tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News March 5, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
you doing? >> it's going. >> shannon: most-watched, most trusted, most grateful you spent the evening with us, good night from washington, i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." we want to begin this evening with the story of mike the headless chicken.to it sounds implausible but it really happened. it tells you something. one afternoon in the fall of 1945 a farmer in western h colorado called lloyd olson walked into the barn yard to get dinner. his wife said she wanted some chicken and found a 5-month-old bird called mike and then beheaded it with a hatchet. but then a funny thing happened, mike didn't die. in fact, mike lived another full year and a half. he lived long enough to become a traveling sideshow attraction before he ultimately choked to death in a motel room in phoenix, a sad story.ul
but the question is, how did mike live for 18 months without a head? scientist had a number of explanations for how he did it but the real reason is simple. mike had no idea he'd been killed so he just kept going. mike was too dumb to die. something very similar just happened in the russia investigation this week. for two years with been told that there was some form of collusion between the russian government and the 2016 trump campaign. details were sketchy, so we paid for an independent counsel and a number of congressional investigations to find outhy exactly what happened. then last week, democratsco hit pay dirt. they produced the perfect witness, the one man in america who would know exactly what happened between the trump campaign and russia. michael cohen. michael cohen was donaldet trums personal lawyer for ten years. communications between trump and cohen were supposed to be privileged and protecting so he would have been free to telltr cohen anything and everything.ns if there's one person who would
know firsthand about russian collusion and all its detail, it's michael cohen.n and if there's one person whoir would be happy to tell congress about russian collusion in all its detail, it's also michael c cohen. michael cohen hates trump. he has said so repeatedly andd vehemently. so last week democratsmi on capitol hill put cohen under oath and asked him about a russn collusion. here's what happened next. >> based on what you know, with mr. trump, or did he lie about colluding and coordinating withi the russians at any point during the campaign? >> so as i stated in my testimony, i wouldn't use the word "colluding." >> tucker: there you have it. michael cohen says there was no collusion with russia. that is the final word. after two years, the most far-fetched spy story in american history ends abruptly.
the russia conspiracy is dead, killed with hatchet on stump finality on live television. but here's the twist, nobody in to notice.seemed they had no idea what just happened. like mike the headless chicken, they are still running around bumping into things.t in fact, they are still issuing subpoenas. yesterday the house judiciary committee sent out at least 81 of them. the subpoenas are aimed at individuals, organizations and government agencies that might have damaging information about donald trump, information for some reason, reason nobody can explain from his personal journey of ten years did not have. apparently it's extra double secret information. if this all seems a little nuts, prepare yourself. we learned on cnn yesterday that it's simply the beginning. >> in addition to the 81 names t of entities and individuals released today, do expect more? >> yes. in short order they will be additional names, additional document requests. >> tucker: additional names,
additional document requests. if you had to sum up the entire democratic platform, those two sentences would do it. more subpoenas, vote for us, we will investigate! [laughs] at some point it's easy to lose track of what all these investigations are about.. can you remember?at search a memory for a moment. last week it wasll russian collusion, the hacking of our democracy by vladimir putin, saboteurs. this week every bit as solemnly its obstruction of justice. >> you say the president, you know, has obstructed justice, you've been clear about that. >> there certainly a lot of evidence that he has, but that's exactly the kind of thing we have to look into. >> so now you are not he's obstructed justice. >> personally i think he has but we have to look and see. >> the reason i ask is lavishly if he obstructed justice at the crime, if an impeachable act. you don't have to have ai crime to be impeachable but a crime is
an impeachable act. >> not every crime, that would be. >> tucker: so what are they telling us? impeachment is coming. and of course it is. democratic leaders have assured us again and again they have no plans to impeach but they are lying. their voters demand impeachment. so really they have no choice. in some ways, and impeachmentea trial would be an upgrade from the creepy secretive process we have now, shadowy intelligence agencies won't be spying on anyone during and impeachment trial. federal agents will be rousting anyone from bed at rifle point. impeachment is a public and fairly transparent process. we can watch on television. we can assess for ourselves what we think of jerry nadler and his friends. best of luck to democrats on that. but take three steps back. what's the cost of all of this? to the rest of the country? reallyrd to assess that but a story of the paper this morning does give you some hint of it. it's this. in 2017 the combined death rates from alcohol, drugs and suicide in this country hit their highest recorded levels ever. ever.
since recordkeeping began.or but you know this if you live here. if you haven't been to the funeral of someone who's died from booze, drugs or suicide lately, count yourself lucky because they're everywhere. the surreal thing is that nobody on television ever mentions any of this. it's like it's not even happening. maybe that's because in their world it isn't happening. everything is fine where they live. people arein prosperous and secure and happy and i plan on staying that way. they resent any attempt to remind them that in the world beyond the coastal cities america is killing itself. that means that people who built this country are dying, the people it in charge of this country are ignoring them as they die. you've got to wonder how long this can continue. it's too frivolous, it's too dishonest. they keep telling us how the only thing that matters is trump! f they know that isn't true. they just want to talk about the rest of it because they are implicated in it. richie ise a former press secretary for the house democratic policies communication pantries nice
enough to join us tonight. thanks for coming on. not to pull back the frame too far but i see the story ins "usa today" this morning saying the doctorates were, drugs and suicide are the highest evern measured in this country. that seems like a huge story to me. that are not just blaming democrats. i can't think of a single political figure who mentioned that today.. how could they miss that? >> i think that both sides have missed that and it's huge problem in our country but i u don't think that it's necessarily something thatn we can say is taking awaytu from us focusing like a mueller investigation is not necessarily taking away from our opportunity to focus on drugs and alcohol addiction.e, for instance, i live in new york city and i can tell you that governor cuomo just last month puts forth seven and a half million dollars to fight drug and alcohol addiction and then last summer he put forward a program that wasnd about $4 million to address suicides. >> tucker: i don't know if you are intentionally mocking him or not. seven and a half million dollars
for drugs and alcohol. one of the biggest killers in the state of new york. >> it's a grant to improve >> tucker: hold on. we spend more in homeless shelters per month in the borough of staten island and he is spending the entire state on some of the biggest killers in the state. so what you just did is indict him i think in a pretty vicious way. i don't know if those numbers -- right but if they are >> they are right. that's what he's investing into programs that already exist. >> tucker: it's embarrassing what you just said. >> no it's's not. >> tucker: you can have a mueller investigation and still talk about the fact that the. middle of the country is dying but we are not talking about it at all and all we are talking about is trump! i'm just wondering at a certain point how much of that is aru distraction? >> it's not a distraction.ri i think we cannot necessarily say -- i heard your monologue in the beginning and i don't think we can necessarily say that democrats want to see him impeached. if you look at the quinnipiac polls that just came out, 59% of the country does not support starting the process of impeachment. that's a good sign for
republicans and that's sort ofng a sign to democrats that you can't just ride this we hate trump train and think that people are going to support you as far as and impeachment. there has toos be a political process and that's why he said in an interview with p george stephanopoulos where he said, look, we have to persuade the american people, we have to prove and provide evidence for impeachment. >> tucker: i got it. there are things about the president i wouldn't offend, it's not my job, he doesn't pay me. but you've got to kind of wonder after the entire first half of his first term completely taken over by these investigations from all kinds of directions, republicans played a role iner them as well. and there's nothing. there's nothing.ns there's not one actionable charge. there's not one indictment on any of these charges of anybody. any american. >> there's been indictments. >> tucker: always been indicted ---
>> manafort, cohen.. they absolutely have. the president has not been indicted. >> tucker: let's be totally real. paul manafort, he wasn't't my accountant, thank god. but nothing he did, cheating on his taxes, that's bad, i'm not here to defend it but i'm telling you when you shut down the entire federal government for two years and that's what you get, can you really look at the camera and save -- >> i don't think the federal government has been shut down for two years. but we did see happen is the federal government shut down over a border wall, that we did see. but as far as being shut down for the mueller investigation is not true. >> tucker: but that's a real question. we have higher -- now than we did in january of last year. there are a lot of people come across the board. maybe think that's great, maybe you don't, but that's a real conversation. >> illegal immigration has actually decreased.ay >> tucker: that's not true, update your talking points, that's not true. let me ask you this, can you look at the michael cohen tape where he says tohi debbie wasserman schultz, no collusion,
what you make of that? what you make of that? >> what iat make of that in that it's so funny because you have republicans that come out and say you can't believe cohen come he's a liar liar, he's going toh jail i didn't say you, i set republicans. i'm going to tell you what i think. this is the point, they are questioning cohen's credibility but then when it comes to this point of there was no collusion, then it's oh, yeah, believe cohen.om >> tucker: i'm not going to give credit for some dumb house republican, i'm asking an honest question on behalf of our viewers. michael cohen would know there's a collusion. he has no reason to pretend theren wasn't. asked correctly, he said there wasn't and we are pretending that didn't happen. what are we doing herend exactl? >> what he did say during that testimony however is that he was in the room when roger stone called president trump and told him that julian assange had information from wikileaks that they were going to dump hillary clinton's emails. >> tucker: so what? everybody i know -- >> that's huge! that's a huge point.
and he was working on the deal, he said that felix later had an office on the 26th for of trump tower. so clearly there was something going on. >> tucker: i don't think i'm going to get you to answer the question, i appreciate it, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: toti the investigative agenda is the agenda. the entirety of the agenda on the democratic side. shutting down the possible shutting down the fossil fuel industry. is that a workable plan for the next election? he has seen a few elections and he will come back and tell half of the break. new complaint against alexandria ocasio-cortez could put someone in jail. not an overstatement.er we will tell you what that is next. and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago.
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere.
gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. >> mr. president, are you going to cooperate with mr. nadler? >> president trump: i a cooperate all thead time. you know the beatable thing? no collusion, it's all a hoax. >> tucker: that was the president yesterday signaling in his way, his willingness to cooperate with yet more democratic investigations into russia! he will be doing that the next p two years since investigations have become a top priority of the democratic party far above fixing the drug and alcohol and suicide crisis. will that work as a campaign platform? brit hume has covered a lot of the campaign, he joins us tonight. do you think -- and this is a sincere question because who
knows what voters want, do you thinkss that is a winning messa? a vote for us or we'll investigate you? >> it isn't the message that the house members who successfully captured control of that body ran on last fall. they talked about delivering for the american people on things like health care and other matters. they make a case on the economy on the extent that they can but they didn't run on endless investigations and they certainly didn't run on some of the other stuff they had been talking about, such as reparations. elizabeth warren and others who are running for president are now talking about reparations, she wants it extended to native americans. they are talking about all of the elements of the green new deal which is extraordinary. we are talking here about a program of actions that are not simply implausible or difficult, they are impossible! the these are things that can't happen that won't.
4 out of 5 presidential candidates have endorsed it or are cosponsors, not to mention the fact they are talking about medicare for all which is utterlyer unaffordable. they have staked out these positions, these exotic positions on a range of issues following alexandria ocasio-cortez around as the pied piper of the new democratic caucus, she's completely eclipseded nancy pelosi and is undoubtedly giving her fits. i don't think if this keeps up andd you couple that with endles investigations that this is a very good platform to run on in 2020. >> tucker: if you believe you can change your biological just by wishing it so, you believe in magic so maybe this shouldn't be too surprising to us. i wonder what people like steny hoyer or people have been around time in washington, what do they make of all of this? >> i'm sure they are frustrated by it, they know the elements of
a green new dealal are impossibe and undoubtedly would be impossible to pass in the next two years. if you completely cover yourself with this stuff and this is what you are seem to be promoted, this is whatt all the noise is about and talk is about, you may be able to do some other things. they are going to be overshadowed by all this exotic stuff. whatever this stuff is, it makes a lot of news and that's why alexandria ocasio-cortez for all her calamus and shallowness is able to become so prominent. she makes news and she's compelling, she's kind of adorable in the way a 5-year-old child can be adorable. she at the moment it's fair to say is the de facto leader of the democrats in the house of representatives. >> tucker: she is brave, she says things no one else will say
but she's also really arrogant. i wonder if she will wear well. >> i thought for the first few weeks of this that the novelty would wear off, it hasn't. she's still the hottest ticket in town and i think she has a lot of talent, she's cheerful and positive and attractive in that sense, it goes a long way in politics. if this keeps up and she is able to continue to promote these exotic positions and get ein prominent people to sign onto them, she will lead that party off a cliff. in the meantime, we thought we should expect the mueller report to come and if as expected it doesn't convict the president or accuse the president of collaborating with the russians to getting himself elected, i think a lot of the air will go out of thehe investigation becae no matter what adam schiff and
jerry nadler of the judiciary committee -- no matter what they try to do, they don't have anything like the investigativeu resources mueller has, therefore the probes can't be expected to find anything like what he does. totucker: brit hume, great see you tonight. we've got some interesting new information tithed about alexandria ocasio-cortez, when she ran for office she described herself as an enemy of big money in politics,ey watch. >> this speaks to the corrupting force of money in politics in general. this problem is not going to go away until we tighten the reins on the role of money in politics, i really hope that we introduce and pass a very legislation that is going to put much stronger limits on how special interests and how money can be moved especially when they interface with campaigns. >> tucker: yeah, she doesn't like how money moves and interfaces with campaigns. of course she's also the sworn
enemy of carbon but that didn't stop her from taking hundreds of rides when the subway was just a few feet away. a new fec complaint accuses her chief of staff of the diverting of a million dollars in donations to private accounts obscure how the money was used. if true, the complaint could result in prison time. she was confronted about this allegation today and here's what she said. >> there is no violation. [reporter questioning] >> o no. >> tucker: she's people funded, she wants you to know. melissa france hosts outnumbered and is one of the all-time favorite people on fox business, she joins us tonight. >> here's was this boils down to. it should be noted that the group that brought the complaint to the fec is a right-leaning
organization, we want to say that upfront. if you boil it down, what she and her chief of staff are accused of doing is moving almost a million dollars from a pac that they controlled over to an llc. this gentleman is a multimillionaire tech and finance smart guy, i would say why am i moving this money from this pack over to this other account? what difference does it make? one difference could be look at the rules that govern them. the rules that govern them are very clear and much more strict about how much you can spend and where it came from, when it's a limited liability corporation the rules are very different, much lighter.
she marked a lot of stuff strategic consulting and you can do that rather than itemizing things. is this illegal? i don't know. both sides are going to have their arguments in court about this noo doubt. by the way, the rules that govern campaign finance are written by the very people in power who are trying to hold onto it. talk about the fox guarding the hen house. the people who wrote thesero rules, she's saying we are going to rewrite the rules, more people are coming to power in trying to hang onto t it. is this legal under the rules? we have people saying it's not. both sides will argue and we will see. what's interesting is you just have to ask yourself why did you need to move it from one thing, you control totally to another thing you control totally in order to make the expenditures. it sounds like that dark money she's talking about. we will see when they investigate. >> tucker: we don't know anything about it, the fact that
it's not itemized doesn't that by definition make it dark money or at least opaque money? >> it doesn't make it brightt money, it doesn't make it transparent money. it makes it obscured money, at the very least it is obscured. if there is not a bright light shining on it. you made the point before, think about what socialism is. the very definition is the government taking over the means of production, it's the power grab. that's what she is all about. i'm in charge, i'm the boss. we go to washington, we decide, we get the means of production and we tell you all what you ge get. at all has the same theme if you boil it down, she doesn't want other people but she's going back and forth between d.c. she's the ruling class, she is powerful. she's important. she gets to do these things but for you and me we are just the serfs along the way so we
shouldn't have a carbon footprint. >> tucker: i will will see you on the bus. >> i love the bus. the q train is read by my apartment, i'll see you there. >> tucker: thank you very much much. a host over on abc and "good morning america" now admits she went easy on jussie smollett, the softest of the softball interviews and she did it for identity politics reason reasons. why is she in journalism? that'sft next is she in journal? at midas, with every oil change you get a free tire rotation.
>> tucker: for the first moment, there were plenty of good reasons to doubt jussie smollett is hate crime in chicago, who walks around with bleach and a noose on the coldest night of the year? how many trump voters live in downtown chicago or even visit end of those, how many have even heard of the jussie smollett, much t less are willing to go to the effort to commit a hate
crime against him? those are a few of the very obvious questions but nobody in the press was asking them, thepe person who was most assiduously not asking them but instead ignoring them and making excuses for jussie smollett's ludicrous account was "good morning america" host robin roberts. in her interview with smollett, she gave him free rein to slander an entire segment of our country and he did for personal gain and she let him come a watch. >> i saw the attacker, masked. he said this is a maga country and punches me in the face. >> there is no doubt ine your mind that motivated this attack. >> i can only go off their words. who says leap, this is maga country, ties a noose around your neck and pours bleach on
you? >> tucker: by the end of the interview, roberts dropped the pretense completely andy basically showed the world her new alliance, her deep friendship with her new pal, jussie smollett. >> i still want to believe with everything that had happened that there's something called justice. if i stop believing that, then would visit it all for? >> tucker: beautiful, thank you. that really should follow her for the rest of her life, it won't though. roberts now admits the entire approach to the interview was guided by her views on identity politics. she couldn't be too hard on jussie smollett, too skeptical of his ludicrous tail because she has the same skin color and sexual orientation that he does, that's what she said. jason hale is the professor of philosophy at depaul
university and author of the book "we have overcome," thanks for coming on. the tribal approach to journalism strikes me as inherently dishonest. if you have a different measure of one person based on how that personon looks and who that pern sleeps with, then you do for another person, isn't that lienl >> is not only lying, it's also putting your professional oath and professional obligations above truth and objectivity, where you are saying that identity politics and tribalism supersede your obligation to tell the truth and your adherence to objectivity, which puts journalism and truth and objectivity and a dead end. and it backfired on her, as it should have. >> tucker: it seems like it's very common, theke fact that you can admit this out loud especially in journalism where you're standing in by proxy for your viewers or readers to ask
questions that they would ask, to be as honest as you can be,ui that's a baseline requirement of it. she's admitting i didn't do any of that and everyone nods, that's totally fine, i understand. well, i don't understand. why did she get a pass for that? >> she gets a pass because this is part of a larger issue. she has bought into the cult of victim apology which is big busn america today, to be a victim is to take on the mantle of permanent innocence, it is to become a certified moral icon. when you become a certified moral icon you become a permanent innocent person, your alleged transgressor becomes a guilty person from whom you can extract some kind of reparation. she has bought into the cult of victim balaji sf many americans, and there is also a deeper sense
of -- that's going on in this countryin in which people who te themselves to be victims luxuriate in a sense of in ventilation. they don't want to grow up, they prefer to have their agency expropriated by others who can take care ofar themselves. to not be a victim means to say i don't want to be exceptional lies, i don't want to be taken as a special person as a special case. i want to take care of myself. one of the things i talk about my book, since the end of legal oppression in this country with the passage of the 1964 civil rights act, a lot of people whor were legal victims of the state simply don't know what to do with themselves. what they do is they go on about creating a victim identity like this fellow jussie smollett, who
comparatively speaking thisar in the 1% of the world. >> tucker: you're right, that's it. it's the powerful pretending they are powerless. i wish we had more time and i wish you had been my professor in college, i probably would've enjoyed the experience. thank you for joining us tonigh tonight. there is no sector of our economy that receives more taxpayer subsidies than universities, higher education. all of it comes from the federal government.ve the question is are these colleges teaching anything worthwhile, or is it purely propaganda designed to make your kids hate you and the country. the young americans foundation has just produced a list of the 12 craziest college courses, spencer brown as a spokesman and he joins us.
i have a list of some of them and it's so infuriating, i had to stop reading it because we listed with the cost of the college but swarthmore. querying god, feminist in theology. >> it's absurd what the students are paying to receive an education. the survey found in courses like this, it addresses the idea that the god of the bible has always been masculine at the mail, or is he? it looks at different attributes of god in order to twist his character and his words and his actions into making him into a feminine figure or impacting feminist theology on this important issue. >> tucker:s davidson, $66,000 a year, dissonance and guerrilla translation.
>> this addresses something your last guest was talking about, everybody is a victim and it's the victim olympics. you have young people in college now, it goes into everything from the abolition of prisons to enable listen, but it of course views them all through a leftist pro-pleasure perceptive. >> tucker: it has grammatical errors and made up words, this is from northwestern apparently a good school. unsettling whiteness, $76,000 to go to northwestern. it's gotten irritable which is not a word. wouldn't a college professor -- >> what the left has done is taken centers of higher learning whether or not even using real words anymore. 250 courses in total, when i compiled it you should see the spell-check it lights up because
these are not real words. that one addresses the cultural construction of whiteness as an institution supposedly making it out to be race as a social construct now. >> tucker: you guys should do a survey of america's parents and ask is it worth it? you are going into debt for this?en >> 40% of recent graduates are considered underemployed and yoe have $1.5 trillion in student loans. >> tucker: it really isn't, thank you for saying that. google is routinely accused of having a pay gap, it turns out there was a pay gap between the sexes but not at all what you might expect, we have details coming after the break they're our parents...
neighbors...loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? call and tell congress, stop cuts to part d drug coverage medicare patients depend on.
>> tucker: for many years, the left of a particularly shallow televised left has attacked companies for their sexism. especially intact, they have told us about a pay gap, women, they tell us, are paid less than men for no reason other than bigotry, t sexism. these attacks are the reason tech companies are in part so vocally left wing, it's why james day more at google had to be fired immediately for expressing his opinion. leaders decided to do an internal investigation on the question of the pay gap, they reviewed every employee, every employee's job and performance to see if there was sexism lurking in the hearts of their employees and reflected in their paychecks. it turns out there was sexism, they found quite a bit of it. there were thousands of people being paid less than colleagues doing the same work, but in a twist most of these employees were in fact men. google and "the new york times" were shocked by this finding but
why would they be? it's exactly what you would expect. the press has spent years attacking 16 is naturally bigoted and demand the other be hired more, paid more, and prioritize more, thanks to those calls, they were. it has never occurred to anyone in washington, they are too dum dumb. ♪ american tech companies use to tell to themselves as champions of freedom in american life. now tech has replaced government as a leading factor of censorship. google employees have been caught showing how too many of the latest search results, facebook has clamped down on conservative friendly news stories, almost every tech company increasingly is willing to use its censorship powers to shape whatat you see in order to benefit their political agenda. the new global editor in chief of human events.com and we are happy to have him come tonight.
do you think it's fair to say the tech sector has replaced government as the main censorship threats that we haver faced? >> it's become abhorrent. it's not just important because these are very successful corporate entities that are putting their power up against not just the american people, you could probably hear from my accent, i'm not from here.'r they are doing it in the united kingdom and all across europe and around the world. what is particularly egregious about it is they are the benefactors not of the free market, they are the actual benefactors of government intervention on their behalf. the communications decency act in the united states allows the googles and facebook and twitter's to be cast as nonpublishers, their platforms. they can get away with making editorial decisions. i was banned last week from facebook, and i have no legal
recourse against them. they leg are protected within u. legislation against me as an individual. >> tucker: they have a special deal, they also have government contracts and up one side and down the other. >> absolutely. me, there are a lot of what we call the boomer conservatives out there that say the free market, the free market -- it's not a free market. they are undergirded and underwritten by government intervention. all we are saying is take that away, let us be able to sue them if we want to and let's hear it out in the courts. >> tucker: what is the counterargument? why haven't republicans whose job it is to protect their own voters -- i don't know if anyone has told them that -- why haven't they moved to strip the tech companies of this artificial protection?te >> is not just about protecting their own voters, it's about protecting everyone. it's about protecting the first amendment fort everyone. you are starting to see in the united kingdom, we have this hard left labour party, they are
starting to concern themselves with free speech all of a sudden. it's about protecting everyone. what i don't understand, somebody who has been very good on this is donald trump jr. he almost wrote to my rescue when i was banned from facebook last week and made a big international story. it's not about me and it should be about people like me who can get don jr. to help me out, ordinary people use social media to keep in touch with their loved ones, to get pictures of their grandchildren, and there's a big? especially with older people who use it to -- because they said something and politically correct. that's what i'm concerned about, i'm afraid your congressman especially on the right are just sort of sitting there and letting it happen. >> tucker: republican voters should demand the
representatives do something immediately. >> tucker: it's great to see you, congratulations. democratic voters have a message for hillary clinton, if there's any mercy and justice in the world, go away we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org
♪ >> tucker: senator and presidential contender kamala harris is obviously a champion of women. she says so all the time and you nod in agreement, you've heard. but should you? politicians claim all kinds of things so sometimes it helps to judge them by what they do rather than what they say. kamala harris was the attorney general of california for six long years.rn during her tenure one of her top aides allegedly sexually harassed an underling, a coworker. he resigned over thoseen allegations just three months ago. so what did kamala harris do in response? in a remarkable interview that
she gave recently, harris admitted she never bothered to talk to the accuser. >> did you reach to the alleged victim in this specific case to offer your support? >> i have indicated that i'm very supportive of all women who come forward and speak up and have the courage to speakf up. >> in the specific case? >> in this specific casehe i he not talked to the victim. >> tucker: she's a champion of all women so she doesn't have to champion any specific women. she is a good, unlike you.mm this is true on immigration or racism or countless other issues. she just knows that she's morally superior and that's why she deserves to be presidentha and that's why she is about gestures like actually caring about the people she claims to support. if only the employee had faked a hate crime instead, should be getting a lot of personal attention. hillary clinton is never ending blame tour across america is premised on the idea that she
is very popular and a was robbd of the presidency in 2016 by underhanded means and thatat yu feel very sorry for her because her dreams have been dashed. but increasingly even democrats just want her to go away. >> does hillary have a role in 2020?n should she champion? >> stay away. >> why is that? >> i love you, hillary. i love you, i love you but stay away. anything that has hillary on it is automatically going to separate us again. >> i think it's done. i think it's been, it's done. >> tucker: joins us tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. those are the responses you expect. they won't hate hillary, they voted for her but they are saying something pretty obvious. things change, time moves on, people kind of age out of the process, why are you still here? why is she stilloc here? >> actually this has always
been hillary. this is not a new hillary. this is the hillary we've always known, the hillary they voted for but that sound after she noted she was not going to be running 2020, it was all the democrats breathing a sigh of relief and all the republicans sobbing their tears that she's not leaving. they say she should be president now, right? that she was the winner. she was robbed by the russians and everything which means 2020 would be her second term and yet they don't want her then. so are they saying in fact voting for her in 2016 was in fact a mistake? that's one of the points but the other thing that's a real revelation here is that after over two years of her complaining of the entire system saying the current president, donald trump, colluded with the russians and stole the election, americans love fairness, we don't like anybody getting robbed and yet
they say no, just don't come back even though this is supposed to be hers, it tells you all of this rhetoric has not worked. the american people do not believe it. they didn't believe it then, they don't believe itwo now. in other words, recognizing even subconsciously all of this has been a charade, that's important for the trump administration and the trump campaign to realize the american people still care about truth of the matter, facts, and delivering politically and delivering on the issues. >> tucker: it so interesting though, i never thought of the point you just made but if they really believed what they were saying about russian inclusion in the theft and the hacking of our democracy, they would insist that hillary, by definition would be the nominee. they don't even believe it. >> exactly. we would be in the streets, who wouldn't be? it's almost like a cognitive dissonance in a sense, like a suspension of disbelief. when you going to the movies you really know it's not real life but you're going to allow
yourself to believe so for a minute because it would be fun for a few hours.ur in this case, it's been a nightmare for two years and they want to be out. they want the movie to end, they want to movee on to something else and the trump administration -- and this is what we care about regardless of what your party is, we want the future back for our families. we want the economy to be better. we want this nonsense to end, what the democrats are planning in the house, it's going to be a disaster. they've created now not just the fact that it is a witch hunt, but they created an enemies list with the 81 individuals and entities that they are going to try to persecute for material on trump. it's a remarkable thing that they've accomplished that is not what i think -- i think most americans would agree that is not why they hired people. >> tucker: my feelings are hurt that you and i were left off the enemies list. >> i was looking for my name, we weren't there. >> tucker: t may be jerry nadler rectify that. hi. the great tammy bruce.
we are out of time sadly. back tomorrow from 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. following us from new york city is sean hannity. ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity," a lot of breaking news tonight. the 2020 presidential election is officially gearing up and the democratic party, they are imploding.nnre radical extreme far left socialists have now taken over any and any democratic who doesn't fall in line with this radical extreme left agenda. this vision, if you will, thrown down the curb up by ocasio-cortez. you have a group now, and all of america needs to see this, hyperpartisan freshmen lawmakers. they are now leading the way.io they set the-c agenda. nancy pelosi is afraid of all of those freshmen. the list is led by alexandria ocasio-cortez. according to a report fr