Howard Kurtz: Facebook, Twitter and Google know they're left leaning

close

Video

Howard Kurtz: Facebook, Twitter and Google know they're left leaning

'MediaBuzz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in on President Trump's social media summit.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," July 11, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: You're watching history in the making, the Dow closing above 27000 for the first time ever.

We're going to get more on what got Wall Street to this record-setting moment, but, first, President Trump holding a social media summit as we speak. He's expected to make some remarks soon.

But it's who's not attending this summit that's raising some eyebrows and what the president's going to do afterward that's got Washington buzzing.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."

The president is expected to take executive action in about an hour aimed at determining how many people are in the United States as citizens. Already, some Democrats are taking aim at him.

Kevin Corke is at the White House with more on this high-stakes battle -- Kevin.

KEVIN CORKE, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Great to be with you, my friend.

We do not expect the president to ask the Commerce Department to come up with a specific citizenship question for the upcoming 2020 census. But we do expect some other mechanism by which they will get at that answer, because, obviously, this is a very important issue for this White House, Charles.

They want to know how many citizens are in this country and how many people are here legally and perhaps how many people are here not legally.

Now, the Democrats on Capitol Hill, as you know, are fighting mad about this. They say, Charles, that they're concerned that such a question could lead to an undercurrent of people that they represent, many of whom may be non-citizens or in the U.S. unlawfully, and they think that's precisely what the White House is trying to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: The true rationale is to -- is blatantly political and self-serving. President Trump wants to include the citizenship question to intimidate minorities, particularly Latinos, from answering the census, so that it undercounts those communities.

And Republicans can redraw congressional districts to their advantage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORKE: But Republicans, Charles, on the Hill reject that notion, reminding us that asking a citizenship question the census has never been an issue before.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Look, this is just common sense. We have been asking the census question, citizenship question on the census in one form or another for 200 years.

And you go talk to anyone on the street and ask them, do you think we should be asking a citizenship question on the census, and every single person you talk to you will say yes. And then they will quickly follow that up with a second question. They will say, aren't we doing that already?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORKE: Jim Jordan from the great state of Ohio.

And that, by the way, is precisely the sentiment here at the White House. They say, look, this is about knowing how many citizens are in our country and how many non-citizens are here and where they might be.

Now, the White House, Charles, could decide to resurrect the American Community Survey, which does ask about citizenship. And for the record, households that receive it are required to fill it out, under penalty of law.

They could come up with a number of other remedies. It should make for a very interesting afternoon here. And, of course, we will have it covered for you, as well as that social media summit, which I understand is under way as we speak.

From a rainy, Washington, my friend back to you.

PAYNE: Kevin, get away. Thank you very much.

Meanwhile, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows supports what the president is doing with the census. And he joins us now.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Thank you, Charles. Great to be with you.

PAYNE: So, the president tried everything. Bill Barr was going to come in. He said he had an easy way to do it with the new legal team. Everything has been pushed back.

So the notion of an executive order or, to Kevin Corke's point, resurrecting something like the American Community Survey, would that have the same legal teeth as a census? Could you use that to determine where federal funds would -- could you use that to determine congressional representation in Washington, D.C.?

MEADOWS: Well, really, what the Constitution calls for is an accurate count.

And so how you get to that accurate count, whether they're here legally or legally, is really the question. But, fundamentally, could you use the American Community Survey? Yes. Could you use other administrative records? I think the answer to that is yes as well.

But, sadly, what we're having to see is, the president's having taken executive action on something that's widely supported by your viewers, but not just your viewers. It's 67 percent of all Americans believe that we need to be asking and answering this question.

And, candidly, we have waited too long. And the president is right to take this action.

PAYNE: To your colleague Jim Jordan just saying if you were to ask anyone on the street, they'd be shocked that this was even in dispute and that it wouldn't be included, what do you make of the notion that Democrats is saying that it's -- this is all just a ploy, a racially motivated ploy, by the way, from the White House?

MEADOWS: Well, I can tell you, the facts don't support that; 47 percent of Hillary Clinton voters support asking the citizenship question on the census, Charles.

But more importantly than that, it's been on the census over and over again. So if we're talking about political, maybe perhaps when it was removed in 2010 under the Obama administration, that was the political reason that was actually attached to the census.

Here's what I do know. On the debate stage during the second debate, every single Democrat contender for the presidency raised their hand and said, what they believed is that illegal immigrants should get health care.

Well, if nothing more, we should have an accurate count so that we can consider the cost as appropriators on addressing that question. I'm not in favor of that. I think that's a terrible idea. But the American people deserve to have this answered.

And this president is fighting to make sure that they get that answer.

PAYNE: Are you concerned that if illegal citizen -- illegal immigrants are counted amongst other citizens, that this will indeed lead to the misappropriation of federal funds, that it will lead to congressional districts perhaps being carved out or given more sway than they normally would, particularly when you couple this with certain states now giving illegal immigrants I.D. cards like driver's license?

MEADOWS: Yes.

Really, when this boils down, it's all about making sure that we have an accurate account of the number of people that are here in the United States. But, more importantly than that, Charles, it's making sure that Congress can do its job. Now, we...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Excuse me, sir.

But if it's not -- if it's not accurate, would it change -- would it would give voting to citizen, non-citizens, at least?

MEADOWS: Of course it would, yes.

I mean, if you have a disproportionate count, either under- or over-count in any area, it would -- would affect that in terms of resources that go to a particular state, apportionment, everything else.

PAYNE: Right.

MEADOWS: And that's why we need to make sure that we ask the question.

For the Democrats to suggest that this is going to require an undercount, what they're counting on is an over count by the statistical analysis that they used in 2010. I think it's more appropriate that we ask the question.

What we found is, when we have asked the question in the past, Charles, when we have asked the question in the past, you know, the number one thing on the American Community Survey that doesn't get answered, it's not citizenship. It's about how much you make.

PAYNE: Yes.

MEADOWS: And so this is -- just doesn't hold water.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: I think we all hold that in common.

MEADOWS: I do, yes.

PAYNE: I got to ask you quickly about a couple other things.

On the topic of I.D., identity politics, it looks like the -- it's sparking a real serious firestorm within the Democratic Party.

MEADOWS: Right.

PAYNE: From where you're looking at, in your vantage point of looking at your colleagues, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi fighting in public, and now accusations of perhaps the leadership in the Democratic Party being racist.

MEADOWS: Yes, listen, every day, a fight could break out in the Democratic Caucus.

And this is all about a new group of freshmen that believe that they have the answers. And a lot of the people that have been here a long time, there's real friction on their side.

For me, I don't applaud that, any more than I would applaud it on our side. The American people want us to get some things done. It's about moving legislation. It's time that we do that in the House and sign it into law.

PAYNE: Right.

MEADOWS: But you're right. There is real friction. And you can feel it in every elevator and certainly on the House floor.

PAYNE: Real quick, I got less than a minute, but I got to ask you about Mueller coming to D.C., also the subpoenas issued, 12 subpoenas issued, to people in the Trump orbit.

This whole Mueller thing doesn't seem to go away. Your thoughts?

MEADOWS: Well, the Mueller thing should go away.

I can tell you, I'm preparing with a number of my Judiciary Committee colleagues tonight. He's going to have to answer some tough questions. The American people have already moved on. But the Democrats continue to have 2020 subpoenas. You mentioned those 12 subpoenas.

It's all about trying they get their narrative out there before the August recess. The American people want us to be serious about what matters to them. And it's jobs and the economy, and the Dow reaching a new record today.

PAYNE: Congressman Meadows, thank you very much. Always appreciate your time.

MEADOWS: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: All right, so want to ask this question. President Trump trying to -- some are saying he's trying to make an end-run around the Supreme Court.

I want to bring in Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.

President Trump obviously giving up on the notion that this will be -- the question can be on the census anytime soon, but perhaps finding a different way around this.

I asked the congressman about this American Community Survey, and, legally, could it substitute somehow the census? Could it have any sort of influence over the way federal funds are used and how congressional districts are drawn?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: This is a novel area of the law, Charles.

The American home survey goes to a random selection of 3.5 million homes. And from that, the government extrapolates answers to try and figure out what the true answers would be if it went to every home.

So, stated differently, it's a small, according to the government, statistically telling sample of the census. And the issue of what question can be on there and what can't has never been litigated before.

But if the president does want to ask this question in any form -- and I understand why the president believes he needs this, he still is confronted with the fact that, when the Commerce Department answered under oath why they needed it, they gave an answer which was inherently unworthy of belief, and, according to the Supreme Court, was contrived.

So, they're still going to confront that. If he signs some declaration or issues or order, whether you call it an executive order, an executive action, a proclamation, whatever you want to call it...

PAYNE: Right.

NAPOLITANO: ... that purports to be inconsistent with what the Supreme Court did, rest assured the plaintiffs will be tonight or tomorrow morning before the judge in Maryland and the judge here in New York, making sure that the president's action is enjoined, until it's time to examine it.

PAYNE: If it did go that route, though, would it give the White House the ability, though, to relitigate this on a different -- under a different series, in other words, moving away from the civil rights issue that obviously fell flat, and broadening it out or taking a different -- a different angle?

NAPOLITANO: It might, but it would also give the president the opportunity for crowing rights.

I mean, the president can gain political hay from this by saying to his supporters, I did everything humanly possible, consistent with a Supreme Court that ruled against me, consistent with blank, blank, blank judges that kept ruling against me, because I do what I say I'm going to do.

He may want those crowing rights, those both boasting rights, as much as he wants this question. But your question is a good one. Would it be a brand-new litigation? The answer is, it probably would. And it probably wouldn't have to be done in 2020, meaning they wouldn't have the time issue of, there's a need to begin printing these forms right now.

PAYNE: Right.

Judge, less than a minute to go. Are you satisfied with the rationale the Supreme Court -- how they handled this? There are a lot of people who were disappointed with Chief Justice Roberts, and the idea that the Supreme Court may be looking beyond the Constitution for motivations that typically don't come into play.

NAPOLITANO: You know, normally, the court doesn't ask about motivations.

But the statute here which authorizes asking anything other than how many people live there requires the government to give a motivation. And the government dropped the ball by not giving a credible motivation.

They said, we need these numbers to enforce the Voting Rights Act. Well, nobody believes that, because the Voting Rights Act, A, is not enforced by them, and, B, it only applies in one quarter of the states. It doesn't apply in the other 75 percent. That wouldn't be a motivation.

PAYNE: Right.

NAPOLITANO: The president probably tipped his hand and gave the true motivation. It's for reapportionment.

But they don't want to make that argument because of the implications of, how can you reapportion when people can't vote?

PAYNE: Judge, thank you very much. Always appreciate it.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome, Charles. You're welcome, Charles.

PAYNE: Well, folks, you watched history today, the Dow closing above 27000 for the first time.

Want to go FOX Business' Deirdre Bolton on what had the market moving so much.

DEIRDRE BOLTON, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's all Jay Powell, Charles.

And we have been talking about this, the Fed chairman indicating in his testimony before Congress this week -- this is the twice-per-year check-in, of course, that he gives lawmakers -- and what investors heard is, yes, you're going to get a rate cut, 25 basis points, at the end of the month.

That is obviously not what he said verbatim. But that is what we are seeing in the markets. And if you take a look, that certainly pushed the Dow, so never-before-seen 27000. I'm sure if you go down to the New York Stock Exchange, you can get a hat or a T-shirt with that printed on it, Charles.

Take a look at some of these stocks that really outperformed on the day. You can see Visa, Cisco, Microsoft. These obviously helped the average make that all-time high.

If you look at the ones that held the average back, we're going to put those on your screens. You're going to see 3M, Walgreens and Caterpillar. Those are the ones that held back the average.

But when you make a new high, obviously, we're focused more on the green on the screens. Clearly, though, Charles -- and you know this just as well as I do -- this is risk on, right? We saw stocks move higher. We saw gold move higher, even saw Treasury, the prices move higher. So, investors right this second all in -- Charles back to you.

PAYNE: I hope they're not wearing those hats, because I think it's bad luck.

But thanks a lot, Deirdre. We appreciate it.

BOLTON: You're so welcome.

PAYNE: Hey, folks, right now, you're looking live at the White House. We're expecting remarks from President Trump on this social media conference. Of course, we're going to bring it to you as they happen.

We will also get into the political fallout from this expected executive action over the citizenship count. We're going to have a fair and balanced debate. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A lot of buzz at the White House ahead of the president's next move on getting a full citizenship count, a lot of blowback already from Democrats.

So what do my next guests think?

Let's go to GOP strategist Noelle Nikpour, Democratic strategist Max Burns, and New York Post's Brooke Rogers.

Let me start with you, Noelle.

President Trump is -- he's determined to get this done one way or the other. And Andrew Napolitano just made a great point. Either way, folks who voted for him are going to see that he's fighting for them.

NOELLE NIKPOUR, REPUBLICAN FUND-RAISER: Of course, and that's all it boils down to.

Look, we're in an election year, and it's very important. Actions speak louder than words. And he's going to see that he's -- he's fighting for him. Yes, you're right.

But, regardless, he's going to get something done on this. I mean, what Trump wants, usually, Trump gets, and he's going to find a way around it.

PAYNE: Max, I don't like that they're -- that they're making it a racial issue, although I don't know anything that Democrats haven't made a racial issue when it comes to President Trump.

What's wrong with the idea of knowing who's legally here, who's not here illegally -- who is here illegally?

MAX BURNS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think it shows that President Trump is not necessarily interested in being constitutional or particularly conservative.

The fight is with the founding fathers. They mentioned citizenship 26 times in the Constitution. They specifically say people in the census. So unless they just forgot what they were doing, they made their intention clear about who we should be counting.

PAYNE: How do you see this, Brooke?

BROOKE ROGERS, THE NEW YORK POST: As Max said, it's addressed in the Constitution.

The Constitution also gives power of citizenship over to Congress, not the president especially. So, I think he has an uphill battle here. I think that it was good that it didn't end on the census, because that can really mess with federal funding and representatives of those states.

But the American Survey, I'm not sure how much teeth it'll have. I don't know how accurate it will be, because people will have an incentive to either lie or not to respond.

PAYNE: Well, yes. I mean, you can kind of do that. I mean, legally, apparently, you're supposed to answer the American Survey, just as we are the census, but you know how truthful we are.

But, again, I think from a commonsense point of view, and all the polls show that most Americans would like to see where just U.S. citizens or counted, and something else that would -- at least we can differentiate who's here, who's not, because isn't that what the census is, after all, trying to get an accurate picture or portrait of America?

NIKPOUR: Yes, it is.

And I really don't -- you said something that struck me, the fact that a lot of people don't tell the truth on some of the census forms. A lot of people don't.

And I'm not so sure, if the citizenship question was on there, if someone is here, let's just say illegally, they're probably not going to check that box.

PAYNE: Max?

BURNS: Yes, and I think it shows the cynicism of the whole process.

I mean, talk about the swamp. We're saying that politics is the reason for this, and the president's supporters will like it. It doesn't matter what the census thinks is best, what the Supreme Court thinks is right. It's just about the show.

PAYNE: Although there's a lot of money at stake, and there are -- there's a lot of -- seats are going to be determined.

NIKPOUR: Yes, redistricting.

PAYNE: And redistricting is going to be determined on this.

So there is a lot at stake here, worth -- something worth fighting for beyond perhaps just general political rhetoric.

NIKPOUR: Yes.

ROGERS: Yes, I think that it is political, to the extent that it plays well to Trump's base and it angers his opponents.

But when it comes down to it, there are billions of dollars in funding at stake. And I think that the reason why there was so much pushback against this getting onto the census is because of that. It's the funding and it's representatives.

PAYNE: All right, guys, I wish we had more time. We got a couple of things that are going to break real soon out of the White House.

So, thank you all very, very much. Appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: In fact, President Trump is expected to take action on determining how many people are in the U.S. as citizens.

And we're going to bring you that as soon as it happens.

Also, the war of words heating up between House Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. How will this affect the Democratic Party?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Diversity is our strength. Unity is our power. And we have a big fight. And we're in the arena. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Yes, but are they fighting themselves?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi touting unity earlier today, amid Democratic Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez accusing her of singling out women of color.

So where is this view going?

Here with me now to discuss, Independent Women's Forum's Patrice Onwuka and progressive commentator Rashad Richey.

Rashad, I got to start with you.

I think this is the ultimate culmination of decades of identity politics. When you start -- when racism is the basis for your -- for every argument against your political opponent, sometimes, those roosters come home to roost.

RASHAD RICHEY, POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, Charles, some -- in some ways, you're being hyperbolic about the political complexity of what AOC is saying.

But I will tell you this, man. It is a glorious day for democracy when politicians start talking like regular people. And that's what AOC is doing.

Nancy Pelosi is saying this message of unity today, but the speaker has also been very critical of some of the freshman congresswomen and congresspeople, period, who have come to the -- to the fray now.

So, what I think needs to happen is, she should respect them publicly and probably chastise them privately, so that things like this don't play out on Twitter. This is a new generation, Charles, and they're not hearing the you been here longer than me, so you need to shut up and listen. That's not happening anymore.

PAYNE: You know, Patrice, we saw, to be quite frank with you, a revolution in the Republican Party. President Trump has remade the Republican Party, or I should say voters gave him the mandate to remake the party.

And maybe these young women feel the same way.

PATRICE ONWUKA, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM: Well, maybe they do. But I think that's -- those are two different scenarios here.

I mean, you're talking about playing the race card, which is what AOC is doing. And I think you have to tread very lightly when you start to suggest that everyone around you is racist because they're not giving in to your demands.

I understand that there's a generational divide here in Congress, and you're starting to see it play out. But you know what? At the end of the day, I think Nancy Pelosi and a lot of these Democrats have coddled, coddled AOC and her sisters in arms, surrounding them when they say inflammatory, incendiary comments, and as though it's OK for them to do that.

Now they feel emboldened, and they want to wrest power away from leaders. And I think, Charles, you said the chickens are coming home to roost. I think that's absolutely right here.

PAYNE: You know, Rashad, too, to Patrice's point, there were many times early on when Nancy Pelosi, many people thought she would step up.

Instead, either comments made by the so-called squad were placated, or there were a couple times when they tried to take these issues and put them back on President Trump. Did she miss an opportunity to tamp down on this?

RICHEY: Well, I think she set a standard, and now she's trying to go back on that standard.

For what reason, I do not know. But let's be very clear. People like AOC, the congresswoman, is coming strong. She feels as if there is a referendum on party leadership. And, to be quite honest, Charles, that is reflected in the polling data.

Individuals who are voting in this Democratic primary have progressed a more progressive standard than that of the gatekeepers, like Speaker Pelosi. So she has a point about where the support should be.

I don't agree with AOC on the racism part. I don't think the speaker was singling her out or the group out because they happen to be minority women. I think they happen to be vocal and minority women.

PAYNE: Patrice?

ONWUKA: I think -- I think, to your earlier point, though, the problem is they're -- the Democratic Party may have moved to the far left, but if they're going to remain in power in the House, you have got to figure out how to appeal to those centrist voters, those who maybe voted for President Trump in 2016.

PAYNE: But, Patrice, let me jump in, though. What about business as usual?

I mean, it feels like not just American voters, not just Republicans or Democrats, but around the world, we are seeing a revolution against the elites, business as usual. And maybe does AOC represent any of that?

ONWUKA: Well, she could.

I mean, certainly, she's taking some of the angst that Bernie Sanders voters felt coming out of 2016 when their candidate seem to have lost the - - their -- the nomination in an unfair way. And so I think carrying on that, well, let's shake things up, let's get some new fresh blood coming in, that could work.

The problem is her leadership style, if this is -- if this is what she's signaling her leadership style is going to be. It's not going to be consensual. It's going to be very dictatorial. And when you have a leadership style like that, where you're -- you're saying, oh, we don't want to work with anybody who we don't agree with, and calling out Joe Biden because he says good things about Republicans, then I think you're going to be in some serious leadership trouble.

PAYNE: All right.

ONWUKA: And Democrats are going to suffer.

PAYNE: Patrice, Rashad, thank you both very much.

ONWUKA: Thanks, Charles.

PAYNE: Always appreciate your passionate commentary on this.

RICHEY: you.

PAYNE: Bernie Marcus, he is burning mad, the Home Depot co-founder blasting critics who want to boycott his iconic store over his support for President Trump.

Meet the Marine war veteran who lost both his legs defending our freedom. Now he's defending Bernie and all the good Home Depot's doing for our bravest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: You're looking live at the White House. We're expecting remarks from President Trump on his social media conference. Of course, we will bring them to you as soon as we get them.

By the way, wouldn't be surprised if the president talked about the record stock market.

We're back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Bernie is blasting back.

Home Depot's co-founder Bernie Marcus responding to the critics calling for a boycott of the store after Marcus pledged his support for President Trump.

In a statement on his Facebook page, Marcus writing: "Negative stories, vicious threats without cause to boycott the company that has enabled my foundation to give billions to support autism, medical research, education, heart and neurological issues like stroke, and to help our veterans."

The subject of helping others in need is something that Bernie Marcus talked with Neil Cavuto about recently. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: And they said, tax us more. What do you think of that?

BERNIE MARCUS, CO-FOUNDER, HOME DEPOT: Well, they trust the government more than I do.

I can't tell you how much money we have given away. My foundation actually has given away over $2 billion. I would rather give it away than have some congressman give it away.

We have built hospitals.

My foundation now is working on one issue. And that is taking care of these veterans, kids who fought in Afghanistan, Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: U.S. Marine veteran Joey Jones is one of our bravest who directly benefited from Bernie's foundation. And he joins us now.

Thank you for joining us.

JOEY JONES, U.S. MARINE CORPS VETERAN: Good afternoon. Thanks for having me.

PAYNE: Joey, tell us exactly how you benefited from the philanthropy of Marcus.

JONES: Yes, actually, I see both sides of the story. So, as a wounded veteran -- I lost both my legs in Afghanistan -- the Home Depot foundation has stepped in and helped to make my house in Texas back in 2014 accessible while I waited for two years for the VA to reimburse us for that.

So they stepped in and provided that gap opportunity, so I would have accessible home. And then, on top of that, I have ran a military nonprofit and worked at a military nonprofit. And I have been directly involved with both the Marcus Foundation and the Home Depot Foundation.

And I can tell you, they have done a tremendous amount for the veteran community, not just in things like remodeling homes or building homes, but, more importantly, in mental health and traumatic brain injury.

Bernie Marcus himself has funded $135 million for the Marcus Institute, for the Shepherd Center here in Atlanta, for the Warrior PATHH program at Boulder Crest Retreat. And it's about to come to other places like Camp Southern Ground.

The list goes on and on, and the direct impact that Bernie Marcus himself has had. But if you take all that away, a company he's no longer involved in has given away a half-a-billion dollars to help fund veteran home remodels and accessible homes.

And one thing that Home Depot does people don't know about, they do a pay gap for any of their employees that deploy overseas. And so there's a lot there. And a lot of it doesn't get bragged about, honestly.

PAYNE: Yes, you're absolutely right.

And what struck me is the idea that it took the VA two years to reimburse you. Imagine if they weren't there, if the Marcus Foundation wasn't there in the first place...

JONES: Yes. That's the point.

PAYNE: ... how much more desperate your life would have been.

We're a very giving country. We're the most generous country in the world. And a lot of people do this without any fanfare. The idea that because Bernie -- Bernie Marcus has a candidate that he likes and supports, that people are willing to hurt or attempt to hurt financially this business -- by the way, it won't hurt Bernie Marcus.

It won't hurt the other rich people or executives. It's going to hurt folks, like you said, veterans who are coming home and getting jobs at Home Depot, wouldn't it?

JONES: Well, the thing is, and it goes to this idea of boycotting,

I'm not going to boycott Nike shoes because they took a stance I don't agree with. I am going to go buy Under Armour shoes. So, at the end of the day, go buy from brands and businesses that do good things and you support.

So if you want to boycott Home Depot because you don't like what one of their former owners is doing with his personal money, that's fine. But for the rest of the Americans in this country, if you would like to support brands and foundations that go out and do good things, Home Depot and the Marcus Foundation or two great places to start.

And so I -- if boycotting is your method of civil discourse, then have at it. But for the rest of the country, go out and support something. Go be active, instead of reactive, and go do something good. And that's exactly what Bernie Marcus has done.

It's really unfortunate that people are taking one line from an the Atlanta-Journal Constitution article where Bernie Marcus said two things. One, he's giving away his fortune for good causes, and, two, he also supports Donald Trump.

And the Twitter headline is, Bernie Marcus gives away his fortune to support Donald Trump.

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: And so the problem here, a lot of it, is just misleading people to begin with.

PAYNE: Well, that's really fake news.

Before I let you go, Joey, I always want to know, how you doing? How's the foundation and some of your efforts that you're doing? How's that going?

JONES: Doing really well.

America's veterans are eager to get back in society and be a contributing member, and everything we can do to help out with that is something I'm proud to be a part of.

PAYNE: We always salute and thank you for your service. Thank you very much.

JONES: Yes, sir. Thank you.

PAYNE: Well, first, it was the media is tipping off illegal immigrants about possible ICE raids. Now lawmakers are giving advice on how to avoid arrest. Does this put our law enforcement in danger?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Dow Jones industrial average up 227 points, over 27000 for the very first time.

It was an amazing session for the market, which came out of the gates strong, listening to Jerome Powell, his second day of testimony before Congress today. It was the Senate. And during the middle of the session, we actually began to sag, but buying started to trigger, buying, and then here we are.

Interesting enough, Powell also spent a lot of the last two days talking about Libra. That's a proposed cryptocurrency from Facebook. Nobody likes it. Everyone hates it. Consequently, Facebook was lower. So where a lot of technology companies. Nasdaq actually was lower on the day.

Nevertheless, it's historic. It's monumental, the Dow Jones industrial average over 27000 for the very first time in history.

We will be right back. I'm sorry. We won't be right back. We're going to talk more about this busy day at the White House.

President Trump, of course, expected soon to address the process for determining how many people in the U.S. are actually citizens.

Earlier, the president took aim at perceived bias on social media. But will this summit that he's holding actually change anything?

I want to go to "Media Buzz"'s host, Howard Kurtz, who joins us now.

President Trump has talked about this a lot. I got to tell you something, Howard. A lot of conservatives, I know, have said they have been targeted. And these aren't outlandish -- quote, unquote -- "right-wing extremists."

But there's a feeling in the community that this is a real legitimate problem.

HOWARD KURTZ, CONTRIBUTOR: Look, even these companies, Facebook, Twitter, Google know that they are left-leaning, that they have a problem with the right. There's certainly been some well-documented instances in which people on the right have been suspended, shadow-banned, minimized, expelled.

And sometimes companies like Facebook have had to apologize. So there's some real grievances here. But it's a very odd social media summit, because, as you can see, there's no cameras in. The press was only allowed in with the pool.

And even the guest list wasn't made public, so we only know from what has dribbled out. The president seems to have been inviting people who share his view that these companies are unfair.

PAYNE: Recently, Jack Dorsey, though, did visit the White House. And I'm sure President Trump has been in communication with several of the key players in the social media world.

I had the pleasure, if you will, Howard, of having lunch with -- a one-on- one lunch with Jack Dorsey last year. And he admitted as much, that he knows there's some inherent bias in his company. And he would like to find a way around this.

Do you think, ultimately, considering the monopolistic nature of social media, and just how much dominance they have over our very lives, and even some saying they can swing elections, that they should be treated legally in a different manner than they are now?

KURTZ: Well, you run into free speech concerns and who decides what is free -- hate speech and who decides what's false or propaganda?

So it's tricky terrain. But I do think they have done such a bad job at policing their own sites, not to mention these questions of discrimination, that there's actually open talk now about government regulation in a way there wasn't even a couple of years ago.

And, by the way, the press already has decided that this social media summit is terrible, the New York Times tech columnist this morning writing that this is a bunch of right-wing trolls getting the red carpet treatment, a motley grab bag of pro-Trump influencers.

I just heard a CNN reporter say, oh, critics say this is just a hit job.

I'm going to reserve judgment, but I don't know that one single summit, particularly with no TV cameras rolling, can change the culture of these tech giants, none of whom, as you know, have been invited to this summit.

PAYNE: No, they weren't invited to the summit.

I will say I also saw a headline on CNN that the extremists, right-wing extremists are being invited. I had the pleasure of interviewing Deneen Borelli on my show today. And she had a program on YouTube, easily will get over a million hits views every single time.

Something went wrong. She pegs it to a speech that she gave at CPAC, and she lost her job doing this. I mean, it's hurt her financially. This is not just political rhetoric or about ideologies. This actually has a real series impact on a lot of people.

KURTZ: Yes, there are a couple of controversial characters who've been invited to this summit.

But I don't want to obscure the larger point here, which is, these Silicon Valley companies were so admired a few years ago. And they have done such a lousy job, say, oh, we're not really media companies, we -- everyone can post what they want.

And they have these standards that they don't enforce very consistently. Louis Farrakhan, they just -- Twitter just deleted a tweet that he put up last October in which he called Jews termites.

How long does it take to decide that's against the rules, if there are any rules? So the president is right to focus the spotlight on these companies. But if it's a one-sided summit, it's going to draw a lot of criticism.

PAYNE: Yes, well, so much for the old do-no-harm motto.

Howard Kurtz, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

KURTZ: Good to see, Charles.

PAYNE: All right, folks, now we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: An ICE deportation warrant is not the same as a search warrant. If that is the only document ICE brings to a home raid, agents do not have the legal right to enter a home.

If ICE agents don't have a warrant -- warrant signed by a judge, a person may refuse to open the door and let them in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling illegal immigrants how to avoid arrest from ICE.

After The New York Times reported that ICE raids will begin this Sunday, ICE responding, saying: "Due to law enforcement sensitivities and the safety and security of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, the agency will not offer specific details related to enforcement operations."

So, just how much risk does tipping off possible raids put our law enforcement in?

Former D.C. homicide Detective Ted Williams joins us now.

Ted, it's dangerous stuff, I mean, Nancy Pelosi going out on a limb, telling people who may be here illegally when to open the doors, when not to open the doors, to defy the law enforcement officials, and even act as lawyers themselves. Are you concerned?

TED WILLIAMS, CONTRIBUTOR: I'm very concerned, Charles.

What ICE is doing in conducting these operations are crucial. But it is very dangerous. And I got to tell you, President Trump didn't help this when he tweeted about three weeks ago that they were going to conduct these raids.

I think this administration needs to let ICE agents be ICE agents, and they need to be protected. And the way you protect them is not by tweeting what they are going to do and when they're going to do it.

And, also, someone has possibly leaked to The New York Times that these raids are coming this weekend. That is not the way you protect these ICE agents. You let these ICE agents go on and do their work.

PAYNE: Right.

WILLIAMS: And they're not able to do it, unfortunately.

PAYNE: Ted, real quick though, because I have got a minute left, though.

All right, so that -- the information is out there, regardless of how it got out there. Are you concerned, though, that illegals may be at home saying, I'm not going to open a door, and playing -- acting as their own attorneys, or just taking Nancy Pelosi's word that they don't have to adhere to what these law enforcement agents are asking them to do?

WILLIAMS: Well, absolutely, I'm concerned. And, no, they don't have to open those doors, as Pelosi, unfortunately, has said.

But what's going to happen here is, now that they know ICE is coming, you're going to have a lot of these people going underground. And they're not going to be successful in getting as many as they would have gotten if they would have done a covert operation.

PAYNE: Right.

All right, well, we will see what happens.

Ted, always appreciate your expertise on this kind of stuff. Appreciate it.

All right, folks, President Trump, this summit in the White House, making remarks just moments ago.

Let's go watch.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.