we are seeing the ftc and doj reacting to that. emily: sally, how much of this is a result of what president trump wants to happen? and how much is it the result of a bipartisan consensus? sally: i think it is more of a result of the mounting pressure around the globe. what we are talking about are matters that europe started investigating 10 years ago. the u.s. is late to the game. there are jurisdictions around the world who have been investigating these companies. so i think it is just mounting pressure from consumers on the left and right side of the political spectrum with the political will to enforce our antitrust laws. emily: bloomberg's brad stone and sally hubbard with the open market institute. the u.s. house judiciary committee is getting in on the action with hearings and an actual investigation into big tech. what is the difference between the agency's actions and congress? a former assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division of the u.s. justice apartment explains. bill: that process will play out p

i trust the doj to reach the right determinations, at least the doj i would appoint and set up and the less that has to do with the directives of the white house the better. >> sounds like you have an issue with kamala harris saying that. >> i'm talking about how i would maintain it. that nobody is above the law and that prosecution decisions should have nothing to do with politics and should come from the doj itself. not from the oval. >> so former fbi director james comey tweeted about this on the same issue saying, you know, political candidates and elected officials should not talk about the future, prosecution of any individual, law enforcement decisions must be apolitical. is this a big problem for kamala harris? >> well, harris, her career was as a prosecutor and there have been some political points to be gained from speaking tough against president trump and speaking tough first. we saw that happen, people were commenting on impeachment and harris went there in terms of the doj. it's shakier, just in terms of you know the fact that the doj is supposed to be able to operate ind

what is the doj arguing here? >> well, don, the justice department is arguing that richard neal, the chairman of the house and ways and means committee and the democrats are essentially lying when they say that they need access to the president's six years of the president's personal and business tax returns in order to perhaps look at passing a law about auditing a president. let me read from the opinion that steve engle released today. it says in part "the committee's stated purpose in the april 3rd letter blinks reality. it's pretextual. no one could reasonably believe that the committee seeks six years of the president's tax returns because of newly discovered interest in legislating on the presidential audit process." they -- steve engle goes on to mention that comments made by neal as well as speaker pelosi seems to indicate that what they really want to do is release the president's taxes publicly and that's the reason why they're asking for it. >> elie, democrats will no doubt take this to court. will they

jennifer: it wouldn't because they filed this with doj looming. any day now, the doj could come out and say we have agreed to the deal and here's this settlement and the consent order and we are ready to clear it. the state lawsuit will stay. they know they can -- that can happen. in this situation, they are ready to go it alone if they have to. it is interesting that you should bring that up because if there is this bolstered remedy, one of the things the states are going to have to do in the lawsuit is proved to the judge not only that there harm from this merger but that that harm can't be fixed by these two remedies, the fcc and doj remedy, that federal regulators have been ready to accept. that is an additional hurdle. vonnie: sprint and t-mobile have promised that consumer prices won't go up. is that not enough, if that was written in the constitution of the combined company -- would that be enough to satisfy the states' attorneys general? they are after all only worried about the consumer. jennifer: i think it wouldn't because that promise

they are gearing up over there and gearing up at the doj. the trump justice department hasn't ruled out -- they saying this could be a civil or criminal probe. criminal probes are highly unusual. so, you know, how he get a cartel out of this, it could be individuals involved. anything is years away. google has no comment. blake: is this your sense it's google doing its due diligence or google gearing up for a fight they think is real? >> they think they are under the gun. from what i gather today, there has been no official word word. no subpoena or civil or investigative demand. sometimes in anti-trust it's generally civil. not criminal. again that would be an outlier case. i don't think that has happened yet. but the word out of the white house is we are coming for you and you are at the top of the list. the doj could have allowed the fec or ftc to look at google and if he chose to take the case itself, there is some intent here in terms of civil or criminal prosecution. most of likely civil. blake: as somebody centrals up to 1600 pennsylv

they are coming from the doj, former doj folk and elsewhere within the government? david: many of these companies have hired over the last year, well before this week's news, a number of antitrust lawyers who worked at the ftc and the justice department. and these are people who have experience in conducting investigations into conduct as well as mergers. they also have very large public relations and policy shops here where they conduct their lobbying on capitol hill. in addition to that, they all have very prominent law firms, armies of lawyers who would be ready to go to work if this thing, this scrutiny turns into real investigations. emily: in addition to industry trade groups. max, the idea we seem to be getting from officials talking about the company's positions is that these companies will try to make the case that they are actually better for competition than not, that they support small businesses and competition between small businesses. do you think washington is going to buy that argument? max: it's hard to say. it depends on how you look at it. it's 1

they have a list of buyers the doj would be comfortable going to. sprint and t-mobile are working with them, that includes dish and others. what the doj wants is for a fourth carrier to be set up out of this deal. even after sprint and t-mobile merge, which would take the players in the market from four to three, the doj want somebody to provide vital competition to these guys. emily: how would the fourth carrier work? would the fourth carrier actually stand a chance? nabila: that is why spectrum assets are being discussed as something these companies have to divest. the doj wants them to pave the way for a competitive fourth carrier. that is why you see someone like dish in the mix. they already have national infrastructure. they would be more able to build a new network. dish already has a lot of spectrum as well. the doj is leaning towards buyers who could provide this kind of competition. emily: thank you so much. the u.s. government is sharpening its antitrust scrutiny of big tech. formal inquiries could be forthcoming, the justice department a

because: it wouldn't they filed this with doj looming. in this situation, they are ready to go it alone if they have to. it is interesting that you should bring that up because if there is this bolstered remedy, one of the things the states would have to do is prove to the judge that not only is there harm from this merger but that that harm can't be fixed by these two remedies that federal regulators have been ready to accept. that is an additional hurdle. vonnie: sprint and t-mobile have promised that consumer prices won't go up. is that not enough, if that was written in the constitution of the combined company -- would that be enough to satisfy the states attorneys general? jennifer: i think it wouldn't because that promise would only last so long. seven years or three years or 10 years. what happens after that when you only have three competitors instead of four and the two that were the cost cutters and competitive against each other have combined? have also alleged there could be lower quality for certain consumers, particularly pr

emily: the doj and ftc had some successes and failures of late. the ftc, success in a case against qualcomm. the doj, success in a case against aetna. anthem losing in a case against at&t and time warner. what do you think that says about the likelihood of success should investigations be launched? bill: launching a formal investigation doesn't necessarily mean there will be a case brought. there needs to be a factually rich pattern that would warrant antitrust enforcement. as a general matter, both the antitrust enforcement agencies have had a lot more success than failures in the last five or 10 years. part of that is that they don't bring stupid cases where they don't have facts to support the theory of federal harm. the theory of injury to consumers. my assumption, knowing a lot of the talented people at those agencies, is that they are not going to jump without a good sense that they have a parachute to land safely on the ground. emily: bill baer, partner at arnold and porter, formerly worked at both the ftc and doj, really important to have

we believe the doj reviews should be impartial. we have a full writeup on this on foxbusiness.com which will be published momentarily. we think it should be impartial and we want any communications from mr. trump, from president trump, who has been on a tear lately on a lot of different things including hating on at & t which is one of the companies that would be positively affected if they did not let this go through. so you know, the writing's on the wall that this is very political. it looks like trump wants the deal to go through. one reason why he wants it to go through, i believe, is that it hurts at & t because they would have a formidable competitor. liz: which today in london, he said he might consider boycotting. >> he would like a boycott. liz: because he doesn't like cnn, which they own. >> aside from the free market arguments, you also have president trump saying the same thing. on top of that, this is where it gets really interesting from a political standpoint. the democrats are now lining up against this deal, right

i think that the ftc and doj are used to dealing with very big companies. they will be able to handle it. emily: meantime, jennifer, of course we saw the markets rebound today. it seems to be nothing to do with antitrust issues and more what mexico, more with the fed. but over time, how devastating could it be to the valuations of these companies given that this could drag on for years? jennifer: first of all, the important word is time. i don't see anything much happening for a long time. these investigations take a long time. if they end up going to court, that takes a long time. as charlotte said, one of the options is structural. a breakup or divestiture of certain assets. certainly, if that is what the remedy ultimately is, i think that could have a pretty significant impact on these companies. the interesting thing is that charlotte mentioned the interoperability. if we think about the microsoft days and the department of justice trying to create a remedy to break up microsoft, they could not do that in court. but there was forced interoperability tha

the law-enforcement agencies, the doj and the house judiciary committee. but the ftc and doj are looking at conduct to understand if these companies have engaged in conduct that goes beyond just aggressive competition and crosses the antitrust line, harming the competitive process. congress, we look a little bit more broadly. we look at not just conduct, but how the economy has changed with technology and whether or not the antitrust laws can handle policing these companies. and whether legislation is needed to rein in the power of these big tech companies. the doj has emily: oversight into an investigation of apple and google while the ftc takes facebook and amazon. i am curious about the role of congress here. is that just for the public to have these hearings and do this investigation? or could that lead to policy and regulatory changes? charlotte: i think that is why the congressional process will be crucially important. the agency process as bill baer said earlier will be secret. the public is not going to have a lot of insight into what is going on.

, you get facebook, but there's another way to think about this when we had the apple news with the doj also saying they're going to look at apple what do apple and google have in common it's mobile. so perhaps, it's the mobile on one side analysis versus the consumer, amazon potentially and facebook on the ftc side and then i want to get into how historically these agencies have looked at kind of anti-trust and whatnot. historically, the droj looked at market dominance look at how big is your business and are you too big and kind of have you done something that makes them realize you're too big? on our math, it would be a u.s. probe that google, by the most conservative, about 26% of advertising, but if you get much more broad and look at shopper marketing with what's called brand activations, everything marketers spend, they're 13% so kind of keep that number in mind on the ftc side, as the company injured the consumer, does their business practice hurt the consumer and kind of, that's kind of, i think, the way in our mind, it's looked at right now. >> we want to bring in andre barlow

the doj i guess you could say is likely to approve it. we hear that that approval could come as early as tomorrow. you see the stock is moving on my tweet on this. i will just say this. if talks don't break down, you are going to see an approval of this deal with concessions either tomorrow or the next coming days. that's essentially what we are getting out of our sources that are close to this. here's what we also understand which is kind of interesting. doj is crafting some sort of statement here. i think they want to handle the p.r. rollout of this by basically saying listen, if we allow this to happen, here's why it is pro-consumer. here are the concessions, the selling of boost which was already baked in the cake. that was an fcc decision, they approved the deal based on them selling -- listen, everybody is saying charlie ergen or there's a lot of potential buyers out there. i don't have nailed who's going to buy it. then there's spectrum which again, lot of people say dish chairman would buy it. i will say one thing about charlie er

doj has yet to implement these. we issued our annual priority recommendations report which provided an overall status of doj's open recommendations and outlined those that gao believes should be given high priority. this report included six recommendations related to face recognition. as of today, five of those six remain open. the use of face recognition technology raises potential concerns about both the effectiveness of the technology in aiding law enforcement and the protection of privacy and individual civil liberties. this technology is not going away and it is only going to grow. so it will be important that doj takes steps to ensure the transparency of the systems so that the public is kept informed about how personal information is being used and protected, that the implementation of the technology protects individual's privacy and that the technology and systemed u es used are accu and being used appropriately. this concludes my remarks. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you very much. d

i trust the doj to reach the right determinations, at least the doj that i would appoint and set up, and the less that has to do with directives coming out of the white house the better. >> it sounds like you have an issue with senator kamala harris saying that. >> i'm just speaking to how i view the issue. but, again, i think we can maintain these two principles, that nobody is above the law and that prosecution decisions should have nothing to do with politics and should come from the doj itself, not from the oval. >>> former fbi director james comey tweeted on this same issue saying, a political candidates and elected officials should not talk about the future prosecution of any individual. law enforcement decisions must be apolitical. so, sung min, you know, kamala harris, you know, touts her prosecutorial background and she would help to lead by living by the letter of the law. was that out of bounds to talk like that? >> well, i think what it shows is that a lot of candidates do have to tread a little bit carefully when dealing with this issue because we've seen how this presid

emily: is there any difference in how the doj and sec might investigate? what should we read into the fact that the doj got apple and google, the sec cut amazon and facebook -- the sec got amazon and facebook? sally: the sec has been looking at privacy. now, fcc is probably -- , it usually looks at retail so it probably has jurisdiction over amazon. it is a little bit strange that we are now having the doj look at the same conduct that the ftc passed on years ago. i think it makes sense that each agency would take two companies because it is too much for each of them to handle on their own. emily: google has arguably become more powerful over the past two years. what does this mean for investors? we saw other tech companies, netflix for example, which didn't even come up in these reports, also fall. got: it is not good you've two agencies with subpoena power that will be arguing -- that will be crawling over these operation nothing is good for these tech companies. is a little bit look, part of what is fueling this is lots of little voices thattle operate

went after the case, the doj actually got involved in this maybe like for the first time like in the old days, tech companies were a lot of it was done by the fdc, the doj wants the case, they want this case to investigate, so already have -- if you think about it, an organization that can bring and we have been told they have ruled anything out in terms of the type of charges, criminal, civil, we should point out criminal cases are extremely high bar, most, most criminal antitrust cases are i think all of them so far have been brought up on cartels, secret price fixing, i don't know how that translates here. but this is serious and, you know, again, i think we at fox business have been pretty much a front on this, these tech companies are now in the cross hairs not just of congress, the such suspects like elizabeth warren but the alleged free market guys that are running trump doj. neil: would you include the facebook, amazon, apple? >> they are all being scrutinized. i would put google at the top of the list. just because how much it controls and just -- and i think, you know, trum

>> i think this -- the stall tactic is in doj -- to doj's advantage. they've got a couple of opportunities here. number one, going back to the difference between the law and politics, you can talk about documents all you want. i think most of the american people are sitting back, saying i don't really know what the heck you're talking about. there's one other issue nobody talks about, don, that's important here. and that is eventually, the fbi and department of justice are going to conclude the investigations to how this investigation itself was initiated. i'm going to predict to you that that is going to go ugly early. the democrats have a clock ticking. if they can't get things under way before the department of just just takes says here's our problem, when this thing got started about the trump campaign, it was ugly and we're off the to races. the white house will have some real ammo. >> but this isn't making it shorter. they're saying no, he's calling they're bluff, nadler. >> sort. but they're calling bluffs of documents. again, to go back, i woul

here, the doj and fcc have not done a great job. the attorney general and the fcc are worried about sprint and t-mobile merging. they see that as a threat. we have one company talking about creating one network across a population greater than the southern hemisphere which could reach 2.7 billion people with an encrypted back on of whatsapp, instagram, and messenger. a population greater than the southern hemisphere decided by the algorithms and controlled by one person cannot be removed from office. this is overdue, frankly. we have a long, proud tradition of antitrust. caroline: you are saying you think it will be unwound. i fail to see how perhaps that might be supported really by -- really in a bipartisan nature that widely. do you really think that we will see whatsapp, facebook, and instagram redistributed. and again, what is the answer for alphabet? google is the main priority. do they have to split that is this in some sort of way? exact i don't know the format but what i am comfortable predicting is that these four companie

doj and think they will win. they have a good case. point out that the sprint doj had no comment and here's the other thing, companies continue to meet with doj the final decision could come back next week and this might have slowed the momentum but i hear not really. they are willing to fight. that's what they tell me. maybe it changes to mark. liz: cbs action. >> i reported earlier we can move that there would be a board meeting but here's the details on the board meeting. friday will talk about - i hear it's not all board members. there will be a meeting but it'll be a special segment of the board that deals with m and a. in some ways this is more important local reporting in the sense that these are the guys that deal with the mna stuff from what i understand viacom merger will come up in that context. again some announcements on possible by a merger with cvs could come and may not, but that's what we hear. another thing we should point out is david asman sources tell foxbusiness center in our very own david asman clear comments ab

but the doj is doing a poor job, sadly, of punishing its own. this is a serious manager matte. the dea, other officials face virtually zero consequences after being caught abusing their power and committing crimes no other american citizen whatever get away with. serious misconduct. lying to the government, misuse of government funds for personal gain, and dereliction of duty resulting in nothing more than just a slap on the wrist. and of course, this comes as the doj probe into the origins of the russia witch hunt, of course, is in full gear and is a troubling sign that the deep state will do anything and everything, they will protect their own. we will have more of my opening monologue in just a minute. first, joining is now on the breaking news is "the hill" john solomon. you know, when you have clear, compelling evidence, and a criminal referral with evidence behind it, and you let it go, what message does that send especially in light of the minute detail that mueller used to set perjury traps, et cetera appear to listen, i heard from people on the inside of the justice de

state ag in someone else >> good question i would imagine doj is probably the scariest because they tend to bring the we're going to break you up cases, but, it also depends on the issue, that the worst thing that could happen would be new laws that outlaw what might be allowed. josh holly, a republican freshman senator from missouri has asked the question, why should there be a facebook whatsoever he was pretty aggressive against google and facebook as a state ag he's clearly brought that aggressiveness towards those two companies here to walk >> mozelle in terms of the laws on the books right now around anti-trust, looking at these different companies and the different segments within the companies that could potentially be investigated, where would the strongest case be? >> well, it's really hard to say. one of the things that's important to recognize is none of this is happening in isolation. there is some context here the ftc in february just announced that they were putting together an internal task force to really look at high-technology and whether have examined correctly wh

blake: the doj had no comment on this. >> or anybody else. blake: charlie gas a trin oh, thanks for joining us. the comedian ask jon stewart tearing into lawmakers, criticizing some for not even showing up to a hearing involving the 9/11 victims compensation fund. >> we are an incredible metaphor, this rimes, for the entire process. getting healthcare and benefits for 9/11 first responders has come to. behind me a filled room of 9/11 first responders. in front of me, a nearly empty congress. sick and dying, they brought themselves down here to speak. and no one -- shameful it's an embarrassment to the country and a stain on this institution. you should be ashamed of yourselves for those who aren't here. but you won't be. because accountability doesn't appear to be something that occurred in this chamber. blake: that was the image right there. we reached out to the office of the members who sit on that committee. of the 15 members of congress, two were not present for the entirety of the hearing. the absent members were congressman swalell and

change doj policies and go back to obama doj policies to help protect lgbtq folks and make sure they pass the equality act. this is an issue he talks about a great deal on the campaign trail. he makes a point of saying marriage equality may be the law of the land but in something like 23 states, two men could get married and walk into their workplace and still be fired for being gay. this fight is not over and something he is focused on and focused on rolling it out in new york city and trying to get attention on that plan. he is on the stephen colbert show tonight. i'm sure it will be a topic there. >> beto o'rourke realizing he needs more eyes on his campaign. and phillippe, he is focusing more on his policy roll dout. effective or is this exactly where she shouhe should be at tt in the race? >> beto o'rourke is trying to figure out who beto o'rourke is. i don't know if you meant he was doing an event where he was jogging and you never know what it is and hes a admitted that he got it wrong in terms of being a little bit too much, what is it. and he's got to fix that. obviously, he

to accept doj offer and reach an agreement. i'm not optimistic that this will solve all the disputes that will be back but it's good start. >> joyce, your take and do democrats need to bring in robert mueller or someone from his team to testify to really push this conversation forward at this point? >> well, yesterday's agreement was a good first step. the accommodation process is very promising. of course, democrats would prefer to have live fact witnesses. and, yesterday it looked like doj was breaking company with the president a little bit. the president had said no compliance with subpoenas, but yesterday doj said, no, we'll give you a little bit of evidence. we'll have to see how that works out in reality once the president gets wind of it. the important thing now is for people to try to push forward. the real problem here is that the country is not having one conversation based on one set of facts. the challenge for democrats will be to bring more people into the mix, actually understanding what the mueller report says s

specifically doj, that is the one to watch. doj and alphabet, the parent of google. that is the one that really seems to be with the greatest potential. remember that google has come under great scrutiny in the eu over the way it handled the android operation system. is it fair to new entrants of competitors? the eu has looked at that. now the concern is the u.s. will take a deeper look at google through the doj, which remember can take unilateral action unlike the ftc. it does not have to get commissioners on board. it can just go right after a company. that is whatcern the doj will do. shery: it seems like the criticisms for google are not only in the antitrust issues. for other companies, they seem to be unique to those individual companies. we are talking about facebook and privacy. not to mention amazon's role in the online marketplace. tell us how these differ from each other. tom: for each company, there is a host of things the government could take a deeper look at. ftc. remember, facebook has already set aside as much as $5 billion for a settlement with the

clar meeting today with the doj. we do know that delharin and ajit pai who supports the deal met privately friday to discuss the merger. i didn't see them -- from what i understand, they weren't screaming at each other at the lunch place they were at. so maybe there's some meeting of the minds here. but this is heating up. decision is coming down the pike. can't tell you exactly when, but it's all over the place. could be this week, could be tomorrow, could be next week, we don't know, but it's coming down. by the way, that's you and mr. ledger. liz: yes, in the times square. if you're just tuning in, some of you specifically tune in just to see sharly gasparino, you're probably wondering about the shot -- take charlie, please. >> could we just see -- liz: just a minute. there's a lot of police and firefighter activity. if we can dissolve to our sixth avenue shot, this is, of course, in the wake of a helicopter crash onto the top of the axa building where the pilot of a helicopter -- and we don't know who owns that c

in august as you said before, ohr tells the fbi and doj, watch steele, he's out to get trump. i don't know how you explain this stuff other than it's a fraud on the court, a political agenda by steele. >> sean: what if i did this? what would happen to me? >> you wouldn't have a show. >> sean: would i be living in a different place? >> i would not be playing golf with you. >> sean: ever again. >> ever again. >> sean: now my back is better. >> good. we'll do it again. >> sean: all right. let me ask you on your end because now we have durham, horowitz. we've got john hoover. we have the attorney general, durham and your committee. how deep and how far will you go back? to me, if we have equal justice and application of our laws, it has to be in the beginning. >> you have to find out how the clinton investigation began and how it ended -- >> sean: you think it was rigged? >> i think it's pretty clear to me that if you want her to win, you can't indict here. the main reason she wasn't charged with a crime is because people investigating her wanted trump to lose and her to win. yeah

back to the other question which would you face doj or ftc, i think the doj is a tougher pill to swallow he reason why is the lead antitrust executive, he favors as a conservative a structural remedy we tend look at that in term of acquisitions and mergers. point is that he likes it when you get rid of stuff you break it apart i'm sure they're opening to taking fines as well but that could really hurt these guys they're going to face and say, you know what, this new service and business you have, you can't own it anymore >> i think that gets to the heart of the angst for investors. so nancy, this issue ed raises about will it be fines or selling parts of your business, i think plenty of investors would say, look, we'll take a fine you know, that's a quarter of profits, so to speak we can't be talking about anything too massive on that front but don't want a break-up of the business and ironically, normally something the companies don't want is what would be good for the public but on this front, how would it change the operations of some, fror example if they broke up what's app and inst

so it will be a battle, assuming it even takes place at doj, not only within doj and fbi but other agents like cia and state, we have documents coming out today, further confirming state department is a locust of evil when it came to targeting trump on spygate. incredible breadth of corruption used to target candidate trump, i am surprised she is stil he in power given all of the lies in office against him. lou: he has full power of federal government focused on him, he has not only survived, but prevailed, and won. and all of them prove to belie ars and worse -- liars and worse who conspire against him. >> you know, god bless america. lou: a men. >> if you are an innocent man you can beat the system. lou: sometimes, but also good to be a strong leader like president trump, i'm not sure that anyone else could have survived it, tom fitton thank you. >> thank you, lou. lou: more than a million protestor demonstrate marching in hong kong this weekend, protesting denouncing a new law that would allow suspected criminals in the stay to be sent to mainland china for trial. they fear that the ex

so it's been slow rolled out of the doj and fbi. other sets of documents showing the lawyers for the clinton campaign and the dnc were also talking to the fbi. about russia and donald trump. so, they were protecting hillary on e-mail, working with hillary on going after trump. i tell you, you can't get a better example of the radically different approaches the fbi and doj took to two key issues, whether to prosecute hillary clinton and the targeting of president trump. >> they're all in on it. remember, it was struck that said, sarah, we only have a few seconds. hillary should win 100 million to 0, that trump is loathsome and trump voters are smelly walmart people. that would be me. i love walmart. i think i smell fine, thank you very much. >> me too, thank, sean. this is what is so extraordinary here is that peter struck is going play such an important role here. he was involved not only in the whole of the investigation, but more and more evidence comes out every day about his involvement. let's just think about this. the defensiv

doj needs citizenship. asks doj, notu the secretary to discuss why they are not good enough, they say they don't need to. sequence, howat does the secretary know the answer -- general francisco: sure. justice sotomayor: -- to that question? general francisco: sure. so a couple of responses to that, your honor. i'm going to start with the 6(c) issue because i know that was of interest to justice breyer as well. and under 6(c), under my -- my friend's on the other side's position, you actually couldn't even ask the citizenship question on the american community survey. and you also couldn't ask about sex and age on the census itself since all of that information is all also available in administrative records. but the reason why administrative records are insufficient under 6(c) for any of these purposes is for the simple reason that you don't have them for 35 million people. in terms of the department of justice's request and the census bureau's alternative proposal, it simply wasn't responsive to the depart

we know in august, as you said before, bruce ohr tells the fbi doj, you got to watch steele, he's out to get trump., i don't know how you explain all this stuff other than it's just a fraud on the court. a political agenda -- >> senator, what if i did this? what would happen to me? >> you wouldn't have a show. >> sean: what i be living in a different place? >> i would not be playing cards with you anytime soon. >> sean: ever again. now my back is better. not when i wanted it to be better. >> we'll do this again. >> sean: let me ask you on your end, now we've got durham, we've got horowitz, we've got john huber, we've got the attorney general, durham, also have your committee, which will be leading in all of these investigations. how deep and how far will you go back? to me, if we have equal justice and application of our laws, it has to be in the beginning. >> you got to find out how the clinton investigation began and how it ended. >> sean: do you think it was very good? >> i i think it is pretty clearo me that if you want her to win, you can't indict her. the main reason she wasn't

i think the one thing - i spent time talking early on with doj and i had all the ag's in new york in the office and i raised the concerns you see in the actual press release announced today in relation to the dealers and relation to competition. i looked at that and thought they had not mentioned the remedies determined by recommended - >> including spinning off your own company boost. >> yes, and that illuminates 85-90% of the concern in their press release. i think this is somewhat political. i think it will politically backfire on the attorney general because if they think for a second the blocking this merger is going to force sprint which is struggling along to go out and subtly hire a bunch more people and turn around and hire a bunch new stores delusional. that will not happen. what they will do is stop laying people off we propose very simple solution to fix this problem which sends a message to be spared ardently, i don't think this has any bearing of what the attorney general's will do as quickly realized it was a mistake and remember if carriers around the globe who are ex

shannon: part of the doj letter to chairman nadler says among other things review is broad in scope, multifaceted, intended to eliminate open questions regarding the activities of us and foreign intelligence services as well as nongovernmental organizations that individual. what does that mean to you? >> that is different. that is the investigation investigating the investigators. it is a broad scope what they are saying and it will include fusion gps, christopher steele, not just government workers. >> definitely a key as to where the investigation is already. >> that investigation is going on. we have the inspector general report that is going to come out soon, the fisa abuse. a lot of things are going on. shannon: into what you were saying with the doj warning democrats be careful what you ask for. >> the mueller report is a comprehensive report. what are you getting from underlying documents? i have faith that mueller did the right thing and looks honest and included everything in that report. what else can he say? shannon: the second topic, house democrats kicked off this week o

know a lot about what the doj will be interested in looking at. or for that matter, what congress will be looking at. open up theirrs own investigation into the tech companies. jon: thank you, naomi. canada on the global stage. we will speak with don lindsay, the ceo of tech resources, also the head of canada's business council. this is bloomberg. ♪ jon: a group of canadian business leaders is urging federal business partners to outline her economic plans with canadians heading to the polls in five months. the business council is voicing its concerns about the country's economic future and an open letter. isncil chair don lindsay also the ceo of teck resources. he joins us from vancouver. in this letter, you and others raising potential concerns about the canadian economy down the road. what is your primary concern? >> well, we certainly believe canada is a great place to work and live. we hope and always will be. but we have some concerns there are clouds looming on the horizon, that we see some challenges to our economy. we want to make sure e

. >>> meanwhile, the two other mobile carriers, t-mobile and sprint still waiting for doj approval of their $26 billion merger. will that announcement come before the companies face the state attorneys general in a pretrial this friday to fight against the merger. charlie gasparino with the details. >> little bit of an update on cbs-viacom as well.

but the frustration is, is there any pressure that we can put on the doj and people to do their jobs? it seems like these inequities are leading to a real imbalance. their public only matters if people have fidelity and believe the constitution means something. but it seems to mean something for one side, but mean absolutely nothing to the other side of the political debate. i guess my question better phrased is: what, from your side, can be done about this? >> i think -- >> dan: sorry, i was giving a quick follow-up. i will go to you, congressman gates. my apologies, congressman turne turner. >> my understanding, if you look at attorney general barr's investigation on inspector general's investigation, these are going to get to the heart of where their laws broken, where their procedures broken? clearly, things were not done by the books, thing or were abuses of the process. we'll get data and the investigation from which the investigations can lend themselves to the criminalse prosecutions hardest and the referrals from the intelligence committee and the government oversight committ

in fact, the doj policy indicting a city the president was never a consideration. his press conference was a contradiction of everything he said. in a joint statement hours later, the doj, barr and the special counsel office was forced to walk back and clarify the 9.5 minutes that mueller but commenting and reaffirmed that the special counsel's report made clear the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. it has nothing to do with justice department policy with whether you can or can not indict a president. everything mueller said was fake and attorney general barr bailed him out. he was begging nadler not to testify or be subpoenaed because he knows he has to answer questions from jim jordan, and mark medicine and devin nunes who will join us in a few minutes. well, mr. mueller, when did you know there was no collusion? why didn't you end this witch hunt? why did you only hire hard-core democratic donors including a former hillary clinton attorney for the clinton foundation. why hire w

this is certainly interesting quotes if doj is telling us they're not real. still to come, donald trump's campaign chair could be headed for rikers island. and tonight, amy klobuchar. lobur your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously. woman 1: i had no symptoms of hepatitis c. man 1: mine... man 1: ...caused liver damage. vo: epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. vo: whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. woman 2: i had the common type. man