seniors, insurance companies refusing to cover mental health care, insurance companies refusing to cover maternity care, no free mammograms, cancer screenings, or birth control, insurance companies reinstating annual and lifetime caps, and more than 20 million americans losing insurance at the worst possible time, again, in the midst of a pandemic, including nearly 2 million veterans, 607,000 north carolinians, 288,000 south carolinians, 227,000 iowans, and 4.2 million californians. and the pain of losing these protections would disproportionately be felt among the 9 million african-american, latino, asian and native americans who gained coverage under the affordable care act.

but this isn't about statistics. this is about millions of real people living real lives, who deserve the government and institutions to heed their call, and i know a republican member of this committee said earlier today that the people who would lose health care are somehow not relevant to this hearing. i disagree. helping this people is supposed to be why we are all here. why we all ran for office in the first place. and i'm here to fight for people like felicia perez, in this is her. felicia is a writer, a public speaker, and former high school teacher from southern california who now teaches at the university of nevada. she has multiple pre-existing conditions including arthritis, asthma, and a rare autoimmune disorder that cause tumors that

have wrapped around her optic nerve and part of her brain. her life depends on periodic cancer fighting treatments that cost $460,000 a year. felicia is terrified. she knows that without the affordable care act, she could not afford ongoing treatment, the treatment she needs to stay alive. and here's exactly what she said and i will quote, "my life is in the hands of people i do not know who do not know me, who are essentially telling me i don't matter, that my life doesn't matter, that my health doesn't matter, that the quality of my life doesn't matter, and that's really hard." tragically, felicia's story is not unique. her fears are shared with millions of americans. the affordable care act and its protections hinge on this

supreme court and the outcomes of this hearing. before being elected, president trump promised that every just as he put forward would "will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts, on obamacare." judge barrett, 18 months later, you criticized the chief justice for upholding the affordable care act when you concluded "chief justice roberts pushed the affordable care act beyond its possible meaning to say the statute." my question is how many months after you published that article did president trump nominate you to be a judge on the court of appeal? >> senator harris, i apologize. i don't remember the timing of that article. i was nominated, i believe my nomination to the court of appeals was announced in may of

2017. >> that's correct. >> but i don't remember when the article came out. >> the article was published in january 2017, so that would have been five months later. justice ginsburg, whose seat you are seeking to fill, upheld the affordable care act. so let's lay this out for everyone who is watching. as i discussed previously, one, republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the affordable care act. two, donald trump promised to name a supreme court justice and supreme court justices who would tear down the affordable care act. three, president trump is before the supreme court right now arguing that it should be struck in its entirety. four, the supreme court could be just one vote away from overturning the affordable care act and all of its protections,

including for everyone who has a pre-existing condition or make it a pre-existing condition. in other words, the affordable care act and all of its protections hinge on this seat and the outcome of this hearing. and i believe that it's very important the american people understand the issues. judge barrett, the day after president trump announced your nomination to the supreme court, he tweeted "obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the supreme court." but in reality, there is no alternative that protects the millions of americans who depend on the affordable care act every day. the horrifying truth is that president trump and the republicans in congress are fighting to take health care away from the american people in the middle of a pandemic, as i

have said. president trump has said that he wants to protect the american people's health care, the reality is right now, he is asking the supreme court to take it away, period. senator klobuchar, judge barrett, asked you earlier today but did not receive an answer. prior to your nomination, were you aware of president trump's statement committing to nominate judges who would strike down the affordable care act? and i would appreciate a "yes" or "no" answer, please. >> senator, i want to be very, very careful, i'm under oath. as i'm sitting here, i don't recall seeing those statements, but let's see. i don't recall seeing or hearing those statements but i don't really know what context they were in so i guess i can't relate definitively give you a "yes" or "no" answer. what i would like to say is i don't recall hearing about or seeing such statements. >> well, i imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks who helped prepare you for this

nomination hearing -- >> i have, yes. >> let me finish, if you don't mind. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> did they inform me of the president's statements that this might be a question that you're here and? >> when i had my call with senators, it came up. many of the democratic senators wanted to know about the affordable care act and to satisfy themselves that they had not made any precommitments to the president about it. >> and so you then became aware of the president's statements, is that correct? >> let's see. senator harris, in the context of these conversations, and so can't remember whether senators framed the question in the context of president trump's comments. perhaps so. from my perspective, the most important thing is to say that i have never made a commitment, i've never been asked to make a commitment, and i hope the committee would trust in my integrity not to even entertain such an idea, and that it

wouldn't violate my oath if i were confirmed and heard that case. >> just so i'm clear and then we can move on, are you saying that you are now, before i said it come aware or not aware that president trump made a promise about who he would nominate to the united states supreme court? >> senator harris, but i was saying, i thought you were initially framed the question is whether i was aware before this nomination process began -- >> my question is were you aware before this hearing began? >> so you're changing -- you're asking me know if i was aware before the hearing began? >> as a follow-up question i am, yes. >> when i had my calls with democratic senators, this question came up and i don't recall but it may well have been that they reference to comments in the courts of those calls. even so, that wasn't something i heard or saw directly by reading it myself.

>> senator leahy he asked you earlier today but i think it bears repeating, do you think it is important for the american people to believe that supreme court justices are independent and fair and impartial western mark a "yes" or "no" answer, please. >> yes, senator harris. >> a number of my colleagues have asked you today whether you would recuse yourself from cases in the affordable care act. you did not directly answer the questions and instead you described a process by which this would work or happen. answer my question is, is it true then at the end of that process, regardless of that process, that it would be you who would ultimately make the decision about whether or not you would recuse yourself? >> that is true, and i can't have you elicit a commitment from me about how i would make that decision in advance, that would be wrong. >> right, and what i best do is is it not correct that ultimately it would be you and

you alone that would make the decision about whether you would be recuse? you've already opined on the constitutionality of the affordable care act, and that position has satisfied the president's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the affordable care act and senate republicans rushed this process so that you could rule on this very case. a reasonable question about your impartiality will undoubtedly hang over this court's ultimate decision in the affordable care act case, if he refused to recuse yourself. i strongly believe that. supreme court justices consider the consequences of their decisions on people's lives. earlier this year, the supreme court ruled against president trump in his effort to repeal daca protections for children who arrived in the united states before they could talk or walk. chief justice roberts wrote the

opinion for a 5-12 majority that included a crucial vote of justice ruth nader ginsberg the court rejected the trump appealed to reject protections. they had not taken into consideration the fact that many dreamers rely on those protections when they started their careers and businesses, when they served in the military of the united states, when they bought homes and when they started families. senator hirono asked you whether it is appropriate for supreme court justice to consider real-world impact, but you are a sitting judge now. so my question is in deciding whether to uphold government action, do you currently consider the consequences of your ruling on people's lives? >> senator harris, that's part of the decision of every case.

>> and so you do. >> every case has consequences in people's lives, so of course i do in every case. as part of the judicial decision-making process. >> and would you do that if you are actually voted on the united states supreme court? would you do that there is well? >> senator, considering how the resolution of the dispute will affect parties, will affect people, it's part of the judicial decision-making process and i will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability. >> so if the affordable care act is struck down, more than 100 million americans with pre-existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely, more than 20 million americans could us could lose tr health care coverage entirely, including over 5 million latino americans who receive access to health insurance because of the

affordable care act. insurers will once again be able to discriminate against more than 50% of african-americans in 40% of latinos with pre-existing conditions. insurers will be able to deny coverage to more than one corridor of native americans with conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. all of this in the midst of a pandemic that is not going away anytime soon. a pandemic, that when age is taken into account, has been three times as deadly for black, latino, pacific islander, and native americans. a pandemic that has killed approximately one in 1,000 black americans, one in 1,200 native americans, and one and 1,500 latino americans. judge barrett, would you consider the 135 million people who gain protections under the

affordable care act when deciding a case that challenges that law? >> senator harris, if i were to be confirmed and concluded that i was able to sit on the case, the recusal statute, and then if i heard the case and decided the case, i would consider all the protections that congress put in place and as i said, earlier during this hearing, the question would be figuring out whether congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that, consistent with your intent, congress' law, would permit this act to stand or whether the flawed portion of it could be excised out. that is a question out of what judges want, not a question of the supreme court, that is a question of what congress wanted in the statute and that is the statute that you enacted and

extended this health care coverage to millions of americans. >> what weight would you give the fact that 135 million americans with pre-existing conditions are now depending on protections of the affordable care act? >> is a mention to senator hirono, it takes reliant's issues into account because it's about keeping stability in the law. the law often takes into account relianc. i can't really say how they would play in her way into this case because that's part of the legal calculus of the case. i can't really give you the kind of commitment or precommitment you're asking for me of how i would structure my decision-making process. >> i would ask you to consider if you are confirmed on the court. a credible benefit of the affordable care act and

destruction of its protections will have a devastating impact on hundreds of millions of americans. you testified yesterday that justice ruth bader ginsburg opened the door for many women in law. i certainly believe and know that to be true as a personal matter. she was a trailblazer for women's equality and gender equity. as a law student come as a teacher and a civil rights lawyer and as the second woman ever to sit on the united states supreme court, justice ginsburg broke many barriers for women across the country. i believe fondly we remember her fondly as a woman who has patience, and a person who had e will to make our country a more equal place and a more just place. one of the things she fought for was a woman's right to control her own body and to make decisions about her own body and

health care and reproductive choices. the constitution of the united states protects a woman's right to choose whether or when to become apparent and protect a woman's right to choose aborti abortion. women of color, immigrant women, women of low income and women in rural areas face significant barriers when attempting to access birth control, cancer screenings and comprehensive health care. moreover, antichoice activists and politicians have been working to pass law and file lawsuits designed to overturn roe and the precedent that followed. the threat to choice is real. just last year, the court heard a case that gave it an opportunity to revisit and overturn its abortion president.

june medical services. the supreme court struck down a medically unnecessary restriction that would close all but one abortion clinic in louisiana. chief justice roberts agreed with the court's four liberal members that the court was bound to strike down the louisiana law because it was virtually identical to a texas law that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016. as a result, women in the state were able to receive the full range of reproductive care. by chief justice roberts wrote his own separate opinion on the case to make clear that in the future, he cannot be counted on to uphold a woman's right to choose. justice ginsburg provided the critical fifth vote to strike down the unconstitutional abortion restriction and medical services. so we must be honest about the

impact of her passing and the impact it will have on the court's decision in cases regarding women's access to reproductive health care. my republican colleagues have said there is a minimal camp that the supreme court will overturn roe, but back in january, 39 republican senators including ten members of this very committee asked the court to "take up the issue of whether roe should be reconsidered, and if appropriate, overruled." let's not make any mistake about it. allowing president trump to decide who fills the seat of ruth bader ginsburg, champion for women's right and a critical vote in so many decisions that sustained the right to choose poses a threat to safe and legal

abortions. president trump has said that overturning roe v. wade would "happen automatically, in my opinion, because i am putting pro-life justices on the court." judge barrett, several times today you have quote justice ginsburg's testimony about not making predictions in future cases, however she was far more forthcoming about the essential rights of women. the confirmation hearing shows that she testified that "the decision of whether or not to bear a child affects a woman's life, her well-being, and dignity. it is a decision she must make for herself. when government controls that decision, for her, she is being

treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices." then judge ginsburg went on to say "it is essential to witness equality with man, that she be the decision-maker, that sh her choice be controlled. if you impose restrictions that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex." justice ginsburg did not tell the committee how she would vote in any particular case, but she did freely discuss how she viewed a woman's right to choose. but judge barrett, your record clearly shows you hold a different view. in 2006, you signed your name to an advertisement published in the south bend tribune that described roe v. wade as "an

exercise of raw judicial power" and called for putting "an end to the barbaric legacy of roe v. wade." you signed a similar ad in 2013 that describes roe as "infamous" and expressed opposition to abortion. also in 2013, you wrote in an article about supreme court precedent in which he picked roe from a list of well-settled cases that you said "no justice would overrule even if she disagrees," suggesting of course that you believe roe is susceptible to being overturned. on the 40th anniversary of roe, you delivered a speech in which he said the court's recognition of the right to choose was "created through judicial fiat" rather than grounded in the constitution. and during your tenure on the seventh circuit court of appeals, you have been willing

to reconsider abortion restrictions that other republican appointed judges found unconstitutional. as the senate considers filling the seat of justice ruth bader ginsburg, who said in her confirmation hearing that the right to choose is "essential to women's equality." i would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose, to make her own health care decisions. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the following three documents be entered into the record. a letter opposing judge barrett's nomination from the naacp, a statement opposing judge barrett's nomination from the planned parenthood federative america and planned parenthood action fund, and a report opposing judge barrett's nomination from the naacp legal

defense and educational fund. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. kennedy. >> mr. chairman, i have -- >> martha: not a lot of question and answer back and forth between senator harris and judge barrett. i want to bring in scholar and fox news contributor and harold ford jr., former democratic congressman and chairman, good to have both of you with us. let me get a brief take from both of you. you first. >> it's pretty clear that they are not going to be able to stop barrett's nomination. they know that going after her religion the way they went after brett kavanaugh for false charges of sexual assault would backfire. so they are trying to make this about health care and they are trying to make this about all these rulings and alleging that

she is going to overturn all these laws and the reality is they have no idea what she's going to do because they are exposing their flawed judicial philosophies. they appoint activist judges who start with a predetermined result they want to have and find a legal reasoning to justify it and legislate from the bench. conservative don't do that. much to the conservative movement's frustration. conservative judges apply the law even when it doesn't result in their preferred outcome. if you want proof of that, the justice who cast the deciding vote to uphold obamacare was a republican nominee, john roberts. we have no idea how amy coney barrett is going to vote on roe v. wade, obamacare or any of these cases. this assault is nothing but political theater. >> martha: there was a suggestion, harold ford jr., that amy coney barrett was chosen because of a statement that she made when she was talking about aca and the roberts decision. there were other judges who

agree, basically, with her minority position on his approach to that decision. but basically, she wanted to say you wrote this and then five months later, president trump picked use of this must be why. is that fair? >> first of all, thanks for having me on. i think all of this is fair. we shouldn't forget, and mark raised a great point, there is no doubt she is very likely to be confirmed. she's an impressive, smart, capable candidate but i would add, so was merrick garland. it's almost as if, when you watch this hearing, that some of my republican friends in the senate believe that maybe trump will be reelected and they've got to rush this thing through. democrats will continue to question her very directly. she is answering questions. i am impressed with the way she is answering. the fact that she has no notes and seems to be taking down notes on one level is highly

remarkably impressive, but i think all of the questioning is fair. i thought cory booker this evening did an exceptional job of walking through with judge barrett some of her thinking around what the consideration by a full court, what her thinking about some employment and racial law matters and i thought the vice presidential nominee for democrat did a good job there. i thought during the early part of the day, chris coons and dick durbin i thought were two of the more effective democrats to lay out some of the questioning but i would agree with mark, judge barrett will probably make it through but not before a tough set of questioning for a lifetime appointment at the supreme court of the united states. >> martha: it is a very important process and i think every time we go through this america learns a lot about the difference between judicial appointments and legislative work. we heard some quotes from "the federalist" papers on the difference between the judicial

branch and the legislative branch in terms of judgment and how that works. we do have several, i think it's eight members of this committee who are up for reelection. it felt a little bit like a campaign speech at the beginning of kamala harris' statement here. she talked quite a bit about covid. the same wh could be said about lindsey graham with some of the points he made. he's in a very tough race in south carolina and it sounds like his opening statement was speaking to that audience as well. >> shocked there is a politics going here. everybody's trying to make their argument because the outcome is predetermined, everybody's making the argument that will be to their political advantage. as i agree 100% with harold that they have a right to ask these questions, i just look at this and to compare how dignified this day has been even with the tough question, to the fiasco that was the kavanaugh hearing and it's a much more pleasant

and more of a credit to our democracy. yes, she's going to have to take tough questions and she should and she's answering them very well but one point on the obamacare point, what people are forgetting, the whole idea that she was nominated in order to just arrive in time to strike down obamacare, the lower court ruling strikes down obamacare, so if there is a split court, 4-4, the lower court ruling stands because her presence on the court could possibly not make any difference even if she did vote against obamacare and we don't know that she would because the severability thing is a legal breakdown in some cases, would probably say that it is separable. to be when she doesn't strike me as someone who will be influenced by what anyone else wants her to decide and i'm sure this will be used as a political point if she does decide in that regard, but we will watch that as it moves forward. harold ford jr., thanks so much. good to have you here tonight. marc thiessen, good to have you here as well.

thank you. coming up next, one of the most important people in the development of the covid-19 vaccine joins me exclusively tonight with an update on operation warp speed and when we can expect this covid vaccine. lots of questions for this very important scientist right after this. if you have risk factors like heart disease, diabetes and raised triglycerides,... ...vascepa can give you something to celebrate. ♪ vascepa, when added to your statin,... ...is clinically proven to provide 25% lower risk from heart attack and stroke. vascepa is clearly different. first and only fda approved. celebrate less risk. even for those with family history. ♪ don't take vascepa if you are... ...or become allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. serious side effects may occur like heart rhythm problems and bleeding. heart rhythm problems may occur in more people...

...with persistent cardiovascular risk or who have had them in the past. tell your doctor if you experience an irregular heartbeat or other heart rhythm problems. possible side effects include muscle and joint pain. celebrate less risk. added cardio protection. talk to your doctor about adding protection with vascepa. talk to your doctor about adding protection hi, i'm dorothy hamill. even as i look toward 65, one thing hasn't changed i still love getting on the ice. which means i need to stay healthy. now, as i'm thinking about selecting a medicare plan, i know i want one that has the kind of coverage that takes a total approach to my health. one that connects all the different parts of my health care to keep me aging actively. did you know that aetna medicare advantage plans take a total, connected approach to your health? starting with the benefits you want, like $0 monthly premiums. dental, vision and hearing. and telehealth so you can see a primary care doctor remotely from the

comfort and safety of home. and a monthly over-the-counter allowance. aetna medicare advantage plans will help me keep doing what i love. because, for me, this never gets old. medicare annual enrollment ends december 7th. call today to learn more and we'll send you a $10 visa reward card with no obligation to enroll.

>> martha: fox news polling is showing that when americans vote, these are the biggest issues on their mind. covid-19 in the economy tied at 44%. a short time ago, joe biden blamed the president for politicizing a covid vaccine as the president says he believes that vaccine will be ready very soon, watch. >> we have to have to get

vaccines, not politicize it and plan for distribution. >> operation warp speed, we will have 100 million vaccine doses before the end of this year and they will be delivered by the military and be set to go. they are waiting. >> martha: behind this whole project, hi he is the chief scientific advisor for the administration's operation warp speed initiative. thank you very much. it's important that everyone knows you have dedicated your whole life to working on vaccines and you have been one of the driving forces for the vaccine that so many have received for coronavirus, for hpv and that you were part of the effort for the malaria vaccine which took over 25 years and the amazing accomplishments, because malaria affects so many

people across the world. good to have you here tonight. the big question on everyone's mind is how has this process, because for two years is the shortest process ever for a vaccine, so how have we gotten this close in such a short period of time. >> it's been exceptionally fast for a number of reasons. one is we have learned over the last ten, 15 years, a lot about what's called platform technologies, which is the basic of a number of vaccines whereby 80%, 90% of how you make a vaccine is already predefined. we use that platform technology that we knew would be fast, safe, could be manufactured at scale, and investors scale, and that was one reason we went very fast. the second reason is we prepared, we took financial risk, we didn't take any safety

risk and we were able to prepare for phase one trial, phase three trial, even before. we were manufacturing the vaccines even before starting phase three trials, so we got all of the blanks, less than ten months after discovering this virus, we have six programs in the clinics, of which four are in phase three trials. >> martha: it's an incredible story and one we don't hear enough about. of course, it won't be a success story until it is actually being administered to people. how far away are we from that? i've heard you say thanksgiving. what is your estimate? >> two of the vaccines are completing their phase three trials and i expect them to read the efficacy somewhere between the end of this month and next month. reading the efficacy is the

beginning of a process that will take probably three to four weeks before the companies are able to file for the fda to approve it. yes, even shortly before best estimate but this is only a best estimate. >> martha: everyone has had the johnson & johnson story, that they have paused their vaccine trial. how serious is that? is that unusual? >> there are serious events in all clinical trials almost always. of course, they don't happen in the limelight with all the countries looking into it. the key here is that every vaccine, very, very carefully, and trials are put on hold, try to understand what's going on. if the vaccine is deemed to still be safe and can progress

because the event was not really associated with vaccination, it will go on. if it is deemed to be a problem, the trial will be stopped. >> martha: i was reading a piece in "the wall street journal" today that talked about polio vaccine and how hesitant people were initially to take it. there is a hesitancy in the polls, but talked about how quickly that faded away once people were able to get their hands on it. they wanted it for their family members. do you think that will happen in this case as well, doctor? >> i sincerely hope it will. i read that article and i was optimistic after reading it because i'm extremely worried about how politicized the vaccine is and how people are politicizing it. we will talk about the safety and the benefit and i hope people will realize that the only way really to allow them to control this pandemic is through mass vaccination.

>> martha: i want to ask about the antibodies, there is also a question that it could be given as a preventative that might protect people from getting the virus for a month or two while we wait for the vaccine. is that possible, in your mind? >> yes, it is. we are supporting clinical trials from a manufacturer but also the two other manufacturers are. as we speak, running clinical trials in very frail populations like elderly people, for instance. unable to mount a strong response on their own and if they encounter the virus while they have the antibody, which usually lasts between a month and six months, they will be protected. >> martha: the nevada person who got it again, that is also not surprising. as i understand it, there are

rare cases where people get chicken pox twice, right? >> there are. i don't know the specific health conditions of the prison but the exception is in the rule here the protections after being vaccinated. >> martha: good to hear. i hope you'll come back. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> martha: moments ago, president trump continuing his very active campaign. reaches a stage in pennsylvania. really important state for both sides. we will take you there to hear from him right after this. >> and we are independent, we are now energy independent. first time ever. so if i don't always play by the rules -- inflammation in your eye might be to blame. looks like a great day for achy, burning eyes over-the-counter eye drops typically work by lubricating your eyes and may provide temporary relief. ha! these drops probably won't touch me. xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. what is that?

xiidra, noooo! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda approved treatment specifically for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait 15 minutes before reinserting contacts. got any room in your eye? talk to an eye doctor about twice-daily xiidra. i prefer you didn't! xiidra. not today, dry eye.

but before we sign i gotta ask... sure, anything. we searched you online and maybe you can explain this? i can't believe that garbage is still coming in. that is so false! frustrated with your online search results? call reputation defender today to join tens of thousands who've improved their online reputation. get your free reputation report card at

reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555. >> martha: it will pretty much be a different state every day for president trump now. he is in johnstown, pennsylvania tonight. i carry h state he carried in 2e won the state by 44,000 votes, so this was a big one for him

and he's working the crowd there. let's listen. >> -- they are going to come for health care, they're going come for free college. i say sometimes jokingly, sarcastically, everybody gets a free rolls-royce commit which cnn says, they don't get a free rolls-royce, he has misrepresented. you know, these people are sick! [crowd chanting] >> everybody gets a free rolls-royce! they don't get a free rolls-royce! the president has misrepresented. they are sick people. but think of it. when joe said raise your hand if everybody's in favor of free everything. free everything, but free health care for illegal aliens and joe goes, like. [laughter] he had no idea what the hell he was doing. he had no idea.

and he's not a nice guy if you understand. he's not a nice guy. if he's a nice guy wouldn't hit him like this. he's a bad guy. he's always been a dummy. in his best of years he was considered a dumb guy. when asked about fracking, biden said he would sure, absolutely make it, we will eliminate it. that's what he said, those are the exact words and then he said it 19 different times. then one day he said, i never said that. it's incredible. and they don't question him. i couldn't get away with it for a minute. not a minute. did you see the town hall he had with nbc? that was a town hall for a child, a young child. barron trump -- actually, baron is far too advanced for that to happen. that was a town hall, lester holt, that was a beauty, that was some town hall.

he said yes, we have a random sampling of people. yeah, all trump-haters. what a group of people. but he raised his hand, he said illegal immigrants will get health care. people don't realize what that means. that means your social security goes down the tubes, your country goes bankrupt, the whole thing is a disaster. what he raised his hand, now he's trying to say he didn't do it and they don't call him out because he is fake. his radical left running mate, who i just watched on television, so pathetic, a cosponsor of the green new deal, which eliminates all fossil fuels. she's having a hard time getting out of that one. she came out the other day in favor of fracking and was like, yeah, i think so. she is further left than bernie. did you see bernie? i thought was the furthest left of the senate. because you don't get too much worse, right?

then instead of socialist you go to the c word. she is further left, considered further left than bernie. this is -- and you know, they're looking. when nancy pelosi does the 25th amendment she's doing it for biden, you do know that, right? because they want to get biden out and that won't be hard but at this very moment, biden's website includes a pledge to eliminate net zero fossil fuels which means fossil fuels, carbon is gone and it's gone soon. and with that goes our economy and with that goes our country. the democrat party hates fracking, they hate coal. they hate clean, beautiful call. they hate domestic energy production and biden will shut you down. he wants to shut you down just like your governor has got you shut down right now. better open up and safe. did you see the world health organization yesterday? they said trump was right!

they said you can't make it the cure worse than the problem itself. i've been saying that for a long time. we did the right thing and saved 2 million lives. 2.2 million people. we get nothing. the vaccines are coming soon, the therapeutics and frankly, the cure. i don't know what it was i took, but i felt better very quickly. i don't know what it was, antibodies. antibodies. i don't know, i took it and i said i felt like superman. i said, let me add 'em. i could've been here for two or five days ago. great doctors. i want to thank the doctors at walter reed and johns hopkins. one great thing about being president, if you are not feeling 100%, you have more doctors than you thought existed in the world. i was surrounded by 14 of them.

where you from, where you from? i'm from john hopkins, and from walter reed. but what talented people, they did a wonderful job. and thank you. while i'm president, pennsylvania workers will lead the way and that's what's happening. you're leading the way. [cheers and applause] you had the best year, you would ask for the commonwealth of pennsylvania. don't ever say state. actually, nobody cares about them, but you know. i'm just saying, pennsylvania, he got two of them, right? the great commonwealth of pennsylvania, i probably spent more time here than sleepy joe. i went to school here, joe biden and the democrat socialist will

kill your jobs. dismantle police departments, you see that happening. did you see in the debate the other night? i said name one law enforcement agency. just one of the whole country that supports you. he couldn't do it. then chris wallace bailed him out. then i say, how come you got the $3.5 million from russia? and they bailed him out again. he was joking like a dog. they bailed him out. but they want to dissolve your borders, they don't want borders. open borders. release criminal aliens, raise your taxes, confiscate your guns, get rid of the second amendment. [crowd booing] speak of the talk about the suburban women, somebody said -- >> martha: breaking news tonight involving bill barr's probe of obama era unmasking, that is up counts......because of covid-19 ......polling locations ......confusion is high..

(fisherman vo) how do i register to vote? (working mom vo) i think i'm already registered. ...hmm!...hmm!...hmm! (woman on porch vo) can we vote by mail here? (man on porch vo) lemme check. (woman vo) thank you! (man vo) thank you! (grandma vo) you'll be safe, right? (daughter vo) yes! (four girls vo) the polls! voted! (grandma vo) go out and vote! it's so important! (man at poll vo) woo! (grandma vo) it's the most important thing you can do!

introducing the new sleep number 360 smart bed. now temperature balancing, so you can sleep better together. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. can it help with snoring? i've never heard snoring. exactly. no problem ...and done. so you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. save up to $1,000 on the new sleep number 360 smart bed and adjustable base. plus, 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time.

is a musical >> martha: so,

reports coming in tonight saying that the unmasking probe has come tod and that it has resulted in no criminal charges. thethe prosecutor found no wrongdoing. correspondent, gillian turner has the story for us tonight. jillian, good evening. >> martha, good evening to you. the story is still developing as we speak at this moment. the federal prosecutor passed by attorney general, william barr, to look into this probe, has reportedly closed up shop. he is no longer working on the investigation. what he has been looking at was the obama administration's intelligence committee and what is known as the process of unmasking. now, with him goes the prospect of any type of explosive report or criminal prosecution of obama-arrow officials. senior trump officials, including the president himself

mismanaged the process of unmasking also those whose names are redacted and intelligence documents. i am going to read a list of officials who meet these requests. they include joe biden, jacob lew, cia director, john brennan, james clapper, chief of staff, and ambassador, samantha power. now, unmasking itself, fairly standard operating procedure. top national security officials who look at intelligence documents as part of their job are allowed to request that individuals become unmasked if they think that individual poses a direct threat to national security. now, also breaking tonight, martha, there are new developments in a separate investigation, a probe led by john durham. fox news has obtained a 94 page document used by the fbi to keep

track of information provided by christopher steele at the start of the 2016 russia probe. among the revelations, as we continue to comb through this document, the fbi believed russians were trying to exploit "personal -- gathering compromising material on him." >> documents are being released at a level that no one has ever seen before. things that nobody ever thought were going to be released are being released. >> monthly, i'm learning from sources in the intelligence committee that this probe is not going to wrap up prior to the election on november 3rd as the president's administration had hoped. we will you updated. been to a lot of people will be disappointed to hear that. thank you very much, gillian turner reporting tonight. so, that is before all of tuesday, 2020. we will be back tomorrow morning and then we will be back here

tomorrow night as "the story" continues. have a great night, everybody appeared we will see you back tomorrow night at 7. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, senate confirmation hearings at 8:00 p.m. easter and are still on tonight for amy ton amy coney barrett. we have the takeaways from what has already happened. of course, a turnaround for you immediately this hour. and the president, kicking off another rally, that started up short time ago in johnstown pennsylvania. the trump campaign believes it is still in play. of course, our producers are managing that as well. we will take you live. but first, good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." if someone had asked you a year ago what you