so, "wall street journal", mr. mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. his report was released for all to see and there was no collusion. this is the "wall street journal" and no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that's it. but they want to make this a big deal. whether they carry out the big i-word. i can't imagine that. there is a danger here. if someday a democrat becomes president and you have a republican house, they can impeach him for any reason, or her. we can't allow that to happen. we can't allow it to happen. when you look at all i have done and i will tell you my lawyers said, you could use presidential privilege. you don't have to let your lawyers and all of your staff testify. you can use presidential privilege. would you recommend it? well, you could be transparent or tight. if you have done nothing wrong, being transparent is better. i have done nothing wrong. let's be transparent. look at that. all of these things, 500 witnesses that i allowed to testify. it's a disgrace. so when they get everything done, i'm all set to let

so "wall street journal," mr. mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. his copious report was released for all to see, and there was no collusion. this is the "wall street journal." and there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that's it. but they want to make this a big deal. whether or not they carry the big "i" word out, i can't imagine that, but they probably would because they do whatever they have to do. i tell you, there is a danger here. if someday a democrat becomes president and you have a republican house, they can impeach him for any reason, or her. any reason. we can't allow that to happen. we can't allow it to happen. so when you look at all of the transparency, when you look at all i've done, and i logical tell you, my lawyers say, you don't have to do this. you can use presidential privilege. you don't have to let your lawyers andly all your staff testify, you can use presidential privilege. you can be transparent or you can be tight. if you've done nothing wrong, being transparent is better. so i said, i've done nothin

the "wall street journal" just wrote today, just a little while ago, i saw it, mr. mueller wasn't obstructed. "wall street journal" editorial today, mr. mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. his copious reports, 434 pages, now they want to interview all of the same people again. they want to interview jerry adler, he was been my enemy. i have had great success against him. he was representing and he would fight me. he failed. i congresswoman to washington, i combk president and i said i have nadler again? so, wall street jourm, mr. mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. his reports was released for all to see and there was no collusion. this is the "wall street journal" and no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that's it. but they want to make this a big deal. whether they want to carry out the big i do. there is a danger here. if someday a democrat becomes president and you have a republican house, they can impeach him for any reason, or her. we can't allow that to happen. we can't allow it to happen. when you look at all i have done and i will tell you

the wall street journal just wrote today just a little while ago, i saw it. mr. mueller was not obstructed in any way. this is the wall street journal editorial today. this -- mr. mueller was not obstructed in any way. his copious report, copious, 434 pages, now they want to interview all the same people again. they want to interview, jerry nadler who has been an enemy of mine for many years, he fought me in new york unsuccessfully, by the way. i have had great success jerry but he was representing manhattan and he would fight me all the time on the westside railroad yards, many times, very unsuccessfully. he failed. i come to washington, i become president and i say, no, i have jerry nadler again? journal, mr.treet mueller was not abstracted in any way. his copious report was released for all to see. and there was no collusion. this is the wall street journal. there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that is it. but they want to make this a big deal to read or not they carry the big i word out, i can imagine that but they probably would becau

this would have been in tokyo for the wall street journal annual meeting. where people gather to discuss the issues.i sat there with many of them and talked about challenges for the united states particularly in asia. i spoke with the journal executive washington editor to talk about what is happening in the us and how politics and policy here are affecting united states relations with asia. >> is interesting because the environment is so polarized that it is, it obscures area where there really is bipartisan agreement and this is one of them. a surprisingly because as you say there is a succession of republican and democratic residents was ideal relationship with china was to be close to china to warm up to china, to believe that over time the chinese would sort of join the club if encouraged to do so. i think president trump arrived and set the mom better than most people because it had changed that there was a great deal of america frustration with china that there was both, on the business and political level of feeling that the game was kind of rigged a

i tell this story in my piece in the wall street journal. the media went to the fairfax county court and unsealed my divorce and splattered all of those over the newspapers. i think any fair-minded person would say, what does someone's divorce have to do with whether or not that person -- it was a personal character assault against me. it was not about my economic ideas. my one regret about the procedure is that i wish i could've gotten to that hearing to make my case. it was a teachable moment for the american people about what the role of via -- of the fed should be. host: have you talked to the president? guest: i have. he has been incredibly supportive. there are many things he does i do not agree with, but on this, i agree with him. he said you are a fighter. your reputation has been enhanced because of the way you have conducted yourself. host: would you work on the campaign? guest: of course. this campaign that is coming up is going to be hugely important for the direction of our country. you have two parties that have diametrically o

a couple weeks back, there was an article or book review of your article in "the wall street journal," and do you know the guy that reviewed that and what was your take on it and the other thing is the picture, was that before or after? >> there was a review in the "wall street journal" a woman that wrote the article i don't remember what picture it was. if you go online you can find his picture they did a beautiful job colorizing it but this is the investiture surface so there's a dinner afterwards and it was taken from the dinner so peter is sitting there to her right. most don't know what happened and i don't remember every detail in the article. there was one criticism they had and wall street journal drops anchor on it and we have a little bit of a fight for putting this acknowledgmen and . part of it is a love story and my background is as a lawyer and that is just a fact if it isn't clearly in the fact and the question is you know what happened, can you talk a little bit about the romantic side of that and i'm like i don't have a quote for that. she says give us a little bit of

let's bring in jerry seid with the "wall street journal." the "wall street journal" reporters also sat down with the attorney general about this trip. jerry good to see you. >> good to see you ed. >> i'm looking at your web site. in addition to what bill hammer got from the attorney general he told your reporters among other things quote government power was used to spy on american citizens. that one sentence alone is pretty chilling. >> it is. it's a statement he made initially when he was testifying before congress and repeated it pretty bluntly in the interview with us the it's interesting that he said the part of the investigation that he's looking at most closely was not the period after the fbi opened a formal inquiry which was in july, 2016 but in the intelligence gathering that occurred before then and i think the fbi response is going to be at that point this was not a criminal investigation. there was a counterintelligence operation and you conduct that in a certain way so there's going to be some bumping of heads over the use of th

intelligence of iran possibly moving some military assets around that could could according to the wall street journal jeopardize u.s. assets or u.s. excuse me u.s. interests in the gulf region that according to the wall street journal beyond that though no other information we did reach out to the department of defense all they did was would do is confirm to us this deployment of this aircraft carrier in the bombers but beyond that would not give us any more details. gable for the moment thanks for that said life force in washington. now president trump is stepping up pressure on china to reach a trade deal his announced tariff increases on chinese good chinese goods trump said tariffs on two hundred billion dollars worth of chinese products will rise to twenty five percent on friday stock markets have reacted nervously with losses in the u.s. hong kong and shanghai adrian brown is live for us now with more on this a.g.m. what is the thinking behind this and how is is china likely to react. well all we have at the moment are these so far one confirmed reports in a number of u.s. media outlets saying

host: "wall street journal the "wall street journal" -- host: the "wall street journal" in one of their stories talks about a little are college in vermont. and the "wall street journal" uses that story to know that small private colleges are struggling in the country. slow closure rate for nonpublic private colleges between 2004 and 2014 when triple in the next few years. more schools were likely merge with other institutions and non-arts programs like the list at green mountain college are the ones who seem most at risk. mr. vedder, your thoughts. yes, i think that is basically right. the only issue is how big of a closure of the problem is or is going to be or issues are going to be. there is a fellow at harvard, , who thinks roughly half will be out of business in the next decade or so. i once sat at least 500 will go out of business, which is a lower percentage but still a healthy number. we will have a huge increase. it is going to because it traded amongst the not so well endowed or not very well-known liberal arts colleges, but also among state universities that ar reputations.

nvestigations over "the wall street journal" wrote today mr. mueller was not obstructed in any way. "the wall street journal" editorial just today. mr. mueller was not obstructed in any way. -- copious report -- copious 434 pages. now they want to interview all of the same people again. they want to interview jerry nadler who has been an enemy of mine for many years. in new york, unsuccessfully, by the way. but he was representing manhattan and he would fight me on the westside railroad, many times, very unsuccessfully. he failed. i come to washington, i become president, and i said, "oh, no, i had jerry nadler again?" muellerreet journal" was not obstructed in any way, his copious report, and there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that's it, but they want to make this a big deal. wordey carry the big r out, i cannot imagine, but they probably would. a democrat becomes president and you have a republican house, they can .mpeach you for any reason any reason. we cannot allow that to happen. you look at all of the transparency, when you look at all i've done -- a

the wall street journal has this report there may have been cross wires. intelligence suggests us, iran, misread each other, senator angus king said the reaction is are they reacting to our assertions of action or are we reacting to them. what triggers the kind of response, the show force we have been seeing. >> let me see if i can generate a little light instead of heat on the situation because there's a lot of heat going on. the biggest thing for me to focus on is the forces we are sending are being sent because the commanding general, general mckenzie of central command looked at the threat in the region and went to the national command authority and said i'd need additional resources to counter this threat from iran and iran's proxies. he has asked for these forces. this isn't something the administration pushed the forces and said go figure out what you want to do. he put a request for forces in. the administration is responding to that request so the first key is to use that force to deter the iranian's from their actions. >> you are shaking your hea

that's from "the wall street journal" this afternoon. the president expected shortly. chad of fox tweeting on hand there at the white house, other than the secretary of agriculture, sonny perdue, senators pat roberts, senator hoeven, also representative smucker, thompson of pennsylvania, and conaway as well. >> we're live at the white house where we expect the president to be announcing a $16 billion package to help american farmers and ranchers. "the wall street journal" writing the move today followed a breakdown in talks earlier this month between washington and beijing. amid expectations that american farmers will be hindered selling crops to china's 1.4 billion person market. commodity prices, which were mired in years' long slump sanked further to the lowest level in 10 years. $16 billion here for the farmers and ranchers, some of whom in the room here with sonny perdue and members of congress and reportedly, too, the president agreeing to a disaster relief bill. congress set to pass that $19 billion bill that will cover parts of -- relief for parts of the southe

as a jout, he covered conflicts in the middle east, herica and the balkans for "wall street journal." he won the pulitzer in 1995 for a series on income inequality and low-wage jobs, including working at chicken processin plants in the south. a number of horwitz's books are ough the narrative of a first-person account. that's true of hist book, "spying on the south." william brangham recently sat down with him about it. here's that interview. >> brangham: almost 160 years ,go, with america on the brink of civil wa young writeer from connecticut was sent south to file regular dispatches om the so-called "cotton kingdom" of the slave-holding states.

. >> welcome to the "wall street journal" at large the economy is booming on friday the labor department has another huge gain of jobs created last month the employment rate fell at three.6 percent the lowest half a century the news is even better despite the record that the jobless rate is inflation is likely to rise but employers will attract more workers in fact, some economists worry it is too weak ad to have a slightly higher rate with wage increases. so a tightly burn market must be a company by a sharp rise in prices so what is going on? earlier this week i talked with christine the guard in california. and i asked her with those strong economic numbers if there was a sustained and elevated growth over the last decade? . >> where that is coming from clearly there is a big jump in the number we are not seeing consumption with big investment either with point number two it will be critically important the productivity numbers will be good and if that's the case we have been waiting for for productivity to be higher across the board. but given the investment with those cap next movem

wall street journal -- mr. mueller was not obstructed in any way. pious report was released for all to see and there was no collusion. this is the wall street journal. there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that is it. they want to make this a big deal. whether or not they carry the out, i cannot imagine that, but they probably will because they do whatever they have to do. there is a danger here. if someday a democrat becomes president, and you have a republican house, they could rip each -- they can impeach him for any reason -- or her. we cannot allow that to happen. if you look at all of the transparency and all we have done. my lawyers say you do not have to do this. you can use presidential privilege. you do not have to let your lawyers and all of your staff testify. you can use presidential privilege. would you recommend it? you can be transparent or you can be tight. if you've done nothing wrong, being transparent is better. i said i did nothing wrong. .et's be transparent 500 witnesses i allowed to testify. it is a dis

"the wall street journal" has since matched. the times actually adds that the president asked don mcgahn to make that public claim that he didn't think the president obstructed justice. not once, but twice. the news that don mcgahn said no, that he refused this demand from the president to publicly vouch for the president on obstruction issues, that of course comes as the white house continues to say that don mcgahn will not be allowed to obey a subpoena that requires him to testify before congress. the house judiciary committee wants him to come testify and to provide documents to him -- documents to them about what he testified to robert mueller about. the committee has subpoenaed him for those documents and for his testimony since he has defied the subpoena thus far on the first part of it, which was the documents part of it, they have threatened to hold him in contempt. the white house says they're going to block don mcgahn from sitting for questions later on this month. we don't exactly know how they are going to do that. b

as i mentioned "the wall street journal" was first. "the new york times" has since matched this reporting in "the journal." the times kpaactually adds the president asked mcgain to make that claim he didn't think the president obstructed justice not once but twice. the news mcgahn said no, he refused this dammemand comes of course as the white house continues to say don mcgahn will not be allowed to obey a subpoena that requires him to testify before congress. the house judiciary committee wants him to come testify and provide documents to them about what he testified to robert mueller about. the committee has subpoenaed him both for those documents and for his testimony. since he has defied the subpoena thus far on the first part of it, which was the documents part of it, they have threatened to hold him in contempt. i mean, the white house says they're going to block don mcgahn for sitting for questions later on this month. we don't exactly know how they are going to do that, but now after this bombshell reporting from "the wall stree

kristen soltis anderson, eliana johnson and jerry sibb at "the wall street journal."er in crime on the polls. jerry, to you, you wrote about this. it is fascinating it is a divide in the democratic party. in a weird way donald trump wants more impeachment talk because it unites his side and it serves as a wedge -- who would think impeaching donald trump would be a wedge in dee cratic party but it is. >> i wrote this article a week ago. the lead was what if donald trump wants democrats to try to impeach him. i was being facetious. in the days since i'm not sure i facetious. it may be literally true. in our poll you see the reason why. 50% of democrats saying let's investige but not start impeachment hearings. you only have 30% of democrats and 28% of democratic primary voters saying, yeah, let's move to impeachment. so you understand nancy pelosi's point of view when you see those numbers, which is this is a politilly perilous path. now do you do it anyway because you think it's the right thing to do? maybe. but don't kid yourself that the party is with you in a rush t

these phony investigations over with the wall street journal just wrote today just a little while ago saw it. mister mollah was an obstructed in any way. this is wall street journal editorial today. mister mueller was an obstructed in any way. his copious report copious 434 pages now they want to interview all of the same people again. they want to interview jerry nadler has been an enemy of mine for many years he fought me in new york unsuccessfully by the way. i've had great success against jerry. but he was representing manhattan and it would fight t% me all the time of the west side railyards many times very unsuccessfully he failed. i come to washington i become president said oh no i have jerry nadler again. wall street journal mister mueller was an obstructed in any way his copious report was released for all to see. and there was no collusion. this is the wall street journal and there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. but they want to make this a big deal whether or not they carry. the big i we're doubt i can't imagine that, but they probably would becaus

. >> dana: deputy editor at "the wall street journal." who reads "the wall street journal" every day, as i was told to do by the congressman i worked for in 1985. here's what president trump said in the rose garden. >> they want to interview the same people again. jerry nadler, who's been an enemy of mine. he fought me in new york, unsuccessfully. i come to washington, i become president. oh, no, i have jerry nadler again? wall street journal, mr. mueller wasn't instructed. his copious report was released for all to see. and there was no collusion. >> dana: basically the president saying, i'm not going to pretend that this is not happening. i call it like a shadow impeachment. they're doing everything but formally calling for impeachment. they should get everybody on record. >> they don't want to go that far. that's the tension nancy pelosi is under from the left wing of her caucus. not clear what they want to do. they want to make donald trump public enemy number one for the next two years. moderate members of her caucus. these are the m

received according to the wall street journal new intelligence on iran that iran could be threatening some u.s. interests in the region that according the wall. street journal according to at least one u.s. government source we did reach out to the state department for some more information they did confirm this deployment of military assets to the middle east but beyond that and no further comment. well for more on this let's bring in flight izadi integrand he's a professor in the department of american studies attack iran university thank you very much indeed for giving us your time and al-jazeera. was saying there it's not unusual for the americans to bring in a warship or have a naval presence in the region particularly in relation to its view on iran but how do you think iran is likely to react to the potential presence of bomber planes and also to john bolton's statement and the nature of it. people are worried about john bolton in tehran he wrote an article in may of two thousand and fifteen in the new york times asking for a military confrontation with iran we had a really ext

"the wall street journal" reports the deal is worth $44 million.million of lump sum would go weinstein's alleged victims including former employees and the predators. the business with harvey weinstein company before it files bankruptcy. the other $14 million will go to pay the legal fees of former board members of the weinstein company mentioned in the civil lawsuits. the money for this deal is reportedly coming from insurance policies. the $44 million settlement for significantly less than $90 million victims fund that offered to start in a bid to buy weinstein movie theaters last march. but that deal fell through. according to the wall street journals, this would result in a civil suit filed by the new york attorney general's office last year against the weinstein company's executives and his board accusing them of failing to protect employees from then ceo harvey weinstein alleged sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. this deal would not affect weinstein's criminal case here in manhattan. the 67-year-old faces five criminal charg

we always win. ♪ lou: "the wall street journal"'s james freeman joins us right after the break.s. winning. winning. i like the sound of that, don't yo termites, feasting on homes 24/7. we're on the move. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. lou: joining me now, james freeman, s the assistant editor at "the wall street journal," author, best selling author, fox business contributor and great american. >> wow. lou: good to see you. >> good to be here, thanks. lou: market came back today, and as i listened to goldman sachs and some of the other firms, i was thinking the maybe they were talking their book, because they've got so much chinese money at play on their profit and loss statement. i'm sure that's wrong. oh, no, it is right. they do have a huge, huge chinese clientele and a huge chinese market, don't they? >> you know, lou, the market is much bigger than goldman sachs. so i think what the message of today was -- lou: wait, wait, wait -- >> invest

this is from the wall street journal.hin a day of the release of the mueller report, president trump sought to have former white house counsel don mcgahn declare he didn't consider the president's 2017 directive that he seeked robert mueller's dismissal to be obstruction of justice. he rebuffed the request. the second sentence in the article. mr. trump has publicly denied mr. mcgahn to fire the russia probe since the release of the report in which mr. mueller detailed that directive in a request by mr. trump that mr. mcgahn deny that conversation ever happened. if i wanted to fire mueller, i didn't need mcgahn to do it. i could have done it myself. mr. trump tweeted. >> seems like literally with nothing 24 hours. >> talks about the exchanges between donald trump and his lawyer, the white house lawyer don mcgahn. there's a whole discussion. the stoiry leaked out about tha exchange. donald trump tried to get mcgahn to say those facts weren't true. don mcgahn refuse to do so as well. it seemed so nuts. i hate to use that wor

so "wall street journal," mr. mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. see and there was no collusion. this is the "wall street journal." and there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that's it. but they want to make this a big deal. whether or not they carry the big i word out. i can't imagine that but they probably would because they do whatever they have to do. there is a danger here. if someday a democrat becomes president and you have a republican house, they can impeach him for any reason, or her. any reason. we can't allow that to happen. we can't allow it to happen. so when you look at all of the transparency, when you look at all i've done, and i will tell you my lawyers say you don't have to do this. you can use presidential privilege. you don't have to let your lawyers and all of your staff testify. you can use presidential privilege, sir. would you recommend it? well, you can be transparent or you can be tight. if you've done nothing wrong being transparent is better. so i said i did nothing wrong. let's be transparent. so

why "the wall street journal" editorial board is sounding the alarm. we'll talk to james freeman from the "wall street journal." that is next. we're live in louisiana. connell. connell: a lot more to come from here as well, melissa. we'll talk to a local businessman who is here at the event with president trump in hackberry, louisiana. he says his company is booming, hiring more people thanks to the president's policies. more to come after a quick break. ♪ without knowing firsthand the unique challenges in that sector. coming out here, seeing the infrastructure firsthand, talking with the people behind the numbers creates a different picture. once i know what a business is truly worth, we can make better informed investment decisions. that's why i go beyond the numbers. ♪ i'm begging you... take gas-x.ed beneath the duvet your tossing and turning isn't restlessness, it's gas! gas-x relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort... fast! so we can all sleep easier tonight. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car b

today "the wall street journal," trump told us he doesn't want to war with iran. we talked about the fact that two u.s. military destroyers went through the streets of form is, there were no incidents. the deterrence part of this is going well from our perspective, how much of it is about that? making sure there isn't a conflict. >> i think that's a lot of it, i don't have as much information as the congressman or the general but i believe there is a credible threat from iran. it's appropriate for us to move these ships into the gulf and it's appropriate for us to move other forces to prepare for iran and to deter iran, there is a real threat. this is what iran does, it engages in retaliation but doesn't retaliate head on. it engages in terrorism and does other things to strike civilian targets. one of our targets, our personnel in iraq. the state department is now evacuating that embassy because there is a credible threat, clearly. as the news article you referred to earlier suggests, if you're confused about our policy on iran, you're not alone -- it is confusin