Skip to main content

tv   The O Reilly Factor  FOX News  June 30, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PDT

1:00 am
>> thank you andy. >> a little hiccup there. >> thank you very much. you hotter me and i won't forgive you for that. i'm greg gutfeld. the o'reilly factor is on. tonight. >> you will not see your taxes go up. >> you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase. >> ruling that the mandate was a tax. >> the mandate is a tax. >> the republican national committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> republicans pound the drum on the obama care tax. could the supreme court's decision on healthcare actually end up helping mitt romney take the white house? we'll have a special report. we are going to bring up a repeal vote on wednesday july 11 to make sure that we continue to focus on what it is that the american people want. >> republicans also vowing to repeal obama care while
1:01 am
democrats say that is a gop fantasy. who is right on that one? we'll have no spin analysis. a new poll reveals who americans want in the white house in the event of an alien invasion. we're not kidding. we'll show you the results. >> can't we all just get along? >> caution, you are are about to enter the no spin zone. "the factor" begins right now. hi, i'm laura ingram in tonight for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us. new developments in the eric holder contempt of congress case in a a moment. first right to our top story. how the supreme court's vindication of president obama
1:02 am
in the healthcare battle might actually turn into a big loser for him in the long run. consider that republican presidential candidate mitt romney has already raised more than $4 million since yesterday's high court decision to uphold obama care. and democrats are now put in the position of defending it. >> i think the president can and will continue to point out the good things that are in this act because we are not going to be able to run away from it. they will make it a campaign issue and i always said we he make a mistake we democrats when we don't stand and dehe fend. it is going to be an albatross around our neck but stand and defend it. >> meanwhile, republicans are focused on the path to repeal. >> we will continue to try and look toward the kind of healthcare that people want and that is patient centered healthcare not healthcare dictated by washington which is what obama care delivers. we will bring up a repeal vote on wednesday july 11 to make sure that we continue to focus on what it is that the american people want. >> so it looks like the law
1:03 am
could still face some major challenges. joining me now from washington, steven law, the c.e. american cross roads and julie, a democratic strategist and fox news contributor. story will be with us it looks like through the campaign no doubt about it. ob be viously a huge decision yesterday but mitt romney raised i think now it is going up every minute but probably $4.6 million since the decision came down. >> good for mitt romney. rick santorum was right during the republican primaries that romney is not the guy to be carrying this message. what justice roberts said and the courts said if you call this a tax it is exactly what romney did in massachusetts. based on romney care in massachusetts. that is what obama will keep saying when romney attacks him on it. but romney is not the right messenger for this. >> obviously generating a lot of interest and support.
1:04 am
looks like from reading the blogs and tea party commentary on this people are jacked up on this. i don't think they care that much now about romney care because romney said look, i stand by that but there were clearly problems and that was a state experiment and this is a federal cramdown and he is generating an enormous amount of support and goodwill. >> the tea party were jacked up to get rid of obama for the past three years. this is not anything new. >> all the articles, wither the tea party. the tea party was fizzling out. >> i never thought they were fizzling out. i thought they got folded into the republican party. they basically did a hostile takeover. not hostile maybe a friendly takeover of the republican party so these guys were always jacked up to go ou out and go t after obama. >> steve, your take on this. a lot o of money raised but nevertheless a major victory for president obama yesterday. a a lot of republicans are spinning this as well, this is great for republicans. i don't think ten minutes before the decession was handed down a lot of people were on
1:05 am
cable news saying gosh if the republicans lose on the individual mandate it will be a big win. >> i don't think anybody expected it. i think a lot of people view this as a terrible decision for the country and a big problem that we will have to deal with but i think it is also an opportunity for republicans to relitigate the issue in the court of public opinion and every time that happened in the past whether the scott brown special or 2010 mid terms obama care has lost and democrats have been collateral damage. >> what about the fact that julie raised. mitt romney h himself had similar healthcare program in massachusetts. question on whether one of his guys helped advise the obama administration on obama care. how can he really make this case credibly to the american people? >> i think that is the only but i thinkmocrats can say it is completely wishful thinking. they have a huge intensity gap. if you were for obama care then the supreme court decision is basically case closed. if you don't like obama care
1:06 am
and that is the vast majority of the people it is game on. >> a couple of big senate races. north dakota they want to pick up that seat in north dakota. heidi heidkamp is running. tim kaine is not doing any snoopy dance in virginia. aren't a lot of the democrats in a difficult situation given the continued unpopularity of obama care. depend hass you want to highlight in obama care. if they run on their own terms and talk about the positive. the fact that preexisting conditions no longer allowed. you can't get denied insurance is no longer allowed. >> how you about the taxes on the middle class. $4.2 million according to the c.e.o. >> you are only taxed if you a, already don't have healthcare. >> it is an income tax and
1:07 am
medical devices tax. tanning tax. >> tanning tax not for me. for john boehner maybe not for me. if you are calling it a tax is there a federal clause issue, if you are calling it a tax, romney care was lass tax and again the exact same thing. >> i'm not defending romney care but the democrats want to run away from the decision. >> who is going to be the messenger for the republican party, the guy who was the architect. he is raising it today before the blowback begins but until people realize. >> what blowback? >> it is unpopular. >> the blowback on the debate when barack obama or anybody else decides to talk mitt romney on this and say look this is based on -- >> did the president lie when said i will not tax the middle class? >> no that was not a lie. >> did he lie to george stephanopoulos when said it wasn't a tax. >> justice roberts said this was a tax. >> justice roberts, the president came forward and said it was not a tax.
1:08 am
did he lie? >> just because justice roberts said it was a tax does not mean it was a tax. >> you are now you saying it wasn't a tax? >> this should have been under the commerce clause. the fact that justice roberts decided to call it something else is up to justice roberts. >> so the democrats, steve, i think are in the position where they have to say either nothing or that it is not a tax. i think justice roberts decision was a disaster. the commerce clause opinion part of it not withstanding. but is that hard for them and can republicans really ride this to victory without a real reform minded replacement that everybody can understand. in because so far we haven't heard a lot of specifics on that. >> well, on the tax issue in particular i think the president looks like he wasn't dealing straight with the american people. he said it absolutely was not a tax and then his own lawyers were arguing in front of the supreme court in order to save obama care that it was in fact
1:09 am
a tax and now we all know because supreme court declared it was is a tax. the president wasn't dealing straight with the american people on the health care. they have to run from the fact that this slashes senior's care. it puts a board of independent unelected bureaucrats in charge of deciding what care seniors do and don't get. republicans will at some point have to step up and only do we have to move this wreckage from the highway after we defeat it but -- >> we have to leave it there. next on the rundown, how badly will the president flip flop on whether the individual mandate is a tax actually damage his reelection campaign? jeanine and leslie will weigh in. the justice department says it will not prosecute eric holder on
1:10 am
1:11 am
1:12 am
in the impact segment tonight. did the president flip flop his position on the individual mandate being a tax? republicans say yes and the rnc did not waste any time putting out a new ad hammering obama on that issue. >> if you are a family making less than $250,000 a year you will not see your taxes go up. >> you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase. any form of tax increase. >> the supreme court has upheld the requirement that every american buy health insurance. >> ruling that the mandate was
1:13 am
a tax. >> the mandate is a tax. >> every single american has the right to affordable acceptable healthcare and should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families. >> the obama camp is hitting back. david axelrod senior advisor to the reelection campaign said this on "the today show." >> whether you call it a mandate or a tax what it is a a penalty on the very few americans who can afford healthcare, don't pay for are it, end up in the emergency rooms getting free care and then we all pay for it in the form of -- >> what you call it is important in an election year and coming out of a recession if it is called a tax it is going to hurt. >> i would suggest that you direct that question to governor romney who is the chief proponent of the very policy when was governor of massachusetts. >> the question, will the tax issues damage the president? juneinjoining us, radio talk sw host jeanine turn and from l.a. leslie marshall.
1:14 am
let's start with you, leslie. the president repeatedly stated this was not a tax and he would not raise taxes on middle class families and the cbo's own report on this that was circulating, of course, around the internet today demonstrates that about $4.2 billion in new taxes on middle class families are going to result because of obama care. not just the individual mandate tax but a whole host of other taxes as well. how is this not a broken promise? >> well, i don't see it as a broken promise because i honestly think the american people are smarter than that, laura. when we look at what is happening now we are paying with our taxes for the abuse of the emergency room and for the rehallity that we have more and we are entering into much more sick people as a society ages with the baby boomers becoming seniors and just not enough medical staff to take care of them. i'm married to one, believe me, i know. the reality is that in the long run we are actually going to be paying less than we are paying
1:15 am
now because we are stopping this low comotive as former president clinton said from hitting the brick wall. >> why are the doctors saying they are going to leave the profession if this will be a glorious new world of healthcare under obama care. three friends of mine are getting out of independent practice. jeanine, you can chime in on this. on the tax issue it seems the republicans think they have struck gold. does mitt romney as the author of his own mandate in massachusetts does that then make it harder for him to make the argument moving forward in the debates and so forth? >> i think two thoughts on that. what romney did was on a state level not a federal level so that argument doesn't even fly. secondly, i thought chief justice roberts decision was interesting. at first i was shocked and then 24 hours later to meditate on it. you know what i did, i think he called obama's bluff about what it has been.
1:16 am
it has always been a tax and obama knew it was a tax. he sent his solicitor general in to the courtroom and gave him permission to say, yes, it as tax. tells the american people not one thin dime not one dime will be taxed. he tells congress there is not going to be a tax. obama has not been truthful with the people. he has been duplicitous with the people. roberts called him on his bluff. >> i think that is calling a lot into it. i think he was rewriting the statute to save the statute and getting a lot of accolades as a result and probably a lot of invitations to parties. >> the liberal media is going to have to talk about the fact now this is a tax. >> no, they will say it is constitutional. all the kids with preexisting conditions are going to get coverage and cancer patients. it will be very emotional and leslie getting back to the point on the tax, though. you do see that in some of
1:17 am
these difficult races these senate races where democrats either have to hold the seat or hope to pick up a seat the democrats are in a bind because someone has not done a good job in the democrat camp of branding obama care as the greatest thing since the stethooscope. >> i said all along this was not spelled out simply and clearly. the republicans did a better job in my opinion of giving out more misinformation about what is not really in the affordability care act than democrats did as to what is really in the affordable care act. some of the races i do not disagree have a fight for their life. the polls show on a national level when it comes to the president and mitt romney running against him in november that is not what the approximate 15% of the undecided swing voters are really, really caring about. those that support the president will continue to. is those that support mitt
1:18 am
romney will continue to. >> i think you need -- >> the think the problem here is it becomes a george herbert walker bush moment. >> yes, yes. >> no new taxes over my dead body. and then read my lips becomes a tax increase and he is thrown out of office. >> not one thin dime. not one dime! >> the cliffs are so stark. the denial to george stephanopoulos was so defiant it seems to be a diffict sell if you are saying now it is okay it is a tax. what it was before and we didn't we write language into the legislation indicating it was a tax. is the tea party fired up and will that translate into a broadened appeal to the republican party. >> this is going to garner a lot of votes from the in dependents and even democrats on the fence is. this will help tremendously. alexander hamilton said don't understatement the power of the people. i believe the power of the
1:19 am
people will prevail. >> last word, leslie. >> power of the people will prevail. president obama although by a very slim margin my prediction will be reelected because george herbert walker bush was up against bill clinton and mitt romney ain't no william jefferson clinton. >> we appreciate it. thanks so much. how does the supreme court ruling affect you the next time you go to the doctor? we will tell you about it. the justice department defies congress and says it will not prosecute attorney general eric
1:20 am
1:21 am
1:22 am
in the personal story segment tonight. obama care and you. healthcare providers all oh he vert country are reacting to the supreme court decision to uphold the affordable
1:23 am
healthcare act and the reviews are mixed. we have two doctors in the house tonight. mark siegel who is critical of obama care. the author of the inner pulse and dave samady who favors the law. both men are fox news medical analysts. okay. well, well, well, now gets really interesting because it is starting to settle in. dr. siegel back in i guess it was january of 2011 there was a survey done by the national physicians survey and the numbers were stark. by a 3 to 1 margin doctors said the quality of healthcare under the new regime would decline dramatically. do you think that still holds today? >> laura, that is absolutely the case. in fact, there was a survey done last month by the doctor patient medical association that said 90% of doctors think this will make healthcare worse and 83% would consider quitting over that. the worse figure is the ones that are stuck and it is a very, very simple bottom line
1:24 am
here. they pay you less and ask you to do more. more regulatory committees telling you what you can and can't do. more services turned down. more of a struggle to practice patients. you have to see more and more patients and they are paying you less. of course, doctors are unhappy but may be so far along in specialty training. and we are 160,000 doctors short by 2025. we don't have the doctors for this and the ones we do have are backing out of insurance. >> to me it seems so stark but i'm willing to hear the other side. tell us why this is going to be good for patients and good for doctors because that is what it was supposed to be good for. >> one of the main advantage is the fact that you have now access to the healthcare. there are 30 million people out there wandering around not able to get insurance. a survey that says 21 people that applied to the insurance are getting denied and not able to get insurance. this will give them access to the health carol. one of the big issues that we
1:25 am
have is if you have preexisting cancer or disease the insurance companies deny you right there. >> because there is no real competition across state lines in the insurance market isn't that the case? >> that is true. as a result of this now they are obligated. >> at what cost to individual liberty, doctor patient primecy, relationship. the private relationship between doctor and patient we will do what is best for you and the healthcare law be damned that is the problem from what i'm hearing on doctors. >> you can't practice the art of medicine if you have six minutes. dr. samadi is one of the top prostate surgeons in the country. your insurance may not be able to pay. when talks about access you don't automatically have access because you have an insurance card. in massachusetts the wait is three to four months for a fry primary doctor. you may have the card but you a secretary says he is booked up you for two months we don't
1:26 am
know where he is. that is already the problem as obama carrolls in more and more of that. >> the fact that obesity is on the rise. you have a third of the country that are really obese. we are are spending $300 billion on just obesity. diabetes is up. so perhaps one of the advantages of this is that it will get them to the clinic, maybe educate people out there to really go for the screening and get the mammograms and kind of tests. >> mammograms will be cut back under the ruling? >> one of the things we to be careful and i'm glad you brought this up is that some of the task force that are going to bring down -- >> the independent medical advisory board. >> this is is not a perfect plan but certainly there are pros and advantage to it. how it is going to really come down to the patient care as marc is talking about we don't know. >> people are being thrown off of their healthcare plans via employers already employers are dumping out of the healthcare
1:27 am
insurance en masse. >> they have to go to the state exchange if it even exists in your state. subsidized by the federal government and comes out of the taxpayers pocket. a huge storm. incredibly expensive. i'm not sure it is preventive by the way. preventive medicine occurs in a gym and dietary change. >> and might occur in the family. >> that's right. >> we are looking for government to rescue us from our own choices in obesity. >> we are headed toward the two tier system. no way around it. >> the rich are going to be able to afford people like you, doctor and everybody else thrown into a healthcare exchange. >> you are not going to have the same healthcare for somebody. if somebody is a great physician and great outcome should the person be rewarded for the outcome. the outcome reward kind of medicine is something that we should look into this and not everyone should be the same way. you are going to bring 30 more million people on the plan.
1:28 am
the question is how we will take care of them. we talked about the fact that maybe instead of doctors there will be doctors. >> physician's assistants are going to rule supreme. i'm not saying they are terrible, by the way. my doctor is retiring by the way. >> you don't get to keep your doctor and your insurance and probably not even your hospital and don't necessarily go to the same place. >> what happens if you need to see a neurolinguist. doctors are going to be much more hesitant about making referrals to specialists under the plan. >> if you going to get this kind of care coming at a lower price you are not going to be too demanding. you will go where you are going to be sent to. and if marc siegel wants to come and see us you have to go the extra mile. we talked about some catastrophic insurance but then if you want that extra you have to pay for it. >> we are heading in the direction of high tech solutions. individualized medicine. personalized medicine which obama care is not going to
1:29 am
cover. so you will only be able to get it if you are rich. >> doctor patient relationship comes down to that in my mind. great to see both of you. >> good to see you. >> plenty more ahead as "the factor" moves along this evening. chief justice roberts facing political fallout over the obama care ruling. and the justice department refusing to prosecute attorney general eric holder for contempt of congress in the fast and furious gun walking scandal.
1:30 am
1:31 am
1:32 am
in the factor follow-up segment tonight, chief justice john roberts facing political backlash for the obama care ruling. he sided with the supreme court four liberal justices to form the 5-4 majority upholding the law. many on the right were shocked and stunned at his decision and some are calling him a turncoat. ann coulter has been skeptical of roberts since he was is
1:33 am
sworn in back in 2005. here is is what she wrote at the time. we don't know much about john roberts. nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. never. not ever. should conservatives have seen this coming or do they have a right to feel betrayed by justice roberts? joining me john eastman a law professor at chapman university and from d.c. michael car vin the lawyer who argued the case against obama care at the supreme court. gentlemen, i will start with you mike since you were at the court arguing this case and i know you were shocked by the way the decision came down. do conservatives have a right to be just mortified and really disappointed with what the chief justice did here? >> obviously it was a very strange opinion. the chief justice said that what congress did and what it said it was doing was unconstitutional so i'm he going pretend they did something different and this of make it constitutional but not
1:34 am
only rewrites the statute but elame nates the safeguards he found under the commerce clause so provides a bad constitutional result only by someone who was sealed air deliberately ignoring the law as it was actually written. he saw a ball and called it a strike. >> was is there anything else in the vetting of the chief justice that would have end kated that he would have ruled this way on a case like this? did you have any sense. ann coulter did. did you have a sense he was too stealth for the bench. >> ann was making the point unless they have been on the court a long time you don't know where they will when it a crisis situation. i know chief justice roberts a little bit. i do think he is an extraordinarily smart and terrific lawyer who understands the rule of law. that is why i'm especially disappointed that he missed so badly here. can you retroactively go back six years and say you saw this coming? no, i didn't see it coming six
1:35 am
days ago or six hours before the opinion. no, i don't think there was any failure in the process. i think it was a bad decision. >> john, your reaction, some people are saying well, this is a brilliant twist by the chief justice and a victory for republicans because you narrowed the commerce clause jurisdiction the reach of the commerce clause so isn't that a good thing? >> you can narrow the commerce clause and if you give them the same opportunity under the spenting clause the narrowness becomes meaningless, i don't care whether they act under the commerce commerce or spending clause if they do things that were not delegated to them the role of the court and the chief justice in particular is to say to congress no. if the assumption is right that he thinks this was unconstitutional and found a way to uphold it he really ought to resign because he
1:36 am
proved he doesn't have the judicial fortitude to do the job he has been chose ton do. >> any sense there might have opinion last minute change of heart on the part of the justice? mike your sense on that. you argued so many cases over the years. >> i don't know what happened when they voted. a lot of people noticed that the opinions are very odd and that they are referring to the concurrence as the dissent and the defending decision never refers to the chief justice's opinion. there might have been changes in the process. if that happened it would be unfortunate because it would validate the effort to politicize the court and attack them while they were writing the opinion. i think it would leave a sour taste in everybody's mouth if it came out that chief roberts switched his vote after that criticism because it would create a terrible perception that the court is job sec subjo
1:37 am
political -- >> the opposite of what some of the left wing writers said today. he got accolades in the washington post editorial page. the new york times. he is now the talk of the town and apparently lots of people think that the chief justice was not only deciding the case but was protecting the integrity and reputation of the supreme court by forging this kind of bipartisan consensus on the court on this issue of the individual mandate. >> i just think that is hogwash. you never hear the claim that justice ginsberg or breyer should have sided with the constitutional conservatives on the court to strike this down and that would protect the integrity as well. it is always to support big government and claims that the constitution doesn't limit power at all. again, look, the reason the court is independent that we don't have elections for the justices, that they serve life tenure or during good behavior are is so they can have the
1:38 am
fortitude to withstand such political pressure. they didn't do their job here. that is quite clear and we need to fix that. >> he he thought could lead to basically a tyranny over the people and lots of conservativessed to in looking that the decision how peculiar the reasoning was on the commerce clause so strong and then coming around to rescue this statute, people are talking again about what judge talks about limiting the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. could that argument be seriously considered again? >> there is problems in terms of limiting the supreme court jurisdiction because then you might leave it to a bunch of liberal justices below the supreme court. what we need to do is elect presidents and senators who will put people on the bench who respect the rule of law and
1:39 am
don't try and do the political things that john was talking about because that is not part of being a judge. that is part of being a politician. the more you hear people praising people as statesmen and growing and all that that is just a code word for please adopt my policy results on the guise of adjudication. >> when we come back, geraldo rivera on the justice department saying it won't prosecute eric
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
the o'reilly factor, the number one cable news show for 12 years running. thank you for staying with us. i'm laura ingram in for bill o'reilly. in the fridays with geraldo segment tonight, two interesting topics including geraldo about's unique take on the supreme court ruling. plus, word that the justice
1:43 am
department will not prosecute attorney general eric holder on on the contempt of congress. this is a big news week. the supreme court ruling on immigration. and then on obama care and now the eric holder contempt vote and today, of course, on friday the justice department says don't bother, we are not pushing this forward to any grand jury there is no crime here. >> i don't know why any one is surprised by that. my goodness, ronald meacham is appointed by barack obama. a colleague and friend of eric holder. it is a no brainer. i don't understand how darrell issa and the committee could expect a criminal contempt to result in an indictment of the attorney general. here they make history and cited for contempt a sitting cabinet member, the attorney general of the united states knowing absolutely knowing that the criminal contempt charge will go no place.
1:44 am
>> what do you think holder is hiding? >> what do i think he is hiding? i think you are asking the wrong question. what is darrell issa hiding. why is he so intent on creating a scandal that will go away because john boehner and the republicans need this like they need a hole in the head. >> do you think it is a serious issue that thousands of guns go across the border and one agent gets killed and probably hundreds of other mexicans are killed as a result of the guns walking across the border? is that a scandal? >> a couple of points. one, walking guns and walking drugs is an age old law enforcement technique, however discredited it is in the case. >> 3,000? >> this is not the first time this has happened. >> it was shut down under george w. bush. wide receiver was shut down, geraldo. >> it happens all the time. >> all the time? >> it as horrible idea and doesn't happen any more. it was hatched by local agents in the phoenix arizona. >> it was signed off by the deputy assistant attorney
1:45 am
general and another official who is deceased. wiretap bomb shoal came out today. >> it was not a bomb shell. i saw the wiretap. it is absolutely not a bomb shell. >> you are a man who follows the facts and you have come to a logical conclusion. this may be completely nothing there but it is a bit curious is it not that the justice department brushed aside any concerns that any one at justice department was directing the operation and then had to withdraw the account. what issa wants to know is who directed that the account be withdrawn and who originally drew up and wrote up the faulty false, maybe fraudulent letter. did someone direct the justice department to change the story and if so why? i think that is a la get mat question. >> weren't you working on wednesday, lara when darrell issa said for the record not only is there no evidence that eric holder or the president of the united states knew anything
1:46 am
about fast and furious prior to the death of agent terry and following up on that said there is not even a strong suspicion that the attorney general of the united states has any knowledge. >> a political hackl or being honest and forth right. you said he was being honest. >> he was. so then because there is no evidence how do you pursue and knowing there is not going to be a criminal contempt how do you you pursue. >> maybe because, let me think. >> stop it. stop it. you are -- >> by the way, yelling does not make your point any more cogent. >> stop interrupting then. if you ask me a question allow me to make my point. >> you are grandstanding and that is a sign of weakness in argumentation. >> stop it. stop it. >> we have a family who lost a 40-year-old good man serving this country. >> to invoke brian terry to make a political point. >> this is a law enforcement point. >> abject politics. >> why is it that the border people are are upset about this. >> did you enjoy the video of
1:47 am
the black and latino congressmen walking out. >> i thought they acted like fools. >> you did? >> they acted like imma a teur little 7th graders. >> the fools were the people walking out for the people who remained. >> why don't they have principle. >> to cited for the first time in 250 years. >> 100,000 documents being withheld. >> is this the most serious allegation? >> are you a soothe sayer and you know there is nothing here to be hidden and looked at. >> i'm saying that darrell issa new presizely the civil contempt would go no place because it will be a bad lawsuit in federal court that will takements if not years. >> i don't disagree with you on that. >> you are not even letting me do one sentence, laura. >> geraldo. i'm' agreeing with you. so there is no point in continuing. i'm agreeing with you on the contempt issue. >> i don't think either of us know really bly that letter was retracted. it is curious that after february of last year the administration will release no
1:48 am
documents. why and not even a log, geraldo. how about just a log saying this is why we are not releasing this, this, this. okay. chill out. there is nothing to hide. we will give you a log and that it in. that would have been a little more credible. >> i make a prediction. now, that darrell issa achieved his short-term goal to smear and taint the attorney general of the united states this will be dropped. it will go no place. john boehner doesn't want any part of this. he has much larger fish to fry -- >> i don't disagree with that. >> this is going no place. darrell issa will now return to the obscurity. >> so he did that just for fame and fortune? >> what motivated him you will have to ask him. it was an abjectly political act. i believe that through the essence of my being. >> you believe he has no interest in the rule of law. >> i didn't say that. >> he could have some interest in the rule of the law? >> i'm saying the documents or a log would be helpful. >> there are a lot of things that would be helpful.
1:49 am
this is a purely political exercise. >> i happen to be a republican. >> okay. breaking news. >> it is not breaking news. >> i miss all the fun, geraldo. great to see you. we are going out for a beer after this. >> gladly. >> in a moment, actor buildy baldwin all fired up. he won't yell at me. presidential politics in iran. later, a special pinheads around patriots starring presidents and an allen invasion. no, geraldo, not illegal aliens.
1:50 am
1:51 am
time is running out to get the hottest deal on a new mattress. sleep train's 4th of july sale is ending soon. right now, save on sleep train's most popular posturepedic and beautyrest mattress sets. plus, pay no interest for 36 months on tempur-pedic and serta icomfort. big savings and interest-free financing? these deals aren't just hot... they're explosive! sleep train's 4th of july sale is ending soon. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪
1:52 am
in the back of the book segment tonight. acting and activism. for the movie star billy baldwin they go hand in hand and at the moment he is using
1:53 am
his latest project to bring attention to a threat halfway around the world. we are talking about iran. >> good to see you. it has been years. thank you for having me. >> talk about a time to betray. you bought the rights to the huge international best seller. tell us about a and when can we expect to see it. >> my father was a political science major and i attended university from '81 to '85. all of my college years were the end of carter and the iranian hostage crisis. regan takes over, the hostages are released. i'm studying political science with an emphasis on. every lecture hall i was in this is what we were talking about. >> we were just playing frizz bee in my school. >> you went to uba. >> no, that was law. >> my friend reza which is not
1:54 am
his real name, i don't know his real name. he is growing up in tehran and attends university in the '70s and comes to the united states and comes back during college several times. more democracy and more openness and freedom and arted a culture. universities popping up all over the place. be then a sweeping tide to remove the shaw because he is a despicable corrupt leader and in comes the ayatollah. my friend becomes a member of the elite republican guard and has to come back to the united states because his aunt is ill and makes contact with the cia and providing the best and most having intelligence to the cia and regan for a ten year period. >> and you are playing. >> i will not be playing an iranian intelligence officer. i may play a cia agent who he reported to. >> and what about you have been tracking the debate in washington on the healthcare
1:55 am
issue the supreme court. i don't even know what your political background is. you kind of seem to keep it under wraps. >> i used to work on the hill for tom down any. a republican from lonany -- a congressman from long island. >> democrat. >> interesting here yesterday when i was doing fox and friends and everybody was saying this is it for obama care. >> i was one of those people. >> everybody got caught with their pants down. i think it is a little disenginous. you buy a pack of cigarettes in new york and in california it costs $6. in new york $15. you are being paid for the syntax. i have no problem with there being a tax for people. i don't want people to be forced to opt into the insurance but if they don't want it and come crawling into the emergency room and want healthcare or one of their kids is sick they should pay for it. if they are forced to pay a penalty for opting out, i don't have a problem with that. >> you are going to a wedding this weekend. >> i am.
1:56 am
>> your brother is tying the knot. at family dinners do you win the family dinner arguments, do they get loud at thanksgiving? >> they get a little geraldoish. >> you saw that, right? i won't guess. i know three of your brothers. i'm not going to suggest which one would be loudest but i don't think it would be you. great to see you. can't wait to see the film. pinheads & patriots on deck
1:57 am
1:58 am
and finally tonight,
1:59 am
pinheads & patriots. who would you want in the white house in the u.s. was facing an alien invasion. nearly two thirds said they would prefer barack obama over mitt romney to handle the extraterrestrial attack. late night comedian jay leno could not resist. >> according to a poll by national geographic this is a real poll, 65% of americans said president obama would better handle an invasion by space aliens than mitt romney. >> sure, once the aliens landed they would see there are no jobs and they would go back home. they would realize there was no work here. >> very funny, jay. and that poll also said that 36% of americans believe in ufos and 11% say they have spotted one. you can decide if those people are pin heads or patriots. that is it for us tonight. i'm laura ingram in for bill


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on