talented, beautiful woman i've ever known and an amazing mother x. thanks to the fox news shop, i have my gift for her. will: happy birthday, jen. jedediah: happy birthday. pete: have a wonderful saturday. ♪ ♪ neil: all right, news alert, game not stopped. amc and express and blackberry and so many others are still jumping like crazy amid a short squeeze and a populist revolt in the financial world the likes of which, well, we've never seen in this cycle, some are saying ever. it is important to point out that we're also watching what washington is watching, concern that this frenetic activity is going to hurt a lot of people in the end. they want to take some action to get on top of, well,

regulations, whatever that could mean and whatever that could signal. i should point out as we rifle through some of the more popular names, blackberry and amc and express, the overall u.s. markets had a rough go of it. here's the thing. the people who were caught off guard by taking a short position betting, betting that these respective stocks would fall off when, in fact, they didn't, if they made good on that, they would have to borrow against some of their other winners. so amazon came to mind, apple, a host of others. that was driving down all the major averages on fears they'd go welch beyond these issues. is that fear overstated? happy saturday morning, this is front and center for us this morning. i'm neil cavuto. let's get right to kristina partsinevelos outside gamestop right now. but it really doesn't stop if you think about it -- >> reporter: no, you said that. it was a perfect line, the

game's not stopping because you have this tug-of-war between wall street and retail investorsment gamestop is at the center of all of it. retail investors rallied together online to push up heavily-shorted stocks. wall street lost billions. but the story gets a little bit more complicated now because it involves the trading platform a lot of these retail investors used, robinhood. robinhood put restrictions on thursday, so that means that people weren't able to buy those volatile stocks like nokia, like amc, like blackberry. they've eased those restrictions not completely, but they have since then, and yet so many people are furious. neil, you spoke to senator toomey not too long ago just about this, and he said maybe this is for a good reason. >> i think there is a very plausible explanation that has to do with the additional capital required when stocks become extremely sol tim till. -- volatile. but let's make sure we understand that.

>> reporter: people are so angry that there's two class action complaints filed against robinhood, you have two probes coming from texas and new york. they're looking into those massive market swings. the sec just yesterday issued a stern warning, and they said that they would be looking into the swings and checking for any type of market manipulation. and it's not all just about the actual trading movement. you have social media getting involved. several social media platforms are banning and closing down these stock trading groups. facebook tells us they closed down one of those stock trading groups because it violated their community standards, and it had nothing to do with with the frenzy in the rallies for some of these stocks. one interesting thing that came out yesterday afternoon, a job posting. so it looks like robinhood may be preparing for a call from washington. they're currently looking for someone based in d.c., eight years experience on capitol hill as well as experience with

legislative affairs and regulationment interesting timing, neil. neil: yeah, to put it mildly. kristina, thank you so much. she works every day, saturdays. all right. kristina mentioned the securities and exchange commission here. this will be a big test for joe biden's man who's going to head up that group, and that's gary gensler right now. i want to go to charlie gasparino on the implications of all of this, because there's a lot of this sniffing around going on, charlie. where is it leading? >> you know, we don't know just yet. we were first to report that they were looking at a case of pump and dump, essentially, to pump up the these stocks that are in the question meaning there are certain players on message boards pumping them up, drawing people in, keeping the price going higher and then dumping the shares at some point x. there's some evidence that did occur. those cases are really hard to prove, particularly anonymously. and you know what's fascinating

here? the sort of mainstream media meme, it's the little guy against the big guy, and that's the sort of tension here. this is really kind of the little guy against the little guy when this, when the dust settles, in my view. it's going to be the little guy that's smart enough on social media, on using the robinhood app -- and they might not be so little -- pumping these stocks up, setting up interest in a short squeeze and then getting out at the top. and then there's going to be the little guy who really believes that they should stick in this because maybe gamestop is going to 1,000 instead of 500 and loses his or her shirt when it goes back down to 5. because the sort of metrics of the -- its business model's just not worth $500 a share. and that's probably my bet because history repeats itself. it's probably going to happen. and i really think, you know,

regulators meddling in this are not going to allow the market to take care of it. the market will take care of this. the market will show that gamestop is not a $500 stock or a $1,000 stock. it's a $5 stock. that might happen. when that happens, people are going to get -- feel a lot of pain. they deserve that painful that'll create consequence to their action. that's the way markets work. listen, the market mechanism screwed over those hedge funds. it's a couple of hedge funds, a bunch of hedge funds that went short -- neil: well, that's not the way, as you know, charlie, alexandria ocasio-cortez and ted cruz are united on this. now, congresswoman cortez said this: for so many people at home that are seeing this happen, people were feeling like everyday people were finally able to proactively organize and get back at the folks that have historically had all the marbles on wall street and forced one hedge fund into an existential crisis. so this is seeing as going against the man pretty much. >> yeah, i would be -- i'm

hesitant to take market advice from alexandria cortez. her and i graduated from the same high school, believe it or not -- neil: but they united forces, right? ted cruz kind of -- >> yeah. neil: -- shared the sentiment. and it gets to be pervasive. let me ask you this -- >> neil -- neil: i just want your reaction in today's "wall street journal" that the here appears to be something far less scandalous. at least three brokerages they didn't enforce trade thing restrictions because of rules put in place by clearinghouses. so there was no sinner the cabal between, let's say, a robin and some of these hedge funds, just an understanding that to process these over the top, high-volume trades, clearinghouses were just backed to the wall. and it was more mechanical than it was tyrannical. what do you think? >> 100%. neil, i reported that on your

fox business show over the last couple of days. robinhood just did not have the plumbing and some of the orr firms just don't have have the plumbing to handle this type of trading. it's simple explanations here. listen, policy -- i just find it fascinating that this has become a political issue. but we live in an era, and i think on social media you can get a bunch of people to riot in the capitol, you know? that's kind of what's going on here. you can get a bunch of people to riot in the capitol, you can get a bunch of people to buy a stock on social media. now, should the government regulate that? i don't think so. there are going to be consequences for the people who rioted in the capitol and we know people are being arrested. there will be consequences for the people that engaged in gambling here at some point, and there should be consequences. markets will correct. neil: they're asking, charlie, whether the same standards apply for those running up a stock the as those running it down. >> i think --

neil: short sellers as much. >> i think -- well, i think it does. the short sellers are losing money. and, by the way, if the short sellers are violating the law by publishing research that's inaccurate, the sec has gone after short seller ors in the past. trust me on this, i've done a lot of reporting on this. my view is we need more short sellers. the natural inclination of the markets, neil, is to tout stocks, stocks should go up. we need short sellers to be cynical. that helps people decide what stocks to buy and sell. my view is we need more short selling, not less. and one of the problems occupant of this whole thing is we're going to get less short selling maybe. neil: so let me can ask you this finally. there's a fear that a lot of people have beening asking me why this spilling over to the general markets? a pat response would be that a lot of guys losing money on these bents have to sell some of their winning positions in some of the big names, the amazons,

the apples, what have you, and it's going to impact those stocks, and the averages that house those stockings. do you think that's a legitimate fear, that it has a spreading sort of a virus effect? >> yes. it's a legitimate fear. and, by the way, yes, they are -- you're absolutely right, they are selling their long positions to pay, to raise funds to cover their short positions, obviously. because the short positions to cover it is so expensive right now, they have to sell more and more stockings. there's more than a theoretical scenario where there's so many hedge funds that are short these stocks and selling their long positions that it's going to cause massive market disruptions. i -- we're not there yet, neil. i don't think we're at the point where the markets are shutting down. neil: all right. charlie, thank you for coming in on saturday. appreciate it. charlie gasparino, way ahead of the curve on some of these developments. again, just to put this in

perspective, there are those who bet on stock prices going down, and they literally make financial bets, the big hedge funds and the hoo like that have lost a ton the, betting the wrong way. amc comes the mind and some of these others. and then there are those who champion on these sites like robinhood where you can do a lot of this trading who believe the shorts have gone too far and there's inherent value in the stocks. it looks like the longs or those countering the shorts are winning. but nevertheless, the government is looking to into all this. senator, very good of to have you. what do you think of this? do you think something should be done? >> well, neil, thanks for having me and good morning from kansas city, home of the defending super bowl champion kansas city chiefs. and, neil, it would -- how many people would watch the super bowl if we changed the rules at

halftime in that's what i think a lot of investors feel like. everyone deserves equal opportunity to make money on wall street whether you live in balltown, usa, or a big city, whether you would recollect on main street or wall street -- work with on main street or wall street. let's get some folks in front of us and listen to what's actually happened. mostly we want a level playing field, we want equal access to the markets, and robinhood, their mission was great to give everyday people like myself and folks across the country the opportunity to buy stocks online at a cheap price without having to pay larger commissions. so we've got to be careful here, not overreact, but let's see why did they pull the rug out from under us. neil: all right. of they say they were inundated, others suspect that, you know, it's just a lot of people interested in making a quick buck, and they're going to get burnt on this, senator.

leon cooper, another gazillionaire, was saying that the stock trading world and the nonprofessional investors that it attracts is a loser game played by people who don't have any idea what they're doing. if that is the case -- that's his opinion, just his opinion -- do people have the right to learn the hard way? or does the government have to protect them from making stupid calls just as the government has no obligation to protect those big institutions who are betting the opposite direction from losing their money hand over fist, and a lot of them did and a lot of them are. >> right, neil. i'm not a financial adviser. i would caution anybody from fred flintstone get rich quick scheme. but we do have the right to have some hard knocks and to go through some losses as well. we want an even playing field. some of those comments are almost insulting.

right now there's millions of people out of work, they're at home, and with technology we can gather more information much easier than we used to. now, i'm not a day trader, and i wouldn't recommend it for anybody, but i do think that there's opportunities out there. especially with covid going on, some of these companies have lost their market and their ability to make money because of covid. now that the vaccine's coming in line, i think we could return by april if the president and our governors do their jobs. if that happens, some of these companies that have been depreciating will start appreciating again. neil: all right. we'll see if it spreads and what washington wants to do or should do on that very issue. senator roger marshall, thank you very much. we're going to get the read from senator ben cardin not specifically on this, but democrats read on a threat that is far, far more real and far, far more worrisome, talking about china. i'll be talking to senator ben cardin of maryland. stay with us.

your grooming business is booming. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base. claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/groomer

♪ >> actively help small businesses recover, how can we help get more people vaccinated, keep our safe from the threat of china, terrorists, russia and iran. that's what we should be working on, not putting on trial someone who's no longer in office. this is a clown show, it's a joke. neil: all right. marco rubio was right before the whole gamestop market craziness was going on. he says there's simply far more pressing things than to go of after a former president in an impeachment trial in the united states senate that not even the supreme court justice is attending. senator ben cardin of maryland, senate finance committee, perfect to touch on gamestop with him. but, senator, very good to have you. >> neil, it's good to be with you, thanks. neil: you probably heard what senator rubio was saying, you've heard it from a lot of your

republican colleagues who say it's a waste of time, unnecessary now, we've got far more pressing things to do than to chase a former president who likely isn't going to be convicted in a senate where most of the republicans don't even back the trial itself. what do you say? >> well, neil, we need to do both. the senate needs to take up the impeachment trial, that's our constitutional responsibility. we've heard over and over again from the courts that the only way to hold a president accountable for his actions while he's president is through the impeachment property. the house has sent us articles of impeachment, we have a constitutional responsibility to conduct the trial. but at the same time, we need to deal with the covid-19 issues, we need to deal with our economy, and we need to deal with foreign policy issues. so senator rubio is saying those issues we need to deal with, but we also can do that at the same time we take up the impeachment trial. neil: i just get the feeling,

and you know the president far better than i, even he was saying -- i guess a consensus was reached to start all this, you know, the week of after next. is he signaling and do you worry that he's signaling he's concerned? that that this is going to booby trap democrats, hurt his agenda, certainly hurt getting the things he wants done including the stimulus package? >> first, the timing of the trial was done at the request of president bush's attorneys and the house managers. we want to make sure it's a fair trial, we want to give both sides the opportunity they need to present their case and their defense. so that judged, that was the judgment that was used in when to start the trial. i know that president biden wants his cabinet people confirmed. he also wants us to deal with covid-19. the trials usually start in the afternoon, we have the mornings available to us, our committees can meet. we can get to those issues. we're already starting the

confirmation process, we have more scheduled for next week. we can do both and we need to do both. look, these are important issues, and congress is going to have to -- the senate's going to have to work overtime, but we can get both done. neil: so you're not worried that you're actually giving publicity to donald trump, that if this fails -- as it likely will, and certain things could come up, and i could be completely wrong, senator -- you could help his cause. you know, he might still run for president because this would fail, forbidding him from doing so, and he could be a thorn in democrats' side to say nothing of some republicans' side. so this could actually help him not hurt him. what do you think? >> well, neil, you can't use this for the political whim. you have to do what the constitution requires us to do. see, we don't have a choice in this matter. the house has brought us articles of impeachment. we have to conduct a fair trial. and we should conduct a fair trial. no one's above the law are. after that january 6th insurrection against our nation,

all of us, dem captains and republicans, were committed to holding everyone responsible that had anything to do with that insurrection whether it was the prime minister of the united states or those -- president of the united states or those who maaed to the capitol. -- marched to the capitol. we have a responsibility to carry out that responsibility. i don't think we have a choice in this. that's something that i guess we'll find out, but politics can't judge our activity. neil: yeah. you know the other side is saying you guys are playing with politics, but that as you may, i understand. senator, you're pretty well versed in financial matters, and i'm just curious what you make on how far washington should go on this whole gamestop and related issue. a rot of people say -- a lot of people say let the buyer or seller beware, what do you think? >> well, i've been following this and, look, i've worked with senator portman, the two of us are working together in regards to retirement security and financial literacy and getting people professional advice. i just urge people to recognize

that you shouldn't play games with your, with your finances. you should get the best advice you can. we need transparency, and you need to make informed decisions so be careful. someone wants to sell you profits, be careful. neil: we'll watch it. got it, senator cardin. we'll watch it very, very closely. we'll have much more after this. we are the thrivers. women with metastatic breast cancer,... ...standing in the struggle. hustling through the hurt. asking for science, not sorrys. our time... ...for more time... ...has come. living longer is possible- and proven in women taking kisqali plus fulvestrant or a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor. kisqali is the only treatment in its class with proven overall survival results in 2 clinical trials. helping women live longer with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali was also significantly more effective

at delaying disease progression... ...versus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant alone. kisqali can cause lung problems or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness... ...yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills,... ...or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. kisqali is not approved for use with tamoxifen. it's our time... ...to continue to shine. because we are the thrivers. ask your doctor about kisqali, the only treatment in its class proven to help women live longer in 2 clinical trials.

♪ neil: all right. forget about alexandria ocasio-cortez going after the big boys and how they're gouging the small investor. representative ilhan omar has gone one step further to say we should tax all wall street trades, then use the dough to get student debt and get things really going. that has my panel worked up. rebecca, dan geltrude, america's

accounting, as i say, the cpa and market analyst, lauren, democratic strategist. let me begin with you on what you make of what the congresswoman is saying. tax wall street trades, you'd raise a lot of money doing that, and you could do a lot of things with that including canceling, i think she said all student loans, what do you think? >> this is a wealth tax, make no mistake about it. representative omar is not the only one supporting it. every democratic presidential candidate supported taxing high frequency traders and the wealthy. we know that this tax will be paid by wealthy americans because we know that rank and file american, those making the median income or less, don't trade very often if they own stocks, and six out of seven of them don't own -- neil: well, you might take a look at who's been buying amc and blackberry and express and gamestop. those are not all dan geltrude types. [laughter] how far, how far do you think

this goes, though? because, laura, the first thing i note is that the there could be a lot of parents out there or kids themselves who have been working at paying off their debt, and then they see a lot of other folks getting off scot-free and it's all a paid for, all gone. they've got to be angry, aren't they in. >> well, i think she's throwing that out there as one thing. when we look at biden's plan, he hasta plan to forgive debt of lower incomes, not people whose parents can afford to send them to yale. i know this panel probably doesn't like any tax, but this is manager that maga hat wearers anding progressive democrats can agree on because wall street truly has not been taxed at the rate that it should be, and we know that they are benefiting from the pandemic. stocks are soaring and rank and file americans are really hurting right now -- neil: well, just don't confuse wall street with individuals. that's all i'm saying, laura. the view that you're going after the man, but the fact of the matter is people -- investors say that, rich or poor. i guess what you're saying.

dan, you're one of -- >> [inaudible] neil: -- dan, you're one of those, and the notion is that wall street's had it easy. the big boys who have been investing and doing so well, it's time that that they pay their fair share. this is a step in that direction. what do you say? >> well, that's the headline, right, neil? that's what draws people in to the a argument of we've got to stick it to the man. but that's not true. look, i said from the very beginning when joe biden was talking about that he was going to raise taxes, believe him. when he said he was only going to raise taxes on the rich and corporations, that's where you stop believing him. because this tax is going to be the passed through to anyone who has a tree. and to then say you're going to take that money and make college free or to forgive college debt makes no sense because they're not related. the whole thing about the

college debt, neil, is not that it's not too expensive, it is, but people are not managing the return on their investment related to going to school. if you want to go to harvard which is fine, majoring in becoming a librarian -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- is probably not a great return on investment. so look at where you're going based upon how much money you've spent on your education. neil: well, rebecca, i want to -- the here i fault republicans and democrats that they might come up with creative ways to come up with more money but never really to save money, never to address spending, the underlying problem that leads to these massive deficits, $3.5 trillion in the year just spent, closing in on $30 trillion in total debt right now. so i would much sooner see them look at that other side of the ledger. and here i fault both parties

under multiple administrations. that is not being considered here, it's just how can we get still more. and that is what worries me. your thoughts. >> well, and i agree with you, neil, because now what we're seeing is that because we're till in this global pandemic, it's no holds barred, and there's no restraint at all. and rightfully so temporarily. now we spent almost $8 trillion after we have this next round of stimulus. this is unsustainable. so we do need to look at spending and getting our economy open. what i find at issue with representative omar, why now after this week's worth of robinhood and shutting down trading are we bringing this up? because this is like, to dan's point, this is going to affect the little guy. the big guys will figure out how to get around it or how to pass the costs on. it's the retail traders that are going to bear the brunt because it's going to prevent them maybe from trading freely, and that's

not what a free market does. so i have a problem with the tax that prevents free market trading and definitely with what happened this week as well. neil: all rightment -- all right, i want to pursue these big online stocks and what's been happening, i want to explore that in the next hour. for now, thank you very much for weighing in on all of this. in the meantime, we are weighing in on other developments in washington including right now this push on the part of president biden to freeze deportations for the first hundred days of his administration, about 90 days nowment well, a judge put the kibosh on that for the time being. there's a reprieve in that, but where do we go from here? former acting i.c.e. director is next. this is my granddaughter... she's cute like her grandpa. voya doesn't just help me get to retirement... ...they're with me all the way through it. voya. be confident to and through retirement. is mealtime a struggle?

introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime.

♪ ♪ neil: all right, the president's been making good on a lot of his promises now, what, 40 executive orders, memoranda, action. one of the controversial one acted on to freeze all deportations for at least 100 days. along came a judge to say, not so fast, a 0-day cooling off -- 10-day cooling off period to get to a solution. former acting i.c.e. director joins us, ron, what do you think of this after of the judge is not, you know, shutting it down, the deportation argument, but

just wanting to flesh it out, to it's still likely to be the case. so where is this going? >> i'm grateful that the state of texas and the attorney general there pushed back on this radical policy, if you will, right? it asks the department of homeland security to ignore immigration law. that's the signal that this campaign -- when it was a campaign and now this presidency -- is putting out to the rest of the world. so they're going to encourage people to send their children or brick their families to the border. we see these two caravans that are on the pathway now trying to get to the united states because they're encourage by what appears to be an open border policy with the new administration. neil: so how is this different? oddly enough, i can remember a time when barack obama used to bristle at the charges he was the deporter in chief and his own party went after him. it sounds like joe biden wants

to avoid even a hint of that label. is there there something else going on here? >> yeah. the inmates are running the asylum, if you will. there's an open borders ideology that's being played out in the policy and what was edges pressed in this message poe -- expressed in this memo and the activity that was outlined on january 20th. and it's not unlike what president barack obama did when they issued daca -- not the ruling, but the memo for daca. they're saying you can't arrest people who are in the country illegally x. there was no exception in this memo that went out on if 20th for criminal aliens. the only exception were for people that were terrorists and aggravated felons x they had to be convicted. so if you came into the country before november of 2020, immigration officers couldn't even approach you to start deportation proceedings. if you were in custody, you had to release people who were

convicted -- not convicted, but were arrested for very serious crimes if they're already in custody, they've already been ordered by a judge we're going do suspend deportation. that seems to be the signal that's going out across the world. neil: in the meantime, you have these honduran, you know, illegals making their way here. some say buoyed by, you know, a new president the oval office here. but what is going to happen when they do get to the border? this caravan that has been fighting with guatemalan soldiers and forces there, they're claiming distress and, you know, that they're victims of a police state. what happens when they get there? >> well, it'll remain to be seen because under the current rules -- or under the previous rules that are being rolled back, we would have -- the border patrol and customs and border protection officers would take these people and give them

an opportunity to have an asylum here, but they'd have to wait in mexico. on the 21st after this memo came out on the 20th, they also rescinded any enrollment in the migrant protection program. so the only authority they have now is to push people back across the border because of the pandemic. so they rolled back the asylum accords which also is going to encourage people to come, and they rolled back enrollments in the migrant protection program, and so people are are being encouraged. and that's why these caravans have formed, and it remains to be seen what will happen given the authorities expressed now because there's a signal coming out of this administration that says they don't want to fix what trump fixed in the end of catch and release for the third time in the recent history of the department. it was ended in 2007. we had a big surge in 2014 which was abated by increased detention and deportations x. then it was ended again in 2019 because of the accord that we

struck with mexico and the northern triangle as it relates to asylum abuse. so that problem was fixed. and now we're putting the conditions in place to create this problem again. and it's unnecessary, it's very predictable and, hopefully, the count sorts it out and doesn't allow the department to change -- or the president to change immigration law without the assistance of congress. this has been a problem for a really long time in our country, and congress has failed to shore up the loopholes that are in the immigration law that allow people to come here and claim asylum and then get into the economy and never pursue those claims in immigration court. that needs to be fixed. it's needed to be fixed for quite some time, and this administration is now taking advantage of that framework, and it's going to encourage people to come to that border. neil: yeah, you're right. this is something that congress, the white house, they all have to agree on something and just get cracking on it. ron, thank you for coming in, always good having you. >> thanks for having me. neil: all right. in the meantime, i don't know if

you take public transportation to get to work, but there are going to be new rules going into effect via the cdc regarding to covid. you have to wear a mask. trains, bus, no matter what you're going in to get to work, you better have that mask on or they can kick your fanny off or worse. after this.

do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy, even a term policy, for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized that we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have one hundred thousand dollars or more of life insurance you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit conventrydirect.com to find out if you policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

neil: all right, you are looking live at the left of your screen atlanta hartsfield international airport here and the executive order that's going to into effect that bans those traveling from south africa to get into the united states. it's on the heels of reports9 that the south african virus variant that's made its way to this country in states like south carolina, for example, but it continues a trend where we are looking again at those traveling from abroad to get here when the administration's already kept in place restrictions of folks getting here unless they are cleared and

testing negative for the virus. but this south african one does take effect today, and the impact -- well, we're getting an early read from atlanta, georgia, where our charles watson is right now. charles. >> reporter: hey, good morning, neil. the biden administration is hoping that travel ban on folks coming from south africa will help slow the spread of that new covid-19 variant before it can make the pandemic any worse. the administration is also hoping, among other things, that it will help, the move will help struggling businesses like the silver skillet here behind me keep their doors open. the owner, teresa breckenridge, says this local atlanta diner is cut in half, and it's struggling to turn a profit right now. she's personally depending on social security to survive as she uses what money the diner does bring in to cover bills and pay her 18 part-time employees. but things just can't getting any easier as this pandemic rages on. >> what keeps me up at night is

not knowing what's going to happen. where it's political requirements that we have to sustain and maintain or whether it's just the pandemic itself is continuing to linger. >> reporter: now, the biden administration is trying to take an aggressive approach at combating the virus. health officials warn the south african variant is 50% more contagious and may be vaccine-resistant. the administration is hoping to have 100 million americans vaccinated in the first 100 days, and the pentagon could play a role. >> we got a from from fema, it's being analyzed to use department of defense capabilities not to distribute the vaccines, but to help administer the vaccines for the american people.

>> reporter: and, neil, these plans are all being worked out right now, but you can imagine the folks here at the silver skillet and a lot of other with businesses here in atlanta and around the country are hoping the federal government does what it makes to get things back to normal. neil, back to you. neil: all right, charles, thank you very much. charles watson on this story. i should let you know, i did speak to the ceo of novavax that's come out with a vaccine that's very, very effective, but when it comes to this south african variant, a little less effective. more in the vicinity of 59-60% than the nearly 90% the general vaccine is for almost all other cases of the virus. so it is a pressing concern that they can't get on top of this and have the same results battling this. in the meantime, we're getting a little bit more detail from that cdc order effective monday that you'd better wear a mask if you're taking public transportation. a face mask is required now on all airplanes and ships, trains, subways, buses, taxis and

ride-shares and that all transportation heads whether federal or state-run. the medical impact on that after this.

♪ neil: all right, come monday if you take public transportation, if you're at a airports, you're at a bus stop, the bus station the, a train station, you better have your mask on. i don't know what the heck they're going to do to you. i don't think they're going to arrest you, but they will kick you out as the cdc cracks down on general mask requirements across the country to deal with the spike in cases that we have seen even amid an increase in number of vaccines that we're seeing as well.

metropolis pain medical director, nyu school of medicine, so much more. doctor, thank you for coming in on a saturday. i don't think people are aware of these requirements that will kick in on mondayment -- on monday. what do you think the fallout will be, is it going to help? >> well, most people seem to be in favor of masks at this point. most people are wearing masks, so in terms of the benefits, you know, i am in favor of masks in general. but i think the risk here is, you know, people may not realize, to if someone doesn't have their mask or if someone doesn't follow it, what's going to happen. and as you mentioned, you know, throughout this pandemic i think the issues that we've had are what happens if someone doesn't follow the rules. like, what are the penalties, and are they going to be excessive, because that's when we've seen kind of rebellion and distrust and anger. and second, you know, in terms of exceptions -- which there seems to be some here, so if someone has a medical reason for not wearing a mask, are there

going to be a large number of exceptions. whenever you have a rule with too many exceptions, people get mad too. and final he, you know, if someone who we need to be on public transportation is suddenly thrown off of transportation, then what are the -- i don't like the term essential workers because it implies that other people are not essential, but if you have essential workers on these forms of transportation and suddenly they get thrown off, then what do we do. is that going to be a problem for the rest of society. so for all these reasons, i can see problems coming up. i mean, even the discretion for who's going to enforce these rules, like let's say you have kids who refuse to wear a mask. is that going to be enforced the same way as if you have an adult who philosophically opposes masks? because it should be the behavior -- neil: it comes at an interesting time -- i'm sorry. it comes at an interesting time because we are seeing, you know, more sweeping edicts here not only workers who are being told by their bosses you come in, you

better be testing negative for this thing, and a number of other businesses that are double, triple, quadruple checking that you're free and clear medically speaking to return to work. so it comes at an inflection point here, doesn't it? >> it does. and even testing, i mean, i have an issue with that because our testing is not perfect, and depending on the type of test that you get, you may be able to manipulate that system. so if you want to go back to work, you might opt for the antigen test, the rapid antigen test which has more chance of maybe coming back as a false negative rather than the pcr test which is more likely to be accurate and come back as a positive. there are ways of manipulating that system fending on what type -- depending on what type of result you want to get. and it doesn't necessarily, it doesn't guarantee that you have, that the you are actually negative just because you have a negative result. it's only accurate for that moment that you take it

depending on the limits of technology. neil: very quickly, doctor, i hesitate to speak -- i had a chance to speak to the novavax ceo and this whole south african variant issue. he's watching it. this is from the guy, i want to get your reaction very quickly. the head of novavax. this concern about how effective it might be with this variant, this south african variant that's popped up in south carolina, for example, can you update us on that in. >> we got a 60% efficacy. 60% efficacy is, obviously, is lower, but it's a good vaccine. it's at or above something like you get in standard flu vaccines. so we're happy with that. what we would like is to -- what we're thinking about doing is the way to fix that is to think about making a vaccine that has that strain in it. neil: all right. so, dr., in ten seconds, 60%

efficacy rate isn't great but it's still good. you say? >> it is great. i mean, that means 60% of people who get that vaccine will avoid having severe illness from covid, right? so in that's a good chance of staying out of the hospital, a good chance of dot not dying from covid. neil: all right, doctor, thank you. we'll have more after this. ...

if these beautiful idaho potato recipes are just side dishes, then i'm not a real idaho potato farmer. genuine idaho potatoes not just a side dish anymore. always look for the grown in idaho seal. >> all right. what is trading going to look like monday? the market averages had their worst week since october. a lot by game stop, the robinhood issue and people countering the short selling going on there and the concern with the dow back under 30,000 is this feeds on itself. that large investment firms that were betting on stocks losing their value have to make up for that and maybe start

capping their winning positions in the averages in amazon, facebook and a host of others and that's going to feed on the fear alone. is that a legitimate concern and should we look at this way beyond the direct issues that are in focus right now? let's go to rebecca walter. and dan, c.p.a. market analyst and our own charlie gasperino. so, charlie, that's the fear, that it feeds on itself. i guess you could call it the opposite of irrational exuberance, irrational fear. and it gets the short trading funds and others and they're going to have to recoup the losses by digging into maybe some of their winning investments. do you think it's a legitimate fear? >> i think it's a legitimate fear, i do not think it's going to be a long-term fear. this is -- let's unpack this a

little bit. what's going on here is exceptional and a great story and interesting from a market perspective and a market structural perspective, but we're talking about 13 stocks at issue here. we are talking about a bunch of hedge funds that are short those 13 stocks. those hedge funds short those 13 stocks are obviously going to have to sell out their positions to make up for the losses. it's not -- i don't think it's the systemic risk we've seen on other market connotations, contagions, back in the day, the mexico peso crisis and the damage across wall street and the banking and the whole sector. obviously the 2008 crisis was a liquidity crisis and the

government had to bail out the street. i don't think we're there. it's not enough. >> all right. >> you would need to see much, much more volatility. neil: you might want to check your mic, charlie, something's rubbing against it here. rebecca walter, let me ask you about another concern that this has created sort of a new cottage industry in the market where they look at an at of stocks that are shorted. of the 50 most prominent names there's even, i understand, an etf for it where you could trade against that and that thing is up 33%. if you bought that. and so, i'm wondering whether this could spread beyond that and whether people are now saying, all right, you look at general market averages and some of the big names that look very pricey. here is an affordable pool of stocks, i can dip into. do you see that happening? >> well, i do think what's happened here, neil, and not to

rehash charlie and charles yesterday, but people are awaken to the fact. neil: you always start something. and guests always start something. [laughter]. finish that. >> and here, i will say that-- >> go ahead. >> this is an awakening people to the fact that, wow, you know, you had a chatroom message board that had an impact on hedge funds, so that's a little guy and they're alarmed by the fact that when the little guy made some money at the big guy's loss, that trading must shut down and i know that charlie has said well, they didn't have the capital, but as charles said yesterday, they could have raised it and merrill-lynch following and saying they might come to us, let's shut it down. that doesn't bode well for a free market and people say what's going on here? something is not right and i think that's systemic and going to have to be accounted for and answered for. people want to know what happened and why.

neil: you know, it's uniting, dan, the republicans and democrats, that all right, we've got to look into this. and earlier i spoke to senator marshall of kansas on this who said, maybe because amc is in his state that it bears watching. this is from the senator a little while ago. >> how many people would watch the super bowl if we changed the rules at halftime and that's what i feel like a lot of investors feel like. that everyone deserves equal opportunity to make money on wall street. we've got to be careful here not overreact, but let's take a dive and see why did they pull the rug out from under it. neil: all right, that sounds like the old ronald reagan era, i'm here from the government and i'm here to help. what do you think of that? >> welcome. well, neil, i'm not against the government investigating what happened and figuring it out, but the most important thing here in my opinion is that we

were maintaining a level playing field and when things started to shut down, it became an unlevel playing field. now, there's no reason for the government to believe that they have to start baby-sitting investors. there's a parallel here to a gambler going into a casino. if that gambler loses their life savings because they got caught up in the emotion of the gambling, that's not something that the government should be stepping into to say, well, wait a minute, we have to look at what's happening, whether the house won too much or the investor lost too much. ultimately the market is going to straighten this out over time because people got burned and hopefully they're going to learn their lesson. neil. neil: you could be right about that. charlie, one thing i see, when i hear rush limbaughs and like -- come on, this is some sort

of a political statement here, you go after one, you don't pay others, you're not for the little guy, you're for protecting the man, whatever. loses sight of the fact that i think all of those people on robinhood, they want to make money, there's nothing wrong with that. >> i agree and-- >> they want to make money, but what i'm asking you is, to control that, is that a dangerous trend or something that should be watched? are they getting more, you know, from the public than they deserve? in other words, from the regulators that the short guys don't? because the short guys do get a lot of attention and they do get a lot of scrutiny so i don't know if there's a double standard there. i know they're both interested in making money. nothing wrong with that. >> right, by the way, robinhood is interested in making money from the little guy and that's why it was created and the little guy to keep trading through that. neil: nothing wrong with that either. >> and that's where the logic of this class warfare garbage

misses the boat. i mean, it really is stupid. robinhood couldn't -- had to stop trading not because it doesn't want-- robinhood makes money when there's trading. it couldn't handle the volume, it needed more money, more capital to settle the trades. neil: and it got more money. by the way it got more money. at people that says it's only the big guy that gets help. robinhood had a million dollar line to make it more available for customers. if you're against the lines set up to help the institutions, well, you better include robinhood in them. >> right, and neil, hedge funds that short stocks are under investigation all the time. they'll always go under investigation, they're always under investigation. this is a really, a stupid meme that the notion that it's a populous, that they're screwing

little guys. they're not. you can make the case, should there be restrictions how much someone can buy in leverage and margins and using the robinhood account. that's a whole other argument. neil: rebecca, let me ask you about that. i hate this when they make these things political when they're not on the right or left. just stop it and look at overwhelmed system that couldn't handle the volumes they were dealing with. one thing that's come up and it's going to keep coming up, is this idea of everyone headed into this. not among the original game stop and amc investors, but others look around and say, hey, i want in, too. feeling they might have missed out on test la and amazon, but a chance to get some rocket money. and there's a fear that that crowd gets left out and that crowd gets screwed and that's a legitimate fear. again, should the government try to correct that? or is that, look, buyer, seller beware. >> i'm probably the only one on

the planet earth that wants less laws and regulations. no, the law has consequences. if you think it's soundproof and just deal with the consequences in the situation that you want. it has all these other effects, no. anytime the government starts regulating, it's a problem. and we have plenty of regulation, but i think to charlie's point, to your point. i understand everyone saying they just need to raise capitol and other people saying they could have gotten that capital and not checked on trading so i think it's going to have to be addressed so people feel like the little guy here did not get the shaft. if he truly didn't and want a concerted effort to shut down trading on these stocks, we should be able to see at that transparently. >> come on, why would they do that. >> that the market is free-- >> why would they turn away money, just to help citadel? by the way, citadel sells the order flow. robinhood, people want that order flow. >> if you watch their commercials it's all about the

little guy. neil: the bottom line, i'll get-- i'm going to end with dan here. dan, do you expect a bumpy ride monday? is this over or could this get at least a little more volatile? >> i think on monday, neil, the bumpy ride is going to continue. i don't think this is over. people still have positions, whether it's shorted or whether they're playing the shiny object that it's going to keep going up. this is going to continue for a little while, however, i do agree with charlie and not because i don't want to fight with him because he's right, i think in the long run, this is-- this is not a systemic issue. it is just part of a bumpy road. neil: all right. but you will admit charlie is rude. [laughter] >> kidding, kidding. guys. thank you very much. we'll see what happens on monday, we'll look at what's gone on with the fossil fuel and oil sector industry

nongrata, and cracking down. the west virginia governor, well, he's acting up. t burger in every zip code? add an employee. or ten... then easily and automatically pay your team and file payroll taxes. that means... world domination! or just the west side. run payroll in less than five minutes with intuit quickbooks.

>> we have to start by creating new good paying jobs, capping those, reclaiming mines, turning brown sites into new hubs of economic growth. >> the fastest growing job in the united states before covid was solar power technician. the same people can do those jobs. >> create more jobs in energy, clean energy than the jobs. neil: all righty. sometimes these little demons hit us here, but you got the gist of where the biden administration is coming on the lost jobs in the energy industry, the traditional fossil fuel energy. since he announced he was shutting down the keystone pipeline, a thousand jobs

jettisoned at one major player and jobs could depend on this. affecting the oil industry, the coal industry and that's where the west virginia governor, jim justice comes in, he didn't like this trend and right now it's a trend that he says is building steam. governor, very good to have you. it looks like this proverbial train has left the station here. but when john kerry, i guess their climate change envoy, talks about a lot of these workers have lost jobs transitioning to solar panels and putting them on homes and buildings, i wonder if they get the magnitude of this? >> well, first of all, thanks for having me, but neil, does anyone really believe that john kerry or president biden or the powers to be really truly understand what's going on in the energy sector of this country? i mean, you know, it's bad enough that the country's divided in a lot of different directions today and we better reach back and pull our you

know, head out of our you know what and get ourselves back together and have some real rational thinking, but if you'll just step back and think about this, west virginia embraces the alternative energies, but we are smart enough to realize, and this country should realize, that we can't do without coal and gas today? we're going to go from energy independence to dependence that could very well cause chaos in a lot of different situations. neil, just think about this, you know, the people in the energy sector, whether it be coal or gas or whatever it may be, they're proud people and they've worked there for decades and decades and absolutely, without any question, no matter what anybody tries to tell me, you can't possibly do without coal and gas today. but these proud people, what just happens if they know, they power the nation, they absolutely saved us at war time. they know all of that and at

some po point in time they may awaken to the fact that they're tired of getting beat on and pushed down. what if in america today we were to awaken to an industry of gas and coal and everything that would just decide, okay, everybody says they can do without us, we'll just absolutely shut everything down for six months and just see. it would spin this nation into chaos like you can't possibly imagine. you know, so if that be the case, then we need them. so why in the world are we just continuing to beat on them? these are good people, these are good people. neil: governor, let me ask you, they argue if this was so damaging, those advocating this transition to cleaner energy, if this was so damaging, then oil prices and related prices would be skyrocketing. they're not. a lot of that is the back drop

of the pandemic and hitting global demand so they say what's the big worry and there are going to be millions more new jobs created than the relatively small by comparison coal and oil jobs that will go. what do you say to that? >> well, first of all, i've said in the beginning, we would embrace, we would embrace the alternatives, but the problem with the whole makeup is just this, you know, you have people that are driving the engine that really believe that coal and gas, if we get rid of it in america and everything, it's going to solve the entire globe, but, you know, i met yesterday with congresswoman miller and she was telling me about all the different need and desires that vietnam building coal plants, taking electricity to its people, wanting to buy more and more coal. i mean, neil, i'm a practical thinking guy and i am telling you just straight up, if we

don't get rational good thinking going on in this nation, all across our land, we're going to awaken to a situation to where power bills are going to go out of sight, brownouts are going to happen, absolutely we're going to-- you know, from the standpoint of metallurgical coal to make steal. what are we going to do if that happens, drill, baby drill? come on, let's have planning. neil: governor, i know there'sen about talk about paying for rejoining the climate accord. but john kerry even admitted as much that if we were to be completely clean ourselves, that wouldn't erase 90% of the problem that the rest of the world that doesn't adhere to a lot of the same standard we would be committed to adhering to and paying a lot of money for, including carbon tax and some of the other ideas that have been advanced, what do you think of that?

>> i don't think much of it. really and truly we've got enough problems going on right now in america. we have a racial divide, we have absolutely a divided-- we have a pandemic. i mean, why do we need nobly blow our legs off for the whole word and the whole world will step back and laugh at us. i'm all for a real strategy, a real energy strategy because, neil, let me just say one other thing and it's just this, the only way civilization advances in this world, in time is cheap abundant clean energy. it's the only way. and it was only just cheap abundant energy, but really, and truly if you want a civilization to advance today, we need clean energy and i'm all for it, but we just have to have a strategy rather than a knee jerk and that's what we have going on right now and it's going to back fire, it's really going to hurt us. neil: all right, so just to be

clear, as the governor of one of the most important coal states in the country, and energy in general, you're open to all forms of energy you're just not keen in eliminating in this case coal. >> i mean, that's exactly right. west virginia, the coal association and gas people all of us embrace the alternatives. i mean, just the other day, just the other day i welcomed a 200 million dollar investment into our state on a windmill business. so, absolutely, you know, we embrace, but we're smart enough to realize we've got to have a strategy. we've got to have a real strategy going forward that says, this is going to be, you know, this is what we're going to do. this is how this is going to phase in, phase out. and all that. neil: got it. governor, thank you very much. governor justice of west virginia. we'll have more, including by the way, threats out of china. ♪♪

it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win.

>> the way the secretary described it in testimony just a couple of weeks ago is that he views china as the prime pacing challenge of the united states military. there's no reason for any of this to resolve itself into some kind of conflict, but we also have an obligation to protect our national security interest in the asia pacific. we're a pacific power. we have five of our seven treaty alliances are in the pacific region so we have alliances that we also need to make sure we're honoring through security commitments. neil: all right. that's a clear read from the biden administration is china, we know what you're up to. this is something, it's sort of a quadrennial event right now. every new president who comes in gets tested by china. you might recall that bob

mcginnis around this is exactly what would happen and sure enough he does. and if he said the same thing about stocks and invest-- and from the u.s. army, best selling author, good to have you, colonel. well, they confirmed what you have feared, that china, you know, is threatening and obviously, between their military operations in the south china sea and some of the saber rattling against taiwan, they're rattling a lot. what do you make of that? >> well, they really are, neil. they now have a navy of 350 ships versus our 293. they're in the north atlantic and the artic, all over the pacific and the indian ocean and of course using their belt and road initiative they're on every continent. leveraging raw materials as well as new markets. so the china back in 2013, president xi basically took a

page out of the mao tse tung, said we're going to be by 2049, 100th anniversary of the people's public of china. how are they going to do that, they rapidly expanded as the pentagon indicated in their 2020 report, i.t. its military report. and they outpace us m ballistic missiles. they tested an intermediate ballistic missile from the peninsula in the southwest corner, and into the sea and near the island and destroyed a moving vessel. that's a significant undertaking and a signal to us that even our aircraft carriers, such as u.s.s. theodore roosevelt that was there last weekend could be at risk if we try to interfere with what they consider their sovereign territory. so, the chinese, whether attacking economically, security-wise, or even

ideologically, as we, you know, have watched what they've done with their uighurs, with the people in hong kong and now in trying to intimidate the taiwanese. we're sure they're trying to become the world as dominant power. neil: all right, you talk about 2049, but already now they are getting more foreign investment into their country than we are. first time that's ever happened. and that economic kind of message is clearly to china's advantage. it might speed up the 2049 thing, what do you think? >> well, i think it's rational. if you're a third country, neil, whether asia, africa or europe, you look at what the chinese are doing. they're using their military very prague matically all over the world, establishing new relationships. they're using their belt and road, and investing in countries and buying political leverage and so, you kind of

say, i'm -- what do i do? who do i go with, the u.s. who is kind of fading in the asia pacific arena to a certain degree or go with china who rapidly seems to be emerging in power in economic terms as well as security terms. neil: colonel, frightening stuff. i wish you weren't so prescient on this stuff. lt. colonel bob mcinnis, kind of make the whole game stop thing down by comparison. and stimulus on the table, 1.9 trillion, we're doing it with or without you, republicans. after this.

>> all right. a good deal of attention right now on the $1.9 trillion stimulus plan. that's not something you can do through executive order. but it is something that joe biden wants to see happen by hook or crook. and even if it means that this is what some democrats are telling, going through without their traditional venues. for example, needing a simple senate majority to make it happen rather than the usual 60 votes you would need in the senate to make something like that happen. the president meanwhile seems to be saying he's all for working with republicans, but

no if's, and's and but's, this is going to happen. and david spunt has where it stands with regard to republican support. >> neil, good to be with you. weekend number two for president biden, he's keeping a low profile publicly at the white house. but tell that he's constantly in contact with the capitol hill. it was one year ago that president trump started having briefings on covid-19. monday will be february 1st and last february is when former president trump did such a thing. the president who spent more than three decades, president biden, walking the halls. capitol says he plans to pass the package with or without the help of republicans. remember, democrats, neil, have the upper hand running the senate, the house and the white house. but the president says he wants to do things in a bipartisan manner first. if not, so be it.

>> i support backing covid relief with support from republicans if we can get it, but the covid relief has to pass. there's no if's and's or but's. >> the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi will bring the resolution to the floor to get the 1.9 trillion, with a "t", passed. and the democratic majority would go to the democratly run senate and technically 50 democrats and 50 republicans in the senate however, as per the constitution, vice-president kamala harris will be tie-breaking vote and you can expect she'll vote to pass the measure. senators to watch, this is who all eyes are on capitol hill. moderates like retiring senator pat toomey, and joe manchin and susan collins. house minority leader kevin mccarthy has several republicans who are in favor passing the measure $1.9 trillion, after all it was former president trump a republican, pushing the $2,000

direct payments to americans and ultimately congress couldn't get anything done. people got $600. will the republicans who supported the higher amounts under president trump support the higher amount under president biden, neil. neil: i guess that's the big question. david, thank you very, very much. very interesting. i want to go to louisiana senator bill cassidy. senator, you probably heard david's report, hook or crook, we'll do this with or without republicans. what do you think about that? >> it's a little harder than that. but i think that republicans can be there, but it can't just be spending $1.9 trillion pulled out of the air with no justification. it has to be what's good for the country and partying hard now with a hangover tomorrow is not necessarily good for the country. republicans will be there for that which is good for the country. we need money for vaccinations. we need money to address these variants coming from other countries. that's common ground.

there's other things that are common ground. republicans will be there, but they won't be there for payoffs to democratic constituencies or just to check the box for a campaign promise the president made which has no rationale in terms of economics. neil: well, i know what you're saying about the republicans are not going to be there for partying hard, but no offense to your fine party, sir, republicans oversaw the massive deficit build under president trump that continued from president obama that continued from president bush, so both parties spend like crazy and the pandemic certainly is a catalyst, i get that, but are you open to some of the other ideas that have been bandied about, maybe breaking this package in two and some of the more controversial provisions like aid to states and all put off in a separate, in a separate measure to be debated after a first one? >> i'm totally open to that. and in fact, with the group that's working on it.

i smile as your reporter described pat toomey as a moderate. i've never heard toomey described as a moderate. these are people who across the spectrum, conservative to moderate, recognize there are some things that we can agree upon. i as a conservative, as a doctor know that we need more money for immunizations, more money to build our capacity to produce more vaccines. we can agree on that, we can go forward. i don't agree for $170 billion for schools the reason that schools weren't open is because teachers unions don't want to open not because it's unsafe for the children to attend. science tells us that children can attend, it's the teachers unions that are obstacles. neil: you should hear what senator toomey says about you. [laughter] >> let me ask you if i can, senator, on the $15 minimum wage that the president wants to be part of this package, bernie sanders wants to be part

of this package. speaking of bernie sanders, he wants it to be a lot more than this, there's talk of push of a rolling stimulus check from the government every year. do you think that the problems the president might have might not come from the right, but from the left? >> i think the problem comes from his policy. i've never seen an administration start off deciding to kill jobs. let's kill 11,000 keystone xl jobs like that. by the way, those are folks who don't make their money on a zoom call. they make their money getting calluses and packing a lunch, those jobs are gone. let's raise the minimum wage to $15. that restaurant just barely hanging on, now closes completely entirely forever because their fixed overhead went up so much in the middle of a pandemic. this is the most anti-jobs program i've ever seen. no wonder they want generous stimulus checks because everyone's going to be unemployed.

the best stimulus check is a paycheck and that's what we should be focused on, not just putting out all these dollars for people that have been made unemployed by federal government policies. neil: senator bill cassidy, very good catching up with you. thank you, sir, appreciate it. >> thank you, neil. neil: all right. in the meantime, i want you to think quick. governor andrew cuomo and john f. kennedy. think fast. what could one learn from the other? i'll give you a hint. when john f. kennedy botched something, he admitted it to the nation. the latest talk is that, well, governor cuomo just bought something pretty significant and he refuses to admit it.

>> you know, they must be the two hardest words in the english language for politicians to keep in mind. i goofed, i screwed up.

i botched it. when john f. kennedy did it after the failed bay of pigs disaster in 1961, a couple months into his new administration, he did something unusual, he took the heat and the blame. he could have easily said this was something, a problem that was hatched by his predecessor and that all the military officials around him thought it was a good idea. he could have blamed the prior administration. he could have blamed all of those generals. he did not. he took the bullet for it and in the end, his popularity went up. it went up 10 points simply because he told the nation, this is on me. i screwed up. now, to governor cuomo's new york, very different time, very different period, very different man. the revelations that the nursing homes may have been underreported by 50% that's a big gap. that is could be firmed by the democratic state new york attorney general who confirmed

the numbers and the problem. the governor is fighting all of that and saying it's a ka balance against -- kabal against him on behalf of the republicans, and the trump administration. hey, alex. >> that's right, the attorney general releasing all of this new information that scaling up the death toll of people who lived in nursing homes during the pandemic. now, with these new numbers that would put new york on the top of the list of states with the highest death toll in nursing homes or long-term facilities, following latisha james, new york health department, finding there were more than 12,000 people who died, 4,000 more people than initially reported. the numbers initially not counting patients who were infected with the virus and later died at hospitals. governor andrew cuomo makings his first remarks on the report yesterday basically staying that this was information that we already knew. >> a third of all deaths in

this nation were from nursing homes, we're below average of number of deaths from the nursing homes. who cares, 33, 28 died in the hospital, died in a nursing home, they died. >> a lot of criticism for those comments, especially from family members who lost loved ones, but couldn't see them in the final days of their lives. families who have continually called on the administration for more transparency about these true total number of nursing home deaths. that report released thursday finding that new york governor cuomo's policy in march that required nursing homes to accept covid-19 patients during the pandemic may have brought that number up. now this report finding that nursing homes simply did not have enough supplies, that also include ppe as well as testing supplies. neil. neil: well, we do know, alex, is that while they were taking

those covid patients back to nursing homes, that was the governor says the federal guideline, but a number of these nursing home parent companies were telling him bad idea, bad idea. do we know whether he got that message, whether he ignored it, anything like that? >> well, of course, that was the one part that has raised so much question, policy in march. now, the attorney-- or i should say that this is not federal guidelines, that this was something that should be held accountable in terms of governor andrew cuomo, however governor cuomo has said this is a tragedy, this is a loss of life and everybody was simply doing the best that they could. again, a lot of criticism from some of those comments, neil. neil: all right. alex hogan, thank you so much for that report. before we take a quick break, i want to apologize for my poor choice of words, and obviously,

jfk taking a bullet, and poor choice of word was mine only that he made a mistake and rose in the polls when he admitted that he did. mily's special needs... giving us confidence in our future ...and in kevin's. voya. well planned. well invested. well protected. want to sell the best burger in every zip code? add an employee. or ten... then easily and automatically pay your team and

file payroll taxes. that means... world domination! or just the west side. run payroll in less than five minutes with intuit quickbooks.

>> all right. i couldn't sell so i'm going to sue. this is the latest of this robinhood market story here that's fueled concern that a lot of people on thursday who either wanted to get into or out of hot stocks like what was going on with game stop and to a lesser agree with amc. couldn't get in or out because trading in such issues had been all, but shut down by robinhood. so, what do these lawsuits make to gain here? do they have any traction to them? katie, a constitutional

attorney, federal prosecutor with us here. they were having -- katie, good to have you. they couldn't get in or out of their position or buy more, which was more the common problem. it was corrected, i believe, by the next day thanks to a cash infusion, the company robinhood was able to get back on track. do they have grounds, the people who are suing now? >> well, it's a very interesting issue, needless to say and these class action lawsuits are based more on the contract side of things and whether robinhood and these firms breached the contract by shutting them out of buying. but i think the bigger question here is not necessarily on the contract side, but on the criminal side. if people are going to for helping their children cheat on sat, and if there's an opportunity to shut out retail investors from buying these

stocks, there could be serious on the line here. so i think that's the bigger legal story, in my opinion. neil: katie, i guess intent is very hard to prove in such cases. but it's not impossible. so, where is this going? >> sure. i think obviously there's a lot of investigations launched on the sec side and i think that the doj would look into this. you're right you have to look into these things, e-mails, exchanges of the justification behind this. there have been statements made regarding why this decision was made by the brokerages. was that justifiable by the evidence? and i think that's the big question here. so, the class action i don't think will have a lot of traction and as we probably know, historically, that's not going to pay out big for the individuals. more for the law firms. but i think the criminal and investigative side of things is going to get really

interesting. neil: you know, katie, can you sue a firm for, you know, not opening the door wide enough for you to get out of its stock. in the middle of the fury like what we were seeing here, everyone wants the quick buck and see the tesla type return. a lot of guys were seeing it, and great for the early entrants, not so great for some of those who are stuck with the crowd and unable to get out that door. is that a suable ground though to say, all right. you prevented me from making a fortunate and crashing out? >> well, that's the question on, i think, the personal side. it would be speculative for damages in that respect. that's why i think it's a suable ground in terms of breach of contract, whether the company was providing the services that it had contracted for, whether they were using the money they had in an appropriate way. so, all of these are potential-- >> what if they were overwrought, overwrought that the volume was such that they

can't handle it, it was that simple, and what do you think? >> sure, and i think that will boil do down to whether that was an anticipated issue that they should have been prepared for and really what their responsibility for, and that could be more on the regulatory side. sure, criminally speaking you have to have intent. and to prove what we know on the surfaces we're talking the enron scandal stuff, you only have to show there was some fraud that deprived these people of any value whatsoever. so that's the kind of avenue that i think a lot of the attorneys would potentially look down in this sort of case. yes, of course, prevent-- and there could be an honest mistake, with maybe, but all of this would have to play out through the investigation. neil: got it. great catching up with you. thank you very, very much. as katie pointed out, that's

the battle royale on monday, those betting on those shorting those and those saying the stock will go up. it's hitting the major averages and they think that it has spillover, that people could catch out.

. kristin:. >> president biden ramming up the pressure, saying that a bill must pass with no if's, and's or butt's. i'm griff jenkins. gillian: it's great to be with you and everyone at home on this cold saturday. stay there if you can. i'm gillian turner. the $2 trillion question in market, could the democrats push through another covid stimulus package maybe without support of a single republican which is looking more and more likely. david spunt