tv On the Record With Brit Hume FOX News November 22, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am PST
mcfadden. thank you for being here. we will see you back here tomorrow night. left. we'll see you tomorrow night. good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pom possty, smugness and group think. we've got news tonight about a new appointment the associated press is reporting on within the trump administration. we'll get to that in just a minute. first, dozens of colleges and universities are making plans to become sanctuary campuses. one of the first schools to take this step is wesleyann university. i read various statements about
this from the school and from you and it seems like you're taking a stand on principle. you're opposed to this on every level. so my question is, if the trump administration makes deportation its policy, will you give up the hundreds of millions that wesley ann takes every year in taxpayer money? >> that's a great question. i wish it were hundreds of millions of dollars but it's not. >> according to your school newspaper, it's 200 million. >> you remember what it's like to work on a school newspaper. >> how much do you take in federal subsidies? >> federal subsidies? we take research grants. it would be over $20 million. >> are you including pell grants? >> i am. you remember your time at harvard. wesleyan is a small school and we certainly hope it doesn't come to losing federal funding. we said what we were going to do
is not cooperate with what deportation proceedings because there's no way you could actually deport 10 million people in one or two administrations. so there would have to be extraordinary cooperation of all kinds of folks in society to deport people who have been living here for many years, and we've said we're not going to cooperate with that voluntarily and we'll use the law to protect our students. >> so but what you're saying is that you disagree with the policy, perceived policy, anticipated policy of the trump administration so you won't be abiding by it. my only point is, it's a little weird to say we're not going to follow federal directives but at the same time we're going to take federal money. it's like the rich kid denouncing his parents but living in the guest house. >> no, it's not. >> a little bit. >> you want to ask me a question? you know plenty of states that were against obamacare that continue to take medicaid
funding and continue to take money for roads. we're not declaring we're not going to abide by a policy because there is no policy yet. what we've said is given the rhetoric of mass deportation that was used in the campaign, we want to make clear that without warrants and subpoenas we're not going to voluntarily cooperate with border patrol people. and that's within our rights. we don't have to actually bow down before the federal government, as you and your listeners have always said, right? >> i'm not suggesting -- i'm suggesting abiding by federal law and i do think you're sending sort of an odd message to your students, sort of an a la carte message that if we don't want to abide by this we're not going to. >> that is my biggest hesitation for taking the stand we took which is exactly that.
we are not taking an a la carte approach to the law. we are saying that if we are asked to cooperate with releasing information about our students who have been living in this country for decades or 15 years, we're not going to do that with legal provided by border officials. there's no way you can deport 15 million people illegally through the court system within the next ten years unless we cooperate. >> i want to quote you. you're saying these are small steps to be sure in the face of a very frightening wave of press to roll back the civil rights gains made in recent decades. is there a civil right to enter the united states illegally and be educated at the public expense, and does that right apply to all 8 billion people in the world? >> of course not. >> then what are you talking about? >> there has been throughout the campaign threats to roll back advances for voting rights, for rights for african-americans,
for rights for -- >> which rights for african-americans? >> excuse me? >> which rights for african-americans? >> voting rights for african-americans. it's very clear that voting restrictions in several states were surgically -- i think i'm quoting now -- surgically developed to keep black people from voting. >> donald trump has threatened to remove -- hold on. you made the allegation. i want you to explain it. you said donald trump would if he were elected president reduce the voting rights for black americans? that didn't happen. >> as you quoted me, what i said is that there is a great threat to roll back civil rights decades. you can see that in the rhetoric of the campaign and what we have said is that we will not cooperate unless forced to through warrants and subpoenas with federal efforts -- >> wait, hold on. you made a specific allegation and i think it's fair to ask you to back it up. you said that that rhetoric during the campaign, presumably
from the trump campaign, included a bridging of voting rights of specifically african-americans. i'm just asking you to cite that. what are you talking about? >> in north carolina there have been real efforts to roll back the voting rights legislation of recent decades and to keep people from the polls. and whether that means restricting early voting, whether that means making it harder for people to get to the polls, having fewer polling stations. i'm also referring to the explicit -- >> that's not race specific. look, you're a university president and you're throwing around a lot of rhetoric that you can't back up. there was no specific effort -- i don't know what you're talking about and i think it's unhelpful but let me state finally, you said here, and i'm quoting, now like so many around the country, i find myself wondering whether i should have done more to prevent the election of donald trump. i'm wondering what you mean. what could you as the president of a liberal arts college or
university in connecticut have done to prevent the election of donald trump? >> what i could have done was to ensure that students at wesleyan who were on the right or the left turned their attention more to national politics. i do think that -- what i was getting at in that op-ed was that i feel that many of our students on college campuses are being more political now after the election than they were before, that they didn't engage in the political system, and the fact is right now we have a new administration coming to power and i think it's important for us to take stands of principle, not to choose a la carte what laws to obey but to articulate our principles and do our best to participate in the public political process. >> that's not what you said. you say here you wish you had done more to keep trump from getting elected. that's something a political
consultant would say. you're a university president. do you really see your job is to prevent a specific candidate from getting elected? >> no. but i am a citizen athink i cou as a citizen, not as a university president. i also said in the same -- >> that's not what you say here. you say like many university people -- >> i do say that in the piece but i don't think it's the role of the university president to design the politics of the campus. i think a university campus has to have room for conservatives, people of faith, atheists, all sides of the political spectrum, and i do think it's important for a president not to hide his or her political views but to make sure that everybody's political views get a fair hearing on the campus. as you know, that doesn't always happen. >> i'm quoting now, you say this as the university president, you wish more people would, quote, condemn his campaign of hate-filled demagoguery. that doesn't sound like someone who is allowing room for alternate points of view at all. >> i think taking a point of
view does not diminish the possibility for other people to take points of view. >> i'm losing track of your position, but i appreciate you coming on. >> are you really? >> i am, actually. >> thank you for making room for other points of view too. >> i am. that's why i wanted you to come on. >> that's why i thanked you. there is news tonight about a possible trump cabinet appointment. the associated press is reporting that dr. ben carson has been offered the job of hud secretary, housing and urban development. here now, newt gingrich who met with mr. trump yesterday. this is basically all we know so far. what do you make of that? >> it's an a.p. report. >> do you think it's true? >> i don't know anything. it's possible. it would be a little unusual because i think dr. carson would be more obviously the secretary of health and human services since he is a world class pediatric neurosurgeon, but i think -- i know that president-elect trump has a very
deep interest in using hud which is a place jack kemp had also used to really focus on helping the inner cities and on helping rebuild parts of america that have had terrible experience under liberal democrats. it's conceivable that he appealed to dr. carson to undertake this because dr. carson is in many ways a remarkable missionary figure. he's a person who really has a deep, deep support in the faith-based community and with home schoolers and others who, starting with his books and his movie, really see him as a figure to look up to. certainly ben carson, anything he did he would do extraordinarily well. he is a world class person in his skills and in his dedication, his commitment. he and his wife are both remarkable people. >> certainly they're the nicest people in politics i've ever met. what do you think of the idea of mitt romney going to the state department? >> i would be concerned, one, i think the vast majority of trump
supporters will initially be very unhappy and will be reminded of all the things that romney said over the years. and two, because romney does represent a very different viewpoint authentically. i'm not sure whose secretary of state he would be. and i think that's something -- >> what do you mean by that? >> i think trump would really have to think through, romney wanted to be in president-elect trump's job. to what degree would romney, once he became secretary of state, represent himself around the world, sort of in the john kerry tradition of let's go from five star hotel to five star hotel, having dinners with foreign ministers, and to what extent would he actually represent the kind of tough-minded america first policies that trump has campaigned on. trump's got to have somebody at state who's very tough and very willing to take on foreign leaders and say, wait a second, i'm here to represent the united states of america.
>> you're saying the idealogical gulf between trump and romney is too wide? >> no. look, they apparently had a very good meeting on saturday. it lasted several hours. i told the president-elect that if he picks romney, i'm going to support him. president-elect trump deserves to have the team he wants. that's his gamble. but, i think he has to really have a very deep understanding -- i can think of 20 other people who would be more naturally compatible with the trump vision of foreign policy. >> right. >> and so, he's got to make his decision. >> what did you make of the meeting with the "new york times"? the last year and a half trump had said the "new york times" is biased and dumb, it's failing. and now he meets them today and refers to the times as i think i'm quoting, a jewel. so what is that about? is that part of a negotiating position? what would be the purpose of
that meeting? >> i have no idea. it could just be -- he's a new yorker. look, when i was a kid, the "new york times" was the greatest newspaper in the world. >> of course. >> without any question. it has tragically under its current leadership gone so far to the left and become so dishonest that it is a shadow of its former self. and frankly, both the times and the "washington post" have been as wrong covering the transition as they were covering the campaign, so i remind people, when you see stuff, just remember, these guys didn't get it during the campaign and they ain't getting it right now. it will be interesting if he had a chance to talk to them to ask president-elect trump, he apparently was very tough with the tv networks yesterday. and i don't know, maybe he got it out of his system and so today he was happy. >> do you think he gives the times credibility and do you think it will affect their coverage at all? >> oh i doubt it. look, the "new york times" would
have to actually be willing to have people who were pro trump, and i don't know how they would survive in that newsroom. i mean, the tension would be so enormous. >> we're almost out of time. i want to ask you since you raised it earlier. you said you can think of 20 people who could be secretary of state. can you name a couple? >> former senator john kyle. former ambassador bolton who would be equally tremendous. i think you could look -- frankly, i thought it was going to be rudy giuliani. rudy has the right personality. if you want to send somebody into a room tough enough to stand up to foreign leaders, i can't imagine many people who would do a better job. so i think there are a number of people -- carly fiorina. i loved with carly on the state department transformation advisory group under condi rice, and carly did a great job, having headed a worldwide
company, she understands a great deal about the world. i think you could find a number of first rate people who would be worth exploring. >> interesting. we'll see. thanks, we'll save the tape. great to see you. >> congratulations on your show. it's time for twitter storm. our nightly forecast of social media's most remarkable weather patterns. hurricane lena dunham is back with a vengeance tonight. she's showering america with her advice. the actress recently wrote the post entitled, advice for a teen activist. it came in response to a 14-year-old private school student's e-mail seeking guidance in the wake of donald trump's unexpected and very sad victory. among her suggestions to the social activist, read a by og any of ruth bader ginsburg, send sanitary napkins to ethiopia. twitter said, advice, don't
listen to lena dunham. at least she's showing us an accurate sampling of what the u.s. population would look like a few decades from now had hillary won. whoa, is that grim. and anyone who looks to lena dunham as a role model needs serious intro specs. and the only thing we would like to hear is your departure because she said she would leave the country if trump won. what are the lessons of hillary clinton's loss? for some, time to change the system. charlie wrangle on why we should getid of the electoral college. he joins us. panic at the department of panic at the department of homeland security.♪ mapping the oceans. where we explore.
protecting biodiversity. everywhere we work. defeating malaria. improving energy efficiency. developing more clean burning natural gas. my job? my job at exxonmobil? turning algae into biofuels. reducing energy poverty in the developing world. making cars go further with less. fueling the global economy. and you thought we just made the gas. ♪ energy lives here.
generosity is its oyou can handle being a mom for half an hour. i'm in all the way. is that understood? i don't know what she's up to, but it's not good. can't the world be my noodles and butter? get your mind out of the gutter. mornings are for coffee and contemplation. that was a really profound observation. you got a mean case of the detox blues. don't start a war you know you're going to lose. finally you can now find all of netflix in the same place as all your other entertainment. on xfinity x1.
. tonight we're asking what is next for the electoral college. it's been in place since 1789 and worked pretty well since then, but that was before hillary clinton lost the presidency thanks to a shortage of electoral votes. now there are new and predictable calls to abolish the entire system. pleading this particular charge is outgoing new york democratic congressman charlie wrangle of harlem who's been there more than 30 years and introduced a house bill to do away with the electoral college. thank you for joining us tonight. >> congratulations on your show. >> thank you. >> would you be introducing this
legislation if hillary won? >> of course. i always have. as a matter of fact, the legislation is the opposite of what would benefit hillary clinton because it was put into place and i'm certain you know it, it was put into place to control the popular vote and to super impose a group of people to prevent demagogs from hood winking the american people. and so i've been involved in every civil rights struggle, so naturally i am for one man one vote. but as you know well, when you find some small states that have two members of the senate and one congress person and they have the same ratio in terms of elected votes, a popular state like new york and california, you know that the one reason i introduced it with barbara boxer is to let americans know we still have not elected or voted for a president.
>> i'm not surprised you introduced with senator boxer because you represent new york and she california, two of the biggest states by population and of course those states would be the beneficiaries of this and the losers would be the smaller populations. so this is in your interest. all the folks would be new york, california, texas, illinois and that's it. >> the reason i'm raising this is not because we have to have a constitutional change, but how many people really recognize that it's no longer one vote one person. it's no longer that the majority wins. how many people don't even know, never even voted for clinton or trump, so i think this is an educational process for a system that the reasons no longer exist. >> i wonder by that rationale and i see what you're saying, but why not abolish the senate? so the population of, i don't know, wyoming, is about 500,000. there are more people stuck in
traffic on the 405 than that. why not make it a purely representative system? >> because one thing we're talking about is a legislative system as relates to the house and senate. i know it's a rhetorical question. and the reason we get two senators is to bring about a sense of balance. here we are talking about the united states of america. the electoral college vote really is there right now to make a decision that the american people haven't made. my primary purpose in doing this is to let people know that on january 6th of next year it's the first time we will be electing a president of the united states. on december 19th is the first time the electoral college will be voting and the last time we voted on november 8th, we only
voted for electors. now, whether or not you believe that people shouldn't know this, i'm doing this, my wife asked me why are you doing this and i said because you don't even know that you never voted for hillary. >> you're a very selfless man. >> the surprising thing is, if you read the federalist and you read what alexander hamilton said, the need for an electoral college, he said, is to avoid demagogs from being phony and fraudulent and appealing to groups that are not in the best interest of the united states of america. >> that's right. >> then i looked and i saw what mitt romney said. i said, holy mackerel, there must have been a good reason after all. >> very quickly, the other reason though of course is to make sure that there's some geographic equity, so your district has gotten much more affluent in the last 20 years in
part because of federal laws. huge parts of the country in the middle of the country are withering and dying and you would take power from them. >> that is just not so. what has happened unfortunately because of reapportionment, because of censoring counts, states like california and new york, nobody campaigns in our state. places like texas that they know are red or was thought to be red, so the candidates for president of the united states, they know that democratic states that traditionally vote democrat, they don't even go there. the same thing with republicans. they go to the red states. so you find the battleground states, the smallest states, the rural states are where the campaign really begins. and i'm not saying all of this is wrong. i'm just saying 98% of the american people have no clue and i thank you because i know
you're only doing this to kick off your show with something new and exciting, but i think it's terrifically exciting to see what the heck were these guys thinking when they put together this constitutionalprovision. >> like you i'm an educator at heart, congressman. >> i know you are. >> i appreciate it. great to see you. >> good seeing you again. muslim advocacy group is conceding that donald trump actually did a lot better than expected with their constituents. according to a newly released exit poll conducted by c.a.r.e., 74% of muslims voted for hillary clinton while 13% backed donald trump. that's a blow for hillary but compare it to four years ago. in the 2012 exit poll, barack obama garnered about 85% of the muslim vote, while just 4% said they voted for mitt romney. that's a massive improvement and
herridge is here with the very latest. how concerned are they? >> well, they're fairly concerned, i'll put it that way. they put out this intelligence analysis at the end of last week, and that came after an isis propaganda magazine that was released and it specifically called on its followers to use trucks as a weapon to inflict mass casualties like what we saw in nice, france in july of this year. that's when an isis inspired terrorist rented that truck and mowed down families who are there for a national celebration, killing 86 and injuring more than 400, many children. so this is a good example of how isis is using a low investment, low technology tactic in order to inflict mass casualties and to maximize the propaganda value. >> you were saying one of the key distinctions between isis and al qaeda is isis has been able to get more people to sign on as a suicide bomber. >> that's right.
there's a line between osama bin laden's al qaeda and isis, this phenomenal of social media, is that isis has been able to take suicide bombings into the mainstream. almost all of these plots, the operatives are willing to die for the cause, and that's not what we saw with al qaeda, even in the immediate post 9/11 era. think about the boston marathon bombing and that was an al qaeda-inspired attack. those brothers were not willing to die for the cause at the time they planted the pressure cooker bombs. what you see with the isis attacks is that they are willing to die and it makes it that much harder to disrupt and intercept because they're willing to go to extremes to make their point. >> what i'm struck by every time i see one of your reports is that for the rest of us, worry about these things tends to recede pretty quickly but in the law enforcement world they never stop worrying about it. >> one of the things that the nation's top spy testified to last week is that as he leaves
the office with the next administration, the threat level has never been higher in part because it's so diversified and the ability to disrupt these lone actor plots is getting harder and harder. actually what we're seeing now is that for the majority of plots that are disrupted inside the united states is through the internet, so the fbi identifying people who are saying suspicious things on the web, it's not through the see something, say something campaign. so it may be time in the next administration to rethink that concept because we are not identifying people to the degree that officials had hoped we would. >> that does not surprise me. catherine herridge, thanks a lot. the problem with homeland security says tense of thousands of green cards have vanished. nobody knows where they are. inspector general report says that some of those green cards were sent with incorrect information and even sent to the wrong addresses. the fear obviously is they could fall into the hands of terrorists, criminals or people
here illegally. here is fox's geraldo rivera to respond to the story. as if we needed another example of federal ineptitude but what i'm kind of surprised to see is how the immigration service tried to downplay this, it's not that big of a deal. it's a big deal, isn't it? >> they got 19,000 wrong specifically, and it was a significant bureaucratic screwup. there's no way to sugar coat it. they sent out duplicate green cards so everybody of these 19,000 got two of them, one they could give to their brother or someone who looked like them. they have no evidence however as of right now, tucker, that any of these have gone to anyone ineligible to receive them. so i want to put the story in context. i think there are problems obviously with the immigration system. donald trump in his two and a half minute video in which he
laid out his plan for the first 100 days of his administration, he talked about dialing with immigration abuses. he has to obviously also deal with immigration authority incompetence, but in the big picture with the hundreds of thousands of millions of people who come and go, this isn't the end of the world. again, i don't want to downplay it but there are plenty of bigger fish to fry. >> we'll see. you may be absolutely right. i guess why this story struck me is because it's what happens here all the time. so today in one of those bitter ironies we've become familiar with in washington, the president issued bonuses or made possible bonuses for federal employees for the first time in six years. the report found that the percentage of green cards issued in error had steadily increased each year since the system was put into place. nobody's done anything about it because let's be totally blunt, the people who run the administration don't really believe in citizenship as a
meaningful category. >> i hate to be cynical, i hate to be skeptical, but to me bonuses for people in areas of civil service generally are an oxymor oxymoron. i think the notion that one civil servant gives a bonus to another in some bizarre parallel with private industry is really way off the mark. but i will say this and i think this is very important, tuck er because i know this is an issue near and dear to your heart and as your pal, i like to, you know, give due deference to that. what did donald trump not talk about in that two and a half minute video? he did not talk about building a wall on the southern border with mexico. he did not talk about restricting muslim immigration. so i am heartened by just as he has chosen apparently not to persecute hillary clinton,
likewise now that he sees the enormity of the task he is facing, has wisely put things like the wall and muslim exclusions on the far back burner, and i just hope it stays there. this now is emerging as the donald trump that i know and have known for decades. >> of course the other way to look at it might be that those things are a given and there's no reason to talk about them in the video. i would also note that he didn't decline to persecute hillary clinton but prosecute hillary clinton. there's nothing wrong withholding people accountable to the laws of the united states. that's called justice, no? >> i absolutely agree, just as president ford when he took office recognized that the prosecution, persecution of richard nixon would not be in the best interest of the nation, i think so too president-elect donald trump has seen in the sober reflection of his triumph that going after hillary rodham clinton right now would not be in the best interest of the country. he's got his hands full.
he hates "saturday night live," donald trump, but i think that when alec baldwin was confronted by some of these realities in the mockery of "saturday night live" when he's playing donald trump saying, scrap it, skrap it, i think you're going to see a lot of scrap it, scrap it, as donald trump the businessman now takes that business acumen and applies it to the chief executive of the nation. >> in the sober reflection of his triumph, boy, you're one articulate man, geraldo rivera. thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you. the experts said the economy would tank with the trump win but of course they were wrong. plus mean tweets. tonight's are especially cruel. by the way, follow me on twitter. you can also search our facebook page, tucker carlton tonight. i'm not sure how tha
bad predictions. for example, the dow jones continues to shatter records including today weeks after donald trump's election and the dow just closed above 19,000 for the first time just in 120 years. but economic experts said a trump victory would tank the market, didn't they? yes, they did, and a lot of other things. how did this all happen? here's karl rove joining us now, former senior advisor to george w. bush. great to see you, carl. >> thanks, tucker. good to see you. >> even -- well, i think you're an example of this. many of us are. you know more about american politics than almost anybody i know. you've got decades of experience. you're famously smart. you're totally bewildered when trump wins. how did the smart people get this wrong? >> well, when it comes to the committ economy, i think the immediate aftermath of the election, markets don't like uncertainty, and the clarity of someone winning, particularly someone who had a pro growth package and a republican senate, house and
president means likely to have a tax cut, likely to see regulatory relief, likely to see a rollback of some of the administration's regulatory actions, particularly when it comes to energy, likely to have attacks on the regime of dodd frank, so all of that helps sort of inspire clarity, confidence. it helped a boom of health insurers, financial institutions. particularly what i think is interesting is the bump among small and medium-sized firms who tend to be the kind of businesses who get buried under the burden of federal regulation. if you got a lawyer, lobbyist, big company, you can sort of figure out how to deal with it, but for a lot of small and medium-sized firms, particularly the labor department regulations and other regulations have had a serious impact, and obamacare of course ripping up their balance sheet. >> that makes sense. i think that's a smart analysis but all of this is easier for all of us in retrospect. my question and i think it's a
really significant one, is why did nobody call any of this ahead of time and i am including you in this represent, why did nobody see this coming? have you taken a moment to ask yourself with all the data in the world at my disposal was i unable to see this? >> yeah. you know, maybe you can remember when i said that the market was going to tank if trump won. i didn't say that. in fact -- >> no, no. i mean the election. >> let me finish. a lot of smart people were saying that if trump won there would be exactly this kind of a. larry lindsey was saying this. chris lowe out of memphis was saying this. a lot of people were saying if we have a pro growth environment it's going to happen. now, you're right, you were one of the handful of people who right from the beginning thought donald trump was going to win. >> no, no, no. i'm not talking about me. i'm talking about you. i was siding there tting there
night and you won't alone. a million people were confused and why didn't you see it? >> i'd be happy to answer the question -- i'd be happy to answer the question if you want to keep going. if you want to keep going, fine, but i'll be happy to answer the question. i thought he would get close. i thought he'd win florida, north carolina, ohio. i told him at the end of may he was going to win iowa. he said really? i said yeah, you can win iowa. i didn't think he would get wisconsin, pennsylvania and narrowly michigan. what he did is he broke through southwest -- jayc cox had a gret article. he broke through southwest wisconsin. two elections in a row we had bush on a bus riding through southwest wisconsin trying to break through in those counties and the combination of being upset about president obama and not liking hillary clinton and three weeks until the end of the campaign when he ran a campaign
that was disciplined and focused and without a lot of kerr flufl created by unnecessary comments caused those people to say, you know what, i want change, he's the candidate to change and i can go with him. hat's off to him because republicans including me have tried to win wisconsin. we came within 5500 voettes in 2000. >> you told me on election night that it was paul ryan who brought him across the line. >> yeah, and let me say -- let me explain that. a month out from the election, a month out from the election -- let me finish. a month out from the election, the wisconsin republican party was short of money for their get out the vote operation. they went to the rnc which said we can't fund it. they went to the trump campaign who said not going to be there. paul ryan wrote the million dollar check to the wisconsin republican party. final week of the campaign he decides what he's going to do is get on a bus with ron johnson and the two of them are going to cover the state in order to pump for vote on a straight
republican ticket from donald trump to ron johnson to republicans up and down the ballot. his advisor said, no, you're the speaker of the house, you're supposed to be traveling around the country, encouraging people to vote for republican house members. he said you know what, my job was to raise the money, now i need help with my state. >> nobody thinks paul ryan got him wisconsin. i think it's -- >> i disagree. i for one think it helped a lot. >> okay. we disagree but it's great to see you. >> you bet. the "huffington post" did something especially amazing and dumb actually. ainsley earhardt is in the why do protein drinks taste chalky? then get worse? introducing protein shots from 5-hour energy. protein shots from 5-hour energy are smooth and tasty, and still deliver 21 grams of protein with 100 calories. they're great for workouts. so great that if you don't get up to fifteen percent more reps, more laps, more distance, we'll give you your money back
we like to end with an after dinner mint. a spa treatment. the friend sdplozone, we invite of our friends. uber friend, the incredible ainsley earhardt, co-host of ""fox & friends."" >> you are up really early like 3:00 in the morning reading headlines and this jumped out from the huffington host. it's official, donald trump's first 100 days will be horrible for the planet. because of this, i had to read it. you are a person of faith. a lot of this was written in religious language. like donald trump is violating some kind of faith that we have in environmentalism. he is an apostate and must be crushed. do you get that vibe? >> we read it this morning on the morning show. i needed you on the curvy couch just to laugh. i need thed that cackle that yo do. everyone was laughing. talk about religion.
donald trump is offering an olive branch. he met with "the new york times" and he was talking about keeping an open mind and listening to the folks that do believe that humans are responsible for climate change. he also said, i want clean coal and we want more jobs. we want shale. there are so many stories when i worked for sean hannity show on clean coal and on shale. we have a lions share of shale in our country. wouldn't it be nice if we were not dependant on other countries for energy. it would be amazing. it would create jobs. we wouldn't have to rely on the middle east for our oil. it would be great. maybe there is a way to compromise and a way to kind of talk this out. he is offering an olive branch. he is inviting people of all different faiths and creeds to come and meet with him. i think it's great. >> that posture and attitude that comes very naturally to you as a peacemaker, is totally absent from this piece. people that aren't sold on the connection between human
activity and global warming are dismissed as deniers, not worthy of consideration, bad people. >> what did you think when he said there might be a connection? >> you know, it mirrors what i think, which is, there might be. i hope i'm open-minded. the essence of science is questioning. that's the point. ask questions until you are satisfied that there is no other explanation for the phenomenon you are watching. that's the essence of the seismic method. i'm totally for asking questions, including about climate change, but the idea we know everything that needs to know and anyone that questions it is anti-science. it is hilarious. it is the opposite of science. >> i think the majority of americans feel the way you do and they are going to give him a chance. i think he is pretty open-minded when it comes to social issues and this type of an issue. he wants to hear from all sides before he makes a judgment or before he decides what direction is best for this country. he seems to be like the guy in high school who says, let me
hear from you, let me hear from the preppy people and this group and that group and then we'll make a decision. >> was it like that at your high school? >> there were a few guys like that. i bet you were that guy. >> i went bam back to colombia, south carolina. they say, ainsley earhardt is from here. >> you are the nicest guy. everyone is so proud of you. keep watching. your ratings are so good. everybody is beaming up here in new york. you know they are down here at the bureau. we just miss you. i know you missed your wife, because you were working seven days a week. i love your wife and your beautiful kids. we miss you in new york. do you think there is any way in the future that you are ever going to move back here? we can't deal with not seeing you. ainsley earhardt, ladies and gentlemen. thank you. >> proud of you, tucker. the opposite of ainsley earhardt, mean tweets. i think i'm ready to face your wrath.
now, the feedback part of the programs. mean tweets we call it. jay edward tweeted this. you have really bad taste in ties but i am sure i would enjoy dove hunting with you. >> necessary a mixed compliment attack. >> moscow lilac wrote, i don't really want to be mean but that neck tie, some sports team colors, demeans your intellect. big dave tweets this, you look like an unholy hybrid of brit hume and sean hannity. the hybrid would be, by definition, unholy. wendy wrote this, tucker, let your hair grow. take a lesson from actor, tom selleck, the reason his movie career tanked was because they p
ruined his hair. i love when you play confused and dumb welcome to "red eye." hello, every. i'm tom shillue. let's check in with tv's andy levey. >> coming up on the big show some trump supporters feel betrayed after the donald says he won't pursue charges of the chin tons. the president-elect will be here to respond. and british students are being taught disney movies like "snow white,"" beauty and the beast" #r racist and sexis. and finally a new study showing the reasons you may think a guy is creepy. find out how high on the barber list is.