impeachment continue rocketing. i am neil cavuto and you are watching live. we are all focused on this 12 mission to send supplies to the international space station, northrop grumman is behind it. >> attitude nominal. power nominal. performance nominal, attitude nominal, pressure nominal. power nominal. tbc performance nominal. inter-performance nominal.

is to traded out for 1 °. the in 03 is open. engines remain at 100% and steady, beginning load relief. power is nominal. estimated out for 1 °, engines remain at 100% and steady. power is nominal. neil: this is the 12 resupply mission going to the international space station, the company behind it in concert with nasa. the united states is poised to send americans into space. the devil in the details is getting that right.

harrison schmitt is welcoming that the relevant and joining me later this hour. they are sending food, supplies to candy bars, and whatever astronauts are cosmonauts shared at the international space station want and if they are partial teresa's peanut butter cups they are sending that. we don't have details on that but the latest one. the 12th time we have seen this done. the concern for us astronauts is they have not been able to share in the fun getting themselves, we have been hitching rides from the russians to give us taxi rides to the international space station. and land in what constituted the old part of the soviet union but

pretty soon we will be doing it ourselves without the help of anyone else was a welcome development. here is something else that is rocketing, the cost of medicare for all. this is basic free cable-television. we have a lot of 2020 presidential candidate including elizabeth warren sweeping iowa today, she just released her own plan to pay for all of this. let's get the latest read in the cedar rapids today. >> reporter: 92 days until the first caucus in iowa and all the democratic front-runners, in a weekend packed with political events. beto o'rourke dropping out of the race hours before yesterday's liberty and justice dinner in iowa which felt like a rowdy concert, the fundraiser is considered the most important political event until this point

of the presidential election season credited with giving breakout moments to candidates like barack obama and at this year's events it was mayor pete buttigieg who saw the largest and loudest turn out. beto o'rourke telling his supporters to endorse whoever becomes the democratic nominee, attacking the president by alleging his campaign, quote, connected the dots to show the trump administration is racist. senator elizabeth warren's $52 trillion medicare for all plan that was unveiled yesterday making headlines being widely criticized as impossible. warn claims her plan won't raise taxes by a single penny. vice president biden attacks warren's plan saying it, quote, hinges on a giant middle-class tax hike. war and surprisingly did not directly address the plan on stage when she was up there for 10 minutes. she touched on it by criticizing her opponent saying they are willing -- and they will lose.

>> it is easy to give up on a big idea but when we give up on big ideas we give up on the people whose lives would be touched by those ideas, people who are struggling to pay their medical bills, already in a fight. >> at the president's rally in mississippi he touted jobs and the economy. >> under republican leadership jobs are booming, confidence is soaring, wages are rising, crime is falling and our nation is stronger than ever before. we are now an economic powerhouse.

>> another day of wall-to-wall events, democratic front-runners in iowa, naacp event and a classic iowa fish fry in cedar rapids. neil: you have heard a lot of back-and-forth on this, we spend $31 million on healthcare as it is and to extend it to those who don't have it, medicare for all is where you have $21 trillion coming in, $52 trillion. forget whether we can afford to do this. how could we do this? we have fox news contributor extraordinaire, aaron gibbs and millennial politics, but take on the democratic field, even joe biden said it is mathematical gymnastics, the numbers are not there and he is right to say

that. >> when you do a first read of it there are things worthy of debate especially when you get to the funding mechanisms but the plan that elizabeth warren laid out is a visionary document, a fundamental reimagining of american healthcare and the dream big fight hard structural change candidate this fits in line with her brand as a candidate. when you look at the status quo of 500,000 people going bankrupt every year due to medical care millions of people uninsured have no coverage at all. she is saying we can fundamentally insurance cover every american regardless of race, gender, income level - neil: when you are saying you

don't have to pay for it, she seems to be saying corporations, the rich are paying for it, wall street will pay for it, you do not. even bernie sanders to his credit saying i should include a tax on the middle class for this. you will get more from it then you pay into it but at least his math comes closer adding up. >> it is more than needs to be funded. all your nurses, hospitals, can make profits. >> 2 million of those jobs will go. >> he also said a lot of the savings would be $1.5 trillion, going to come from people who junk to their healthcare plan so

they don't have to pay but a lot of people who pay those premiums have tax-advantaged accounts which means if they go away your taxable income goes up so in that sense those people do pay more and are middle and lower class. >> a lot of people harmed by this but the bottom line is this is wildly popular with the american people, three and four americans think care for all is the solution and they don't care how they fund it. the idea -- >> 150 million americans who might have insurance it might quibble with some parts of it would jump out for this? >> they don't understand the details. what is popular to do something better than they have today? it might be better than it is today. what republicans do is say we understand you are frustrated and your coverage isn't what it used to be but medicare for all is in the answer. there is an alternative. trying to poke holes in the funding makes people's eyes glaze over and they don't care.

i will have mexico pay for, that is preposterous, voters just wanted the wall. >> even barack obama got the idea, medicare for all, sounds like brussels sprouts. it sound like a negative connotation. having said that i also wonder whether republicans should be aware they lost the house because they ignored this issue. they can dismiss it all the way ones and other reasons to substantiate that but it is a risk? >> the kota is the removal of choice, doesn't sit well with

the average american voter, and give credit to everyone at home who understands you are losing the forest for the trees and the assumptions you mentioned 100% is more than poking holes but taking on the responsibility is a if you are not going to pay for it in a way that makes sense, your vision of paying for it is such you rely on assumptions that will decimate the system ignoring the fact elizabeth warren - and the cost has to be absorbed somewhere, she's assuming prescription drug costs will reduce by 70% but the federal government will spend only 3.9% on healthcare rather than 5.5. >> also assuming more tax compliance when she comes up with $2.5 trillion for this, getting wall street tax going on

trades which might work out but -- >> what happens is the banks pass that on to anyone who owns not just stock but anyone who owns a 401(k) owns a mutual funds, those costs will go up and it will hurt the middle class. neil: let me raise this with you. bernie sanders was talking about a plan that was a little different from elizabeth warren, he can pay for it but everyone likes what i am coming up with, joe manchin, democratic senator that he would support. i got to talk to manchin about it and he did not agree. >> the bernie sanders thing. would you support his agenda? >> absolutely not. bernie brings a lot to the table and makes you think a little

bit. it is not practical where i come from. bernie keeps saying medicare for all, we can't even pay for medicare for some. neil: he went on to say the choice, donald trump and bernie sanders, a tough time deciding but seemed it would not the bernie sanders. >> elizabeth warren's plan, the first healthcare plan on the democratic and republican side that lays out exactly how she intends to pay for it. bernie sanders asked are you going to lay out a plan how you intend to pay for medicare for all? he said i don't think i have to do that right now. >> the middle-class wouldn't pay and i give you an example how it could. she was exacting that. >> she has been forthright to the extent more so than any republican or democrat in the race and at the end of the date is important.

neil: i have -- i'm looking at it that way. >> i appreciate that you look at that and say that. >> the point i want to make, they don't have an alternative. they are in federal court suing to end the affordable care act. it was before the democrats want to give healthcare to americans. neil: a lot more coming up. a quick update on this. a rocket will hook up with the space station monday morning bright and early and for the first time in american history two female astronauts will retrieve the goods and aforementioned trees's peanut butter cup. this is the story, this is america. c moment. congress really democratized wall street...

i wanted to have a firm that wanted to get everybody in. because people couldn't access wall street. we wanted to be agents of change. for the better. ♪

>> here is my challenge to adam

schiff. you want to be kenneth starr, b kenneth starr, come to the judiciary committee, be the first witness and take every question asked of you. neil: we thought that would be a good opportunity to talk to kenneth starr because republicans are telling adam schiff handle it like kenneth starr did, testify like he did. kenneth starr with us now. how are you? >> doing great, thank you. >> in the whitewater investigation, how did you do it differently? how was it handled differently? >> complete difference. i was a prosecutor and executive branch officer who had a duty to report to the house of representatives. what we are seeing here is this is a house show. bob mueller hasn't reported, no

other special counsel has reported so this is a circus happening entirely within the people's house. i believe in egregious mistake has been made to prematurely go to impeachment rather than saying there are serious questions on the ukrainian situation and we want to get to the bottom of it and through closed hearings as oversight but once the speaker of the house of representatives unilaterally declared this was impeachment it is a new ballgame and now we need transparency. all the other things fair-minded people are calling for. you chose the impeachment route as opposed to the traditional oversight route and when talking about the removal of a president process does indeed count. neil: now we presumably have a move toward process.

will republicans go ahead and subpoena anyone they want because there is no process in their impeachment preparation, refusing to interview monica lewinsky. are republicans being hypocritical here? >> everybody is a hypocrite. this is all about politics but i think republicans have a fairness point in terms of when you prepare the two processes, impeachment of bill clinton and this process the democratic minority had more rights and as i read the resolution and see how it was applied maybe it will be applied fair and square but as i read this resolution adam schiff continues with more deadlines to have enormous power. when it switches to the house judiciary committee as seems

inevitable, then greater fairness procedures will be triggered but for the foreseeable future the next two weeks we don't know how long. adam schiff is in control of the process and it is a closed process, no release of transcripts. neil: thank you for taking the time. good to see you. what is worse than being abu bakr al-baghdadi? how about being his backup? it was easy. folks, can it get any better than this? is that what i think it is? that is an armada of tiny sushi boats. awesome! i forgot to pack lunch. you had one job... chopsticks wasabi and soy! comin' in a little hot. it only gets better when you switch and save with geico. oh! you got a fast one there it only gets better just can't get him to slow down

this class will help with that we get it... you got it! we're petsmart! how did you find great-grandma's recipe?

we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian? grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. hey. behind ev ♪hey.estion you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

>> i kept saying where is abu bakr al-baghdadi? that the one i want, where is he? the following day we got number 2, don't know if you read about that. neil: now on to number 3, isis saying it's new leader is abu ibrahim al-hashimi al-quraishi. i said that 48 times. retired 3-star admiral, good to have you. >> good to be back. neil: we are looking at our third isis head in as many days that are we still dealing with a problem? not as much of a problem? >> we are dealing with a problem. just like it did for al qaeda when usama bin laden was taken down. there is not the thousands being attracted to the ideology of isis any longer, the thousands coming over the border into syria and a splintering of the

affiliates around the world, they metastasized everywhere and it is a problem but they are starting to hone in on their own domestic issues giving rise to murders and terrorism in those locales. we've got to keep in mind syria is ongoing. we had iran, turkey, russia in geneva deciding the outcome what happens in syria and we were not at the table. when we abandoned our kurdish allies of which one was in there to find where abu bakr al-baghdadi was, we removed ourselves for the final outcome in this -- neil: the guy is dead, his backup is dead. >> he was not a big threat or fear.

isis has metastasized everywhere. the real key is what is the outcome with iran. at the table in geneva - neil: i went to your campaign site. you don't sound like a lot of the other democrats running for president. you did say if elected president i will always remember this important admonition, no military can stop a problem, they cannot fix a problem. the trump policy in syria. we have been in the middle east spending $300,000, where do you find your policy distinct from his? they found very similar. >> let's take iran. we fixed iran with the power of

our economy and diplomacy, strange bedfellows, russia and china, to remove those sanctions, warfare making capability of nuclear devices that would have two in 60 days. and iran kept that not to start the centrifugees and tensions happened, and tensions applied more sanctions. he forgot military won't fix a problem. they can stop him. that happened in iraq. people who voted both democrats and republicans alike for iraq didn't understand how it might end before they decided to use our military. what i am telling you is the ideology of isis will never stop until not by our military, much as we stopped al qaeda from harming us over 19 years of warfare but to fix that problem you need the demise of an ideology. neil: you do part company with

your more liberal challengers running for president on the democratic side. i wonder how you feel about elizabeth warren, not to get into the medicare thing with you but among the savings she wants to extract to pay for it is cutting defense spending by $1 trillion over ten years, what do you think of cutting defense spending, $1 trillion? >> i do think we can have a much better military at less cost because our commander of the pacific has said as you know last year, china commenced the western pacific, the first loss of command of the seas by the united states navy since world war ii. the problem much as i advocate and i'm sure you looked at my website, we are building force structure. how many ships as a measure of our prowess? neil: you went to priorities,

the lump sum figure -- you disagree? >> i disagree you can set how much, it is a transformation into cyberspace warfare. the new domain of warfare like we took down the centrifuges of iran with a virus, cost a lot less to do that but much like medicare for all. poor planning is poor execution. it is a worthy goal to cut out the middleman, health insurance companies. neil: let me ask you. is medicare that great? everyone should have it? >> what i think, medicare for all which provides private hospitals is a worthy goal to get there without the middleman of healthcare. i want to see it prove itself by

showing it's better access, less cost and better healthcare and we can't say that without having a transition of choice to see one last point, how about the rural counties, the trump and clinton supporters, here i am in iowa and the hospitals are going to close in the next few years, medicare for all relies on that. my party has to look at it. if we want a hospital in rural counties, another testbed, that model can survive. so who is thinking, the medicare for all relies on private hospital. another public option to test towards can we get a hospital back in rural counties around the nation which is similar to what the new england journal of medicine says.

neil: thank you very much. you don't have to worry about political sides but thanks for your service. in the meantime there is this. supplies, check, food, check, reese's peanut butter cups, check, everything on board that rocket but one thing. apollo 17 astronaut harrison schmitt, what that one thing is. n for the talent. employees need more than just a paycheck. you definitely want to take advantage of all the benefits you can get. 2/3 of employees said that the workplace is an important source for personal savings and protection solutions. the workplace should be a source of financial security. keeping your people happy is what keeps your people. that's financial wellness. put your employees on a path to financial wellness with prudential.

neil: i want to show you something beautiful. a live shot from the international space station, this resupply mission, the 12th so far from northrop grumman making its way to the international space station. bright and early monday morning, the astronaut to do that incredible walk the other day are going to retrieve all the goodies from there and there a lot of goodies, 8200 pounds. an area of washington dc dovetails brilliantly with my next guest. griff jenkins is in our nations capital celebrating with the nationals, and epic event almost as epic as you above mother

earth. good to have you, good day. >> reporter: talk about it point. major-league baseball stats put the nationals at 0.1% as they won the world series and now they have. how about the nationals? neil, this is the end of the parade. all the way down here they have a rally, these people are fired up. are you excited? >> hell yeah! >> reporter: when the capitals won, almost 1 million people out here. these are filled up on both sides on pennsylvania avenue. people just going crazy. a world series team that won -- you can see -- what is your name? >> erika. >> reporter: how happy are you? >> i am over the moon, this is great! >> reporter: did you think they might not win? >> not a chance.

they had to win. >> reporter: i would also like to say it tied during the postseason. just some of the fans are younger. what is your name? i saw you working on your pitch. you are excited and you spent a birthday a game. tell me about that. >> i was at the game and hung out with my dad and we got food. neil: who is your favorite player? >> très turner. >> reporter: did you doubt the nationals were going to win? there we go. he is being honest. never before has a team trail four games, come back in won, it starts at 2:00 pm, the party doesn't end today. tomorrow at the capitals hockey game the gnats will be featured.

donald trump has invited them to the white house. are you excited? that is what is happening here. don't forget, the baby shark won it all. look at that. throw it back to you. neil: that is awesome. i might point out the yankees would not necessarily lead something like this, maybe frank sinatra but nationals - is that happening on mother earth in the nations capital, you heard that one fan feeling over the moon. that is not something we put in a person's mouth. there's a lot of controversy about who is going to testify and what and whether they get john bolton. every time we hear some nasty stuff and the back and forth i want to leave you with this

image and just show that from out in space you can't hear any of it, not a word. we trust usaa more than any other company out there. they give us excellent customer service, every time. our 18 year old was in an accident. usaa took care of her car rental, and getting her car towed. all i had to take care of was making sure that my daughter was ok. if i met another veteran, and they were with another insurance company, i would tell them, you need to join usaa because they have better rates, and better service. we're the gomez family... we're the rivera family... we're the kirby family, and we are usaa members for life. get your auto insurance quote today.

neil: i want to show you the view from the international space station of earth and every time i see this shot i am reminded of apollo 8 which was taken around christmas time in 1968. frank borman who had that flight quoted from genesis at the time to note there are no boundaries on earth, no lines between countries on earth. it is one big beautiful planet, one big beautiful people and all of this to juxtapose with what was going on in 1968 with the vietnam war and the year we saw martin luther king and bobby kennedy assassinated that it was

an uplifting sort of period, a way to end the year on an upbeat or optimistic or at least emotionally uplifting note. i say that again because we live in volatile times. everyone think this time is particularly nasty. the same planet, the same earth, same ocean, same peoples, maybe generations after but the fact of the matter is i think sometimes views like this put it in context. a lot of you are thinking you are way over thinking. all the nastiness notwithstanding, we are going to get into the impeachment stuff and whose recovery is it and who is helping out the market, is it donald trump or somebody else, from space no one can hear that screaming back and forth. we will talk to harrison schmitt because something happened that bears watching today.

we returned to space again today. not with human beings but the 12th supply ship, the resupply ship to the international space station. it is coming at a time we keep resupplying the international space station. american rockets doing that, northrop grumman, that will hook up with the space station monday morning. 8200 pounds of products, supplies, personal equipment asked for by the astronauts and cosmonauts sharing that station. the one thing that is missing is a us astronaut out right because since the end of the shuttle program we have been hitching rides to the space station. the time has come for that to end according to my next guest, harrison schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon, apollo 17, geologist and astronaut harrison schmitt, great to see you. >> good to be with you again.

neil: a real honor to be with you. i feel we are kindred spirits, fellow astronauts. maybe not in my case. i just followed it on tv. when you see something like this, the us is revamping and reprioritizing space, it is more crowded field. what do you think? >> it is coincidental that this is the 12th launch of antares, a magnificent launch, hope you got a chance to see it as i was the 12th person to step on the moon. we are in the 12s. neil: there were 12 apostles, i could go on a while. we keep waiting for man and woman to get a chance. how soon do you think that will be? our goal to reignite the manned space program. we don't want to make light of all the other unmanned missions, trips to mars and everything else.

a lot of that going on and a lot of that going on with americans but you were lamenting americans have to get back into space. >> no question about it. geopolitically it is essential. also as far as i know in answer to your first question nasa is on schedule to make 2024, the next man to be on the moon. this particular launch was spectacular in its own right but also illustrates how in the private sector you can have other countries in the critical path to success as you well-known. the engine for russia, the launch vehicle itself was ukrainian, the shell, the cygnus built by an italian company. the holding was managed and integrated by northrop grumman

by orbital a tk. it is a spectacular illustration when there are clear-cut financial interests and emotional interests in success. neil: i am noticing, you're the last man alive who walked on the moon and i am thinking about our hoping to revisit the moon, get back there. what do you think of that, if that is the wisest use of our return or that we should bypass that. i know the argument about going directly to mars but you've got to go to the moon first. what are your thoughts on that? >> i think the moon is absolutely in the critical path to mars. there is so much we don't know yet about a mars trip. not only the transit that has significant radiation risk but also mars has just one atmosphere to cause problems and not enough to help you very much on landing. operationally there's going to

be a tremendous amount of information we are going to gather by going back to the moon as well as have access to lunar resources, particularly those that are consumable and necessary to life once we are established on the moon. the moon really is a very important part of the eventual human landing on mars. neil: last great question, between you and jean serna and -gene cernan, you are a hero, genuine american hero. you and he were lousy sinkers but you left a mark. do you look back at the time you were singing thinking i shouldn't have done that? >> not at all. in those days i had a terrible

habit, when i heard a line from a song i would start singing that song and that was just something i did. i enjoyed it very much. we did enjoy ourselves on the moon, no question about it. neil: you looked like you had the time of your lives. i am only kidding about the singing because i had an even worse voice. your voice was heard by billions of people on earth. thank you for joining us, particularly for giving us to be in our of over the years. >> my pleasure and thank you so much. neil: one of an elite few to walk on the moon. back with more. i'm your cat. ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to destroy you. sizing you up... calculating your every move. you think this is love? this is a billion years of tiger dna just ready to pounce. and if you have the wrong home insurance coverage, you could be coughing up the cash for this.

so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me-ow.

(vo) so gthe flock blindlye better flying south for the winter. they never stray from their predetermined path. but this season, a more thrilling journey is calling. defy the laws of human nature. at the season of audi sales event. the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪

neil: facebook ceo mark zuckerberg firing back as he ripped the company for failing to police political ads. zuckerberg says he's just defending free speech, used his own words from one of his films to prove it. >> you want free-speech, let's you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage in advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. neil: who has a right? you say whatever you want in this country to take off people? joe borelli joining us, what do you think? >> the thing about free speech is it is in place because people don't like what other people have to say. you are a popular guy who don't have these problems but other people - people say things other people don't like but we have to

have a right to say those things. this battle between twitter banning political ads and facebook saying no, twitter has bigger problems about things that are untrue and hateful and otherwise going on in their outlet than just banning political ads that stretch the truth. neil: let the buyer beware. >> trying to think of the latin word. jack dorsey paraphrasing the vote, it is ahistoric no matter how far you go back through history you see people using whatever medium was available, common sense, a paid political broadside, thomas paine had a twitter handle, tell he wouldn't

be able to broadcast that message, there was a role -- i think thomas jefferson would be tweeting. thomas paine was common sense. neil: people are free to express their views. in advertising should be more scrutinized? >> good question. when you look at this, mark zuckerberg has taken a lot of heat related to you are going to allow these politicians to say things that are blatant lies but is that mark zuckerberg's responsibility? the responsibility lies with the person who says these things. neil: what do you think of that? >> a lot of liberal democrats pushing mark zuckerberg to limit free speech because they know they can't do what they want to do vis-à-vis the constitution. mark warner, elizabeth warren, aoc trying to pressure mark zuckerberg to do what they can't do.

neil: look what is going on in space. it is quiet. just looking at the earth. more after this. (ernie) lost rubber duckie? (burke) you mean this one? (ernie) rubber duckie! (cookie) what about a broken cookie jar? (burke) again, cookie? (cookie) yeah. me bad. (grover) yoooooow! oh! what about monsters having accidents? i am okay by the way! (burke) depends. did you cause the accident, grover? (grover) cause an accident? maybe... (bert) how do you know all this stuff? (burke) just comes with experience. (all muppets) yup. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ...

>> this impeachment inquiry is moving fast and furious. ambassador, to john bolton, some of the people called to testify. lauren blanchard in washington with the latest. >> it will be a busy week ahead of closed door testimonies. here is who is scheduled tuesday from the department of energy wells griffith office of management michael duffy, and russell volt and energy secretary rick perry who is leaving the job at the end of the year. and they said he will not take part in an inquisition where counsel is forbidding to be

present, but he might speak at an open hearing. on thursday lawmakers want to speak with security advisor john bolton. his lawyers say he will not voluntarily appear and they're waiting for a subpoena. and the resolution vote didn't have a single republican yea, and nancy pelosi insists the impeachment inquiry is not partisan, a point president trump doesn't quite believe. and all of these testimonies may be scheduled, but they are not guaranteed. the administration is still not planning to cooperate with the inquiry because they say it doesn't give the president due process and speaker pelosi says they'll move on to more open hearings soon. neil: thank you very much. republicans are accusing democrats of being unfair, partisan. one of those andy biggs who sits on that committee. and congressman, democrats are saying we're only doing what the

republicans did with the clinton impeachment, you say? >> that's not exactly accurate. ken starr had nis investigation going and there was a two track and an open investigation as well and that was special counsel. here we have adam schiff acting as special counsel, that's bizarro and the question, does he think he's going to testify or is he going to not testify? he's actually become a witness in this case because of the whistleblower and his connection with the whistleblower and his staff's connection. it's not the same as the clinton impeachment inquiry. neil: you know, it is whoever is in charge, right? >> right. neil: right now it's the democrats in charge of the house. when republicans are in charge of the house during the benghazi back and forth, you guys would have secret testimony and be talking to key players. democrats at the time charged that that wasn't fair to them, they weren't allowed to get their say, to subpoena witnesses and documents and so what's the

deal? >> well, when benghazi, that's an easy one. benghazi, before they had the hearings, they actually had a bipartisan vote on the floor to open the hearings up. and the second thing is, they were dealing with classified documents, classified testimony, classified information. mr. schiff will tell you, if he's honest, that there is nothing that's going on in that top secret room down the basement of the capitol that there's nothing classified there. but he is still trying to prevent that from coming out to the american people. neil: how do you know? >> because he himself says it every day before the hearing. there's nothing classified. this is not classified. neil: if he releases all transcripts of interviews and witness testimony to date-- would that be a big step in the right direction? that's what's they're promising, you don't think they'll deliver? >> they'll deliver, they're vetting through it right now. but here is the problem. when you go in to testify, me as a trier of fact or the attorney,

i get to determine your veracity and your credibility by seeing how you react. you know, it's a "my cousin vinny thing", where the guy says i killed somebody? he has a question in the tone of voice, but the transcript says i killed somebody, it makes it completely different if you aren't there to see this and there's very few select people in to see this. the american people, the media, you and i, we haven't been allowed to go in and see what's going on and that colors it all. neil: i notice that "my cousin vinny" reference, resmirching italian-americans, i'll let it slide. [laughter]. neil: i'm kidding. and again, it's the tone of the words and not just seeing the words, i get that. but i want to ask you what seems to be a subtle shift and maybe i'm imagining it, sir. among republicans who are arguing now, some, that even if there was a quid pro quo in this

phone call to the ukrainian president about withholding aid to their country until this issue of joe biden and hunter biden was complete, that that still isn't impeachable. if you had unequivocal proof that the president was holding that aid, that theres was a quid pro quo there, is that an impeachable offense in your eyes? >> well, first of all, that's a hypothetical that will never be proven because there was no quid pro quo. and-- >> we know it was delayed and might be to are other reasons. i'm asking you. >> yeah. neil: when you got these documents, everything you want your hands on and i can understand it, oh, my gosh, there was, is that a high crime and misdemeanor in your eyes? >> no, it's not. no, it's not and here is an example. the only fact witness-- there's only two fact witnesses that actually have firsthand knowledge what happened and that's voelker and morrison and

morrison himself said this week, he said, look there was nothing illegal, there was no problem with that phone call. his only concerns were, what i would say foreign policy concerns. what's-- how is the new president going to deal with russia and those types of things, has nothing to do with the issue of whether there was a quid pro quo. the quid pro quo is a-- >> and disagree with others and who testified disagree. and the argument is, push comes to shove, testimony, transcripts reveal where the president actually did hold this up, that to you is not impeachable? >> not impeachable, not impeachable. neil: good to see you. >> good to see you, neil. neil: and let's go with elizabeth holtton the inquisitor during that time.

and you know the space well, in american living rooms for much of the summer -- and for the case of impeaching trump. >> i'm glad to be there. neil: what happened then analogous to what happened now? >> yes, unfortunately. let's go back to the framing of the constitution. when the framers sat down in philadelphia, one of the things they said we don't want a monarchy. how do we protect this democracy? some said, well, we've got elections every four years, that's fine. what else do we need? but the other, the people who prevailed said there could be a president who takes office, who threatens our democracy and we can't wait four years so we've got to have the power of impeachment, we're going to give it to congress. the house is the sole determine nater of the power of impeachment, the sole power of impeachment in the house of representatives. the sole power of trying the impeachment is given to the

senate. so if there's an impeachment, it has to go to the senate, there's a trial, two-thirds. they wanted to make sure that a president couldn't disrupt the democracy, on the other hand they wanted to make it tough so it'd be a-- >> i get that and didn't get that far with richard nixon because he resigned before the process could, but it was headed in that direction. >> no, no, it wasn't heading. neil: it was there. >> he knew because every member of the house judiciary committee they didn't vote for it, most of the republicans opposed the impeachment vote, but when smoking gun tape came out every one of them said they were for impeachment. neil: you're right about that, so who-- it ended up being bipartisan or more republicans, but-- >> a start, right. neil: the same environment right now, but a lot of republicans say it's night and day now and republicans feel that democrats, in a lopsided way have already pre-impeached the guy, he can't do anything right. >> well, i think that that's a problem because i think the american people have to see a

fair process. >> do you think the process has been fair thus far? >> yes, but we've only started, only-- >> and the stuff done on the side isn't weird? >> we've heard the impeachment process against richard nixon. it's the gold standard, no one has criticized it for lack of fairness. we had most of the work done behind closed doors, it wasn't-- including hearing witnesses, it wasn't until we got to debating the articles of impeachment and then the american people could judge. neil: but there was an inquiry vote before that, right? >> yes, but we actually got started before there was an inquiry vote. neil: now we're kind of analogous to today in that sense. >> right, got start. neil: that process that you've seen and heard, is that encouraging to you? republicans feel it's not. >> couple things, one is they have promised there will be public hearings, there have to be public hearings with the witnesses. neil: i promise to lose weight and doesn't all pan out.

>> no, but they understand, yeah, it doesn't pan out, but the american people won't accept it and they shouldn't. the equivalent we had in the senate watergate hearings they did have public hearings and american people got a chance to see john dean and the other people and judge their integrity and sincerity. neil: do you think that would have the same effect now? >> yes. neil: you do? >> i think that americans are going to tune in and you know, i think he's being sincere, no, i think he's lying. that's what has to happen. neil: do you see any potential grenades. there were taxpayers, canceled checks and john dean and the presidency. in a public hearing venue others have been telling me this possibly could boomerang on democrats, looks like they're going for blood and could hurt themselves. >> if it's a fair process, the american people will make the judgment. this judgment cannot be made in secret whether the witnesses are telling the truth or not.

the american people have a right to see that themselves and then the question is, does this amount to what you're seeing an impeachable offense. neil: from what you've heard thus far, should donald trump be impeached? >> well, first of all, he's got a right to make his case, but what he said now, and i think this is a really important thing the american people have to understand, is he's not cooperating. he says this is an illegitimate process and i don't have anything to do with it and stop everybody in my administration. neil: now we have this process started you think he should cooperate. hearing what you hear now, you would-- the case for impeachment. so you're making the case that he should be impeached. >> right, the reprocess, refusal to cooperate is itself an impeachable offense. the sole power is in the house of representatives. the senate can't tell the house how to run it, the president can't tell them how to run it. just think, the cop comes to

arrest you, i don't like your process, who would be arrested. neil: now, now we do have a process, so shouldn't you start from this time? if he stopped cooperating with the process-- >> well, he's already said nobody should come forward. mcgahn isn't coming forward and mulvaney isn't coming forward. so that's a problem and richard nixon was-- articles of impeachment was voted against him for in the cooperating. neil: objestruction of justice. >> two articles of impeachment, the president did not cooperate and obstructed. and the second article was the watergate coverup. the second article was abuse of power in a variety of ways. the coverup, illegal wiretapping, breaking into ellsberg's psychiatrist office, an enemy's list. neil: there's a lot more there. >> a lot.

neil: and to your point congressman-- and you have brought this up in the past, and it starts-- i think we had polls at the time. when it all started the interest of the american people, as you could see, those who supported the president's impeachment was very, very small when it started and on the eve of his resigning it was overwhelming. the guy has got to go or-- >> i guess what i'm asking you, if the process starts and the president, with this process, even though it was all one way, for one party, i think two democrats, you know, voted against it and vulnerable districts, the american people could look at that as a kabal against the president, he refuses to cooperate because he says it is a kabal. are you saying that he is adding impeachable offenses? >> absolutely, this is destruction of the constitution. the impeachment powers preserve our democracy and the house is put in charge with that. the president fuses to

cooperate. you can't impeach me the only impeachment is the way i want it, what president would be impeached. neil: your own guess? >> i think it's going to hurt him and i think it's a very sad commentary, but i think the important thing is to understand, and i disagree with your prior speaker, the use ever the president's power and that's what we saw in watergate and that's the sad thij about this-- the sad thing about this the president using his power to bully a foreign country to take foreign aid and-- >> the president said i didn't do that, and you're right -- a new tactic, but even if he did that it's not impeachable, you say? >> i say it is, i say it is and the evidence is growing, if not overwhelming at this point and i have the same feeling i had when we got kind of halfway through the nixon impeachment. we saw fact after fact after fact after fact and at the end i said, this is endless.

there's no bottom to the misconduct, and so we have to remove the president. neil: you were a ruthless prosecutor in those days. the best selling book out right now. and how the president would respond to all this and what she just said. 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.

oh! you got a fast one there just can't get him to slow down this class will help with that we get it... you got it! we're petsmart!

>> if he was ever a new yorker anyway because living in new york does not make you a new yorker. to be a new yorker is a state of mind, it's a set of beliefs, so i say-- so i say -- so i say good riddance, good riddance, mr. trump. >> thank goodness for cuomo, i used to send him notes as people moved to florida. thank you for keep raising taxes, it's great for florida. keep raising regulations. it's the same thing. at least thinking, if you keep raising taxes what's going to happen to the citizens? they're moving.

neil: all right. two different views of the president's decision to leave new york and make his residency the state of florida. back with me emily and lee carter. emily, what do you think? >> oh, well, i think it's-- here is why it makes trump look good. he's now the walking embodiment of essentially being displaced. taxes are raising here, can't keep the electricity on, disincentivizing businesses, crumbling, et cetera, fleeing to another state. it will bode well for him in florida if his tax policies benefit residents there. if that economy is good, probably his campaigning there in the future. so, i don't think that his decision to move to florida necessarily helps them there, but i think it's a good example that he can now tout for the next two years. neil: what i discovered is if governor cuomo is saying where you are is a state of mind. i live in new jersey, a state of mind if i could move, then i'll move just in my mind. but leaving that out. what do you think of it? >> i think it's a very, very smart political move and not just to pick up votes in

florida. what i think is so smart about this, donald trump understands the power of symbols. this is symbolic gesture that says look at why people are leaving a state with high taxes to go to a place with low taxes. republicans and leadership make for better taxes and quality of life and i'll follow that. now a platform, look what happens with high taxes you've got all of these problems in new york, look at a state where there's no taxes and all the great things happening in florida and now he can run on that, a much broader platform. neil: and democrats immediately pounced there are other reasons here, he doesn't want his tax records taken and harder to do that in places like florida, but they're already saying there's another agenda here, but it escalates, what do you think? >> it does. i think that no matter what he does, there will always be reasons cited by the democrats so that doesn't surprise us, but i think that overarching concept that arrives from this will drown that out because i think that voters don't necessarily care about the level of details,

it's the broader platform is resonating especially given the amazon situation here and things that he can really cite specifically from this city. neil: do you think that new york is a tough state for a republican to win, period? last one that did was ronald reagan. but that this was just to make a statement, period? >> it's a really tough state for republicans to run period, but outside of new york it's not a wildly popular state or city. you know, people here love it, but then outside of it, people can kind of look down at new yorkers as the elite, as all of these kinds of things. many ways he's doing things smart, leaving that behind and going to another place, and becoming a different person in many ways. i don't think that's foolish, i think it's actually quite smart. neil: thank you very much. the big fuss over having the rich pay their fair share and if you're elizabeth warren you'll particularly go off multi-millionaires and billionaires. time to talk to a big billionaire who is competing against her for the democratic

nomination. tom steyer after this. ah! come on! let's hide in the attic. no. in the basement. why can't we just get in the running car? are you crazy? let's hide behind the chainsaws. smart. yeah. ok. if you're in a horror movie, you make poor decisions. it's what you do. this was a good idea. shhhh. i'm being quiet. you're breathing on me! if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. let's go to the cemetery!

>> our plan shows that we can have medicare for all without raising taxes one cent on middle class families. and it's all fully paid for by asking the top 1% and giant corporations to pay a fair sh e share. neil: all right, and particularly billionaires under the elizabeth warren medicare for all plan and i guess essentially that would include my next guest running for the nomination against her, tom steyer. what do you think? you're ground zero in that plan. >> well, neil, i think there's a better way. you know, i think everybody wants to have health care be a

right for american citizens and we all know we need to drive down the cost of health care for everybody. but i don't believe we have to scrap a system where 160 million americans get their health care through their employment and tell them they can't do that anymore, they're going to go to the government for their health care or they're breaking the law. neil: you don't think that scrapping their private health care plans is a good idea? >> i want them to make the choice, neil. this is still a free country. and when it comes to your health care, and your family's health care and your life, i think americans should be allowed to make the choice for themselves about what's the best option. neil: do you buy her math, tom? because she says that you can do all this without hiking taxes on the middle class. now, what she leaves out that close to one and a half trillion dollars over ten years is removing the tax favored

exception you get through tax advantage accounts that by and large enjoyed by the middle class. leaving that aside, do you think her math adds up? >> look, neil, anytime you're talking about changing 20% of the american economy, which is what health care is, and having an entirely new system for everybody, you're talking about a lot of assumptions. and when you talk about ten years into the future, i mean, if you've looked at a lot of projections, look, i've looked at hundreds of projections, i know ten years out is a long way and things can change radically from what you expect today. i don't think we need to change everything in society in order to drive down the cost of health care for everybody and make sure that every american has a right to affordable health care. i think that a public option does it without turning everything upsidedown and allowing americans to make a choice for themselves about how they want their health care to

be done. i think if the public option, which i'm proposing and backing, drives down health care, provides the cheapest and best alternative, then those 160 million americans can choose to take the public option and go to their employers and say, give us the money, we'll buy our own. neil: i understand, but if she became the nominee, could you support her and those types of programs? >> look. i will support the democratic nominee, neil. i am a democrat. i believe there's going to be a huge disparity in terms of what republicans are offering and what democrats are offering, but can i make another point? i have been saying, and the reason i'm running for president, i think that corporations have bought our government. i don't think that our government is working at all and my whole reason for running is to get back to government of, by and for the people. so, regardless of which health care proposal or policy or plan we're talking about, we're not going to get it until we break

that corporate strangle hold on our government, until, in fact, the people get back the power to decide what's going to happen. neil: well, you know, i guess even nancy pelosi is concerned with some of the rhetoric she's hearing on the stump, maybe not from you, tom, but speaking at a bloomberg conference of reporters and editors yesterday, i believe, she said what works in san francisco does not necessarily work in michigan. remember november, she said, you must win the electoral college. maybe she's concerned that these big promises without detailing how ut deliver on them is going to boomerang from the feet what otherwise would be the jaws of victory? what do you think? >> well, neil, let me say this, these are people putting forward their plans, senator warren putting forth her plan and taxes, but there are a lot of people including me running to be the democratic nominee, people who are going to vote in the democratic primary have a

big choice of people and a big choice of ideas. i just told you, i think there's a better way to accomplish our goal. neil: but on a personal level, tom, are you bothered on a personal level that among the progressive wingers in the party and elizabeth warren, included, bernie sanders included, almost just not an anti-wealth attitude, but a batch wealth attitude, a batch tom steyer attitude that you're not welcome? >> let me put it to you this way, i think there are a variety of thoughts and plans and emotions being expressed and democratic primary voters get to decide what they believe in and they get to decide as well, neil, and i think this is really important, what nancy is talking about, which is who can win in november. who can actually go into those swing states and have people believe that they'll be a responsible steward of the american economy, that they'll fight for americans.

look, i'm telling you, i think corporations have bought our government. i think somebody needs to fight for the american people and that doesn't matter whether they're democrats or republicans or independents, i believe these corporations have bout the government. neil: we have a low unemployment, a booming market, we're the envy of the world, whether you want to credit the president or not, if the corporations evil buying everybody off stuff, it's delivering the goods, right? >> neil, can i dispute that for a second. neil: sure. >> because you're making an assumption na if the economy grows, that everybody's income grows with it comparebly and that's just not true. what we've seen for the last 40 years, and this is the result of this corporate takeover of our government, is that working people-- i'm not talking about 50% of people or 40% of people, i'm talking 80 or 90% of people have not had their real income grow for two generations, that's not right. when you see the gdp is going up doesn't mean it's going up for

working people. that's not right. neil: and always-- >> thank you, neil. neil: thank you, tom steyer candidate running for the president of the united states. reaction on all that after this.

>> you don't think that scrapping their private health care plans is a good idea? >> i want them to make the choice, neil. this is still a free country and when it comes to your health care, and your family's health care and your life, i think

americans should be allowed to make the choice for themselves. neil: all right. tom steyer, the billionaire presidential candidate saying that medicare for all shouldn't necessarily be disputed by some who are perfectly happy not having it for all. and now with me, dan, erin gibbs, nathan ruben. is there a division within the party? >> of course, we're in the midst of a heated primary election and there are upwards of 20 candidates in the race, we'll have diversity of thought and diversity of ideas and people are going to express that. neil: how popular is the medicare for all things? >> i saw a poll saying that medicare for all supported by 71% of the public. you can say does the american public understand what medicare for for all is. that's a very high number. neil: i have trouble buying that. i'm not saying that you're lying about it i'm just saying that's a lot to swallow there, and a

lot of money to make it happen, right? >> again, we're talking-- it would become-- it's 20% of the gdp and so, i think, you know, people are getting confused of health care for all versus medicare for all because i personally, i don't want the medicare services. i like my private insurance. i like having that option, i don't want the government to take over. neil: you're in the steyer camp. >> i don't think that the government, where the largest program currently is about 60% and we're going to take and create a completely new program that's 20% of the gdp, six times the largest any other program, i mean, that type of change and having that huge government and just having big government like that seems very un-american to me. neil: the investment issue seems to be, whether those numbers add up, people can quibble whether they do or not, but that this division is more pronounced than we think. it might be settled with a nomination and ultimate nominee.

tom steyer made it clear he'll support whoever the nominee is if not himself and that he would support elizabeth warren, how difficult do you think this pitch is going to be? >> i don't think it's that difficult of a pitch. people are not paying attention to what the numbers are. that's numbers are not going to add up. they're so big, you can't even wrap your head around what it's really going to take to make this happen. we don't have enough wealth and there's not enough tax to collect in order to pay for this. but i don't think that's what people pay attention to. if they did, we would not have the national debt that we do. nobody's talking about we need to cut back on anything. neil: looking hypocritical because a lot of this death spiraling under control out of their watch as well. who are they to start criticizing elizabeth warren? >> it's just a political talking point. if donald trump-- >> these are gargantuan numbers by comparison anyway. >> they are. neil: nobody seems to be a

prisoner to spending. >> donald trump has done a terrible job related to the national debt. it's know he different than barack obama, and just goes to show you, there's not all that much different between the parties in general when it comes to spending. nobody has really been banging the drum related to fiscal responsibility and there's a reason for that, neil, and the reason is is that the voters don't seem to care. if they did, people or politicians, would be really mindful of making those things happen, but they just talk more and more spending. >> neil, can i push back on that. he said there's no difference between the two parties. i'd like to remind people when bill clinton left office we had a surplus. when barack obama was in office, we had a huge deficit, because of the iraq and afghan wars, and-- >> but our overall debt grew 10 trillion.

>> that's largely due to interest payments on that. neil: the fact of the matter it. >> aim he not wrong. neil: well, you're not acknowledging the 10 trillion dollars that we piled up in debt. >> but that stems from the mistakes that a republican president made that just kept adding on and on and. neil: that's like me blaming a slow metabolism for being slightly overweight. >> well, halloween. neil: only thing i'm wondering, i have a hard time figuring, they say the nominee will have to run back to the middle to do well after the election. if it's an elizabeth warren or a bernie sanders, would they have a tougher time doing that? >> absolutely. ang i think also from what we've seen in the polls that if you run back to the middle, they're actually less likely to beat donald trump when at the look at how this election is going to play out. so you need somebody that's a really galvanizing, strong force to have any chance of winning because the economy is doing so well and donald trump really has those tail winds behind him going into the election. neil: there's the point, the

pitch that the trump folks are using, not perfect, but better. and displaying the words here and that will be the pitch next fall. >> i think part of that pitch is related to what the economy is doing. obviously, president trump wants to take credit for that and he's going to say, you're going to run a big risk if you want to make a change right now. and can i just respond to nathan. are you actually trying to tell me that the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility? >> absolutely. i am saying that. >> well, i think that's crazy because we can go back in history, but if we look at recent history. >> there's no-- >> the tax cuts were definitely not fiscal think responsible, i think we can agree on that. >> i don't know if they were fiscally responsible related to the cuts, but clearly, the overall of what we're spending is the problem. the irs is collecting more money in tax revenues than they ever have. the problem is on the other side of the ledger here, we just keep

spending and spending, and the point i want to make is barack obama was running an annual deficit of $1 trillion each year and donald trump is on pace to do the same thing. neil: to do the same. is it fiscally responsible then to have 35 trillion in added tax revenue, added tax revenue in the next ten years. >> in it gives every american universal and affordable health care coverage, i think it's something we should pay for. >> i think there has to be a better way. i think that adding that much is just going to run into so many other issues. we're just not capable of having that type of scale. the u.s. economy is just too large to be able to-- >> i don't disagree, but i do want to say that the status quo of 500,000 people going broke because they get sick. millions of people not able to get the health care they need, that's also-- >> there's a cheaper way to do it? >> there might be. there might be. neil: exactly. we calmly and rationally discussed this and that's something in which we're all

agreement with barack obama who wants us to return to that and bashing this culture, whatever that means. back after this. th in manufacturing jobs in the us. it's a competition for the talent. employees need more than just a paycheck. you definitely want to take advantage of all the benefits you can get. 2/3 of employees said that the workplace is an important source for personal savings and protection solutions. the workplace should be a source of financial security. keeping your people happy is what keeps your people. that's financial wellness. put your employees on a path to financial wellness with prudential.

>> all right. welcome, everybody. president barack obama says this whole woke thing, it's time to lighten up. he's long most on the both sides of the aisle saying, this nastiness and feeling proud when you zing somebody online and feeling content is going too far. bring it down. the controversy when ellen degeneres was seen at a baseball game with heaven forbid president bush and joe piscopo has been saying, not about president bush, but one of my

favorite cast members, president barack obama was saying what you said weeks before. >> right on the money. isn't it amazing that barack obama is the only one in the democratic party making any sense. and talking to my producer and check with sources because i have such love and respect for you. neil: you don't-- >> i do, i'm going on neil with the woke thing and it's true, we were talking about it on the radio and he's making sense. that was the most brilliant thing i've ever heard barack obama say, oh, my goodness, did you say something nice about barack obama. neil: ann coulter said the same thing. what he was bringing about the idea, bring it down a notch. >> brilliant when he said don't tweet. what good does it do when you tweet and put your phone down and-- >> the president tweets. >> he can because they attack

him constantly. there's my argument. neil: you're mr. double standard. >> this is my audience talking, mr. neil. neil: it's not you talking? >> no, i'm the conduit of the people, for the people, by the people, with the people. [laughter] >> i just-- >> where did i read that? >> i went to the italy with the people, we did a tour. every other week. neil: that's another issue. but you can't get there. i mean, if you-- it's like depending on the left, you say one good thing about the president they're all over you. you said one bad thing about the president they're all over you. my way or the highway. no one bends or blames or budges, doesn't get done. >> i think it's the news media, if i may. not at fox, but the did. neil: everyone is-- >> they create the divide. that's very, very true, that's a good analogy. are you going with the president tonight? the ultimate fighting thing. >> another thing i didn't get invited to.

going to fight me-- >> the italians don't forget. i went to italy, i lost my ray-bans. i look around in sorento, you know, i'm in sorento and i go to my driver jay. neil: your driver? >> it was a cabdriver. neil: oh. >> it was a cabdriver. neil: please. >> i picked up a cabdriver named andre and i said, where is my sunglasses and they take me in and i couldn't communicate, i needed like the ray-bans, and the guy kept going like this. i i go i go blues brother. ah, ah! one thing he remembered. neil: he didn't care about your policies nor you list. >> it's okay to talk. neil: gone are the days when two sides talk. >> when you go internationally and you look over and happening in america, there is respect and there's love for us. they like this president.

whether you like it or not, donald j. trump is a rock star around the world, objectively speaking and you can say that barack obama made all the sense in the world and how refreshing for him to say something like this. neil: they love this country so we can talk more and deal with each other, right. >> i'm on my way to show in long island and i've got a show with the whole big band with the piscopo pops. do you like that? yeah, sh your. >> neil called and neil cavuto show. are they're waiting for me on sound check. neil: if that was on the exact same time. >> we should go out. why don't you come out with me. neil: i want to be on the last day that-- >> i like a big pizza pie, that's cavuto. neil: look at the time. ♪ when you don't like the news and it offends yous, that's have a cuavuto ♪.

neil: i think the lawyers are -- i'm going to go, stick around. >> god bless you. you're so great. lisa jones! hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? laughs/umm.. and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh. schwab! oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks carl! wait, lisa! lisa... are you getting commission free trades and a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.

>> all right. in new york city they're beefing up security. we've got word about tomorrow's marathon and the isis vows of revenge for the u.s. taking down al-baghdadi and his second in command in a matter of days. the terror group already naming a new leader and in new york city, and other cities across the country not taking if i chances especially with the big event, the president is down tonight at a madison square garden event. that makes sense. retired delta force commander on all of these developments. general, should we be on heightened alert? do you suspect that now a more desperate isis is going to do

something desperate? >> yeah, i think isis has to come back very quickly to reestablish their credibility and to enhance their recruiting. this setback of the death of al-baghdadi was really one of impacting their recruiting. now, we're a harder target. harder target than some of the softer targets and quite frankly, neil, i think that it's possible that they'll go after the kurds because the kurds have made a big issue of the fact that they helped us to identify where al-baghdadi was. neil: so you're not at all relieved as they go through these leaders and the next one emerges, almost like a pez dispenser, that it doesn't matter? they're still a threat and we have to be serious about. >> yeah, all reports were that al-baghdadi had really pulled out of the day-to-day operations. i think that to be the case. the same with osama bin laden.

he was not running day-to-day operations. we have cells in this country that are both al-qaeda and isis. now, they're not-- there's not a tight bond between them and, you know, the headquarters of this new leader, but they are still in in country and i've talked to police and sheriff's departments that have told me, yeah, they're here. they're in cells, and they're waiting to be activated so this would be the time for that. i think though that we're a much harder target than we were a decade ago. and it would be difficult now for them to pull off something, but they only have to be right one time and they kill a lot of people. i think though, neil, that the ultimate fear that i have here is the death of al-baghdadi will bring al-qaeda and isis back together unified because they share a common theology, that's dangerous. neil: general, i hope you're wrong, but i always appreciate your expertise and you've proven

uncannily prescient about this stuff. thank you for your service to this country as well. >> thanks. neil: general boiken. and fox will continue on the developments today. stay with fox.

>> the white house readies for public impeachment hearings, which house speaker nancy pelosi hints could start as new polls show the nation split on the congressional probe and with em to america's news headquarters from washington, i'm kristin fisher. leland: split, indeed. 18% of republicans now supporting impeach and remove. that number going up. i'm leland vittert. the president is the at white house and we got a little bit of a look yesterday and last night about how he's going to try and use impeachment to his political advantage.