i'm suing univision for $500 million. so that's the question i like. y how am i preparing for my snl. i don't like showing a person sleeping at a podium. you need a very strong person with tremendous energy. thank you very much, folks. i'll take the job. >> he has another book out and depending on the poll, when republicans were similarly asked not only who they prefer, right now ben carson slightly over donald trump, who is the most elect ableababl electable, they said donald trump. and what do you notice they have in common? they're both outside the political petri dish and they have been for some time thousand. so this represents with little more than 90 days to go before the iowa you caucuses a sign that this might be more than a brief fling with outside the box candidates. who knows that better than real clear politics rebecca bird. i was listening to the remarks and obviously a much quieter but more pensive ben carson. and you could argue that each is presenting himself in an appealing way that is a big, big differentiator from your typical candidate base and that could explain why they have a growing base. >> that's one of the reasons. there are a few reasons we're looking at right now. first of all, they're unlike anything voters have really seen before especially when we're talking about candidates who could actually be elected. and we're at the point in the cycle whereas you said, this is no longer a fad, this is the real deal. these guys could each win the nomination really. and so voters are looking at them saying, wow, we actually have a choice that is different than anything we've had before. part of it is also just this anti-establishment strain in the republican party right now. people looking at the politicians who are out there and what they have been able to accomplish or what they have not been able to accomplish. and they're positioning, well, maybe we need someone who is really going to shake things up and who better than someone who has never been in elected office before. >> you know, rebecca, shep touched on this, this notion that it's not quite like a herman cain fling, something that was going on four years ago at this time. that was much shorter lived. that if you look at how long donald trump has beaeeen numbere or two in polls or seen as a formidable force in spol polls ben carson similarly regarded in polls, it's part the similar of '42 fling thing. so does the party have to reassess how it is assessing and oftentimes dismissing these guys? >> absolutely. and we're at the point now where republican strategists and these other campaigns what we would consider the more traditional campaigns are definitely starting to take ben carson and donald trump seriously. they were late to the game and they will all be totally honest about that. they didn't take these guys seriously at first. but what is different this time that we didn't see in 2012 with some fof the herman cain, michelmichele bachma bachmann, you have the anti-establishment vote which is about 50% of the gop vote right now. and on the other side, you have the so-called establishment candidates, jeb bush, marco rubio, maybe carly fiorina, john kasich, chris christie, they are fracturing the establishment vote and so none of them are able to get any sort of foothold and that lends itself to ben carson and donald trump continuing to be very strong. >> and even within that establishment ground, you have the likes of ted cruz. you add his polls to the other, even though as a sitting senator he's a maverick senator, you could argue that that anti-establishment view is stronger thachb we thought certainly at this stage in the game. rebecca, thank you very much. i appreciate it. talk about perfect timing, right? one week ahead of -- i just found out about this on fox business. one week from tonight, milwaukee, wisconsin, great restaurants there, although that is not my focus, it will be seconds before the debate, but you're going to see us hosting a debate about business, about the economy, with the people who matter and the questions that matter to you. and if you look at the fox principles behind this, it looks like charlie's angels. i found that offensive because i'm taller than tom bosley. but these are the brainiacs and we'll get into the issues that are near and dear to you. money and money only. next week, one week from today. in the meantime, on the other side of the aisle, you have hillary clinton who is benefitting from polls that shows she is widening lead over her democratic opponents, what there is of them. but what is very interesting is what has come out in the interim since the very long benghazi hearings. we now know without a doubt that at least what she said was happening at the time we had ambassador steven and three others killed, that as secretary of state, she knew it was wrong. some take the leap that she was lying at the time. no for you we'll just say that it was at var krans with the facts that she presented, yet she has not gotten remotely burnt on this in the mainstream immediate why which she says she survived an 11 our ordeal. or are we glossing oefr ining o fact that complain not be denied, that there were lies and they were proven to be true. and they were approach to be in var krans wiiance with remarks had made. which would be a lie. the mainstream media has already begun an explanation and that voters are satisfied with her answers on benghazi and leave it with that. but on that issue, and i understand that she did comport herself very well in these hearings. but we do now know that that was brought up, that the e-mails showed right from the get-go she knew it wasn't about a video. and i can't, excuse me peter falk clum colombo moment and say why people didn't make a bigger deal of a lie? >> surprise surprise, another hud contradiction, quite frankly, i think that -- >> that's not a contradiction. >> a lie, sure, absolutely. i think that the benghazi issue is probably the most legitimate challenge to hillary clinton's candidacy. and for some reason, looking at the poll numbers, people do not seem to be bothered by it. i understand the frustration on the gop side that this really should have been almost dispositive of her campaign and it really hasn't hurt her at all. what is interesting to me is that the e-mail server issue seemed to cause her more damage than the loss of four american lives on her watch. so it's fascinating to me, i think it speaks to the fact that she is the default candidate on the left with no real opposition. >> do you think that it will be much ado about nothing, game on over, move on? i know i get obsessed on the mainstream media fairness issue, but if that were a republican caught saying something as richard nixon famously said was at variance of the facts, it would be very different. >> that is very true and i think that there is a huge disconnect between what she has said publicly and what was going on behind the scenes. and i think that makes her at this point -- i don't think this is over. i think that once exposed, it will definitely come to light and show that. polling already shows that she's very untrustworthy. and the first word that came comes to mind is un2rtrustworth and not able to be trusted. and she time and time again told the bold face the lies and she knew. there were e-mails that have said this is a terrorist attack more so than it is violence perpetrated because of a protest. >> it is what it is. this idea now as we're being look at a rally she'll be addressing in iowa very soon, she remains very, very popular, those hearings themselves made her more popular, maybe their length had a lot to do with that and that she survived the joe biden scare, she survived the threat from other candidates. turns out that they really didn't or at least as of yet not put up much of a fight. now, we should be very careful of that in saying that all is behind her, but what do you think? >> well, i think that again as much as many people on the far right would love for this to be the end of it, for her it's not. her numbers look stronger now than before the 11 hour hearing. so i think now it's time to pit it. if i was advising the republican strategy, i would say pivot the policy. >> so drop benghazi, the server and e-mail? >> you can't make people care about something that they very simply don't care -- >> why -- >> i'm not saying -- >> one at a time. it isn't -- >> it's not resonating. >> at the same time being she does have a serious challenger in bernie sanders with young people and young women. >> but he punted on the e-mail and on the server. >> he was able to fund raise more than she did during that entire debate. and she is 30 points behind him with young people, which is something to be afraid of because that was the demographic that barack obama had that was underestimated. >> respectfully, i see what you're say, but he's a socialist and many tepeople in the middle are just not going to vote for bernie sanders. >> well, many people the on the left should not vote for a criminal. >> we'll see what happens. but again, like a snapshot in time, once snapped, it's then shot. but things could change. ladies, thank you. here is what is not changing. the markets racing ahead despite all these concerns and anxiety. the s&p 500 by the way, that closed at a record high. the dow moves more into positive territory on the year. and we had about a $6 billion offer for king digital. i bet you know candy crush. i don't know this game. i'm not into this game. i know people are rabid about it. my whole crew now is playing it instead of focusing on me this is why i'm getting kind of -- but $6 billion for a game. i don't know. i don't know. what i do know is despite a lot of people making money, there are not a lot of people happy they're getting a share in that money. i saw it play out in chicago thaend on monday night football in a bizarre way. what expects these two events in ways that has a lot of people thinking french revolution, and not in a good way. (vo) what does the world run on? it runs on optimism. it's what sparks ideas. moves the world forward. invest with those who see the world as unstoppable. who have the curiosity to look beyond the expected and the conviction to be in it for the long term. oppenheimerfunds believes that's the right way to invest... ...in this big, bold, beautiful world. all right. take a look at the markets. i said the s&p closed at a record today. it did not. just shy of it. so up about 2.5%. but all the major -- not today, but through the year, we have seen appreciable advances in the dow, but not a record. but again, a lot of this optimism about this steady as she goes. the candy crush game maker, weird, that's just me. but i digress. what i don't digress about, capitalism isn't everyone's cup of tea. protests in chicago yesterday outside the cme where they change options derivatives and futures. they're demanding taxes and pennies at each trade that could create billions to ease chicago and the state of illinois. and unfurling of a flag during monday night football meant to tackle dominion resource and bank of america in the same breath here. they got up there, unfurled that flag, got their message through just as a lot of the protesters did. and it scared me because we're seeing a lot of this stuff already. whether it's occupy wall street 2.0 or something different, it's morphed into something that has an increasingly nasty chain. charles pane doesn't like this and john rafford is worried about the concern around it. >> i think we saw with the last super bowl, there was a major concern, a security concern. i think we would be foolish not to think that sooner or later we'll have some kind of and at taking. and to see these two individuals put people in risk because they could have fallen and maybe they think they have a bomb in their backpack, they start running out the door, it cause as mass chaos scene and a lot of injuries. >> but anger capitalism, anger corporatism, that was searching for on in chicago yesterday at the cme. you guys got a pay up for the abuse of the politicians who got us bogged down, right? >> you're right. but the irony of course is that the anger is not at the politicians. the anger is at the people generating revenue and income and -- moving the gears of the economic cycle. that's the interesting aspect of it. and people who are pulling the strings are the politicians. and this kind of divisiveness keeps them in power. but i do worry about them saying how can this resonate. we've seen it from the wall street protests, occupy wall street on, and it hasn't resonated the way that the orchestraters wanted to. ultimately it might take some sort of sense of violence to make it a real big issue. but i'll tell you the problem. poor people in america have gout. we suffer from obesity. this not like the french revolution. people in america still have hope. they're still doing so much better than the rest of the world. not doing great by americ standards, but the idea that whoever is orchestrating all of this and hoping that maybe somehow a spark will happen and it will become a national uprising, yopg they will get their wish. >> but i know you're a law guy. but i hear that rage and i hear what a lot of these protesters are saying particularly in chicago. and they feel the system could explain the populism in the race player particularly the democratic party. and even the republican party that some target wall street. that they're doing fine, i'm not. they're getting the american dream, i'm not. and we can argue the merits of that. but there is no arguing the numbers who aren't buying that. >> well, i think everybody has the same opportunity. i think it's showing. >> they feel they don't get it. they feel that wall street is getting away or some fat cats are getting away and some take advantage of to reinforce that argument. but does it worry you that that morphs into something more sinister? >> i think we need to go back to having more control on these protesters. and a lot turn into criminals and we've seen that. >> they'rae agage traitors, som bused in. >> and we've been trained teaching law enforce the taking a softer approach, and that's fine to a point because you want to limit the litigation that comes behind it. but you have to take back the streets. you can't allow people to shut down city street, putting people's lives in danger. how does an ambulance get through when you have these streets being shut down day after kday. >> and they promise more of these events. >> and the same sort of anarchists who tried to manipulate it into something more violence, a little bit that resonated a little bit more in terms of the news cycle. but to your point, where they're not failing, gets legislation and putting people into power who rpromise to fix this. but where are the income inequality issues the worst? everywhere that the same progressives have been in control whether it's a detroit, look at california. rich places where you have very rich and very poor. >> keep an eye, not so coincidental that both occurred yesterday. thank you gentlemen very much. we still don't know what happened to that russian plane went down. security experts say it wasn't a missile, but something happened in the sky that lit up and our satellites caught it. exactly what was that? after this. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. oh no... (under his breath) hey man! hey peter. (unenthusiastic) oh... ha ha ha! joanne? is that you? it's me... you don't look a day over 70. am i right? jingle jingle. if you're peter pan, you stay young forever. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. ♪ you make me feel so young... it's what you do. ♪ you make me feel ♪ so spring has sprung. we're hearing saying the pentagon say whatever happened to the russian jet that crashed, it wasn't shot down. i don't know how they know that unequivocally, but conor powell has the latest. >> reporter: there a lot of c contradictory information coming out. metrojet initially claim that had it was brought down by an external impact. but the pentagon telling fox news that there was a sudden and unexpected heat flash at the time of the crash, but there is no evidence that there was any type of surface to air missile that brought down the plane meaning that there is unlikely some type of external impact that brought the plane down. nobody is ruling out terrorism despite the fact that a group linked to isis claimed to have shot down the plane. that is being dismiss will ed. it's still a possibility there was a bomb on board or some type of a mechanical malfunction. the pentagon confirming there was some type of blast, but we don't know what it was caused from. just one of the many contradictions that we're getting from thoauthorities. despite there is evidence that the plane broke up in the air, an egyptian official today saying that there is no evidence that the plane actually proper up in the air. so again you're getting more contradictory reporting coming from the two different groups. both sides are trying to stick to a narrative. the egypt shan shans are pushik again terrorism in a large point because the president made his name fighting terrorism, islamic extremism and russians are pushing back against mechanical malfunction because of their spot i airline safety record. so what it means is there are a lot of unanswered questions right now. >> to put it mildly. thank you. a former fbi bomb technician is joining us. danny, we apparently have satellite confirmation that there was a bright image or something that would indicate something went amiss very quickly. what does that mean? >> well, first, i'd like to reiterate that as the other commentator just said, that it's they ever good to guess or speculate. if they have that, i think that that is more of an indication where a full physical search needs to be covered. i understand that they were talking about that they have debris over 80 square miles. i think in pan am 103 lockerbie, it was like over 20 miles. >> you mentioned lockerbie. it took about seven days i think for us to confirm that that was a terrorist act. >> and it took over a year to identify the subjects and obtain an inindictment. >> so why are we so quek to say this was not shot down? >> i don't know the answer to th that. when we see something that indicates a large light indicating an explosive, it could be something to explode out of a jet, it could be a bomb. you know more of this than i do. but what kinds of things if you don't mind steering me to this could something like that indicate? >> well, it could indicate also as was commented before the fuel tank. if you recall the incident, and i forget where it was, but leaving from new york where they actually identified that it was a short in the wiring and exploded within the fuel tank and that was a failure and it was not a bomb. so that is why you need to methodically conduct a full search and to treat everything as though it were a crime. >> very good. thanks, danny. i apologize for coughing there. something akin to this, the tsa and it failed yet another airport security test. you know what troubles me about this, doug, i keep hearing this stuff. what is the latest? >> this is really troubling because sinfor the first time se the may embarrassment where they got through 95% of the time, tsa screeners were again tested this past september at eight different airports and the results were consistently bad a