>> tucker: the senate voting as we speak to confirm amy coney barrett to the supreme court of the united states. the count is just wrapping up right now. we are hearing the roll. when she is sworn in this evening, and apparently she's going to be at 9:00 p.m., the mother of seven will be the third supreme court justice appointed by this president, donald trump. no one expected that. for more of what this means for the court and the country we turn to bret baier, fox news chief political correspondent, the anchor of "special report" on this channel every night. bret, it is fair to say nobody expected this on many levels, but are you surprised on a political level that mitch mcconnell was able to hold these

votes? >> you know what, tucker, i'm not. becausee of the superior delivey in the hearing of judge barrett, she convinced the couple of wavering republicans like mitt romney and lisa murkowski that she was such a good jurist, such a good judge, that she deserved this vote tonight. it's historic. this is the third supreme court justice for president trump. she's the youngest supreme court justice as of tonight. it's happeninge' 38 days after e death of the liberal icon ruth bader ginsburg. democrats are apoplectic. chuck schumer said this is the darkest day in the history of the u.s. senate. 231 years. >> tucker: [laughs] >> he pointed his finger at republicans on the other side of the well. mitch mcconnell said the reason we were able to do it in 2016, 2018, and 2020 is because we won the majority and we have the white house. and so he made his point. >> tucker: man, it's a sweet

moment for republicans, but also maybe a bitter moment for some republican voters because it illustrates that the republican-led senate can achieve things when it wants to. you think of all the policies that voters ratified in the 2016 election that didn't make their way through the senate. but when they want to do something, they can do it with speed and certainty. so what will the democratic response be? >> it's their biggest. it's the biggest won by far. not only the supreme court justices but the dozens and dozens of federal judges on different courts that president trump and senator mcconnell had steered into nomination and confirmation. the democrats' response to this was signaled by senator schumer who said you have lost your credibility, pointing to republicans, and you have lost your ability to tell us how to

run the majority. when we win it. it sort of a foreshadowing to what's been talked about. that is doing away with the filibuster and possibly packing the court or doing some otherr major systemic changes to the judicial branch. >> tucker: yeah. and not just judicial. bringing puerto rico as a state and maybe other things as well. it's interesting. we didn't see the attacks on judge barrett that a lot of us predicted. why do you think that was? >> because we were just days away from election and there wasn't -- there was a fear of a backlash from people who looked at judge barrett, the mother of seven, a really accomplished jurist, and said why are you going after this person? i think they looked at the electoral fallout of talking about her religion and they stayed away from it. really focused on obamacare and the case coming before the supreme court in just a matter of days. >> tucker: amazing. the vote is still

open but republicans have secured 52 votes. it's a fait accompli. what happens next? >> next there will be a swearing in that will be done by justice clarence thomas, ceremony at the white house. and we don't have all the details of that, this first ceremony of her nomination caused quite a stir when all those folks got sick after that rose garden event. but i think there's a lot of protocols in place. it will be tonight sometime. and then there will be an official swearing in at the court. she will go to work right away. just tonight, the supreme court ruled 5-3 in favor of the g.o.p. blocking efforts to extend the absentee ballots in wisconsin by six days. so just tonight the supreme court is operating on election cases that justice barrett will be part of as of tomorrow. >> tucker: i can't resist asking. do you think it's possible soon to be justice barrett couldnk

weigh in on election related, postelection related cases? >> i think it's clear from her hearing that she's not recusing herself. nor do legal experts think she has to, many of them. some do, and the democrats think she should, but i think she'll be part of all these cases and if it comes to states having challenges about their electors, come december, if there is a secretary of state that's one party and a state legislature that's another party and they are battling over who the electors will be in an undecided election because of who didn'tl sign absentee ballots, yes, she could very well be part of a a supreme court deciding the next president. >> tucker: [laughs] it's all so amazing. bret baier, thank you for the guidance on all this. i really appreciate it. good to see you. ahead of the senate confirmation vote tonight, democrats, as bret baier just told you, were

absolutely apoplectic. the darkest day in the history of the senate chuck schumeret sd from new york. they threatened there would be consequences to what you just saw. the democratic senator from connecticut, richard blumenthal said this. >> our republican colleagues are shattering the norms and breaking the rules and breaking their word, and there will be consequences. there inevitably are consequences when one person breaks her or his word. h >> tucker: her or his word. that's amy coney barrett of course he's talking about and the idea is that she would somehow undo obamacare entirely, invalidate it. there is no indication in previous decisions that she would do something like that that's been a consistent talking point among democrats for the past several weeks. listen to cory booker who, by the way, voted himself to undo,

to abolish obamacare. listen to cory booker warn you that amy coney barrett will do it. >> a future without the aca looks like being forced to sell your house if you can't afford your health care. it looks like not having access to a doctor when you're sick. it looks like having to choose between paying for groceries and paying for medicine. >> tucker: unfortunately now that amy coney barrett is on the supreme court, you're going to lose your house. you're going to starve. and you're probably going to die of an infection next time you stub your toe. so get psyched for that. charlie hurt is excited. he's the opinion editor at "the washington times" and joins us. charlie, they are taking your house away. >> yeah, no kidding. and it's the darkest day in the united states history. that's quite something else. it's easy to look at this and see this as a tremendous victory, and it is a huge victory for conservatives and

for president trump and for republicans. but i have to say it's also a shocking moment in that it reveals just how broken the system is. there are going to be nearly 50 senators voting against this woman. there are going to be at least 48 senators who are going to vote against this eminently qualified woman to sit on the supreme court based on basically her family story, based on the -- based on her religion, based on all these crazy things that we've heard from the left ever since she was nominated. and throughout the entire process. we listened to democrats sitting on the senate judiciary e committee, people like cory booker, talking about howhe the process was a sham, a charade, a circus. no, it's not a sham. it's called the constitution. that's what these people think of the constitutionit today. that's what they -- and the reason people like cory booker, it's a great clip that you showed. the reason cory booker is talking like that on that clip

is because they don't believe the courts are the courtst anymore. they don't believe the supreme court is the supreme court. they believe it's a super legislature. it's where all the details of obamacare are supposed to be worked out and extended by an unelected branch of government that serves for life and is answerable to no one. that's what they believe. half of the united states senate, have of our t congress today believes that. the way donald trump has broken them, has broken through with the biggest development in this entire judicial fight since the supreme court first invented abortion rights as a constitutional right in the constitution which of course doesn't exist except in the penumbra, whatever the hell that is. the reason he did this, the reason donald trump is nearly one to have done it and he made the argument that the constitution means what it means, it means what it says.

american voters overwhelmingly understand that and believe that. sadly nearly 50 senators in the united states senate don't even understand that. >> tucker: you heard senator ed markey of massachusetts today suggest the constitution itself was racist and sexist and homophobic. charlie hurt, thanks so much. we should tellll you that the ve is officially complete. it's closed. 52 votes in favor of amy coney barrett ascending to the high court. 48 against. now it's on to the special swearing in at the white house. that is slated to begin as the show wraps up at 9:00 p.m. joe biden has refused to rule out responding to all this by packing the supreme court if elected president.bi in a recent interview he said he would form a national commission to investigate that topic. >> if elected, what i will do is i will put together a national commission of bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, democrats and republicans, liberal, conservative.

i will ask them, over 180 days to come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it's getting out of whack. the way in which it's being handled. it's not about court packing. there's a number of other things that our constitutional scholars have debated and i would love to look to see what recommendations the commission might make. >> you're telling us you're going to study this issue about whether to pack the court. >> no, whether -- there's a number of alternatives beyond packing. >> this is a live ball. >> oh, it is a live ball. >> tucker: it's a bipartisan commission. sandy cortez and bill kristol will look at it from both sides. where is this going? jenna ellis is a constitutional attorney, a campaign advisor, senior advisor to the trump reelect and she joins us. thank you for coming on. give us your most sober analysis of where you think this is

going. >> of course joe biden and the rest of the democrats simply want to change the rules. they don't care about the constitution. they don't care about our system of government. they would prefer to keep the judicial branch as a super legislature and as an activist majority.ra that's what we've seen through the past 50 and 60 years. what joe biden is expressly ignoring is what alexander hamilton said so perfectly in federalist 76 or 78 which is that the judicial branch is designed to be the weakest branch, only to be able to review the policy and lawmaking decisions of the two political branches. it's not supposed to act with partisan interests. hamilton even acknowledges in the federalist papers that the reason the nomination is vested in the president pursuant to the constitution is because he would expressly not have the special interests and lawmaking contemplations that the house or the senate would. so joe biden is forgetting all

of that. he doesn't want to acknowledge that. he doesn't want our system of government to operate how it's designed. he wants to complete the throw it out because the design and functionality of our constitution, of our limited powers given to government is a stopgap. it's preventing the democrats from putting through their activist, partisan policy agenda. if they are so worried about amy coney barrett acknowledging that the aca is unconstitutional, then maybe they should be very careful to actually put forward laws that are constitutional if they are so concerned about someone who wants to be a judge. >> tucker: improve it in the congress, as the system intense. all of this poison, tear down the system and create one party control of the country, all of these ideas come out of the universities, the ones that are getting billions in federal subsidies. why are we paying for this crap? >> we shouldn't be.re that's what president trump has said about making sure that we

take away crt programming and all these other things to universities that are teaching our children to hate america instead of love its design and love the freedoms and liberties we cherish. >> tucker: yeah, we are a week away from the election. i wish someone would've thought about this earlier. it's in my view a grave, a grave threat. jenna ellis, great to see you. thank you so much. as we told you, it's done. the vote is over. 52-48, republicans prevailed tonight. senator john kennedy of louisiana was one of them. he just voted for amy coney barrett's confirmation we are happy to have them on the show. senator, thank you for coming on. why did you vote in favor of amy coney barrett? >> because this is a victory for our founders. it was never, tucker, about her qualifications. you would have to be barking mad to think that she is not

qualified in terms of intellect, in terms of temperament, in terms of integrity. this fight was about who's going to make social policy in the united states. the congress or the unelected federal judiciary? we talk about that at the conceptual level so much. let me give you a specific example. many transgender women want to participate in female athletics. a transgender woman, as you know, tucker, is a person whoan was born male, with a male characteristics. testosterone for example. who identifies as a female. many of those transgender women would like to participate in women's athletics. if they are allowed to do that, because of their elevated testosterone, they are going to win every contest every time. who do you think our founders intended to make a decision

about that? the people, through their elected representatives in congress? or nine unelected of a supreme court appointed for life? it's called judicial restraint. judge barrett understands that. our founders intended it. that's why this was a victory tonight for our founders.an >> tucker: what a great example that is. congress can weigh in on all of this..pl that's their job. you wish they wouldn't boot it up to the supreme court. senator, thank you so much. great to see you. if there was a high point in these confirmation hearings, a subjective call, but from our point of view it came frome mazie hirono. unquestionably the shining intellectual star of the united states senate. it's hard to choose her most c trenchant observation of the past month, indeed of her career.

if you had to pick just one, it would be this moment. it was so profound that it literally changed our dictionary. watch. >> not once but twice you use the term sexual preference to describe those in the lgbtq community. and let me make clear. sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. it's used by anti-lgbtqte activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. it is not. sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity. >> tucker: sexual preference is not a choice! it's not a preference! it's just like mazie hirono's intellect. she didn't choose to be that brilliant, and in some ways it's a burden, but she was born that way. tammy bruce is the host of "get tammy bruce" on fox nation. she's the person we call when there's a particularly knotty intellectual problem.

what does this mean? will you explain this? >> i will never forgive you. this is so difficult. the fact of the matter is senator hirono was wrong. her remarks come from a blue check guy on twitter who decided it was offensive. the fact of the matter is what's ridiculous is that this argument, the word police are coming from the side of politics that say that there are dozens of genders. that whatever you say you are, you are. in this case, this is the irony, it's the gay community especially and liberals who should not be embracing this idea that someone else controls the nature of who you are, how you identify, and the words you're supposed to use. as a news flash, for me as a gay woman, it's a sexual preference. no one out there, not some young man with his blue check, no senator is going to tell me how i'm going to identify. it's the height of bigotry

because it goes into this idea that we are all the same that maybe we all look the same and you can't tell us apart and that we think the same and that we vote the same. we hear this through the democrat party from joe biden about black americans. now all the gays are exactly the same and there are a lot of gay people watching who are liberals realizing i'm different from them. we think differently.er we have different ideas. so this speaks to the nature of liberalism and let me say amy coney barrett, perfect example that this country needs, the constitution, the strength of the constitution. keep minorities in this country safe. that's how important she is. >> tucker: how nicely put with that.mp that's right, we are human beings. we are not members of groups. we are not categories. by the way, senator hirono, you're allowed to be attracted to anyone you want so why don't you back off. [laughs]

you just said that. much more eloquently than i did. tammy bruce, great to see you. throughout the hearings that we saw in the past couple weeks, democrats treated amy coney barrett's pro-life beliefs like they were some kind of disorder, some kind of protest now for -- grotesque deformity. dianne feinstein was caught on a hot mic muttering about it. not everyone agrees. states like new york, more african-american babies are aborted that are born. some people don't think that's a good thing. planned parenthood is entirely in favor of it. they were started in order to do that, to limit the black population in this country.ey o some are awake enough to be offended and kanye west is one of them. he's running for president and he made that point recently. listen to this. >> with abortion culture, there are 1,000 black children aborted a day, daily. we are in genocide. more black children have died

since february than people have died of covid. and everyone wears a mask. so it's a matter of where we w turning a blind eye to? >> tucker: you've got to love how the crazy people are the only ones who see things clearly.r: a reflection of our moment. candace owens is the author of the book "blackout: how black america is making its second escape from the democrat plantation." she joins us tonight. the clarity of that and i'm not promoting anyone's presidential campaign but the clarity about observation is so overwhelming. you wonder how anyone could hear it and disagree because it's so true. >> it overwhelms me because i feel as though many of us have been fighting for these conversations to be had i for a very long time. when i say many of us, i mean black conservatives. what he's really getting at is selective outrage culture. you and i know who margaret sanger was. it's not taught in schools, but we are supposed to be outraged

because amy coney. barrett believes in life, and we are not supposed to be outraged that a eugenicist founded planned parenthood. >> tucker: [laughs] exactly >> with black americans the target. she wrote extensively about how she believed in extermination, the extermination of certain races. people she thought were not fit to be in this society, that she did not want the government to take care of. black americans were among them. most people don't know this. here we have kanye west was speaking out and saying you know what, this is wrong. the left is dressing up and playing halloween pretending we live in a dystopian reality because amy coney barrett isli talking about pro-life. black americans are living a dystopian reality thanks to democrat policies which have resulted in half the blackia population. think about that, tucker. the black american population would be double today if it wera not for abortion. >> tucker: i'm sorry to laugh as you were speaking. what you were saying was so sad.

when you hear someone say it that clearly, it's -- it makes you laugh at the absurdity of the conversations that dominate our politics because they are so far from reality. no one ever talks as plainly as you just did. >> yeah, and it's true and it'sa been such suffering because the education system is being wiped where we are replacing hard academics with psychological conditioning. black americans are learning about black lives matter and how depressing it is and we should be blaming white americans for everything. but we are not learning about our real history, how we been conditioned to allow planned parenthood clinics into all of our neighborhoods. over 63% of them are in black and hispanic neighborhoods. this is systematic targeting. if you're looking for systemic racism, you may want to look at democrat policies. you may want to take a look at why as we as a society are saying there is something wrong with the woman who believes in life, who believes that more black children should be born alive. we shouldn't have 400 out of 1000 black babies

aborted. compared to white americans were it's 103 out of 1000 births. this is really important stuff. you're right, it's laughable that we have come to the circumstance where people want us to be outraged about other things and not this. >> tucker: exactly. i was about to say, why is the left -- i think when people hear what you just said the overwhelming majority no matter who they vote for have to acknowledge it's true. what you said is true and i think the more you say it out loud, the more the conversation changes towards realay conversation. i appreciate it. candace owens, thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: democrats are still pretending amy coney barrett's confirmation is illegitimate. what does that mean exactly? if it's really illegitimate, then that's a crisis. so what are they saying? their argument appears to be that we all need to honor ruth bader ginsburg's dying wish which is really our new constitution.

if ruth bader ginsburg said something on the way out, that's basically our bill of rights now. elizabeth warren explained it on the senate floor just yesterday. >> it's been 37 days sincet mitch mcconnell declared he would disregard ruth's most fervent wish and move ahead with the corrupt and illegitimate process to fill her seat on the supreme court. let's be very clear. if trump and republicans succeed in ramming this nomination through, the american people will expect us to use every tool we have to undo the damage and restore the court's integrity. >> tucker: okay. what she just told you was, following the letter of the constitution, and it's prescribed. a supreme court justice passes away, how do you replace that justice? we just saw what the constitution tells us to do.

that's illegitimate. what's legitimate is following the supposed final words of a departed supreme court justice. no. that is a religion, what you're describing. that's a religion. scary. ian pryor is senior counsel at the article three project and a former spokesman for the departmentn of justice. happy to have him on. thank you for coming on. when you are at doj, when you first started, they brief you and tell you that all law in this country emanates from dying supreme court justices. >> it was a manual we had to read our first day. it was the dying wishes forar the past 250 years. we had to make sure that we responded took press inquiries, we were cognizant of that. >> tucker: [laughs] it's just so absurd![l you keep hearing people repeat it.

i mean, like trained seals. her dying wishes. how do we get to a place like this? it is so stupid. >> it's stupid, but it's also dangerous because it'spi delegitimizing the constitution. you talk about the tools. elizabeth warren's tools. what are they? let's start with the democrats want to get rid of the legislative filibuster. that means 51 votes will get anything passed. what they are going to do from there is expand the supreme court to have a liberal majority and then these other factors people don't talk about as much, but d.c. statehood and puerto rico statehood. four more democrat senators,. a handful of members of the house and they want to lower the voting age to 16. you are potentially looking at a perpetual democrat majority in the legislative branch, in thehe judiciary branch, and the united states of america becoming the orwellian states of america. >> tucker: yeah. everything you just mentioned comes out of the university. those are all ideas that incubated at yale law school and harvard law school, the places that the rest of us are sending our tax dollars every year.

time to rethink that. if you want structural change. ian, thank you for coming out tonight. appreciate it. before we go to our next guest, our producer just said, they watch the other channels, during the show, that msnbc, i will go on faith because i didn't see it. the producer said msnbc did not acknowledge amy coney barrett's elevation to the supreme court. it just happened moments ago. 24 minutes ago. they ignored it completely, which tells you a lot. what does this all mean? amy coney barrett is going to serve on the supreme court of the united states. for the broader view, we go as we always want to to victor davis hanson. he's a fellow at the hoover institution. happy to have them on. thank you for coming on. how do you assess it? >> thank you. i didn't know whether to laugh or cry when richard blumenthal says there's consequences to not telling the truth. or the harvard law professor elizabeth warren creates a new rule about a dying justice. it tells you what the ivy league has become. past, present, future.

harry reid was hubristic in 2013, he thought he was going to ram through these appointments all the way to the end of hillary's second term in 2024. they had three chances to take the senate. '14, '16, '18. they couldn't do it. ruth bader ginsburg had all sorts of opportunities in her early 80s to step down and give that appointment to obama. a lot of it is just teeth gnashing. i think it helps donald trump in the next eight days because it reminds that problematic independent woman suburban voter that you can do things like justice barrett. you can have children. you can be religious. you can have a job and you can do it with grace and be conservative. it tells the base it's time to take a break from the ivy league judicial appointment. we want people from the heartland, places likeim notre dame. it reminds people for all the criticism of donald trump, he

did not appoint an anthony kennedy, david souter, justice roberts. gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett aren pretty conservative and i think they will be consistently conservative. i kind of disagree with people who said it wasn't as bad asva kavanaugh. i thought it will hurt the democratic brand because hirono and blumenthal and others, they went way overboard in attacking someone who was brilliant and decent. it was gratuitous.hi more importantly, we are going to go into this election and see things we haven't seen in our lifetime with ballots that appear out of nowhere. contested elections. something i think may make 2000 look kind of minor in comparison. i don't trust justice roberts to be a conservative voice in those close decisions. i think it really diminishes the hamlet "to be or not to be" role of justice roberts. he's going to be less relevant than he was in the past with the addition of justice barrett. it tells the republicans that

they can make great appointments like clarence thomas and justice barrett, and they don't have to highlight race, class, and gender. these are incidental. they are not essential. merit is what counts. when you look at justice barrett and compare her to her democratic counterparts, i think it becomes very evident 50 republicans are going on merit and they just happen to be people of all different walks of life and that's the way it should be, so it's a win-win for the republican brand. i think it helps donald trump and it helps that a very critical point. >> tucker: i am stuck on your description of what we may be facing eight days from now in the aftermath of the election.n i hope you're not right but usually are. victor davis hanson, great to see you tonight. thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: last week, if you were paying attention to the news, an amazing story broke. a man called tony bobulinski, former business partner hunter biden, came out and said he met personally with joe biden in

2017 in a hotel bar in beverly hills to talk about business in china. that story was squelched by the media. very hard to find i any details about what tony bobulinski is alleging. joe biden hasn't reallyar responded. tomorrow night on the showi for the bulk of the hour, you will hear directly from him. our interview with tony bobulinski, 8:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night. but first, "the wall street journal"'s kim strassel is here to discuss that story. she has done more reporting on it than probably anybody in the u.s.. we are happy to talk to her rightt p after the break. (calm inspirational music)

- i can't stop worrying.

- why can't i sleep at night? - how do i deal with all this stress? - when did the world get so scary? - hello, this is michael youssef, there can be no doubt that our world is filled with troubles right now. and yet, there is one person who said, "i can give you peace that can never be shaken even in the worst of your circumstances." jesus is the way the truth and the only giver of eternal life and he is inviting you to come and surrender to him. and he will give you unbelievable peace, a peace that seems too good to be true, but it's true. will you come to him? (calm inspirational music) - [female voice] are you looking for a peace that can withstand any hardship life can bring? visit findingtruepeace.com to find answers. again, that's findingtruepeace.com. (calm inspirational music)

>> tucker: republican senators, the ones who voted for amy coney barrett, that does not include one, of maine.san collinsuc the rest just boarded a capitol hill police bus on the way to the white house. the confirmation ceremony will hetake place at the white house. tomorrow we will have an extensive interview on the show with a man called tony bobulinski. you may have heard that name. he's a former business partner of hunter biden. texts and in his personal testimony indicate he met personally with joe biden to discuss a lucrative business deal in china. that's a story. denying that meeting took place, by the way. they are just not talking about it and trying to dismiss the whole thing is t russian propaganda. tony bobulinski is not on the other networks because they have decided to bury the story. they want you to think it's a russian smear. >> you're trying to take someone who right now is choosing biden, do you get them by smearing

biden's surviving son? >> pushing these various smears against joe biden and his son, hunter biden. >> increasingly desperate barrage of smears and lies and disinformation, wild accusations. >> this president has seized on the russian misinformation. provided by guiliani. >> to smear him with this nonsense about hunter biden's finances. >> smearing hunter biden was going to work. biden would not be ahead by almost ten points. >> he's the architect of the smears against hunter biden. >> tucker: these people are such liars. and they know what they are saying is a lie. but at its core, this story is not about hunter biden. it's about his father, the man who made hunter biden's decades long lobbying career possible, also made an almost fifty-year lobbying career of joe biden's brother, jim, possible. that's a story. voters have a right to know a lot about it. they know nothing at this point. the biden campaign, by the way,

has not denied the authenticity of a single email or text message. not one. the smear. they know it's not smear. they know it's true. they are telling the rest of us the russians are behind it.. >> the intelligence community warned the president that giuliani was being fed disinformation from the russians. we know that putin is trying very hard to spread disinformation about joe biden. when you put the combination of russia, giuliani, the president together, it is what it is, it's a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. what is he running on?e >> tucker: the russians. the infuriating part. many of them. one of them is that tony bobulinski is not a russian agent. he's a former naval officer who served this country as did many members of his family. to dismiss him as a tool of russian intelligence is outrageous and it may have spurred his decision to come on the show tomorrow night.

as of tonight, what do we know c about this story? tony bobulinski has produced a lot of documents. kim strassel has read them. she is with "the wall street journal." they laid it out very clearly. she joins us. thanks for coming on.. what do we know as of right now? >> i think this story has two parts. the first one is hunter and the important part about this whenth he read these texts and emails is that up until now, we knew about the shady ukraine deal. the assumption was that hunter had been hired because of his dad. he didn't have any oil or gas experience. now we know that that's exactly what was happening in this deal because he brags about it. we have texts and emails in which all these partners are saying we ought to be keeping more of the money here for the people that are actually doing kthe work, by the way, that's t hunter.. what does hunter bring to this? hunter, in a rage, says don't you understand, i am the deal. people are doing this because they want the biden name. this is my family legacy.

you've got one partner also saying to tony bobulinski, i know for a fact the chinese want this because of hunter and that's why it's worth so much money. that's called influence peddling. it's called access to important people. that gets us to the second part of the story which is joe biden. >> tucker: this meeting, and this is one of the topics of our conversation with tony bobulinski tomorrow. this meeting that he says he had with joe biden, from what we cav tell, took place. it's real. he met with joe biden. can you think of any reason that joe biden would meet with an investment guy called tony bobulinski if it wasn't about business?n >> this is all real. can i say that the smear argument, a smear is when youl. make something up. this is beyond a shadow of a doubt, "the wall street journal" its news side and editorial page has made clear this deal happened. the emails are out there. joe was involved.

the question is to what degree. tony bobulinski and the emails and texts suggest there was indeed a meeting. we also have this piece of paper that laid out what was supposed to be the equity holdings in this coming company. it says 20% to hunter and then it says maybe hunter is going to hold 10% in addition for the big guy. tony bobulinski says that that is joe biden. the biden campaign has not denied any of this. it hasn't answered any questions about them. it raises some big things. joe biden has said first and foremost that he doesn't discuss business with his son, that he never has. this is a guy who's running on character and judgment. he should have to answer the question about whether or not he was honest. beside the question of whether or not he was actually debating going into business with a chinese company with ties to the government and military. >> tucker: we have photographs of joe biden with hunter and hunter's clients, including a mogul from kazakhstan.

he brought hunter with him to china as vice president, introduced him around. this has been chronicled over many years. it's not like we just learned all of this. but the press is pretending like it's not true. the same people who wrote the stories five years ago are now pretending they don't know what we are talking about. in one sentence, have you ever seen anything like this where the entire american media decides to lie as a group? >> you know, for two weeks, they told us prove it that it's true. we just showed thatks it's true and now they say there's nothing there to see. >> tucker: huge ramifications i would say from kind of behavior long-term. kim strassel, thank you for your bravery on the story. you've been brave i think. amy coney barrett was just voted by the senate to move to the swearing in. that's happening tonight atre 9:00 p.m. we'll have updates from the white house from the rose garden in just a minute. experts raising new questions tonight about the coronavirus and where it came from.

there is a scientific consensust about it. but it turns out there's some pretty big holes in that consensus. oh, are they not telling you the truth again? it's entirely possible. alex berenson afterre the break.

>> tucker: we are almost a year into this pandemic. it was january when we first reported on it. we don't know exactly where it came from. we had a chinese virologist on the show twice. she says it was made in the lab and escaped or as a bio weapon. a biologist at mit is openly questioning the scientific community's so-called consensus on where this came from. writing "the closest related virus genome to the coronavirus cannot be independently assembled due to missing data and unexplained inus discrepancies." chan also tweeted "the public has little idea what happened, is happening behind the scenes with journals and authors of coronavirus papers." in other words, there is not really a consensus on where it came from. why don't we know? is anyone working to find out honestly without lying about it? alex berenson is one of the

people who does not lie about this. he's an author and we are happy to have them on. i wish we had an hour for this. we don't because there's too much going on but give us this question.or where did it come from? what do we know, what don't we know? >> there's a lot we don't know. here's what we do know. anybody who raises this issue gets accused of being a d conspiracy theorist. there's people in the scientific community very deliberately conflating a couple things. one is, is it a bio weapon? it's probably not a bio weapon. it wouldn't be a very good by weapon because it doesn't kill anybody who's healthy. but the other question is, and i say anybody, there's always exceptions. the other question is, could it have escaped from the lab?ab probably a lab in china. probably lab in wuhan where coronaviruses were being researched and where scientists do what's being called gain of

function research. it means that you manipulate the virus to maked it more virulent. that's the whole point of gain of function research. you're trying to figure out what natural virus might w become dangerous to humans if it mutated in various ways?an to do it, there's been a big a argument in the scientific community for ten or 15 years. you either often genetically modify these viruses. you take bits of virus and put them together. or you put various viruses and various animals and you wait for them to recombine. anyway, i know i don't have a lot of time. we don't know what happened here.e we haven't found the animal most. -- host. we haven't found a virus in the wild that's very much like sars-cov-2. we have a giant lamb that we know had safety problems in china in 2018 the same city were this emerged. this demands a real international investigation and it hasn't gotten one.

>> tucker: maybe the obvious explanation is the correct one. it's possible, bottom line. >>it's possible. >> that would be my prior. but i am just a journalist. i'm not a scientist. >>t tucker: [laughs] you're much more honest than the scientists we have in charge. alex, thank you. good to see you. amy coney barrett's swearing-in ceremony begins in a few moments. the vote is in. 52-48. she got it. we will have coverage straight ahead.

>> tucker: >> tucker: seems like yesterday or where wondering the president would put forward a nominee before the election and he did of course in today despite widespread expectation, amy coney barrett 52-48 was approved by the senate, sworn in in the rose garden any moment and standing by for us right now. hey, shannon. >> hey, tucker, first official will be administered by justice

clarence thomas. those who obviously are very close and so she will join in what people are speculating could become the common core density becomes really the influential conservative voice pulling together that win. that's the first of tomorrow, under the second oath that will be administered by chief justice john roberts. it once ity happens, she will officially be a justice, just as amy coney barrett. a lot of work waiting in the appeals to the court regarding ballot measures, voting mail. picking up the cases and then they start again on monday, she will face a couple big cases that will test her as a brand-new justice. tomorrow, it's official, she will get to work, talker. >> sean>> tucker: an amazing ni. shannon bream, thank you for that. as we told you, the bulk of the show, sitdown interview with tony bob belinsky, the men who met with joe biden about china.

not been out there before. that's tomorrow. right now, the white house swearing for amy coney barrett starts in just a moment, sean hannity takes over right now. hey, sean. >> sean: thank you. and welcome to "hannity." fox news alert. judge amy coney barrett has officially been confirmed by the u.s. senate and in moments she will be sworn in as the newest member of the united states supreme court, a lifetime appointment. we are awaiting that swearing-in ceremony from the white house. we will take you there live as it happens and tomorrow after taking her official judicial oath, she will be able to fully participate as the newest member of the supreme court. my opening monologue is straight ahead but first joining usic no, guided the whole process as promised, senate judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham is with us. i did notice a little bit of a temper tantrum and there were a lot of threats going on about packing the court and ending the legislative filibuster. amnesty, a lot of power grabs. not easy.