tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News October 26, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
guys go and scoot on out of here. thank you so much. >> thank you so much. >> harris: i will see you on "outnumbered" at 12:00 and "outnumbered over time" at 1:00 p.m. eastern. have a good night. nths, almost , actually, the refrain has sounded. "russia hacked the election. russia colluded with donald trump." it was unprecedented behavior, treasonous. we have been told we need a massive, semipermanentit investigation to expose all of these crimes. we might even need to nullify the presidential election. okay, let's say that russia did hack the election. what would that look like? a few thousand dollars spent on lame, ineffective facebook ads? probably not. instead it might look like what was actually going on for years, at the podesta group, the democratic lobbying firm created by john podesta.
according to a source we spoke to who worked for podesta for years, the company received huge sums of money from a pro-russia shell group in order to bolster russia's interests in washington, all without declaring itself an agent of a foreign power, which it demonstrably was. election hacking might also look like the infamous and fraudulent trump dossier which was compiled in 2016 and then released this past january by buzzfeed as a laughably stupid news story. much of that information came from russian sources with ties to the kremlin. who paid for this? at one point, from the democratic national committee, hillary clinton's campaign, possibly even the fbi. let's say you were looking for a smoking gun in this story, and many are looking for this smoking gun. we have evidence the democrats literally paid money for russian intelligence as well as prove that the top democratic lobbying firm in washington was getting rich by advancing russian interests. collusion? i if that's not collusion, what is
collusion? we put a lot of calls out today, and very few democraticst lawmakers were interested in talking about this at all. the rare exception was brad sherman of california, the honorable exception, and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. i am here to talk about the tax bill. i mean, this is a job-killing, deficit-exploding tax bill, which is the real -- story, the real vote. >> tucker: we don't have a tax bill. we have no idea what the details are. >> we have a proposed 12-page -- the one we have literally nothing. and it will get to the senate and become something completely different. i would love to debate that because it's interesting, and we might agree on parts of it, but i want to ask you about --
>> you can't defend the trump tax proposal --- >> tucker: this is clever, and i will have you on any day to talk about an actual tax -- >> no, you won't. i've been trying to get on your lkow again and again and again and you only have me on to talk about nonsense. >> tucker: spare me. really, the nonsense that the democratic party has hijacked the workings of washington for years over this trump story.em >> you have got no defense for trump's impeachment. the man has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and your only defense is, well, hillary did too. you can't impeach a private citizen and say that is a reason not to impeach a president.mp >> tucker: i am not calling for anybody's impeachment. i think you have jumped off the rails. let me ask you some factual questions. you can put the bumper stickers away. what do you make of the fact that the podesta group, who i know you are personally familiar with, was taking money from russian interests to advance those in washington? >> i would like to take a look at it, but it is irrelevant as to whether we should impeach donald trump. he is guilty of obstruction of justice. >> tucker: you're not even going
to engage in that question? what do you make of the fact that the democratic nationalge committee gave money to the people who wrote the trumpth dossier, whose information came from russian-connected sources? >> that dossier was funded, first and foremost, by trump's's republican opponents. >> tucker: correct, whose names we don't know. >> correct. there is nothing in that dossier that appears to be stolen information.or what we have here -- >> tucker: first of all, you don't know that.o >> i don't know whether martians have landed on this planet. f >> tucker: we know for a fact, because it has been conceded, that that information, some of it came from sources around vladimir putin. >> the document had no effectio until after the election. i don't need an excuse, because whether it -- whether we impeach the character of a privateee citizen is an irrelevancy. whether we impeach a president who is guilty of obstruction of justice --
>> tucker: i'm talking, hold on. you don't know if he had an effect on the election. >> how can you affect an election by a document that is released three months after the election? >> tucker: the document was run -- the information went to the hillary clinton campaign. >> information that was of absolutely no use. >> tucker: i am a little bit surprised that you have spent the last year telling us that trump has colluded in some way with the russian government and that he has committed, in effect, treason, which is basically what -- >> i don't accuse him of treason. h i accuse him of obstruction of justice. section 1512 of the felony codef he has committed obstruction of justice three times. it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. we learned that with watergate, and we learned that -- richard nixon could not have stayed in office. >> tucker: richard nixon? i'm trying to ask you a simple question about the news of today -- >> the news of today is this tax
bill that is going to cost us millions of jobs. that's what happens.da we do have the trump tax proposal that you can't defend but is the official and most significant economic document released by the trump administration.. >> tucker: i am searching back to my mental files to recall an example of greater disingenuousness than the one i am witnessing now. you went bananas over the donald trump jr. meeting. "oh, he met with the russians. this is the end of times." >> i never said that. you have me confused with another good-looking bald guy. >> tucker: no, i don't. you are the guy that did that. i'll get the tape. >> it is the obstruction of justice. >> tucker: telling us why it was so poisonous to american democracy for trump or his campaign to have any contactr with the russians -- >> no, you've got me confused with some other good-looking bald guy. >> tucker: i follow this for a living.oo >> i follow this for a living too, and i know this is the most significant economic document released by the trump administration.in you can't defend it, and you
want to talk about nonsense. you want to talk about why hillary clinton is bad instead of why donald trump should be impeached.ti >> tucker: you filed articles of impeachment the day after that story about trump's son broke. >> that wasn't me. >> tucker: oh, that was just an accident.t. >> i circulated those articles of impeachment a month before the date you identified. >> tucker: let me ask you a really simple question. trump's connections to russia, you have consistently argued, are a big deal. it's not a fake story -- >> no, i have consistently argued that his obstruction of justice as february, may, and july are violations of sections 1512 of our felony code. obstruction of justice applies whether there was collusion or not. >> tucker: so your entire party has spent the last year telling us that this is the most important thing that has ever happened. we now have evidence the charges you are making against trump applied to your own party and candidate --te
>> my charges are about february, may, july, obstruction of justice three times. >> tucker: you're not even -- you know what? honestly, it's hard for me to believe, given everything you've said in the last year, that you are putting on this performance? now. why don't you just say, look, what hillary did, her campaign paying for intelligence from the russians, that's bad, but she's not president. you won't even say that. >> i don't know what hillary did. >> tucker: we know exactly what she did, they admitted it this week. >> they admitted they paid for opposition research. every campaign pays forid opposition research. >> tucker: from the russians? this dossier came from the russians. >> no, this dossier came from a research firm and british individual -- >> tucker: who was the british individual, do you know? >> i believe his name was mr. steele. >> tucker: and why was he oired?d? he was the head of the russian desk at mi6. the information wass
about trump's ties to russia. they got this information from the russians and they paid russian sources. >> they paid a man to prepare a memo. >> tucker: does that bother you at all?n >> not particularly. >> tucker: has the podestata group ever lobbied you for anything? >> i believe they have. i believe you are also a friend of -- >> tucker: i'm not a friend, and he's never lobbied me. and i'm not a friend of tony podesta, but does it bother you that tony podesta took money from paul manafort the russians to carry that -- >> does bother you that paul manafort was chair of his committee? >> tucker: yes, it does. does it bother you that podesta was working on behalf of the russians? >> if it was true, it would bother me. >> tucker: it is true. >> you are asserting it. >> tucker: i'm not asserting it. it is factual. >> you are saying he failed to file a foreign agent's report. >> tucker: i believe that's true.. what i know is true is that they
took money from russian interests to represent those interests here in washington.te >> well, when you say russian interests, if you mean private companies, that is different. >> tucker: no, i mean the russian government. i mean the russian government. >> if he did it, why don't you want to talk about impeaching a president, and your answer is, "hey, there is this lobbyist" -- >> tucker: because the predicate for this impeachment >> no, the predicate for this -- it is a page and a half and you haven't bothered to read it. >> tucker: actually, i have. and i think they're more fatuous now than i did before. >> obstruction of justice is a crime, a felony punishable by up to 20 years -- >> tucker: we're done.us come back when you've got a tax bill you want to shout about. >> the tax bill has been released and you can't defend it. >> tucker: byron york, a local correspondent at the "washington examiner," joins us tonight.ou byron, we are going to use your inside voices now. you just heard congressman sherman, saying, in effect, it's not a big deal that the hillary campaign paid for this dossier
or that the podesta group is lobbying on behalf of the russians. >> are you going to could talk about the -- >> tucker: we're going to talk about -- [laughs] yeah. was it a big deal? >> it was a big deal, but even before he had this revelation from "the washington post" that the dnc and the hillary campaign had paid for the dossier, even before we knew that, i think you saw a shift in tone among democrats away from collusion. >> tucker: and start yelling about the tax bill? >> no, they were talking about russia's active measures and tht campaign, and russia did have a campaign to influence our presidential election. no doubt about that. and, indeed, you see what the articles of impeachment are about obstruction of justice, about the firing of james comey. you get to a point where collusion doesn't matter. you don't have to prove that, it's just that the president obstructed justice.to >> tucker: we have repainted the slogans on the barn. we never said that. >> but i think what has happened now is, after an attempt to
paint russian involvement as a one-way street where the russians were trying to hurt hillary and help trump and trump was somehow dealing with them, i think we have seen it is a much more complicated picture, because it is a fact that this foreign agent, the former british spy, christopher steele, did get information from russians who were connected to the kremlin. just look at the dossier. the dossier has source a and source b and source c, and they're identified as a former senior russian intelligence official or a senior russian financial official. so it's not a secret that they are dealing with people in the russian government connected to the kremlin. what has changed now is we are seeing these democratic effortsl to get dirt on trump from russia, and that does sound suspiciously like whatt donald trump jr. thought he was going to get in that june 2016ho meeting at trump tower when some
russians had approached him and claimed to have had some sort of dirt on hillary clinton. they didn't, and that's not what the meeting was about. but it's very similar here. >> tucker: interesting. we still have the congressman. would you like to interject? >> my articles of impeachment have always been about obstruction of justice.nt it's not the crime. it's the cover-up. we have three different instances of violation of section 1512.'s whether trump colluded or didn't collude, he tried to stop the investigation. >> tucker: just tell me you are a little embarrassed by these revelations. >> i'm not embarrassed at all. i'm embarrassed we're not here talking about impeaching a president, the things that are important to the american people, not whether the last candidate for president had a good campaign or didn't have a good campaign. it is as silly as trying to say that richard nixon should be in office because you have dirt on george mcgovern. that's insane. >> tucker: thank you very much.
you rose to the occasion. given the performance you just saw from brad sherman, if democrats were to take control of the house of representatives in the midterm election a little more than a year from now, how long do you think it will take to impeach? >> i think that is a bit of a fuzzy question. go back to 2006. george w. bush's poll numbers are in the tank, and it looks like democrats are going to win the house, which they do, but early on in the election, before the election, john conyers, who stood to become the chairman of the fiduciary committee, was talk about impeaching president bush. there was a lot of talk from the left-wing democratic party about impeaching bush, so much so that prior to the election, nancy pelosi, who stood to become speaker, came out and said impeachment is off the table. they didn't want the election to be about impeachment. and if you have a lot of talkey about these articles of impeachment coming up in theea next year, that's a good point. >> tucker: we are out of time. would you like to read the tease, congressman?
>> i'll read the tease. the post-weinstein backlash against sexual harassment is consuming a top political analyst at msnbc, but what are the risk of accountability turning into, witch hunt, more right-wing take on this, we'll come up right after the commercial. >> tucker: thank you. commercial. >> tucker: thank you.
harvey weinstein scandal, more and more people are being accused of sexual harassment. the latest target is msnbc political analyst and "game change" author, mark halperin. at least seven accusations have been made, but only two have gone public. hbo has canceled plans to adapt his latest book on the 2016 election into a miniseries. what to make of all of this? we have tammy bruce, radio host, with us tonight. i know mark halperin. we are not friends, he appears to have admitted some of this obliquely. i am hesitant to weigh in,ei except one part of it sticks out in this case, and as in a lot of others, a lot of the accusations are coming anonymously. it doesn't mean they're not true, but one of the keys to american justice, i think, has always been, you get to face your accuser. you get to know who what you're being accused of and who is charging it.as that seems to not be enforced anymore. >> i think mr. halperin does know who is making thed accusations.
the issue is not that we deserve to know. >> tucker: that's a good point. >> i agree it is concerning when you've got accusations made that affect someone's future, and wee have dealt with this on campus, et cetera, with accusations versus targets. but in the case of someone like halperin, i would argue anyone in that position, where you are not dealing with famous actresses, perhaps still women who are in vulnerable positions, where there could be some retaliation, the ability to do this anonymously, especially when they are multiple accusations, now they are saying that it was, just like weinstein, an open secret, that it may, in fact, still be safer for these particular women to do it in this fashion. and yet, when we are looking at this -- why we know the names when it comes to harvey weinstein, it is perhaps easier because you've got women now who are somewhat established, who have names who americans feel that they know. but i think there is an even higher risk for the unknown, nonfamous women, frankly, women in hollywood who are on crews,
who are behind the camera, who are doing technical things. i think it is fair that this but there is an anonymous dynamic as long as internally, over at nbc, -- in this case, that things are handled fairly for these women. >> tucker: i wonder from a news perspective what our responsibility is. a there is no other alleged crime where you would print the name of the accused but not the accuser. we would never say, "tammy bruce has been accused of embezzling money by an anonymous person." the anonymous person would have to be named. i wonder why news organizations sort of only print half the story. >> consider the context. this now seems like a wave, right? >> tucker: definitely a wave. >> this is a push. this is an environment where each step has encouraged other women to come forward, whereas they were thinking, maybe it's
okay now, a safe time to do it, now some recognition that apparently -- there is a report that abc, the network, new as these allegations at the time, that these women were not silent. so you have background for othet action was taken. >> tucker: that's a different thing right there. if abc network news -- >> again, all of this is going to work out in a certain sense. but as we report these things, we know also that these are accusations, their allegations. and mr. halperin is going to make certain decisions, as has hbo and his publishers. we have a responsibility to make sure we are talking about the larger issue, the things that are affected, the kinds of women affected, the nature of our responsibility. also, as people in that environment with abc, people who may have known, and certainly in hollywood, that conversation still happens about the vulnerability of women, but then my point, as a feminist is, thel
older women, financially secure, who are not at risk, where do those women come in here, and is our feminism responsible? do we have a duty to speak up when we do know? and i think that that is something that is key for all of us at this point. >> tucker: well, yeah, of course. people who say they represent women and keep this information secret -- >> or even act against them, like the lisa bloom case, a lawyer who is using feminism is almost like a slogan and ben is abusing that simply for what might just be personal enrichment or at least the opposite of what -- >> tucker: of course. of course. >> feminism has become a business, and this is something that we need to also take back, i think, a little bit. >> tucker: tammy bruce, a clear thinker. thank you.ak >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: yesterday we told you about jesus campos' mysterious visit to mexico. the head of his union is here tk answer our questions about that,
which is good. next.. ut that, which is good. next. 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.
i enjoy the fresher things in life.o. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest... ...prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices... ...from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.
>> tucker: last night on the show, we showed you a customs document that indicated that mandalay bay security guard jesus campos made a previously unknown visit to mexico, 700 miles round trip from vegas, and he did it within just days of stephen paddock's mass shooting, even though campos was a major witness, the majord witness to the massacre, and apparently was shot in the leg
during it. it raised a lot of questionsit about the shooting, like whether campos was a licensed securitysa guard, whether he interacted with stephen paddock in the past. in a shooting with so many mysteries, it seemed like ath reasonable question, but so far police have stonewalled us, hunk up on us, when we asked them. fortunately, the head of campos' union is more forthcoming. david hickey is the president of the security, police, and fire professionals, and he joins us tonight. mr. hickey, thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: our source says jesus campos' story is of great interest to his employer, mgm, and they are doing whatever they can to shape it.lo is that your sense? >> i think mr. campos' story iso of great interest to everyone on based on the tragedy. >> tucker: yes. let me ask you a couple of questions. just factual ones, we don't know them. what was his job at the hotel? >> jesus is a security officer,w
or was a security officer, at mandalay resorts. >> tucker: is he licensed by the state?y how does that work? >> no, security officers that work directly for our company, in-house security, they do not have to be licensed. they don't have to have guard cards, security cards. if they work for a contract agency, then, yes, they do. >> tucker: okay, we tried to get an answer from the clark county sheriff yesterday and he wouldn't reveal that. you were aware that mr. camposui went to mexico shortly after the shooting, correct? >> yes, i was.t >> tucker: and what was the purpose of that trip?>> do you know? >> he told me directly. that was a preplanned trip. he had planned to go visit family, and after the shooting, he was still capable of doing that, so he went ahead and made that trip on the weekend. i spoke with the local officers. i was actually going to fly in on that weekend, and because mr. campos was going to be
visiting family and returning on monday, then i flew in that monday to meet with mr. campos. >> tucker: huh. no one would begrudge the man a vacation, of course, but because he was a key witness in this investigation that was still ongoing and chaotic at thatrs point, did investigators have qualms about him leaving? >> not to my knowledge. there were no qualms about him leaving, because his plans had been made prior and he intended to return on monday, which he did. >> tucker: by car up and back? >> up and back, yes. >> tucker: can you describe the nature of his injuries? >> mr. campos was wounded in the left thigh. two fragments of a shell hit him in the left thigh, and when i met him for the first time on that monday, he was recuperating. he was in good spirits and
looking to tell his story and move on with his life. >> tucker: had those fragments been removed when he took the trip to mexico? >> you know, i was told one of them had been removed and one had not. they were going to deal with that issue at a later date.. >> tucker: had mr. campos ever seen stephen paddock before the shooting? >> not to my knowledge. >> tucker: does he still work for mgm? >> he still works for mgm, yes. >> tucker: did they set up the "ellen" interview, his employer? >> i don't know who set up the "ellen" interview. we had five interviews set up prior to that. i know that when i was in town, ellen's interviewer, the person that schedules the interviewers, called mr. campos on his cell phone. he handed me the phone, i took the phone, responded to her that she could call to arrange an interview if she wanted, and then we didn't hear from her.
of course, after that, mr. campos was taken to a cliniw on thursday. >> tucker: but why did he skip the interviews? >> i can't speak for mr. campos on that.e i've had no contact with him since that time. i think it is mr. campos' story, and i think he has a right to tell it on his own. but as far as we were concerned, we were prepared for the interviews. we were hours away, five hours away from actually doing the first one. >> tucker: and then hers disappeared without explanation. do you know where he went?ou >> we received a text saying that "we are taking him to the quick care." >> tucker: and who is "we?" who was taking him? >> when we left the room, we were having a meeting with three upper-level mgm management people, and when we left the room that we were in, left the
living room, it was mr. campos, one other security officer, a fellow member of the union, and then there was a corporate security officer.os >> tucker: yeah, of course there was. mgm is in charge, clearly. thank you very much for all of that. really interesting. >> all right, thank you. >> tucker: john f. kennedy was shot more than 50 years ago, 54 years ago, actually, get the fbi and cia are still fighting over the release of some the documents related to that case. not that they are hiding anything. we'll talk to two experts on the kennedy assassination who will explain why this is a happening. stay tuned. who will ex
the president touted that on twitter. many of them, though, are now being withheld yet again as the cia and other agencies make reactions to them. -- redactions. they overruled the president of the united states, evidently, in case you're wondering who is really in charge. why are they doing this? what could they be hiding? dr. michael baden, the chairman of the house select committee on assassinations' forensic pathology panel thatat investigated jfk's death in the '70s. joe posner, the author of the celebrated book "case closed:tu lee harvey oswald and the assassination of jfk." they both join us tonight. gerald, to you. i know you have written kind of the premier book arguing for the single shooter and the conspiracies, and you really did a lot of work on it. you can see why -- and i have read your book and loved it -- but you can see why it took the cia, 54 years later, basically telling the president, no, we're not releasing it, we need to redact more. they are hiding something.
what could they possibly be hiding?in >> tucker, you're absolutely right. it's infuriating, because the longer they hold onto these files, the longer they fight for them, they give people the feeling that they have to be hiding something big. as a matter of fact, i started to look at some of those that have been released now, 54 years later, and they are going to spawn all types of newew conspiracy theories because it is very hard to put them in context.t. you are grabbing one file from 1963 from the central fbi office out to a field office reportingg that somebody said, "oh, on kennedy's funeral, there's going to be an assassination plot against earl warren." i guarantee people are going to be going down rabbit holes chasing this. it's going to create a new industry. it's unfortunate. it's what these intelligence agencies do. they overclassify documents, they keep them forever, they fight the release, and they are still doing it. >> tucker: how can i trust you if you lie to me constantly? dr. baden, what do you think the cia -- you've seen a lot of evidence in this case. what could they possibly want to hold from public view? >> well, embarrassing
information. they didn't do their job right,o presumably..at the fbi didn't properly deal with oswald, in dallas, complaining to the dallas fbi agents there that he didn't want them to be interviewing his wife, and that it appeared that hoover, the fbi, the cia did things that would be embarrassing for them. not that would reveal anythingid that would create a conspiracyrr with anybody. they released the route of kennedy the day before so that oswald happened to see that he is driving by where he happened to be working, and that is why he brought his rifle there. so there was no conspiracy, just bad management by various agencies. >> tucker: that's usually the case. gerald posner, you've seen some of the documents that have been recently b released. what did they tell us? anything interesting? >> it is very hard to draw those conclusions right away.
i'm always afraid of cherry-picking information, because there's got to be a document behind that that's going to contradict what you just saw. interesting, the size of this investigation. you get that clearly in 1963 in terms of the fbi notices flying back and forth. i think that one of the things we can find is exactly what dr. baden was talking about before, what the cia has always held back. remember, this was an intelligence agency, tucker, that lied to the warren commission when the warrenme commission was doing its own investigation on who killed kennedy. they didn't want the commission to find out that they were in league with the mafia to kill a head of state -- not kennedy, but castro. that didn't come out for another ten years. they've always been concerned about what became public from all of the anti-castro work. i think we will find some of that here, but maybe not in this release. according to the cia, they're holding back. they want to redact about 1% of the 18,000 cia documents left. about 180 documents, they would like to redact some of the names, but this law requires
that every word on every document has to be public. that will be the fight for the next six months. >> tucker: that's insane. the president just overruled. thank you both very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you, tucker. >> thank you. >> tucker: it is time for "final exam." we have got two fox news hosts enter the arena. we will find out which of them has been paying more attention to the news in this chaotic week of news. that's next. of news. that's next. ♪
♪ >> tucker: time now for "final exam," where we pit two major figures in the news business against one another to see if they have been paying attention at work. our contestants this week, shannon bream, a host of "fox news @ night," which debuts monday, this coming monday, going to watch every night,
and brian kilmeade, host of "fox & friends," fox news radio, and the author of a fantastic new book called "andrew jackson and the miracle of new orleans." we are honored to have you both. >> i am thrilled to be here and to see shannon. i heard you are working on a new show. to see you in person. this thing goes on forever. >> tucker: it is cavernous. >> like a movie studio. >> he is a movie star, so that feels appropriate. >> tucker: i love doing the introduction. see if they are paying attention at work. we're going to find out right now. here are the rules. hands on buzzers. i am going to ask the questions. the first one of you to buzz in gets to answer the question. you have to wait till i finish asking it though. there is a penalty for buzzing. get it right, you get a point, get it wrong, you lose a point. >> if she gets it wrong, which could happen, can i come in second? >> tucker: that's it. >> the buzzer is important. >> tucker: yeah. ready? >> this is a lot of pressure.
>> tucker: question one. a popular viral video shows a man soaring high above the plains of southern africa, but in lieu of a plane or helicopter, what is his unusual method of flight? [laughter] [buzzer] >> tucker: brian kilmeade, ladies and gentlemen. >> pass. no. drone. >> tucker: drone. let's go to the tape. >> look at this. strapped himself to a lawn chair, gutsy move, 100 helium balloons, flying over 1500 miles across beautiful south africa, reaching heights of 8,000 feet. >> tucker: let me check with the judges. [buzzer] does a lawn chair count as a drone? no, it doesn't. >> what kind of game is this? >> here is what i loved. i thought the video was going to be a video clip of brian reading the story about the launch. >> tucker: that would be good! here's a chance at redemption. a wild scene on capitol hill as
a heckler ranting about treason threw something at the president of the united states. what did he throw? [buzzer] shannon bream? >> the russian flag. >> tucker: the russian flag, says shannon bream. to the tape we go. >> trump is treason. trump is treason! >> tucker: what do i know about the russian flag? the score, just for those of you keeping track, 1 to negative 1. >> i like that. >> i knew that. >> work on the >> tucker: question three. reflexes. new york city mayor bill de blasio angered students when he pushed for changes to the new york city cafeteria menu. some schools would no longer be serving what? [buzzer] brian kilmeade? >> pizza. >> tucker: pizza. to the tape we go.
pizza. >> these schools, like ps1, will be offering all-vegetarian lunch and breakfast menus on mondays. even if you had a bacon, egg, and cheese this morning, you still should want to see more and more of our diets go to a plant-based approach. >> tucker: is there anyone dopier than bill de blasio? >> i could have had that answer. the answer is nobody. you know he sleeps until 11:00. he works out and leaves his door open, lays on his couch with the newspaper over his head. watch as people walk by because he stays up late at night and gets up and works out and then rests. >> he's reading. you don't know. what if he is nearsighted? >> tucker: not to rub it in, it is 1 to negative 2. >> i didn't know you can count
backwards. >> tucker: amazon the company introduced new service. for a fee, you can have your delivery driver do what with your amazon package? [buzzer] shannon bream? >> put them inside your house. >> tucker: i don't believe it. it's too weird. but we'll see if you're right. >> amazon is taking things a few steps farther, literally. delivering those packages not just to your doorstep but inside your home. it's called amazon key. >> tucker: how did you know that? >> i mean, i've been watching news programming. >> tucker: would you let amazon into your home? >> heck to the no. >> i would say this, what about an a for effort. i just took a guess. you just don't play. >> tucker: if you answer the final question correctly, you could get to negative 1. you could get two negative one try end. if you answer in japanese, you can win.
>> domo arigato, mr. roboto. can we get an update on the score first? i need to know what is at stake. >> tucker: judges say this is a 2-point question. you could get to 0, brian. >> i could do as well as lindsey graham did in the primaries. >> tucker: this week, honolulu became the first american city to make it illegal to do what while crossing the street? >> hint. >> tucker: does anyone watch tv here? the buzzer didn't go off. [buzzer] brian kilmeade. >> one more time with the question. >> tucker: what did they make it illegal to do while crossing the street in honolulu? >> text. >> tucker: text. that sounds reasonable. >> no more texting and walking, stating that if you are caught doing this, you will be paying a $35 fine. >> oh! >> tucker: you are back to par, back to 0.
>> i'm not even good at that, but there is no proof that i was here. i came here with the same score i entered with. >> tucker: we are preparing the headline, shannon bream actually reads the news. >> i watch "tucker," i watch "fox & friends," i listen to kilmeade on the radio. i'm dialed in. >> tucker: we'll see you tomorrow night to talk about your new book. brian kilmeade will be back tomorrow. >> same outfit. >> tucker: the same outfit. pay attention to the news, over the week, you can play along. we'll be back next thursday.
♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network...
because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row.
forehead. amazing. here's part of what he had to say. in your book, you describe -- i don't think you are bragging. how completely fooled the extremists you lived among were by her cover. how did you convince you are one of them? >> i studied them. how do you make friends, tucker? day-to-day. naturally. proper evolution of a relationship. you try to inject yourself, create the proper persona, we call that a legend. into the individual. i studied a pattern of life. what they do, what they don't do. what they eat and what they don't like to eat. where they go, what they do when they're not being jihadists. once i have that, it's not hard to crack that legend. >> tucker: if you need a prosthetic to come and tell your
story, your life has got to be very weird at this point. you have to take a lot of precautions to keep from getting killed and also your family. what is not like? >> it's a bit of conundrum. here i am, talking to you. if the message i believe very strongly. for people who don't have a voice but also for the men and women of the fbi who combat terrorism everyday to keep our country safe. i'm hoping americans know there is muslims and non-muslims at the tip of the sphere in the global war of to back on terror. hoping this message gets out. speak >> you can catch part oner full interview tomorrow at 8:00. check out tamer elnoury's book. "american radical." really an amazing story. that's it for us tonight. tune in every night at eight for
the show that it's a sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and especially groupthink. it's really hurting this country. "hannity" takes over an hour from new york city. sean. >> sean: you are not going to want to miss any minute of this show. fox news alert, things are breaking very fast on three big major news stories we are covering tonight. we have new developments in the uranium one scandal. the phony russian propaganda dossier story. the clinton campaign paid for all of this. a huge win. the irs now admitting they were targeted by the obama administration. tea party groups. these massive scandals can no longer be ignored. we will demand answers from all of the people directly involved and that means it's time for hillary clinton and yes, president obama, to come clean about colluding with the russians and explain