ed: come on back tomorrow. pete: hey, everybody, on the count of three, give us a merry christmas. one, two, three -- >> merry christmas! [cheers and applause] happy saturday, everybody. mug. ♪ ♪ neil: we are getting new details about the naval air station shooting in pensacola, florida, and they're not pretty. here is what we know right now. the fbi is looking into a possible terror link. the shooter was a saudi national. six other saudis who were detained for questioning with, some of them reportedly taping the shooting that ended up killing three and leaving several others injured. welcome, everybody, i'm neil cavuto. we start with jonathan serrie live in pensacola with more on this ongoing investigation. >> reporter: hi, neil. yeah, a senior defense official confirming to fox news that the9

six saudi nationals were taken in for questioning, and "the new york times" attributing to a source briefed on the investigation that three of the six were seen in the area taking video as the shooting attack was unfolding. a senior u.s. official tell fox news the gunman was an aviation student from saudi arabia maimed mohamedside al-sham ranny. "the new york post" says a twitter county criticized -- account criticized involvement in muslim countries. the attack which left four people dead including the gunman and injured at least eight prompting some officials to call for a safety review of military programs that train foreign nationals on u.s. soil. >> something's gone wrong, so we've got to rethink what we're doing. we've got to say do we need to have them on our bases. what sort of vetting do we have to change, can we do training overseas instead of here because, i mean, we know there's people want to hurt us. >> reporter: saudi arabian

officials condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims while affirming the importance of their country's strategic partnership with the u.s. president bin salman issued a statement saying, like many other saudi personnel, i was trained at a u.s. military base, and we use that valuable training to fight side by side with our american allies against terrorism and other threats. the fbi is leading the investigation which is unfolding. in the meantime, the base remains closed to the public through the weekend. neil? neil: jonathan serrie, thank you very much, my friend. how does something like this happen at a u.s. navy base? joining me now, kirk lindholm. commander, how does that kind of thing happen? >> well, the first thing is how are these people even here in our country. and it actually operates under a program called the international military education and training program where we bring and countries send their best and brightest to come here to the united states to train at a variety of our schools and

training institutions will it's the naval war college in rhode island, the army's command and general staff college, pensacola naval air station where we want them to learn not only how to operate our equipment, how to integrate their equipment with ours if we ever have to go together into battle, but also to learn how our culture works, to literally immerse them here. many of these people that come here over time, neil, go on to lead their military or become senior officers in it. some of them even become heads of their country. so it's an investment in what we hope is the future. unfortunately, this one turned out tragically wrong. neil: yeah. we should point out that three members of the royal family were trained through this program. we do know in this case he was one of 850 saudi nationals in the u.s. for training under this unique pentagon security program. but we also know that of the vast majority of these individuals can train on our f-15s or c-130 cargo planes.

i mean, you know, loaded for bear, particularly those f-15s. that's a frightening possibility right there. >> well, obviously, they are very rarely going to train with live ammunition except on a very controlled circumstance on a range. they've clearly gotten to a point, this was obviously a young student. hadn't even gotten to the point where they were training on aircraft. we need to take a step back, and i'm sure everyone's aware of it. we're going to look at how did the vetting process work, how did this individual get into our country, what were the family tice or were there any. we'll work with the saudi intelligence along with our intelligence group which is why the fbi involved is great for the interagency process to determine are ouren screening processes -- our screening processes robust enough. do we need to go into more. one other factor people need to consider, neil, is that when these students come here, you have to remember anyone that sets foot on american soil is

going to receive the same constitutional safeguards you and i do. so we may need to take a look at do we really want to be extending those to foreign national that are going through these or any other schools where they are exposed to and have access to lethal weapons. neil: but, commander, do you think the longer they're hire -- they're here the more we get comfortable with them here or quit can asking questions about their baer while they're here? -- while they're here? he was in this program for the better part of two years. i don't know of any evidence that telegraphed he could be a problem or erupted -- there's nothing to indicate that. but we do know that he was here long enough to at least get people comfortable in the notion that he was in these classes, going to these classes every day. and then on one fine day he decides to shoot people in the class. i know you can't plan for that, but should you be watching more for that? >> well, i think what we're going to have to take a look at,

neil, is, again, what was the vetting process and also what do we do on an ongoing basis for these foreign students that are here in our institutions, in our learning places so that we can more better understand how did this really happen. i think it's going to take time, it's going to take the fbi really discerning, it's also disconcerting if the reports are accurate that there were other saudi individuals filming this. because that clearly indicates there is going to be a terrorism nexus. they knew what this individual was going to do and that they are prepared to whip out their phones and actually planned this whole thing. that, to me, is the most disturbing thing. and if there are members of the royal family, i guarantee you when they get back to saudi arabia, they're going to be grateful the fbi is interviewing them here because they will not be treated kindly when they get home. neil: you mentioned -- [inaudible] on the part of a few others, but the saudi link in history, i think of jamal khashoggi and the royal family's possible move

behind that, particularly king salman. then i think of 9/11 where, what, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia. you don't want to cast aspersions here, but you begin to worry, don't you? >> you do have to. and i think that's what a lot of people look at. they're saying, look, while our relationship with saudi arabia has proven very valuable over the years, cheerily, that country -- clearly, that country is going through transition, and we may need to take a very hard look. if we're going to be invested there because we want to safeguard the sea lanes of communication especially in the navy to insure the free flow of oil, what are other countries doing, and are they making the same investment that we do there. we are now energy independent, we are now a net energy exporter except for those few states or that are actually blocking oil coming out of the oil fields here in the u.s. because they want to have a keep it in the ground thing. i don't want to go off on a tangent, but at the end of the day our energy independence is going the drive this. saudi arabia is a marriage of

convenience for strategic purposes. but if these types of things are going to happen, we must examine it. neil: a lot of people will look at saudi aramco, a big initial public offering from the saudis and particularly their vast oil market. is it patriotic for americans to consider that given these repeated type of events? should americans -- [inaudible] >> you have to look at it from the strategic perspective. what does the relationship with saudi arabia contribute to not only our nation, but the stability of the middle east, the economies around the world. but by the same toke, that is not -- token, that is not going to assuage a mother's grief when her son or daughter gets killed in an incident like this. and at some point in time, the politicians who make the decision to allow these people to come here that have not been adequately vetted need to answer

for how and why this happened. neil: you know, for the two years he was here, nothing in his behavior seemed to indicate he would be a problem. and yet he could patiently wait out this process. that's a script that's played out a number of times before with a number of other terrorists who did similar, you know, heinous acts. and i'm thinking of what, you know, congressman matt gaetz has said on this, this was an act of terrorism. governor ron desantis said saudi arabia needs to make things better for these victims. neither of those gentlemen seem to have any doubt that we're kind of put city footing around -- pussy putting around this. what do you think? >> first and foremost, the fbi and the interagency along with other government agencies need to run a full investigation. at the end of the day, clearly the vetting process something went wrong. not only do we need to vet9 the individual now, i think we may need to peel that onion back and

go a step further. we may need to get into the family ties, we may need to work with other countries to make sure their intelligence services were involved in insuring the vetting for the people coming here meet the safety criteria, that they, in fact, understand what they're getting into and that we don't have this, you know, this trojan horse coming to our nation that is going to turn and attack and kill our fellow citizens. so at the end of the day, it may need to be a more robust process that checks out the families, the financial ties to terrorism or any other support that may be out there in their families to determine whether or not we want to allow that to cascade and result in an incident like this. neil: commander, thank you very much. good talking to you again. >> as always, neil, thank you. neil: all right. there is another big story as well, the white house counsel telling democrats no thanks to their invite to participate in the upcoming impeachment hearing. some committee members are working this weekend ahead of monday's proceeding. david spunt on capitol hill

right now with what he's hearing will happen at that hearing. >> reporter: good morning to you. just 48 hours ago is when white house speaker nancy pelosi announced she was going to move forward with the articles of impeachment. this is where the house judiciary committee meets. we're told there may be some action here this weekend, so we're stake it out just in case. there is a hearing on monday, i'll get to that. but just to take you back to what happened just a few days ago, pelosi announced that she is moving forward with impeachment on thursday. listen to this. >> the president has engaged in abuse of power, undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections. i am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> reporter: thursday morning's announcement came as some on capitol hill believed, neil, the speaker would push impeachment into 2020. republicans felt the president though was really under attack from the day he took office. >> it's not a day that history

will be proud of. it's not a day i hope america ever repeats. >> reporter: late friday the president's in-house counsel announced the administration would have nothing to do with the impeachment hearings. judiciary chairman jerry nadler of new york invited the white house to send witnesses. that will not happen. here's part of what he said, i want to read it to you, quote: your impeachment inquiry is baseless and has violated basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness. now, neil, on monday -- two days from now -- the judiciary committee will hold another hearing, and this hearing is really just a chance to receive all different kinds of reports that have been conglomerated over the past few weeks. take that evidence and move forward with crafting the articles of impeachment. we don't know specific ofically which articles will be written, but that's going to happen in the next few days, probably this coming week. neil? neil: david, thank you very much, my friend. david spunt in washington. the president is already saying americans care more about the

jobs numbers than the number he says the democrats are trying to do on him. so we decided that we would try doing the math and let you decide. 50 year lows. call newday usa. one call can save you $2000 a year. with the newday va streamline refi there's no income verification, no appraisal and no out of pocket costs. and my team can close your loan in as little as 30 days. one call can save you $2000 every year.

♪ ♪ neil: democrats is say the president should lose his job, but republicans say they succeed, you could lose yours. here's why they're saying that. a stunning 266,000 jobs were added last month. the unemployment rate at 3.a 5% is the lowest it's been in 50 years. the markets are loving it. not because they necessarily love this president. as we keep saying, at the corner of wall and broad, they're not necessarily red or blue, they're all about the green. they love money. and under this one they've been making that money in fistfuls, just like they were making a lot of money when bill clinton was president. it probably saved him from impeachment back then. will it save this one from impeachment right now? well, let's see.

courtney dominguez here, dan -- [inaudible] along with fox nation's catt timpf and democrat strategist michael star hop keeps. do you think it's -- hop kins. i still argue to this day that it certainly helped having that backdrop when bill clinton was president. >> i mean, it absolutely helps the president. i think the president, you know, he's not going to be convicted in the president because the economy's so strong, because republicans are sticking with him. if the economy was doing a lot worse, i think there'd be a lot more potential for republican to break away from him, but i don't see it happening. neil: what do you think? >> the economy is on a really strong footing, and it likely is going to continue going forward. and it is easy to make the parallels between what the economy was doing under the clinton administration. the s&p 500 was up about 28% throughout his impeachment and we're really seeing that strong data. clinton stayed in office, i think the question is, is that indicative of what will happen to trump.

i'm very bullish on where the economy's going. neil: well, i think it's not a predrawn conclusion that he will likely be impeached, not saying whether it's justified or not, but it seems the momentum. i don't see it going much further in the senate. i could be wrong, but i do think back to michael's point that in an environment like this you don't probably have the public support you normally might or the public open to this. if things were really, really bad, you might. i don't see it here. >> yeah, i agree with what michael said, neil. i think the economy makes it really difficult for republicans to abandon ship. but let's not forget with everything being so highly partisan right now, even if the economy was so-so, i'm not so sure it would change the outcome. i think this is having more of an impact in strengthening donald trump for 2020. look, he wants to get this impeachment process over with, get it into the senate where the message is going to be more positive and then ride the

economy through 2020. neil: all right. so if you may that out and the economy saves the president, democrats campaigning against him will say, well, we're running against an impeached president. that will stick with the public. >> right. well, if you remember, they have tried to say and keep saying there's going to be a recess, there's going to be a recession. elizabeth warren came out and explained why, you know, we need her or else there's going to be bad things. and that's really all that they can do. because it is so strong and it is projected to continue to be strong. and now they're focusing on investigations, corruption, and they try to make it more of a moral case. this is a bad guy, and they can't, they can't really attack him on the economy because they keep being wrong when they say the recession is coming. and that absolutely does help the president, especially because you watch the impeachment hearings, you can watch, you know, one person say

his key comments on it -- conservative comments and one person who's liberal, and they're saying opposite things. i think a lot of people are so confused by that, but something that isn't confusing is the economy doing well because you can see that in your own life. neil: michael, one of the things i look at is the timing of the hearings, the rollout of the hearings. we're told a vote looking sometime around the last weekend before christmas, maybe a vote on the first night of hanukkah. i'm thinking, awkward. >> yeah. i mean, clinton, six days before christmas when clinton's investigation started. so, you know, we're kind of looking back in history and seeing it repeat itself. i will say with the economy -- neil: you would think that democrats would learn from that that timing counts for a lot. >> it does. one thing we're looking at is whether there could be a shutdown. that's going to be interesting. and i think with the economy, there needs to be a conversation about wages because, obviously, the stock market's doing well,

the dow's doing well. wages respect moving up at the same rate. neil: well, 16 straight months 3% plus wage growth, that's not off the charts, but it's off the charts historically as a record run of wage gains. that's something the president could point to because predecessors were not stacking that kind of achievement up. >> yeah. and i think when it comes to wages too, we just had a really strong jobs report that came out, and wages were lighter than everyone wanted to see -- neil: but there wasn't a two in front of it, right? that's what people have gotten used to, but now 3% or 3% plus, that's been the norm for 16 straight months. >> yeah. and when you see the actual increases in wages, it's hitting people's pockets. baby boomers who are high wage earners are starting to retire -- neil: why are you looking at me? [laughter] did you catch that in. >> yeah, i did, i was wondering about that. [laughter] listen, i think courtney's right

to actually compare the growth of wages related to inflation because that's what matters, are people getting ahead. neil: all right. when we come back, we're going to talk to someone who doesn't want to participate in this impeachment process because he's seen terrorists treated better in our court system. made me feel. it was like that feeling when you go to taco night at your favorite restaurant. and they're the best-tasting tacos in the entire world. and just when you think it couldn't get any better, they bring you out another taco... ...cuz they made an extra one. ♪ extra taco! geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

♪ ♪ >> even terrorists in iraq reported more due process than you in the democratic majority have afforded the president. i know, because i served in iraq, and i prosecuted terrorists in iraq, and we provided terrorists in iraq more rightses and due process than you and chairman schiff have afforded the president of the united states. neil: so think about what he was saying there. forget whether prior presidents caught up in the impeachment mess were treated better in the u.s. congress, my next guest says most terrorists are treated better than this one in u.s. courts. he is, of course, republican house judiciary committee member greg steube. he has also been involved, by the way, this those court hearings just like he is involved in this congressional one of the president of the united states. congressman, good to have you

back. >> thanks for having me. neil: that's really wild. but, you know, a lot of people were confirming after i last spoke with you the same thing, yeah, he's right about that. >> the goal was to prosecute detainees who attacked our service members, and those detainnies had defense counsel president, the opportunity to offer exculpatory evidence, the opportunity to call witnesses, all of which has been denied to our president in all these closed door hearings in the intelligence committee. so to think we was an american government would treat detainees who attacked our service members with more rights and due process than the democratic majority is affording the president of the united states in this impeachment proceeding is really telling. neil: so the president deciding not to have white house officials or counsel involved in these judiciary committee hearings or certainly the one that commences on monday, is that a mistake? is it robbing him of a chance to make the very arguments that you are? >> i don't honestly know what they would doll because, again, or there's no fact witnesses.

the first hearing we had in judiciary was a bunch of law professors giving their opinion on the constitution and impeachment proceedings, and this next one that we're having on monday is from staff. so what's the white house counsel going to ask them, questions about their report? neil: your fear as well, congressman, that they could be setting up, you know, perjury raps against witnesses, that this would -- what the president's called a kang georgia radiocourt? >> yeah, it's certain/-- -- kangaroo court. >> that's probably why they don't want to take part of it, knowing they can produce that evidence, call witnesses and do those type of things in the senate in and when the impeachment process moves from the to house to the senate. neil: you know, nancy pelosi has never lost a vote that she has commenced. and so the argument is that by proceeding the way she's proceeding, she's confident she has the vote for impeachment. do you agree? >> you know, i don't know, i haven't talked to a lot of these

democrats. i know they definitely have the votes in the judiciary committee. that will pass on a completely party line -- neil: you don't think a single republican? >> i don't see a republican voting for -- neil: how about in the house itself where you have those who were elected in districts that the president -- >> i think you saw on the -- oh, you're talking about the democrats. yeah, that's what i think is going to be interesting to watch. you've got 31 democrats in districts that trump won. we only need to take 19 back to take the majority back. if you're a democrat in a district that trump won by four or six points and you're going to be up for election in less than a year and you vote for this inpeachment, your district sent us up there to pass a budget. you know, we're sitting here today, we don't have a defense budget. we've dicked our entire -- kicked our entire budget to december 20th or we go into a shutdown. usmca hasn't passed. there's all these big things that haven't gotten done, and the democrats that are representing those districts, i don't think the voters sent them

um here to impeach the president. -- up here to impeach the president. neil: they need 216 vote, but even if they got the votes, let's say it was 216,215, 214, i know a win is a win, but would that be different? have a different feel to it? >> i think it was very telling that not a single republican voted for the impeachment inquiry rules and two democrats voted for i. the only thing that was bipartisan was against moving forward with ill peachment. -- impeachment. neil: good point. >> yeah. nancy pelosi, chairman schiff, chairman nadler have all stated if this isn't bipartisan, compelling to the american people, we shouldn't be doing it. and they're going against their own words to push this impeachment process forward because it's not bipartisan. neil: switch fears a little. from your state, the news out of

pensacola it seems to be a terrorist attack. this saudi national had been at the base for better than two years. nothing was telegraphed in his behavior that this kind of thing would happen. what do you think of that? >> you know, when i served in the military in training, we had lebanese soldiers that trained with us, and i always wondered why we allow other foreign nationals to come and train with us. i have a lot of questions. i'm going to be sending some letters and some requests to the department of defense and the pentagon as to what is the vetting process for these individuals that are coming to train with our soldiers, why are we doing it, what's the benefit to our nation. we now are have people on our military base who have died at the hands of a saudi national, and there's a lot of questions that i have to ask as it relates -- neil: they can fly f-15s, c-130s, i hope not loaded for bear, but they're allowed to. >> well, and i would love the know how he got a firearm on base. he's not an american citizen. as this investigation unfold,

i've got a lot of questions. one as somebody who served and as somebody who represents the state of florida. and i think the american people deserve some answers to why are we doing these programs, is it safe for our service members and is that the best for american policy. neil: congressman, thank you. fair and balanced, a democrat and his perspective, or hers, after this. investors come first. we work hard to make you happy. with the right combination of people and technology, so you can work with us the way you want. now with zero commissions on online stock, etf and options trades. part of our mission to make investing more accessible for all. and we're the only firm with a satisfaction guarantee. which is why our zero is better. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

♪ ♪ neil: all right, well, you just

heard republican congressman steube say that terrorists are given more due process than the president of the united states, particularly this president of the united states. my next guest disagrees. texas congresswoman sylvia garcia also sits on the house judiciary committee. congresswoman, thanks for coming in. >> well, thank you for having me. neil: first of all, what do you think of that? what he's saying is it's a packed court. >> well, i don't think it's a packed court. i think it's a, someone who's just stonewalling and doesn't want to cooperate and shows nothing but disdain and disrespect for the process. the process has been there, he should have been able to present his side of the story and ask some questions this last week. he has the same opportunity that he's decline ared again to come on -- declined again to come on monday. so i think it's been open and he's just not cooperated. and he's just, apparently doesn't believe in transparency. neil: all right. maybe he is sensing,

congresswoman, that, you know, it wouldn't be fair in the house if it comes to impeachment in the house. just go through it, do it, get it done, i'll take my chances in the senate. what do you think of that? >> well, i think what's not fair is him not coming forward and presenting his case. i mean, the republicans will be here on monday, they will present their case. he had the opportunity to do that, he's declined it. and i think that's just patently unfair to the american people. you know, when you have a president who has put our. [inaudible] security at -- our national security at risk, who has undermined our elections and abused his power, people need to know what really happened. and i think the president can she would a light on this. and if he thinks -- can shed a light on this. great, come forward and show us if you've got nothing to hide. neil: you've already charmed and impeached him already, haven't

you in. >> no, there's been no articles of impeachment. we've not -- neil: but you've already said he's interfered in our elections, you've already said -- would i be shocked if you voted against impeachment in. >> i've not decided. i am actually one of those that takes this very, very seriously. i mean, i did not come to congress to impeach the president. i didn't come to congress to have to sit through these type of hearings. i mean, i'm just a country kid from south texas who believes in the american dream, believes in our democracy and the constitution. i'm a former judge. i've taken an oath of office many times. and i know what it means. it means that you raise your right hand and you say that you promise to protect the laws of my state, texas, and those of the united states. we have a duty and a responsibility to move forward, and we will. i will be open, i hear all the evidence on monday, i will listen to both sides and then

will contemplate. and if we need to do articles of impeachment, we will. neil: do you think that the environment we're in right now with the strong economy, strong market, president saying you impeach me, you've all but impeached that, is that a valid argument? i think that was very similar to the argument bill clinton was making with his people at the time the impeachment process was going on around him a couple of decades ago. that was all in peril if he's out of office. what do you think of that? >> well, you know, i don't think that the economy is driven just by who is at the white house. the economy is driven by many, many factors, and i know some are arguing that it's never been better and jobs are there,9 and the unemployment rate is down. but i think when you go to my district and you find so many people that have to work two jobs just to maintain their families, people who are working at a job but it's not quite enough because the wages are low, you know, it's great -- neil: but it's a tough economic

argument to make these days, isn't it, congresswoman? say what you will, and we can always go through the numbers and the particulars, but every major group looking at lowest unemployment rates we've seen in history. and i'm wondering in that backdrop if some of your constituents, what are you doing all this impeachment stuff for in. >> well, no. i think they're more worried about why is it that we increased the minimum wage but nothing's happened in the senate, why is it that we're looking at prescription drug prices next week and we don't, we're not sure what the senate will do. why is it we passed equal pay for equal work in the house and the senate hasn't done anything? no, they're looking at the whole picture. for them it's about how it's impacting them. in my district we are worried that there are two americas, those for the haves and those for the have nots. and unfortunately, from my working class district 77% latino, more of us feel like

we're part of the have nots. neil: all right. so when you see the timing -- i don't know, you know better than i, congresswoman, once we go out of judiciary committee and the vote out of the house, we're told that will be around the weekend before christmas. kind of awkward timing, don't you think? >> well, you know, fairly you have better sources than i do, because i don't know the timeline. i think what's important now is to look at the behavior of this president and to look at the pattern of misconduct and the pattern of abuse of power and determine whether or not he needs to be impeached. and that's what i'm focused on. and if we get that done this week with, i'll be happy. if we have to today here til the end of the year, you know, i'll work through that. so there is no timeline that i'm aware of. but, of course, i'll know more after this weekend, all of us will. neil: congressman, thank you very much for taking the time, we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. neil: several supporters of one

barack obama are not supporting barack obama's number two. guess who they are. lows, i want to tell as many veterans as possible about newday's va streamline refi. it's the closest thing to automatic savings that we've ever offered. at newday, veterans can refinance their mortgage with no income verification, no appraisal and no out of pocket expenses. and we've extended our call center hours so that every veteran can take advantage of these near record low rates.

>> you're selling access to the president, so -- >> you're a damn liar, man. that's not true. you want to check my shape, let's do push-ups together, man, let's run. let's do whatever you want to do. let's take an iq test. [applause] number one, number two -- number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong, and i did not on any occasion, and no one has ever said -- >> i didn't say you were doing anything wrong. >> you did not hear that? >> i heard -- look. >> i'm not going to get into an argument with you, man. >> well, i don't want -- >> yeah, you do. look, here's the deal -- neil: did he call that guy fat? anyway, former vice president joe biden getting a little testy in iowa.

he hasp continued gaining in the polls in that very crucial state. they're not just battling other voters, the two were also battling over enforcements over obama administration officials. and in case you think they're all going one way, think again. fox's ellison barber is tracking who's winning that fight from cedar rapids, iowa, where the caucuses -- i can't believe this -- are less than two months away. >> reporter: yeah, we're running out of time, if you can believe that. it is almost here. voters are paying close attention to what democrat candidates say in this state. mayor pete picked up three significant endorsements from former obama staffers. reggie love, he was the special assistant to president obama. austan goolsbee, the former chairman of the council of economic advisers, and linda douglas, the former director of communications for the white house office of health reform. democratic candidates talk about bringing back the obama coalition, and what they're talking about is trying to reunite the voting bloc that got

president obama to the white house in both 2008 and 2012. but they're made up of white voters in northern states, young people, and energized black and latino voters. the enforcement of obama officials is senate even if it's only a -- is significant even if it's only a handful because he struggles to connect with a key part of that voting bloc, black voters. at the same time, here in iowa he has emerged as a legitimate threat to joe biden. biden picked up an endorsement from former secretary of state and former presidential candidate john kerry. biden has been traveling all around this state on his no malarkey bus tour making a hard push for rural voters in iowa. kerry's endorsement focused more on foreign policy, he argued biden is the guy who can repair u.s. standing in the world. we expect to hear today from both mayor pete as well as former vice president joe biden. there's a teamsters forum

happening in the building right behind me. that is, obviously, another big voting bloc that moderates, marley joe biden, has reached out to extensively. everyone else running for 2020, they want to pull those voters back over to their side as well because remember, neil, a lot of them voted for purpose back in 2016 -- for president trump in 2016. as well as we're seeing people fight over that so-called obama coalition. neil? neil: ellison barber in iowa, two months away here. john kerry in tow today and throughout the weekend to do what he can for the former vice president. remember, it was john kerry who came back in iowa and given up for dead, politically dead. uber drivers on high alert after the company reare leases a report on sexual assaults by its drivers. not in the dozens or the hundreds, try the thousands. after this.

neil: all right, in the much of an update, but the fi just tweeting -- fbi tweeting out that the pensacola shooting investigation is still active, still very fluid. no additional information can be confirmed at this time. we have not scheduled a follow-up press briefing. of course, all of this in response to the latest

developments out of pensacola where four were killed including the shooter, and reports now that six other saudi nationals have been detained for questioning. three were allegedly taping the incident when the shooting started in that pensacola navy classroom. meanwhile, keeping you up-to-date on uber, safety concerns on the rise for uber passengers after of the ride-hailing company revealed that over 3,000 sexual assaults occurred in 2018. susan lee has much more. >> yeah, startling numbers, neil, and that number even doubles to 6,000 if you want to take it over two years, 2017 and 2018. and it was surprising to find out that drivers and riders report attacks and similar rapes. we hear a lot of cases where passengers are the victims, but drivers are also hurt by assaults as well. tragically, 19 deaths have been reported over the past two years, but compare that to the

number of sexual offenses on new york transit. just one locality, over 1100 cases the past two years. for its part, uber is the first ride-hailing company to do this, and they're trying to be transparent. the ceo saying that it's a big number when you first see it, and it's still a big number, there's no getting used to 3,000 reports of assault ises. uber running this ad saying as the biggest ride-sharing platform, we have the biggest responsibility as well. so what is a ride company doing about this? they have rolled out some new safety features including the testing of the recording of the audio during rides, testing out dashboard cameras as well which might be controversial because it might infringe on your privacy. but they have rolled out ride chat which takes in a ride is taking longer or makes unexpected stops, also having your phone number and address as well. but despite uber being proactive, investors not convinced. the stock dropping yesterday in an up market thanks to blowout

jobs report, and that's probably because the numbers are just so startling. but uber's now putting to the os on its competitors like lyft and even taxi commissions be open about your sexual assault reports. neil? neil: i can imagine, susan, they're dealing with a lot of bad timing issues here, right? including getting licensing in a lot of key areas. >> that's right. basically had their licenses revoked in london, the second time since 2017. also the bill that's working right now through california which might make their drivers instead of contractors, employees. and that, a lot of people say, will probably put their business model at stake, at risk. neil: amazing. all right, susan, thank you very much. susan lee of fox business network fame which, if you don't get, you should demand. susan likes me to remind you of that. all right, well, democratic congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez catching some flak for saying she would have starved, starved under president trump's new food stamp plan.

of we decided to look into that charge. ♪ ...

>> three of the six saudi nationals detained for questioning after the deadly naval base shooting in florida were reportedly filming the shooting, taping it outright. jennifer griffin has breaking news on the story left and right. she joins us from the reagan library in simi valley, california where leaders are gathering for the national defense forum, jennifer. >> neil, the details coming out about the case in pensacola continue to be extremely surprising. six saudis had been arrested at the scene and we're hearing reports that three of them were videotaping the aftermath. we now know that the shooter, bought his handgun, a glock, .9

millimeter gun with an extended magazines and four to six other magazines with him bought the handgun locally. we've been reporting that guns are not allowed on the base so the question how he got the gun on the base is going to be part of the investigation. the defense secretary has already spoken to members of the senate armed services committee who are calling for additional security and screening of foreign nationals who come to bases like pensacola. but you have to remember, this is a very old program bringing pilots from other foreign nations, allied nations, n.a.t.o. nations to train at pensacola, that we understand that there were a few hundred other foreign nationals at the pensacola base. we also understand that there is more money in the defense budget this year to expand the foreign national training program. so that's something that we're going to be asking defense chiefs about here. we also know that the shooter

posted online or somebody on behalf of the shooter posted on his twitter account a will and testament, if you will, after the attack in which he criticized the u.s., calling it a nation of evil, criticizing the u.s. for its support of israel. that will be something that the fbi is looking at in the days ahead, but the fbi is the lead investigator in this terrible shooting at pensacola. neil. >> jennifer, was there in i go -- anything in his better than two and a half years that would telegraph behavior like this? >> well, it's not clear. i mean, we have this tweet, that social media tweet, but the question is, again, was that posted after the attack? when was he radicalized? that's something that investigators will be looking at. was he radicalized before he left the saudi kingdom? the way this program works is the saudi government is

responsible for the extreme vetting of those officers that they send to be trained by the u.s. and then the state department signs off, does its own vetting, but again, that is going to have to be looked at and they will have to be looking at what point do they think that he was radicalized? >> jennifer, thank you very, very much. jennifer griffin in california. meanwhile, the fbi as jennifer said is leading the investigation. what might be fbi be looking for? terry led the uni-bomber investigation. the person to talk to right now. what are they trying to collect right now? >> right now, neil, just about everywhere in the world we use legal attache. for vetting we'll have the file there and have the results of that background so they have a lot of places to start. they will be looking at his social media.

you've got a lot of governmental agencies, from the ncis to local sheriffs and police departments. a lot of people are working to bring this information together. and they're going to look for his intent and all of this information coming out now, it certainly sounds like this is probably connected to terrorism. it sounds a lot like, for example, major nadel hassan at fort hood years ago. all of that is there and it's a kind of missed. and we're only a few hours into this so the fbi is going to be careful and approaching this as a crime on a government reservation, for example. looking at certainly at terrorism motive. as things develop they'll have a pretty good idea and probably the public will make up their mind before that by things coming out in the press that it certainly looks very, very unusual to have six saudis there, some of them taking pictures. neil: right.

>> of the shooter. so, this is very perplexing, really. neil: you know, i'm wondering, too, when you look at saudi connection and what has been criticized, and looking at the killing of jamal khashoggi and 15 of the nine 9/11 hijackers coming from saudi arabia. it stirs a concern that the saudis and the saudi connection keeps coming up. >> certainly the saudi connection in the sense that these people were from saudi arabia comes up. you know, the problem is, they're in the thick of it over there and just like we have to worry about the insider threat here, and it's becoming increasingly apparent, i think, to most americans what that means, that's a critical type of threat that's very, very difficult sometimes to get your arms around. think about and multiply in their part of the world, in their neighborhood, how they

have to deal with the insider threat because saudis are going to be just like anyone else, they might decide we're going to be more loyal to our islamic roots or something or our certain feeling or ideology if they've gone all the way to the very radical type of islamic ideology and the saudis are going to have the same problem we would have taking that up here domestically. they might suspect things, they might wonder about you until something like this happens, sometimes all kinds of things just don't come to together to give you a clear picture. so i'll kind of withhold kind of a judgment on that, but they have the same kind of problems we do here if we were looking at this from a domestic protect and a domestic terror group or something like this. neil: quickly, you're the expert on this. when you look at someone's behavior and there's nothing that could have indicated that

this mohammed al was going to do this and two and a half years in he does this, if there's nothing to show that he was showing no signs of pulling off an action like this, what does the fbi look for then? >> well, what the fbi looks for is any hint of something he might have said to something, any hint of something on social media. a lot of times when people do this, especially in terrorism, they make notes and keep diaries and you find those in the search of a locker or an apartment or a house or something. they're looking to that kind of thing and that's the way they'll be thinking. you said something interesting as did your reporter, and that is the fact that this is an old program, keep in mind, people coming mind to this currently, they've already talked to people and certainly well aware of the vulnerabilities on the base and in the way things go down and so, they're going to have kind

of an advanced knowledge if they've decided they're going to do something like this. that knowledge will help them plan what they're going to do especially when they show up and assess for themselves. when you look at pensacola, just like the fbi academy, from foreign countries they've received training and something going on literally for decades. so this is the kind of thing you don't want to have happen. you have all kinds of security procedures in place, but we're kind of in the view of the people who don't like us, who might do something like this, we're the enemy, once you get inside the door, if everything else comes together, something like this will happen. it's amazing that it doesn't happen very often, in fact, it happens hardly at all. so, we'll just have to look and watch and wait and see how things turn out on the security procedures. did somebody slip up in something that would normally never have happened, but they

overlooked letting this man through a gate somewhere, that maybe they should have done a few more things that they forgot to do or neglected to do? so there's a lot of questions and we'll have answers, i'm sure in the next few hours, 24 to 48 hours, a lot more than we have now. >> we hope. terry, thank you as always, i much appreciate it. >> you're welcome neil, thank you. neil: by the way, this program, this was one of 852 saudi nationals in the u.s. under this training program set up by the pentagon some years back and saudi students are allowed to fly a variety of war planes, including f-15 fighters and c-130 cargo planes. they are looking at the vetting process in that program as we speak. in the meantime, to the other major story we are following, the fix is in. so we are out. that seems to be the white house response saying to democrats,

invites to participate in the upcoming hearing, no thank you. so what is next? garrett tenney in washington with more on that, hey, garrett. >> good morning to you. this could speed the impeachment process along. since the white house decided not to participate in the house impeachment hearings, monday's hearing could be the last. there's a lot up in the air, in terms of the exact timing. if that's the case, it's possible the judiciary committee could hold what's known as a markup session later this week where they actually write up the articles of impeachment and that would set the stage for the committee and then the full house to vote on the articles the following week, right before christmas. this morning the top republican on the house intelligence committee says the white house is doing the right thing and previewed why republicans are already looking forward to this reaching the senate if it does pass the house. >> why would you even think about showing up to participate in something like this? it's a hoax?

>> and the president thinks he might get hunter biden, adam schiff and we'll see how-- >> that's not the way to do it. most people who have participated in jury trial and been to court know how it's supposed to work. >> in terms of hearing, house judiciary hearing, it will essentially being like the opening arguments with the democratic and republican counsels presenting evidence from their investigation and making their case either for or against impeachment. >> they received very clear and damning evidence showing that the president has abused the power of his office for his own private and political gain and i think it's important that we also, as judiciary committee members, hear directly from the counsel of the house intelligence committee presenting that evidence directly to us. >> and neil, today the house judiciary committee is holding run-throughs of monday's hearings to prepare for that to

make sure it's going as smoothly as possible considering it may well be the last hearing about of this goes to a vote. neil: all right, garrett, thank you, very, very much. and the white house will have nothing to do with the hearing itself, we'll ask. ay 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.

>> all right. 14 minutes after the hour, welcome back, everyone. as we have been reporting the white house counsel saying no thanks to attending impeachment hearings. they're slated to resume on monday morning and my next guest has been saying counsel should be there, but not now. and tom mcclintock sits on the committee. thank for being with us. >> thanks for having me. neil: a stacked deck, foregone conclusion, wants to speed up impeachment in any way, let's move onto the senate. is that kind of your view now?

>> yes, i believe the president should have been participating in the hearing until nancy pelosi short circuits the whole process and basically with lewis carroll's red queen, sentence first and verdict afterwards. without the committee hearing a single fact witness she is orders them to draw up articles of impeachment. she short circuited that. there's a story of a trial before a judge whose nephew was the prosecutor. after the prosecution finished its case, the judge turns to the jury and says, now, retire and render a verdict. the defense counsel shoots out of his chair, just a moment, they haven't heard my client's side of the trial. and the judge said, that would just confuse the jury. after weeks of one-sided hearings and rigged rules, they could not produce a single

witness to whom the president said there was to be any kind of linkage between aid and investigation. in fact, two witnesses specifically testified that there-- the president specifically said there was to be no linkage. and yet, that's the flimsy evidence upon which they're proceeding. they can rig the rules in the house, they can't rig them in the senate. in the senate due process rights will be observed. the president will be free to call witnesses. right now, schiff vetoed six out of the nine witnesses republicans requested. neil: wouldn't he be in his interest, i'm sorry i understand everything you're saying, you make valid points, that the president would want people around to state his case? i know he'll have republicans questioning various witnesses that schiff puts up there, but the fact of the matter is he's been bemoaning he hasn't given his fair point of view, the white house has taken this and

when he has the opportunity he bypasses it. but the speaker made it clear, that opportunity is simply a facade, a charade. they've already made their decision and she's ordered to-- >> i absolutely get it, but here is where it could hurt. all the news networks are on this around the clock and not hearing from the president's folks, we'll hear from folks like you and those who say the president is getting reamed and all that, get that, got that. do you think it's a mistake with all the attention the hearings are going to get for the president to rob himself of the opportunity to at least get that point across? >> not once the speaker short circuited the process, no, i think that all that would do would be to legitimize what is can a completely illegitimate process. besides every one of the hearings that the democrats held, they were confident that they would hold these hearings and public opinion would rally towards impeachment. what they found was opposite even when they have the rules

rigged, public opinion has turned against impeachment. the president is right. let's get to the senate where the whole story can be told and i think it blows up in the democrat's faces and president will be fully exonerated and we'll get to the scandals that the president is concerned about. neil: do you think that any republican senator, will vote to impeach the president. >> i can't read minds and i can't tell fortunes, but looking at the reports so far, there's not a shred of direct testimony from witnesses that the president ever required a linkage between aid and action. and as i said, two of the witnesses specifically said he instructed that there not be such a linkage. don't forget the ukrainian government supposed to be extorted over this made numerous public statements saying they weren't aware of the linkage and

didn't feel the least bit pressured. neil: we'll watch it closely, congressman. i think you're going to have a busy monday. >> thank you. neil: congressman mcclintock. in the meantime, president obama's former economic advisor and a connection with a democratic candidate, not the one who was barack obama's vice-president, someone else. , i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan, let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. get a plan that's right for you. i am not for ignoring the first sign of a cold. i am for shortening my cold, with zicam! zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal.

beyond the routine checkups.

beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

>> why are we talking about pete buttigieg? (inaudible) this is an farce! >> all right. black lives matters protesters interrupting a pete buttigieg event this week. in case you think that's dimming the light on his appeal, certainly among former obama administration officials who seem to be universally behind the former vice-president joe biden, think again. my next guest isn't necessarily gravitated to joe biden, he's to mayor pete. >> great to see you again. neil: what is it about the mayor that you like? >> well, you know, a bunch of

obama people had had been going over to mayor pete and i started kind of skeptical, i will admit. as i got to know him and as i'd seen his economic policy, it's pretty spot on. he's smart, a fresh face and i mean, look at the chaos that's going on in washington, he's not from washington. i think that's an important, important area. so, that's why in the end, i joined these other obama people. neil: it's beginning to be a brush fire support away from joe biden and i'm wondering whether it's more to joe biden unravelling or that this guy looks promising? what is it? >> in my case, it's about mayor pete and i like him and that he's a fresh face and he's got good ideas. as you know, neil, we've had a conversation. i love the vice-president, i worked with him and not in any

way against the vice-president. i will support whoever is the nominee against donald trump because even the democratic candidates that are farthest from me in the space, they're far preferable from my purpose than what the president's doing. neil: i notice you passed over elizabeth warren, you passed over bernie sanders. any reason for that? >> look, like i say, i'm not trying to insult or run down anybody else, i just like mayor pete and i think his economic policy is spot on-- >> sn what in that economic policy that you like, austan? for example, maybe in the vice-president's case, you don't like? >> well, look, mayor pete, i like. he was the first one out with the public option choice in health care. i think that's the right approach. i think on both content, grounds and in the polling, enhancing

people's choices on health care is the right way to start, and he was the first guy out for doing that. and second, i think that the whole space, which is a big one for me, what's the right way to invest in our people and invest in skills, education and training, so we can get our wages up, his policy's been the best in that area and i would encourage everybody to go look at it because like i say, i started skeptical, but he brought me around with his ideas. neil: do you think he'd also want to raise taxes and all, but not nearly to the agree that most, if not all of the other candidates want to, did that enter into your decision? . well, look, he's going to-- the tax cut of donald trump that cost $2 trillion did not increase business investment as they promised it would, did not increase the growth rate as they promised it would, it was a

one-time sugar high. >> did you see the latest employment data? something's going on. >> yeah, employment, which was not the thing it said it was going to do. it said it was going to increase business investment and increase the growth rate. neil: do you think it makes it difficult-- do you think it makes it difficult for any democrats running against this president to use the economic argument? because that at least appears to be going okay. >> yeah, look, i think if it maintained at the employment rate that it was on friday, that it didn't go back to the reduced employment rates that it was the month before, i think that would be a somewhat tougher environment. i don't know how to make-- given how partisan everything has gotten, the 2018 midterm election should have been a sounding republican victory if people were going to vote their pocket books, maybe the economic stuff is not as paramount in

voting patterns as it normally is, i don't know. neil: your insight into 2018 is profound. that was decided on health care, i'm wondering if you think in 2020 it will be as well? >> yeah, look, in a way, i hope it will because the-- that's not a great space for the president. what he's trying to do when people find out what his policy is that's going to abolish the exchanges and health care prices are going to go up substantially, they're against it. so if it's about health care, i think that would be great. i think-- see, i don't know what you think, but it feels like to me right now the 2020 election is mounting itself to really just be about the same old partisan yelling that the last several years have been about and in a way, that's kind of, i think, one of the appeals of mayor pete is he's a mayor from out here in the midwest.

he's not of that world of the d.c. fighting each other. >> what do you say to those suspects who whisper as well. as impressive as he is, this country is ready for a gay president, you say? >> he's gay, it's not like that's a big discovery. i'm old enough to remember when i was working for barack obama, 2007, 2008, that people were saying america is not ready for a guy who is not white to be president. he proved them wrong by his talent and i hope that mayor pete is able to do the same. neil: austan, thank you for taking the time. >> good to see you. neil: and congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez is making news that new rules would have starved her family. why critics are finding that

hard to swallow. 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.

>> new york democratic congr s congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez is getting push back that it would have starved their families if it was like that back then. the knew rules is under 50. if you don't have any children there, it's not an issue here. and let's get the read from rob smith, susan lee.

what do you think? >> i think it's absolutely outrageous she would fear monger that way. everybody knows it's able-bodied adults under 50 would have restrictions on the new food stamp rules and that means basically in states that have an unemployment rate of above the national average, those people would not be able to get the requirement if they weren't working. and so, what it is, it's fear mongering. she's trying to rile up the base and she's trying to basically tell people things that are not true. in the everlying-- >> the economic means test here, there's no economic means test? in the past if you had an income below a certain level you would qualify. qualify, work 20 hours a week, 36 month period, but this is a very tight labor market and we saw that on friday with the jobs report. basically it's the lowest unemployment rate we've seen in 50 years. there's a million job gap, meaning people looking for jobs

and a million extra jobs out there. why shouldn't you go out if you're able bodied 18 to 50 go out and find a job, there are jobs available. neil: michael, wasn't it bill clinton who came up with the welfare to work and-- >> and when we talk about aoc. i don't care whether she could or not get snap, but now, we should talk about the fact that millions of americans are going to lose their eligibility for snap and they're going to lose them weeks before the holidays. i mean, that's devastating for people. >> that's not exactly true. these rules don't go into effect until april am i correct? and they're not going to lose anything before the holidays. neil: the thing is they're going to lose stuff. should they all be losing stuff? here is the thing, i think we need to have a conversation about we need to realize that it is a good thing that we have less people on snap, less people on benefits. it's very self-sufficient, a lot of americans realize the rules

are here and the benefits are here to help people get a leg up, you know what i mean, once they've gotten that it's time to move on. >> and promoting work as well. they should be motivated to get out there and find a path to a better life and that means finding a job. >> there are a lot of people who don't work for various reasons. we have no problems giving corporations money and farmers money. why are we giving people who can't find jobs or for various rules-- >> should there be more stringent rules? and you want to address korgs corporations, it's like a piggy bank in washington. and are they all getting it? >> we can look at snap, but the idea that we're kicking millions off snap is ridiculous and it's cruel. i mean, we're talking about americans here. people that use snap that were going to, you know, different places to get food, to get resources. neil: but this meal program has been growing at quadruple the inflation rate year in and year

out. and-- ments and we have americans that are working two or three jobs to make it. >> i think when you look at the numbers, there's 2.9 million people in this bracket we're talking about, 2.1 million of those people are not working so what do we do with these people? do we provide them a path to work? you know, i think that sometimes you have to make the rules a little bit tighter to give people the push that they really do need to get out there and go to work. neil: a version of food stamp version of welfare to work rather than cut it immediately to get that to stage, something that newt gingrich and bill clinton found a nice remedy for in time. >> i think when you look at here-- a lot of people what we're missing, the rules say that in the states where the unemployment rate is double the national average. right 6%, so they're going to allow those rules to be, because we're talking unemployment

waivers here. the benefit can still get the benefits if they're not working. this is only for the states where the unemployment rate is not at the average. you know what i mean? so there are more opportunities out there for people to work. >> it's hard to find these localities and states that have an unemployment rate above 6% in this incredible jobs market that we're seeing here. so, you know, 700,000 would be kicked off. but it gives them an opportunity to look for something else. we have time until april next year. neil: and as they phase that in, i keep going back welfare to work. i thought it was a brilliant concept if that it did it in stages. this cuts off people immediately. >> and takes away state's abilities to look at problems and deal with it. it's a federal top down approach. that's not usually how republicans like to govern, usually it's the states to decide and not washington. >> i have to ask you, do you think personally that requiring somebody to work 20 hours a week

in order to get snap benefits is too stringent of a requirement? because that's what we're talking about. talking 20 hours a week, that's part-time work, do you think that's too much. >> for three months. >> five hours a week, no hours a week, where do we draw the line? i'm curious. >> i think what we need to do is allow states to look where they're having issues and deal with the issues, whether it's people suffering from mental illness or-- >> and heard from the value states over the federal government and-- >> we're taking the party right now. >> as are you guys when you're taking away the ability for people on the ground to say there's people who need food. that doesn't seem like the-- >> we're talking able-bodied individuals who are independent. >> what if kids are caught up in it. >> well, they can't be because right now it's able bodied

childless adults. neil: 50 and over. >> 50 and under. what we're talking about, i think there's a lot of misunderstanding about this stuff because aoc and people like her push out hyperbole about this. neil: do you agree with her she would have been directly affected by this? her family-- >> it's not agreeing, it's a lie that she would have been directly affected by this. because if her mother was on welfare benefits if they are mother had a child this would not affect her at all. i think that's what people are misunderstanding. neil: maybe there might be a method to this madness, looking at it cynically politically. one i thought that democrats could say they don't care about kids, they don't care about the poor, and that's what she's getting it. >> and in 2020 those are the ads that are going to get-- >> and predisposed notion.

inclined to vote republican anyway? >> no, not. >> is she preaching to a choir already voting exactly as she wants. >> energizing the base as trump does. >> oac is energizing a base she wants to vote for socialism. it's unchecked welfare, government control of what's going on there, and that's what she's doing, preaching to that base and she's also doing it and not being factually sound. and when you guys start running these ads that are based on this, that are not having the facts about this, it's going to be dishonest and what aoc is doing right now is fundamentally dishonest. you talked about us being republicans and conservatives. facts do matter. and so i'm a conservative because i'm about facts, and when she's tweeting out about this, she's tweeting out about emotion and this is just not fact based. >> i'm a capitalist and when i look at the bill, saving 5 1/2 billion dollars.

we're in a deficit of 21 trillion so saving money for able-bodied nondepenant workers. neil: you've argued eloquently. and the world leaders mocking the president with open mics, and why? who is laughing now? the magic moment. congress really democratized wall street... i wanted to have a firm that wanted to get everybody in. because people couldn't access wall street. we wanted to be agents of change. for the better. ♪

>> you know, had it not been for the words over what they were talking about, i would have never known what those guys were saying. it turns out they were snickering and ripping the president of the united states

earlier this week at the n.a.t.o. summit. who is snickering now? because while there's widespread protests in the streets of france and the presidential there has approval ratings in the single digits. look at numbers in the united states. president trump can tout strong job numbers here in the u.s. and unemployment rate at a 50-year low not to mention a stock market at or near historic highs. former aide to maggie thatcher. it's weird timing, but maybe karma, the guys saying god knows what, i didn't find what they were saying too over the top offensive, but anyway, it comes at a time when he's putting up, you know, big numbers and strong numbers, whether you want to give the president the credit, blame him if it were the opposite. what do you think of all this. >> i think it's very unfortunate to see justin trudeau, the french -- i'm sorry, the canadian prime minister and

macron, the french president, the laurel and hardy comedy acts at time. and it's unfortune you've got this mocking of the u.s. president when the u.s. president is leading on the world stage with regard to strengthening the n.a.t.o. alliance and also, president trump is leading in terms of a very strong, robust u.s. economy. and if you look at the state of the french economy today, compared to the u.s. economy, there's no real comparison, the united states is at least twice the level of economic growth. france has several times the level of the unemployment. the french economy which has been sort of worn down by decades of big government socialism is problematic and you've seen large scale protests on the streets of french cities over the past few days. and emmanuel macron has huge problems on his hands

domestically and overall a very unpopular president. and so when you see this kind of juvenile behavior at the n.a.t.o. summit coming from some n.a.t.o. members, it's very sad to see. and also, it's important to point out that the canadians, for example, spend just about 1.3% of gdp on defense. the united states invests, 3.42% and french, 1.86. the united states does lead on the world stage with regard to n.a.t.o. alliance. neil: that trudeau was making these sort of secret comments because the president called out on him for the world's cameras live what are you forking over for french and he had to answer. and i know that's not diplomatic and stuff for behind closed doors, i think he felt like ripping the guy after that. >> and i think that trudeau basically is a leader who lacks, you know, gravitas on the world

stage, really. neil: and the president said-- >> two faced, and let's see the canadians investing more in the n.a.t.o. alliance and see canada stand shoulder to shoulder. maggie ran into this on her own continent. when it comes to conservative leaders, this left-leaning european society doesn't flip over conservatives, particularly from america. and ronald reagan experienced this, and both bushes, father and son, and this president getting more of it. isn't kind of like the way europe is. >> you always have the european elites mocking the united states and britain. the reality is it's the u.s. and u.k., the two countries that lead the free world that keep the world safe, the beating heart of the free world and

let's face it, a lot of european elites and also canadian leaders as well are envious of the kind of leadership that the united states and great britain project, actually. neil: one thing we don't do in this country put egg on our food, all of our food. a little more after this. [ electrical buzzing ]

[ dramatic music ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back!

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

>> forget impeachment. this is the biggest news story on the week and hunter playing that ad for the peleton exercise bike and there's backlash particularly for him. and courtney, i'm wondering is it worth all the fuss? >> i think it's going to be old nice. this has happened with other companies. nike came out with colin kaepernick and got backlash and kendall jenner with-- >> and. neil: as a woman were you offended? >> and that-- >> i was more bother by the woman in the ad than the dad, husband because she was so nervous to get on this bike.

she was like, i'm so scared. i'm-- that's a slap in the face to anyone who has had a real problem. if you're in your living room and sit on something that costs, and i'm pretty sure you're okay. that's what kind of weirded me out. neil: he's been called a chauvinist because he's pushing her. >> standing behind her get going! >> i did not get that feeling when i watched it, he was being abusive in any way. the person who came up with this commercial deserves some credit here because we're talking about it and peleton is getting a lot more-- >> their stock was getting shellacked during the week. and was it an overdone reaction, do you think? >> are a he going to get a knee jerk reaction with these things and this happens plenty of times, but i think that any press is good press and we're talking about the ad and we know mo more about the bike than--

>> and wouldn't there be buyers of this type of stuff? >> that's strange because in an apartment building there is one, i've never been on it, my boyfriend goes on it all the time. i'm not a big exercise gal in general. neil: really? dan and i are exercise machines. >> neil, i know, you're all the way. >> how else could we look this way if not for working out all the time. neil: and any publicity is good publicity, it's drawing attention to these bikes? >> i don't know how it's going to play out long-term because that's going to depend on the quality of the product itself. right now in the short-term before the holiday season i think it's a benefit for peloton and it's going to help holiday spending. >> if i received one for the apartment, i would use it to hang up my coat over day. [laughter] >> and how do you stay so thin? and thank you, guys very, very much. dan and i have to jog it central

park right now. otherwise, as i drive behind him, speed it up, speed it up. and fox news continues throughout the day. that will do it here and have a great weekend. 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.

>> it was not too long ago that democrats were predicting a recession in 2020 that could have derailed. and the editorial page it calling a blowout jobs report which shows the economy is helping lift in the lower classes. and maybe it's more likely that they could beat the president at the ballot box. this is america's news headquarters, i'm ed menry. we begin with a possible terror attack in florida. on the