when law makers -- law makers don't like it when companies try to price their way into legislative policies. just like ceos don't like it when law makers get to the boardroom. the thing is, we need to keep it separate, this is a huge risk. this is 50%, that's a huge gamble. >> the shootings going on in america is growing exponential exponentially, we have to address that issue. the government clearly is not. >> let's go to the bigger question.

is is going to move the needle? i will tell you before the last few days, i would say no but i think this will do the trick. there's big talk about a billing toward universal background checking, corporate america, 1 150, that's a lot of people and a lot of money. i suspect they may come up with something in the coming days. >> the president has been considering this and there's every expectation, he might come up withomethi. chuck schumer made it clear the matter what the president puts forward, he will not take it up at all. >> got to push back, individuals of corporations right or protest or petition government, they are taking up their voices. when government comes in, they are coming in with guns. it's perfectly legitimate for any corporation to raise these

issues. these are becoming mainstream issues that even if you are not in the gun industry are affecting everyday americans nearly every day. >> i'll give you the final word, jonathan. it hasn't been done since this error, what trump is considering to fill the job of the national security advisor.

john fulton is out but is pompeo and? new reports say they are considering offering like pompeo the job of national security advisor while he continues to serve as secretary of state. this would be the only second time in history. right behind -- joining us now, state department official, or advisor of the trump administration, kristin. is it too much to have one person serving as both of these roles? >> i think it is. it is not a good idea for a number of reasons. i was a unique time in history, we were negotiating a peace deal with north vietnam. was held during an opening in china. gerald brought that to an end as soon as he got to the oval

office for good reasons. secretary of state runs his own agency. also from a legal.knock of view, if you work in the white house, you have executive privilege, you can be called before congress to testify. that's not true for those who run cabinet agencies. it undermines the ability to present can get advice and discussion from his national security advisor cream from the threat of congressional areas. >> give me your namesake, i know your. >> the president talked about welcoming disagreement. he did not agree with john fulton. is there a danger as president or leader to want to be surrounded by that, what is the danger? >> i think there is that danger.

i don't think trump is in danger of that because you have all of d.c., all of the establishment against him. it's not like he's lacking -- >> he's going to get that for instance on iran and china things, i think he gets a lot of different viewpoints. i don't think he wants that person, the national security advisor to be someone he does agree with a lot. you wanted to be somebody you can trust and bounce ideas off of 90% overlap in a digraph. often as people are going to, because of their bureaucracy and if you're republican president, there's going to be disagreement anyway. your advisor should be closer to you. >> a number of names for replacements under pompeo including richard who was currently our ambassador to germany and several others, have you of you on who any of those

might be likely or preferable as you look at the various skill sets and so forth? >> sure. a friend of mine, he's been a great ambassador, very tough. he be very good at explaining this to people around the world and the american public. other names, there have been a lot of names out there. he's been national security advisor to the vice president, and also o'brien, the president's hostage negotiator, it's gotten a surprising number of americans held hostage around the world out in free and safe and across the board on national security. there are a lot of names out there. a lot of qualified people. >> thank you. >> i have to ask you about, how do our allies look at the

administration when you have such a revolving door, very important jobs in the end ministration, secretary of state, national security advisor, this is not the first time it happened. how do they look it up and how do they feel this happens again? >> i think it's always a little disconcerting for mid-level cialsecause people like bolton had them well known around the world, get a return when there's a gap when you don't know what's coming next. the thing about our allies, if you look at the ones that are most consequential, like prime minister of japan, he could get trump on the phone whenever he wanted. so they are not still worried. i think it's more of a mid-level bureaucracy worry.

>> thank you for joining us. i appreciate it. president trump celebrating a big legal victory on immigration. border control on how this could impact the world immigration. up next.

here's another look at the white house where trump is expected to depart for baltimore at any moment. he'll address house republicans how to retreat there tonight if he makes any comments on his way out, we will bring it to you. i will be the first time he spoke on camera today. we imagine he might have a lot to say. one thing he might talk about -- sorry, he may also talk about this. it's being hailed major legal

triumph for trump. supreme court ruling in favor of the administration's enforcement of restrictions on asylum seekers traveling throughout the country like mexico. it requires them to seek protection there instead of in the u.s. the president link is a big win for the border. let's bring in border patrol council president brandon. thank you for joining us. how does this impt immigration numbers at the border? >> this is a major win but not surprising. when you look at the decision that we are only two judges, we know that the supreme court is made up of four levels and five conservatives. you only had two of the liberal contingents that oppose -- i'm sorry, this is going to drive the numbers down. we saw that in april 2017 when we hit 45 year lows under trump. it was predicated upon the fact that individuals thought they were to be held pending third deportation proceeding if they now can't enter the u.s., claim asylum and get relief from they

are just not going to come to the u.s. the loopholes they were exploiting, with a magnet that drew people here in the first place. now that the main thing is going to be removed, less people welcome. >> the president recently set in mexico, threatened mexico with tariffs if they do not do something about immigration at their borders and mexico agreed. i want to ask you what mexico has been doing to help the situation out? how have the numbers gone because of that? >> and three short months, we dropped in apprehensions by nearly 100,000. in may of this year, the border patrol, not the port of entry

for the border patrol alone apprehended close to 133,000 individuals. in august, we were down to, right around 51000. you think about mexico has stepped up, they are becoming true border security partners and this is the first president in my career that i've ever seen get mexico to actually step to the plate and do what they need to do to be partners with the u.s. and trying to secure both their country and our country as well. >> this is a big win for president trump. you also see the level of impact which in respect to legal drugs crossing the border and other issues we experience at the border in terms of human trafficking? >> this is actually going to help. one of the problems we face is, when you have asylum-seekers coming across the border, they take up all lot of our resources. we have to deploy resources to the areas where they cross the border. we take them back to our processing centers and process them. as all takes resources and what happens is that the criminal

cartels, they force these asylum seekers to hit us in certain areas and when we take our resources out, it creates artificial gaps in the border and allows the criminal cartels to cross their higher valued products. opioid or illicit drugs they are able to get across there product. now that we are removing asylum-seekers, it's going to be much more difficult for cartels to get there products across the border. >> thank you for joining us. the question of legality, yes, thank temporarily impose it but they rule whether it's legal or not, if you look at the requirement, you need to allow comments, did you think this could be struck down? >> no, i don't. if it was going to get struck down, it would have been struck down in the end. one of the justices i believe it was ruth bader ginsburg, she

questions legality because of the public reporting. none of the other judges found that so i don't think it will get struck down. if it is, they have the right within the laws to determine how they are going to implement and enforce the laws and the courts are supposed to be differential as long as they do not go outside those laws. i don't believe they did go outside with that new role. >> thank you for being with us and thank you for doing all you do to protect us. you talk about this, there's still fewer immigrants coming in, think about how immigration has made century, all immigrants, do you worry about perhaps some of the great workers from the great invators that aren't able to come in because of the wall or rules like this that make

immigration that much more difficult? >> when you look at legal immigration, we are all for that. we all want legal immigration. we want these great minds to come here. we want them to do it legally. what we are talking about as far as this, we are talking about illegal immigration. people were crossing the border in violation of the law. what we are trying to do is get a very set rule so we have order in our immigration system so we can have those great minds coming over into the u.s. >> thank you for joining us. we are just hours away from state third 2020 democratic debate. i bet you can't wait. they are trying to slip from red to blue. trump campaign is making his presence known as well. we are live in houston with thee details next.

here, it all starts with a simple... hello! -hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

the stage is set for texas showdown. ten democratic 2020 candidates will duke it out tonight. the first time we'll see senator warren and front-runner joe biden side by side. here's a preview. >> jumped campaign rebuttal to the debates happening tonight is written in this guide because the campaign flying around about texas university, giant banner that says this. socialism, may be a reference to the candidates on stage tonight that want to ban tracking, oil and gas is the number one producer of oil and gas in the country.

it could have a little bit of an impact on that. tonight, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders putting this on the front runner, joe biden who will be right in between them tonight on stage. the campaign says they are rey. officials say they won't back on the idea that the climate change plan does not go far enough. but something they pleaded about today. a clip from his podcast, he will develop ten times more to combat climate change and joe biden's plan will do. today, warren is out with a new plan addressing expanding social security, the plan promises people who get the benefits now will get $200 more every month under her plan. paid for by essentially an increase on the top 2% of families in america, anyone making over $400,000 every year will have 14% of their income to social security. the campaign says they plan to

push back on those who have plans like senator warren think this campaign should not be about turning out plans but getting things done for the american people. >> is a lot of noise behind you so we apologize, but i want to talk to you about this, i know you are excited, for the first time the front runner joe biden will share the stage with elizabeth warren. we talked about who is catching us in the polls. you think his performance tonight will solidify and is the leader of the pack? >> i think what's happening is more people see biden, versus elizabeth warren and bernie sanders but i think this is a really important night for elizabeth warren. she goes after biden too aggressively, people will be angry at her and a lot of people watching this debate are not

going to like that. i think she has to be very careful here not to come across as unsympathetic, joe biden kind of has a sympathy vote at this time. he looks kind of weak to me. as i say, i think it's going to be a very treacherous path for elizabeth warren to take him on. >> i'm just happy i could add another pass to that proposal. from these people who have now 14-point something% on infested income because you are a little too wealthy. i don't think there's a tax, she hasn't mentioned that she wants to take over. here's what i'm hoping. i'm hoping the questions are specific and logical. i hope they bring up fossil fuel, ask simply, how are you going to fly an airplane?

asked, how are you going to pay for it and how much money do you expect to take from the people who are producing and wealthy? unfortunately, i think they will probably take a pass on the tough questions just when they need the tough questions. i think the biggest problem with biden, i think anybody who's even possibly moderate right now is heading toward the wayside. jfk i think would be thrown out the door. i think barack obama will be thrown out right now. i think he's conservative compared to what we are seeing with some of these people. >> there's a lot of truth to that. the democrats are out on this. whether that is or not, i don't get those. the challenge tonight for any of them is somehow to break through, turned the president accusations of socialism and somehow it's a good thing, a positive, something that unites the electorates.

candidates that doesn't just beat trump but those who can actually lead the country. we haven't seen it yet. i don't think it will be biden. i think it gets less likable as the hours go on. it could be any of these candidates. it's now or never. >> normally i agree with list but i disagree tonight. the thing is, elizabeth warren, she needs to come out swinging. go straight for the head. all these past debates, there are discussions. we want to see a debate. ask real questions. get them to actually debate each other on stage. that's what we want to see. we want to see a fight in america. >> we have some news right out of the president is in the white house. there are headlines right now. trump said he would rather get a whole deal done with china

rather than an inch warm deal. will bring you the details as soon as we get it. we are going to shift to another topic right now. it's not just about athletes helping to show off their skills. now gamers could also be going for the gold. big, big money. details next. managing type 2 d? dimitri's on it. eating right and getting those steps in? on it! dimitri thinks he's doing all he can to manage his type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is his treatment doing enough to lower his heart risk? [sfx: glasses clanking.] sorry. maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life .. nary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal.

a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it... with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance.

>> tech giant intel and the international olympic committee are teaming up. it's the first global e-sports competition. winners will advance to the world open and compete for up to

$500,000 in prize money. in 1994 i was the high scorer for up to three weeks. do you think we can see an olympic sport based on a video game? reporter: was that your one true moment in life? if i were to bet on a team, i would bet on intel. they are doing 3-d athlete tracking. >> is this even a real sport? they are playing video games. >> there are a lot of adults our age into the gaming. >> i'm jealous. in my day i was one heck of a

pacman player. the most of i won was a meatball sub. >> big money. that does it for "bulls and bears." thank you for joining us. liz: the president moments from now speaking at the republican conference in baltimore. security is tight. the media slams the quote house impeachment dumpster fire. house democrats in chaos all over the map. pelosi avoided saying the "i" word. there are concerns it will undercut the 2020 election. the democrats will try to use full impeachment to get rid of trump and why it will f