According to a source we spoke to who worked for podesta for years, the Company Received huge sums of money from a prorussia shell group in order to bolster russias interests in washington, all without declaring itself an agent of a foreign power, which it demonstrably was. Election hacking might also look like the infamous and fraudulent trump dossier which was compiled in 2016 and then released this past january by buzzfeed as a laughably stupid news story. Much of that information came from russian sources with ties to the kremlin. Who paid for this . At one point, from the Democratic National committee, Hillary Clintons campaign, possibly even the fbi. Lets say you were looking for a smoking gun in this story, and many are looking for this smoking gun. We have evidence the democrats literally paid money for russian intelligence as well as prove that the top democratic lobbying firm in washington was getting rich by advancing russian interests. Collusion . I if thats not collusion, what is collusion . We put a lot of calls out today, and very few democraticst lawmakers were interested in talking about this at all. The rare exception was brad sherman of california, the honorable exception, and he joins us tonight. Thanks for coming on. Thank you. I am here to talk about the tax bill. I mean, this is a jobkilling, deficitexploding tax bill, which is the real story, the real vote. Tucker we dont have a tax bill. We have no idea what the details are. We have a proposed 12page the one we have literally nothing. And it will get to the senate and become something completely different. I would love to debate that because its interesting, and we might agree on parts of it, but i want to ask you about you cant defend the trump tax proposal tucker this is clever, and i will have you on any day to talk about an actual tax no, you wont. Ive been trying to get on your lkow again and again and again and you only have me on to talk about nonsense. Tucker spare me. Really, the nonsense that the Democratic Party has hijacked the workings of washington for years over this trump story. Em you have got no defense for trumps impeachment. The man has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and your only defense is, well, hillary did too. You cant impeach a private citizen and say that is a reason not to impeach a president. Mp tucker i am not calling for anybodys impeachment. I think you have jumped off the rails. Let me ask you some factual questions. You can put the bumper stickers away. What do you make of the fact that the Podesta Group, who i know you are personally familiar with, was taking money from russian interests to advance those in washington . I would like to take a look at it, but it is irrelevant as to whether we should impeach donald trump. He is guilty of obstruction of justice. Tucker youre not even going to engage in that question . What do you make of the fact that the Democratic Nationalge Committee Gave money to the people who wrote the trumpth dossier, whose information came from russianconnected sources . That dossier was funded, first and foremost, by trumpss republican opponents. Tucker correct, whose names we dont know. Correct. There is nothing in that dossier that appears to be stolen information. Or what we have here tucker first of all, you dont know that. O i dont know whether martians have landed on this planet. F tucker we know for a fact, because it has been conceded, that that information, some of it came from sources around vladimir putin. The document had no effectio until after the election. I dont need an excuse, because whether it whether we impeach the character of a privateee citizen is an irrelevancy. Whether we impeach a president who is guilty of obstruction of Justice Tucker im talking, hold on. You dont know if he had an effect on the election. How can you affect an election by a document that is released three months after the election . Tucker the document was run the information went to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Information that was of absolutely no use. Tucker i am a little bit surprised that you have spent the last year telling us that trump has colluded in some way with the russian government and that he has committed, in effect, treason, which is basically what i dont accuse him of treason. H i accuse him of obstruction of justice. Section 1512 of the felony codef he has committed obstruction of justice three times. Its not the crime, its the coverup. We learned that with watergate, and we learned that Richard Nixon could not have stayed in office. Tucker Richard Nixon . Im trying to ask you a simple question about the news of today the news of today is this tax bill that is going to cost us millions of jobs. Thats what happens. Da we do have the trump tax proposal that you cant defend but is the official and most significant economic document released by the trump administration. Tucker i am searching back to my mental files to recall an example of greater disingenuousness than the one i am witnessing now. You went bananas over the donald trump jr. Meeting. Oh, he met with the russians. This is the end of times. I never said that. You have me confused with another goodlooking bald guy. Tucker no, i dont. You are the guy that did that. Ill get the tape. It is the obstruction of justice. Tucker telling us why it was so poisonous to american democracy for trump or his campaign to have any contactr with the russians no, youve got me confused with some other goodlooking bald guy. Tucker i follow this for a living. Oo i follow this for a living too, and i know this is the most significant economic document released by the trump administration. In you cant defend it, and you want to talk about nonsense. You want to talk about why Hillary Clinton is bad instead of why donald trump should be impeached. Ti tucker you filed articles of impeachment the day after that story about trumps son broke. That wasnt me. Tucker oh, that was just an accident. T. I circulated those articles of impeachment a month before the date you identified. Tucker let me ask you a really simple question. Trumps connections to russia, you have consistently argued, are a big deal. Its not a fake story no, i have consistently argued that his obstruction of justice as february, may, and july are violations of sections 1512 of our felony code. Obstruction of justice applies whether there was collusion or not. Tucker so your entire party has spent the last year telling us that this is the most important thing that has ever happened. We now have evidence the charges you are making against trump applied to your own party and candidate te my charges are about february, may, july, obstruction of justice three times. Tucker youre not even you know what . Honestly, its hard for me to believe, given everything youve said in the last year, that you are putting on this performance . Now. Why dont you just say, look, what hillary did, her campaign paying for intelligence from the russians, thats bad, but shes not president. You wont even say that. I dont know what hillary did. Tucker we know exactly what she did, they admitted it this week. They admitted they paid for opposition research. Every campaign pays forid opposition research. Tucker from the russians . This dossier came from the russians. No, this dossier came from a Research Firm and british individual tucker who was the british individual, do you know . I believe his name was mr. Steele. Tucker and why was he oired . D . He was the head of the russian desk at mi6. The information wass about trumps ties to russia. They got this information from the russians and they paid russian sources. They paid a man to prepare a memo. Tucker does that bother you at all . N not particularly. Tucker has the podestata group ever lobbied you for anything . I believe they have. I believe you are also a friend of tucker im not a friend, and hes never lobbied me. And im not a friend of tony podesta, but does it bother you that tony podesta took money from Paul Manafort the russians to carry that does bother you that Paul Manafort was chair of his committee . Tucker yes, it does. Does it bother you that podesta was working on behalf of the russians . If it was true, it would bother me. Tucker it is true. You are asserting it. Tucker im not asserting it. It is factual. You are saying he failed to file a foreign agents report. Tucker i believe thats true. What i know is true is that they took money from russian interests to represent those interests here in washington. Te well, when you say russian interests, if you mean private companies, that is different. Tucker no, i mean the russian government. I mean the russian government. If he did it, why dont you want to talk about impeaching a president , and your answer is, hey, there is this lobbyist tucker because the predicate for this impeachment no, the predicate for this it is a page and a half and you havent bothered to read it. Tucker actually, i have. And i think theyre more fatuous now than i did before. Obstruction of justice is a crime, a felony punishable by up to 20 years tucker were done. Us come back when youve got a tax bill you want to shout about. The tax bill has been released and you cant defend it. Tucker byron york, a local correspondent at the washington examiner, joins us tonight. Ou byron, we are going to use your inside voices now. You just heard congressman sherman, saying, in effect, its not a big deal that the Hillary Campaign paid for this dossier or that the Podesta Group is lobbying on behalf of the russians. Are you going to could talk about the tucker were going to talk about [laughs] yeah. Was it a big deal . It was a big deal, but even before he had this revelation from the Washington Post that the dnc and the Hillary Campaign had paid for the dossier, even before we knew that, i think you saw a shift in tone among democrats away from collusion. Tucker and start yelling about the tax bill . No, they were talking about russias active measures and tht campaign, and russia did have a campaign to influence our president ial election. No doubt about that. And, indeed, you see what the articles of impeachment are about obstruction of justice, about the firing of james comey. You get to a point where collusion doesnt matter. You dont have to prove that, its just that the president obstructed justice. To tucker we have repainted the slogans on the barn. We never said that. But i think what has happened now is, after an attempt to paint russian involvement as a oneway street where the russians were trying to hurt hillary and help trump and trump was somehow dealing with them, i think we have seen it is a much more complicated picture, because it is a fact that this foreign agent, the former british spy, christopher steele, did get information from russians who were connected to the kremlin. Just look at the dossier. The dossier has source a and source b and source c, and theyre identified as a former senior russian intelligence official or a senior russian financial official. So its not a secret that they are dealing with people in the russian government connected to the kremlin. What has changed now is we are seeing these democratic effortsl to get dirt on trump from russia, and that does sound suspiciously like whatt donald trump jr. Thought he was going to get in that june 2016ho meeting at trump tower when some russians had approached him and claimed to have had some sort of dirt on Hillary Clinton. They didnt, and thats not what the meeting was about. But its very similar here. Tucker interesting. We still have the congressman. Would you like to interject . My articles of impeachment have always been about obstruction of justice. Nt its not the crime. Its the coverup. We have three different instances of violation of section 1512. s whether trump colluded or didnt collude, he tried to stop the investigation. Tucker just tell me you are a little embarrassed by these revelations. Im not embarrassed at all. Im embarrassed were not here talking about impeaching a president , the things that are important to the american people, not whether the last candidate for president had a Good Campaign or didnt have a Good Campaign. It is as silly as trying to say that Richard Nixon should be in office because you have dirt on george mcgovern. Thats insane. Tucker thank you very much. You rose to the occasion. Given the performance you just saw from brad sherman, if democrats were to take control of the house of representatives in the Midterm Election a little more than a year from now, how long do you think it will take to impeach . I think that is a bit of a fuzzy question. Go back to 2006. George w. Bushs poll numbers are in the tank, and it looks like democrats are going to win the house, which they do, but early on in the election, before the election, john conyers, who stood to become the chairman of the fiduciary committee, was talk about impeaching president bush. There was a lot of talk from the leftwing Democratic Party about impeaching bush, so much so that prior to the election, nancy pelosi, who stood to become speaker, came out and said impeachment is off the table. They didnt want the election to be about impeachment. And if you have a lot of talkey about these articles of impeachment coming up in theea next year, thats a good point. Tucker we are out of time. Would you like to read the tease, congressman . Ill read the tease. The postweinstein backlash against Sexual Harassment is consuming a top political analyst at msnbc, but what are the risk of accountability turning into, witch hunt, more rightwing take on this, well come up right after the commercial. Tucker thank you. Commercial. Tucker thank you. Tucker in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, more and more people are being accused of Sexual Harassment. The latest target is msnbc political analyst and game change author, mark halperin. At least seven accusations have been made, but only two have gone public. Hbo has canceled plans to adapt his latest book on the 2016 election into a miniseries. What to make of all of this . We have tammy bruce, radio host, with us tonight. I know mark halperin. We are not friends, he appears to have admitted some of this obliquely. I am hesitant to weigh in,ei except one part of it sticks out in this case, and as in a lot of others, a lot of the accusations are coming anonymously. It doesnt mean theyre not true, but one of the keys to american justice, i think, has always been, you get to face your accuser. You get to know who what youre being accused of and who is charging it. As that seems to not be enforced anymore. I think mr. Halperin does know who is making thed accusations. The issue is not that we deserve to know. Tucker thats a good point. I agree it is concerning when youve got accusations made that affect someones future, and wee have dealt with this on campus, et cetera, with accusations versus targets. But in the case of someone like halperin, i would argue anyone in that position, where you are not dealing with famous actresses, perhaps still women who are in vulnerable positions, where there could be some retaliation, the ability to do this anonymously, especially when they are multiple accusations, now they are saying that it was, just like weinstein, an open secret, that it may, in fact, still be safer for these particular women to do it in this fashion. And yet, when we are looking at this why we know the names when it comes to Harvey Weinstein, it is perhaps easier because youve got women now who are somewhat established, who have names who americans feel that they know. But i think there is an even higher risk for the unknown, nonfamous women, frankly, women in hollywood who are on crews, who are behind the camera, who are doing technical things. I think it is fair that this but there is an anonymous dynamic as long as internally, over at nbc, in this case, that things are handled fairly for these women. Tucker i wonder from a news perspective what our responsibility is. A there is no other alleged crime where you would print the name of the accused but not the accuser. We would never say, tammy bruce has been accused of embezzling money by an anonymous person. The anonymous person would have to be named. I wonder why news organizations sort of only print half the story. Consider the context. This now seems like a wave, right . Tucker definitely a wave. This is a push. This is an environment where each step has encouraged other women to come forward, whereas they were thinking, maybe its okay now, a safe time to do it, now some recognition that apparently there is a report that abc, the network, new as these allegations at the time, that these women were not silent. So you have background for othet action was taken. Tucker thats a different thing right there. If abc network news again, all of this is going to work out in a certain sense. But as we report these things, we know also that these are accusations, their allegations. And mr. Halperin is going to make certain decisions, as has hbo and his publishers. We have a responsibility to make sure we are talking about the larger issue, the things that are affected, the kinds of women affected, the nature of our responsibility. Also, as people in that environment with abc, people who may have known, and certainly in hollywood, that conversation still happens about the vulnerability of women, but then my point, as a feminist is, thel older women, financially secure, who are not at risk, where do those women come in here, and is our feminism responsible . Do we have a duty to speak up when we do know . And i think that that is something that is key for all of us at this point. Tucker well, yeah, of course. People who say they represent women and keep this information secret or even act against them, like the lisa bloom case, a lawyer who is using feminism is almost like a slogan and ben is abusing that simply for what might just be personal enrichment or at least the opposite of what tucker of course. Of course. Feminism has become a business, and this is something that we need to also take back, i think, a little bit. Tucker tammy bruce, a clear thinker. Thank you. Ak thanks, tucker. Tucker yesterday we told you about jesus cam