i have got to leave it there end of the show. thanks, pam. good to see you tonight. that's "the story" on wednesday, december 4th. the story goes on though. so we will see you back here tomorrow night. tucker is up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening. and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." another chapter in the house impeachment mella drama unfolded today. about the 18th most important thing happening in america but we are in washington. it happened. so we are going to frame it for you this evening. so, the drama shifted from adam schiff's judiciary committee -- i mean rather intel committee to the judiciary committee which is run by another democratic member of congress jerry nadler of new york. last month you will remember adam schiff's approach was to bring down the president by bringing in a whole cavalcade of intel and foreign policy professionals and having them explain how their feelings had been hurt by the bad orange man. the president said nasty things about me.

he fired me. i wanted to cry. make him go away. it didn't work. so jerry nadler tried a new approach today. his strategy was to treat impeachment like a faculty meeting at wesleyan. so produce a long line of academics with impressive sounding credentials, have them condemn the president as a very bad man. and if you weren't paying close attention, you were standing in line at the cafeteria and just saw it out of the corner of your eye, you might have been impressed. that was the idea. watch. >> the evidence reveals the president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermine ago competing candidate for the presidency. if we are to keep faith with our constitution and with our republic, president trump must be held to account. >> if congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning. >> i stand with the constitution and i stand with the framers who were committed to ensure that no one is above the law.

>> on the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the house, president trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. >> tucker: oh, yeah. that sounds bad. and as you just heard the framers would frown upon it. what would they think specifically? well fortunately jerry nadler asked that question and witness noah feldman had an answer. here it was. >> if washington were here today, if he were joined by madison, hamilton and other framers, what do you believe they would say if presented with the evidence before us about president trump's conduct? >> i believe the framers would identify president trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office high crime and misdemeanor that they were worried about. >> tucker: um-huh. madison, hamilton, washington. these are basically the same people the left would like to see dethroned. their statues knocked over by screaming college kids. they must be very bad men. so presumably, if even they think trump is rotten, then

impeachment mandatory. of course, once you pause and consider this all for a moment it, starts to look a little less impressive. none of today's witnesses had any actual evidence against the president. they were instead giving you their opinions. it was a little bit like reading the new republic but less interesting. you probably heard enough impeachment opinions over thanksgiving one from of your drunk cousins. so why would we care what these people think? hmmm, well, because of their credentials. supposedly they have exceptional knowledge and expertise. iqs far higher than yours. all of which enables them to give a fair and balanced and a formed opinion on how america ought to proceed. but is that real? well, consider today's star witness, pam karlan. look up her biography online she is the kenneth and harvard montgomery interest law at stanford. stand back, ladies and gentlemen. and before that she clerked for a supreme court justice

and earned not one, not two, ladies and gentlemen, she earned three separate degrees at yale. she has written several textbooks on constitutional law. if there is one person in this country who is impressive, who our system has deemed capable of making judgments that you don't even understand, it's this lady. this professor, pamela karlan. but think again. and this is a subtheme of the impeachment drama that we would like to highlight because really it's the thing that will endure and change the country long after trump is gone. it turns out the more you know about the people you are supposed to consider impressive, the more you find out they are not impressive at all. actually. they are not very smart. they have no wisdom. their personal lives are a disaster. by the way, if they are so wise, why are they so unhappy? every one of them is. and in this specific case they are not even unbiased arbiters. karlan, for example, she is not some a political

academic pulled out of cold starge to testify what we are to do. she is living roomily a political activist who don't united states thousands of dollars to the democratic party. watch this. >> professor karlan, you gave 2,000 bucks or you gave 1,000 bucks to elizabeth warren, right? >> i believe so. >> you gave 1200 bucks to barack obama? >> i have no reason to question that. >> and you gave 2,000 bucks to hillary clinton? >> that's correct. >> tucker: so does donating to democrats prove that karlan is wrong, no. it doesn't actually. she proved that herself. she made it very clear that she was incapable of clear thinking or wise judgments. instead she made bizarre claims. she claimed that delaying military aid to ukraine was like cutting off rescue services to americans after a hurricane. what? insane and dumb by the way. she also engaged in embarrassing political stunts like ridiculing a president's teenager son. what? >> what comparisons professor karlan can we make

between kings that the framers were afraid of and the president's conduct today? >> the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. so while the president can name his son barron, he can't make him a barron. [laughter] >> thank you, the founding -- [laughter] >> tucker: yeah. wonder how long they practiced that one in the mirror? it was petty and dumb. not surprising though. karlan has made remarks like this before. she previously suggested that jeff sessions was evil. why? because of the name his parents gave him. what a mediocrity. in 2006 well before the rest of the left embraced the great awokenning. karlan was ahead the game. she was already bashing people on the basis of sex, skin color and sexual orientation. watch. this we have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and love of our country because we have more reason an they do to love america. the rich, pampered prodigal sanctimonious incurious white, straight sons of the

powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world and they always have. >> tucker: this lady needs a shrink. the sons of the powerful? really? you are a law professor at stanford and you are lecturing other people how they are powerful? right. this is the legendary scholar coming down from on high to tell us who is good and who is evil. please, what a mediocrity what a moron. her fellow witnesses were almost as embarrassing. neil feldman professor at harvard law school told lawmakers that he was skeptical of impeachment until this past summer suggesting, of course, that his endorsement is more legitimate. not political. turns out that was a lie. it was a lie. how do we know? because all the way back in march of 2017, the same man, noah feldman suggested that trump should be impeached because of a tweet he sent accusing president obama of monitoring trump tower. that was impeachable. he said. he also said that jim comey's memo of his conversations with trump was impeachment-worthy, too. he even told slate.com,

please, so impressive why is he writing for slate, whatever. but he told slate that the president doesn't actually have the free speech and should be impeached simply for saying things that noah feldman doesn't like. the only witness who didn't elm prayer was himself today was georgetown professor jonathan turley. describing turley as a g.o.p. witness describing white winger or a republican even. is he none of those things. turley has ho has come on the show quite a bit. know him well is a member of the democratic party. he is on the left. he has advocated legalizing polygamy. he wanted george w. bush tried for war crimes. is he not from the federalist society. he doesn't like trump. he didn't vote for him. but he called an absurdity where he saw one. >> i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. i get it.

you're mad. the president's mad. my republican friends are mad. my democratic friends are mad. will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration? that is why this is wrong. it's not wrong because president trump is right. his call was anything but perfect. it's not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate the ukrainian controversy. it's not wrong because we're in an election year. there is no good time for an impeachment. no. it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an american president. >> tucker: exactly. that's all it is. everyone in washington is mad about something. mentally fragile age like this one. everyone requires a nuclear response. donald trump thinks haiti isn't a nice country. he is a racist. he wants to have a border around our country? bigot.

he thinks it's suspicious when the corrupt do-nothing son of the former vice president gets millions of dollars from a big company in one of the world's most corrupt nations, ukraine, you must impeach him. washington may be the most powerful city in america. at the same time it's full of sad people grasping for things to complain about that they hope might give meaning to their dreary lives. this morning one democrat even complained about the witnesses who were testifying. not because they were biased or unqualified or irrelevant. not because they were off track or had bad ideas but because they were the wrong color. >> it hurts my heart, mr. speaker, to see the judiciary committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment and not one person of color among the experts. >> tucker: washington thinks it wants impeachment. what they really want and definitely need is psychological help. congressman devin nunes represents the state of california.

he joins us tonight. congressman, thanks so much for coming on. this is not your committee where the impeachment drama started. this is judiciary. but you were there today. what was this about? what did it accomplish? what was the point. >> i think you can just keep going for the rest of the show just like you are doing. i am enjoying watching. [laughter] >> i didn't know. >> tucker: too easy. >> i didn't know about that clip from the lady in 2006. this is totally nuts. i don't know what i'm watching. i mean, i walked in there today. first of all, you have to ask yourself what the hell are those people doing there? >> tucker: yeah. >> they don't have any evidence. we are here to impeach the president. what you should be putting evidence on the table for what the president did wrong. and when they were asked direct questions do any of you have evidence, any evidence that's in adam schiff's report to impeach the president on? they don't have any. so you have to ask yourself, what the hell is going on? >> tucker: yeah. i think they think it's appealing to voters or something. i think most voters, even most democrats despise the

academic left. the academic left is disgusting. and everyone kind of feels that way. >> yeah. and these -- if you look at just -- i don't know how anybody could even watch this today. and i'm not sure if anybody did watch this. i can't imagine what the ratings are going to be like. i guess we will know in the next couple of days. can you imagine people sitting through that that are home watching? i just can't imagine anybody is watching. >> tucker: i know you have talked about this. but the new chairman of your house intel committee, somehow pulled the phone records of the president's lawyers. now we are going to assess with an attorney in a second whether that was even legal. >> um-huh. >> tucker: my question to you is how did he do that and what pretext? how did this happen? >> he has subpoena power. so when the democrats gain control, they have subpoena power. we knew he had issued. he notified us that he had subpoenaed some phone numbers. we didn't know who those numbers were. and, of course, because it's in the scif and it's classified, we can't talk about it. >> tucker: i'm sorry to interrupt.

a subpoena from whom? >> he subpoenaed from tat phone records. >> tucker: why could at&t give this up? >> that's a good question. >> tucker: why wouldn't tat say buzz off take it to court. >> at&t should have went to court to see if they were going to do was the right thing. >> tucker: could they do that for my phone records and your phone records? >> it appears like they could. if adam schiff now wants to go out and subpoena. they have now set a precedent where adam schiff can go get any phone number he has to at&t and at&t is going to comply. >> tucker: key get my email, too? >> i don't think that's been tried. be careful what you wish for he could try it. then even worse. >> tucker: is there a limit? you ran the committee. you are uniquely qualified to answer this opinion. is there a limit to his power. >> i'm not aware of any previous time we have subpoenaed phone numbers on the house intelligence committee. maybe before my time they did but i find it very strange. if you look at what he did then, it's not just the president's phone records, okay, or the president's lawyer's phone records, he also was able to get a

journalist, a journalist now. >> tucker: john solomon. >> who they hate who they say is a conspiracy thirst. he was able to figure out that was john solomon's phone number. so now you have a journalist involved. then he was able to get my number, right? and because i had talked to rudy giuliani and somehow that's now a crime, and then i make it into his report. and we have to remember, i just want to back everybody up. we spent the last three years at first if any republican ever talked to any russian at any time, even if you are russian-american, that was a no-no. then we were criticized. we switched to ukraine. if you talk to any ukrainian that's now a crime. now i can't even talk to rudy giuliani who i have known for 10 years. that's supposedly a crime. and i'm in his report for supposedly doing something wrong. so this is -- this is wrong. and what is happening-whatever is happening in this town is wrong. i'm going to look at whatever legal remedies i have. because i actually have some

civil rights here too. civil liberties. >> tucker: if they can do it to you, then what protection do we have? >> they can do it to you. >> tucker: already called me a russian agent. we will be checking. congressman, thank you so much for that. >> thank you. >> tucker: tom fitton is judicial watch. knows a lot. i was under the impression as a non-attorney that communications that your lawyer has while discussing your case are, quote: privileged but, i guess they are not now? >> of course they are. i'm a non-attorney too. but at judicial watch i'm generally aware of the attorney-client privilege. >> tucker: yes. >> and how it works. the communications that your lawyer engages in when he is working on your behalf, that's potentially privilege. so the mere existence of giuliani's calls on behalf of his client would be potentially privileged. and certainly the president ought to be able to raise that issue before any records are turned over to congress or publicized. this is just.

>> tucker: second one in a row. the president's first lawyer, of course, is now in jail. but not before they raided his office and took all of the documents that pertained to his representing the president. like i don't -- it's like being a drummer in spinal at thatap. >> this president has been victimized as the a president and citizen. i'm not aware of any public officials have had so many civil rights rolled over by the deep state mueller in the case of the raid. remember, cohen went and testified before the schiff -- i think it was the schiff committee or judiciary committee. it doesn't really matter. but then again the president's privileges were broken then. and now on top of that we have this invasion of the president's attorney-client relationship in a way that's unprecedented. this schiff report is an abuse because of the ukraine sham and all the false allegations there. but you have got a demonstrated abuse of power with this effort to take the records of the president. >> tucker: and they are always the one hyperventilating.

>> just because it's a subpoena doesn't mean it's right or legal. it wasn't challenged. it should have been. >> tucker: overturning norms. final question this is not the norm, correct? >> no it isn't. that person that woman who was testifying, professor karlan, she was seen as a supreme court nominee by the democratic left during a presidential -- during the democratic presidential administrations. >> tucker: she is like a parody. she is like a moron. she is a stanford law professor. i would just say her politics aside, that person is not smart. and they are going to put her on the supreme court? tells you a lot. tom, great to see you tonight. thank you. >> you are welcome. >> tucker: the press is used to calling the racist, of course, now calling democrats racist for not backing kamala harris. kind of amazing. we have details on that. update our investigation into a hedge fund that disseminated one small town in the midwest. an update for you tonight. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪

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: kamala harris failed as a presidential candidate and dropped out yesterday for one simple reason democratic voters didn't really like her. we are giving democratic voters the benefit of the doubt. there are plenty of legitimate reenges not to like kamala harris. first, she wasn't very likeable. she felt synthetic because she is. and she is because she doesn't really know herself. she has no clue who she is and what she believes in. according to the press, those can't be the real explanations because on the left particularly in our press corps there are only three reasons for anything. racism, sexism, and russia. and they have decided the first two must be why harris got out of the race.

watch this. >> can you tell me how it is that we're looking at the next democratic debate with a sea of only white faces on that stage? >> if the debate were held right now, it would be a bunch of white people on the stage. >> what is happening right now is a white debate stage, just a week and a half from now. >> the real problem the democrats are going to have is the next debate you have no black on that stage. >> the only african-american woman in this race who has been speaking to issues that need to be brought up is now no longer in it and we are spiraling towards a debate stage that potentially we are still fighting to get on it could have six people with no diversity whatsoever. >> tucker: what's so funny is if you want diversity, with a female candidate, there actually is one on the democratic side her name is tulsi gabbard gabbard. she is from hawaii. of course, everyone in the official democratic party here in d.c. and certainly at cnn, msnbc, hates tulsi gabbard because she criticizes permanent war.

if there is one thing they love it's permanent war in the middle east. take three steps back. they are telling you that the democratic primary electorate is racist because they rejected kamala harris. they didn't vote for some rich lady from san francisco so they must be racist. this may shock a lot of newsrooms here in washington. it turns out in real life a lot of democratic voters are liberal. in fact, a lot are african-american women. and their favorite candidate is, who? joe biden. so why are they telling us? they're telling us that black women are racist. okay. we're going to unpack that with david webb, the host of reality check with david webb and joins us tonight. david. so tell me, look, no one has ar. ever accused me of being a genius. maybe can you explain this to me. they are telling us in outraged tones that the democratic primary electorate, disproportionately female african-americans is racist against women of color. how does that work? >> um, you got me.

maybe you are the genius here between the two of us. >> tucker: no. >> they actually have a very diverse field. have you got an old jewish guy. you got a born irish kid joe biden, tulsi gabbard, booker is still in it last time i checked. look at pete buttigieg. you have a gay white male, younger man. and you have got, well, i'm going to say it a native american running and a female all wrapped into one. so they are diverse. look, let's be serious here. they have been pushing this fake narrative on america as long as the party has been around in its modern form that we're all racist. but now they're the ones casting the votes. they are the ones being polled. they are the ones picking your point about the numbers of african-american women. the breakdown of the democrat base. they are making decisions. you hit the nail on the head with kamala harris. she is a fake. she is a fraud. she doesn't know who she is. and a candidate who presents themself as genuine, whether you and i agree with them or

not. >> tucker: it's true. you are right. i totally agree. >> elizabeth warren presents herself for her case as genuine. therefore she resonates with voters. bernie sanders presents as genuine. joe biden doesn't and he is flailing. >> tucker: i completely agree. i just wonder maybe they are just so used to repeating the same stupid talking point they don't think about it at all. the answer is always racism. >> it has to be for them. >> tucker: they wind up accusing democratic black women of being racist and they like can't even stop themselves. >> it's the instant reaction. you remember areva martin once you cite your quawfingses your color is determined no matter what you are. she thought i was white because i didn't fit the black narrative. the same for the al sharptons of the world race pitchers, poverty pitchers push this on you and victim pushers. they are pushing this. it's victimhood. >> tucker: nobody believes. this i totally forgot that when they called you a

racist. greatest thing ever. >> my white privilege. >> tucker: david webb, always so nice to see you. >> great to see you, tucker. >> tucker: well, senator ben sasse said nothing while thousands of donors said nothing in nebraska. we highlighted it. senator sasse has issued a statement to us. we are going to read that to you in a minute. update to our investigation into what happened with the hedge fund and small town nebraska. that's straight ahead.

last night we brought you the story of sidney nebraska predatory mac advertises of a hedge fund manager paul singer. one of the most prolific donors to the republican party particularly republican senators in washington. a fact we suggested last night that might account for the silence of senator ben sasse on what happened to sidney. 2,000 nebraska jobs disappeared and, yet, sasse, a nebraska senator, never said a word about paul singer's involvement in it. well, today senator sasse responded to our segment. we asked him for a statement and he sent us this, quote: melissa and i know the families in sidney and i have constantly told companies, including cabela's and bass pro shops that nobody outworks or outhustles nebraskaens. sidney has not given up and neither have we. real problem with american communities coming apart

going to require real policy making. this isn't going to be solved by the overpromising big government advocates on either the left or the right. creative policy making is what senator sasse says we need. of course we agree with him. here are three creative policies the u.s. senate ought to consider in response to what happened in sidney, nebraska. first, call it what it is. this wasn't creative destruction. nothing was created. it was just destruction. destruction for the enrichment of a tiny number of people at the expense of many others. you don't have to make this illegal to call it disgusting. because that's exactly what it is. so our first creative policy ought to be to tell the truth. second, return the money. we're not saying ben sasse or any other senator is doing singer's bidding purely for the cash. but why not remove all doubt about it? if one of your biggest donors turned out offing to a pornography or a mass distributer of oxycontin, you would send back the donation, you wouldn't want to be associated with someone like that. you would want to be clear

about your own values. senator sasse should be clear about his. third and finally, republican senators ought to resolve to speak to the rest of us like adults. no more baby talk. stop with the bumper sticker phrases from 1986. it's a different country now. the question isn't whether we are getting big government, too late. we already have it. in part thanks to you, republican senators. the question is whether we will become a socialist country run by a terrifying alliance of authoritarian big tech moguls and wide eyed identity politics cult members. that could happen. we are closer to it than our leaders acknowledge. just 11 months from now our system could change forever and swiftly destroy everything we have spent 240 years building. that's not an overstatement. it's horrifyingly real and it's being driven by deep economic dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction professional conservatives here in washington spend most of their time either ignoring

or pretending doesn't exist. these are supposed to be the guardians of capitalism. somehow they don't seem to notice it's in mortal peril. wake up. we are almost out of time. if we don't reign in the excesses of our system and soon, we could very easily lose it. senator sasse was the only one to respond to last night's statement. paul singer's hedge fund elliot management declined to give us a statement but moments ago blowing platform media. elliott management denied responsibility for cabela's sale. exploring a sale before elliott bought a stake. did not exert direct influence on cabela's board to influence that decision. fec filings contradict. it did consider selling itself before paul singer arrived. in 2016 they rejected that path. suddenly after singer's purchase they reversed course. otherwise elliott contest no essential parts of last night's reporting on this show. they did end the statement

with a promise and we are quoting now to protect and grow their client's hard earned capital. we're certain they are being honest at least on that point. ned ryun is founder and ceo of american majority. thanks for coming on. >> absolutely. >> tucker: i have to ask you you are part of the kind of professional conservative firmament you have been for a long time you know the landscape well. paul ryan, i beg your pardon. paul singer is one of the biggest contributors to conservative organizations. how would you describe his influence on professional conservatism in this country on the republican party? >> well, i prefer to call most of this conservative class in washington, d.c. nothing because react. conservative inc. has been selling out the interest of most of the american people for decades. the problem we have here, tucker all of this. again, it's hard for me to september fact that paul singer and i would actually argue the cokes are barely republicans and certainly not conservatives and i would argue that any

self-respecting conservative shouldn't be taking money from them but no self-respecting conservative should be seen at a coke seminar and actually be giving the coke's money and the problem is the influence that they have on these. i think we actually -- there are a couple things that we have got to have the conversation about. one is if the majority of the american people start to look at the behavior of paul singer and charles koch as what is exemplifies the g.o.p. and capitalism, i think it will be devastating to both the g.o.p. and capitalism in the very near future. but i think we have got to have a conversation about citizens united, tucker. i get some of the arguments for it. but it is also empowered the vulture capitalist class to buy a lot of politicians and buy a lot of think tanks to are advocating and implementing policies that are anesthetic call to the interest of the american worker. >> tucker: and definitely seem an threatt thick call to the views of republican voters. i have never seen a bigger misalignment between what the voters want and what

they get thanks to small number of voters. charles koch. i don't want to pretend it's just paul singer. charles koch and probably even more. >> no, absolutely. and the influence they have over the white papers and the thinking that's coming out of the conservative inc., the react. again, people are identifying this as the true conservative movement. i lost all belief and faith and trust that that is what conservatism was about years ago. and, in fact, i think we have to really reconsider what the conservative movement actually is not only what it's advocating but actually who is funding it and what are its priorities? is it priorities this billionaire class of vulture capitalists or is it actually on behalf of the american worker and the american people? i have to tell you, tucker, i think we are kind of living in aliewlings right now. we say we have a republic of we the people for the people. i would argue we haven't had that for decades. the people that are supposed to be defending and

advocating for it. they abandoned that a long time ago so they could have six and seven figure salaries and marble bathrooms with gold plated bathrooms. this is getting to the point of absurdity. we have to have a conversation about this as well. >> tucker: yeah. it's dangerous, too. we are playing with fire. fake democracy frustrates people to the point where it becomes scary. and so we should stop this right away. >> the last point i will make is. this the last time we had this about 100 years ago where very uber wealthy and politicians actually created a system that was american people we got progressivism. progressivism which has devastate this country. what's going to be the reaction to this i don't know. but it's not going to be good. >> tucker: exactly right. ned ryun, thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: hillary clinton keeps getting plagued by coughing fits. she just had another one. could it stop her from moving ahead with her presidential run? is there a presidential run? what is going on with hillary clinton? that's next. ♪ ♪ [coughing] >> rights and opportunities of women.

[coughing] my parents never taught me anything about managing money.

the amount of student loan debt i have,

i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪

>> tucker: hillary clinton was run for president twice and lost. she sun deterred and keeps coming back. during multiple media appearances in the u.k. over the past month. hillary clinton refused to rule out yet another presidential run. >> are you saying forget me? is that your mantra now? >> not yet. [laughter] i especially have been del luged in the last few weeks with thinking about doing that but right now i'm not at all, you know, planning that. i would have to make up my mind really quickly because it's moving very fast. >> tucker: well, what is this? is this real? is this part of like an

endless ego trip? how much affirmation does one person need? joining us tonight to assess what the heck is going on with hillary clinton is robbie suave editor at reason. i know you are not a shrink. what could possibly be the purpose of this? >> man, i think she just wants to be president more than any human being who has ever lived has wanted something. >> tucker: that's true. >> i am not convinced she wants to fight for it again. i'm not convinced she has that in her. she has some circumstance where someone puts a gun to her head you have to do this well i didn't choose this but i will for the good of the country and for me being forced i will try that's the situation she wants. maybe that could happen in the convention some convoluted scenario. >> tucker: i'm fascinated how psychologically unhealthy with power are almost all weird and unhappy and kind of tormented. but this person seems like

the weirdest and most unhappy and most tormented person i have ever seen. why can't she give up on the presidency? >> and what are our distinguishing ideas that she thinks are valuable that are not represented somehow by the other democratic candidates? the best i can tell. >> tucker: good question. >> disastrous history on foreign policy. secretary of state. iraq war backer. she is a critical proponent of the disastrous libya. >> tucker: killed qualify. >> we would get rid of assad. bad and american people firmly divisively rejected last time around. i don't know how she could think that we have to have this fight again and i'm the candidate to do this because i was right about all of these things. no one agrees with that. no one. >> tucker: that's so interesting. last question. one of the markers of psychological health is having a network of people around you who can tell you the truth. who love you have enough to keep from you hurting yourself. [laughter] >> tucker: this seems like evidence she doesn't have a network of people like that. >> the people she surrounded

herself with didn't have the courage to tell her maybe she could do a couple more rallies in pennsylvania or michigan. i don't think they have the mind to say maybe you should sit this one out. >> tucker: that's such a wise observation. thank you. robby, great to see you. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: during appearance on howard stern show. yep, hillary was on howard stern. she experienced a coughing fit we couldn't helps in the went on and on and on. >> you and yours husband went to see a.o.c. the other night. >> we did. >> i can only imagine what the hell that be like for you when you go to see a broadway show. >> right. >> in other words, probably more people are watching you and bill than. >> coughing] >> i'm going to go see oklahoma the play. >> right. >> and then they have -- >> coughing. they make a big deal out of it. >> i know. i feel like i need to give you cough drop or something. >> i got one. >> tucker: you can hear the bong bubbling in the background. this has been going on since

she last ran for president by the way. [coughing] to represent inmates. [coughing] excuse me. [coughing] [coughing] excuse me. one second here. [coughing] a lozenge. >> tucker: camel chester fields or lucky strikes? is this serious. dr. marc siegel joins us tonight. you can't diagnose from videotape. is it a concern? >> of course i don't know her and she would never come to me as a physician that's for sure. but, let me tell you that if i see a chronic or recurrent cough like this, some things come to mind. one the stress of being on the howard stern show, stress can lead to a cough. two. >> tucker: wait. can you stop? stress leads to coughing? >> absolutely. if you have an underlying tendency for cough for some other reason, you get an irritation or tickle in your

threat. the nerve gets stimulated you will cough. you say maybe i will run for president again. you will say what is he going to ask me about there on howard stern show how far is he going to go you may cough. then will there are the issues that she had pneumonia in 2016. if she has chronic recurrent phlegmy cough, a patient like that i would want to make sure if they were coming to me does she have an underlying tendency to respiratory infection? this is the season for respiratory infections. also in 2016 she was known and repeatedly said that she liked to eat jalapeno peppers and drink coffee and alcohol. all of those things can lead to a terrible amount of acid reflex which causes cough asthma, too. so if i were her physician or someone like her, and we can do a public health service here i would say if you are coughing, recurrent coughing, get to be seen. have a pulmonary workup. make sure you don't have reflex, asthma, pulmonary infections or stress.

>> tucker: fascinating. i always learn something. thank you so much for that. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: if you were to ask voters about political priority. abolishing would be pretty low on the list. candidates can't wait to he a eliminate any distinction between male and female because hey, gender isn't really real. is that a winning formula for winning anything? that's next. ♪ ♪ we believe at newday usa we have a noble purpose. 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.

. >> 50 years ago, democrats campaigned for office on treating men and women differently. now they're voting to make men and women literally the same. the party of science it turns out opposes biology. elizabeth warren once upon a time opposed spending taxpayer dollars to pay for sex changes for prison inmates. now she asks voters to forgive. >> you criticized the judge's ruling that granted the change surgery to a transgender inmate. do you regret that? >> yeah. i think it was a bad answer. and i believe everyone is entitled to medical care and medical care they need. and that includes people who are transgender who it is the time for them to have gender afirming

surgery. >> warren will say anything, of course. but this is one of the few issues on which she's not the further eres left in the field. that honor goes to juilan castro who promised to protect the right of transgender men to get abortions. i don't believe only in reproductive freedom, but in reproductive justice. also a woman or let's not forget, someone in the transcommunity, a transfemale is poor doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose. >> now obviously, he has no idea what he's talking about. and like warren, he'll say anything, literally anything, but why would he? conversations like this do seem a little bit strange to you if you're, i don't know, a struggling blue collar worker or a parent with an opioid addicted

son. millions of those, really any normal person. can you win an election on this issue? what is this about? meghan murphy is a contributor to spectator usa. she joins us. thank you so much for coming on. it seems if you say what voters compare about to the amount of time spent on whether biology is real, disproportionate doesn't describe it. so what is this about? >> it is really odd. because you wouldn't even need to speak to voters to assume that there are probably more important issues on the table than how somebody feels about their so-called gender. i mean, we're talking about a tiny, tiny minority of the population who identifies as transgender. and i think that people are probably worried about, you know, things like keeping their jobs, having housing, having health care, etc., etc. it's a really strange thing to focus on.

>> but it does seem like boutique issue of particular concern to people from certain zip codes, income levels, education levels. i mean, it's -- it's kind of an issue for rich people, is it not? >> i consider it a totally academic issue. so, you know, people who are in universities are privileged people in north america, people who -- you know, who exist in academia are, of course, going to be mostly middle and upper class people. these are -- these are academic ideas. these are academic ideologies, this is about postmodernism and the concept of transgenderism and gender identity is in academia, i believe that. this idea that it's possible to change your sex through self-declaration that your sex and that, you know, material reality really is dependent on your own personal view and your own personal experience. nobody in the general population

really believes these ideas. nobody in the general population globally thinks it's possible to change sex. we all know even -- even the people who say it is possible to change sex, sort of am doubtful they wholly believe that because i'm not really sure where the scientific evidence is that that's possible. >> right. >> it's really an issue that only a few people are talking about, and, yet, it totally dominates the political discussion on the left in any case in progress i have circles. >> it's amazing. you can't be elected if you deny the idea that people can change their sex, be you can be shouted off of the stage if you suggest people can change their race. i think we -- think about the ground rules a little bit more. whatever. thank you for being our sherpa through these -- through these very, very confusing subject. >> happy to. >> good to see you, thank you. out of time, unfortunately. happily we'll be back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m.

the show the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and group think. good night from washington, d.c., a poignant end to a happy hour. but good news at the end, sean hannity stands by from new york city, the largest city in north america to take over. soip a bigger swamp than your swamp. we pay more taxes here. all right, tucker, great show. thank you. welcome to anti. tonight, the democratic psychotic mindless anti-trump rage psychosis sinking to new depths of depravity in what was a disastrous day for them as they pursue trump every second, minute, hour of every day, they're hurting the country, they're ripping this country apart, just for a cheap, baseless, political head job. and after today's total bs, if you want to call it, impeachment hearing on capitol hill, your blood should be boiling but you have the answer in 335 days now instead of presenting actual evidence, democrats thought