Skip to main content

tv   Your World With Neil Cavuto  FOX News  June 7, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT

1:00 pm
some fantastic gelato across the street. the dow is up today. oil is not up. apparently we have a little too much of that. here's cavuto. >> neil: all right. we're just getting a statement right now from the republican national committee on james comey's statement that he will issue tomorrow in person. it's out right now. by the way, on our website, if you want to read it. this is coming from again the rnc saying, and i quote, the republican national committee is talking again just exclusively about the statement saying "president trump was right" coming from the chair woman, ronna mcdaniel, that the president was never under investigation. both sides are seizing on different elements of this. republicans, the fact that there was no smoking gun or so they
1:01 pm
hoped, so they trust. so the question will go tomorrow when mr. comey appears to talk to congress. the other side, democrats, are saying there's plenty there about the president trying to exonerate general flynn that will raise serious concerns about obstruction of justice charges. it's in the eye of the beholder. if wall street was worried about any of this and that we could have a long summer of investigation and hearings, ala what we had in 1973, they had a funny way of showing it. stocks up north of 31 points. a lot of cross currents here. we go into the legal back and forth on this. you heard a great deal over the last couple hours pretty much on everything about this. we'll try to step back here and get the what is next stage. blake burman at the white house with that part of it. blake? >> hi, neil. you have the james comey testimony tomorrow before the
1:02 pm
senate intelligence committee and some of that sworn testimony at least written already released today by james comey. however, that's kind of the buffet tomorrow, if you will, some of the appetizer was with mike rogers and dan coats testifying before that very same committee, too. the nsa director rogers testifying that he had never been directed to cross the line, as he put it, or do anything illegal whereas the dni had dan coats said that he never felt pressured in any way to shape an intelligence product. >> to the best of my recollection, i have never been directed to do anything i believed to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. >> i never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way. >> their testimony came on the heels of a "washington post" article which reported that president trump asked intelligence officials, including coats, to try to
1:03 pm
intervene with comey about the fbi's investigation into michael flynn. however, those two would not go into personal conversations with the president and that drew the scolding of several senators, including senator angus king. listen here. >> i want to understand a legal basis. you swore that oath to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and today you're refusing to do so. >> i'm not sure i have a legal basis. >> so neil, you had rogers and coats on this day and tomorrow as we know, and we got a little preview of it just a little while ago, james comey before the senate intelligence committee 10:00 a.m. sharp. >> neil: do we know whether the president -- i know he's making some remarks. do we know whether he might follow up tweeting as this is going on? >> the white house asked what the president will be doing tomorrow. sean spicer was asked about this. he deferred to say that the
1:04 pm
president will have a busy day. he wouldn't say if the president will be live tweeting as some reports suggest. the president does have a12:30 event tomorrow. that will be going on, which will be at the tail end of the comey hearing. just a little while ago aboard air force one, the deputy press secretary sarah sanders was asked about this comey prepared testimony, the seven pages. she said they're still looking into all of this. of course, neil, the president has his own separate attorney that is handling all of this russia stuff. neil? >> neil: i want to echo what ronna mc danidaniel said. this confirms what we said all along, the president is not under investigation. is it that black and white? we'll get an answer tomorrow.
1:05 pm
democrats and republicans. gregg jarrett, you had a chance to look at this. let's say you're a democrat and pouncing on the i word, impeachment, and see conditions that would warrant that. what are you doing? >> this is comey's statement. he never said the president obstructed justice, which is a felony, a crime. it appears to be just the opposite. he says that trump told him "i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go to letting flynn go." the operative world there is "hope." hoping and wishing that you get an outcome that helps michael flynn is not the same thing as ordering or directing under threat that the fbi director do something to end an investigation. the law is very clear. i have it in front of me. in order to obstruct, you have to do things like withhold,
1:06 pm
concealed, alter documents, destroy documents, lie, threaten or bribe people to obtain a particular outcome. none of that happens here. all comey says is, you know, i understood the president to be requesting that we drop an investigation of flynn. so it's kind of a matter of semantics and interpretation. even in a request is not obstruction. >> neil: you're a great lawyer. i'm not. but i watched a lot of "law and order" that i think i am. let me ask you a couple of dumb questions. it's one person's word against another. could it be possible that comey could be trying to suck the president in here to saying this confirms what you said and i echo here that you yourself were not under investigation, but the way you treated the flynn matter opens you up to pressure or the
1:07 pm
appearance of pressure. nine the question becomes is that good enough to take follow up action. >> i mean, legally, i mean -- i don't know a prosecutor would ever want to bring a squishy case like this in which the language is so vague and ambiguous and elliptical. it has to be clear and unequivocal. you bring up a good point. a legal obstruction case is very different than articles of impeachment for obstruction, which you saw in the nixon case, the bill clinton case. that's a political judgment, not a legal one. jerry ford was asked, what is impeachment. he said it's whatever congress says it is at any given moment. >> neil: with the republicans with the majority in the house and the senate, they can control the temper of this. that assumes that the republicans are on the same
1:08 pm
page. we heard john mccain issue a statement saying this is disturbing. is it a given that all republicans will be in sync or this or will they be asking tough questions on this? >> in the end, if all things stay the same, and probably won't, but at this juncture, you know, those reluctant and critical republicans may in the end say it was improper to have a one-on-one conversation with the fbi director. maybe there's some wrong doing but it doesn't rise to the level of a political or legal crime of impeachment. so far, you know, that's all there is. i do think as you pointed out at the top of the show that comey does confirm that he told the president repeatedly, multiple occasions, we're not investigating you. of course, there's been media reports that said comey would testify to the opposite. turns out the media was wrong.
1:09 pm
>> neil: interesting. gregg jarrett, way to go. you might have a future at the law thing. meantime, the president has a very busy agenda that he wants to get done. just in ohio today, talking up infrastructure. a trillion dollar plan over ten years he says is doable. he wants the leverage off of that to get tax reform done. he met with a lot of families that he said were really adversely affected severely so by obamacare. a lot of republican congressman, a freedom caucus member, congressman jordan, great to have you with us. >> great to be here. >> neil: could this comey deal concerned the president's agenda or lead to distraction talk that delays action on any of this stuff you and the president want to do? >> i quickly read there mr. comey's opening statement for tomorrow's hearing. like you just talked about, you
1:10 pm
know, nowhere in there -- it says specifically that the president wasn't under investigation. nowhere dough he's talk about obstruction of justice. when he mentioned mike flynn, you know, mr. coney actually agreed with the president. mr. comey said mike flynn was a good guy. and the other interesting thought, mr. comey didn't memorialize any conversations he had with other folks. just conversations with president trump. who knows what that means. it's an interesting point. we'll see what happens tomorrow. but our focus is to get back on the agenda that the american people elected us to do and that's what the president is talking about today in ohio. >> neil: one of the things he brought up is this infrastructure deal where you spend $1 trillion over ten years. leverage off of that for the other $800 billion. as a freedom caucus member and as a group of congressmen and women, you're not keen on going
1:11 pm
into the red to spend maybe for tax cuts, you're open to that, but how do you feel about what the president wants to do on the infrastructure? >> we understand infrastructure is a fundamental part of what government is supposed to spend taxpayer dollars on. you have to look at the broad context of the fact that we have a $20 trillion debt. we want to see the proposal. we want to do it in a fiscally appropriate way and recognize the debt burden that we have on our country and future generations. that's how we look at it. we do think you have to do the other thing. we have a big agenda. we thought we should consider being here in august to get done what the american people elected us to do. we have the healthcare reform, a budget to do, reconciliation of tax package, the appropriations project and a debt ceiling process not to mentioned what the president is talking about, the infrastructure project. that's a lot. >> neil: let's leave for the time being this comey stuff and what happens and the drama
1:12 pm
around that. i know you guys can come in at the same time. that's what i hear. i want to know about the time frame for this. i mean, you guys are off the month of august. do you think your colleagues should stay in town to get this stuff done? >> we took a position at the freedom caucus that we should in fact be here to get the work done the american people have elected us to do. i said this all the time. what did we tell the folks we would do at home? let's focus on that. if that means being here in august, most of the constituents i serve are working in august. maybe we should do the same thing -- >> neil: what have they told you, congressman? >> we'll see. nobody is doing cart wells in support -- >> neil: what if democrats say no but republicans say yes? can you go ahead given your majority and pass legislation without them? >> the speaker of the house and the majority leader set the
1:13 pm
calendar. we'll see what happens. let's get done what the american people elected us to do. >> neil: thanks, congressman. >> you bet. >> neil: we're getting word out of south korea now -- this is the pentagon statement -- that south korea has suspended its anti-missile placement. this is something that the united states was doing in concert with the south koreans. it was angering the north koreans and angering the chinese. so this would be a big blow to certainly the united states, to president trump. certainly to the u.s. efforts to sort of check mark what the north koreans are doing. this was an attempt on our part to prepare for the worst and to put south korea in a place to deal with any missile attack or at least set up an anti missile attack. that was deemed 0 to be a provocative act. we'll get more on this hopefully from jennifer griffin, an update on that. again, huge implications for something half a world away that had nothing to do with james comey. stick around. needles.
1:14 pm
essential for him, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you
1:15 pm
start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".
1:16 pm
1:17 pm
>> neil: all right. i want to bring you up to date on something that concerns the korean peninsula right now. south korea has suspended this anti-missile placement that we were looking at, the thad missile placement. it's deemed a win for china. you might recall the chinese said it was provocative. what the president says is provocative are the missiles that north korea has been launched. this is our response to that.
1:18 pm
the south koreans under pressure from the chinese or threats or concerns that this type of action would escalate things and have decided not to go that way. the state department has said that this is something that the south koreans wanted to do and all calls should be referred to the republic of korea. jennifer griffin, let's get the read of that. what is going on here? >> neil, it's a very interesting development. remember, south korea has a new leader and they ran on a populous position that if the u.s. built up their anti-missile batteries, which are to protect the u.s. force there's and the koreans, the south koreans are concerned that that might be provocative to north korea. since south korea is so close to the dmz and the capital of south
1:19 pm
korea is so close to the dmz, there's -- with this new leadership in south korea, there is concern that the thad missile system, which is designed to stop any incoming north korea missiles, that it could be seen as provocative and they're worried about their northern neighbor, kim jong-un at this moment in time. the pentagon would like to have six missiles as part of that thad battery. they only made two of them operational. they were hoping to get the other four in place in order to have a solid system to defend seoul as well as the u.s. troops there. we had just heard in the last week from the assistant secretary of defense for asian affairs, david helsey, he was on the trip with defense secretary mattis, and he told reporters on
1:20 pm
the plane that in fact they were in negotiations with the government of korea to position all six of those missiles. now it seems based on the reports out of tokyo, based on the comments of south korean officials, that we have not been able to confirm but "the new york times" is reporting, based on those statements, it looks as though the south korean government is reneging on that agreement or perhaps this is a negotiating strategy and they're trying to negotiate through the press with the pentagon. so we only have the statement that you read from the pentagon which says we refer you to the south korean government, the rok government. the u.s. trusts the official stance that the thad deployment was an alliance decision and will not be reversed. that's the statement from the pentagon and developing as we speak. >> neil: jennifer griffin, thanks very much.
1:21 pm
i want to talk to kirk liphold about this. this is deemed that a provocative act that would agitate the chinese and the north koreans as if what the north koreans have been doing as of late with escalating the weekly tests more in the past year than we've seen in the past ten years. what do you think of this? >> you have a difficult situation. obviously the koreans elected a liberal government and the defense has negotiated with the united states for this thad battery to come in. the chinese are worried it could look into china and disrupt things. the problem is now it has to be settled government to government rather than military to military. we need to have thad there. it is incumbent on us to ensure that we're sending a strong signal. north korea, yes. more importantly to china. they're the ones that aided and
1:22 pm
abetted north korea -- >> neil: it's not an offensive weapon. i don't mean that in a general sense. it's defensive. why would that be deemed as a threat? why would that be deemed even worse provocative? >> i think you're looking at the fact that the south korean government views any introduction of a weapon system that is going to aggravate either china or the north koreans as being offensive from an optics perspective. >> neil: you think -- >> they're the first ones that will live with any problems that ever occur. if north korea in fact develops that nuclear capability where they could miniaturize it to put it on a ballistic missile, the first range is there in south korea. seoul is next door. we cannot allow north koreans to develop a weapon to reach the united states. at some point, we have to tell
1:23 pm
them we're going to do what we can to defend our nation. >> neil: you would think the north korean leader would have cooled it on the missile test to give them wiggle room. he's not. so i'm wondering if the north koreans could be making fools out of them. >> they're playing the south koreans for what they are. that is you've got a government in there that is not understanding or not appreciating the strategic threat that this ballistic missile program and the nuclear weapons program -- >> neil: maybe they're getting used to it. these lunches have been going on. there's a history of provocative actions on their part. what worries me, commander, the message seems to be we're okay with provocations that they orchestrate, not so that we can respond to them. >> that's one of the big problems. the south korean government needs to be made to understood. the united states is going to
1:24 pm
ensure that we maintain a defensive posture against the north korean development so that they cannot have a nuclear weapon that can reach the united states. south korea may live with it first, but we're going to do what is necessary to ensure it doesn't happen. we have a strong alliance. we're defending the peninsula. we need to continue to do so and they need to get on board because this is maintained a peace on the peninsula for decades. to try to upset that now when they have a northern country gaining nuclear weapons capability, we can no tolerate that. >> neil: this was their decision. >> absolutely is their decision. they are a sovereign nation. they can do so. but government to government now, they need to understand the consequences. >> neil: and it's like the south koreans are washing their hands. >> that's where jennifer griffin is right. this could be played out as a balloon to the press to back it off. let's home that doesn't continue and the thad does continue on. >> neil: thanks, commander. i want to bring up the developments about the markets
1:25 pm
in the face of this. we told you about james comey's testimony coming tomorrow. the "wall street journal" has an interesting article out that says this announced to a smoke war pistol, that nothing will happen here. that's hard to say. i have no idea. obviously it's one of the noise, concerns that markets have. you wouldn't see it today though. charlie gasparino is here with us. their view of the markets, this too shall pass. this drama shall pass just like they put aside concerns that the tax cuts, the healthcare rework will get delayed. they're not worried about that. so this is the latest thing that they put aside not to worry about. >> yeah. it's along the lines of what we talked about on the fox business show. these are bumps in the road. most investors feel comfortable with the trump administration. the very fact that there's not been a single regulation passed
1:26 pm
by the trump administration, regulations cut back, those are regulations on business, environmental regulations, coal, obviously the president has talked about redoing dodd frank, which is the financial reform law post financial crisis, that a lot of banks say prevents them from lending. all that is a big positive for this market. >> neil: even if it's significantly delaying -- if it happens at all? >> yeah, it's better than the alternative. if hillary clinton got elected, she would be pushing for a progressive agenda. some of it would be blocked by republican congress, if presumably we had a republican congress. but that was -- would have been the agenda and a very -- would have been liberal supreme court justices. that has an impact on business. that's what markets are looking at right now. i don't believe the comey testimony is a smoking water pistol. listen, i spoke with a columbia
1:27 pm
law professor, john coffey today. he said you can use some of what trump said to comey as a predicate for impeachment in the democrats ever control congress. it's there. >> neil: that was one of the issues, not gregg jarrett, but others said that that is what republicans should be worried about if the house or senate flips next year. then there's going to be trouble. but is it their view that barring that there might be a lot of screaming back and forth and a lot of people mentioning the i word. but it's not going to happen. >> it's not going to happen with a republican congress. we have to see what comey says tomorrow. the testimony that -- the written text was interesting. you know -- >> neil: i don't think it's so black and white for either side. the president got a pass on his personal involvement that he was personally obstructing justice and a potential investigation.
1:28 pm
how he treated the flynn thing could be open to many different legal issues. >> there's something here that comey will have to explain. at the end of his testimony, he is saying the last time he spoke to trump, trump said something like -- this is what he said trump told him. i've been very loyal to you, very loyal. we had that thing, you know. what thing? what was that? sounds like a line out of "go "goodfellas." he basically says i didn't ask him what he meant by that. >> neil: i wonder if it referred to a prior meeting or -- that's where i was confused. >> and he left it vague. he didn't ask. he said that was the last time i spoke with president trump. so that thing, whatever he meant by "that thing" will be explained presumably tomorrow. we'll see what it was. it's very bizarre. like i said, sounds like henry
1:29 pm
hill, the last scene with jimmy conway. >> neil: i was thinking the same thing. thanks, my friend. welcome back. i know this isn't italy anymore, but great having you here. meantime, i do want to bring you up to date with everything going on tomorrow. think about it. you have the comey hearings. you'll have the big election in britain that could test the leadership of theresa may. about six weeks ago when she first proposed this election, she was up by 20 points. she could lose this thing. then you have the european central bank. they're all meeting to discuss interest rates. we could move north there. we could have a world where rates are rising. the last part isn't so riveting. we'll be watching it in real time on fbn. live coverage with lou dobbs at 7:00 p.m. i pick up the torch at 9:00 p.m. the only place you can get all of these developments
1:30 pm
concurrently covered because we care. we're looking after you and your money. we're on it. meanwhile, a much more odd president trump -- some sort of thing that could happen tomorrow? as the guy is testifying, donald trump is tweeting. i don't buy it. some do. we'll see. usaa gives me the peace of mind and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast).
1:31 pm
otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... with reduced redness,... thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts... or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight... and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea,... nausea, upper respiratory tract infection... and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.
1:32 pm
>> neil: all right. the president of the united states is cooling on the tweets, at least the tweets have nothing
1:33 pm
to do with a agenda that is solid and economically sound. a congressman that met with the president last night. did it come up? next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sfx: engine revving ♪ (silence) ♪ we asked people to write down the things they love to do most on these balloons. travel with my daughter. roller derby. ♪ now give up half of 'em. do i have to? this is a tough financial choice we could face when we retire. but, if we start saving even just 1% more of our annual income... we could keep doing all the things we love.
1:34 pm
prudential. bring your challenges. >> neil: all right. president trump having dinner with six gop lawmakers last night. among them, francis rooney. congressman, good to have you. >> thanks for having me on. >> neil: because i haven't seen any tweets today, whether the president is dialling back on them and that just letting the record and the focus, for example, today on infrastructure presumably tomorrow, talking about tax cuts and healthcare reform, whether that is the focus and skewing the other stuff. what do you think? >> i don't know. trump tweeting is above my pay grade. those agenda items are on the agenda. we need to have the senate pass some version of the obama repeal
1:35 pm
and replacement. we need to get after tax reform. therefore, get our country moving again. we rolled back a lot of regulations that have hurt business. >> neil: when the president was outlining this infrastructure plan -- first of all, are you on board with that? is it doable? forget about getting congressmen on board. can republicans as a group get on board with that? >> i'm very familiar with the public private partnership. in our construction business, we've done many of those ourselves. it's a way to combine the government and private capitol. >> neil: the idea that you can build off of that five times the amount the government puts in, leverage off of that? if that is the case, you can work that for tax cuts and a variety of things. >> yeah.
1:36 pm
the way it works, you'll have the public lease the facility, maybe a down payment and establish the credit worthiness about build up the capitol and build it online. >> neil: congressman, how did the dinner go? i have no problem with the president tweets. it goes off topic and dangerously so and hurts his message. last week, he criticized the london mayor. the tweets have to do when they work and dangerous when it does not. for example, the russia thing. what are your thoughts on that? did it come up? that issue focusing on the tweets? >> i don't recall it coming up. what i -- mostly what i recall is a row bust discussion of the difficult foreign policy decisions that the united states is facing around the world and how the president is totally
1:37 pm
focused with general mcmaster after peace through strength after a confusing foreign policy. >> neil: did the comey issue come in? even when the president argues there's no there there and people are saying, for example, comey's latest written testimony that they will pounce on tomorrow, that the president was not being targeted in an investigation? did that come up, if for no other reason that it does distract from what he wants it to do? >> i don't recall that specifically. what i do recall is a discussion about the democrat whirlwind noise that is out there trying to distract us from keeping our eye on the ball and doing the things that the people elected him and us to try to accomplish. >> neil: do you have concerns that this could -- the timetable for this could be delayed? >> i think the president is pretty firm and resolute he will do the things he told the
1:38 pm
people -- >> neil: but it's up to you guys. >> yeah. we had a meeting with the speaker and the leadership focusing on how we move to tax reform, get the budget in place to be done by resillation. it's critical. ronald reagan cut taxes and stimulated economy that grew it almost 6% for a few years. >> neil: it's possible. the numbers are there. thanks, francis. >> thanks for having me on, neil. >> neil: all right. so again, we've been asked this question back and forth about tweeting. again, i want to stress as i mentioned to you like yesterday, i'm all for tweeting. it's fine. but staying on topic, whether you're treating or making announcements to the press. that begs another issue. tomorrow james comey's testimony, will the president be tweeting during that testimony. will that be a good or bad thing? we're getting some inkling here about tomorrow. after this.
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
1:41 pm
1:42 pm
>> neil: you know, a lot of people want to know, they had no idea that james comey would provide written testimony a full day ahead of his verbal presentation before the senate tomorrow. that's not bothering richard burr who is preparing a closed door meeting. he said he was happy to have the statement ahead of time. and a quick correction. it wasn't the "wall street journal" that referred to this testimony that was released as sort of a smoking water pistol. that was robert bruska interpreting what was in the journal. i didn't want to leave you that that was an official impression. but robert could be wrong. let's get the read on this.
1:43 pm
"new york post" michael goodwin is here. what do you think of what you've read and seen? you and i might be old enough to remember the summer of 73 and the start of hearings that went on and on and on and escalating into the watergate affair. does this approach that from your gut? >> neil, speak for yourself in terms of remembering. >> neil: i had to do that. >> i think president trump had a good day today. it doesn't mean he's out of the woods and a long way to do. but i think what we heard today and what we've seen from the comey prepared remarks, certainly there's no charge against the president as i see it that would carry the political weight. it's all this great area. i don't think you launch impeachment proceedings over a gray area. it has to be black and white to go that far. still, there's more to come. when comey actually says under oath what he said in writing and
1:44 pm
what leakers have quoted him as saying, probably -- maybe a source of the leaks or someone close to him, it will have a different impact when it comes out of his mouth. so when he says the president asked me to let it go with flynn, couldn't i let it go and he will be asked about that. so just on the base on what happened today, i think the president came out further ahead than i thought he would. >> neil: not so much about the infrastructure, but the way this is read and -- >> right, right. admiral rogers -- >> neil: i hear you. some have said it's not so much what comey said about the president but what the president was saying or asking about general flynn. again, i'm not a lawyer. i talked to more than a few today on this subject, including gregg jarrett who doesn't think that that escalates. but things could change if the democrats take the house or the
1:45 pm
senates next year. it's like hearings a go-go even if they're not justified. what do you say? >> senator mark warner was disappointed when rogers and coats wouldn't give him the answer that he wanted. they both said we never felt any pressure, anything that would have been improper put on us by anyone. >> neil: and saying that their conversations with private with the president. so there wasn't a way to develop it. >> you can feel the air go out of the room for mark warner and the other democrats. it's not the answer. he kept badgering them. he didn't want to accept that answer. comey, of course, should remember, neil, there will be private testimony as well. so things could be said there that were not said in public that could be damaging to the president. by and large, so far, maybe he's been damaged a little bit politically but legally, nothing yesterday.
1:46 pm
>> neil: what about his agenda? it's a busy agenda. gets through or not? >> the agenda depends on republicans in congress. the president with the deregulation, executive orders. he has to raise his popularity ratings. the republicans in congress have to be afraid of him. they have to be afraid if they turn around him, they will lose their jobs. so far that's not the case for a lot of them. >> neil: a long memory. michael, good seeing you. >> thank you, neil. >> neil: the very young michael goodwin. all that reaction, i created a tweet storm and a big one after this. what's the best way to get
1:47 pm
two servings of veggies? v8 or a powdered drink? ready, go. ahhhhhhhh! shake! shake! shake! shake! shake! done! you gotta shake it! i shake it! glad i had a v8. the original way to fuel your day. when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
>> neil: man, who knew i would be the one creating a tweet storm? not on the fact that the president tweets a lot. what i'm not okay with is when
1:50 pm
the tweets are off topic. >> they didn't get you off your valid and promises agenda. they didn't turn on a travel ban that you signed. you did. you're right to say a lot of people are out to get you, mr. president. they are. but as the journal pointed out, the buck stops with you, mr. and risks ruining the promises economic agenda that his voice spears and the markets because of you, mr. president. that's good. look at these critiques you're hearing from usually friendly supportive allies. it's like an intervention. firing off these angry misses and tweets risks your political destruction. all right. fake point, good point. i reported more than a few of you have decided. reese tweets, cavuto, you're fake news. the more negative commentary on
1:51 pm
trump. how refreshingly invented, not! miller says, so you joined the mainstream media? it was ncis reruns for me today. jim. trump's treats are not preventing congress from getting their work done. that's a cheap excuse. love this. please, mr. president, listen to this. we support you. tweet positive things, not negative. and another tweets, nice rant on potus today. offer your medicines again? you caught me. mark. obvious why trump refuses to give cavuto an interview. and mark says neil, do you think he watched. if he did, you think it registered? time will tell. good job. hope it did, mark. a lot of the president's ideas and tax cuts are indeed promising if they ever get out of the gate. the distractions don't help and
1:52 pm
make progress on that agenda tough. senators have been saying every minute that he spends tweeting and talking about the london mayor and the fbi investigation is one minute less devoted to the issues that matter. and then there's another one, the tweets make the media irrelevant. that's the biggest reason you just won't admit it. this isn't about making me relevant, though i think i am. just the president sticking to tweets that are relevant. another says, you need to get off of your high horse and criticize those that need it. ricky. please don't give up on cavuto after his commentary today. i saw it as a genuine attempt to help. we need president trump. rob, you nailed it. if only trump would listen to your last monologue over and over again. john on facebook. i voted for trump, but neil is right. he leaves his people out to dry. just do the job we elected you
1:53 pm
to do. all this other b.s. is a distraction. joe says never has a president had to put up with attacks from the media for wanting to get the job done. how would you be doing, neil? you're right about that, joe. the president does get treated badly by the media but often he compounds that bad press. he should take a cue from those like harry truman and ronald reagan. it looks to me like you're trying to make a name for yourselves by publicly shaming the president of the united states. if you were really interested in helping him, you would have quietly sent him a letter. and he would have opened it? all right. linda. it's amusing that these egotistical tv anchors including neil cavuto say they know everything and can lecture the president. let's see. the trump is a billionaire a
1:54 pm
builder and now the president of the united states. you're a talking head on television. i'd have more to say to you, but i just lost my place on the prompter. another disagrees. every time a thought rattles around in his head. i don't need to know it or read it. i voted for trump to carry on the people's business. less is more. finally this from diane. saying neil cavuto, you are the problem. why don't you go to fake news? you're their type. there's nothing fake about what i said. bottom line. regular viewers of this program also know there's nothing new in what i said because, well, i've been saying it for years. spoke up for candidate trump and his business skills when no one would. predicted on this very show that he would have an election win when few others would. that didn't mean i couldn't incur his wrath. remember when i talked to his critics? donald trump wrote me off. wouldn't come on the show. that was his right. i said then.
1:55 pm
i think i've been beyond fair regardless since. that's only fair. anything less is what is fake to me fake is what gets in the way of progress that should be real. and the fact is, the president has a real economic agenda. as i said many times on this show, real momentum for that agenda. what is fake is when the media forgets that real momentum. what is also fake is when the president himself disrespects that momentum. it works both ways. don't think for a minute i don't think the president really is treated unfairly. as i said many times, i think all of us in the media have lots of time. what do we have here? three 24 hour news channels? that many business channels? i figure plenty of time to cover all the news on this president, all the news, not some of the news. all of it. that doesn't mean glossing over this whole russia collusion thing. far from it. nor does it mean glossing over the more than $3 trillion in market wealth created since the president's election thing.
1:56 pm
so to my media colleagues, do cover private meetings with the president that had been leaked to you, but also cover very public meetings the president has had with dozens of ceos that have been largely dismissed by you. there's good, there's bad. i think i'm on three hours a day between two networks. i have time to cover both. to a president who hates any bad press and name me one over the years that didn't, fake is coverage he doesn't like. but fake can also be tweets and remarks that he makes that compound the coverage he doesn't like. what is fake is when you stop being real. including real honest with yourself from the president to the media covering the president. what is fake is when you hate the president and only record the bad. what is just as fake is when you love the president and only record the good. what is fair is to remember both. i've got three hours. like i said, i have time to
1:57 pm
remember both. i hope that's real. real clear. good night. [vo] when it comes to investing, looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference. it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock. ♪ ♪
1:58 pm
♪ ♪ take on the mainstream. introducing nissan's new midnight edition. ♪
1:59 pm
2:00 pm
>> kat: i am kat timpf with eric bolling and eboni k. williams. we are "the fox news specialists" ." ps comey's testimony to the senate intel committee tomorrow. committee releasing his opening remarks. there's lots to digest, so joining us with more from washington is fox news chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge. >> this is an amazing seven pages of prepared testimony from the fired fbi director james comey. when you read it, it's one revelation after another, debunking a


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on