egyptian cotton sheets. probably 1200 thread count. we've got it all. >> sandra: we are finishing each other's sentences. you have a great holiday. i will be get a drumstick. enjoy. >> bill: thank you, smitty. >> sandra: say hi to your family. "outnumbered" starts now. >> harris: we will begin with democrats weighing their next move on the impeachment inquiry. house intelligence chair adam schiff says his committee is drafting a report for the house judiciary committee, and could deliver it as soon as next week. schiff also warns new witnesses could be called. meanwhile, congressman brenda lawyer, who individually initially backedimpeachment, sas yesterday. >> we are so close to an election. i will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, i don't see the value of taking him out of office. but i do see the value of

putting down a marker, saying his behavior is not acceptable. i want him censured. i wanted on the record that the house of representatives did their job. >> harris: however, congresswoman lawrence then clarified her comment, saying, "i was an early supporter for impeachment in 2017. the house intelligence committee followed a very thorough process in holding hearings these past two weeks. the information they revealed confirmed that this president has abuse the power of his office. therefore, i continue to support impeachment." you are watching "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis. fox news contributor, katie pavlich. also a fox news contributor, marie harf. in the center seats, former editor in chief of "the weekly standard" and fox news contributor as well, stephen hayes is "outnumbered." good to see it. >> steve: good to be here, good to be back. the one we are seeing a little

bit and play among the democrats. notwithstanding lawrence. there is this thought now from nancy pelosi, the house speaker, censure versus impeachment. first of all, what is the difference that we need to know? politically, what does that mean? are democrats losing this? is a very good question. democrats made a mistake early on in the process when they decided to not push to compel testimony from the people they have subpoenaed. they decided they were going to not follow through on the legal case, and it gave the appearance of during the summer for politics. they started the discussion by saying, "we're in this to get the truth. the whole truth, we want to pursue this wherever it leads. that's what's most important." then they backed off and said, "it would take too long to compel the testimony and we aren't even sure we would win." i think it give the additional appearance of some politicization of the process. adam schiff had already given at that appearance. that's part of what is at play here. democrats are now looking for a

place they can land this safely. if you believe the house to me or may not impeach, the house is certainly not going to convict. democrats maybe looking for a place, "if we censure or do something short of that, we can put republicans in a difficult position. we can say to them, you didn't want to impeach, but certainly this abuse of power would be something that ought to be censured." >> harris: just to make this very clear, impeachment doesn't automatically means remove. that's what lawrence at a growing number of people are saying, if you talk with regular voter folk outside of d.c., particularly independents. 70% of people agree that the president did something wrong. not 70% are anyplace near it believe he should be removed or office for it. marie? >> marie: democrats, i think, don't want to be guided by polls on this. they want to make up their own mind over whether this impeachable and whether he should be censured. we don't want politics through poles to actually be influencing what should be free of politics.

>> harris: what's the difference? >> marie: a lot of democrats will say to you this may be tough politically but he should be impeached. that's what you will hear. i also think the impeachment train -- for all intents and purposes, it has left the station in the house. i actually agree with you, steve. i think bolton, mulvaney, pompeo, they should have had to testify. the fact that the white house and the administration has been stonewalling so much will probably be one of the articles of impeachment and obstruction of justice. that we had all these people involved, you refuse subpoenas, you refused to come down here, that will be one of the articles of impeachment. i think the impeachment train has left the station in the house. >> harris: katie, i want to ask you again. maybe i need to ask it a different way. politically, what is the difference between impeachment and a censure? they are both an asterisk by the president's name, because if you don't remove them with impeachment, how is any difference? >> katie: i think impeachment

has a historical context. we've been there before. we've obviously been there before with censure, but impeachment -- >> harris: only four times. >> katie: it has so much more gravity of what it means and what it requires. as nancy pelosi stated in the year, it should be bipartisan. that's not what they are dealing with here. when they took the road to push the inquiry forward to give adam schiff the rules of engagement to give him the power to call only the witnesses he saw fit to testify, you had to cope democrats defecting on that boat. i don't see that changing. they are probably going to join republicans if they go forward with that. the only out i see now is for adam schiff to give the judiciary committee, give it to jerry nadler and say, "i've made myself clear that impeachment needs to be done immediately, but i've given the report to judiciary and it's up to him to make a decision about what he needs to do moving forward." but censure should have been on the table initially, not going all the way to impeachment. nancy pelosi knew that, being

the political operative she is. >> harris: melissa, what kind of a look at is that when he rushed through that process? that was a lot of the criticism for democrats. when you look at those previous three impeachment investigations and movements in our nations history, didn't go quite this fast. the timeline was slowed down by collecting evidence, so on and so forth. for them not to want to push through the court system and bring in those people that the white house was blocking, what kind of stab at legitimacy -- what has it done to the democrat argument? >> melissa: i don't know if it feels rush to people. i think our whole timeline, everything about us has sped up. >> harris: that's interesting. >> melissa: i don't know if it necessarily feels rushed to people. along those lines, the justice department this morning filing -- you can go ahead and scroll up. filing an appeal after a federal judge last night ordered former white house counsel don mcgahn to testify before congress, in the impeachment inquiry. the judge ruling on a subpoena issued back in april.

saying that if he wants to exert executive privilege to avoid testifying, he must do it himself before congress, likely on a question by question basis. house judiciary chair jerry nadler now says that he expects mcgahn to "promptly appear before the committee," and president trump tweeting, "the d.c. wolves and fake news media are reading far too much into people being forced by courts to testify before congress. i am fighting for future presidents and the office of the president. other than that, i would actually like people to testify." this goes directly to the question harris was asking, which is what i want to move on from this. it's interesting to me, if it's good for the goose is good for the gander. eric holder didn't come out, they wanted him to testify. it feels like a different issue because he special counsel. for everyone else, what are your

thoughts on this? >> steve: if you go back and look at when the initial subpoena came, it was in april. for republicans if you like this has been going on for a long time, that adds to their case. this was preukraine. they are talking about in the context of this impeachment inquiry, but this is preukraine. this is something the white house has fought from the beginning. they don't want senior officials to testify. the president is now couching it in terms of establishing precedent and protecting the office, separation of powers. i think there is a bigger case to be made of the president just doesn't want his people to be compelled to testify because they will be providing information that could be damaging to the president. >> marie: i totally agree with that. somebody like rudy giuliani, it's a holiday week. the mood is somewhere weird i think. rudy giuliani is not a government official. he should be compelled to testify. i think republicans keep saying, "no one with direct knowledge has said anything that it terminates the president."

yes, because you're not letting them testify. you're not letting them come forward. to the central question, i think it's a trap for democrats because i don't think the republicans will agree to censure. it might put them in a tough political place but they seem so unified, i think this is just a political trap they are trying to get democrats in. >> steve: i think there are enough republicans, if you give them -- the main question is between impeachment and censure. >> melissa: it's so mild. >> steve: one compels the second step. if the president is impeached, it goes -- >> harris: i just -- >> katie: will hurd will probably vote for it. >> steve: i think you will have more republicans -- >> melissa: is that the difference between saying, "i don't like what you did and it's wrong," versus "i think what you did merits being removed from office?" those things are so far apart, and there are a lot of republicans who will say, "i don't think what you did was right, but i don't think it means you should be removed from office."

that's a totally different vote. katie? >> katie: i don't think the president will be happy with a censure vote if republicans decide to vote for one. i don't think at this point that nancy pelosi can pull the string off the tracks. i think she is so far in this, you continue to have adam schiff that has made this all about himself and what he wants, there's no way he will back off of impeachment when he's listing off articles he wants the judiciary committee to come over. i don't see the backing out. if they do, it proves the republican and white house point that this is all a charade. >> harris: if you look at what brenda lawrence, congresswoman, is saying, whether she said it yesterday or today or whatever she said, it's the one consistent point she's making. that we are really close to an election and voters will decide. how will they look at this? i'm looking at a pole right now that shows -- a cnn poll, it shows unchanged from a 50% to 50% from october to now, about whether or not the president should be impeached and removed

from office. that means after all of those hours of testimony, after everything we've seen, unchanged one way or the other. as this goes into the voters' bloodstream, what does that look like? to even have an idea? i don't think we do. >> marie: we don't, but democrats believe they are doing the right thing. polls shouldn't guide this. genuinely, they believe that. >> katie: but republicans can make the argument they wasted time. >> melissa: congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez says she's tired of people calling tuition free college and medicare for all "free stuff." what she says they really are. plus, michael bloomberg getting the campaign trail for the first time amid big push back against "bloomberg news" deciding not to investigate 2020 democrats. ♪ if you have medicare, listen up.

the medicare enrollment deadline is only days away. having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? if not, maybe there's a better fit for you.

call healthmarkets now or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore. compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more. they work to help you and they do it all for free. only healthmarkets has the free fitscore. call before the deadline. call the number on your screen now. va mortgage rates have dropped to near 50-year lows. newday usa can help you refinance your mortgage and save thousands a year. i urge you to call newday usa now. bleeding disorderste medlike hemophilia.s so victor can keep doing what's in his blood. at bayer, this is why we science.

>> marie: former new york city mayor michael bloomberg making his debut on the 2020 campaign trail. there we go. meeting voters in norfolk, virginia, monday after watching his candidacy over the beacon. meantime, the union representing journalists at the publication group is condemning the decision by "bloomberg news" to pause any investigation into the democratic presidential candidates during the campaign. the union tweeting, "we are extremely alarmed by management's decision to silence the journalists we represent at bloomberg industry group as well as the unrepresented journalists at "bloomberg news"." the girl believes journalists should not only be allowed but encouraged to thoroughly cover every single candidate, as a profession demands, and one of the most important elections in modern history." steve, michael bloomberg launched his campaign, he thinks there is a moderately inherent, then there's this whole separate

issue with "bloomberg news." what do you make of bloomberg media? >> steve: there's a good joke to be made that democrats -- >> marie: i coined that. >> steve: it might be popular here. [laughter] and very many other places. there's a really good joke to be made about the official position of bloomberg, being that they are not going to investigate democratic presidential candidates. some would argue that might have been the de facto position of previous mainstream media actors over the past few years. look, it's hard for me to envision a groundswell for mike bloomberg. what is so interesting, you say he is joining this moderate lane. if you spend time on his issues page on his website, that they just launched, he is a conventional liberal. that is how he is positioning himself. he may space bar be moderate relative to bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, but almost anybody is. >> melissa: i want to jump in

as a single-issue voter over here. i vote on the economy and spending. when i look at what he did in new york city in terms of balancing the budget and being more responsible with spending in a way that republicans are not, to me, that kind of sensibility about having run a company where profits and losses matter to you, on that issue i feel like he is moderate and would be a great president. >> steve: it matters a lot. i am distressed that neither political party is talking about that. however, go to his website and do a search for debt or deficit. how many times do you think it appears? zero. it doesn't appear. >> melissa: i'm the only one who cares! >> harris: there's twitter page for this. [laughter] >> steve: if he wants to be a moderate, if he wants to be taken seriously on these issues that i think are important, he's got to be talking about them. >> marie: it's interesting,

though. getting in the race so late, forget about the issues, it takes time to build staff. >> harris: i don't think he cares about that. the ads that are running, this man is dropping cash. an unbelievable amount. it's the first time in history we will have seen somebody skip through to the second chapter of the book. i don't know what that's going to look like past the early caucuses and primaries, and i'm jumping in. what i do know is that on the te day he announced i saw more ads from him than i did anybody on a national level. it's a lot. he is like his own super pac. i would say this -- don't you have to kind of understand the electorate's economics? i know you live in new york, and maybe there's a special understanding of michael bloomberg in terms of your single issue on running it like a company, a corporation, but i just wonder if people come on first blush, they don't know this guy. he's another billionaire, making it rain with his money. how do they connect with him?

>> steve: president trump is presiding over a pretty darn good economy right now. >> harris: and incumbent with a good economy -- >> steve: i think a lot of voters will say -- >> katie: michael bloomberg is calming it on my coming off a hive turn virginia blue parade running on gun control, supporting candidates say. i think he thinks he's been successful in a number of places electorally on the local level. steve is right, pretty different on the economy. when it comes to his social programs, he's just like aoc. he wants to control how big the soda is, he doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself when it comes to the second amendment with your family. he wants to control every aspect of your life that way. >> harris: with the ability to not the party a bit on those issues? there is such a divide along those lines. >> katie: he's a billionaire who elizabeth warren is going after already, simply because -- >> harris: a good foil for her. >> katie: i don't think is

unified by any means. he just presents a different person in a long line of people. but we haven't talked about the fact that "bloomberg news" is not going to be covering democrats, which is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. he should recuse himself from the company if he doesn't want them covering the election. it's going to be a huge election. it's part of american history. >> harris: i would like to know who really made that decision, and if their last name was bloomberg. >> katie: i remember a couple years ago he held a press conference in new york and said that a reporter asked him a question he said, "who are you with?" and they said, "bloomberg." [laughter] >> marie: there are a lot of journalists there who are not happy right now. when if they aren't going to cover democrats, they shouldn't cover republicans. in terms of investigating. if they won't do it for one, don't do it for all, or do it for everybody. >> katie: it's just ridiculous. it's not a news outlet if that's what you're doing. >> marie: we will watch this play out and watch mayor bloomberg's campaign. coming back, is your privacy for sale at the dmz?

the bombshell report this is one of america's biggest states is making big bucks on drivers' personal data. and the president doubling down on his defense of navy seal eddie gallagher, as the navy pushes back. >> what message does that send the troops? that you can get away with things. we have to have good order and discipline. it's the backbone of what we do. ♪ here ya go, hon. hello! i'm an idaho potato farmer. did you ever notice that the very first bite

of every great meal is always the potato? that's why it should always be an idaho potato. only genuine idaho potatoes have the perfect taste and texture to get your meal started right. whoa. hey look, it's huge. oops, gotta go. hey, wait. come back. and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding?

memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. can you tell me the story again? every family has their own unique story. give your family the chance to discover theirs this holiday season, with ancestry. >> harris: fox news alert, navy seal eddie gallagher has announced he will officially retire after the president intervened in his controversial war crimes case. gallagher was convicted of posing with the corpse of an iraqi militant in 2017. the navy now says he will be able to retire from active duty with full rank, and that a review board of his conduct in iraq has been canceled. the handling of that review at the center of defense secretary

mark esper's firing of navy secretary richard spencer. president trump, who championed gallagher, tweeted this earlier. "i will always protect our great war fighters. i got your backs!" meanwhile, spencer and his first interview since his firing, says the president's interactio inten sends the wrong message. watch. >> i don't think he understands this definition of a war fighter. that's a profession of arms. a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to, and they hold themselves to. >> harris: why does this story seem to hit so many people? it is sticking. what is it? >> steve: it is. i think the way it's been covered thus far has been polar. on the one hand, the president defending war fighters, on the other, people who are condemning them. i think there's a lot of people in the middle of this. what we are seeing play out over the airwaves and in the newspapers is the discomfort inside the military with what has happened here. i think we can all look at the

awards that eddie gallagher has gotten, and pres has worked as a war fighter , specifically. but he did things that are wrong. at least one thing we know is wrong and he was convicted of. we reach into the system of military justice at our own peril, and i think it's dividing the military even as people speak out. >> harris: icy marie nodding with you. even if your title is commander in chief, "commander" and g. >> marie: there is a military justice system for reason. in order to have fair and impartial ways that the military looks at itself, this review board was still ongoing. for the president to reach down into that, it sets a bad precedent, really. we don't want all commanders in chief doing this. we want these processes to play out. they are there for a reason. spencer is mad. i agree with him on this. the reason we have these procedures and so there is no politics in it. it's just people who do this for a profession. the president reaching down, it

sets a terrible precedent. >> harris: what about the secretary of the navy reaching around to the white house, kind of his own deal on this? we don't know all of the particulars, but apparently he was trying to reach a different conclusion, or a conclusion at all, rather than going to the defense secretary. you talk about protocol and chain of command, he didn't keep it. >> katie: the secretary of the navy has been on shaky ground for a long time. dr. rogan from "the washington post" wrote a very long piece about the details of how he lost the president's confidence, and the confidence of other administration officials, including at the pentagon, for a long time. this certainly was the last straw for them. there was a process. there was a military trial. eddie gallagher was found not guilty on all of the other counts. it's time to move on and let them move on with his family. there is a danger in the continuing to act like he is guilty and acts like he is a war criminal, although he's been absolved of those crimes. his rank should be restored, the commander in chief has the

ability to do that, and the secretary of the navy has no right to go around the process, go around the secretary of defense, and then around the president in making his own decisions, especially when he's out there lecturing about needing some kind of order in the military. obviously they think that, which is why there was a trial, and eddie gallagher was found not guilty. >> marie: so when president warren reaches down and there, you'll be cool with it? >> katie: she's president in chief. >> marie: mark that down. >> melissa: the conversation between him and his attorneys, that's violated we talk about the justice system, there's a reason why he wasn't convicted? >> marie: but this is a separate issue. this was not about those charges. this was about how he should be able to retire and what status he maintained. there was an ongoing review of that. >> katie: was found not guilty, and therefore the president -- >> steve: not of all of the charges. seven of the eight. >> katie: the vast majority. the most serious charges including murder. there were prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecution,

engaging with him. they are continuing to say that he is guilty of war crimes, despite this process playing out. in this country, if you are found not guilty, especially if you've gone over to fight for us, you shouldn't continue to be charged as guilty by brass who happen to work in the pentagon. >> steve: no, but the whole reason there is this controversy is the president pardoning him on being found guilty. >> katie: of the pentagon continues to push and say this man is guilty of war crimes when he is not. >> harris: would you use the word "pardon?" i don't know what you would. but i do know is through the review process, the military court has already found of acquitted on 7 of 8 charges. maybe that process of review also would have come to the conclusion that he could keep his trident. the >> marie: that should have played out. >> harris: but he's the commander in chief. you know? the next thing, though, in all of this, eddie gallagher and what's next for him. >> steve: that's a good question. he's going to retire.

he has announced he will retire from active duty. i think you would like to get back to his life. >> harris: on the president has said he might even want him to campaign. >> marie: it's a broader conversation that just eddie gallagher and what he was or was not convicted of and whether he should have his trident pin. the president has done this with a number of military cases. he didn't just do this with eddie, to others at the same time. reaching down into the military justice system, and it seems to many people, including many of the military, downplay the importance of rules of engagement and the fact that there are very strict rules. there are many military people on the record, katie. don't sigh at me. they say what i just said. >> katie: want to talk about the rules of engagement under barack obama, so strict that the casual rates -- this happened in 2012. this is when this happened for the rules of engagement were very different and very strict, and the casualty rate went up. if you want to talk about that, we can. >> melissa: there are two ways to look at this. it's interesting, you're right, a lot of people are saying that. the flip side of that is that people are saying this is like

president trump, to empathize with and identify with a soldier in the field versus the general who has become more political and more like a bureaucrat, in order to excel in that position. i'm not saying one or the other is right. i am saying that it fits with the way president trump looks at the world, where he identifies with the person lowest on the totem pole versus person who is his manager. >> marie: even though he didn't serve, himself. >> melissa: but it's the same with workers versus the boss with the ceo. he always he always identifies with the person lowest on the totem pole. >> harris: all right, we will move on. she says she still has a plan for this and a plan for that, but a new analysis shows that elizabeth warren's plans would add up to a major expansion of the federal government. how major? we will get into it. >> it's not going to be enough to say, "we will mop up a little over here, we will get a statute over here. here's my one idea over here." no. it's going to take big structural change.

[cheers and applause] ♪ imagine traveling hassle-free with your golf clubs.

now you can, with shipsticks.com! no more lugging your clubs through the airport or risk having your clubs lost or damaged by the airlines. sending your own clubs ahead with shipsticks.com makes it fast & easy to get to your golf destination. with just a few clicks or a phone call, we'll pick up and deliver your clubs on-time, guaranteed, for as low as $39.99. shipsticks.com saves you time and money. make it simple. make it ship sticks.

>> lets go up against the corruption head on. i want some structural change in this economy. 2020 is our time in history. our time to win the fight for a green new deal and save our planet. our time to win the fight for medicare for all and save our people. >> melissa: by printing money. elizabeth warren touting her ambitious plans, should she become president. a fox news analysis shows many of her plans would come with the expansion of the federal government. it is a power grab. adding up to at least 20 new offices, bureaus, agencies, divisions, or counsels. oh, my. some would be entirely new,

others would replace existing agencies but on a much bigger scale. and the rest would relaunch old agencies that were disbanded years ago. probably for good reason. no comment on this analysis yet from the warren campaign. steve? my goodness. the office of broadband access would manage $85 billion in federal grants. the department of economic development, if you want to slow down the economy, but the government in charge. that's a fantastic idea. a $100 billion commitment to assisting other countries to purchase and deploy green technology. >> steve: and she's just getting started. this is the beginning. it's interesting, we have this terrific analysis, finding these 20 new agencies or bureaus or departments. i don't think she would dispute any of that. she would campaign on it. it's who she is. if elizabeth warren is elected president, there will be a massive expansion of government,

with one caveat -- she might not be able to do the things she is talking about doing. a lot of this is a wish list designed for a campaign to enact the left wing of the democratic party. so many of the proposals that she has put forth already are either unconstitutional, have no political chance of ever being -- >> melissa: what would that mean to her if she won? would it mean that she was breaking campaign promises and so our people are sad they supported her? wherewith they see it as fighting this battle, and she's a warrior? that translate? >> marie: it's an interesting question. every time someone wants her office, the promised things parents and they can do and some they can't. i agree with steve that this is a wish list, and there are guardrails that would prevent quite a bit of this from actually happening. i don't think we need a huge government expansion. i think the government can do good in people's lives and that the question is always finding the right balance between how much government is the right amount. but this is a fundamental

question in our country right now. how much do you want government to play a role in bringing broadband access to parts of the country that don't have it? i think that is a laudable goal. i don't know if it should be an entire agency, but i like how she is thinking about how more people can get internet access. the republicans aren't. >> melissa: marie makes a great point. this is a fundamental difference between all of us on the couch. i think we want to go to the same place. we want everyone to have good health care. we want everyone to have broadband. we disagree on the most effective way to get there. is it government, or is it private sector and individual people and families? which works better? that is kind of one thing we've forgotten, in all of the screaming and yelling that it's come to in this country. that we do kind of want to go to the same place. we totally fundamentally disagree on how to get there. >> katie: does agreements on how to get there are big. elizabeth warren wanting to make hundreds of millions of people's private health insurance illegal, that's a pretty big gap

from even just changing obamacare. it's a very personal thing for you to be going after for people. the government is as big as it's ever been. the answer to more efficiency, to impact people's lives, is to have smaller and more efficient government so people have access. they are also in the conversation on things like broadband or local hospitals, urban hospitals, rural hospitals, local government. not the federal government. there's a lot the federal government is currently doing that should be left up to the local government because a one-size-fits-all policy from the feds oftentimes does not work across the country. it expands government, it's expensive, and it doesn't actually bring the solution. >> melissa: that's a more nefarious side of this debate, the idea that these plans are power grab. one person becomes a king or queen in this case, where they get to control everything. you're not going to the same place. >> harris: i think many people don't see the government as a whole is different from that anyways. if you've been audited by the irs, you can talk to people and

they see it as something where they don't have any freedom or power. we were talking about as an individual, the whole government, people kind of look at it that way. i look at elizabeth warren this way. president trump talks about promises kept. when you move into this election season, he might have thought button a little harder on #promiseskept."goingagainstmelir en,ittookherweeksafteradebatetoc omeupwiththepromisethatshewouldh a vetokeeponhowshewouldpayforherm e d icareforall. right?occursisn'tjust,"ihaveaplh at." youhavetowaitandseehowwepayforie bodyopenedanembassy,u.s. embassy ,againstsomewhodidn'twantit,move ditfromtel avivtojerusalem. hecanaddthattohischecklist. hecanaddtheeconomy -- >> steve:butwherehecan'thit her is the spending side >> melissa: cofer news dmv is

profiting big time over drivers personal information, over $50 million a year, whether congress needs to step in. i need a ride. here hold this. follow that spud. [ tires screech ] the big idaho potato truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. and i want it back. what is it with you and that truck? dropping to near record lows, my team at newday usa is helping more veterans refinance than ever. the newday va streamline refi is the reason why. it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now.

px]xri g i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

>> katie: a new report finds california's department of motor vehicles is making big money selling driver's' personal information. vice news obtaining documents showing the state's dmv made more than $50 million in the last three fiscal years selling driver's' personal data, including names and addresses. the dmv says it may sell info to insurance companies, car manufacturers, or prospective employers, and tells vice the sales help further "objectives related to highway and public safety." if public information officer at california's dmv saying in a statement, "the dmv takes his obligation to protect personal information very seriously. >> melissa: yeah, right. >> katie: "information is only released pursuant to legislative direction, and we will ensure information is only released authorized persons/entities, and lee for authorized purposes." melissa? is that true? >> melissa: that means, "we

reserve the right to sell your information to anyone we want," what that means. i think that's really interesting. i have a standard fake phone number i use when i buy anything online or do anything online because i don't want any phone calls. i would rather not give the product. when somebody does come and get through i always ask -- and you should do this, too -- "where did you by my phone number from?" shockingly, they tell you. they have no problem because they don't legally. they always said they had bought it from my local polling records, or they bought it from the dmv. it is the government that is selling your phone number, and the reason why you're getting those robocalls. it's all the government. this report does not surprise me, but it makes me so angry, because they pretend, "we are going to stop the robocalls," and they said and to send your phone number for someone. >> katie: members of government are paying attention to this premark warner weight on this in september, telling vice news, "this is another example of how unwitting consumers are e

ways in which their data is collected, sold, or shared and commercialized." a standard talking point that consumers don't care about privacy has been increasingly disproven as we learn they've been kept in the dark for years about data collection and commercialization processes." steve, this is the government using information that you have to give them if you want a driver's license or a social security card, or to change your address. they are than taking that personal information on selling it. you're not getting a product from then like amazon or google, for example. >> steve: i think millicent makes the key point. he was authorizing it? "we only do this in situations where it's authorized." well, you are authorizing it. >> melissa: "we reserve the right." >> steve: it's the defense of a bad practice and i think it should end. >> katie: some kind of legislative process, to tell them that you should be selling peoples information come that would be prudent, it seems. >> marie: it seems like there needs to be some relation here. i know everyone on this count

hits regulation but i will argue for it, because it seems like we all are given for it in a way. but every state would have the do it. dmv's are run by the state level. so states will have to take an active role in this, because consumers seem angered by this across the poetical spectrum. it seems crazy they would sell your information. >> katie: i think to rein in the government from selling your information without you knowing it is probably -- >> melissa: by what they write that? where they take many of their own pocket? >> harris: first of all, i don't think everyone hates regulation. i don't like -- i like regulation when it's about safe drinking water. flint, newark, other places. your information is your dna for credit, and it's who you are in a sphere that allows you to be powerful with what you are a steward of. your own resources. i think we need to take a look at it. from what i hear from senator warren, she's blaming the consumer? it's not our fault if the dmv or

the government is persisting on giving information, and then selling it. >> katie: well, if you get a phone call, you know what it's coming from. medicare for all, congresswoman ocasio-cortez says, "don't call it free stuff!" her answer to critics of her far left agenda and who she excuses of trying to flip the script on progressives. ♪ rk as hard as they do. however, since 2000, the buying power of the dollar has dropped by over 31% - that means the dollar is only worth about 68¢ now compared to 2000. had you owned gold, your value would have increased over 400% and owning gold is easy... with rosland capital - a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your wealth. call rosland capital at 800-630-8900 to receive your free rosland guide to gold,

gold & precious metals ira and silver brochures. with rosland, there are no hassles, no gimmicks, and we have the fastest shipping around. dollar down. gold up. pretty clear. make gold your new standard. call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900. 800-630-8900. that's 800-630-8900.

>> melissa: congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez unloading on critics who say that her calls for her tuition free and medicare for all our "free stuff." watch. >> people like to say it's about free stuff. this is not about free stuff. it's about public good. public good. [applause] i never want to hear the word or the term "free stuff" ever aga again. i'm tired of hearing some of

these who are trying to flip the script thomas. >> melissa: she's like a very anger professor whose class i dropped out of. i don't know. "free stuff! we aren't going to say that anymore! close to what you think about that? >> steve: is a pretty easy way overdue not be accused of offering free stuff, is a stop off and people free stuff. that's what she's doing. she can call it public goods make an argument that she wants from econ 101. but there's free stuff. it's tuition free college. that's free stuff. >> melissa: you call it a public good, but there's a price to it. that's a problem. she can call it what she wants, but it doesn't exist for free. someone has to pay for it. that's a big problem. b5 sure, someone has to pay for it, and i don't necessarily support most of her proposals, but i do think we should figure out how to fund college education in this country, no we should deal with all of the student loans that are crippling all generation college graduates.

>> melissa: i have a solution for that. but the debt back on the university that sold them -- that wasn't worth what you paid for it. >> marie: i totally agree. so we will about aoc, she's a force of nature. she's a good politician. watch that video and i'm like, "she's pretty good at this." i don't agree with armand many things, but she's got this whole politics things. >> katie: we are clapping at people, that's like a kindergarten class. you are trying to give them to pay attention, not you certain. it is true that changing the language of something can change the definition. the affordable care act for example, not really that affordable, but that was the name of it. so it seems like that's what it would be. in this case, i think she's trying to expand the definition of what a public good is. a public good is a freeway or a park that everybody is paying taxes too. a public good is not just some rich person who has more money than you, and you thinking that you get to take what they have. that is a different concept. when it comes or policies, it requires a confiscation of wealth from almost everybody

including the middle-class to pay for the basics. >> marie: the definition of public good is little different. >> steve: there's a reason she can't talk about these things in plain language. describe them as they are. it's because people generally don't believe in her policies. she's coming up with euphemisms to try and sell something in a way that is not actually what it is. >> katie: like changing from global warming to climate change. it gives you leeway to kind of change exactly what is encompassed beneath the argument that you're making. >> marie: is the debate we talked about earlier, melissa. we should debate how much of a public good education is. health care. this is the fundamental question in many ways of the moment. it's how much will government should play in assuring people get education on get health care, and how much burden should be on the taxpayers for that, and what is more efficient and effective. this is the debate we are having right now, leading up to 2020. >> melissa: absolutely. how did we get the most good health care to the biggest number of people? is that through government or is that through other means?

that's a conversation. stephen hayes, thank you so much for being here. the whole house, great job. we are back here at noon eastern tomorrow, but now, here's harr harris. >> harris: we begin with this fox news alert. president trump defending his decision to intervene in navy seal eddie gallagher's case that ultimately led to the firing of navy secretary richard spencer. this is "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. president trump is now saying he was right to order the navy not to kick out eddie gallagher from the navy seals. after he was convicted of posing for photographs with a fighter's body, of the enemy. the president telling reporters he was defending the military when he criticized spencer, who was fired over his handling of the case. watch. >> what i'm doing is sticking up for our armed forces. there has never been a president that is going to stick up for them, and has, like i have.