be closer than you think or they think. the administration insists that they politicized and in some cases use their public service and security clearances inappropriately. all six are frequent administration critics, which prompted allegations the president could be launching his own witch hunt. lost in the argument is whether the president can do this, which he can. how is it that so many former top officials now out of power have access to this intelligence, which they do? to kevin corke at the white house on the furious fall-out from this. hi, kevin. >> good to be with you. you can almost hear an audible gasp. i can hear it sitting on the front row when she said it. i can hear people reacting almost immediately to this idea that the president and this administration might revoke the security clearances of a number of former obama administration intelligence officials to hear them tell it, they have not only politicized their information and the access to this material, some have even attempted or the, or in fact, monetized that material. so to hear the big names as you mentioned, comey, clapper, brennan, hayden, rice, mccabe. comey hit the president before. it's clapper in brennan that have been overly partisan. that's fairly unusual. it does beg the question why and why not. hayden less so. rice involved in the unmasking and mccabe in the dossier. so today, sarah sanders, said the president is investigating what can be done. >> not only is the president looking to take away brennan's security clearance, he's looking into the clearances of comey, clapper, hayden, rice and mccabe. the president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicized and in some cases monetized their public service and security clearances making a baseless accusations of being in contact with russia that is extremely inappropriate. the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides legitimacy to accusations with no threat. >> brennan has been unhinged to hear it from the white house tell it. that's not me saying it. that's them saying it. they feel so strongly that he's been so unfair in his criticism. i can also tell you this quickly, we've heard from the spokesperson for andrew mccabe. she said my client's security clearance was already deactivated. so even though he was among the names mentioned today, he may not need to have it revoked. it begs to question why so many people have access to high security information. neil? >> neil: yeah. where does it end and how far back does it go. thanks, kevin. let's get the read on this, fox news contributor, ted williams. ted, do you know how far back these clearances can go? >> they can go back three-year period, neil. normally when these high-ranking officials leave the government, they continue to have their clearances and primarily so they can contact and make communications with members of the current administration so they can embark their wisdom on them. so those things are normally kept in place. >> neil: all right. so when you heard about this and now the administration seems to be saying they could have been leveraging, monetizing them for themselves and not just because they've been frequent to a man or woman in this case, susan rice, what do you make of it? >> first thing that came to mind, richard nixon. he had a list of people he didn't like. certain things happened there. here we have trump being criticized by many of the individuals on this list. those individuals certainly have a first amendment right to criticize. they also don't have a right to these security clearances. so they could be revoked. the question is, are you revoking them because they're critical of your administration? if that is the case, that's very petty on the part of trump. >> neil: let me ask you this. if you're under the suspicion that someone criticizing you on another news network and they're saying things about you based on information to which they might be privy or have access to, does the administration have a point? >> well, they certainly would have a point if they are using that information as they say to make money. but -- >> you never know, right? you never know what information or whether they're making money or sharing something indirectly in an inferred insight. >> that's the burden that i believe that donald trump will have to meet. there's not only those individuals on the named list but other officials in the previous administration that have these clearances. so the question that americans should be asked, why are you revoking these -- this specific group of individuals that you named? i think this is very troubling. i would hope that donald trump and his administration would think twice about going forward with this because it looks very nixonian to me. >> neil: does the president have the power to do this though? >> that is a debatable question right now. i would think that he probably does, if, if he can show that someone is using a clearance, not only to make money, because all of these guys make money, but if they're using it in some kind of way to hurt the united states of america and not to hurt donald trump as an individual. >> neil: thank you very much, ted. fox news contributor, attorney. let's get the insight with claudia. she's with the women's forum. she took on the united nations. dot get me started there. claudia, good to have you. i didn't want to steer away from what we originally intended. i want your thoughts on this and how many people have access to top security information. i thought once out of power, out of that security access. but i guess not. >> well, neil, that would make sense to me. i don't know the intricacies of this. i think trump is raising a very good question. why do these people still have these clearances? what for? i think ted williams just made an important point. you don't want to take them away based on personal animus. there's an obscene tail that goes with people's services. they serve and cash in to a degree that for the average american would be appalling to see in detail. so it's worth -- it's a question worth raising. add to it, the kind of leaking that we've seen and the incredible politicization of the matter of what is classified. speaking of somebody that has no access to classified material, it becomes very frustrating as an american watching these sort of enigmatic elliptical things that are being used for partisan purposes. >> neil: and profiting from it which is what sarah sanders was saying. some of the president's critics say this is to distract from the putin summit and this gets people talking about something else what do you make of it? >> much as i would have preferred to the next 2 1/2 years that we talk about nothing but the helsinki summit -- [laughter] look, there's plenty of discussion about that. i'm sure there will be more. i thought president trump put a very clumsy performance there, but i don't think the sky is falling. if you look at what happened on the ground, he has made the strongest moves against russia that we've seen in a very long time. i think he also is trying to solve immensely complicated problems. president obama bequeathed us a very dangerous planet on which -- talk about collusion. collusion between russian, china, north korean. president trump has a lot of real problems. this is not manufactured, this is genuine. where do you start, how do you do it? he's hired superb survivors, john bolton, mike pompeo, nikki haley is wonderful at the u.n. it's worth at least giving the benefit of the doubt, this is not the apocalypse. is it a distraction? it's moving on to the next thing. iran just threatened us with the mother of all wars. >> neil: hand he responsed. so this tit for tat just ratcheted up. just a lot of bellicose words or is there something more here? >> there's more in the sense that trump has done more than say obama did. he carried out air strikes on syria. he has stripped isis of its caliphate. things are moving. something is changing. is he prone to hyperbole? absolutely. if he were another president, i might be worried about that statement because that would be normal. with trump, that's normal response when he's trying to be threatening. i think the iranians understand that. i also think there's the bit of unpredictability to what he says and does, certainly to what the he says and does. >> neil: john bolton has spoken with the president. the president said if iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid before. apparently he's communicating to his top lieutenants, this is how i feel, this is what i'm going to do. but then what does that mean if -- what is considered agitating behavior, something that would warrant a response like that on the part of iran? >> what the trump administration has done is not spell out what this would be. it's highly unlikely it would be beyond anything that the u.n. has experienced before. i discounts that. on the other hand, the fact that john bolton has said it and trump put it out on twitter cease that iran would be well- advised to think there's something serious here, there's something in mind, probably not the end of creation but something in mind. something that would hurt tehran. part of what america is trying to do right now with the trump administration, what they're trying to do, is claw back the credibility squandered in every side by president obama. i think this is part of how they're doing it and i think it's a good move. you know what? threatening the iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, tremendous maker of trouble, partner and proliferation with north korea and russia's pal in the middle east for all of their disputes in syria, good move. it's much better than if trump had extended a hand. >> neil: claudia, thanks very much. good chatting. >> thank you, neil. >> neil: two quick items to pass along. google had earnings that beat the street expectations by far. this is the same company the europeans are threatening. not threatening, they have sued better than $5 billion saying the company unfairly leveraging their success in the search area to a variety of other areas. google is saying not so. the president has defended them. separately there's apple, which is in the middle of a trade war. now being focused on by no less than china. a pivot going on here that is remarkable. we're on it after this. your insurance rates skyrocket after a scratch so small you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> neil: 3/4. this is an interesting way to apply pressure on an american company that might be fearful that a trade war with china could hurt its business there and the repurchase -- repurchase contributions here. china is already making a lot of the apple screens nor ipads and laptops down the road for iphones as well. and that if apple agrees to that, everything could be honky dorie. there's more subtle than that, but that's it. that's a little pressure situation here. it's a way for apple to sort of resist the same kind of harm that could be coming from many other companies, technology companies included in this rift with china. but it's not subtle. heather is here with us and antoine, deidra bolton. deidra, this is soprano pressure to me. >> yeah, this is pretty strong. we'll go with that, soprano pressure. i like that. so is boe, not a household name in the u.s., but it's essentially state run. china state run manufacturing company gets a contract with apple to produce the screens that go into our phones. first of all, china would have big manufacturing bragging rights over south korea and samsung, which i would have to say would be displacing in theory. and it would also have big bragging rights over japan. so this would be just be china flexing its muscles. what i find interesting about the timing here, neil and you alluded to this point, as the u.s. and china, the headlines are more and more combative as far as trade tips becoming trade wars, here we have a potential for one of our most famous companies to be getting yet one more manufacturing tie-in from a chinese company, neil. >> neil: heather, what does this mean? apple is doing everything they can avoid to be in a trade war that could imperil its workers, the customers over there and a lot of stuff that makes its way back here? >> i think a trump tweet is coming pretty soon telling apple that they shouldn't be partnering with the chinese in this way. if at the end of the day, there's continued theft of technology or intellectual property, technology companies like apple, who had to hand over to the chinese all of their customer data like e-mails and texts. not in the u.s. but in china. if you use the apple iphone and you're chinese, then they have all of your data. your pictures and e-mails and texts. if this is a national security things, the president will get and involved. >> neil: antoine, where do you think this is going? >> only god will know but it's not beneficial for those of us that know what this means long-term. at the end of the day, we know the danger in trade wars and we know china wants to be a world power. for a lot of countries outside of the united states, they essentially smell blood in the water. they see a divide between the president and some of the long-term economic advisers in this country what a trade war could be. >> neil: you wouldn't fold like a cheap suit to them, would you? >> definitely not. >> neil: you would or wouldn't? >> never, never. >> neil, on a serious note, this is a dangerous game and a tremendous opportunity for the president not to get on twitter and go on a tweet storm but for him to step up and lead on the american front and tell -- be honest with the american people -- >> one thing, neil, apple has not confirmed or denied these talks first of all. second of all, apple has a super high bar of manufacturing exactitude and especially for this screen on the product that makes them more than half of their revenue. >> and if boe doesn't measure up, they don't get the business. >> exactly. >> neil: we talk about the facebooks and the apples and the netflixes, the google, even after the bell with some strong numbers, that this is really what is driving our markets. if they hiccup, if one of their members hiccup, they all start hiccupping. this is a very layered plot. what do you make of that? >> i think it could be if you look at the nasdaq market. it's leading all the indices higher. the technology companies are up 51% since president trump was elected. some investors see high valuations in technology sectors as a potential issue and this could be the push that it rolled over and the marketed follow. >> neil: we shall see. the downtown 14 points. technology not an alarming weak spot in this. more after this including latest battle over ice. it doesn't end. you're trying to lower your very high triglycerides with a healthy diet... and exercise. and maybe even, unproven fish oil supplements. not all omega-3s are clinically proven or the same. discover prescription omega-3 vascepa. the one that's this pure... and fda approved. look. vascepa looks different... because it is different. it's pure epa. vascepa, along with diet, is clinically proven to lower very high triglycerides by 33% in adults, without raising bad cholesterol. that's pure power. proven to work. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish, have liver problems... or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. it's clear. there's only one vascepa. ask your doctor about pure epa prescription vascepa. ♪ >> neil: the think about the occupy ice, ice protests, they continue to occupy. this one in portland, oregon. starting to hit local businesses there. trace gallagher has more. hi, trace. >> hi, neil. when the protests began a month ago at the ice building, some businesses near the site were supportive of the cause. now those business owners say they're actually being targeted and here's why. when the protesters occupy this area as they have every day, the department of homeland security is reportedly not getting very much help from the portland police department. so dhs does their own crowd control. that means blocking off a main road. that also cuts off traffic to businesses like the happy camper food cart. it gets worse because now every time the dhs or ice employee tries to buy food from the happy camper, the protesters harass and threaten both the business and the customers. listen. >> the individuals that are making the most noise unfortunately are the ones that have made personal threats to burn our cart down three times. >> here's the irony. the happy camper funds a nonprofit to help portland's homeless problem. the owner there said that between the profits being down and threats being up, they decided to shut down the cart and put it up for sale. judicial watch is now looking into claims that portland police are not helping ice with threats, disorderly conduct and impeding traffic. the locals and feds are supposed to have a mutual agreement. finally, two quick mentions. friday in arizona, former vice president joe biden spoke to the league of united latin american citizens where he called the president's immigration policy "one of the darkest moments in our history" and arizona democratic congressional candidate ann kirkpatrick was booed and shouted down twice. once when she came out in favor of ice and again when she talks about maxine waters comments about harassing trump administration officials. >> neil: thanks. on my weekend show, i raised that issue with former ice director, thomas homan and how he felt the move is going. >> the passion is on the left. should people be worried? >> they should be. i use the terms that the far left is misinforming america. they're lying to america. it's reckless for anybody, especially a congressman or senator. they're trying to keep america airways safe and doing their job. they shouldn't be distracted. >> neil: ashley pratt with us. as far as the left is going, it's not going away. the push to get ice shut down despite moderates saying that could be a mistake when close to seven out of ten americans support it being around, where is this going? >> this is going nowhere fast. democrats that have very contention races coming up in 2018 don't want to touch this issue. there's some democrats out there now saying please don't make this our number 1 priority issue, especially when 25% of americans care about this. that will be a problem if they're trying to hold on to seats or if they're trying to gain majority, this isn't a winning issue for democrats and democrats know that. the more far to the left that the party goes, this will only be more of an issue if they're trying to win seats back in 2018. so when senator gillibrand says that, you know, she's doing her party a disservice because this doesn't actually go anywhere and i don't think this is a platform that the democrats are actually looking for. i don't think you would ask any democrat, hey, do you think that we need more immigration control or do you think that we need, you know, to fix the problem at the border. they would say yes. would they disagree with the policies and the administration's policies around this? probably. i don't think they would say abolishing ice is the answer. >> neil: a lot of them read the political tea leaves in the party that the passion is on the extreme left and i only little strait joe biden having a sympathetic words to say to this movement. so again, where does this all go? >> yeah, i definitely think that the passion is in the far left and the very progressive base of the party but that's not how they're going to win elections. as we see organizing for america and obama getting involved in these races in 18 and in 20, when we're going to see is a more look to the left and that will frustrate the base of what happened to bernie sanders in 2016. so the party has to come together and heal wounds before creating further friction here, this will cause friction moving forward, this will not be a winning issue in some of these very, very key races. if democrats do want to win in 2018, i don't think that this is the leg that they want to stand on to do that. >> neil: it was a year ago that most democrats in the house wanted to beef up support in financing for ice, the way it exists now. the only thing that has changed is this controversial issue hoff separating kids from their parents. but barring that, which has been corrected, not enough many critics say to satisfy critics, but it's certainly a whole different mindset from when everyone was on the same page. >> for sure. ice i think for the most part is doing a great job. they serve a necessary function and purpose. again, this is all on policy that people disagree with. abolishing ice is not the answer what they do against serves a distinct purpose in our nation. i don't think taking it out on an agency is going the right way about it. we've seen problems on the border issue. was this way this was handled appropriate. you saw republicans and democrats say no, the families need to be reunited. we shouldn't be ripping children from their parents. we came together to find a solution there. i think moving forward, again, we need to think about what actual change looks like rather than calling for the abolition of a complete group, which doesn't make any sense at all, especially when we know they serve a distinct purpose for our country and government. >> neil: good having you, ashley. thank you. >> thank you. >> neil: speaking of the left, they're trying to understand how it is with all the criticism of the president, the controversy over immigration, the putin summit and all that, his approval rating went up. after this. i promise to have and to hold from this day forward, 'til death do us part. selectquote can help you keep your promise. with life insurance starting under $1 a day. but you promised dad. come on. selectquote helped jim, 41, keep his promise by finding him a $500,000 policy for under $26 per month. and found kathy, 37, a $750,000 policy for just $22 per month. since 1985, we've helped millions of families by finding them affordable coverage by impartially shopping highly rated insurers offering over 70 policies. dad, you're coming right? you promise? you promise? you promise? i promise. >> neil: apple shares are up 5%. you might have heard that they beat earnings expectations and people are saying that big $5 billion fine, eh. after this. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. >> neil: it had been a tough week with the president with the putin summit and immigration whether to shut down ice and nationwide protests. a lot of people thought when the weekly poll numbers would come out, we would see the approval rating tumbling. in fact, it ticked up. larry, obviously there was more republican support as if he needed it picked up. that made a big difference here. he is defying simple gravity. how is he doing that? >> well, essentially, nothing has changed since election day. i said this over and over again. he got 46% election day. that poll has him at 45. other polls have him between 42 and 46. if the election were held again, it would turn out about the same way. the republican for that, and this is very unusual in american politics, the reason for that is that people made up their minds not just about donald trump but especially about donald trump a long time ago. they're either for him and most of the people are for him are really for him or the people that are against him are really against him. they're in their foxholes. they're in their foxholes. nobody is crawling across no-man's land. we've had few converts on either side. will that change? i don't know. for the time being in the first 1 1/2 years of the trump administration, essentially he's been in about the same place. he had a period of being in the 30s, but that was artificial. again, if the contest were held again even at that time, i think probably the results would have been about the same. >> neil: so let me get a sense of people still don't come out and say why they support them. they like the economy. they like the markets. like the pick up in activity. there was one survey about parents of graduating college students that were overwhelmed and happily so with the prospects for their kids and jobs and et cetera. that has been one of the things that has been saying, i like this guy. all the controversy and everything else, i can deal with that because i like what's happening in this country that will win out and at least mean fewer angrier voters denying democrats of taking the house. what do you think of that? >> you have to motivate people to vote. right now the greatest advantage democrats have, they enthusiasm level is at 65%. republican enthusiasm level is 50%. can that change by november? of course. this will come as a shock to the audience. polls are not that precise a measurement. we learned that in 2016. so things can change dramatically. the economy is absolutely the best card republicans have to play. if they talked about that more, if the president spent more tweets about the economy than other things combined, he would be better off. >> neil: i did predict the president's victory. that's neither here nor there. i looked beneath the surface. let me ask you this, professor. do you find it weird he wouldn't benefit more with what is happening in the economy with what could be a very strong second quarter gdp report? there's hints being 4 1/2 or 5%? it would be a historic one-time event by recent memory and yet he -- with that alone, you think you would be up to 55, 60% approval? >> neil, incredibly i agree with you completely. i don't recall any other instance of this. >> neil: that hurts my feelings, professor. that does hurt. >> but you should be thrilled. you should be happy about today. here's the key to the whole thing. it's that if this were another president, and the economy were this golden, assuming the other president wouldn't get into controversies all the time, i'll bet that other president would be at 60%. this is what a lot of republicans say privately, neil. if he would just suppress the urge to get into battles with lots of other people unnecessarily and tweet out some of the things that he does, he would probably be higher. >> neil: you should see what he says about you. larry, it is -- >> oh, god. >> neil: it's always a pleasure, my friend. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> larry sabato, a presidential historian. we said at the beginning of the broadcast, the president is looking at the security clearance given to former top obama officials that have also been frequent critics of him. what do republican congressmen think about that? after this. or joints. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. when mit rocked our world.ailed we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they took care of everything a to z. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. >> will the president consider senator paul's suggestion and call for the remove value of former director brennan's security clearance? >> is it position that any former obama administration official that holds clearance and makes political statements about him should have his clearance revoked? >> are you considering any additional actions against brennan and the other names that you read off? >> the president is threatening to punish brennan and comey and clapper for saying things about him that he doesn't like. >> the president doesn't like the fact that people are politizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and not meant to be monetized off of security clearance. >> neil: all right. now, political is one thing when you're monetizing or cashing that in or taking advantage hoff that monetarily is another thing. what the administration seems to be saying, the six former obama administration intelligence officials should have their security clearance revoked. matt gates is a member of the house judiciary committee. so much to talk about. i didn't know you would get such clearance after you left office. i guess it's for three years. surprised me. >> are surprised me as well, neil. might be appropriate to look at that policy more broadly. the real challenge here is that we all have a station in the action to ensure that intelligence does not become politicized at any stage in the game. we relearned with the release of the carter page fisa application that there was a political opposition research document that went from the democratic committee to fusion gps and because they hired natalie ohr, that political document worked its way to the intelligence process. i support the president's efforts to make sure that our intelligence process is not politici politicized. the president has reason to be concerned. >> neil: and so much came from the carter page thing. you have no idea. but having said that, to look into him with these reports that he was talking to russian operatives or russians in general apart from all of this other, pardon the term trumped up stuff, what did you make of that? >> if you look at the nunez movement, it bears out that the yahoo news article was used to corroborate the steele dossier. it was mentioned many times in the fisa application. that was a news article planted by christopher steele. the democratic hillary clinton's campaign -- >> neil: how can you get nick from these blocked out paper here is? i don't know what they would infer or imply here. but they seem to -- right here republicans say they discredit the mueller problem. here's a guy that is separate from the other children that says that they were pursuing this investigation based on nefarious political information. in his case, they have stuff on him meeting with russians. do you find his meeting with russians, let's say during the campaign, to be a problem? >> of course. i think that any time there's an attempt add russian malign influen influence, it's bad. in the words of andrew mccabe, this wouldn't have been the spying in the dossier. this will be an ink blot test. republicans will see one thing, democrats will see another. my hope is all americans would accept the premise if a political party paid for information and paid to hire a spouse of a senior justice department official and cloaked it, we as americans think it should be disclosed in a nonadversarial setting. there's no fisa attorney. the woods procedures at the fbi would have required all information even in information that wasn't help null to the government's case to be disclosed and here it wasn't. so again, you're right. both sides will lock at in differently. we should find common purpose in the theory that political documents should not be the basis of spying. >> neil: all right. of course they argue otherwise. back and forth we go. quickly on the president and fingering the former obama administration intelligence officials. i guess you would have to prove or not that they monetarily took advantage of that information they had or is this his own political witch hunt to something that he deems to be a political witch hunt? >> i can tell you, neil, we get a lot of briefings here that we can't talk about on television. my fear is that mr. brennan is a lot more involved than the american people know and the president is right to be suspicious of mr. brennan having access to information. we've seen that he's used it to try to make a political case not to contribute to the collection of intelligence. so if there was some legitimate lag time for three years before, i don'ts think that would apply to brennan in these circumstances. >> neil: thanks, congressman. >> thank you. >> neil: i told you at the beginning the administration had that very tough words for iran. all caps tweet that the president sent out. i understand with that tweeting, if it's all caps, that's a big deal. so you would think that would send oil prices soaring. just the opposite. why is that? after this. crabfest is back at red lobster! discover our largest variety of crab and crab dishes all year! like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. sweet, juicy king crab and jumbo snow crab cozied up with crab linguini alfredo. even our shrimp is crab-topped! so hurry in and get your butter-dunkin' game on! 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. and now bring home the seafood you crave with red lobster to go. call or order online today. you're smart,eatth you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline. >> neil: all right. i'm very technologically savvy action some of you know, so i seized on the president's threat -- all but threatening war with iran. what gave it away is the fact that it's in all caps. i'm not going to read it. a lot of you listening on radio. it just says that we had it with you and enough with you and you keep screwing around with us, well, the hell with you. normally say something about that, about iran, you're cruising for a bruising. oil prices will rocket. why not? >> initially they did. when we saw this tit for tat going back and forth with iran, prices were a lot higher, but i think they took president trump's threat seriously. the iranians said wait a minute. what did we get into? president rouhani said any war with iran will be the war of all wars. president trump said never, never say that again. you'll be sorry of what you get yourself into it. that actually calmed the markets a little bit. later in the day, a report, neil, that already saudi arabia and the united states are working together to actually replace all iranian oil once the sanctions go into effect in november. so the combination of the president's strong stance against iran as well as talk of cooperation with the saudis really calmed the market down when it was initially rattled. >> neil: i have another theory, which you're very, very nice to -- in the past just to dismiss and chew away. one has to do with the latest housing data, which was off the third month in a row. some signs out of china showing things softening. maybe it's a global slow-down issue or not as fast as we were going issue. >> i think there is some of those fears in the marketplace. but to be honest, this time of year data normally gets soft. so i don't want to read too much into that. the last time we underestimated, you know, oil demand from china in a slowing economy, we got blind-sided with very strong demand. so it's too early to make any broad assumptions about a major drop in demand, especially because global supplies are tight. >> neil: yeah, that's why i thought that was stupid when they asked me to ask you that. let me get your final sense on a trade war and how that would impact this. we know the higher prices are coming. some people are feeling it now. what do you feel? >> i think that the trade war fears are really being overblown at this point. i think we're making major steps towards the even -- to trade war to make fair trade actually. so i think we're making good steps. there's going to be some winners, neil and some losers but it won't derail the global economy. the u.s. will come out winning this thing. >> neil: we shall so. phil flynn, oil analyst extraordinaire. we have more coming up including what could be happening tomorrow. ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your healthcare business. so that if she has a heart problem & the staff needs to know, they will & they'll drop everything can you take a look at her vitals? & share the data with other specialists yeah, i'm looking at them now. & they'll drop everything hey. & take care of this baby yeah, that procedure seems right. & that one too. at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & when your patient's tests come back... >> neil: count adam schiff among those not too pleased with the president targeting six former obama intelligence officials. saying politicize clearances still retaliate. saying it would set a new precedent. this is big. more on that tomorrow. ♪ >> greg: i'm greg gutfeld with katie pavlich, juan williams, jesse watters. a peanut shell is her flight helmet. dana perino. "the five" ." last night president trump tweeted a reminder to iran not to mess with us. it was in all caps. showing the world he's not afraid to go all caps. what's next? if you listen to the media, it has to be war. the fact his trump was responding to the iranian president who warned us about a mother of all wars. remember the last guy

Related Keywords

North Korea , Washington , United States , South Korea , Japan , Syria , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Portland , Oregon , Helsinki , , Finland , Iran , Arizona , China , Saudi Arabia , Russia , America , Iranian , Iranians , Americans , Russian , Saudi , Chinese , American , Russians , North Korean , Sarah Sanders , Joe Biden , Neil , James Comey , Andrew Mccabe , Thomas Homan , Ted Williams , Priceline Neil , Larry Sabato , Michael Hayden , Natalie Ohr , Mike Pompeo , Christopher Steele , John Bolton , Bernie Sanders , Mccabe Comey , Ashley Pratt , Ted Fox , Liberty , Neil Cavuto , Jesse Watters , Dana Perino , Expedia Neil , Phil Flynn , Richard Nixon , Vascepa Neil , Hillary Clinton , Ann Kirkpatrick , Juan Williams ,