tonight, i'm a bill o'reilly, i'm a bill o'reilly, please remember that the spinner stops here because we are definitely looking out for you. ♪ >> tucker: a fox news alert, a federal appeals court has ruled against president donald trump and he is not happy about it, a you will hear the president's reaction to the decision, the ninth circuit rejection of his travel ban. good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," just a couple of minutes, washington, d.c.,'s attorney general will be here to ask blaine why he is fighting the president's band. charles krauthammer will also respond to that. the head of a human rights organization defends his group's claim that the president trump is a top global threats to human rights and he'll explain why. first, fox news correspondent trey gallagher on what is happened today in the ninth circuit. >> the key argumentt was washington state didn't have the authority to challenge this because the president has

unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of anysi class of aliens. the court ruled when it comes to immigration at a national security, neither the supreme court nor our court that courts lacked the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the constitution.on president trump tweeted seat you in court. the security of our nation is at stake.et here's what the president said, listen close. >> it's a political decision, i look forward to doing it. c we have a situation where the security of our country is at stake. it's a very, very seriousou situation. so we look forward as i just said to see them in court. this is just a decision that j came down but we'll win the case. >> have you conferred with your new attorney general on this tonight?

>> no, i haven't, we just heard of the decision we just thought just like you did. the other news, the media. but it's a decision that we'll win in my opinion very easily. by the way, we won that decision in boston. >> the new attorney general jeff sessions to decide to file a emergency request to the supreme court or take it back to seattle, it could tie up the executive order for months, the supreme court doesn't have a tiebreaker and if the eight current justices vote 4-4, the ninth circuit court decision decision with standiford arkansas senator tom cotton said the order to temporarily pause the refugee program is plainly legal under the constitution washington state governor jayr ensley responded to the governor

by tweeting... tucker. >> tucker: thanks a lot for that. the people providing the legal opposition is karl racine, he is the attorney general for district of columbia, he's one of the 16 attorneys general who signed an amicus brief supported lawsuit against the president's orders, he joins us now from washington, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much foror having me. >> tucker: in the ruling tonight, there was this line and i'm puzzled by it. the government has not shown the executive order provides what due process requires. this order applies mostly to foreigners, non-u.s. citizens abroad, there in other countries. the question i think the key legal question is does due process as afforded by the constitution apply to them? if it does, its massive implications for a lot of things, how could we ever vomit

people in foreign countries, declare and warn them, drawn them without giving them due process if there do the rights the constitution affords u.s. citizens? does the court really meant to say that due process applies to foreigners and other countries? >> i think the courts focus on the due process was related to the impact of this executive order on immigration law. clearly with respect to due process, due process applies to citizens in the united states, residents in the united states as well as individuals who have applied and been granted visas, the court was very clear on na >> tucker: so people in foreign countries who are not u.s. citizens, they're not on u.s. soil but the constitutional protection that we enjoy as citizens apply to them, so would they have standing under the standard you just articulated to file suit against the u.s. government on the grounds that say we bump their country? f iraqis with visas in hand because our protections by them, why wouldn't they be able to sue in federal court in the u.s. for waging war against them court to >> sure, your hypothetical is

interesting, i think it is a world away from the executive order relating to immigration. it's related to immigration and the judge's ruling on due process made it clear that withr respect to any person in the united states, citizens, residents, or folks who have been issued visas, whether they be in the state or not in the state, they are required under the law to be protected by due process, notice and opportunity to be heard. >> tucker: so there's nothing theoretical i beg your pardon, about the example i just gave, if they have due process rights, the same things you will die as citizens possess, those rights don't just apply to the president's executive order to immigration, they apply to the whole panoply of rights granted to us by the constitution, that's a big deal. that means millions of people around the world not allowed to vote here, do not live here have standing in u.s. courts as citizens, why is that not a huge thing? >> it's because your hypothetical is so expensive and it goes so far beyond the courts narrow application of the

question presented that it simply inapplicable, when we focus on the case and the contesting of the case which >> tucker: i'm not a lawyer, i'm just asking a question, due process under the constitution only applies to visas and immigration when those rights are curtailed by an executive order by the president. >> that's what the executive court of appeal said. >> tucker: explain to be in simple terms what's legally wrong with the president's executive orders? why are they against the constitution?de with the statutory problem with them? >> there's several significant infirmities that the ninth circuit found. number one, the government took a position that the executive order was unreviewable, the ninth circuit stated cases going back 50 years ago made it clear that while a president's executive order that impacts national security and immigration is entitled to deference, it is reviewable

under constitutional standards. that's point number one. second point, second point,ar standing. the court made clear that states have standing to bring actionn against the federal government where the federal government's actions will impact the states, the states of washington and minnesota presented compelling evidence of the impact on students at universities, professors at universities, employees, and businesses. >> tucker: that all seems reasonable, but what's the court legal or constitutional problem with the orders in the first place? why did they contravene the constitution or immigration law? i'm confused about that. >> let me try to clear it up for you. the court also found that the rational behind the executive order was not well established in fact by the government. the court pointed out and highlighted in none of the seven

countries it issued did the government present any evidence of any terrorist strike from those countries to the united states. under the courts review, under the constitution, the government needed to provide that evidence and totally failed to, that's another very important fact here. >> tucker: okay, so your position because you signed on on this in the amicus brief is that there is no threat from refugees or immigrants from somalia even though there have been a couple of pretty recent cases where refugees from that specific country or children have committed terrorist attacks, that's not real, there's no actual threat it's made up? is that the position? >> no, my position is -- and i heard the oral argument which was an extraordinary teaching lesson in the constitution, and the judges asked the government lawyer to provide evidence of any terrorist act from those seven countries and is the opinion made clear, the

government provided no evidence. >> tucker: i noticed. that's exactly right, it may have been a failure of preparation or sophistication, they didn't do a good job of defending their position, but i want to get back to the core problem is. you're hearing people argue the problem with the executive orders is that they specify, though indirectly, a religion. it set up a religious test for our immigration policy. that may or may not be true but i'm struck by that argument because of course we have had explicit religious tests for immigration policy pretty recently, up until 1988, the u.s. government automatically grants refugee status to soviet because they were victims of persecution and they were. we automatically gave them refugee status because of the w religion, was that a bad thing to do? >> i haven't really thought about that example and i certainly don't think it was a bad thing to do because as > you know, the soviet jews were being persecuted. >> tucker: big time, right.

so why wouldn it be a bad thing to carve out an exception for christians? no one disputes that. what is the difference? >> what the court found is that there is evidence not only in the order but outside the order, statements by the president of the united states, statements by his aides that the order in fact was discriminatory to a certain religion, and therefore elevated religion in a way that was counter to the establishment clause of the constitution. >> tucker: but as i said, we've done this before and no one said anything. there is a precedent for singling people out on the basis of the religion for special treatment in our immigration law. this is somehow different and you haven't explained why. the other example that people bring up is that somehow this ix wrong and to specify or bar people by country of origin but

our immigration policy by definition categorizes people by country of origin, will take this money from this country, this many from this region and that of course has not been found to be unconstitutional, why is this unconstitutional? >> the immigration and nationality act specifically indicates that while of course the government can make decisions on the number of individuals it admits for myth country, it cannot discriminate wholly on the basis of national origin. that's when the law since 1965, it's not been contested. if you read the ninth circuit opinion, you will see that the ninth circuit, an ideologically diverse court, a very important point, unanimously ruled with the states and against the government's argument, many ofnt which that you'reth making tonight. >> tucker: i understand the

talking point come that's just not true. the immigration act of 1990 which was like yesterday basically, 27 years ago, created diversity visas dedicated to channel immigrants from low rates of immigration to the united states which is to say, it gave a favor to based on national organ and disfavored others based on national origin. this is our current law. i don't understand why these executive orders areec inconsistent with this precedent? >> i've got to tell you, tucker, i appreciate your creativity and appreciate your hypotheticals, the apartment of justice, your department of justice not make any of the arguments that you made. the ninth circuit and the federal court before it evaluated the executive order under well-established principles of the constitution and at every instance in the ninth circuit, they found that the governments governments were unavailing, that's the point. >> tucker: it doesn't get -- for there was at home wondering

what's legal was not was constitutional what's not, you made the case if they made a bad case and they agree with you. i seldom understand the principles. unfortunately, we're out of time i wish we had more time. >> i look forward to talk you again. >> tucker: the forces of tolerance rioted at the university of berkeley to keep milo yiannopoulos from expressing his political views we'll talk to the leader of college democrats, his fellow liberals have become regressive rather than progressive. human rights watch said the top risk to global human rights is president trump. what sets him apart from other autocrats like kim jong un. charles krauthammer here with his thoughts in today's big ruling, that's all ahead, stay tuned. his thoughts in today's big his thoughts in today's big ruling, that's all ahead, stay

oh, how waso good!en house? did you apply? oh, i'll do it later today. your credit score must be amazing. my credit score? credit karma. it's free. that's great! um hm. just whip bam boom, it's done. that apartment is mine! credit karma. give yourself some credit. companies across the state are york sgrowing the economy,otion.

with the help of the lowest taxes in decades, a talented workforce, and world-class innovations. like in plattsburgh, where the most advanced transportation is already en route. and in corning, where the future is materializing. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov (vo) when it comes to helzberg diamonds knows bigger isn't always better. our beautiful diamond heart pendant is just $299.99. that's $200 off! helzberg diamonds. here's to love.

i mwell, what are youe to take care odoing tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45? uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life.

>> tucker: it's been awake since uc berkeley literally went up in flames in response to an attempted speech by milo yiannopoulos, we spoke to yiannopoulos immediately afterwards and he had this to say but what just happened to them. >> all sorts of things happen, the people who showed up and not all of whom were fans of mind but just who wanted to come and listen to what i had to say. those people were attacked, physically attacked. this is political violence in response to perfectly mainstream opinion. >> tucker: the aftermath in soms quarters was disheartening, berkeley's campus paper published no fewer than five separate editorials defended the use of violence to stop milo from saying things they disagreed with. one alternative voice to that was matt teitelbaum, he is the

president of the collegewahe democrats, he recently wrote a piece that said i'm a liberal and i want milo yiannopoulos on my campus. thanks a lot for coming on. i'm glad to talk to you and it's reassuring to talk to a liberal who believes in free speech, you lead it with my most cherisheded liberty is free speech,it god bless you for saying that. why is that such an uncommon sentiment among your fellow liberals? it used to be commonplace, i will die for your rights to say something i disagree with. why is that not heard any more? >> that is the crux of my message that although i really majority of what miloat yiannopoulos, all i agree with on on is his right to speak, i will defend to the death his right to say it. i think with liberals it what happened is a very small but very loud minority has started to really hurt the conversation and has tried to silence people and all is done is made milo famous it's just making this

fight tougher for us. i'm trying to awaken the silent majority of us that do believe in free speech that are real liberals, not regressive's toen fight back with our words. >> tucker: i guess i disagree with you on your point about it being a small minority there's been a lot of polling on this and in the poll i saw yesterday showed that about half of self-described liberals on college campuses believe there are limits to free speech in those and with what they call hate speech, defined asar something i disagree with. how many college classes have you been and where a professor has made a point of reminding the class that free speech is your birthright as an american in its absolute? >> i go to south university which is an excellent school where sometimes with students i can tell there's a lot of sensitivity and political correctness with certain students who have been criticall of my article since it came out might trump the right to free speech. overall, on colleges again, it's a small minority. most of the professors i've had

it they may not start every class with free speech is your birthright but they do say let's have an open dialogue, let's not be disrespectful to one another. if you disagree with someone engage them in a respectful way. i'm glad that i've had great professors who have done that and i hope to think and i'm confident that most liberals and conservatives across america that believe that. i want to bring us together around that cause. and to take the power away from us loud, oh, so loud minority. spoon and a violent it's not just that they disagree it's that they're willing to use force to make certain people they disagree with are not heard. without a common agreement on that freedom of speech, you can't have any kind of conversation at all. what has the response been to your piece as an avowed liberal head of the college democrats defending free speech what kind of response if you had? >> i've gotten a lot of support because as i said, i think that it's a majority that hasn't been able to speak out as much.h. because of the violence of the

minority but i have gotten some heat for it and i'm accountable for my words publicly. i'm ready to take theom heat. right now, i think it's important for liberals like me like other people, others ili admire bill marr and dave rubin, wake up people like us and let's take back the democratic party, let's take back the word liberal so it doesn't mean regressive. it doesn't mean anti-free speech so that it means we have our positions, we'll debate you on yours, we'll not going to try to silence you. >> tucker: you mentioned dave rubin, i don't know who he is, i know who bill marr is closer to people who are standing up for free speech but what about the actual leaders of the american left? it's political leaders? i didn't hear any of them, not one of them say heyrs milo yiannopoulos ought to have a right to say what he thinks in america, why did nobody say that? >> i did and i'm a president of the college democrats of maryland and i hope others will follow suit. i hope maybe it will be watching

tonight and they'll go i agree with him, i agree i'm a democrat i'm a liberal and i think people read my article who agree with me my op-ed, that is. i'm hopeful i'm starting a conversation amongst liberals among people like bill maher and others where we say this is not okay, liberalism means supporting free speech, i think there's potential here to nip in the bud this p.r. problem that liberals have everyone thinks we're snowflakes, politically correct, the millennials, whatever. i'm trying to start a conversation about that because it is important. >> tucker: it's a vital, it's more than a p.r. problem, godspeed. >> thanks so much for having me on. >> tucker: ever feel confused by the new age li throw around, no you don't have an excuse because the words micro-aggression and save space are not just activist newspeak, this week both were added to the latest edition of merriam-webster dictionary.

the dictionary defines a safe space is a place and headed to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, a potentially threatening actions, or conversations or of the first member does well which by definition they are. those and a thousand other words are intended to reflect thes continuing record of our evolving language and they do. o according to human rights watch, president trump is a demagogueol and of the world to tremble as the threat he poses to human rights, the group's executive director will be here next to explain what that means, that's coming up next. as the one who's always trapped beneath the duvet,

i'm begging you... take gas-x. your tossing and turning isn't restlessness , it's gas. gas-x relieves pressure,bloating and discomfort in minutes !! so we can all sleep easier tonight. hambone! sally! 22! hut hut! tiki barber running a barber shop? yes!!! surprising. yes!!! what's not surprising? how much money david saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. who's next?

>> tucker: the group humans rights watch has said the u.s. has become a global threat to human rights thanks to donald trump's election as president.gh because the president condemns illegal immigration, opposes abortion and at once criticize a disabled reporter from "the new york times," he embodies a threat to human rights worldwide. we are joined now by human rights watch executive director kenneth ross. >> thanks for having us, that wasn't really an honest explanation of what the book said. what you're courting watch is human rights watch annual world reported covers 90 countries around the world. i'm including those that you mentioned around the world, we condemn egypt, the atrocities

committed by putin, assad's killing people in syria, the friends a of trump. in addition, we highlight and talk about the global rise of populist, it isn't just trumps criticizing disabled journalist it's that a group of people trump included, marine le penenf france, victor or bonnett hungry, people who are rising in western countries and what they have in common is that all of them claim a special insightht into what the majority want and claim that's the majority desire, the will of the people justifies their dumping on certain disfavored minorities, we saw that in the case of trump with his xenophobia, his racism,

nativism, his islamphobia. >> tucker: i've heard the lectures. you just said i was dishonest my characterization. >> you said trump is a threat to the world because it meant not to disabled journalist watch i think that was wrong to do think that was wrong to do that, we think it's a threat to democracy in the united states but i'm not sure this is the man who actually respects the limitm on executive power but our big concern globally. >> tucker: i just read the document that you were referring to, i understand your position, your report 2017, by the way, i think there are human rights abuses and lots of abuses in the u.s. has committed them and i'm glad there people watching thems i'm not against it come on fort, what i'm bothered by is the distortion of scale and the obviously partisan motives you have which i think belittled your mission but i want to give you an example. you devote on the subject of zimbabwe which is an openly

racist country committing ethnic cleansing against a minority in the country, you commit 1,398 words. cuba which keeps dissidents in prison, 1,742. north korea, 1,609, iran 1896. united states 3,782 words, my point is it's more than twice the space you spend describing human rights abuses in the countries that defined the human rights abuses, it's all out of whack. >> you think counting words the measure of somebody's human rights violation? you accuse me of being partisan, i had an op-ed in the washington post three or four days before trump's inauguration where i was critical of obama for his failures on the counterterrorism policy in ways that i think make america much less safe.

if you look at that world report of the entire eight years, we would've been highly critical of obama's policies as we were. >> tucker: i read them every year, you're not highly critical. >> you didn't call me for those cases. >> tucker: i was happy that you are one of the people on the left who raise concerns about the drones. it's obvious from what you are on the right, this is human rights watch on your web site. human rights in danger, what is happening to human rights in the world what's of the united states donald trump is the next president of the united states said many thingsth against human rights, i'm quoting you. he blamed people that come foror the u.s. for problems with money and jobs.s. some of those criticisms are legitimate rooted in facts and economics, he made fun of someone with a disability, how was mocking someone or beinge rude of threats to human rights? i know you don't like it i don't like it either, it's not a threat to human rights? >> a president is supposed to uphold the rights oft everybody including the disabled. you don't want the president rather than protecting the

disabled mocks them. >> tucker: he wasn't questioning the rights of the disabled. this is when your above this, he was a candidate not a president when he did this. he was marking a guy in a rude way. i wouldn't allow my children to act that way i thought it was offensive. he didn't question the rights of the disabled he mark the specific newer tremors porter why you're conflating that with that an attack on human rights? >> because he's an aspiring president and the responsibility of the president is to respect the rights of everybody. >> tucker: so mocking somebody isn't on everybody who shares characteristics, what are you saying? >> it's illustrative of a president who is not terribly interested in defending the rights of the disabled, or the unpopular's, that's our concern. whether their undocumented immigrants, refugees, blacks, or women, over and over, you saw this disrespect to these people. which is not what youwh would wt in the case of a president.

>> tucker: you're doing what'r they all do, you're making generalizations rather than -- you're not answering a specific question that i asked, you're going to the big picture. the big picture was how was candidate trumps rudeness to a disabled "new york times" reporter illustrative of his feelings of the disabled are generally? how is that under minding the rights of disabled people by mocking one "new york times" reporter who disabled? it's not and you're saying it is. >> so that thing he did it was mocking the disabled person. it wasn't the respect for the disabled that you look for in ai president to step among other things. >> tucker: how does that >> go back to the report. what we highlight it in report is here is a first candidate now president who claims the special insight into what the people want and he's used that insight to a on actual people and their rights. these are early days in this presidency so we're not saying this is necessarily where he's going but we are worried. that's the reason we what that report.g

>> tucker: i think there are things to worry about and i think you're the guy to bring those to our attention, when you start claiming that making funnd of a "new york times" reporter is an attack on all disabled people you undermine your credibility but -- >> you're the one who saidid th. i said that somebody who mocks the disabled or jokes about groping women or disparages black people living in these hellholes in inner cities or all mexicans are criminals or treats all muslims are all syrianer refugees as would-be terrorists, that is not the respect for individual difference thatfu i look for in a president whose job it is to protect the rights of us all including the unpopular, including minorities. >> tucker: included the unpopular.r. you have me asking why theth specific attack on one person,la what you're doing is engaging in a police piece of political rhetoric rather than about human

rights. >> you didn't call me in the last eight years when we are being highly critical of obama. >> tucker: you weren't being -- >> and being principal, to uphold the standards of human rights including the disabled. >> tucker: let me summarize almost remember your summary of president obama, you said is onr failing was he didn't do enough to make good to fix the human rights problems that the previous president left him, that he left the door open for the next president because he didn't ameliorate the human rights violations that president bush left him, it was a partisan statement.at >> obama never prosecuted anybody for torture, he never closed down guantanamo, these were major failings on his part. he was not nearly transparent in the use of drones as we wanted him, we were highly critical in many respects. you can go back and read our

eight years of reports you'll see plenty of criticism -- >> tucker: i read them every year, let me ask you one less question i've always wanted ask you this.. the constitution guarantees and the courts have upheld this the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. that is under attack by a lot of politicians in this country, trying to take away law-abiding people's rights to exercise their second amendment guarantee. that is an attack on their human rights as defined by the constitution and never hurt you stand up against that, why? >> international human rights law which what we uphold which is different from constitutional law doesn't talks about the rights to bear arms, it talks about the duty of the government to protect the safety of everyone. if you compare the epidemic of gun violence in this country with many other countries that have much tighter gun control laws and much greater public safety, you can make the opposite argument, you can make the argument. >> tucker: and you do, you vehemently. >> it's undermining human rights of america. >> tucker: the first amendment

is a universal right, political views, milo yiannopoulis tonight, presented the mike prevented from speaking by a violent mob it is right to speak freely was a bridge come i didn't see any press release but you guys on that, or the many attacks on the first amendment. >> we focus on what governments do not on what individual people do. obviously the rights includes the right of speech. it's been it's a state university.henm p >> everybody has a right to speak even if it's unpopular. thanks a lot for joining us, appreciate it. >> tucker: edward snowden is a hero too many but could he be a top russian intelligence asset who betrayed america, our next guest says exactly what he was, he wrote a book on it.ad what h, he wrote a book on it hey julie, i know today's critical, but i really... ...need a sick day. dads don't take sick days. dads take dayquil severe: the... ...non-drowsy, coughing, aching, fever, sore throat, stuffy...

...head, no sick days medicine. when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. liberty did what? yeah, with liberty mutual all i needed to do to get an estimate was snap a photo of the damage and voila! voila! (sigh) i wish my insurance company had that... wait! hold it... hold it boys... there's supposed to be three of you... where's your brother? where's your brother? hey, where's charlie? charlie?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance

by simply enjoying it. boost® simply complete. it's intelligent nutrition made with only 9 ingredients, plus 25 vitamins and minerals and 10 grams of protein. and look where life can take you! boost®. be up for it.™ >> tucker: it's been three and a half years since edward snowdenn walked off to russia with a vast

trove of american secrets, more than 1 million pages of them. he still a hero too many in groups like aclu and amnesty internationalur called upon president obama to our name before leaving office, obama did it. a new book aggressively questions the idea that he was t any kind of hero saying that he deliberately sought to steal american secrets before accepting putin's offer to defect to russia. edward epstein has dedicated his life to investigating a lot of things including journalism, he released his latest book how america lost its secrets snowden, the man at the theft, edward jay epstein, great to sew you. you point out that some way the snowden did of the market public a favor, but he'd went way beyond that and damaged american national security, why didn't he stop at the public service part of what he did? >> i think one has to acknowledge that there's always a silver lining to every cloud that the cloud was a dark

thunderstorm in terms of what happened to american intelligence because of the damage purposely and deliberately inflicted by snowden. >> tucker: it was purposeful and deliberate you demonstrate you went over to russia, what was his motive, exactly? >> i don't know his motive. i'm more or less interested -- i'm more interested in his actions, why he took these documents, 1.5 million files, according to the house permanent select committee on intelligence, he removed, once he removed those files, he compromised the entire communications intelligence of the west shrunk by that amount. why did he do this? what he did was basically fly to hong kong, he made a pit stop at

their where he managed to make himself the poster boy of whistleblowing for american journalism. they never could see the whole story, they never asked what happened to the other 1 million to 440,000 documents that he didn't give journalists. why did he go to russia? one thing that he did i'm sure of what is going to russia was done as a russian supported operation. >> tucker: yes, you demonstrated that, he boarded a plane with an invalid passport and that only could have happened with the complicity of the russian government. what happened to the rest of the documents? you say only the small percentage made it into the hands of journalists? where the rest? were all of them released? >> that's the trillion dollar question, in the murky world of espionage, we don't know who gets what documents, we don't know if they want to russia, w china, if they were divided. if he threw them into the sea.

the damage was basically the military, the pentagon had to spend five months going through source, every method had to be every method had to be canceled, a huge district of exercise that happened and we've suffered because of it. >> tucker: i didn't understand from what you wrote on why the nsa would have given snowden whf was not an employee, a contractor access to level three secrets, the highest level secrets. why would they have let him handle those or have access to them? >> snowden somehow learned that another contractor booz allen hamilton had a contract to work on level three where the sources and methods are taken away. he purposefully switched jobs, he said that. he changed jobs to get at the

lists of computers that were being penetrated by the nsa. it wasn't -- they didn't accidentally come before him he targeted and went after the sources and methods, which are the crown jewels of any intelligence service and incredibly important to communications intelligence. >> tucker: more even then we understand. things for coming on tonight, i appreciate it. >> thank you very much, tucker. >> tucker: we'll talk to charlesco krauthammer out of today's ruling out of the ninth circuit court at what it means for the trump presidency and you, will be right back. >> tucker: fox news alert, a my sweethearts gone sayonara.

this scarf all thats left to remem... what! she washed this like a month ago the long lasting scent of gain flings

>> tucker: fox news alert, a federal appeals court has upheld the block on president trump's travel ban from several muslim majority countries.l the past year and a half has given ample proof that the president is not deterred by a m setback, even those that would have destroyed more timid politicians, it's no surprise he would have a fight on ironically saying he would see the court in court. has the president finally found a fight that he can't when andd where do we go from here? to tell us, we're joined by a columnist and fox news contributor dr. charles krauthammer, thanks for joining us. what exactly is the court saying here, i'm try to understand what the central objection to the president's executive order is. >> i think this is a disgraceful conclusion because what they did is they substituted their judgment as to what constitutes a threat to american security for the president's. we were all interested in what they think but that is irrelevant to the case. p the case was does the president have the authority to do it, if he does, it's his judgment to

hede does, it's his judgment to make. that's the plain reading of the law, the plain understanding of the constitution, i think the policy was unwise. but that's irrelevant. i think it's very clearly legal, this is the most left-wing, most overturned court in the country. i think for the administration and considering trump does not like to lose, i think he may want to go to the supreme court which may not be the most tactically wise way to go, but you know he tweeted out see you in court? i'm told that the governor of washington state just tweeted out "we did go to court, and you lost." that is sure to get a rise out of the president and i suspect as a matter of pride, he's going to want to go to the supreme court where i think his chances may be dicey. there's no slam dunk, even though i think if we had a full

court, if we had scalia or the new justice, he would win. we're not sure where it goes. as you know, if the high court splits 4-4, then the ruling of the ninth circuit, the one we got tonight stands and the president loses.ht >> tucker: i've heard some speculation that the case that justice department lawyers, the career attorneys made it before the appeals court, i've heard a number of people say it wasn't a very apt case, they seemed a little light on details, the more specific about the threats, and they didn't to see him facts with them. do you think that it's possible they didn't make a very good case and they didn't make a good case because they don't believe in the case? >> on the first question, i was listening into the oral arguments. and the trump side, the federal

government's side i thought exceedingly weak, i don't think they were throwing the game, i don't think this is a guy whoho went in there deliberately to lose, i think this is a junior guy, i'm told the top two were not able to do it for whatever reason, had to recuse themselves.on remember, i think this is a tactical error by the administration. you don't go into a decision like this, executive order like this where you know you're going to get sued, you know you might get stayed unprepared. they didn't before having an attorney general in place, so they're depended on the career people who are not necessarily the top of their class, i don't think this is a guy who was playing the 1919 white sox throwing the world series, i think he was a minor league or who had to fasten the world series. >> tucker: thanks a lot, coming up next, cnn's chris cuomo had an unfortunate date when he tried to equate the term fake

news with racism, maybe the press you shouldn't have used it so much in three months ago, we'll show you that a blunder right after the break. break

just checking my free credit score at credit karma. what the? you're welcome. i just helped you dodge a bullet. but i was just checking my... shhhhh... don't you know that checking your credit score lowers it. just be cool. actually, checking your credit score with credit karma doesn't affect it at all. are you sure? positive. huh, so i guess i could just check my credit score then.

oh! check out credit karma today. credit karma. give yourself some credit. sorry about that.

>> tucker: three months after the press force maimed fake news on to the american public, a me >> tucker: three months after the press force maimed fake news on to the american public, a member of the media has tried to equate it with racial slurs. background, today president trump labeled chris cuomo a purveyor of fake news for not pressing senator richard blumenthal aggressively on the claim that he served in vietnam when he didn't. in response, cuomo said of this. >> fake news is the worst thing that you can call a journalist. it's like an ethnice disparagement, we all have these ugly words for people, that's the one for journalists. david, he just keeps doubling down when the facts don't favor his position. >> tucker: you insulted me, i'mo rosa parks! the man who once claimed it was illegal to read wikileaks emails

soon learned he made another mistake just a few hours later, he apologized saying the pain of being called a phony it was nothing compared to the pain of a racial slur. >> sean: the u.s. ninth circuit court of appeals has productively ruled against the trump administration by rulingtr against a temporary travel plan, an important opening monologue about congressional republicans and how they need to roll up their sleeves and start to go to work to fill president trump's promises to you, the market people, that's coming up. but first, president trump is reacting to tonight's ruling byt pointing out in big letters "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake." president trump also said this tonight. watch this. >> the security of our country