tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News November 7, 2019 7:00pm-8:00pm PST
psychotic media mob, we will always seek the truth. something the mob won't do. the good news is, let not your hearts be troubled, laura ingraham is up next, 362 days. i hope we shocked the world again, that would be pretty cool. >> laura: i can tell you, it seems like it was just yesterday when you and i were on the air the night before the election last time around, can you believe that was three years ago? >> sean: can i give you credi credit? there were a lot of people, you were there, newt gingrich were there, i was there, there were a few people that started hedging their bets and not showing up anymore, they didn't want to take a risk and go out on a limb like we do every day. just saying. fill in the gaps. >> laura: that was fun, another great show, thank you so much -- great to see you. i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle" from washington tonight. why is the media lying about
laws surrounding the whistle-blowers suppose a deserved anonymity? alan dershowitz is here and moments to set them all straight. could senate majority leader mitch mcconnell single-handedly blow up the 2020 democratic primary? fox's own ed henry is here with some very interesting intel and also tonight, a special edition -- we don't do this often but it's thursday follies. don jr. triggers the ladies of the view and if you missed it, we were screaming. it raymond arroyo is here with the details and a lot more. tucker carlson, a very unusual drop by by him on what seems to be nothing but collusion among the big three television networks, what is that all about? but first, impeachment by emotion, that is the focus of tonight's angle. adam schiff is a lousy
congressman but he would be an even worse magician. he's forever trying but failing to pull off a slight of hand thinking the audience is too stupid to see him hide the card up his sleeve. this impeachment farce, we are supposed to believe that president trump knowing that the dozen people were listening in on his ukraine call was nevertheless improperly using diplomatic channels to plot against joe biden. it's positively ludicrous, the fact that some of the deep state department folks felt it was unseemly or felt uncomfortable, it's totally irrelevant. you do not impeach a president because of other people's emotions, especially when those offended didn't like the president's policies in the first place. as we see in the released transcripts of testimony from both former ambassador marie
jovanovich and bill taylor, these folks aren't happy unless their foreign country of focus is a wash in taxpayer money. they are both adamant that ukraine get lethal military aid regardless of whether or not it cleaned up its abysmal track record on fighting corruption. taylor saw his policy as an improvement on obama, he was happy that we were providing aid to, a substantial improvement, and this administration provided javelin antitank weapons. still, trump is far more skeptical of foreign aid than any of the people who listened in on his call. frankly most of the people shouldn't be working in the white house let alone in a high-level position such as ambassador. marie yovanovitch testimony illustrates why, the democrats interviewing her were only interested in the drama
surrounding her firing. >> the transcript of her closed-door testimony has the words "seal," felt" and "emotion" 43 times. it sounds like this woman needs to be on a therapist's couch, not a witness stand. george kennan's testimony was also supposed to be a huge bombshell. >> george kent will testify publicly on wednesday, he was told how extensive the influence was on the president. >> his testimony i think the most compelling and may be most. >> laura: bill kristol is always right, that was the spin. here is what he actually told the impeachment inquisitors. do you have any first-hand knowledge of the united states aid to ukraine ever being connected to the opening of a new investigation? he said i do not have direct
knowledge, no. the bombshell turned out to be a dud. finally there's a man who replaced yovanovitch, acting diplomat bill taylor. >> bill taylor is the witness we are told the white house fears. because he tells a very clear story of what he saw as a shakedown, un-american shakedown of ukraine to get an investigation of the bidens. >> laura: swing and a miss. his closed-door testimony contained this inconvenient fact, congressman ratcliff says based on your knowledge no one in the ukrainian government became aware of a hold on military aid until august 29th. ambassador taylor responded that's my understanding. that means ukraine had no idea there was a hold on military aid
until over a month after trump's call with their president. how was that a quid pro quo? it's a quid pro no. last night i mentioned this stunning admission, his testimony was based not on first, second, third but on fourth hand information. ♪ i heard it for friend who ♪ who heard it from a friend ♪ heard it from another you are messing around ♪ >> laura: any time you have a chance to put reo speed wagon into an angle you got to take it. if the stock market hit another record high in the economy is still the envy of the world. rather than waste your own time on a sham impeachment, it's been exposed today in our day out. the president i think would serve the country in his own
reelection campaign best buy simply building on its record of success, let the fools do with the fools are going to do, other people can fight the impeachment stuff. he and his domestic policy team should be rolling out initiative after initiative that advances the america first agenda that has been so successful. the president has to remember that many if not all, many of the career civil servants just don't share his worldview -- that's okay. but some inside government, may be inside the white house are actively working to subvert the president's policy. all three of the witnesses set to testify publicly next week are people in trump's administration hired, brought on. two of them still work for the president. in the business world, ideology may not matter but this is politics and when you least expect it, the alligators
lurking in the swamp will bite and snap. that's the angle. here to respond, alan dershowitz, harvard law professor emeritus and author of the new book "guilt by accusation." and the guy lewis, former u.s. attorney. moments ago we learned house intel dems have subpoenaed mick mulvaney to appear in -- get this, this is hard to believe -- 11 hours from now. on the hill, are we supposed to be taking this process seriously with the way this is rolling o out? >> it's a great concern to all civil libertarians. but we are seeing is the invention of crimes that don't exist. what we read about now is suddenly it's a new crime to publish the name of a whistle-blower. i spent this afternoon searching
the statute books, i simply couldn't find that crime. i search the statute books, i couldn't find the crime of collusion, i search the books, i couldn't find the crime of obstruction of congress, it's dangerous for political opponents to invent new crimes without having to pass by the legislature. to be up in arms by anybody who wants to invent new crimes and apply them retroactively, the constitution prohibits ex post facto laws and we see people trampling all over the constitution, it's a dangerous situation. >> laura: it's a very important to talk about how they are trying to twist arms of people in the highest levels of the trump administration but to his point, here's what the legal experts -- the people who know
better are saying about outing the whistle-blower, watch. >> that's breaking the law commits bowling, it's dangerous, releasing the identity is against the law and dangerous. >> what they are asking for violates the law. it might even become another article of impeachment. >> laura: leon panetta, another person who knows better -- set the record state for the whole country not to understand, is it illegal to keep the whistle-blower's identity secret from elected officials or the public? >> this is not a close call, it's truly not. there is a statute that does prohibit retaliation, for you to take action against someone who is a whistle-blower but i've got to tell you, i 100% agree with professor dershowitz, i have
serious questions as a prosecutor for a long time about whether this person is qualified -- is a whistle-blower from the get-go. i don't buy it, i don't see it. >> even if he is, the whole idea that my student jeffrey toobin and others get on television without checking the statute books. these are guys who would flunk out of law school if they got into my class and they said "it's a crime to do x" and i say where in the statute does it say that and they say it sounds wrong so let's make it a crime. in 1815, the united states supreme court abolished common-law crimes and said as a matter of constitutional law, you have to have a statute pass in advance with full notice and full knowledge. you can't just make it up as you
go along. if the aclu should be up in arms come every civil libertarian, every democrat should be up in arms. >> laura: this is scary, we can laugh at it but it's not funny. these are real people's lives, real statutes and real people who should know better. there's another issue tonight and that is the lawyer for the so-called whistle-blower just sent the white house a cease and desist letter writing "i'm writing out of deep concern that your client is engaging in rhetoric and activity that places my client and their family -- i will ignore the grammatical error in physical danger." has the president put the whistle-blower in physical danger or is this mark zade's posturing after we found out all the tweets he sent out saying how the president needs to be taken down. >> it's clearly the latter. i think even more to professor dershowitz points, what really scares me here is to think
about how this entire debacle got started on an anonymous complaint who we know now had contact with adam schiff and his office. those of the people who ought to be asked questions. when i first went back and looked at the complaint, it is so clear to me that a lawyer wrote this complaint beginning to end and if it's marc's aid, if it is this guy who wrote the letter to the president today, this is the same lawyer who two years ago january 2017 says -- these are his words, not mine. a coup has started. impeachment will follow immediately. july, a few months later. i predict cnn will play a key role in donald trump not finishing out his term, same month in july, we'll get rid of
him and his supporters, his words. the coup will occur in many steps. that to me is collusion. >> laura: one quick thing -- >> he's certainly right about cnn, to make sure they can bring down the president, they banned me, they won't allow me to appear on their shows because they don't like the fact that i'm a liberal democrat who believes in the constitution. they don't want their viewers to see another point of view. >> laura: zucker has stated his goal, his goal is to do impeachment and we obviously know the subtext of all of this comments to try to drive trump from office. quickly on this issue of defying subpoenas, nadler said today that it's illegal to defy a congressional subpoena -- is that the full story there? >> of course not, if you have a reasonable ground for refusing to comply with the subpoena, privilege or something else,
then you require the congress to go to court and enforce it. if you defy a court order, that is very different but our system of checks and balances doesn't make congress the final arbiter of whether or not there is a privilege. i had a case many years ago where my client pleaded the fifth amendment and congress said the fifth amendment and lawyer-client privilege don't apply in front of congress, we took at the court and we prevailed. >> laura: thank you so much, fantastic analysis as always for both of you tonight. nbc news reporting intel officials are pressuring cia director gina haspel to protect the ukraine whistle-blower from the president, what are they so afraid of? and unnamed cia official saying "i think you would have to tell the president we cannot unveil this person, it would create a very bad feeling in the building that would not be good for national security or you
personally, mr. president mr. president "interesting choice of words, remember chuck schumer's warning before the president was sworn into office. they will find a way to get back at you. if joining now, mike baker, covert ops officer. why would a cia director defends someone whose political biases have been well documented, what message does that send? >> this a couple of things here. i don't think director gina haspel needs any self-righteous lectures from former cia officers, no matter how senior they might be. she doesn't need them trying to explain to her how to set her compass or to do the right thi thing. i find that really distasteful and off-putting, she's an outstanding director and as far as why would she protect a whistle-blower? if a whistle-blower comes
forward, using the intelligence communities whistle-blower protection act which is a mouthful -- you use the protections that are in place. if that person comes forward in good faith, in relation to matter what their politics are, frankly. i'm fully on board with that but what you've got to see if got some members, former members of the intel community who are coming out and making that case, not about the anonymity but they are talking about the protections in place to prevent reprisals. you do have others who are obviously partisan, i'm thinking of former director john brennan, maybe mike morel, they are coming at it from a different angle. >> laura: may be i'm just a neophyte here. it sounds like there's a lot of cia going on with these intel officials, they have a fiefdom
and i'm not trying to say -- i know a lot of former cia folks, phenomenal people, incredible public service and a lot of sacrifice for the country but there are others who don't much like anyone looking over their shoulder. >> that's very diplomatic. >> laura: they don't want it and trump comes in and he says i want to drain the situation and they say just try it. i've got to tell you, this smells really bad. >> that part of it is absolutely ridiculous. i would encourage any of my former colleagues to think twice before -- we are in strange times. it used to be you did your time at the agency, regardless of who you were, an analyst or an operations director, you did your time then you got out and you weren't heard from again for the most part. may be a former director which
is a political position would go on to do something else but you didn't have this situation that we are in right now. you could argue john brennan in the i'm not service at all but john brennan, mike morel are coming out, easily the most overtly politicized former officials that we have ever had. >> laura: all i can say is we are out of time, we can't have cia detail at the white house going back to their little cubbies and taking notes and act as they are the checks on the president, they are ridiculous. if that's a real problem. they are crawling all over the white house. we'll have you on back soon, sorry. could mitch mcconnell blow up the 2020 democratic primary? foxes ed henry has intel of his own. former new york city mayor michael bloomberg is jumping in
>> laura: for weeks i have been urging been urging senate majority leader mitch mcconnell to step up and take control of this impeachment inquiry narrative, he has an enormous amount of power because despite what house democrats might decide, the final call comes down to the republican-controlled senate, and impeachment trial is expected to last six weeks, requires all senators to be in attendance. that means the 2020 democratic presidential candidates would have to be in d.c. and ahead the iowa caucuses. >> when we have an impeachment trial, they have to gather in six days a week trapping all of
those democrat senators in washington, d.c., while mayor pete gets to run wild through the iowa countryside, he's going to have a campaign advantage. >> laura: join a big now as chief national correspondent ed henry for fox with some breaking news reporting on all of o'connell's tactics. >> good to see you, this has been a moving target in terms of the schedule. house democrats were saying they might move forward on articles of impeachment by thanksgiving. maybe they will get it done by christmas, what does that mean? it means mitch mcconnell would be setting up a trial at some point in mid-late january, maybe even into february and as you say, that starts touching into the iowa caucuses, new hampshire primary. it could go -- it had about six weeks -- all the way closer to super tuesday, pinning various 2020 democrats down in washington at the trial. what i'm hearing from some of the president's advisors is that the mitch mcconnell right
there at the white house with the president yesterday talking judicial nominations, he had multiple conversations with the president in private on how a senate trial may play out and i'm told that mcconnell told the president if he does two things he's going to survive this -- one, deal with senators one on one in the days ahead on policy grounds, forget about ukraine, talk to senator murkowski. lisa murkowski from alaska about the energy bill, make her important on these issues and stop talking about ukraine, focus on policy, she's a swing voter. somebody who could turn against the president. second i'm told mcconnell said do not attack individual senators, they're going to take this very seriously. the president i'm told in these private conversations but don't do it with the others, you've got to move beyond that because if you attack them they are only going to dig in. mcconnell told the president if you do those things you're
going to survive a trial and mcconnell is very confident that there would never be two-thirds of the senate to remove the president from office, that's the bottom line and i'm told that's what mcconnell has told the president. >> laura: quickly, a lot of folks are asking where his domestic policy shop at the white house? why are we not seeing movement on some of these great initiatives that have been held up coming from hhs and prescription drugs, a lot of interesting stuff from justice that stalled out in their domestic policy shop whether it's not reaching the president's desk -- i don't like what i'm hearing coming from that committed go to a lot initiatives. >> part of what i've been hearing from some of the president's advisors, so much oxygen has been sucked up by usmca -- nafta 2.0. that's at domestic priority as well and some of the other initiatives have been crowded out by that because they are still waiting for nancy pelosi to push that through the house. >> laura: thanks so much,
great reporting. breaking news tonight in the 2020 presidential race, former new york mayor michael bloomberg is reportedly preparing to answer the 2020 democratic primary. he is expected to fire mike file an alabama head of the deadline. a spokesman for bloomberg saying he believes donald trump represents an unprecedented threat to the nation, we now need to finish the job and ensure that he is defeated but he is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well-positioned to do that. what did i tell you? they are freaking out, the democrat party, the media is already salivating over a bloomberg-trump matchup. >> from trump's point of view, they would look at someone like michael bloomberg as a potential threat because of what he brings to the table on the business front. >> the bumper sticker for michael bloomberg is donald trump, but richer, more successful, and less offensive. if that's bloomberg argument. >> laura: joining me now is lisa boothe a republican
strategist and fox news contributor -- the media might be excited but former new orleans mayor mitch landrieu was just on over at cnn saying basically this is not good for the democrats, thoughts. >> there's plenty of time for people to get him him still and mike bloomberg was an excellent mayor of new york, he might be just what the doctor ordered, get people focus on issues that are going to matter. if we look at what happened in kentucky the other night, the guy who won focused on bread and butter issues and didn't want to shake up everything but keep what obama built and built on that. that seems to be what michael bloomberg's message is going to be, it seems to be with the middle-of-the-road wants in the democratic primary. >> laura: the democrats have been telling us for months and months, this is an incredible field. it's a wealth of talent.
they claim to have dreamed of having a better feel them out they have to be rescued by the billionaire from the bloomberg machine, what? >> michael bloomberg doesn't think so, we'll know if it's real if he files in new hampshire next friday which is the deadline but he has previously said he's willing to spend $100 million of his own money -- that's a lot of money to be going after some of these democrat primary opponents if he does enter the race. if you are joe biden, you have to be nervous, he's sitting on $8.9 million on cash at hand which is abysmal. it demonstrates a lack of enthusiasm. the vast majority of joe biden's donors have been these big dollar donors, it's not grassroots supporters, it's big dollar donors and guess what? 38% have already maxed out so if you want to go the distance in a competitive primary field, how's he going to do that when he doesn't have money? >> laura: chris, you are a
new yorker, you spend a lot of time in new york -- i've got to say, if you're a democrat and you have seen all of this play out, you've seen warren and pete buttigieg is the new thing and com kamala harris is the new thing and bloomberg throws a wet blanket on the whole field and says "none of you are going to be trump, so i've got to come in and be superman here" that is so insulting of the field. it's frankly shocking. >> that's politics, you're going to get insulted by your opponents, it's the way it is. i don't think anyone should be insulted. if you get insulted by people running against you, this is the wrong business to be in. if you look at the polls in iowa, undecided as morning in every poll that is taken. if i'm michael bloomberg, $100 million to michael bloomberg us like me throwing a 20 out -- i think he could roll the dice and get in
the race and see what happens. 29% of iowans are completely undecided and that is leading the field right now, why not? he's got the money and the time, he was a great mayor of this city, he's going to shake things up tennis player draw some more attention to this race, i think that's a good thing. >> laura: certainly compared to bill de blasio, bloomberg looks like ronald reagan. de blasio is a disaster. entering the race, it will hurt joe biden but it could benefit elizabeth moran but it also means that warren is going to hear more of this, watch. >> she's making it up. look, nobody thinks it's $20 trillion, it's between 30 and $40 trillion. >> the smarter approach is to build on what we have. >> you don't think that plan would ever get enacted? >> no i don't. >> laura: the democrats are
already ready to rip each other's heads off, what will this do? >> part of the challenge for elizabeth warren is he's not going to make the november 20th debate but maybe look toward december and if you are on the debate stage, bloomberg can directly go after elizabeth warren and some of her plans and her poll numbers took a little bit of a dip after the debate because the media has insulated her so much from attacks. she doesn't do well when she is under attack so bloomberg could potentially go after her on some of her policies and how crazy they are. one other thing about joe biden, people like to point to the national numbers about him but he is struggling in iowa, he is struggling in new hampshire, i told the fund-raising story earlier which is another sign about that lack of enthusiasm -- i don't think joe biden is a strong candidate by any stretch of the imagination and elizabeth warren has a lot of flaws but really have not been
challenged so far. >> laura: i can't wait to hear what the thought leader of the democratic party thinks about this development, anyone heard from aoc? >> i don't know that she said anything. >> laura: the anticapitalist forever. >> where is the squad to? >> you know what would be even more fun is if bloomberg is the nominee -- i would like to see how president trump who has worked is significantly less than bloomberg, how he calls him a socialist in the general election because he is not going to be able to do that to. >> laura: it will be a lot of fun to watch. celebrities coming back from the dead and the gals from the view flip out when don jr. comes to the table. it's thursday follies next. aw, stop. this is why voya helps reach today's goals... ...all while helping you to and through retirement.
for thursday follies. joining us now with all the details, raymond arroyo, fox news contributor. why won't hollywood left its stars rest in peace? >> it was announced this week that a new film set in the vietnam era will star james dean who died in 1955. the director claimed they couldn't find the right young actor and they secured the rights from his family for his likeness, they plan to resurrect him digitally. we warned you about this before, the "star wars" film rogue one brought back peter cushing, he's all cgi. another company is taking 3d images of buddy holly on the road but i don't like it because i think this whole thing deprives young performers, young actors of a chance to shine. agents and actors are justifiably up an in arms about
this about this. >> laura: where is the screen actors guild? where does shia labeouf go? >> you want him to be the next? there's only one case where i might make an argument for resurrecting. that would be the jimmy kimmel norman lear all in the family christmas special that was announced by abc this week, it would be great to see carol o'connor and jean stapleton back in the roles that make them famous. >> ♪ songs that made the hit parade ♪ ♪ guys like us we had it made ♪ those were the days >> laura: first of all -- >> that thing won all kinds of enemies.
that ridiculous show so they are doing it again. it's a nostalgia regurgitate of moment in our culture but i say get rob reiner and sally struthers, put them in the mom and pop the role of rj and edith, see how that plays. i'll take it over what we were -- >> laura: jawboning about trump? i have to get your reaction about the fireworks at the view today. don jr. went on and every one of the ladies went on the attack. >> if you could let me speak i would appreciate it. mr. trump. a lot of americans in politics miss character, you and your family have hurt a lot of people and put a lot of people through a lot of pain. does all of this make you feel good? >> i don't think any of that makes me feel good but i think we got into this because we want to do what's right for america. >> we need to cgi at barbara walters to come back and
restore order on this show. it has become so scripted, meghan mccain is a stuff to the paper, she's reading this. we have been on that set, you have been on the lion's a number of times -- they script out like sizing up play who says what. >> laura: remember being in the makeup room? joy was nice when she wasn't trashing me but they are political opponents. >> things really deteriorate later in the show when don jr. confronted your pal joe to mike joy behar. >> for talking about bringing the discourse down, joy, you have worn black face. >> she was not in black face >> thank you. i recognize blackface. >> despite the protestations, she did wear black face, this is from may of 2016.
>> it was a halloween party, i want is a beautiful african woman. >> did you have tanning lotion? >> i had makeup. >> we call that blackface. >> they don't care about this issue. ralph northam, they put this aside, they claim they care about stuff until liberals do it and then is not an issue anymo anymore. >> were laughing at him at that friars club. barbara walters saw this as a coffee klatch of girlfriends, it has devolved into a woman's cellblock with joy and wil wille goldberg as the angry -- >> laura: they all were funny. >> not anymore. this week in chicago, they brought in edison the reindeer to switch the station over to
christmas music. >> five, four, three, two, one. [cheers and applause] >> is it too early for christmas music? >> laura: you play christmas music in july. >> sinatra, dean martin -- i would like to broadcast it. you notice i am in my purple tie -- go tigers. >> laura: roll tide. if the big three networks have not only been killing stories in order to protect harvey weinstein and jeffrey epstein, they have been protecting each other. tucker carlson is here to expose the cartel, next.
>> laura: what's going on at the big three television networks? and just a matter of weeks, executives at abc, cbs, and nbc seem to have chosen to protect two rich and powerful deviance over the journalists that work for them. ronan farrow a former nbc reporter revealed in great detail how nbc killed his painstakingly reported story exposing harvey weinstein. not wanting to let the peacock network get away with all the fun, abc and cbs are now getting into the mix after abc anchor any rohot mike rant went viral,e network said they were going to investigate -- it's not how this story was dropped but who leaked the embarrassing video? the investigation led them to cvs for the since departed employee reportedly now works or
worked instead of protecting their employees, cbs acquiesced to abc's pressure and the fire to that person. if the network seems to be in competition over ratings and the stories, now they are just in competition to see who can engage in the most disgusting and hypocritical cover-up. the worst part? they are covering for each other. we are happy to be joined now by my friend tucker carlson, host of "tucker carlson tonight," how are you? >> i was reading the script as it was rolling it, it was making me so mad. they are acting as a cartel. >> laura: this is a cartel mexico style but in the united states. >> this is a 180-degree inversion of the basic charge of journalism. they are running interference for them, crushing anyone who gets in the way of harvey weinstein -- this raises very
serious questions about the involvement of foreign governments, about whether or not he actually killed himself, there seems to be something of an emerging bipartisan consensus that maybe he didn't -- this is a real story, this is not a frivolous celebrity story, it's a real story that touches on all kinds of powerful people and for them to suppress it actually makes you nervous -- it makes me nervous. there's something sinister about this. >> laura: what else are they in cahoots about, what else are they protecting in the cone of the established networks? >> they hunted down this woman who leaked the tape. i get it, when i worked at nbc, someone leaked a tape of me talking off the air and i didn't like it at all. i didn't admit to covering up any stories but i understand - - >> laura: it's the easiest story you can do. >> the only person who comes out okay is amy roebuck.
>> laura: james o'keefe, the guy who started the project veritas -- he came out and said i think it's extraordinary that cbs news would fire an employee that had access to tape from a rival company, abc. this person was not our insider -- stay tuned for more project veritas. he claimed -- >> they got the wrong person. they are not only sinister, they are incompetent. >> laura: it's not surprising to you and me, we'd seen this developing over some period of time where the networks aren't digging for information that we can all use and examine for ourselves, they are digging for a point of view and they are trying to outdo one another. >> when i was a kid and my dad worked in the media, the networks in the media were liberal and there were liberals working in a liberal business of telling liberal line.
that was annoying and i think it had a bad effect in the country -- that's not what's happening now. now you're seeing a ruthless suppression of anyone who challenges the ruling class. if now you see the media operating as a praetorian guard for finance -- you know you mean? standing up on the half of private equity chieftains and hurting anyone who asked questions. that's the point at which you think this is actually scary, this needs to be destroyed. i have always felt sad whenever a media business goes under because i so believe in the dash it's hold the powerful to account, we do it imperfectly but we do it. they are on the other side. i'm not saying they are liberals, they are not liberal at all, there's nothing liberal about this, it's fascist. they are on the side of the powerful making sure that nobody questions the powerful. at that point, i think they are
a threat to the country. >> laura: no story is it more obvious -- than two stories, the way they have covered this president and when you see when nbc got that access hollywood tape, they never explain how "the washington post" or why it suddenly ended up with "the washington post." they went with the story. >> the reporter who leaked it turned out to be a close friend of the head of the news division, noah oppenheim from harvard. i know what happened, he moved that tape and leaked it to "the washington post" to his friend and they fired billy bush it was a hapless bystander because he was in the way. one of the worst things i have ever seen happen, they never copped to it, never did an internal investigation, they covered it up. >> laura: this is where it becomes obvious, it's so critical in what you do every
night i would say this to tucker if i didn't work at fox can lead to such an important show, you tackle issues. a lot of people are afraid to touch, it's really important and i know no one's good to stop you from doing it but you must continue on the cultural and political front. >> thank you. >> laura: he has better lighting. i'm going to go there and he doesn't go there. great to see you as always, "the last bite when we g come back."
biko i am betting as much extra spicy popeye's fried chicken as a senator can eat. >> laura: raymond? >> popeyes if lsu loses. >> laura: alabama has to win. that's all the time we had tonight, shannon bream and the "fox news at night" team take it from here. >> shannon: the house democrat is issuing a subpoena for a white house acting nick chief of staff mick mulvaney. remarks about whether or not there was quid pro quo over ukrainian military aid to. democrats want mulvaney to show up just hours from now first thing friday morning. coming up now show down over the subpoena. adam schiff said when witnesses don't show up, he should assume two things. the president is up guilty of obstruction. we will debate those conclusions. and a multibillionaire who left the republican party expected to
Uploaded by TV Archive on