american people, safe, and convenience may few people? go to facebook.com/seanhannity, @seanhannity on twitter. let us know what you think. as always, thank you ♪ >> tucker: a fox news alert, a federal appeals court has ruled against president donald trump and he is not happy about it, 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 steck gallagher on what is happened today in the ninth circuit. speaker of the key argument was washington state didn't have the

authority to challenge this because the president has unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any 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 consecutive action in those arenas for compliance with the constitution. president trump tweeted seat you in court. the security of our nation is at stake. here's what the president said, listen close. >> president trump: it's a political decision, i look forward to doing it. we have a situation where the security of our country is at stake. it's a very, very serious situation. so we look forward as i just said to see them in court. this is just a decision that came down but we'll win the case. >> reporter: have you conferred with your new attorney general on this tonight quotes

mark >> know i have it, 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 consecutive order for months, the supreme court doesn't have a tiebreaker and if the eight current justices vote four-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 jay ensley responded to the governor

by tweeting we just saw you in court, and we beat you, 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 for 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 tha that. >> 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? 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 mark >> 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 with 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 and applicable, when we focus on the case and the contesting of the case which mark spoon 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. spent x plane to be in simple terms what's legally wrong with the president's executive order orders? why are they against the constitution >> 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, standing. the court made clear that states have standing to bring action 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 contribution constitution or immigration law? >> 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 effect by the government. the government court pointed od

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 at the position? >> no, my position is -- and i heard of the oral argument which was an extraordinary teaching lesson in the constitution and 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 religion, was that a bad thing to do court mark >> 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 were being persecuted.

>> tucker: big time, right. so i wouldn't be be a bad thing to carve out an exception for christians? >> 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. if there is a precedent for singling people out on the basis of the religion for special treatment in our immigration la law. this is somehow different and you haven't explained why. the other example that people bring up is that somehow this is

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 my 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 of which that you're 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 are 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 from expressing his political views will 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 resident trauma. what sets him apart from other autocrats like kim jong luna. charles krauthammer here with his thoughts in today's big his thoughts in today's big ruling, that's all ahead, stay

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: 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. because the president condemns

illegal immigration, opposes abortion and at once criticize a disabled reporter from "the new york times," he embodies efforts 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 of trump. in addition, we highlight you 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 pen of france, victor or bonnett hungr

hungry, people who are rising in western countries and what they have in common is that all of them claim a special insight 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 sought in the case of trump with his xenophobia, his racism, his nativism, spoon i've heard the lectures. you just said i was dishonest my characterization, you >> you said trump is a threat to the world because it meant not to disabled journalist watch mike i 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 limits 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 them, i'm not against it come on fort, what i'm bothered by is the distortion of scale and the obviously part of it was in 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 18 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 wash and a 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 can call me and 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 mark of the united states donald trump is the next president of the united states said many things against human rights, i'm courting you. he blamed people that come for the u.s. for problems with money and jobs. some of those criticisms are legitimate rooted in facts and economics, he made fun of someone with a disability, how was mocking someone or being rude of threats to human rights watch mark 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 of everybody including the disabled. you don't want the president rather than protecting the disabled marks tempered >> tucker: he wasn't questioning the rights of the disabled. this is one that your above thi 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 what's mark >> 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 attacking on everybody who shares their characteristics, what are you saying what's mark >> 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. >> tucker: you're doing what 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 canada 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 you "new york times" reporter who disabled? it's not and you're saying it is spread >> was so that thing he did it was mocking the disabled

person. it wasn't the respect for the disabled that you look for in a president to step among other things. >> tucker: how does that undermine the rights which mark >> 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. >> 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 fun of a "new york times" reporter as an attack on all disabled people you undermine your credibility but >> you're the one who said that. 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 syrian refugees as would-be terrorists, that is not the respect for individual difference that 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. you have me asking why the specific attack on one person, what you're doing is engaging in a police piece of political rhetoric rather than about human rights, >> e 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 terror, to uphold the standards of human rights including the disabled. but let me summarize almost remember your summary of president obama, you said is one feeling 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. >> 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 moment 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 deftly 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, i'll be cold 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. >> everybody has a right to speak even if it's unpopular.

spent thanks a lot for joining us, appreciate it. >> tucker: edward soden is a hero too many but could he be a top russian intelligence asset who trade america, our next guest says exactly what he was, he wrote a book on it

>> tucker: it's been three and a half years since edward snowden 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 international called upon president obama to our name before leaving office, obama did it. a new book aggressively questions the idea that he was 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 see 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 a public 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 overnight 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 alien files, accg to the house permanent select committee on intelligence 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, china, if they were divided. if he threw them into the sea. the damage was basically the military, the pentagon had to spend a five months going through 1,500,000 files every sort, 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 it from what you wrote on why the nsa would have given snowden

who 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 bread >> tucker: more even then we understand.

things were coming on tonight, i appreciate it. >> thank you very much, tucker. >> tucker: will talk to charles 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..... managing my diabetes has been a struggle. i considered all my options with my doctor, who recommended once-daily toujeo®. now i'm on the path to better blood sugar control. toujeo® is a long-acting insulin from the makers of lantus®. it releases slowly, providing consistent insulin levels for a full 24 hours, ... ... control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. allergic reaction may occur and may be life threatening. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens,

even if the needle has been changed. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be serious and life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily while using toujeo®. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose or type of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor if you take other medicines and about all your medical conditions. insulins, including toujeo®, in combination with tzds (thiazolidinediones) may cause serious side effects like heart failure that can lead to death, even if you've never had heart failure before. don't dilute or mix toujeo® with other insulins or solutions as it may not work as intended and you may lose blood sugar control, which could be serious. toujeo® helps me stay on track with my blood sugar. ask your doctor about toujeo®.

>> tucker: fox news alert, a federal appeals court has upheld the block on president trump's travel ban from several muslim majority countries. the past year and a half has given ample proof that the president is not deterred by a 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 and where do we go from here? to tell us, were 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. the case was does the president have the authority to do it, if

he 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. plus court that is sure to get a rise out of the president and it 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. were 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 two night stands and the present loses. spoon i've heard some speculation that the case that justice department lawyers, the career attorneys made it beforee appeals court, i've heard a numy 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 seem 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.

end of the trump side, the federal government's side i thot exceedingly weak, i don't think they were throwing the game, i don't think this is a guy who went in thereo 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 themselve themselves. 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, will show you that a blunder right after the break

>> 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 ethnic 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'm 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 phone it was nothing compared to ♪ >> tom: hello and welcome to "red eye," i am tom shillue. let's check in with tvs andy levy over at the "red eye" tease deck. >> andy: thanks for the welcome, time coming up on the big show. people view president trump more truthful than the news media. talk about setting a low bar. plus, major league baseball is considering letting teams start extra innings with a runner on second base. millennials. finally, "the new york times" reviews millennials big secret, parents still pay their rent well into their 20s. other shocking