breaking news on the impeachment front. that's the story on monday, november 25. "the story" goes on. see you tomorrow at 7:00. tucker is up next in d.c. >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." democrats have been talking about impeachment since the very day that trump was inaugurated but until recently no one here in washington took that idea very seriously. maxine waters would rant about a trial and then pilates mom in santa monica fantasize on twitter about removing trump by force. the adults in the party, nancy pelosi, for example, the speaker imposed impeachment on the grounds that it was bad politics. it might boomerang on them. then, in what seemed like a day, everything changed completely. suddenly we had impeachment hearings playing out live on tv. nobody explained why. looking back, what exactly happened? well, part of the answer is that democrats were simply

responding to their own cheerleaders on cable news. >> if precedent means anything in the trump era, donald trump will be, must be impeached. >> but if they don't impeach, democrats will advocate a clear constitutional chance to hold this president fully accountable. >> the national nightmare is upon us. the basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the president. we begin tonight with a series of admissions by the president that all but assures his impeachment in the house of representatives. >> i don't understand why the facts that impeachment is polarizing makes them just as cowardly as the republicans. >> absolutely. to my mind, it also is an abby occasion of their constitutional responsibility. >> will there be any consequences for this president who is continuing to defy the rule of law. >> tucker: the rule of law. hear that mr. and mrs. america. it's a national emergency. if they don't impeach, democrats, listen carefully,

democrats, will ant voyeur be . that's the hair hats on tv men who ware makeup and yelling at their assistants were telling democratic leaders night after night after night. remarkably, and it is remarkable looking back democrats believed them. so what happened next? let's see, have you read the new vanity fair? i'm sorry rhetorical question. nobody reads vanity fair anymore. it likely won't exist by this time next year. before the title disappears forever, check out this month's issue. there is a fascinating piece by ken stern that assesses new polling on impeachment. here's the headline. among independents, the only group that matters in an election support for impeachment, impeaching trump has dropped by 10 points since the process started. how to explain this. in political terms, this is the andrea dorea a routine cruise that suddenly becomes a disaster, a debacle.

they spent two weeks telling that you donald trump was a criminal. and by the end, nor people sympathized with donald trump. how did that happen? take a close look at the numbers. and it's obvious how it happened. independent voters were asked to rank 11 issues in order of their importance. first on the list was fiscal health. 74% of independent voters said that the budget deficit was their main concern. 72 percent said healthcare was the main concern. 70 percent said infrastructure. pretty conventional. impeachment, that came in dead last. 11 out of 11. only 37% of independents thought it was a priority at all. by a margin of 3 to 1, and this is hilarious, independents said that impeachment was more important to politicians and the media than it was to them. these are not subtle numbers. how did democrats miss them? well, because they only talk to each other. this is what happens when you let jeff zucker run your political party. you start to imagine that cnn's prime timelineup

somehow speaks for america rather than for a tiny out-of-touch little part of it. zucker tells you that impeachment is the only matter that matters. his munich agree with them. come fall you lose the election. fall nonpoliticians who seem to see things the most clearly. here is andrew yang after last week's presidential debate. >> but, when i talk to voters around the country, i have to say i get very, very few questions about impeachment. i know that there are people who are very intent on the impeachment proceedings day to day. but that doesn't line up with what i'm hearing from voters here on the ground. >> so would democrats, you believe, be better off simply wrapping up this impeachment process sooner rather than later? >> i do think that the more time that goes on the less time the democrats have to present a positive vision for the country that will get people excited and help us win in 2020. >> tucker: out in santa

monica the pilates mom saying andrew yang, did he impeachment? is he a racist? is he telling us that voters want politicians to care more about their lives than they want politicians to extract symbolic televised revenge on their political enemies? [laughter] if you watch msnbc it's hard to believe that could be true. that's what the yang guy is claiming. in the wake of those poll numbers we just read, other democrats appear to be considering the same thing. even adam schiff may be coming around. watch this. >> do you think president trump should be impeached? >> i want to discuss this with my constituents and my colleagues before i make a final judgment on it. and. >> and you've also said that what you have seen is, quote, far more serious than what nixon did. explain to me how you have not come to the conclusion that the president should be impeached. it sounds like you think he should be impeached. >> i certainly think that the evidence that's been produced overwhelmingly shows serious misconduct by the president. but i do want to hear more

from my constituents and i want to hear more from my colleagues. this is not a decision i will be imagine alone. >> tucker: he is not going to make the decision alone. just so you got the decision clear. the man in charge of impeachment in the house, the member you just watched for two full weeks shepherding the impeachment hearings. the guy who cried on television just thinking how much donald trump need to be impeached right now, that guy isn't really sure is he for impeachment. you know, he needs to talk to his colleagues. he needs to hear more from his constituents. it's a lot to think about. he is going to prayerfully consider it over the holiday weekend, just alone, just in some reflection. that's adam schiff's position now. in other words, it's over. democrats lost. michael anton is a lecturer at hillsdale college and national security official in the trump administration. author of a great new piece empire strike back 15 people texting me and for good reason. mr. anton, thank you for coming on tonight, adam

schiff not sure he is for impeachment. he doesn't want to get over his skis here. what does it tell us? >> it tells us as you said the hearings were a disaster. they needed to move the numbers up in favor of impeachment. they moved the numbers down. they are getting cold feet. i still think they have a big problem as you pointed out. the pilates moms, their base core supporters absolutely expect this. >> tucker: angry witch ladies. >> if schiff and pelosi don't deliver it, they will be accused of a betrayal. the base is going to rebel. it could cost them the house. on the other hand, if they go through with it, and the public is enforced to endure who knows how many more weeks or months of this and they really get from us straited and have congress wasting the american people's time when there are so many pressing priorities they could lose seats in the house and loads the house over that. they don't have any great options now. somebody who thought this was a joke, mainly me, i'm kind of laughing like you are right now. >> tucker: i know, it tells you a number of things, one of them that nancy pelosi isn't speaker by accident. i don't think she is a genius. but politically she has got

some insight after 70 years of doing it. this is a trap. how do they -- as you point out, how do they get out of it. >> people overpromised to her. that's my guess. schiff went to her and said we have something totally solid now. we have caught him red-handed and she trusted him. that was obviously a mistake especially when you look back on the last three years of people saying we have him now, he did this, he did this, he did this. knob of them ever pan out. i don't know how they get out of it. i think my own guess is that they have to take the vote and go ahead and impeach him. and then we will see how a senate trial goes. i think it would be a waste of time. i have think it would be better for the american people, better for the country, better for all the things we need to get done for them to drop it, let it go. you know, pass this new trade deal between canada and mexico and the u.s. that's on the desk. let's get after the border wall. let's do something about mexican cartels crossing our border and killing our people. let's do something about the opioid crisis, infrastructure, let's do something about all of these things. if they feel that they have to go through with it and they can't stand down, well, in that case, let's have a

senate trial and really embarrassed the people who pushed this and show the world for once and for all how flimsy it was from the beginning. >> tucker: that really is it. you are absolutely right to point out this is all being done at the expense of the country and's many real problems. not fake problems but actual ones. >> yes. >> tucker: if it is going to happen, you are sincerely convinced, not just saying this, that it would help the administration. >> i don't know that it would help the administration in every leadership respect. if i were the president, i wouldn't want to be impeached, especially over something trivial and stupid and nothing. it's an insult to the president himself. it's unfair. it's unjust. it wastes time. it ties up his administration. it takes away resources and man hours that they should be utilizing to do things they were elected to do. i wouldn't want it to happen if i were the president. i don't see how it helps the democrats to put the country through a saga that the country is already tired of, laughing at or doesn't understand and really as andrew yang pointed out very concerned about other things. so, i don't know that anybody comes out a winner.

>> tucker: i think that's right. michael anton, great to see you tonight. congrats on the piece. richard goodstein an attorney and former advisor to the left. guy who got imbeached bill clinton and his wife hillary clinton. what guy couldn't pull his numbers up 10 points in two weeks. that's amazing. why don't they keep at it and trump will be elected with 70 percent of the vote. >> right. i would say ask andy bevin or matt bevin, excuse me or his pony irispone how emphasiziw unjust impeachment was how that worked for them. look at matt bevin on election day he pointed to how horrible impeachment was and how it was going to bring people to the polls and then of course we saw what happened. >> tucker: i gte the rhetorical point you are making, if you look a little bit into either one of those races, kind of hard to conclude that they are a sign of a coming democratic wave. maybe you really think that

maybe you actually think impeachment is helping democrats. do you really think that? >> what i think is that the polls. you point a vanity fair piece that is a monthly. i'm looking at the polls that have come out since the hearings were over. >> tucker: this is one of them and by the way i should be fair. this piece ran on the website and referring to a political point. >> rasmussen has donald trump under 11 points. rasmussen. which donald trump points to. 44-45. 70% poll last week said what donald trump did with ukraine was wrong. the difference between clinton and trump in 98 democrats basically said what bill clinton was not right. it was bad. but it wasn't impeachable. republicans can't bring themselves to say what donald trump did by putting the arm on a leader to investigate his political enemy was even wrong. 70% disagree. >> tucker: do you think it's a little weird that here you have joe biden's ne'er do well son using his father's position to make a million dollars a year that business

he knows nothing about. trump is being impeached for asking about it. do you think that's a little bit weird? is it your classic case of sort of missing the thread in washington? there is open corruption and the guy who points it out is punished. [laughter] >> good thing about having these transcripts out is he didn't mention the word corruption once. and he didn't want an investigation. >> tucker: that's what i'm calling it? >> he wanted a simple announcement. this is what a reality tv star does. he doesn't care about the substance. he wanted something announced not actually done. >> tucker: since we are very deep people. >> we are. >> tucker: we do care about the substance of it. and the substance of it is that trump, for all of his sins and i will concede some of them, has never taken close to a million dollars a year from ukrainian energy company to do nothing because his dad is the vice president. so, hunter biden did. i actually like hunter biden but that's totally corrupt and you know it. why is it worse to ask about it than do it? >> because people are dying

on the front lines. >> tucker: why do i care what is going on in the conflict between ukraine and russia? i'm serious. why shouldn't i root for russia which i am. >> those of us watching myself, preserving democracy is important. when dick cheney said what the russians did was an attack. >> tucker: i don't care. >> more like annual attack on the u.s. i think if donald trump gets off the hook on, this is he going to put the arm on the chinese and everybody else. >> tucker: hold on a second, we should put a strong arm on the chinese colonizing the world and beating us economically. soon militarily if we don't watch out. why should i root for ukraine against russia. i'm sincerely confused. latvia against moldova. why should i care at all. >> russia is trying to undo our democracy. ukraine is not. they actually want our democracy to succeed and theirs to succeed. >> tucker: are you kidding? so you really last sentence. you really believe that russia. >> yeah. >> tucker: is a greater threat to the united states

than china? just say it. just say it? >> i think russia and china are threats in different ways. >> tucker: um-huh. because i noticed our industry just went to china today and sucking up to xi. what can we do mr. chairman. and that's totally cool. if i don't root for urk in some esoteric border war with russia. >> front line stopping russia. >> tucker: who cares? >> people of western europe, nato cares. you may not. >> tucker: i don't live in western europe i live in d.c. and i don't care. >> democracy hinges. >> tucker: it does not it. hinges on elections which we are having in a year and you are trying to short circuit with a dumb impeachment. >> make sure it's profoundly unfair. you think it's a joke. most people do. >> tucker: nice try. david karesh, donald trump, according to cnn they all v. something in common. they are all cult leaders. you have think we are making that up, no. that was an actual segment

that jeff zucker's marinette ran over the weekend. watch if you dare. >> the word cult has been popping up more and more. none of them are mental health experts. steven hasan is. he has escaping the unification church in the 1970s. he believe there is something seriously long with our politics. >> you say the president is using mind control. how is that provable. >> we can start with the pathological lying, which is characteristic of destructive cult leaders. shunning and kicking out anyone who raises questions or concerns about his own behavior. >> it is frightening to hear a cult expert saying you see all these signs right now today in american politics. >> tucker: it's very fright thingening to watch a cult expert. [laughter] don't object to that guy. just enjoy it. it's really actually more amusing than you think it is. if you want to see actual brainwashing, you could turn

on cnn whose hosts spend each day hip not particularly repeating the same chosen phrases. here is one among many examples. >> underway right now america in the middle of a constitutional crisis. >> it's a constitutional crisis. >> are we in a constitutional crisis? >> we are in a constitutional crisis. >> the u.s. is facing a constitutional crisis. >> why are nearing that kind of constitutional crisis at this point. >> this is probably a constitutional crisis. putting the nation on the brink of a constitutional crisis. >> on the cusp of a constitutional crisis because there is not enough push back? >> i think they are happy to have this constitutional crisis. >> tucker: what is it? all with us now, it's a constitutional crisis. scott adams created dilbert the author of the book "loser think" he joins us night to assess this constitutional crisis. scott thanks for coming on. i will throw this up to you and let you hit. the claim is this is a cult engaged in brainwashing. not what you just saw on the media but the administration. is it? >> well, i didn't believe it

but i was worried enough to shay my head. to -- shave my head. get ahead of this whole cult business. as i understand it, one of the requirements for a cult is you have a strong leader who has all kinds of power. we have got a leader who can't get legislation passed that both sides agree on. we have got a leader who almost got fired because he made a phone call and he worded it wrong. that's exactly the opposite of whatever like a dominant leader with all kinds of control is. another requirement is that you are in your own little bubble. >> tucker: yeah. >> it's pretty clear that people are pretty much everybody is in their own little bubble, which is what "loserthink" is all about. i don't think it's one side. but it does seem at least the evidence is that the conservatives at least sample the news on the other side. so at least they have a sense of what the other side is saying. but, when i talk to people on the left, they don't have a sense of what the other argue. is.

argument is. that's a real problem. >> tucker: that is a hallmark, i think -- we didn't even need a cult expert on to explain it. that is a hallmark of a religious movement where the other side isn't even allowed. >> yeah. and i think that came about because of one technological change. the moment the news and social media could measure with precision who was clicking on what, it really led us toward the more dramatic, provocative hair on fire kinds of stories. so the same kinds of stories that before we -- well, you have got that opinion. i have got this one. neither of us care too much. suddenly we care about all kinds of stuff and most of it isn't even real. i mean, i have been spending the last two years caring about things that eventually get debunked like the impeachment thing is going to fizzle out any day now. so i'm kind of exhausted from caring but not much of it is real. >> tucker: i wonder will there come a point? it does seem like this is, yet, another example of the

left accusing the other side of doing what they are doing. so you are suggesting is that actually there's a pretty vibrant cult flourishing on the left right now. >> yeah. i think everybody is in their own little bubble. i think that the group that is out of power has it the worst. because if you are a trump supporter, you can look at things he has done and say hey, here is some things he has done. but if you are anti-trump, you kind of have to make stuff up. and that's what we have seen for a few years. like well, we think he is worshiping satan. we don't have the evidence yet, yet because they like to tell you it's on the way any moment now we are going to have that. >> tucker: let me just say, this scott. if true, if true, satan worship will be a bombshell, indeed possibly a constitutional crisis. that's what i'm thinking. the great scott adams. great to have you on tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: greg gutfeld says high. one of your biggest fans. michelle obama has told us recently she has no interest

in running for president. in washington that's a sign that maybe she does have some interest. she isn't future candidate but actually the favorite. something we are thinking about. explain after it the break. new developments in the jeffrey epstein case. trace gallagher lays it out for us just ahead.

♪ >> tucker: the already crowded democratic field got a little more cramped yesterday. classiclaustrophobic feeling. michael got in the race. he is too old, too rich, too

pale for the modern democratic party. that doesn't mean there aren't surprises on the way. there are and if you are wondering hot democratic nominee will be don't bet against michelle obama. last week she issued a statement saying she has no interest in being president. that's what she claimed there are signs that's not true, actually. for example, david axlerod who is one of the obama's closest and most loyal advisors has been raising a scorchedz earth campaign against joe biden for months. what's the point of this. political consultants always have a point presumably the point is designed to weaken bide who is apparently the frontrunner. biden has taken big hits from axelrod. he has called him a liar, a coward, all but accused him of having dementia. would david axelrod being doing all of that without the consent of the obamas? no. there is no chance. you think obama might stand up for joe biden, by the way the two worked together for eight years. they claim to be best friends. yet, that hasn't happened. in fact, not only has obama refused to endorse biden, he

tried to stop biden from running in the first place. asked about their relationship, biden had no choice but to resort to sad lies like this one. >> why hasn't president obama endorsed you? you guys served together for eight years. >> because i have to -- i want to earn this on my own. >> did he offer to endorse you? >> no. we didn't get there i asked him not to. he said okay. i think it's better -- i think he thinks it's better for me. >> tucker: that's pathetic. don't want to pile on. sad to watch. if obama had endorsed joe biden the race would be over. biden would in effect be the nominee already. obama hasn't endorsed joe biden because he doesn't want to endorse joe biden. why? maybe he has other plans? obama's presidential memoir was supposed to come out this year. now it's release has been delayed until the middle of the democratic primaries. in other words, at exactly the moment when democrats will be thinking deeply about how to beat donald trump, america will be talking about the obamas. coincidence?

maybe it is. maybe it's also a coincidence that michelle obama just released yet another book last week one that will require her, of course, to get on the road and talk to crowds. maybe she really isn't interested in joining the race that would make her unusual among democrats in this country. the current field is so weak that it's inviting a lot of new intrants massachusetts governor has convinced himself he can be president. the mediocre mayor of a small crime ridden town in indiana may actually win the iowa caucuses. it is that bad this year. the democratic party is ripping itself apart over race and gender and class. michelle obama, let's be honest, is one of the only people who could unite the party's warring faction. could she win a general election? let's see, a poll earlier this year found that michelle obama was the most admired woman in the world. she would far left admired if the press gave her a little scrutiny. what are the chances that would happen in a race? let's say michelle obama got

into the contest this spring or this summer? could the media cover for michelle obama until election day? are you serious? yeah. they could. and they would. one of the main lessons of donald trump's 2016 election is that you never really know what's going to happen. unexpected things happen far more often than we manage they do or that we pretend they do. but, wait a second, you say. the one thing we do know is that michelle obama doesn't want to be president. she has been categorical about it. absolutely not. she is not running. that's what she said. yeah. that's what she said. but before you take those words too seriously. consider the following exchange. this is from january 22nd, 2006. >> i will serve out my full six-year term. you know, tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary. and you start looking for new ways of saying things. but, my thinking has not changed. >> so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008? >> i will not.

>> tucker: tim russert went on to thank senator obama for his candor. just months after he did that, barack obama joined the presidential race. three years later, almost to the day, he was inaugurated president of the united states. katie pavlich is the editor of town hall and she joins us tonight. this is not an endorsement of michelle obama, obviously. far from it. just acknowledgment that this isn't crazy? >> yeah. >> tucker: this could very likely be in the works there are signs and why wouldn't they do that? >> yeah. it's very obvious as you said and pointed out a number of other democrats continue to jump in because the field is not getting the results that they need in terms of being able to go after president trump. michelle obama is not only one of the most admired women in the world. she has high name i.d. and she has, most importantly, the obama apparatus that could get her elected that was something that hillary clinton wasn't able to tap into in terms of appealing to obama voters. appealing to the same people that got him elected twice. barack obama, david axelrod

have that apparatus. it has not been engaged fully since president obama ran in 2012. and certainly they could readjust that to go behind her on top of all of the name recognition that she has. but, you know, one thing that people say to make the argument, michelle obama doesn't want. this what does she have to gain from this? she has history to gain first of all if she were to win the nomination and beat president trump. but also to be the first female president of the united states not to mention the first african-american president of the united states. and so, when you look at the way that the field has failed, as you pointed out, david arks sell rod from day one has been going after joe biden in a very vicious way. and barack obama hasn't said anything to defend him on things of character. >> tucker: the problems the democratic party is the party is funded by wall street and big tech. that's where all the money comes from. billions and billions of dollars. >> they hate billionaires. >> tucker: even though they are servants to billionaires, of course.

it's the ruling class party. but they have to pretend that they hate the ruling class. they lie. michelle obama who is a servant to the finance community, they all are, one person that could bring it all together, i think. >> not just with democrats. you look at her twitter feed and things she has been talking about. get out the vote effort. reinforcing how important obamacare is and you should sign up for obamacare. of course when she has the first lady pushed through school lunch program terrible program one size fits all policy. but she does have the ability because she has kept one hand in hollywood. they love her there i think she went to the oscars. and was celebrated. she is all over mainstream media and doing interviews and they are very favorable to her. and so she -- and, also, i think that establishment never trump republicans would also be in favor of a michelle obama run. when they go low, we go

high. >> tucker: expansion. foreign policy. she is for all of that. >> she would have to, if she decided to do, this have her own platform to distinguish herself from husband. one line of attach they could use in defense of her don't define her by a president who was a man. her husband. >> tucker: you wouldn't be allow you had. you would be kicked off twitter for criticizing michelle obama. >> difficult to go after her because she has all the social justice boxes to check in terms of giving her immunity. >> tucker: i don't know. i think conservatives ought to be thinking more clear headedly about this. joe biden is not going to be the nominee. sorry. if my view. >> joke because she says she is not going to run. they should be prepared for someone else to get in the race. >> tucker: katie pavlich, thanks so much. >> see you soon. >> tucker: elizabeth warren is telling stories again. this time about where her kids went to school. mark steyn didn't go to school with her kids. but he knows where they went. he joins us next. ♪ ♪

>> oh, alberta clipper is quite a story teller, remember she told you she was native american. really cherokee. she told you her parents got eloped and fired for the crime of getting pregnant. none of that was true. but she is still going. still running for president. so at this point maybe warren thinks she can say whatever she wants. and that brings us to tonight's latest episode of tall tales with elizabeth warren. on the campaign trail warren is campaigning hard on behalf of the teacher's union. no one in america likes the teacher's unions except those in them and getting

paid to by them. she is the latter category. warren's position is anyone who can't afford to go to private school must go to public school no matter how crappy it is. recently warren was confronted by a school choice activist who accused her of hypocrisy. watch. >> we don't have a science -- kids went to private school. >> my children went to public school. >> tucker: don't worry. my kids played by the same rules i'm going to force on you. just like my body guards don't have guns so don't worry when i take yours away. right. of course it's all a lie. warren's son went to two different private schools. did she not think that mark steyn was paying attention? he was. and he joins us tonight. mark, why would on a fact like this, it's so easy to check. elizabeth warren bother lying about it on camera? >> well, because as you mentioned, the simple fact of her entire adult life is that she passed herself off as something she wasn't.

and so she lies quite easily. and i find one of the most tedious aspects of presidential campaigning is when rich, privileged people fly their private jets into new hampshire, to go to the diner, and tell people what a dreadful hard scrabble dust bowl upbringing they had. it's boring, it's boring as hell. one of the great things trump did was not to pretend he wasn't rich and super successful. elizabeth warren, as you pointed out, her solution to that is to lie about everything. so, you know, horrible racist grandparents because of her parents had to elope because they had the most cher can i phobic grandparents. she had the most cherokee phobic grandparents in the history of america this has all worked for her. nobody has called her on it. she has managed to float. i mean realistic in the key

early states, she is the frontrunner in many ways. and, yet, her entire life is a lie. this is phenomenal. she has had a charmed existence. and, yet, there is a fantasy universe where elizabeth warren gets pregnant and the mean old school board immediately fires her where. >> geraldo: parents because they had to elope they grew up with the same of not being able to live as a blended caucasian cherokee family that they actually are when she tries to give the cherokee cookbook the crab and tomato recipe from the french restaurant in midtown, manhattan, patronized by the duke and duchess of windsor and cold porter, nobody believes it's a genuine. well, actually on the democrat side. that's authentic cherokee. this i'm going to go and get me some of that crab and tomato mayonnaise authentic

cherokee like the duke of windsor an authentic cherokee is like the duke of windsor and elizabeth warren. that's what he eat and that's what is good -- no one behalf of the country thinks this is all true. >> i know. talk about state media. talk about, i'm not going to complain about the other channels. done enough of it tonight. >> carry on. >> sad truth you are absolutely right. half the country believes it's true. that is a poignant fact. mark steyn, thank you for telling the truth, always. appreciate it. thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: almost a year ago, about a year ago the u.s. came very close to invading syria. lobbed weapons if you will remember, over what we were told was a chemical weapons attack. new leaks from a whistleblower suggests the entire attack was a hoax. you need to know more about this story. stay tuned. ♪ prior to going to aspen dental

i've had nineteen surgeries. i'm 100% permanently disabled from the military and after i went in to aspen dental it was just like night and day. they told me they were gonna take some x-rays, she said "and it's gonna be no charge to you". i'm not used to getting that type of service. my name is robert chackley and my rank for the military was retired sergeant major. at aspen dental we're all about yes. like yes to payments on your timeline not ours. yes to free exam and x-rays for patients without insurance. and yes whenever you're ready to get started so are we. call or book online at aspendental.com a general dentistry office.

♪ >> well, despite the president's repeated efforts to get them out, american troops remain deployed in parts of syria. if washington has its way, they will be there until you are old or even longer. forever. but it could be worse. 19 months ago washington was demanding that the u.s. government topple the assad government completely. must do it now. the justification for this was a supposed chemical weapons attack in the town of douma. now, no one in washington had seen the attack no, american had seen it. nobody in congress could tell you what proof existed that the attack had actually taken place. or that assad's government was behind it. rather than some other faction and there were many in the country's civil war. but it didn't matter that

there was literally no evidence, everybody in washington began agitating for regime change war immediately. immediately. and especially on the left. bill crystal and max booth and everyone at nbc and cnn were completely for it. this show was not for it. we didn't deny the attack happened. we just told people to be skeptical. >> universal bipartisan agreement on anything is usually the first sign that something deeply unwise is about to happen. if only because there was nobody left to ask skeptical questions. and we should be skeptical of this. starting with the poison gas attack itself. all the geniuses tell us that assad killed those children. but do they really know that? of course they don't really know that they are making it up. they have no real idea what happened. and now the same people who brought you a dying american middle class, undefended american borders, and endless pointless wars in country you could not find on a map are telling the

president he has got to depose assad for reasons that are unclear and demonstrably dishonest. >> tucker: have you got to depose assad immediately. wait a second. how did it work when we deposed the last four arab leaders. didn't protect all the christians? shut up they said. have you got to do it now. well, fortunately the president, president trump limited his response to another wave of missile strikes. rather than sending u.s. troops in to topple yet another government in the region. but now it looks like even that response may not have been justified at all. so last spring the official report of the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, which is the group that monitors chemical weapons, globally, said that the douma attack was caused by two chlorine gas canister dropped from the airplane. that would suggest the assad government was behind the attack. okay. last may a leaked internal document showed one of the ocpw's top analyst disagreed with that conclusion.

he thought the canisters were placed by hand by someone on the ground, which would make it a completely different event. now, this week, wikileaks has published an email from a member of the opcw's fact finding team. that email accuses the organization of altering investigator's original findings to make evidence of an attack look more conclusive than it actually was. sound familiar? yeah. we have seen this movie before with tragic consequences. yet another opcw whistleblower has argued on the ground evidence points against an attack happening at all. so, in other words, america almost attacked a country and killed thousands untold thousands of people over an attack that may never have happened in the first place. that powerful people may very well be lying about. and, by the way, under a different president, whatever you think of trump, this is true. under a different president,

say, hillary clinton being advised by the obama foreign policy team, samantha power and a lot of people like samantha power with long track records of unwise indeed stupid decision-making under that administration we probably would have invaded. we recently spoke all about this story because we think it's important with jonathan steele a former chief correspondent for the guardian. here's the conversation. >> tucker: i don't want to overstate this. a lot of us -- well, not a lot. >> some of us, this show, had spitions from the outset there wasn't much evidence that this had actually happened. what do we now know? >> we now know from this whistleblower who prefers to call himself alex, we know his real name we got proof that he did work at the opcw. he was an inspector. one of the team of about nine people who went to damascus and douma to pick up samples on the ground and to talk to witnesses and check the whole thing out. now, he took these samples.

the main point is that chlorine gas degrades rapidly in the air. so coming in two weeks later you wouldn't find anything. what you would find is that the gas contaminate or effect other chemicals in the natural environment. color lynn nateed organic chemicals. they insist any way in the natural environment and water. the crucial thing is the levels were there higher levels of chemicals found after the alleged gas attack than there would have been not normal environment. when they got back to the netherlands to the hague where the owpw headquarters. samples were sent off to designated laboratories. weird silence developed. nobody told the inspectors what the results of the sample was. >> three weeks earlier the results had come in and showed no difference at all. there were no higher levels

of chlorinated organic chemicals in the areas where the alleged attack had happened where there is some suspicious cylinders had been found by opposition activists. so it didn't seem possible that there could have been a gas attack because the levels were just the same as in the natural environment. >> tucker: two points. so, first, we were told and, again, sternly lectured that the u.s. government had salute evidence that this gas attack took place, a. b, if opcw knew there wasn't actually evidence, why did it take a whistleblower to tell the rest of us. >> on the first point he it was rush to judgment. they -- the missile strikes which included british and french missiles as well as the american ones happened about two or three days after the alleged gas attack when no inspectors had had been on the ground there was no evidence on the ground. >> tucker: liars. >> fabricated as it were

reason to go in. it was a rush to judgment. the second part is that the -- there was no real reason why outside making attack at that stage. already capturing most of douma and about to capture the rest of it. he didn't need to go in for a chemical gas attack at that stage. >> tucker: we have been lied. to say we have been manipulated. we knew it at the time. thanks so much for coming on tonight. i appreciate that it's a fascinating and important story. i hope it gets picked up from others apart from just this show. jonathan, thank you. >> tucker: well, the jeffrey epstein mystery could be approaching a break through. one of epstein's closest associates may be about to tell everything he knows to the fbi. details on that story next. ♪

>> tucker: jeffery epstein's dead but there are new reports his so-called fixer may soon emerge to speak with law enforcement. we go to our correspond ent. >> it's important for the investigation and his girlfriend was alleged to help in the sex ring and is out to speak to fbi and there's a question of her, prince andrew and virginia roberts, the woman

who claims prince andrew had sex with her repeatedly when she was 16 and the fbi is also looking to speak with prince andrew on british soil. during an interview the prince said he would follow the advice of his lawyers about speaking to law enforcement. now the prince said he'll cooperate and face question shoberg and was recruited as part of jeffery epstein's sex ring and there's more information on this caribbean island hideaway some called pedophile island where one of the alleged victims said it's unbelievable prince andrew claims he had no idea what was going on with his quote, sicko friend. >> tucker: thank you. before we go, early in the show i noted i was rooting for russia

in the context between russia and ukraine. of course i'm joking. i'm only rooting for america. mocking the obsession with russia so many on the left have. back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. sean hannity is now. >> tucker: russia. >> hannity: you said it. headline, have fun with it. welcome to "hannity." busy night. we're tracking several big stories including information on the fisa abuse report. fallout surrounding another massive lie from the president calls it pocahontas elizabeth warren and almost as bad as lying as the corrupt media mob and the corrupt compromised adam schiff. i'll tell you about a new investigation into creepy, sleepy, quid pro quo joe.