tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News July 18, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
that's all the time we have left this evening. this show will always be fair and balanced. we are not the destroy-trump-media. thank in 1960. tucker is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." for months you've watched politicians and journalists assert with confidence that last november's election was in fact a sham. he was not a wake-up call to the political people, it was not a cry for help from the crumbling barn harlan, it wasn't a sign that the ruling class is corrupt or the government was need of reform. it was none of that. it was a fluke engineered by the russian government because they are evil and they hate our values. so far there is not been much proof that any of this actually happened or any proof at all, but we did loon tunick learned tonight that the president trump sat with blood where prudent at
dinner, but any case all of this russian narrative has changed the rules here in washington maybe forever. the russians are now our chief enemy. americans who have contact with them, any contact at all are committing treason. that's the subtext. here it is expressly stated. this is congressman mike quigley, democrat from illinois explaining the new rules. >> what were learning with the trump junior meeting is when you meet with any russians, you are meeting with russian intelligence and therefore president putin. >> tucker: in other words, there is no innocent contact with russia. it doesn't exist. any meeting with any russian is a meeting with putin himself. okay. what does that mean for hillary clinton? in 2010, while she was secretary of state, she publicly put sanctions on the russian government. at the very same time her husband bill clinton was paid half a million dollars to deliver a speech in moscow to
financial firms set to benefit from the removal of the sanctions his wife opposed. the clinton was even thanked later by vladimir putin for that speech. since we're doing the math, the clintons payday was ten times greater than what general michael flynn received for speech in 2015. does that mean that bill clinton colluded ten times as much as general flynn colluded? maybe we'll find out at his treason trial presided over by maxine waters and the rest of washington's new red raiders. maybe michael hopkins will be there, too. he's a democratic strategist. mr. hopkins, thanks for coming on. by the new standards, which i should just say in case our viewers are not detecting sarcasm in my voice, i think are appalling and stupid. but those of the standards. i don't make the rules. democratic rules stomach members of congress stupid any contact with russia's contact with vladimir putin himself and
therefore treason. what do you make of hillary clinton and her contact with the russians? >> i don't think was problematic at all. it's look at this an honest way. it's not the contact itself that was problematic. it's the fact that he lied. bill clinton gave a speech in moscow, that in and of itself isn't illegal. it's the fact that michael flynn lied. bill clinton admitted that he gave that speech. hillary clinton -- >> tucker: i appreciate that, it was a game effort. but mike flynn lied to members of the administration who then told the truth to the american public. >> and the security clearance -- >> tucker: there was innately rectified by the administration you think should be driven from office because they are contacting russia. >> it was only after he was confronted with lying. >> tucker: confronted by the people he worked for in the trump administration. i'm not defending trump, i'm just saying that by the standards you've set up just a
second to go that doesn't make any sense. let's get to the core of it, not who lied or who told the truth or who -- who did what. the meetings with the russian government, in a public position against sanctions, evidence of disloyalty. that's what democrats are sayin saying. what are they sing? >> she was secretary of state, and on multiple occurrences she met with the russian government. that in and of itself is not a crime. she was a public government official. >> tucker: it's her job to do that. >> it becomes problematic when you have donald trump junior meeting with the russians, or plan a fork to my stomach or paul manafort >> tucker: any meeting with russians is in fact in betrayal of your country, but what -- >> that's not specifically what he said, but i get your point. >> tucker: i can read a quote. "meeting with russians is meeting with russian
intelligence." >> i think there were a few more words in there. democrats should be careful when they are talking about meeting with russians and aligning that with the crime. i'm a criminal defense attorney by nature, and crimes are very specific. >> tucker: how about this, an immoral act. that is a textbook of mccarthyism? >> this president has been pushing for at least the last 18 months this idea that we can demagogue all different kinds of groups and that that somehow makes it legitimate just by the action of our president -- >> tucker: when the ranking democrat in the house, nancy pelosi, makes that case. when maxine waters of los angeles makes the case between mike quigley of illinois makes that case. somehow it's the trump administration. okay. leslie partisanship hundred how to get to the core story. what do you make of that? a sitting secretary of state is married to a man, himself a former president, who was
soliciting money from foreign governments within the united states has contentious relationship. would you have felt comfortable if donald rumsfeld's wife was taking money from foreign governments, or would you be happy now if the secretary of state rex tillerson's wife were taking money from russia? when she said it's all over the top? >> let's make sure we get this right. bill clinton himself is not taking money from rush to the government. he gave a private speech in russia. i will acknowledge what you say. i don't like the idea of politicians whether they be emigrants or public giving speeches in russia. >> tucker: i don't either, and i didn't like what mike flynn did it. i guess you are conceding something that kind of blows up the entire story. not every person with cyrillic letters is working for vladimir putin. >> went democrats have gone to russia or given speeches in russia, had conversation with us with russians, we are honest. if republicans would stop lying.
if paul manafort, donald trump, jr., would stop lying, then maybe we can credit situation where he would have a reason to trust that there is discourse going on. >> tucker: i mean, i'm not going to contest that, i think it's a silly point. >> that matters though. when you have the senior member of the campaign lying about meeting with russia. >> tucker: i'm less interested in the trump administration and much more interested in russia the country, which has a ton of nuclear weapons and our relationship with them. i just want to establish and we want it quick, that it is okay as an american citizen, a faithful american, to talk to russians and have opinions that may be the same opinions as the majority. you can be against sanctions as hillary was, you can meet with them as her husband did, even if ties to vladimir poon, and that doesn't make you a disloyal american. is that what you're saying? >> you can meet with them and have conversations, former
president or secretary of state, as long as you are honest. we can pretend that the trump administration has done. >> tucker: what they've done is totally different. [laughs] >> obstruction of justice, foreign donations, soliciting foreign donations, those are real things. >> tucker: it is groundhog's day on the show. i'm glad we got to that, michael, thanks for joining. for more on the clinton family's interaction with russia, big deal or not, we are joined by flexing your political analyst brit hume. britt, is this a big deal. >> we knew about this. i think it's fair to suggest that when this came out along with so much else about hillary and bill clinton in the way that they raised money, and all the problems of the clinton foundation that those things went into the mix of public opinion. the result was that hillary clinton lost the election. we can't draw a straight line, they fit -- but that was out there. it may have helped prevent her from becoming president.
i think the fact that it was out there is probably a good thing, obviously there wasn't a to do made about that at the time that there is about these russia contacts. and it is just the fact that the trump team didn't come out and form the country of all these things right away, that always creates a bad story and an appearance of something being covered up. but it's also as you pointed out, he or she is making policy decisions, and here he is being paid extravagantly by people who have an interest in those decisions. that is a conflict of interest. that is a howling conflict of interest. and that was eight-point against her in the election. >> tucker: what you make of the fact that this is being reported by "the washington post" tonight that our president may have betrayed his country by sitting next to come in close physical proximity, vladimir put himself at a multilateral affair. >> it's perfectly fine.
what i object to at the time is the breathless and extravagant coverage that these events get. i find myself repeatedly -- that's interesting, but it's not that big a deal. time and time again that is my reaction. i think we have is a story that has been interesting, worth reporting, worth investigating. but to date, hopelessly overblown. >> tucker: the second someone can explain what the crime is i will be really interested in this story. >> because they start talking about a cover up you have to have a cover-up, collusion -- >> tucker: i'm willing to believe anything. i don't work for the administration. if you tell me what the allegation -- >> obstruction of justice your previous guests, ethic we are a long way from being able to say that. >> tucker: one more thing. the republican-controlled senate apparently failed to repeal obamacare, and the president has
signaled his time to sit back and let that law fail on its own. here's what he said. >> i've certainly disappointed. for seven years i've heard repeal her place in congress and i've been hearing it loud and strong, and when we finally have a chance to repeal and replace they don't take advantage of it. i think we are probably in that position where we will just obamacare fail. we are going to own it. i can tie the the republicans are going to own it we'll let it fail and then the democrats will come to us and they will say how do we fix that, how do we fix it. >> out of think that's a realistic scenario. if you have both houses in the congress and the white house and your party has been elected on a promise to fix this law, this law which was so unpopular, and you don't do that, and the negative consequences of that law take full effect, that the deal they can escape responsibility is nuts. >> tucker: what would that look like?
the white house and the congress to sit back and watch -- >> and watch the continuing collapse of choice in the exchanges. people unable to get -- premiums rising to astronomical levels, continuing growth in the copayments and minimums. and the thing unraveling. i don't think it's politically tenable, particularly if you have control of all parts of the government, to let that happen and pretend you can blame some details. the other thing is, who would you them blame? people in charge in the past? seems to me they've already gotten blamed. they got turned out of power. their party got turned out of power, they lost control of first the house and then the senate. now these people can turn her and say look, this was their problem, we didn't fix it so don't blame us? it doesn't work that way. and it won't. tucker, make no mistake about that. if they don't find a way somehow, i don't know what it
would be at the stage, to turn this around and get something done on this, this will be a colossal failure, historic failure. the reasons that are being given by these members for not being able to vote for this, we have members of the senate now who are prepared to keep the vote to repeal obamacare from even coming to the floor. they are free to vote against it, but they want to block its consideration. these people in some instances who voted for that very repeal within the last two years. i don't see how this is politically defensible. >> tucker: i don't either. thanks. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: a minneapolis woman called the police to report a crime and somehow wound up dead herself get shot by a police officer. what happened? we got some breaking news on that we will tell you in a minute. plus a man who murdered a u.s. soldier has become a multimillionaire courtesy of the trudeau government in canada. just that we will talk about a
liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about. what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. >> tucker: this is a fox news alert, there's breaking news in the case of the australian woman shot to death by a police officer in minneapolis after calling 911 to report a crime. foxman apples reporter christina paladino joins us with details. christina. >> tucker, this is the alleyway here in southwest minneapolis where 40-year-old justine ruszczyk was shot and killed by a minneapolis police officer. she was shot just a few doors down from her home on saturday
night. we understand that she was calling to report a possible assault happening in this alleyway. we discussed an update from the state agency investigating. they tell us that the two officers were patrolling in their car with their lights off when she came out of nowhere and startled both of them. we understand that 31-year-old officer mohamed was in the passenger seat, he is the one who shot her in the abdomen. she died on scene. investigator say she did not have a weapon on her. the body cameras on the police officers as well as their squad camera video were not turned on. she moved here from sydney, australia, three years ago to be with her fiance. she was set to marry him next month in hawaii. >> we've lost the dearest of people, and we are desperate for information. piecing together justine's last moment before the homicide would
be a small comfort as we grieve this tragedy. the death of justine is a loss to everyone who knew her. she touched so many people. with her loving, and generous heart. >> he has refused to be interviewed by state investigator. the other officer has already sat down with detectives. he's been on the force for about two years but he is the first somali american police officer to be in this precinct, but he already has three citizen complaints filed against him. one was closed without discipline, the other two remain open. and we are attending a press conference in the next few minutes to hear from the assistant chief, the mayor, and other council members as well. tucker. >> tucker: thank you, christine, we appreciate it. there's a lot going on in this story. and a lot we don't know. mohammed was an immigrant from
somalia. is that a relevant fact? we don't know. but it's being treated as one by many news organizations. how do you know that? because that reporting. "the washington post" did a long piece on this shooting and made no mention of his nationality, they didn't even mention his name. there are an entire story about this and didn't mention the cops name. why is that? we have former nashville police up there. mr. hill, thanks for coming on site. it seems odd -- a bunch of things seem odd to me, but maybe they are not. first, how common is it for police officers to shoot someone through the door of a vehicle? >> tucker, things or have me on. it's very uncommon for a police officer to shoot outside of a vehicle from the inside. most departments forbid it. so i question what made this officer, officer noor, believe there is an eminent threat against either his life or his
partner's life to shoot three times inside the vehicle and strike her. i really question that. >> tucker: the second notable fact that seems to me is the body cams in the dash cams. at least three cameras present and none of them on. before, during, and after the shooting. why would that be? >> i don't want to speculate, there could be several reasons. of course, body cams in general are very new to most police department's across this country. i believe minneapolis has only been using body cams for about a year. so when officers are approaching a scene of a call, they have a lot that they are thinking about. it could be that the body cam was not one of those. i don't know why the dash cam, if it was available, was it on, because of course you're responding to a crime or reports of a crime. at least the dash cam should have been on. >> tucker: i always give cops the benefit of the doubt, because it's a really hard job
in a dangerous job. so maybe this isn't meaningful, but you tell me what you think. this guy's been on the force for two years, three complaints against them. does that seem like a lot? >> for someone to have only been on for two years, it definitely seems like a lot. especially the last one i believe was this past may. here we are, just two months removed from that, and he now a young lady is dead and is very tragic. so i really question what those reports actually said. was it something that apartment should've said, hey, maybe he's not fit for duty. yet the question that. >> tucker: you certainly do. there's a lot we don't know, and i can't stand it when people speculate irresponsibly. but since you've done this job, can you think of a scenario in which would happen, what we know happened, makes sense? >> i've thought about this all day, and the only thing i can speculate from an officer point of view is there was something that made that officer believed there was an imminent threat
against his life. i think there's reports now that there may have been allowed noise by the vehicle. there's reports that she startled these officers. but we have to take into account they receive the call that the female was being sexually assaulted, so common sense should kick in and say, it is possibly the victim, or is this the 911 caller. i know when i've answered 911 calls, i always wanted to speak to the color to get their perspective and see if there is a suspect, to see if we need that set up a perimeter. i don't understand what led this officer to believe, not only did he have to take her life, but if you think about it, he put his partner's life in jeopardy by shooting across him. >> tucker: it's unbelievable. whatever he thought, he could not imagine this was the perpetrator in a sexual assault, you wouldn't think. vincent, thanks a lot. it was really helpful. >> thank you so much. >> tucker: canada has made a convicted terrorist a very rich man.
will they ever spare a penny for his victims? we are going to talk to sergeant leigh morris was gravely wounded in the battle against omar, a man who does receive more than 10 million canadian dollars. stay you won't see these folks at the post office. 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.
money, justin trudeau admitted that he didn't even bother calling the widow of christopher, the delta force medic who was murdered by khadr in 2002 and a grenade blast. meanwhile, he says everybody should move on and forget what he did. >> hopefully not forgetting, but moving on and healing. i was angry, upset about what happened. it's been hard finding jobs, school, my best reputation. this is going to help me move forward. >> tucker: tend to have million dollars from canadian taxpayers. that will help me move forward. one man who can't move on quite so easily or seamlessly is sergeant morris, he was blinded in one eye during the same firefight that killed christopher speer. sergeant morris joins us tonight. sergeant, thanks for coming on tonight. what do you make of this? what's your response to this?
>> i think i've said this before. what kind of sick and twisted ivory tower do you have to live in as a prime minister of canada to decide to award this man 10.5 million, good, hard-working canadian folks his dollars that equals justice. it makes no sense. >> tucker: it doesn't, and it's more a statement about the decadence of the west than it is about the men who perpetrated this crime. it's all most a rhetorical question, but did the prime minister contact you the settlement? >> no, he did not. first i heard about it was when my phone started ringing from canada. former prime minister stephen harper contacted me to apologize on behalf of canadians in general, and the military folks up there. i thought that was nice of him. >> tucker: out think there's any evidence that most canadians agree with this or are for it. at all. is that your sense?
>> it is. that makes perfect sense. i don't get to be canadian or american to say, okay, there's a guy out there who killed a u.s. soldier, and now you're going to give him $10.5 million because he had -- he was lonely at guantanamo. or he didn't have a shoulder to cry on. how that balances out is justice, it's just beyond me. and obviously canadians. i think that there's a poll that 70, 71% of canadians are outraged by this action. >> tucker: it's the definition of decadent atomic decadence tells about the day this happened. >> come i don't have a problem talk about it. we were after omar khadr's father who was in london's finance guy. the compound, i slid a compound we went to, his father was gone, omar was there with four or five
other guys, we surrounded that complex myself and for other soldiers, we waited for 45 minutes and they wouldn't come out and talk to us. when we finally got the rest of my team there as well as some afghans that we were working with, one of our interpreters when and to try to make contact. the gazans had that compound just popped up over a low rise inside the compound and executed them point light, and through hand grenades at the rest was paid we shot two or three of them at the gate, and as the others ran to the back of the compound throwing hand grenades as they went, i popped up to shoot a couple of guys with my rifle. got up .203 and a grenade launcher the bottom, and as i pulled the trigger on the grenade launcher i felt something smack me in the right side. it turns out a hand grenade they had their own, i hadn't seen, went off in a piece of shrapnel hit me in the right eye. >> tucker: and that ended your service career?
>> it did. you know, i am a shooter. the military would've let me stay in as a trainer or something like that, but having to shoot left-handed, i'd be a liability to in 18. and so i put in 21 years. i took my retirement, and got out. >> tucker: how bitter this must be for you. in addition to all of that, to watch the man who did it become rich, and apparently unrepentant. i'm really sorry for you. >> well, it is. it's bitter to see a man who in the canadian government, in particular, not just remain neutral in the matter, they went out of their way -- mr. trudeau had to go out of his way to get omar this money, to cut short any negotiation, and just say let's give him 10.5, make sure we get that done before the
americans have any chance of going after that money. to protect this man. boy, that's really reopening a wound. i feel bad for chris speer, his wife, she is a great lady. it's gonna be tough for her to see the canadian government open that one. and i feel bad for canadian military. i served over there with those guys. they've got to be feeling pretty bad about their government rewarding a man who did his very best to kill them. >> tucker: i'm sure trudeau did this as an expression of how -- but he undermines his own society by doing it. sergeant morris, thanks for tha that. >> no problem. thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: appreciate it. an article on "huffington post" challenged us to an immigration debate, and of course he couldn't turn that down. up next, meet the challenges.
>> tucker: pablo manriquez is the cofounder at k street media here in washington. he wrote a piece for "huffington post." "why tucker should debate man immigration." we want to forfeit our honor by turning down such a gentlemanly challenge from such a gentleman. so we have picked up the gauntlet pablo threw down. the distance will be the width of the table. pablo manriquez joins us. thanks regina spit >> and honor to be here. >> tucker: i'm glad to have you. i stipulate it by saying that i'm totally for immigration and for immigrants. but i want to know what the parameters are. you may ask you a simple question. we've got 330 million people in the country. if immigration rates stay at the current level, 1.2 per year, were going to have about half a billion people by the end of the century. if we follow the u.n.'s lead we would have 1.5 billion people in america by the end of this century.
those are estimates. what do you think the right level of immigration is? >> i think that the right level immigration has always been in this country, the level it is going to build the country and not detract from it. i think obviously, the immigration of the last several waves that come through, mostly from europe, obviously the chinese as well, help this country both in for structurally, culturally, and in a lot of different ways. the current hispanic immigration wave which is been so controversial politically lately, is having the same effect. we are going through the hunger throws, that cultural assimilation which i think is happening. >> tucker: i guess i would call your assumption into question. i don't think it's hispanic immigration that is controversial. i think we are seeing immigration from all over the world. it's a question of a lot of things. with the economic effect, the cultural effect. what's the idea level? let's be more specific than that. how would people should live in this country? if you had a country of half a
billion people, would be a better country than it is now or he was country? >> not if it's not sustainable. i think that we currently have a level of immigration that in some ways is merit-based, but is often not. we also have a lot of unaccounted for immigrants that are costing the border. the levels of immigration specifically at 1.2 million, seemed to be -- it seems to be a number that has worked for us up to a point. it works up to a point when we were still building, the housing boom when there are still jobs to sustain them. that number at least in terms of border apprehension as we saw today -- just be on this illegal immigration, so basically what you're proving as you have no idea and neither does anybody else. people tell me that they are for more immigration, but to what level? nobody has thought this through because they don't care. and they should cap >> in the global flow of
immigration, they're going to change things. it's hard to say what the numbers should be now and into the future. and that something that people discuss b only flip it on its head, so the left-wing assumption and this has changed a lot in the past ten years, but as of today it appears to be that it's racist to exclude anyone from the country whether you are here legally or illegally. >> that is an assumption. >> tucker: what are the limits? who should be able -- who should we be able to exclude, and on what basis? >> people who are a danger should be excluded first. the president has done a good job of attracting that kind of enforcement first priority against people who are criminal aliens or criminal immigrants or whatever you want to call them. i think the president has also said, and this often gets lost in the debate, that there should be exceptions and that deportation shouldn't necessarily be the only punishment for people come here illegally. is that fair? >> tucker: i disagree with it, but you wanted to come on in debate this. debate me. tell me where i'm wrong. >> i think that if you think
deportation is the only penalty that should be upheld for eminence, i think that's wrong. that's never been the case in previous immigration waves. most of the time when we do have extraordinarily were too harsh penalties, it becomes an embarrassment of history. i think we have within the trump administration a very robust conversation going on, and the turnkey of that conversation is general kelley. general kelly is obviously someone who knows a lot about the immigration situation, especially in central america when he was commanding -- >> tucker: and i don't doubt any of that. but let's to the principle here really quickly. what you're saying is we have laws in the books, we should ignore. my question always is if you believe that, then why not make a sincere effort to change the law? >> i couldn't agree more. >> tucker: all the rich people, well-educated people are for ignoring immigration laws, all that i know. but i don't hear anybody announcing a campaigning congress to change the law. let's make it the law, if you sneak in and we think you are great or you work for me to low, you can stay. why ignore laws on the books?
that's corrosive, corrosive of the rulebook. >> i wouldn't agree -- i think the president has the unique opportunity to do something unprecedented in the way that only he could -- i think the first thing that needs to change the way that we evaluate dreamers. we should let them stay. i hate to say it, and i don't -- >> tucker: to meet specific criteria. >> i think if we have the specific criteria, we can evaluate them substantially. >> tucker: you are here illegally, he should be allowed to stay if you plank. if you want? >> i think if you came here at a certain age, that was too young to be able to decide on your own whether or not you came here. i think that -- >> tucker: should the parents be able to stay, to? >> and many cases they should. >> tucker: so anybody with a child in tow can stay. >> no, not with the child in tow necessarily paid there was a guy deported today that had four
u.s. citizen children that were going to be -- >> tucker: is there anybody that comes in with a child, you can support the parents, what about grandparents and cousins? >> it gets complicated. but we have to have a humane approach to this. >> tucker: them when we quantified instead of degraded. >> we should, and i see nothing but the cowardice from both the democrats and the republican side. >> tucker: boy, i am there with you there. we kind of agreed a lot, it was great to see. >> thanks again and all your success, congrats. >> tucker: how should we fix it? if it all the power, we will ask we always were told we were german. we were in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen. so i just started poking around on ancestry. then, i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. it turns out i'm scottish. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt.
tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass, you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. i'm micah with safelite. customer: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care. kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace.
>> tucker: we spent some time this show following the drama of the republican health care bill. we talk with secretary of hhs last night asking questions like will it pass, what senators are defecting, what demands are being made, how many people lose insurance coverage. those are all important questions. once an amount important to take a step back and remember the point of all of this. fixing a health care system that is deeply broken for tens of millions of americans. if you had absolute power, what would you do to improve american health care? charles krauthammer is the perfect menace that question. he's not there and a column is, he's also a physician. he went to harvard medical school that he will explain what to do in a perfect world. >> the first thing is to recognize a mistake that obama made. and others have made. and thinking that you can revolutionize a system that's unbelievably complex and interlinked, one-sixth of the economy. there was a mistake because whenever you change one thing, it changes 80 other things, and other you're changing everything
at once you have no idea what the outcome is going to be and you get all of these unintended side effects. i think what you need first of all is modesty. and i think -- >> tucker: modesty? >> that's a commodity you can even relay purchase, and washington, but it is available in other parts of the world. monasteries, for example. where was i? okay, the first thing you do is to say you're going to go with this this piece by piece. the first one that is the biggest, lowest hanging fruit, that was not even touched by obamacare, scandalously, his reform. the medical malpractice is totally out of control. everybody in the system knows it. and it's not just of the outrageous judgments, it's not just the fact that some people get millions of dollars, others get nothing, and the people that get rich are lawyered, it's just that it causes doctors to practice defensive medicine. it was a survey done by the
massachusetts medical society that found that doctors admitted that about one quarter of all procedures, examinations, hospitalizations, and tests were done to fend off the lawyers, not for medical reasons. i know that, i was there. i did the same thing. we had to do it. if you are working in a hospital, somebody said just in passing that he had some pain near his chest, you kept him overnight because otherwise the lawyers would kill you if something happened. whereas if you are doing it for medical reasons he might observe him for a couple of hours and sent him home. >> tucker: because there's a cost of staying overnight. not just economic -- >> the causes are massive. if one quarter of tests and procedures are done for legal reasons and not medical reasons, we are talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year. it could be up to half a trillion dollars a year. imagine if you cut that in half with a rational reform system, you could use that money to subsidize the health insurance
for every poor person in america. this is just one of -- and the only reason the democrats did not included in a bill of 2,000 pages was because they are owned by the trial lawyers. >> tucker: there >> biggest donors go to any yacht basin, and -- >> and a lot of that is sucked out of medicine. when i went to school, the smart kids at the went to medicine or law. the smartest of the ones who went into law, because they made the laws that have essentially taxed and stolen the income of the doctors that ends up in the legal profession. that's number one. it can be done as a piece. it doesn't have to be done as part of something copper hansen. second, this is obviously easier and shorter, is allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. it's not a station, it's not rational.
you can buy auto insurance across state lines. beyond what's the opposition to that rooted in? >> i really -- i had never heard it very good argument. it could be that the legal structure right now is that health insurance is the province of each state. so that if you -- look, i'm making a case for something i don't believe, if you opened it up there would be what they call a race to the bottom. people would want the cheapest insurance. i would say, what the hell, why not allow them to buy the insurance they want? isn't as a free country with auto insurance, you buy whatever level of insurance you want. there would be the obvious and second one. the other thing i would do, it's a little complicated. i'm about to go into governor perry territory where i forget the third and then i do remember the third, and that is you've got to recognize that you can't make the young and the healthy subsidize the rich by step. that's what obamacare did. they hyped up the premiums for
the young and the healthy, which by the normal tables, they pay about a sixth of what the elderly do. the democrats to create it should be a third. they were paying twice with the beginning. so what does a rational young person do -- opt out, exactly. what's left, only the sink of the pool, the government has to say we are going to take care of the very sick, establish an open transparent government, and then have the rest of the market open to the healthier people and their premiums will be kept low. that's the way to do it. nobody want to do. obama wanted to hide it. hide the costs. the young people aren't stupid and they didn't buy it. >> tucker: and acted rationally. charles krauthammer. i wish you were in charge of the spirit >> i wish i wasn't. i'm really happy to be outside of it. look at the carnage that's going on now.
>> tucker: something awful happened on cnn again. happened on cnn again. we will have it for youray's al. last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques. remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and.
>> tucker: here is a weird story. she doesn't have the same chief executive is every other american. trump is simply the president for other people, she says. >> he went into a press conference during the summer asking russia to find the other 30,000 emails. there's a lot of things that your president has done to defy logic. >> your president too. >> he's your president. >> he's your president. the president of the united states. >> tucker: she has tweeted "my president left january 20th." you can watch movies or books on someone else's president but alas, that won't change the reality. it's important to acknowledge
this. every person simply picks their own president? there's no president at all.goo. "the five" is to next. see you tomorrow. >> greg: hi it, i am greg gutfeld. she runs laps on a close and play. you're watching "the five." how come health care is a disaster? here's why. this is a remote. it has a hundred buttons but i only use the power and channel. i don't know what the other buttons do. if i hit the other one, it's all over. that's health care. it's really designed and overly complicated. so convoluted. if i hit other one, it's all