tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News January 30, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
festivities. they're happening on the big fox network. the dow, not a good day on the dow. maybe tomorrow. neil cavuto is next. >> neil: all right. is this the market's way of saying president trump, we have a problem here. neil cavuto here. the stocks suffering their first decline in weeks. and not so much the issue of the travel ban, there's a lot of different angles on that, but more to the point, whether it gets in the way of the president doing something that wall street wants to see it do. cut taxes, cut regulations. today with stocks getting drilled, even when the president was out lining his plans with members of his national economic council and small business
representatives, fox business's black berman at the white house. is this the disruption that surprises? >> as you know, major tax reform was a major hallmark of the trump presidency. investors appeared cautious today that that could take place, the reform, in 2017. so at the white house press briefing, i asked sean spicer point blank, can the administration commit to a major tax overhaul this calendar year? here's his response. >> shepard: we're going to continue to work with both houses to work with a tax plan. there's eagerness on behalf of congress to do that. that's a very promising thing. i note when you look at the ups and downs of a market, look at consumer confidence and other markets, a trump presidency brought a lot of confidence back to traders, to investors.
more importantly to job creators. >> neil, the economy front and center on the president's agenda. he met with small business owners here at the white house. after that, he signed an executive order dealing with regulatory relief and at this hour, he's expected to meet with his national economic council. neil? >> neil: congressional aides said the tax cuts might not be an immediate thing. don't tell wall street this stuff. they were expecting that to be the present under the tree like christmas morning and all of a sudden it's delayed and may be a lot. if it's 2018, you know the rest of that story. that sell on that. we have fox business network's charl charlie gasparino with that. the president talk about lower taxes today. he spoke about it vaguely.
but it might not happen so soon, right? >> right. as you saw from blake's interview, sean spicer spoke about it vaguely putting off the timing when this would be dealt with. let's be clear here. the markets still like donald trump. they closed off their lows. down as much over 200 points at one point today. they're back, down about 125, 128. but they are still worried about whether this will get done. i'll tell you this, neil, people want to buy stocks. okay? i spoke with a lot of big time investors, traders today that said there is a big for the market. there's people that want to buy stocks. but they're not going to buy stocks and not keep participating in this rally if they don't see clarity on taxes. that is a big problem. i think he has a window not of, you know, eight months, but a six-month window to essentially
get something on paper. this is what we're going to do with taxes and show some sort of plan on regulations or this market could sell off. why? if he does anything in the future, it gets pushed back. so you buy stocks based on earnings reflections of the current environment, not the future. >> neil: and we should stress the concerns of the market run post to the election. we're up 9% on the dow, 8% on the s&p. it's been justifying the high multiples we've attached to this market. part of the thinking goes, as you reminded me, you get a pickup in economic activities and earnings and the market doesn't look so rich. >> one of the problems is messaging. he's had a flurry of activity this week. donald trump got elected for a
lot of reasons. building the wall and immigration is one of them. he got elected because people are hurting economically in the country. if you don't deal with those economic issues, you know, i think he's going -- the markets will trade off because they say the economy won't appreciate enough to reflect the current prices. >> neil: we should stress with this great debate back and forth over who is vetted into this country and not, that it's anti-muslim or racest, these are seven countries targeted by the obama administration and 46 muslim majority countries on the planet. be that as it may, they think it was poorly vetted. even those that like president said that was not properly vetted. he got side tracked in an issue he didn't need to. >> yeah, i heard that. you can get side tracked on these issues all he wants according to wall street if he takes care of business at home. i'm telling you, the problem that they have is not so much
whether he had it perfectly vetted or not. the problem is that the agenda seems to be aligned right now on getting rid of obama care, which is not a bad thing, but that's not a economic thing immediately. building a will, vetting immigrants, not tax cuts, not getting the economy going and not regulatory cuts. that's spooking the market a bit. >> neil: anything that gets in the way of that. things. charlie gasparino. the president did say he wants to get regulations cut dramatically. again, the whole getting caught up in vetting, how people get into the countryside tracked the president and even republicans are saying may be getting above other issues. there's some issues. the president will name his nominee for the supreme court to replace antonin scalia who died about a year ago. democrats are promising a
filibuster. we have leonard here, a surpriser to up trump. thanks for being here. i don't know whether sean spicer meant it, he said "him" ref referring to the choice that will be made. safe to say that we have a he, a male supreme court justice to be named tomorrow? >> safe to say it's a he. a lot of sources say it's down to two finalists. judge gorsuch and judge hardiman based in pittsburgh. >> neil: one of those two are likely to get it? >> that's what most sources are reporting and probably where things came down to, yeah. >> neil: so as things stand now, it would be a simple majority to approve the next justice. you think that will be the case? >> we'll see. the democrats could try the filibuster certainly. with these two particular finalists, if one becomes the nominee, it will be hard because
they have such extraordinary records, they have a lot of support across the idealogical spectrum. it's possible for democrats to try to filibuster, sure. >> neil: then it comes an issue of whether they can muster more democratic votes to support that choice. no matter. it's happening in democrat and republican administrations along, they're devicive battles. i can't imagine this will be any less so, right? >> these are highly coveted seats that don't get confirmed easily in any administration. and it will be a big battle. on the other hand, the democrats have a lot of seats up in 2018. they're 10 democrats in red states where president trump won big. those people have to very carefully, the senators have to think carefully about what kind of ground they want to stake out. >> neil: much has been made whether there will be a litmus test. each party has their own litmus test.
the one for president trump, the candidate has to be pro life and the administration might tip its hand having president speak at the right to life march and a sure sign as in that this administration is going to make that a paramount qualification. is it? >> well, there's a bigger litmus test than that. the litmus test is whether the supreme court justice will adhere to the constitution as written. he said that from the very beginning. he wanted somebody with extraordinary legal talent and interpret the constitution the framers meant it to be. these two finalists, these are people that believe in the constitution, interpret the law as written and be fair and impartial. >> neil: in advising the president on these and other matters, you may have a pro choice or right to life position is controversial, but that on
other issues, a choice would be acceptable to a broader swath of senators that would normally be the case or does everything come down to this life issue? >> it shouldn't come down to the abortion issue in this instance. the seat we're trying to fill, justice scalia's, where the abortion question is not in place. if you put a conservative on the bench, perhaps somebody that would be in the same spot as justice scalia, against row v. wade, you still have five seats. this is not the seat that comes into play with abortion. >> neil: there is going to be a heated debate over a filibuster. how do you think that will end up? >> that's not clear yet. senator schumer and others started after the election saying they would oppose anybody. now they're starting to walk those comments back by saying they want someone that is mainstream and might getbipartisan support.
so they're playing their cards close to their vest. they're not sure how the senate democrats that are in vulnerable states might react to an all-out filibuster. >> neil: we'll see. 8:00 p.m. time night is when the president will be announcing his security pick. we'll be there. hope you're there as well. meantime, the council of american islamic relations already suing the trump administration over this travel order. do they have a case to stand on? a number of attorneys general are looking at doing just the same. the fight over this. that's bigger than just a lawsuit. after this.
defense attorney jarrett here on that. help me explain where they're coming from and the prospect that it will succeed. >> first of all, this is a 35 long complaint. almost all of the plaintiffs are residing legally here in the united states. i don't think they have standing to sue. on that basis, they could be kicked out. remember, only if you have been actually harmed do you have standing to file a lawsuit. here they're just speculating that gee, we might in the future have difficulty renewing our immigration status. again, that's purely conjecture. the judge, a republican appointee by former president george w. bush, john trenga, he may throw the case out for lack of standing. as to the merits of this, look, in the constitution, article 1, section 8, congress has the
power to regulate immigration and gave that power of enforcement to the united states in 1952 in a law that said the president can ban people from entering the country if it's detrimental to the interests of the u.s. that's the specific language. all the presidents have done this. fdr, trueman, carter, obama, they have all issued blanket bans. all of them constitutionally challenges have been upheld by the united states supreme court as valid and not a violation of the constitution. so history and the law is on the side of president trump. >> neil: how much depends on how long the ban is in effect? usually the bans ended after a period of time. the thinking here is 90 to 100 days and only of the seven countries in question, if were
an anti muslim ban they would have jurisdiction. it wasn't. >> and timing is important here. whether it's 90 days or 120 days, it's doubtful that this can be fully litigated and certainly not litigated on the constitutional merits of the lawsuit. all of those injunctions and temporary restraining orders put in place by federal judges over the weekend, they don't go to the merits of the constitutionality. very narrow. only deals with the roughly 200 people in transit arriving in the united states at the time the executive order took effect. it looks like already the trump administration is moving through the department of homeland security to accept those people who already either had green cards and arrived over the weekend or have other immigrant documents that are legal.
legal immigrant visas. so all of this, those four ordered by those federal judges may be moot because there's no controversy if the trump administration allows them to be here. >> neil: you could argue and they could argue that just what happened in a lot of airports across the country could happen again. this is a preemptive legal strike. would a judge buy that? >> probably not. here's why. all of the people that thought they were coming to the united states, wanted to come to the united states, sought applications, pending. even those that were granted and now have been revoked, most of those are not united states citizens. they don't have constitutional rights, which are cited in this particular c.a.r.e. lawsuit. the first amendment, religion and the fifth amendment, equal protection. they don't have standing to sue because they're not citizens. >> neil: greg, always a
pleasure. learned a lot, buddy. thanks. >> thank you. >> neil: remember when barack obama said before leaving office, i'm going to sort of fade into the wood work, take a cue from my predecessor and not say anything critical for a while. that lasted ten days. ten days. after this. once upon a time a girl with golden locks broke into a house owned by three bears. she ate some porridge, broke the baby bear's chair, and stole some jewelry, a flat-screen tv, and a laptop. luckily the geico insurance agency had helped the bears with homeowners insurance. they were able to replace all their items... ...including a new chair from crate and barrel. call geico and see how easy it is to switch and save on homeowners insurance.
democrats have stalled this on a variety of measures, including some self-inflicted on the part of mr. mnuchin. the republicans hope that he will be confirmed as treasury secretary certainly by the end of the week. all right. wall street, a big sell off today. the biggest we've seen. this was among the catalyst. not just what was going on with this ban, this travel ban. but what was going on in iran, conducting a ballistic missile test that not only goes against the nuclear agreement that we had but already u.n. measures already in place. so iran violated that. conducted this ballistic missile test. lieutenant colonel alan west here to say i told you so, even
though he's not bragging about it. just as you surmised in short order, iran would be doing this stuff. today they did with promises of more to come. what do you think of it? >> you're right. we have not done anything that will thwart this belligerent behavior. the joint comprehensive plan was signed in 2005 and stipulated that iran could not do ballistic tests for eight years. last year in 2016, they started to do ballistic missile tests. as a matter of fact, stipulated that they had to go five years without weapons and trading and arms deal and they violated that with russia and china. we know that violated rest lieu 2, 3, and 1 where they're not supposed to have the tests. so early on iran stepping up, this is the first major test for the trump administration to deal with. >> neil: you had a lot of people telling me democrats saying this wasn't part of the nuclear
agreement. i cannot imagine we would have not counted this. i find the timing in the first days of the trump administration curious. >> well, no, this was part of the nuclear agreement. they weren't supposed to do any type of ballistic missile testing for eight years. that was originally brought up in 2015. there's no agreement with iran. they violated it consistently. we know they have been harassing our naval war ships. we know about the u.s. sailors that they put on their knees at gun point. we continue to believe there's something that we should be honoring when there's nothing. the key things the trump administration should do, once they get their national security team in place, look at this agreement and consider it voided. >> neil: iran is one of seven countries that we have this ban on travel or at least slow travel. ban is probably not the proper word. we're taking longer searching
those that come from these countries like iran. but to iran, that seemed like a no-brainer. counter argument, there's a lot of good people coming from iran and we're blighting the entire country. what do you say to that? >> well, there has to be consequences that you have the number 1 sponsor of islamic terrorism, a country saying what they want to do as far as destroying israel. wee know they're participating in operations in syria, which is a violation of human rights. i don't hear anyone squeaming and yelling about hezbollah, which is a dedicated and noted terrorist organization that is operating in syria, committing atrocities against women and children there. so why aren't we protesting about that? so iran is not a good actor nation and should be consequences for the actions they have taken. >> neil: thanks very much.
good seeing you. >> thank you i. >> neil: you've probably heard by now the long wait before president obama would say something about his successor, it lasted ten days. i've been on diets longer than that. after this. en i was too busy wie kids to get a repair estimate. i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance
...as a combination of see products.. and customers. every on-time arrival is backed by thousands of od employees, ...who make sure the millions of products we ship arrive without damages. because od employees treat customer service... ...like our most important delivery. od. helping the world keep promises. >> neil: all right. add jeff bezos at one that is not keen on trump's immigration
order. back in 60 seconds. bp gives its offshore teams 24/7 support from onshore experts, so we have extra sets of eyes on our wells every day. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. because safety is never being satisfied. may not always be clear. but at t. rowe price, we can help guide your retirement savings. so wherever your retirement journey takes you, we can help you reach your goals. call us or your advisor t. rowe price. invest with confidence.
>> neil: all right. the scene in los angeles played out in airports across the country. outside those airports, president trump's immigration order and the protests that prompted delays for folks, sporadic international check-in points again, across the country. william la jeunesse joins us from lax. how are things looking there? >> quieter today. 109 immigrants were held at airports around the country according to the administration. the "wall street journal" had that enough higher, 375 in the first day. saturday, dhs has yet to clear that number for me. i'm told there's no immigrants detained here at lax that were held over the weekend. i can tell you there was a lot of confusion over the weekend. let's go to the videotape. airports across the country closed down.
traffic here was tied up for miles at a standstill. thousands missed their flights. protesters tried to negotiate with the cops saying we'll stop blocking the free way if you let the immigrants out. the protests were fed by confusion. did the ban apply to all immigrants, including those with a valid visa and a green card? initially the answer was yes. this woman from iran was detained here for several hours. >> didn't seem like anybody knew what was going on. a lot of people were frustrated. it was a tense room for sure. >> now, the list of countries affected in 2015, you can see the tourists, students, businessmen. 70,000 in total. the new policy will apply to all those immigrants with a visa except those that are u.s. residents. secondly, some wonder, hey, why weren't some of these
neighboring countries like saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, they have their own terrorist affiliations but they we included. the administration defended the visa program and the president said it's better to act now than not after the fact. >> going to wait until we get attacked and figure out how it won't happen again. he's going to do everything he can to stop every threat. that's the key point in this. >> now, the aclu has joined with other organizations including state of washington claiming their policy is illegal because it discriminates on national origin. the trump said not only is it legal, but it's the right thing to do. back to you. >> neil: in case you think this has got the islamic community in a stir, meet the muslim that supports this travel ban. she says it's narrow and clear
in focus. she said she thinks it's being exaggerated. >> the new executive order is being completely misrepresented and exploited. what i'm concerned about as an american, as a muslim that it's being used to stoke fear in people. it's being used to stoke an anti american and anti-west sentiment throughout the muslim world. for me, i see this as a soft propaganda campaign that is going to effectively turn people against america. it's being used for the same of part son political interests, by the same people that lost the election in 2016. this idea of a #muslimban is nothing less than a resistant movement that is sadly spilling into the streets and it's the airports like an insurgency. i'm very troubled by it. >> neil: all right. washington state's attorney general joins four others
questioning this move ant wanting to invalidate it. others have same similar things. criticism from a broad. do you think that at least the way it was vetted was poor? i believe the "wall street journal" on its editorial page calling it blunderbust. what do you think? >> no doubt it wasn't executed well. it was a p.r. victory handed to the opponents of president trump when refugees were stopped at the border, a translator was stopped. ultimately there is an effective strategy that we need to put in place that will be lasting. while imperfect, we have to focus on the enemy. the enemy is not the white house. the enemy is the islamic state. that's what we have to stay focused on. what i see happening is for the sake of politics. people are paying attention to these missteps and these
mistakes and using that to distract from syria's problem of islamic extremism. >> neil: you might think i'm crazy and from prior conversations you'd be right. but i don't know if this goes far enough when i study that 85% behind attacks in the u.s. were not from the seven countries and further more where u.s. residents had legal residence here. so if this were in effect back then, any one of these -- we can go to the fort hood bomber, you name it, orlando shooter, they wouldn't have been scooped up in this magnet. what do you think? >> neil, absolutely i i don't view this as an end-all strategy. it's a band aid for a temporary problem that we have, especially as the administration tries to figure out how to vet refugees and new immigrants. we need a lasting solution.
it must address the idealogical problems. you know that takes us to the birth place of islam. that takes us to mecca, saudi arabia or i can, as a muslim, point you to 20 websites and 20 publication enterprises that are exporting this extremist interpretation of islam that people from fort hood to orlando to san bernardino get into their heads to do damage and -- >> neil: couldn't they do that already? couldn't they link up online, wouldn't have to fly anywhere? they can go online and get that? >> yeah. that's why we need a more effective strategy, absolutely, that addresses all of the idealogical problems. i read and have studied very carefully all of the strategies that general flynn, for example, has put forward and others in the administration. i do know that they recognize there's an idealogical problem. they want to go after the state
actors also. so in this next 30 days when they're developing their islamic state strategy, i'm hoping that we'll develop those lasting solutions to the serious problem. >> neil: real quickly, i want your take on the council of american islamic relations, which isn't a fan of this, doesn't like where this is going, will protest this mightily. you say what? >> well, we have to be careful and study closely what the politics are that are playing out. right now the council on american islamic relations represents the muslim right. they represent the far right in our muslim community. what we have happening is the muslim right is aligning with the american left to undermine america's national security. what do they have to gain? they have never wanted us to have a conversation about islamic extremism.
so they continue the strategy of deflection. what does that protect? the enterprises that are honestly, as you pointed out, the real problem. we have to go to the heart of the problem so that our next generation does not inherit this issue of islamic extremism. >> neil: that is not the view of the former president of united states waiting ten days to speak out on something his successor was doing. we're finding out that barack obama has issued a statement saying american values are at stake with this latest move. the president's office, president obama office speaking out against individuals on faith and saying kevin lewis, a spokesman for the former president, that he's heartened by the engagement. we should say in the case of
bill clinton questioning george bush, it took 18 months. for ford questioning something jimmy carter did, took three months. for jimmy carter questioned ronald reagan, seven months for his first critical comments. this is a roshed. more after this. yeah, then how'd i get this... ...allstate safe driving bonus check? ...only allstate sends you a bonus check for every six months you're accident free. silence. it's good to be in, good hands. afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me.
and for just $15.99big festival of shrimp you can pick 2 of 6 new and classic creations on one plate new flavors like sweet bourbon-brown sugar grilled shrimp and bold firecracker red shrimp are too big to last so hurry in. >> neil: all right. the rule of thumb is former president will say something critical of their successors, but usually not in as few as ten days. barack obama has done that, commenting that his heartened by the protests going on. a spokesperson saying with regard to comparison to president obama's decisions, we heard the president fundamentally disagrees discriminating against individuals of faith or religion. there's nothing in the trump ban that cites religion. just the reaches from the world
that we have had particular violence. i might adhere, that if this was going to be an anti muslim type of ban, you might as well thrown in 40 other countries. be that as it may, it's unusual for a former president to speak out so quickly. maybe the situation warranted it or a great opportunity for the former president to seize on it. it's got to break aed modern day record, doug. ten days. >> boy, it's pretty amazing. i think you have to go back 84 years, three generations to herbert hoover to find anything like this, this uncivil. >> neil: you're talking about herbert hoover going into f.d.r. the two didn't talk to each other for a while. that's the closest example you
can see. >> yes. hoover tried to actually get f.d.r. to sign legislation. it was quite contentious. he gave a few public speeches. but nothing like this. ironically, f.d.r. did exclude immigrants based on their religion. you'll remember 1942, a ship arrived in new york of jewish people immigrating from germany. fbi interrogated a young man named herbert barr. it was learned that he was infiltrating the united states for the nazis. we've had the interment of japanese by a democratic administration, f.d.r. so we've had wars, we've had situations where this sort of thing has happened. the largest muslim nation in the world is indonesia.
it's not on the ban. >> neil: speaking out this early, to be fair to barack obama, he indicated it was something he felt passionate about regardless of the timetable. this is one of the moments. but normally presidents, former presidents, don't do this. they wait awhile. eisenhower holds the record with john kennedy. he personally let kennedy know how he felt about the bay of pigs fiasco. he told him that personally. didn't say it publicly. that's the closest example how to handle this sort of thing. others wait a good number of months. ford, you know, criticizing carter three months after he was in office over an assualt agreement that never materialized. carter waited seven months with ronald reagan. normally it's months. in the case of george bush jr., nothing for years. but what do you make of it? >> and great generosity. i mean, look at nixon.
if anyone could be bitter in 1960, it could have been nixon. he held a press conference after the victory. he said i will never criticize president kennedy if he wants to go play golf or take time off. presidents need that sort of thing. he was very generous. bill clinton was generous to george w. not some of his staff that stole all the ws off of the typewriters. >> neil: yeah, i remember that. but you get a sense with this there was something else going on? to be fair to barack obama, something that he felt passionate about, the protests, were grounded and looking after the interests of people trying to seek a haven or a visit here when in fact he kind of inflated this to be a religious argument. but that's how he saw it and how passionately he jumped on it. >> i don't think he sees it that way. he's a very smart man, this is
fake news. this is not a muslim ban. it's being portrayed as such. >> >> neil: so you think he should have shut up? >> he should have. for his sake, it would have been more dignified. he's hurt and sees this election as a rejection of his legacy and hurt his feelings. that's what happened with herbert hoover. hoover was blamed for the great depression and broke his heart. i think this has broken obama's heart. >> neil: you think he gave a heads-up to president trump saying hey, i'm going to do this? what do you think? >> i doubt it. i'd be anxious to see if there's something of that nature. >> neil: interesting. all right, doug. thanks very much. it's up to you if you think it's something he believed in or
>> neil: you ever do this at home? you get a new tie or blouse or whatever. and you take out an old one, right? that's kind of what the president was doing with regulations today, although he was upping it. he said if you want more regulations, for every new one you come up with, get rid of two. joy met with the president today. good to have you. thanks for coming. >> thanks for having me. >> shepard: i hear from a lot of small business types that sometimes regulations are bigger issue than taxes.
here's the president to say i'm going to try to slow this process down. what did you make of what he was saying? >> you know, i think he has a good point. i can only spoke to my own experience. but the fact of the matter is that regulations create a cumbersome system for those of us that have our small businesses. to be honest with you, we don't have a staff of accountants and attorneys at the ready. we don't have the resources to hire those folks to help us cut through the red tape of all of the regulations. it's difficult. difficult to do anything when you can't here people out. >> ignorance is never a defense. you find it the hard way, you're in a heap of trouble. the outlined his executive order saying we're going to slow this process down. if anybody does want a new regulation, you have to remove
two others. how likely you think that is? >> how likely that i think it will happen? >> neil: yeah. >> i think there's enough regulation out there that we could lose a few, to be honest with you. i feel as though it's probably going to happen on a large scale only because in my estimation, and my experience today, he is on a mission. he has an agenda. he is going to get through it. he wants regulations out there that at least for small business people are not too cumbersome for us. you know, he's convinced that we have to create an environment for the small business people to grow. too much regulation creates an environment where, you know, we just get bogged down. >> this looks more likely from what the president was saying an imminent cut in taxes. that that might be pushed off.
they're having problems agreeing how big a tax cut, et cetera. how would you feel if the tax cut thing is put off and maybe for a while? >> you know, at this point, i would love to see a tax cut. there's a lot of issues with regulation that are all tied in. so, you know, it's day eight. let's be honest. it's day eight. so i'm sure he will get to it. there's a lot to do. >> neil: what is your sense of the plan to repeal obama care? the president was a fan of replacing it as quickly as possible. but there's some on the hill that say it might not be replaced right away. how would you feel or how does that affect you if they repeal the thing, but it's delayed, the replacement for it? >> you know, to be honest, when we look at repealing obama care,
it's something that is a work in progress. it's not something that happened overnight either. it's a difficult -- when you look at the whole picture, it will take a little bit to get it done. as i said, after meeting with him today, he looks like he's really going after his agenda. >> neil: thanks, joy. quite an honor to meet the president. joy anthis, jwa construction. good to see you. >> thanks for having me. >> neil: when we come back, the fallout of this and the competing interests as to how well the president is doing. if it's all on this vetting thing, then what is behind all of this executive order thing? after this.
90% of the world's largest supercomputers run on intel? that means you can take a universe of data - in your case literally - and turn it into medical discoveries, diagnostic breakthroughs... ...proof that black holes collapse into one singularity. i don't know what that is. but yes. innovation runs on supercomputers... ...and supercomputers run on intel. you are super smart. and super busy. ♪ ooh! ufo! false alarm, eyelash! speak to controversial travel ban, asking for exemptions frome executive order for those
who help the u.s. military. whether they will carve out that kind of exemption, it's anyone's guess. we will see tomorrow. that will do it for today. good night. >> i am eric bolling with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino, and brian kilmeade to. is "the five" ." president trump's executive order set off protests nationwide. we clear up widespread misconceptions and misreporting, fakes -- fake news. this from the president today. >> over the last many years, nothing got done in this country. we are moving things along and we are moving them along fast. we had a very good day