tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News July 11, 2017 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
duel. burr shot hamilton in the stomach. he died the next day, this is part of the play "hamilton" if you can. after politics turned deadly 213 years ago today. >> neil: that was one awesome show, shepard. this is reality. you can forget about a meeting last june. the focus seems to be on, well, lots of meetings. all meetings. all work at least for the first two weeks in august. they're cutting theiracation in half. rather than a month, took two weeks. generous. is it enough time to get what they want to get done. >> the dow rebounding on word of the senate delaying recess to get stuff that it wants to see get done or investors want to see get done including healthcare rework and the tax cuts.
welcome. i'm neil cavuto. fox on top of, well, these guys working for a living. two weeks more than they earlier thought. chad pergram with more. what can we expect? >> the question is what are they going to get done here. mitch mcconnell said they would stay on healthcare in the senate until they're done and move on to other issues. possibly a defense bill, possibly nominations and possibly something else. >> ideally we would deal with the debt ceiling before the august resource. >> do you have somebody else in mind? >> we'll see. the debt ceiling has to be raised. >> and the debt creeling is something that they're foregoing part of the august recess. chuck schumer indicated that he would work with the republicans on this. he say the onus is on republicans. the main problem here as schumer
sees it is that republicans don't have a lot of accomplishments. >> if i were them, i wouldn't want to go home and face the voters either. >> so the question is this a charade? does it looks like it's good politics? is it a skeleton staff here? can they get a deal on the ceili ceiling? the question is what the house of representatives is doing. the house freedom caucus is in the house of representatives. they indicate that they would like the recess blown out and calling on the house speaker, paul ryan to do just that. john tester is a democratic senator from montana. he's up for re-election in 2018. he's from a swing state, a republican leaning state. he might like the extra time to campaign. he said if they're going to work in washington, please keep the air conditioning on. i'll end with this, neil. beware the ides of august. in washington, strange political
things happen. be wear of the ides of august. >> neil: you never know. thanks very much. my next guest, montana republican senator, steve dane. senator, welcome to you. two weeks. does that change things? what do you think? >> it's a step in the right directi direction. there were ten senators saying we should cancel the august recess, keep doing the work of the people. i spent 28 years in business. one thing that washington d.c. is lacking in is results and a lack of accountability. have a scorecard here, neil. look at the budget process. four times in four 2 years. a 10% score. judicial nominees, moved 9% of trump's judicial nominees. the trump overall nominations, 23%. under this same time under obama's administration, 69% approved. if you're failing in college,
you don't go on holiday. you go to summer school, this is a step in the right direction. keep doing the work of the people. glad to see leader mcconnell stepped up with vice president pence and said, we're staying here the first half of august. it's a good start. >> neil: no indication we might get a sense of what the house done, senator. but this is to try to get more things done. what if two weeks you're into this and you realize, wait a minute, we haven't come up with a healthcare alternative just yet. do you keep working? >> tell you what, to me, you focus on outcomes. so often it's about activity, press releases. let's talk about results and outcomes. i tell you what, we have two weeks in august. it's a good start. if we're not where we need to be, we should keep working. how many businesses do you know that allow their leadership to take five, six weeks recess right in the middle of a time when there's so much to do? spending, our budget,
infrastructure, healthcare, tax reform. national security. getting the defense budget passed. these are critical issues for our nation. it's time members of congress stay here in washington and get the job done. >> neil: now, for the time being, the rework on healthcare. i understand we're going to have a rapid fire series of amendments, 100 or more in order to win over some reluctant republicans. there were ten by last count. is it your sense after this rapid fire of possible additions, subtractions, extensions, more financial provisions, that it will pass the senate? >> tell you what, i wouldn't try to predict the will and the outcomes of the senate. here's what i think will happen. i think you'll see a bill text put out for public view and for the members view sometime the end of the week. probably get cbo scored coming into next week. there may be a bill that is ready for what we call a motion to proceed, which means we say
let's take this to the floor of the u.s. senate. let's have debate and put amendments on it and have up or down. leap forward or get out of the way. >> vote or fail. move on to tax cuts. >> the message we heard today there's a bill headed to the floor next week. still a few hurdles, but with the cbo, that's the direction the ship is sailing right now. >>vote, whether the votes are therer not. >> that's my sense. get it on the floor of the senate and let senators duke it out on amendments, up or down. >> neil: i hope you have air conditioning. it does get hot and sticky there. >> hotter here than in montana. >> neil: that is true. thanks very much. >> thanks, neil. >> neil: you heard a little bit about these donald trump jr. e-mails here. it's the white house reaction that is curious on this and where they go from here. if you're looking for the white house to be necessarily super forthcoming on this, might be a
little disappointed. kevin corke at the white house. hi, kevin. >> you crack me up. always good to be with you, my friend. i have so much respect for sarah huckabee sanders. she has one of the toughest jobs in this wn. first of all, dealing with constant drama away from the white house to say nothing of what might be happening here day-to-day. throw in the fact, a commander-in-chief with a penchant for social media. she has her hands full. we unpack this donald trump jr. story and his e-mails and what it means meeting with a russian lawyer under the guys of getting dirt on the clinton campaign. let's share what the president is saying. took him awhile to get in on this. sarah huckabee sanders reading it today at the press gaggle. off camera. she read this statement. "my son have a high quality person and i applaud his
transparency." the idea of transparency has been scoffed at by some. he released these ahead of "the new york times," which was going to do the same thing today. this has been a very exasperating for the president. he tries to do something good and gets knocked off by the russian problem. and for donald trump jr., he will be on hannity. he will talk about what happened in this situation, talk about the meeting. let's share a second of what sarah huckabee sanders had to say about the president's feeling and watching this story, the latest about russia, unfold. >> i think that the president is, i would say, frustrated with the process of the fact that this continues to be an issue. he would love for us to be focused on things like the economy, on healthcare, on tax
reform, infrastructure. that's where his mind is and would like to be discussing it. >> he would like to be discussing but that won't happen any time soon. we'll hear what donald trump jr. has to say tonight. the white house is doing all it can't to push the stories to his attorneys. you heard sarah huckabee sanders in the briefing say repeatedly, she wouldn't have anymore comments about it. i can't say i blame her. neil. >> neil: thanks, kevin. gregg jarrett on whether or not there is anything illegal or untoward going on here. you can question the timing of this especially when it wasn't that long ago when donald trump jr. said there were no such meetings. this is one that he set up. leaving that aside, is it a bad illegal matter? forget about one that doesn't look good. is it illegal? >> senator tim kaine accused donald trump jr. of treason. he ought to read the
constitution. it is leveeing war against the united states or aiding and comforting the enemy at a time of war. others have said this is collusion. point a statute that makes it a crime to collude in a foreign government with american political campaigns? doesn't exist. you won't find it there. maybe there should be a crime and maybe congress will some day pass a line and the president will sign it. so far it's not a crime. the only possible crime would be conspiracy to defraud the government or obstruct a government function. an election is a government function. that statute requires deceit and dishonesty. you know, exchanging information, if that was what was intended here isn't -- >> neil: but donald trump jr. would know that this person
had -- was from russia, right? >> sure. >> neil: and one from russia was going to talk to them about dirt or information on hillary clinton, that, whatever the legalities, you're the lawyer, i'm not, that doesn't pass is this right to do test. >> sure. that's a different question. it's certainly not a crime to have a meeting with a russian official or -- >> neil: would you do it? >> or meet with a russian. you know, if i were in the middle of a political campaign, the optics would tell me, don't do it. but it was done and it's not a crime. i do think you're right to point out that if it's true that donald trump had insisted that he have no meetings, donald trump jr., no meetings with russians or russian officials, he needs to explain how he forgot this or overlooked it. maybe we'll hear on hannity. it's a good idea for him to meet openly with the senate
intelligence committee and be honest. if you have nothing to hide, don't hide. >> neil: good words of a advice. lawyer or no, thanks very much. >> sure. >> neil: down think this is the end of it? for the markets, for you? next. i was playing golf a couple days ago... love golf. and my friend mentioned a tip a pro gave her. did it help? it completely ruined my game. that advice was never meant for you. i like you. you want to show me your swing? it's too soon. get advice that's right for you with investment management services.
hundreds of dollars on youmy car insurance. saved me huh. i should take a closer look at geico... (dog panting) geico has a 97% customer satisfaction rating! and fast and friendly claims service. speaking of service? oooo, just out. it was in. out. in! out. in! what about now? that was our only shuttlecock. take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more.
>> right after trump gets elected, you get a great bull market. then the market decelerates around all this impeachment talk. now, i'm not saying he's going to get impeach. the probability of impeachment is a proxy for his lack of political capitol, for the distraction. the point is, this is costing us money. >> jerry bowyer, one of the keenest financial minds i know talking about the rumor, the talk, the mention of the world "impeachment." since it kicked up around late may, the market hasn't done much of anything. is there a connection there? whether you think this is justifiable or not, it stopped the market advance in its tracks. gerri willis, what do you think? >> this is definitely a distraction. no doubt about it. you can see it in the leads here, the stock market, trading sideways for a number of weeks
since the word of "impeachment" starting appearing in mid may. remember, in the seven weeks after the president was elected, the market up 8.3%. big difference. why? because look, business owners all over the country, what do they know? they're not going to get the tax reform, the tax breaks. they might as well wait till next year. so they delay, put off, move forward expansion, hiring, buying equipment, supplies that they might otherwise do. that puts expansion on hold, that puts the stock market on hold. remember, this isn't just something that is important to the 1%. this is important to moms and dads and important to people with 401(k)s, saving for college, your children's college savings. makes it that much harder. >> neil: in other words, you're not characterizing whether any of this -- the question and the timing of meetings with russian officials on the part of donald trump jr. and these other
campaign operatives. just that wall street doesn't see much to care. it disrupts this motion that they're getting to get this stuff. the markets turned around when there was the proposal on the part of the senate to stay in business for the first two weeks in august. mcconnell reversed a lot of the slide. but they're still clinging to the notion that they're going to get their stuff. >> yeah, this glimmer of hope that we'll move forward on something. it's not just tax reform and healthcare. those are extremely important. we have to do something about the debt ceiling. mnuchin calling for that as soon as possible. august if possible. we have to get a new budget. there's so much to do, so little time. you tell wall street that maybe, maybe there's a move forward, we're going to give it more time. they liked it. that was a positive.
that was very good. let me tell you, it's going to take a lot of effort to move forward on this agenda. you're doing it with what is undoubtedly a weakened president. >> do you get a sense that the denials on the part of the trump administration, some of the kids that no such meetings happened, turned out that at least one did and one involved the president's son planning it, that that is going to at least raise issues about all right, you didn't mention this. what else didn't you mention? i'm getting at the notion that this could be summer hearings, investigations, all of this getting in the way of the agenda again? >> you bet. maxine waters was crying impeachment in may. what did we have then? not very much. imagine what the democrats will bring now. this is a political effort, right? to derail the agenda. democrats don't want tax reform. democrats don't want obamacare changed. this is one way to do it. bring up the spector of
impeachment, even though it's a really high hurdle to be successful in bringing forward. some kind of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. it's a lot. i'm no expert in the legalities, but it's no easy thing. no doubt it will take the rest of the summer debating this at the very least to see what will happen. >> neil: it's going to be a divided attention. gerri, thank you. let's say this is front and center right now. the president and his family handed the media this. so it's about investments. there's four trillion market appreciation since the president was elected. we're exploring that on fox business note work. the senate is delaying the august recess. now the question is whether the house will do the same. house freedom caucus chair, mark
>> neil: we just talked during the break about this whole issue of summer breaks here. the senate is cutting its august recess in half. now to a guy says the house should be doing the same. house freedom caucus big wig, north carolina republican congressman, mark meadows. great to have you here. >> great the be back. thanks very much. >> neil: what do you think of your senate counter parts looking to put in some extra work in the first two weeks of august? >> i applaud the leader for taking a bold step to say that we're going to stay in. as you know, we've been calling for that for weeks. we believe we need to stay in the entire month of august. it's not enough to just stay in. we have to be decisive and take
action. it's tax reform, the debt ceiling. let's get them done. we know they're coming up in september. we might as well start debating it now. so for us, we think it's a good move. we're calling on leadership to support that and stay in for the first couple weeks of august. >> chuck schumer was mentioning in his own press availability today, you guys could be working two weeks, two months, two years and you still come zilch on healthcare because the american people hate what you're do and don't like you. what do you think? >> neil: that's real sweet coming from a guy that said he wasn't willing to help at all. since we don't have any help from the democrats, maybe so. but i can tell you this, if they're counting us out, they're counting us out for the wrong reasons. just like wall street is trying to take a look at this and will we move tax reform and lower taxes, increase the debt.
not only will we do healthcare repeal and replace, but everybody will be surprised when we have a productive august and actually put things on the president's desk in september and sign into law. we're committed to make sure that we do that. i would love to come back on when we have mr. schumer eating humble pie. >> neil: chairman, have you heard from speaker ryan about keeping the house open in august? >> we haven't heard directly. i broached it with the speaker a number of times. congress works better with deadlines. things get done at the very end of temperature 11th hour. with this, what we need to do is do self-imposed deadlines. let's get healthcare out of the way. i believe that if we set in place before we leave in august the parameters of reducing corporate taxes down to 15 or 16%, look at repatriation --
>> neil: you met at reducing taxes. you probably heard one of the plans the senate is calling for is keeping the taxes on the upper income and the .9 sur tax for the upper next for medicare in place. what do you think of that? >> i've heard that. i also know that there's no other plan to go with that proposal. that's a political decision. not a policy -- >> neil: if something like that came back to the house, how would you feel about that? >> we've been firm. we believe the taxes need to be repealed. obviously as we look at that -- >> neil: that would be rejected right away? >> i want to say this. we want to look at it in the context, neil. even if you let that in as a potential pay for on the repeal and replacement, we have taxes on the back side of that. lower taxes -- >> neil: you'd be open to that as part of a means to getting to the taxes -- >> the devil is in detail. our official position is to
repeal all the taxes. at the same time before i weigh-in on anything, i want to look at the trade-offs. it's incumbent on us to make sure we deliver to the american people. speaking with the president, he's committed fully to make sure we do that. >> neil: i want your thoughts on this dust-up with donald trump jr. and who he knew and what he was talking to. i hear different lawyers opinions on this. john if you're a lawyer. i'm not. >> i'm not. >> neil: it doesn't look good for someone to be meeting from the trump campaign let alone his eldest son with the russians to talk about material they might have on hillary clinton. what do you think of that? >> any time you see an e-mail like that it's not good news for the administration. at the same time, that's why we have a special counsel with mueller to look at -- >> neil: i know that how do you feel about that yourself? >> obviously you don't feel good about it. you wish it hadn't happened -- >> neil: if you got an e-mail
like that and running a campaign, your own campaign, dirt on your opponent, would you go to that meeting? have one of your people go? >> i wouldn't. but every political person makes different decisions there. what i can say, when you have everything on the line, part of the connects when i read that is saying, well, was hillary and her campaign doing things that she shouldn't have been with the russians? that's a different context. all kinds of rumors that float around on capitol hill. >> neil: i understand that. the reason i mentioned that, donald trump said in march that he said he had no meetings with the russians. we had at least one, a fairly important one but he arranged it. he set it up. it's going to allow those that don't like the president -- >> without a doubt. >> neil: to continue the investigation. what else did they leave out or mislead people on? >> you're right, neil. we need to look at that. is it good news? the answer is no. yet, i am fully confident that
we'll get to the bottom of it. we've called for hearings. the key is, the american people want to move on. you talked about what is happening. i came back from north carolina, this is not even on their radar. they're concerned about what is going to happen in terms of jobs and taxes and all of that. >> neil: you think the trump administration is saying maybe not deliberately has potentially ruined it for you guys or hurt you guys because now there is this drip drip of stuff that could get in the way of things you want to get done? any part of you angry about that? >> no. what i'm angry about is the fact that the president hasn't been able to sign anything into law. it's on congress to put things on his desk. there's nothing that stops congress from doing that, whether it's the hearings or anything else. is it a distraction? without a doubt. at this point we have to keep focus on the agenda. we can do that. >> neil: when you came up with the plan, the president said it was mean. >> i understand that.
i have conversations daily for coming up something that works for me. we need to find a good compromise. i'm going to shoot straight with you. are we there? absolutely not. will we get there? i told you by september we're still going to make it. we're going to make healthcare in july and tax reform in september. >> if that doesn't work out -- my producer is getting angry at me. if that doesn't work, you're going to proceed to the tax cuts? >> we are. we're 100% committed to that. >> neil: okay. mr. chairman, good seeing you again. >> thank you, neil. >> neil: remarkable news coming out of that chat. the man that runs the conservative freedom caucus says it's not dead on arrival, the senate plan that night keep the high taxes on the rich. if it could be a means of
getting tax cuts. obviously negotiating back and forth. what do we say when we move the ball? you're welcome, america. adam schiff talking about the developments. ranking democrats on the house intelligence committeend what he makes of the revelations concerning donald trump jr.'s e-mails of exchanges with the russians. >> in june we know that through intermediaries the russian government sought to approach the trump campaign to see if they would be interesting in damaging information about hillary clinton. in late july, the president quite out in the open, candidate trump, urged the russians to hack hillary clinton's e-mails and said they would be richly rewarded. during the course of our investigation, one of the questions we sought to answer, was there private activity by the campaign in parallel with the very public requests that now president trump, then candidate trump, made for the
russians to hack and release hillary clinton information. because we now know that the response of that, the president's son gave to the russians was that he would love it if they would provide damaging information about hillary clinton. rather than report that overture by the russian government to intervene in the presidential election in a way to help his father, neither the president's son, nor the campaign reported this information to the fbi. when it became obvious that the e-mails were being dumped, when it was obvious that this was done by the russian government, when our own intelligence community issued a state in october affirming this was being done by the russians, did the trump campaign disclose that in fact they received overtures to receive damaging information, the answer is no, they didn't.
so this is obviously very significant, deeply disturbing new public information about direct contacts between the russian government and its intermediaries and the very center of the trump family, campaign and organization. obviously we need to get to the bottom of what happened. what was said in that meeting, any of the information that went into organizing that meeting, as well as if that meeting was just the beginning or that was a testing of the waters by the russians to see if the campaign to be receptive of their engagement and involvement in the presidential election. so this is i think a very key development in terms of what the public is aware of. our work continues. we're interviewing new witnesses each week. sometimes more than one each week.
we'll be doing that until we get to the bottom of not only these additional facts but all the others that we're exploring. with that, i'd be happy to respond to questions. >> congressman, you mentioned this was directed by the russian government. have you seen evidence that the russian lawyer was directed by the kremlin to meet with the trump campaign? secondly, have you seen any evidence of other meetings that may have occurred between trump associates and russians beyond this one? >> i can't go beyond the four corners of what is in t public domain. i think tha the e-mails themselves which have now been verified by the trump campaign itself, by the president's son himself, make very clear that government officials within the russian government had information they thought was damaging to secretary clinton that they wanted to share with the campaign and they made arrangements to provide a
channel to do that. this russian advocate was that channel. now, obviously one of the things we need to investigate was, is -- did this just begin the conversation. there was activito getting the infortion back to moscow, did mr. gladstone report back to the family, approached him to say they would love to get this. in fact, they would not only love to get it, love to get it late in the summer. of course, it was late in the summer that the stolen e-mails needed to get published. these are the kind of questions that need to be answered. here i think you have quite direct evidence that the russian government had damaging information, communicated that to the campaign and all of the campaign denials of whether we knew this was going on, whether the russians had involvement, whether the russians wanted to help his campaign, obviously have to be viewed in a completely different context.
>> had the committee been in touch with trump jr. or his lawyers and they plan to request documents from him? >> we will certainly want to have him come before the committee. i don't want to discuss communications we're having with witnesses. we're free to disclose them themselves. we'll want everyone connected with this meeting to come. in we'll want any documents that they may have. plainly as we saw the constantly evolving stories from the president's son, we cannot rely on any public representations made by the family. we've soon a pattern of dissembling about these meetings originating with denials, we never had the meetings and forced acknowledgement and shifting explanation about what the meetings were about. first, it was about adoptions.
and then it was, well, it was we brought the campaign manager in. it's significant that they invited the manager of the campaign. if this wasn't a campaign meeting, what was paul manafort doing there? october, the reason the russians were approaching them was because he was the apparent nominee at that point. so we're going to want to hear from everyone connected to this. we're also going to want to see as reference to the e-mail whether the president's assistants received any communications from the russians as well. that was another channel that was alluded to in those e-mails. >> do you know any information thathe russian lawyer, was a test to see how ts administration would react? >> it certainly appears that way. that this is very much consistent with the russian practices, with their- the operating procedures where they
will use civilians, they'll use oligarchs and others and look for relationships. here the e-mails make quite clear that the russian government had possession of damaging information. they throughout the way the get that to the trump campaign to test whether donald trump wanted this information was to go through people he had done business with. indeed this is a modality the russians use elsewhere. so who had they done business with? they had done with a business known as the russian donald trump who had worked on the miss universe pageant, who had business discussions with the president over having a trump tower in russian. so they go to this oligarch, they go to the son who knows the son of the now president. they find out, yes, there's a deep interest in this. and then they dispatch this advocate for the kremlin.
now, why would they choose here? because she gives them some deniability as opposed to someone who has a more direct connection to the government. obviously this is something we need to determine but it would be consistent with russian trade craft to do this. >> some of your colleagues are beginning to use the word "treason." if you don't want to go that far or draw in conclusions yet, do you see possible violations of criminal law here or a breach of etiquette. >> well, it is absolutely not only a breach of norms but a breach of civic responsibility to the country. if you get approached by a foreign government offering to interfere in a presidential election, you go to the fbi. you report it. that's what a decent citizen would do. i don't want to see us to continue to lowter bar here and say the only question is whether this is illegal.
this was unethical. it was i think in violation of the oath of citizenship to willingly solicit, receive and encourage foreign intervention in our election. this is serious business. whether criminal laws were violated or not. there's a number of laws implicated here. and we see again, kind of a shifting defense from the trump administration. first, there's no collusion. if there is collusion, it's not against the law. the reality, conspiracy is against the law. if there was an effort to conspire to violate election laws, to get an in-kind contribution of opposition research against their opponent, if there was any kind of quid pro quo, one of the messages that this russian advocate may have taken back to moscow, the trump administration
would be very amenable to appealing sanctions that goes after russians that are violating humans rights. so was that a quid pro quo? was it further encouragement of the russians to intervene? certainly they were getting the right signals. they were getting the signals from the president openly and overtly. they were getting signals from the president's son in a covert fashion. this is highly sensitive and the best way to get you this information. you know, does have an echo of the allegations of mr. kushner wanting to set up a secret back channel. again, what do i think is notable here is the pattern. these aren't a series of meets of events, denials, of china,
france. they all come back to russian. the profound question is why. that's what we need to answer. one last question. >> can you please give us an update on the sanctions bill and give us an idea whether these events today will affect the passing of that bill? >> yeah, well, we stand ready on a very bipartisan basis to pass the senate bill overwhelmingly. i have no doubt if that came up for a vote tomorrow it would pass overwhelmingly. certainly these events give added urgency to doing that. i think it's very important to understand in the context of that sanctions legislation, what is so disturbing and what is so concerning about these new public revelations and why congress has to get to the bottom of it. the most serious risk to the country, i think, is that the
russians possess compromising information that can influence this president's conduct of american policy. the russians know about this meeting. they were behind organizing the meeting. if there are other meetings that the russians know about, if there's other interactions with the trump campaign, the russians are aware of, that is something that they can hold over the head of the president of the united states. the american people need to know that our president is acting on their behalf and not acting because he had a fear that the russians could disclose things that would harm him or his family. i think it's an obligation for the congress to get to the bottom of this and make sure that the president's policy, whether it's in syria, ukraine or vis a vis nato or anything else is only influenced by what is in the best interest of the country and not because the russians are in possession of any material that they fear would become public.
thank you. >> neil: you been listening to adam schiff. he's the ranking member of the house intelligence committee. we did not get a chance to see a joint committee chairman statement. mike conway, the republican of texas that oversees that committee has not commented formally as mr. schiff has. what it comes down to, donald trump jr. said there were no such meetings going on with the russians and then we discover there was one, a big one. it involved a couple of key trump principles and that donald trump jr. himself had arranged it. a lot of things you can forget and go back and forth on this. the fall out for this administration is that at least it's on the agenda to get some economic points on the board might be delayed with all of these distractions. you know, when power is distracted, you know, obviously it's very tough for other things to get done both within your own
party and i heard that, steve, from republicans concerned about that agenda. and certainly from democrats that would be more than happy to torpedo it. where do you think this sort of thing goes? >> well, neil, you're right to put the focus on what this means for the agenda. most people watching this, most people in america are just sick and tired of hearing about it. every time they hear one of these pompous talking heads in d.c. going on about how they want to get to the bottom of it over and over again, the phrase we hear, you get the sense that they're going to spend three years getting to the bottom of something, anything, as long as it's not engaging on the policy question. that's not to say there's not something important that needs to be addressed this. i said it before, it's clear now the russians did interfere in the election. they didn't change the result of the election. it's clear they tried to just as they have done in other elections as other countries
have done all over the place. the right response to that is not endless investigation. it's retaliation. i do think that needs to happen. as for this endless drip drip of revelations and debate over them, i just don't think it gets us anywhere. what people are crying out for in this country is action on jobs, to get the economy moving, to get wages and incomes rising. those are the things that need to be done. i think people are sick of people like adam sheriff that enjoy living in the middle of what they think -- >> neil: it's a nonstop media story. you're right about that. i might have misstated his counter part, devin nunes had to recuse himself. mike conway is heading up the investigation. the next republican guy up handling that. you know, steve, one of the things i did want to get a sense of is trust. when trust is broken and it's easy to happen around not that we expect our politicians to be saints or the family of politicians, but usually what
leads to ongoing investigations and follow ups is you said you had no meeting. now you had a meeting. you knew full well from the e-mails there was -- this was an opportunity to get information on your father's opponent. you know the drill. this feeds the beast to the point that it becomes all-consuming. what do you think? >> yeah, all along, you have things that happened in the course of the campaign, in a campaign that was -- remember, they were first-timers. i thought ari fleischer made a point where -- may have been today. he said some of these revelations don't look like they are nefarious. they may be examples of misjudgments and on the part of people that are new to politics. in hindsight, the flames can be fanned and look to be made more
nefarious than the intent at the time. so i think similar point relates to -- i think a good example of what i'm talking about is with jeff sessions. there were accusations that he covered up meetings with the russians. those meetings were innocent arranged for him by others. one was a passing meeting where many other people were present. its true that he didn't declare it and make it a big deal and felt he had to recuse himself from anything to do with russian. all these intricate details in the end, what do they add up to? do they add up to a standing argument that the president of the u.s.a. is a russian agent? that's what they're trying to say. i don't think anybody believes that. that's not to say there were mistakes and misjudgments along the course of this. >> neil: sorry for all the breaking news here. thanks, steve.
so how how far does this go to steve's point? larry winger is a big believer in being honest, teaching it to our kids. he probably could extend that to full grown adults and working in washington. he has another great new book. what is wrong with everything? this is illustrated part of that. mincing whatever the proper truth is. good to see you, stranger. >> good to see you. >> we have a major national event tailored to your book's release. what do you make of this? you're big on get it out there and move on. they didn't get it all out there, so now the media is saying we can't move on. what do you think of it? >> the media won't move on anything trump. we know that. they caused their own problem here. you have to tell the truth in every situation so you're not backtracking saying i didn't mean that and -- >> neil: and donald trump jr. was unequivocal. i didn't have any such meetings.
yeah, you did. it was an important one and you arranged it. >> and he should have admitted it. you can get by with about everything if you're honest with them. take full responsibility, say i'm sorry and then move on. if you're denying stuff, you know isn't true. you end up looking bad. >> neil: you and i talked about this before. different type of interviews. if you think those who admit a mistake, once it's done, it can be tough at the same time. like what is the pontiac doing in our kitchen? i did it and all of that. but this goes against the fake news narrative potentially, right? with the administration, claims it's the media that fakes things. >> this isn't the media's fault. they need to take responsibility for it. >> neil: i don't think they'll do that. >> i don't think so either. it's a shame. and goes back to what i was
talking about. this is a core value. these people don't have the core values that we're looking for. they don't have honesty and integrity -- >> neil: there's more pressure if you hold yourself up to that. you usually get off better if you just admit something. even if you're not to blame. we can remember john kennedy after the bay of pigs. something cooked up to the prior administration. he was taking the advice of generals. he could have said hey, they told me to do this. he took the blame for that. his numbers ironically went up. >> and that does sort of go to show that once you take responsibility for something even though it's not your fault and take responsibility for fixing the problem, people will respect you much more for it. >> neil: what do you get from all of these back and forth? what i worry about and i tell friends in the investment community and a lot of things
that they say, larry, well, i think trump is getting rail-roaded in this. the biggest concern is the end. >>. they like the lower taxes and the fewer regulations. they like that. they say that's what bothers me, this is the stuff that gets distracted. that is the collateral damage that you do when you're not forthright around forthcoming. >> seems like every day he steps on it and gets in his own way of some things that all of us should be excited about, a lot of really good things. those are sliding to the back because we're caught up in this. >> neil: when you talk about this stuff, can you win it back? if he comes out, i hope the president doesn't do this, the media piling -- he's right. the media will pile on the negative. he's right about that. i figure we have lots of time with 24 hour news to get the good and the bad. having said that, if he comes out on defense or his people do,
the media fascination with this, you created the beast, right? >> the best thing that he can do that we can all forgive him for and would be willing to forgive him for saying we didn't do this right. we mishandled this and i apologize for this. don should apologize, too. we should have done this differently and do better in the future. >> where would it catch you? let's say it's not illegal. certainly doesn't pass the smell test. the russians want a visit to sell your book and sell lots of copies in russia, would you go along? >> no. wouldn't be the right thing. that's what it comes down to. the problem right now is we made it all conditional. i shouldn't have to be honest with you because you weren't honest with me. i should be honest because it's the right thing to do. sadly he's trying to be conditional. if you treat me poorly, i have every right to treat your poorly. you don't. you have to do the right thing
all the time because that's what we're ex-collecti -- electing . >> neil: and we talk about the work ethic. they're going to keep the doors and the lights on. what do you think of that? >> absolutely should. if you've been hired to do a job -- >> neil: why? >> in the world of business, if you've been hired to do a job and given a time frame to do that job, you don't get to come in when the time frame is over and say we can't get along -- >> neil: you can spin your wheels, right? -- >> that's why the boss has to say you were brought here to get the job done. get in there, shut the door and get your butt to work. you don't get to go on vacation because things are not going your way. there's no excuses to this. we're allowing people to get by. we need stronger consequences everywhere in life. consequences drive behavior. we need imposing consequences on these guys. get the job done.
>> neil: thanks, larry. he ties the national consequences to every book coming out. has great titles as well. "what's wrong with damn near everything." sounds like my father right now. everything about you is wrong, neil. that was a compliment. more after this. hi i'm joan lunden. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.
>> even if you left it in on the repeal and replace, we've got tax reform on the backside. we know lower taxes stimulate the economy. >> neil: you would be open to that? >> well, the devil is in the detail. our position is to repeal the taxes come at the same time i want to make sure before i weigh in on anything that i look at both trade-offs, and here's where we have to go. >> neil: that was the most significant news development besides politicians yammering back and forth. that's a crucial vote and a key
player in the house saying he would be open. open to keeping tax hikes on the wealthy in the health care plan if it's a means of getting the tax cuts. that's a huge compromise. news broke right here. see you tomorrow. >> kat: hello, everyone. i am kat timpf with eboni k. williams and eric bolling. we are "the fox news specialists" ." major developments today over donald trump, jr. and questions of election meddling by russia. donald trump, jr. released the email chain with his plans for meeting with a russian lawyer last year. that lawyer allegedly had connections to the kremlin. emails between trump, jr. and rod goldstone shown in part gold stone appearing to offer incriminating information about hillary clinton as "part of ia