tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News July 4, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
unafraid. "the story" starts in a moment. i'll be back with some breaking news at the bottom of the hour on north korea, right here on fox news channel. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to our special july 4th edition of "tucker carlson tonight." we hope our viewers are enjoying the holiday today, one of the greatest ever. we are halfway through 2017 and we have had to spend a lot of time talking about rushing hacking, even though you may have noticed, no evidence has arose that russian agents were responsible for altering the results of last fall's election. consider this interviewee had with congressman adam schiff in december. if we -- we could about the same interview tonight and not much would have changed. >> these hats were of such
seriousness, they could not have taken place without the highest levels of the kremlin. >> tucker: that is speculation. >> that is not speculation. >> it is a statement of the intelligence community's best assessment. there is a political reason to do it, it is what the intelligence professionals are saying. >> tucker: i have lived here a long time. i remember vividly massive stockpiles of wmds in iraq, which the intelligence community's assured us were there, but they weren't. pardon me for my spectre schism schism -- >> you don't have to take my word for it. >> tucker: i get it. here, we have hacking of the pentagon, the white house, the cia director's personal email was hacked. we think in some cases by russia. i don't remember you holding a press conference it and say hey, obama administration, your cybersecurity is pathetic. how specifically did the
russians make this election outcome different than what it would have been? how did they hack our democracy? >> we will never know whether this was determinative anymore than director companies involvement -- >> tucker: what were the means? >> hacking into democratic institutions and the leaking of documents between the clinton and sanders camps, something we saw took place as a result of that. then, in the general election, attempt to discredit secretary of state clinton and a way that would harm her and help donald trump. >> tucker: how did they do that? >> it was pretty obvious. they hack some of the released documents -- >> tucker: that were real. >> they were real. there were ones that were damaging to secretary clinton. can you point to documents that that -- >> tucker: are you arguing -- less risky to the bottom line. you are upset because you think this affected the election. are you arguing that voters should not have seen that information?
>> this is an important point, though. it's not just a fact that it damaged the candidate i was supporting. all americans, democrats and republicans, particularly of the parts he ever again -- >> tucker: i get it. are you arguing that voters should not affect the right to see the information? if you could take it back, would you say, you are not allowed to see that information? >> i would say we ought to stop russia from doing this. whether the pressure should publish this information -- >> tucker: do you think they should? >> that's a different question. i also think, this was an issue i took with the press during the campaign, when they do publish information that the russians have packed and the russians want us to see, they ought to inform the public of the prominence of those emails -- >> tucker: they don't know it and neither should you. you don't know that the government -- i think it is really irresponsible for you to say that you know -- >> you know it is irresponsible, tucker, for you to make that claim without looking at the evidence. >> tucker: you can say that the putin government --
>> more importantly, for the president-elect today, to say that he doesn't know whether -- >> tucker: you're dodging. you are on the intel committee. let me ask you one final question. look into the camera and say, i know for a fact the government of vladimir putin is behind the hacks of john podesta's emails. >> absolutely. >> tucker: of john podesta's email? >> also, in europe. >> tucker: you are daunting. look into the camera. >> i think that ronald reagan -- >> tucker: ronald reagan, ronald reagan. >> you are carrying water for the kremlin. >> tucker: you are on the inside committee and they say -- >> you have to move your show to rt russian television -- >> tucker: that is so beneath your office because it is so dumb when you are being duplicitous. i am asking you, did they hack podesta's emails? you can't say it. you just said i was carrying water -- [laughter] that is pretty hilarious.
>> when you essentially are an apologist for the kremlin, that is what you do. >> tucker: one last time, congressman, look into the camera and say they hacked john podesta's emails. we know for a fact that putin government dead. you can't, and you know that you can't, and you are hiding behind weasel words. >> i won't be specific. >> tucker: because you don't know it. done. won. you don't know what and you are alleging it without any evidence. >> you are ignoring the evidence because you don't care that it helped the republican candidate, that's all you need to know. >> tucker: [laughs] that is totally false. if you were going to make a serious allegation about an actual country with an actual government, you want to know what you are talking about and you don't. i got to go. i am taking cash from putin now. >> the intelligence committee said for a fact -- >> tucker: you know that. >> you are willing to be in denial about that because it suits the republican elected president. >> tucker: you can blather all you want, man, but i give you a
chance to see it clearly. i appreciate that, congressman. now, i need to take a call from vladimir putin so i will put you on hold for one second. congressman schiff wasn't the only one who couldn't provide a scintilla of evidence of russian collusion. we brought a parade of democrats onto the show over the months we have been on the air, and while all of them are happy to promote conspiracy theories, some of them real tinfoil hat steps, none of them has provided any evidence to back it up. >> we are focusing to make sure that the republic is secure because of the extraordinary intervention by hostile foreign powers. >> tucker: you are selling crap to your voters. you are saying that all the problems can be explained by vladimir putin's intervention into the united states politics. you are lying to them. >> we are campaigning every day on health care. that is what they are talking to people about. that is what we are focusing on. if you turn on the tv -- >> tucker: i live here. i host a cable city in the dash
cables cable show in the city, and this poll proves that it's true. >> you heard the fbi director today say that vladimir putin hated hillary clinton, hated her, he personally hated her. >> do you think he made that up? >> tucker: i am asking you as a member of the intel committee. how would he know something like that? we don't even know how ourselve. it's a serious question. why would he allege something like that? how could he possibly know that? >> because of intelligence reporting. >> tucker: based on what? >> electronic sources that are in the public report. >> tucker: there is no indication of how we can no vladimir putin in's innermost thoughts about hillary clinton. >> do you think we should tell the world how we collect intelligence? >> i think before government officials change our policy and declare war against a sovereign
country, we, citizens, have the right to know this. this conspiracy is deeper than you thought it was. it's one thing to say that the members of the trump administration met with russian officials. you are saying now that the military action that we just saw on thursday night may have been coordinated with the russians to throw sleuth like you office sent. that appears to be what you are saying. that is a huge conspiracy. >> is a conspiracy if it's a conspiracy. the reality is, i am just -- >> tucker: you have evidence for that? now, i can't confirm it. i know you would love for me to say that i can confirm it. i'm just saying that i love the p -- i know people that say that. >> tucker: the truth is, jeff sessions had nothing to do with russia hacking various computer systems and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. by continue? >> tucker, we know that the russians were laser focused on lifting the sanctions on their regime as a result of crimea and
ukraine. they were successful, we don't know how or why. let me finish. >> tucker: that's dumb. we don't know that. >> they did change the platform and we don't know why. >> tucker: was sergey kislyak there? >> we know the platform committee was changed. >> tucker: the russians, where they and their meeting? >> i didn't say that. i said we should find out why they changed. >> tucker: you just said that russia got changed. we don't know that. >> i wouldn't make that allegation. we ought to get to the bottom of it. >> tucker: [laughs] so, anyone who is against sanctions -- i'm against sanctions, does that mean that i am a tool of putin? >> are you against the -- >> tucker: i don't know what it means to hack an election, i don't know what they did that would constitute a crime so severe that they had to spy on the trump campaign to prove it. >> they hacked into the dnc's email and they leaked those
emails out in a strategic way to impact an election. >> tucker: why want all of our -- >> everyone of our intelligence 80s has said that. director comey said that. if you don't trust them, that it's a different story. >> tucker: i asked the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee, adam schiff, can you say that you have evidence of the russian government hacked john podesta or the dnc email accounts? he declined to do that. i just want to know -- unless you when i have to go on faith, we have to trust politicians in a political system on faith, why don't we get some evidence that any of this actually happened? why do we all have to nod and say, oh, yeah, must have happened. where is the evidence? >> tucker: president trump has a remarkably large number of bitter opponents and the thing is, they seem to be getting angrier as time goes by. up next, we'll show you our showdown with a clergyman who said trump's federal budget is somehow a form of ethnic
did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's up to 16 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to faster downloads with internet speeds up to 250 megabits per second. get fast internet and add phone and tv now for only $34.90 more per month. call today. comcast business. built for business. ♪ >> tucker: well, the foes of the president called themselves the resistance, as though he were a foreign tyrant, vichy or someone come in and democratically elected leader of our country. it seems silly but it has also justified plenty of outrageous statements and actions by the trump administration, for example, released a proposed federal budget, a man called
bishop duane royster claimed the budget was a form of ethnic cleansing. >> this budget come if i can be honest with you, it is an attempt to implement ethnic cleansing in this nation for people of color, but also poor white folks for whom the services being cut will be impact of the most! president trump and his surrogates have used dog whistle language to speak about race in negative ways and create fear in the hearts of americans. >> tucker: that didn't make a lot of sense. we invited him on the show to explain what exactly he meant. here's part of what he said. you know, i don't want to be in the position of defending the budget that i don't like in a lot of ways. but it's outrageous for you to say that he has contempt when you don't know that. you don't know that. it's unknowable. we can evaluate whether policies work or not whether we agree with them, we can't evaluate what he thinks because we don't know. you cast this in racial terms. >> it is racial. >> tucker: how is this racial? doesn't this effect poor white people? >> we go back and look at donald trump is candidate up
through all of the actions of donald trump has made at the beginning of his presidency, the actions he has taken her very much racially motivated, they are very much motivated by faith, very much motivated by trying to make america bright again not just a great again. >> tucker: how the hill do you look at this budget and say it is ethnic cleansing? you call yourself a minister. >> we talk about taking one form for a trillion dollars on medicaid, they are not going to be able to get the health care that we need. >> tucker: people who struggle -- >> let me finish. $200 billion away from snap benefits that will be able to help feed people in this country. >> tucker: how is that ethnic cleansing? slow down. i am asking something very specific. why is that i thought i? the life expectancy for black americans is not an decline. it is for white americans. presumably, it hurts them worse. >> no, no. this is racial. the dog whistle language in the donald trump and his surrogates use while they were on the
campaign trail is the same language they are using to try to get the budget -- >> tucker: they are using dog we language that goes back to nixon and when he was using this strategy -- >> tucker: i want to have a fact-based conversation. >> you look at the programs that are being caught. >> tucker: you don't know that. >> they will cut poor white people and the poor white folk out there are being sold a bill of lies. >> tucker: instead of making broad generalizations about people's other three and skin color and evoking the shared memories of persecution, what you are doing on purpose, say, this is policy. maybe he disagrees with you. >> people will be persecuted as a result of this. people won't even be able to have a legal defense. >> tucker: you are so overstating it. here is the problem. here is why i think you are a better representative for your faith. >> you don't know anything about my faith. >> tucker: i am saying this. a requisite of dean since he is to assume until proved otherwise goodwill on the part of people who disagree. the people who are reasonable
and decent could have a different view from the you i have. you don't seem to entertain that possibility. >> is tucker, i did not attack downtown personally, -- >> tucker: ethnic cleansing? >> this particular cleansing -- policy is about ethnic cleansing, the muslim man, allowing oil pipelines, we look at this -- >> tucker: this is insane! there are plenty of indian reservations. are they implicit in ethnic cleansing? you want to bring people together in your clergy -- >> i'm a preacher. this is what i do. matthew 25, jesus talks about -- >> tucker: i want to have a conversation about adult things. >> you are saying faith is not an adult thing? >> tucker: needless to say -- >> we gotta go. see what you may think bishop royster's statements were a little but over the top but by comparison from what we heard
from democratic strategist jim tomei jim devine, they were tame. after the attempted assassination of steve scalise, he went on twitter. he added this hashtag, #huntrepublicancongressmanhoseh ash.weinvitedhimontheirshowandae ntly,hecame. here'swhathappenednext. >> tucker: hours after five people were shot, you sent a tweet that said "hunt republicans." clearly a reference to the assassination attempt against congressman scalise. it is hard to imagine how you could justify writing something like that. >> in immediate aftermath of the shooting at the sandy hook school, we heard people say, this is not the time to talk about gun violence. we have heard lots of things follow this. this is -- >> tucker: that's not what they were saying. you were encouraging gun violence. >> absolutely not. >> tucker: what did you mean
by that? i am talking about you not some other paper. >> this is what has been out there. >> tucker: i am not interested in what other people have to sa say. so, your excuse apparently is other people have done it. that's not an excuse. i'm here to ask you about something that what you wrote. why don't you explain it? >> for too long, republicans in this country have failed to distinguish the differences between politics and war. a lot of democrats have failed to see the similarities. so, you guys either have to turn on the rhetoric or we have to step up. i don't think there is anything anything -- hunt republicans. >> tucker: there's nothing wrong with that? >> sarah palin for the crosshairs on congress. i am just saying, hunt republicans is that of democrats. to be >> tucker: sarah palin didn't do that. a group affiliated with her did that. it's a difference between a metaphor and actually suggesting to go hunt republicans after republicans have just been shot. >> she put up a post about her
republican -- >> tucker: what point are you making? that that's okay? >> i am making the point that after year after year after year of hearing the same kind of violent rhetoric from the right, the left has every reason to come forward and stand up. what i have learned in life -- >> tucker: with violent rhetoric? >> when you are confronted with bullets, you have to fight fire with fire. tomei. my point is, when you put up obstacles to people voting, when you secretly plot in the senate to repeal health care that is keeping 50,000 americans alive, and you are otherwise directing barriers to the democratic process where we have elections where the people who get the most votes don't win -- >> tucker: you should be shot? >> no! that that is tyrannical governm. >> tucker: do you think that someone who tweets a line such as "hunt republicans or hunt democrats" are to be allowed to have a gun? as a gun-control advocate?
that is my question to you. >> absolutely. i don't think that what in and of itself to find them as a person who either -- >> tucker: going on social media and advocating violence in the wake of a shooting. not much of a gun-control guy guy. apparently not. what is your plan? >> my point is enough is enough. >> tucker: so, it's time to take up arms? >> no, it's not about taking up arms. it is about coming together and fighting back. >> tucker: fighting back out? >> politically. peacefully. >> tucker: you know what, you are an unbalanced force end i have to say, it's distressing that more people haven't disavowed you. it's not just trump that makes the left the ranch. coming up, we'll have a memorable encounter with a feminists who objects to calling breastfeeding natural, if you ca liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night,
"tucker carlson tonight" ." ♪ >> tucker: from the academia file, this spring, an article in the medical journal pediatrics said it was "ethically problematic to refer to breastfeeding as a natural activity, though, of course the most natural of all activities. it was one of the readers things we have seen in the year as in a year that has been definitely weird. cathy areu of "catalina magazine" thought the article was splendid, though.
this is a baffling story. one that people aren't starting politics into breastfeeding, which it seems like it should could be off limits. why would it be controversial to call breastfeeding natural? if it's not natural, what is natural? >> breastfeeding doesn't come naturally as pediatricians will tell you. it's not easy. there are lactation specialists out there, there's our whole industry. breastfeeding isn't exactly natural. it doesn't come naturally to women. what they are saying is, i am so happy there's a study out here, finally letting women not have this guilt trip, that it's okay to handle a formula to daddy, to the men, and it's natural for a man to feed a baby. they are saying that only a woman able to feed a child is inappropriate. it is unethical and inappropriate. i am so glad that we are let off the hook finally. >> tucker: it's not unethical or inappropriate, whatever those words mean. it's the opinion of some physicians that breastmilk is superior to formula and other people disagree. it's a debate.
it has reached for quite some time. but you seem to be saying is it's bad because it suggests that women have a different role in motherhood than men do, but they do, because women are the only people biologically capable of bearing children. is that how i controversial observation? speak of the study is saying that women are not the only ones who can feed the children. that is what they are trying to say. it is natural for others to feed the children. the whole burden is not on the mothers, so, that is what they are trying to say. >> tucker: okay, first of all, of course that is true. of course. that is kind of a decision -- i don't think women are stupid. >> i interviewed pediatrician that had a mother that had a child to starving for two weeks. she was not able to lactate. she was not able to produce breastmilk for two weeks. the baby had lost weight and she refused to give the baby formula for fears of the baby would not get the perfect breastmilk and
would have to turn to formula. >> tucker: that is a fair point. that's a shame when people feel like there is no alternative. perhaps there are some. but that is not what is really going on here. this is gender politics intruding on the personal decisions that a parent makes. it is also blurring the lines. it is suggesting, by the way, that men can breast-feed, which i don't think they can. >> i don't know. but it suggests -- >> tucker: i do know. they can't. i have four children. i can tell you. >> i don't know your secrets. but they are saying is that men can feed children, they are finally putting a study out there that saying that breastmilk is not the only way to go. there are other ways -- >> tucker: you are dodging what i am saying. strictly speaking, i don't disagree with you. but the debate is whether breastmilk is better or worse than formula. again, that is a scientific
debate that nutritionists and physicians can have. this is feminist groups saying, how dare you suggest that it's better for women to feed babies because it-biologically to the act of procreation? my only problem is, feminists as usual are helping to obscure biological realities because they don't like them. if that is an attack on science. >> writes its own event at saying that's inappropriate to say that breastmilk is the only natural way to feed a child. a man can naturally feed a child in other ways. >> tucker: actually, a man can't naturally feed a child. he can't produce formula. >> he can naturally give it formula. it's natural. following is natural. >> tucker: [laughs] okay. can you take three steps back. can you acknowledge that there is something pretty awful about inserting gender politics into something as beautiful and intimate as the first days of a child's life?
may be parents could say, hey, back off. >> press meeting is not beautiful. it causes so many headaches. it can be so horrible. as a pediatrician told me, it doesn't come natural for so many women. this study is wonderful because women can finally step back and say, while matt, it's okay to hand the bottle and the baby over to dad or my girlfriend or whatever the case may be. >> tucker: half of that sentence is correct, it is okay to do that. but i am wondering come a final question for you. this is giving me a little bit of a headache. no offense to you. the whole subject is crazy. if it's not natural to breast-feed, how did this pcs get to where it is now? why didn't we die out several millennia ago? >> i think we found other ways like formula to feed the babies. >> tucker: during the medieval period, where did you get that? >> i am not sure. but breastfeeding phenomena has been going on for the last ten years. before that, mothers are burnt
into breastfeeding, the feminism, the revolution of the '70s, women did not breast-feed like they did nowadays. breastfeeding is not always the answer. >> tucker: i am glad my kids are older and i don't have to weigh into this stuff. cathy, thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: muslims in australia say they need to safe spaces where they can freely express controversial opinions. what kind of controversial opinions might those be? up next, we'll show you our talk with a muslim woman who thinks faith spaces are an excellent idea and we will hea constipated? trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.
you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
that airline credit card yout? have... it could be better. it's time to shake things up. with the capital one venture card, you get double miles on everything you buy, not just airline purchases. seriously, think of all the things you buy. great...is this why you asked me to coffee? well yeah... but also to catch-up. what's in your wallet? ♪ >> tucker: a muslim group in australia has been campaigning for special muslim safe spaces for young muslims convoys extremist views without fear of being monitored. that sounds like a great idea. american muslim blair imani thought taxpayer funded say spaces were a great idea. they are to be here in the united states and she came on
here to explain why. five. blair, what exactly would a safe space for muslims look like? >> first, i think we need to explain that everybody misunderstands what a safe space means. for me, i am talking about safe spaces big some more where you can be who you are without fear of being surveilled, having violence committed against you, are being harassed. i think it's a good idea to have everywhere. america was both on the idea that we can express our religious freedoms, that we can have free speech. i know that you believe in that. it's a necessary thing. we are talking about safe spaces for muslims. we need to recognize that we have been surveilled for a very long time. i converted to islam two years ago. for people that have been awesome and living in america, it is a crisis for them. you are being surveilled, watch, and children are being effected. >> tucker: let me stop you there. why do you think law enforcement agencies would put muslims under surveillance? >> obviously because of the counterterrorism efforts.
>> tucker: why would there be counterterrorism efforts aimed at muslims? >> come on, tucker. you know why that is. >> tucker: i am a man who asks questions that i am asking a question about the statement you made. >> there are acts of terror committed in the name of a la that do not reflect the muslim community. however, -- >> tucker: they may or they may not, but he'll concede, this isn't random. it's not that the u.s. government or police departments are looking for some religious group to persecute or is that what you are saying? >> i am saying that. >> tucker: why don't they do it to the amish? why don't they do it to the amish? hasidic jewish people? they speak a different anguish, not assimilated. i don't see a lot of terror attacks committed by them, do you? >> it is not profitable to be speaking against these other groups. it is very profitable to be speaking against muslims because it is feeding into this wartime effort.
>> tucker: we can debate the details but i think it's important to acknowledge a baseline and that is that there has been an awful lot of attacks were actual people died in the united states and in europe, committed by people saying really clearly, we are acting in the name of islam. other muslims and, if you are purporting a religion, but there are still people who have killed a lot of other people in the name of islam. it's not like some mass fantasy that a law enforcement is acting out of. this is a real thing and i don't understand why groups like yours won't acknowledge the reality of that. it's true. >> we also have this rise of white supremacists and "all trite" violence. it is been committed -- >> tucker: that is down. >> it's happening. >> tucker: if you are reading on the "salon, maybe you are convinced. they are hard numbers kept by u.s. government, that show exactly the number of people who died and how in terror attacks in the united states. and the truth is, there is no comparison.
there actually is a problem with how dull my people self identifying as muslims murdering people in the name of islam. i'm not saying you are. i just don't know why you are more upset at them. if they were episcopalians -- what you are doing is lecturing the u.s. government for being racist and me to muslims. there is a problem in our community, we are trying to do something about it, but maybe they should stop surveilling us so much. that is a fair thing to say. instead, it is always the fault of the larger society. that is silly. have you noticed that all identity politics converge in the end? it talks about muslims, lgbt community, at some point, -- some of us exist in all of those communities. it's not identity politics when it's your life. >> tucker: don't you also think that you are an american primarily? aren't we all first and foremost americans? >> i am black first. >> tucker: end of conversation. thank you, blair.
it is not the safe spaces that the laughter left in for these days but segregated spaces, racially segregated spaces, believe it or not. we replay our conversation with professor who cel i was wondering if an electric toothbrush really cleans... ...better than a manual, and my hygienist says it does. but... ...they're not all the same. turns out, they're really... ...different. who knew? i had no idea. so, she said look for... ...one that's shaped like a dental tool with a round...
...brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's rounded brush head surrounds each tooth to... ...gently remove more plaque and... ...oral-b crossaction is clinically proven to... ...remove more plaque than sonicare diamondclean. my mouth feels so clean. i'll only use an oral-b! the #1 brand used by dentists worldwide. oral-b. brush like a pro.
♪ >> tucker: memorial day is supposed to bring americans together and mostly it does, but this year, a new york black lives matter group thought differently. they hosted a party for the holiday -- people who weren't black not to come. we were ready to have a serious discussion because it is a serious matter but professor lisa durden had her own plans.
you can judge for yourself for her own argument. her college fired her over the segment. >> tucker: i was confused by this because i thought the whole point of black lives matter, one of the points, would be to speak out against singling people out on the basis of their ways and punishing them for that. you can control what your race is. yet, they seem to be doing that. explain that to me. >> what i say to that is boo hoo hoo. you white people are angry because he couldn't use your white privilege card to get invited to the black lives matter all black memorial day celebration. wow. let me contextualize for that book. memorial day was created -- >> tucker: i don't want you to contextualize such. >> it was created by black former slaves in 1865 to honor those individuals who were union soldiers who fought and died for our freedoms are black lives matter, in that same vein, decided to get together
with black folk, to honor -- >> tucker: i'm not going to let you filibuster my question. i want to shut this down but i -- i am not mad at that. i am not mad at that. i just have a simple question for you. if you don't like people excluding others on the basis of their race, and it as a society, we agree it is bad. we both agree it's back. then, why are you doing at? why are you defending it? >> white folks crack me up. all of a sudden, when we have one day for black folks to focus on ourselves, but you have been having white day forever. you don't say the words anymore because you know it is politically incorrect. you have had an all-white oscars, all of these movies with all white actors -- >> tucker: why are you perpetuating at? >> all white tv shows with wide casts over and over again. "the bachelorette," it took 11 1 seasons to get get a block bachelorette! >> tucker: i hope you aren't
speaking for yourself. >> my name is lisa durden and i'm speaking for lisa durden. >> tucker: i just hope there are people watching. this is so hostile, separatist, and crazy, such a basic violation of what i thought we all agreed on, you don't attack people for things they can control, namely, race. >> it's not an attack. i am stating the facts. they wow weddings exclude child. they don't know if those kids are going to be monsters. so, and the same vein, black lives matter decided to have one day where they didn't want like folks who would be off the rails, they don't know if they would be the ones behaved or against them. >> tucker: let me ask you a quick question. do you think it is racist to exclude people on the basis of their skin color? >> i think it is racist when you have been excluding people for hundreds and hundreds of years. >> tucker: stop with your lectures. i am asking you a very simple question. >> coming together select on my collectively to celebrate
ourselves because you guys want. let's be real here. >> tucker: "you guys." i am talking about what i thought we all believe. you think it would be fair if white people that come to a black lives matter celebration? >> they do all the time. when you look at black lives matter marches, and you see black lives matter coming together collectively for different issues, you see people of all races. we do accept them. this particular day, they say, stay out. we want to celebrate today. we don't want anyone going against us today. >> tucker: and you can celebrate if someone who doesn't look like he was around? >> yes, you can't. >> tucker: you are demented, actually. you are sick. what you are saying is disgusting. what you are saying is indistinguishable from what they are saying, which is, i don't care about your opinions, your views, your life experiences, your intentions, all i care about is the way you look quite something you can't control. on that basis alone, i am judging you. i am hostile to you. that is the case you are making.
it's divisive and wrong. it's amazing you have to say it out loud. i can't believe it. lisa >> unfortunately, when youe a racist society like america, you force individuals to come together collectively to make sure that they have a voice. >> tucker: this is what identity politics look like. >> we have pride parades, we have puerto rican day parades, we have -- >> tucker: nonpuerto ricans are allowed and nongays are allowed. >> we have mothers and fathers day. >> tucker: i'm not even capable of having this conversation. we will ended now. be totally honest with me. do the people in your world, your parents, your siblings, your kids, your friends, do they agree with you on this? >> my family respects my right to free speech. >> tucker: don't give me that dumb answer. do they agree with you just said? >> whatever, no one is contestig
that. >> i will see you next time on your show. tucker, i am going to see you again in less than a month. ratings are going up. >> tucker: i don't know what you are talking about. we have saved the best for last. coming up next, we'll revisit our most memorable guest of all. the mysterious figure leading to fake protest group demand protest.
♪ >> tucker: obviously, couldn't and they highlight shy without revisiting may be the greatest n television. we are speaking, of course, of the legendary dom tullipso. dom, thanks for joining us tonight. >> no problem, tucker. >> tucker: so, this is a sham. your company isn't real. your website is fake. the claims you have made our lives. this is a hoax. let me start at the beginning
with your name, dom, tullipso. that is not your real name. it is a fake name. we ran a background check and that name does not exist. tell me what your real name is. >> it is dominic tullipso. >> tucker: that's a lie and you know it's a lie. >> tucker, you're not accusing me of being a hoax, are you? >> tucker: i am saying that her name is fake and this company is fake and that the claims that you have made on your website are false. on your website, you claim that you pay a retainer to 1,817 operatives every month. now, if that were actually true, that is $54 million per year you are spending just on retainers. another 30 million a year if you are paying them for six hours a week. that is demonstrably -- you are not doing that. what is the real story? why are you doing it? what point are you trying to make? >> the main point is that we are
greatly, greatly supportive of national treasures such as julian assange comp peyton manning. we support their efforts to get the truth out there. in the case of a current client we have right now, that client is very interested in releasing roswell papers. >> tucker: [laughs] really? your support supportive of peyton manning, are you? >> extremely. >> tucker: [laughs] okay. this is performance art. i will say, you are pretty good at it. when you convince papers like "the washington times," which were in pretty straight, to run your lies, this hoax, which i will concede is kind of amusing, what was the point of that? i mean, beyond just amusing yourself? are you trying to make a political statement? >> i don't know. it's pretty darn easy these days to just say whatever the heck you want on national tv and have it come up as truth.
it's pretty -- i don't know, it's pretty incredible to be how easy it was to get the coverage we got. by the way, i'm not saying this is a hoax or not true, we've got 100,000 protesters going to washington, d.c., to fight anybody who is opposed to donald trump. the reason we shift -- another main reason we shifted from being against drum to trump about 30 minutes ago, was basically, we realized initially he didn't really like julian assange or peyton manning and when he changed, when the election and the julian assange connection was made, he essentially became a supporter of julian assange. we are now supporting trump in the hope that the roswell documents are finally released and put back into the hands of the patriots. >> tucker: the single strangers interview have ever done in 25 years.
the full interview on my facebook page. worth it. that is that for this fourth of july special. good night from washington, on this great independence day. have a great one.♪ >> kimberly: hello everyone andy birthday, america. i'm dana perino along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, jesse watters, and greg gutfeld. it's 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five" ." ♪ welcome to our july 4th special. thanks for joining us tonight. we have a very fun show in-store. make sure to stay with us throughout the hour. before we begin, we would like to give a very special salute to our troops and our vet this independence day. we thank you for our freedom. tonight, we are doing something we have never done before. we are answering your questions for the entire hour. some are serious. some