tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News December 26, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
at 7:00. tucker carlson is up next. ♪ ♪ >> good evening, everybody, and welcome to the "tucker carlson tonight" program. i'm tammy bruce filling in for tucker this evening. president trump surprised he was troops in iraq with a holiday visit today, his first visit to troops serving in a combat zone. rather, the president briefly touched on domestic politics, saying a government shutdown will only end with money for a party wall. >> how long do you think there shutdown will last, mr. president? >> whenever it takes. we will have a wall. we will have safety. we need safety for our country. >> tammy: mack to mike emanuel is in washington with more. mike? >> tammy, good evening.
president trump went to see the troops in a combat zone at a time when he's made significant as it concerns about american foreign policy and there is also a shake-up of some of his senior leadership. the president and first lady left late christmas night under tight security to visit american forces serving in iraq at christmas time. some of the message was clearly to us those men and women a merry christmas and to thank them for their dedicated service. while the president has announced plans to withdraw troops from nearby syria, he says he plans to keep them in iraq where they can still launch strikes against isis. >> when i became president, they were a very dominant group. they were very dominant. today, they are not so dominant anymore. [cheers and applause] great job. >> the president had taken some heat from the media, noting he was the first commander-in-chief to not place at the in 15 years. then he landed at the airbase in iraq today, likely neutralizing
that attack. the commander in chief's first visit to a combat zone was with the first lady and give him a chance to hear directly from commanders on the ground and the president noted the remarkable job u.s. forces have done, taking the fight to the islamic state terror group. >> with the near elimination of the isis territorial caliphate in iraq and in syria. >> the timing of the trip comes as the secretary of defense and the special envoy for the correlation to defeat isis have both resigned. event secretary jim mattis is out of the end of the year after being critical of the president's foreign policy and brett mcgurk was planning to leave in early 2019 but turned in his resignation and protest of the president's plan to pull u.s. forces out of syri syria. the president invited the iraqi prime minister to the white house next year and we are told he accepted the invitation. i should not, air force one has touched down in germany for a refueling stop for the commander in chief's meeting with more u.s. military personnel. tammy?
>> tammy: thank you. i think you would agree with the sound of that crowd out there that having a visit from the commander in chief sure is a lifter of morale. it seems like it went very well. >> no doubt about it. christmas time, great to hear from her boss. >> tammy: indeed. mike, thank you very much. when the president returns to washington, he'll be coming back to a city sharply divided over his proposed border wall. the government remains in partial shutdown as trump says he will not sign pending legislation until he receives money to begin the wall on the mexican border. democrats continue to howl with rage against the president. >> no democrat has conflict shutting the government down. we are all working to avoid it. the president seems to relish it. >> is a governing crisis. we better face the reality. this is a dangerous time. this is not just another government shutdown. >> donald trump is on track to be the worst president in modern times. and perhaps ever. the days of waiting for this president to change how he
operates on the days of hoping that he can somehow achieve more and do better, those days are behind us. >> i will do status. the president, he is unraveled. things are unraveling. >> it's chaotic. >> the shutdown is on the president because he has caused such division, he can't even broker a deal on a side issue like this. >> tammy: all righty. trump, meanwhile, says the shutdown is clearly the democrats fault and their refusal to secure the border with mexico. >> i can't tell you when the government is going to be open. i can tell you it's not going to be open until we have a wall, a fence, whatever they would like to call it. i will call whatever they want. the people of this country wanted border security. it's not a question of me. i would rather not be doing shutdowns. these federal workers mark the wall. the only one that does not want the wall of the democrats because they don't mind open borders. the only time they went against
it, only one time, when donald trump says we want to build the wall. as soon as i said i wanted to build a wall, they were all against it. >> tammy: all righty. dan bongino is a former secret service agent and the author of "baguette." robin biro is a former regional campaign director for barack obama and they both join us now. welcome aboard, you guys. thanks for joining me. >> thank you. >> tammy: dan, i got to say to you, this is funny to watch, of course, the democrats, the doom and gloom. we've just moved to the christmas holidays. the sky is falling. we are looking for grabs and part of water to eat and drink through the shutdown. do you think that this kind of complaint is really changing the point of view of the american people about what is really happening in washington and what matters when it comes to national security versus a negotiation to get what we need for that were wall? >> no, i don't think the media is changing one mind out there,
tammy. very, very specific reason. listen, chaos is not a brand, okay? it's not a brand -- even richard nixon figured that out, running on a law and order platform, of all people. nixon figured that out. chaos is not a brand. i say that because the democrats have not offered anything of substance outside of cheap rhetoric about actually supporting border security. there is a terrific segment with steve miller on another network confronting a media figure about this specifically. what have the democrats down to secure the border? you know what the answer is? let's go to the next segment because they just don't have anything. >> tammy: dan, i see robin's head nodding over there. really, the democrats argue that there is border security and then there is the border wall. yet, we know, robin, where there are wall sections, the illegal traffic goes down over 90%. so historically, we know this works, we know it works in this country. look, i think all three of us can agree, we want this chaos to
end. it's not good for the country. it's not good for the migrants. it's not good for american citizens. so what exactly is going on but the democrats think it's working so well, considering the chaos that's occurring right now? >> we've got several problems. let's call out the hypocrisy from my own party. because in 2006, we did support the secure fence act, which erected more than 700 miles of border on our south east border. so we have got to own that and i think the president would be very wise to pitch this not as a wall, but as expanding what we already agreed to on a bipartisan measure, when senators at the time, hillary clinton and barack obama both voted for this. i think that would be a great way for him to pitch this as a fence, as you heard was language changing. >> tammy: yeah, he said he would call it whatever they want him to call it. robin, though, isn't that, though, somewhat juvenile, that you want to change the name of
something and yet, the action would be the same? you are right. the secure fence act, the construction that already occurred as the thing that is helping us. why are they certainly against it now? is it really just politics and because it is campaigning? is that what it is? >> i am not going to give you any b.s. the reason they are doing this is because of optics. each side -- you are smart. you know. each side has got to find a way to save face with their base. right now, by preaching this as a fence, that allows my parties chance to save face and say we can't give you a four to five concrete wall but we can give you a funding for a fence -- now dick durbin made a great point on the networks on sunday by saying that only one out of every five vehicles coming across the board are being screened right now. so what he would like to see is more funding for that in addition to funding for the fence. i think that we have got some inroads here. i think we honestly do believe
there is a way ahead, it's just got to be a way that we both can pitch to our base has. >> tammy: that becomes, dan, the question. how far does the president grow? does he never signed a bill until he gets -- what, he is compromising. they are already talking about $2.5 billion. the president is a master negotiator. he knows they will find someplace in the middle. unless the democrats just genuinely don't care. how far does the president take this committee and? >> the president as a dealmaker asked mikey's built buildings in new york where i grew up, the tapas place on earth to visit! i got to tell you, it's rare that i'm on debating a democrat on the network would robin is right. there is going to have to be some face-saving measures on both sides. both of us would be naive, all three of us, to say that. i think if you want to call it a fence, if you want to call it a wall, as long as it is at an obstacle that will prevent the illegal flow, illegal flow, from people across the border, i think the american people will be fine with that. one more thing, tammy. the border patrol people i talked to don't seem to mind the
idea of slats because they can see. on the other side. >> tammy: sure. >> is a deterrent, it's an obstacle. the other people want border security if it allows democrats to save some kind of a start stop illegal immigration, not in its tracks -- nothing will stop it completely -- but put an obstacle in front of it, i think that is fine. everyone walks away happy. >> tammy: we know the democrats understand that because the process before are always think you don't want the wall as if if they care about border security. so democrats -- americans who happens to be democrats, they care about their families as well, they care about the nature of what is happening at the border now. democrats, none of us want to hear stories about children dying in the midst of a track that should never have happened in the first place. these are the things that unite us. i think that this is where we can have a good conversation. the president knows that. hopefully these games will end. but the president's position is based, of course, international security framework, for all of these individuals, not just american citizens, robin, you would agree, but for the
individuals making these thousand mile tracks with their children. no one should be accepting this environment as being acceptable or something that should be encouraged. we really need to have a system that stops that. you would agree? >> absolutely. and we need comprehensive immigration reform. and i want to clearly say that my party can absolutely not afford to be labeled as the party that embraces open borders, which is why we are trying to say there are other things that we need in addition to at least come at a minimum, a stronger finance. >> tammy: robin, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, all they are saying is, he's never going to get the wall, he's never going to get at. they seem to be doubling down on an argument that -- this is the problem with liberals often, perhaps not you, but liberals to a great deal, that they don't know when to stop. they misjudge the brett kavanaugh dynamic. they are misjudging this. and the american people want solutions. this is what they're looking for. president trump is a man of
action. he's been consistent in his position. you started this segment talking about how democrats had voted for the secure fence act. they have not been consistent. why should we trust with the democrats do want to take over the house of representatives as being either believable or truthful? >> great question. i will just point out that on both sides, there are calm heads. there are also crazy people on both sides of the aisle. those are the ones that get the most airtime in the media, unfortunately. but there are smart people, like dick durbin, who get it. who say that there are a multilateral -- >> tammy: robin, you were so good until you said dick durbin and the word "smart" in the same sentence. i just got a headache. all right, you guys. a great conversation. dan, robin. terrific. i really appreciated. thanks, have a great night, merry christmas. for several days, i.c.e. has been releasing hundreds of migrant asylum-seekers into a public park in el paso, el pas,
with apparently no plan for taking care of them. fox chief correspondent jonathan hunt joins us now with more. >> good evening, tammy. in all, 700 migrants were released in el paso, texas, from the weekend to christmas day without i.c.e. apparently giving the usual advance notice to shelters and other groups to offer help to the migrants. democratic congressman beto o'rourke was among those creating the migrants as they mauled their next move on christmas day. >> i.c.e. admitted that they dropped the ball, that he made a mistake yesterday, by not giving a community any kind of heads up on releasing 214 migrants at the greyhound bus station last night and early this morning. >> activists who usually coordinate with i.c.e. were also caught unaware class. >> we are a little perplexed because this is not something that i.c.e. usually does. >> in a statement, i.c.e. blamed
"decades of inaction by congress for limiting its ability to detain and promptly remove families in the united states illegally" and went on, "to mitigate the risk of holding family units pass to the time frame to the government, i.c.e. has curtailed reviews of post-release plans from families apprehended along the southwest border." that statement obviously doesn't directly address the situation in el paso over the last couple of days, but i did also say, "i.c.e. is redoubling its efforts to work with local and state officials and ngo partners in the area so they are prepared to provide assistance with transportation or other services." tammy, it's not clear whether the lack of communication between i.c.e. and the shelter organizations is being affected by the government shutdown, but it is worth noting that many i.c.e. staffed deemed nonessential are not working right now.
tammy? >> tammy: jonathan, thank you. at the same time, wouldn't you agree, though, that certainly the customs and border patrol is swamped and that i.c.e. is swamped. we've got -- they are releasing hundreds right now in el paso but we are dealing with thousands of people who clearly, they are releasing them based on the family separation act, that they just -- they are just overwhelmed at this point, regardless of -- >> yes. you are absolutely right, tammy. you talk to any agents who work the border area, and that is exactly the kind of word that they would use, that they are overwhelmed with one other point that is interesting, it's not at all clear that all of these who are released in el paso were asylum-seekers. some of them may simply have been illegal immigrants. that points to catch and release taking place. that, of course, something that president trump says does not happen anymore. >> tammy: more work to do. great, thank you, jonathan. thank you for that report. kris kobach is the kansas secretary of state. he joins us now. you are a man, you have been
working on this for quite some time, for years, you know what the situation is, this is not unfamiliar to you, either. can you give us a sense, really, as people might want to blame for shutdown, but this is really chaos that is unfolding and an overwhelmed customs and border protection for us, overwhelmed i.c.e. perhaps, because they are contained, if you will come of a certain court decisions, et cetera they can and cannot do. what do you think is going on in el paso entered the people there be concern about what is happening? >> first of all, you are correct when you suggest this is not because of the government shutdown. enforcement and removal operations of i.c.e., the division that handles this type of duty, their essential employees, they are working at full steam regardless of the shutdown. there might be some public affairs officers who normally contact the press and things like that he might not be working. but it's not caused by the shutdown. secondly, although the numbers this week in el paso are large, and larger than normal, people
should be aware that there are, if you look nationally, thousands of people being released into the united states who are asylum-seekers, not necessarily worthy of asylum, but claiming that they are every month. so this is a big problem. this number should shock you. in the last five years, the number of asylum claims in the united states system has gone up 2000%. there are almost 800,000 asylum cases pending in the immigration apartment. the vast majority of those are not legitimate. it's estimated that the central american claims, well over 90% are going to be denied. they are not even close to being legitimate claims of asylum. asylum requires that your government's back rim is persecuting you and that you have a well-founded fear of being hurt because her membership in in a purchase a carlos johnson to social good. people are saying, i have gangs in my neighborhood. this asylum loophole has become a massive loophole that is causing a huge problem for the whole system. it is a big problem. this is just a symptom. >> tammy: we are letting these
people are. of course, presuming they will come back. this is the old game together court hearing. and then they never show up. but we also learned a couple weeks ago from secretary nielsen, the department of homeland security, that we have an arrangement with mexico now that they would hold people who are looking for asylum, until we can adjudicate them. do you think that is really going to happen? or do you think that we are still -- is the president still going to have to go and get this done through the courts, which clearly seem to be resistant to him being able to control the border? >> well, a little of both. i think that what secretary nielsen announced last week is a big -- it's not a first step, it's a big step of the right direction for those people who haven't yet crossed into the united states. most of the people we are talking about here in el paso, they were already in united states when they were apprehended, many of them, anyway. for those people, what dhs needs to be read away, is to finalize a proposed regulation that they promulgated back in september, and that regulation will override what is called the flores settlement, which is by
rereleasing these people, and allows the detention of complete family units together until the case is adjudicated. we got to get that. there is no time to waste. >> tammy: that is the question, what do we do next, and that is a great point. thank you, sir, for joining us. i appreciate it. have a great night. >> my pleasure. >> tammy: in the meantime, defense secretary mattis is leaving the administration early. washington elites are panicking because his departure be a good thing? that's next. ♪
♪ >> tammy: after resigning last week of my defense secretary james mattis was supposed to stay on the drive through february, but on sunday, president trump announced he is removing mattis early and will replace them with deputy secretary of defense patrick shanahan beginning january 1st. that is coming right upright mattis' impending departure has washington fixtures like bob woodward in a panic. >> >> is a governing crisis. you have the exit of mattis, which is a tragedy for the country, a tragedy for president trump.
mattis was able to thread the needle and try to make his points and, quite frankly, educate president trump on some of these issues and so the departure of him is something that is, i think, going down in the history books. >> tammy: welcome a christian right and is a former state department senior advisor to trump and george w. bush administrations. he joins us now. christian, i really don't recall what word saying that when barack obama fired mattis that that was a tragedy. that i missed that part? >> [laughs] the pearl coaching really has gotten out of control. mattis did what he was about to do, kill isis, that was the urgent crisis, that is what resident trump promised to do. that is what he did. he helped unlock the promise of our forces and help get the lawyers out of the way and let our soldiers do their job. but mattis was supposed to trump on most other things. he wanted to stay in the paris
climate boondoggle. he opposed moving the embassy in israel to jerusalem. he opposed getting out of the randy l. he did not want to send troops to the border. so what president trump preserves and what he ought to get it someone who is on board with a trump agenda. and that is what bob woodward does not like. >> tammy: you have a great piece at foxnews.com, it's gone kind of viral, about why him leaving is a good thing. there are many things that you lay out in your piece. at the same time, i was struck with the pettiness of his resignation letter, if you will. that he would still be the secretary of defense, that he still is talking about the commander in chief, and yet he messages that he doesn't like what the commander in chief is doing. you know, i'm not surprised that the president asked him to leave early because why would you do that, have a morale effect on the troops, on the other people in the pentagon, win -- how do you -- how could he justify that considering his positions
and that he's talking -- say whatever you want once you are out of office but that seems to be, at least to me, surprising. does that surprise you or was it something that he's known for, for being a little problematic, like that? >> no, it did strike me as odd. it struck me as odd. he led with complaints that we were not being kind enough to our nato allies. that's another thing mattis was against, what the president has done, which is to insist that nato fulfill the pledges it has made to spend a measly 2%. they're not even close. germany is at 1.3% and our friends up in canada have 1% of gdp, that is always been, so we give the privilege of defending them. they scroll us on trade. germany generating fake news anti-american propaganda against us and we have to defend them. what donald trump did was say, hey, you have to pay your fair share. mattis was opposed to that. his resignation letter said, oh, he brought this back up again. >> tammy: at the same time, it is a signal of respect that you want your allies and your
friends to be able to support themselves if something happens. there could be nothing worse in the world, that of our friends and allies are unprepared for something to happen when we might not be able to manage the entire world if they were a black swan of some major nuclear event. it is something that you would want your friends and family to say, which is, you've got to help us, you've got to be able to stand on your own two feet to some degree in order for this to be able to work out. and that seems to be of course, the president's approach. at the same time, now, who do you think should replace them? that has got to be obviously a question everyone is asking. who's next? >> i think should be someone political. not that the secretary of defense should get into partisan political spats, but someone who can implement what trump wants to do. he's drawn down in syria, their stock of drawing down in afghanistan, which makes a lot of sense to me. i don't know what we will accomplish in another year or two ago that we have not accomplished in 17 years. if you add afghanistan to iraq in syria, that is $60 billion a year. that is real money you can save or spend, rebuilding our
air force and navy and missiles and space force to deter china and that is a typo secretary of defense he needs. >> tammy: it's a political decision. it really is. understanding the military, understanding what is going on the ground is key. so having the general is fabulous but ultimately, it really is about being a negotiator, being a politician, understanding what needs to be accomplished. i think, obviously, the president's finding that out. christian, great piece at foxnews.com. thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks, tammy. appreciate it. >> tammy: the women's market movement is falling apart over accusations of anti-semitism and ties to louis farrakhan. we'll talk about that next. ♪ if you have psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.
otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. dad and son: we just finished dinner ahe hates [i hate] homework.. son: it makes no sense. dad: i don't know how he finds anything in his backpack. son: i can't find my backpack. dad and son: finally, we found his [my] assignment. dad: he rushed through it. i wonder if he even learned anything. son: i wasn't going to get it right
so i just wanted to get back to playing my video game. at least i'm good at that. dad: i couldn't even read his handwriting. son: holding the pencil makes my hand hurt. dad: i know he's bright. son: why is it so hard for me? dad: he's just got to try a little harder. son: i'm trying as hard as i can. narrator: when you can see learning and attention issues from their side, you can be on their side. that's why there's understood.org, a free online resource for the parents of the 1 in 5 kids with learning and attention issues. here you'll get personalized recommendations, practical tips, daily access to experts and more. go from misunderstanding to understood.org
assured that federal reserve chairman jerome powell and treasury secretary steve mnuchin's jobs are safe, despite a recent tweet where president trump complained about the federal reserve hiking interest rates, a legitimate complaint, according too many people. heather is a financial analyst in the midst of all this. she joins us. thank you for joining us, heather. >> hi, tammy. >> tammy: look, for somebody who does what you do, other than people -- a lot of people here from on twitter and social media saying they just can't look at their 401(k)s or their statements, they won't look at it for a while, this really has got to be exciting and a certain sense of getting a sense of what this really means. what is your take on this kind of volatility and why it's happening right now? >> it is very unnerving if you are an average investor in the marketplace right now. 1,000-point advance and the dow has never been seen in history! this is coming on the back, though, of the largest decline on christmas eve that we have ever seen. we had over 600-point decline on the dow, and for christmas eve,
we have never seen that before. that is not a way to rein in the new year, and for santa to come and bearing gifts, but look, the markets are up for a few reasons. we have certainty over fed chair jerome powell's drop, the fed chair's job is secure at the head of u.s. central bank. and that is really important, tammy, because the markets want to stability. we need to make sure that fed chair jerome powell led treasury secretary steven mnuchin will keep their jobs. i think they well. >> tammy: i think it is interesting in that, for eight years of barack obama, we were pretty much at zero, at a rate. it was almost like keeping the economy on life support and a sense. there was no real action. now we've got donald trump, where there is activity, right? you come out of a coma and things can be a little unnerving, and a little surprising sometimes, but that is what happens with action. at the same time, he has been talking about tariffs, dealing with china, dealing with trade issues, that had been something he talked about during the campaign. so a lot of people thought that
was baked into the market, was the extraordinary search that we had starting with -- well, with january 2017. in fact, this can happen, or at least can withstand some volatility because of the strength that the market is in. the fundamentals are strong, we have seen this incredible retail surge with purchasing over the holiday. wouldn't you say that, in fact, this is just kind of a sign of activity and, well, the nation coming back to life economically? >> it really is, tammy. the fundamentals are still strong. unemployment had fifty-year laws. retail sales data that we are getting today is showing that the consumer is out in full stride. that is two-thirds of the economy. and even if gdp is slowing down a little bit, we are still growing at 3.4% gdp growth in the economy. and that is far better than under president barack obama's eight-year tenure, averaging 1.8%. >> tammy: we've all got our hands full, as the president is clearly working very hard and we will see where things go next.
it looks good so far with a great day. thanks for joining us, heather, i appreciate it. you guys, the women's market movement was supposed to bring down the president. the trump administration. instead, it may not survive to the second anniversary of his inauguration. leaders of the group are facing growing accusations of anti-semitism and attacks for their ties to nation of islam leader louis farrakhan. activist linda sarsour recently denied ever having met farrakhan, although she spoke alongside him at an event in 2015. cracks are showing come of the chicago branch of the women's march that it will not be should holding a rally this january. a podcast host joins us now. how are you? things are coming on. >> i'm doing well, thanks, tammy. >> tammy: we have been hearing about this for a while. it's been very, very public. we know that one of the founders, a woman who lives in hawaii who started this movement with a facebook post, was the first want to come out and say, look, this is not what we stand for, there needs to be a change in leadership because in a way,
she has argued it's been hijacked and receive is continuing. they are supposed to be a big event in january. where do you think all of this is heading at this point? >> look, perez, linda sarsour, and tamika mallory, three of them have been running away from the accusations of anti-semitism, really since the beginning of the founding of the women's march. and they are unable to escape them. the reason for that is, because of their association with louis farrakhan, who, as we know, speaks to jewish people in subhuman terms, talks about how jews are satanic, the enemy of the people. mallory, in particular, has been a big and public vander blue's farrakhan. also, the expose that just came out, that's cited some of the troubling anti-semitic comments they made when the organizing respondent, talking about the jewish people's role in my super messy and oppression of the black people. so going forward with more of this information coming out, women of color and other people
in the organization saying, hey, this is not okay. i am just not sure that there women's march can survive. >> tammy: when i was on the left, we were always aware of people on the far left are people who did not mean our movement well, were trying to hijack certain things we were doing. if you had experience, you would know what to watch more. clearly, something happened here that, while of course, all issues are women's issues, what we don't do, and what we don't embrace, certainly, i don't think any american of decency embraces racism or jews hatred. i don't know how difficult it is to disavow louis farrakhan, which they have not been able to do. this sends a message that really has nothing to do with women's rights or women's lives or the welfare of women at all. it really does kind of damage that many women were looking to this march or to this movement to speak for them. but allie, we also saw division when the march refused to
embrace or allow pro-life women to join them and that march. so it was really very political from the beginning, when it comes to liberalism or left-wing politics versus women's welfare. >> tammy: right. while i disagree with much of the politics, if not all of the politics that the women's march, i do stand by their right to peacefully protest behind leaders that they can trust. actually tell the organization's values. while, like i said, i don't agree with them, they do say that they are for tolerance, they are for inclusion, they are poor, like you said, women's empowerment and women's rights. i don't see how it is actually for those things if they don't include pro-life women, if they don't include jewish women or they don't treat jewish women the same. this is the insanity of intersection analogy, this oppression -- >> tammy: and identity politics. >> even the left! >> tammy: and this is where it gets off-center here. i'm the president of independent women's voice. there is also, though, at this march in washington, a number of
different counter protests, if you will, including from the iw group. really making it clear that all women matter. whether you are jewish or not or christian, it transcends religion, it transcends race, it transcends ethnicity, economics. this is what makes us sisters. and yet, we don't even still have our conversation when this movement, as it was, was being seen or described as being the epitome of a movement. so we'll find out. this is an important thing to discuss and the american people will be able to make your decision. thank you, allie, for joining us tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you, tammy. >> tammy: this is a fox news alert. president trump is now in germany visiting u.s. troops at ben stein air force base by the president has on his way back from iraq as you know, he met with our troops there earlier today. great looking there. next, is socialism coming back in america? tucker returns after the break to investigate that question, coming up next. ♪
'tand in your garage,son a brand new john deere. that's not a mirage. with 60 months financing at 0%, say "happy holidays" to money well spent. if additional offers are what you desire, visit your john deere dealer before they expire. now, start up your engines and drive out of sight. new john deere equipment for all and to all a good night. see your john deere dealer today to discover more great deals and special financing offers. new year, new deere.
i'd never fully recovered from the financial collapse or not has been true regardless of who has been in the white house. middle-class is declining. that trend doesn't seem to be slowing down. the question is, what will replace our middle-class? joel kotkin just wrote a fascinating piece for the "orange county register." he predicts that america is headed for a regime of oligarchical socialism or superrich business leaders like mark zuckerberg buy off the masses with programs like a guaranteed minimum income. jharel cotton joins us tonight. joel, that was a fascinating piece, a dystopian peace, a terrifying piece. i hope you are wrong in every detail. what if you are not? tell us what that will look like. >> i usually don't think i am wrong. [laughs] i think what is basically happening is that we have a very small number of people who have unprecedented wealth and part of the economy, and control over media like we have not seen before.
and their business models are not unionized, they generally hire a lot of these firms hire a lot of part-time workers, they hire a lot of people from overseas, and silicon valley, such as 40% of the tech workforce. with a don't want to do is pay the benefits and the pensions that the evil companies, like oil companies and manufacturing companies do, to their employees. so what is the solution? well, if i want to be in the democratic party, what i do is i talk all the good talk on gender and race and climate and all that, and i put off the burning people by saying, oh, we'll have free this, read this, free education, and a guaranteed income, and rent subsidies, and by the way, how are we going to pay for it? we are not going to take $100 billion from jeff bezos, so he'd only be stuck with $50 billion. we are going to take it from
your average upper-middle-class household owner and that is what they have done in california and i think that is what they are going to do nationally. they are not going to attack the oligarchs, they are going to attack the upper-middle-class, which is where the money is. >> tucker: i guess i don't understand why congress has sat passively by and allowed this to happen. on the left, you think there would be concerned about the rights of middle-class workers, and on the right, they would be concern about, i don't know, monopolies, concentrations of power that are unprecedented in american history. but no one ever says anything that you just said. why? >> well, first of all, take a look at the two parties. republicans are basically a bunch of specials be honest honest about it. you just put a few dollars up and they will follow it. these guys have lots of money so they can buy them off. the left has a more complex situation because, whereas, there are some principled people on the left who will take these oligarchs on, like
bernie sanders, for instance, a lot of them are allied, that is where they get their money. they get their money from wall street, they get their money from the tech oligarchs, you take a look at where the campaign contributions are going. so the problem is, how do you have a democratic party that is basically made up of the richest people in society and how do you serve in the middle class and serve those people at the same time? welcome of the way you do would come if you change the nature of the middle-class. the middle class no longer owns a home, probably has a family, is a renter for life, living in the little apartment, and, by the way, will vote reliably democratic because basically they are going to be completely dependent on the government for their lifestyle and for their retirement. >> tammy: that makes my heart beat faster. it makes me so mad. we need a teddy roosevelt, the flaming sword of justice to restore the american middle class. joel, thank you.
♪ >> tammy: with the 2020 presidential race about to begin, many democratic party are still trying to find a leader and a core ideology. in a recent interview, defeated democratic senator claire mccaskill confessed she does not understand the popularity of new congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. >> i don't know her. i'm a little confused why she is the thing. but it's a good example of what i'm talking about. a bright and shiny new object. came out of nowhere and surprise people and should be very experienced congressman, and
she has not talked about a lot. i'm not sure what she's done ye yet. yet to generate that kind of enthusiasm but i wish her well. i hope she hangs the moon. the rhetoric is cheap. getting results is a lot harder. i mean, everybody knows, they are not going to get 60 votes for free college for everybody in the united states senate. anytime in the next three cycles. that is not going to happen. so that is great to talk about in the campaign but all that does is make people more cynical that believe in you when you don't get it done. >> tammy: while mike hillary clinton may not be ready to hand over control of the party peacefully. last week she tweeted cryptically about finalizing her plans for 2019. on christmas, she tweeted a photo of her family from their white house days. brian dean wright is a democrat and a former cia operative. he joins us now. hey, brian. welcome aboard. >> good evening. >> tammy: i'm a democrat as well. i think these issues are so
crazy, it is transcending politics and the parties, right? and wouldn't you say claire mccaskill sounded almost jealous there, or at least was revealing why alexandria ocasio-cortez got elected, because of this enclosed little bubble of politics in washington that both parties have experienced, that for claire mccaskill not to understand the appeal, even though i do think that young woman is going to have some trouble, but it really sounds like there is a huge disconnect there. >> she represents everything that the democratic party is promising america that are not to become a right? it fits that identity politics that we have come to embrace. she is young, she's female, she's vibrant in the way that she delivers her message. that is what is important to this party now. what is frightening, though, about that, is what is in her mind, and what she is saying, and what in fact she believes, right? she embraces socialism. her whole goal is to push the party to the point where we start nationalizing the economy. the path to get there, of course, is promising free stuff.
it's even alarming that someone like claire mccaskill, a very smart individual would say that i hope she does well and that she hangs the moon successfully. >> tammy: that did not sound serious or sincere. >> fair enough. >> tammy: looks, this is, i think all americans are concerned about, and what ocasio-cortez represents, which is the potential of something new and better. this is in part why president trump is elected, right? there has to be a better way because americans are engaged. for the democrats, we've got all those people, i think everyone should run. look, it happened with the republicans in '16. you had 17 people on the stage. who do you think really is going to be the leader? who is going to articulate with the patient has to be for the democrats? >> so the party has divided itself into two different camps. one is the joe biden camp. people are very pragmatic. you see them pushing his candidacy forward in places like i don't eyeball. they basically just want to be trumped by they want to enact by then there's another group of folks who are a bit more idealistic and they are looking
like the cory bookers or the kamala harriss or someone like bernie sanders, that inspires them at some level. not necessarily because they believe something that is good or important for the country but it makes them feel good. i think that is what you are going to see as the primary starts up, all these debates kick in, starting next june. you will see that tension between various wings of the party. i hope the moderate folks win. >> tammy: y trump won because he had ideas. i think that is what separated him from the rest of the republicans, which is about the bureaucracy, the status quo. americans are tired of the status quo but we also want to experience. we got that with donald trump. right? business experience, we know he was a master negotiator, and that he had some background. an older man, knowing how to make things happen as a man of action. with the democrats, i mean, joe biden really pragmatic, it seems like that is more of going to the past, and when it comes to going to the future, is that
spartacus? who is going to draw this line about who is going to define what the ideology is? do you have a sense, even of what it means to be a democrat these days? i don't even think the party actually exists in a certain sense. >> i completely agree with you. think about this, the party is embracing people like ocasio-cortez, about a socialist, and you compare that to places where i come from, perhaps where you come from, that are embracing jack kennedy, a man who stood up against communism and against socialism. so it's amazing to see how far the party has shifted. >> tammy: hillary is going -- he seems to still be going nowhere. 70%, a new poll, 70% of people, the democrats do not want her to run. clearly, the democrats are at least awake enough to know that that would be bad. what is driving her, this to her that she and her husband were doing, i did horribly? they ended up selling tickets on group want to try to get people for a buck 50. what is going on with them?
why she doing this? >> oh, goody. that is a big question. a couple democrats trying to figure this out. we actually can agree, the entire party can agree on something. we don't like her. let's celebrate that, let's move onto the future. >> tammy: you know what that is going to result in. that is going to result in donald trump in 2020, it will result in donald trump the robot in 2024, barron trump as president and probably about 16 years. so there we go. it is a pleasure speaking with you, sir. thanks for joining me. >> take care. >> tammy: already. 2018 is almost over. it was widely speculated that the mueller probe would finish by the years and put it still shows no sign of doing so. sort of like a zombie. dan bongino rejoins us. hi, dan. >> good to be back. thanks for having me. >> tammy: is this just dashes as a zombie walking through our system? what can we expect? obviously, we had no real attorney general with jeff sessions, mr. rosenstein obviously was not putting parameters on mr. mueller.
mr. whitaker, the acting attorney general, there are many things you can do to rein in somebody to indicate that it's time to find the end result here. what do you think is going to happen here? when when this end? >> i think a really common sense, basic question needs to be asked of the mueller probe. him and his pit bulls, andrew weissmann and the rest of them. are you going to produce evidence of collusion or not at some point? tammy, it's been two years now. think about this. their key witness in the case, michael cohen, trump's personal attorney at one point, michael cohen was a central component of this entire case in the dossier, supposedly according to the dossier, having gone to prague to set up this email hacking scandal, right? he he is the key witness! michael cohen has repeatedly said over and over, i have neven to prague! this is mueller's key guy! i mean come at what point do you just say, listen, where's the beef, man?
do you have anything, mueller, or not? if you don't come up for the sake of the republic, it is time to wrap this witch hunt up. >> tammy: i've mentioned that from the start. all of these kinds of investigations are political. bob mueller would know that is political, and that anyone accepting the job to be the special counsel knew that it was going to be a political position. and at the same time, as it became apparent that the fisa warrants that the dossier was fake, you would think that he would have some second thoughts about his trajectory and if he was at all serious, what his job really was. if his position was created effectively by some degree of fraud. do you see him as being that she's got, you know, people say he's an honest guy, and he's an honorable guy, i don't know, are we seeing signs of that? wouldn't he just decide when enough is enough? if he really wasn't an honorable man at this point? >> i don't know bob mueller but i can tell you what, this is not an honorable investigation. listen, i worked as a federal
agent for 11 years investigating very high-profile cases. i'm not patting myself on the back by the taxpayers paid for it, it was a great job, i loved it. tammy, here's how it works. people walk into the secret service office i was in with evidence of a crime, counterfeit, or whatever, and you go and investigate subjects and suspects. you don't walk into the secret service office or an fbi office with a suspect but to no crime! you don't walk in and say, hey, listen, you should investigate donald trump. for what? i don't know, something, maybe he ripped a mattress tag off. this is what is happening. this investigation, the act of the bob mueller investigation, has produced crimes later on! process crimes, false statements, but there has never been a scintilla of evidence that the purpose of this thing -- i used air quotes because it has no purpose anymore -- collusion -- actually exists. that is the problem! >> tammy: the american people clearly -- this needs to conclude naturally, we need to have answers for the market people. it needs to -- nobody needs to be fired, there are ways the
attorney general can make this end. dan, think you for joining us again. i appreciate it. this is on christmas eve, you might recall, president trump surprised his norad santa tracker by having a few calls we brought the white house. he had one amusing exchange over a 7-year-old girl about whether she still believes in santa. >> are you still a believer in santa? because at seven, it's marginal, right? [laughs] well, you just enjoy yourself. >> tammy: all right. critics took the opportunity to accuse drop of ruining the magic of christmas for the little girl. effectively accused him of being the grinch, trying to cancel christmas. afterwards, the 7-year-old told the newspaper she does not know what the word marginal means and she still believes in santa. her parents loved the phone call. we hope she never stops believing in santa. i haven't. that's about it for now. thank you so much for joining us tonight. tune in each night at 8:00 to the show that is a sworn enemy of sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. also, don't forget to dvr the
show if you haven't set it up already. do not from new york. "hannity" is next with jason chaffetz sitting in. have a great evening. >> jason: tammy, thank you so much. welcome to the special edition of a "hannity," i'm jason chaffetz and for shawn. just 24 hours ago, many in the mainstream media were openly mocking president trump or losses in the stock market and ridiculing him for not visiting our troops during the christmas season. once again, the destroy trump press looked a bit foolish. today the stock market bounced back with a record single day point gain and president trump, along with the first lady melania trump, spent the day with our troops, after a surprise visit to iraq where he shared his gratitude for all of americans' brave servicemen and women. watch those. >> thank you. and every service member throughout this region, for the near elimination of the isis territorial caliphate in iraq and in