tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News October 23, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
'♪ >> tucker: good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." for about 10 minutes after defeat, hillary clinton appeared to retreat into seclusion. she went to the woodsnt near her home looking a little lost. some people made fun of her for doing that, but in fact it was a promising start. l humiliation can be the beginning of wisdom for those of us that have been fired in public. i can tell you. the period didn't last long. before long hillary was back on the road for years, like the circus. so many cities, so many excuses. >> the russians, let's say wikileaks, same thing.
they dumped the john podesta emails. i have my complaints about the former director. the use of my email account was turned into the biggest scandal since lord knows when. they covered it like it was pearl harbor. if you look at facebook, the vast majority of the news -- news items posted were fake. there's all the stories about guys over in macedonia who are running these fake new sites. i inherit nothing from the democratic party. i also think i was a victim of a very broad assumption i was going to win. had of the election bent on october 27000 beer president. it wasn't, it was on october 28th and there was a lot of funny business going on. >> tucker: the russians! wikileaks, the macedonians! the democratic party itself. hillary clinton blamed them all. this is not somebody coming to terms with a loss, it was somebody refusing to admit one.
in fact overtime that became her position on the whole thing. despite what you may have heard, she didn't really lose the 2016 election. she won it, she's the real president right now. this is a reelection campaign. as recently as a few months ago, democrats would've laughed privately at that idea. they would've mocked her. that's delusional. not anymore. now some of them are taking hillary more seriously than they have been a long time. an article in yesterday's "new york times" describes growing panic, joe biden looks weak and incapable. much of the field clearly is too extreme to win a national election. who was going to be donald trump next year? some are starting to think it could be hillary clinton.o clearly this is a thought that's crossed hillary clinton's mind. in private she has expressed her willingness to go into the race. as if to prove but her personal website just added a policy section. that doesn't mean she is running, but she very well could run. to judge the likelihood of a 2020 campaign we are joined by a man who has served for decades.
one of her closest aides, felipe. good to see you. i am assuming what i just said and what we are hearing is true. if she thought she was the best position to beat donald trump she would get in the race. >> i would take issue with the macedonian parts. she ran for president because she thought she would be the best person. if she still thought that now, if she thought she had the best odds of beating donald trump i think she would think about it long and hard. >> tucker: really the question and that doesn't surprise anybody. i guess the question is, has the democratic party changed so much and the last three years that io would be possible for hillary clinton to get the nomination? a lot of democrats say hillary clinton is the real president, it was stolen, but at the same time you think may be they have changed and they don'h want her anymore. maybe she is to right wing. >> this is a huge if, but if she
would jump in and the party has moved someplace that she hasn't, she won't get the avoidanc vote. that's the point of the primary. there are still 19 people, a few that are double digits. if she would run and people would think she is to left, to right, to center, that's the beauty of it. they get to vote against whatever they want. i don't know. she is not running because she has any anxiety about the democratic field. she really likes a lot of the people running. she knows them well. she thought about some of them for her vice presidency. there might be a reason that she would be the best person, not only to be donald trump, but to govern after donald trump.ve you can make fun of for all you want, but 65 million people voted for her and that second-most -- >> tucker: i'm not making fun of her. >> i watch fox news. >> tucker: we don't talk about her very often. >> come on. >> tucker: it's so interesting, hillary clinton was always at the left edge and has been for 50 years since her 196t
speech, she's been on the leftward edge of the democratic party. she denounced bernie sanders medicare for all proposal is a terrible conversation to have. she's completely against it. >> the lady knows her health care. she was ahead of her time in 1994. >> tucker: to get the nomination? >> that is a debate the party is having rightav now. the candidates who are full medicare for all are talking about how it would be structured and he wants war against our pressing those questions. if it's a health care debate, i would take that. i'd put my money on her any time. >> tucker: it's not just health care. i want to put a quote up. you tell me who said this. this is from 2015. martyred in san francisco and here is hillary clinton's response. "what should be done is and here said he should listen to the department of homeland security which as i understand, they should urge them to deport this man after he got out of prison another time. here's a case where we have
deported, we've deported and he ends up back in our country. i think the city made a mistake. the city made a mistake not to deport someone with the federal government felt strongly he should be deported. i have no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on. wow. if that is not racism, i don't know what is. >> that's not racism. >> tucker: she wants to deport the guy. >> you think deporting people is racist?tow >> tucker: i have personally been denounced as a racist for using the word deport. he is latin american. you haven't been following your party. that is racist. >> you know i play donald trump when she was practicing and i threw those quotes at her like anything else. i threw that at her. there is a difference between now and then. the man has a record. he's been there for three years and while make america great again was the tagline that got the moste attention, he said something else which was what do you have to lose?
if we ask ourselves that question, 40% of us are going to say we haven't lost anything. we have gained. 60% of us think we have lost. one of those things is immigration, people's freedom and health care. >> tucker: when she says it's not racist, that was a couple of years ago.e. >> anybody who runs against donald trump, if it's a referendum on racism. >> tucker: you have somebody who is calling for explicit -- people are kept out of jobs because of their skin color.ci >> the bottom line is immigration and i know you believe the president and his plan on immigration has not worked. that's not what you believed it >> tucker: let me ask you this.ju just last week she and her daughter chelsea were talking about the book. not rich enough apparently. >> it's a book about women through the ages. a i'll have her send t you one. >> tucker: this is an interview they did with a british publication the sunday
times and they were asked, the journalist asked the clintons if somebody with a beard and a penis could ever become a woman, chelsea said yes. hillary looked uneasy and then said this, i'm just learning about this. erasing trans people in the process. it's a very big generational discussion because this is not something i grew up with or saw. it will take a lot more time and effort to be understood about defining yourself differently.rs that is transfer will be if there ever was transfer bf. >> of the lgbtq community knows where she stands. she made sure to give passports to people in gay relationships. she made sure that if they had a health problem. >> tucker: that's different. everyone bundles this all together. this is a very specific question about trans orthodoxy and hillary clinton is like, it makes me uncomfortable, that's creepy. you're not allowed to say that. >> if she were to run which is unlikely. if you gave me a choice between
betting oniv her running or betting on powerful, i would bet on powerful. if she gets to run, people get to decide. to some extent she might as well run. >> tucker: she's become the most reasonable person on the democratic party. that's scary. >> she might be the best person to beat president pence, i mean president trump. p >> tucker: thank you. dana perino hosts the daily briefing. the star of the five and she joins us now. >> i need some help. i'm here listening and i don't have a dvr so i can't rewind. he did not close the door on hillary clinton being open to running in 2020, do i have that right? >> tucker: absolutely not. we spoke about it before. we talked about it on the show but he is nodding like this. he's not saying she isn't going to run. he said very clearly, under certain circumstances she would be happy to get it. what do you think about that?
>> i know that -- maybe he's not an official spokesperson anymore, if somebody were to say to me when george w. bush thinking about running, if i said that then people would take it very seriously. b i think i feel stunned right now because i thought that this was just rumormongering or you had establishment people in the democratic party worried that there is nobody in this large field. you can't even figure out a way to have two debate stages to fill all of them in a room. that they think they have to look around for somebody else. i just read a story that said even oprah is unhappy, unsatisfied, worried there is nobody in this field that could beat donald trump. >> tucker: the hillary thing is totally real. it doesn't mean she will do it. the possibility. h >> i don't know if they're wasting our time and thinking about it because you have to get on the ballot and i also think that elizabeth warren might have an opening here.
one of the thing she could doat and say, i see what is happening. the establishment, they are afraid of me. they want to shut offth the opportunity for me because they're afraid i'm going to strip them of their power because i want to change how things are done.e. i'm going to be the disruptor. she might be able to figure out a way to get in there and make that argument. just like president trump during the primary. >> tucker: i don't think there's any question about it. maybe donors are discovering that, you can spend all your time creating the perfect candidate in the laboratory, but if voters don't want to vote for the person. they're not going to be the nominee. >> exactly. you can see like a never elizabeth warren movement, from the democrats if they are willing to do that. another thing that happened today, joe biden being attacked from a few democrats, but mostly president rouhani. the new cnn poll showed that he is has widening his lead over. again, i go back to those
parallels in 2015 and 16. the voters are going, we're good here. we're sticking with him even though from -- if your a political pundit you think, you don't have any money, the excitement. the inquirer reported that at a debate watch party last week for joe biden, one person showed up. compared to the rallies that president trump is having where he has all of his energy and the people are turning out. i feel a little stunned right now. >> we have one big advantage but we already know the chants. >> tucker: what does that mean? >> we already know the chants that will be thrown at her. we've had a head start. i'm allowed to stir the pot. i don't know. >> tucker: you not the only one stirring the pot. so is she. you've confirmed it and we will stop there, thank you both. >> thank you. house democrats of course trying to impeach the president and
♪ >> tucker: if you're going to overturn a democratic election you should do it transparently and in the open. that might reassure people. if you think that you're not a conspiracy theorists. florida congressman adam schiff from burbank, california. today he was closed in closed-door impeachment hearings over the republican members of congress led by matt gaetz of florida. he demanded to be let inside.
watch. >> behind those doors they intend to over throw the results of an american presidential election. we want to know what's going on. were going to go and see we can get inside.. let's see if we can get in. >> tucker: he and other members ultimately delayed today's hearing by about five hours. he joins us. thank you for coming on. what was the purpose? >> we had the audacity to want to know what was going on behind closed doors where democrats have engaged in a strategy of secret interviews, selective leaks, theatrical, weird performances of transcripts that never happened and lies about whistle-blowers. it's reasonable to suggest wesc would want more transparency on behalf of the millions of people we represent.er >> tucker: do you have a right under congressional rules to demanded? >> there are no rules. if we had rules nancy pelosi would have put this to a vote like president clinton, president nixon. the democrats want to preserve
the most like operational flexibility.y. if they're going to have a world with no rules, we have to stop thinking we can use the marquis of queensberry rules of engagement when were fighting against an angry pack of rabid hyenas. i think the president is right. we need to be tougher and expose this. >> tucker: can you impeach a president without holding the vote? >> that seems to be the democrat strategy to date, and what they're trying to do -- >> tucker: are they voting? >> we appropriate money all the time without voting it. people show up at the middle of the night and spend millions of dollars. democrats have learned a lesson from russia. they did hold open hearings and we saw a robert mueller and his failure to adequately defend his reports. we saw the corey lewandowski hearing which was a total disaster for democrats. they moved away from allowing republicans to have cross examination thorough review, testimony against documents. they're trying to use the natural advantage they have with
the mainstream media to have secret interviews and selective leaks and they're trying to pollute the american electorate. >> tucker: is there any way for the rest of us following at home to know what is going on inside?he >> members of congress need to hear from their constituents. the american people need to demand more transparency and i think regardless of what people think about president trump, as a legitimate question to ask. why doesn't trump get the same from nancy pelosi? >> tucker: how long can this go on? >> i think that they don't want an extended process because they can't withstand any review of the facts for a long period of time. i think were on a rocket docket to impeach. the moments that nancy pelosi grabbed the gavel. the radical left cannot would
make a fair debate or a fair. everything is trying to deplatform and destroy those who champion the american first agenda and we have to stop reading and reacting. we have to be very proactive in terms of exposing this corruption.to >> tucker: matt gaetz of florida, thank you very much. only wall street journal editorial board, also a new book out called, "resistance at allll how trump haters are breaking america and she joins us tonight. you've spent a lot of time what is thinking right now and almost running the predicate to it really. what do you think is likely to happen?pr >> we are going forward and congressman gaetz made a really important point which is he was pointing out -- some people are pointed out that nancy pelosi hasn't pulled an authorization vote because she wanted to spare her members to do that. the dirty little secret is that it allows them to not have any rules.y adam schiff can do this exactly the way he wants to do it.
they can protest as they were just doing today. there is nothing they could dodo to stop it. the message has to get out. there are literally, his office did a calculation about how many millions of americans their elected representatives have not been allowed to see. they transcripts of any of these amounts. you have the majority of the american contrary, whose people they sent to washington to do the work of the house have no idea what's going on. >> tucker: what is the point of this? they can't hope for a conviction, i don't think, particularly if it's as open partisan as it is. why are they doing this? >> i think they're fulfilling a campaign promise. what else can it possibly be? they're progressive-based demands this all along and you have a lot of members who ran on this and they pushed nancy pelosi and they said you have to do it or else the base will revolt.
there not going to vote unless you do this. the problem is whether doing itl they're guaranteeing they won't get a conviction. if you cared about doing this the right way you would be convincing people. what they're doing is giving republicans and the senate a greater reason to vote against it. >> tucker: what you said is exactly right. if you're going to impeach ake president, you better convict him or else it could boomerang as it did before clinton. i was there for that. the democrats picked up seats in that term and it's only happened twice in the way it did in p american history and it was because of impeachment. i still don't understand, what is the point? they will hurt themselves. >> the process is becoming an issue. they're doing this to jen up their base and get them to go out and vote, but for every person, i go out and i talk to americans. some people who are not huge fans of donald trump are getting motivated to vote. much as they did after the brett kavanaugh hearing.
they see these radical tactics and they feel if they need to register a protest. i'm not sure there helping themselves at all. >> tucker: they're also turning up the volume which was high already, to such a point -- break america. what is the effect on america? >> look at impeachment. i have a chapter in the book. if we will turn impeachment into a partisan tool, you are completely contorting the meaning of it and the framers thought about not putting it in the constitution because they were so concerned it would be misused like this. if you will do this, i tell people on the liberal side of the aisle, one day down the road there is going to be a democratic president and a republican house. do you want to set the precedent for the first thing that happens is impeachment? this is where were taking some of these very important tools. >> tucker: it's not good for the country at all. you don't like him, beat him in the election. >> it's only a year away. c
harvey weinstein! you might think that would be a career enter for the people who got caught doing it, that would include the president of nbc news. no, we learned yesterday that he his contractad renewed. how did he do that? how do you get caught covering up a harvey weinstein crime and get a new contract? a neww report from "the daily beast" provides a hint. turns out that his wife wrote a couple of books and has a line of baby clothes, they have a talked on the air repeatedly about it. that's odd. i've never seen that arrangement on television. they have been one of the top offenders at nbc. here is another question. why was he so eager to protect harvey weinstein? it may not have been about protecting matt lauer. it turns out weinstein had something that he wanted. he was immensely powerful in "the daily beast" reports that
he were to leave used his nbc post to advance a second career as a screenwriter. that's not news people have been watching, we told you but long ago. nbc had this story months ago, brought to them by their former anchor. the company not only turn the t story down, they actively tried to suppress it. what happened in this case? nbc news president noah hoffenheim may be the key to that question. he doesn't just oversee nbc news, he's also a screenwriter was written several films, apparently profiting from his work in hollywood as he runs the division. screenwriters of course are dependent on film producers of whom harvey weinstein was perhaps the most powerful of all. we reported that two years ago, they denied it and it turns out they were long and we were right. the breaking news reporter for the "washington examiner" joins us right now. thank you for coming on. it is not normal, correct me if
i'm wrong, for network president to have a spouse who enters into a business relationship with one of his anchors and then sells products. w have you heard of anything like that? >> i haven't heard anything like that. >> tucker: it seems like that would give rise to conflict potentially, like real conflict. >> especially with how on airport he would go when it came down to any kind of issue. in hollywood or the harveyd weinstein reporting that we have seen. >> tucker: all of this adds up to -- i mean, more than just hints of misdeeds, more than smoke. there is clearly fire here. do you think that nbc can continue -- they can continue to employ people who are caught doing this? >> it's hard to see them continuing to push forward with their current executive structure, however we haven't seen any reason to say they would change it.
>> tucker: he runs the overall company, 72 years old, offenheim is in his early 40s. the plan is for him to serve through the selection through 2020 and then for him to ascend to the position. what do you think the odds of that happening are? >> it depends on what comes out moving forward.in it seems pretty unlikely that he will serve into that nextt possession. >> tucker: you would think. how difficult -- nbc is a liberal place. i worked there and i can tell you. it's obvious. the people who work there are nice people, but their activist liberals.yo how long until they have a revolt of thee newsroom? >> it's interesting because you see a lot of former nbc staffers or television personalities come out. we saw megyn kelly do that here. we saw chris hayes come out on his own show on msnbc to call for an investigation. it seems unclear of anything
stronger. t >> tucker: do you think it's weird that female news employees who hold themselves up as champions of woman and empowered people, feminists, they can in effect defend someone who covering for harvey weinstein? >> we saw savannah guthrie in this latest report was a business partner of his wife. when the matt lauer allegations came out earlier in october, we saw savannah guthrie on the air express or dismay at the matt lauer accusations that came forward. she called for an investigationa expressed how shocking it was that matt lauer was accused of that years ago.se she still as "the daily beast" reported earlier today has gone
on the record and defended noah hoffenheim oppen heim and called for him to keep his job. >> tucker: i have always liked savannah guthrie. she is a very nice person. it's hard to understand why she is doing this. great to see you and thank you. last night on this program, ronan farrow's producer explained how he was treated by nbc's leadership. >> at one point you say, noah oppenheimer was exchanging texts and gifs with harvey weinstein after killing your investigation into him. how do you feel about that? >> i was pretty upset to learn a lot of that stuff to be honest. i have no animosity against these people, but that's clear to me that we were lied to you over and over again. it's not right coming from a news organization. >> despite the growing pile of evidence, they still have their jobs. tammy bruce hosts every
weeknight on fox nation.n. we wish it was every week on fox nation. tammy, what you make of this? you are always able to connect the macro themes to today's news. the story seems redolent. >> "the daily beast" i think i is very good because it touches on a lot of issues. your interview last night also was very valuable. after everything with what this network has gone through and other networks, the education everybody has had with the nature of the workplace, but also the education of the importance, if you have the power of the security to stand up against an abusive environment. that's one thing to have an abuser, that person man or woman who is doing their thing. if you are in a position of power and you're not involvedwh and your job is going to be okay, if you can stand up against it and make the
workplace better for everyone. if you don't do that, that makes you as bad as the perpetrator one may be even worse because you are in a position where you can make a change. this is where the savannah guthrie, she also defended him and said to the chairman, that he should keep his job. one has to wonder, do you only come out if you have been fired? do you only condemn someone if there is blood in the water? is the challenge and maybe chris hayes is the best example in als of our experiences of saying something at the time, when there may be some risk? ultimately it should be the sanitizing of fact of sunlight, people having this conversation and also the internal talent. women like guthrie, they're very respected and doing a very good job. i don't know either one of them. instead of defending that, being willing to say, we can do better.
the argument was, the same with harvey weinstein. don't bother them because either the ratings will go down or he so good on the issues. when matt lauer went, "the today show" ratings went up and never came back down. these are excuses and we all have a role to play and women in particular in the workplace. they have a special job to speak up. >> tucker: i think that's right. there is a theme here though that connects the store to so many other stories in corporater america which is that no one is ever punished for screwing up. ever. >> it's usually a small group and the idea and the notion of having other business ventures entwined. savannah guthrie doing very good in a business with his wife, it seems like there is an effort. the same with weinstein and may be the matt lauer information of creating webs that sometime make it difficult to speak up and
say, needs to end. maybe because people get comfortable with the status quo. >> tucker: if your boss came to you or me and said, would you go into business with my spouse? would that make you uncomfortable? >> it depends on the nature. part of the nbc statement is that, this is standard operating procedure.ur hosts all the time have books, but this is a news division and not the executives. >> tucker: we don't do that at fox. that's crazy. >> when you're forward facing is one thing, it's another thing for executives to use the environment to forward a, personal agenda of their own and using a spouse. it makes it very difficult to then be able to stand upon your own and speak out against it. >> tucker: you are the head of the news division and your writing movie scripts? >> it's a web that becomes kind of sick and yet, obvious on the
surface and nbc universal, comcast, someone should be able to make a better decision. >> tucker: great to see you tonight. one of the biggest scams we have seen in a long time has been exposed in the business world, but instead of going to prison, the perpetrator is getting nearly $2 billion. this is a particularly unbelievable story. scientist discovered good news about the ozone layer. that's ahead. ♪ what are you doing back there, junior?
earlier this year the company was valued almost $50 billion. the ever obedient business press described them as a tech company, but that was never right. it was a real estate operation. they bought out office space and rented it to individuals or small companies. that's fine, i guess but it's hardly a revolutionary idea.ri investors always want more flash, so the ceo of the company adam newman posted a world transforming ceo and babbled about making himself immortal of becoming the first ever truly in were using it solve world hunger somehow. when the employees expense their meals, they were banned from buying meat because climate. meanwhile, he himself bombed around in a $60 million private jet. it was a ploy of course, but it worked. we work attracted billions of dollars in investment based on its rapid growth.
there was no real growth, in reality it was a bloated office rental company with more expenses than revenue. he made millions by buying up properties and then leasing them to his own company. in other words, he looked a lot like an old-fashioned scam. here is the dispiriting part, it worked. softbank, one of the investors just announced that's paying him $1.7 billion to step down as head of the company. give up his voting rights for running a sham corporation. he is now a billionaire. his employees, you know the rest of thery story. most of them get nothing. wework has postponed thousandsds of layoffs because it can afford to pay employees a severance package.n this cash infusion one save jobs, it will allow that is infuriating, it's also a the company to fire people. metaphor for the broader finance. it's a sham that shacks the
country for benefit of a tiny group of people. this is not sustainable. don't lie to yourself and someday when alexandria ocasio-cortez does that. you know what happens. the professor at brown university and were happy to have him. you've taken a good look at this company. what was the business model here? >> it's pretty much as you described. i'm going to fly around and go to los angeles, new york, london and find the most expensive buildings i can and get into really long leases and spending money. i'm going to rent them out on a daily basis to people who can afford their own office. that was pretty much it. really. >> tucker: how is that worth billions? the most overfunded start up ofh the year, if not decades. >> it's the same kind of unicorn silicon valley tech bubble we've been suffering from. the same nonsense, apparently the world of wework was
fundamentally transformed. none of us go to work. we all need a hot desk and people apparently buy this and chuck billions of dollars when it's a fantasy. >> it's a scam i would say. >> it's totally a scam. >> tucker: what is so galling, and previous generations when you were caught running a ponzi or ripping people off, you are punished. he went to jail. these guys, this guy walked off with $1.7 billion. how did that happen? >> that's an outrageous question. where's the boyd how can you authorize such a of softbank? payment? y the guy has basically acquired these as part of a fraud, why are you buying them from him? this is a massive failure. the basics of what we understand of capitalism. we are risk and reward. it's balanced. if you go to a world like that, it's not just winner takes all, it's a loser takes everything
regardless of the cost. how can you have faith in thatha system? >> tucker: you can't and it's not just this guy. i will give them this, he was quite a great actor. he was a flamboyant character. mercer mayor ed yahoo had no discernible personality whatsoever and she presided over the implosion of that company's value and walked off with more than a hundred million dollars. you see this all the time. how long can this continue? >> it can continue until basically investors wake up and smell the coffee. it can continue until politicians recognize it as a fundamental problem. capitalism works best and it does work very well sometimes when not just risk and reward are balanced, but basic investment decisions pay off lots of different people. if you have a world in which you have a handful of people who have so much money there personally too big to fail. they can fail and fail again and investment in stupid stuff that has no value. that's a problem. that's a problem for the whole society. >> tucker: speaking of that
problem, what are the chances we have another failure like wework tanks the broader economy? >> that could happen. we worry about things like corporate debt and low interest rates, if you've an ipo value of 47 billion, let's assume this goes through and they find out it's a fraud too. then what happens if the stock market finds out and everybody starts to dump it? the reverberations could be quite consequential. as you also note, there is a lot of this stuff around. wells fargo come all the other things that have been going on. this stuff gets normalized and that's really dangerous because that's what people lose faith. >> tucker: it's true and they also get radical. we will get a radical system unless we get this under control. it's great to see you. thank you for that. biological male just dominated the competition at a women's cycling race, not all women are happy about it. some are saying the obvious, that's not fair. we'll talk about it after the
the medicare enrollment deadline is only weeks away. having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket. that's why i love healthmarkets your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies, to find the right medicare plan that fits you. in minutes you can find out if your current plan is the right fit. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? if not, maybe there's a better fit for you. call health markets now or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore. compare thousands of
country women have benefited fo having access to a separate playing field. now the left is disturbing that very last year the biological male won the women's track cycling world championship and set a world record in doing so. now several current and former women cyclists are coming out t defend their sport from a takeover by men. a board members at women's liberation front, we are happy to have her back on the show. carol, what is the case they ar making m and that you are makin against what just happened. >> thank you for having me here. i sayi i just want to say ther are many democrats and people who identify as being on the left who are very angry about the takeover of women women's sports and how the democratic party. >> you are certainly on the lef and i was just saying the commercial break, it takes a lo of guts for you toes come on th show so i'm grateful that you had. >> i'm a lifelong member of the democratic party and many of us
can't get a voice on the issue and much easier. >> let's broaden this out. if you had told me, and i cover politics and have for 30 years if you would told me five years ago there would be a consensus in washington i would've said that's insane. today there is that consensus. what happened? >> agreed, getting back to the case at hand, as you said, mc kinnon is a male cyclist who on saturday won a championship in the women's cycling competition in manchester, englandti. t they're are many feminists, women, who are questioning the right of male athletes to compete in women's sports and i seems to be unacceptable for us to take this position. we will continue to take this position that it it's very important in this country to th trpurposes of maintaining title protection for women and girls which is something that my organization the women's liberation front cares very muc
about. >> so you're making a pretty straightforward i think reality -based case and by doing so, yo risk physical harm. how do we get to that place so harm fast? >> social harm, social ostracization, risk to livelihood. i know several women who have been fired from positions for voicing concerns for the rights of privacy and safety of women and girls. i want to also just make the point that many of your viewers may not understand that there are many people on the politica left including especially feminists who are gravely concerned about what the democratic party is doing on th topic of gender identity and pushing the notion that men can be women and women can be men which is first of all regressiv politically because of the ones with the notion of gender which we want to abolish, but it's also just in accurate
scientifically. they're are many democrats who are willingre to say this, but many of your viewers may not know that because we are generally subjected to a media blackout . >> you are always welcome on th show. i just never hear from them, ever. >> the reason you don't hear h from them as those of us on the left, democrats cannot get a voice on npr, cannot get a voic in the new york times, cannot get a voice in the washington post. we have tried, we have said we have a feminist and a gay-right objection to the transit movement come out to trans ideology. no one will hear us, no one wil publish us.. >> as i said, and i mean it com you're always welcome on the show. thank you very much. tuned in every night 8:00 p.m. to the dvr it, if you can figur out how to do that, good night
from washington, dc. 220 miles to the north. in just moments, sean hannity will come to us from new york city. ♪ >> sean: hi, welcome to this busy news breaking addition reporting from california. were on the west coast and tonight we have breaking news on multiple fronts. in moments, lindseyne graham wil join us to respond to susan rice, calling him a piece of [bleep]. we start in the washington swamp where house republicans are today fighting back against this corrupt, secret behind closed doors, smoke-filled room, the impeachment coup attempts. hours ago, a group of lawmakers literally stormed into yet another top-secret session of the corrupt adam schiff's kangaroo court. once again the cowardly corrupt schiff,