tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX Business July 28, 2019 10:00am-11:00am EDT
"strange inheritance." thanks so much for watching, and remember -- you can't take it with you. eric: see you then. can you give me an example other than donald trump where the justice department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined? >> i cannot. but this is a unique situation. >> time is short. i've got five minutes. let's leave it at you can't. i'll tell you why, you can't because it doesn't exist. >> this is about prosecutors not offering prosecutor prosecutors about crimes that are not charged. paul: robert mueller on the hot seat earlier this week defending
his 448-page report on russian interference in the 2016 presidential election in front of two separate congressional committees. and frustrating lawmakers on both sides with his refusal to stray from the report or make any conclusions as to whether the president should be charged with obstruction of justice. what exactly if anything did we learn from former special counsel robert mueller? let's ask former justice department official and former counsel to the senate judiciary committee, greg nunsiata. welcome, sir. mess your t.pleasure to have yo. let me ask about the issue that was raised by the congressman which is the claim in the report that robert mueller issued which was that the president was not exonerated by the report. is that a violation of traditional prosecutor prosecul behavior and discretion. >> yeah, certainly in contrast, in tension with our general an glow american principles of --
angloamerican principles. kind of a creation of special counsel's statute. there's been problems in an independent counsel or special counsel, an office set up with a target to go after, rather than the general function of the justice department. we ought to think about how we structure any special counsel in the future, give it clear standards and particularly what's the role, what does a judgment look like, what kind of report is filed with dov. remember, originally -- doj, remember, originally a confidential report to doj. this is how we got here. paul: it's supposed to be a confidential report. politics being what it is, a report like this is going to become public. the confidentiality is a bit of a fraud as a policy matter. stepping back from the report, three days later, the hearing, rather, what's your biggest take-away. >> the big take-away is they that democrats or at least
pro-impeachment democrats hoped that the hearing would kind of fan the flames of impeachment and create a national demand for impeachment over the summer. and it's clear that far from fanning flames, this was more of a wet blanket. i think it's taken the case for impeachment down a couple pegs in washington. i don't think congress is going to hear a lot of demand from voters when they go home this week to start an impeachment process. so i think impeachment has become less likely and i think we're more likely to have donald trump face the voters in november and the voters will render their judgment, rather than congress through that process. paul: democrats have been saying, look, he's guilty of of instruction of justice, look at the analysis of the episodes that mueller listed in his report and yet he was asked flat-out by one of the members were you obstructed in any way, was your probe interfered with and he said no. so how can you claim obstruction
for a process that the prosecutor says he was not on instructed by? >> i agree. i mean, i think there's -- look, let's be clear. there's evidence and there's information in that volume of the report that doesn't reflect well on the president. paul: right. >> and a motivated democrat can certainly piece that together and make a case for a felony. but i don't think any reasonable prosecutor would indict and certainly no jury would convict on the facts that are there. there's lots of muddled motivations and ultimately as you say there's no actual obstruction. so the idea that we would bring a case on attempted obstruction, on these really complicated sets of facts with motivations pushing in both directions, i don't think it's credible. paul: yeah. and so if that avenue is shut down, nothing on collusion at all seems to be an avenue to go to, unless there's something i guess that could potentially turn up in the president's tax returns which have been subpoenaed by the house ways and
means committee, although we don't know if we'll get those tax glurns yeah, no, this is all being litigated now. the white house is certainly resisting it. their prince principal argumene power to subpoena information must be tied to legitimate legislative purposes. they're arguing it's harassment of the president. on the house's side, there are specific laws passed about tax returns which give them a little more of a hook to hang this on. so it will be litigated. it will take some time and we'll see what happens. paul: want to ask about specifically the new york statute. but new york passed a law signed by governor andrew cuomo saying they will provide the president's new york tax returns. of course, he lived in new york for years. to the house ways and means committee if they want. that strikes me as a terribly problematic law because it looks to be aimed at a single person.
namely, the president of the united states. do you have any trouble with that law? >> i do. and i think for exactly the reason you're saying. these are, as we started out with in the beginning, general principles of american law that we don't target individuals in a way like this and i think it's kind of regrettable that we're here and we ought to think more broadly about how we value privacy, how we value privacy for tax returns. i don't think it's a great precedent to set that we would empower congress to go after people's tax returns, private officials maybe in the future. so this is something that we're going -- i know the trump administration is challenging it in court. legislators should think seriously about what precedent they're setting. paul: any legal liability looking forward that you see for the president going forward? >> not immediately. there's a lot more going on. the house is issuing additional
subpoenas, not just against the president but against other players in this drama. they certainly want to hear from don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, perhaps depending on what the courts say, that might happen in the fall. the story is not over. but i think it's certainly billion cooled down by several degrees and slowed down a good bit. i do not anticipate that we'll see an impeachment. and i don't think we should be expecting indictment or conviction after the presidency and i would hope not either. that's the kind of thing that happens in countries with much weaker traditions of self governance than we do. paul: thanks, greg. up next, many republicans including the president blasting the credibility of the mueller report after its author's perforperformance on capitol hi. we are joined with reaction and preview of how this week's testimony may affect future doj
at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology...
there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint.
i'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, correct. >that iscorrect. i want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lou who said and i quote, you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion. that is not the correct way to
say it. as we say in the report and i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. paul: robert mueller's testimony on the hill this week providing more questions than answers after the former special counsel appeared to have difficulty answering some questions and refused to expand on information from his report. as some democrats are renewing calls for impeachment, and republicans are calling for an end to the investigation. did mueller's performance help or hurt the report's credibility? let's ask ki kim strassel and bl mcgern and jason riley. so kim, let me ask you first. what was your biggest take-away from the hearing and what does it mean going forward? >> yeah, biggest take-away is this did not come out the way democrats wanted it to. the whole purpose was to reignite the impeachment fervor
out there, to get nancy pelosi on-board, to hopefully get robert mueller to say something that would be so compelling that even a lot of voters out there would also feel that there was a need for impeachment. instead, this performance in which he looked b be fudfud. dled at times and refusal to pay democratic games and give sound bites, it ended up a thud. i think if anything, it furthers along the end of the russia discussion. paul: i'm puzzled, bill, by this. i mean, mueller himself said in his one appearance when he spoke from the justice department, before he resigned, he said i don't want to testify. what i want to say is in the report. you can read, reach your own conclusions. obviously, the democrats knew that he was slowing down. so why would they do this? >> i don't know. it's almost cruel. it certainly didn't serve their
purpose. look, to kim's point, they were saying that the report was -- democrats, the report was boring. people need to see the movie, rather than read the book but the movie was terrible. people have been talking nancy pelosi's been pushing back against impeachment but adam schiff, chairman of the intelligence committee, said he's not there yet. paul: for impeachment. >> for impeachment, yet. paul: i think he float our -- he wrote in our pages he was for impeachment. >> the democrats said success will be measured by tv ratings, you'll recall. i don't think it wept the way they -- i don't think it went the way they wanted it to. they spent a lot of time trying to put words in mueller's mouth. for the most part, he resisted successfully, saying either refer to the report or he said that's not the way i would put it. he was constantly rephrasing the questions they were asking him and then answers on his own terms. what they did unwittingly is
raise all kinds of speculation about whether bob mueller was just a figurehead here and whether the real work was done by his deputies and by his assistant. and i think that's where the narrative is going to be headed. paul: do you think that is in fact fair speculation or is that unfair? i mean, look, he's a distinguished person. he did seem to understand much of what he was being asked, not everything. is that fair? >> i don't know that it's fair. i certainly wouldn't go there. but that seems to be the fallout. what i will say, paul, is if it's true, i think it boosts trump's case. what it means is that the democrats had their dream team here investigating and i'm speaking of mueller's assistant being similar pathetic to -- sympathetic to hillary clinton and the democrats and if they couldn't come up with anything, this team, then maybe there real really is nothing there in terms of something underlying kim, on that point, one of the things
that puzzles me is why robert mueller said it was not part of his purview to look into the or i havorigins of the steele dossr and the origins of the fbi counter intelligence investigation. the steele dossier was supposedly rooted in russian intelligence, russian information. wouldn't that seem to be central to a probe about russian meddling? >> absolutely. and he had an obligation in my mind to answer those questions republicans put to him, basically saying, look, how is it conceivable that given that your mandate was to investigate russian interference in our election that you did not look at the central document that, again, supposedly was sourced in large part from senior russian officials, that's according to christopher steele, and decide whether or not itself was dis information and mueller wouldn't answer those questions. he walled them off from the opening statement he gave. i think he knows that to have
gone there would have required him to admit that the dossier was totally false and that the fbi made a lot of mistakes in taking it on. paul: that's going to be investigated now, bill, by the justice department and u.s. attorney. but let me ask you first about impeachment. is that dead? >> i think it's dead. i think -- i don't think this was rivetting to the american people as we who follow it in the beltway, i think a lot of them accepted the mueller report, no collusion, and they get tired of this. the democrats what they want is not really impeachment, but impeachment theater where you just say -- paul: talk about it. >> nancy pelosi is in a crazy position, saying the president is guilty of crimes but i'm not impeaching him. >> the majority of the public doesn't want impeachment and a majority of nancy pelosi's caucus isn't for it. paul: there are 98 house democrats who say they favor impeachment. that's a lot of democrats. >> but i would just say, i think one of the things this marked the end of is the president
being on defense. and i think that their team is on offense. i think the justice department investigations are going to ask these questions that kim rightly notes did not get answered and i think in fairness, going back, bob mueller picked a team of all people a an antagonistic to the president. i think we editorialized that he should have taken the job himself. i believe people can contribute to a candidate, not necessarily be unable to do their job, but this is looking -- i think donald trump when he says 12 angry democrats on a witch hunt, i don't think he's far off. paul: all right. we're going to watch this going forward. when we come back, the president announced a bipartisan budget deal touting real compromise between republicans and democrats. but will either side really be happy with the end result? we break down the good, the bad, we break down the good, the bad, and mostly the ugly of this
hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪
after years and years of budget cuts and all of the things that they've been doing to set us back with our military, we have more than made up for all of it. the deal eliminates the possibility of default, gets rid of sequestration, bolsters the nondefense side of the budget, education, transportation, health care, cancer research, and makes sure that the middle class is finally paid some attention to. paul: republicans and democrats both claiming victory after president trump announced a bipartisan deal to increase federal spending and raise the government's borrowing limit w
the gop touting increases to military spending and the democrats promoting a boost in domestic spending, is the real loser the american taxpayer? and why did president trump agree to this deal? we're back with kim strassel, jason riley and bill mcgern. jason, my rule of thumb is when you get a budget deal that both sides are happy about, check your wallet. >> exactly. who says republicans and democrats can't agree on anything? they can always come together when it comes to increasing spending and spending more money. that's what they did more. particularly disappointing here is president trump because two years ago or not quite two years ago, back in 2018, he signed another bipartisan spending bill, increasing spending by about $130 billion over two years. he said it was the worst deal in the world and he would never do it again and here we are with him about to do the exact same thing again in name of course of
getting more money for defense and the military. paul: i guess that's the issue. if he were here he'd say, look, i had to do something, i had to do a tradeoff to get the democrattingdemocrats spending o get more on defense. is that a fair trade? >> look, it is a tradeoff and that would be the argument. i would like to see more defense spending and so forth. but we are hostage to the -- i don't like be hostage to chuck schumer and his spending priorities and that's the problem. when everyone claims victory, what it means is everyone's really got defeated in some way, except for these guys. the real problem is, there's no market for disciplined spending. i mean, the guys that do it take all the pain and so forth and especially in washington, in congress there's little market for it. paul: kim, require this requie complicity of republicans as
well. they outmamaneuvered the chief f of staff, who wanted a more disciplined agreement. why is the mcconsisten is mccond he want the deal? >> don't forget, the republicans have their fair share of big spenders. mcconnell is one of those. appropriators, they love their dollars. there was an appetite for this among some republicans in the senate who are up for re-election. they felt they could go home and brag they got money for their states. the bigger political argument that was made to donald trump was you need to push this up. we don't want the threat of a debt ceiling fight. we don't want the threat of another government shutdown like the one earlier this year. let's not -- l cool it with the drama, focus on what we've accomplished for the country, push this off until after the presidental election and unfortunately that argument won out. paul: and sell it on the basis
of defense spending, the defense buildup. >> correct. paul: what is this going to do going forward to the republican credibility on spending and deficits? >> tremendous a amount of damage. the president is saying elect me, reelect me, and i'll take care of this spending problem. paul: there's leaking at the white house that the cuts are coming after the election. >> they're playing the public for fools. i think it's an argument for the sequester, otherwise they have no discipline. paul: when you say sequester, you mean the automatic spending hammer that comes down if they would exceed certain limits. you know what they did as part of this deal, they eliminated the spending caps that were the basis for the sequester after fiscal 2021. so those are gone. >> the other thing no one wants to talk about or do anything about is the entitlement spending which is really driving things and they won't touch that n won't go there. that's from the president on down. that's what we need to get at if we're going to get spending
under control. paul: is this going to hurt the president going into the election? the reason i say that is we know that elizabeth warren and bernie sanders and all of them will propose enormous amounts of new spending with the democrats. when they do that, the traditional response is you can't afford it. they'll return if the president says that, hello. >> every democrat seeme democrat forward a spending proposal. i think the president will make a contrast. i would say one thing. you know, for those of us that always greet these things with sort of thinking its inevitable, republicans under obama did succeed in lowering the spending for a while. by hanging -- it is possible to do. i think if that's going to happen, they need to sell it first. you can't go -- you can't not talk about spending and go into a budget thing.
you have to sell what you're doing because you're up against the democrats who just want more. paul: that was the budget control act of 2011, kim, and bill's right, that did reduce spending on domestic accounts and defense for a while. but after a while, after a time, the limits on defense spending became so onerous that you couldn't really live with them. so -- and then now we're back at the same old game wher where boh sides get more spending and the debt increases. is there any way out of this that you see? >> lets let's be clear, there in appetite in the republican party for more spending constraint. if you look at the house vote this week, it was passed mostly on the basis of democrats. you had two to one republicans voted against it. that by the way was after president trump had encouraged them to do so and you also have senate republicans who have already announced their opposition to this.
so some people get it. but i think bill's right. the only way back is for the republicans to prioritize this as part of their agenda and that means selling the fact that americans are going forward, have to make really important decisions between guns and butter. you cannot do both all the time. paul: all right. thank you all. still ahead, facebook hit with a $5 billion fine over privacy policies but did the big tech giant get off easy and should the rest of silicon valley be worried that they could be next? ♪ i want it that way... i can't believe it. that karl brought his karaoke machine? ♪ ain't nothing but a heartache... ♪ no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ♪ i never wanna hear you say... ♪ no, kevin... no, kevin!
believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. content on their endless quest, to nowhere.s, run hopelessly in their cage. geico could save you fifteen percent but perhaps this year, a more exhilarating endeavor awaits. defy the laws of human nature,at the summer of audi sales event. get exceptional offers now.
but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better.
maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. paul: facebook vowing to rebuild its trust with users after agreeing to pay the federal trade commission a record $5 billion fine over the company's privacy violations and its failure to inform users of a data leak. this comes on the heels of a justice department announcing that it will open an anti-trust review of the major big tech companies. so what does this all mean for apple, amazon, facebook, google and the rest of silicon valley? we're back with kim strassel, jason riley and bill mcgern. bill, let's take the facebook agreement first. what do you make of it? >> well, it's being made to be a bigger thing than it is. the ftc i think narrowly dealt with facebook's failure to comply with restrictions about
telling -- not misrepresenting how they use data and how the data was shared. paul: it was a previous agreement. >> a previous agreement that they violated. i think they found the board didn't know or something. in some ways, i think it's a -- it was a modest response even though the fine was huge. i mean, a lot of people wanted them to go further. paul: for facebook, $5 billion is pocket change. >> right. that's the a argument. look, do we really want the ftc making these decisions or do we want congress to grapple with it and if they're going to set privacy rules, let them set clear privacy rules. in some ways, i'm gratified the ftc was modest. a lot of people are disappointed because they say this is pocket change, they don't do anything to them. paul: they imposed a new enforcement mechanism. an outside monitor will have the authority to check and veto privacy policies andens forcement and a -- and
enforcement and a committee of the board will have to approve them and be responsible for them and mark zuckerberg will have to attest that those privacy agreements are being adhered to and if he doesn't, he could be both criminally and civilly liable which is no small thing since it's a big company and they could screw up again. >> i'm with bill though. there was some restraint. if they did something wrong, they should be unearned. that's how the -- should be punished. my fear is had they will use this as a an excuse to go after them in a much bigger way and more consequential way. i'm not sure that will be good for consumers at the end of the day. so this is -- and i think congress will have to get involved because we don't -- california passed the privacy law that will go into evidence i believe in 2020. we don't want this done on a state by state basis. we need congress to say these are the consumer protection laws and when companies violate them,
we'll go after them. i think that's what needs to happen. paul: the ftc commissioners, the republicans who voted for it said basically we got about as good as we could possibly get within the limits of the law. they didn't have to go to court because facebook agreed to the terms. the commissioners believe had they gone to court, had facebook fought it, they might have got a lot less in terms of enforcement. >> well, right. let's remember what was this about. it was about allegations that facebook had violated a consent decree. and in the end, the ftc is not a regulator, okay. so there was always a -- it had to go after those questions of which they could make the case that facebook had to be engaged in unfair practices, based -- and as well as violated this consent decree. there was limits on that. i think they got far more than they would have had they gone into court, particularly dealing with restrictions on its board
and compliance that you mentioned which is not necessarily something a court would have granted. that's also an argument against those who claim the ftc should have gone so much further. actually, we should appreciate its restraint and the fact they did not try to regulate from within the sayin agency but is e ball to congress saying you guys need to clarify privacy laws. paul: let's talk about the broader anti-trust probe that is now being unleashed, jason. it looks -- if you look at what the market reaction was, it was ho hum, we don' don't think this that big of a deal. >> the politicians are really talking this up. for different reasons. democrats, elizabeth warren has been outspoken, they want to break the companies up. they don't like big companies. they're evil, up to no good. the republicans have a problem with the companies because they think they're politically biased. paul: these big companies had
no better friend than the obama administration for eight years. so what has suddenly changed to make the democrats suddenly dislike these companies? >> well, -- the obama administration may have liked them. but i don't think elizabeth warren is being inconsistent in her criticism of them. this is what she does. she's been on this for a while. i don't think we need to break them up, paul and i don't think we need to turn them into public utilities either. the problem with breaking them up is the economies of scale they have make them so effective, 345eub make them so successful and breaking them up will jeopardize that. paul: in this case, are these companies just getting so much power within our society that we need to scrutinize them on other than consumer benefit terms? >> no, i'm with jason here. because i think the assumption
is that small is beautiful and big is necessarily bad. and sometimes, like the t-mobile, sprint merger, sometimes you need to combine to be able to compete with the bigger power. and so i think the real anti-trust policies, the competitive market, the deregulation that a allows people to get bigger and compete with the big giants, i don't think we can regulate them down to the size we want and that's going to benefit the consumer. paul: this is a debate we'll take on many times in the months ahead. still ahead, escalating tensions between great britain and iran, as a new prime minister takes office. jack kee keane p will break dowt to expect from boris johnson. jardiance asks:
while managing your type 2 diabetes- why think about your heart? lower a1c helps, but type 2 diabetes still increases my risk of a fatal cardiovascular event. and that's why there's jardiance- the first type 2 diabetes pill that offers a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who also have known heart disease. it can significantly reduce my risk of dying from a cardiovascular event. and it lowers my a1c, with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur.
stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. so, now what do you think? while my a1c is important, there's so much more to think about. ask your doctor about jardiance today.
we have a really good man who is going to be the prime minister of the u.k. now, boris johnson. [ cheering and applause ] >> good man. he's tough and he's smart. they're saying britain trump. people are saying that's a good thing. they like me over there. that's what they wanted. that's what they need. paul: that was president trump tuesday, commenting on the united kingdom's new prime minister boris johnson who is taking over the office as the united kingdom is forced to deal
with increasing tensions with iran. what kind of response can we expect from the newly formed british government and what is the future of the special relationship between the united states and great britain. jack keane is a fox news senior strategic analyst. general, welcome. boris johnson, the new prime minister, good thing for the united kingdom or not. >> i think it will be a good thing for the united kingdom and the united states. what we have here obviously is a stronger, more outspoken, more decisive leader so the style will be different than what we're used to, somewhat similar to our own president. in terms of the substance of it, i think if he's able to successfully get out of brexit that will be likely a good thing, in my judgment, because the consensus building that the european union has been doing -- i think held back europe in terms of an aggressive foreign policy and national security
issues. i also think on iran that you mentioned, i think boris johnson is likely going to come the united states position on iran, that we need to sanction the iranians. they're very much aware of this aggressive and maligned behavior that hasn't changed one eye yowa result of the nuclear deal that was signed in 2015. there's a laundry list of things that iran has been doing since the signing of that deal. i think boris johnson is likely to believe that president trump's position on iran is the correct one and move the u.k. in that direction. and if he does that, that will clearly shatter the nuclear deal as it currently exists and the position of france and germany in particular. paul: and i guess the other potential front where he could move with relations to the united states is on trade deal, once brexit is settled, if it is, then there's an open field i think to get a new trade deal
between the u.k. and the u.s. and both parties could benefit from that. >> oh, yeah. bilateral free trade deal between the united states and the u.k. will be very good for both economies and it will jumpstart britain for certain and it's going to help an r already growing economy in the united states. the other thing is, is that johnson in his position as foreign secretary, he's very clear-eyed about the power struggle that's taking place with the united states, europe and russia and china. and i think he'll take a stronger stand against russia and china because of it. and not just bow to china's economic influence but deal with the geopolitical realities that china is imposing on the world and also on europe. paul: want to ask you -- rely on your military expertise here, because how important is the british military? how strong is it? how effective is it in terms of
the nato alliance and our ability to meet the russian threat? >> well, first of all, they do meet the nato goal in terms of defense spending as a percentage of gdp. paul: more than 2%. >> right. however, they are mere shadow of their former self, to be quite frank about it. and they have under previous leadership, they've been very reluctant to use it when there have been opportunities and i'm not talk about major conflict. but, yes, i think one of the things that i'm hoping that boris johnson does is convince the british people that they need a defense buildup similar to what the united states does. and move it in that direction. i also think he'll call out nations in nato like president trump has who are not meeting the 2%, particularly put pressure on germany. paul: when it comes to the relative power of the militaries in europe, is britain the most
powerful? i know the u.s. is by far the most powerful in nato but is brinisbritain after that, second strongest in nato. >> not even close. the second strongest in nato is turkey, then also france has particularly more capability than the brits have currently. paul: okay. that's interesting. okay. you mentioned the iran deal, the u.s. now iran is openly saying we're not going to abide by it, we're enriching uranium beyond the limits we signed and we're enriching more of it and keeping it. what should the u.s. do about that? >> the only thing the u.s. those do right now is be patient. clearly, the best thing that's happened is the europeans did not fall for the blackmail. they rejected it. so that's a blowback on the iranians. when you look at what's happening here, the iranians are being isolated politically, diplomatically and economically. now not just by the united states, but by europe as well.
because the europeans have pushed back on blackmail deal that the iranians offered. they wanted economic leaf from m the europeans they're not getting it. the europeans are organizing a maritime situation. they irans didn't want to see that kind of unity, didn't want to see them moving to the u.s. position which is taking a stance against iran. i think iran is losing the game they've been playing in terms of creating a crisis, trying to separate the europeans and the world from the united states' position. it. is not working. paul: . thank you, general. appreciate you being here. >> good talking to you. paul: when we come back the new gdp numbers are out remarks they tell us about the state of the american economy and the effectiveness of president trump's tariffs. this was me six years ago... and this is me now! i got liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance,
so i only pay for what i need. then i won the lottery, got hair plugs, and started working out. and so can you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go.
expedia. hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.
the second quarter gdp numbers are out and while growth slowed down it wasn't as bad as some on wall street had predicted the 2.1% increase is down from the 3.1% in the first quarter as business investment declined and exports fell amid trade tensions. the numbers did show recession fears may be overblown with personal consumption ex pone di- expenditures rising 4.5%, the best in four years. kim, as i looked at the internals of the gdp report, it looked like consumer spending was really strong but business investment really disappointing and exports down. i think net exports in part because of trade tensions. what do you make of it? >> yeah, the consumer spending number was really great and i think was also helping too out
there in the economy, you're seeing or at least the stock market you're seeing earnings reports, especially on consumer companies, coming in showing very good responses as well. starbucks, a lot of social media companies, new followers, et cetera. so consumer side is good. the business side is what's the problem and you have to imagine how much better this number might have been if not for these trade tensions because that in my mind, paul, is what is hanging over that business investment number is a lack of certainty and when companies aren't quite sure what's to come, that's when they close the checkbook. >> also hanging over this, paul, i think is the fact that the rest of the world is slowing down. europe and asia are slowing down. it's a global economy. we're not immune to those trends. paul: partly because of trade tensions. >> partly because of trade tensions. you have less demand for u.s. goods and services in our export markets and that's going to have
an effect on us here. but the consumer spending number were very good. i think this shows the importance of those trump tax cuts actually that we got a couple years ago. i think it served a little bit as a buttress in terms of allowing us to be a little more immune from the global trend, holding it off for a little bit. again, it's coming. it's happening everywhere. paul: the case for the tax reform and the corporate tax cut was more investment. you did see that in the immediate aftermath for about a year but then the trade uncertainty hit and now what this gdp report confirms in my mind are the ebbing dough tall evidence we've -- anecdotal evidence we've been hearing from ceos, we had some far interest in this week to talk to us, trade was the number one issue. >> right. look, markets hate -- businesses hate uncertainty. they even prefer a bad law, something they can calculate and make a determination to uncertainty because they don't know what's going to hit them. if you're the white house, you're looking at this again as
you said, it's not as bad as some had predicted but we basically i think have five quarters before the election. so these are going to be very big concerns. and i think if the president could reach a deal on tariffs, a lot of this would be lifted -- paul: with china. >> with china. i think a lot of these would be lifted because people would be more optimistic. paul: i would say how do you look at this when you look at what this potentially means for the election. the president promised 3% growth. 2.1% is not 3. you still have the labor market very strong, wage gains, employee comp went up 3.3% which is very nice. but these kinds of gains in spending are not -- consumer well-being are not going to continue unless you get business investment going forward that creates productivity gains to flow through to the consumer. >> that's right. and that is what is going to matter is that voter sentiment.
do they feel better about their situation. do they see those wages going up. are they remaining employed. and that's why it is so vital that trump deal with the trade issue because if you look out, and as bill mentioned, five quarters before the election, he doesn't have any other tools at his disposal. okay. congress, there's a democratic house, there's not going to be further tax reforel. they've -- reform. they've done a lot of the big deregulation they could that helped in terms of business investment and tax reform. in order for him to make a mark on the economy and get those numbers back up, the one real tool in his arsenal is to get a trade deal, get things completed. i mean, and then there's also of course the federal reserve and we'll see how it reacts to these numbers next week too. paul: that's where the president would say oh, well the federal reserve just has to save the day. >> i think we're going to get that quarter point -- paul: quarter point or even 50 basis points is not -- >> we may get another one later
in the year. paul: it's not going to make a huge difference. >> i agree that the economy is what trump needs to be going welcome election day. it's where his numbers are strongest. people don't like his personal behavior but they do like what he's done with the economy and these numbers aren't good for that. paul: so do a trade deal with china, drop the tariffs on -- threat of tariffs with mexico and europe and that would help. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses o and here we have another burst pipe in denmark. if you look close... jamie, are there any interesting photos from your trip? ouch, okay. huh, boring, boring, you don't need to see that.
oh, here we go. can you believe my client steig had never heard of a home and auto bundle or that renters could bundle? wait, you're a lawyer? only licensed in stockholm. what is happening? jamie: anyway, game show, kumite, cinderella story. you know karate? no, alan, i practice muay thai, completely different skillset.
paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, first to you. >> this is a hit to the people of puerto rico for successfully getting resignation of their governor, ricardo rossello. puerto rican people have been plagued with democratic socialist politicians, terrible poverty rates, unfunded pensions. this is their opportunity to start fresh by demanding a government that's anti-corruption and that's going to work with congress' federal control board that it set up to actually restructure puerto rico on a better path future. paul: bill. >> i never thought i'd say this, but hit to tom brady, patriots quarterback on vacation with his family in costa rica, took a short video of himself and his
6-year-old daughter dropping off a short cliff into a natural pool below. the reaction in the press and especially on social media, you would have thought he tossed her over niagra falls. they had a great father, daughter moment and so forth. so i say a hit for tom brady and a miss for all the other people that need to get a life. paul: jason. >> a police tore th miss for thl media's attempt to attack -- paul: like zero. >> apparently me too only applies to democrats. paul: is he going to come back in the senate. >> he may try. he sounded like he really misses it. paul: he'll have to run against another democrat. if you have your own hit or miss, be sure to tweet it to us
at jer@fnc. thanks to my panel. thanks to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot. we hope to see you all right here nextgreat weekend. you can catch me every week night that 5 pm eastern hosting my own show, it is called "bulls and bears". we have a lot of fun, tune in right here on fox business. 5 pm eastern time every weekday. have a great weekend everybody! maria bartiromo wall street week begins right now. maria: happy weekend everybody welcome to the program that analyzes the week that was. and helps position you for the week ahead i maria bartiromo. a big week coming up and coming up in a few moments at ups ceo david abney is my special guest this weekend.we talk about his business and what it means about the economy and and vesting. at first the u.s. economy is slowed slightly in the se
IN COLLECTIONSFOX Business Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on