tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News November 6, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the president, as you can see, is about to start a rally in monroe, louisiana. his rallies are becoming more frequent so tonight we will be monitoring it and bring you the highlights at the end of the hour. but first, the brazen murder of nine americans in mexico is a reminder that not every foreign policy crisis is across the globe. there is a lot going on right there, so tonight we want to bring you details on a story that the media have basically ignored. that is the drug war ravaging that country. joining us tonight to outline what exactly is happening is ioan grillo, a journalist who
has covered this three years ago in mexico city, author of the book "el narco." thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> tucker: it looks very much like the mexican government is losing control of its own country in what appears to be like a full-blown war with the drug cartels. is that what is happening? >> look, i've been covering this for 18 years, this conflict, this mass destruction here in mexico. and it's really a mix between crime and war. you have drug cartels who are very heavily armed, they have 50 cals, they have fragmentation grenades, rbg 7s, but you have not really a civil war you can understand in the normal terms we can look at. you have horrific things i've
covered. i've been to mass graves with 250 bodies. i've seen many, many tragedies, like the one we saw with the family, the real tragedy we saw on monday. and this government is really continuing a trend of various governments who have not found any kind of policy to deal with this and to deal with cartels who have billions of dollars sending drugs to the united states. the white house itself did a survey that estimated americans spend $100 billion every year buying crystal meth, buying cocaine, buying marijuana, buying heroin. a lot of that money goes to mexico, and drug cartels who are armed with huge amounts of weapons from the united states. between 2007 and 2018, there were 150,000 guns from criminals in mexico to the united states. in the massacre on monday, a tragic massacre, 200 bullets found.
they were remington 223s, likely used in ar-15s. likely bought from the united states. you have these powerful factors making the drug cartels very formidable to deal with. >> tucker: there is been a number of indications over the years that parts of the government of mexico are profiting from drug sales in the united states, are actually working with the drug cartels. i mean, it's starting to look like a narco state. >> you have incredible corruption, absolutely. there's been corruption in presidents, there's been governments who have been arrested. there is been, he himself at one point. and even more than that, in some places, a bit of a flipping of control, where traditionally you had mayors being bribed to watch over the cartels.
you have mayors paying a part of their budget to the cartels. the cartels really have a form of political control. and you see this in large parts of the country. corruption is a huge problem. but then again, when you have so much money, when you have, say, $100 billion, a very, very broad estimate, with so much money from drug sales, and incredibly profitable business, you have a lot of money to bribe the politicians. it's very hard, how do you find a way out of this? really, tucker, i've been covering this. it has been humanitarian catastrophe, i'm glad there is attention being paid to this now. i'm very, very sad and my heart goes out to the family, what happened there, but i've been meeting many mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, of people who have died and disappeared in this war for many years. when you look into the face of a mother who has seen her own son dragged away by men with ar-15 with ak-47s. and cannot find their son, how do you deal with this?
and the issue before, how can we, internationally confront and deal with this issue? journalists covering these stories of death and destruction have to look for solutions to find a better way out of out of this. >> tucker: i guess it would start with just covering it, something you are doing and something our media companies in this country are not doing this. they've been ignoring this completely for years. ioan grillo, thank you for that. nine americans murdered on the highway yesterday in mexico. a number of them children. he would think the murder of american children in mexico would be horrible enough that even the political activists would hit pause for a moment on the propaganda machine out of respect but they are not doing that. instead, the left wasted no time in blaming the kids for their own murders. according to the "los angeles times," the dead americans were "tied to a family with a long history of violence."
okay. "the new york times" suggested that the victims' religion had something to do with the killings, when there is no evidence whatsoever that it did. they were "fundamentalists," "the times" told us, but not only that, they were settlers in a foreign country. unlike ms-13 members on long island, who "the times" is always quick to remind us that they are undocumented migrants protected on the palm of the statue of liberty. whose side are they on? it's not your side, trust us. with the massive cartel war raging on in mexico you would think that washington might be interested in protecting the country they supposedly run from the violence seeping across our unsecured southern border. but you would be wrong. they would rather talk about violence 6,000 miles away. >> what has happened in syria is yet again donald trump selling folks out. in this case, he sold out the kurds. >> i would like to hear from him about how leaving the kurds for slaughter, how that makes america great again.
>> it has been the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern history. excuse me, in terms of foreign policy. >> he has made a tremendous mistake. a total disaster there in syria. >> what he has done is wreck our ability to do foreign policy, military policy, because nobody in the world will believe this pathological liar. >> the slaughter going on in syria is not a consequence of american presence, it's a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of american allies and american values. >> tucker: all the buffoons are deeply concerned about the kurds. should you be? or should you be concerned about mexico? colonel doug macgregor is the man we turn to to answer questions like that. colonel, thank you so much for coming on. we should be very concerned about syria. meanwhile, what appears to be a full-blown drug war is underway right there. why is nobody noticing? >> let's look at some numbers.
last year, we spent $16.2 billion to maintain 2,000 troops on the ground in syria to support the military operations there. $1 billion consisted of aid. i don't know where that went, but $15.2 billion was there to support the military operations. let's fast-forward to where we are right now. >> tucker: $50.2 billion in military operations in syria. that is not a small town. >> and remember last year there were 33,000 people killed in mexico. far, far more than lost their lives in syria. in addition to that we've had 300,000 homicides since this drug insurgency in mexico began. far, far more than we killed during our years in iraq during the occupation. >> tucker: how much are we spending to deal with that? >> right now if you look at the defense operation bill, we have another iteration of more money going to syria, probably in the same amounts. maybe more. we also have a request for $4.7 billion for border
security. right now the defense authorization bill is stuck in congress. people don't want to support it. for some reason, we want to fund our forces, our men overseas in syria, in an oil field that is tiny and irrelevant. after all, austria has more oil than syria. there is no money in it. we could talk about that, too, but the point is, we can't get border security, despite what has just happened. although the same time, we have lots of people saying, now we should launch attacks into mexico to kill drug terrorists. >> tucker: those numbers are amazing, and not surprising, because all the buffoons as you just heard were telling us the kurds are the most important priority for u.s. foreign policy. what should we do? >> first of all we need to look at this particular event. it's a watershed event. we killed nine, or they killed nine women and children in an automobile. this was not accidental. this was a deliberate ambush
staged with military precision. everyone was assassinated, including the children that were only a few months old, shot and killed. the entire family was burned inside the automobile. why would the drug cartels, and i assume, but i don't know, it doesn't really matter, but historically, they've dealt with one or two kidnappings here, americans when they come to mexico, but generally speaking, we have never seen any of this directed at nine women and children american citizens. the first question we need to ask is why now? why out of the blue with the cartel do this because the cartels have always been afraid that if we did use military power, it would hurt their business. if we did close the border, it could be disastrous. that first question is who is really behind this? do we have evidence that the chinese, the russians, the iranians, the turks, somewhere else somewhere is working with these cartels and said, it is time to send a message to the americans? could it be they would like us to open a new front on the
global war on stupidity that we have been involved with now for many, many years? what would be better to drain away more time, resources then a new front in the war on terror in mexico? so what should we do? first, we need to close the border. we've got to secure it. we need 40,000, 50,000 regular army troops on the board. we need to change the policies. we need to let the border patrol deal with the legal crossing points but make it impossible for anyone to enter the united states illegally. that has to happen. this is long overdue. if we don't do that, and we do try to take action in mexico, we are going to be struck hard here inside the united states. the border is still open, thousands of illegal border crossings are captured every month, thousands more get through. we have ms-13 and numerous other drug related crime syndicates inside the united states. does anyone really think that if we launched attacks today in mexico against the drug cartels that they would not launch attacks against us?
>> tucker: responding with force before closing our own border is insane. >> it's impossible. and we need to go after them here at home. >> tucker: i believe that is racist, though. protecting ourselves. colonel, thank you so much so much. >> thank you. >> tucker: new information on the anonymous whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry, everyone is talking about the name. you're not allowed to know the name. you're not allowed to know anything about the person. why is that, exactly? we will tell you. plus we are monitoring the rally tonight. the president in monroe, louisiana. rallies are becoming more frequent so we will keep you updated on news as it occurs throughout the hour and bring you the highlights at the end. we will be right back. ♪
♪ >> tucker: american politics has once again ground to a halt thanks to the action of a man who is being described as a whistleblower. a federal employee who disagreed with the president's policy on ukraine. we know almost nothing about this person. we say a man, it could be a woman. context is important. is this person a partisan? how much access to he or she have? what exactly are his or her motives? it would be nice to know all of that as we assess the current impeachment. congressman devin nunes sits at the epicenter of the impeachment inquiry and he is with us tonight for thinking so much for coming on, congressman. why can't we know more about this person being described as the whistleblower, exactly?
>> you know, this is a very good question, because as far as i'm concerned, the inspector general of the intelligence agencies is obstructing our investigation, which i think is a crime. it is not okay for only one party to know about the whistleblower. furthermore, the democrats on the committee and their staff who seem to know the whistleblower, they also won't tell us. here's what's interesting about the point you made. i know there is lots of speculation out there about who the whistleblower may be. i'm not a lawyer, but unfortunately i have to hang out with a bunch of lawyers, and i say that halfway joking, and only halfway joking. but what the lawyers tell me is that this would not be admissible in court. you cannot take hearsay from a suppose it, somebody who we've
never met, we can't just take the word of some lawyer and the ig and the democrats on the committee. this person has to have a name, they have to actually exist for this to be considered real evidence in an investigation. >> tucker: yeah, the hyenas on television are jumping up and down, how dare you want to know the identity of this person? which is quite frankly insulting to those of us who give our opinions everyday out there. you do, everyone knows your name, where you live. if you have an opinion, stand up and be counted for it, this is american. but it doesn't really answer the question, how can we assess the claims this person has made if we don't know who this person is or where he is coming from? if this person is in fact a hard partisan, isn't that relevant to the case? it's a sincere question. >> you've answered your own question. we cannot. we cannot even begin. this is why we continue to say that adam schiff and/or his staff, whoever has met with the whistleblower, they are fact, foundational witnesses to this disaster.
>> tucker: then why are we being bullied by these people? why are we in the news media -- the truth is, as you know, we have a pretty good idea. a lot of us do. and all these news organizations are being bullied, in effect, by adam schiff. by the power of his aggression and the boldness of his claims. you can't do that, you're putting a man's life in danger! really? why be quiet, you demagogue? why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied by this guy, seriously? >> let's just talk about the hypocrisy of this. it was only a couple months ago there was the supposed informant who was extracted out of russia and you had all the major newspapers showing his name, going to his house, taking pictures. so sometimes, when the mainstream media wants to out a whistleblower, or out in informant because it is a russian who might have something bad to do with trump, then they do it. but if it somebody who
clearly -- look, they're telling us exactly what we need to know. and that is, whoever this whistleblower is must be an extreme partisan with lots of problems with their story. that is why the whistleblower is not coming forward. >> tucker: it sounds like the whistleblower, and i hate the term because if the person who is being identified as a so-called whistleblower is in fact that person, he's not a whistleblower at all. he is a guy who disagrees with trump's foreign policy views. that is not a whistleblower. but do you think that the person being described in some news stories and all over twitter, is that the so-called whistleblower? because if it is, that guy is a serious partisan. >> look, regardless, the person who is being described, we have no way to know. if the person who is being described and nobody wants to say the name, that person has got to come testify whether they like it or not.
they are going to testify. if schiff and the democrats in the house don't let that person come testify to the house, i guarantee you, if they impeach, that person will have to be called. i don't want to put words in mitch mcconnell's mouth but he absolutely should have to. >> tucker: i'm not naming him because i can't get anyone to confirm that it's really him. it sounds like it's him. but i can't get confirmation. >> exactly, but it goes back to what we were just talking about. right now there truly is no whistleblower. there is only a whistleblower on paper. there is no evidence right now, not until both parties -- we have a system in this country. i've been dealing with whistleblowers for years, you have to allow the whistleblower, whoever that may be, to come to both parties and if you are not doing that, there is no --
>> tucker: his life is in danger, spare me. try living my life for a week. congressman devin nunes, thank you. the russian collusion hoax collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity, but amazingly it is still claiming victims. apparently, roger stone is being charged with lying to congress. that is absurd considering congress cannot be charged with lying to you, which it does constantly. but roger stone's real crime was giving donald trump political advice for 30 years. for that, he faces life behind bars. one person who clearly understands what is actually happening and strongly approves of it is a presiding judge in the case, amy berman jackson. she is an obama appointee and transparently and aggressively political. months ago, jackson prohibited
roger stone from publicly defending himself in the case. cnn and msnbc were free to continue to slander stone and of course, they relentlessly did that. but if the stone set a single word in his own defense, jackson vowed to put him behind bars. how can jackson do that in a country with a first amendment? she couldn't. it is blatantly unconstitutional. but donald trump is hated here in washington so nobody stopped her. jackson just did it anyway, just like in the third world. jackson's behavior in court has turned out to be even more ludicrous and unprofessional, assuming that is possible. at times, she has literally rolled her eyes and snorted at stone, suggesting he is guilty before the trial even started. her judgments have been transparently political. yesterday, for example, during jury selection, one of the prospective jurors turned out to be a former press secretary of the obama administration who admitted that she despises donald trump and has friends in the federal prosecutors offense,
which is trying the case. her husband, meanwhile, works at the justice department which is prosecuting roger stone. the woman claimed she followed the mueller investigation closely but somehow had never read anything about roger stone's case and didn't have a strong opinion about it. no sober person could take that claim seriously. but amy berman jackson did. she acted like it was all completely fine. when roger stone's lawyers asked that that woman be removed from the jury pole, jackson refused. personal conflicts were not "automatically disqualifying." what ought to be automatically disqualifying is amy berman jackson's behavior from the bench. no fair person could condone it. if there were still on his liberals left in this country they would be protesting outside the courtroom. well, and anchor over at abc news did something pretty unusual for that network. she inadvertently told the truth about what her network is doing
are as corrupt you thought they were. maybe some of the most corrupt institutions in american life, and that is saying a lot. tonight we have new information about the back story of a leaked video published by project veritas. it shows abc news anchor amy's robach discussing how executives at her network protected jeffrey epstein. here's part of it. >> i've had this story for three years. i had the interview with virginia roberts. we would not put on the air. first of all, i was told, "who is jeffrey epstein? no one knows who it is, this is a stupid story." then they find out that we had her whole allegations about them and threatened us in a million different ways. we were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview kate that that also quashed the story. then alan dershowitz was also implicated. she told me everything, she had pictures, she had everything. she was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out, we convinced her to talk to us. it was unbelievable what we had. we had everything.
i tried for three years to get on, to no avail. now it's all coming out. these new revelations, and i freaking had all of it. i'm so pissed right now. every day i get more and more pissed because i am like, oh, my god. what we had was own real. >> tucker: this comes out and abc scrambles. really scrambles. not to find out who or why this tape was suppressed. why network executives protected jeffrey epstein of all people. now, they scrambled to find and punish the person who leaked the tape. they are much more committed to butt-covering then they are to truth-exposing. katie pavlich, the editor of "town hall," joins us tonight. katie, i want to say what i said last night, good for amy robach. she seems like sort of a real journalist.
good for her. there's no question, executives at abc protected jeffrey epstein. why do you think they did that? >> because their star anchor's name is george stephanopoulos and of course george stephanopoulos works as george clinton's communications director at the white house and when was this information given to amy robach at abc? when did she bring all this to her executives to say we should put this to air? right before the 2016 election when hillary clinton was running the democratic ticket. to give you the back story on george stephanopoulos' own connections to jeffrey epstein, jeffrey epstein held a dinner party at his own house after jeffrey epstein served 13 months in prison for the first time he went to jail for soliciting prostitutes who were under age. and the reason we -- >> tucker: you're saying at the time amy robach took this story to her superiors and they said, "i don't know who jeffrey epstein is," his name was already all over the news as a convicted sex offender.
>> yes, and after that, he held a fancy party at his townhome where he molested a number of women, and brought other men to molested girls and women. he held a party where prince andrew was present and george stephanopoulos was then at the party and later, when he was indicted again over the summer for even more egregious crimes before he was found dead in his jail cell, he issued an apology and said, it was bad judgment for me to go to that dinner party after he had been in prison. this all comes down to the clintons, george stephanopoulos working at abc and the circle of connections they have there, and protecting not just the clintons of course, because that is something they are willing to do for political purposes. according to abc's editorial standards, which we keep hearing about, the standards are necessarily about accusers bringing forward evidence on someone who had already been
convicted of similar crimes, but instead to protect political people and friends who are beneficial to them and who have very, very close connections to people in their network who claim to be leading journalists, like george stephanopoulos. >> tucker: but it's not just abc. the reaction has been fascinating in that msnbc and cnn, both of which have media reporters, have essentially ignored this. >> they are still not touching it. >> tucker: why is jeff zucker, why are they covering up for jeffrey epstein, too, in effect? >> i think it has to do with politics but we don't have a smoking gun video as we do with project veritas with what abc was doing. i don't know why they are not covering it, may be because of the political implications and who jeffrey epstein was connected to, happen to be people they've supported over the years and held fund-raisers for and donated money to. george stephanopoulos also had to apologize on air a couple of years ago for hiding the fact
that he donated $75,000 plus up to the clinton foundation while he was covering a presidential election that happened to include hillary clinton herself. i just want to say one more thing about project veritas, when they took out acorns for what they were doing in terms of illegal behavior in 2010, george stephanopoulos interviewed james and accused him of being a white supremacist, of not being a real journalist, of being an activist, and then he proudly proclaimed that he was actually a real journalist after serving in the clinton white house. that also has something to do with it. >> tucker: [laughs] when the political hacks, when the hyenas say, you are not a real journalist! i always want to ask that. you follow a lot of tough news stories, mr. morning guy? katie, great to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: jeanine pirro is the anchor of "justice" on the fox news channel. she is also author of the book "radicals, resistance, and revenge." what does she think of this, as someone who has followed the jeffrey epstein case?
i want you to take three steps back. what exactly is going on here? jeffrey epstein is dead, however he died. people are still covering up for him. who is he working for, how did he get so rich, what was he employed before in government, what is the story really about? seriously. >> you know what this story is about? this story is about money and power and masters of the universe. this story is about the type of crime that has been going on since the roman days. it's about pedophiles, the explication of young women for the gratification of men who can afford it, it's about money and power and understand that they are not going to let the other one go, be blamed, or in any way be sentenced for what he or she has done. look, epstein was in 2005 arrested in florida. the united states attorney took the case and literally gave everyone connected with epstein a get out of jail free pass by
giving them in perpetuity, immunity from prosecution for ever. now, when he think about it, i've been in law enforcement 32 years. i've never heard of anything like that and neither has anyone i know. it is the rich friends, the powerful friends, the masters of the universe who got this protection. and you know, amy robach, to her credit, she had the story. just like you just talked about, the truth is, you could've run the story. you could have had this woman, i could improve in this case in a criminal court room beyond a reasonable doubt without further corroboration. >> tucker: so what happened? have you talked to people at abc? you know a lot of people. what are people inside the network saying? >> my sources tell me that this thing was ready to air. it was in the can, tucker. what does that tell you? that tells you that i got approval, it got mid-management approval and it was right at the end that it was pulled. that suggests to me that it was
pulled from the top. and it was during, in the midst of a presidential race. hillary clinton had too much to lose. george stephanopoulos had too much to lose. nbc is protecting weinstein and clinton. abc is protecting epstein and clinton. she is the common denominator. she cannot afford to have her husband in any way upset the one thing that she wants in this world and that is to be president. he lied when he said he was on the lolita express, the plane that took them to the island where they had sex with these young women. he said four times? we now know from the plane log it was dozens of times. amy robach i'm sure is right, buckingham palace, dershowitz pushed back, but that doesn't matter because we're still talking about buckingham palace even though prince andrew was there. >> tucker: i'm sure it's true and the people in charge that have done a very crappy job of running this world are getting upset and i hope it doesn't
work. they deserve to be exposed. good to see you, i hope you will be back. >> i love this case. >> tucker: good to see you. joe biden has stepped up his attacks on elizabeth warren as she surges in the polls. he is starting to call her an elitist. kind of an interesting line of attack. i will talk to dana perino about what it means. plus, we are monitoring the president's rally in louisiana which has just started. we will bring you the best moments straight ahead.
we will keep him on the screen and keep monitoring the event there. his rallies are becoming more frequent and they will continue and accelerate as we move into an election year. we are going to follow as news is often made there. we will be keeping track and bringing you the highlights. the biggest winners of last nights elections were may be billionaire democratic donors michael bloomberg and george soros. both of them heavily invested in races across the country, particularly in virginia where their preferred candidates won. thanks to their contributions, the newly elected politicians will make it easier for criminals to get out of jail. what is the effect on the country when a couple of very rich donors decide to remake the way justice is administered? and what about campaign finance reform? didn't they use to care about that? dana perino, host of "the daily briefing," joins us. i remember just because i am old, liberals used to be very upset about campaign finance reform and the idea that rich
people could unduly affect elections, like the koch brothers, before it turned out that the koch brothers were as left-wing as anyone else in america. but you don't hear that much anymore now that left-wingers are turning america progressive. >> you remember citizens united, and democrats really think that there is too much -- maybe they're not alone in thinking there is too much money in politics, but the supreme court has said it is your right to donate. so the democrats have figured out, if you can't beat them and take away one of the tools like your opponent can use to beat you, which would be resources, and a message, then they will join them. so soros and bloomberg in particular have been focusing on down ballot races. not your governors race necessarily, but they are in state, local races, city council races, and a particular district attorney races.
and it's much easier to cut through all the noise of the national political scene and governors races et cetera and focus on those local races at that level. they are making big gains and part of it is that they are riding a wave. there are changes happening across the country, for example in philadelphia, the counties around philadelphia got bluer, but around pittsburgh the counties got redder. there is movement happening that you can have an impact with money and republicans have done just such an impressive job working with president trump and over the past few decades working on judges. the one thing republicans might want to think about is how they match soros and bloomberg dollar for dollar in these races as well? >> tucker: it's interesting when two guys, one of whom is not even from this country, show up and decide they're going to completely remake communities, and they do. philadelphia has been utterly transformed by the soros-backed candidate.
that doesn't look like democracy to me. i want to ask about joe biden and elizabeth warren, obviously they are battling to get the nomination. i want you assess what biden, what he just said about elizabeth warren. this is super interesting, watch. >> if you don't agree with elizabeth warren, you must somehow not be a democrat. you must somehow be corrupt. you must not be as smart as she is. that is not who we are. it's an elitist attitude, either my way or the highway, you must not know what you're talking about if you disagree with her. >> tucker: ha, that is so interesting. what you make of that, dana? an elitist attitude, joe biden says. >> in a democratic primary, following a republican one in 2016, this is fighting words, calling somebody and elitist. he can probably come up with a better nickname than that if you want to really pack a punch. his comments originally showed up in medium. a place where people go when
they post long articles and stuff. then he said in a radio interview. he always pulls his punches when he is with her on stage. he's not willing to call her and elitist to her face. maybe he will as we get closer, but you can't really pack a punch. he can't really have the impact that you want unless it is on video. in 2019, that is just the way it is fair but i think the other reason he did this, elizabeth warren comes across as being smarter than everybody else. maybe she is. so he is saying, no, you were the elitist. you are the one who says that you were a schoolteacher but you are actually a professor from harvard. you are the one who says that we are not bold enough because we can't support your plan, which was $52 trillion for medicare for all in which "the wall street journal," a center-left kind of guy said it was the longest political suicide note in the history of the country, and that the rest of the democrats didn't have to sign onto it. i think biden wants to get back, and maybe it is just natural for
him that he believes he is part of the working class. that is where he has his connections, and that is where he thinks he can actually try to win back the nomination and ultimately he thinks that that will help him beat president trump in 2020. >> tucker: this is hardly a defense of elizabeth warren, that's for sure. but between biden and warren, who is the choice of our private equity chieftains? biden, isn't it? >> absolutely. on the record, there's not a lot of bold commentary coming out of american businessmen of late, but when they think elizabeth warren could be the nominee and that she could possibly wins in presidential elections in a close race in 2020, they start to raise their hands and say, we can't have a fundamental change of how capitalism is done in this country. they are putting their foot down, for sure. they're not going to be giving her too much money, i think. >> tucker: and i hope they stick to their principles, even though i don't always agree with
their principles. but i just think it's interesting that the tool of american finance is calling his opponent and elitist. >> i don't think he would call himself a tool of american finance. >> tucker: i'm sure he wouldn't. >> he would say, i'm from scranton. i haven't lived in wyoming in years but i still think of myself as being from wyoming. that is my hometown. that is my roots. maybe people won't believe that and for elizabeth warren, she thought she was native american for so long and has been disabused of that notion. but when you see biden go after her on that weakest point, then you will know that the race is really on. >> tucker: and quickly for us, i've argued to you that i think biden is over, there's no way, his heart isn't in it, his head doesn't appear to be in it either. not to be mean. you've argued that he is in it and he really is the front runner. you seem to be right, it turns out.
where is the race today? >> well, her poll numbers have actually gone down in the last month and his have gone up. and this is after the president of the united states has been going after the bidens on alleged corruption for about a month. one thing where he is quite vulnerable, biden does not have the fund-raising jobs that some of these other candidates have. he doesn't have the passion. you look at bernie sanders rally, elizabeth warren rally. people show up, they are excited. he is like, i'm the joe everybody knows. i'm your regular joe, i'm your average guy. but it does seem like remember, voters are smart. you said this during the 2015 and 2016 elections. you said voters understand, they know. they're not paying attention of all the ups and downs, inside-the-beltway nonsense. if voters decide that biden is the one they want to go to battle with in 2020, then they just might do that. i still think it is pretty early and they are going to have to show some ability to make some money pretty quickly. >> tucker: the great dana perino, always right.
>> i'm speechless! >> tucker: it's just interesting, you turned out to be right on the biden person. >> the other person that is moving up his mayor pete. >> tucker: come on. >> i mean, he is. >> tucker: maybe at some point we could take a close look at what life in south bend has been like. >> i bet you will because his poll numbers are going up. >> tucker: and i think we should. dana perino, thank you for being with us tonight. we've been watching the president's rally in louisiana. we will bring part of it live. the highlights next. >> president trump: suppressing dissent, defaming the innocent, eliminating due process, staging trials and trying to overthrow american democracy to oppose their socialist agenda.
. >> there is a lot going on. the president making news right now, talking about everything involving impeachment and the whistleblower, we're going to take it live. watch this. >> release it. release it immediately and shen the whistleblower saw, it shifty schiff sun breaks it, a total crook, and pelosi saw it, we've got a problem, we don't want to have knowing do with the whistleblower any more and the whistleblower disappeared. you know who else disappeared,
the second whistleblower. you know who else disappeared, the informer to the second whistleblower, if there was such a person, which i doubt. we i doubt. just came out. just came out. it is a disgrace. i'll tell you what, it is so bad, these people are bad people and itt is so bad what they do o our country, they rip the guts out of a country and it is a shame and they shouldn't be' lieud to do it and people should stop. maybe if to the supreme court, maybe but they've got to stop it because we have a country to run, and these people in order to do things, are willing to do illegal acts, it is an illegal act as far as i'm concerned. last week, the democrats voted to nullify the -- >> amazing. that's it for us. i wish we had more team. the president continues into the next hour. and we will be, as a channel, following that.
we will see you too many night at 8:00 p.m., sean hannity takes over. have a great night. >> because you know, the democrats are louses i didn't go politicians. lousy. how do you like ving an open board we are mexico? you like that? >> sean: welcome to "hannity." the president just held up a foxnews.com article. the coup has started.nn whistleblower attorney said in 2017 post calling for impeachment, the president just mentioned it. he is in west monroe, louisiana. by the way, that is where "duck dynasty" is. this is huge. my monologue coming up but we go to the president's "keep america great" rally in monroe, louisiana. >> president trump: i'll tell you what, i have to thank the mexican government in some way. 20,000 soldiers but they have other problems. these cartels are a tremendous problem. and we are building a wall. that wall is going up and it is going up fast. it's going up. [c