8:30 a.m. if this is story on november 20th, be back here at tomorrow as the story goes on. have a great night, everybody, tucker carl sent live now in washington. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, welcome to the show tonight, looking like the never ending impeachment endings just ended the period of like a hr meeting convened in hell, the whole impeachment saga is boring, hard to understand and apparently it goes on for eternity. and never ends. washington endured and the rest of america ignored yet another round of this today. the hearings consumed every hour of wednesday's available daylight. the current ambassador to the european unit. in contrast, sondland wasn't

hostile to the administration, he was appointed by president trump, who is a major trumpet donor. he was opening statements, it look like a complete disaster. >> i know members of the committee frequently frames the complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? i testified previously, with regard to the request of white house call, and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. >> tucker: that's how the morning back end, the answer is yes, there was a quid pro quo. not only that, he explained, pretty much everybody knew about it. >> everyone was in the loop. it was no secrets, everyone was informed via email on july 19th. days before the presidential call.

>> tucker: holy smokes, a moment there it looked like case closed. the final ignominious pride and and they being confidently predicting day after rachel days for more than three years. the last meltdown, the hindenburg finally bursts into flames and cable news contributor struggle to hold back tears of joy. adam schiff took the microphone. schiff, the ringmaster, was determined to bring it to its final the theatrical close. of tell us, adam schiff, about president trump's deal about the ukraine in return for foreign aid. the moment democrats have been waiting for. if when it finally arrived, sondland would not read from the script. speak out there was no quid pro quo, he made it clear to you in the call, president zelensky had

to quote clear things up and do it in public. you don't have a reason to dispute. >> i don't have anything to dispute and cleared up in public. when i'm trying to be very clear about his president trump never told me directly, that the aide was tied to that statement. >> same conversation you had to him about the aide, quid pro quo, he told you that president zielinski had to "a clear things up and do it in public." >> i did have a conversation with him about the aide, i told to of the conversation as referenced in my text, about the quid pro quo. >> it was over the aide? a correct? >> no, president trump when i asked him they opened ended question as i testified previously, we do you want from ukraine? the answer is, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. tell president zelensky to do the right thing. that's all i got. >> tucker: they pushed him and they pushed him, again, but the

gordon sondland in the end, i would schiff's talking points. why not? maybe it's because he didn't have any evidence that was true. if sondland can see, michael turner, with the deals that president trump might have struck, it was only assumptions. >> no one on the planet told you that president trump was trying for investigations? >> yes. >> you have no testimony today that ties a president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for the investigations? >> under my presumptions. >> which is nothing. >> tucker: this is tiresome. i apologize, but as it's happening, it would be better to ask lena. presumptions. others are so laughably wrong, one thing that presumption is definitely is, it's evidence,

you can't overturn an election based on presumption. you can stage an impeachment on presumption. you need facts to do that. as the day went on, sondland introduced a new fact. the president, sondland told us, told him explicitly that he did not want a quid pro quo. >> you said to the president of the united states, what do you want from ukraine? the president, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, i want zielinski to do the right thing. i want to do what he ran on, why did you put that statement in your opening states? i think you said you couldn't fit it in, is that right? we might be here for 46 minutes. >> it wasn't purposeful. >> wasn't purposeful, could not fit it in a 23 page opener? >> tucker: smart question, actually, why wasn't the fact and this is not a small point, it's the white which they

impeachment hanks, why was that not included in the sondland's opening statement? we don't know. here's one possible explanation, it was probably drafted by his legal team and all four of the attorneys it turns out as we checked our democratic donors. the man seated next to gordon sondland today during the hearing, he gave over 130,000 to democrats over the years, also represented and formats to help the rush or russia hoax. thinking more about the clients personal interests in this case, impeach number one across his mind? we don't know, it doesn't seem plausible. we should point out something, the price completely overlooked, gordon sondland and the family have been under intense political pressure. and some cases, scary political pressure from the left for weeks. weeks. if protesters have swarmed it gordon sondland family in

public. if democratic publications have pushed boycotts of his businesses and livelihood. the left has been working the wraps and that should not surprise you because for the left, this is total war. yes, and the one case, it did not quite work in the business statement, right where we were when they ukraine the circus started. in fact, we are back where we were on november 9th, and a lot of people washington the spies at donald trump. still, to this moment, nobody can proof. if there salivating as if someone did >> we know every fantasy about have some one is, it's true. >> at the blowtorch testimony this morning from gordon sondla, it turns out to be the guy who offered the most stunning testimony. in addition to that in the bow shall be heard about, this was

an ied from mr. sondland. >> as you said that, taking a blow torch to every defense donald trump offered, we don't see this very often anymore because really it's true. i think today changed everythin everything. >> tucker: you heard it, bombshells, ieds, blowtorches. of who writes the metaphors for these? it sounds like it's at taking place in ices territory. but it comes from the legal analyst, and every analyst about how every analyst is corrupt, it's true. all the fennel to fantasies are true based on testimony, remember the russia collusion story. remember stormy daniels? and sometimes the sometimes insane allegations. they promoted and used to try to

affect elections and in so live lives? they are telling us that all of them were true because about presumptions. that's the thing in all of this. at the beginning, washington had presumptions about what the new president was like, about the policies and voters were allowed to choose. voters weren't allowed to end foreign wars, or put america first or secure america's borders. that's not on the table, those aren't menu options. if this is not a real democracy according to the people who administer the democracy. that ought to make you nervous. you go to washington and sing in charge of our democracy and nobody believes that? you should have in detroit, and it makes you nervous? it would. and what they're saying to voters is, you can't make changes to american policy. all you're allowed to do is rubber-stamp the current status quo, the one that enriches private equity

managers, and that and that bureaucracy, the donors and friends. other than that, shut up and obey. that's the program and maybe it will succeed and maybe it will remove the president. okay, what then? washington will celebrate, of course. what they have learned anything from the exercise, will the 2016 elections have changed their minds or the priorities at all in any way? or they continue to convince themselves this is some weird operation run by russia and racism in the heartland. something that they could safely ignore and return to a kind of arrangement that looks very much like 1978, for that matter. we know the answer to that. if the people in charge are capable of learning anything, the country would not look like it is today. congressman matt, the floor the key watching carefully today, if you were to sum up what we learned today from these

hearings and they were touted throughout the day as pivotal. a bombshell, ied, blowtorch! what would be your summary? >> donald trump is skeptical of foreign aid and washington loves foreign aid because it allows politicians and ambassadors and government bureaucrats to do our favorite then, give away other people's money. donald trump was especially concerned about the ukraine because it was the third and most corrupt country in the world. of course, everybody in washington wants you to believe that russia is always our enemy and ukraine is the friend when the reality is far more complex than that. republicans do their best work today when they drove a wedge between that which sondland resumed in the wisdom as part of the diplomatic world in which he actually heard and saw. i think that mike turner, john radcliff, jordan did a good job showing that the only direction that ambassador sondland got from president trump is that president trump did not want anything, he just wanted zelensky to fulfill the commence in the campaign to clean up the

country. if they just did not sit well with permanent washington and that's why the show goes on. >> tucker: so, would you say that's really the take away? this is a debate about the policy? cloaked in a lot of high-minded language, designed to hide the ball from the rest of us. but, really, they don't like what donald trump wants to do with american policy towards ukraine and russia. >> it's the worst kind of groupthink the enemy is shows an enemy upgraded nissan element of washing merge, and all of a sudden, you get the sense that all of their beliefs are then the president's beliefs and they can go, say, well, i surmised some conclusion on the global stage and because some weeks ago, i spoke to the president, in fact, it's my belief that this ought to be the case in the administration standpoint. reality is far different. i think gordon sondland's, you see someone who is an

inter-meddler who is a bit out of his lane and someone who never, ever, got direction from the president or anybody else in the administration to direct in the quid pro quo for a debate of the media, what they do, they try to conflate what someone is feelings are or the belief is about policy and compared to what they actually observe and be admissible when you try to scrutinize evidence. it's something as serious as getting rid of the duly elected president of the united states. >> tucker: thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: so walking to air force one today, department washington, president trump reenacted his phone call with ambassador gordon sondland. here it is. >> i say to the ambassador in response, i want nothing, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. it tell zelensky, president zelensky, to do the right thing. here's my answer. i want nothing. if i nothing.

i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. then he says, this is the final word on the president of the united states. i want nothing. >> tucker: it's like a old-fashioned radio play. former acting attorney general of the united states, joining us, think of so much. so you watched carefully, and you're perfectly situated to assess the legal aspect of all of this. was the crime demonstrated today? >> >> now, in fact, it continueo be in impeachment and search of facts that prove any kind of wrongdoing by the president. you saw in the clips they are in the beginning, how the left and the american people have to be scratching their heads, they watch this, the folks in the media tried to tell them something different happened. then actually what happened. it's almost a schizophrenic

moment to watch some of the folks on cnn contort themselves around facts that don't exist to try to convince the american people that something wrong is happened. if for the mentally, tucker, we talked about this before, it's what the majority of the house believes is impeachable offense, there's no burden of proof, no standard, and it's whatever they vote to impeach the president on a partisan basis and that's a shame. >> tucker: is a constitutional matter, as to say the matter of the founders intense, this was supposed to be a political process and not necessarily a legal one. >> there is no doubt impeachment is a purely political process, and each founding father determined when they created the constitution and the high crime and misdemeanor standard. it sort of upper debates, i know a lot of the left are convinced what the founding fathers where

thinking. it's fundamentally what the democrats in congress believe it is, whether it's the presumption of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, there's no standing. whatever the majority of them and then a house belief, it's a shame that use this purely to weaken the president and purely to undo the 2016 elections. >> tucker: yeah, it's impressive, they want to live at that i believe that. thank you for coming out today. davis cofounded the, boy, was he on from dawn to dusk watching every twist and turn of the hearing. as somebody who was essentially right about this all day long on twitter, if you are to summarize what you learned what would it be? >> i think we learned that democrats are quite convinced they need to put keep going wie watergate cosplay, we learned that the the same thing we heard

over and over and the same acting and the only thing i learned is that these people are committed to learning the process to the very end. nobody's watching this because they wanted to, i tell you what, it's a bit masochistic have a o sit through that. the whole ordeal. it's beyond uke you get the sense having power taken from tn 2016 was the pivotal tragedy in their lives and they never got over a period >> yeah, that's the central crime of donald trump's presidency, he had the audacity when she was about to be ordained and incarnated as the next leader of the free world. they said, dear one, impeachment begins. they tried it with a russia collusion, they tried it with the 25th amendment nonsense, that failed and now we are in the third version of their impeachment passion play that we are having -- that we are being

forced and held hostage to watch. >> tucker: i think you're right to call it that, there is clearly a religious quality to all of them. of faith-based quality to all of this. if to skip ahead a year, i'm starting to think all of this is making it more likely the president wins reelection, if he does, and these people have promised their forwarders they're going to stop big orange in his tracks and he can, he gets reelected, what happens then? seriously. >> oh, goodness, look at we have upcoming, we're going to go through impeachment and we have an election. if we may have a supreme court if they can see, we saw how they acted after 202016. if they concocted the bogus crimes out of nowhere, and smear men who didn't do anything. if they're going to lose their minds and i know it's a short trip given the current state of where they are but they're going to lose her mind if trump ends up winning and i don't know if you saw, a whole lot today in wisconsin, a huge flip in favor of trump and the impeachment proceedings began.

if he's the democrats. they're going to be in a tough road if this continues. >> tucker: end of trump is reelected, they're making it much more likely he will be. if someone responsible on the left stands up and pulls the temperature a little bit, were going to be in trouble if nobody does not. >> you would so, thank you. >> tucker: you would hope so. i think to thanks a lot. an army of bureaucrats is ready to rise up the president tries to change america policy. also talking about impeachment, there's other things going in the complex country and we will bring the stories to you as well ahead. ♪ when you move homes, you move more than just yourself.

that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

♪ >> tucker: well, a few weeks ago, "the new york times" published a piece celebrating the deep states, they told us it was protecting america from the harmful effects of democracy. it turns out, most americans don't like being told they are ruled by unelected bureaucrats and that their votes mean nothing. no matter what they do, no matter how assiduously they organize, they cannot change policy at all. so even as an army of bureaucratic termites try to impeach the president, cn and is busily ushering americans they are definitely -- there's no establishment agenda in washington, you're racist if you think otherwise. >> i think there is the fantasy that there is this resistance in

the organizations like the fbi and the cia. >> the state departments, and my experience are not exactly left wing outfit. >> of course, no deep states, no resistance within the bureaucracy across the government agency pushing against the president. >> tucker: there is no deep state! there's no resistance! everything is totally -- what are you watching? what does it mean when people tell you to lies that are so implausible that they must know that you know that they are lies even if they tell them. what is not about? i tell you exactly what it's about, what you are watching is the people in charge losing control. i could not the internet, for all the downside of the internet, the upside of the internet you can't control all the information on the internet. average person knows more than ever before. if people, like the ones you just on the screen, basically a monopoly on control over the country for a very long time, all of us and are are losing it.

they're panicked. if they're freaking out. if so the redoubling their efforts to lie to you, clamp down speech, to above all, make sure that you shut up and stop asking all these questions. it makes a living and improving the country by asking obvious questions and insisting on the answers. joining us tonight. so, you just saw cnn assuring us, scolding us for daring to believe that there was a kind of unchanging permanent agenda in washington. you live in washington, what do you think? >> there certainly is, you see this what the debate where the president's own political appointees are opposing his campaign promises that he was trying to implement the hold back on foreign aid and be skeptical of it. andrew mccabe is a classic case, we had a document written by andrew mccabe to come under the foia where he is talking about wearing a wire on the president

of the united states. we have confirmation and we are talking about invoking the 25th amendment to lalas lake remove him. he tells us, there's no resistance, they don't like the republicans generally in office, and not the type of republican donald trump's. they post policies, it means breaking the law to do so. in this case of the impeachment, leaks that classify the information that ended up and adam schiff's office. then he later lied about. i just cannot believe the officials are so oblivious -- well, i guess i can. so oblivious to the arrogance that they exude as they substitute their own will and try to substitute their own will for the will of the elected leader of america. well, it's donald trump, it's unbelievable. >> tucker: it's unbelievable, i'm thankful that they're not really smart or they be turning out effective propaganda. as it is, their lies are so

transparent that nobody is fooled. nobody stuck in an airport has their mind changed by cnn, thank heavens. >> and remicade is waiting to hear from the justice department to whether going to the prosecud for times about the leak. james comey stole tromso to trump's fbi file. to go after him. >> tucker: thank you, tonight, always. one unquestioned assumption appears to be shared by most people who work in washington and fact, that fighting russia is crucial to america's interest. by the way, they don't believe this at all, but everybody in d.c. thinks that fighting russia, whether it's ukraine, georgia, latvia, it's essential and that americans should be forced to risk their lives, spend billions of dollars, keep russia out of those countries.

but as noted, every survey of the subject shows the same thin thing. the public doesn't agree. here's a new one, and it found like the rest of them found, even after russia outright invaded, only half of americans would favor a military response. joining us tonight, mark, thank you so much for coming out tonight. so, why is it, your survey, it tells us what i think previous surveys have told us, why is it that nobody in washington catches and don't care what the public is saying? >> i think you heard a couple of these foreign art service officers that there's this robot conspiracy for the public debate around the topic of the ukraine policy and i don't think that wn washington talks about the public. if they're not talking about

ordinary americans are talking about things being tight and people and to foreign policy journals. i don't think that they understand, frankly, are that concerned. if we were called upon to live up to the nato treaties, article five, or we have to attack and help analyze an attack on ourselves. if there is very little willingness to actually respond militarily. that crosses generational boundaries, partisan boundaries, that's not a partisan issue. >> tucker: yes, just quickly, the people who got us into the words who diminished america's power abroad are still the ones making the decisions about foreign policy. how is that? >> to some extent, yeah, you're a diplomat and you're going to continue to work going for the national security apparatus. it seems that both parties are falling over themselves trying to make a case, you know, and

expensive foreign policy in that part of the world whether it's democrats were talking about democracy promoting and ukraine, russia increasing the influence come america inflows go down. even republicans are talking about, well, under trump we give them more javelin muscles and we give them more lethal aw they're trying to out talk each other when that's not what they want e democracy, you have to be sensitive to the popular will here at home. >> tucker: why would we promote, the whole thing is like nuts actually, and if you say that, your russian agents. mark, thank you for joining us. the left was once the groove, and the part of this, they want to preserve america's natural beauty. good for them. that's a laudable goal and an essential goal, but it favors unlimited immigration from abroad.

environmentalism, the saddest things to happen in the country, and nobody ever mentions it. it will tell you what happens after this. ♪ m this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself.

♪

>> tucker: at one of the greatest blessing we have as americans is the amazing pristine beauty of our country. it's incredible. why is that? even with 320 million people living here, and the upcountry is still not particularly crowded. that's the key, the old environmental movement understood that and that's why they campaigned for a lower immigration levels because of crowded countries are never beautiful countries. if the modern left and modern environmentalists care much more about it than politics than the actual physical environment. if so they're pushing for open borders. kevin lynn, executive director of progressives for immigration reform. it kevin, thank you so much for coming on tonight.

so, for some reason, they are incredibly touchy when you pointed out, that they don't care about the environment anymore. it's true. how did that happen? >> well, tucker, first, thank you so much for having me on this evening. 2008, when we created progressives immigration reform, the whole idea was to have the discussion with our brothers and sisters to the left of the political spectrum on the consequences of unbridled immigration. if one of the consequences, as he said to come of the i have a belief, tucker, that if you believe anyone, any person matters, you have to believe that numbers matter. and, a colleague of mine said the past, when you're looking at the immigration debate, you really have to answer three questions. those three questions are, number one, what should the number be? how do we arrive at that number? should it be 200,000 people we

let in a year? 1 million? 2 million? the next question, tucker, how do we decide who makes up the number? do we do merit-based? skills-based? do we have a beauty pageant? the third, of course, once we come to the conclusions, how do we effectively and humanely enforce the immigration laws? >> tucker: if you really cared about the natural world, this would be a major concern for jo. if if you really care about the nature, some of us do, but they don't seem to care. >> absolutely, i think they care, but most people i found through the years are very good-natured. if and, when you look at the american experienced, my experience is very close to that as an immigrant's tradition, my mother was born and raised in

other countries, 1952 wasn't ever going to. i think a lot of people feel that were particularly blessed to be here, and got here and so it's difficult knowing that we are blessed in that respect and we have to tell some people known. however, tucker, we have to because 1 billion people would move to the united states if they could. 2 billion people of the world is almost 8 billion people earn under $2 a day. they are hungry to come to the united states. so when you look at the impact -- i'm sorry, please, go ahead. >> tucker: were out of time, i agree with you completely, and i think you make a fair point that i made. people do care, they have not thought it through. i would and bison, no more strip malls, enough, we have too many. exactly.

thank you for keeping the tradition alive. >> thank you very much. >> tucker: thank you. if cnn and the justice department colluded to humiliate, and republican senators try to find that when it happened. but did he? we need to hold the elected representatives responsible for the promises they make especially the ones that they make on this channel to us. we are doing that after the break. ♪ our purpose is not just closing a loan. we want to do whatever's best for the individual service person. we want to be known as america's mortgage company for veterans and active-duty service people, and they and their families. we're the ones there to help them. people are doing hard, arduous, difficult, dangerous things. some of them are giving their lives right now, today, for the freedoms that we have here in this country. they're willing to do that for you,

for me, and for our family. so for us, at newday, to have the opportunity to turn around and help those people at this point in time. it's a labor of love, it's a noble service, and that's what we're all about.

>> tucker: the beginning of this year, long time donald trump advisor ronald scott dolan was dragged from his home, with a thoroughly nonviolent crime of lying to congress. in order to increase the human relation, the military style arrest was broadcast live on cnn. if question, how do they know to be in stones of neighborhood when the fed showed up? the same way anybody knows anything. they were tipped off by an

interested party. a cnn being cnn, they shamelessly lied about it. they went on television to pretend that the network somehow knew to send a camera crew to a particular residential double lament at fort lauderdale on 4:00 a.m. on january today for the great reporter's instinct, he explained, entirely straight face. please. federal prosecutors abuse their power in the most grotesque way for political reasons and cnn eagerly help them do it. if that's what actually happened. if conservatives were justly outraged. as he often does, he claimed to be the champion of outrage conservatives. graham fired off a letter to the director of the fbi demanding to know who tipped off cnn to the stone raid. if he bragged about the letter and the press release as well as on twitter and then came on this channel to brag about it some more. >> this seems to me over the top, i don't know what the message was being sent, but i personally did not like it.

sending a message to them. of you are accountable to the congress. they better answer my letter. >> okay. >> if i were them, i would. >> tucker: they better answer my letter. if graham said to the camera, if i were them, i would. it sounds pretty tough. whatever happened to all that? it turns out, nothing. we called graham's office to follow up which we rarely do, and the staff explained to us met in person with a deputy director who told graham that he "did not think it was an fbi agent who tipped off see an end to the stone raid." did you catch that? the fbi wasn't sure, but, did not think they did it. the fbi had nothing to say about the doj or the special counsel office and both of whom asked about the letter. they ignore the part of the question and never responded. nine months later,

lindsey graham appeared not to have done anything to press the fbi further or to get to the bottom of the mystery. if the staff seemed annoyed to be asked about it as it promises were not meant to be taken seriously. the theatrical events stage for the voters at homes breed of conservative noises to help the republican primary back in south carolina. no one in washington expense gave to do anything real when you get off the air. they know the deal, it's a performance that dummies back home. pretty cynical. a lot of united states senators are pretty cynical even the republicans. unfortunately for them, their voters are starting to figure it out. the clinton foundation used to be one of the biggest charities in the world, believe it or not. the revenues have collapsed, though, why? hillary. what does that tell us? we will unpack it after the break. ♪

♪ >> tucker: hearing a lot about quid pro quo recently's in washington, at least when the allegedly fought the president. but that's not the only quid pro quo going on, in fact, par for the course in washington. a hundred a hundred

bison, one giant quid pro quo, persistently ignored in 2016, expected to be the next president, the clinton foundation took massive donations around the world. one of the largest charities anyway. three years later, its revenues have collapsed. why is that exactly? peter schweizer we know, because, boy do they, he's right here. thank you for coming on. it's a public service to get a regular update on you and how the clinton foundation is doing. how is it doing? [laughter] >> it's not doing well, tucker, just consider this number. if the past year, the clinton foundation literally raised 10% of what it did in 2009, the first year that hillary went in with secretary of state and the

national numbers were even worse. they had all the money flowing in when hillary was the chief diplomat, and in light of the testimony the number one country forgiving was not great to grea, it was ukraine. all the money is dried up literally, the clinton foundation had a hard time raising money because they don't have influence to sell, they don't have power access to cell. now, i think, it's the primary evidence for what the clinton enterprise was all about. >> tucker: what about the women and girls they were empowering? [laughter] >> yeah, i mean, look, they still have the programs and the clintons have a lot more time than they did in the 2015 and 2016 to spend it building up the foundation. if but it just hasn't happened and look, one of the most interesting things that came out of the emails a few years ago, it was an internal review that

the clinton foundation data, actually, on chelsea's behalf. if they hired the law firm to kind of look at the clinton foundation and what they found is, high dollar donators had expectations of quid pro quo. that is the word of simpson thatcher in the internal review. if you are quite right, all the discussions in washington and the impeachment hearings, it's remarkable to me that there is no interest in the clinton foundation. of consider the testimony of gordon sondland and the issue of the white house. if to between the ukrainian president and put donald trump, it was linked to them announcing the investigation. as a classic example of access. she did that every day when she was secretary of state. >> tucker: here at the national's, you know better than most. i hope you come back.

it won't be long. just a small it's to now snowing to snowing for bg persecuted all. we will be back without. ♪

>> i want to believe that there's something called justice, if i stop believing that, what is it all for? thank you, chelsea. >> tucker: beautiful, jussie smollett was hot lucky to have powerful friends are like that, is giving felony charges for the hate crime last winter. if that's not good enough, he suing chicago for prosecuting h. trace gallagher has all the details. >> hey, tucker, despite overwhelming evidence against him, jussie smollett maintains

innocence, now seeking $130,000 to cover the cost of the investigation. if he's filed a 130 page counterclaim, accused malicious prosecution. while he was maliciously prosecuted, heat the claim does not name the prosecutor. if kim fox, experts do not surprising considering that he and the high controversial move, dropped the charges. the determined he fabricate the entire hoax. you know, the ones that confessed to helping small smollett fabricate, now the brothers were simply trying to avoid criminal charges. tucker. >> tucker: now, that's chutzpah. if trace gallagher, thank you for that.

what a country that is, we are honored to cover it. it back tomorrow, the sworn enemy of lying, prosody, smugness, and groupthink. have a great night. if sean hannity is next. musical physical space are welcome to "hannity." we begin with a fox news alert, it's effectively over and it's finished. if this was the day the democrats, trump, ukraine, quid pro quo, who preached and hope officially died. if their weak narrative was ripped to shreds in the gigantic self-serving political stunt is now blowing up in their faces as we all knew it was. today, per the first time, the first time, we heard from the witness who spoke to the president of the united states, that would be the e.u. and as hr sondland. it was either hearsay witness or