tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News September 28, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
eastern. good night,mo everybody. ♪ hannity. stick around. we'll see you tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the rhetoric is rapidly getting harsher, in case you haven't noticed. it is getting more venomous, most autonomously, it is becoming more racialized. riots over race and politics were virtually unheard of ten years ago in this country. sadly, now they are common. we are living in a scary time, and people know it. a new fox paul max found that 80% of voters think the bonds that hold this country together are weakening. just a decade to go, people joked about letting states seceded from the union or splitting the country into two along political lines. none of that sounds very funny
anymore or even far-fetched at this point. so at a volatile moment like this, the last thing this country needs is more demagoguery, especially racial demagoguery which always leaves the deepest and longest lasting ones. on the other hand, whipping people into a frenzy of fear and rage is a guaranteed ratings bonanza, and cnn can never resist that. watch how the network takes the controversy over the national anthem at football games and turns it into a terrifying story about race hatred. >> if anyone actually believes this is about the flag, then you must believe rosa parks ''s protest was about a bus. think about that. >> when he says he was really telling the owners -- like, the owners or the plantation owners, and the guys playing in the league, they are on the plantation, you can't say anything. and so the things really escalated. >> it does sound a little bit -- obviously, you can come at me on
twitter about this, like he is saying control your dog, control your dog to the owners. and now he says, they are fearful of the players, setting up the ugliest kind of tension you can. i know when you say, control your dog, it has a lot of racial overtones to it. so does this situation. i don't know how you can look at it and not see that it is racial. >> tucker: dogs? who said anything about dogs. nobody did. it doesn't matter. the image is horrifying, and that is the point. you can't turn away from that. now, do you hate and fear your neighbor a little more by the end of that segment? of course you do. imagine millions of people watching that kind of thing all day long. what would happen to the country? we are finding out now. we have here an attorney, a democratic political commentator, and she joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: i guess what bothers me, i think it is important to have honest conversations about race, but i think you should be responsible because it has the capacity to
really scare people and really hurt people and hurt the country. and so when you see a journalist on another network basically make up a quote and say, "he is saying, control your dogs," as nobody has ever said, then comment on this imaginary quote and go off on this, "oh, it's a racial thing." if i am watching this half-asleep, i'm terrified by the end. they shouldn't do this by the end. >> perhaps he would be terrified at the end, but i'm really not interested in how chris cuomo's analogy may terrified people. the issue is why there are protests in the first place and the people who are living terrified every day just walking down the street, so if you look at how we got here, we got here because african-american men are disproportionately stopped, disproportionately searched, disproportionately arrested, and disproportionately killed per capita in this country.
>> tucker: that is true. >> and one brave man decided to first sit and then take a need. the escalation didn't come into what i guess you are now calling terror. i'm not really hearing about, frankly, tucker, a lot of people being afraid. >> tucker: let me just acknowledge that i think a lot of what you say is valid, reasonable, something we can talk about and debate. but what i really object to, and what i think it's hurting the country, is the demagoguery in the way that it is discussed and described in other channels, particularly on cnn. for example, what you just said, that african-american men are more likely to be stopped and shot. that is absolutely true. but it is a nuanced question, actually. i'm not sure that proves anything, but it certainly detracts from the story line cnn is pushing. when you are going to tell a story, you have to tell the whole story, or else what you're doing is selling a false story designed to scare the crap
out of people. >> even what you just said, that is incorrect. when you are talking about more likely, talking about statistics into the future. when you look at the numbers of the race of police officers who have actually killed african-american males, there have been more white officers to do it. >> tucker: i'm saying as of right now. as of right now -- actually, what i said is true. look, i'm not drawing a massive conclusion permit other than, this stuff is super complicated, okay? a lot of these cities in which this is taken place is run by african-americans. doesn't mean there isn't racism. i'm just saying, add the context, and don't start using dog analogy which immediately invoke pictures of alabama and bull connor which are not assigned to educate people or elucidate. that is bad for the country. >> i am not sure who they are designed to terrify and horrify though. i keep hearing you saying that,
and i heard in the intro reset it's scary, it's terrifying, but the african-americans were already terrified. they are terrified of law enforcement. they are terrified that the very flag that we revere and adhere to, the very flag that symbolizes the best of freedom in this country is the same symbol that is now being used to represent race superiority. the same symbol that is now being used to represent -- >> tucker: that is your opinion which i really hope is not a majority opinion in any community, because i think it is a crackpot, with respect, theory. let me give you an example of why this coverage has been irresponsible. spike lee was up there on cnn. >> he is not a cnn commentator. he is an individual, private businessman. >> tucker: no, he is a conspiracy not. >> that would be an opinion, especially the "nut" apart. >> tucker: 2006, spike lee said to me on television that
the levees levees in new orleans were blown up in order to hurt black people. i don't think he was there during katrina. i was. that was crazier than anything alex jones has ever said. >> crazier than anything president trump has ever said? you have conspiracy nuts right now, maybe he will be our next president. >> tucker: you have a guy like that on who said something racially inflammatory and untrue, you should push back a little bit when he theorizes about how this is about the plantation mentality on the behalf of no evidence. >> he used an analogy, and using an analogy that actually came to the minds of many people in african-american communities and in caucasian communities and an latino or brown communities. when our president, the president of this country, referred to african-american citizens, taxpaying citizens who are gainfully employed, making good money in this country, in the nfl, as professional athletes, when he referred to
>> you don't like what he said, do you? >> tucker: i agree that it is divisive and offensive to attack the flag. >> did you think that his language was divisive? >> tucker: i think there is nothing about what he said that was explicitly racial and i think it is immoral for you and others to pretend that you know what he was thinking. >> i asked if you liked it. i understand you were in the s ob in question. >> tucker: maybe he should have done that, but the point remains, it is not a racial attack. their white players down on one knee, as well, you are ignoring that because it doesn't bolster the divisive argument you are seeking to make. >> the issue you are making and the majority of ones who were doing it in the nfl in general -- >> tucker: you know nothing about that. about what it is about. the majority of players, don't pretend to note -- >> i wasn't pretending. i'm saying that the players association issued a statement about what they were protesting. they represent all of the players.
and then specific players such as colin kaepernick was protesting racial injustice within this country. >> tucker: you're not allowing room for that. >> you have a constitutional right to do it. >> tucker: you are inserting a racial angle where none necessarily exist, and it is irresponsible. >> if i am inserting it, and i am inserting it because it is obvious to any eyes that aren't rose-colored. >> tucker: that's your opinion. but like a news organization -- >> i don't work for cnn. i can't defend them. but i think what was set on this issue was true. >> tucker: you think someone that gets up as a reporter as a conveyor of the news ought to be speculating with no evidence for the opinions or attitudes are deepest beliefs of a figure in the news? do you think we should just make up something and say, this is what he meant, when we don't know that? >> here's the thing. when you just said just said that spike lee was a conspiracy
not, what he said he was what he believes to be true. you, as a journalist, commented on it and gave your opinion about what he said. >> tucker: it's not my opinion, it's a statement. the levees were not blown up. we know conclusively that they were not blown up. >> that derogatory statement. >> tucker: because that is an outrageous thing to say. the african-american-run city of new orleans determined that was a lie. it scares the hill out of people. that's all i'm saying. >> who got scared? >> tucker: i did, to think my government would blow up a levee to kill people? >> if you are feeling a bit of fear, bennett might be a smidge closer toward an african-american male might feel driving -- >> tucker: there making it worse, that is my point. thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: we have a host from the place to be. as i just said, i'm not against conversations about the police or the abuse of power, which is
real, and i think we should talk about it. what i am against is people who claim to be journalists making claims they can't back up for the sake of scaring the the hel out of their viewers. >> thank you for having me. one thing to talk about criminal justice reform, things that i'm passionate about, but it is another thing to accuse the president of having racist comments. i think this is something that the left is doing to push their narrative because they know that when they do this, it riles people emotions. if you know anything about donald trump, whether you are a woman, crooked hillary, little marco, he goes after people, he goes after people, he just does. no matter what race, male or female, that is in style. it's one thing to say you disagree with his style, but to say he is racist, homophobic, or whatever label they want to put on it, i think it is just being intellectually dishonest.
>> tucker: well, i think it is too, and i don't think it is about trauma. i don't know make may be the only person in america not that interested in trump. i'm interested in people saying what is they think is true that being shouted down by naysayers. i think of president trump is not allowed to give -- don't disrespect the fight? that's not a crazy thing to say. if you can't say that without being called a racist, then i don't think i can either, and i want to jealously guard my right to say what i think is true. you see what i mean? >> as i said before, it is one thing to have a conversation if you disagreeing with the president's comments which, i thought the president -- he shares the sentiment of many americans because many people don't like the flag being disrespected. that is totally reasonable. but i did disagree with the president getting involved in a private business and telling them what to do. that is one argument. but to suggest that it was based on race, that the president came to this conclusion, as i said, it is intellectually dishonest. but the problem is, when people
make those outrageous claims, it shuts down the debate. i would encourage people that are typically on the right that go with the left on this issue, this happens to every republican, no matter if it was donald trump, marco rubio, ted cruz. this is what they do to all republicans, conservatives, until you are faced with some of it looks like me and you can't go around on tv calling me a racist black man. >> tucker: the long-term consequences of it are profound, and if you look at the polling, people increasingly distrust each other, they hate each other, they fear each other. and there are a lot of reasons for it, but this kind of news coverage is one of the reasons. if you are telling people constantly, you are hated, there is a conspiracy against you, you're never going to get a fair shake, the people in power want to kill you, without any evidence -- by the way, if there's ever any evidence that the president has attitudes like that, i will be the first to denounce him. >> i am a crazy libertarian, so any time the government gets out of line, i am quick to address that. again, tucker, if the media truly is interested in having a national conversation, then they
would be responsible with their reporting. because this doesn't help the national conversation. as a matter of fact, tucker, this keeps people from the table, having spirited conversations. i understand people getting angry and upset. people get mad at what i say. but at the end of the day, you can't call, every time someone says something that you dislike, racist. it shuts down the conversation. >> tucker: yeah. i don't think we're dealing with people who want to have a conversation. >> well, they're not rational. they need to be held responsible for it -- people should be supporting these organizations if they continue to just spew out eight. they are just as bad as the people they accuse of being racist. >> tucker: i'm sorry, i want to say monique is still sitting next to me, and she is responding in a way that suggests i want to put her back on tv to respond to you. monique? i don't think your souls. >> no, i don't think it is convincing at all. because everything that we just heard is the line we hear over and over again in order to not
have a voice and a say when racism really is an issue. i'm not done. un momento. the dog whistle has turned into a megaphone, a microphone from the bulliest of the bulkheads. i know you are chiming in. when the president, over and over again, says things that are reminiscent -- the fact that he is an equal opportunity insulter doesn't mean he doesn't insult people of color along color lines. >> is not a crime to be insulte insulted. >> tucker: do you feel, since you are on television, a lot of people are watching, and the responsibility to be responsibl responsible, , and fact-based or
comments? you don't seem to care. >> i have a concern that i speak truth and that i speak facts. it is the facts -- >> tucker: that's not in evidence at all. >> it is the facts and i speak and the evidence that is opinion, it is my factual analysis is based on truth, than the fact that it may concern you, tucker or, or it may concern you, really is necessar. >> tucker: but you don't have facts, actually. that is the troubling -- if we were debating the tax code, i would say we differ, i think your economics are wrong. we are talking about something that is based on america's original sin, an open wound to this day. >> and we should talk about it. >> tucker: and on the basis of no facts, you are making it worse. >> and what was that? spewing slavery. >> but it wasn't just that, but
the notion of one race being superior to another. that is what we are seeing. it >> tucker: but you have no evidence for that, it doesn't bother you to paraphrase people -- >> you can talk about it without calling it racist. >> tucker: unfortunately, we are out of time. thank you, monique. thank you, lawrence. you just heard cnn anchor, chris cuomo, his take on things. let's just say you can't get enough of chris cuomo. you want to hear more crisco formal, but you don't want to watch cnn? you are in luck, we have more later in this show. latest hits from chris cuomo. trust me, worth it. and violence becoming routine, a look at by a librarian at nyu says violence is necessary for the good of the country. alan dershowitz here to weigh in
oh! show me fall tv. check out the best of the best hand-picked fall shows on xfinity x1, online, and the xfinity stream app. thirsty? >> tucker: political fanaticism on-campus keeps getting more intense, but at the same time, also more routine. a new york university librarian says that violence by antifa isn't simply indefensible, but necessary, "fighting oppression is messy, and that's okay, it is so vitally worth doing." so far, there are no signs that her job is in danger. alan dershowitz is the author of "trumped up." he is frequently spoken on various campuses, including last
night at columbia. so you are a first amendment absolutist, self-described, and i think your career attests to that. where is the line? it is okay from the line of a school administration to have an employee advocate political violence? >> i think employees are different than students because they are supposed to be role models, students are supposed to listen to them. nyu is a private university, and i think the president would be well within his rights to fire a professor who advocates violence, particularly jewish students, because it was students who are joining antifa. it is growing by leaps and bounds. he is justifying not only violence but violence to suppress free speech and economic freedom. the implications of what he is saying, if a teacher gets up in class and pronounces a view that is sexist, it would be okay for the students to beat up the teacher. or like the student that pulled out a knife and killed a fellow student who was expressing a
contrary view. where does it end? if one student can use violence to stop oppression, oppression is in the eye of the beholder. what is the other side do in response? >> tucker: that is a wise point that is often overlooked by the advocates of squelching free speech. you said recently were considering suing cal berkeley, the university of california at berkeley, for suppressing free speech. explain your case. >> i was invited by a group of students to speak at berkeley about israel, and i generally am supportive of israel and the 2-states solution. they said they will not allow me to speak because i didn't give them eight weeks advance notice, but there is an exception to the 8-week rule. if you are invited by a department, you don't have to give an 8-week notice. who is invited by departments? radicals, liberals, people of the left, and anti-israel speakers, speakers like me, a moderate who supports israel, we
generally don't get invited. now what we have done a zesty number of departments to invite us. if no departments invites us, having invited people on the other side, we will sue them, arguing that the 8-week rule is a cover for content-based discrimination against moderates, liberals, conservatives, and supporters of israel. >> tucker: what do you think they will find when they produce the schedule and list of speakers they have invited to speak on campus? >> i have no doubt that anti-israel speakers are invited all the time all over the united states. often, when an anti-israel speaker has been invited and groups want to have me come to present the other side, the school won't invite me. the departments won't invite me. that happened at a number of universities. testing berkeley at this point to see if it happens there. this is not being done for a test. i'm going to california to visit members of my family, i was invited to speak at the school, and i wanted to present the
liberal case for israel. and if berkeley won't let me do it, it is a public university, and have a public records, which i intend to take. i hope berkeley will allow me to speak. either a department will invite me with the school change the rule, because it will has all kind of potential for misuse. it says you need to give eight weeks if you are a high profile person. what does that mean? if the president of the united states said, i want to speak at berkeley, they would make him wait eight weeks? what if some liberal activist, famous actor or actress, decided to speak? you think it would make them wait? i think it is much too vague a term to satisfy the requirements of the first amendment for a public university. >> tucker: noam chomsky is not waiting eight weeks to attack israel on the campus of berkeley. is there any precedent for a suit like yours? >> i have never heard of a precedent for the 8-week rule, so there is no precedent for my suit. i think it is a very strong suit. i think berkeley will realize it is a strong suit. i think in the end they will allow me to speak. if they don't, they have to
comply with the rule of law, including the first amendment. >> tucker: you are a brave man. alan dershowitz, thank you very much for joining us tonight. speak up thank you. >> tucker: bizarre new revelations tonight in the case of that alleged nsa leak current reality winner. among other things, she headed fox news so much, she filed a formal complaint. formal complaint.
formal complaint. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
>> tucker: judge roy moore won the alabama senate primary earlier this week, and he won it easily, beating incumbent luther strange by almost 10 points. now, moore won despite unrelentingly unrelenting press coverage, been removed twice by judicial discipline panels. people in that state's richest zip codes consider him a phone who may be dangerous. luther strange and his allies, by contrast, had almost universal support from leaders in the state and across the country, many of whom he considers friends. luther strange is a decent person, nobody denies that, by some calculations, he outspent ray moore by 7-1. most significant of all, luther strange of the enthusiastic endorsement of donald trump, who remains immensely popular in the state of alabama, and yet he lost anyway. it was remarkable. what are the lessons here, exactly. first, it is getting harder to call the trump phenomenon a cult
of personality. that may come as news to the press corps, and indeed, to the president himself, both of whom assume it is all about trump's personal appeal. it turns out that is not really true. if it were true, luther strange would be a senator right now, and the latest health care bill would be allowed. trump supported both of those. his voters did not. it is now pretty clear the trump movement is not primarily about donald trump. the president is powerful and powerful when his taking on the establishment of both parties, but he is diminished when he is aligned with them. the message is bigger than the man. so what is the message. well, the same as it always was. our elites have failed. that message resonates because it is true. for decades, the country has watched as the leaders of both parties sell them out, putting the d.c. lobbyist some foreign countries ahead of the concerns of americans. they are arranged by this, not surprisingly, and they will consider backing almost anybody
who fights back against it. that is why donald trump and bernie sanders and roy moore all did far better than predicted. when you look closely, the three don't seem to have much in common at all, but take a few steps back. their messages are essentially the same. the people in charge don't care about you. try something else. it is all pretty obvious when you think about it, though for some reason, virtually nobody in washington ever since to figure it out. they are shocked and appalled every time it happens. they wonder, what is wrong with voters. they never seem to consider what is wrong with themselves. well, do you remember reality winner? the nsa employee arrested earlier this year for leaking classified secrets. according to newly-filed court documents, her behavior was not just all but bizarre. fox's peter doocy has been on the street all day and joins us with details. what is this? >> tucker, the final straw for this and nsa translator named
reality winner that made her stove classified material into her panty hose and head for the door with it, the nsa had intel on a nsa database that a classified reporting about russian interference that the public had not been briefed on, and she thought that they should know because she figured that sources and methods had already been compromised anyway. shortly after sneaking the material, in her panty hose, past guards at the nsa's outpost at fort gordon military reservation in georgia and mailing it to the to a news ou, they showed up with her front door, and that is when she said part of her problem with the nsa was fox news on tv. page 58 of the fbi interview transcript, she says this. "i guess it has been hard at work because, and i have filed formal complaints about them having fox news on, you know? just, at least, for god sake, put al jazeera on, or a slideshow with people's pets. i've tried everything to get that changed." reality winner also left clues
on facebook and in chats with her sister. and this one, "i only say i hit america at three times a day. i'm no radical. mostly about american's obsession with air conditioning." and her sister said, "you don't really actually hate america, right? ?" >> i mean, yeah, i do. it's literally the worst thing to happen on the planet. we invented capitalism and the downfall of the environment." they interviewed her at her house and they say, anything else classified on your desk back at the nsa we need to know about? and she said, well, i have a picture of anderson cooper that is signed, but the autograph is not real. and they say, but no classified information? and she said, oh, no. >> tucker: [laughs] picture of anderson cooper. peter, that was fantastic. i'm really glad you came tonight. up next, facebook, one of the most powerful companies in the
>> tucker: cnn's chris cuomo is an awfully busy man. some days he is doing what he can to worsen america's racial divide. doing a pretty good job of that. others, he is warning regular americans it is illegal to read leaked emails and bears singular clinton. even with a packed schedule, he still takes time to post videos like this on facebook, and were glad he does. >> first, the good news. rose is back. show yay! rose just got married. we're very happy. back to the serious stuff. keeping this up here, the hashtag, please use it, why? that is what this stands for.
it applies to everything. look at puerto rico. there are problems there with the recovery. not the storm, obvious by now, you ought to know that. the coverage has been completed. you should see it, you should understand it, you should connect to it. why aren't they getting more help to the places that needed faster? you have to push for accountability. we know there is some intention there. we know the president was there. this also applies to the health care message. that's not optimism, unit truth, you need accuracy. lastly, on taxes, you need details, because what came out helps they have as, not the have-nots. have a great day. >> tucker: what exactly is chris cuomo talking about? what office is he running for? do chris cuomo and the rest of us exist in the true reality or in a simulated cartoonist universe? where in the world that this
come from, and in a world where chris cuomo has a tv show, what has meaning? what is virtue? does god exist? these are questions that arise when watching these videos. we will try to find answers later in the week. 15 years ago, facebook didn't even exist. today, it is one of the world's most powerful companies, the biggest news company in history. as a result, it is important to ask what facebook is doing with all of the information that they gather and with all of the power they wield. can they be trusted? a book was written about this, but big tech companies, "search and destroy, you can't trust google incorporated." you are one of the few who thought deeply about this, and the core question about this about facebook is, can we trust mark zuckerberg and his staff not to censored news? >> what you need to look at is, facebook is a series of conflicts. it is a hot mess of conflict. first of all, it is an unaccountable monopoly that is in the influence business.
it is an autocracy that is pretending to be a democracy. you then have this black box technology that tells everyone else has to be completely transparent. then you have a media company who actually will live broadcast murder, torture, and rape with no editorial on it at all. and every a self-appointed regulator of free speech that claims to be neutral. then you have a self-appointed political organizations are and a power broker with a mission that is very political saying, oh, i'm not political, you can trust me. now, it's okay. whatever their politics are. but when you try and say you're not political, their new mission, which mark zuckerberg gave us just in june, gave people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. now, anybody that has a sense about politics knows the word "power" -- politics is built on
it. >> tucker: of course it is. facebook clearly has a political agenda. they are clearly hostile to certain worldviews. and it seems like they have a history of squelching certain parts of the news in order to please foreign governments. >> and that is a problem. when you are an autocracy, technological autocracy, about half of the countries or more are autocracies. they have just bits that run them. and when you have a company that is 2 billion users, and they are the most valuable company in the world, their value comes on how many users they have and how much they are used. and so if a country, and autocratic company says, hey, you do this, they complied. meanwhile, they are saying, we are neutral, not political. >> tucker: but they engage in censorship on behalf of authoritarian governments. >> yes, because that is the deal they have made. they know they are valuable because of how many people use them. >> tucker: they suck up to dictators in order to make
money, but we have to trust them? the largest news organization in history not to influence us with propaganda. why would we trust him to do that? >> like anything, you need to take anything with a grain of salt. the reason you should address them here is, on fake news and fake ads, you know, you say, how could that happen? well, they are the most profitable ads because somebody designed them to be viral, meaning they were like click bait or just something that people can't resist. and that is algorithmically detectable. when you see someone who is doing viral stuff and it is of a certain type, an algorithm can figure it out because it is a pattern. what is really a problem here is that they are like an arms merchant in a war where they make the most money when people are politically divided, and they make less if people are passionate aren't
♪ spoon despite our claims, there is a test on the show. time now for "final exam." we find out whether people who work in the news actually read and retain it. we have a clash of foreign policy experts. marie harf, a former spokesperson for the obama state department, she will foxing facing off with fox news correspondent rich eidson. holy smokes. here are the rules. i can feel it coming off in
waves. >> i have been studying all week for this examination and i am prepared. >> tucker: actually got money with the cameramen on this. i'm not going to win. put your hands on the buzzers, i'm going to ask the questions. the first one to press down on the buzzer will get to answer it. we'll go to the tape to show whether you are right or not. each correct answer is worth a point. each incorrect answer detracts a point from your total. there are five questions. the person with the most wins. all right? you ready? here we go. question one. nfl players are not the only ones taking a knee this week. on the floor of the house of representatives, this texas congresswoman dropped to her knee in protest of the president. who was it? >> jackson lee? >> tucker: let's go to the tape. >> i kneel in honor of them. i kneel in honor of the first amendment. i kneel because the flag is a symbol of freedom. i kneel because i am going to stand against racism.
>> watching c-span all day. >> nothing else to watch. >> tucker: that was the sum total of her legislative achievement in this congress, by the way. the price point goes to you, mr. edson. >> do i control the board? >> tucker: right here, senator bob corker of tennessee announced he will not seek reelection next year. reports have emerged that super bowl-winning quarterback -- [buzzer] >> payton manning. >> payton manning! >> i hit it first! >> one name already floating around to replace him, nfl player peyton manning. >> ♪ peyton manning, senator ♪ >> tucker: you seemed to hit it first, but your light went off, and you guessed peyton manning as well. we're going to order each a point. i'm going to override the charges on this. >> we are good. >> tucker: perfect.
we need to fix those lights, clearly. third question, with its transgender document leaker was just turned away at the canadian border because of a criminal record. [buzzer] marie harf? >> chelsea manning. spring chelsea manning. >> canada welcomes refugees with open arms but is leaving chelsea manning at the door. saying the government denied her entry because it considers her crimes to be treason. >> tucker: holy smokes. now we have 2-2, with only three questions answered, we have a total of focal points on the board. it is a weird mathematical alchemy. next question, which supreme court justice is blaming hillary clinton's loss on sexis sexism? >> ruth bader ginsburg. >> tucker: ruth bader ginsburg says rich edson. to the tape. >> you think sexism played a role in that campaign? do i think so? i have no doubt that it did. [cheers and applause] there's so many things that might've been decisive, but that
was a major, major factor. >> tucker: you're correct, ruth bader ginsburg. >> yes. >> tucker: noticed 2-3. with the final question, i'm going to ask i complete the question before the bus in. here we go. multiple choice. women in saudi arabia now have the right to drive. men can begin driving at the age of 18. how old do saudi women have to be before getting a license? here are the choices? 15? 20 years old? 30 years old? [whistling] >> 20. >> tucker: 28 says the former state farm and spokeswoman. to the tape! >> this new decree does have restriction. women will have to be at least 30 years old to get a driver's license. they will only build the drug within city limits and only during certain hours. >> tucker: in the saudi arabia of your dreams can women drive
at 20, but in the real saudi arabia, they have to wait ten more years. >> i'm devastated. >> tucker: so are they! that was very impressive to you both. >> i'm never going to live that down. >> tucker: richardson, thank you, you win. but you get a strong consolation prize, marie harf. >> there are no second places! >> tucker: there are on the show. >> tucker: another "final exam" is coming your way next thursday. talking to sean hannity next. he's got the show after ours. stay tuned [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette and her new mobile wedding business. at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and-ta-dah-paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com.
words from a doctor: stage 2 breast cancer. i have three little kids, my baby's seven years old - i can't have cancer. we really wanted a cancer team, that would care about not only my cancer but you know, how is my husband doing through all of this? and what about your three kids? so we thought that we would travel to cancer treatment centers of america and see what they had to offer. i think the hope for us came in the form of knowing that these doctors were experts, and that they would help us decide the best course of action in the hopes of beating it. so when amy came to us, the first thing we did was discuss her case with the surgical oncologist, the radiation oncologist, the genetic counselor
and came up with a treatment plan. the plan for her was to begin with preoperative chemotherapy, thereafter proceeded with surgery. one of things that we loved about ctca was that they give you a series of options. and you do what's best for you. depending upon what decision she makes with her surgical oncologist, we then know what to offer as the plastic surgeon and reconstruction team. dr. fernandez was wonderful. he said it's up to me to do what's best. it's about giving her options where amy has all the information to make a decision best for her. rather than one treatment fitting all, it is a personalized approach to cancer therapy. we have so many tools. this is what attracted amy to our center all the way from new york. cancer is what they deal with everyday. these were people who are experts in their field. and for us that was the best choice. we left the hospital on day one feeling like, this is going to be okay. we're going to beat this and this
is the place that's gonna help us do it. that feeling is priceless. learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier
sean hannity's at 9:00 pm. rush limbaugh. sean, you're killing it. >>thank you, and great show. and that's a long list. appreciate it. welcome to hannity. we are live in florida where earlier today i did sit down with rush limbaugh in his radio studio. that interview coming up in just a few minutes. also, newt gingrich will be with us tonight. our opening monologue will focus on two points brought up by rush. trump's agenda, the nfl. we ever going to cover all that in tonight's florida live very important opening monologue. so today we travel down to florida to talk with the leading conservative voice in the country the one and only rush limbaugh. first, we ask