tomorrow on the factor. again thanks for watching us tonight. i am w bill o'reilly, and always remember that the spin stops right here.s we are definitely looking out forer you. ♪ >> tucker: this is a fox news alert. right now, federal appeals court judges are deciding whether to restore president trump's executive order. blocking arrivals from seven majority muslim countries. the ruling could come at any moment. of course, we will bring you just a short time ago, the ninth circuit court of appeals heard arguments from the trump administration and the opposing state, both in washington and minnesota, will talk to republican credit of the travel ban andl a first, here is what just happened in court a minute to go. >> has a government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism? >> these proceedings have

been moving very fast. the strongest point on that is that in 2015 and 2016, both congress and the administration made determinations that these seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism. in doing so, restricted visa waivers to people who had even travel to these countries over the last five or six years. the executive order relies on that determination. >> your honor, it is very clear that to prove religious discrimination, we do not need to prove that this order harms only muslims or that it harms every muslim. we just need to prove that it was motivated, in part, by a desire to harm muslims. we have alleged that -- >> how do you infer that desire if, in fact, the vast majority of muslims are unaffected? >> your honor, in part, you can infer it from intent evidence. there are statements that we quoted in our complaint that are

rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against muslims, given that we haven't had any discovery yet. to find out what else might have been said in private. i mean, the public statements from the president and his top advisors reflecting that intent are strong evidence, certainly, at this pleading stage, to allow us to go forward on that claim. second >> tucker: new york congressman john fox is a republican newly elected, but is also a product of the president's order saying it was not well drafted or well implemented. he joins us here in the studio. thank you for coming on. it is hard to argue with that. you say, this in a press release. this is being any restrictions on immigration from his country, most effectively pursued with a thoughtful and deliberate legislation. god bless you for suggesting a legislative answer. what would that legislation look like? what would it be? >> i think, let's see what happens of the court of appeals. but i do think thoughtful

legislation was done previously by congress, where they identified the seven countries and they were worried about the fact that those countries did not have proper internal procedures to back to those people who were looking to come to the united states. i think the order went awry when they were looking at people who had dual citizenship, people who had already had visas, who had already gone through a process. so, i'm hopeful now that they will have a more deliberate process internally. i think they are doing that, to fix the mistakes of the executive order. if the court upholds the lower court decision, then, this is going to last for a few weeko more, certainly, maybe months more, while the supreme court considers this. if the court rules, as i think they well, the plaintiffs don'tt have the standing to bring the case, then, i think it will be on the administration to fix thi implementation. i think they are on the way to doing that.

>> tucker: why wouldn't it be in incumbent upon the legislative branch? protecting the country? >> we can very much do that. i think congress should have some hearings, do an inquiry into this. clearly, the pattern over the last 50 years has been to give the president the executive under the law, wide powers, to protect the national interests of the united states. i would note, some of the critics ignore this, president obama made multiple decisions of this nature, not of the broad reaching nature as president trump did, but he specifically, as late as january, restricted the right of cubans to come into the united states. he just did it in january. if i went back tonight, looking at some of the other executive orders that president obama and president bush made, and the last ten years, we have seenor probably a two dozen similar efforts by a president to restrict the travel into the united states from foreign nationals of countries where we

were either having economic sanctions or other disputes, whether it be the ukraine, parts of the ukraine, russia. countries in africa. >> tucker: the criticism is defused.d. some of it is about the way this is implemented, some of it is philosophical. you get the sense that a lot of, the critics of those don't believe the u.s. government has the moral right to maketh distinctions between countries of origin. le questions. do you think we face, and aggregate, general, a greater threat from immigrants who come from somalia other than immigrants from south korea? >> without a doubt. because if you look at the governance or lack thereof in aa place like somalia, where there is mayhem and chaos widely available in the country, as opposed to south korea, and your example, where there is a rule of law, order, a process whereby the citizens can be vetted, and for those countries, south korea or others, that we have close relationships with, can have a

good relationship between our consulate officials, our embassies, et cetera. when they say, here is our countrymen wanted to come to the united states, looking for a visa, we have a process, whereby we can have confidence that when they say this person is okay, and we vet them ourselves, we have confidence and that the person is who they say they are. >> tucker: of course. i just common sense. your second question, our current understanding is that foreigners have a right to come here until we show they pose a danger to us in some way. shouldn't our assumption be that nobody has a right to come here until they can show us the benefit of their coming here? >> i think that what we -- we want to be careful about being overbroad here, tucker. we do have countries where we have close economic and political relationships, germany, france, the united kingdom, et cetera, ireland, denmark, japan, south korea.l so, we don't want to make it unduly difficult for universities, tech companies, business --

>> tucker: you are proving my point. you are saying if those immigrants benefit the immigrants and some material way, shouldn't be the standard for all immigrants? i would love to have you tell us what you should do for us. why shouldn't that be rationally acting in our own interest? >> we could be doing that and wc should be doing that rationally in our own interest. one of the things we should be doing is looking at the benefits that a potential immigrant could bring to this country, rather than say, a preference for family reunification, what you have in the law now.w. we could make that change and focus on people who could bring either commercial skills, business skills, cultural skills, enter the country. you want to do that, you want to encourage that. >> tucker: i don't understand why congress doesn't want to do that. if you look at the polling, refugees particularly, also, low skilled refugees, that is why a low skilled employees are favored, people are not for this. this summer there was a poll inl chicago, 36% of americans supported resettling syrian refugees. why wouldn't the congress take that up?

why wouldn't they say that? >> i think what we should do vis-a-vis the humanitarian crisis in syria, we should look at establishing safe zones in that region and helping jordan other countries temporarily rerecording people from syria before they -- when the conflict ends, they can go back to their homeland. that is something we should do. we have always had, though, and impulsiveness country for humanitarian reasons, to bring in people who have been oppressed or victims of war or other things. the overriding issue, in terms of our benefit to united states, i think it is an important one. look at the district i represent in upstate new york. we need to bring in workers, migrant workers, in and out of the country. it is gotten increasingly difficult to bring in workers to harvest the crops, to pick the fruit, et cetera. so, those people come in andrs they go out. we need to have a good, expeditious system, whereby fruit growers and farmers can allow that to happen.

>> tucker: do you think certain industries have a moral right to low wage labor? without the flow of that labor, they would have to pay market rates. >> tucker, the apple growers and hudson valley, they told me they can't get americans to pick it. virtually any price. it is really amazing. it is tough work. they would much rather have migrants coming in from the caribbean, who come in during the harvest season and then go home. >> tucker: are you worried that, broadly speaking, not just in the apple orchards of new york, that the united states is creating a serf class were low-wage immigrants do the unpleasant work that americans don't want to do? is that healthy for the democracy long-term? >> i'm not worried about that. i'm more worried about getting economic growth in our country,c so, we can lift the opportunity for everyone. that is why we need to do the tax and regulatory changes that i ran on and i think thatt president trump ran on and thatt the republican congress is hopefully going to be able to effectuate. i think that is the bigger problem for us right now. we have a slow growth economy.

that is really hurting our ability to increase family income. >> tucker: if you have aat country were anybody who makes over 200 grand a year, everyone in the political establishment, everyone in hollywood, the people running the show, have no contact with people like washing the car, changing diapers, doing laundry, doesn't it create -- i am one of those people. doesn't it create a disconnect between the ruling class and the rest of the country? >> i think the vast majority of the country, when they have a kid, they know how to change a diaper. >> tucker: you know what i'm talking about. there is not one person who would know how to wash his car. does that have an effect on a culture that we should be worrying about? >> maybe it does. that is a profound question. i am not so sure in this particular instance.at i'm not focused on that. i'm focused on trying to make sure that we get this immigration ruling right and that we make sure that our friends and allies abroad understand that we are a welcoming country. also, making sure that we, and the president is right in this regard. making sure we are protecting

ourselves from migrants coming into the country or potential bad actors, coming from places where there is no security, where we are not fighting those people. that is the primary issue. >> tucker: my last question, i also hear people say, we want the rest of the world to know we are the welcoming country. but why exactly? japan is not a welcoming country. china is not a welcoming country. >> our national motto, *out of money, one. where are a melting pot. we have always been that way. i think we should maintain that. we should do it smartly. we have had periods in our history where have restricted immigration and we have enhanced in. s maybe we are in a period we are bringing in more people with greater job skills, greaterr potential to contribute to our economy than in the past. i think that would be advisable. at the same time, let's not forget how this country was founded on what we stand on. >> tucker: all right, congressman, thank you for joining us.et as we said a minute to go, the top of the hour, the ninth

circuit court of appeals have just turned arguments over thehe travel ban issued by the white house. for more on that another offense emanating from washington, we go to trace gallagher, who was on the scene in l.a. >> hey, tucker. it was supposed to get 30 minutes. the judges allowed it to go a little different, beginning with the department of justice lawyer, who argued that the district judge who put the holes in president trump executive order overstepped his bounds. the doj said the president was simply pausing to put in place an effective vetting system ford people coming into the country. and the court doesn't have the authority to override the president's assessment of national security threats. but the doj attorney appeared to 'sur be caught off guard when he was questioned about the threats posed the countries included in a travel ban. watch. >> has a government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism? >> these proceedings have been moving very fast.

>> the attorney representing washington state and minnesota argued that because of thehe president's executive order, washington state suffered irreparable harm, including loss of tax revenue. people being stranded in families being separated. when it was pointed out that thi seven countries included in the ban had been designated a threat during the obama administration, the lawyer was pressed on whyth this is now considered a muslim ban. listen. >> do you have any information as to what percentage or what proportion of the adherence to islam worldwide our citizens are residents of those countries? it is something less than 15%. >> i have not done that math, your honor. >> decision could come as early as tomorrow. if the ninth circuit court keeps the restraining order in place, it will likely go back to his court in seattle for another hearing. if the ninth circuit decides

with the trump administration, the temporary travel ban goes back into effect.n, either way, the losing side can either appeal to the full ninth circuit court or the supreme court. separately, we should note that despite democrats holding another late night attack on trump nominees, it was not enough to keep betsy devos from being confirmed as education secretary. the final vote was 50-50 with 2 republican siding with democrats, vice president mike pence, the president of the senate, broke the tie. becoming the first vp to ever do that. betsy devos was sworn in this evening. tucker.ve >> tucker: trace gallagher.vo drama doesn't stop. for more on the trump administration's appeal toto uphold the travel ban, we go to brit hume.do what do you think is likely to happen, what ought to happen? what we make of this? >> being in the ninth circuit, you would have to guess that the judges order will be upheld and thus, the pause on the

immigration pause will remain in effect. i must say, have a mess to the arguments, those judges got pretty far afield from the country. did the country have the authority, under his constitutional duties, to impose this temporary ban and did the judge who ordered it, halt at temporarily, have the authority to do that? those of the questions, it seems to me. before you know it, the judges were asking for evidences of danger. that is way beyond the purview of this particular hearing at this particular stage of this case. >> tucker: you hard part of this exchange. let me tell you -- but the lawyer, saying, the question of intent, knowing this was an intentional muslim ban, based on statements that the now president made during the campaign. is that the constitutional questions of the heart of this?

>> i think it is utterly irrelevant and to the constitutional questions. i've never heard of such a thing being introduced into a case like this. this is where those judges felt free to go. this is very much in keepingre with the reputation that theti judges and in that circuit court of appeals.ou they are famous for getting outside the normal bounds of what judges decide and that is why they get slapped down so often by the supreme court. >> tucker: which is the next stop on this. so, that is the obvious follow-up. if this ban, if the pause, the o ban on the pause, as upheld, -- >> either way works, right? [laughter] >> tucker: if the travel ban is lifted, in effect, by the ninth circuit, does it move to the supreme court after today? >> i think this whole matter will eventually get before the supreme court. remember, tucker, we are dealing with preliminary motions in this case. the purpose of the temporary restraining order, with a judge in seattle imposed, which is the status quo until the larger case itself, the larger case could be

adjudicated. so, either way, that case, it seems to me, whether the. president's policy, restrictions go into effect, that case and other cases will go forward. unless the court of appeals across the country completely slapped on the plaintiffs in these cases, i think it is likely to enter before thery supreme court one way or the other. >> tucker: hears a the political question for you, a distressing observation for me, anyway. where is the debate about the underlying principles here? how many people we ought to be allowing from this part of the world? if they are uniquely threatening to us? what is our obligation to refugees and immigrants? will there be a public debate, do you think? >> perhaps not in the context of this lawsuit. you would think, going forward, there would be. this administration plans to reform our immigration policies in such a way that they may more closely conform to their view of the issue you were talking about

earlier, which is what is in the best interest of the united states. not necessarily what is the best interest of the united states image in the world, but what is in their best interest of the united states, who can contribute much of our economy. who will help build the country. who was likely to be successful. those are all the questions that would have to feed into a broader question of how you legislate on immigration going forward. >> tucker: those seem like fair questions.. listen to part of what each side argued before the court. first, the trump administration side. listen.e >> may it please the court, i am with the justice department here on behalf of the united states. i would like to reserve 5 minutes for rebuttal. the executive order at issue puts a temporary pause on entry for individuals from seven countries that congress and the

last president determinant and a similar context pose special risks in terms of terrorist infiltration in our country. those determinations were made in 2015 and 2016 based either on a congressional determination or statutory factors, including their foreign terrorist organizations had significant presence in the country, or the country served as a safe haven for terrorists.. the order also temporarily halted refugee programs. this judgment was well within the president's power as delegated to him by congress. it is constitutional, as the court in boston recently held. under section 212f, congress has allowed the president to suspend classes of aliens when it is necessary or otherwise detrimental to the interests of united states. that is what the president did here. and the president's determination that a 90 day pause was needed for the seven

countries at issue here in order to ensure adequate standards, the language from the order, for visa screening, was plainly constitutional. the district court's order, which contained no assessment of the legality of the order, was in error, and we encourage the court to stay. o a key factor in the order and its temporary nature is what the president's determination that there was a need to review existing practices for screening foreign nationals who apply for visas. >> tucker: okay. not a very exciting picture but an interesting argument. that was the administration's side of things. here's what the state had to say in response. >> absolutely, your honor. absolutely, the parties have agreed to a briefing schedule. the preliminary injunction motion will be fully briefed by a week from friday. i am confident that the judge will rule, schedule a hearing quickly after that. i would also point out that the

14 day limit is for ex parte, temporary restraining orders. part of the problem -- part of the problem with treating this as a temporary restraining order, your honor, if the defendants are right that anytime the court enters a temporary restraining order after hearing and briefing, it is treated as a preliminary injunction, that is rules for the district court.s it discourages them from hearing the other side before entering a restraining order. i want to move on to the merits. i don't want to spend all yourni time on this. of course, if this is treated at a motion for a stay, we obviously still believe that the court should reject that motion. in the most simple basis for that, of course, would be the lack of irreparable harm. i heard your honor pressing counsel for a statement of what the irreparable harm is, and still, no clear, factual claimsa

or evidentiary claims of what that irreparable harm would be from a stay. in fact, it was the executive order itself that causeded irreparable harm to our states, to washington and minnesota and our residence, and to other states and people as described in the many briefs that have been filed. of course, we believe that the federal government has shown no irreparable harm from reinstating the status quo prior to the executive order. s >> tucker: there's a lot going on there. everyone in those tapes passed the bar exam so it is hard to decipher exactly what is going on. brit hume is translating for us. you said at the outset something that i think we should keep in mind, the basic argument here is, does the president of the united states have a constitutional ability to do things like this, to control who comes in and out of the country? does he come historically, this precedent to support that? >> it does.ll not only to, there is

legislation, what you heard the government lawyer, the justice department lawyer, refer to, a law that was passed in 1952, which has been repeatedly quoted by the government, which gives the president the authority at any time to suspend and immigration from any country or region wherever he wishes if he believes it is the national security of the u.s. to do it. that is that is "come on for that is there was a subsequent law that said that you can't discriminate based on race,ha color, religion, nationality, and immigration policy. that seems to me to be not quite in play here.simply because thia national security finding and is not and imposition of policy. it is a pause in current immigration practice, pending review, to determine what new screening procedures might be adopted. i think that on legal terms, the government has the best of the argument. having said that, i think that,

i am not a lawyer but i haveai covered a lot of legal cases and i have been a defendant in a couple, and i think the government should win and will eventually prevail. the question is, whether they should be allowed to go on this long, with the president's national security order in advance. >> tucker: that is the question. all of this is an outgrowth of what the president's opponents are calling a resistance to donald trump. not -- they are framing this in martial terms. what do you make of the resistance against trump or toto trump? >> the resistance in the country, i think, is a function of the fact that he is viewed as the antichrist by the left and some who are not on the left. in congress, i review this all out resistance as a function of the democrats being in something like the same position and other republicans where when

president obama was in office and the republicans got control of first, the house and later, the senate.a their constituents, those who put them in office, those who felt they did and they certainly contributed to it, thought that they were going to do all sortss of things to reverse obama's policies. they will be able to repeal obamacare. they will be able to defund the government to stop these policies from taking effect and so on. as a political matter, it was much more difficult than they supposed, as we learned when the government got shut down and the fight over funding obamacare, and the public turned to an extent and never more seen in the polling against the republicans. later on, of course, theyy prevailed in the election and everybody said it was -- that the shutdown didn't hurt. it did hurt. the problem for the democrats, they are even in a weaker position than the republicans were. they control neither house of the congress and of course, not the white house. the ability to resist n effectively is diminished.re we saw the ultimate example of that today. they went all out to stop

betsy devos. they ended up, and the end, mike pence cast the decisive vote and betsy devos as a secretary of education. >> tucker: extremism tends to grow from weakness rather than strength.ec even members of democrats in the house, who we think of as far out, avid lefties, they seem moderate by comparison to a lot of democratic voters. do you get that impression? l >> i don't think they aree moderate because maxine waters is already talking about when the time comes, she will move to impeach the president. she said that, a somewhat different news conference when she said that russia invaded korea. i think she meant crimea. maxine waters, all sorts of things get said. i think those people are pretty far out there. for the democratic caucus as a whole to be as far out on these

limbs of resistance to trump it something new and something we haven't seen before. the question -- i feel like they have to do it because they have a constituency that is up in arms and unable to adjust in any way to the fact that trump was president. they think that they can strangle his presidency in its crib and they are trying to do that. so far, not very effectively. but noisily. as in the case of this lawsuit, i suppose you could argue that they have at least succeeded in stalling it to some extent. >> tucker: i would say, at least maxine waters is suggesting peaceful means. which puts her in a lot of different categories. they have two years until there is any thing they can do electorally about the republican lock on the federal government. does this burn itself out? this rage, this intensity, does it go away? does it escalate? >> i think that is a $64 question, tucker. whether people get tired after they have broken their pick on

issue after issue, nominee after nominee, policy after policy, look, the left, remember,in tucker, is the branch of politics that cares about government. they have lost control of government. it means a lot more to them anyway then it ever did to the right. the right was mostly trying to get control of the government so they could slow it down. the left is the party of government. the democrats of the party of government. they will fight as hard as as hard as they have to fight so they can wrest control of her back. this is their lifeblood. this is what they believe in. it means more to them then and says to anybody else. i can't see them giving up or giving in. they might wear out. i don't see them giving up. >> tucker: i sort of wonder what these confirmation hearings, you will see one tomorrow, where democrats willr stay up all night delaying agait the vote on a prospective attorney general, jeff sessions. do they get any victories in ann

of this? any actual victories?? >> no, i think they don't get any actual victories. i think, to their base and to their most angry constituents, it is may be satisfying somehow to see the temporary frustration of jefferson sessions becoming attorney general and the president getting his way on that. they will block, stall, delay, complain, criticize, attack, of course, their allies in the media, who are legion, part of the whole picture here, they will get a lot of help from that. this is going to be a noisy and rancorous atmosphere, perhaps more than we have seen. it has been pretty bad. i think it is going to be bad and perhaps worse for as far as the eye can see. >> tucker: i need to ask you one last question. if you look at the groups against trump, i think there are things to criticize in the trump administration, but if you look at the professional agitators

who are opponents of the trump administration, it does look like a coalition of the privileged, actually. hollywood, political class, the tech community. people in upper income brackets. have you ever seen anything like that before? a revolution from above. >> it's true. the other thing is, tucker, the democratic party for some time has been the party of the very poor and the very rich. what happened to them in this most recent election is that they lost that working-class element that had been so important to their holds on states like pennsylvania, wisconsin, the other states in the midwest that they lost this time, which is what caused the presidency. this is the party of the two income extremes now. the hollywood left, which has been getting more so all the time, is rabid on trump. i think that the

african-american community didn't support them, although they didn't turn out for hillary they did for barack obama.ty i think you are right about that. it is the top and the bottom. >> tucker: after the election, we talked about this, we saw the industrial midwest go to trump against most expectations. at that point, we thought, holy smokes, they got to figure out a way to run people like senator casey or democrats with a proven record of an appeal to the middle of the country, the middle class. but you haven't seen, at least in public, efforts to figure out a program to appeal to those voters. do you think they have given up on the middle class? >> well, i don't know the answer to that.en i do think, tucker, if you look at the race for the chairmanship of the democratic party, i doesn't look like anybody isat looking for a centrist. what you have is left and lefter. the democratic party is nowhere near dead. it will come again. it will come back sooner than we think. but in the near term, i think

they are stuck without power. an enraged constituency, which will encourage members of the party to carry out actions which i don't think will be successful, which i think will only lead in turn to more frustration. even though donald trump, as we have seen, gives them ammunition to fight with all the time, they have not, so far, applied a very effectively. >> tucker: i hope it doesn't go to dark places. brit, thank you so much for joining us with these wisest summations. continuing to follow the breaking news, the web site but is viewed, decides to publish an unverified document claiming, among other salacious things, the donald trump had been co-opted by russian intel. just months later, buzzfeed is getting trumped by the i.t. company webzilla. the dossier claims that their parent holding company and its russian owner had all collaborated with a russian government and the trump campaign to hack the democratic national committee.at

buzzfeed has already apologized for not redacting the name fromt the document, that was not enough to square the lawsuit. a founding partner at the boston law group is representing webzilla and its owner in the suit. he joins us now. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me, tucker. >> tucker: what is the core allegation in your suit? >> the core allegation is that my clients woke up one day after having built up an incredibly successful web hosting provider, webzilla is a approximately $250 million company, with almost 40,000 servers across the world, with offices in nine different countries. as you can imagine, the reputation of the reputation of their ceo and the founder depends on their clients trusting the services they provide. one day, they woke up to find that a report was published by

buzzfeed that essentially accuses them of committing crimes against the united states by using their companies to hack computers of the democratic national party, which is an absolute fabrication. because the reputation has been tarnished, they really had no choice. >> tucker: i want to go right to the text here. this is from the now famous dossier published on buzzfeed. it begins, redacted. over the period of 2016, a company called webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, and conduct alternate operations against the democratic party leadership. you say that is not true. is it possible that webzilla or its companies was unwittingly used to do those things? >> no. it is impossible. it is a complete fabrication.

>> tucker: why do you think it was fabricated and why do you think you were included in the fabrication, your client?hi >> we looked to find the answer to that very question. there are some competitors decided that there was a legitimate way to compete with webzilla, which provides wonderful services, very well known, to be an honest, efficient supplier. and maybe this is one way that competitors can have a legitimate competition doesn't work. we really don't have a clue. >> tucker: a lot about this is confusing. what is not confusing is the fact that buzzfeed, which is an enormous news organization, massive investment from nbc and other big players in our media landscape, publish this, knowing it might not be true. the obvious question is, didla anyone from buzzfeed call anyone at the company you represent to ask, hey, were you a witting tool of russian intelligence?

did they check it with you guys? >> they did not. that is most disappointing.ot he is extremely accessible. after the story hit, or almost 30 different reporters contacted him immediately. he is very accessible. if buzzfeed reached out, he would were explained to them that this is an absolute fabrication and they would have additional information. maybe they could then use three strokes of a pen to redact the name, as well as webzilla.s they obviously redacted some other names but for some reason, they decided not to scare my client. >> tucker: their position is, we have interviewed the editor of buzzfeed, i think their position is, we are not endorsing this, or ratifying the conclusions in this document, we are putting them out there for the public to decide. does not indemnify them against

suits like yours? it is not their story. >> it does not. in fact, the way defamation law works, if you repeat something that is defamatory, you now own that statement. by publishing that -- i have to point out, they were the first one to publish it, clearly, these documents were in theo possession of various news organizations for weeks. yet, no one published it. this is one of those rare situations where msnbc, cnn, and fox, all agree on something, and they agree that this document should not have been published. it was irresponsible. >> tucker: the details, i think cnn went with an overview but they didn't go with the details. what is interesting, i think this is come to your attention. buzzfeed, as i said, publish to this with the idea that the public needed to know. but they have done nobu substantial follow-up pieces. there hasn't, apparently that i have seen, but in an effort to report this out. they haven't continue to dig up facts on this dossier. by do you think that is? >> i don't think that they did any research prior to releasing that..

then, they, of course,, continue to do something data. they saw an opportunity to create traffic to their web site and they throughout the documents hoping that if it was a business decision, a pure business decision, our clients view that there is a war between elephants here. warring elephants and they are the mouse that got trampled in the public. they are collateral damage. >> tucker: what are you suing them for? how much? >> the lawsuit does not claim specific damages. but i can tell you that our damages, as of now, are in the millions, if not tens of millions. >> tucker: do you mean? are they in the tens of millions are not? >> it's a rippling effect. once bad reputation starts, we have credit lines that banks refused to give us, and the millions of dollars, we have clients that refuse to do

business with us. we have prospective employees that we wanted to hire that refused to be hired by us. how those negative acts end up translating into dollars iss still unclear. but the rippling effect, they keep growing exponentially. as an example, if we will sell our company sometime down the road, last year, the company grew 27%. very aggressive growth. if, because of news, they stop growing, or they don't grow as fast, and then, down the road, instead of selling the company for $300 million, we can only sell them for 250, how do you quantify that? >> tucker: maybe they should t have called you first. 2 >> it would have taken a simple phone call. have to tell you, they apologize. but only after we filed suit. it wasn't like -- i actually wrote them a letter. and i pointed out that they made

an egregious, egregious mistake, that caused significant damage to my clients. we demanded an apology in the letter. it took a lawsuit to get them to apologize. >> tucker: thanks for explaining. we appreciate. up next, the trump presidency may have given senator rand paul a once in a lifetime chance to audit the federal reserve. he will be on ask to see why exactly wants to. plus, president obama transgender bathroom decree is making for some very strange alliances. we will talk to a self-described radical feminist group who istr teaming up with evangelicals demanding the orders reversal. that is up next. tech: don't let a cracked windshield ruin your plans. trust safelite. with safelite's exclusive "on my way text"... you'll know exactly when we'll be there. giving you more time for what matters most. (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace.

why is there neverite, enough of it? a john deere 1 family tractor with quik-park lets you attach and go. imatch quick-hitch gives you more time for what you love. so it takes less work to do more work. autoconnect drive-over mower deck? done. they're not making any more land. but there's plenty of time if you know where to look. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer. and this is they like lobster party.y, red lobster's lobsterfest is back with 9 irresistible lobster dishes. yeah, it's a lot. try tender lobster lover's dream and see how sweet a lobster dream can be. or pick two delicious lobster tails with new lobster mix and match. the only thing more tempting than one succulent lobster tail,

is two. is your mouth watering yet? good. because there's something for everyone, and everyone's invited. so come in today.

why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours.

if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. this is one gorgeous truck. special edition. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's 5. aaaahh!! ooohh!! uh! holy mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. which one's your favorite? come home with me! it's truck month! find your tag for an average total value over $11,000 on chevy silverado all star editions when you finance through gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. >> tucker: kentucky senator rand paul has been trying to audit the federal reserve for years now under president obama, that was impossible, of course. under an ordinary republican administration, to be pretty unlikely. perhaps, he can pull it outy under president trump. he is producing audit the fed to

fill in the senate and his trying to pass it while they can. senator paul joined us in washington. thank you for coming on. >> absolutely. >> tucker: why would we wantpa to audit the fed? why is this of concern to the everyday person? >> i think an easier question is why when we want to audit them? it is not about transparency, it's about knowing what your government does. we transferred that power to the federal reserve in 1913 and the dollars lost 96% of its purchasing power. your prices have gone up every year. what was once worth a dollar now takes $24 to buy what was once worth a dollar.at >> tucker: that as a result of the policies made at the federal reserve? >> this is a dirty little secret. you have to have a federal reserve if you are going to have a $20 trillion debt. why? the by your debt, but they buy your debt by printing out money.

see you can't have an enormous debt if you don't have a federal reserve printing out the money, but there are ramifications. there are ramifications, higher prices. a lot of senior citizens will say, there is no inflation, and they don't get an increase in my social security check, but the prices are going up at the grocery store. it depends on how you measure inflation. >> tucker: there is a massive amount of wealth floating around the last ten years, buta famously, a lot of it has talk to just a few people. how much of that has to do with fed policy? >> the interesting thing, democrats talk about income inequality. but the federal reserve has a lot to do with it. people get richer who already have money. you and i might have to go out and earn it or if you are a schoolteacher, you have to worka to earn your money. but if you have a bunch of money and park it at the fed, they pay you to keep it there. we use taxpayer money to keep it there. >> tucker: what is the average people get out of the fed's policy? >> you can say that the government borrows an enormous

amount of money. we get stuff we don't pay for. we also get something we don't want. that is the recessions in the depressions that come about. there have been more recessions and depressions, bad things, since we got the fed. they give us the side and said, we will have more less depression. the great depression had after the fed. all of the downturns we have had have been with the fed in existence. >> tucker: it's been 100 years. a long time. >> a lot of downturns -- the most recent ones, the bankingar system was teetering on the brink in 2008, that was caused because the federal reserve kept the interest rates low andhe people kept building houses. instead, what should have happened, if a bunch of people are building houses, and you and i all build houses, the price of money, the interest rates, should go up. then, the economy will slow down.he what happens if the federal reserve keeps the interest rate low permanently? you will get a boom and people are building houses like crazy. the both of too many houses because nobody told them to stop building.

what if they keep the interest rates low? to pay for a $20 trillionbu deb. if interest rates were to go back where they were historically, 5%, or even 7%, the government can't pay for their debt. >> tucker: janet yellen, who runs the fed, is against this. she said, auditing the fed -- leaving aside the question why that it is bad, shouldn't elected officials have a role in our economy, it seems pretty political to me already. you think it is? >> it makes me so mad that ino introduce further legislation to make it illegal for them to lobby us. we pay them. we appointed them and we are 's supposed to oversee them and they are lobbying against transparency, they are lobbying against our oversight. it is insulting. the main lobby against auditing the fed is the fed. >> tucker: who else? you don't have majority support in at the for this. >> that is not true. we had 53%. bernie sanders voted for it. 51 out of 50 --

>> tucker: what is the opposition to this? i want to give a fair hearing to this. what is the argument? >> some say that the fed has this massive debt, they love bye government, they know we have to have a big debt to have big government. they have to pay for it, so they don't want to muster the fed. right now, it is able to accommodate the enormous debt. one of the reasons i want oversight, a lot of people have been hurt in the downturn. in 2008, when the housing market went bust, i blame that on the federal reserve. we are right in the middle of another boom. has anyone seen the stock market lately? it is a boom just like the real estate boom in 2008. it will come to an end. i wish i knew exactly when so i could give you some investment advice. but it will come to an end. there will be a correction. we have a huge bubble in the stock market, created by easy money. free money. everybody has got money. handing you bouquets of money. but there will be repercussions. that will be the downturn, there will be a response or reaction

to all of this extra money. >> tucker: really quickly. elliott abrams, who served in the last bush administration is under consideration to becomeke deputy of secretary of state. you wrote this about him. >> i think someone who was a never trumper, he was a never trumper, he was disparaging and said to the president, things about the president, he would never vote for him, he said that the chair that washington and lincoln saturn, trump was not fit to sit in it. for goodness sakes, he does not fit for this. he represents things that donald trump doesn't. he has been different than money. he said that nationbuilding hasn't worked. when he said that, elliott abrams came forward and said, he is absolutely wrong. nationbuilding is what we need to do. regime change, iraq war, elliott abrams is one of the key architects of the iraq war.. we don't need people with the failed policies, donald trump does represent something new and different.

i think a welcome relief from the neocons. i hope he doesn't appoint someone who doesn't agree with him. >> tucker: i am baffled by it. senator, thank you so much. president trump is pushing to undo a lot of his predecessor's legacy. but one act from the obama administration is completely intact. last make him a degree from the department of justice and education ordered all public schools to let their transgender identifying students use whichever bathroom they wanted to use, even if it didn't match their physical sex. that order is still enforced. and in an odd twist, the conservatives christians and radical feminists are teaming up to fight it. the board chair for women's liberation front, the self-described radical feminist group that strongly opposes president obama's order entry joins us now. thank you for joining us. normally, you will describe someone as a radical feminist and they will take offense but you describe yourself that way. >> you might describe someone but they will take offense. i am proud to call myself a

radical feminist. >> tucker: i just want toes establish that you are not on the right at all in any way. yet, you have come in because of who are. reading your views on this, the line that struck me, "this is more than about bathrooms." what does that mean? >> this goes far beyond bathrooms. when people talk about this is a bathroom bill or a bathroom controversy, it is really not about that for us. in part, it goes to, within the realm of a bathroom, locker room, changing rooms, shower rooms, watch the interpretation of sex to mean gender identity means is that potentially any male who self identifies as female can access any women's bathroom, dormitory, school, it goes even far beyond that, to redefine women and girls to mean a centrally anyone who identifies as a woman or girl for purposes of title ix, which matters to us, because wee think women and girls are a meaningful category, worthy of

civil rights protection. >> tucker: you go on to say, this is about the erasure of women and girls.iv what does that mean? the erasure? >> title ix was enacted in 1972 specifically to remedy centuries of discrimination against women and girls because women and girls had been discriminated against and excluded from theen educational arena for thousands of years, at least hundreds of years. title ix was specifically enacted in order to remedy that. but now, if we defined sex under title ix to mean gender identity, what we are essentially saying is that women and girls can mean anyone who self identifies as women and girls, which renders the category women and girls meaningless as a category. it goes further than that. we see this in language all throughout society. we see this for example, women are no longer allowed to talk about body parts, we're not allowed to talk about pregnant women, we have to talk about pregnant people. we are not allowed to say that women have certain kinds of body parts. language is degrading.

we are seeing the erasure of women and girls as -- >> tucker: language and thought along with it. acknowledging g biological legality is now hate, in other words. so, as someone on the left, ii think it is fair to say, what has your life been like since you said something like this publicly? t it's >> what most of us who say things like this publicly receive is a lot of hate online. threats. we are called transphobic bigots because we ask questions about gender identity and then, goes further. we are often threatened with rape and death. we are told we need to shut up and die in a fire because we are asking questions and we are standing up for women and girls. that seems to be not permitted. it is interesting to me that specifically, the word, bigot is used. it means is someone who is intolerable toward another view. i am open to other views, i am open. if i'm wrong about this, i will own it.

if somebody can demonstrate to me that there are some legitimacy to gender identity ideology, then, great. >> tucker: rooted in science? >> sure. i'm completely open to that. instead, we see women and girls> standing up and say, wait a second, what you mean by gender identity, i am a woman because i'm an adult human female, the dictionary definition of woman, we are shut down immediately and told that we are transphobic bigots. >> tucker: i never thought i would say anything nice about a radical feminist group, we did this to protect all women's or girls regardless of political affiliation. thank you for saying that. you are rare. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: we are still waiting on the travel ban, we will be back with an update on that and more. stay tuned.r: friend of yours? that's frequent heartburn. it's always lurking around. but i'm safe. i took my prevacid®24hr today. i didn't. one pill prevents the acid that causes heartburn,

all day, all night. prevacid®24hr. batteries you can trust against the ear hair you can't. without them you're conducting business with an armpit on the side of your head. that's not just some battery. that's a duracell battery. that's a power you can trust. [vo] quickbooks introduces he teaches lessons to stanley... and that's kind of it right now. but rodney knew just what to do...he got quickbooks. it organizes all his accounts, so he knows where he stands in an instant. ahhh...that's a profit. which gave him the idea to spend a little cash on some brilliant marketing! ha, clever. wow, look at all these new students! way to grow, rodney! know where you stand instantly. visit quickbooks.com.

♪ something new has arrived. ♪ uniquely designed for the driven. ♪ introducing the first-ever infiniti qx30 crossover. infiniti. empower the drive.

>> tucker: president trump's executive order is in the hands of the ninth circuit court of appeals.s. i just heard arguments both sides. it is arguing his a challenge filed by washington and minnesota state governments willing any time. we'll keep you posted. sean hannity will have more right now. have a great night. >> sean: great show as always and this is a fox news alert, we are awaiting a decision from the u.s. ninth circuit court of appeals after hearing oral arguments earlier today, donald trump's temporary travel ban. we'll have breaking news if, in fact, it does. ed henry will also have a full report on what happened in court today. also announced from laura ingraham, jay sekulow, tomi lahren, corey lewandowski will all be here tonight. let me give you the truth of what's really going on and the analysis that nobody on tv is going to give you.ly this legal battle that you're watching unfold over the extreme vetting executive order to keep you safe is just one of many