terms or give up their jobs. she explained quote employees must have the capacity to act collectively in order to match their ployer's clout in setting terms of employment. she urged the court to consider the stream imbalance of power in our nation's work spaces and avoid further undermining coming do you recognize justice ginsberg's point, there is extreme between large corporation and individual workers? >> hon. amy coney barrett: senator harris, i will give you the same answer with respect to the sentence from chief roberts opinion in shelby county. i will not engage in critiquing or embracing portions of opinions, especially opinions
recently decided and are contentious from the court. >> senator harris: and you have been on the bench a short time, i will point out that i do believe and commentators have noted a pattern you have of ruling against worker necessary favor of corporations. for example, in buloca, you ruled against workers. you ruled against delivery drivers seeking overtime pay, forces that court into private arbitration. in harris, the yrc worldwide, you ruled against four black truck drivers who allege their employer assigned them less desirable routes when compared to colleagues and department of transportation, you ruled against a black worker who was called a racial slur by his supervisor and you go on, according to an independent analysis, it appears you have
sided with business interest over workers and consumers in about 85% of your business-related cases. moving on. climate change, as many have mentioned is a threat and effects are all around us. in california, we've had five of the six largest wildfires in the state's history. 31 people have been killed by wildfires in california since august, alone, including two firefighters and a helicopter pilot. across the state, over 9000 homes and structured have been burned and california citizens have been forced to breathe dangerous smoke, all this during a pandemic, which attacks the respiratory system. rather than work to combat climate change, the trump administration rolled back environmental protection and removed the term "climate change" from government agency website, including the epa. in 2007, massachusetts versus
epa, supreme court decided by 5-4 ruling states could sue the epa for failure to combat climate change during the bush administration. justice ginsberg was the crucial vote in that case. following that ruling, the epa found that climate change and impacts are a danger to the public health and welfare. justice barrett, yesterday you said "you have read things about climate change, but you would not say you had firm views on it," and in response to senator blumenthal today, you said "you are not competent on what causes global warning and you "don't think your views are climate change are relevant to the work you do as a judge. i certainly believe your views are relevant and i'm very concerned about your statements, since the massachusetts v epa
case scientific consensus has grown even more and stronger that climate change is real and it is caused by manmade greenhouse gas pollution and poses significant threats to human life. it is a case that comes before you would require you to consider scientific evidence, will you defer the scientists and those with expertise in the relevant issues before rendering a judgment? >> hon. amy coney barrett: if a case involving environmental regulation, i will certainly apply all applicable law deferring when the law requires me to and as i'm sure you know, senator harris, administrationive procedure case refers to agency regulation when supported by substantial evidence. so yes, i would apply that law and defer when the law requires me to defer. >> senator harris: and do you accept that covid-19 is
infectious? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i think yes, i accept covid-19 is infectious, something i feel like you could take judicial notice of, obvious fact. >> senator harris: do you accept smoking causes cancer? >> hon. amy coney barrett: not sure where you are going with this -- >> senator harris: the question is what it is, you can consider if you please, as you know. >> hon. amy coney barrett: yes, every package of cigarettes warns smoking causes cancer. >> senator harris: do you believe climate change is happening and threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink? >> hon. amy coney barrett: senator, again, i was wondering where we were going with that. the questions are uncontroversial, whether covid-19 is infectious, wheth whether -- smoking causes cancer. then this is a very contentious matter of public debate and i will not do that, i will not
express view on matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial, inconsistent with the judicial rule, as i explained. >> senator harris: thank you, you made your point you believe it is debatable point. mr. chairman, these proceedings lack legitimacy in the eyes of the people of our country. americans are suffering from a deadly pandemic and suffering historic and economic crisis. the senate should be working day and night to provide economic relief to families and not rushing a supreme court confirmation. we are in the middle of an election, more than 12 million americans have voted. the american people want whomever wins this election to fill this seat. my republican colleagues know that, i believe. this hearing has done nothing to alleviate the concerns raised about why this nominee was chosen and why this is being rushed when the american people
deserve to be heard. so again, i would say, let us not pretend we don't know what consequences rushing the confirmation will have for the american people, there are countless issues at stake and to be candid, people are very scared. they are scared that allowing president trump to jam this confirmation through would roll back rights to generations scared about what it means to future voting rights, what it means for civil rights, worker rights, for consumer rights, for climate change and the right to safe and legal abortion, not to mention access to healthcare regardless of income or pre-existing condition. they are also deeply concerned about what this means for our nation's continued pursuit of the principle equal justice under law and i share those concerns. my senate republican colleagues are doing, i believe, great harm
with illegitimate process and if they are successful, it has potential to do great damage. i believe that damage is to the people of our country and to the united states supreme court. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator kennedy. >> senator: thank you, mr. chairman. judge, let's try to answer some of senator harris' accusations. are you a racist? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i am not a racist, senator kennedy. >> senator harris: you're sure? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i'm positive. >> senator harris: -- /* /-
>> senator: do you support corporations over working people? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i do not, i think if you look at my record, you will see cases i decided for plaintiffs, not corporations. >> senator: are you against clean air, bright water and environmental justice? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i am not against any of those things, those are policies that the congress has pursued in many statutes and i think we all reap the benefits of when those statutes work. >> senator: do you support -- >> hon. amy coney barrett: i do and i help my children with their homework when they are trying to learn it. i believe in science and i support it. >> senator: do you support children and prosperity? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i support children, seven of my own, and support others, obviously think children of our future and yes, i support
prosperity. >> senator: do you hate lgs warm puppies? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i do not hate little warm puppies? >> senator: okay, i wanted to get that clear. we did that in about two minutes. >> hon. amy coney barrett: i think my daughter jul, i do not hate chinchillas, we have a fluffy chinchilla, i don't hate chinchillas, either. >> senator: senator harris is my friend, i get it, she's running for vice president. i want -- senator harris has implied that some states are pristine and others aren't in terms of discriminating on terms of gender, race or ethnicity.
we disagree. she thinks america is systemically racist. i don't. i think our histories the best evidence of that. i don't think we're a racist country. i think we're a ra a country /* /* -- a country that has some racist in it. i'm very proud of the fact that our country has gone from in 150 years, which in the grand scheme of life, death and the resurrection is the blink of an eye. we've gone from institutionalized slavery to an african american president. we've passed -- i'll miss some of the dates, civil rights laws and i think 1869, 1871, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1990, 1991, i'm
pretty proud of that. let me get back to my point. my good friend, senator harris, and she is my friend, i have enormous amount of respect for kamala. she suggested that some states are wicked and other states are pristine and i would gently remind her that california, a state i love, i love visiting california. you got to keep moving because they will tax you if you stand still, but i love california. but california has a deep history of discrimination against asian americans. california has a deep history of discrimination against hispanics. and i'm not saying this is true,
but there have been serious allegations made against senator harris, that as attorney general of the wonderful state of california, that she participated in racial disparities and prosecution. let me jump subjects again. we've talked about precedent and star decisis and why it is important. we need to have stability. people need to be able to rely on the law. >> hon. amy coney barrett: uh-huh. >> senator: but you're not suggesting that the united states supreme court never has, nor should it ever reverse precedent if they think they got it wrong, are you? >> hon. amy coney barrett: no,
the supreme court has acknowledged circumstances in which it must be able to reverse precedent. >> senator: and you mentioned reliance interests, how many americans have relied on a particular decision by united states supreme court as a factor in deciding whether to overturn that precedent? >> hon. amy coney barrett: yes. >> senator: not dispositive, are they? >> hon. amy coney barrett: they are not, in brown versus the board of education, clearly the south had an entire system of segregated schooling, relied on ferguson. reliance was not dispositive. >> senator: a lot of reliance interests. >> hon. amy coney barrett: they were, brown, not diz dispositive, look at all the factors.
>> senator: okay, yesterday another friend, senator booker, road scholar, hell of a tight end, too, stan ford. he asked you if you emphasize -- sympathize with people struggling for healthcare. you appropriately said yes, we all do. under our maddisonian system of separation of powers and checks and balances, which branch is supposed to address the struggle that many americans have to afford healthcare, congress or the united states supreme court? >> hon. amy coney barrett: ko congress, senator kennedy. >> senator: let's talk just a second about state constitutions. i know you know this, but we forget sometimes that state constitutions preceded our federal constitution, am i
right? >> hon. amy coney barrett: uh-huh. >> senator: parts of federal constitution were copied from state constitution. >> hon. amy coney barrett: uh-huh. >> senator: having said that, there are a lot of provisions of december, for example, we know we have a fourth amendment on the federal constitution, many states have their own version of the fourth amendment. >> hon. amy coney barrett: yes. >> senator: what happens when a state supreme court construes its fourth amendment differently than the united states supreme court construes the federal fourth amendment? >> hon. amy coney barrett: so the state is free to construe its fourth amendment differently, as a matter of state law. but of course, the federal constitution also applies to the state supremacy clause. a state is not free to violate the fourth amendment. but one thing states often do,
which i'm sure you know because of your interest in state constitution and we talked about louisiana constitution yesterday. many states interpret their version of the fourth amendment or other provision to be more protective of rights than the united states constitution. >> senator: so the federal constitution sets a floor? >> hon. amy coney barrett: but not a ceiling. >> senator: so if louisiana wants to construe its fourth amendment as not having any exceptions to the warrant requirement, we could do that? >> hon. amy coney barrett: states are free, they are free to fashion their policies as they want within limits of the constitution, so the federal fourth amendment would not themselves prohibit louisiana from doing that. >> senator: why does that make sense to you? >> hon. amy coney barrett: well, that is federalism, my friend on
the sixth circuit has written 51 imperfect solutions and his point, we have laboratories are democracy, as they are called, the states and federalism, different states have different preferences, electorates can make different decisions. so if some states want to have greater protections and many do, we allow those differences to flourish within the limits of the common denominator that we have, the united states constitution. >> senator: uh-huh, that is just respect of the states. >> hon. amy coney barrett: that is. >> senator: the federal constitution has a state action requirement, am i right? >> hon. amy coney barrett: it does. >> senator: would a state be free to not have a state action requirement? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i am not aware of any principle that would prevent a state from statute or constitutional
provision. states can be the master of their own constitutions. >> senator: what do i mean state action? >> hon. amy coney barrett: state action requirement, only constitutional provision i think in our constitution that applies directly to individuals is the 13th amendment, prohibits slavery. 14th amendment, the context in which the state action requirement has been explored in supreme court case law in civil rights cases means that the equal protection guarantee or even all the bill of rights incorporated through it, like the first amendment, only apply to the government. so when i'm teaching this to my law students, i tell them, i can tell my kids at the dinner table, first amendment doesn't apply here. what about my freedom of speech you don't have any, in my house, it is the law. the first amendment
government-run institutions, but not private institutions. >> senator: there was a case, maybe overruled, california supreme court, based on constitutional history, has ruled that the first amendment in the california constitution, or first amendment verse has no state action requirement. >> hon. amy coney barrett: hmm. >> senator: it doesn't protect you from government, it protects you against everybody. >> hon. amy coney barrett: hmm, didn't know that. >> senator: interesting litigation. i read somewhere that you are an admirer of kate shopan? >> hon. amy coney barrett: yeah. >> senator: tell us who she was and why you admire her. >> hon. amy coney barrett: well, when i was in college back in my english major days. >> senator: a louisiana -- >> hon. amy coney barrett: that is right, she wrote a book,
focused on louisiana and a woman who comes to louisiana from -- now i can't remember what part of the south she was from. talked about her -- becoming accustomed to newe orleans and the particular culture. i very much appreciated that, as a new orlean,i thought it was insightful look into the history of new orleans and my great, great grandparents came to new orleans from france and its histories important to me. >> senator: miss showpan had feminist point of view, did she not? >> hon. amy coney barrett: she did, for the awakening. >> senator: before her time. >> hon. amy coney barrett: uh-huh, uh-huh.
she did. >> senator: two more. tell me what the legal authority is if you know, for a universal injunction? we have about 6000 federal judges, federal district court judges, i could be off by a few. they have limited jurisdiction and limited venue, if you will. they hear cases in a certain geographical area. how can one federal district court judge in a limited venue and presidential executive order for the entire united states, continental and otherwise? >> hon. amy coney barrett: that is a disputed issue of law that is in litigation and the court,
it's been on the court's docket, the authority of district courts issue nationwide injunction, that would take me down the path of opining on case that objection wind up in litigation in front of me. >> senator: okay. i got one last question. >> hon. amy coney barrett: hope it's an easy one. >> senator: it is. sincere question, i'm genuinely curious. who does the laundry in your house? >> hon. amy coney barrett: we increasingly have been trying to get our children to take responsibility for their own, those efforts are not always successful, so we run a lot of loads of laundry. >> senator: you're very impressive, judge. >> hon. amy coney barrett: thank you, senator. >> senator: yield back, chairman. >> senator blackburn. >> you have been watching the second day of questioning of amy
coney barrett, nominee president trump put forward to be next associate justice of the united states supreme court. we are going to continue monitoring that hearing, we will bring you more. we want to give you taste of what "the five" is thinking. kennedy, jesse a greg /* and grg gutfeld is here. senator amy klobuchar. if we could do, i felt like pretty aggressive. this is fine and i think judge barrett, handled it well. thought number three and get greg's thoughts overall and on this particular sound. >> did you have then a general understanding that one of the president's campaign promises was to repeal the affordable care act when you were nominated? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i, as i said before, i'm aware the president opposes the affordable care act. >> were you aware when you were
nominated? >> hon. amy coney barrett: senator klobuchar, i think the republicans have made that clear to the public discourse. >> senator: is the answer yes now? >> hon. amy coney barrett: all these questions, you are suggesting i haanymous or cut a deal with the president, that isn't what happened. >> greg, thoughts? >> greg: what i don't like in general, you learn about a person in how they wield their power when they have it. if they have authority to treat you like crap and they do, they are a terrible person. but if you have the authority to hammer somebody, but you do it with some kind of grace, that is different. it seems to me watching klobuchar and kamala harris, they just come off smaller and come off petty, they are like mean girls, jealous because this person happens to be smarter and
more successful than they are. that is the impression i get when i watch this. i think so far, my impression is this is one tough cookie and i am assuming, like this to her is like a day off. she's got seven kids and like, you know what, i think for fun, i will stick around the senate hearing and let these bozos bother me. she is not above the law, but she is above the fray, when it comes to watching. she is so relaxed. i didn't like the fact when asked about puppies, answer the question, it is about puppies not chinchillas. i think she's got the perfect you guys are so silly face, when she's looking while people are talking, you can see it on her face. that is pretty impressive, she's playing chess and they are playing kurmrplunk. i feel like i'm in line at tsa,
watching the theater of tsa agents searching forever for a little, on a little old lady on a wheelchair. you know she's getting through, she's going to get through, they have to do this performative karaoke, and everybody in line has to sit and watch it. that is what this is, she is going to get in, she's doing a great job, they will not get her on anything, yet they have to do it. having said that, i've been wrong about people not wanting to watch this, ratings have been insane, i thought nobody would be interesting. >> she's compelling and people want to watch it. thought number six, jesse, senator dick durbin is pressing whether the president has right to delay an election. >> senator: does the constitution give the president of the united states the authority, listen closely to what she asked you, to unilaterally delay general election under any circumstances. you didn't want to give off the
cuff answer, but approach matters with an open mind. >> hon. amy coney barrett: i've given that response to every hypothetical asked in the hearing and i said yesterday, i do that regardless whether it is easy or hard, i don't do that whether the question would be easy or hard, that to signal it, it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment and i don't think i've answered any legal hypotheticals in keeping with the justice ginsberg rule. >> just steady, a steady hitter. >> greg: should have pulled the ginsberg rule, when asked about puppies. i don't want to comment about puppies. i hate to agree, but i have to, he made an excellent point, last 30 years now, nominees come up and they are not going to say anything about past cases, not going to say anything about future litigation and that is what the liberal justices have done, what all the justices have done. so to watch these senators don't
have sharp of intellect try to pin this woman down, who is brilliant on these cases, it is almost like sport watching her deflect some of the senators the way they have. some of the senators, we talked about who yesterday, we don't want to name names again, you can tell the people who have lost their fastballs and you can tell dick durbin, blumenthal or senator coons, she will sail through. according to latest monmouth poll, largest portion of the country now morality want her confirmed. if asked about obamacare, do we have the jenga sound byte? that was a great line by her, someone that plays jenga with my daughters, this is a perfect answer for how she would handle obamacare. if we don't have it, the mandate may be able to come out, it doesn't mean the entire jenga
castle falls down. that is kind of a conservative judicial philosophy, judicial restraint. you let the legislators legislate and you don't overreach. i think a lot of people felt good about that, i think both sides of the aisle, right now it looks like obamacare is such a disaster, they will have to go back and test it. it raised premiums and insurance companies are getting paid hundreds of millions in subsidies and it is ironic some senators ran for president in the primary promises to eradicate fwaum ba -- obamacare. they want for all. begging amy klobuchar to keep it there, it doesn't make sense. >> she will get on the floor, and the democrats want this issue of seveability not to be
included. the democrats want you to believe the whole thing is going to fall and -- but -- >> kurplunk. >> after the election, if she says the opposite, that is what they are going to want. they want one thing for politics, rather have opposite in reality. >> right. >> kamala harris, former -- not former, the senator, now running for vice president, she's in the building, but she didn't come to the hearing room, she was protesting kennedy, the way the hearing was being conducted in terms of covid protocol. how do you think she did in questioning today? >> kennedy: i don't think she's come off well against amy coney barrett. she has the prosecutorial background and as attorney general, should be able to use more tools at her disposal and do a better job of appealing to the base and independent voters
and people who might have issue with the timing of this nomination and i think she's come off like she has during lower points during the debate and to jesse's point, she was one of those people using the aca stick, you can see right through, you know what each one of the senators are doing, with the salacious anecdotal evidence, she not only signed on as a co-sponsor for medicare for all, she also proposed her own socialized healthcare system when running for president, as we talked about, one of the great undoings of her campaign and she talked about completely demolishing private health insurance. so, you know, here she is appealing to save the aca, as those acb will be the one to bring a sledge hammer to the law single-handedly, but at the same time, she could do the same sort of prosecutorial job of taking
apart her arguments and twisting her words around in way judge barrett would have to answer and i don't think she's done that effectively. >> anything that has not come up you wish had? something she hasn't answered that would have been useful for americans to hear? >> well, i'm repeating myself, jesse picked up on this, i think it is both democrats and republican nominees basically don't answer questions. the democrats in this iteration have tried to say, wait a second, hold on, there are people who have answered questions and today in specific, what you saw, they said, listen, in the griswold case, has to do with contraception, chief justice roberts said that case was properly decided. >> uh-huh. >> for people who don't know, that case has lots to do with private rights that extend into issues like roe v wade. she said, i can't answer that.
what you get is senators like blumenthal and coon, wait a second, other justices did respond this case was properly decided. she couldn't do it, i thought that was disappointing. wish she would say of course. the only cases she said were properly decided go back to right of marbury, to interpret the constitution and brown v education with regard to school segregation -- that expands. to me, the big point here is look, we're playing a game in which we know that if you look at justice thomas, justice sk scalia, justice alito, every time obama type of legislation came before them, they said no, like red team, blue team. and republicans are rushing this through because they know she'll
be a fourth vote. when we think about something like the affordable care act, we know that in fact, president trump has said he wants it undone. he's offered no replacement and he happenings she is going to be another vote to absolutely undo the affordable care act. >> can we play sound, greg, this is her talking about the affordable care act and her position. >> hon. amy coney barrett: i have certainly no agenda, i'm not on a mission, i'm not hostile to the aca at all. and if i were on the court and if a case involving the aca came before me, i would approach it with an open mind, just like i do every case and go through the process that we've just discussed. >> i don't know if you can ask for more than that. >> i reject the idea just because you don't like something you are hostile to it. we are accepting the rhetoric of the left, we've introduced this monstrosity of a social program and all supposed to say, it is
here for life. no, we know there are problems with it, that doesn't make us hostile, it makes us human beings with brains. the bigger problem i have with this process, liberal left-wing women using things like this and abortion to portray this successful female to patriarchy, dressing up like the hand maid's tale, she is super religious, subserve iant to men. and hirono accuses her, asks her if she ever committed sexual assault. >> something hirono asks every single nominee. >> greg: i get it, i understand. if you are making the case that men persecute women and in the interest of equality to ask that woman the interest of equality is absurd, absolutely absurd. you have her family sitting there, i don't know if they were
there at that time. to ask that question in the interest of "equality" is a farce. irony of her being, saying she's subservient to men, being treated worse by men than women. >> i don't think anybody brings up the fact she is a woman with all these kids. we have women on the court who have families. saying subservient -- >> have you seen the stuff on twitter from feminist, directed toward her saying she cannot be a good mother if she's working full time. >> i think from all indications she's a great mother, i don't think it is relevant confirming someone to a lifetime position on the court. this woman says no one is above the law, kennedy. if you're the member of the democratic member of the committee, you say, what approximate president trump pardoning himself? i can't speak to that, it has
not been litigated. you said no one is above the law, including the president in our democracy, yet she plays a game in which she says i can't speak to that. frustrating. >> one additional piece of sound. this is thought number two, i do think a young woman, any girls watching here tonight, here is her talking about herself, how she sees herself. take a listen. >> hon. amy coney barrett: i hope that you aren't suggesting i don't have my own mind or i couldn't think independently or would decide, let me see what justice scalia said in the past, i assure you, i have my own mind. but everything that he said is not necessarily what i would agree with or what i would do if i were justice barrett. that was justice scalia, i share his philosophy, i've never said that i would always reach the same outcome as he did. >> jesse, last word?
>> jesse: insummitisulting for say, you must agree with scalia, like she is not an independent thinker, a woman, she handled it brilliant brilliantly. she's being put her because trump won the election, she is not there to knock down -- that is what the democrats are afraid of because this was mentioned, they analyzed how she ruled in fourth amendment issues. legal search and seizure. she came down equally on the side of the defendant, on the side of the government. she didn't try to broaden the scope of the fourth amendment or narrow it, that is what originalists do, interpret the law as written. that should give everybody a strong feeling about how she'll rule going forward. >> all right. good talk, everybody. coming up, facebook and twitter are blocking people from sharing a new report claiming joe biden
met with top executive at ukrainian gas company, his son hunter worked at. (driver) i don't know what happened. (burke) nothing happened. (driver) nothing happened? (burke) nothing happened. (driver) sure looks like something happened. (burke) well, you've been with farmers for three years with zero auto claims. (driver) yeah? (burke) so you earned your policy perk: accident forgiveness. now instead of this being something, it' s- (driver) it's nothing! (burke) get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. they should really turn this ride off. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ (burke vo) start with a quote at 1-800-farmers joe biden was raised with middle class values. joe doesn't need to be the center of attention. or see himself on tv. he has always focused on getting the job done. joe led us out of the 2008 recession, and increased health coverage for millions. as president, joe will focus
on getting us out of our crises. he'll listen to experts, work across the aisle. and put the american people first. ff pac is responsible for the content of this ad. omnipod delivers insulin through a discreet waterproof pod... to help simplify life. no more daily injections. it's game-changing. take your insulin anywhere with a small tubeless pod. and the wireless controller helps deliver the right amount of insulin. get started with a free 30-day omnipod dash trial today. go to omnipod.com for risk information, instructions for use and free trial terms and conditions. consult your healthcare provider before starting on omnipod. simplify diabetes. simplify life. omnipod.
>> dana: welcome back. e-mails regarding hunter biden. facebook and twitter are blocking stories detailing the messages being investigated. senators will look into e-mails that show hunter biden introduced his father to a top executive at ukrainian gas company burisma. the incident happened in 2015, less than a year before vice president biden pressured ukraine officials to fire investigator investigating the company. spokesman hitting back saying
joe biden engaged in no wrongdoing, adding, "we reviewed joe biden's schedule from the time and no meeting alleged by the "new york post," ever took place." jesse, that is because it wasn't in his official calendar, but did every meeting and formal otherwise between a politician and various emissary, do those wind up on the calendar? >> jesse: if i was the vice president, i wouldn't put meet with my son's ukrainian associate, i wouldn't put that in there. his central defense was, i didn't know what my son was doing. that is not true. his son was selling access to his father. wasn't a registered lobbyist. people have been prosecuted for that around trump's world. the most corrupt company in ukraine was paying the biden family and biden was helping the most
corrupt company in ukraine avoid prosecution. biden says, listen, this was u.s. policy. so, yeah, it was u.s. policy to protect the most corrupt company in ukraine because this company was handing out massive no-bid natural gas contracts to well connected european and american interests. they were bribing politicians and putting all of these people on their board like a patronage mill. he was a pro-russian olygarch. i don't know if it is legal, it is swampy and trump zeroed in and got impeached for it. facebook doesn't want you to share the story. again, it is a rigged system and in my opinion, this is helping the president. he is being cornered by powerful interests, whether big tech, whether it is the media, whether it is big pharma, he looks like he's fighting for the little guy. everyone in the world comes down against this president.
and again, i think it helps him. >> dana: fighting now because of -- let's talk about this juan, there are aspects that are problematic and need to be asked. how did this laptop end up in this shop? how did steve bannon and rudy giuliani get ahold of it? supposedly the store owner gave it to the f.b.i. you were making faces during jesse's silliloquy, where do you take issue >> i am very sensitive to what gets reported and how the press jumps on stories maybe before they are ready, you know. in this case, i just think, you know what, it is just so important that i think we all understand very clearly that one, no meeting ever took place,
not only according to joe biden's schedule, but according to joe biden. no meeting. okay. number two, seems this story has all the hallmarks, kennedy of disinformation, political hit job put forth. >> kennedy: october surprise, if you will? >> greg: similar to the dossier, right, juan? >> similar to what we saw in hollywood access picture. >> kennedy: so you are saying this is fake news? >> not as if i know this, to pick up on your point. it is strange that rudy giuliani or rudy giuliani's lawyer is in touch with a guy in a computer store in wilmington, who gets him the computer. it just seems to me like, you know what, it is just beyond belief, it seems a little bit like somebody is out to smear somebody. even if all that was said from what we know was true, joe biden
did nothing wrong. this is like another nothing like the unmasking story that was supposed to, we were all waiting for the october surprise. bill barr said there is nothing to the story. >> kennedy: greg, joe biden denied knowing anything about his son's business dealings. and is there any part of this that will make purchase with voters? any part of the story that will harm joe biden, if it does turn out that he did meet with one of those burisma executives? >> greg: when joe biden says he denies knowing this, people can believe that. the actions of facebook and twitter. i agree with juan, parts of the story is strained belief, that never stopped twitter or facebook in dozens of stories about the dossier or the collusion or jesse smolett, and
videos we were told this and turned out that. let's not forget covington. they paid for it. facebook and twitter are exercising judgment because they are skeptical of this, that reveals a specific bias and i think trump should perhaps take a close look at that and there might be something there people can agree upon, i won't say what it is, i think that hunter -- i don't like it when people go into people's stuff, for reasons i won't get into. >> we'll agree. >> greg: we'll agree. hunter is making it hard for liber libertans. he is typical brat of powerful offspring person who thinks he can get away with everything. >> he is jeff sucoli, he has
ultimate set of tools to fix it. back to twitter and facebook, are they running interference or is this the responsible duty of the big social media? >> they are trying to fight the last war with new policies that haven't been tested in the middle of an election with highly explosive story that might not check out. facebook is saying, this will go through a third-party fact checker and we will suppress it. twitter said, not going to do it at all. if you believe that there is a faction of the republican party that wants to go out to tech companies, basically gave them their wheaties. >> greg: their wheaties, nice. >> on the cover like a gymnast. >> "one more thing" is up next.
...not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm reaching for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? i'm on board. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily- -and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. ask your doctor about eliquis. and if your ability to afford... ...your medication has changed, we want to help.
>> dana: it's time for one more thing. >> greg: i'm going to plug a live show at butler, pennsylvania, sunday october 25th. get tickets, it's going to be a lot of fun. now let's look at this. ♪ animals are great ♪ animals are great you look at this, you can understand how good this feels, nothing better than a good scratch. that's jeff, he's a bull in new zealand and he likes to get his head scratched every now and then. you guys don't like jeff the bull, what is your problem? >> dana: i thought there would be a little more action. >> greg: you're disgusting, i don't know what you mean by action. we should have a talk with hr.
>> juan: life is full of surprises and that's especially true when a doorbell rings in the middle of the night. take a look at this monday night footage from a doorbell camera in california. >> it's bob wilson. you've won the nobel prize. >> juan: that really happened. stanford professor robert wilson rang paul's a doorbell at 2:00 a.m. to tell him he won the nobel prize of economics. they live across the street from each other, the prestigious award comes with a $1 million cash prize and a gold medal, you won't be surprised to learn that his phone was unplugged because he was getting too many campaign phone calls with the election just days away. congratulations to them and by
the way, the usa is winning a lot of nobel prizes. >> dana: as is the pac-12! >> emily: this utah man got a little more than he bargained for, he thought he was going on a normal hike but things got more intense, watch this. >> go away! no! [bleep] you, dude! >> dana: he was on a 2-mile run near provo and he crossed paths with some wild kittens and he started filming them, the mama was not happy. he realized they were mountain lion cubs and a moment later the protective mother emerged and she was not having it. he got a big rock, he threw it towards her, she ran away come everyone's fine but that is crazy. >> juan: i heard it was 6 minutes.
>> dana: yet, 6 minutes! >> jesse: speaking of foliage -- don't do that. it's leaf season, greg knows -- what do you do with the pile of leaves after you rake them up? don't do this. >> emily: i can't believe you're doing this story. >> dana: my goodness! >> jesse: you don't want to let them on fire like that. >> juan: are you having a boy child? >> we all have been waiting for the ups man during the lockdown especially kids who were home from school, you get to know that person pretty well. check out this ups driver in boston who got a big surprise from a family he visits day. [shouting]
>> oh, my god! >> kennedy: the entire family dressed up in ups garb so they can show their appreciation to their favorite driver, they are down with brown. >> dana: that's it for us, special report is up next. bu>> bret: good evening and welcome to washington, i'm bret baier. they are serious questions for joe biden this evening following the publication of emails allegedly belonging to his son hunter that contradict or seem to the nominee's insistence that two never discussed business dealings with ukraine. there are concerns about the authenticity about how this hard drive makes it to the fbi, but as we look into that, two social media giants are hitting pause on the potential bible story until fact-checkers way in and that's creating its own uproar. we'll begin with a confirmation's hea