made to the rockets gm. they took lebron's quote put it in cartman's mouth. this is, this cartoon is having a lot of fun at china's expense. stuart: gadd way to end the show. time's up. neil, it is yours. neil: that is funny clip. didn't saw coming what is happening across the pond in our majesty's kingdom, brexit situation is not dead. there are signs right now it will get overwhelming support within the european union, 28 members, including britain who will likely vote yes on this restructured deal. the big problem will be, and the big question will be, what happens in her majesty's kingdom herself in parliament, british parliament. regardless. the fact that this is possibility is a shock to the global financial system because most people thought, at least this would be delayed. at worse, this would be torpedoed. that does not appear to be the

case right now. anything can happen. probably will. let's go to benjamin hall in london, very latest where this stand. hey, benjamin. >> yeah. hi, neil. you put your finger on it. there is a lot of optimism in europe about this deal. 27 nation agreed with a deal with the uk. that in theory all should move ahead. the sticking point, the hardest part is yet to come. now this deal has to be put before the british parliament. that is where theresa may's deal fell so many times. the vote in the british parliament is scheduled for saturday. at the moment, it does not appear if boris johnson has the parliamentary numbers to push it through. meaning it could be dead in the water. he doesn't have the numbers, northern ireland allies, dup, do not support it. nevertheless today he was sounding upbeat. >> it means we can deliver a real brexit that achieves our

objectives. it means that the uk leaves whole and entire on october 31st. >> there were some major sticking points to reach this point. many people remain unhappy. there are protests across ireland today. the main problem still, how to avoid that hard border between ireland and northern ireland? well the solution they reach, for the next few years, northern ireland is now going to be more closely aligned with the eu than the rest of the u.k. but, this deal does seem to hit many key point. crucially, now allows the uk to negotiate its own free trade deals. boris johnson repeatedly talked about a deal with the u.s. something president trump reciprocated. that is a big selling point. ends freedom of movement and unchecked immigration from europe. boris johnson has two days to sell the deal to british parliament. there are concessions when it comes to the dup and northern

ireland. they accepted some payment of sorts in returns for moving. we'll see if that happens if it doesn't pass on saturday, feels like we're right back to swear one. neil? neil: thank you very much, benjamin hall in london this is request for 320 votes, how much you need to get it passed through parliament. this is not half plus one with parliament with 650 seats. a couple parties are opting out of this. number goes down. that is where you get the 320. as you pointed out. nigel farage of the brexit party is a firm no. talk to him later on "your world," fox news channel. why he is a no. northern ireland democratic unionist party a no. the scottish nationalist party, a no. the lead opposition party a firm no. right there you have more than 200 no vote. now again, it is all about who coalesces, forms a coalition with whom to do something but at

this point it, would be an inhill battle within the brittish parliament this is deja vu to you. you're not imagining it for theresa may who had support of the european union, to have a restructured deal, it was rejected, not once, not twice, but three times in british parliament. of course that final time cost her her job. way too soon to tell what happens in britain. a rare saturday event. first time parliament has met on saturday, you have to go back to 1982, the falklands war crisis. hugo, how do you think this all plays out? >> i actually think there is more chance of this passing than many of the skeptics believe. i think it is quite likely the, dup in northern ireland will find a way to support the deal. they're staying within the united kingdom. this is their principle concern. they don't like the idea being

treated differently than the rest of the united kingdom because they say they're an integral part of the united kingdom. i suspect this will move ahead. one of the things has to be taken into account here if parliament reject this is deal, labour party reject this is deal, seems to increase things they really feel. one increases chance of a no deal exit. it increases chances of a bigger conservative landslide victory in the next election which of course they don't want. i believe labor has its best chance, is removing brexit from the table. if brexit were to pass, then voters would be thinking okay, we've had the tory government for the last five years or however long it is. anyway, a long time. that could make labour actually more palatable. so the labour has a calculation to make for electoral advantage. neil: i got a sense from boris

johnson, he is selling, this, let's get on with it. i you don't like it is delayed. i don't like it is delayed. we have a great teed for a deal takes control back now to parliament. we get brexit done. other priorities, cost of living, the national health service, what's happening with the environment that we can focus on that. >> right. neil: he is sort of positioned it is not perfect, folks. i grant you that. we will not see the ship come our way again. >> i think what he is pointing out there is something extremely important which often gets overlooked in this whole extraordinary process. the question who governs britain. it doesn't say britain will be governed in a particular way. what he is saying, let's take authority back to parliament, take authority back to london. we in britain can decide how we want to be governed, expend more on the national health service

or promoting business or whatever it is they wish to do. once you govern yourself, not controlled by the eu as much as they are now, you can also vote in a socialist government, like jeremy corbyn and labour. neil: that's right. he is firmly opposed to this deal. whatever the vote will be i guess it will be fairly close, hugo. thank you very, very much. huge go touched on at the outset, waiting at ready is the united states of america and a possible trade deal between our two countries that is not ironed out right now. we don't even have a formal trade package to introduce on either side of the atlantic ocean right now. the hope on parts of the brits, we of course ascend here have a very, very important role, especially some said britain would be ostracized. that is anyone's guess. get read from "wall street journal" john bussey. fox news contributor kat timpf. john, first thing comes up boris

johnson might have pulled a rabbit out of his hat. the other is he needs president trump to help him and commitment on the united states part to make up for the trade that they stand to lose. what do you think of that? >> good luck. so the politics of britain aside, okay, you could spend three days trying to figure that out, from a business standpoint, this is probably a little bit of a relief that somehow seems to be working towards a resolution. but, also, longer term, big concern, this is, business like the eu, one set of regulations, one set of taxes t was understandable, the bigger, the better. now it is looking more like the united states where there are federal rules and there are state rules you have to abide by, any kind of fracturing will be tough for business. from a trade standpoint to be a ceo, cfo, somebody with logistics in the company, it is getting more complicated. from standpoint whether or not

boris johnson get as deal with the president, the usmca is hung up in congress. we just had basically china win in this last sort of round of discussions with the united states where they basically paid us off with a promise of buying more agricultural goods. neil: chinese are already saying these december tariffs we want them pushed off. >> exactly. no time frame on it. how much we'll buy, over what time frame and if you agree to push all the difficult discussions we were having down the road to some future date which was not agreed upon. it was a china win there. it is a fracturing of the european market in europe. a company is figuring this is getting more complex rue bib's cube. neil: kat, if this succeeds despite worries john raised, the big worry on the part of europe, spain will discover you can live after being told you're near death, portugal will discover it, greece will discover it,

they might want out too. this whole european house of cards collapses. what do you think? >> unlikely, but we're living in crazy times now. i no longer ever again call anything impossible but i think that would definitely be a temptation. as you mentioned, part of the reason people like doing business with the eu, it is united. there are not all these separate rules. it isn't so fractured. i think definitely an aspect of they do it somehow the rabbit hat idea. why can't we do this, be independent, why can't we do things the way we want to do them. that is definitely a concern. to question whether or not that is opportunity for president trump, i think that this leads to one of the problems with the way president trump is conducting so many trade fights at once here. you know, if there is china and then there is eu, even with our allies and the eu, he is not really focused. that is a problem, not just because of a lack of focus, you

need allies to help with something like china. neil: the other thing comes up, say the economic impact is a question for us, financial concerns. they don't know how exposed they are, they don't know how bad it gets. this has been out there better part of three years, right? let's roll the dice, see what happens. what is the immediate fear for u.s. companies exposed? they're mostly financial concerns, big banks, that sort of thing. >> some are shifting workforces. neil: absolutely. into the continent. neil: in preparation. >> i think you're right. there is such delay and political upheaval in britain the small benefit to u.s. companies and international companies it has given them some time to digest, metabolize what is about to happen, figure out how they are going to navigate around this. dealing with the new structure, at the end of the day what is proposed here, northern ireland didn't want a firm border

between them and ireland, right? which is remaining in the eu, but wanted to stay part of the uk. so what's happening? the british are going to essentially be taking the eu in country. they're going to be imposing all the tariffs and regulations would otherwise be incumbent upon northern ireland to impose but they will do it on the british side before products go -- this is getting confusing. neil: right. >> if you're having to navigate that. you're saying i've got an equal sized market in the northern ireland, britain, ireland, section of the world, versus spain, border with france, spain border with transis lot easier to navigate. they're both part of the eu, where will you put the investment? >> easier. neil: whichever is easier. young people polled on the subject most didn't care one way or the other.

big thing comes up, boris johnson is lot like donald trump. donald trump is a lot like boris johnson. depend how the press plays in the specific countries. would a victory by boris johnson here, a good come back are from what seems like trading dead and pull a political victory? >> i think that it could. i think that actually the only thing that most people do know about this whole thing is that boris johnson is, is the donald trump of the u.k. neil: right. hair a little messier. >> make decisions based on that. that is almost how much people know. as i alluded to earlier, difference, about boris johnson all you know about brexit. laser focused on brexit. if he is talking it is brexit, brexit. boris johnson brexit. with trump it is not like that. you mentioned donald trump a whole host of things.

he is trying to do a whole host of things at once. that is difficult for two reasons. one because of focus. two, because you don't have the allies, because you are fighting another battle with them. why you're also taking on china. neil: it could be a big victory. >> anything is possible, neil. neil: exactly. thank you very much. the dow is barely budging on this, waiting to hear this. waiting what happens on the turkish front. that was a pretty chilly reception the turkish president gave the vice president of the united states a few hours ago. we're on top of that. waiting to hear from the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. he will be addressing reporters no doubt on turkey. no doubt on a lot of testimony going up on capitol hill today and maybe that little bit of nastiness in the white house yesterday. where everyone in the picture looked like one of my family reunions, after this. ♪♪

♪♪ ♪♪

we can go down this what do you think? ♪ woo! yeah! it's good! it's refreshing. ♪ at northwestern mutual, this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but she's only seven once. spend your life living. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com.

to the wait did frowe just win-ners. prouders everyone uses their phone differently. that's why xfinity mobile let's you design your own data. now you can share it between lines. mix with unlimited, and switch it up at anytime so you only pay for what you need. it's a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money. save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $250 back when you buy an eligible phone. call, click, or visit a store today. and my side super soft? be firm? with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both... adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and snoring? no problem ... and done. will it help me keep up with him? yup. so, i'll wake up ready for anything? oh, we've got your back. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, save up to $400 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. only for a limited time.

♪. neil: all right. we're awaiting a couple major events here. the vice president mike pence, secretary of state mike pompeo are going to be talking to the press after their meeting with turkish president erdogan who apparently ripped up a letter that the president wrote him, threw it in the garbage because he is not keen on a cease-fire. not keen on doing much of anything the white house asks. we'll get a read from that. waiting for mick mulvaney, acting chief of staff, he will address number of issues, including an update on the trade front. the fact there are a lot of press reports are out maybe he was more involved in the whole ukraine thing than earlier thought. we will keep abreast of that. brexit developments, what is happening on foreign countries or 27 members of the european union expected to pass a so-called resolution, middle

ground. the big tough sell within britain, within the british parliament where it will be uphill battle. hudson institute senior fellow rebecca heinrichs on all the crosscurrents and developments. rebecca, first of all, what you make of the position of the vice president, secretary of state, if video to talk, at least images could talk, seemed like a tension convention. seemed like president erdogan is sticking to his guns and will fire those guns. where do you see this going? >> it is not good for the united states, neil. clearly seems to me, president trump understands that even if he is still confident in his decision for the united states to remove itself as a mediator in syria, that the process, the way it was handled was not his best decision, because we have chaos in the region. and it seems clear to me, erdogan, turkey's erdogan is in the driver's seat. he is not listening to president

trump's pleas, not to commit genocide. not to go after civilians. not go further into syria and threaten american forces. forces are having a hasty withdrawal at this point. we're deploying f-15 fighter jets as show of force against turkey, nato ally, threatening provocatively u.s. forces still deployed there. it is not a good situation there for us. neil: it was very clear that the president was surprised, incensed, that order, the overwhelming vote in the house that repudiated syrian decision, the aftermath of that decision, i wonder if it is still sticking in his craw. might come up with mick mulvaney's remarks. what do you think? >> one of president trump's biggest argument for his decision to do this, this is something he committed to doing for the american people. something he campaigned on to get us out of these enless wars but people have another voice, through the representatives in

the house. it is the people's house. this was an overwhelming bipartisan rebuke of the president's decision. i think the way it was carried out. so you can see even if the american people do want to wind down our involvement or, you know, of engagement in the middle east, that the way it happened matters. they have to have confidence that the president of the united states is going to be prudent, cooperate with our allies, partners. give the pentagon a heads up. there is some method and strategy into it. so i think the president, needs to take this into account. obviously it is terrible timing. he needs republican support as he goes through the impeachment proceedings from the democrats. neil: do you think that the president was genuinely surprised by what the turkish president did? or that he fully expected it, and he is you know, he is riding it out, because he is convinced that his position, not to put anymore young american men and women in harm's way, having been to so many funerals himself that

is the one really reflects the mood of average americans? >> yeah. i think that you know, seems to me that it is not, it is not that americans don't want to go to war, neil. obviously nobody wants to go to war, the feeling don't want to be in wars where it doesn't make sense for the american people. doesn't feel like we're making progress with no sense of end or clear objective or military victory. why they're more comfortable deploying forces in south korea or japan, where it is deterrent as opposed to in combat areas, more dangerous conflicts as in syria. but again the way you withdraw matters. you can make a good argument perhaps we can let turkey and russia be the arbiters what is going on there, or, our other european allies but you have to have some sort of a solution, for instance of the sdd. even if the kurds do have problematic background or problematic relationship with nato ally turkey you can make

sure they're not going to be slaughtered because they're the ones doing all the ground fighting on behalf of themselves and the united states. so again there's a way to do this. it is complicated, the president is right. i think he has been surprised, i would think he has to be surprised and republican democratic objections to the way he has gone about this. neil: even zingers from lindsey graham proved that. rebecca, thank you very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: to rebeck case point, we're waiting to hear what president erdogan of turkey offers. if he is not going to cease the attack on northern syria, what is he going to do? what are we going to do if he doesn't do that? after this. alexa, tell me about neptune's sorrow by olivia watson.

alexa: it's a masterstroke of heartache, brutality and redemption. the mist crept into the pivot hole beside her... you're late. david! what did you think of the book? it's a...masterstroke of... heartache...brutality... ...and redemption. you didn't read it, did you? i didn't...but i will. the lexus nx, modern utility for modern obstacles. lease the 2020 nx 300 for $349/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study

neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to deliver neulasta® the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. now you can, with shipsticks.com! no more lugging your clubs through the airport or risk having your clubs lost or damaged by the airlines. sending your own clubs ahead with shipsticks.com

makes it fast & easy to get to your golf destination. with just a few clicks or a phone call, we'll pick up and deliver your clubs on-time, guaranteed, for as low as $39.99. shipsticks.com saves you time and money. make it simple. make it ship sticks. shipsticks.com saves you it's an honor to tell you that [ applause ] thank you. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

neil: big blue, more like black and blue. revenue was the problem. online activity is bottom line mess for the company. they are punishing it swiftly. take ibm out of the picture we would have much stronger dow. s&p 500 is closing in on a new record. earnings we've seen thus far, we're early into the process. three of the companies ha reported handily beaten estimates out there. that is the backdrop the president says is at stake if you kick him out of office. moody's looked at this, market, economy, people's paychecks, what is happening with the job situation. compiled those three scenarios to pick who wins the next election. if all those remain as they have. donald trump will be reelected president of the united states. this model, model, if you will, has been very accurate since 1980. only missed once, was ironically in the last election in 2016 where donald trump ascended to

the white house. moody's analytics mark zandi wrote the report. mark, always good to have you. >> thanks, neil. neil: the backdrop of the president looks good. which is the more helpful backdrop of the three we touched on? >> well, i think it is about jobs and unemployment. as long as the economy continues to create jobs sufficient to maintain the 3.5% unemployment rate, then the president has a pretty significant tailwind at his back. interestingly enough though, the stock market matters a lot. the stock market suffers a significant correction, 10%, 10 to 15%, that could swing things. likely would swing things to the d. the d would win with a slim margin. then gasoline prices also matter significantly. doesn't feel like gasoline

prices will go anywhere fast? we have another bombing of the saudi oil fields, we could see a spike, causing gas prices to rise. that would be a problem for president. a lot of things have to stick to the script, if this he do, president has a good chance of winning. neil: we rifled through the three aspect, paycheck aspect, market aspect, you need 270 votes to be elected president. that is the system we have. under all those scenarios the president wins handily. does it get into the popular vote at all? >> a lot of political factors we count for. one obvious one, some states always vote republican, some state always vote democrat regardless. neil: right. >> we capture that. incumbency matters. if you're a one term president, this really helps president trump, the next term, the second term is always easier lift. interestingly enough the, if you go one more, the, for the

incumbent party to be elected three terms in a row is pretty tough. that really hurt clinton back in 2016. and then the other thing, the approval rating. really change in the approval rating. ironically, the president's approval rating is low. average 40% on gallup but there is very little volatility. varies from 35% to high of 45%. not a lot of change. the change matters. base sticks with him. that is a plus for him. neil, i want to point out, a lot depends on turnout. all the results assume typical turnout. if it is high turnout, ds have a good chance of winning. this isn't written in stone. depends on how many ds come out and vote. neil: that could change everything. if any of this stuff goes south. we'll see. always fascinating. mark, thank you very much. mark zandi. as mark was speaking there, i want to let you know as expected the eu leaders, the 27 besides britain have written off on this deal that boris johnson cobbled

together with their leaders. now it has to go to the british parliament. they will have a special saturday session to vote on this the first time they have done that since the falklands war in 1982. we'll have more after this. i get it all the time.

"have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

hey fred - it's medicare open enrollment.e.

time to compare plans. we're fine with what we have. that's what the johnsons thought until they tried medicare's new plan finder. the johnsons?. we saved a lot on our prescription costs and got extra benefits. how 'bout it, fred. plans change every year. use the new plan finder at medicare.gov . comparing plans really pays. look how much we can save. ♪. neil: all right. is netflix streaming upstream? the stock rising despite the fact that subscriber growth wasn't wall street thought it would be. you would think the stock is

getting punished. it is not today. my next guest says eventually that reality will catch up to investors. so let's get a read where things are going. barry diller is already telling fox business that netflix will still be the top player in streaming no matter what else happens. take a look. >> is anybody catching up with netflix? >> nope. >> really? >> that does not mean that for instance, what disney is doing is not sound for disney. disney has such appealing content, i think they will do well. will they ever get to netflix's size, i can't imagine it. it seems incomprehensible that will happen. neil: if he is right, netflix, not only survives but thrives. wedbush managing director dan ives who is not so convinces of that, our own charlie gasparino. welcome to both of you.

you don't quite buy that view? >> no one can argue the success they had is legendary for netflix. the issue going forward, for them to get sub-growth, domestically and internationally, it will be a massive uphill battle. if you look what disney is doing, apple, peacock, number of streaming services where the price points are for disney and apple relative to netflix we think in some ways they will now have challenges. neil: those challenges have been out there a while, right? are they coming right? >> minus the competition. neil: absolutely. i'm wondering how did the market, why did the market ignore the subscriber thing. >> i think expectations going in were very soft, going into the print. i think they came through better than feared, especially given the q2 issue, what you see going forward, this will be really challenging time for netflix as they compete and try to get those subs while you look at that content arms race.

15 billion spent this year. 18 to 19 next year. disney is someone, you look at iger, look at the content and pricing. neil: iger -- >> major library. i agree with you. listen, i've been making calls on this. this is mainly not as bad as they thought it would be. so the market buys it. when you're in very low interest rate environment, guess what, wework might become public. that blew up. it was worse, nuclear disaster, defcon 5. neil: all the macro issues for netflix are still out there. >> if you want to know netflix why they survived like this, in type of investing environment people have to stretch for yield and stock being people buy stock on not so bad news. another analyst ad wedbush covers it well, pitcher? >> pac. neil: dan is the premier one. >> i read both of them.

balance sheet numbers are pretty atrocious going into increased competition. they have off-balance sheet debt liabilities people don't talk about. they're there. they own that stuff. they don't have free cash flow forever, right? neil: where do they get money to keep buying stuff? >> irrational exuberance. >> to charlie's point, right now, it is an arms race in terms of content. you have to continue to feed the machine. neil: right. >> you look what disney has with fox, as well as apple, apple you have 900 million installed peace users giving away essentially for free in terms of streaming and -- neil: how much is apple's product? 4.99. disney, 6.99. >> who is the best position to cut prices in this situation? netflix is not. they have too much debt. apple has no debt. neil: haven't they compared

netflix to early amazon building out huge infrastructure? >> one problem. amazon had free cash flow. they did not have tons of debt on the balance sheet. neil: these guys do. is that true? >> comes down to profitable to continue to add in the market. that is the thing for investors. you're looking for free cash flow, you're not going to see it. now you have iger and disney, cook and apple knocking on the door. not to dismiss those as not disruptive -- neil: could anyone by netflix. >> apple. >> could see next to nine months apple make as significant acquisition typically not in their dna, of a large studio, mgm, sony,. >> they have the money, if you want to get into content. neil: sorry to rudely interrupt you. chief of staff of the president of the united states addressing reporters. fielders choice what issues, is happening on turkey front.

impeachment front. you name it. mick mulvaney. >> he will be sorely missed. now getting on to the business at hand i understand it has been a fairly slow "newsweek," i thought we would introduce couple things. i want to come out here with my nationals hat on. they told me that would violate rule. i would wear montreal expos hat, that would be foreign interference in the world series so i couldn't do that we'll talk about the g7. we'll announce we'll do the 46th g7 summit on june 10th through june 12th at trump national doral facility in miami, florida. the focus of the event, will be global growth and challenges to the global economy, specifically we're dealing with things like rejuvenating incentives for growth, prosperity, rolling back prosperity killing regulations, ending trade barriers, reopening energy markets. taking a lot what we're doing domestically with such success, trying to encourage the rest of

the world to get on board of as we sit here and our economy does so well, look all across the world. the rest of the world is at or near recession. we really think we hit on a formula that works not only here but would work overseas. take the g7 as opportunity to convince other nations they can have the same successes by following the same model. now, talk about site selection process. you folks have questions about that. how do we go about doing this? a lot of same criteria, used by past administrations. a long list of accomodations on site. ballrooms, bilateral rooms, number of rooms, support, photo-ops, number of hotels, proximity to airports, helicopter landing. we use the same set of criteria previous administrations have used. we started with a list of about a dozen just on paper. we sent an advance team out to actually visit 10 locations in

several states. visited california, colorado, florida, hawaii, michigan, north carolina, tennessee and utah. we got that list down to just under 10 and the advance team went out to visit those. from there we got down to four finalists that our senior team looked. looked a one in hawaii, two in utah, the mar-a-lago facility in florida. it became apparent at the end of that process that doral was by far and away, far and away the best physical facility for this meeting. in fact, i was talking to one of the advance teams, came back, what it was like. you're not going to believe it, almost like they built to facility to host this type of event. any of you been there, there are separate buildings with their own rooms, separate and apart from each building. one country could have building, another country could have another. you folks could have building for the press.

obviously common areas are going to be perfect for our needs down there. again anticipating your questions, how is this, this is not emolument violation? will the president profit from this? the president pretty much made it very clear since he has got here, he doesn't profit from being here. he has no interest in profit from being here. one of the reasons he has not taken a salary here. given the salary to charity. will not be profiting hire. we talked about the possibility, whether or not the president could do it at no cost. understand difficulties doing it that way. we also have difficulties if they charge market rates. they're doing it as cost. as a result dramatically cheaper to do it at doral compared to the other final sites that we had. we're looking forward to that, to that meeting. again june 10th through 12th of next year for the 46th g7. now my guess is with that official part of the briefing

finished there will be some questions about a variety of things that are going on in the world. if we can do something together, that would be great. take the questions about the g7 first. go through those. then we'll take a chance ask questions about the other stuff before the end of the day. ann? reporter: not just enormous profit interest of the president his own resort. how will the president continue to criticize the biden family for self-dealing at the same time we're doing this? >> couple different things. we're not making profit. we already established that. reporter: branding opportunity. >> i heard that before. i guess i've been the chief for about nine or 10 months. i always hear when we go to mar-a-lago it is huge branding opportunity at trump mar-a-lago. play trump bedminster, place trump sterling. everybody says huge marketing opportunity. i would ask you to consider the possibility that donald trump's brand is probably strong enough as it is, doesn't need anymore

help on that. it is most recognizable name in the english language and probably around the world. that has nothing to do with it. listen i was skeptical. i was. i was aware of the political sort of criticism that we come under for doing it at doral. why i was so surprised when the advance team called back, this is the perfect physical location to do this. i get the criticisms. so does he. face it would be criticized regardless what he chose to do. there is no issue on him profiting from this in any way, shape or form. what's the difference between this and what we're talking about the bidens? first of all there is no profit here. clearly there is profit with the bidens. second if there is one difference if you look between the trump family and biden family. trump family made their money before they went into politics. that is a big difference. reporter: could be done at cost. any idea of cost estimate. how much money looking at. remain g7 or envision -- >> i don't have the numbers in terms of the costs. i do know it was, one of ones i

saw almost half as much here. i don't want to up abouter the number, millions of dollars cheaper doing it at doral than another facility. that was roughly 50% savings. as to the g7, g8. that discussion is ongoing. the president has been very candid about that. whether or not he wants russia to join the g7 again. they used to be members of that organization. i think he has been fairly straightforward, not only to you folks but other leaders around the world, which is, we go to the g7, what dominates so much of the discussion, russia. russian energy, russian military policy, dominate as lot of the discussion. wouldn't it be better to have them inside as part of those conversations? that decision will be made later. we'll continue to review it. yes, ma'am. reporter: thank you very much. [inaudible]. how can you say this best place to hold it? surely other places this would

be held. you can't make the argument president will not profit because we can't know how much he might profit in the future right? >> yeah. to your first point, again i think, profit, he isot making any money off of this, not making money from working here. if you think it will help his brand, that is great i would suggest he doesn't need much help promoting brand. put profit aside, deal with the perfect place. where was last time? camp david? is that the perfect place? i understand folks who participated in it, hated it. was miserable place to have d 7. way too small. media didn't like it had to drive hour on bus either way. >> i take your point. there have been other g7 summits. numerous g7 summits. how can the white house really make the argument this is the only place that -- >> not only place. the best place. those are two different things. reporter: other good places? >> there are plenty of other

good places to hold a large event, no question about it. some limitations, we wanted at specific time. early june. that limits it a little bit. there is difficult ks going other places. someplace don't have transportation. one place, won't say where it was we would figure out if we had to have oxygen tanks for the participant because of the altitude. there is limitations at other places. we thought of the 12 places we looked at, you would recognize the names of them told you what they were, this is by far and away the best choice. reporter: very quickly. this is business optics. how is the president going to stand on the debate stage, if in fact vice president biden wins the nomination, try to make an argument he profited of off his vice presidency. >> he will do that extraordinarily well. yes, ma'am. reporter: talking about how this is the best place to have this. >> yeah. reporter: is this going to be self-contained just at doral? are there other hotel rooms they have to get? is there anywhere else --

>> i understand. one of the advantages the advance team came back with about doral the fact it could be sequestered off from the rest of the city. nearly all or all the operations could be on that one piece of property. i think president said there is almost 900-acres there. it is a huge facility. would be able with a lot of open space. there are three golf courses. there is lot of space available to us. we anticipate the entire thing being on that campus. reporter: including hotels? talked about additional hotel rooms. you could get additional hotels involved in that? >> i'm not sure, when we talk about the delegations, for example, when we went, to, ritz, we were at two or three different hotels around that city, that would not be the case. american delegation would stay on campus. british delegation stay on campus. german delegation stays on

campus. whether other would use -- reporter: local authorities. >> i haven't asked that question. we do that with each of the groups we work with. i'm not sure of those. reporter: video show of that result, doctored video showed president dill killing political opponents, why has he not spoken about the sentiment behind that video. >> have you asked hill? we put out a statement. you had a chance to ask him that question yesterday. you asked him something else. which is fine. hold on a second. her question was he asked it. we listened to that we didn't like that. i think we condemned that. we didn't. we did not. did you think that we would? reporter: doesn't sound like strong condemnation. >> john it, was awful. i never seen the movie, that has no place here. i think we've condemned that.

i don't know if he has seen it or not. i have. reporter: go before the cameras and -- president gone before the cameras? reporter: trying to put it in a place you think the best? >> yes. reporter: saving taxpayers money important for all of us. sometimes because the appearance of i impropriety don't make that call, understand the and acknowledge, appearance impropriety this is wince inducing, something you want to reconsider? how did that conversation go in the room? >> the president knows that. listen the president, we know the environment we live in. you all know the environment we live in. he knows exactly he will get the questions and exactly get the reaction from a lot of people. he said that is fine i'm willing to take that. same thing when he goes to trump mar-a-lago. and trump bedminster. he got over that a long time ago. we absolutely believe this is the best place to have it. we'll have it there.

foal folks will never get over the fact i ace trump property. we get that but we'll go there. reporter: decides what your advance team to look for the perfect place, what role did the president play selecting doral, including getting on initial list of 10 or 12 places in first place? >> that is fair question. we sat around one night in the dining room going over with advance team, had the list. what about doral? that is not craziest idea. reporter: brought it up? >> we're all familiar with it. this is what doral is. do i have a explain? no. doral, that is not craziest idea. we said go down to look at it. yes? reporter: ask you about relates to the decision that you have made, as the host country, couldn't the president simply as the host country invite president putin to represent russia at g7? >> i think we can. as i understand how the g7 works there will be other leaders there anyway.

for example, i met with scott morrison, the prime minister of australia at the g7 even though they're not there. i assume he came at invite of president macron. we can do the same thing. the question i got originally turning it from the g7 into g8. reporter: could he assembly invite president putin. >> can he physically do that? yeah, i think he can. reporter: he is president, would he consider doing that? >> has not come up. the conversation we had whether we turn it from the g7 to g8 that could be an intermediate step yes, sir? reporter: you mentioned president is willing to take the criticism on this what about the country itself, is there any value sending a message to the world, especially given all that happened with foreign interference and attempts at foreign interference with our country, this president and this country is not open for the kind of self-dealing that happens in other countries? is that not an important message to send when you're inviting the world to come here to the united states? >> no.

question? reporter: g7? >> any last g7 questions? reporter: couple things. best property for this take place, the first question, why is no other g7 been held there before? >> bus they didn't go look at it. why did they have it at camp david? seriously for those there, i'm familiar with it. i talked to folks up at cam of david. didn't you guys, host g8 back then, 2004, something like that. they said it was complete disaster. wonder how that happened? how did that decision get made? reporter: last question if i can. talking about the president, this video the president seen shooting members of the media, played at doral property there, said we haven't had the chance to ask him that question yet which we have, broadly president tweeted 45,000 times, 45,000 times. how come the president hasn't used that twitter account to more than 60 million followers to condemn? you're chief of staff. >> white house put out a statement. reporter: 45,000 -- >> next time you ask him.

not like the man hides from you folks. he has done almost 100 face-to-face interviews with you. anybody else on g7? >> is there any precedent in your studying of the g7 of a g7 summit being held at a property owned by the president or a president? looking at content, will be hot in florida in june. will climate change be discussed. >> first question i don't know if another president has even considered for g7. i don't know the answer to that question. climate change will not be on the agenda. yes, sir? reporter: thank you. president trump called for exposure of the whistleblower on ukraine. >> are we done on g7? is that collective will? last point on g7. reporter: talking about passing of mr. cummings just to show the american people this is aboveboard, will you share documents that show how you

arrived at this decision with the congress? >> no. but i would imagine we would share dollar figures with you afterwards. that is. by the way you will get this answer a lot building okay. i don't talk about how this place runs on the inside. so if you ask, see our paper how we did this, absolutely not. yes, sir? reporter: almost certainly a house judiciary committee hearing about this site selection? >> you think so? reporter: already talked about that. >> do you really think so? do they have time to do that? reporter: yeah. will the administration participate, cooperate? >> that is fascinating question. i had not thought. this would prompt a judiciary committee investigation. one hand i'm thinking to myself, they don't have time to do it because they're too busy doing impeachment, right? then i think to myself, this is entirely consistent with how they spent the first 18 months in office or 12 month, however long they have been here. i guess a year, right?

they would rather do that than talk about tax policy. talk about drug policy. talk about opioids. talk about health care. that is fascinating question. i don't know if there will be a judiciary committee inquiry into this. my guess probably will this is all the g-7 questions now? now we go on to something else. john has not asked a question yet. reporter: a clarification on your first statement on the g-7. you said five finalists. you said mar-a-lago was one of the finalists? >> four finalists, i think. we started with 12 on sort of a list. the team visited sort of a first team visited ten of those, and i think i identified the states. we then got our senior team down and they visited four, of which mar-a-lago was one. there was one in hawaii, two in utah. reporter: are you telling me in the entire united states you came down to two finfour finali

two of them were trump properties? >> one. no, i'm sorry. yes, doral. yes. mar-a-lago was not involved. mar-a-lago is not close to being sufficient for g-7. i'm sorry. reporter: thank you for clarifying that. >> if i said mar-a-lago about where we visited, it was doral. i apologize. reporter: to the question of ukraine, can you clarify, i have been trying to get an answer to this, was the president serious when he said that he would also like to see china investigate the bidens? and you were directly involved in the decision to withhold funding from ukraine. can you explain to us now definitively why? why was funding -- >> deal with the second one first, which is look, it should come as no surprise to anybody, last time i was up here, i haven't done this since i was chief of staff, right? last time i was up here, so many folks remember it was for the budget briefings and one of the questions you always ask me

about budget is what are you all doing to the foreign aid budget because we absolutely gutted it, right? president trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. never has been. still isn't. doesn't like spending money overseas, especially when it's poorly spent. and that is exactly what drove this decision. i have been in the office a couple times with him talking about this. he said look, mick, this is a corrupt place. everybody knows it's a corrupt place. by the way, put this in context. this is on the heels of what happened in puerto rico, when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch of aid to puerto rico because we thought that place was corrupt and by the way, turns out we were right, all right? put that as your context. this is a corrupt place, i don't want to send them a bunch of money, have them waste it, have them use it to line their own pockets. plus i'm not sure the other european countries are helping them out either so we actually looked at that during that time before -- when we cut the money off before the money actually flowed because the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year, we actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing

and in terms of supporting ukraine, what we found out was -- i can't remember if it's zero or near zero dollars from any european countries for lethal aid. you have heard the president say this. we give them tanks and the other countries give them pillows. that's absolutely right. as vocal as the europeans are about supporting ukraine, they are really really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. they weren't helping ukraine and that's still to this day are not and the president did not like that. i know it's a long answer to your question but i'm still going. that was -- those were the driving factors. did he also mention to me in past that the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. no question about that. but that's it. that's why we held up the money. now, there was a report -- reporter: so the demand for an investigation into the democrats was part of the reason that he wanted to involve funding to ukraine? >> the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things he was worried about in corruption with that nation. that is absolutely appropriate.

reporter: withholding the funding? >> yeah, which ultimately then flowed. by the way, there was a report we were worried that the money -- if we didn't pay out the money it would be illegal, okay, would be unlawful. that is one of those things that is a little shred of truth in it that makes it look a lot worse than it really is. we were concerned about over at omb about an impoundment. i know i just put half you folks to bed but the budget control act, budget control impoundment act of 1974 says if congress appropriates money you have to spend it. at least that's how it's interpreted by some folks. we knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of september or we had to have a really really good reason not to do it. that was the legality of the issue. reporter: to be clear, you just described a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. >> we do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy. we were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the triangle countries. we were holding up aid in the northern triangle countries so

that they would change their policies on immigration. by the way, this speaks to an important -- i'm sorry? this speaks to an important point. i heard this yesterday. i can never remember the gentleman, mckinney, is that his name? i don't know him. he testified yesterday. if you go and if you believe the news reports, okay, because we have not seen any transcripts of this, the only transcript i have seen was sondland's testimony this morning, if you read the news reports and you believe them, what did mckinney say yesterday? what mckinney said yesterday, he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. reporter: talking about the bidens. >> i'm talking. elections have consequences and foreign policy is going to change from the obama administration to the trump administration. what you're seeing now, i believe, is a group of mostly career politicians -- career bureaucrats who are saying i don't like president trump's politics so i'm going to participate in this witch hunt that they're undertaking on the

hill. elections do have consequences and they should and your foreign policy is going to change. obama did it in one way. we are doing it a different way and there's no problem with that. reporter: what about the bidens, mr. mulvaney? did that come into consideration? >> i'm sorry, i don't know your name but he's being very rude. go ahead and ask your question. >> just to clarify, as a follow-up on that question, when you're saying that policy is going to be involved, the question here is not just about a political decision about how you want to run the government, this is about investigating political opponents. are you saying that it's okay for the u.s. government to hold up aid and require a foreign government to investigate political opponent of the president? >> you're talking about looking forward to the next election. >> this is the dnc. the dnc is still involved in this next election, is that not correct? >> wait a second.

reporter: you are investigating the dnc, right? >> there's an ongoing, there's an ongoing investigation by our department of justice into the 2016 election. i can't remember the person's name. durham. durham. that's an ongoing investigation. right? so you're saying the president of the united states, the chief law enforcement person, cannot ask somebody to cooperate with an ongoing public investigation into wrongdoing? that's just bizarre to me that you would think you can't do that. reporter: so you would say that it's fine to ask about the dnc but not about biden? so biden is now -- biden is running for the democratic nomination, right, that's for 2020. so are you -- >> that did not happen here. i would ask you -- reporter: no, no, on the call the president did ask about investigating the bidens. are you saying that the money that was held up that had nothing to do with biden? >> the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with biden. that was the point i made to

you. reporter: you are drawing a distinction, you are saying it would be wrong to -- >> again, i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. okay? three issues for that. the corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in support of the ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our department of justice. that's completely legitimate. yes, sir. reporter: thank you. regarding the secretary of state's department, the deputy secretary for european and eurasian affairs reportedly testified you asked him to step down from any issues regarding ukraine. is that true? >> who said that? reporter: george kent. >> i'm sorry, i don't know who that is. is that somebody who testified this week? reporter: yes. >> i don't believe i have ever talked to anybody named george kent in my life. nor have i asked anybody to resign their position over this. reporter: oevenlth alkay.

also, another thing is there have been reports that you conducting a review of the phone call with volodymyr zelensky, the ukrainian president, and the question is, is that true, do you acknowledge that you have been conducting that review? we were told the call was perfect. >> no one here had any difficulty with the call. we do think the call was perfect. we don't thy thereink there's a difficulty with the call at all. i was not on the call. my office was on the call. no one raised any difficulty with me on the call at all. no one on the call thought there was any difficulty with it. get to your point about what we're doing inside. reporter: was this an attempt to actually uncover the whistleblower? >> look, if you -- if you're having the house do what they're going to do, doesn't it simply make sense for us to sort of try and find out what happened? this is one of the questions i

don't understand from you folks that we get all the time, which is some of you have criticized us for having a war room, okay, which we don't, by the way. you don't have a war room when you haven't done anything wrong. clinton certainly had a war room. i think nixon did but they actually did something wrong. we didn't so we don't have a war room. at the same time, we say that and you say we're not taking it seriously. yeah, we are. we do. it's part of what we do. when you work for the trump administration, you are used to this kind of attention, right? we know how to do this. we do this, we are preparing for it. yes, we are having lawyers look at it, we are having our p.r. people looking at it. if we didn't, if we weren't doing that, we would be committing malpractice. but i don't think there's anything extraordinary that we're doing. we have been dealing with oversight from the democrats since they took office. in fact, it's all we've been dealing with the democrats since they took office because we certainly haven't been doing much legislating since they have been here. yes, ma'am. reporter: in light of the depositions that we've heard, do you believe rudy giuliani's role as an outside adviser to the president is problematic?

>> that's the president's call. steve scalise got to ask a similar question today on television. his answer was great. look, you may not like the fact, i understand from reading his opening testimony gordon sondland didn't like the fact giuliani was involved and said that in his testimony. okay. that's great. you may not like the fact that giuliani was involved. that's great. that's fine. it's not illegal, it's not impeachable. the president gets to use who he wants to use. president wants to fire me today and hire somebody else -- reporter: -- from the actual -- >> the president gets to set foreign policy and choose who to do so as long as it doesn't violate any law. it doesn't violate any laws regarding confidential information or classified material, anything like that, the president gets to use who he wants to. reporter: did the president direct you or anyone else to work with rudy giuliani on ukraine? >> yeah. when was it, there was the may meeting, i think this has been widely reported. in fact, i think sondland mentioned it in his testimony and i'm pretty sure rick perry mentioned it in his interview

yesterday with the "wall street journal" that at the may meeting in the oval office, that i was in, i think senator johnson was there as well, mr. volker was there, the president asked rick perry to work with mr. giuliani. reporter: did you think that was appropriate when you were asked as well? >> i wasn't asked. reporter: you were not? >> no. reporter: that was my question. were you or anyone else asked. >> i think the answer to your question is that the president told rick perry, who i think was sort of, you know, the issue -- one of the reasons they were obviously talking about energy, we were very interested in trying to get ukraine as an energy partner. that's why mr. perry, secretary perry was so heavily involved, and that's when the president said to mr. perry go ahead and talk to rudy. reporter: wasn't that establishing a shadow foreign policy? >> shadow foreign policy, look, that's a term you're using. that's a pejorative. what is a shadow foreign policy? reporter: operating outside the normal channel. >> who else was in the room? rudy giuliani -- who is in the

room when the president is having this conversation? okay? it's gordon sondland, our ambassador to the eu, kurt volker, who was our special designated envoy to the ukraine. i sat next to mike pompeo yesterday at the meeting with the congressional leaders and said look, i understand i coordinated a coup against you by putting sondland and volker in charge of ukraine policy. he leans back and goes you know they both work for me. they're not shadow policy. the president is entitled to have whoever he wants to work. i'm 100% comfortable with it. i'm sorry. i'm sorry. reporter: no problem. just to follow on that question, can you describe the role that you played in pressuring ukraine to investigate the biden sns and secondly, can you walk us through the meeting that president trump was dangling over volodymyr zelensky to happen right here at the white house, what were the preconditions of that meeting and was investigate iing one of

them? >> the first answer to your question is none, i didn't have -- what was your question? what did i do to ukraine? nothing. reporter: did you do anything to pressure ukraine to investigate the bidens? >> no. what's the second question? reporter: the second question is about the meeting. happening here at the white house between the two presidents. could you walk us through the discussion for that meeting? was the investigation of burisma ever brought up as a condition to meet when the president comes? >> no, not to me and not to anybody i know of. i was never in a conversation that had the word burisma in it. but -- reporter: or investigating the bidens. >> or the bidens. that never happened with me in there. but to the larger point about the meeting, i think one of the things y'all have missed, the president didn't want to take the meeting. president didn't want to have a phone call. that was -- that was -- rick perry was pushing for that. i think it was a courtesy he's

extending at the time. reporter: he was never realistically entertaining a meeting with president zelensky? >> we get asked by foreign leaders all the time to either come visit their country or to have them come visit here and we are courteous and say yes and some we are able to accommodate and some, we are not. but -- excuse me, let me answer the question -- i don't remember a serious conversation about setting up an actual meeting. there were no dates discussed. i saw that as one of the typical pleasantries we have and i don't think it was dangling a meeting or anything like that. reporter: did the president welcome president erdogan at the white house on november 13th? >> that depends on how the next couple of days go. it's still on the schedule. i understand that vice president pence's meeting is going much longer than expected today. i hope it's not going over my press conference right now. it's one of those wait and see things. the president is clear about what he wants to see out of president erdogan.

he wants a cease-fire now. he wants prisoners protected. we can go down the long list of things the president has mentioned to president erdogan and if we are able to get that, that meeting can go forward. t if not, the president will review that possibility. reporter: on gordon sondland, sir -- reporter: you just said you were involved in the process in which the money being held up temporarily, you named three reasons, whether or not the country were assisting with an ongoing investigation, how is that not an establishment of an exchange, of a quid pro quo? >> those are terms, those are the terms you use. go look at what gordon sondland said today in his testimony was that i think in his opening statement, he said something along the lines of they were trying to get the deliverable and the deliverable was a statement by the ukraine about how they were going to deal with corruption. okay? go read his testimony if you haven't already. what he says, he's right, that's absolutely ordinary course of business. this is what you do.

when you have someone come to the white house, when you either arrange a visit to the president, have a phone call with the president, a lot of times we use that as the opportunity to get them to make a statement of their policy, or to announce something that they are going to do. it's one of the reasons you can sort of announce that on the phone call or at the meeting. this is the ordinary course of foreign policy. reporter: is it appropriate for any president or this president to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political opponent? >> every time we get that question, that's one of those things, when did you stop beating your wife. it assumes the president has done that. we haven't done that. reporter: i said mr. trump or any president. >> i will talk about what this president did. yes, ma'am. reporter: the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani says he sees his work as the president's personal attorney as intertwined with the president's national agenda when it comes to ukraine. do you see those issues as intertwined?

is it political interest as the president, as a political candidate, is that intertwined with the national interest? >> i don't know how to answer that question except that mr. giuliani is his personal lawyer, the president wants to -- reporter: is it appropriate for an personal attorney to be working in ukraine on issues that are supposed to be national issues? mr. giuliani said there's an attorney/client privilege issue because he was working in the president's interest. is that appropriate for his personal attorney to be working in ukraine? >> i don't know that there's anything inappropriate about that. yes, sir. sorry, lady in the back. yes, ma'am. reporter: thank you, mr. mulvaney. you said -- not like in previous administration. how does the president -- [ inaudible ]? >> the question is responding to breaking off talks, is there news in the last couple of days on that? reporter: yes.

>> i'm sorry, i'm just not briefed on that. i apologize. yes, sir. reporter: there have been published reports that you were objecting within the president's official family to the appointment of ken cuccinelli to head up the department of homeland security. is that so, and if so, what is your objection to his possible appointment? >> i have none. i think ken would be good at the job. yes, ma'am. you are sitting in the front row and i haven't asked you a question yet? i'm sorry. reporter: there was no quid pro quo in this call, it was routine, if he didn't even want to do it, it's all on the up and up, why did it have to go into the server? why was it moved from one server to the other? >> i'm glad we got that. it's a good one to finish on. i'm not going to answer your

question the way you want me to but i'm going to answer your question so give me just a second. i'm not going to sit here and talked about how we handle classified information in this building. i had a couple questions before about my private conversations with the president. i don't talk about those either. i'm not going to talk about that. but i do want to address it and here's why. there's only one reason people care about that, right? it's because they think there's a coverup. they hope there's -- some of them hope there's a coverup, oh, my goodness gracious, there must have been something really really underhanded about how they handled this document because there must be a coverup because there's always a good coverup when we've got an impeachment, right? nixon had a coverup with the tapes. clinton had a coverup of the relationship with lewinski. let me ask you this. if we wanted to cover this up, wouldn't we have called the department of justice almost immediately and have them look at the transcript of the tape which we did, by the way. if we wanted to cover this up, would we have released it to the public. by the way, i'm glad that now all this concern about oh, the document has been edited, what do these ellipses mean.

i heard adam schiff go on television and say we don't need to hear from the whistleblower anymore because now we have the transcript, memorandum of communication, memorandum of document. okay? everyone wants to believe there's a coverup. you don't give stuff to the public and say here it is if you are troying to cover something up. so i'm not going to answer your question by explaining how we handle documents in this building. i can tell you you can stop asking the questions because there's no coverup and i can prove it to you by our actions. i know we can do this all night. i'm not going to take any more. nice to see everybody. thanks. reporter: why are you -- neil: that went well. that was chief of staff mick mulvaney first and foremost announcing the next g-7 summit will be held at the president's so-called trump doral resort in miami. that is effectively saying the president has given himself this contract. now, it might be a cause but i

don't think i have ever seen anything like this, we will get into it with judge andrew napolitano in a second. the resort will do all this, we are told, at cost. of course, there is a very expensive locale. tell me a little about the resort. it has been under some financial pressure over the last couple of years, operating income there slid about 69%, revenues have been sliding down since 2015. that is not unusual for a lot of these high end clubs that are crowded now in the miami area. having said all of that, though, the miami weekly times had reported not too long ago that this has been a particular underperformer and that it has had more than a few financial difficulties compared to others in the neighborhood. now, again, he said they did a wide and far search on this, and that this was the best resort, as you know, with these g-7 events, they cycle through every seven or eight years depending

on how many g-7 members there are at any given time, it falls to each and every member country, it was last in this country in 2012 when they held it at camp david under barack obama. before that, in 2004, at sea island, georgia under president bush. but all of this comes at a time when a lot of people are saying p.r. accounts for a lot and given the fact the president has made a central focus of what the vice president, the former vice president, joe biden knew and when he knew it and the business sides of his son hunter on just the appearance level alone, the president of the united states rewarding his family-run business and perhaps one of its premier money makers, the doral club resort, to host this big event, the spillover effect even at cost is very good for whatever event locale you choose. again, they are arguing this is not a violation of the

emoluments clause. i believe the judge has a different notion of that. >> it's not my notion. it's the constitution's notion. the constitution does not address profits, it addresses any present, as in a gift, any emolument as in cash of any kind whatever. i'm quoting the clause, from any king, prince or foreign state. so if this were a meeting of the governors of the united states, there would be no problem. the purpose of the emoluments clause is to keep the president of the united states of america from profiting off of foreign money, here we go again, not in the campaign but in some event or entity that he controls or is running. he has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. this is about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create.

neil: doing a little research here, for the trump business, i'm not saying this is the president himself but extended to his family, this particular locale is the biggest money maker for the trump family. i know a little bit having covered numerous g-7 events all over the world over my career, whatever you might lose because they probably do lose a little bit given the fact that no one else can go to these venues when the world leaders are there, so it's in lockdown, but again, the carryover, the spillover of that, if you go to sea island today, they still have the flags of the countries and trees that were planted. it's a great, you know, draw to people who visit, wow, this is where the foreign leaders, so it has a spillover effect. >> most respectfully, mr. mulvaney's focus on profit, while it may make sense in the economic world, is not what the framers were concerned about. they were concerned about a gift or cash coming directly or indirectly to the president of the united states, even if it's

done at a loss. now, the president owns shares of stock in a corporation that is one of the owners of this, along with many other investors. he also owns shares of stock in the corporation that manages it. so those corporations will receive a great deal of money from foreign heads of state because this is there. that's exactly, exactly what the emoluments clause was written to prohibit. neil: it does lift the status of the resort in question. mulvaney was saying we looked at all five, this is the only one we could find. i'm not a golfer. i play miniature golf. but there are tons of them around, everywhere. now, i understand with this particular facility, it is large enough to accommodate everybody, they can all be on site, i think that was the same at sea island, it was certainly that way at camp david if all the leaders wanted to stay in the neighborhood, so there's an appeal from a security

perspective, but if it has the name trump on it, i think you would bend over backwards to avoid that. >> one would think so. but you know the president. he likes a fight and he just picked another one. neil: where does this go? >> i would imagine someone will file another lawsuit. there's two emoluments clause salutes going on now, one in baltimore, one in washington, d.c. those are active live cases. expect a third one probably in the federal district court in southern part of florida. neil: all right. just to add a little bit as the judge is talking, a little from this weekly miami area paper, looks at business in the miami area, and it has said revenue had been plummeting at the property since 2015. now, a consultant for the trump organization and tax officials commenting on this, in late 2018 the resort was quote unquote, severely underperforming when compared to comparable hotel properties in south florida. it could be the name or the

brand trump, the controversy generated when he first announced he was running for president. it's not a reflection to president here or his business acumen, just the controversy the name generates. again, to avoid any appearance of favoring one property over the other, the administration has gone head-first into what could be a very controversial back-and-forth as to whether that would be the best location. to the judge's point, the president has decided that's where it's going to be. more after this. 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. ( ♪ )

to earn j.d. power chevdependability awards... get something done. across cars... trucks... and suvs. four years in a row. since more than 32,000 real people... just like me. and me. and me. took the survey that decided these awards. it was only right that you hear the good news from real people... like us. i'm daniel. i'm casey. i'm julio. only chevy has earned j.d. power dependability awards across cars, trucks and suvs. four years in a row.

neil: all right. busy news day. we have the dow almost 20 points. if they are confused about what's going on, they have a funny way of showing it. we have the vice president, meanwhile, mike pence meeting with turkish president erdogan. the white house is looking at additional sanctions. we have already heard from erdogan that he's not happy about that, he's not happy about how the president has sort of put the finger and the onus on him. blake burman at the white house with all the latest on that front. reporter: i suspect we will learn more here in about 15 minutes, 30 minutes or so as we are expect toiing to hear from president mike pence shortly. here's what happened in turkey today, as the vice president and secretary of state, mike pompeo, are there. there was a one-on-one meeting with the vice president and turkish president erdogan, as you can see there, that lasted for about 80 minutes. then this picture right here,

screen right, secretary of state mike pompeo involved as well. there was a more expanded bilateral meeting. that one went for two hours plus. since then, that meeting has broken up. what the trump administration, the vice president, the secretary of state have been pushing for is a cease-fire from turkey in northern syria, ahead of this treasury secretary steve mnuchin was warning that if there wasn't a cease-fire, there could be potentially more sanctions being placed against turkey. our friend and colleague john roberts is the ground in turkey right now, and he reports that he heard some sort of applause, some sort of clapping during a de-brief there so we await the information as to what exactly may or may not have been accomplished by both sides. we expect to hear that soon. in any event, the white house today continued to defend the decision of president trump to remove u.s. troops in northern syria that led to the turkish incursion into that area. the white house saying today

that the lives of u.s. troops were on the line. >> with 26, 28 troops standing between turkey, an advancing force into syria to attack the kurds, if donald trump had not made the decision to pull those people out of harm's way, out of the crossfire, and those 28 people had died, we would be having a conversation that donald trump made a horrific decision when erdogan warned him he was going in and 28 people are now dead. reporter: reaction today from nancy pelosi as well. of course, she walked out of that meeting yesterday here at the white house with senior congressional leaders, the president and members of their staff. this picture right here provided by the president on his twitter feed after that pelosi walked out. she says that she didn't really understand the argument that was being made by the president. he's been saying that he campaigned on removing troops from endless wars, however, pelosi notes that there are being troops added into saudi arabia in the middle east.

this was her take on the situation today. listen. >> why are our troops going to saudi arabia if he promised to bring them home? he said well, the saudi arabians are paying for it. really? we're putting our troops in harm's way for saudi arabia because they're paying? it just didn't add up. what it did do was cause a meltdown on the part of the president because he was unhappy with the questions. reporter: that's sort of the lay of the land now as we await to hear from the vice president and/or secretary of state and what may or may not have come from those talks with president erdogan. neil? neil: that meeting seemed to go well yesterday. i'm sure he put those details to rest. reporter: the one with erdogan today, a lot longer than the one that took place yesterday. neil: thank you very, very much, blake burman. all right. bipartisan backlash on this, overwhelming majorities in the house saying it was a bad idea, what he did on turkey, the president had to be reined in on it and has gotten a lot of

lecturing from generals, retired and otherwise, and of course, republicans as well. that bipartisan backlash, what kind of effect are we looking at? let's go right to our brainiacs. zach ro zach carabell, elizabeth macdonald. what's the fallout from this? it doesn't end, right? >> it doesn't end. people died because of the decision. that's what critics of the president will say. so what is the fallout from that in terms of how the rest of washington will operate? we know in an election year, usually nothing gets done so -- neil: that's virtually guaranteed. >> we are in hyper gridlock right now. neil: the president just tweeted out that we are getting great news out of turkey. news conference shortly. this one's featuring the vice president and secretary of state pompeo. thank you, president erdogan. maybe he is aware of something that we are not, a resolution to this or cease-fire, something

that erdogan had said he would not entertain. bottom line, it's a lot of back-and-forth. where is it going? >> i think a slightly nuanced view, in the sense -- neil: we don't have time for nuance. this is television. >> after that last press conference, no one is really talking about the fact we had a resolution come out of the house yesterday condemning the president's stance or the fact that you had mitch mcconnell out here saying he was even looking for something stronger as it pertained to the president's decision on syria. i think there is an opportunity in spite of the fact nothing really tends to happen in an election year for us to have some type of bipartisan agreement on the fact the word of america must mean something, particularly when you start talking about policy in the middle east. neil: this idea of regardless of your views on this subject and the doral resort being the location of the next g-7 summit, it's a trump resort, there are a lot of issues here, and the president keeps bumping into these headwinds.

>> maybe we can use the 1,000 troops pulled out of syria to protect the delegates at the g-7 at doral. you know, look, first of all, regardless of whether erdogan comes out and says okay, we will do a cease-fire, the situation has changed permanently unless you totally reverse course and put those buffer troops back there, which means erdogan can turn around in six months and do incursions the same way putin does in eastern ukraine, right. you kind of do incursions but you don't -- neil: you don't buy -- the president says they would have done what they do regardless of whether -- >> the reason why you know they wouldn't have done what they did is because they hadn't done what they did until we pulled out the troops. neil: what do you make of that, lizzie? >> look, the president has telegraphed for some time he wants the troops out of syria. he doesn't like never-ending wars. it's the way it was rendered. neil: you think it's disingenuous when he says this is not something, the idea this was inevitable, he didn't see

this coming, is that believable? >> he has been saying for some time he wants the troops out. but what is a really interesting back story going on right now, i like watching what's going on with turkey's economy. we know the lira has been over the past five years going into hockey stick action down, then it bounced up. what's going on here? look at the other super power stepping in to help out. china. china is doing lira swaps, stepping in with belt and road infrastructure spending in turkey. it's interesting. overnight we know the geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically but now with china coming in through turkey, stepping up against syria, iran and russia -- neil: but you know, maybe the president is crazy like a fox. we got into this before. he is saying i'm going past these generals and talking heads on tv and telling the american people who don't know the kurds from the hole in the wall, all they know is that we overstay our welcome in wars that don't end, i'm sick of going to

funerals, going to dover to greet the families of loved ones whose coffins arrived on jet after jet, and that is his edge, that is where he is focusing his attention. what do you think of that? >> i think the average american doesn't necessarily understand the difference between what's going on in syria or turkey or the kurds. i think that's just really kind of above the regular person's pay grade who is just sitting at home with their kids and wife or whoever trying to figure it out. but i do think that in this particular instance, because we understand and i think particularly as the republican party has spoken so long about the fact that we are a nation that has to lead with american exceptionalism, our presence is needed in the middle east to stabilize that renal gion, the it has now become destabilized in a way we can no longer put that back together again, i think that's going to be -- neil: as we expected, twe will monitor this if it turns economic, but that they have established a deal for a

cease-fire right now. it might be too little, too late. >> even if you don't buy the american exceptionalism that we need to be there, we elect presidents to do possibly what's popular but also what's right. in this case, you could have said look, we shouldn't be there. that's their fight. we shouldn't be there. i was elected on a promise to remove troops. that is a totally defensible position but then there's a way to do it. right? you go to turkey, to syria, you work with the russians, you say this is our end game here, maybe it sells, maybe it doesn't, but you don't just do it overnight. then you see the political consequences and it is fascinating to see the republicans enmasse, not enmasse, 60 in the house voted against that resolution but to turn on the president for this. maybe a little bit of displaced, we aren't going to turn on him for ukraine because that's too messy and difficult, but we will for this. neil: the genie is out of the bottle. mitch mcconnell, lindsey graham, two prominent republicans are saying we have to get even

tougher here. i am interested if we can, in turning to the vice president. he is addressing the details of this freeze in activity participate the turks. >> -- an agreement today to coordinate efforts on detention facilities and internally displaced persons in formerly isis-controlled areas. also, turkey and the united states agree on the priority of respecting vulnerable human life, human rights and particularly the protection of religious and ethnic communities in the region. i spoke to president trump just a few moments ago and i know the president is very grateful for president erdogan's willingness to step forward to enact this cease-fire and to give an opportunity for a peaceful

solution of this conflict that commenced one week ago. for my part, i'm grateful for the president's leadership. i'm grateful for the more than five hours of negotiations with president erdogan and his team that arrived at a solution that we believe will save lives. let me also say i'm very grateful for this team. and to be able to have alongside the secretary of state mike pompeo. our national security adviser, robert o'brien. ambassador jim jeffries and ambassador david satterfield, it's a great privilege. each of the members of this team contributed equally to achieving this outcome. neil: we are going to continue monitoring this. again, the vice president commenting on these developments to get a cease-fire out of president erdogan of turkey, so you know, we are just looking at

what were the economic incentives for this. i think joe mentioned earlier maybe some of the sanctions and the other threatened moves they would make got maybe some light into this to change this. anyway, we are rejoined by so k zacha zachary, joseph and lizzie macdonald. i called her wicked smart lizzie of "the evening edit." i don't want to be dismissive about this, but i'm seeing the administration give itself a pat on the back for putting out a fire that it caused. >> yeah. so right now, you're having the first responders in the administration step in to put out that fire so what is the deal that they are going to reach with turkey? is it stopping the cease-fire? we're looking at news crossing that erdogan is agreeing to suspend turkish incursion into northern syria in 120 hours,

that turkey will suspend its operations to allow -- neil: you can do a lot in 120 hours. >> it's after the fact. neil: that's longer than most of my diets. >> i won't go there. but so you know, some detention facilities, so on and so forth. turkey has been saying we will not stop the fighting unless -- until, until we create a safe zone for our operations there. i'm not sure that's changed. neil: i'm not sure what economically we pushed or threatened. >> i'm sure the economic sanctions in the senate were more biting to erdogan than the meeting with pence and pompeo today. that didn't come from the white house. that was going to come from congress and would have mattered greatly. erdogan's facing his own domestic issues. there's a lot going against erdogan until this. neil: he was enjoying broad

popular support in his country for this. >> it's not like they were going to go to aleppo. this was always a limited incursion, that they were going to stop on their own. this is a way of, yes, give the trump white house the appearance of victory for something that was going to happen anyway. >> turkey, more than half of its debt -- excuse me, more than half of its economy is backed by foreign denominated debt. what could the white house do? what could the treasury department do? stop dollar trade, stop turkey from using our u.s. banking system. it needs dollars to settle trade. that is always, you know, a card that the trump administration could pull on them. it threatened that with other countries as well. neil: you know, there's no problem saying i goofed, right? why can't you just say, as in the bay of pigs, yes, i'm new in

office, these generals recommended this move, it's on me, it stops here, it's my goof, his poll numbers went up ten points in a couple of days. i'm not saying all right, you know, the president, you know, botched it, but he botched it. he could have just said all right, this reaction is overwhelming reaction i'm getting from generals, i'm getting from those in my own party, they're right about this, i'm trying to make it right and move on. and i don't think this would become nearly the big production that it is. >> kennedy's victory has 1,000 fathers and failure is an orphan. i think there's almost this constitutional inability of president trump and the administration to ever admit fault. i don't think we are ever going to see that. neil: i get that. i know the strategy is don't even succumb to that because once you do, they will be all over it. fine. but i don't think there's great harm and the american people,

when you overplayed your hand, it didn't work out the way you thought, and you move on. >> i think there's the moral responsibility that we have as a nation overseas and the political realities of what we have stateside. i think the fact you end up having mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi in lockstep, at a time when we are so completely polarized i think speaks to the fact there was outcry in a bipartisan manner. i think that that more so than anything is why you see your vice president pence overseas, dealing with this directly. i think it's why you see so many individuals in the trump orbit right now trying to say how do we again put out this fire because even if they're not going to admit publicly that they took actions, they really cannot be undone, right, in the sense the children never stole the cookies before. but you never left the cookie jar unlocked. that's what we are dealing with right now. unfortunately, we are not talking about cookies, we are talking about human lives, stability in the region where we need it. >> will the senate, mitch mcconnell, pick up the house resolution condemning how this

was handled in syria. we know lindsey graham -- neil: the turks were more responding to that than they were to this other stuff. >> i think there's a lot of outrage because the kurds did help us in the fight against al qaeda. neil: maybe the way to deflect is hold the next g-7 meeting at doral. >> wow. okay. neil: stranger things have happened. and keep happening. more after this. i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go.

at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. ♪

neil: all right. we are monitoring this press conference featuring the vice president and secretary of state. they're outlining the details of that cease-fire in syria. i think lizzie touched on it best to say that it is something that will roll into the next 120 hours, so you can do a lot of bombing and other things in that

period. we don't know the full details. we are monitoring that. when they kind of spell that out, which they haven't yet, we will pass that along. meantime, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg addressing free speech as conservatives are saying you know what, you are actually stifling ours. hillary vaughn at georgetown university with the latest on that. interesting venue. reporter: zuckerberg just wrapped up his remarks at georgetown university. he's now expected to take some questions from georgetown students, some of them waiting over six hours before the event started to get a seat inside and get the chance to ask zuckerberg about some of the policies surrounding freedom of expression. he did say today that his company did think about censoring all political ads on facebook. ultimately they decided that was not the way to go. he says he doesn't believe that facebook has a right to censor politicians in a democracy. he made an interesting case, saying that he thinks that a lot of people criticize facebook as

having a lot of power over content that's unchecked, that they have a monopoly over it, but he says they are the answer to what was essentially a monopoly held by news media organizations and politicians, as the only way for people to get access to information. >> people no longer have to rely on traditional gate keepers in politics or media to make their voices heard. that has important consequences. i understand the concerns that people have about how tech platforms have centralized power. but i actually believe there's a much bigger story, how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people's hands. reporter: he did also talk about a rival app, tik-tok, that's come under fire for censoring any content related to hong kong protests, even here in the u.s., saying that is an example of one reason why facebook is not in china, because he does value freedom of expression. he also made an interesting

comment when explaining they would put in place an independent board to decide what content stays up and what content goes. he says he would not be able to overturn any decision that this independent oversight board comes to, because he also said he is not going to be around forever. now, what exactly that means, we don't know, but he did say he wants to put these policies in place so that if he's not at facebook or not at the company, that freedom of expression is still protected and valued. neil? neil: hillary, thank you very much. hillary vaughn on all of that. lizzie, isn't this the same university they have the steps from the exorcist? >> why you asking me that? neil: joking. joking. you know, it's interesting, say what you will of zuckerberg and all the attention he gets from the left and the right for different reasons, his stock is up north of 40% this year. >> yeah. teflon stock.

the apology tour is irritating but it seems to work. but you know what's interesting, you wonder like there's threats to break up facebook, i think the way a politician got really angry at facebook and wanted to stop them, do an antitrust action on the next acquisition. the last big one was oculus five years ago. they have been making small bore acquisitions since then, not really marquee names that you would know about. so if they want to really disrupt mark zuckerberg, antitrust. neil: obviously his nightmare scenario is elizabeth warren. >> although to be fair, look, if you brought up facebook into its largest parts with whatsapp, instagram and facebook and oculus, everybody who ran those companies would still be a behemoth in their respective areas. neil: like the breakup of at & t. >> or the breakup of standard oil. you have six incredibly powerful oil companies instead of one. you certainly didn't have 60. the thing about the markets now, i think this is true in general, is facebook stock is up because

facebook is making an incredible amount of money. regardless of all their missteps around privacy, around whether or not they are governing their platform well, you still have two billion users and even 500 million of those are inactive, it's a huge number of people globally and advertising dollars are going there. neil: a hedge fund buyer just on the notion of anticipation of being broken up, the shares went up. >> that's my point. there's a lot to criticize facebook for. zuckerberg, you know, may be on the side of the angels when it comes to free speech and opening up a larger platform than those available democratically before facebook and that is actually an argument we should take seriously, it does give a lot of people a voice that's real, that they probably should have and there should be a platform for, but the stock is going to trade based on whether or not advertising dollars are going. not based on whether or not zuckerberg is an appealing guy or whether the company is a good company. neil: or even despite the wagons

circling the government. >> it's a multi-year thing. the last time government tried to break up big tech was microsoft in '99 and 2000. it narrowly failed. that doesn't mean it will fail now. but the scenarios don't exactly lead to impoverishment even with an elizabeth warren presidency. a lot of individuals who are talking about, you know, the tech and the way they don't we have this confluence of individuals, this robust amount of users who flock to this platform that empower somebody like aoc to beat a ranking member like joe crowley but also empowers ron desantis to come out of nowhere and be elected governor of florida. it goes both ways. to me, i come from the position that facebook, you know, is a private company, so in the sense that we have the opportunity right now to have your voice be heard in ways that never existed before, and i think that even if you want to break them up, to your point, even if you try to slice facebook in half, eventually there would be a

robust gathering of people again which again would negate the whole process and we would start all over from scratch and there would be a facebook 2 still having that same level of influence. neil: but would it be still an issue for all of these high tech giants, the fang stocks and all that, no matter who becomes president, no matter what the makeup of congress is, they have a target on them? >> yes. >> there's going to be some regulatory framework, whether in the form of antitrust, whether it's writing new laws. antitrust was just a category we made up in the 1890s to deal with large conglomerations of power on the part of big corporations. >> or to take away their safe harbor protection where they are not allowed to be sued for third party content. >> that's coming from republicans, coming from democrats, doesn't matter if elizabeth warren is president or donald trump is president. i think the tech world is unprepared for that reality but they are not going to suddenly, you know, be broken up the way the image of it is. it's not going to become all these billionaires are, i don't know what, they are going to move and think about the old

days. big tech is going to be big tech. neil: lizzie, the whole brexit thing, if you don't mind my ending on a ratings juggernaut, kidding, it passes the european leaders, they said go ahead, try it in britain. if it succeeds, and it's an uphill climb, i grant you, what will the world be like? >> i don't think the uk is saying eu later any time soon. but you know, because now they are talking about putting it back to a vote, to the british people for a vote. so the uk parliament, the 27 countries in the eu -- neil: 27 countries have approved it. now it goes to parliament on saturday. what if boris johnson gets the votes, then what happens? the fear is it's going to be bedlam, oliver twist time in britain. i don't know. >> i think that britain gets some control back, but not all of the control. i think this is a dramatically different deal than what they voted on in 2016.

that's why the talk is put it back to the british people for a vote because it's different. it is a . >> we're not talking about 2016 brexit anymore. we're talking about something where marketing remained the same. substance of the deal. neil: they're still walking away from europe? >> look -- neil: who has more to worry about? britain the argument has more than europe. europe is worried life goes on in britain. all bets are off november first. very strong interests economically and not having that kind of destructive event. they have their own political problems. a break, whereby britain, under these terms of this deal, actually do continue to pay into the eu for a whole series of.

neil: what if the uk does quite well. if you're portugal or italy, it is not killing them. >> there is a lot of payment this will cost the uk money with voters did not anticipate. you're right over time. that is the case. if people go hey, we can leave and be like that. depends how economically intertwined. you get more than you get. it will all come down to that. neil: i think it is going to work. >> it will work. if they get ireland in as you know, they're your people. neil: oh the irish. had to end on the irish. thank you very, very much. apologize we're breaking away. all other breaking news here. bottom line is, we don't know how this whole thing will go with britain. we'll cover it live on saturday the big vote, 10 a.m. to noon on

saturday, following that. we have right now markets up in this crises going on, whether they hold the next g7 at miniature golf course, wherever they hold it no one seems to be panicking. enter charles payne. >> neil, thanks a lot. i'm charles payne this is making money. cease-fire reached in syria. turkey and u.s. agreed that the priorities should be defeating isis. we'll have more on this throughout the hour. also breaking right now, we're back in the green on wall street a investors digest a host of news. mixed batch of earnings report. news that britain reached a tentative deal to leave the eu all that and so much more on "making money". ♪. charles: tentative is the word of the day. might be the word of the year. it is making it