breaking tonight new questions about the future of the 2016 white house race following a week of bombshell headlines involving the most likely democratic nominee. welcome to "the kelly file" everyone, i'm megyn kelly. all week long the white house and the state department have been hammered with questions about how former secretary of state hillary clinton seemingly flouted the law using a personal e-mail account to conduct all government business. leaving the american people to guess what she was doing on their behalf. secretary clinton doing no interviews. in fact, her only statement coming this week in the form of a 130-character tweet in which she called on the state department to release her you know, the ones that are

sitting on her server in her home in chappaqua, new york. today it emerged that the white house reportedly knew, at least as of august that secretary clinton had transacted all of her electronic correspondents on a clinton-controlled house and yet the white house maintain ths is not a white house issue. clinton allies downplay the matter this story broken by "new york times" amounts to a political hit job. earlier i spoke with charles krauthammer syndicated columnist, fox news contributor and author ofñ"things that matter." charles, last night on the program i had lanny davis clinton defender long time and lawyer as well. and i started to get a feel, and the audience "id as well for what the defense is going to be. i'll give you the three points. number one, the law changed. the law changed after she left office in 2013. and that's when it became really

important that you not use personal e-mail. and that's just not true. the law when she was in office required that any personal e-mail that was used be maintained and not destroyed. and that was the law the entire time. we still to this moment don't know whether all her e-mails were maintained or destroyed. >> look also the regulations that she was living under which came from the national archives were that all communication, all e-mails had to be lodged with the archives. and of course they are now lodged in her basement in a server that she owns. but this is sort of a classic clintonian distraction. was there a violation of the law? so we get into clintonian distinctions, what is the meaning of is? and this is what they want us to talk about.t pá she did was wrong. everybody knew it was wrong. the astonishing thing is i think lanny davis at one point said

there was no secrecy. >> everyone knew. >> everyone knew. so there was no secrecy in her secrecy secrecy. worse. they knew you're not going to hide this forever. the e-mails are going out. they're on their own account. it's not ñhe state.gov account. they knew it would have to come out eventually. and they didn't care because they are the clintons. and the clintons now for 20 years have operated what about -- >> exactly. >> what about the ones that she

combed through to get it down to 55000 pages? how many pages are there? how many e-mails are there? we don't know. >> and that's the essence. the reason for the law which was instituted in 1950 is that the government has possession of them. and they subsequently all kinds of law which allow access. this is freedom of information act. anybody on the outside can ask for access. and you've got congressional inquiries, oversight. they have a right to inquire. and the key to the law which goes back to 1950 is federal government is in possession. so it decides if there's anything that has to be held back or redacted. but not the individual involved. the essence of the offense here is that she controls the e-mails. she owns a server. and that she decides, her people decide, we call the e-mails, we throw out stuff or we hide stuff, who knows that nobody will know about. >> which is a crime.

that is a crime. >> well i mean, whether it's a crime or not -- >> i'm telling you it is. you cannot destroy federal records. you can't -- >> oh, destruction. destruction is a crime. >> she had e-mails related to her state business, it's a crime. >> destruction is a crime. but i'm talking about the concealment and the ownership. >> also a crime. concealment is also a crime. >> but look, we're not talking about if she gets a subpoena today and she now )u something. we're simply talking about the fact that she was keeping them for herself. we will learn if any were cold thrown away if a server was struck down. but as of what we know today she undermined the essence of the law which as an impartial observer decides what come out and what doesn't. >> let me put this to you charles. because what's been happening over the past several years is freedom of information act requests have been coming into the state department.

lawsuits have been filed against the state department. subpoenas have gone to the state department seeking information about benghazi and otherwise. and you have an obligation at the state department to respond to that person and say we have looked through all the records including secretary clinton's records. and here are the responsive documents. and yet they either didn't call for secretary clinton's documents because they didn't look at her personal e-mail or they did and just didn't produce a single relevant document. so what appears to have happened here is she successfully skirted- her production obligations. and now state is saying they won't go back and look for responsive documents to any of those subpoenas or freedom of information act requests. she's gotten away with it. >> well not yet. and that's why the story has legs. i can imagine a very orner ri judge who ruled on these freedom of information act requests getting very upset when he or

she learns that in adjudicating these requests for information he was denied information from a state department tht was either ignorant or collaborating in this, i suspect it was ignorant. they didn't see anything from sec)etary clinton so it reports we don't have anything. i can see a judge reopening this. judicial watch which is the organization that went after a lot of this information and essentially got sort of -- it was deceived. it's not going to sit for this denial of the reopening of these inquiries. >> let me tell you about that. we had him on last night. d we actually had on shannen coffin, a former white house attorney. and the law as evidence and opinion issued just earlier this week is very bad for someone like judicial watch trying to compel the production of documents that were only on a personal e-mail account of a federal employee. i'm telling you she may have successfully gamed this system.

here's the other point -- >> i just want to make one point. she's a candidate for the presidency. she may win legally on those challenges, but there will be a challenge. it will be a story. that's why it has legs. >> that's exactly where i was going to go. will this matter? because you already see you know, some democrats saying this isn't a story. you know, jeb bush did the same thing. there's no there there. and yet it was the "new york times" that broke this story. and so will the media stay on it? and will this impact the race? >> they will stay on it because it is a clinton. because this is a revival of the sort of -- the moe dusñop ren dus people assumed would be ignored 15 years later because time has passed and the memories are sort of vague. no longer. what this scandal is doing and what he scandal of the millions

that came in from outside the governments and the clinton foundation is doing is reviving the image of what the clintons are and how they operate. she is running on the clinton name and the memory of the good times in the '90s. that's her advantage in being a clinton. peace and prosperity. but now what's happened is she has now revived the downside of the '90s, the downside of the clinton years which was the parsing of words, the skirting of the law, the operating outside of the rules that people might have let go of but now is back in full force. >> charles, it's great to see you. >> pleasure. >> well, some political analysts now think they have figured out hillary clinton's plans for survivalsur surviveing this crisis. and you better believe it involves the media. howie kurtz is next to show us how it works. plus, we're getting reports that the justice department could soon bring serious criminal charges against a top

democratic senator. see why he thinks this is part of a smear campaign against him. and after a doj ñeport completely exonerates officer darren wilson in the shooting death of michael brown out of obama today appeared to suggest that wilson merely got off thanks to a very tough legal standard. did he read that report? go to facebook.com/thekellyfile to see what was said. share your thoughts and stay tuned for the latest and fiery debate. >> we may never know exactly what happened but officer wilson like anybody elseñwho is charged with a crime benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard.

developing tonight several top political reporters say sources have told them how secretary hillary clinton hopes to survive this e-mail scandal. they say her strategy now is to stay quiet and rely on long-time media allies to help provide her cover. the majority of her upcoming public appearances are all in tightly controlled settings. and when she has to pass through

the airport in washington, d.c., say as she did earlier this week, well, just take a look at the gaggle of reporters trailing her. >> with the e-mail, was that just a generalization gap or can that be corrected? any chance that will be corrected? all right. have a good day. hillary, any chance tmz can get the exclusivt you're going to run for president? do lawyers make better presidents, hillary? 11right. have a good day, hillary. >> that's right. one reporter from tmz. and good for him. for the biggest stáv of the entire week. howard kurtz is the host of "media buzz." howie, i don't excuse us from that either. tmz was there. so where is the media scrum chasing hillary clinton the presumptive democratic nominee

at this point on clearly what is the biggest story we've had about her in months. >> we didn't get the tip she was going to be on that plane at reagan airport. >> who cares? you don't think we could find her? we could find her. >> nice try by the british journalist guy. >> it's better than no questions. >> 's much better. if hillary thinks that stalling a'd stonewalls is going to make the media yawn and move on she's in serious denial. if she thinks thñ whole defense for the next month is going to be a single tweet, that reinforces the journalistic suspicion that she's got something to hide. and there's nothing megyn, that drives a story more than a whole pile of unanswered questions. >> but they say that the strategy, and i quote this is from a bloomberg report today "take a concrete step to ease the pressure then wade out the storm" the concrete step was the tweet saying who, me? i would love for you to see my e-mails, i've given them all to the state department even though i own them, i have the server

and i could give them to you right now because their yours not mine. but that's the step and now she waits. >> 140 characters isn't going to cut it here. let me give you kurtz's first law of media dynamo scandal, what keeps it alive it's when the press can connect it to a larger narrative about the person. and for the journalist who covered hillary clinton as first lady, when all these allegationsñ% were swirling around her, white water, travelgate, missing records, some serious some overblj ip r(t&háhp &hc% you touched on this last segment as somebody who's secrecy and skirting the rules. this story is bringing that back and that is why the idea that it's just some partisan media food fight that doesn't marsh. >> i'm going to remind you of something rosie o'donnell talked about how she achieved such levels of fame that she really thought the rules no longer applied to her.

she would lráerally be driving and see a red light and would think she could go through it because she was rosie o'donnell. to her credit she admitted this and started a dialogue about it at the time. one wonders whether does it behoof the country to have somebody who is that u! of a star, a name, that much in the news that well established in the country i mean, what if she's suffering from rosie o'donnell disease? >> i haven't quite looked at it t$at way. the great advantage is you're a celebrity and everybody knows who you are, but you also live in that bubble. you've lived in the white house. you've been secretary of state. look i covered her husband's white house when lots of scandals were swirling. and there was this whole clintonian tactic of trying to ride out scandals sometimes leaking it themselves and then declaring it old news. lanny davis tried that with you last night. that is not going to work. and part of the reason is you talk about her media allies according to some of these reports. the "new york times" breaks the story, the "the washington post" editorial page sct her, some

msnbc anchors have been after her. pretty broad consensus with some exception that this thing is a serious concern. >> i do want to say by the way that i was discussing with charleák t's irrelevant that some people knew she had this e-mail received documents from her of that e-maid9 the question of concealment is do you have federal records that have not been revealed? that you are concealing ie from the public. just because a few documents or e-mails to other people doesn't answer that question or exonerate her. i want to raise one final thing with you. they're very powerful. they have powerful media friends. what makes you think bill and hillary aren't calling every single one of those powerful media friends and saying really appreciate it if you kind of, you know focused jz maybe al qaeda this week. >> you know, a lot of people don't understand, megyn, is that the clintons and particularly hillary clinton have had testy relations with the press for a long time. started as first lady, in the 2008 campaign seen as remote and

inaccessible. she's a big fat target. she's the whole story on the democratic hillary versus hillary. there's not going to be a letup. this is not a story you can wave away in the age of twitter with a few phone calls. >> great to see you, how wi. >> thanks, megyn. >> we have breaking news on the justice department probe of a democratic senator and a powerful one. a man that's been one of president obama's biggest critics on iran and cuba. chris stirewalt is next with the story behind the story. plus sharia law in a small town in texas complete with an islamic courtroom? stay tuned for this report.

let me be very clear very clear, i have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law. i fight for these issues and for the people of our country every single day. that's who i am.

and i am not going anywhere. >> breaking tonight a u.s. senator is reportedly about to be indicted. reports today that eric holder's justice department is preparing to bring serious criminal charges against democratic senator bob menendez of new jersey. the reports of potential charges had many noting the senator's recent set of very public foreign policy knocks on president obama with some media outlets questioning if the latest move from the doj is political retribution. joining us now chris stirewalt, fox news's digital politics editor. chris, he's -- this investigation's been going on for some time. and it focuses on his relationship with some shady opthamologist. >> i see what you did there. >> well, shady. >> the underlying scandal or underlying controversy involves a long-time friend and big-time donor of his who was at one time the largest single biller to

medicaid in the nation -- to medicare in the nation. some $22 million i believe in 2012. and a guy who was putting it through big time on these eye surgery outpatient centers down in florida. and he was a super patron of menendez's. last year we were watching this very closely waiting to see what was going to happen. and then nothing. nothing happened. and so in large part we assumed that they had not been able to make the case and moved on. low and behold we see the report today first at cnn and then elsewhere that the justice department was getting ready to drop this on him. and he as much as confirmed it by going out and giving that very, very terse and very angry statement today. >> defiant. >> yeah. quite so. so you get the sense that at the very least this is getting closer to conclusion. and it's coming at a very importune time for the obama

administration or maybe opportune i don't know depending on how you look at it. menendez has been the chief democratic hector of the president on israel on iran. >> he's the one that said the president's iran policy sounded like talking points straight from the ayatollah or something very -- he said something very incendiary like that. >> yeah. and he has been right after the president on cuba and right after the president on israel. and on and on because he is a clinton democrat. he was hillary clinton's co-chairman in 2008 and early senate endorser, a long-time ally of her and her husband's. and he is hawkish much more hawkish on foreign policy than president obama. >> but wait. but reportedly the statute of limitations is about to expire on these charges. >> yeah. >> they may have to bring them. may have nothing to do with iran policy. in their defense they started the investigation of him a couple years ago before he was bashing them certainly on cuba, maybe not so much iran. >> oh yeah. i'm not saying this was ordered

from the oval office in retribution for menendez's opposition of the president's foreign policy. i'm saying the timing is lousy. >> last question. you say indict him can he still sit as a u.s. senator? >> yeah, you can sit as a u.s. senator and do many heinous things. >> it's happening right now. >> probably in this town. but the reality is the pressure on harry reid to dump him as the ranking member on armed services committee -- or formulations committee will be intense. and i don't think harry reid can weather it. >> and if he goes then chris christie's got an appointment problem. and he comes in as well. it's very interesting. >> very interesting. >> chris, good to see you. >> you too. >> tonight, a dramatic new account of harrison ford's plane crash from the doctor who actually rescued the doctor. plus, new amateur video when the people on the ground realized his plane was in trouble. and with eric holder now possibly threatening to dis mantle the ferguson police department altogether, we'll

speak to the man who predicted this exact outcome months ago. wait until you see andy mccarthy next. >> i don't think that that investigation is what this is been about from the first. >> what's it been about? >> well these cases are used as a pretext to do a broader investigation of the police departrtrtrtrtrtman (sternly): where do you think you're going? mr. mucus: to work, with you. it's taco tuesday. man: you're not coming. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. i'm go od all day. [announcer:] mucinex keeps working. not 4, not 6 but 12 hours. let's end this

we may never know exactly what happened, but officer wilson like anybody else who is charged with a crime benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard. and if there is uncertainty about what happened, then you can't just charge him any way just because what happened was

tragic. >> that was president obama today at a town hall meeting at benedict college in columbia, south carolina. the president answering a question from the crowd on why his administration's justice department did not charge ferguson, missouri police officer darren wilson in the shooting death of teenager michael brown, an 18-year-old. a missouri grand jury and now the justice department have determined that no criminal charges are appropriate against officer wilson. and that suggestions that this officer shot the 18-year-old brown as brown was surrendering with his hands up were not supported by the facts. the doj's conclusions all of which were favorable to officer wilson none of which supported his critics case against him stand in stark contrast to the tsunami of misinformation and innuendo that were spread in the aftermath of michael brown's death. >> he put his hands in the air, but the officer still approached with his weapon drawn. and he fired several more shots.

and my friend died. >> we want to know why he felt the need to execute michael and leslie's child. >> how can you justify killing and shooting down a man in the middle of the street execution style? >> the issue is how a young man with no deadly threat no life extenuating circumstances was shot multiple times. >> we have a responsibility to come together and do everything we can to achieve justice for this family. a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued. >> hands up. don't shoot. >> hands up don't shoot. >> hands up, don't shoot. >> hands up don't shoot. >> all of those people have since come out to apologize to officer -- oh, wait.

rich laoowry is editor of the national review leslie -- both fox news contributors. even the president rich, today suggesting it was basically this top reasonable doubt standard that led to officer wilson not being charged. and before i give you the floor, i just want to take the audience through it, okay? it wasn't just the tough reasonable doubt standard. this man was exonerated by the doj. let me give you a sample of what the doj report says. the witness accounts that brown was surrendering with his hands up did not support a prosecution. they are inaccurate inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence and materially inconsistent with the witness's own prior statements. the evidence does not establish that it was unreasonable for wilson to perceive brown as a threat while brown was punching and grabbing him in the suv and attempting to take his gun. there is no credible evidence to refute wilson's belief that he was acting in self-defense. federal prosecutors found

wilson's account to be credible. brown did not sustain gunshot wounds to his back. there are no witnesses that can testify credibly that wilson shot brown while brown was clearly attempting to surrender. here's the last one for you. multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of wilson's account and are consistent with physical evidence. and so where does officer wilson go to get his reputation back? >> he'll never get it from these people. and what the president said was so weasely. suggesting, oh such a close call. and that he has the reasonable doubt standard on his side. this is not a close call in the least. if the president had any decency to just say, look, i like to tell people sometimes things they don't want to hear. i know some people on my side don't want to hear this, but there is zero credible evidence that this was a racist assassination. but he won't say that because the left is full of ferguson truthers who are invested in a

lie about this case that michael brown held up his arms and said don't shoot. there's zero credible evidence that that happened. but a movement has been based around that falsehood. >> leslie. >> well you know rich, i do agree with some of what you said. however, when you look at over 30,000 pages and when you look at all of the racism in that police department racism through many police departments in this country, the president being an african-american male himself there are people that have personal feelings. but the president i feel has been very clear that there has not and is not enough evidence, there was no indictment that came down. and after this department of justice investigation that there was not enough evidence to charge him. and i feel the president was very strong in backing the department of justice in their investigation and the findings. >> that's not enough to say there's not enough evidence to indict him. all the evidence, all the credible evidence, the physical evidence and the witnesses whose testimony is consistent with the physical evidence and is

internally consistent all suggest this is a justifiable act of self-defense. >> that's what the doj said. >> look, i don't like the traffic stop policy in ferguson or any of those jurisdictions there in missouri. it's predatory. it's stupid. but it's not necessarily racist. and it's not what this movement was based around. it's based around the idea michael brown was shot in cold blood. >> and what about leslie, all those people whose sound bites we just played. al sharpton there was no deadly threat talking about how officer wilson executed this young man. executed. the governor of missouri saying a prosecution must take place. where are the mea culpas? >> well i don't think you're going to hear the mea culpas because i think there's still anger and there's a disconnect between the african-american and most minority communities. when you talk about those stops, there is racial profiling involved. but look at the numbers in ferguson -- >> let me ask you then leslie

i'll give you the floor. wouldn't it be they came out and said we were wrong about officer wilson, but we want to talk about what the doj found with respect to ferguson cht then people might listen. but when they're standing firm on officer wilson not acknowledging that all the innuendo and rhetoric they ginned up was false and totally baseless, it's tough then to listen as they get to point b. >> well i understand what you're saying. but there's not going to be an apology. because you have to remember there's the perception, there's the reality there are the facts. o.j. simpson, acquitted how many of believe he is guilty? and the same goes for officer wilson. there are people out there not just in the african-american community although numbers show mostly african-americans feel personally that he is guilty even though the facts do not bear that to be true including this federal investigation. >> it would really help if the president of the united states who's commented at length about this case, you know, he could go a long way to convince those people that their perception is

wrong if he had the courage just to say what the facts are. but he doesn't. he doesn't. >> in the doj's report but neither eric holder nor president obama has done that. in fact, none of these officials has done that. they're just words in a report that is much more focused on the ferguson p.d. i got to leave it there. thank you both. >> thanks, megyn. >> in speaking of the ferguson p.d. former federal prosecutor andy mccarthy said months ago here on "the kelly file" that the department of justice would not have enough evidence to charge officer wilson. check. and instead would target the ferguson police department for civil rights violations. check. watch. >> they come in with bells and whistles when the controversial shooting or other incident happens. they inevitably have to come back and say, as i've said time and again there isn't enough evidence to do the case on this shooting, but we now have a broader inquiry into the police department. >> joining me now andy

mccarthy, former federal prosecutor and national review contributing editor. how did you know? >> i wish i could claim to be a rocket scientist, but when they've done it like two dozen times you kind of get the point. >> this is a pattern by the doj. >> yes, it is a pattern. they basically all across the country now it's well over 20 city or town police departments across the country. they come in usually on some incident that gets attention. they don't have a prayer of making a civil rights case on the individual incident on the basis of the law. but they use it as a pretext to go in and do what they call a pattern or practices case against the police department. and that's basically rigged to connect up with the law that was passed in 1994 that allows them to come in and do this hocus hocus pocus to make a long story short does a statistical analysis of all the arrest.

if you look at it the way racial bean counters look at it they deduce because of the number of minority people arrested because -- >> what about that? so let's say that was all schemed by eric holder and mission accomplished. it happened. when he went into ferguson his defenders say he found it. if this had been a legitimate police force not discriminating against african-americans, he wouldn't have found the numbers where we saw 93% of the arrests were black people but only 67% of the population was black and so on. >> megyn they don't control for the only thing that matters, which is offender behavior, right? what they say is they compare the number of stops by the police to the population say of black people in an area. so for example if 67% in ferguson are black and 85% of the traffic stops are blacks -- >> guilty. >> they say guilty. what they don't control for is that their own statistics in the justice department show that traffic

laws at a higher rate than -- >> what about e-mails? >> the racist e-mails are a disgrace. any place they could be found and are found throughout the country somebody should be certainly doing something about that. but this business about you know, they were using this as a revenue raising measure. you know, first of all, the statistics also show blacks pay their fines at a lower rate than other populations. >> so you're not buying the ferguson p.d. is a bunch of racist -- >> no. what i'm saying is that they don't factor in offense behavior pattern. so for example you know blacks between the age of 14 and 17 ten times higher murder rate than whites and hispanics combined. now, we have real dead bodies there. is someone going to say that's a racial thing? >> it's an interesting perspective. no one's been defending the ferguson p.d. and from a legal standpoint you are making the

case that this could be -- you could do this to virtually any police department go in and play the numbers game and wouldn't wind up in their favor. >> well, you can. >> before i let you go quickly are they going to be able to defend themselves or submit? >> no, justice department's got a $28 billion budget. nobody can compete. >> that's what you've said before too. andy good to see you. >> thanks, megyn. speaking of al sharpton tonight a powerful media mogul is launching an attack against mr. sharpton. byron allen joins me next on why he says it's time mr. sharpton is called out. plus, new information tonight on harrison ford's condition and amateur video the moment people on the ground realized his plane was in a whole lot of trouble. >> wheels down too. >> oh, he's gogogogogo why are all these people so asleep yet i'm so awake? did you know your brain has two systems? one helps keep you awake- the other helps you sleep. science suggests when you have insomnia, the wake system in your brain may be too strong and your neurotransmitters remain too active

as you try to sleep, which could be leading to your insomnia. ohh...maybe that's what's preventing me from getting the sleep i need! talk to your doctor about ways to manage your insomnia.

develops tonight new reaction after an african-american media mogul launches a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against some of america's largest media companies and against al sharpton. he's accusing mr. sharpton of lining his own pockets with corporate donations at the expense of african-americans. byron allen is the founder chairman and ceo of entertainment studios which operates seven 24-hour cable networks and the largest independent media company. thank you for being here. you're none too pleased with sharpton and these companies including comcast.

you say they conspire to keep out wholly owned and that al sharpton is helping them. how? >> al sharpton provides them racial cover. so for example comcast is trying to purchase time warner cable for $47 billion. comcast in the last acquisition of nbc universal they needed government regulators to approve it. and there were issues. so what they did is they got al sharpton to shine a memorandum of understanding to endorse it. the only thing that al sharpton and the naacp and the urban league understood is that they were getting a donation before they signed it. that in itself was a conflict of interest. >> uh-huh. >> and what happened in that acquisition is that 100% african-american owned media wasn't protected and wasn't included. >> wait, just to stop there. so six months after that deal after al sharpton provided that cover and said federal regulators not to worry this comcast, nbc thing it's going

to be great. it's cool. let it happen. six months after that what happened to al sharpton? >> he gets a television show every night on msnbc. and these two companies are spending $25 billion a year licensing cable networks with 100% african-american-owned media getting less than 3 million per year. >> why is that the notot a good thing? ultimately nbc news and msnbc gave an african-american his own show and paid a lot of money for it. >> well that's great for al sharpton but not great for the people looking for jobs from real african-american owned cable networks. you have a problem, shame on brian roberts at comcast. he's not doing the right thing. same thing with at&t. at&t gave more money to al sharpton for his lavish birthday party than they spent advertising in ebony magazine which is 70 years old. and largest african-american magazine -- >> they deny your allegations in

your lawsuit. but how do you think we got to the point where al sharpton has become sort of the go-to person for a company or executive being accused of discrimination like we saw in the sony case? when they got hacked and had written racial things about president obama. >> yeah, i joined on the national association of african-american owned media and there's a lot of information if you go to naaaom.com. it's shame on sony because at the end of the day and at&t and comcast you need to understand that al sharpton does not speak for me. he does not speak for the black people. al sharpton speaks for himself. it's racist at the very idea to think there is a black person that speaks for all black people just like there is no one white person that speaks for all white people. it's really something that's very racist in itself. and this is a man who obviously we know about owing $4.5 million in back taxes. we can go on youtube and watch al sharpton try and do a drug deal with undercover fbi agent.

it's really shameful when you think about at&t giving him money and others. >> that's years ago. and, you know, as we approach the 50 anniversary of selma this weekend that things have changed. and he has emerged as a true civil rights leader. >> well, i mean, listen, that shows his moral compass. and as the national -- sorry, the national black journalist denounced his hiring. i mean, what this is speaking to is we have to get real economic inclusion. what we're witnessing in this country is economic genocide against african-americans. no real economic inclusion. now i support president obama. i voted for him twice. i gave him a lot of money. but i'm just simply holding him accountable. and i'm saying president obama, you know you bailed out the banks, why don't you audit the banks and you will find they're not lending money to african-americans. so we can start businesses grow our businesses, build our businesses. you have to close the economic divide between african-americans and the rest of america.

martin luther king said it best. there are two americas. one america has economic privilege and one america doesn't. and we need one america to have

now with the xfinity tv go app, you can watch live tv anytime. it's never been easier with so many networks all in one place. get live tv whenever you want. the xfinity tv go app. now with live tv on the go. enjoy over wifi or on verizon wireless 4g lte. plus enjoy special savings when you purchase any new verizon wireless smartphone or tablet from comcast. visit comcast.com/wireless to learn more.

developing tonight, new video just in from the harrison ford plane crash. the 72-year-old making an emergency landing at a golf course yesterday. a doctor who happened to be golfing rushed to the scene and helped ford until the paramedics arrived. he said his biggest fear was that the plane might explode into a fireball because it was leaking fuel. developing tonight, controversy in a texas town that is now home to the nation's first islamic sharia tribunal court. trace gallagher has the report. >> megyn it's billed as an islamic tribunal that practices

sharia law, except there are no lawyers. instead it's run by three imams and a doctor of islamic studies who serve as arbitrators primarily for muslim divorce cases. the men who run the business say it's very similar to tribunals in the catholic church dealing with annulments. >> we really need islamic tribunal here. this is just for divorce cases because muslim women cannot divorce just by decree in court. >> he goes onto suggest they're voluntary and only filed if both spouses agree. but critics worry about the extreme parts of sharia law like men being able to divorce for no reason yet women must have a reason. and men being allowed to take several wives while women can only marry one man. the mayor of irving, texas says you can't just create your own laws. >> religious freedom is

protected under our first amendment. and we are not in any way, shape or form trying to prevent that. what we are trying to do is make sure that our laws are followed and respected. >> so far the tribunal has handled 25 divorce cases. megyn. >> trace gallagher, thank you. we'll bebebebebebe eh, you don't want that one. yea, actually i do. it's mucinex fast-max night time and it's got a nasal decongestant. is that really a thing? it sounds made up. mucinex fast max night time for multi-symptom relief. breathe easy. sleep easy. let's end this.

dana perino's new book says young women shouldn't be too

cutesy in e-mails. i asked sheryl sandberg if she's ever done that. >> as a professional -- >> smiles. we think it's a mistake for the prime minister of any country to come to speak before congress a few weeks before they're about to have an election. it makes it look like we are taking sides. >> the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states is always been above politics. it must also remain about politics. >> i think that it's been a distraction. >> israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents from harry truman to barack obama. >> i did not have a chance to watch prime minister netanyahu's speech. i did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. and as far as i can tell there w