lisa: not as good but still good. it's not terrible. pete: one way to end the show. ed: we will be back. maybe we will have news from jed, baby coming? pete: that's a tease for you. ♪ lisa: see you tomorrow. ♪ ♪ >> neil: all right. you are looking live right now on capitol hill where the doors are shut yet again after the first week of open impeachment hearings or well mostly open impeachment hearings. office of management and budget official mark sandy just arriving to testify behind those closed doors. he has said, we are told u.s. withholding aid to the ukraine. we shall see. good morning, everyone. happy to see all of you. i'm neil cavuto and yo you are watching cavuto live chad pergram on capitol hill where the deposition is about to go down. >> mark sandy arrived been b. 17, 18 minutes ago on capitol hill for this rare saturday deposition. again, they were holding a late night deposition last

night that went until about 10:00 after that lengthy hearing with the former ambassador to ukraine, maria yovanovitch. they started a little late. and that's why the deposition went so late last night. now, the witness today, mark sandy, he started to raise some questions about why they were holding up the aid to ukraine. you know, and people are going back and recalibrating that hearing yesterday with maria yovanovitch. republicans are struggling somewhat to kind of curate their own narrative. it went haywire after the president sent that tweet blasting maria yovanovitch yesterday morning. i asked a question about that to stefanik, a republican from new york. who is a member of the intelligence committee. > once the president sent his tweet, didn't that completely undercut anything you were trying to do in the hearing today? >> chad, we are not here to talk about tweets. we are here to talk about impeachable offenses. chad, let me answer yourese heat tweets. they are about impeachment of the president of the united states.

>> now, after the hearing, adam schiff did a re-set. he emphasized why maria yovanovitch was a key to the narrative. >> while you are the beginning of this story, you are not the end of it, but, nonetheless, the beginning is important. because the beginning of the story is an effort to get you out of the way. >> democrats are trying to figure out how to write their articles of. wimpeachment. maybe abuse of power and translating what they sees a intimidation of a witness into abuse of power. you know, one of the articles of impeachment written in 1974 for president nixon dealt with that very issue of abuse of power. a blockbuster week next week ahead. where we have a set of multiple hearings. alexander vinman, the nsc official who was actually on the telephone call with the president and the leader of ukraine, he will come in on tuesday. gordon a russia advisor,

fiona hill, she will come on thursday. and, neil, we asked adam schiff yesterday if that would be the end of the closed hearings and he would not commit to that. >> neil: thank you very much. chad pergram. no one seems to move the needle so far in public impeachment process. hard to tell so far. that was the goal of democrats to get people aware of what's going on and change minds. that's kind of what happened in the watergate impeachment hearings as time went on, more people were persuaded to maybe think the president was up to something. so far that does not seem to be the case remotely here but, again, it's early. fox news correspondent lucas tomlinson on that side of the story. lucas? >> neil, some on capitol hill see these hearings as more of a regional issue. not a national issue. it appears that the members are behaving based on their electorate exclusively. so far there is little evidence of any profiles in courage. >> i would now feel compelled to ask you, madam ambassador, as you sit here

before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the united states accepting any bribes? >> no. >> do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the united states has been involved with at all? >> no. >> the first day of the public impeachment hearings on capitol hill drew over 13 million viewers, according to variety, fox news drew the highest total viewership averaging 2.9 million people. roughly the same number of people tuned in over the summer to see special counsel robert mueller's testimony but 36% fewer viewers than those who watched supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh last year. the impeachment hearings can't touch watergate when staggering 80% of the americans tuned. in took a year after john dean's testimony and the supreme court ordering nixon to turn over his tapes for the majority of americans to support impeachment.

the democrats hope testimony like this will help sway public opinion. >> ukrainians who prefer to play by the old corrupt rules sought to remove me. what continues to amaze me is that they found americans willing to partner with them and working together they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a u.s. ambassador. how could our system fail like this? >> it's not clear how many viewers how much watched maria yovanovitch's testimony yesterday on capitol hill. those numbers have not yet been released, neil. >> neil: all right, lucas, thank you very, very much. the president in the middle of those hearings starts tweeting on them and that tweet became a realtime issue in the hearings when the president said, among other things, everywhere maria yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia. how did that go. then fast forward to ukraine, where the new ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. it is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint

ambassadors. former justice department prosecutor jim trusty on that. jim, always good to have you. that tweet, maybe that was not the president's intent, but it disrupted the process so much so that even the congresswoman elise stefanik said i disagree with the tweet. it mucked up the process a bit. what did you think. >> same reaction. i think if i represented the president i would have been diving on top of the keyboard and say just don't do it this time. let other people talk about her testimony. let other people cross-examine it. you don't have to step out and make a side circus out of this current circus. so, i didn't think it was a great move. it doesn't mean that it's obstruction of justice. i mean, again, schiff overplays any disagreement, any criticism of the process, any challenge to the way he is running this kind of constantly varying process. he views that as obstruction. that's also absurd. but, it actually gave the witness a chance to look pretty good. she kind of scuffed, you

know, scoffed at it like i can't believe he is doing this right now and she didn't really act the victim when he did that. so, it had the unfortunate side effect of probably bolstering the witness he was trying to tear down. >> neil: you know, the irony is that a president can fire anyone for any cause at all. even if he doesn't like her. so, are we missing something here? i mean it, all seems to be played so mockve amockvel yanny. you serve at the pleasure or displeasure of the president and he wanted her out. end of story. >> absolutely felt like we went through the whole exercise of jame comey. people took offense james comey. same flavor from the diplomat class rally around how dare you take our expertise offline. that is his right. he can do it. things distasteful. things that don't smell good

from the outside. that doesn't mean there is anything remotely approaching a crime or things for impeachment. bad mearntion or maybe bad verbiage. >> neil: you know, best i could tell, you helped to build a case, democrats seems to be, help build a case over time would evolve. watergate hearings are starting in the house, later in the senate. where some compelling testimony came forward. back then we had proof the president had written a million-dollar check to quiet some people. the revelation that there were white house tapes, et cetera. and then it began to build. so much so that over the course of a year, it went from an overwhelming of americans thinking it was a cabal against the president to the president ultimately resigning. i don't see anything like that here. i don't think any of the gravity here. but, play that out for me. >> well, it doesn't feel that way at this point. in part, because so much of the information is third hand. when you have hearsay testimony or essentially opinions, i thought he was doing. this i thought he was doing this wrong.

>> neil: second hand at that jim, it's one thing if you are like a john dean and you are relaying a conversation you had with richard nixon, a cancer growing on the presidency. that was one-to-one. but these are second hand reporting of conversations where in most cases you don't know what the person is saying on the phone. >> right. in a court of law. most of what we have been hearing of any relevance would be inadmissible hearsay. so the gate keeper, the judge, who wants only reliable facts. wouldn't even let half of the germane things we have heard about come in. but, i would just jump back not just to nixon but think back to the clinton situation. there, you basically knew the facts, right? you had d.n.a., intern, blue dress, sworn denial. you knew the crime, perjury. you might have political considerations or buyer's remorse for pursuing it. but it was not a big battle ground as to what the underlying facts were, what the violation of law is here, the democrats, particularly mr. schiff, can't make up his mind on what crime he has got because he doesn't really

have a crime. i think we are going to end up with this very lucy goosy abuse of power kind of language because there is an absence of an actual vials. >> neil: nancy pelosi raised the watergate comparison and said this is actually worse. i want you to respond to this comment by nancy pelosi. >> by the way, what president trump has done on the record in terms of acting advantage his foreign power to help him in his own election and the obstruction of information about that, the cover-up, makes what nixon did look almost small. almost small. but, again, an inquiry is an inquiry and people come in and you hear what they have to say. >> neil: well, i guess she has already decided. but what did you make of that? >> i mean, it's, you know, street theater. i supposed nixon family and roger stone of all people are probably happy to hear

that rousing defense of richard nixon. the reality is, i mean, we don't have any facts that rise to the level of criminal activity. there's no pro for the quid pro quo. there is no extortion when the victim doesn't know he is being extorted. and at heart, what pelosi wants you to believe, to believe there is any crime here, is that the ukrainian prime minister has s. repeatedly lying when he says he didn't feel any pressure. again, i think it's very hard to make the case if there is an actual criminal violation. it doesn't mean that there is not things to talk about with rudy giuliani, handling personally handling some of the foreign policy issues here. there is wide open issues. but the president has the right to fire an ambassador for almost any reason. and right now the evidence hasn't come together in any way that approaches watergate, clinton, andrew jackson or anything at this point. >> neil: all right. we will watch it very closely. jim trusty. thank you very much. >> all right, thanks. >> neil: you want proof these hearings are not getting americans down? first, look at what shoppers are doing. and then i want you to look at what investors are buying.

don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... dealing with today's expenses ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay? i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement.

mortgage rates just dropped to near 50-year lows. one call to newday usa can save you $2,000 every year. and once you refinance, the savings are automatic. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. activate your va benefit now. one call can save you $2000 every year.

>> neil: what matters to the markets is making money and making a lot more money and taking a look at themselves in the mirror, you, and saying themselves and you, everyone is doing fine. fox business network tracy has the numbers to prove it. tracy? >> yes, good morning, neil. well, american shoppers and investors don't seem to be worrying too much about much right now. let's start with the consumers not holding back, at least according to recent quarterly sales reports or results from walmart. walmart commerce sales in the u.s. rose 41% from a year earlier, getting a big boost from grocery orders. u.s. comparable sales from the company stores and web sites, that's up more than 3% marking a five year straight quarterly sales gains. retailers concerned about

the repercussions from the trade war and the health of the global economy as we head into the holiday shopping season. speaking of the holiday shopping season. we tail expects sales november and december to increase as high as 4.2% over last year. to as much as $730 billion. meanwhile, all three major u.s. averages closing out the week on wall street with a fresh round of record highs. the dow crossing the 28,000 point milestone for the first time ever. notching its third record close of the week. same for the s&p 500. meanwhile, the nasdaq hit its second record close of the week. the president tweeting, quote: stock market up big. new and historic record. jobs, jobs, jobs. all this as those impeachment hearings in d.c. got underway. neil? >> neil: all right, tracy, thank you very, very much. put that in perspective year-to-date the dow is up over 20%. a little bit more than 6%

away from 3 30,000 the s&p up 24.5%. the nasdaq closed to 30%. the year is not done. consumers not just saving the holiday season but potentially getting this sort of stuff possibly the president of the united states as well? in other words, is this the back drop that any sitting president would crave? including this one? wealth manager gibbs, john bussey, new york city councilman joe borelli. what do you think, erin, this is a pretty nice back drop. >> yes. actually it's more about the economic back drop that can frequently have an influence on the impeachment processes as we saw with nixon and with clinton. >> neil: bad with nixon, good with clinton. >> exactly. the negative back drop might may the impeachment tougher. good back drop, people get a little softer with the question. i think, in this, you just look at the more recent and the type of economic back drop we have right now. it looks positive for trump.

particularly facing, you know, getting it past the senate is just another positive. so i think that's why wall street has really sort of dismissed it. we're just looking at there are a lot of head winds for this impeachment to really go forward. >> neil: yeah, i know the consensus was. always risky, joe. he might in fact get impeached in the house. that's where it's going it. wouldn't get anywhere in the senate. you could always have unexpected. so far not materialized. >> not only materialized. this whole impeachment public hearing process has played out like the godfather 3. a lot of hype. not much meat and delivery. >> neil: left out godfather 2-6r7b8g9s that was a good one. >> neil: godfather 3 was disappointing. >> erin is right. a lot of head winds going in. i think the market probably the foregoing promises probably vote to impeach the president. the reality is they are not going to remove him from office. i think people can accept that that that's built in right now to the thought going forward. and that's not why -- that's

why we are not seeing any major push back in the market. >> neil: what do you think of all of this and erin raises, with the nixons, it started out seven out of 10 americans thinking wasted time. revelations came up as the hearings went on and on and on. first in the house and then in the senate. we might get there here. so far i don't see signs of that. but what do you think? >> it's not an impeachment rally. it's an interest rate rally. interest rates are down. this trade friction with china seems to be headed towards some resolution. probably not a resolution that american business had hoped for, which is substantial changes in the way china misbehaves. a fig leaf we will drop the tariffs and you will buy more soybeans and pork. >> neil: devil is in the details. what are you buying. >> kneel, those have been the ways that china has bought off the united states for the last 30 years. it's always we will buy a

few more boeing jets and go away. subsidies to your industries that compete with us. intellectual property theft. those things will be pushed to the side and maybe there will be some mention of a little bit more access to your financial companies that we won't see happen, you know, ever. those would be pushed aside because the white house needs a win. and how do you do that? you talk up the trade talks like larry kudlow did this week. >> neil: right. >> look at the market, it takes off. >> neil: is he quite right about this. if you want to know what turns the market, trade. anything on trade. good news or promising words said by larry kudlow, they shoot up. the concern that all of the sudden the president might not knock off all of those tariffs. they go down. >> only weeks care about fundamentals is when we don't hear about trade. the rest of the time it's really about trade, a little bit interest rates that kind of are moving this market up and down. if you are tan natalie, we are looking at positive year. so i think that's end

dickivendindicateive.floats dayt with whatever is the most recent release despite what's going on in the economy and what's, you know, how profitable companies are and that could derail us. >> neil: i think the consumer is saying it. say what you will and i agree with john is saying here. so far not about impeachment. invariable that they don't grasp and can't see anything in the time being. what do you make of the fact that the consumer is gung-ho at buying. very poised to break records this holiday season? what do you think? >> i think people just want their iphones. this impeachment process has not been the big distracter. look how the market is also impacting people. we have nearly 400,000 401(k) and ira millionaires right now. record high. 32% more americans have under their contributions to their 401(k). another record high. this is why people want to buy into the trump economy. they see the benefits and they are out there.

>> neil: we shall see and how far that santa claus affect goes and lasts. meanwhile plug on impeachment you would expect republican to be saying that but outspoken democrat saying that? after this.

>> neil: want to update you on something going on in hong kong. the protest accelerating. you know the drill. chinese cool on protest: what is interesting here is the chinese aren't even masking the fact that their own troops involved in working with hong kong authorities here. the people liberation army left their barracks earlier today try to contain a lot of these protesters and apparently they are easy to identify because they speak a different language.

that might be the first telltale sign. and they are a little rougher. that might be the second. and right now the protesters are highly, highly annoyed that the chinese have done this and aren't even masking that. we're following this very, very closely, because this could be a trade issue here. so far has not entered into the ongoing trade talks. but the fiery it gets and more fiery it gets the more it possibly okay i want to switch right now to paris as well. paris where it's mid afternoon right now. they have been setting cars on fire. this is around the one year anniversary, the so-called yellow vest movement. remember that was spawned by a dramatic hike in gasoline prices. macron the french leader had rolled back those gas taxes but that had already ignited vast populist revolt strongser than ever and a lot of pa regions are saying the fuel stuff is only part of it. we want to see taxes down

unconventionally across the board and see the government doing more to help us out. and so far this doesn't seem to be the required aid coming and so it's a mess there. so we are keeping track of those two developments. also, keeping track of these impeachment hearings in the u.s. today. one democrat is now saying speaker pelosi from, one democrat to another. please jump off the impeachment band wagon. again, that is a democrat. and it's catalina magazine publisher, frequent guest on this show cathy areu. that was a big deal. >> it was. it was. really? >> neil: why di did you write that. >> why? actually speaking to so many different sources is almost like a moment where we are meeting in a garage like all the president's men and these sources are telling me on the side, there is no win, it's a lose, lose situation for democrats, for the country, it's an election year. we're getting so close. >> neil: so you think it's boomeranging on democrats? >> it's going to backfire.

so let's say he is impeached. he is impeached and then what? you get pence, so you get a trump. you get a credible guy to run for president. so now you have a credible guy. you have angered your base because then believed in you. the democrats believed in you. they believed that you were going to get rid of trump and all of them and everything was going to be okay again. >> neil: jeopardizing than not only taking the white house but expanding their lead in the house maybe taking the senate? >> you are taking away the rights of the voters. you are taking away the rights of the democrats. for three years, everything he has done is impeachable. collusion. we don't know about the collusion anymore. greenland, he was going to buy greenland, everything is impeachable. now, now the americans get to vote. >> neil: do you think any of that stuff was impeachable? sounds like you are having second thoughts. >> investigate, investigate. good old fashioned investigating. this impeachment thing is

basically going to run into the messaging, right? we are going to go into the messaging right before the election. and all these democrats who want to get their messages out, they can't. because we are in the middle of an impeachment, so we're not going to hear from democrats. >> neil: you obviously wrote this to nancy pelosi. >> i wrote it as a letter to nancy pelosi. i have met her several times. >> neil: has she responded to you? >> no, she has not. >> neil: she upped the ante yesterday saying this is worse than watergate. >> okay. but why don't you let us decide? are you, congress, saying that we democrats, we are so stupid that we do not know how to vote this guy out so you are going to do it for us? you are taking this away from the democrats? you let us put up with this guy for three years. have you made us hate him, and now you are going to take away our right as american voters to not kick the bum out? >> neil: so you are saying that you are hardly saying kind things about the president here. >> i'm just saying. >> you have seen let the

electoral process work it out. >> yeah. >> neil: done all these heinous things been charged with here. the american public will vote him out. >> let us vote him out. you have been telling us three years why we should hate him so much. okay, we are fired up. we are ready. and now congress. >> neil: you are at odds with your own base. that says get him get him get him get him. >> the base has heard is he impeachable. impeachable. the last two presidents impeached. they never left office. clinton remained and i think johnson was the one before that. >> neil: well, richard nixon resigned. >> exactly. >> neil: you don't think it's as severe as what richard nixon, like was that a little histrionic for nancy pelosi to compare this to watergate and worse? >> maybe it is. maybe it's as severe. they kept saying everything else for the last three years was as severe as watergate. everything has been watergate. 12 watergates that trump has committed. but now that we get to vote, you are going to -- now you

are going to impeach him? too late. let us decide. let us. let us have our moment. we are the voters. we are democrats. >> neil: you started out being pro this impeachment process. >> no. >> neil: hey, lots of things funny here. >> not on this show. let's pull the tape. >> neil: i will be happy to. [laughter] >> neil: what happened here to you? fine. people change their minds. you say you didn't. >> yeah. i stand by that i stand by that. >> neil: you are saying now, this is a waste of time. >> i have always thought and i was against, also, the kavanaugh hearings. i thought a waste of taxpayer dollars. i have worked in d.c. i don't like the waste of taxpayer dollars. this is a waste of time. this is a show. and for nothing is a lose lose. >> neil: so you are voting for donald trump. >> i'm voting for anyone but donald trump. >> neil: all right. group hug. [laughter] >> neil: cathy areu, she did make waves with. this looking at whether others in the party feel the same way. they do. they just don't come out and say it like she just did.

what is this changing democratic field for president now have in common with abraham lincoln way back then? let's just say that 2020 could get very interesting. i know, because i covered abraham lincoln. [laughter] we made usaa insurance for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

>> neil: another week and another democrat entering the 2020 race maybe an additional one after that. this time it's former

massachusetts governor deval patrick. with the democratic field growing her mike bloomberg sticking around, too. is there now a greater possibility with so many in the race and proportional voting in each and every caucus and primary state, that no one gets to the democratic nomination with enough delegates to win on the first ballot? joining me now is real clear politics susan crabtree. susan, what do you think about and what would be necessary to get those delegates at the first off, i have looked at the math here. even just half of them stay in the race and proportion it out, no one is going to be able to do that. >> i think that might be deval patrick's really understated goal here. because he is -- people are so open to his candidacy this late in the game. as journalists we always are seeming to yearn for these broker the conventions because we are so civic the orchestrated nature of the

conventions ball drops, speeches. we want some dynamic aspect of them. so i think it's more of a wishful thinking on the part of washington. because last time around in 2008, there was a lot of talk about a brokered convention between clinton and barack obama. and howard dean got in there and said it ain't happening. make your decisions before the convention. so, also, last time around with trump, and such a big crowded field of republicans, that was also a lot of talk about that that when it came down to it trump won the nomination handily. i think this is some of washington parlor game by the way. you do have such a crowded field that anything is possible this year, because it's not a traditional year at all. you have several contenders. >> neil: you pointed out certainly by the time, well before, i believe it was in mid spring that donald trump already had the delegates he needed. it wasn't even a drama back then. even though some had said that it could be. now, here it's a little

weird because in total you have 4594 delegates, you will have 3836 pledged delegates, 758 automatic delegates. most of those are those so-called super delegates at least on the first ballot will have no role, second blot theballot. this used to be commonplace in american politics. i mean, i remember covering abraham lincoln in 1860. [laughter] he had all those other better known opponents who sort of divided the pool, so to speak, didn't get the number of delegates necessary. he waltzes in as alternative candidate and gets it on the second ballot. i'm not comparing the two. i'm just saying that could that happen this time, especially given the fact that super delegates play nod role in the first ballot? >> right. right. well, i think what deval patrick, i think that's the biggest sort of question

that he brings because you have a -- before his entrance in the race, biden's biggest strength was that he was, you know, obama's supposed heir apparent and fire wall in the south. he is 15 points ahead in south carolina right now compared to the more liberal field. so he has that advantage. deval patrick gets, in he is going to appeal to the moderate. he is just not a minority candidate. there are other minority candidates in the race, harris and booker. how he compares is he a moderate. so he cuts right into that. now we have bloomberg coming in. he says he is going to go for those delegate rich states like california and texas because he has the money to really contend in those states and bit advertising. so here we do see like no other race in history right now. that there could be so many factions dividing this. steve: all right. if you base it on who wins the primary and then who wins the popular vote in those primaries, i mean, i do remember the hillary

clinton, barack obama camps were looking at all sorts of measurements that favored their candidate over the other even when barack obama had the wind to his back and put him over the delegate top and hillary clinton ceded that at the convention itself. do you see something like that happening in this convention whereby gones are by gones, they rally around one candidate lead not necessarily a majority of delegates and closes the deal that way? >> well, i think that the party leaders always hate a brokered convention. because you have this feeling that it's a party bosses that are in control who are going to sway and always this anger coming out o anger coming outs of a convention you will want to bounce coming out of a convention. i think they would avoid that at all costs. this is such an unusual race with donald trump and impeachment situation going on, i think you may see, if

you cannot get a majority, you could even see a surprise candidate getting in. i know people think this is far-fetched. but, in it, you know, like i said, a month is forever in politics. and now we are looking at 10 to 12 months ahead here. i mean, people are talking about michelle obama getting in and hillary clinton. that can be far-fetched. if we cannot get a majority. if there is not a majority of delegates and super delegates weigh, in they may be in desperate times and may call for desperate measures there. >> neil: the irony is they have changed these rules, the apportionment and everything else, to avoid anything that would look tawdry or suspicious when, in fact, we might have something in the end that looks tawdry and suspicious. >> i agree, completely. i mean, if -- but, you know, i do also think that there was so much enthusiasm for patrick devalue among the

deval patrick in the black community. in california they were saying isn't he from connecticut? no, actually massachusetts. he is not a household name around the country, no matter what democrats and barack obama think. but, people are very very open right now because they don't see biden. they see the weakness in biden and they see that elizabeth warren has surged but that her ideas are not the person i spoke to said her ideas are not plausible. they are really on the crazier side. more socialist and easily labeled as such. and that's not going to play in this at all. so i do think in this way it's kind of an anything goes at this point. it's so early right now that it's still such an open race. it's a unique situation. >> neil: to put it mildly and the fact that so many entrants are considering diving in to this late stage. it's late, you know, to get all the paperwork in and do all of that. >> that's right. >> neil: says something

about the field. all right. susan, thank you very, very much. i want to switch very quickly if we can to hong kong right now. the situation is worsening. protesters now are very angry that it looks like chinese troops are involved in this latest crackdown. the people liberation army as it's better known, the p.o. aworking with hong kong authorities to put these protests to bed. they are not being put to bed. i think you already are familiar with a routine development where authorities, hong kong and elsewhere say all right, you have proven your point. you can stop. the protesters don't stop. and the chinese we're told have gotten increasingly on pace including the hong kong authority head to get a handle on this that they are taking things into their own hands. and using guns.

>> so on saturday, get out.

that's the last thing to do now get out and vote for eddie rispone who is for jobs, safety and freedom. [cheers and applause] >> neil: indeed that's what louisianans are doing right now voting in that crucial race this week for the republican gubernatorial candidate eddie rispone. tight as a tick with polls saying dead even going in with john bell edward facing this runoff election. we should point out that increasingly edwards himself has looked like a republican candidate. he is anti-abortion. pro-gun, you name it. so, democrat in name only according to a lot of folks and maybe that is what has kept him in office and first of all, winning that office. casey stegall has been following it very, very closely joins us now out of baton rouge. casey? >> hey, neil, you also have to remember about governor john bel edwards, he is a democrat in a very red

state. but, republicans are hoping that changes here today and i have got to say the polling location back here in baton rouge, where we have been posted, is very busy, lots of traffic in and out all morning. president trump also on twitter already today talking about it. i'm quoting here: good morning, louisiana. polls open -- are open at 7:00 a.m. get out and vote for eddie rispone to be your next gov. he will get your taxes and auto insurance. highest in the country, way down. loves our military and vets. will protect your second amendment. find your polling place below. and as you mentioned and just heard, the president was just here in louisiana on thursday. campaigning and drumming up support for millionaire businessman eddie rispone. he is the republican call jerry to democratic incumbent governor john bel edwards. rispone has never held public office before but is neck and neck with edwards

in today's runoff election. edwards has been in an uphill battle to keep his job. and if he does not secure a win today, it would just be the second time in louisiana history that an incumbent governor failed to secure a second term in a runoff election. listen. >> you have edwards pushing his incumbent record of running for in terms of running the state for the past few years. versus partisanship. and i think eddie rispone is trying to run a campaign mostly based on that. >> the education -- the economy and education, neil, remain the two top issues for voters here in louisiana today. we will be following it closely. it will be interesting. back to you. >> neil: all right my friend. thank you very much. casey stegall in baton rouge. we will keep you updated on it. also keeping you updated on what the president is tweeting right now. talking about the record dow. dow hits 28,000, first time

ever. the highest ever. pelosi, i think he means schiff here have a good idea. let's impeach the president. if something like that ever happened, it would lead to the biggest fall in market history. it's called a depression, not a recession. so much for 401(k)'s and jobs. stay with us.

>> well, president trump granting clemens to army officer lieutenant clinton lawrence and majors matt golsteyn and both of whom who were either convicted of or accused war crimes. president restoring the rank of navy seal to eddie gallagher convicted much posing in a photo with a dead isis fighter. here with all of that is

kurt. commander, always good to have you here. what do you think about the president did here. overruled military authorities who separately prosecuted these men but he thought it was the right thing to do. >> i think the president was absolutely right in what he did, neil. i think that while americans have a right to expect our military to safeguard u.s. national security interests around the world, they also expect the military leadership to give them the necessary manning, training and equipping to do that right. if we are going to put men and women in harmens way. we can't do it by saying well, better to be judged by 12 than ruled -- than buried by six if it comes to the rules of engagement being improperly employed and not having their back. i think at the end of the day the president looked at what more and more people are see something a compromised military justice system, military leaders who are becoming more and more beholdenned to political influences rather than doing what's right for the military. and so consequently, he made the right decision and i think that a review of the military justice system is absolutely in order. neil: you know, things happen in time of war and

the heat of battle and this one navy seal charged with stabbing a 12-year-old isis fighter, the fact of the matter is, it was in the heat of an armed battle. the president seemed to distinguish that between the tribunal system military ruling. presidents same things. why are we even here? you say? i would say that's a bit of an overreaction and not be drama queens about this whole thing. at the end of the day, you have to look at it and say, look, the president is the commander-in-chief. he reviewed the evidence, looking at this. he looked at the undue political influence that may have played into the process in getting some of these convictions. we have to remember, society has become further and further disconnected from the very men and women that we sent back over into war zones again and again and again. some are up to tenth combat tours. if we are going to do that,

we have to have their back, not only when they are in but in the years afterwards when they deal with the trauma of what their nation has expected them to do. holding them to a standard absolutely, yes. holding them to an unreasonable standard, in a combat scenario, no way. neil: you know, the president has the power to do this just as the president has the power to fire officials who no longer serve at his pleasure. i'm just wondering what you made of the testimony yesterday from a former ukrainian diplomat, who more or less was saying she was hurt and offended when the president did that. >> well, neil, just like when i was in the military or in the united states navy, we serve at the pleasure of the president. the same is true for ambassadors. if you don't like how the president is treating you, you have a great option. you can go back and get a job down at foggy bottom and you will be well-taken care of by everyone that's there working at the department of statement. she chose to stay there. if she didn't like how she was being treated, too bad. i mean, that's what ambassadors put up with.

the president executes foreign policy. if the ambassador disagrees with it, then she doesn't have a choice but to either leave or comply with it. neil: all right. you are always free to do that. we will have a lot more after this. ... attentions veterans with va loans,

va mortgage rates have just dropped to near 50 year lows. veterans can refinance their va loans with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. newday has extended our call center hours so that every veteran in america can take advantage of this unexpected drop in interest rates.

one call can save you $2000 every year. to start saving on your next mortgage payment go to >> the president has been reported to have said there is no quid pro quo. there's no this for that, there is no you do something for the bidens -- on the biden investigation and we'll release the aid because we know there was no investigation launched, neil, and they received the aid. they've received aid, lethal aid in 17, 18, 19 consistent with what congress authorized and i'm telling you, i know what congress is trying to do here. they're trying to politically weaken the president and i'm worried about the precedent this is going to set for future administrations. neil: all right. that was former acting attorney general matthew whitaker this

week telling me that the impeachment hearings were about weakening the president and will fail ultimately. and what's going on behind closed doors be a worry for the president because there is such testimony. what are we talking about? who are we talking about? >> we have another closed-door deposition. we did have open hearings, but they continue with the closed-door depositions, a rare saturday hearing. this is an omb official about a quarter of 10:00, we think he'll be there there four or five hours and he raised some questions about them upholding the aid to ukraine. everybody here at the capitol is buzzing about the tweet that president trump sent yesterday morning during the hearing where he lit up marie yovanovitch, the witness, the former ambassador to ukraine, and there are questions as to whether or not democrats could try to incorporate that tweet into a potential article of impeachment saying maybe they're trying to

intimidate the witness. listen to the house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff. >> the president's attack on a witness today is not something that we view in isolation. this is part of a pattern the president of the united states. >> now, chris stewart, is a republican congressman from utah. he's a member of the intelligence committee. he said during the hearing yesterday, quote, i think the support for impeachment is going to be less when the hearings are over. now, there is political risk for both sides here. you know, look at the republicans, they are standing behind the president, defending him. could that backfire? i posed some of those questions to kevin mccarthy, the house minority leader. >> my question was about the vulnerability of republicans in -- vulnerability for any-- >> if you want to come here and decide what you want to do based on politics or stand up for the confusion. >> i would hope the republicans if this were in reverse order,

if this was a democrat in the white house, ned' stand for the constitution the same way. >> and the democrats are thinking about language of this and they battle tested some of the language and used the latin phrase quid pro quo. you're not really hearing that anymore, what they're talking about now is bribery and extortion. they think that that type of language is more compelling as they try to currate this narrative. neil: the republicans are concerned with the president with that tweet as yovanovitch was speaking and i believe disagree with the tweet. others were a little stronger when spoken to off air. what was your sense of how republicans are assessing that? >> i had a statement sent to me, a comment by a senior republican aide just a few minutes after that yesterday morning in the hearing and that aide said to me, they said we really didn't need this. in tennis, they call this an unforced error and the idea na

you have a moment in one of these hearings that doesn't exist within the hearing, it exists in the internet ether where the president sends in this weaponized tweet and completely took over the hearing. i had a democrat before the hearing tell me that republicans better be very careful how they handle marie yovanovitch. they were, but it was the president that basically roughed her up. that was something that democrats were afraid of, that it was going to be republicans that would be too rough on them and that would create a bad optic, the president is the one at least from the democrats perspective that created the bad optic and republicans think that, too, when you talk to them privately. neil: you used a tennis analogy and last week a hockey. >> we could use ski jumping and-- did they get over the tips of their skis. neil: you can bring bocce ball into it the italian-american vote follows.

thank you very, very much. the guy a wicked. and ken starr what he thought on the president intervening with that tweet. i want you to take a quick look at this. >> well, i must say that the president was not advised by counsel in deciding to do this tweet. extraordinarily poor judgment. the president frankly says i follow my instincts. sometimes we have to control our instincts, so obviously this was, i think, quite injurious. neil: well, let's get the read from robert wray, the former whitewater independent counsel. what do you think the back on forth on this? should he have? >> i think that's a bit overstated. i have great respect for judge starr, but i don't really-- look, she'd already testified in deposition form. it's a little hard to make the argument that there's any real evidence here or concern about witness tampering. neil: and that was what schiff was arguing? >> that's right. i mean, talk about the political

sensitivity of this and you know, walking carefully and gingerly around an ambassador who obviously has strong feelings about the fact that she was replaced and-- >> her feelings are hurt, i get that, fine, but-- >> but feelings are not -- this supposed to be honestly, this is supposed to be an impeachment proceeding, which is a pretty solemn inquiry, right? and a serious one. and we're-- honestly, we're talking about an ambassador's feelings and we're using that as a basis during the democratic examination of the witness. neil: so were your feelings hurt that her feelings were. >> haven't we had enough of that? look, you try to take this seriously and give it the respect that it is due. neil: i just thought it was going overboard on silly stuff and i thought that maybe there might be looking for smoking guns, i get that. >> the most you can say it's a distraction. now, who does benefit? i don't really know. i guess fortunately for the country it looks like we'll have

only another week of in before the select committee and then to the house judiciary committee if the democrats-- >> let me ask you about that, nancy pelosi put fuel on the fire saying this was worse than watergate, what the president is doing here and escalated to bribery. >> i don't know how many times i have to say this. i was 13 at the time, but let's just try it on for size again. tell me how this is similar to a slush fund with cash in the white house orchestrated by the president of the united states on tape discussing with co-conspirators about removing cash in order to pay off witnesses, to alter testimony in an ongoing criminal investigation. does any of that found anything like what we're talking about here. neil: i just thought it's night and day here and i'm just wondering, whether you like the president, dislike the president let's stick to the facts here, but it's hyperventilating-- >> that would be clear unmistakable evidence in the

nixon situation. neil: and democrats argue you stick with this you're going to get more stuff. i haven't heard that. >> i suppose their next star witness now that they've exhausted three of them will ultimately be ambassador sondland himself next week, but remember, he also offers some pretty significant exculpatory evidence depending how you view it. what he'll testify to, the president when questioned by ambassador sondland said, you know, absolutely clear, no quid pro quos. now, you can choose not to believe him, but that's a significant piece of exculpatory evidence if you're trying to prove, as the democrats are, in fact this is constituted bribery. neil: don't you need undebatable proof? you're a lawyer i'm not, but i scratch my head, if you're relying on witness is who weren't in on calls, but heard someone speaking on the phone about a call, first of all, it's only half the call and secondly,

how are you devising what was-- >> the whole ball game, neil, is whether or not you believe and whether the american people believe that the president had corrupt intent. we don't impeach an administration. we don't impeach an administration based upon policy differences. we impeach a president of the united states for having committed a high crime or misdemeanor which constitutes an abuse of the public trust. neil: anything you've heard so far hit that measure? >> no. i think it's well short of it. and i think we're prolonging the agony here and the longer we do, it is in my view acting contrary to the best interest of the country, not the least of which because both adam schiff and speaker pelosi said they would not do what they're doing now, drag the country through on a partisan basis in order to land in the senate whereof course this will be defeated. neil: so you see it as a given that the house is going to vote. >> i've been asked that several times along the way and i've

held out for the longest time hoping against hope that we would not reach that point. i suppose there's still an exit ramp here for the democrats to take a graceful exit and fold the tent, i don't think that that will happen. i suspect that once we're done here next week with the remainder of the public portion of the testimony before the select committee, it will then be off to the races and off to the house of judiciary committee where articles of impeachment are already being drafted and the committee will vote on those and that will be referred to the full house, and i mean, what we think is happening is going to happen, likely a vote by the full house sometime before the end of the year. neil: so when adam schiff says despite all the republicans complaining, he's just doing and handling things the way the republicans handled things during the clinton impeachment process, is that true? >> well, the big significant difference, forget about how it's being handled, is that at present, there is absolutely no

bipartisan support. in other words, there was not a single vote in favor of the inquiry by republicans in the house of representatives. now, i suppose that's always potentially subject to change and obviously the whole purpose of the public phase of these proceedings as initiated by chairman schiff has been to develop public sentiment just as which would be-- >> which happened in nixon, not so much the clinton stuff. >> it doesn't appear that it has-- the needle has moved at all and that there will be, in fact, any bipartisan support. and so if that happens, and if the democrats choose to proceed entirely on a partisan basis, my guess is they will get an equal and opposite reaction by the united states senate that's in control of the republican party. now, all of it in your lead-in to this will have consequence to all the elected officials in terms of you know what their prospects are in 2020 and beyond. neil: and particularly those 35 to 40 democrats. >> in swing districts or newly elected, who are newly elected

and also, as well, you know, republicans in the united states senate up for reelection this year, a third of the senate. so, you know, look, everybody understands, both parties, that this is a serious enough matter that it will have no matter how this comes out will have consequence to them. neil: real quickly, when i covered the clinton impeachment, i do remember that the backdrop was strong economy and a strong market. here we are with a strong economy and strong market. >> below 4% unemployment and the stock market at 28,000. neil: that makes a difference? >> it's got to. and i suppose-- >> opposite for richard nixon, he would have impeached either way, but the backdrop matters. >> of course the backdrop matters, it's always in that context and it's always about public sentiment, right? it's a political action. i am ahere to offer what my legal judgment is, which is not irrelevant because i think that also fuels what the political narrative is, but the political narrative ultimately controls.

neil: you should stick to this legal thing, i think it's working. >> i try. neil: always good to see you. >> good to be with you, neil, thanks again. neil: early in the process, we'll see what comes of it. the house is trying to get its own house in order, during this impeachment process. still a lot of bills to pass and they are trying.

>> all right. it's the old argument can you walk and chew gum at the same time? the impeachment hearings are on, but the house is trying to get to other business, voting to reup the import/export banks and plenty to do including the usmca, a trade deal between the canadians and mexicans. and knowing all too well, chief deputy whip from michigan, congressman dan kildee. >> good to be back.

neil: on the import/export thing, i'm wondering that the democrats will push to get the usmca done to prove that they can focus on impeachment and other work that a lot of people want to see done as well. what do you think? >> i think there's a lot of effort going into usmca. i'm on theways ways and means committee and spending a lot of time on that the and the leadership is working on getting through the final details with will lighthizer, mr. trump's point person on this. it points out one thing that i don't think is well understood by folks across the country, is that it appears that all of the energy in washington is going into this impeachment question and it just really isn't the case. unless you're a member of one of the committees, like the intelligence committee or judiciary, i'm not on either one, we spend the vast majority of our time working on these

other issues and even more strange, we spend a lot of time working with our fellow republicans across the aisle. so, that doesn't come through, i know, but it's hard to-- it's hard to sort of sit back and watch all the focus appear to be on impeachment when there's a lot of business that this country needs to get at and many of us are working on that. neil: you know, maybe it's the perception of many that say that democrats seem hell bent on slinging the president out of office. what do you tell your own constituents that that's not your goal here? >> yeah, i think obviously some democrats and republicans have different views about what enforcing the constitution might mean. i have a view that led me to support this inquiry, while we still have to let the facts determine the outcome, but most of the people that i represent today in michigan are focused on other things. right now a lot are focused on deer hunting. neil: and democrats, as you

know, congressman, the president has gang buster time raising money off of this and democrats less so. are you worrying that it's boomeranging on your party? >> well, i think for democrats and republicans there's obviously political risk when we go down this path and i don't often agree with kevin mccarthy earlier on the show and a comment that i agree with, no matter what side of the question one is on, if we're thinking about the political and lectoral consequence on this weighty question we're probably thinking about the wrong thing. neil: and barack obama has not weighed in so much on the impeachment, but pie in the sky goals that maybe some well-intended democrats, like elizabeth warren, i think he was talking about bernie sanders with this revolution talk, that he says could hurt the party. do you agree with that? >> yeah, i think the president-- president obama in this case

makes a very good point. and i think this is a problem that my party faces on a daily basis. i think it's good that we have big, bold goals that tell the country where we want to go, but what barack obama and they may disagree with this, but what president obama was able to do set big goals and talk about hope and change, but tried to take steps that are practical that actually change for the better the lives of the people that we represent. you know, as a democrat, i sometimes get a little exhausted by what i call noble defeat, having some idea that is unachievable, but then patting ourselves on the back for the fact that we tried hard. the people i work for in michigan, they want me to try hard, but they want that to turn into some kind of a success for them that changes their lives in a positive way and i think sometimes we get in our own way. neil: i'm sorry, sir. he seemed to part company with those who want to fling out obamacare or the affordable care

act. medicare for all now the goal styled by people like bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, he provided the beginnings of that. i think to paraphrase him, a good starter home, but junking that and destroying that and starting with something that big and bold will only boomerang on the party. what do you think? >> i think that's possible. i think big and bold is good and if the way we articulate it make sure that all americans have ak is he is to health care at affordable price, that's a big goal and we ought to say it that way and could be differences the way we get there. my preference is we focus on things achievable. dealing with the cost of prescription drugs, for example, stabilizing medicare for example. those are things that right now in this moment would make life better for americans. it's okay to have the big lofty goals, but let's make sure that on the path to those goals, we're not leaving people behind in the name of something that in this moment might not be achievable. neil: dan kildee, thank you very

much. good seeing you again. >> thank you, neil. neil: all right, in the meantime, pittsburgh steelers quarterback nathan rudolph speaking out about cleveland's miles garrett slamming his head with his own helmet. we'll have that and a lot more from the former great quarterback joe theisman, what he makes about that and colin kaepernick in the news as well. devices are like doorways

that could allow hackers into your home. 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.

>> well, the next stop in the impeachment process, the senate, and it will hit right as the 2020 primary season heats up. so, what will that mean for all of those democratic senators presently running for president? will they have to be in washington for the hearing, wouldn't they? joining me now tennessee republican senator marsha blackburn. senator, good to have you.

>> good to be with you, thank you. neil: do you think that in a part of the rationale behind even asking you this, that the house will probably go ahead and impeach the president on some ground and then drop it in the senate's lap. do you see that happening? >> we'll see if they take a vote. their narrative is changing and we know they've had a cozy with the russian problem, from clinton oligarts, the clinton foundation, uranium one, and they've tried quid pro quo and bribery. we'll see if they get around to take a vote and if they send something it us, we'll take it up. i'm one of those, i've got questions for adam schiff. i've got some questions i'd like to have asked. neil: such as. >> i would like to know why adam

schiff took that call and told the -- it was a spoof call and said you've got dirt, i want the dirt, i'll have my staff follow-up. i want to know if he knows the whistleblower, who the whistleblower is, how many times did he meet with him. how many times did his staff meet with him. did his staff work on writing that whistleblower report? why did the cia change the rules and allow hearsay? because we know now they don't have enough hearsay to get anything to stick so they are he a beginning to wiggle around and try to find something else, obstruction, intimidation, bribery. neil: in the meantime with marie yovanovitch's testimony yesterday, the president's been criticized for tweeting about it in the middle of her testimony and adam schiff then using that to say in real-time the president was tampering with a witness, and all. what did you think of all of that? even ken starr said it was probably not the wisest thing to

do. >> the tweet probably was not helpful, but what we have to realize is, this is a fishing expedition that the democrats are on and that they are determined. they made a promise that they were going to find something and they were going to impeach president donald trump and it's back firing on them. i mean, the american people are not paying attention to what they're doing. they don't agree with it necessarily, and obviously, neil, the stock market is not agreeing with what they're doing. the stock market is saying they're with the administration and the economic changes that have been made that had an all-time high yesterday. neil: you're about that. all three averages are up dramatically, the s & p and nasdaq, up 30% year to date and the s&p 500 and the dow up 20%. and obviously, investors are saying there's no "there" there with this.

do you think or do you worry that people get ahead of themselves on this and that you like what you're seeing, but everybody sort of bring it down a little bit? >> i think what you're seeing is the democrats are kind of being too cute by half on this. adam schiff and his conduct, the way he treated ellyse stefanik yesterday was absolutely awful and unacceptable and very arrogant. neil: you're talking about the congresswoman. she said that about the tweet that she disagreed with the tweet, but could understand why the president did it because he didn't have representation in that room. if the senate were to take this up, would that be something you'd insist on? >> if the senate takes this up and as i said, i hope that we do so we can ask some questions and then you will see due process that is there. the president has to be incredibly frustrated with the fact that it has been attack, attack, attack since the day he

won. it's been a reconstruction of a narrative. the democrats know they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. they know they did things wrong. clinton did things wrong. that dossier was wrong and we're yet to get the report and i think that will probably temper some of this by the democrats. we know that taking it to the senate will we'll have a chance to provide probably a more even view on what has probably transpired and we also know that here to date, there has not been anything that would be an impeachable offense. neil: so, very quickly, senator, mark sandy is testifying right now behind closed doors. of course, he's a career omb, management and budget. and if he could testify to holdup of ukraine military aid we know that ultimately that aid

was provided, but if it was delayed as a result of this or waiting to get information on joe biden and/or his son hunter, would that be an impeachable offense in your eyes? >> what we do know is that there is tremendous corruption in the ukraine and i was over to see some of our tennessee troops that were over there and what they wanted to do is make certain that money was going to people who were with us, not people that were going to be against us. we also know the obama administration did not send anything, but mre's and blankets. so why was the holdup on that? was that because he had a relationship with the russians? we'll see. neil: senator, thank you very very much. >> thank you. neil: in the meantime, elizabeth warren doubling down on bashing millionaires and a ceo kind bashes back, kind of.

and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works.

brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

>> my attitude about this is, i've been very fortunate. if the will of the people is that i should pay more, i will pay more. i certainly know that there are things i believe in that might require more. neil: how much more. billionaires are fingered and they want to get rid of billionaires. >> i am offended when candidates of all types vilify anybody.

vilification of any people are not valuable done by d's or r's, whether it's done to the more affluent or the less affluent. if we're going to have a constructive dialog grounded in the facts, we probably shouldn't engage in this crazy vilification. neil: he would have to sell the clippers to pay the bills there. that's steve ballmer, the latest billionaire to the constant criticism by elizabeth warren and bernie sanders has thrown back at them. we've got kathy and what do you think, that they're going too far? >> they're going too far villainizing the billionaires, but in politics you need the villains. they're running for office, they're running against each other and when their policies are so close, you have to differentiate yourself. so she's got this medicare for all. we don't know how warren's going to pay for this, but by the way, those two billionaires over

there, bad guys, villains, so focus over there, we don't like those guys, that's how she hopes she's going to win the nomination. neil: and even hurting her democratic backers who do have a lot of money. >> so my biggest problem is one, the proposal she has, she's not hitting billionaires, she's hitting people with 50 million worth of wealth and-- >> and a lot lower. >> and a lot lower. so, even if you have a company, let's say that's worth 50 million, when you look at sort of, let's just say like general public companies, small cap companies they generally only offer about 1, 1 1/2% dividend yields. that's the amount of cash they can pay out each year. so she wants to give them an extra tax of 1% of that wealth. that's wiping out what they can pay. if you think of a billionaire running a small business, right, in general, you only have about 1, 1 1/2% to pay out an income

and that would go completely towards this additional tax. so i just look at it as, well, if you think of a billionaire as a corporation, she's just wiping out all the cash and ultimately they're not going to be able to reinvest in their businesses. neil: you know, joe, the president tweeted something similar a lot when it comes to the democratic field, particularly the elizabeth warrens and the bernie sanderses and some of their proposals that you can kiss this rally goodbye, the economic recovery goodbye if they get in. >> it's true. here is an example of elizabeth warren not only bad boil, but going after-- you hate to say the billionaires are low hanging fruit, but the masses convincing them that people that have more than you are evil. neil: and pay tax-- and try this, we had 42,000 millionaires leave the country of france.

gerard depardu left. and this is the kind of thing-- i speak a little french. neil: and we had european countries doing this in the early '90s and i think it's down to two or three. >> the revenue projected never materialized. it's as nice to be a millionaire in monaco or belgium, depardu went-- i think he went there. >> the chocolate. >> and those increases were more about income. at least taxing and taking cash from cash, right? her proposal is taking cash from wealth. well, wealth-- >> i think i looked at her proposal and you know, she does because she wants to get rid of a lot of private insurance plans and the like, maybe you can address this, cathy a lot of people are in tax advantaged accounts to pay for that. and you remove those and incomes

goes up and you'd pay more. >> she wants to win the nomination. neil: this is what you have to do. >> this is what you have to do. those guys are villains and she's running against two balance nairs. you've heard it here first, bloomberg is entering this race. he really is. neil: tom stiers already in it. >> already in it. >> in fairness, he was supposed to be the buildup, a person that's going to change the momentum of the race. he came in spending more than any other candidate combined. neil: but they're worried about democrats and overdoing the impeachment thing and do you think that elizabeth warren is overdoing the bash the rich thing. i think you're becoming republican. >> do not say that. >> and one of her promo things, there's a mug and she's going to collect the tears from billionaire. i think that type of bashing really is getting mean and nasty

and that might be where you're pushing too far. >> but politics need villains. >> democrats who listened to barack obama who is out there trying to moderate on some of the positions, medicare for all and immigration. neil: good luck with that. >> it's going too far. neil: you're worried they're grabbing defeat from what would otherwise be the jaws of victory? >> i know, i'm asking for them to be moderate, but i'm excited about bloomberg. i really think that everyone is nervous. neil: otherwise-- >> i know. neil: and a lot of you, and my buddy jenna caldwell, being african-american, and conservative and gasp, a trump supporter that you wanted to hear more. you will because he's back after this.

>> when i got involved, i noted that the liberals that ran the city of chicago often--

more often than not took for granted the residents that were there. it wasn't that these were people that they cared about, these black lives didn't matter to them, black votes did. neil: well, not only were a lot of you watching, it seemed like the president of the united states was watching, too because he said essentially the same thing in louisiana later that same day. take a look. >> they don't care about african-americans, they talk, they work for the african-american, very hard, two months before the election and then people don't hear from them anymore. and remember when i said what the hell do you have to lose? do you remember that? they said that, they saw that and you know what happened? we have the best employment numbers and the best unemployment numbers in the history of our country. neil: and that's essentially what caldwell was saying. take it for granted how conservativism can win back what liberalism failed. thank you for coming back. >> thank you soap for having me.

neil: the president has been saying that for the longest time, what the hell have you got to lose and you taking on the president, and remarks after charlottesville, but all in all you base it on what he's done. >> 1 #00%. neil: explain. >> you know what? as we've been talking and you played that clip black lives don't matter and bla-- and democrats claim they're advocating for african-americans and they they don't deliver. all promises and all hype and no deliverables. and president trump said what do you have to lose? african-americans said we have a lot to lose. the truth of the matter is we've had tremendous gains under this president. there's not been a president, democrat or republican that has delivered for the african-american community as president donald trump has and in such a short period of time, we're talking two to three

years. if it was a democrat president and let's say they did one of the things, one of president trump's accomplishments, that would be it for the two terms, that would be it, they'd leave it alone, but now he's taken the crutch from the democrats they now have no issues to run on except for reparations, which is an insult. neil: what do your african-american friends say, or family members, many of whom don't talk to you. >> a lot of family disowned me after i became a conservative and it's disappointing. [laughter], well, likeable to you, i appreciate that, neil. neil: is it that bad? you talked about the famous date that ended and then the famous actress, once she knew who you were-- >> i went up to a famous actress at a hollywood party and she said i know who you are, the republican from fox news. that was tiffany haddish, she didn't appreciate what i was offering apparently, but certainly there are folks appreciating what i've been speaking up. people saying, hey, i've never

thought about it this way and these are liberals we're talking about. neil: i get a lot of outpouring on stuff you're saying is unlike anything i've seen, prior or since. how do you convince african-americans that you're in a rut, doing something predictable, whether president trump or not, how do you get them to say, all right, well, expand your horizons, listen to the guy, hear the guy out. >> right. so here is the thing, there's an internal conversation that goes on in the black community and i might get in some trouble for mentioning this on fox news before our viewers. but people recognized the democrats failed and really recognized that president obama failed the black community and that's conversation in barber shops across the country. neil: wouldn't know it in the numbers. >> wouldn't know it in the numbers, what am i going to do vote for a republican? truthfully speaking republicans

had not went out to get the black vote, you've not seen republicans raise the issue about the black community as you've seen president donald trump has. it's not just raising the issue, saying the schools are bad in your neighborhood, unemployment is horrible as he said in 2016. okay, these are the issues, but this is what i'm going to deliver to change it. we've not seen that since the-- >> do you believe that-- >> i do believe that president trump is going to get more votes in the black community because he has something to actually show. i accomplished this, i'm not just talking about how bad it is in your community, but i'm giving you the solutions as well. neil: all right. gianna caldwell, the book makes you think. i knew him when. and a fancy best seller. in the meantime, the nfl is cracking down after this brutal brawl. nfl lend joe theismann on whether they made the right call after this.

>> pittsburgh steelers quarterback nathan rudolph says he is not pressing charges after cleveland browns defensive end myles garrett bashed him in the head with his own helmet during a brawl during the game on thursday. and garrett is suspended without pay indefinitely and both teams fined $250,000. super bowl champion and mvp joe theismann with us now. every time i think of incidents and i think of what you had to endure on the field and even there, the new york giants player felt awful about it. but this was clearly deliberate and i'm wondering what you make of the punishment that should be meted out? >> well, you know, it's interesting, neil, it was deliberate, obviously because he took the action, but it wasn't

premeditated. it's the reaction of an individual who just responded in the moment. i think the punishment absolutely is correct. i think myles, he'll be gone for the rest of this year, he'll sit down with the commissioner, go through the process they need to to make sure this he's already. pouncey kicked the guy in the head and those are things the league doesn't want a part of. you've got to set the punishment. if this is happens, this is going to happen to you. when you start taking money out of players' pockets it gets their attention and of course, the league doesn't want this. it's a tough, violent game as it is, you don't need brutalitity inside the game to put out to the public and say this is professional football. neil: do you think that rudolph. >> did the right thing. neil: do you think that rudolph was under pressure not to file charges and keep this in the football community, we'll deal with it? >> no, i don't. i don't think he was put under pressure at all. matter of fact, one of the things i thought about after it happened, what will he do?

i think he feels like the national football league will take care of it, understands the heat of the moment in that situation, not that it makes it right. not that somebody's emotions can boil over and have actions on a football field that justify anything you do. i played with a lot of emotion and a lot of passion. there were moments where things happen and you jump up and you have to control yourself. if not if you have guys running around and bashing people and doing certain things, that's why i feel what the office of the commissioner has done is to deter things going forward. neil: what do you think of the kaepernick tryouts going on today as he searches for another shot at another nfl team? >> i've never felt that colin was the 91st worst quarterback out there. and there's approximately 9 off them. his skill talent, three, four years ago warranted opportunity.

what he looks like now and how he's going to be able to throw and move around, that's all a question of his athleticism and can he play the position. the other side of it is, ownership willing to take a chance on how the fans might react if they add him to the roster? and what happens in the locker room. i can tell you this, if you're in the locker room with somebody that's been as visible as colin as taken the stances that he does, you're going to be asked a lot of questions about your teammate. and as players, you really just want to take care of your own job. you want to take care of your own life. it gets tiring inquiring, having people inquire, well, what did he say? how has he acted, is he doing this, doing that? and that's just the nature of our business because that team is a family and you have to take into consideration, what happens inside that family if he gets added. there is no policy in the national football league, by the way, regarding kneeling for the national anthem. eric reed still does it, who was along with colin kaepernick.

it's a team by team choice, but i still think i didn't agree with it then and i don't agree with it now, i still think the american flag and national anthem deserves respect and honor. neil: thank you, my friend. joe theismann. that will do it. mortgage rates just dropped to near 50-year lows.

yeah, and one call to newday usa can save you $2,000 every year. and once you refinance, the savings are automatic. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. that's right, so activate your va benefit now. cause one call can save you $2000 every year. every year.

>> all right, good afternoon, let's get straight to a fox news alert involving our military. president trump granting clemency to two army officers accused of war crimes and restoring the rank of a navy seal. welcome to news headquarters, i'm ed henry. clint lorance was released from prison six years after he was convicted of second degree murder and also matt golsteyn will have a murder charge against him dropped and eddie gallagher, the rank of chief petty officer restored after convicted of posing with a photo of a dead islamic state fighr.