again, thank you for watching us tonight. i am bill o'reilly. please remember, the spin stops here. we are definitely looking out for you. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," tonight, a former mexican official said that if the president trump does build a wall, mexico ought to stop helping the united states. even if that means allowing terrorists in. will join us to discuss that plan. the press have been accused of biased reporting recently. but first, general michael flynn, we hardly knew you. the national security advisor is gone after spending less than a month in the white house. he was brought down after his conversation with russia was wiretapped by u.s. intelligence. despite protections are supposed to block such wiretapping on u.s. citizens.

perhaps he deserved to go for lying to the vice president, but even if he did, what does it say about u.s. intelligence that it may be spying on the administration? when the democrats who demanded the firing of general flynn, we are joined now by him. thank you for coming on. f as you know, the law requires a warrant in order to proceed with the wiretapping. the law specifies that if an american citizen is caught up in that wiretapping, his identity be protected and the content of his side of the conversation be protected. that did not happen and somehow this information was leaked to the press. are you for that? >> we are not for that, we want their due process and civil rights defended, at the same time, there is some very questionable stuff going on, this was in the course of some type of wiretapping and they happened to cap somebody else in the process but at the same time, the best way to answer this is to have a full investigation.

let's go through the proper process so that way if there is anything questionable, it gets i think general flynn would know i think general flynn would know that and the american public would go with that. >> tucker: here's what we already know, we don't know exactly the content, because it's far as i know, there are no copies of the transcript. have you seen the transcript? >> no, we have not. an investigation at some point would be valid. >> tucker: that sounds right to me. we can proceed with the knowledge that we are ignorant>> of what was said. we know for a fact that a u.s. intelligence agency wiretapped an american citizen who is not a part of the u.s. government at the time. is there anything more dangerous than a u.s. intelligent agency monitoring a foreign government abroad, turning against a political enemy and destroying him? whatever you think of flynn, that's the most disturbing part of it, is it not? >> i think the more dangerous

part is the centrifuge that's going on in our election, any collusion with a campaign whether they knew it or not.t' obviously this is something we should investigate and i am very happy you agree with me on that. that's what needs to happen here. if there was some type of illegal manner that this was obtained or violated general flynn's rights which shouldle investigate that also. something went wrong here. we know that general flynn lied to the vice president, made the current president embarrassed by this. this is why we have oversight as congress -- >> tucker: you've got it backwards.e something went wrong with flynn and the president and vice president, we do not know that he lied because we do not know the content of his conversations. but we do know is that the leaking of his identity is illegal.l. we know that. that is not speculation. we would need an investigation to ascertain that. here's what you have.

bureaucrats who nobody electedin seeking to undermine the elected representatives of the united states government. is that against the way we run our country and the democracy itself? you cannot have intelligence agencies going rogue, can you? >> i think it's an international entity, such as what we saw a getting involved in, with our election. what you bring up is a very valid point.ge this is why we should have an investigation and we shoulds cover all aspects of this too. >> tucker: we agree on the investigation part. i'm always for more information, pretty much. but since we already know that, i am just wondering why it is not at the very center of your concerns? since the intelligence agencies, you went to harvard, you know they exist to gather intelligence for the president in order that he might make foreign policy.

it's not to make foreign policy much less to execute it. it's to give the president information. they disagree with the president's foreign policy, and they are trying to undermine him. that is a scary thing. >> we do not know what is occurring in the background ofof it, we should be concerned and ask questions. the best way to flesh this out is through it a investigation. we know general flynn was in contact with the ambassador, wef know he was in violation where there is only one president at one time, he missed representatives conversations with the president and vice president, the department of justice actually warned the white house about the situation, and there are a lot of questions that are still out there. >> tucker: i'm not here to defend what flynn did, because i'm not really sure what flynn did, like you.

he did not discuss sanctions or lighten the load on russia or anything like that. we don't know. but what do you mean in the tradition of only one president at the time? are you saying u.s. citizens do not have a right to call officials either of this government or other government? i feel like i do and you do? >> you have a right to that, but not when you were so close to a campaign that you are trying to influence the diplomatic outcome. if the president at that point was president obama. general flynn was potentially involved with the relationship between united states and russia.yn the president had just issued sanctions regarding violations of what we assumed were tampering by russian intelligence and the fact that he called right afterward i think it's questionable. again, this is why we should have an investigation. >> tucker: here's what we know, the u.s. government is spying on american citizens and not keeping the information secret. i don't think you're some kind of crazy leftists but you are oo the left and the left has a long history of standing up for civil liberties.

the most basic civil liberty of all of you often privacy. you need as a requisite for freedom. if you do not have any privacy from the u.s. government spying on you, things fall apart. t why are you not more upset about that? >> we may have to understand what is actually going on here. we have a republican congress, it's not exactly doing oversight right now. for all we know and this is whyy we have to have an investigation, our whistleblowers, if you want to call them that, may haveou felt they weren't getting the attention they needed and what may have been a dangerous situation. again, let's remember that the attorney general -- >> tucker: stop there. you are suggesting it could be legitimate for someone in the intel agency, someone of the name whistleblower, it could be legitimate to tap into his phone conversation? you are saying that could be legitimate? >> no oversight that's happenine in the government, and the assistant attorney general

who warned the trumpsi administration, there is potential leaking and blackmailing situations like someone who is general flynn -- >> tucker: i just want you to say unequivocally you should not break the law by spying on u.s. citizens and then leaking illegally the contents of those conversations to "the washington post." if we cannot agree that's the bad thing, what's the basis of our conversation? just agree that that is out of bounds. it should be. >> any citizen has privacyis rights that we should respect. general flynn may have crossed the line. at the same time, i am willing to investigate and actually look at this at the full scope of what occurred there. if hise violations --dash that should also be remedied to. at the same time, >> tucker: that's not a debate point, we know that is a factual matter. the law was violated. let's just say that.

it does not mean that flynn is a great guy. >> it would give us more information than just us going back and forth. >> tucker: that's the one part of our conversation that is not speculation. >> if this person is potentially compromised, they might be blackmailed, at the same timeon there should be a full investigation about what occurred. >> tucker: congressman, thanks a lot. general flynn's downfall has already hindered trump's overtures towards russia. it could be very difficult to build a friendly relationship with the regime in that country for more, we go to fox news correspondent trace gallagher. hey,rr teresa. >> tucker, the administration is now acknowledging president trump has known for a weeks that form a national security advisor michael flynn misled the white house about his contacts with russia. but there is nothing illegal h about flames conversations with the russian ambassador to the w u.s. concerning u.s. sanctions but democratic lawmakers andnd

some republicans are calling for a full inquiry into foreign discrepancies but also russia. at the same time, a russian spy ship is now patrolling off the east coast. 70 miles off the coast of delaware enact international waters. it can measure u.s. navy sonar and carry surface-to-air missiles. this is the closest a russian special have gotten to the u.s. since donald trump took office. they have said they are watching it but it is not a huge concern. it also appears that russia has deployed two battalions of ground watch cruise missiles in separate russian territories. that violatesnd the u.s.-russian treaty banning land-based missiles. the pentagon now has to decide whether to have defense system in europe. we have confirmed that last

friday, russian fighter jets conducted, with the u.s. military calls dangerously close flybys of a u.s. military vessel in the black sea. the u.s. says the jets were at an unusually low altitude and unusually high speed and the russians ignored u.s. calls to halt the flybys. finally, the office of government ethics counselor kellyanne conway saying theyey broke the laws on fox and friends last week, the oge is a recommending disciplinary action, the white house saysys conway has been counseled. again, whatever that means. tucker. >> tucker: trace gallagher, thanks a lot. up snacks, former mexican official says his governmentov ought to clog up the system and allowed terrace to enter the country. i'll do interview with here to explain that plan after trumps integration plans. the break. also, the press mangled there because coverage of the 2016 race and haven't improved much since then. whether journalists are letting bias thoughts into their minds t

and corrupt their souls. stay tuned e doesn't just wash your hair, it fuels it. making every strand stronger. so tangles don't stand a chance. because strong is beautiful. why are you checking your credit score? you don't want to ride the 13l forever, do you? the doctor said it's not contagious. [coughing] credit karma, huh? yeah, it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit. 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, proven full 24-hour blood sugar control, and significant a1c reduction.

and along with toujeo®, i'm eating better and moving more. toujeo® is a long-acting, man-made insulin used to 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: well, a former mexican politician has a novel idea about his countrymen being deported back to his nation. under vicente fox, he is also a professor at nyu, he recently called on the mexican government to fund lawyers who will clog up the u.s. immigration courts intentionally in order to prevent deportation back to mexico. he was also denounced a wall on mexican borders, saying if

president trump persists in building it, mexico should allow terrorists to enter the country freely in retaliation. he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: for our viewers who have not seen it, this is a quote from a couple weeks ago. you to the near tense and he said this. mexico must make clear that we will encourage all potential deportees to demand a hearing upon arrest and to refuse voluntary removal. will provide legal support on our dime for all arrested undocumented workers, and that we will deny entry to anyone the american authorities who cannot prove they are mexican nationals. this seems like a change. when did the mexican government develop this concern for due process?s? >> it's not the mexican government. i am not a government official. i left 14 years ago. i speak only for myself. i have always been a firm sliever in due process in mexico and everywhere in the world. consequently, i think this is one of the most admirable things the u.s. has and mexico should use it. i don't recall the united states letting people in who do not

prove that they are american. well, i do not want the u.s. to deport anybody to mexico who in the u.s. cannot prove it's mexican.he yes, i want to use as much as possible the u.s. judicial system, the court system and in particular, immigration courts. judges. to jam the system. to backlog it so much that perhaps president trump will change his mind and stop this ridiculous, unpleasant, hostile policy of deporting people. they even arrested a fellow, a young dreamer, a 23-year-old who is in the u.s. legally and has a work permit to work legally. they went after his father even though he has overwritten -- for the moment, they have not arrested him. so, yes -- >> tucker: living in mexico, i'm sure you are use to

injustice.i' as a foreign national you are suggesting destroying our legal system because you do not think the u.s. government has the right as the president stated to deport people who convicted of felony. you are saying they should resist. >> how can i suggest destroying it? making it unworkable? >> tucker: should i fill your gas tank with -- > i want to stop people from being deported from the united states. absolutely. use the u.s. legal system, the justice system. >> tucker: you take advantage of it, you would destroy it. i think one of the undercover parts of this debate is the motive, you went to princeton,

the motive is to keep some very large unknown number but over 10 million illegal immigrants in the united states rather than in mexico. half of your country lives in poverty. the tax rates on rich people in mexico are the lowest in the region. my question to you, why are they destroying our legal system? have you pause a to think white are these people leaving my country to go to the country next door? maybe we should spend some time and build a social safety net. has not occurred to you? >> it's occurred to me and i don't agree with you at all like that. i think the real issue here is that these are people who have been living on many occasions in the united states for ten years, 20 years, they don't have papers, they may have entered without papers, but they are there, they have children who citizens, and in many cases they are married to american citizens. they are law-abiding,o hard-working people and there is no reason to deport them. you want to deport the criminals? fine but make sure they are really criminals, not just people --

>> tucker: you are dodging my question. >> i am not judging. they have set down roots in the united states. they are there already. we can talk about what happens with the future flows. you should legalize -- and many republicans. >> tucker: i get it. this is a sincere question. a huge percentage of your population -- you want tour sabotage our legal system, why would you spend money instead and pay some more taxes to do this, to build a social safety net that might keep people in mexico? ha poverty and yet you are spending money to keep them here. do you feel good about that? >> that's where they live, where they work. >> tucker: because your country is dysfunctional, that's

why. >> i pay taxes in both countries. believe me, i pay. i pay in mexico and in the u.s., which is fine. that's the way it should be. no problem with that. all of my compatriots were in the u.s. also pay u.s. taxes. something you and your network do not often mention. mexicans, with or without paper papers, pay taxes and a very taxes. >> tucker: you are a college professor. i'm not going to shout over you but remittances to mexico are now more than oil revenue. mexico needs the money from over the 10 million undocumented immigrants living here -- have you thought about improving your own country so people do not want to flee? >> let me straighten out your numbers to begin with.

there are about 5.8 million without papers and another 6 million with papers. who are legal residents of the united states. it is not 10 million. >> tucker: that's untrue. that's wrong.t' >> those are official u.s. census -- your numbers are also wrong on the issue of how important remittances are. they are very important to many mexican families. $27 billion over a gdp of $1.5 trillion is about 3% of total mexican gdp. >> tucker: but you don't have to pay in the social services cost. poor people have left her country -- yes or no, has -- >> they are also paid for by -- their families are mexico. >> tucker: i give up. thanks. i appreciate it.

up next, we will have a chat with a "washington post" media reporter. the subject, bias in his newspaper. our normally mutual press has turned into a embarrassing being a part of intros. that's the accusation, is it true? we will be right back. and stole some jewelry, a flat-screen tv, and a laptop. luckily the geico insurance agency had helped the bears with homeowners insurance. they were able to replace all their items... ...including a new chair from crate and barrel. call geico and see how easy it is to switch and save on homeowners insurance.

the possibility of a flare was almost always on my mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go... and how to deal with my uc. to me, that was normal. until i talked to my doctor. she told me that humira helps people like me get uc under control and keep it under control when certain medications haven't worked well enough. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where

certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. raise your expectations. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

>> tucker: it's fair to say the press botched its coverage of the 2016e election. afterwards, the press tried to blame its failure on a glut of fake news.

and while he proceeded to publicize a bunch of stories themselves. small wonder then that the recent drought of the public trusted trumps administration honesty more than trust the media. one person who is supposed to be a watchdog over all of this is e writer for "the washington post," he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. i'm in the media, i read your column, most of my life i have read "the washington post." the past couple months i've seen a couple stories, basically carrying water for the russian government. i thought i would ask, "the washington post" for years, many years had literally carried paid propaganda from the russian government. a section called russia behind the headlines. looks like news but it's designed to fool readers into thinking it's real.

it's pure propaganda paid for and distributed by the russian government by stories like we are doing a great job in crimea.a. how can you attack others when you do not know if it's your own paper but paid for by the russian government? >> i wish you told me you wanted to talk about this but those are interesting inserts, i've got a lot to write about. i'm interested in that topic. i appreciate you bringing that up. >> tucker: it's your own paper. i'm just interested. >> i do cover the media. i believe there are several newspapers that do run thesese inserts, i think china has one as well. they are what's known as native advertising. a where there are signs to the reader that this is not yourad approved journalism, i do think that people subscribe and cann differentiate between the news that is in the paper proper in the news that it's in the

russia, china so on and so forth insert. >> tucker: that's really your answer? i remember you attacking politico for its advertising -- you were all spun up into moral outrage around this advertising. you never noted again that the russian government is printing something in your paper designed to fool people. it filled with the crudest kind of propaganda, but you didn't even notice it somehow. i'm not surprised because caser after case you fail to cover your own paper, running figure misleading things. i will give you a couple of examples. >> hold on, mr. carlson. back up on that premise. the thing i wrote about mike allen was a different case altogether. t it was native advertising pioneers, that was a cheeky way of saying he was folding endorsements of companies into the very text of his newsletter. there was no attempt whatsoever to differentiate that from

advertising. they have sponsors in that newsletter so i reject the premise 100%. >> tucker: you still cannot answer why your paper intentionally tries to fool readers into believing that russian propaganda is news and you have not bothered to cover it. your job is to cover the media. i think that's what it says in your column. but again, february 4th, steve bannon drives over to the department of homeland security to advocate for trump's executive orders. it turns out to be false.me your reporters never even called to ask. you didn't cover it. the state department fired its entire management team, so said your headline. that turned out to be totally a crock. why do not cover your own papers shortcomings? >> i think you missed something, mr. carlson. it was in january as well, the

post reported something that wasn't quite straight about a power plant up in vermont. i wrote a very hard-hitting piece about that situation. >> tucker: [laughs] no you didn't. do you want to read what you wrote? two of your reporters reported the russian government had broken in two a hack -- you saia you they were wrong. you didn't even bother to talk to your own reporters, maybe in the same newsroom. >> did you not read my post on that matter? >> tucker: you did not interview those reporters. >> i interviewed. look. i would note -- wait one second, mr. carlson. wait one second.

i appreciate the high-pitched laugh. >> tucker: i appreciate you failing to give me an answer. >> there are few if any news organizations that allow their in-house media reporters to do as much coverage of their own shop as fred hiatt and eddie baron allow me to do. i will give you a few examples. >> tucker: out of cowardice you refuse to? what are you saying? >> i did a story about i do not know how many months ago about the failure of "the washington post" to get professionals in the higher ranks of the paper. i also broke the story -- >> tucker: wow, good for you. you didn't interview the reporters that broke the story. when you write something that brown nosy, do you feel guilt?

a spectacular run of my own publication, my own lawyers? >> read till the end, please. >> tucker: that's the end of it.uc >> read the entire last paragraph, please. >> tucker: is that where you interviewed the editor who assigned the piece? oh, that was not in the piece. you were afraid to track it down because he worked there. >> i will continue. i also broke at "the washington post" the story of how this is a couple years ago, the advertising side of the paper was putting the arm on the magazine to push content in a certain direction. >> tucker: it was russian propaganda? you are quite a slit, aren't you? you opened up it's in the middle of it? >> did you do anything on bret baier's report that there

would be an fbi investigation related to the clinton foundation? >> tucker: i think thatt you did it, actually. i'm not the self-described media reporter. y i do not cover the media. you do. >> you covered media every single day. i watch you. everybody on fox news covers the media. >> tucker: that's your job. >> i want to know -- >> tucker: you are a little obsessive about fox news. 20 more times than msnbc. you have an agenda, you are angry about politics, you are a lefty. did they ever call you and say good job? you are doing a real good job as a media critic? do they ever say that? >> let me finish with an earlier point. they just seem to steamroll me on. what did you say when bret baier

reported falsely that there was an fbi indictment related to the clinton foundation one week before the election against donald trump? what did you say about that? >> tucker: we will have to go back to the tapes. i get it, you cannot answer the question so you are saying that i somehow have an obligation to be a media reporter. i am not but you are. you get a lot of mileage out of that, i can do whatever i want, but you don't. you single-mindedly pursuit your political agenda and my question is -- please answer it -- does the owner of your paper ever call you and say good job? are you acting on their instructions? what do they think of it? >> my direct boss is fred hiatt. i wouldn't quote -- i would not appreciate the puerile angle.

>> tucker: i see you as a political hack acting out his political beliefs on paper with the coverage of media criticism. everyone who reads you knows that. do your editors know that? you are really covering the media straight, do they think that? >> i believe i do cover the media straight. iel questioned "the new york times" after how they gave -- look -- >> tucker: very brave, you questioned your competitor. if you question yourself? i don't think you do very much. >> the freedom that i have and the times i have criticized myve own paper against anyone in this industry --d >> tucker: i am starting to feel bad for you. use your freedom to do something useful, reporting on russian propaganda in your own paper. i hope you will come back. up next, his own ideology in a

viral video, dave rubin, why he will not call himself a progressive now. we will be right back. double a's here, 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.

>> tucker: dave rubin hosted "the rubin report," he once called himself a progressive. now he said he is fed up with the modern left tendencies. he joins us from los angeles. thank you for coming on. i wanted to have you on after i saw this amazing video that you did that they'd go viral, explaining why you are at least shifting or reorienting for sure. can you sum up what happened? >> yeah, first off i actually believe the same liberal principles that i believed probably since around 1988 when michael dukakis was running against george h.w. bush. i was in a social studies class, i thought liberal was good. the issue that everybody is talking about, i'm glad i am

doing this tonight and with you because you are one of the few people in the mainstream that are now talking about this. it has been bubbling up online for quite some time. the progressive movement is noub longer progressive. what progressive would be would be truly liberal, for the individual, not for theou collective. for liberty. i would welcome all your viewers to google what classicalll liberalism is. it's about the individual and if you are right to do with your life what you would like. this is not with the modern left is about. i actually believe the same believedngs i probably for the last 30 some odd years. it is the left that has gone crazy and i know you know this, this free-speech stuff and judging everybody on their immutable characteristics. if you are black, we judge you this way and if you leave the group, you are a traitor. if muslim, trans, gay people -- these are reverse liberal

beliefs. it's been very sad to see this. i've been trying to fight this on my show for a good two yearss now. i suspect we've lost that war and that i have lost the left but i've seen incredible news developing where people better liberal on now lining up and saying wait a minute, i see apl libertarian who can come to the same agreement i have. we can believe the same thing just looking at it from different political ends. of course, it's a beautiful moment and lost in a big mess of free-speech craziness. >> tucker: part of the agreement that might bring people to disagree with each other together is we are not going to use the legal system against each other. you said i am gay and married.. i do not believe that a baker or forster or any business person ought to make a cake for a wedding because if the government can force the company to do something for one set of ideals, they can do it for any period you see this as a threat to you, potentially.

>> of course. i should lay out, i am on fox news, i hope people don't freak out.i i should give you some liberal credit. i am for gay marriage. i even married a guy. i'm for legalizing marijuana. i'm pro-choice, the list goes on and on. as for that specific line, i personally would not want the government telling a private business what to do. a lot of people say, wait a minute, that sounds libertarian. again, this is actually a liberal principle. i think this is something people most people actuallys believe. i know there are a lot of good people that would argue with mee and say well, what if you live in a small town and you have a bigot is your baker in that one town? unfortunately, this is where you have to use your votes. take your skills and your family and the money that you bring to the community and move somewhere else or order a cake on line. i know that does not feel right a lot of people but that in ando of itself, this one person's

bigotry should not be an excuse for more government overreach.el that is a liberal principle, believe it or not. >> tucker: it is committed to the extent possible, there are cases where you aren't trying to bother other people too much. [laughs] that's one way to put it. >> that's the funny thing, live and let live is a liberal principle. over the last couple years, defending my liberal principles has become a conservative position. i find it easy to suddenly build bridges with people like glenn beck and ben shapiro that are looking to go wait a minute, maybe we can find some common ground with liberals. i often invite a lot of lefties on my show and i get blocked or muted or rejected but i have had some too and i welcome those conversations. >> tucker: i know the feeling. tell me about it. to look up your video online, it is absolutely worth seeing. a

thanks a lot, dave. i really appreciate it. up next, general michael flynn was brought down because intelligence agencies monitored him and it leaked the information they found to the press.ie is the new administration being undermined by cia employees with political axes to grind or is something else going on? we will talk about it, next. oin?

okay, let's call his agent. i'm coming over right now. the newly advanced gle can see in your blind spot. oin? onboard cameras and radar detect danger all around you.

driver assist systems pull you back into your lane if drifting. hi chief. hi bobby. and will even help you brake, if necessary. it makes driving less of a production. lease the gle350 for $579 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

>> tucker: general michael flynn's downfall was s >> tucker: general michael flynn's downfall was swift and perhaps to clean. politically obliterated thanks in part to u.s. intelligence monitoring his private conversation. official washington was trying to undermine the president, that may be a rhetorical question. brit hume joins usto now. brit, thank you for coming on. the first question is not how did this happen, i just want to

get the outcome and your assessment of it. flynn the right person for this job in the first place? politics aside. >> i think two things are true here, tucker. the intelligence agencies were bent on undermining him and did so by the leaks that you described and tried to explain to your first guess. i think it is also true that he probably was not the best fit for this job. michael flynn is a very strongly opinionated guy with passionate views and beliefs. that's normally not been the characteristic of the national security advisor. whose job it is principally to the kind of organize and collate the viewpoints coming out of the agencies for the president to make decisions based on. his job is then to neutrally present those views to the president. some people have been criticizet for doing that too well. donald rumsfeld did not like condoleezza rice because she tried to work everything out and get it all settled between

differing parties so the president wouldn't have to make the call. he thought that she should let things be had outed from the president. objectively as possible, accurate information,cu representing all viewpoints or you can decide. when you present inaccurate information as he did in the case of what he told the vice president, whether he was intentionally lying or not, it's almost beside the point. you have fallen down on the job. he probably needs to be with a more neutral temperament than mike flynn had. he enjoys wide respect but that does not mean he is the right man for this job. >> tucker: that's right, he b may have been temperamentally unsuited for it. whatever you think of flynn specifically, that the agencies can undo someone using data gathered in surveillance, that is got up at the fear of god

into everybody serving the executive branch. the cia could crush them. >> what probably looks like what happened here, they pick up his conversation of the u.s. ambassador. they now are in possession of classified information with very sensitive information on two counts. the information itself is classified and having it cow might cover my sources and methods, and the second is i have information that they probably should not have or should be very careful with about the private conversations of ans united states citizen. that information is doubly disturbing of the kind of protections that the intelligence agencies are used to providing, and it leaked out. that may be a crime. the question becomes, was mike flynn sinned against more than sinning? i think we soccer tonight, that's kind of an open question.

>> tucker: can you get a handle on the federal government that does not want you to run it? that is a question the president is asking himself. if you have all these permanent bureaucrats, some of them smart, knowledgeable talented who do not want your foreign policy, and reject your views can you effectually use your views? >> very good question, i'm sure they are worried about it in the white house. i saw an article, the difficulties the president might be having, staffing the national security council. the national security council staff, morphed into this great big agency relying on people who are drawn from agencies around the government, they are borrowed to work on the nsc. the story said that some of these people asked to be returned to their agencies because they did not want to work for donald trump, president trump.id well, who did they think they would be working for when theyey

went back to their agencies? that gives you an idea of the mindset that these people will go back to the agencies where they could merely try to do whatever they can to torpedo the administration. if the epa and some of thesery other agencies, you've got to know, this has got to be going on and they are ruining this government and taking in a new direction will be about the hardest thing the president and the recent administration has tried to do because the resistance is inside the government and outside. >> tucker: unbelievable, brit hume. thank you for that, as always. we appreciate it. we are back with more in just a few minutes. stay tuned. h your allergies. introducing flonase sensimist. more complete allergy relief in a gentle mist you may not even notice. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one.

and six is greater than one. break through your allergies. new flonase sensimist. ♪ i am benedict arnold, the infamous traitor. and i know a thing or two about trading. so i trade with e*trade, where true traders trade on a trademarked trade platform that has all the... get off the computer traitor! i won't. (cannon sound) mobility is very important to me. that's why i use e*trade mobile. it's on all my mobile devices, so it suits my mobile lifestyle and it keeps my investments fully mobile... even when i'm on the move. sign up at etrade.com and get up to six hundred dollars.

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: well, hungary's prime minister -- he was denounced efforts by germany and other countries in europe to let people in, there's one type of refugee he is willing to take. europeans. happy to give shelter to real refugees, german, dutch, french, italian.

scared politicians and journalists. christians, and people who want to find here at the europe they lost at home. hopefully they will come to theirto senses before anyone nes accept that offer. that's it. have a great night. >> sean: welcome to "hannity," tonight special counsel to the president kellyanne conway will join us, democrats and the ultimate radical left are pouncing on the resignation of donald trump's national security advisor lieutenant general flynn, there's a major part of the story the mainstream mediaul will not tell you about, and what is really going on here is what tonight's opening monologue is all about.ou the liberals predictably wasting very little time trying to create a political firestorm over flynn stepping down. let's be clear, it was wrongo that flynn misled the president and vice president about his phone call with the russian ambassador. he owned u