tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News December 17, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
on. we will see you back here tomorrow when i will have an exclusive interview in detroit with attorney general bill barr. tucker carlson is coming up right after this in washington, d.c. so stay tuned for that. good night. >> tucker: looking at live pictures from capitol hill. setting up the rules for impeachment vote they are apparently going to hold tomorrow. the house is temporarily in recess reconvening in about a half an hour. we are monitoring the situation there good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" it. is here after months of false starts and threats and endless pos temperaturing by. so saddest, most ineffective people in america, impeachment apparently is imminent barring some last-minute plots twists and that could happen less than 24 hours from now. donald trump will join andrew johnson and bill clinton as the third
american president ever impeached by the house of representatives. we're thinking at this point the final vote tomorrow afternoon democrats have been promising to do this before the president was ever elected president and yet, still, feels kind of weird. surprising, surreal, even, that it's finally going to happen why? because impeachment and there is really no disagreement about, this is a terrible idea for the country. at this point there is no question the democrats can't actually remove the president. and in trying, they will only hurt themselves. the polls are clear. yet, and here is the fascinating point. they are doing it anyway. watch maryland congressman jamie raskin explain why they are doing it. >> the president's continuing course of conduct constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy in america. we cannot allow this misconduct to pass. it would be a sell-out of our constitution, our foreign policy, our national security and our democracy.
>> tucker: see if you can follow the logic chain. maybe can you spot the missing link. here's what he is arguing. leaving a president in office until voters can decide to remove him from office if they want is, quote, a danger to democracy. it's a, quote, sell out of our constitution. okay. so, in case you have forgotten, what is the crime that undergirders this impeachment proceeding? what is the president accused of doing? in case you have forgotten, it's donald trump may have delayed military aid to the government of ukraine. now, keep in mind the only purpose of aid to the government of ukraine is to antagonize russia. keep in mind, also, russia is a country with more nuclear weapons than any other country on the globe. but, according to jamie raskin, not giving weapons to ukraine is a clear and present danger to america. it's a sell-out he says of our national security to pause in a relentless attacks on russia even for a moment. that's a remarkable
assertion. hard to believe he could defend that in a rational conversation. but it doesn't even stand out under the current standards of political rhetoric. there is a lot of talk like that all of the sudden. the entire impeachment saga, in fact, has become detached from reality. here is the most basic facts about it. democrats do not have the votes to remove president trump from office. they never will have the votes to remove the president. the point of impeachment is to remove a president. they cannot do that. this process is doomed before it even begins. by the way, they don't have the votes because voters don't support it. the irony is that our democracy is working just fine. voters support it in fact less than they did. after a full month of watching public hearings on impeachment, democrats have not gained support. they have lost it. in late october, when this began about half the country backed impeachment. 44 percent said they were opposed to impeachment. in the most recent polling, those numbers have inverted,
in other words, the more people learned about impeachment the less they wanted impeachment. that's not one person's opinion. that is the sum total of the polling. the numbers could not be clearer on this question. and, yet, even in the fails of all those data, elite democrats still will not admit it. they are literally in denial. watch democratic party cheerleader jeffrey tuben attack his own company's polling when it doesn't match what he believes must be true. >> you see a decline from our last poll in democratic support from 90% down to 77%. >> can i just say my twin brother, that i don't believe that poll for one second. >> what part? >> the 90% to 77%. you know, it's just i don't believe it. like it makes no sense that that if number would change like that. >> i mean, life means -- life is -- sometimes polls are sometimes wrong. >> david, that poll is wrong. just because i said so,
okay? [laughter] >> tucker: why don't you believe it? because i don't. because i look out my window and i see the horizon. that means it's flat. you can tell me the earth is round. but i just don't believe it enough about your dumb numbers and scientific theories. i just don't believe it. says the legal analyst. okay. what you are watching obviously is one man degrade himself. it's bigger than that it's the definition of ideological extremism. and that's the inability to change course no matter what the evidence tells you. so that's the point at which this is no longer politics, of course. we left that a long time ago. what you are looking at is religion. and, of course, being the democratic party and their religion, it's always the exact opposite of what they claim it is. so as president trump noted in the recent letter to nancy pelosi and we are quoting: you are the ones interfering in america's elections. you are the ones subverting american democracy. you are the ones bringing
pain and suffering to the republic for your own personal political and partisan gain. the public, whether they like trump or not, agrees with that. the pollin polling shows it. but the democrats can't acknowledge that they are stuck. so in 2016 they went all in on denouncing trump remember this before the election and every one of his supporters you, beyond the pale racist not worthy of being hated. physically assaulted in some cases. they lost anyway. when they did lose, they refused to learn. they refused to even think for a moment about why they may have lost. and, instead, move seemlessly from racism into a conspiracy about russia. so bizarre they could never even fully explain its outlines. what are you saying you would ask, russia they would say. okay. that collapsed, you watched it happen on live television. but what hasn't changed is the rage storm they created with years of propaganda. they whipped their voters into such a frenzy that the
voters can't be pulled back now. they want blood. the democrats have no choice but to march forward despite the facts that it will inhe evident continuably destroy theinevitably destroy them and they know it will. deb bridebbie joins us now. congresswoman thanks so much for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. i loved your intro, too. great job. >> tucker: it was heart felt. you work there. i don't. you tell me. do you run into democrats who sincerely think this is going to help them? >> i imagine there are democrats who think this is going to help them. you are right they will lose seats and the republican also regain the house of representatives. this has been a very unfair process from the start. i believe it's rigged. they have no proof no evidence. even from their own witnesses of bribery, treason, high crimes and
misdemeanors which is required in the constitution i serve on the judiciary committee and the rules committee. this is a total nightmare and hopefully i don't continue it in my dreams i'm so used to talking about it. >> tucker: i bet you are. do you think moving into tomorrow's vote that you will see a single republican join the democrats to vote for impeachment tomorrow? >> no. i don't think one republican will vote for the articles of impeachment just like no republican voted for going forward with the impeachment inquiry. no republican voted for it in judiciary committee. tonight i don't think one republican will vote for it in the rules committee of which i serve and this has been a very partisan process not one single republican will vote for it. there will be democrats who will vote against it. just a matter of how many.
i don't think we know for sure yet. boy, this is a shame. i tell you, can i just explain to you how it is unbelievable, blows my mind that in rules committee tonight we're on a recess because my democratic colleagues haven't figured out how much time they want to give on debate. what the rules are yet as if they didn't know this was coming for weeks, months, years. but we are in recess until they have figured it out. we have heard they might only give four hours of debate on the floor of house of representatives. that would be 33 seconds per member of congress. >> tucker: they are divided because some of them are smart enough to know and including, i think, the speaker, nancy pelosi, this is a disaster for them. congresswoman thanks so much for coming on tonight. thank you. great to talk to you. >> thank you. >> tucker: john roberts asked the president today if he felt any responsibility for being impeached. his response was. this. >> mr. president, do you do you take any responsibility for the fact that you are about to be impeached?
>> no. i don't take any -- zero, to put it mildly. >> tucker: to put it mildly. expect cnn to come unglued. we should impeach him just for saying that. going a little bonkers with it. screen grab from coverage from literal lay couple moments ago. take a look at the graphic on the screen. zero responsibility for monitoring their responsibilities mostly because they amuse us. we will have all the miles tomorrow night. first tonight ken starr of course was special counsel during the white water investigation. that was in the clinton. any living person and he joins us tonight. mr. star, thanks so much for coming on. you have been watching this as close as anyone. how do you assess it as of right now. >> well, it is shaping up that we are just going to keep hearing the same thing over and over again yogi berra would say deja vu. the same thing is being said in each of these miss. here is a critical fact. i have not heard a single
member of the house of representatives say i need more evidence. i need to bring in -- we need to bring in more witnesses. now harmony between the house of representatives some of whom are declaring today i'm voting for or with respect to mr. golden of maine. i'm not going to vote in favor of the second article they are making up their minds based upon the record. so consider then chuck schumer we need more or we should have four more witnesses at a minimum. there is a real disconnect between the two sides of capitol hill. second district of maine. district that went for donald trump. you got to expect guys like that will lose their seats as they should for that what do you think of an impeachment process that breaks along clean partisan lines like this one? what would the framers have thought of that.
in effect we are doing that which mr. madison warned against. we always talk about hamilton in 65. federalist 65. and rightly so mr. madison warned against successfully on the floor having grounds of impeachment that would include move administration. i think that's what this debate is all about. the hyperbole, national security which you just talked about, and a clear and present danger. that's another thing in terms of moving this forward. if the president is a clear and present danger, then the trial in the senate, which is destined to come, has to move forward quickly. the framers were very, very concerned about the idea of a truly partisan impeachment as opposed to that which nancy pelosi and other democrats have said in the past. we need to have something bordering on consensus and of course we do because of the two thirds majority requirement. in the senate. >> tucker: ken starr, thanks for that.
great to see you tonight. >> good to see you. thank you. >> tucker: speaking of framers of the constitution they have, of course, been gone for about 200 years. democrats agree they would have hated president trump. how do they know that? we will explore that question next. a late night in the house of representatives tonight. a rules committee is expected to vote in about 30 minutes. will determine with what happens next with impeachment. [laughter] we'll be back. ♪ ♪ [ dramatic music ]
tucker tuck do you know what they say about cockroaches apply to democratic talking points. there is never just one. whether you have a hear democrat use a particular line of attack can you absolutely certain his colleagues will be using it too, assuming they aren't already. the left is nothing, if not coordinated. here is the latest example. democrats explaining in concert, of course, that the people who founded this country strongly agreed with them. >> the presidential election was tarnished by foreign influence, a danger our founding fathers warned us about. >> what the founding fathers warned against. >> what our founding fathers feared most. >> confronts what the framers warned us about. >> it's the opposite of what the framers wanted for us. >> his actions are in defiance of the vision of our founders. >> it is an outrage and frankly it's -- it's a tremendous disrespect to the constitution and to our framers. >> if washington were here today, if he were joined by madison, hamilton and other framers, what do you believe they would say if presented
to the evidence before us about president trump's conduct. >> i believe the framers would identify president trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office high crime and misdemeanor that they were worried about. >> tucker: oh, yeah. the framers are totally on board. got that? democrats care deeply and passionately about the founding fathers. but, wait, isn't this the same party that's working to eliminate the founders' life work. the first and second amendment to the bill of rights. the electoral college? yeah, it's the same party. actually the opposite is true as is so often the case. the left has nothing but contempt for the men who founded this country. and that's why they are forever denouncing it was racist. why are democrats suddenly telling you the opposite of that? because that's what the left does. they don't simply lie. they invert the truth: whether they claim you did is exactly what they themselves are doing. we can think of a few examples but here is one. do you remember the hysteria over, quote, family separation?
people on cable news were deeply upset about it at the time. >> his calculated cruel separation of young children from their parents at the mexico border. >> ripping babies from mother's arms at the border. that only makes evangelicals love him even more. >> it's too late, it's yours. you have done it. there are babies who are hurting right now. and that won't end. and that trauma is permanent. >> for these parents that are separated from their children, this is a humanitarian crisis. >> his administration's very hideous and unpopular policy to separate migrant families from their children at the southern border. >> tucker: man, you could just feel the passion there. if there is one thing joe scarborough -- not a judgey man. one thing, politics aside that joe considers just totally immoral and wrong it's separating families. call him old fashioned but joe doesn't believe in that. it's not how he was wrazzed. breaking up that two parents
husband and wife raising their kids together, anyone who would do that and joe again doesn't want to be judgment mental here that's how impassioned he feels about it. anyone who would break up and separate a family says joe scarborough is beneath contempt. the lowest of the joe. disgusting as joe's third wife put it so aptly, family separation simply calculated and cruel. not something decent people do. just so you know. victor davis hanson is a classics professor. a senior fellow at the hoover institution. many other volumes worth reading. he joins us tonight. professor, as you see the democratic party reach backward to the founders, to justify what they are doing right now, what as someone who knows a lot about the founding period in this country's history, what's your response to that? >> well, they don't identify themselves, tucker as liberals anymore. they are progressives. by definition progressives want to go beyond or evolve beyond the constitution we
have heard nothing from the people you just aired. nothing from them but as you said the framers were dead old white men. they were racist. sexist. they were intolerant and some of them slave owners, the founding documents and the framing of the constitution was flawed at the outset. that's why they want to change the second amendment or amend it until it's unrecognizable. they want to put hate speech codes into the first amendment to water it down. as you said they want to get rid of the electoral college. they are mad there is two senators and 40 million in california and only two in wyoming. two in wyoming and two in california. that's not fair. we shouldn't take these reverent references of the founders seriously. if you read the federalist papers 65 and 66, or what madison said. what we are seeing now is exactly what they were afraid of. the majority party that was in opposition of the house, turning impeachment into something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence. they didn't want that.
they discussed how to stop it. let's have the house do impeachment. let's have two thirds in the senate. let's have the supreme court justice be the arbiter. and it would be rare. we had never removed the president because of what the founders foresaw. in the immediate past we always had bipartisan support. we had public -- some public support. we had a special counsel. we had a fair adjudication of witnesses. this is like not like the nixon inquiry or the clinton. this is like andrew johnson impeachment where it was a stain on the record of the united states. it was exactly the opposite as this is of what the framers intended. i had a couple other things just in finishing, tucker. what would -- what is going to happen in january when four senators who are candidates for the presidency are going to put themselves and be the ajude carrots of whether donald trump, their likely opponent for president they will be
judging and running against him at the same time. and the constitution also said that when a president leaves office, he is not exempt from the crimes that he was found guilty of if convicted in the senate. if there is really something wrong with donald trump, when he gets back to mar-a-lago, local district attorney going to say oh, you are not exempt. we are going to put you on trial for obstructing congress. or you abused your power. that's a crime. it's not going to happen. this whole thing is a joke. it's a cruel joke. it's a tragic joke because it's dividing the country and it's -- it's an 1859 or 1860, this is 2019. it didn't happen v. to happen this way. >> tucker: four people running for president will be sitting in judgment of the current president. that tells you everything. >> they will be. >> tucker: thanks so much for that. >> thank you. >> tucker: jim comey and adam schiff have been all over television desperately trying to act in their own interest as always.
trying to down play the ig report from last week and how it exposed fbi lies and if particular lies to a fisa court that allowed them to spy on an american citizen, carter page. according to jim comey it was not a big deal at all compared to a lot of other malfeasance currently going on at the fbi. none of which you would describe in any detail. the fisa court appears to disagree. today in a rebuke, even the "new york times" called, quote, extraordinary, the fisa court accused the fbi of repietiedly misloading the court in the carter page case. the court gave the fbi until january 10th to propose changes to its procedures to prevent future abuses. perhapsy headachefrancey hakes r federal prosecutor. thanks for coming on. when the court itself attacks the fbi for subverting the process, at that point there is really no denying what happened. is there? >> well, no. tucker. it completely destroys the democrats' argument that there was anything partisan
at all in the complaint that president trump and president trump supporters and the republican party were making early on all the way last year. early last year and even before that talking about this fisa warrant against carter page and talking about being spied upon while people are trying to make much of the fact that president trump said his wires were tapped. it looks like trump tower wasn't actually tapped. confidential human services run by the fbi against three different members of the trump campaign including one against whom not a single criminal allegation had been made. no one is even talking about that. but what is extraordinary is judge -- >> tucker: may i ask you to pause right there? how can you wiretap an american citizen who hasn't even been accused -- credibly accused but at could you seed at all of a crime. how can that happen? >> it's a mystery to me, tucker. they sent a confidential human source with a recording device of some
kind against a, quote: high level campaign official that we still don't know who it is. but we do know that they have admitted that there was no crime alleged. >> tucker: why the hell don't we know who it is? what an outrage is that? what would be the pretext for keeping that secret from the rest of us? >> i suppose protect them from being accused of something they didn't do. for full transparency we need to know who it was so we might know who recorded them. >> tucker: you know, i honestly at this point, you feel like we need full transparency to anyone who stands in the way of it should be charged with a felony and prosecuted. at least as vigorously as roger stone has been prosecuted, right? >> it's true, tucker. what rosemary collier, what judge collyer did today in fisa order was so significant and so extraordinary, she took the inspector general's conclusion, she called the fbi on the carpet. she labeled what they had done wrong and a violation of the court and said that
they were not credible in their allegations and that they had to, in a very short order, explain to the court what they were going to do to make sure it never happened again. and significantly, she also mentioned an order of the fisa court that was apparently promulgated just a week or so ago. top secret. she has ordered the department of justice to allow it to be declassified so we can see what the fisa court wants. >> tucker: keep in mind so-called liberals defending all this crap. authoritarians backed with corporate power. you should be afraid of them. i am. francey it's great to see you tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: time to answer for history of sexism. turn that around. actually mane some truth there turn about is fair play. is warren prepared to debate her own past? details we will present to you after this break. ♪ home ownership means something different to veterans.
it means freedom. it's the reason you chose to serve our country. so you'd have a safe place to come home to, and eventually, a home to call your own. a place to gather your troops under one roof. your roof. a place to mark time. and relax with your commanding officer. a place to call home. newday usa can help make that happen for veterans like you. the newday zero down va home loan lets you buy a home with no down payment. at newday, your service is your down payment. the newday zero down va home loan is a real chance to own your own home. that's freedom. that's newday usa.
>> tucker: no normal pepper wants to vote for michael bloomberg for president. constituency is zero. one of the richest people in the world trying to buy his way into contention for the democratic nomination. senator elizabeth warren is against it, of course, because she wants it. before bloomberg becomes the nominee he has to answer for a history of sexist remarks. so we normally dismiss this because sexist remarks. what does that mean? in this case we have some
specific examples worth knowing about. while building business empire bloomberg is accused of running a workplace where crude and it demeaning remarks were commonplace. what do we mean by crude and demeaning? here is one example. one employee said that after she got pregnant with her baby, michael bloomberg repeatedly told her to kill it, meaning the baby. kill it, he said. yeah, that actually does qualify as offensive. the full extent of what bloomberg said and did with and to women is being hidden though because some of his former employees took cash payments in return for signing nondisclosure agreements. what should we make of this tammy bruce is host of get tammy bruce on fox nation which you should and she joins us tonight tammy, what do you make of. this normally i would tell people to be slightly suspicious when accusations seem to show up. >> tucker: i agree. >> when you have started to run for office. we have teen that happen or been nominated to be a member of the supreme court. in this case these are
allegations that have been going on for years. there are a number of lawsuits that have been filed over a period of years. there is one report that his staff actually put together a book of his most outrageous comments to people. this is actually like best known thing in some ways about him in new york. so, now he denies much of this. some of the more outrageous comments he says he doesn't remember making. but, you know, what's interesting is that, of course, he is running as a democrat. and he is appealing, trying to appeal to the democratic base. other democrats, like elizabeth warren as have you noted now are complaining saying he must answer for this. but let's be honest here. elizabeth warren had a fire a staffer because of some alleged misconduct. just a few months ago from her campaign. remember, they are hiring other democrats and people who are political in the democratic party. >> tucker: right. >> bernie sanders had to apologize for a number of male staffers having complaints against them in his 2016 campaign.
kamala harris had had some staff issues regarding sexual harassment. to say nothing of hillary clinton still the ostensible leader of the party. so if elizabeth warren is going to complain about bloomberg, who may be apparently in the perfect party for himself. she needs to ask questions still of hillary and bernie sanders and the whole host of people and, frankly, even the people they are hiring at this point, obviously it's about hypocrisy and donald trump. >> tucker: you make such a good point here i can't believe a democrat. but actually this is the party of jeffrey epstein. it's the perfect party. >> that's correct. reknow ronan farrow reminded us that harvey weinstein was effectively an advisor to hillary clinton. it is jeffrey epstein who is, you know, trying to, you know, get everybody to, you know, to be his friend. but the reality is that, you know, we can't have these basic standards just for certain people and condemn someone like donald trump who, in the midst of the democratic party, leadership is sir gal had at this
point. and certainly for the country is he sir gal had. he is my hero. these -- just perspective when we think about who is making complaints. like the democrats and impeachment. it's like this is strange. we are living in a world of mirrors where everything is the opposite of what it should be when it comes to what we are see saying. >> tucker: so right. cass kill joke how is your wife, compared to what? compared to these people unbelievable. good to see. >> thank you. >> tucker: elizabeth warren says she is happy to debate michael bloomberg and his record on women. is she going to hold her own record to the same scrutiny. here is specifically what we're going to talk about. this has not received enough attention. in 1990s elizabeth warren provided legal to dow chemical women poisoned by silicone breast implants that wasn't the only case on which elizabeth warren warren worked on the side of
a major corporate power against consumers. again, you haven't read this piece in the "the washington post" recently. phil jacobson by contrast is all over it. professor of cornell law school in a very precise historian, we would say. he joins us tonight. professor, thanks for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: tell us about elizabeth warren's background siding with big companies against people. >> this became an issue in the 2012 campaign for senate against scott brown when scott brown raised the issue that elizabeth warren made $200,000 representing travelers insurance in a case which ended up depriving asbestos workers of hundreds of millions of dollars. and that became a big campaign issue. and i analyzed it and i documented quite precisely and quite well, i think, how her strategy and the representation she gave directly led to those asbestos workers not getting their money. that's not all there is. when she was called out by that by the brown campaign, she gave the "boston globe" a list of 1 10 cases she had
worked on. it was completely incomplete list. this is a history that she had. and she left off that list and i discovered at the time her representation of dow chemical to help deprive breast implant litigants of money. and she said well, i was representing dow chemical, the parent company of the manufacturer because i was trying to help the women get money. and that was, of course, ludicrous. that's been demonstrated in other newspapers recently have proven that she also represents an aircraft manufacturer against a family who lost a loved one. she said she represented a large energy company, one of the biggest coal users in the southeast in trying to save a rural electric cooperative. in fact, it's well-documented that she was trying -- her client was trying to liquidate the rural cooperative. so, at every step of the way, she not only had a
representation contrary to her political narrative, she tried to hide it. she tried to spin it as something else, and she never would disclose how much money she made doing it. i estimated it because i found 22 of her cases, which now is up to over 50 cases, and i estimated it had to be millions of dollars. she has now admitted that when the buttigieg campaign raised the issue she disclosed that she made almost $2 million from it. so the question has to be, she is somebody who is throwing stones and lives in a glass house. >> tucker: it's unbelievable she is like mr. burns on the simpsons from your description. does she represent union carbide and beau paul, too? elizabeth warren is always lecturing you. i don't even like trial lawyers and i incident wouldn't do what she did. the irony is overwhelming. >> and the bigger irony and bigger issue is no democrats have called her out on it. just like they haven't called her out on her native
american deception where she claimed to be native american for employment purposes. not a single democratic candidate has raised that issue in any of the debates. >> tucker: they are frauds, that's why. you know the answer, professor, thank you so much. you know, it's funny. the media are so corrupt that we go to a law professor for real reporting. i'm just glad you are there. thank you for that. >> thank you. >> tucker: well, america's greatest city, some of the most beautiful cities in the world increasingly resemble medieval dunning heaps. that's not an examination. what are the risks to your health by going there? they are real. dr. marc siegel tells us what they are just ahead ♪, ♪ if you see wires down,
>> tucker: even the great cities of the past were filthy. the streets covered with all manner of waste. clinicalliness personal and public one of the chief markers of modern civilization. the left doesn't like to you say that out loud but it's absolutely true where the left reigns supreme. san francisco unwilling to keep their sizzles going. chief news correspondent trace gallagher joins us with the latest proof of that. >> tucker, even by san francisco's almost nonexistent standards this one struck a nerve. a man walked into a safeway store. went to the toilet paper aisle, grabbed a roll and defecated all over the floor. the store is in nancy pelosi's district and john dennis, the g.o.p. candidate running for her congressional seat wrote quoting here clean-up in aisle 3. thank you, nancy pelosi, i publicly warned in 2018 that
if we let people violate our streets, the homeless problem would get worse. the answer, arrest, then offer a choice. jail or rehab. and a local journalist directed this tweet at the city's mayor quoting, london here is a pick of a man on drugs taking a pough aisle 10 of a safeway sunday morning in san francisco. why is this okay? in a recent interview the mayor admitted public defecation is a major problem. what she failed to mention is the city's political leaders run willing to stop it. in fact, the new far left, san francisco said he won't prosecute so-called quality of life crimes. public defecation kind of goes along with shooting up heroin publicly and burglarizing cars, shops and homes. crimes that rarely have consequences. in san francisco, people call the city's hotline 65 times a day to report piles of human feces. in 2011 there were just over
5500 reports of human feces on public streets. last year it was more than 28,000. and those are just the incidents that got reported. tucker? >> tucker: defecating in a grocery store. if i was running for president i would put that image on posters. it tells you everything. trace gallagher thank you so much. investigative team in california right now taking a look at what is actually happening there the reports that you are hearing sound bad? it's worse. our exclusive reporting on that is coming soon. ♪ >> tucker: defecating in public in grocery stores, for example, is repulsive, obviously. hard to think of anything more repulsive. is it also dangerous? we thought it might be worth asking dr. marc siegel a fox news medicine medical examiner. thanks for coming on. we are repelled by. this should would he be worried about it, also? >> yes, we should. isn't it ironic that a city
of germ phobes of exercise conscious environmental conscious environmentalists are now in a city that's awash in human waste which is spreading hepatitis a, outbreaks every year big outbreaks of hepatitis a. rats in the streets feeding off the garbage and sewage, tie fuss, typhoid fever, bacterial infections and even the plague may be coming. now, what's really ironic here is that they have a poop control that goes around six highly paid individuals in san francisco, according to the chronicle that go around trying to clean up the streets. $65 million was spent last year trying to clean up the streets. but the homeless have nowhere to go. what about shelters in the governor of california has been asked repeatedly what about building temporary shelters and they are not being built. as a result, you have the sewage, you have the feces and you end up with all of these health issues. this is a public health emergency it's a disgrace in san francisco. >> tucker: i mean, you are
already hearing accounts of people getting infections for which we don't have antibiotics because it is such a septic environment. what do you think to get public health authorities to shut this down? >> they only do it one disease at a time. like in 2017, the governor called it a public health emergency in the state of california because of hepatitis a. he wouldn't put it together with the homeless problem. it's becoming medieval diseases resurfacing in california. and here's the other thing that is even worse. it's not just the homeless population, right? people track through those neighborhoods. they get the poop on their shoes. and then they bring it to other neighborhoods and then the disease is spread to other neighborhoods. so, to actually solve this problem, again woul would we hae to offer bathroom facilities and temporary shelters. get cots, get food. this is what we did in new york city at bellevue hospital, by the way. this is what has to happen in california. this is what hud secretary ben carson wants. this is what i want. it's the only way to avoid a
burgeoning health emergency. >> tucker: people in charge should be banned from ever running anything again. ever. gavin newsom, what a joke? >> people remain poop control. >> tucker: basic responsibility of a society. >> clean your streets. >> tucker: for sure. doctor, thank you so much. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: left is very upset tonight. why? because justice neil gorsuch said merry christmas. he said that like for real out loud. we have the tape. you are probably upset, too. wait until you see it. ♪ ♪
♪ >> tucker: we have an upsetting story. supreme court justice neil gorsuch went on fo on fox & friends. sensitive viewers, please plug your ears. here it is. >> joining us now for your rear live interview, supreme court justice neil gorsuch. good morning to you. >> merry christmas. >> merry christmas. i love that you say that. >> tucker: did you hear that? merry christmas. according to blue check mark twitter, gorsuch may -- >> just appeared on fox & friends making a point to parrot the merry christmas talking point of the g.o.p. [laughter] if he is willing to go on fox
and throw a shout out to republican narratives, what else is he willing to do? [laughs] a comedian tweeted "neil gorsuch made a point to say merry christmas. this guy is a worst-case scenario of a stolen supreme court seat." [laughs] chadwick moore literally lives in brooklyn so insanity doesn't shock him but he joins us to assess. do you know these people? >> i know them without knowing them. of course i do [laughs] it is basically a hate crime. they are right. i'm surprised that mildly calling in the g.o.p. talking point. they really want to say white nationalist dog was so in fact they have been saying this. >> tucker: why am i laughing? cleaning up litter is a white nationalist --
[laughter] i am very familiar with this line of argument. >> "newsweek" two years ago on christmas eve published a professor who have the best arguments sing in fact it's a soft dog whistle to white nationalist to say merry christmas in the same way that makes america great again might be or whatever and you know these people have nothing left it's fantastic to wash. >> tucker: when they say that in kinshasa or lagos, the big christian populations in the world really are in africa right now as you know. it is still a white nationalist dog whistle when they say there? >> multicultural white supremacy is a very, very serious issue. white supremacy is a bigger problem in africa than we realize. >> tucker: let's save the world's unhappiest people, people whose therapists can't make progress with them at all, truly miserable.
they got together and form their own political party. would they have a shot at winning a major national election do you think? >> no, not in the current year i don't think they would have any shot. [laughter] merry christmas to everyone in the resistance. i hope they have -- >> tucker: what is the picture? vote for me and you will be as unhappy and miserable and loathsome and stupid and small minded as i am? >> please suck all the joy and tenderness out of everything must fight to maintain power and try to i don't know impeach, russia, whatever they are doing. no joy allowed. not while we still have trump in office. no one is allowed an iota of it. >> tucker: i want to know if this person is real. i'd bet that is putin's personal twitter account. trying to discredit the left. great to see you.
thank you. that's it for us. the houses in the process of debating voting on rules for impeachment tomorrow. stay tuned on fox only for the coverage and of course we'll be back tomorrow to tell you what happened at 8:00 p.m. sean hannity is next. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." fox news alert and breaking now, this is huge. the fisa court just issued an extremely rare rebuke public order rebuking comey's fbi for misleading the court. this fisa judge is demanding the fbi come up with a proposal to prevent another massive abuse of power. this is the latest fallout from the ig's damning fisa abuse reports. we'll have the details that the mob and the media will probably ignore because they missed the whole story.
Uploaded by TV Archive on