tv On the Record With Greta Van Susteren FOX News January 29, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PST
lawrence for doing his job? let us know, you can sign the competition on our web site. hope you have a great night. this is a fox news alert. a u.s. official confirming to fox news one of the taliban five has been intercepted making phone calls to the taliban. you will remember the taliban five are the gitmo detainees who were traded and, yes, released in exchange for sergeant bo bergdahl. and for more on this breaking news fox news chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge joins us. what in the world is going on? >> this the second time that fox has been able to confirm that the taliban five are members of that group have really declared their public intention to reengage with their networks in afghanistan. shortly after they were transferred or released to it qatar, we were able to confirm that they had two visitors from the hack canny
network. it's a terrorist organization that works closely, sort of hand in glove with the taliban. now tonight we have had confirmation from an administration official and a military official that one of the five has tried to have direct phone contact with the taliban. so, it's not a mystery that they are trying to reengage. >> here's my thought. this is just my guess. we caught them doing it once. and we confront the administration and they admit it. i mean, how can would he be confident this isn't going on often? >> you can't be be. >> they have that whole transfer of money that's secret. how do we know they are not having secret communications. these are just the ones we hear about. >> what we learn from this episode, which is sort of the positive is that we are running a lot of traps on their electronic communication. you raise a good point which is that you don't know what kind of sort of side or i will call old fashion communication is going on. >> that's the way they used to do it? >> correct. absolutely. >> even bin laden stuff using cell phones and satellite phones. they all know better than to do that. >> we are on all of their coms in qatar.
that's not a mystery. what's interesting to me is that it is only a one year detention in qatar. that ends in may. so they are clearly laying the path work to reengage. >> use the word detention. i usually think of detention meaning someone is in jail or even house arrest. they are not in jail right? qatar? >> they are not under house arrest. >> they are not under house arrest? >> correct. >> by detention it means supposedly. >> can't leave qatar. >> supposedly. it's an a open border right? >> we have had confirmation that they're all still within qatar. one of the lessons of tonight is that you don't have to leave that country dry to reengage. now we have seen it twice with this group. >> of course you can leave and come back, right? >> you could but we don't have any evidence. >> no, i'm not saying. we have zero evidence of that. i was just asking if that was possible. zero evidence of that anyway catherine, thank you. >> you are welcome. >> if that news isn't stunning and terrifying, try this one. yes, it happened again for the second day in a row the white house digging its heels and refuses to call the taliban terrorists. yesterday deputy press secretary eric schultz got the administration into the
mess and today just when it looked like his boss might dig him out well, you have to hear this one to believe it here is white house press secretary josh earnst. >> does the administration consider the taliban a terrorist organization or not? >> the taliban has resorted to terror tactics. but those terror tactics have prince pillly been focused on afghanistan. the reason we are concerned about that there are significant number of american personnel including american military personnel in afghanistan that are in harm's way. the taliban is a very dangerous organization. >> is it because we don't negotiate with terrorists and yet we negotiated with the release of sergeant bergdahl? >> we have been clear about the fact that conversations with the taliban were executed through the qatary government. >> it was a quid pro quo? >> well, i don't know if that latin phrase is appropriate in this situation. >> and karl rove joins us. nice to see i, karl. >> good to see you, greta. >> karl, maybe you can help me figure this one out.
josh earnst says the taliban are not terrorists. today, three americans gunned down by someone dressed in an afghan police uniform in kabul in the airport in the last 48 hours. the taliban is suspected in multiple attacks that killed more than 30, including a suicide bombing attack on a funeral in afghanistan today. why is the white house not calling them terrorists? >> i had no idea. let's go back even further than this. let's go back to september of 2001. the attacks on 9/11 were launched by al qaeda which was located inside of afghanistan. it had been welcomed to afghanistan by the taliban which was then in power. after 9/11, president bush demanded that the taliban give up usama bin laden and the al qaeda and you may remember that for a period of about five or six weeks they continued to refuse to turn him over and made a series of incredible statements that there was no
evidence. they had been present nod evidence that he was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. they finally ended up saying well we will try him in afghanistan but only if the united states presents evidence that he is actually responsible for it they refused to give him up. now, maybe mr. ernst and mr. schultz don't remember that but they audited to remember what we're operating n afghanistan, what authority we are operating under. and it is an authorization for the use of force passed by the united states congress in the fall of 2001. let me read you from two parts of it. there are a series of whereas clauses. one of which reads whereas the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism international terrorism against the united states. and then they go into the section. section 1 and section 2. section 2 authorization for use of united states armed forces. in general, that the president is authorized to use all necessary and aappropriate force against those nations organizations or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11th, 2001, or who harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations organizations, or persons. that is the authority under which we are operating in afghanistan. and maybe mr. ernst and mr. schultz should stop consult their talking points but instead look at the legal authority which says we they're to confront international terrorism represented at that point in the regime of the taliban which is attempting to return to power today in the country of afghanistan. >> i don't know. it's actually to me very alarming. almost like they are off the page. they are fighting something and nobody else is or they are not fighting what everybody else thinks they should be fighting. let me turn to the breaking news. catherine herridge just report dollars that one of the five traded ford sergeant bergdahl intercepted having some sort of communication with the taliban, suggesting that he is back in the game.
>> look this was to be anticipated. in the bush administration ear remarks we had a much larger number of detainees in gitmo. take the list dangerous of them and send them back to countries that would accept them saudi arainia, et cetera. and this was done. with the less dangerous. and even then 30% or 40%, depending on the tranche, showed back up in the battlefield. we are now down to the drags at gitmo. we are down to the last several hundred incredibly dangerous. incredibly problematic individuals. what's happening there, we have got a policy that says send them out. now, i do have one minor disagreement with catherine. we don't know exactly how they got this communication. the sense was that it was -- we were listening in to his phone. that might be true. but it might also be true, in fact i think it's more-likely to be true that we had the bad phone number
that was being called and we knew the person in pakistan or the tribal region and listened in on his conversation. i'm not certain we necessarily know what the cell phones are of all of those bad guys those five bad guys now hanging out in qatar. it may have been that we caught this guy having that communication because he made the mistake of calling a cell phone number that we know about. so, first of all, it might be more than one, and i think you and catherine were absolutely right the chances of this guy returning to the battle in may when he is -- when his quote so-called detention in qatar is up is now likely to be very high. look, when they return, they are going to be heroes. they are going to be people who are -- >> i'm actually to. >> they are going to be heroes to the taliban. >> i'm troubled by the words of detention. my days of criminal defense lawyer. i know he what tee tension is running around a country with a few people looking at you is not detention. maybe that's my background doesn't seem like detention to me. karl, thank you. tonight senator john
mccain not happy or surprised responding to the news that the taliban five has been intercepted at least one of the phone calls taliban. >> surprising. past releases there is approximately 30% of those who have returned to the fight. so it should be of no surprise that one or more of these five would return to the fight and it's why many of us have objecting to it at the time. >> joining us political panel. abc political director rick klein and national review jim garretty. rick, one of the five at least we know has now had contact with i don't know who made the call or whatever. but your thoughts on that? >> it's almost impossible to comprehend worse timing. they are in the process of trying to empty guantanamo bay. the president wants to do that by the end of his tenure. at the same time the army is trying to figure out what to with the guy traded for these guys bo bergdahl. ed idea whether he is did i setterrer deserves is he session charges. one of the guys returning to the battlefield is exactly the wrong argument for the
organization. whether or not they regret the trade itself the policy that led to it, the policy that leads them now is now going to be under even more scrutiny. >> interesting jim maybe it's just me five for one seemed like a bad deal from the get-go. one for one. wasn't even a good deal one for one. but five for one. and now we know that one is making a contact? >> yeah. call me biased but the only person that possibly could have foreseen that these guys would get back into trouble was everyone. the first clue that this guy -- this guys and the taliban five were going to try to hook back up with the taliban and help them out is that they are called the taliban five. it's right there in their nickname. okay? it's not like they are going to take up a hobby or something like that. this is who these guys are this is what they do. what were we expecting them to do over in that country? >> i don't know. everyone talks about this one communication, rick are. that's the one we caught. this is an organization that's been doing most communication, handing off notes. that's how they did their financial. that's how they passed money. that's how they financed
things. everyone says there was one communication. i just think we caught one. >> right. and this is all about detention, supervision under the government of qatar. >> wouldn't you call it detention? >> it doesn't seem like it to me. i was a pretty good kid. this is not what it seems like to say that they are under the supervision. there is no way to really ensure that to think that under the terms of the detention they would even be able to have this communication is a big problem for the administration to try to explain right now. >> back then the administration assured us that these groups would not be having any communication with the taliban for one year. so do we get them back now? there is is absolutely no consequence. the deal has been broken. they are not watched. they are only in detention for one year, after that they are free to get on a plane or get oon a boat and go back to afghanistan. >> your colleague jonathan karl hammered it on the fact that the colleague will not say that the taliban are terrorists. >> right. it's because our policy would be not to negotiate with terrorists. it's pretty clear that they
have to dance around that. >> maybe jonathan gruber is right in the sense that he does think we are all that stupid. that was so profound. why would they keep repeating it. they must think we are all that stupid. >> the whole idea of using sometimes terrorist tactics but not terrorists themselves is difficult to figure out. >> especially looking at the killing they have done in the last 48 hours. gentlemen, thank you. i want you to stay with us though. >> this is a fox news alert. the deadline to stop isis from executing two hostages a jordanian pilot and a japanese journalist has now passed. so what happened to the possible prisoner swap between jordan and isis? jordan offered to release a convicted terrorist a woman, who murdered nearly 60 people and coordinated bombings in hotels in jordan in 2005. so, what happened to the possible deal? fox news correspondent conor powell is live in the middle east. conor? >> greta, the fate of those two hostages is unknown at this hour. both jordan and japan say they are continually working to try to free them. they are doing everything they can. now it was just two days ago that isis released an audio
recording. in that audio recording japanese journalist said he would be executed today at sundown if jordan didn't release a woman by the name part of al qaeda cell responsible for blowing up buildings and hotels in jordan in 2005. she has been in prison there since then for the last decade. jordan has said they are willing to release her if isis, in addition to freeing also releases jordanian pilot whose plane crashed in syria last month. here is the major obstacle. jordan says before they will release her they need to know that this pilot is, in fact alive. isis has failed to produce any type of evidence, proof of life that this jordanian pilot is still alive. so right now this deadline that was set by isis to radio -- release the would-be suicide bomber has come and gone. we don't know in the japanese journalist is still alive. we don't know if the the
jordanian pilot is still alive. both jordan and japan say they are working together. they are trying to push forward negotiations. greta, really until isis proves that this pilot is alive, it doesn't seem likely that this deal is going to get done. but, in the paparazzi, isis has been willing to do deals both not only for money but also to exchange prisoners so there is real hope, greta that a deal can get done. but it all really does hinge on whether or not this pilot is still alive. >> conor, thank you. if by chance isis has not beheaded the jordanian pilot and japanese journalist. what kind of precedent would it set if it does happen? liz cheney joins us. niles to see you, liz. >> good to be here. thank you. the idea of proof of life it's not that harvard? you put a newspaper up to someone's head and use iphone and snap a picture and turn it over. maybe something is being done right now behind the scenes. but if not if there is no proof of life i think that's very bad sign for this jordanian pilot tonight. >> no, i do too.
i we have had several deadlines that have passed including this latest one tonight. it's not a great precedent. you do have sovereign governments that make decisions whether or not they are going to negotiate for their hostages. israel does it. clearly jordan is involved in it. traditionally, it's not been something the united states does. we don't pay ransom. we don't negotiate for hostages. >> why? is it because they will put a target on tourists and all of a sudden they will start nabbing tourists and everybody else on the street. >> it encourages more hostage-taking. if our enemies discover it's a very useful thing to do that they can actually black male us and get people released that we will engage in prisoner swaps while the conflict is ongoing as the obama decision did with the taliban five then what it does is make clear that you are going to have more hostages taken in the future. it doesn't actually make us safer. >> what do we do? look, it's so painful looking at these videos it's terrible what's going on. you know, what do we do when one of our people is being held with a knife to their throat and this is going to
happen if you don't? >> it's very painful. what you have got to do is take a big step back and recognize as this administration doesn't we are in the middle of a war. if you look at what they attempted to do with the taliban five, people have forgotten when they actually released the five they said, look, this isn't a prisoner exchange. this is the end of conflict. this is what you do when conflict winds down you release those that you have been holding captive. they are the only people who believe that the conflict has wound down or is winding down. as you pointed out the taliban killed americans today. you have a situation where the president thinks that the war is over or he thinks by telling us it is over it will end. what we have got to do. >> is that sort of the fatal flaw in this discussion is that the president says the war is over. and the war is not over. so, he is just ending everything. is he just -- you know, he is trying to -- it's not over? >> right. that is what is at the bottom of all of this which is that the president wants for his own political purposes to be able to
withdraw from afghanistan to ignore the fact that we have got a war underway not to fight. >> maybe it's not political -- maybe he truly believes it. >> i think he is smarter than that actually. whether he truly believes it or it's for political purposes he is pedaling a notion to the american people that's false. in order to be able to do what he is doing, in order to be able to empty out guantanamo, hey the war is over, these guys aren't dangerous. over day now we get more evidence that actually what is he saying is false and is putting us in danger. >> is there any way to back pedal for him to back pedal and say, look, we are still at war and change things around? i guess that's not going to happen? >> obviously we would like to see that military generals can't continue defense spending and continue down the path that we are on, he has got a way to answer them in a much more positive way. >> liz, thank you. >> thanks greta. >> straight ahead secret audio recordings pitting the pentagon against then secretary of state hillary clinton. you will hear toes secret recordings next.
shedding light on a pentagon battle with then secretary of state hillary clinton. "the washington times" reporting that pentagon officials and senior democrat in congress distrusted secretary clinton's 2010 march to libya so much that they opened their own conversations with the qaddafi regime including qaddafi's son. those conversations were recorded on secret tapes reviewed by "the washington times." here is the sample of the rorgdz. fox can't authenticity.
>> i'm trying to get information that i need to advise members here what exactly what's going on and to make sure that any information that is being communicated through other channels here, you know the government actually gets to members of congress as well. so that we are totally aware of what the position is of the libyan government. >> i want to talk about certain facts. here we talk about facts where we have recording. we have videos. we have films. we have everything. it's like exactly the wmd in iraq. it was based on a false report. libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators. libyan airplanes bombing districts in tripoli, libyan army kill thousands. et cetera, et cetera. now the whole world found
there is no single evidence that such things happened in libya. >> joining us "washington times" investigative reporters jeffrey scott shapiro and kelly waddle. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> explain to me what was going on with this tape that was being recorded secretly? what were the circumstances? >> well, the circumstances at the time we had already entered into the libyan war. >> we started that about march of 2011. >> yeah. march 17th is when we signed the u.n. resolution and then the nato bombings started shortly thereafter. so, what was happening is dennis kucinich who is a dove and basically against war was looking for a way, didn't believe that the premise of the war was actually accurate, that there was going to be this massive humanitarian crisis which justified president obama and hillary clinton going around congress and doing this military intervention. so what he did is he wanted to get the real facts. he wanted to know what was going on in the ground in libya. what was coming out of the
state department and administration at the time was convoluted. he opened up his own secret channel with the qaddafi regime. >> it was the department of defense in on this? i mean were there in any part of this or is was this for lack of a better word a rogue congressman having communication with qaddafi's son? >> no. not at all. the joint chiefs of staff had their own organizations, their own groups within the pentagon. they they had dispatched a well trusted intelligence asset who had a friendship with the qaddafi family for a long time, someone they had trusted. he had opened up a channel for the pentagon as well. they use that channel to obtain intelligence at first. but after a while, what became a part of obtaining information, as we listened to the tapsz we realized had become more of a diplomatic dhoonel try to negotiate a possible cease-fire or a truce because they too mistrusted the war cry coming out off the state department. they photo -- felt it was overstated. >> when you listen to the tapes you go oh, wow what? >> i think that these tapes
cast suspicion on the clinton state department. i think that it shows that some of the highest ranking generals and commanders in our country as well as congressional leaders in mrs. clinton's own party mistrusted her war cry because they did not feel that it was based on intelligence and rationale it was based more on emotion and that was something that this felt they should take into serious consideration. >> you see that with there was the cabinet meeting thated about what -- that made the decision are we going to go into libya or out of libya? at the time secretary of state -- secretary of defense robert gates admiral mullen the joint chiefs of staff, tom donilon all recommended, all the intel guys said listen we don't know what the situation is in libya. we are not sure of who these rebels are if they have like al qaeda backing. we recommend doing nothing. no national security interests are at risk. but then you had hillary clinton, samantha power susan rice all saying we can't have this rwanda type situation. >> it was more the women. we have got another tape that we have gotten this
from you. let's listen. >> everything i'm getting from state department is that they do not care about being a part of this. the congressman very much want to be a part of the solution. the state department and clinton have no -- she doesn't want to negotiate at all. it's been very bad. >> first, why the funny joyce and secondly has seax clinton or anyone in the state department responded to niece. >> we feel it would be inaappropriate to identify the intelligence. >> so the purpose was to hide the identity? >> right. and even though there wasn't an official response it was a little bit coincidental that this morning mrs. clinton announced that she was going to delay her decision to run for president until july. i don't know if that was a coincidence or not. >> what do you think? what's your suspicion? >> well, i mean, you have to look at what was going on at the time. i mean, it was the arab spring. we were caught flat footed
with tanzania and flat footed with egypt. they wanted to be on the right side of history. lo and behold have a stake in the ground saying they are promoting democracy and now look where libya is at. >> thank you both. the article is in the "washington times" and we all woke up to it and thought, wow. anyway, thank you both. >> thank you. >> and coming up are football fans going to see big changes in the nfl rules after defleet
decades ago when there really wasn't a thriving professional sports league in this country, they got a special carve out. so they get treated as a tax exempt status. it's wrong. it is absolutely wrong it doesn't pass the basic sniff test. i give credit to major league baseball. i give credit to the nba who actually moved away from this. they changed their status but you still have the nfl. you got the national hockey league. you have the pga and a few others that get this special carve out.
they should pay taxes to say they are not for profit, are you kidding me? come on. >> and, you know last year they paid the commissioner of the nfl $44 million that wasn't all just -- different compensation packages. he pays taxes on what he gets. so he pays taxes on his stuff. but it's the money that comes in to the nfl at the end of the year that they are sitting at their big pot of money that they have and i take it the the nfl is not poor. >> look, they a private entity. i want them to be successful. i like watching the nfl. they should have to pay taxes like everybody else. when one person is earning that kind of money, he think it's pretty good indication that they are probably not for profit status is maybe the wrong status. the individual teams are are paying taxes but the league itself they should have to pay taxes like everybody else. >> so what are you doing about it and do you have support from your colleagues? what's going to happen? >> look, i got this idea quite frankly from senator tom coburn who introduced it in the senate with angus king out there.
i was the lead sponsor in the house last term, senator coburn's retired. i'm leading the charge in the house. and introduced a bill that says we should change their status and they should be treated like everybody else. >> so if this bill doesn't get passed, it's because the nfl has got a powerful lobby pounding up and down the halls talking to everybody and telling them not to do. this isn't that a fair description? >> i want to put it up for a vote. i do hope in the oversight context that they will have roger goodell, the nfl and the other sports leagues come testify before congress. let them try to justify why we should let them off. we are not collecting as a federal government over $100 million over a 10 year period and when they go in to different cities member tax exempt status then that effects the taxes they pay at the local level. it's at least $100 million that they are not paying that everybody sells paying in a similar situation. >> all right. special deal for special
people. congressman, thank you sir. >> thanks, greta. >> now to another nfl nightmare. defleet gate. deflate gate. force rules in the next season. our giant rutherford joins us. >> hey how is everyone doing over there. >> it's great. do you think we will see new rules next seasonal. >> i think the league is constantly changing and for the most part i think roger goodell has done a great job in moving the nfl in a safer direction. at the end of the day we are not gladiators. a lot of the guys in the nfl are fathers and have families. i think they are very cognizant of the fact that life in the nfl isn't very long. we are moving in a safe direction. it brings me to the next point with defleet gate and all the attention that's being paid to that dle will be rechecked and recertified at halftime as well. >> why are the teams
bringing their own balls? why not have the refs bring the official balls that they play with. >> the refs bring balls and give them balls they are certified. give the quarterbacks certain number of weeks to get comfortable with some nfl quarterbacks like their balls a certain way. other guys like their footballs a certain way. i don't necessarily have a problem with that you know, just as long as they are getting certified. but to be honest with you, i think referees check the game balls before the game and then at halftime maybe they lost air pressure i'm not saying how it was done. i think there was some pounds per square inch that was lost at halftime. i think too much attention is being paid to that because it wasn't a close game. they could have been playing with beach balls or bricks and they would have beat the indianapolis colts. but, at the same time, i think some attention is going to be paid to that. and there will be some rules and regulations to it recertify the footballs. >> all right. when the ball is hiked to you and punted and you catch it, do you have enough sense in your hands and enough
familiarity with the ball that you know if the ball is, you know is deflated a little bit? can you tell that? >> absolutely. i have done something, you know, if you do something some times you almost kind of have a fifth sense. and when i catch the ball, even almost based on not even the feel but the sound of the ball when i catch it can i tell if it's flat or if it's overinflated. yeah, absolutely for certain. >> how about the center doing the snap before he hands it to the quarterback? i take it the quarterback has the same sensitivity as do you when you catch it when it's hiked to you when you punt it. how about the center who is hiking it? >> oh, absolutely. i think anybody, you know, very similar to me anybody that handles footballs as much as i do, that's literally my job. i enjoy it and never thought i would be a professional athlete. when you do something enough you develop almost a, you know, a fifth sixth sense in being able to recognize abnormalities in any, you know, conditions. >> all right. 20 seconds left. what's the score of this
weekend? >> i'm going to go 27-24 boston patriots. >> wow, that's close. that's a three-point game. >> i do. i think, you know i'm rooting for the patriots. my best friend rod nic very much is on that team. as we won the super bowl against them in 2012, as much energy and satisfaction that i got from winning the game as the confetti is coming down on me, i went to go shake his hand after the game and just see the dejection, you know, the depressing look on his face and i felt sad for him, my heart was broken but not very long. i went down to my family in the stands and celebrated with. they it is a special journey. it's a special time. it's the pinnacle of sports. unbelievable opportunity to play in the game but you know much less win the game. so i will be rooting for boston come sunday and hoping my best friend gets a ring as well. >> at the risk of losing baltimore viewers or i mean boston viewers rather the quarterback for the seahawks
is a university of wisconsin badger. so i just add that into the mix. anyways, i will take the last word on that. steve, tha you foreign joining us. >> i it guys. thank you so much. big fan of the show. >> thanks. just when you thought it could not get uglier, new signs tonight that tensions are growing between president obama and prime minister netanyahu. our political panel is back next. plus, fasten your seat belts, this is wild. donald trump is furious at bill o'reilly and taking him on. yes, you are about to see a showdown like you have never seen before. you do not want
tonight tensions growing between president obama and benjamin netanyahu. the president is furious that the they invited him to speak to congress. today the "new york times" reporting that a unnamed senior administration official was criticizing israeli ambassador ron did you rememberer temperature member. white house press secretary josh earnst was asked about the controversy.
>> i said on a number of occasions that that invitation to the prime minister that was conceived of and executed by the speaker of the house and the israeli ambassador was a departure from protocol. but what we have said on many occasions is that the united states commitment to our strongest ally in the middle east, israel, transcends partisan politics. >> and our political panel is back. abc knut news abc news political director rick klein and jim garety. it transcends politics 't because the president is snubbing the prime minister when he comes here. he doesn't want to talk to him. >> that's right. they have have other reasons for it they talk about the israeli election. diplomacy is weird, greta. you think about how you display your displeasure with an ally, you can't just say we are upset with you b.b., we don't like you or we think you made a bad decision. they have to find some diplomatic nice cities and in this case it includes
saying you are not going to meet with him and having someone tell anonymously to a newspaper that you are very very upset about what happened. >> which of course in gretawire today this morning at 9:00 or something this morning i went after the "new york times" because it doesn't source who it was. it says someone in the president obama's inner circle and then goes after the ambassador. why not name who these people are? stop being cowards too if you have got something to say speak up. >> stop being chicken you know what, greta. as they called netanyahu another unnamed white house source. look, we are always standing by our ally because that way they can hear us when we say nasty things about them anonymously to the "new york times." by the way the alleged invitation for the lack of invitation to the white house we don't want to invite netanyahu so close to the election. can you show me one israeli voter who is going to vote for the other guy but now he is going to vote for netanyahu because he got to give a speech to congress? that's a game changer for politics. >> you know what the bad thing is we look and sort of amused at the spat between the two and who snund who and everything else. we are talking about iran going nuclear. fundamentally.
and while our leaders are sort of, you know, and i actually, i'm critical of the president's netanyahu. maybe boehner should have asked. i don't know but it's like this actually serious stuff. >> and fundamentally there is a disagreement in strategy and israel has been very very public about it as have a lot of members of congress that they don't like the negotiations the president is going under. they don't think you can have good faith negotiations with iran. >> shouldn't play high school. >> well, this is the weird were diplomacy though. this is how they express that through these odd other channels. the fact is this is going to play out. congress is going to -- looks like it's taking a little bit of a step back on all of this. the israelis are going to try to push things forward a little bit ending the negotiations. i don't quite exrend all the pieces at play. it does look a little like. >> i don't like it not when it's nuclear weapons. >> weaver governed by the mean girls of high school except when it comes to the taliban and iran then they are nice all of a sudden. when is this toughness when we need it? >> that is sort of interesting statement.
anyway gentlemen, thank you both very much. >> thanks greta. >> okay let's all go off-the-record for main. i just don't get it why not simple and cheap solutions that we know work. instead washington always goes for the most complex and expensive which becomes fodder for political point. case in point, president obama proposed giving free community college for two years. don't get me wrong, i'm all in favor of communication. his ideas complicate and expensive it will raise your taxes and spark a political fight with the republicans. that's a recipe for disaster. so i have an idea. let's revive an old idea. it's cheap and worked. let's bring back skills classes, vocational classes to high schools. and expand them. remember high school shop where high school students learned auto repair and welding and more? we have jobs for those skills. and how about sort of a modern day home he ec class. culinary skills and teach chefs. i went to a school where samaritan's purse gives
scholarships to culinary skills. and in 20 years the school's 8,000 graduates all got jobs because they learned skills they could use and are skills that are needed. why don't we do enough of that in our high school? i guarantee a student gets a higher self-esteem with a skill that he or she can use than sitting in a class reading about self-esteem. so let's go simple and smart. not complicate it. let's bring back and expand what really worked and that's my off-the-record comment tonight. and straight ahead remember this terrifying video former biker a -- a swarm of bikers attacking a
surrounding a suv and viciously attacking the driver. "on the record" took you to the scene of the crime. and tonight there are new developments in the case. >> four months in jail and five years probation. that's surprise the price christopher cruise had to pled. pleading guilty to second degree assault and riot. caught on camera in horrifying video the biker slows his motorcycle in front of this range recovery and other bikers surround it the video shows the suv's fender touches the back wheel and that's when chaos breaks out. the driver floors it and flees the bikers follow in hot pursuit. the chase lasts all the way it from manhattan to harlem where bikers smash? the window of the car and mercilessly beat the driver in the street. crews did not take part in the beating. >> two other bikers have already entered guilty
pleas. other 8 s&pes could see a trial in april. and a former nfl star turned reality tv star landing in legal hot water. brad cull pepper is being sued over disability claims that is after appearing very physically fit on the tv show survivor i have worked way too hard in my life to have this as a headline. >> brad cullpepper accused of scamming the system for cold hard cash the nfl star turned survivor contestant, running, jumping and swimming after collecting $175,000 of workers' compensation benefits. does he seem disabled here? his insurance company says no way and is now filing a new lawsuit accusing him of fraud and deception. saying the nfl star didn't deserve a dime of that workers' comp. according to the complaint cullpepper submitted a claim for workers' compensation in 2010 saying he is 89%
disabled from trauma he suffered as nfl lineman. on tv the star player not looking so disabled. >> cullpepper getting on. >> but this morning cullpepper telling abc he is not having any of. >> it cullpepper fakes his injuries. >> you can fake that? >> stripping down to prove that he is no fraudster at all. >> this is a normal bbicept. how does that one look? is that normal? that's not. okay that causes me pain. there is people that miss an entire season because of a torn bicept. see this ac joint? >> um. >>um that's bone. that's my clavicle. okay? it's not over here. it's here. >> entering his career played for the minnesota vikings, the tampa bay buccaneers and chicago bears. up next donald trump vs. bill o'reilly. you will see this epic battle right here in j
janet? cough if you can hear me. don't even think about it. i took mucinex dm for my phlegmy cough. yeah...but what about mike? (cough!) it works on his cough too. mucinex dm relieves wet and dry coughs for 12 hours. let's end this. thanks for the ride around norfolk! and i just wanted to say geico is proud to have served the military for over 75 years! roger that. captain's waiting to give you a tour of the wisconsin now. could've parked a little bit closer... it's gonna be dark by the time i get there. geico. proudly serving the military for over 75 years.
get ready to rumble. in one corner bill o'reilly and the other corner donald trump. they are about to face off tonight. first, take a look at what sparked the fight. >> o'reilly here. sarah palin, donald trump, chris cities city all may christie all may run for president on the side. wow talk about a reality show. >> turns out he didn't like that reality show comment. never timid. tweeting back bad and very deceptive journalism. show must be heading in wrong direction. too bad. that tweet prompting o'reilly to invite trump on his show tonight. here is a preview of their showdown. >> so what's your beef? >> well, my beef is that all day long they advertise trump and palin and just over and over again and i said, you know, i have got to watch this. >> come on factor heading in the wrong direction? >> it was a very quick little thing. >> don't be a pinhead.
>> you don't want to miss the rest of the trump interview. stay tuned for o'reilly factor next. thanks for being with us. see you tomorrow night at 7 p.m. eastern. go to tonight on "red eye." >> coming up on "red eye" will the new row boat gladiators ever live up to the originals? and does the president think it is time for joe biden to finish the dora the explorer puzzle he started six years ago? >> that's what we should do. let's get that done this year. >> and finally does the vice president have a plan to finish the puzzle? >> we have to do two things. put these last two pieces together. >> none of these stories on "red eye" tonight. >> and now let's welcome our guests. well, like an exotic wine she needs to breathe. otherwise she is bitter and a bit off. i am here