that will be something for us to watch. melissa: especially because there's no doubt they will talk about the china trade deal among other things. i mean he's outspoken on daca. a lot of the issues that the president is tackling right now. connell: thanks for joining us. bulls & bears. >> the truth is we have no choice because the people we're running against are crazy. [laughter] >> they're crazy. [applause] david: for that he got an applause. slamming his 2020 rivals and continuing to build his case for his reelection around the strong economy telling business leaders today his policies which are generated a boom in jobs and wealth are all at risk in 2020. hi everybody. this is bulls and bears. i'm david asman. joining me on the panel today, christina partsinevelos, jonathan hoenig, liz peek and john burnett. president trump giving a speech

at the economic club of new york, warning wall street and business leaders that all the economic growth and record stock market gains we have seen under his administration could all be lost. listen. >> i think the biggest risk is the election, i will be honest. i think the biggest risk because i actually believe some of these people mean what they say. our country is strong. our country is great. our economy is probably the best it's ever been and we want to keep it that way. david: we should note the dow turned slightly negative after his economic speech, but finished the day unchanged. liz, i want to talk about what he said. i also want to talk about how he was received. he was interrupted 20 times, 20 different times by applause in this speech in the heart of manhattan, where the elites supposedly don't like him much. >> yeah, i think actually the applause and the standing ovations he got were somewhat surprising, but i think it really surprised president trump. i think he started speaking and had very little knowledge of what this crowd was going to do. i thought he was very tentative

in the beginning. i have seen him to speak to rallies and to cpac where he comes booming out and lays it out there. i think he was nervous about this group. guess what? i would say at least half to two thirds in his corner, very much willing to applaud the gains in jobs, and to his credit he really stayed focused. in fact someone said this to me afterwards, he really stayed focused on jobs, on working people. he must have mentioned working people 25 times in this speech. it was powerful, and i thought he did a good job. it was well received. >> two thirds i think that were with him were on tax cuts and deregulation. maybe the one third they weren't so with him on what was trade which once again is an impact on this economy. even the last couple of weeks, we have heard over and over again that the tariffs are on. the tariffs are off. the tariffs with europe are on, then off. this continues to be -- you are right. it was a great response from the business community, but that issue of trade, which is one of the president's central issues

continues to be a thing for a lot of ceos. >> the president did change his wording with this speech, which we don't hear very often. he used real wage growth -- david: we hear that a lot. >> not that specific with numbers especially with this type of crowd because he understands who he is speaking to. he was a little bit more diligent on that. to your point, which i do agree with completely, there was no full discussion about what's going to happen once again with this phase one of the trade deal except he did say if they don't accede, he's going to substantially increase those tariffs. the other major talking point too is rallying against the federal reserve, these other countries had negative interest rates so why don't we? then you have larry kudlow that was later on another network say they don't want negative interest rates. if you are calling for negative interest rates, isn't that saying that you're not confident in the economy? david: at the same time, his major point, john, once again as we saw in the beginning was you would have to be crazy to vote for -- so it is either me or somebody with a socialist idea and you don't want that; right? >> absolutely.

there's no one better to talk to an audience and know the audience better than donald trump. you know, the thing is is that when i -- i was there actually in 2016 when he spoke to the economic -- >> yeah, me too. >> he laid out everything that he was going to do. guess what? he tried and accomplished many elements of what he actually set out the to do. -- out to do. with respect to trade, he said it wasn't going to be easy; right? >> he actually did. he said the trade wars were good and easy -- >> and americans were not paying for it. >> he said the mexico situation would be easy, right, in terms of paying for it, but look, the thing is we all knew it wasn't going to be a piece of cake. look at where the markets are now. we are actually again ready to hit another high. we hit another high today; right? so this is not going away. at the same time, he's fighting the good fight. and just like navarro said, once this fight is done, phase one, hopefully we can get it done within the next couple of months or so, even sooner, possibly even before the year end, we

actually might see dow 30,000. how's that -- >> i think the reason the market traded down a little bit after the speech was because some people went in expecting him to make some news, and the news that he could have made would be to say next monday we're signing this phase one, and he didn't say that. in fact, what he said was they want it more than we do, and i'm not so sure. we will look at it hard. >> i'm just saying that's what he said over and over again. david: the one thing he did say today was he said i'm not president of the world. i'm president of the united states. that's an effective line that i've heard when he speaks out in the hinterlands, but he said it right here in manhattan. in fact, what we see in britain right now is they try to disentangle themselves from the european regulatory strata is what he is saying we were headed towards before he became president. >> this is the whole attack on globalists as i understand. david: you can understand wanting to detach from the

regulators around the world; right? >> without question, david. that's when the president is at his best when he talks about american independence and the ability to have that sovereignty and live your own life. >> nationalism, in other words. david: that's what he calls it. >> the tariffs as we talked about, look, navarro said the dow could be at 30,000 by 2020. the president i think is more correct when he said the dow could have been double the price if not for the trade war. he was correct. >> he also pointed out risk; right? he laid out everything that he's done in terms of where we are with the market. you know what? if you don't elect me, guess what? that's a bigger threat. >> john, you had just said that it was a success, he's fighting the good fight for phase one, but this phase one, the details that we know thus far, do not include anything which is the original reason for this, but -- [speaking over each other] >> no emphasis for enforcement on the theft of intellectual property, stopping state intervention when it comes -- >> we should put everything in

the same bucket as the risk of -- >> [speaking over each other]. >> he emphasized fair and reciprocal trade. phase one i believe does include aspects having to do with intellectual property and other things that they are interested in. there are several chapters to it. i think somehow it's gotten talked about as being simply a tariff reduction. that's not what it is. it is more complete than that. david: to switch a little bit here, you can see why bloomberg is thinking seriously of getting in the race because his line at the beginning was so captivating and again to liz's point, that this is in front of an establishment audience that doesn't necessarily like him. he said you may hate me, but you've got to vote for me because the only other people running are socialists. >> it's frustrating -- there's so much frustrating about the president, even from more traditional conservatives like myself but my gosh the democrats are so far out there. they are so lunatic some of these policies especially elizabeth warren that somebody

like bloomberg who is pretty leftist himself looks like a real centrist by comparison. >> we also knew that bloomberg was going to be in the backdrop. he had to work on his demeanor. >> precisely. >> he delivered very precisely, very smoothly, look presidential and hit on the economic points. >> this was not a crowd that was going to be chanting lock her up. >> he needed to appear presidential. >> that's what i was saying. >> he hit on all the economic points and financial data. >> to the whole bloomberg conversation, though, most business leaders do say this could potentially be somebody that we would vote for if we're considering a democratic candidate. however, the concerning thing still is the data. the data isn't showing that. we're talking about the polls -- david: isn't showing what? >> isn't showing the support for bloomberg. >> it is awfully early. i thought the fact -- [speaking over each other] david: this is when it begins.

>> it is early. david: it is early but people -- >> i think that bloomberg made a mistake by having all the chatter and not saying i'm in. if he's going to do this, he needs to get in. over the weekend there were probably 50 opinion pieces. at least two thirds of which were extremely negative, including the "new york times" saying don't run. david: liz, you know him better than anybody at this table. what do you think is going to happen? >> well, i think he will go in. i think he wants to do it very much. if he also is deterred by these polls, then he won't. we wants to win. if he's going to win, he wants to be win. david: we have to move on. public impeachment hearings set to begin tomorrow. what should we expect as the first witnesses take the stand? we have the latest live from capitol hill, coming next. >> my guess is, it's going to be a complete circus. we're not going to get any of our witnesses. the mainstream media is going to say how damaging it is to the president. that's just going to be the storyline.

fun fact: 1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with. and most of that debt is actually from credit cards. it's just not right. but with sofi, you can get your credit cards right, by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. you can get your interest rate right by locking in a fixed low rate today. and you can get your money right with sofi. check your rate in two minutes or less. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k. i am royalty of racing, i am alfa romeo. (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly) when the food you love doesn't love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. ♪ tum tum-tum tum tums

>> democrats in washington would rather pursue outrageous hoaxes and delusional witch hunts which are going absolutely nowhere. don't worry about it. david: president trump slamming democrats ahead of tomorrow's first public impeachment hearing, and the democrats are now using the word extortion to describe president trump's july phone call, with the president of ukraine, for a road map of where things go from here, let's bring in fox news senior capitol hill producer. good to see you, chad. using the term extortion as the democrats are doing, doesn't that raise the bar of proof for the democrats in their charge against the president? >> the democrats are trying to do two things. they are trying to make this narrative understanding to the public. when they use a phrase like quid pro quo, that's latin of course, they don't know that the average guy in gets that. they are trying to make this

more centralized and easy to understand. republicans will argue in their line of questioning tomorrow, yes, there might have been things done that look inappropriate, but they will say, you know, look, there was no deliverable. you know, there was a request, maybe for an investigation. there was a request to hold up aid, but they eventually got the aid and there was not an investigation of the bidens, therefore, was there any extortion or quid pro quo? that's the problem. republicans will also hone in tomorrow on bill taylor, the acting ambassador to ukraine and george kent, the state department official because they did not have direct custody, first-hand knowledge of the phone call and what they will be talking about tomorrow, david, hinges on their interpretations of what was going on. >> so when i look at this impeachment hearing and i look back at 2016, the only difference is that in 2016, president trump didn't know he was under review or investigation. now everything is out in the open, and the democrats are putting on a show, not worthy of

broadway, but putting on a show. but the thing is, when the republicans bring their witnesses to the forefront and start questioning and so forth -- >> the republicans don't have any witnesses tomorrow. >> but eventually; right? >> no, not necessarily, not necessarily. >> how is that a fair process? >> this is the question that republicans keep raising. and you are going to hear a lot of commentary tomorrow from the republican side of the aisle about process, that they are being left out. now, republicans, democrats this afternoon said that they still might allow witnesses. they did not completely rule it out. you know, but republicans put in their witness request list on saturday morning. and all of them according to adam schiff were out of bounds. that's why it was so important for democrats about two weeks ago to pass that resolution to put this under the jurisdiction of the intelligence committee and kind of tamp down the parameters here. there might be witnesses if there are actual hearings in the judiciary committee.

again, the judiciary committee won't actually mark up, write the articles oaf impeachment but that's -- articles of impeachment but that's different from having a hearing. there may be no republican witnesses in this impeachment inquiry. >> chad, it's kristina, you seem to know everything that's going on. i want to ask about bolton specifically. he's not complying with the impeachment inquiry yet. he signed a 2 million dollars book deal and there was some private dinner he attended very recently and gave a speech talking about internal white house matters. did you hear about this? >> this is one of the things that nobody quite knows what john bolton's power play is in this. does he want to protect his book deal? and therefore not come and testify, but he's given some other signals that maybe he's willing, you know, depending on, you know, how the process plays out in the courts and the subpoena and so on and so forth. that's going to be a very interesting dynamic to watch. but by the same token, democrats are up against the clock here. if they feel they can present a

case and a narrative in the public view, they may figure they don't need john bolton even though they would like to have him. >> chad, it is liz peek. my view of this whole thing is that the public is not going to learn anything that they haven't already heard about in the last, i don't know, three or four weeks. we're going to hear the same people make the same claims. yes, they will be cross-examined by some republicans. i just think it is going to be a great big snore. am i completely wrong here? or are we going to walk away after a couple of weeks saying wow, that was like a nothing burger. >> again, everybody thought the mueller hearing was going to be the be all end all, we used the term earlier broadway, i asked a democrat from california member of the intelligence committee, the day after the mueller hearing, i said what did robert mueller fail to do? and swalwell responded, he said well if you thought this was supposed to be a broadway show, that was his quote, he said you would be disappointed. what democrats want to do is curate this narrative. sometimes in these hearings it

is hard to predict what will happen. a lot of times there's a big hearing and we're expecting big things and it turns out to be a dud. other times what we think is a snore fest turns out to be something dramatic. democrats are looking for that moment. you know, think back historically what we've seen in big hearings before. i think about howard baker, during the 1973 watergate hearings. >> got to keep it simple. >> exactly. that's why they are moving that language from quid pro quo to extortion. >> it seems to me it is not a broadway show, but they have to keep it simple here, less the democrats risk kind of losing the narrative. they might remember it was back during the lewinsky hearings when the whole move on started. the idea was move on from lewinsky hearings. if the democrats can't kind of keep it simple and make the case now, they might lose the entire impeachment narrative all together >> here's the dirtiest little secret in the building, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle will tell you that they don't think this will move the meter at all. >> exactly. >> the democrats think they have the goods on the president.

they think there was wrongdoing there. republicans aren't willing to budge and vote for impeachment or get off the bus here at all. if you look at the president's poll numbers they are historically in the high 30s, low 40s, it doesn't matter. as one republican said to me last fall it doesn't really matter what happens to him. this is the quote 5th avenue test as the democrats said to me a few weeks ago. no matter what donald trump does, he always has a certain percentage of the voting public that's against him and the other part that thinks he can do no wrong. david: ultimately the only thing that will matter probably will be the election a year from now. that's what we're looking to. chad, it is going to be interesting theater. it all begins tomorrow. i know you are happy to cover it >> a broadway show, right. concerns over privacy as a new report goes public on a secret google project amassing your personal health records, actually those of 50 million americans including names, birthdays, all the personal stuff about your health, without consent. but at least one of our

panelists says this is a good thing? we'll debate that, coming next. here, it all starts with a simple...

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

david: is google collecting your personal health data without your knowledge or approval? the "wall street journal" reporting there is a secret google initiative. it's called project, in which the the most intimate health data of 50 million americans affiliated with the ascension health system is being scooped up. neither patients nor their doctors have been notified about this, and some privacy experts say it is all perfectly legal, but some ascension employees are raising questions now about the way the data is being collected. so should we be alarmed? now, jonathan, i was shocked

that a libertarian like you wouldn't be bothered about this. >> everything that google -- >> delighted you are? >> yeah, delighted. do you remember what it was like going to a library before google came along? do you remember the micro or the card catalog? david: i do. >> everything they are doing is 100% legal. everything they are doing with ascension is 100% hippa approved. they are trying to bring the same type of innovation they brought to search and every other element of american life to something that's not been innovated and that's our health records. whether it's ai kind of looking at your big picture and saying maybe this type of treatment could benefit those. this is going to improve care. if they weren't doing this, you would say these fat cat pharmaceutical managers, these fat cat hospitals just cashing their checks, not innovating. >> i would never say that, but i would say this is an outrageous breach of privacy. i mean, i don't mind at all google amassing an enormous amount of medical data to test,

if someone has a particular disease and they have 40 examples and ai could say you should have this medication. excellent. you don't need someone's birth date, profile and name to get that kind of information and make it useful. health is certainly an industry ripe for disruption. it is absolutely essential that we get these big tech firms involved. i don't want my medical history out there for dozens apparently maybe hundreds of google employees to be able to tap. that's outrageous. >> i'm surprised that you are surprised with jonathan's reaction. let me explain myself first because jonathan always goes in favor of the company and the corporation. we saw this. so to your point, i agree, that in the future, we're heading -- unfortunately we're heading in this direction because the ai, the artificial intelligence -- >> [inaudible]. >> but there was a 96 act put into play, a federal health insurance portability and accountability act that allows hospitals to share data with -- [talking over each other] >> but then to counter that, because i love to do both sides,

you have a lawsuit that was filed, and we haven't mentioned that, with the university of chicago that google has access to all seven years of information of patient information without telling them. that's the point. david: there's some suggestion from ascension employees themselves that google has gone beyond a certain line in terms of providing data that is more than what was expected. you're supposed to provide data that only affects your healthcare. in fact they have gone beyond that and have provided data that may be more than just that. >> right, looking at this, you know, the thing is being that we're at the topic of healthcare, i don't know, jonathan if it is drugs you are taking or need to take -- this is a bad idea. i didn't have to read the article; right? all i had to do was read the headlines. why? any time google and the word secret is in the same sentence, that's the red flag. >> all the trolls on twitter right now that just read the headlines. >> does it bother you that visa and mastercard know everything

that you buy? i mean it is the same premise here. these are professionals -- >> that's a flawed comparison. you know why? because when i purchase it, right, i already know that i'm using my visa card; right? they are settling the transaction. you know, when i walk into the doctor's office, how would i know at the time that i'm seeing the doctor that google will get my information? >> also sharing it with a bunch of other partners as well. you know that already. maybe not google. >> where someone's work life could be impacted by people finding out they have an incurable disease so their future is somewhat limited in terms of efficiency. david: that's why it is different for visa and mastercard. we have to move on. what a great segment. thank you, gang. the supreme court deciding the fate of more than 600,000 undocumented immigrants brought here as children. will they hand president trump a win and overturn obama's controversial daca program? that man you're looking at right now, fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano on how all this is going to play

out. that's next. >> now this court has to decide as to whether president obama was correct in following the lead of president reagan in protecting newcomers in our country or to support the illicit acts of president trump. driverless cars,

or trips to mars. no commission. delivery drones, or the latest phones. no commission. no matter what you trade, at fidelity you'll pay no commission for online u.s. equity trades. at fidelity you'll pay no commission my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain.

serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.

>> the president's relentless

scapegoating of immigrants is the most un-american thing i could think of. we, the senate democrats and the house democrats, will not rest until the dreamers behind us and the millions like them, whether they be dreamers or others, become full-fledged proud american citizens. [applause] david: key democrats taking a shot at president trump's stances on immigration, but the supreme court appears likely to side with the trump administration in its attempt to overturn president obama's daca program. this of course allows nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants, brought to the u.s. as young children, to live and work here. while a final decision, likely won't come down until june, president trump tweeted about what might come after that, and i'm quoting, many of the people in daca no longer very young are far from angels. some are very tough hardened criminals, but here's the important part, president obama said he had no legal right to

sign the order, but would anyway. if supreme court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with dems for them to stay. here now is fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. so judge, is the president right? could we end up here with a deal after all is said and done? >> i think that's probably the president's motivation, david. if he prevails today, and i agree with your analysis, just reading the transcript of the oral argument, it looks like this will be 5-4 upholding the administration. if he prevails today, i don't think he's going to start deporting 700,000 people. that would be economically catastrophic. each one of them is entitled to a hearing. it would be ruinness. but i do think he will use the threat of deportation to negotiate with the democrats. so the president in my opinion is right in his wheel house here. he is asking for the right to

enforce federal law. the right to enforce federal law he took under oath. he has an obligation to enforce federal law. not the executive orders of his predecessor, but the laws as written by congress. that's what this case is about. >> great points, judge, but the thing is, how will the president and his administration use this potential ruling in his favor to actually negotiate with the crazy dems as i normally say? the thing is that yes, he wants more border funding, but also how can he use this to get them to agree on some terms, right, to actually pass legislation to close all these loopholes? >> he might -- john, he might actually have to start the process of deportation, which in my view would be ruiness, catastrophic and heartless, but within his power to do so. >> wouldn't that be politically -- >> we work at fox with some of these daca folks. you can't tell where they were born. they are fully americanized. they are not criminals because daca does not allow anybody in

the program that has -- that has a criminal record. they are alien to the country to which they would be deported, but he would have the lawful power to deport them or to come close to deporting them in order to, shall we say, shake loose the democrats. >> to continue on that point, the government statistics show that 91% of daca recipients do hold jobs. i want to ask your opinion in terms of how this time around it differs to previous administrations in how they gave temporary legal status to, let's say, the 600,000 cubans or the 1.5 illegal immigrants in the 60s, is there anything that can be used differently in either for or against what the president wants to do? >> okay, so in the past, the president was on the side of the immigrants, and the president has the power to exercise what we call prosecutorial discretion, the right to say we're not going to deport this class of people because we have resources that we need to use

elsewhere. but when the president is not on their side, and is being restrained by the executive order of a previous president, by the way, no president is bound by the executive order of a predecessor because the present president can undo the executive order of a predecessor, unless the courts stop you. finally in the case of cuba, it was an act of congress that made it lawful for them once they set foot on american property to stay here forever. >> this is such a hot-button issue, judge. you know that so frustrating. -- you know that and so frustrating. the optics of rounding up young people who were brought to this country as kids and shipping them off to other countries they don't know. those optics are not good for the president in my opinion. republicans are worried about pathway for citizenship, couldn't these individuals be offered residency the permission to stay here without becoming citizens? >> very interesting, the daca program that president obama established does offer permanent

residency for those who qualify for the terms he came up with. the problem, jonathan is president obama asked congress to enact this as a statute and congress said no, and then he enacted it so to speak as an executive order on his own. that is a blatant violation of the separation of powers. congress writes the laws. the president enforces them, whether he agrees with them or not. david: unless it's an executive order, of course that's what this is all about. judge, great to see you. thank you very much. >> why am i not in that room for the rest of you? i'm out here in siberia. [laughter] david: next time, we will have you here at this table. what university newspapers are now apologizing for that's fuelling outrage on its own. campus reform digital reporter is sounding off, coming next. heading into retirement you want to follow your passions rather than worry about how to pay for long-term care.

brighthouse smartcare℠ is a hybrid life insurance and long-term care product. it protects your family while providing long-term care coverage, should you need it. so you can explore all the amazing things ahead. talk to your advisor about brighthouse smartcare. brighthouse financial. build for what's ahead℠ wow! giving one. how did you guys...? >>don't ask. the lexus december to rembember sales event get 0 percent apr for 60 months on all 2019 models. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next.

(man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. ♪ peyton, what abrad, welcome to peytonville. what's this for? song inspiration. i started in my garage, but nationwide protects so much

i had to expand. nationwide helps protect everything you see in here, brad. every family, every business, every dream. see mrs. hoffman? nationwide protects her home and car, but also her dream of retiring to become a yoga instructor. oh, they have backstories. of course they do. here, i got more to show you. keep up, now. a little hustle. david: the student newspaper at northwestern university issuing

a lengthy apology to students for covering a campus visit from former attorney general jeff sessions. the editors in the paper apologizing specifically for photos of the event and more important the protests that actually identified students from the photos saying students found the pictures to be, quote, retraumatizing and invasive end quote. the photos subsequently were taken down from the paper's website. for analysis, we're joined now by the digital reporter for campus reform. eduardo, what does all this say about the way northwestern is defining journalism? >> the northwestern student paper apologizing for even covering attorney general sessions' peach is really disturbing -- speech is really disturbing and shows how journalism has changed in our country. the paper also added and apologized for contributing to the harm that students felt by attorney general sessions presence and the fact that students would be harmed by a former public official's presence on campus is also really disturbing. but this is what happens on

campuses when you put feelings over facts. reporters and editors are supposed to gather the facts, gather the truth, and report that to the readers. the fact they are just tossing this aside at northwestern because they may harm or offend their readership it paints a sad picture for the future of journalism in our country. >> i'm a northwestern alumni. david: me too. >> i was shocked and disappointed in this bewildered about it. when i was there, you were excited to be challenged and excited for opposing viewpoints. that was kind of fun of college, hearing the opposing viewpoints of being challenged. was this only in the last ten years that this has started this focus on feelings and this aversion to being offended in any way? >> yeah, unfortunately we have seen this rise over the past two years. the leadership institute's campus reform we have covered this even in the last few weeks. a while back, harvard university, the student paper there had to apologize to its student base because the students were outraged that the student paper simply requested a comment from i.c.e.

so simply requesting a comment, which is part of journalistic practice is now something that has to be apologized for. like you said, we need to remember what journalism is supposed to be. often times around the world whether it's covering wars, exposing corruption, journalism is about exposing the truth, and if we can't even get that on college campuses, what are the next generation of student journalists going to do when they get into the real world? it is really a sad day. >> i'm worried about journalism. i'm really more worried about the young people coming out of these colleges for being incredibly -- i mean where there's courage? they're harmed by seeing a picture or hurt by hearing jeff sessions? this is ridiculous. isn't there anyone on any of these campuses in the administration building who can stand up and say this is preposterous we are not going to apologize for having different points of view. i agree with jonathan, in my college days we sat around and debated what do these kids do now? play video games? >> wow, liz. >> it's true.

>> i think you are overgeneralizing right now. >> we hear about this all the time. >> this is what eduardo was saying, the example of future of journalism. let's not discount the quality, investigative pieces that comes out of a lot of other small school newspapers across the country. >> we are talking about college campuses. >> i'm trying not to put my opinion out there. i don't think they should have apologized or anything like that, but i don't think that you can generalize and say that every kid is just going to be playing video games. >> except we hear these stories. [talking over each other] >> everybody is sensitive now. everyone is sensitive. >> times have really changed; right? back when i was a student, i'd be happy to get my face in the student newspaper. >> there's that. >> that's a badge of honor. i would be trying to find out everyone -- >> by any means necessary? >> by any means necessary. but my question is this, what are the faculty members saying

to these students >> yes. >> they are supposed to be upholding the tenets of the 1st amendment. >> i agree. >> that's the question. it starts with these professors. we wonder what they are telling our students to make them feel comfortable enough to do this. look, part of that journalism is you are going to read stories that make you feel uncomfortable. your ideas are going to be challenged. you are going to read things that horrify you and that's part of what the industry is. if we're going to toss things aside that may bother us, we won't have freedom of the press and have stories that expose deep truths and the entire industry will not look like what it does today. >> what's so chilling, this is not just coming from the administration. this is coming from the the students. david: eduardo, what happens when these journalists have to cover war zones or something like that? i mean if graduate school is supposed to prepare you for a profession, these students are being graduated without being very professional, are they? >> and no, i don't think they would be capable of doing that.

they can't even cover a speech by attorney general sessions. forget crossing a world to cover a war. it goes beyond the student newspapers and the student journalists. this happens with any speaker who comes to campus. students are now encouraged hey, if you disagree with the speaker, if you want to feel harmed or feel uncomfortable, you can shut them down because of course their safety is apparently the most important thing on the campus. >> i think that's exactly the point. again, journalism is one thing. i agree, we're worried about that. but what is the harm to a student in hearing an opposing point of view? the entire premise is completely bonkers. i mean, honestly, i don't understand it but it's become an incredibly common place complaent complaint, and i really think it is time for organizations such as yours and administrations on these colleges and trustees to stand up and say something because everyone's just letting it happen. >> is it just young people, liz? just in your opinion? we see this across the board with anybody from tv personalities to athletes, nobody can voice their opinion anymore. david: eduardo, you have about

five seconds to wrap this up. go ahead. >> well, as you were saying, it is going beyond the schools as people get older, as these students graduate, they are turning into, you know, professionals all across the country, and they are continuing to have that sentiment, where if they don't like something, they are offended by something, they can have it shut down. david: eduardo, you seem to have the right attitude and you are closer to the situation than any of us. we're glad you are there doing the work you do. thank you for joining us. appreciate it. >> thank you so much for having me. david: before we head to break, let's see what's coming up on "evening edit" tonight. elizabeth mcdonald is back. >> nikki haley is out with a new book, she's stepping up for the president as the media is now slamming her and pushing back. so where would nikki haley work in a trump second term? we'll ask trump 2020 campaign senior advisor laura trump about this one. plus you know how senat elizabeth warren claims she will not raise middle class taxes to pay for a government takeover of everything? including healthcare?

we have how warren will just seize the government revenues from federal, state and local taxes already paid to take away healthcare as it exists now. we've got a guest to weigh in on that. david: we like liz warren's first name, don't we elizabeth? liz: that's right. david: disney plus rolling out today at a screen near you. how much of an impact will the new service have on tv as know who it? cut. -- as we know it?

>> but this season, a more thrilling journey is calling. defy the laws of human nature. at the season of audi sales event. beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected.

to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

david: today's the big day for disney with the launch of disney plus here in the u.s., but it is not going off seamlessly. angry subscribers having a tough time connecting and they are blasting the company on-line. but other disney lovers are reporting heaven on earth, reliving their childhood dream machines. kristina has been on the story

all day. how much of a disrupter is the service going to be for the streaming market, kristina? >> that's a big question that i don't think i can really ask in the short-term, but if we're talking about disruption just this morning, you had disney plus over 100,000 people reported that they couldn't even load it on to their screen. disney took to twitter and apologized and hopefully we can bring up this tweet right now. the demand for disney plus has exceeded our highest expectations. we're so pleased you are excited to watch all your favorites and are working quickly to resolve any current issues. since we are talking about favorites, they have star wars on the entire saga in 4k, 30 seasons of the simpsons. >> it is like $6 a month? >> i'm going get to that. how does it compare to the rest of them? we have a beautiful chart to show you the price structures if you are wondering, netflix, it is really started to add up. disney plus falls into this -- right there 6.99 on the right side of the screen.

hulu 5.99. hbo the most expensive. netflix is 12.99 if you don't get the annual membership there. this goes to show what bob iger, the man who has been the ceo for 14 years how he's trying to move this old company that we all know and love into the future. there's several acquisitions that have been under his helm like pixar, marvel, lucas films, 21st century fox, that was a 71 billion dollars deal. the list continues >> they have the brands. they have got whether it's the lion king or snow white -- these brands that people know multigenerations know. they've also got the brick and mortar. they have the theme parks where people go and buy the merchandise, have those experiences. as you said, this is what $7 a month. >> 6.99. >> does anybody remember buying lion king vhs it was like 40 or 50 dollars 20 or 30 years ago. >> do you still have it? >> probably. [laughter] >> the consumer is the big winner from this once again.

>> i'm surprised they took this long to get into the market. from an investment perspective, this is ideal? why? because disney is diversified. you invest in netflix, they are a one trick pony. when you look at it from, you know, a comparison, you know what? they are doing pretty well. but also, you know, i teach at nyu, one of the student groups they actually chose a project. they chose cable versus all these other options. why? because the millennials, the gen zs, they are look agent the future of television, not television, but all streaming. they are all about who is going to give them the best bargain for the most content. >> but the question is, who? because in fact what everyone is now talking about is they may have to acquire six or seven subscriptions to kind of get back to what they had when they had a really -- >> that's why pricing is key here. >> it is. i'm saying even if it is pretty low pricing, you add them all together, it is not great; for. i mean there are people like me whose kids are grown up who see

that 21st century fox catalog, you see -- >> disney is in great shape because they have their library. for netflix, it is all -- >> production costs are a little bit of a concern. sorry to interrupt. david: we've got to wrap. >> long-term they are not turning a profit till 2024 according to them on this. david: it is safe to say that one person should never have an excuse to be late ever again after buying the world's most expensive wristwatch ever. we will take a look at what makes it special and ask our panel what luxury item they have recently splurged on. that's coming next. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on

♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

david: the most expensive watch sold, sold for 131 million.

the grandmaster chime watch was sold after an intense bidding war, made for charity run watch auction. john, what is your biggest splurge. >> time is money. let's get our word in correct. 1 you spend over -- once spend over a ter certain amount it ist longer a watch, it is a timepiece. >> does not have to be a watch? i bought a tote by louis vuitton this week. a special thing may made for a special event at nordstrom,. david: 5 seconds. >> i got the rock rogue dressin. >> i feel you can get everything

on a budget. products like that, consignment shops. david: i got a watch, but not like your watch. i spend money to my family, that does it for "bulls and bears," see you next time. elizabeth: nasdaq closing in on recorder ter to territory. the dow was unchanged. this as president gave a much anticipated speech here in new york city about the economy. tonight, media hysteria about recession. now fear of missing out on the run-up under president trump. the new poll from bank of america, president ranks fourth behind fdr, eisenhower and truman in s&p 500 total returns, meeting,