tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News January 3, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
[laughter] >> spread the faith. >> aren't you glad there are not 435 senators? >> bret: that is it for this special report. fair, balanced. here is tucker. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." 2016 marked a long and violent year and the likes of the city of chicago. 3550 shootings, 762 murders, an average of two killings every single day. it is getting worse. this year's death 12 marked a 57% increase over the year before. so, what is going on at chicago? to politicians and activists, too many guns. not enough restrictions on those guns. but wait. chicago already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, those laws have not gotten any looser. could it be that the last central assumption about gun control is wrong? joshua horwitz is the director
and director of coalition to stop on violence. thank you for coming on. if you look at the numbers, and i have, there doesn't seem to be any direct correlation between gun ownership and acts of violence. so, more americans own guns than they did 20 years ago. a lot more. there are far more guns per person and america than there were 20 years ago. the homicide rate has dropped dramatically. if gun control is the answer, how can that be right? >> we have to talk about some of the assumptions that you made. first of all, gun ownership across the board is not up. gun ownership concentrated, it is, as you mention, owning more and more guns. here is what is interesting. in the last couple years, you have seen some of the results of our guns everywhere policy, and a number of different states. we are seeing the murder rate, gun homicide rate go up. 14 to 15 and 15 to 16, the final numbers. we can imagine that gun violence is going up. i think we have to look at that
and say, what is going on in the united states, have we loosened gun laws too much, where are we with that. i think, as we have discussed, i really believe gun ownership, per se, has an effect on the suicide rate. i think on the homicide rate, you have a much more complex picture. >> tucker: but wait. i have been told since i was a child that the reason there are so many murders in places like detroit and chicago is because there are not enough gun laws, they are going across state lines to buy guns. if that is true, if more guns concentrated results in more killings, then, why do the states with the loosest gun laws have the lowest murder rates, which is true? >> that is not true. some states have loose gun laws that have low murder rates. there are some states, for instance, louisiana, arizona, -- >> south carolina. he >> very lax gun laws. >> tucker: the highest -- look, i am not arguing that there is a direct correlation
between this, i am merely arguing that gun control doesn't make you safer. that is pretty obvious based on the numbers. why are you still running a gun-control organization? >> just to give you an example. there is a really interesting study out. missouri gets rid of their gun violence prevents prevention laws, they have some conceal and carry restrictions. those are gone. under homicide rates, their gun homicide rate goes up 25%. the evidence is getting closer and closer. we really believe the evidence is showing that , in fact, a group of gun prevention laws , in fact, do lower the homicide rate. >> tucker: okay, so, chicago. 3500 shootings last year. 762 murders. what gun laws would have prevented that? >> so, illinois has okay gun laws. they don't have the best, they don't have the worst. but what they do have is most of -- 60% of their guns and end up in crime and up from other states. those other states, of course,
think about wisconsin, mississippi, indiana -- >> both ways. >> those guns are coming in from both states with we could gun laws. they are going across borders, they are ending up in crime in chicago. what we really need to do is to make sure that the evidence-based laws that we think work, background checks, et cetera, that we have those on a national basis. illinois -- >> tucker: hold on. i've heard this argument. new york city has seen a dramatic drop in gun crime, right? >> they have great gun laws. >> tucker: right south of vermont, the lachesis gun laws in america, you can get in a car and drive up there. why is at the same? >> first of all, new york -- first of all, the guns are coming from out of state. you have to go quite some distance to get a firearm. you can just go -- >> tucker: really? it seems like everyone i know has a weekend home in vermont. the step doesn't work and you know it doesn't work. >> the evidence shows that it
works. >> tucker: why isn't working in chicago? is the real reason is it the fault of indiana? >> let me ask you a question. what would we be better off in chicago with more firearms? >> want it depends. in the hands of whom? i would be better off with a firearm. it is impossible for me to get one in chicago because the laws are so -- there are no gun scores in chicago. i have to register. >> illinois does not have registration. >> tucker: the city of chicago does. you have to buy a license. >> illinois has a license. what you do, you get a license, it goes for ten years. >> tucker: i have to ask permission from the authorities? the only point is, i go into your web site, you say, one of the big point, of the 762 murders were with assault rifles? >> i don't know if that is for my web site. >> tucker: it is. i haven't written here. >> let me explain to you about assault weapons. they make killing more lethal. what we have in that situation,
assault weapons have more depth. shooting. they don't necessarily calls more shootings. when you use an assault weapons program, you end up with more people dead. >> tucker: chicago, 762 murders, how many were committed with assault weapons? what is the issue? >> i don't know. >> tucker: you run a goal kick click gun control group. we have one of the highest murder rates in the country, how many were committed with assault weapons? >> how many were bought without background checks? i want to figure out how do we prevent guns from being traffic. let me give you another example. we have a terribly weak federally antitrafficking laws right now. one of the biggest issues, i'm sure you agree with me, a bipartisan issue. if you are trafficking firearms, there should be a real penalty for it. there should be federal deterrence. we don't have that in this country. that is why a number of republicans -- >> tucker: you haven't sold
me. you haven't expand by a state like vermont or maine or idaho or wyoming, or texas, where i can buy ammunition at a gas station, have such low murder rates. >> i will tell you what. the crime rate is low. >> tucker: why are the crime -- there is no direct correlation. i realize this is a complex question. gun-control is held up by the left as something we could do, we don't have the will because of the evil right is stopping us. the truth is, there are more guns than people. you can pass every single law you wanted, do you think of the murder rate in chicago would drop? >> i absolutely do. this states that are supplying guns to chicago would be forced to do background checks, a trafficking law, -- >> tucker: criminals, many of these kinds come from theft, as you know, or they are sold between people who don't obey the law. so, these people are by definition, beyond the reach of the law. what leads you to believe that they will follow the laws? >> right now, you can transfer a
firearm, completely above abov, you can sell it on an internet site or whatever. without doing a background check. that person may be a criminal, may not be. here is the thing. we want to make sure that the law-abiding gun overs are not transferring into the criminal market. look, the law-abiding gun owners will do the right thing. but it is really the issue of how do we not transfer guns. >> tucker: what if the law-abiding gun owner wants to own a military style assault weapon? why can't he do that? second, what is a military style assault weapon? >> let me give it to definition. a center fire rifle. a detachable magazine. above 22 caliber. with a group below for stock, something on the front to hold it. those are the definitions. >> tucker: that is not so different than my 30f6, a a deer rifle. >> do you have a detachable magazine?
>> tucker: yeah. >> let me tell you why. >> tucker: who cares what the stock is like? to suggest that we don't know much about guns. >> i think maybe you haven't shot at. have you shot an ar-15? >> tucker: i own one. >> what is important about an ar-15? you can keep your muzzle on the target round after round after round. if you don't have to reload. it is meant to kill people. here is what i think we should do. if you own one, i think we treat them the same way we treat machine guns. the nra says all the time, machine guns don't cause that, i believe, a bill introduced by a representative from rhode island, we should treat them just like any other class three weapon and have the same -- >> tucker: the distinction or difference. let me ask you one final question. what round do you think is deadlier? but two to three that fires from the military style assault weapon or the 30 august 6, the 3030. >> i know it is more powerful. the 33rd has more power. but the 223 a higher
velocity. it is meant to be antipersonnel. you can put lots of it in the cartridge of the same time. the 223, i won't argue with you. rifle rounds are powerful, too. configuring the way eight a ast weapon, you create that much more lethal. >> tucker: heise to have you on. >> how to get back someday. >> tucker: nice to see you. president-elect trumpets planning to face off with reporters. he tweeted about it moments ago. peter doocy is live outside trump tower in new york city. >> tucker, the president has had many press ability where he answered a question or two on his way in or out of an event. he has not had a full-grown press conference january 11th. he just announced, he will be having a general news conference on january 11th in nyc. thank you. remember, last month, he had teased us with a press conference that was going to be time for him to stand there with his adult children and announce what he was going to do with his
business interests. this is a general press conference. we don't know exactly anything else about it, just from the two each. that is one week from now. it comes a few hours after we learned that 2017 starts with one american car company in the president-elect's good graces and one really not, because this morning, there was a shot on social media. donald trump's accounts at general motors was ending mexican made model of chevy cruze to u.s. car dealers tax free across borders making usa or pay big border taxes. jim realized they had a problem. they responded like this. general motors manufacturers of chevrolet cruze sedan and ohio. all of them sold in the u.s. are built and gm's assembly plant in ohio. they built the hatch back in mexico with a small number sold in the u.s. another american company, ford, is doing something with the president-elect called on them to do as a candidate.
that is stop building a factory in mexico and invest more money here in the states. ford's ceo says the automaker is no longer going to building a facility in mexico. instead, pumping $700 million into my chicken factory, saving 700 jobs. something for its president said was done with the next president's policies in mind mind. speak up when we look at some of the tax and regulatory reforms that he has been talking about, that gives us a lot of confidence. this is a vote of confidence that he can deliver on those things. >> all this action is happening before mr. trump has taken the oath of office. we learned today that two of his predecessors have rsvped for inauguration festivities, george w. bush and bill clinton and the person the democrats were hoping what have their hand on the bible that day, getting sworn in, hillary clinton. she will be there on the front steps of the capital, too. tucker. >> tucker: peter doocy live in midtown, manhattan come outside
trump tower. thank you. president obama imposed sanctions on russia recently in response to allegations that the russian president hacked the election, as they are putting it. not all republicans disagree with that, in fact, some said president obama didn't go far enough with those sanctions. that includes arkansas senator tom cotton from a member of the senate intelligence armed services committee. he joins us now from the rotunda and the u.s. capitol. thanks a lot for joining us. thank you for having me. >> tucker: happy new year to you. the president and post the sanctions and in part because he believed a lot of people in washington believed come , that vladimir putin weighed in in order to help president-elect trump get elected. yet, we are hearing now from people who would know, that that is not a certainty. here is the chairman of the house committee on intelligence saying, there is no proof that we have from intelligence sources i have seen that show the russians are directly trying to help trump. then, this morning, the former
cia director said, it is not at all clear that russia did this. if it did, and acted alone. my question is simple. do we know enough to act in this way? >> tucker, i don't think we know enough yet about exactly what happened with the hacking at oe dnc. the dissemination of those emails. now, i have called for a long time for us to take a firmer line with russia. so, while i think the president took some good, initial steps last week, it is not specifically about the hacking of the dnc. it's about russia's behavior for the last eight years. why did they think they can get away with doing something like hacking into the dnc? it is because president obama has consistently looked the other way on their aggression. remember, just months after russia invaded georgia in 2008, president obama took office and pressed the reset button with vladimir putin. in the middle of his election, he promised that at the end of his campaign, he would have more
flexibility. then, he laughed and mocked him in a debate. all of these things are reasons why vladimir putin thinks he can get away with acting contrary to the u.s. interest. he ought not to have hacked into the dnc. they ought to pay a price for that, a steeper price and may have. however, if you are to make a list of russia's crimes and transgressions about wow against the united states over the last eight years, that would be way e list. >> tucker: everything you said is totally defensible, i agree with all of it personally. yet, there is a bigger picture. so, russia is on our side fundamentally in the struggle that much of us recognize as the main one, against islamic extremism, we share a common interest. we see this and a lot of other countries, a lot of our allies by on us, in fact, i think they all do. israel, great britain, germany, they have all spied on us, we are still allied with them because we have common interest. we should be. why wouldn't russia fall into that category? >> all those other countries don't do things like beat our diplomats in moscow when they are walking in the front door of our embassy. they don't harass our diplomats
throughout russia and the middle east. they don't invade sovereign countries, like russia did in ukraine, like the date in georgia. they don't supply missiles to rebels that use those muscles to shoot civilians. they don't run a legal spy rings and other countries for decades that are then exposed. these are all examples of things that russia has done over the last eight years. in no small measure because barack obama has not just appeased russia, weekend russia, he is actively undermined efforts by people in congress like me to take a firmer line. >> tucker: i agree with all of that. there is no question that russia has a many decades long history of causing mischief around the world. i would say that a lot of our allies do run illegal spy rings in our country, as you know, we look the other way. it doesn't answer the bigger question, aren't we basically on the same side as the russians on the question of islamic terror? it doesn't mean ignoring or excusing their behavior, doesn't that outweigh that behavior? >> well, tucker, i wish it were
so. if you look at what russia has done in syria, they have taken the fight hardly at all to the islamic state. they fought almost entirely the syrian opposition that was fighting. they haven't been bombing the capital of the islamic state. they have been bombing aleppo, which is the main opposition, was the main opposition hold out until it failed to last month. it would be a good thing if russia would work with the rest of the civilized world to counteract the threat of islamic extremism because they have their own islamic extremists. they simply are not doing that in syria. they're not doing much about it around the world, either. >> tucker: one of the explanations for russia's behavior is the drop in oil prices which has made the country last stable, poorer, more. countries are not condition tend to act out, like the north koreans. won't sanctions exacerbate that? if russia becomes even poorer and more cornered car might want to more unproductive? >> the reason that vladimir putin has become more
aggressive over the last eight years is that he doesn't have a sense of boundaries from president obama. this goes back five years to his election as president for a third term after he stepped aside for four years and became prime minister. in the 2000, he enjoyed a an oil boom. over the last five years, and his third term, you had to whip up a nationalist frenzy in russia. but goes far back before the sanctions related to ukraine, before the sanctions that president obama imposed last week. what we need with vladimir putin is a new central boundaries. we need to impose new boundaries and costs when he crosses those boundaries. this is something at ronald reagan dead. ronald reagan made the moral case against totalitarian communism and in the soviet union. he did some fundamental things to change the strategic equation. like rebuilding the military, like deploying intermediate range missiles to europe. donald trump promises to do those exact same things. in fact, he promised them in the campaign, to rebuild our military, upgrade the arsenal, build muscle. hillary clinton was promising policy in the campaign that
would have emboldened russia and given them even more strategic advantage. >> tucker: trump is out there basically saying nice things about vladimir putin on twitter. as an avowed opponent of putin, someone who thinks that sanctions should be tougher, does that bother you? >> i think donald trump views russia and china and most other countries fundamentally from an american standpoint that we need to have a firmer line. we need to represent american interests. that is why he uses the phrase, america first. ultimately, you have to sit down and negotiate with your worst adversaries. those adversaries are often pretty bad actors. ronald reagan, after the build up and after drawing a firm line in his first administration, sat down, negotiated some pretty far-reaching treaties, and ultimately, that helped me to the collapse of the soviet union. i think is a part take a firm line with all of our ad adversaries. that doesn't mean that you can
negotiate from a position of strength, when you have gender and, overlapping interest, something you can bargain for. for eight years, barack obama has simply looked the other way, try to hold back people in the congress who want to impose boundaries on russia. he is given away edge. >> tucker: senator cottam, thank you a lot for joining us. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: now, time for "twitterstorm," our nightly forecast of social media's most powerful weather's terms. bill and hillary clinton will attend the new president's inauguration later this month. the news was met with mixed reaction on twitter. shocked into silence.
dear freshpet, zooka had digestive problems and wouldn't eat. then i fed him freshpet. [ cougshh. i have a cold with this annoying runny nose. better take something. dayquil liquid gels doesn't treat a runny nose. it doesn't? alka-seltzer plus cold and cough liquid gels fight your worst cold symptoms including your runny nose. oh, what a relief it is! on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't
will repeal and replace obamacare, and the public largely agrees that he ought to. many americans have found the affordable care act not so affordable after all. a lawyer and a former president of a hospital in miami, he thought a lot about why going to the doctor is so expensive. he has got a lot of ideas. recently, he sent the president-elect ascending ideas about what he can do about it. thanks a lot for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. great to be here. >> tucker: you have written that the normal critique of health care, no price transparency, not exactly right. your point is that there is no pricing at all, and the legitimate pricing at all. what many health care companies are doing is practicing fraud, as you say it. ask me how that works. >> that is exactly correct, tucker. there is actually no pricing in health care, as everybody watching the show knows, when you ask the price of any health care procedure, anything from a lab, a physician, or a hospital, you only get one answer. that is what insurance do you have prayed your neighbor may be paying ten times what you are paying or one-tenth of what you
are paying, depending on your insurance company, and whether or not are not they have insurance. there is no other business in the united states that i am aware of that you can get away with that kind of a business practice. if anybody walked into the grocery store and paid a dollar for a can of tuna fish and then told -- the neighbor walked in and pay ten dollars, they would say that there is something wrong. health care, according to the so-called experts, our industry experts, extremely complicated. so complicated that ordinary people apparently can't understand it. in reality, i think they have sold the country a bill of goods and that health care is no different than any other business. what is necessary is that there be a legitimate pricing. health care providers should be able to set whatever rate they want, but they have got to set the same place, the same hospital come has to charge everybody the same price. what that does, tucker, is a revolution in health care, a dramatic reduction and
health care prices. first of all, networks become completely obsolete. you should be able to go -- you don't need a network to get a fair price. you are able to go will the price of any procedure in united states and determine the. then, health insurance should become like real insurance, like ordinary insurance that we use, take for example, home owners insurance. when your house burns down -- well, any kind of insurance. i'm just using it as an example. home owners, when your house burns down, and you are shopping around and you want to find some bricks and some drywall and some paint and cement, nobody says what insurance do you have. you get to the best price you can find and you buy it. but right now, consumers in the united states are totally helpless. they can to shop. the so-called transparency ideas are not going to help. >> tucker: hold on, can i stop
you there. this wasn't supposed to be this way. i was there when the debate over health care happened and technology was suppose to save us from a lot of this, remember? republicans promised it, too. it will make it more efficient and transparent. that didn't happen. >> i will tell you what is so shocking about technology. throughout the last several decades, for example, the utilization of hospitals has dropped because of technology. now, you can get one of the morning for a gallbladder operation and you're out in the afternoon. used to be house delays for five to seven days. so, hospital utilization, right now from the occupancy rate in hospitals is about 60%. 40% of the beds are empty. any other industry, he would see a fail. you should be going, there ought to be a price line for hospital hospitals. price is completely irrelevant, not a factor. you get a new medical practitioner, physician, comes out of medical school, opening a new practice, wants to build a thriving practice. he is not going to go out and say, health care checkups 1995
to get some business. he can't do it. if an insurance company finds out he is charging $19.95, medicare may kick them out because he is charging less than medicare pays. >> tucker: [laughs is just so p. unfortunately, we are out of time. i have about a hundred more questions for you. our viewers, where can i find your petition online and read in more detail about your plan to fix this? speak of the petition is on change.org. it is called and predatory health care pricing. >> okay. we will put it on our facebook page after the show. thank you so much for coming on, steven weissman. >> thank you for the opportunit opportunity. >> tucker: one political analyst has a message to democrats and a warning tod president-elect trump. we will hear them both coming u up. (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace.
yeah they are. or try new creamy shrimp linguini, and new sweet bourbon-brown sugar grilled shrimp. flavors like these are big. and for just $15.99, they can't last. so hurry in. >> what he has awakened in my country is bigotry and distrust. >> the bigotry, the racism, the ignorance, the incitement of violence that he has been encouraging and people. >> the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamic phobic, you name it. >> there is one thing all the smart people agree on, it is
that donald trump won in november because america is a very bad place, filled with very bad people, racist, mouth readers, the entire cast of deliverance, basically. political scientist heard that explanation and decided to dig deeper. the result is a recent op-ed in "the new york times," the title of us has at all, "sorry, liberals, bigotry did not electron." he joins us now. great to see you. >> thanks for having become a tucker. >> tucker: my favorite was chelsea handler saying that trump was so sexist she needs to move to spain. [laughs] hilarious. anyway, you looked into this article of faith that trump got elected because america is retro created and bigoted and you found what? >> he didn't get elected for that. if you, for example, take the voters, about a fifth of voters, tens of millions, do not approve of donald trump or hillary clinton. but they went overwhelmingly for trump. why? he was a challenge to the status quo that hillary clinton embodied. it brings up larger issues,
right, we have seen this story before, right, the republicans would mark the white house, and the explanation that is given is that it is sexism, bigotry, the worst in republican voters. of course, that is the equivalent of, and business terms, of a company saying you are not buying our product, it has to be the consumer's fault. you don't see companies doing that. you don't see companies blaming the consumer. it is bad marketing and perhaps, clearly come , bad a strategy. >> tucker: new coke failed because americans haven't no pallets. [laughs] not a good answer. you make a good point in this piece about the current condition of the republican party, the obama years, the popular as he is as a person, have been demonstrating to his party. you point the finger at his abandoning his economic message early on, instead, focusing on health care. it's because that is critical. eight years ago yesterday, i wrote an essay for realclearpolitics, basically
undermining the height of how obama. he remade the electoral map. if you really looked at the data, his mandate, has majority support follow the stock market crash. the issue that gave him his mandate was the great recession. when did he start losing their way to support that he gained, the historic white support for any democratic since 1980? it was in the summer, as the health care debates began to it consume the agenda. what happened to those promises and whispers in may 2008 about a new new deal? it didn't happen. why did barack obama, then, by 2010, and his party, suffer historic congressional losses? it is because they didn't answer the issue that brought them there. of course, that is a shot across the bow, and a warning to donald trump, he has to heed the issues that gave him the white house. >> tucker: that's right. the estimate go to in his economic promises. it seems like an obvious and correct born, and a lot of smart people in the democratic people, yet, none of them prevailed upon hillary to come up with an
economic message. why? why wouldn't they do that? >> it's not the making of a modern democratic politics, appeal to enough norwegian bicycle is, and you will be the president of the united states. the demographics are on your side. the problem is, for all of the hype about political machinations and tv efforts and data on your iphone, that can find a voter, at the bar across the street, the fact is, if you don't have a good message, you don't have an inspiring candidate is, he won't inspire voters. that is fundamentally is what i explain, for example, why african-american turnout went down and the 2016 race. why, for example, the white working class on the opposite end of the spectrum effectively, in droves, left the party that long left them. he >> tucker: a yeah. i don't think there is any got
the overlong majority of norwegian bicycle lists. david paul kuhn, thank you. if it wasn't trump's races supports, it must have been the clinton campaign emails released by wikileaks. that is the explanation of the week. my colleague, sean hannity, interviewed julian a sound, the founder of wikileaks. that interview airs tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. here's what he told him about the effect of those weeks on the election. watch. >> did it change the outcome? who knows. it is absolutely impossible to tell. if it did, if it did, the accusation is that the true basements of hillary clinton as her campaign minister, john podesta, and the dmc, they are true statements. this would change the election. >> tucker: a lot of news, he went all the way to london to do it. you can see it tonight come a couple hours from now, 10:00 p.m.
"hannity," worth it. garry kasparov is here next. he says he knows what the real problem is in russia and the u.s. so, mr. harris, we have your fingerprints on the safe. a photo of you opening the safe. a post using the hashtag "#justrobbedthesafe" so, what are we supposed to think? switching to geico could save you a bunch of money on car insurance.
excellent point. case dismissed. geico. because saving fifteen percent or more on car insurance woo! because saving fifteen percent or more on car insurance is always a great answer. c'mohappy birthday! i survived a heart attack. i'm doing all i can to keep from having another one. and i'm taking brilinta. for people who've been hospitalized for a heart attack. i take brilinta with a baby aspirin. no more than one hundred milligrams as it affects how well it works. brilinta helps keep my platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. brilinta reduced the chance of another heart attack. or dying from one. it worked better than plavix. >>don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. tell your doctor about bleeding, new or unexpected shortness of breath, any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. >>talk to your doctor about brilinta.
>> tucker: the white house has imposed sanctions on the russians for allegedly meddling in our election. garry kasparov says the u.s. doesn't have a problem with russia, we have a problem with putin. kasparov is a man of parts, one of the greatest chess players, literally, the history of the game. the chairman of the human rights foundation, the author of a new book called "winter is coming" " a self-explanatory title. he joins us now. garry, great to see her. >> thanks for inviting me. >> tucker: i respect the work that you do, i think it is worthy, i understand why as a russian you are very upset about the autocracy of vladimir putin. my question is, as an american, why should i be as concerned? why should i see russia as a threat to the united states? >> you have to see russia as a
threat, putin's russia, because it harms america worldwide. eventually, you are experiencing some of putin's meddling here in the united states. hacking into american political systems, it sends a signal to your allies and for the like, that america is weak. we cannot protect it on its own. >> tucker: john podesta's email is not the same as our political system. >> tucker, we are talking about perception becoming reality. people worldwide in europe, asia, latin america, africa, they don't understand the difference, all they know is that vladimir putin's operation, somehow meddled in american elections. for many years, america, under barack obama, refrain from addressing these issues, this threat, and the retaliation was too little and too late.
>> tucker: so, the real cost is that in the eyes of people in gambia and burma and benares aires, we are weak? i am not making light of it. >> the problem is not gambia and bonus areas. the problem is france, germany, united kingdom, baltics, eastern europe, turkey. the price of america -- that america will pay to walk away will be huge. it is obama's foreign policy was a failure. senator caught in few minutes ago described all of these actions against u.s. interest had putin conducted and he deserved to be punished months earlier. the problem is, if you try to reward putin with a grand bargain deal, that's what we can america dramatically. if franco cannot abandon its values worldwide. >> tucker: we pursued our values pretty vigorously over the past 15 years, wound up in iraq and afghanistan, causing
untold harm and libya and didn't do much for the rest of the middle east. maybe we should acknowledge that rush is primarily a threat to europe, it always has been, perhaps, the european countries ought to be the frontline of the defense and not the united states. by said a crazy idea? >> are you saying that america should walk away from nato? >> tucker: nato has been around since 1949, why not reassess that? >> what are you saying now is the reassessment? that is what makes people in the baltics and eastern europe as a whole, and the scandinavian countries, freaking out. >> tucker: i get it. i would be worried, too. as the father of a 19-year-old son, can you explain to me why it is in my interest to send him potentially to go to fund the baltics? nothing against the baltics, isn't that the job -- >> in 1938, neville chamberlain
talked about protecting countries that they couldn't find on the mat. today, the geography is much better. america played its leading role since 1945. it's offended not only its own borders but also, the free world. today, i am hearing, from the new administration, it is a new era where america could walk away, ignoring strategic interests of the free world. >> tucker: i am just interested, we could debate this fore simple final question. where does this obligation of the united states has uniquely among the nations -- >> if you have no obligations. >> tucker: from god or where does that come from? >> it is from american exceptionalism. should i tell you again? america became the united states, america became great because it defended its values in the first place. if you want to abandon your global view, you need to abandon the global economy. most of americans are
multinational corporations. they benefit greatly. >> tucker: trying date must be but a fitting grade global trad. >> try to impose tariffs on china, then, wait for the next election actions when all the prices will go up. >> tucker: that is a separate debate. an interesting one. i hope you will come back to that. garry kasparov, an amazing guy, actually. great to see you, even if i disagree. thanks. those amazon echo devices are supposed to make your life easier. but do they? one family learned at a costly lesson from one. we will tell you what it was next. plus, we step into the friend its own, he is here. we will be right back. the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine.
>> tucker: here is something new. one texas family is paying a pretty high price for the ease of technology, thanks to amazon's alexa voice assist. a 6-year-old girl was asking alexa about cookies and a dollhouse come of course she was, through the families echoed out, a device of some kind. but a laxative mistook the chatter for an actual order and took the liberty of soft again hundred $70 dollhouse and 4 pounds of cookies. could be a glimpse of the future to come. pretty soon, she may not ask the permission, she will cut out the middleman entirely. i look forward to that. time now for "the friend zone." after an intense show, we like to bring on friend people, good people. our friends in the building on fox, the correspondent lee leading vendors. it is great to see her. >> nice to see you, tucker. i was thinking about this invitation, fox has sent me to war zones, washington, a war
zone by the other name, this is the first time i am nervous. i have never been to a "the friend zone" before. >> tucker: i have some tough questions for you, leland. you spent many years abroad in israel for us at fox. among the coolest things you did, i think, you interviewed a failed suicide bomber. >> what you think would be a contradiction. they do exist. this young woman had come back, there she is, she had failed in her suicide bomb because the bomb didn't go off. she then went back to gaza and a prisoner exchange. we got a hold of the video of her trying to blow herself up, we thought, wouldn't this be interesting to find someone who failed as a suicide bomber, perhaps she had changed her ways and celebrate even it and decided she was going to keep people from being suicide bombers. we want to interview her. she said just the opposite. she said, if i watch the video, it brings me back to when i found paradise or when i was going to find paradise. i want to do it again. that probably is not going to happen for her.
the israelis now know who she is, they won't let her back into israel. but then, she started talking about her dreams, which is to inspire more suicide bombers, number one. number two, she wanted to go and be a journalist inside of gaza. there's a lot of journalists inside of gaza, that might work. at the end of the conversation, she said to my interpreter, you should tell him, the next time he comes back to gaza, to let me know, i would like to get together. >> tucker: what do you mean get together? >> have a coca-cola. they don't have drinks there. at that moment, when i saw that interaction, if you watch her and look at her, she looks like any other normal young woman, you take off her scarf, she looks like any normal woman walking on the street. you thought, here are some but he wants to go kill as many people as you can come up here is the athens of evil, yet, she is like any other normal young woman and so many ways. it is struck back to what you learned about the holocaust, the banality of evil. i realized, gee, if this is the enemy that we now face, it is
going to be awfully difficult. >> tucker: do you think she was a relief that the bomb didn't go off? >> i asked her. she said, no. she said that she wished it had gone off. i showed her the video, i don't know if you haven't come up where she pulled the trigger. she was watching it, we were watching it, i said, what were you thinking right then? she said, that is when i began to taste paradise. they had brainwashed her to believe that. she still believed it. >> tucker: it really is a death hope. i interviewed a lot of people come i've never interviewed a field of suicide bomber. that is fascinating. >> tucker: leal and fedor has been around. great to see you. coming up, ready to take your criticism. you send a lot of savagely cruel tweets to sean. we will read the meanest coming up. nce with my doctor about what i was experiencing. he said humira is for people like me who have tried other medications
but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. in clinical studies, the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. if you're still just managing your symptoms, talk with your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
as if he doesn't already. [laughs] why, thank you who will come a busted are righ. tomorrow, your turn to baking for a day, if you had absolute power and you could do one thing to improve this country, what would it be? we always get interesting ones on this one. tweet us, @tuckercarlson. email email@example.com . that is it for us. tune in every night at seven for the show if that is a sworn enemy of line come out pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. don't forget to dvr it if you
haven't already. "the o'reilly factor" is next, and then, the "hannity" interview is live at 10:00 with julianna assange. ♪ >> bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on tonight. ♪ that was ricky martin performing at the 2001 inauguration of president bush the younger. but this year, many performers are afraid to attend the trump inauguration. we will tell you exactly what is going on. >> and the phrase make america great again, there is one word, if you are a person of color, you sort of a stumble over, it is the word "again." >> bill: new year, same old story. the far left branding donald trump and his supporters racist. will this ever stop? >> what was the biggest mistake you made in 2016? >> following other