the pool, bathroom, storm drain, eventually the officer scooped up the turtles and guided them safely to the sea. tomorrow special report. thanks for inviting us at your home tonight that's it for the special port fair balance and unafraid. jesse watters prime time is next i promise you'll get more on this nancy pelosi thing i'm sure that i'm right? [laughs] ♪ ♪ >> jesse: when we started the show, i promised to cover corruption. today was a big day at "primetime." for the last two months we've been trying to get to the bottom of paul pelosi's dui. at the end of the day this is about transparency and equal standards of justice. just because pauly p. is married to the wolf of washington, he

doesn't get a free pass. if he committed the crime, he deserves to do the time. would the justice system do you favors? you know the answer to that. this morning paul pelosi was due in court to face the music. papa pauly p is too much of a bigwig to show up himself, so he sent the lawyer in his place. the entire hearing was literally over in two minutes. his case got to be heard first, even though it was in alphabetical order. correct me if i'm wrong, but does "p" come before "a"? at least we did get to hear from our good friends, allison haley. hey, ali. >> my name is allison haley, napa county's district attorney. he appeared 977, meaning a dui defendant can appear through his attorney. he was arraigned on the charges

of driving causing injury with a blood alcohol level above 8.0. his defense attorney is amanda bevins, and acknowledged real rt of the criminal complaint. >> they punted the whole thing to august 23rd, thinking i'll be on vacation that week, but i'm not. we're not going to wait until the 23rd anyway. we've already waited two months. this is a dui case, not a triple homicide. we know that paul has been getting home cooking from the very beginning. we asked ally all about that. >> can you respond to critics that say mr. pelosi is getting special treatment. >> i can assure you that but for press conferences and phone calls this matter is handled like any other matter that napa county handles.

we handle 550 duis in any given year, and this matter is going to the court the same as any other court in napa county. >> jesse: this isn't how napa county handles case. we had to sue the county to get the mugshot. it took weeks. do defendants normally hire high-priced p.r. teams who lie to the press? there is no mugshot. that was the response we got from papa paul's fixer when we asked for the pic. all right, we got it. but getting pelosi's mugshot was the start of the cover-up. the crash happened over memorial day weekend in napa county has been hiding the criminal complaint ever since. it was leaked to us yesterday. if it hadn't been leaked, we still would never have seen it. why did they hide it? it's filled with stuff that makes paul look bad. like the fact that both cars were totaled, and that pauly p. was so drunk he was slurring his words, and he had drugs in his

system. what was this drug? was pelosi on some blood pressure medication or was it a narcotic? because there's a big difference. maybe they were trying to cover up the fact that the crash happened a little after 10:00, but police didn't test paul's blood until well after midnight. why not at the scene? so he had time to sober up obviously. he still blew over the legal limit. we know from the leaked complaint that pelosi handed the officers a police privilege card. then they asked him for his driver's license, and he gave them the card that says he's a donor. do you know what that means? i think you do. was paula lone in the car? we have conflicting stories. the police report says, quote, at the time of the initial contact, mr. paul pelosi was the sole occupant of his porsche and seated in the driver's seat. sole occupant. all right. so he's alone.

funny how they phrase that, though, isn't it? because "the new york times" report on the crash said there was a witness at the scene. quote, a person who witnessed the accident said both cars were totaled, and that mr. pelosi simply sat in the car, seemingly frozen for several minutes until the sheriff and members of the fire department arrived moments later. the whole thing happened late at night in wine country. no one is walking on the sidewalks to witness this. there are no sidewalks. so who is this witness? were they the ones who called 9-1-1? or was there another passenger in the car who made the 9-1-1 call and then disappeared? we don't know. by the way, they're still hiding the 9-1-1 call. we didn't even know until yesterday that the victim sustained serious injuries. we were told the injuries were minor. it turns out, quote, the day after the collision he had pain to his upper right arm, right shoulder and neck, was difficult

to lift things with his right arm, and suffering from headaches not present prior to the collision. now he's seeking medical care with his physician. now, the extent of these injuries is very important, because that's what the da's office uses to determine whether a dui is a felony or not. but the da is sticking with the misdemeanor charge. >> with you walk us through the decision to charge mr. pelosi with a misdemeanor after you learned about the seriousness of the crash? >> we evaluated the matter, interviewed the victim, and compared it to other similarly situated cases, and the kinds of injuries he presents historically we have filed those matters as misdemeanors, not as felonies. >> that's music to papa pauly's ears, because the misdemeanor charge probably won't land him in jail. if it was upgraded to a felony, paul could be looking at six years in the slammer. there's a lot riding on the da's

office keeping this a misdemeanor. the injuries are a big factor. we believe the driver worked in a vineyard. we've contacted him, and he hangs up the phone on us. we don't have any clue about the injuries. we also don't if the pelosis will be taking care of the driver, if you know what i mean. we do know that the judge in this case is political. the night before today's hearing, the original judge just vanished, and was mysteriously replaced with his democrat judge, monique langhorn, who's never tried a criminal case in her entire career, who just happens to rub elbows with gavin newsom and took campaign donations from alley and other prosecutors. watch. >> the judge took a campaign distribution from you and the assistant district attorney. how is that not a conflict of interest? >> this matter, i believe i gave judge langhorn $100 in 2018. i have full faith and belief

that she can be fair and impartial. in fact, if either side believes that's not the case, the california code has a procedure where we can move before a judge out of that courtroom. >> jesse: she says 2018 like it's like 1918. right? $100 is a lot of money for a county judge. not like, you know, a presidential primary. and why would papa pauly want to move the judge? he got the judge he wants. this case couldn't be set up for him any better. we need to clear up what actually happened that night. >> there was some video, like, you know, like a dashcam or a body cam, we could just see everything for ourselves. >> wondering why the dashcam video is still not been released. can you help us understand why that's the case? >> dashcam video is evidence in this case, and i'm ethically

prohibited from releasing that. >> jesse: our good friend ally is keeping that footage to herself, so we can get it once the case is settled at the end of the month or we could have it tonight, because ally gave the blessing to california highway parole. >> i have no direction to provide chp. they are free to do what they like. these aren't my items. >> jesse: california highway patrol could release the footage today, like this second. ally said they could, but they won't. are they waiting for donations from paul? we were back open the phone today trying to get transparency, and they said they're working on it. so here's the woman who runs california highway patrol, amanda ray. remember amanda? the commish. that's her contact info. they don't want you to call, text or email. if you do, be polite. ally says you can release the footage, amanda. this is on you. are you going to be part of the

cover-up? what's it going to be, commish? i surely hope this isn't about money. brian claypool is an attorney following the case with us. he joins me now. good to see you in person, brian. >> good to see you, jesse. >> jesse: boom, boom, they got a settlement case hearing in about two weeks. i won't be on vacation. is that how these things usually shake out? >> are you kidding me? this is an abomination. you never get a settlement conference a couple weeks after an arraignment. i've had cases go three, four court hearings, a year out, before you ever get a settlement conference. what's irresponsible about what ally is telling us, you just heard her, she said, we reviewed everything and we've come to the conclusion that this is like every other case. well, she's missing a lot of information. she hasn't reviewed the medical records of the victim. a responsible da would get all the medical records, let us interview the victim. let's find out, has he been

injured? that would raise this crime to a felony. she hasn't reviewed all the information. she hasn't reviewed this other drug that was in the count. it said, the exact language said, intoxicated combined with a drug. now, get this. pauly's lawyer says when she was asked about it, she says, oh, i think they put that in there because that's the statutory language. if they did a blood test. what is the drug? >> jesse: you're right. they have the drug test. they should be able to put that in the complaint. we got the complaint through a leak, because we've been banging the drum for a long time, asking someone to stand up and do the right thing in napa county. he happened to be the only one in the car when we initially showed up to the crime scene?

why was it written like that. why to they say another drug. wouldn't they normally name the narcotic if they knew the narcotic. if this is sudafed, wouldn't that be in there? >> it would be in there, jesse, that's an excellent point. that's what i'm talking about. they're teeing this up august 23rd, for him to walk into the courtroom, operation, see you later -- probation, and you and i never see the truth. ally says i never give up dashcam video. that's not the law, ally. it's not ally's law in california. there's no ally's law. the law is they need to give up the dashcam unless it embarrass a criminal investigation. according to ally and the judge, the investigation is over, because they're going to settle is august 23rd. that excuse doesn't fly either, right? >> why wouldn't chp, california highway patrol, after getting

the go-ahead from the da, they can release it, why would they still-hide the footage? it stinks? because he handed them a donation card that says i'm a big donor, and can be a bigger donor if this shakes out the way i want? >> absolutely. he donated to this charitable contribution to the chp. if i get pulled over, i'm not thinking where's my 1199 card? i'm thinking, is my daughter okay in the card. here it is. >> jesse: here's my donor card. >> exactly. this is unprecedented in california and in any state, where you have type of damage to a vehicle, too. right? the more we learn, somebody could have been killed. this is not a minuscule matter. somebody could have been killed, and the da, combined with this judge, who, by the way, we still didn't know why the previous judge recused himself or

herself, right? >> jesse: herself. all of a sudden on the eve of the hearing, the original judge just leaves, and we get this politicized judge come in who's never tried a criminal charge in her career, and agrees to a settlement hearing in three weeks. unbelievable. this is consistent with how they do things in napa. i should go to napa and drive drunk and not pay the price. obviously that was just an analogy. and i can never drive drunk after covering this story. the liquor store owner who blasted some punk during a robbery talks to primetime excludessively. plus, what's the definition of a recession? >> the united states is in a recession. >> what's a recession? >> like recess, like hanging

out?

>> jesse: has covid made join more productive? he's not going to delaware every weekend? he's gotten a lot of work done, been signing bills, killing terrorists, answering questions. showing a side of himself that we haven't seen before. he even got the media's attention. "washington post" saying, quote, working from home during covid seems to work out for biden. the white house was asked yesterday about joe's high energy. listen. >> this has been one of the most successful weeks of the presidents' tenure in the white house so far. is it just coincidence that it's happened while he's largely been

isolating in the white house? >> what are you trying to say here? i think we should be thrilled and really excited that wear getting work done for the american people. >> jesse: biden is not getting any work done. it's a lot more work is happening around him while he's quarantining, just like during the campaign. we're being reminded how successful the biden basement strategy is, but is it enough to convince democrats he deserves re-election? does not seem like it. two top house democrats said no. >> should president biden run again in 2024? >> too early to say. doesn't serve the purpose of the democratic party to deal with that until after the midterms. >> i don't believe he's running for re-election. >> jesse: whoa. and joe manchin went on msnbc and said he doesn't want to talk about biden. >> would you support joe biden

if he's on the ticket in 2024? i'm not talking about the 2022 election in 2024. i have no control over those elections. can't we do something for our country without having to bring politics into it? that's all you talk about. >> i'm just asking -- >> i'm not talking about. >> the. >> jesse: the paradox for democrats, if they don't back joe for a second term the heir apparent naturally the vice president. >> can we give it up for this second gentleman of the united states? [cheers and applause] >> i love my husband. >> jesse: "i love my husband." karl rove, also loved karl rove, as a former white house deputy

chief of staff and fox news contributor. this is the paradox, is it not? no one really wants to endorse who's in the white house, but naturally the person they want to say, the vice president, they don't want to endorse her either. >> let's divide those into two separate questions. let's dive into the first one. "new york times" poll, should biden run again? 26% of democrats say, yeah, we'd like him to run again. the younger you are, the lower that number is. is that an outlier? cnn roughly the same time, about two weeks later, 25% say, yeah, let's have him run again. now, you know, it was 45% in the cnn poll when they asked it in february, which ain't a great number to begin with, but democrats are done with president biden. he won't be the nominee of the democratic party. he won't run. i've been saying this over a year. the democrats are not stupid enough to nominate somebody at the age of 82, who already has difficulties stripping together two sentences.

that's the first part. >> jesse: the second part, what if joe doesn't go along with this deal. he says, no, i want to run. what do democrats do? how are they not going to? >> somebody step up, with all due respect, mr. president, it's time for a new generation of leaders to step forward and run. guess what. they'll get a lot of votes, because joe biden won't get better over the next year and a half before we start voting in iowa, new hampshire, nevada, south carolina, wherever the heck this contest starts. >> jesse: the democrats will have to debate joe biden, joe biden will have to debate these democrats on television in a year and a half? >> he won't debate them. he'll wait, not to lower himself. he'll simply say, i'm the sitting president. >> jesse: you can do that? >> the democrats are not that stupid. he's looking at these numbers.

democratic leaders are looking at these numbers. he's found a way. his family will find a way. he will find a way to face reality that he shouldn't run. it's not good for the party and not good too the country. >> jesse: karl rove, the prediction is on air. we can always go back and check the tape. we will play and rub it in your face if you're wrong. we don't want have to do it. >> if he doesn't run, we can rub your face in it? is that what we're saying? >> jesse: i didn't say. you're the architect. that's why a guest on my show. karl, thank you so much. we love our husbands, karl loaf. is dr. fauci about to get arrested?

>> jesse: it's been two years

since the start of the pandemic, and the u.s. government doesn't seem at all interested in where the virus came from. the u.s. government is interested in everything, what a parent says at a school board meeting, what bathroom you use, what you tweet, but a virus that wiped out a million americans, that's suspicious. we know dr. fauci's institute was funding research at the wuhan lab, ground zero for the outbreak. the research they're doing is gain of function, where you frankenstein a virus to make it deadler to humans. fauci under oath told us none of this was happening. >> nih has not ever, and does not now, fund gain of function research in the wuhan institute. he's talking about gain of function. this has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not

fall under the gain of function definition. i have not lied before congress. i have never lied. certainly not before congress. >> jesse: did you get that? whatever you think we were doing with the bat lady in the lab, it's not gain of function. sure, we were monkeying around with bat viruses, making them more powerful, but that doesn't fall under the definition. this is the same thing they did with the word "recession." this afternoon for the first time ever, the senate held a hearing on gain of function research. based on what we heard today, dr. fauci lied underneath. >> what are the implications of dr. fauci's continued blatant dishonesty regarding nih's funding of gain of function research in wuhan? >> statements made on repeated occasions to the public, press, policymakers, by the director have been untruthful. >> there's for dispositive evidence that the pandemic began

because of a spillover of a virus in a market. it's consistent with a laboratory-acquired virus. in 2018, u.s. scientists began proposed inserting, quote, human specific sites in a bat backbone. two years later it appeared on the doorstep. >> jesse: rand paul joins me now. what did you learn from these experts? >> you know, i know this is going to be shocking, but we learned that dr. fauci has been lying to us. the three scientists agreed this was dangerous research. two out of the three said it was absolutely gain of function. the third said it was dangerous research and should have gone before a committee. when dr. fauci said, oh, we reviewed this, the experts said it's not gain of function, even that wasn't true. there was a committee that was formed after 2017 to look at

this dangerous research. they didn't look at this research at all, because they never reviewed it. so no one reviewed this to say it wasn't gain of function research. they didn't review it, period. we also learned from the scientists today that the committee that is supposed to review these viruses is secret. we don't know the names. we don't know that they neat, and don't have records of their meetings. it's top-secret. congress is not allowed to know. whether the committee actually exist, we're uncertain. we do know that they've met three times. there are thousands of gain of function research proposals. they've only met three times, only reviewed three projects. so we learned a lot of things, but i think we reconfirmed that dr. fauci is not being honest with us. yes, the nih funded gain of function research. yes, it was dangerous. and yes, nobody looked over this. nobody reviewed the research. yes, a million people died. there still seems to be a significant lack of curiosity on

the part of democrats. >> jesse: what would be the fallout, if it's proven, as i think you've done, that dr. fauci lied to congress under oath? what would be the implication if the we'll government could admit that maybe some of this funding did go to the wuhan lab where they got sloppy, and, oops, a pandemic broke out? >> obviously there's moral culpability, could be legal culpability for lying to congress. but even more important than that, more important to attaching the blame to these people, we should try to figure out how we prevent this from happening again. all three of our scientists said we need something similar to what we do for nuclear research. so if you have centrifuges at your house, jesse, and want to send them to iran or russia, it's against the law. so all three of these scientists, independently, came up to the conclusion that we should have an independent regulatory agency and that it should be illegal to send dna synthesizers to communist china,

illegal to send humanized mice to china. so we've been the leaders in this research, but we shouldn't willy-nilly passing stuff around that could get in the hands of people who might want to create a bioterrorist weapon. i think we learned a lot today. this should be the beginning. if we're in charge in november, i will continue these hearings, try to get a democrat on board, to say why don't we have a bipartisan bill that will create better oversight for potential pandemics. >> jesse: that's a good idea. i expect the democrats to join us on this, because no one ever wants this to happen again. dr. rand paul, very important hearing. glad you did that today. early sunday morning in california, four men with rifles tried to stick up a liquor store. motherko market and liquor is owned by craig cope, 80 years old, working the counter at the time. but this was the wrong liquor store to target.

[gunfire] >> he grabbed the shotgunner, and when the thug aimed at him, he shot him first. the owner suffered a minor heart attack, following the attempted robbery, but he's recovering. he cheated death twice in one night. he showed up back-to-work two days later. me? i probably would have taken the rest of the week off. and craig cope had a word for the politician, swelling this crime wave. listen. >> what you need to do its put pressure on the politicians, because they have no clue what's going on out here in the real world. i can start naming names, but there's a lot of them that are creating major problems for business owners, but for local law enforcement they're creating problems for them. i'm sure they go out and risk their lives, taking people into

custody. folks get out with no bail. >> jesse: despite his age, he was able to step up and fend off the robbers when the politicians who are supposed to keep us safe protect criminals instead. craig cope is the california liquor store owner, who defended his business, joining us for an exclusive on "primetime." how did you get the shotgun held up so fast? did you see them coming through the door first? >> i did see them, yes. i mean, they were really fast. maybe two second and they were in, and the guy was pointing the gun at me. >> has this happened to you before? >> yes. >> jesse: it has. so you were ready, because this has happened before. had it ever got to the point where you had to let a shot off? >> jesse, i don't know if i want to get into that part.

>> jesse: let's not get into it then. you now have politicians doing things that are making the streets very, very, very unsafe. you said it in the package that we just played. what the heck they're doing. why do you think they're doing this? do you have any clue? >> no, i don't have a clue. it does not make any sense. it doesn't make common sense. it makes none to me. i don't know what their motivation is. it's just -- i can't fathom what they could be thinking. >> jesse: have you heard from any local politicians, any leaders in your community, aftee seen the footage. it's everywhere. >> yeah. the local sheriff, he's been very good, contacting me. i did receive a call from a congressman, and that's the extent of it right there.

the local captain on the local sheriff's department, he contacted me also. those three, but that's been it. >> jesse: would you like to name any names now that you're here live ons "jess watters primetime" to get them into gear? >> it's not my job to get them into gear. they know who they are. somebody needs to do something now, because we're just getting downhill faster and faster. it's certainly a concern, not just to me, but i hear it all the time from my customer base, and everybody that i'm exposed to is really fed up. i certainly can't blame them. i would say i join them in being that fed up also. >> jesse: all right. well, you're a very brave man. we're lucky you're a good shot.

you're lucky. everyone's lucky. and i don't think in my opinion's going to be robbing your liquor store ever again after seeing that footage. thank you so much, craig cope. it's an honor to have you on the show. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> jesse: should children be put on a leash like a dog?

>> jesse: coming up, who doesn't love a nice friendly greeting in the morning? >> good morning. good morning. good morning, america. >> jesse: not so fast, kamala. the readers of the "washington post" think saying "good morning" is offensive because not everybody is having a good

morning. just because you're in a good mood, doesn't mean kathy is in accounting. be miserable hike the rest of us. okay? >> i'm sure when robin williams was screaming "good morning vietnam" he didn't mean it literally like it's a war in the middle of vietnam. it's a traditional greeting, right? avoid saying it, we should do what we do with our young children. >> jesse: what do we do? >> wakey, wakey, rise and shine, go get some flapjacks. >> jesse: leashes are great for dogs. i know you're a dog guy. what about kids? a father of quintuplets, i believe that's five, is putting that theory to the test. he's tethered up his toddlers, taking them for a walk. watch this. >> all right.

>> is that a leash? >> no. it's a child safety tether. >> it's a leash. don't judge us. sweetie, you're not helping us. >> jesse: that was "modern family." this guy put the kids on a leash. should kids be treated like dogs? >> well, look, is that a leash? >> jesse: this is a recession debate? >> i'm just saying. when i have two kids, we use the lassos, this keeps them in line, like mutton busting. those are 55-year-olds. okay? imagine trying to herd all those cats in a crowded place. there's straps, as long as they're comfortable, tonight change. >> jesse: you don't think it's giving the children a psychological issue, that they're tied up and treated like canines? >> if they run off and are hit by a car, they'll have a psychological issue. >> jesse: every time you come

on, we always talk about -- >> it's true. >> jesse: last up, being sweaty and hot is a bad look, especially when you're under pressure. the fashion industry is saying hot and sweaty is a good look, celebrities like kardashian and megan fox are posting photos of themselves looking like they just got back from a sauna. i don't know how i feel about this. is the sweaty, glistening, hot look hot? >> when i was a stunt double, they wanted us to look as sweaty as possible. my woman was a former division i athlete. track. 400 meters, third in the country at one point. she's a gissell. coming back from a workout, she

looks if. we're not go to clubbing without a good quality shower. the look is one thing. the scent another. my wife always smells like cinnamon. >> jesse: very good recovery. we're only talking about women looking sweaty. men looking sweaty, that's never a good look. coming up, how do people feel about being in a recession?

>> jesse: politicians have changed the definition of a woman. now they're changing the definition of a recession. do regular americans know we're in a recession? do they even know what recession means? we sent johnny to rockaway beach to find out.

>> the united states has entered a recession. what is a recession? >> like recess, like hanging out. >> money just going and coming. it's very hard. >> the economy is shrinking. >> i don't really know. i only took one econclass, and it was cruising. >> i'm confused by the question. i'm sorry. >> how did we get here? who implement these policies? >> el presidente. >> jeff bezos. >> you don't like his bald head? >> amongst other things. >> i'd like to dip my bald head in oil and rub it all over your body. >> how did we get in this recession? >> the economy. >> what did the economy do? >> a lot of things. >> everybody is always blaming me for everything. >> how do we get out of a

recession? >> umm -- >> climb out of it. >> come on, man, climb up. >> attack the rich. >> love it, love it. >> are your finances better or worse since joe biden took office? >> worse. >> i invested in stocks. it kind of went down recently. maybe worse. >> when i think about my day-to-day expenses i feel it more. >> it's better now for me. >> because you're working like a dog? >> yes, yes. >> only the dog lovers would understand that. >> what's one thing that's expensive now that's driving you insane? >> gas. >> butter. >> butter, just like cheese, eat it just like this. >> rent. >> rent is too damn high. >> you said it. rent is too damn high? steak prices went up. >> what's your favorite steak? >> nice and thick.

>> you like it thick? >> yeah. >> anyway -- >> are you finding it hard to take your girlfriend out on a date now that everything is more expensive? >> yes. >> you taking her to mcdonald's? >> took her to chipotles. >> more upscale? >> yes. >> if it's american, i like it. >> do you find that men are having a hard time taking you out because everything is so expensive? >> we're in the midst of a pandemic. >> you want to stay in, right? >> more often than not, yeah. >> mask on? >> yeah. >> it isn't perfect, but it's good protection. >> what is more scary, a recession or the sharks in the water? >> the sharks in the water? i would say sharks. >> you see a smashing in the water, what do you do? >> scream. >> let me hear you scream. >> agh!

>> you'll be on "jesse watters primetime," what do you want to tell him? >> beware of the sharks. and joe biden. watch out for him too. >> jesse: so we have a producer in napa right now, and he's walking around all of the bistros and the vineyards, asking people, do people drive drunk all the time? is this a big deal? "the new york times" says it wasn't that big of a deal. we'll have that report for you guys tomorrow. we will be looking at that producer's expense account very, very thoroughly. just some text messages. rich from virginia, love yourob. a little weird, don't you think? has gutfeld said today on "the five," paul pelosi's dui is my january. >> i'd pick craig cope over

biden. >> jesse: so would i. please don't bow too much to greet people, you might hurt your back again. i'll do the nod. that's it for us. tucker is up next. always remember, this is watters, and this is my world. >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." if you're an incumbent, you tonight want to debate. unless you drop dead during a speech, you're likely to be elected to congress. a televised debate cannot help you. it's all risk and no upside. occasionally there's no avoidg