really is something, the whole world is kind of upside down. thank you so much, guys. good to see you. good to see all of you. thank you so much for tuning in, as always. see you right back here tomorrow night.kennedy begins now. kennedy: thank you, trish. president trump today fighting back hard against robert mueller and michael cohen after his former attorney and fixer today pleaded guilty to lying to congress, but the big question tonight, can we trust michael cohen? clearly he has a problem telling the truth. or is he just trying to save his own scaly skin? as you know, the president has been railing against special counsel for a long time now. cohen has reportedly been cooperating heavily with the mueller investigation. he's already expected to serve up to five years in prison and now we're told he has spent at least 70 hours talking to investigators, boring them to tears. they told the judge he lied to a senate committee to cover up

that he was negotiating a business deal in russia on behalf of the president, because everyone thought he was going to lose and would need something to do after the election. right before flying to the g20 summit in argentina, the commander in chief unloaded on his former confidant and claimed it was a hot bowl of malarkey. >> he's a weak person and not a very smart person. he's got himself a big prison sentence and he's trying to get a much lesser prison sentence by making up a story. now, here's the thing. even if he was right, it doesn't matter because i was allowed to do whatever i wanted during the campaign. he's lying about a project that everybody knew about. i mean, we were very open with it. we were thinking about building a building. i decided ultimately not to do it. there would have been nothing wrong if i did do it. kennedy: unclear whether cohen has told robert mueller but today, the president blasted him, too, tweeting when will this illegal joseph mccarthy style witch hunt, one that has

shattered so many innocent lives, end, ever end, or will it just go on forever. after wasting more than $40 million, is that possible, it has proven only one thing. there was no collusion with russia. so ridiculous. let's get back to cohen. how much of a problem does he really pose to the president? here is chief intelligence correspondent katherine herridge with more. reporter: kennedy, the president's lawyer rudy giuliani confirmed to fox news special counsel mueller asked about the moscow real estate proposal and there is quote, no contradiction between the president's written answers and cohen. when the president's former personal attorney testified behind closed doors to the senate intelligence committee last year, he also provided a two-page written summary about a moscow real estate project. according to a draft obtained by fox, cohen told congressional investigators the proposal was under consideration at the trump organization from september 2015

until the end of january 2016, but cohen told the new york court the discussions lasted another five months. cohen continued, i never considered asking mr. trump to travel to russia in connection with this proposal. to the best of my knowledge, mr. trump was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on two occasions, but the plea says cohen agreed to travel and contemplated his boss might also make the trip. on capitol hill, the senate intelligence committee leadership reacted. >> there seems to be a trend here amongst so many of the president's closest allies, that they don't tell the truth. >> i haven't seen the specific indictment or the plea, but this is a reason people shouldn't lie when they're in front of a congressional delegation. reporter: the russian born developer philip sater said he was the go-between on the russian project. he boasted to cohen about his ties to russian president vladimir putin.

quote, buddy, our boy can become president of the usa and we can engineer it. i will get all of putin's team to buy in on this. i will manage this process. there's no one on this planet that wants donald elected more than i do. the moscow real estate deal was never sealed. >> if we were thinking about building a building, i guess we had an option, i don't know what you'd call it, we decided -- i decided ultimately not to do it. there would have been nothing wrong if i did do it. reporter: based on the new cohen timeline, the negotiations with moscow continued well into the presidential campaign, and during the same month of the controversial june 2016 trump tower meeting. legal experts say cohen may be problematic for the special counsel in the future. >> at some point, some day, bob mueller might call michael cohen as a witness. this is a guy who you have indicted for making false statements to congress and at the same time, you're now holding him up as a model of probity or someone whose word can be taken at face value. reporter: in the plea, cohen said he briefed trump family

members but none of the president's children are identified. in his senate testimony, donald trump jr. said he was peripherally aware of the deal. kennedy? kennedy: thank you so much. so here's the big question about michael cohen, the guy who has been caught lying a number of times. why actually believe him now? let me bring in house judiciary committee member bob gaetz. welcome back. >> thank you, kennedy. apparently lying in congress is okay but lying to congress is a big no-no. michael cohen lied to the irs, to the fbi, to congress and it should be no surprise he's likely lying to robert mueller to save his own skin. i think that donald trump probably regrets any association with this individual but i doubt that it's a big story in the grand scope of the presidency. kennedy: he thought this was a person who would walk through a wall for him. someone with whom he could share his deepest secrets, at least financial secrets, but it seems as though cohen has turned on him in order to save his own arse. the question is, if you are

robert mueller, how do you pick and choose which statements to believe when there are so many that seem to contradict each other? >> if you're robert mueller, michael cohen is the star witness from hell. he's had his credibility eroded at every step of the way, even mueller himself has now accused cohen of lying so i doubt that anything that comes out of his mouth would be probative in any substantial analysis that the congress or special counsel would do. at the end of the day, i think that you're talking about a building that never would have been illegal to build, that never was built, from a guy who's lied multiple times. a lot of people advertise their greatest weaknesses. michael cohen tries to act like this big macho guy, bullying reporters, bullying people who don't agree with him and at the end of the day, he was kind of the first guy to roll and sing whatever story the special counsel wanted him to just to limit his own criminal culpability. kennedy: there are people who are connecting the dots between jerome corsi, and roger stone,

saying that that is a russia connection because they had foreknowledge of the dnc hacked e-mails that wikileaks then disseminated and you know, there was obviously the report from the uk about manafort visiting julian assange several times in the ecuadorian embassy in london. now you've got cohen saying that the talks with russia went well into 2016. when do these things connect, and when does it become problematic for the president? >> during 2016, i can't see any circumstance in which a speculative real estate deal would be problematic at all. and with roger stone, i think you have a guy who is pretty effectively laid out that his analysis and his speculation was largely based on the public statements and the tweets of julian assange. so you don't have to be a genius to say that assange is going to have a massive data dump when assange himself is forecasting

that very action. with cohen, i think there is a greater problem because you don't know what this guy is willing to say, true or untrue, in order to be able to limit his own likely prison sentence. so i think that that type of unpredictability likely brings the president a greater degree of concern than the mueller investigation, where even peter strzok and lisa page were saying there's no there there after ten months of looking at the very limited evidence. kennedy: so, you know, let's assume that running for president is like a courtship. when do you stop looking around for other deals, when you're dating, when you're engaged or when you're married? when you're dating, that's pretty much when you're running. when you're engaged, that's when you become the nominee. obviously you get married, that's when you win the election and become president. at what point do you stop looking around for other deals that become a conflict of interest? >> well, just like marriage, the presidency is binary. you are either married or not, and you are either the president or not. i'm both neither married nor the

president. the president i guess is both. in this circumstance, before he assumes the office, he has every right to look at whatever deal or whatever opportunity might be before him in business. i asked donald trump jr. one time, what's the family business like now that your father's president, and he largely said that, you know, that's difficult to do deals at all with anybody because under any circumstance, there could be an accusation so largely, their family business has become politics and the work of the nation. i think it's admirable they would sacrifice so much to have the opportunity to serve. kennedy: it's certainly interesting. i know the president has called this an investigation in search of a crime and allan dershowitz pointed out that most of the convictions and charges have taken place after robert mueller came into the picture which means that these are procedural indictments and pleas. what do you think of that? >> the indictments from mueller have either been well before donald trump ever contemplated

running for president, conduct that occurred after he was president but that he had no knowledge of, or conduct that occurred in russia where no defendant is ever expected to show up and face any type of justice. so i'm sort of wondering what this has all been about. i'm wondering if we are going to see any type of tangible production from the mueller probe, or whether or not it's just -- it's sort of a lightent e latent irritant to the presidency the democrats intend to bolster until 2020. kennedy: they may be investigating that long because we thought there was an end in sight but with these new developments, it's getting intriguing but it doesn't feel we have reached the apex. thank you, congressman. i hear you but i can't see you. the latest developments have united democrats on their favorite issue, protecting robert mueller at all costs. new york's democratic senator kir sten gillibrand tweeted quote, there is a culture of corruption surrounding at real donald trump and his administration. it is absolutely critical for congress to protect the mueller investigation and ensure that the american people get the

answers and justice they deserve, end quote. but republicans seem a little less concerned with outgoing house speaker paul ryan, saying he's quote, not worried about bob mueller. very familiar language there, sir. so will the president try and squash the investigation and fire mueller, or will he let this thing play out? the panel is here to discuss. editor at townhall.com and fox news contributor, katie pavlich along with former adviser to what happened hillary clinton, her campaign, and former consultant to the dnc antoine c. wright and president of diligence llc, get yours today, just in time for the holidays, mike baker. welcome, everyone. great to have you. so i will ask you the same question i asked the congressman. when does it become problematic for the president and does it feel like something's happening? >> well, that's a question we have been asking ourselves for a year and a half. launching the special investigation was that a problem for the president, obviously, yes. when it comes to 2020, i do think it politically could be a

problem because even if there's no direct connection to russian collusion which this investigation was supposed to be all about, the feeling of corruption and just dirty stuff being around, whether it's true or not, does not bode well for the president. however, the 2018 midterm elections were about president trump's agenda. they weren't about russia. democrats did not campaign on it, did not use it in their advertising. it's something americans don't necessarily care about. so when these big stories come up, everyone thinks there's a whole lot happening and things are getting hotter, but this is just an extension of michael cohen's situation here. i'm interested to see if the senate intelligence committee, who referred him for prosecution, because this is coming from the congressional side and being carried out by the special counsel. it didn't necessarily come from the special counsel. politically, if it drags out, it's not great but in terms of the smoking gun, we still don't have one. kennedy: i tend to agree with you. i think there's some weird stuff happening and it's getting harder and harder for trump supporters to say this is absolutely nothing. but having said that, it seems

like now, money laundering and, you know, future business deals may be more problematic for the president than russia tinkering with voting machines and actually changing votes or influencing perceptions. >> i think all of this is problematic for the president. kennedy: of course you do. you are a democrat. >> not only that, i think it's problematic because we see this pattern of behavior from the trump campaign, his camp, et cetera, that nothing was wrong, he did nothing. now as the special prosecutor works along, that's not true. kennedy: one person. which thing specifically? cohen or trump? >> i think trump lying about no negotiation with russia and now this comes out. if i'm donald trump jr. -- kennedy: could michael cohen be exaggerating about the association with russia? >> no, i don't think he has a reason to. kennedy: that's not possible? >> he seems like a fine young man. i will go back to what i said to you earlier.

someone who is facing five years in prison is not going to take the risk of lying to anyone that could give him 25 years in prison. kennedy: lying to the guy who's in charge and you're telling him what he wants to say, that's not really lying. we are running out of time. want to bring in baker. >> thank you. what are we talking about today? listen, this is what happens when you have an open-ended investigation with unlimited budget and resources. at some point, this is what happens. kennedy: there's something -- >> i'm saying they will find something. because that's what you do. look, russia is the place where investigations go to die unless they are given a free rein. this has had so far free rein. can he find something in the business world of somebody who worked in new york property developing for decades, of course. >> and ignore everything he finds along the way? >> no, what i'm saying is they are trying to find something. do you think there was actually russian collusion, a nefarious attempt on the part of trump -- >> absolutely i do.

we are going to get there. kennedy: how do you define collusion? how do you define collusion? if you say absolutely, what is absolute? >> let me back up. i will say that i think the special -- kennedy: no, no, tell me what the collusion is. >> i said trump teamed up with russia -- kennedy: how? what does that mean? what do you mean teamed up with? >> can i jump in just for a second? i understand what you're saying. i understand also there's a divide here that this show is not going to be able to bring us together. i spent a lot of my life overseas. i worked the russians very hard. i have done a lot of investigation. what we are going to find probably is not what was initially talked about. this idea that somehow there was -- the russians have been meddling in our elections since 1940. kennedy: not just ours. >> not just ours election. the fact they are meddling, no problem. this idea that somehow, what they started looking for and what they are going to find is this collusion, my point at the beginning was simply they don't

have it. what they will have at some point is what they got al capone on, the taxes. they are going to go wherever they can because they cannot allow this to end without something. they have spent too much money, too much time, too much press. they've got to find something. kennedy: we have to end this right now, with something, which means the panel. they are coming back for much more later. first up, let's keep claiming the left -- rather, the left keeps claiming president trump is in cahoots with russia. today, el presidente made a stand and canceled his big weekend meeting with vladimir putin. why did he do that? bob sexton will explain next. this is not a bed.

it's proven quality sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999, intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts... so you can get a running start on the holidays. and now, save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. limited time only.

♪ there's no place likargh!e ♪ i'm trying... ♪ yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪

kennedy: news alert for you now. president trump has just landed in argentina. what's new, buenos aries, for the g20 summit, where he will not be meeting with vladimir putin because of russia's newest aggression in ukraine. this is brand new video of the president's arrival. oh, there are the trumps. hi, melania. shortly before taking off, the president talked to reporters on the white house lawn, saying he was leaning toward having the putin pow-wow. after getting briefed on air force one, he put the kibosh and

punted. special teams. based on the fact that [ inaudible ] from ukraine to russia. he canceled his previously scheduled meeting in argentina with president vladimir putin. i look forward to a meaningful summit again as soon as this situation is resolved. talking to you, vlad. talking about where a russian ship fired on a ukrainian ship off the coast of crimea before ramming it and seizing the crews of all the ukrainian vessels in the area. what in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here? now that the meeting with putin is off, what can we expect from his big weekend in buenos aries? joining me, another former cia officer, it's cia night, thursdays are great, the host of the buck sexton show. welcome back, buck. >> good to see you. kennedy: i think it's great that he's not meeting with vladimir putin. i'm not a putin fan. i'm not a putinist.

it also proves the president is not in the putin pocket. what do you think? >> that's absolutely true. i can even double down on that with a conversation i had earlier today with the ukrainian ambassador, who pointed out that the trump administration doing things like sending the javelin missiles to ukraine they had been asking for, that's a very big deal. that's actually been helpful because while there's very little reporting on this and people don't seem to either pay attention, care, and that includes journalists, by the way, there's a 250 mile front in eastern ukraine right now, southeastern ukraine, where there's effectively trench warfare going on. when you add -- it's been going on for almost five years. you add that to what's going on in the water, a strategic chokepoint. the russians have been getting tighter and tighter on it for months now. they have been boarding ships, holding them up, effectively a semi-blockade situation of shipping which is really hurting

the economy. add this into the mix and the ukrainians are prepared for full-scale russian military invasion. they are actually really worried about this. kennedy: what happens if russia invades ukraine? >> nobody knows because nobody really wants to go there. i think there's a very real possibility they are going to continue the playbook of piece by piece chipping away at ukraine. they have already seized crimea, made it a de facto reality even though the international community doesn't recognize it, that it's part of russia. the region which is ukrainian separatists but russian backed, this is all russia's hand involved here, that's effectively treated like quasi-russian territory now and connected with a land bridge the russian mainland to crimea. so they are changing the geography in a sense on the ground and the next step would be a full-scale seizure. kennedy: let me ask you this. what hurts putin more, a stern lecture from trump, where he gives him the business end of

his arm and tongue, or giving him the silent treatment? >> no, i think that this is the first step, but what hurts trump -- i mean, what hurts putin much more is giving the ukrainians direct lethal military assistance which trump has been doing, and a lot of people by the way, you always have to talk about how he's in putin's pocket, it's such a big deal actually that the obama administration explicitly refused to do it because it was such a provocation to moscow. kennedy: let me ask you this. this has to infuriate vladimir putin. the fact that the united states is arming ukraine because they gave over all of their nuclear weapons. i mean, they sort of obliterated any upper hand they might have in that relationship, and this once again gives them a leg up but putin is a man who likes to be in control and he feels like ukraine is part of the motherland. >> yeah. and he thinks this is necessary for his popularity and his stability of his regime at home.

obviously the russian economy with oil prices where they are, it's not doing well, but this is where putin thinks he can really make an impact and he's just playing a very different game. now, if you look at what's going on in georgia, in ukraine, the last ten years or so, putin's getting what he wants, largely. kennedy: in georgia, stacy abrams still hasn't conceded. >> did he hack the machines in georgia? she wants to know. kennedy: absolutely right. you only hear it here from you. thank you, my friend. >> good to see you. kennedy: coming up, i have been preaching about civil asset forfeiture and how horrible it is. now it appears the supreme court might have answered our prayers of liberty. i'm at this wing joint telling people that geico has been offering savings for over 75 years. that's longer than the buffalo wing's been around. dozen wings. and did you know that geico... (lips smacking) offers mo... (coughing)

motorcycle insurance? ho-ho... my lips are burning. (laughs) ah... no, my lips are actually burning. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. see how much you could save at geico.com. it's too hot. oh, this is too hot, mate.

even when nothing else is. gopi's found a way to keep her receipts tidy, it's too hot. (brand vo) snap and sort your expenses with quickbooks and find, on average, $4,628 in tax savings. quickbooks. backing you.

kennedy: oh, man, it has been a rough recent go for civil asset forfeiture as its biggest fan

boy jefferson beauregard sessions was scrubbed from the justice department stationery. now a supreme court case has strange bedfellows aligning from all sides of the judicial spectrum. yesterday, justices heard the case of tyson timms, who sold heroin to undercover cops, just a little bit. he was sentenced to a year of house arrest and five years probation and that's all fine. but a private law firm in the hoosier state scooped up his land rover that he bought with money from his dad's life insurance policy when he passed away. no, no, no, no, no. they seized that, and that car was sold at auction for four times what the maximum fine would be for the crime. the issue, whether or not civil asset forfeiture is abused as a cash grab by some police departments who take property from people suspected of committing crimes, seems pretty much settled and condemned from the seasoned and salty clarence thomas to the newly mint ed bret

kavanaugh. the question now becomes to what degree the sticky fingered cop pop also violated the eighth amendment. if the justices find the 14th amendment application to the bill of rights includes this newly broadened definition, that could be very good news for people who had their houses, cars and property stripped from them oftentimes without due process. if there is consensus on a wider umbrella protecting people and their stuff, this could be very bad news for law enforcement agencies whose departments have gotten rich policing for profit and very good news for champions of liberty, who have long condemned this unconstitutional overreach. that's the memo. 2014 was the worst year on record for asset forfeiture. when the treasury and justice departments confiscated more than $5 billion in money and things. that's more than all burglary losses that year combined.

will the top court do the right thing and put an end to this absurd practice? here with me, editor in chief of the cato institute supreme court review, ilya shapiro is back. tell me about the implications for civil asset forfeiture based on the argument you heard yesterday at the supreme court. >> yeah, this is a triple level thing. everyone is talking about what you just described, civil asset forfeiture and you're right, if this goes against indiana, then i think a lot of police departments across the country are not going to be able to police for profit anymore. they are not going to be able to seize very valuable assets for tick ticky-tack crimes. that's what the general policy gist of this is. lawyers will tell you oh, no, it's about the eighth amendment's excessive fine clause, it's seizing a land rover, too much for selling a small amount of heroin. we constitutional lawyers will tell you really, it's whether all of that applies to the

states. i have for you the transcript from the argument where neil gorsuch really gets the nub of this and says most of the incorporation cases took place in like the 1940s. here we are in 2018, still litigating incorporation of the bill of rights. really? come on, general. that's really what this is about. i love gorsuch. kennedy: yeah, that poor indiana solicitor general did have a tough time, particularly with justice breyer, who got him to admit that based on indiana civil asset forfeiture law and the practices there, if you were driving five miles over the speed limit, they could seize your bugatti. >> it's not about whether your car is valuable or not at all. at the end of the day's the a matter of they can't throw you in jail and lock away -- and throw away the key. but can they seize all of your money, all of your possessions.

kennedy: yes, they can, in the philadelphia case. there was a couple -- there's someone arrested for selling $40 worth of marijuana. their house was seized. another case where a husband and wife, the husband was a chef and they had another restaurant worker with them and a child and $50,000 because they were going to an auction to buy restaurant supplies, where they needed cash. that money was seized and the child was taken and given to child protective services. they were never charged with a crime because they didn't commit a crime. another guy was jailed after he won money in a casino and the cops found that to be suspicious. but i don't know about you, when i win anything in a casino, i love getting paid in cash. >> i don't gamble. i have enough vices. i go to vegas, i enjoy the food and booze but i do not gamble. anyway, what this is really about, do those protections apply to the state. i have on my -- kennedy: look at that tie. >> -- the constitution. the thing is, when the 14th

amendment was passed after the civil war, the reason for that was to protect against state and local violations of individual rights. before that it was only about the federal government. now this is about those outrages that you describe. is that a federal constitutional violation or just some sort of local thing we don't like. i think it is. the history based on what the 14th amendment was deemed to protect, people's property rights among lots of other things -- kennedy: it is an expression of natural law as much as the sanctified ability to speak your mind freely. ilya shapiro, thank you for breaking it down. appreciate it. >> my pleasure. kennedy: the holiday season is all about giving so naturally, one mayor in new jersey wants his family to give him $2,000 a night for police security at their charity light display. the old bridge township family has raised more than $20,000 in donations over the past 15 years for such good causes as home for

our troops and st. jude children's research hospital, but the town's mayor says taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for the police presence and even asked the public to provide shuttle service to visitors so they won't tie up traffic on the block. it wouldn't be the holiday season without a bah-humbug but is this mayor right to be shaking the cup? the panel is back. i'm so sickened by this story. >> horrifying, isn't it? kennedy: it's a new front on the war on christmas. >> you know what, i blame president obama for it. but he's not -- >> i blame trump. >> i would like to think, i would like to think that this couple that's doing this light show, they went around to their neighbors over a period of time and said look, this is what we are going to be doing, we are beefing up the decorations and so i would like to think that everybody is reasonable and they get on board. typically that's not how the world works.

so there's more to this story than just they are celebrating -- kennedy: $2,000 a day? >> shaking them down. i think there's some internal politics that we don't know yet about this. i hate to -- kennedy: see, i disagree. i like to oversimplify things and present them through my prism. >> i can just say, i don't know if this man will get re-elected when his term is up. look, everybody has a role to play, right? these people are wonderful people, they have a role to play. government -- kennedy: someone has to -- >> you know, i'm kind of torn between, i think there's some compromise. i think it's going to take whoever that city council person that represents that district, talk to the mayor, let's come to a reasonable resolution and figure it out. kennedy: $2,000 a night. >> it's insane. kennedy: come on. he's an american. doing something celebratory. >> there are some neighbors who have been complaining. kennedy: as a result, the people putting on the display said okay, we will minimize the display and only have it thursday through sunday for

certain hours. that i think is reasonable. the owners of the display also said the police aren't really doing anything other than showing people where to walk and that the shuttle idea was from the police, not from the people who want to come see this event. so if you are paying $2,000, the police are already paid in this town, by the way, they are already paid. to do that job. they are already paid to do this. >> this just proves that socialism is evil. >> oh, god. >> very much alive and well. kennedy: it is the war on joy and rationality. you know, these godless statists, they will not prevail. they will not. i blame alexandria ocasio-cortez. >> favorite christmas carol? >> joy to the world. >> favorite christmas carol? >> jingle bells. actually, i lied.

mary did you know by reba mcentere. kennedy: we have to go. michael cohen cooperating with robert mueller. liberals might not want to pop the bubbly yet because the latest accusations rev up the president's base? that's next.

wwe superstar john cena: patriotism. it inspires passionate debate and is worn like a badge of honor. and with good reason. because it means love and devotion for one's country. love. but what really makes up this country of ours? what is it we love? it's the people. almost half the country belongs to minority groups. people who are lesbian. african american. and bi. and transgender. and native american. and proud of it! after all, what's more american than the freedom to celebrate the things that make us...us? this year patriotism shouldn't just be about pride of country. it should be about love. love beyond age, disability, sexuality, race, religion, and any other labels. because the second any of us judge people based on those labels, we're not really being patriotic, are we? because love has no labels.

kennedy: there was a time where we were quite close. welcome back. there's still a lot we don't know about special counsel robert mueller's investigation into russian collusion, and the trump campaign, mainly how will it factor into the 2020 presidential campaign? democrats were ready to shift the message from health care to mueller even before the president's former fixer pleaded guilty to lying to congress, but

my next guest says that may only further fire up the base. joining me now, former special assistant to president trump and press secretary for vice president pence, welcome back, sir. >> thanks for having me. kennedy: so now that the midterms are over, everyone is looking toward 2020 and democrats are saying to themselves, we've almost got him, what will be the president's great undoing? how problematic are all of these recent mueller developments to the president's political presidential future? >> i don't think it's going to have an impact at all. when the voters go to the polls in two years, which is like two lifetimes from now in politics, they are going to be voting on things they always vote on. the economy, their own personal finances, jobs, national security. i don't think that they're going to be going to the polls thinking about an international real estate development company that had the audacity of actually thinking about

developing real estate internationally. kennedy: see, i think you're right about that. even people who do not support the president will look at this and say well, you know, he did kind of have a pretty big side business there for quite a few years so it's not a surprise, seeing as the numbers of properties he developed not only in russia but in other countries that he was still doing that, because you know, you would be foolish to say most people thought he was going to lose. >> and i think it's how can you blame him for saying let's continue looking at properties we are going to develop. the trump international hotel in washington, d.c. -- kennedy: i swear to you, he didn't think he was going to be president so he thought he would have to have something else to do so that's what he was doing. i'm not defending him. i'm saying those appear to be the facts. that is not outlandish. >> you can't just put an entire business enterprise on pause for a what-if. that's why they continued finishing the hotel in washington, d.c. that's why they continued developing the other properties they have.

these deals don't happen overnight. they take many, many years to develop and in some cases, they don't develop at all. like the one in moscow. kennedy: is the president still, are there trump projects currently in development in other parts of the world and is that problematic? >> well, i can't speak for the trump organization. you would have to ask them specifically. i know that the president had said they were going -- that they would focus domestically while he was in office, but i would refer you to the trump organization for that. and we'll see. they've got great success with the properties they currently have going. kennedy: so in 2020, how do you envision things playing out in terms of how democrats are going to go after the president, because the full-throated sky is falling, crying wolf resistance, it works sporadically. there are some races where it worked and others where it fell flat. it seems as though if they really want to damage the

president, they have to do it in a more subtle way. are democrats capable of doing that? >> i don't think so. right now, they are fully engaged on resistance and investigation. it wouldn't surprise me at some point that they will haul in the white house chefs to see if anyone had russian dressing on their salad at some point. they have become so deranged. they are now making up crimes. it's not against the law to do business in moscow. yet they think it's a crime. so we'll see. i do believe they are going to be entirely consumed by investigations for the next two years. kennedy: nothing hotter than marc lotter. thank you for your time. >> thank you. i am not for colds. i am not for just treating my symptoms... (ah-choo) i am for shortening colds when i'm sick. with zicam. zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines...

...zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam. oral or nasal.

kennedy: guns and roses were forced to cut their concert short in abu dhabi after axel rose got severely ill. let that be a lesson to always wear a coat in the cold november rain. it's so easy, get it? get well soon. you're one in a million. this is topical storm. let's start tonight with an update from a california mcdonald's where the prices can't be beat.

but the employees can. oh, no. earlier this month, we showed this woman attacking a mcdonald's drive-through worker because they ran out of ketchup. in her defense, she did order a happy meal. the cops thought the protest went too far. it is a shocking video mainly because it happened at 1:00 in the morning when most people at the mcdonald's drive-through are way too stoned to get violent. in any event, the bandit was just arrested after three weeks on the lam. turns out her escape plan didn't cut the mustard. we bought the joke off the dollar menu. if you ask me, we overpaid. huh? okay. topic number two. a group of malaysian researchers, not in china, malaysia, they have developed a dating app that will allow you to send odors to your potential mate. yeah. good and stinky. first there was match.com. now there's light a match.com. researchers used electrodes in

the nostrils to deliver electrical currents that stimulated smells, for instance, when you are looking at people's profile pictures, nine times out of ten you smell something fishy because they all lie. if you're looking at a single woman's profile picture in her 50s you will smell a litter box because chances are she has the cats or a dozen of them. the app is expected to be released in 2019. but if you can't wait that long to smell people, you can always ride the new york city subway. sure, that's a bad choice for some but let's face it, if it weren't for bad choices, you wouldn't be online dating. topic number three. a new study claims that using an apple watch could add two years to your life. or as apple calls two years, a factory worker. come on. relax. i can tell that joke. they are all in bed. researchers found that people with apple watches are far more likely to hit their daily fitness goals than non-users and people who bought an apple watch

on black friday were also far more likely to hit their fellow shoppers. no need to wait until you get home to start burning calories. in addition to exercise tips, the watch can also give you nutrition advice that can save your life such as never run out of ketchup at a dinner party. oh, there she is. wow. what a witch. this gal better ease up on all the punchin' before they give her a show on bravo. topic number four. we show a lot of cute animal videos on this show but the one you're about to see is very jarring. this deer, wait for it, oh, trying to have a little snack. it hits home with our staff because this exact thing happens to jimmy at least once a week in the break room. he's got such a big head. we usually leave the lid on so he can have peace and quiet in the office. notice how the deer runs right

off? he would have never done it if he didn't own an apple watch. it's okay, you're free. i was going to make a bambi joke but now is not the time to discuss stormy daniels' co-workers. and then this. topic number five. the christmas season is all about inclusion so it's only right that we hear from the land of misfit toys. this is viewer mail. a squirt gun that shoots jelly. who cut your hair, a blind hairdresser? yeah. stevie wonder had a weed whacker. you heartless thug. joanne from jersey writes okay, kennedy, enough with the jersey jokes. show me your lee press-on nails. joseph says you are looking all '60s cute, then you ruined it

with your open borders nonsense. a caravan of people helped me put my lipstick on. carol wraps up the hatefest, watch kennedy tonight, first time. she's loud with an irritating voice, not interesting or very informative. told you we would have positive tweets in here.

kennedy: i'm being a very decent and classy lady. thank you so much for watching the best hour of your day.

i don't stop talking even during the commercials. watch me or follow me on twitter and instagram. tomorrow night, the debut of wall street journal at large (announcer) the following is a paid advertisement from time life. my name is robin williams. (announcer) hold on to your hats. for those of you on acid, this is a frisbee. (announcer) the time has come for an epic entertainment event. it's mind-blowing, it's jaw-dropping, and most of all, it's-- -genius. -genius. -genius. -comedic genius. (announcer) time life proudly presents a once in a lifetime collection decades in the making. yo, robin. (announcer) robin williams: comic genius. you're sucked into drinking beer by believing it's a healthy thing. all these beer commercials usually show big men, manly man doing manly things. you've just killed a small animal. it's time for a light beer.