tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News December 23, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am PST
and his great team of producers for a strong week of shows and a very busy news cycle. we hope you have a very merry christmas. good night, america. ♪ >> good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." as you have doubtless seen on the news everywhere, a member of the tolerant left screamed at ivanka trump and her family, including her young kids on a jetblue flight yesterday. the man who was the lawyer from brooklyn berated her about her father before being kicked off the flight for disorderly conduct. even while the liberals thought his behavior went too far. not all of them thought that some of them thought it was justified and that would include our next guest. she is lauren duca a journalist who tweeted this today. ivanka trump is poised to become the most powerful woman in the world. don't let her off the hook just because she looks like she smells good. lauren duca joins us. thanks for coming on. >> hi. thanks for having me. >> so i think, of course, it
goes without saying that it's valid that you disagree with trump and have your own political set of views and disagree with ivanka trump. i wonder though screaming at a mom and her kids on an airplane seems like a violation of privacy and decency and good manners and it raises the question what are the venues where you shouldn't scream your political views at people? would a funeral be out of bounds? church? her son's brisk? what are the rules on that? >> well, i think what is a nonpartisan issue is that air travel is horrific and i don't think anybody should be intouring confrontations in the air be it ivanka trump with her children or just any other human being in a continue can and feeling dehydrated. and i think that the fact that she is with her children is significant. and i do also think that, you know, a mother in public, who is a public figure, you know, there are certain levels of decorum that we should be thinking about. at the same time, she does
have an incredibly powerful position and she is not just a mother. she is a powerful, powerful woman who is connected very closely to the president-elect. not just as his daughter but in many ways as a business confidante and advisor and i think that we haven't quite been able to define what all those roles mean. so while i don't -- you know, i don't want anyone being yelled at on a plane, i don't want anyone yelling at me on plane. i don't want anyone yelling at anyone on plane. but i think that you know, ivanka's incredibly brand and presence and role as a mother and successful woman those are interesting and attractive elements of her brand but i don't know that, you know, where do those protections end, too? kind of would ask you the same question. >> but that's not at all what your tweet suggested in addition to the one you just read i think we can put it on the screen. >> my tweet didn't talk about the plane at all, actually. so what are you referring to? >> within the -- look, ivanka trump was in the news
because she was screamed at on the airplane. and you say don't let her off the hook. and then you go on to say in another tweet ivanka has it all and by that i mean a job, a family, and sinister complicity in aiding the most aggressive antiwoman candidate of our time. she is his daughter. >> she with was a surrogate frequently throughout and represented him in terms of women's issues. she has. >> isn't she pretty liberal on women's issues? >> and she has did speeches on his behalf where she represented a platform of women's empowerment and in terms of having it all. i think she is incredibly successful, brilliant woman. the fact that she was able to balance him out on these issues where he has talked about defunding planned parenthood and being against abortion and these typically liberal women's issues that she sort of is a cushion for, i think we need to investigate those things a little more critically and
rig columbusly other than the fact that she looks like she smells like vanilla. >> she looks like she smells like vanilla who is objectifying women here. >> my point is she a beautiful gorgeous force of nature. >> what exactly. >> oh honey, oh my goodness. i'm saying that she is incredibly welcoming. she is gorgeous and smart. i mean, she is in a lot of ways many elements of her persona are admirable and something to look up to is a joke. >> you said she is sinister complicity in aiding the most -- >> -- i absolutely believe that i'm not backing down from that at all. >> so it's sinister for a daughter to support her father's presidential campaign because you don't like her father? >> it's sinister for a daughter to capitalize on the power of feminism and uniting women and empowering women while supporting a candidate who is the most antiwoman candidate this country has seen in decades.
>> what does that even mean? is he anti- -- she is antiwoman because -- >> -- is that what i said? because. >> i'm sorry is what i said. i think my ear piece might not be working because that is most certainly not what i said. >> she is guilty because is he antiwoman she is complicit in his antiwoman position. >> to continue to stump and support his position. >> but it's her dad. i mean, i don't -- i guess the point i'm making is you're drawing this kind of world where everyone who is not on your side. >> no. >> is evil. >> that's not what i said even remotely. >> that's not what i said tucker. >> even though she smells good. >> tucker, did i not say anybody who doesn't agree with me is evil. >> i'm going to ask you again, what do you disagree with that she has said? what position that she holds do you disagree with? >> i disagree with her providing a surrogacy for her father based on an elm empowerment of women disconnect between the
campaign. >> you agree with her but because she supported her dad she is somehow fair game? what are you saying? i'm trying to understand what you are saying. what did she believe. >> tucker you are not trying to agree what she is saying. you are shouting over me what i'm saying. incredibly unprofessional. >> i'm asking a simple question. >> you are being a partisan hack who is attacking me at nawz crumb and not allowing me to speak. i think we agree here. >> i don't think we do lauren. >> we both think she deserves to be attacked. >> some guy yelled at her on an airplane and you are saying she is fair game. >> i very clearly and calmly said nobody deserves to be yelled at on a plane. i don't want to yell at you on a plane. i will yell at you here but not on a plane. >> on your twitter scream. if ump donald trump eat feces donald trump. >> i can't say the word you used as you well know. >> i said feces donald trump. that's what i said. >> you said eat in effect
human feces on twitter. >> tucker, you are talking at this trivial mundane level of argument. >> okay. >> tucker, can i ask you a question? tucker, in i would like to ask you a question. >> let me ask you something that you wrote. >> no, tucker, do you or do you not agree that we deserve, as the american people, a level of transparency in terms of ivanka's role? i think we need to take her seriously in that she is a positive role model. >> look, lauren. >> she is a role model but still requires transparency. >> she is flying with her children on an airplane you shouldn't bark at a woman. >> i disagree. she is a mother. we do agree. >> were anyone making decisions how the federal government runs should have to answer questions about those decisions. >> absolutely. >> i don't think you should hassle people because you disagree with them in public, period. >> and i didn't say you should. tucker, hey, we agree. >> we agree. here is your description of the trump administration. you wrote this piece in teen
vogue which i guess you right for. >> which you guess i right for? yes. that's not fake news. that's real news. you guess? [ laughter ] >> oh, you guess, tucker? that's really patronizing. >> i haven't read teen vogue because i'm not a teen vogue. >> your producers asked me if i wrote for teen vogue. my name is lauren ducca and i write for teen vogue. >> the rode ahead is a treasurtreacherous one. from deciding whether a president can be an admitted sexual predator from figuring out how to stop him from figuring out the insovereignty of an entire religion. >> yes. >> what does it mean to threaten the sovereignty of religion? what does that even mean. >> that means an entire agenda, a platform based on banning muslims, which is still available on his website. >> how does that threaten the sovereignty of religion? that's moronic, lauren, you are a writer. pardon me for taking you literally. >> how does what threaten the sovereignty of it. threatening to ban muslims.
>> that threatens the sovereignty of it. >> yes. that completely profiles based on the basis of religion and reduces people to their beliefs and dictates what they can and cannot publicly believe. >> that doesn't threaten the sovereignty of it so, you also accused him on chelsea handler's show quote of committing a former psychological abuse of making the victim feel like they are tracy. does trump make you feel like yu are crazy? that's the impression i'm getting. >> are you calling me crazy? that's adorable. that's so cute. >> committing psychological abuse on you, do you believe that? >> on the american people. i believe the american people. trump supporters, hillary's supporters, jill and her can you say vin a victim of trump. he contradicts objective evidence. not that is he abusing me personally. i think you are smart enough to know that aren't you, tucker? >> i don't know. i just take your words at face value. >> so did you read the entire article? >> i did. i also read lima pain is
100 percent certain one direction will continue. aid ran that grande rocks the boots and kardashian went through the messiest break up in 2016. i'm trying to get what you write about trump from the thigh high boots and committing psychological abuse on you. >> a woman can love air air an darianna grande. >> i read teen vogue as of today. >> those things are not exclusive. you treat young women like they don't have a right to a political conversation. and cannot be. >> threatening the sovereignty of religion. >> worry about the future of this country. and those things are not mutually. i did write about the abusive. >> whole religion. i got to go. stick with thigh high boots
you are better at that. >> you are a -- >> president trump down at mar-a-lago for christmas. joins us from palm beach. >> late this afternoon. the president-elect thinks that the terrorist truck attack in germany is just further evidence that the united states quickly needs to start using a different counter terrorist strategy. he tweeted this. quote: the terrorist who killed some people in germany said just before crime by god's will we will slaughter you pigs. i swear we will slaughter you. this is a purely religious threat which turned into reality. such hatred when will the u.s. and all countries fight back? there have always been a lot of questions this week about why the president-elect has been talking about expanding the u.s. nuclear arsenal and whether or not that talk is mint as a signal to putin. today for a first time we saw a christmas card sent from moscow to marge to the -- o to putin himself.
merry christmas he hopes to quote take real steps it restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a quantitatively new level. mr. trump says president putin is correct and calls that a nice letter adding that, quote, i hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts and that we do not have to travel an alternate path. we are also now a day closer to inauguration, and there are scattered reports of different celebrities saying they don't want anything to do with the once every four year celebration. mr. trump doesn't care tweeting, again, the quote the so-called a-list celebrities are all wanting tickets to the inauguration. look at what they did for hillary. nothing. i want the people. the highest profile entertainerrers booked so far are the radio city rockets. some of them have come forward saying they don't want to dance for the next president the weekend january it 20th. one even complaining that she is being forced to dance for mr. trump. but the corporate owner of
the rockets came out to see any event you see roc rockette s event they volunteered for. they had more than enough volunteers for the new orleans. tucker? >> peter doocy, ladies and gentlemen in palm beach, florida. some states americans convicted of a felony are stripped of voting rights. according to one estimate a quarter of the state's black population cannot vote because of it new referendum could change that that is in the works. joining us is spencer who wrote a piece on this. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> the idea is that because the estimate is as you said a quarter of the state's black population could not vote because their voting rights were taken away, because they are convicted felons that really the election turned on that fact. and that that's one of the reasons hillary clinton lost. am i understanding that? >> i mean, my article said that people have questioned
the effect of this on election outcome. >> right. >> i mean, if you look at the bush v. gore election. for instance. spanned more than a million, the math is easy there. if you give more than a million people the right to vote in a certain state, put them in the electorate, that's going to change outcomes. that is a lot of people. so donald trump won florida by a little bit over 100,000 votes. size, decent marginal. but, the state's disenfranchised population is 10 times that number. more than 10 times that number. >> i'm kind of sympathetic to the idea both because i believe people ought to be rehabilitated and i think once someone has paid his debt you ought to bring him back into society. i have two questions and no one has been able to answer them. the first is, will this result in a better government? are we certain because that's part of the
consideration. we want the best, best qualified people we possibly can have. and i never hear that discussed. that factor discussed when this topic comes up. it's all about political power. well, we would have won if felons would have voted, et cetera. you have heard anybody bring up that? we'll just give us a better government? >> you know, i think it's always good to have representation in the electorate of people who are affected by government and a wide variety of ways. so to shut out people who have felony convictions certainly blocks a large perspective from weighing in in elections. another aspect of this is that i did a story for fusion earlier this year where i went to one of two states in the country that allows people in prison to vote. maine and vermont allow
felons, ex-felons and people in prison to vote. only two states that impose no restriction on people who have criminal records on voting. and the inmates i spoke with in vermont said that it actually -- the ability to vote made them feel more excited about reincident grating abou integrating with society and becoming a productive member of society because they felt. >> i get it i'm sure they like that. there is also me to consider and you and every other non-felon living in this country. we have to live under the government they help choose. so our rights are also affected by this. my second question is, if we're going to restore people's voting rights because they are constitutional and we think that if you are a full citizen you ought to be able to vote, why don't we restore their gun rights, too? i mean, people really making the case that you ought to be able to choose my president but you can't go hunting? >> the group of ex-felons
disenfranchised in florida who are spearheading the campaign to end the state's prohibition on flown voting, they're not focusing on gun rights. i don't know if there is a comparable group. >> why is that unfair question? if we're going to trust someone to make the most important civic decision of all, who governs us and say simultaneously we don't trust to you go deer hunting or to have a shotgun at home, like, that doesn't make any sense, does it? >> i would venture to say that, you know, one answer to that could be that people who have been -- who have interacted with the criminal justice system to the level they have been charged with a felony, you know, a lot of felonies are involved violence and that is one way that i think gun control advocates would think you would keep guns out of the hands of people who in previous interactions with
law enforcement have been proven to be -- >> so they are not -- hold on, so they're not actually rehabilitated. they are not ready to live among us as full and equal citizens but we ought to allow them to pick a president? >> i mean, you know, i think -- >> -- kind of got you there, didn't i, spencer? i mean, come on, really? >> hey, i mean, access to guns is just a completely different question. >> it's a question of trust. what -- as a citizen what do we trust you to do? i trust you enough to pick my president but i don't trust you enough to go hunting? i mean, meditate on that. i don't know. this is an interesting piece and thanks a lot for coming on and telling us about it ♪ ♪ ♪ >> time now for twitter storm nightly forecast of social media's most intense weather patterns. the washington metropolitan area transit authority metro as it is known here is
catching some heat for the 2017 presidential inauguration card they created. take a look at it tell us if you notice anything weird. compare it now to four years ago the card they did then. do you see the difference? yes, you do. the next president's face is missing. donald trump is not on the new one and twitter, of course, noticed that as well. twitter melissa johnson said this people who will be hungry in this christmas and belly aching over a smart trip card? privilege. i will accept dc metro's self-disgracing snub for finally having a real president any day. adam says this dc metro makes me forget how bad metro is, almost. >> metro has really serious problems metro card is not one of them. finally this petty crap is why trump won. now there is still a chance we could see trump's face on
the commemorative sleeve all over the card plus fixing the problem. the transit authority working with the presidential inauguration committee on a design. that's tonight's twitter storm. up next the obama administration abstained from the united nations vote that many are calling anti-israel. what is the president-elect's response to that? steve hilton joins us next.
take one. directv now. stream all your entertainment! anywhere! anytime! can we lose the 'all'. there's no cbs and we don't have a ton of sports. anywhere, any... let's lose the 'anywhere, anytime' too. you can't download on-the-go, there's no dvr, yada yada yada. stream some stuff! somewhere! sometimes! you totally nailed that buddy. simple. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. only xfinity gives you more to stream to any screen. u.n. security council west bank. critics call it annual at this israel measure. president-elect trump had intervened and said the u.s.
should veto the resolution instead the u.s. under barack obama chose to abstain from the vote joining us is steve hilton ceo of crowd pack. this is a pretty clear contrast between world views, styles of running the u.s. government, et cetera. what is the obama administration's decision to stay out of this, tell us about them and their priorities. >> quite a lot, actually, when i heard the news, tucker, do you know what came to my mind is actually hillary clinton testifying in congress. i heard that and i thought what difference at this point does it make? is he on his way out. this is total gesture politics. it's completely ridiculous. the whole sequence of events where trump intervened to say that he was going to change things when he got in and therefore no point having this vote because is he going to have a completely different approach. and then obama people come in and get a bunch of countries to put the vote up so they could just do the gesture of abstaining. it's just completely ridiculous. and just makes the u.n., i think, look like a joke. >> of course it is. i think though and kroncke,
i think it's still official u.s. policy that we're against settlements, do you think trump will change that? i think so. and i think what you saw in his response to this. there are going to be big changes on january the 20th and we really need big changes, particularly at the u.n. i used to work in government in the u.k. with david cameron and almost like every interaction with the u.n. just confirmed to me what a ridiculous organization it is. generally speaking, it is almost can comically anti-israel, it is bureaucratic. it is corrupt. it is really really in need of a big shakeup. just as trump is coming in and saying i'm going to shape things up with his attitude from government contracts to the economic policy, this is another area where i think his straight talking style, which you have seen in the last couple of days all the diplomats have gone nuts about actually is exactly what we need. >> so, the u.n. is one of those organizations where the closer you get to it the harder it is to identify what exactly they do that's worth doing. they certainly haven't helped africa. there is a reduck tans to
pull out of it or react to it completely. do you think we should basically bow out? >> i do. i really do. i remember when we were working to try and reform what's called the millennial yum development gols. the u.n.'s effort to try to combat global poverty, and we were trying to focus on the real cause of poverty and many poor countries you don't have the institutions of things rule of law. all the things that actually lead to countries being richer. we wanted to make that the focus of what the u.n. campaigned for. it was completely rejected by them. actually, truthfully. we would have a much more stable peaceful and prosperous world if the u.n. just didn't exist. that is heresy for all the democrats who make their living from it i don't see that anyone can actually argue with that point on the basis of the evidence of what really happens. >> if trump is willing to cast doubt on america's commitment to nato which i don't think any has done.
why wouldn't he be doublely toward the u.n. >> i really hope he will be. there is going to be shook and people are going to be horrified. as with some of the things where he is challenging these kind of sacred cows and breaking all these taboos. the proof of it will be in what happens. he has also said that something that he really wants to get into is the middle east peace process and really trying, to as he put it, make a deal there he knows how to negotiate. is he showing that already since even before taking office. and he has taken this strong position on russia, on china, right across the border. is he shaking things up by just being who he said he was all along in the campaign, which is a businessman who wants the results and he understands how to negotiate. in foreign policy that is exactly what you need. >> it's going to be the 50th anniversary of the partition of israel or whatever we are calling it and the u.n. hasn't helped at all. so maybe that will help. who knows. steve, thanks a lot. >> great to be with you. see you soon.
been the wrong way to choose a president. he joins us now with his plans to fix it ken, thanks a lot for coming on. >> glad to be with you. >> you start the piece by saying trump's election is another piece of evidence that it's a bad system and thank you for being straightforward about how you feel politically and that's fine. but you basically make the case if i'm understanding it that the electoral college is bad because it's not democratic enough. it doesn't respect the idea of one man one vote enough which i think is a real argument. but your solution, did i get that right. >> absolutely. okay. so one man one vote is what the supreme court setted in the 1960's is the sum and substance of the 14th amendment. due process, equal protection of laws. means one person, one vote. same weight. the electoral college contradicts that. and later amendment can change the meaning o original constitution. >> that's right. >> so everything you said is right and electoral college is less democratic than a one man, one vote system for
sure. it's your solution that gives me pause which is rather than have the states vote on it. which would be the most democratic way to vote on it, you are choosing the least democratic way to do it which is to have five unelected justices make the decision to change it that seems like more of the problem you are decrying. >> i understand it's an audacious argument to say that the supreme court can strike something out of the constitution. absolutely. the supreme court has done some audacious things, after all, abolishing racial segregation in public schools. establishing constitutional right for same sex couple to marry and striking down part of the campaign finance law in citizens united case. okay. so the supreme court way back when john marshal was chief justice said it is fundamentally the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.
and if the electoral college violates provisions of the constitution that were added afterwards, it's the court's job to do it. >> but, wait, leaving aside, you answered a separate question. you are basically saying the supreme court can find the constitution itself unconstitutional, which seems insane, but i'm not a lawyer. i'm asking a deeper question though, which is if your objections to the electoral college is that it's not democratic enough, you want five people who have not been elected by anybody, who have lifetime appointments to by fiat get rid of it. you want the king to come in and make everything better. that's the opposite of democracy. so why wouldn't you want to vote on it? why shouldn't the people decide to empower themselves? why rely on judges? >> because it is the province of the judicial department to decide what the law is and. >> no. >> sure constitutional amendment would be -- >> -- yes. >> a neater, a more convincing way to do it. and let's remember.
the part of article 2 about how to elect the president was not the best work that the framers came up with. >> okay. well according. >> give me a second. it was amended 10 years later, right? because the first idea was the runner-up would be vice president. what a stupid idea. right? and 150 years later, in 1933, the united states, you know, the constitution was amended so that the four and a half month transition period, which was way too long even back then was cut down to two and a half months. so, we now national guard the president in january, not in march. >> right, i know all that and there was messiness around that and the original idea didn't work very well and they amended that as you just noted. i want to get to something i see not just in your writing but all over the left which is lack of faith in democratic institutions. you're basically saying change comes from lawsuits. you recommend someone file a
lawsuit and then judges decide and rest of us abide by it what happened to the bedrock american faith in self-government? you seemed to have given up on it completely. you say less elegant way. not less elegant less democratic. >> you should ask conservatives that same question. >> i have. >> okay. good if you have. citizens united was the result of a request from the right for judicial activism. and you hear that on the legal rights. >> okay. but you're still not answering the questions. you have a case to make. i don't think your case is crazy. most people think yeah, that makes sense we want more democracy rather than less. why not convince people like ordinary people to push their lawmakers to do this. instead of just asking one guy to sue and some star chamber of judges nobody even knows to make the decision the rest of us live under. is that really the direction you want to take the country? >> well, first, let me say i appreciate your comment because one of the kindler things on twitter was somebody who called me
unhinged. but, in any event,. >> just unhealthy, i guess that's the point i'm making. >> the supreme court has, in some sense, the final authority on what is constitutional. it's not really the final authority because once the supreme court rules something, there can still be subsequent, you know, backlash and et cetera, et cetera. but the supreme court is. >> i get it? >> is the institution. >> no. >> that can say in a definitive way this comports with the constitution or does not. >> yeah, but in the end, the people rule and i think we should all remember that anyway, ken, thanks a lot for that we appreciate it? >> glad to be with you. appreciate the time. >> we have heard a lot about fake news recently in the press. some say fake news is the reason donald trump won the election although they can't point to any specifically. many believe facebook is the reason for spreading these lies and propaganda.
in response the social media giant is planning to crack down on so-called fake news. how will this work? joining us now is will hicks, a reporter for the site heap street and he just wrote on this. so, will, thanks a lot for coming on. my understanding is among other measures, facebook is going to assemble a team of fact checkers to vet news and then rank it according to believability or some scale that they devised. all i have seen are from pretty liberal organizations. is this a glimpse into what we're about to experience, censorship based on political opinion by facebook? >> yeah. i mean, it's definitely possible. i mean, we have to wait and see. definitely the organization they picked snops, fact check.org, politifact and abc news they definitely do have some sort of liberal bias. especially abc. just look at them like where their main anchors martha raddatz cried when donald trump won the presidency.
george stephanopoulos used to work for the clinton white house. politic facts all the time, you know, they will give donald trump dubious scores on things he said. which is like totally ridiculous. it's not very hard to find something donald trump said that was untrue. but they still are unfair about so i don't know. >> i was there when snops this when this horrible nightclub shooting omar mateen was a register the democrat that was a news story and snopes tried to take that and say that's untrue. he wasn't really a democrat he was registered as a democrat. the one fact we knew about the guy they contested because we didn't know how ardent a democrat he was. that was clearly pushing a political agenda, no? >> yeah. they mark stuff as unproven all the time just as you technically can't prove it to the full extent that, you know, they make up in their heads, yeah, there is tons of things wrong with snopes.
>> in that case it was technically proven. they had his voter i.d. card. the guy was technically a democrat. >> if you wil political fact checkers will there be liberal fact checkers. >> the biased fact checkers is ridiculous. what does it mean to conservatively fact check the truth? i guess, you just have to hire more people who to be fact checking and hope they can objectively fact check or at least balance out some of the liberals. but even the fact that we would have to come to this point is totally ridiculous. >> you have noticed following that many on the left are starting to throw in with fake news what they are calling propaganda, which i think is another word for ideas you don't like and that we should ban that, too? how is that different from censorship? >> it's not. i mean, any opinion piece ever written could be called propaganda. any kind of opinion that's not just straight news is
technically propaganda. in some people's minds. and specifically on facebook, the way they are planning to censor it is they are going to put a little tag on each story that they label untrustworthy and change their algorithm to movie those stories down in your news feed so you won't see them unless you are mindlessly scrolling away for an hour. >> you won't even see it will, thanks a lot for that i appreciate it interesting story. >> hey, thanks a lot. >> take a look at this. do you have any idea which fox news host this is? wow, it's a character. start guessing. he is in the friend zone next. who is that man in the leotard?
this is more than just a credit card. it's how adventure begins. and with the miles you can earn, it's always taking you closer to your next unforgettable experience. become a cardmember and start enjoying benefits built to take you further... like group 1 boarding... and no foreign transaction fees.
plus, when you fly on american airlines, your first checked bag fee is waived for you and up to four companions. every purchase with the citi® / aadvantage® platinum select card takes you closer to adventure... whether it's somewhere you can see your breath, or a place that takes it away. apply today for a limited time offer and earn 50,000 aadvantage® bonus miles after spending $3,000 in purchases within the first 3 months. by using the citi® / aadvantage platinum select® card, you can begin to pack more into your adventure. become a cardmember to enjoy these benefits. apply today. visit citi.com/travel, or call 877-359-7825. test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test
a man who can rip phone books in half. i don't know at one point you were a steroid guy massive. >> again, you lie. i have never ever taken steroids. i have never taken steroids in my life and i am not really a friend. i'm more like a coworker you see above. there is the picture. by the way, that was me. i was an editor of men's health yet. creative director and teaching some kid how to lift weights on america is talking. >> at men's health do you have to wear the leotard or was that voluntary? >> i where to wherever i went. even in the shower. i was one of those people tucker. tucker lies. by the way, that girl at teen vogue she destroyed you, tucker. she just destroyed you. >> we are not having dinner after the show. i don't think she liked me. >> we ran out of time before she could use the f word unfortunately but she was
close: you really were, no joke, a serious muscle guy. a serious body builder. >> exercise is the most conservative endeavor because you actually see what you -- the reward. whatever you put into your body, whatever weights you do, you see the reward. there is no welfare for a.b.s, tucker. there is no affirmative action for quads. you have got to go and you have got to do it yourself. unless you use steroids but then things shrink. it's not worth it you actually have to put the effort in to get the reward there are no c comeys in the gym. >> what was your favorite muscle. >> i believe that the a.b.s were the 90's bicep. i think i helped edges near the phenomenon. five steps to flatter a.b.s. i think i wrote that cover line and i also wrote the cover line the worst five things you can do for your a.b.s, which i just flind the article for the next month and changed the cover line. little trick there.
>> i think we have video of you doing pushups on tv. >> am i clothed? yeah, this was on kathie lee show and i did not know i was doing. this and i had been out all night the night before there were things coming up as i was doing that. >> do you still do this? what's your workout routine now. >> guy to the gym i get on equinox. i get on the stair climber and write my notes for the five. i don't go too fast because i am old and then i do some light weights. i usually try tucker instead of running through times square chewing nicorette gum. >> he runs at like 7:30. 6:00, 7:00 in times square chewing nichewing nicorette gum. people are throwing up. tucker is winding through. it's the strangest phenomenon. >> this is about your secrets, not mine, excuse me as i choke on my nicorette.
greg, it's great to sigh. you are fitter than i ever realized. i'm not going to ask you to see your abs. >> we talked a lot about liberals talk about one doing the exact opposite really interesting letter. stay tuned. my business was built with passion... but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet?
and he retweeted this story from senior political white house reporter darryl samuelson and it's there. this. trump's drivers license cast doubt on height claims shows is he 6'2" and not 6'3". we're not making that up by the way. another hard hitting investigation by politico. the place you want to go when you want breaking news. we will take up the challenge and answer the question is trump 6'2". is he 6'3" is he possibly 6'2" and a half. we will find out tape measure in hand. once we get to the bottom of it or top of it and let you know. so thanks for that on monday our segment news abuse is back. you have seen egregious example of media bias or dumbness not including the one you just heard. ludicrous headline. send headline to us at tucker carlson or email us at "tucker carlson tonight" at foxnews.com. tune in every night to the -- don't forget to dvr your show if you haven't already.
it's almost christmas. we hope you have the best one ever. we will see you in 2017. it's going to be a great year. i have that feeling. ♪ ♪ welcome to "red eye." let's check in with tv's andy lee vee. >> coming up, millennials are creating a permanent protest base named after the "hunger games" notorious gate 13. . we'll show you the clip frame by frame to see if his comments were out of bounds. and finally, over 4 million viewer responses to our new year's resolution #sorry not