Skip to main content

tv   The Five  FOX News  March 4, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PST

1:00 am
breaking tonight on a busy night for "the kelly file," new reaction rolling in from across the country. after an unprecedented speech to america from israel's prime minister. tonight described as a moment for the history books. welcome to "the kelly file," everyone i'm megyn kelly. benjamin netanyahu receiving standing ovations as he urged american lawmakers to oppose a pending nuclear deal with iran. we will hear tonight from brit hume top democrats and marco rubio joins us later. breaking news on hillary clinton. allegations that she may have broken the law when serving as secretary of state. but first, the speech that will be remembered.
1:01 am
[ applause ] >> the israeli prime minister receiving a roaring welcome as he walked into congress under a shadow of controversy. the prime minister appealing to the, quote, remarkable alliance between israel and america, making his case personally against a deal he says would all but guarantee that iran builds a nuclear bomb threatening the existence of israel, and indeed the future of the world. we will now share with you some of the key moments from his remarks. >> i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. that was never my intention.
1:02 am
the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics it must always remain above politics. [ applause ] my friends, i come here today because as prime minister of israel i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country. and the future of my people. iran's quest for nuclear weapons, the greatest danger facing our world, is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis, and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. we can't let that happen. [ applause ]
1:03 am
>> but that my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, it all but guarantee that iran gets those weapons lots of them. this deal has two major concessions. one, leaving iran with a vast nuclear program. and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to the bomb. so why would anyone make this deal?
1:04 am
because they hope that iran will change for the better in the coming years or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. well, i disagree. i don't believe that iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years. and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. this deal would only whet iran's appetite for more. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [ applause ] [ applause ]
1:05 am
>> before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. first stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [ applause ] second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [ applause ] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [ applause ]
1:06 am
my friends, for over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well, this is a bad deal. it's a very bad deal. we're better off without it. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that's just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [ applause ]
1:07 am
this is why -- this is why as prime minister of israel i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [ applause ] but i know that israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> my friends, my israel and america always stand together, strong and resolute.
1:08 am
may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. may we face the future with confidence, strength and hope. may god bless the state of israel, and may god bless the united states of america! [ applause ] >> brit hume says that moment is now part of the fabric of the history of our time. he's here live next to explain that. and in moments senator marco rubio joins us to talk about the speech and to talk about hillary clinton being accused now of possibly breaking the law in her time as secretary of state. plus later see why one of america's biggest muslim groups is now challenging the fbi over
1:09 am
part of its actions when it was investigating the boston marathon bombing. stay tuned.
1:10 am
1:11 am
1:12 am
back to the top story in the fallout from what the prime minister of israel said to america. in the hours since benjamin netanyahu spoke to congress, president obama his key advisers and some of america's most powerful democrats have steadily been dismissing the prime minister and his comments. for his part president obama argued that the speech didn't offer anything new. >> on the core issue, which is how do we prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives. when it comes to this nuclear deal, let's wait until there's actually a deal on the table that iran has agreed to. what i can guarantee is that if it's a deal i've signed off on, i will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. >> joining me brit hume our fox news senior political analyst. how big a deal was this speech
1:13 am
today? >> well, it was unprecedented on several levels megyn. first of all, this is the only -- except for winston churchill, the only foreign leader to speak before a joint meeting of congress three times. in addition this comes at a critical moment, when the very final stages of an effort to negotiate a deal with what everyone in the world agrees is a threat to the security and peace of the world iran's nuclear program. and for a foreign leader to appear in this setting at such a time is unprecedented in my knowledge. for that reason alone it was a big deal. and then of course, of all the talk and controversy, you know, four dozen or so democrats not attending, the man walks into the chamber and he gets this rock star welcome. it was a standing ovation when he walked in he was interrupted for applause what 40 times. a lot of it bipartisan. so you get a sense that yeah, this is a big moment.
1:14 am
and, of course, if this deal goes through, people will always remember that this man tried to block it -- or stop it, and if it doesn't, of course, it will be remembered that he succeeded, or at least helped to keep it from coming into being. yeah, this is historic all right. >> how did the white house do in handling this? there was a lot of management both beforehand and then after the fact as we just saw. >> i think, and i've thought for some time that it was a mistake for the white house to elevate this visit and this event to the extent that it did. i don't think the strength of the reaction to prime minister netanyahu in that chamber today would have been as great if the president had welcomed him to washington, met with him, possibly before the speech come out with him spoke of their mutual desire to keep iran from getting a nuclear program mention that they had disagreements, indicate that he took the prime minister's concerns seriously, and it was on his mind during the negotiations and all the rest of it that would have taken a lot of the wind out of this. but the white house chose to
1:15 am
resist this, elevated the thing into a big controversy, and created, i think, the atmosphere in which this could occur the way it did today. i think it's having much greater impact because of that. >> how effective was netanyahu? when we listened to him, mr. netanyahu, he seems like an excellent orator. he speaks in a language that we can understand, just the way he approaches wordsmithing. >> oh yeah. well, of course, he speeaks flawless english, which is an asset when you're trying to address directly or indirectly, an american audience. and in addition to that, he's smart. look i think that it's -- that people today who heard excerpts of this speech, and the smaller, much smaller number who heard it on the radio or watched it on television, probably feel that they know more about the issues in this deal than they did before. to that extent, of course, he's brought this issue to the forefront, and brought public
1:16 am
awareness of the alleged shortcomings of the deal to a greater public awareness than before. in addition you heard what the president said. you can take my word for it that it will be the best way to do this if it gets done. well, fine mr. president but the prime minister mentioned some specifics. he mentioned the fact that this deal, as it's been outlined, leaves in place this very large nuclear program's infrastructure. a lot of it in place. it certainly may retard the development of the nuclear weapon, but then after ten years, all bets are off. by then the sanctions are gone. and iran is in the clear. that's something to worry about. and the white house is really not attempting to rebut that. maybe when it's shaped and done, there's nothing to worry about. people say we haven't seen the deal, which is true. but i don't hear john kerry or the president or anyone else to say those are two facets of the
1:17 am
proposed agreement. >> what did you make of barack obama's statement yesterday, downplaying the chances of succeeding -- of getting this deal? he said it's more likely than not now that iran will walk away from the deal. >> well i think -- my sense about that is first of all, it's probably true. and secondly, i think he's also trying to make it look like he's not offering them a big fat sweet lollipop of a deal. in other words, that he's being tough enough that iran might not buy this. i expect that's what's at play here. that would be my -- >> i'm going to ask this question of marco rubio later but i want to ask you now. why despite the objections we heard today, very articulately eloquently laid out by the israeli prime minister is president obama so dead-set on getting this deal which is so controversial that so many things will not stop iran, will not stop it? >> well, i thought for some time, megyn, and i think his
1:18 am
actions have suggested that it is true that the president has a larger agenda, and a deeper purpose here. i think he believes iran, because the forces of madernity are at work in the country is a potential strategic partner of the united states. he has indicated that from the start of his administration he's reached out repeatedly. we now know there's these secret missives sent to iran to try to -- the ayatollah that's right, i think he feels that iran can be a united states ally. and if he can bring that about that would accomplish the larger agenda of neutralizing this potential adversary of ours in the world would be a great achievement. i think he's naive that iran is susceptible to such appeals. and this deal is part of it. in fact, i think he regards this problem with the nuclear program
1:19 am
as an obstacle to his larger purpose. >> i'll never forget, i've got to go but i'll never forget charles krauthammer on "special report" when barack obama was running for office and there was a presidential debate, i think it may have been a primary debate between obama and clinton and he said, he sort of blurted out that he would speak to our adversaries including and krauthammer said that was clearly in his view a mistake that then candidate obama made. and rather than owning up to it and reversing on it he doubled down and krauthammer said what was a mistake has now become a misguided policy that he means to act out. >> it is a policy. >> here we are. he has, of course, been corresponding with the ayatollah. and charles krauthammer right again. brit good to see you. >> thank you. >> he's in charcoal. it looks like a serious day. he's usually in pastel.
1:20 am
what do you mean? what? moving on. developing tonight, the doj is out with a scathing new report on the ferguson police department in the wake of the michael brown shooting. we'll look at what it means for these officers. plus, see how the white house is now trying to defend as the administration gets questioned. and how. about how former secretary of state hillary clinton conducting official government business on a private e-mail account. even robert gibbs is weighing in in a way that's not so great for her. chris has the facts next. >> are you acknowledging this white house has made no effort and is making no effort to determine whether or not your secretary of state broke the law?
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
developing tonight the white house taking serious heat after "the new york times" reveals former secretary of state hillary clinton conducted
1:24 am
all of her government business on a private e-mail account. the revelation opening her and the administration up to suggestions that they may have had something to hide. possibly broke record keeping laws, or may have even put our nation's security at risk by leaving her e-mails vulnerable to hackers. former white house press secretary robert gibbs says this is highly unusual. chris stirewalt is our politics editor. clinton says there's no -- there, there, come on, this is like powell did it colin powell did it, that's her defense. >> her defense is in fact colin powell did it. and it is very common across this glorious federal government of ours for people to use private e-mail accounts when conducting government business. in fact within this administration, people like lois lerner are said to have done it. we know the epa had dummy e-mail addresses -- >> dick windsor.
1:25 am
or epa administrator was e-mailing everybody under the name of dick windsor. >> our friend richard windsor true story. so yes, the commonness of the practice of evading the requirements that you -- >> but wait, i see the point you're getting to. which is the fact that so many people are doing it. and under questionable circumstances. this doesn't excuse her. >> but this is different. >> let's start with the fact that what she's alleging is not true. it's unprecedented as far as we know for a government official to conduct all of their e-mail on their private e-mail. that usually is a supplement to or in addition to your government e-mail. >> a couple of skanky e-mails that you are doing a little something on the side. >> like the e-mails that barack obama was born in kenya. >> she had to do that off the other account. but the real deal here, and it's no joke, is the premeditation that was involved in this. it is not the fact that some
1:26 am
e-mails were sent when a server was down, or some e-mails were sent from a blackberry in colin powell's case. it is the fact that as the "washington post" reported today, it appears that it was an account established even before her senate confirmation hearings began, that this was a volitional, premeditated, intentional plan to avoid the scrutiny and the accountability that would eventually come. >> the arrogance of the response, they say, look nine out of ten of the e-mails went to state department employees, so those would be on the state department records. they wouldn't address anything that went to foreign dignitaryies dignitaries, or private companies she was dealing in her capacity as secretary of state. those are our e-mails. and i don't care about nine out of ten were produced. you know what, i own the tenth one, too, let me see it. >> and they used as their example well, what if it was an e-mail about chelsea clinton's
1:27 am
wedding? come on. we're talking about people who are currently at the epicenter of a giant earthquake over foreign donations, and not from the most pleasant of people around the world. foreign donations to their family foundation. these are people who have a long history the clinton family the clinton political shop has a long history of evading public scrutiny, and engaging in practices that most people consider out of bounds. >> and as fornier put it it reinforces the notion that the rules just don't apply to them. >> exactly. >> they can do what they want, because they're not like you and me. >> and she is in washington tonight being celebrated by her supporters really a part of her political action group. they're cheering her on to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling. in the program is the famous picture of her holding up her blackberry on an airplane, and it was supposed to be the cool
1:28 am
image of this digital grandma who was so cutting edge and so awesome, and the reality is, this e-mail scandal is going to stay with this candidate throughout the duration of her presidential campaign, as long as it lasts. >> where is the tenth e-mail? that's what i want to know. chris, good to see you. >> you bet. possible 2016 white house contender senator marco rubio is next on the prime minister's big speech today, and how the president may soon order up some new taxes by executive order. yes, the pen and the phone may be coming out to raise your taxes next. plus the final decision is now in. for the parents who got in trouble because their kids were walking down the sidewalk without supervision. plus, men and women all over were praising supermodel cindy crawford after a bikini picture of her went viral. she looked awesome but still looked like she had a couple of
1:29 am
kids. why is she now threatening to sue the people who posted it?
1:30 am
1:31 am
1:32 am
iran's regime is as radical as ever. it ascribes death to america the same america it calls the great satan, as loud as ever. now this shouldn't be surprising. because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of america. >> the big story tonight the growing political fallout after israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaks to congress. in the hours since the speech, a number of potential 2016ers have weighed in with former governor jeb bush calling it a powerful message, wisconsin governor scott walker and senator ted
1:33 am
cruz praising the speech saying we need to stand with israel. rand paul said he was pleased to hear the prime minister. his critics said you could not tell with the national review describing him as, quote unenthused based on what they saw. i spoke with another possible 2016 contender, republican florida senator marco rubio. your reaction to the president's speech today? >> incredibly important speech. it wasn't so much geared towards congress as towards the american people. a reminder first of all the true nature of the iranian regime grounded in radical shia principles, that they want and expect to spread around the world. they're a leading sponsor of state terror around the world. probably have bought a weapons design. and ooh deal is only as good as your ability to verify it. throughout its recent history iran has hidden key components of its nuclear program.
1:34 am
we should expect they're still doing that now. >> the critics have come out already and said and i heard president obama in that, as mr. netanyahu's critic saying, great but where was the plan. they say they didn't hear a plan from benjamin netanyahu short of war. >> that's not true. i think the plan is that iran is presented with a choice. you can either have an economy or you can have a nuclear weapons program. but you can't have both. that's why sanctions are so important. by the way, it's important to remember that the sanctions that the administration now says brought iran to the table to begin with are sanctions that they themselves opposed. sanctions are important because without the sanctions, iran has even more money to fund its nuclear program, its sponsorship of terrorism, and i actually believe -- >> let me ask you about that. the critics on sanctions say well, sanctions aren't going to get the job done because europe won't support them. europe is so dependent on iran and their oil they won't come to the table. >> it takes strong american
1:35 am
leadership to hold the international community together. that's why the president's support is so important. when you have the president of the united states basically saying we have to do a deal, even a bad deal, because they're so far along of course the sanctions are going to crumble. >> some say the only way to rein them in is to get them to restrain themselves. so why not try maybe they'll let the international inspectors in, and this will at least buy the united states and israel some time. >> yeah. the problem is number one, they're not allowing the inspectors in right now. even as we speak even in the middle of these negotiations they are impeding inspectors from moving forward. they've never been honest about the full plethora of programs they have going on. they continue to sponsor terrorism all over the world. >> so what is it about them then? is it the fact that they also oppose isis? today netanyahu was saying the enemy is not your friend, it's also your enemy. what is it then that you think
1:36 am
is driving the administration to so strongly push for this deal? it's very clear why they did not want mr. netanyahu to speak to make the powerful case he made today? why? >> the administration's already said what it is. they want the iran deal to be for the second term what obamacare was to the first. and that is the cornerstone of his legacy. what this president wants to be able to say is he's the one that did a peace deal with iran. if it falls apart in three or four years, that's the next president's fault. >> unless we get a nuclear middle east, right? barack obama's got to be cognizant of that possibility. he doesn't want that to happen. >> well again, i think they're thinking about that will be someone else's problem in two or three years. they've made up their mind, that they have to move forward on this, no matter what. they're locked into this and they've made the decision. i think what you said, it will lead to a nuclear middle east. and the argument will be, as an enemy of the united states can have enrichment why not an ally
1:37 am
like ours. not to mention the sunni shia perspective in this as well. >> there was a lot of news today, we just talked about it about hillary clinton using only, exclusively a personal e-mail account when she's secretary of state. her team said, this is a nonissue. it's exactly the same thing colin powell did. they're saying there's nothing there. your take on it. >> there may not be. that will have to be further examined. there are two that we have to look at. the first is using a private server outside the government system is extremely vulnerable, to hackers and all sorts of countries that can hack in and get secrets. you're secretary of state, potentially transacting international business. and exposed to the chinese and other intelligence agencies. and because of diplomatic discourse and so forth, they're part of the archives of the united states. that rule was clearly violated.
1:38 am
>> another topic, there's news this week that barack obama, who's already been criticized for executive overreach on a number of subjects, from obamacare to immigration is now considering tax hikes with his pen and his phone bypassing lawmakers to just basically rewrite parts of the tax code or at least enforcement mechanisms through the tax agencies and others, to raise taxes on corporations. and he thinks this may be a political winner according to the white house which says he's seriously considering it. what say you? >> well again, it goes back to the same pattern of violation of the separation of powers they've lost the total respect for the government and constitution. this is a pattern and dangerous one that's creating precedence for future presidents as well. no matter how you feel about taxes or immigration or anything else, when you have a president writing law to executive order, unconstitutional way it undermines the very foundation of the republic. it goes much deeper than how you feel about these issues.
1:39 am
>> senator marco rubio, great to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> all the best. where c.a.r.e. is now pushing a lawsuit against the fbi in connection with the boston marathon bombing. also developing tonight the doj releases the civil rights investigation into the ferg soususon police department. what it means for these officers.
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
developing tonight the standoff over funding the homeland security department is over. the house approving a bill sending it to president obama's desk without conditions on funding. the result is seen as a victory for the obama administration as republicans had tried to use this bill to reverse the president's executive actions on immigration. that did not work however. president obama now says he will sign the bill as soon as he gets it. his executive order has not been defunded. the fbi tonight finds itself at the center of a wrongful death lawsuit as the controversial council on islamic relations, c.a.r.e. said it is supporting a lawsuit against the agency. the group is claiming that a friend a boston bomber tamerlan tsarnaev was killed in cold blood by the fbi during an
1:44 am
interrogation. this suggests this man actually attacked the fbi agent, after he implicated himself in a gruesome triple murder that involved one of the marathon bombers. mark eiglarsh is a former prosecutor, and arthur idela. good to see you both. this involves tamerlan tsarnaev before he bombed the boston marathon, had allegedly committed a triple homicide with allegedly this guy who after the marathon bombing was interrogated by the fbi. what's your link to tamerlan tsarnaev and so on. mark, that interrogation went bad. >> oh it sure did. i'm not here to say with certainty that the officer wasn't justified in shooting this man. the problem is, for sure we know it was a homicide. meaning he was shot at the hand of an fbi agent. whether it's murder or not
1:45 am
hinges upon whether the fbi agent reasonably feared death or great bodily harm. what would we expect to happen? you sit the fbi agent down and say, tell us how you reasonably feared death or great bodily harm. in this case that wasn't done, megyn. they didn't ever interview that agent. and through this lawsuit the family is hoping to get some answers. >> it says cair to sue the fbi. i don't think that's right arthur. i think it's the family of the, you know the decedent, and cair is just supporting the funding of the lawsuit, and they support the lawsuit, cair which has been designated a terrorist group by qatar. in any event -- go ahead. >> so, mark, here's the thing. >> yes. >> you know in your current role as a criminal defense attorney, if you were going to investigate this case, and somebody called your client in who's the target of the investigation you would not allow him to speak to the state prosecutor who's talking to him.
1:46 am
if you're just a witness which the other officers in the room were, including the one who had the big gash to his head that needed stitches, because the de se dent threw the table and assaulted him and picked up a mop handle and broom stick and attempted to go after the state trooper who were interviewed by the state prosecutor -- >> i've got to call you out. it was not witnesses. there was one other massachusetts trooper that was in the room and one other witness outside who didn't see what happened. we're relying upon the word of the trooper. >> do you think that the lawsuit against the fbi will be successful, given immunity, proving a case like this, arthur? >> no. i don't think so. i also think when the facts come out, there was some form of assault. there's an injured law enforcement officer. you could go out on a limb and said they executed this guy for whoever knows, and hit him in the head to frame the guy.
1:47 am
>> let's shift gears. speaking of officers, under fire, you know, legally. the doj is in fact going to bring civil rights charges against the ferguson pd. and you tell the folks, mark, why that is. >> there is a systematic, according to the department of justice report, practice of racism in that police department. i don't think it's just limited to this police department. i just think a lot of good can come from it if some other agencies look at their own police practices. but what they're finding is -- >> but in that line is an assumption that everything the doj is about to tell us is absolutely true and the ferguson police had no -- >> that's correct, megyn. but if you say 85% is accurate 50% accurate, it's so disturbing, for example, that african-americans, that blacks are stopped double the amount of times that whites are and are statistically according to the report less likely to actually possess contraband. >> arthur?
1:48 am
>> there are a couple of things that i saw. i haven't read the whole report. but there are a couple of things that are horrible. they found a lot of e-mails from the police officers there had horrible racial things there. they found that excessive force being used on individuals are done very much so, more against black than others. which is horrible. however, with that being said, regarding the car stops, regarding who's getting arrested, when this was all happening, and rudy giuliani was on the air waefgswaves and said, when i was the mayor i got criticized because there were so many more police officers in black populations than the white populations, he said we just looked at the crime statistics. where do you want me to put the police officers, on park avenue and 57th street where no crime is taking place or put them in the areas where crimes are taking place? unfortunately those are the neighborhoods where there happen to be more black people who live there. >> also tonight, up next the
1:49 am
final decision is now in for the parents who got in trouble because their kids were walking down the sidewalk without parental supervision. and wait until you hear what that decision is. plus, supermodel cindy crawford got a lot of praise for a by kin your picture that was supposed to show the true cindy, the mom. tonight why she says the photo which we will show you in fact proves the exact opposite. she's not a real -- no, no. she looks great. man (sternly): where do you think you're going? mr. mucus: to work, with you. it's taco tuesday. man: you're not coming. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. i'm go od all day. [announcer:] mucinex keeps working. not 4, not 6 but 12 hours. let's end this
1:50 am
1:51 am
1:52 am
we have the final ruling in the case of a couple accused of neglecting their children for the shocking crime of letting the 6 and 10-year-old walk a mile home from the park alone. back now with mark and arthur. mark, your take on it? >> megyn, i would never let my kids walk about 40 minutes
1:53 am
alone, and everyone knocking cpc -- >> let's talk about what the verdict is. i should have asked you that first. >> you want me to tell you what i think the verdict is? >> i'm letting you. it's bad. they have to be on the radar of cps, child protective services for five years. >> unsubstantiated abuse. >> hold on. you were found -- why am i here? >> we don't have the evidence but we still think you're guilty. >> wait a second, everybody. >> good luck, mark. >> cpc was merely following maryland law -- let's reveal this to everyone -- that requires an 8-year-old to be left with someone a reliable 13 years of age or older. >> the 10-year-old was getting the 6-year-old home to reliable adults. now the parents have to be under supervision for five years. >> megyn kelly you would never let your kids walk 30 45
1:54 am
minutes without an adult. >> that's new york city. >> and i'm sure when megyn kelly was a kid, she didn't have the supervision that we have today. >> that's irrelevant. >> it was be back before dark, that was it. when i was in the single digits. speaking of single digits, cindy crawford is now 49 years old, but she's still a size zurero. she did a photo shoot in ma rye clair, and there was a magazine picture put out that marie clair said was unretouched, that was real and honest. as it turns out, maybe not, arthur. because now the photographer who took it says actually it was altered, and she's -- >> yeah. i don't know if you can see it that well on television. >> she may sue. >> it shows her belly being less than perfect. let's put it that way. now, if this was, let's say, hillary clinton whose job was to be president of the united states where you're primarily using your brain, i wouldn't say
1:55 am
there's a big civil lawsuit here. but cindy crawford, her whole brand the whole way she makes a living is her body. so somebody -- >> i know look at that disgusting belly. her career would have been over if that had been -- >> did you see what her husband tweeted out? >> but i think that -- mark? >> okay. first of all, i saw that photo. again, arthur is drinking in the gullible again. that photo, she's laying down on a lounge chair. >> oh, dude don't talk bad about cindy. >> hold on. aristotle or my wife said everyone looks good laying down. >> if you're even standing on your head you'll never look lik >> cindy brinkley saw cindy crawford and this is what she said, she looked perfect. it was kind of annoying. >> that's my girl! >> that picture -- we'll see
1:56 am
what cindy crawford -- should she sue or not sue. she should sue the guy for coming out and saying it was a fake. i loved her more when i thought she had a flaw. >> that's you. >> she's more relatable. >> okay. america agrees on this one. sorry, judge kelly. >> she looks too fantastic for me to love her. but i guess i will anyway. we'll be right back.
1:57 am
1:58 am
what do you think, are you disappointed that this photo of cindy crawford appeared to be a fake and the perfect belly shot is real? i'i'i'i'i'i' >> it is wednesday march 4th. a fox news alert. time for justice. nearly two years after bombs ripped through the finish line of the boston marathon the trial begins for the surviving
1:59 am
suspect. there is a brand new twist tworfor the dead suspect's widow. >> passengers in panic. a jet crash lands after over shooting the runway. >> did she or didn't she? she gets a chance to answer the question about whether she used her personal e-mail. what did she say? "fox and friend first starts right now. >> good moechlg.rning. you are watching "fox & friends first". i am ainsley earhardt. >> i am i am leah chilled >> this trial two years in the making. dzhokhar tsarnaev facing death
2:00 am
if convicted on more than 30 counts. let's get right to molly. >> the opening statements expected in this trial the few hours from now dzhokhar tsarnaev the accused boston bomber will sit before 12 jurors and 6 ality malts over the up coming months. this trial has been delayed because of the historically bad winter we have had but also because of a jury selection process that is pain staking. so many have some personal connection to the bombing they knew someone injured or second level knew someone who knew someone. he con fired with his older brother to place the two bombs at the finish line of the 2013 boston marathon. the explosions killed three people, two young women and a child. it was later alleged they


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on