o'reillyly factor, the trump agenda. bill will be back monday, i will be be back, too, and please rev, i'm watters, and this is my world. >>uc good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight". [chanting] >> shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! >> you're looking at the new face of academic freedom. protester the in middlebury college in vermont lieu wined a lecture planned by protestary charles murray, saying his ideas were so offensive, they should not be allowed. in a moment, we will talk with someone who degrees with the

protesters. but president trump is launching a fierce counter attack on the subject of russia and the meeting with the russian ambassador. nancy pelosi claimed she negative met him, but here is a picture of her with him. and chuck schumer schmoozing with vladimir putin. and president trump tweeted this, we should start an investigation. a p total hypocrite. and he demanded a second investigation for pelosi and her close ties too russia and putin and lying about it. schumer said i would happy talk about my contact, took place in '03 in full view of the press and public under oath. would you and your team, question mark. nancy pelosi tweeted this, donald trump doesn't know the difference between official meeting photographs by press and the secret meeting his ag lied

about. andd he is a criminal, too potentially. congressman, thanks for coming on. >> nice to be with you. >> you say we need to look into the bigger picture and figure out why he pur perjured himself, what are they hiding. what i are the imindications of this? >> a we should find out what the truth is and shouldn't be afraid of the facts and we all ought to step back and let the facts play out. it is extremely concerning he gave false testimony under oath to the senate as part of his confirmation hearing. that's enough for me to suggest that he step aside. but i think the bigger issue is what the russians were up to, because we now have multiple officials who seem to be playing footsie with the russians and lying about it like michael

flynn or forgotting about it in the case of jeff sessions or hiding it, in the case of bringing him into trump to you we are to see the president's son-in-law. it would be great if both parties cared equally about this. >> i think wequ know the answero both of those questions. the first meeting you referred jeff sessions had, the famous meeting at the republican convention, that meeting turned out to be set up actually by the obama administration by a program run by the obama state department thatt brought in 100 different ambassadors to watch the convention in progress and brought this to the event where jeff sessions was. it was an educational program for the ambassadors. i'm quoting now. the obama administration coordinated the event with staff,ou about a hundred. that doesn't sound ominous, it is a different story line from what you're telling. those are facts. how do youo respond to that. >> then we shouldn't have any problem with an independent investigation. i will make a deal with you. ' have the u.s. attorney for the

southern district of manhattan, put a bunch of democrats in jail, no one harder than andrew cuomo. also, suspend my call to have the attorneywe general resign until we find out the results o: that investigation. >> i'm not sure your call is meaningful in the first place. before initiating an investigation, don't youfo think it would be worthwhile if you could point to something that is ominous. the facts you called for, the meeting -- >> excuse me, i think it is ominous that we have now multiple trump officials in communication with the russians about you crane and sanctions. >> i'm sorry, you're going from specifics -- i've seen this too much you're going from specifics, talking about jeff sessions, attorney general, whose resignation you called for. the facts, the second meeting took place in his office. present were two retired u.s. army officers, colonels, both of

them. if was there some nefarious conversation between the senator and russians about influence foreign policy in favor of russia, do you think those two officers would have remained silent? >> we should ask them what transpyred. that's why we want an independent and fair look at this. >> you're suggesting something bad happened whenr: many senatos met with him, including democrats. >> we should have a fair look and that is why i suggested an independent guy do it ande sit back and let him get the facts out. >> what is infuriating is you're being disingenuous, you know this ambassador met with many people on both sides and went 22 times to the obama white house, including during the campaign. >> the ambassador of russia. the problem is not that he meets with american officials, the problem isg when they lie about it under oath or forget about it or disnice it and that happened in -- disguys it and that

happens c in each of the cases. >> not the problem you are alleging. you're saying, reading from your press release. >> sure. >> the attorney general committed perjure re, you make a number of unsustainable points. committed perjury, that is a heavy accusation. that is a specific crime you're ledging and you know as well as anybody he would not be convicted in court of that. and by the way, hasn't been. >> oh, no, i don't. there is more than enough evidence to convict him. >> you're saying more -- this is a theoretical conversation, what is not is the next part where you are t say, what were they hiding. i'm just asking you as an adult american who is watching this open mouth wondering what is this about, what are you alleging? do you think the trump administration worked with the russians to throw the election in favor of trump over hillary? what are you saying, exactly? >> what i'm saying to you is that there is more than enough here that all americans who care about our country should want to

get to the bottom of it, in the most fair way. i think the most fair way to do that is find out why there was system atic effort we know existed to influence our elections. that is not in dispute. you don't dispute the finding of the intelligence agencies. we know the russians were up to this. >> i dispute your characterization of it. >> wee should find out the fact. i don't know why you dispute that. >> the facts are these. we can't fine a single instance where the --- point to a single instance where the trump campaign spoke about the outcome of the election. b, we can't point to a single point, datain point that shows that russian influence affected the outcome of the election. am i missing something? >> i didn't say that but i'm happy to let an independent investigation look at that. what we do know is they were intensely concerned about sanctions related to their activities in the ukraine and the attorney general admitted they discussed that subject. michael flynn discussed that

suggest and lied about it. that is more than enough for me to want to know more. there is a lot of smoke here. let's let the u.s. attorney in manhattan that the presidentt just appointed, let him find out. >> if i said to you, people are saying shall congressman, you've committedd murder, i'm not sayig that you have but people areyo saying that, you say there is no evidence i've done anything like that. you're saying all we need to do is get him on the case, get to forensic on you a and find out the truth. that is an unfair slander against me because there is no evidence anything happened. >> if that's what i said, it might be under mined had i recently lied about it under oath and that's the point. not that people meet with the russian ambassador. i know chuck schumer ate a donut with him, the point is he didn't lie about it under oath. >> you're being surely disingenuous. >> i'm not. d >> yes, you are. have you watched the tape? >> i will come back on the show and admit that i was wrong if we can have a fair and neutral

examination. we need an independent look at what happened. why are you afraid of that? >> what i'm amazed by is -- you. >> you laugh about the russians trying to influence our country. >> there was a time when democrats were calling for war with countries on the basis of no evidence of wrongdoing. >> i'm not calling for war. >> you had two senators in your party yesterday calling -- excuse me, we have an indisputed he have at the highest lifting of the russian government to influence the election, i take that seriously. > a nonpartisan question. if you could get off your talking point for two seconds. >> i would be curious why you would oppose that. >> i'll tell you why, because i live in washington, and i know that there is a long series of governments who attempt, and some successfully, to influence american policy and russia is not on the top 10 of that list. so i don't believe that your concern is sincere, i believe

this is a purely partisan effort to take out certain members of the administration. you know perfectly well it is so it is frustration to sit and look at you hiding behind the pretense of objectivity. name countries that influence american policy. you live here, you know. >> what it is like when you don't live in washington. i don't, i live in new york and we have a u.s. attorney here that i trust who the president justor appointed. >> you live in washington, d.c. >> the appointee as the u.s. attorney in new york take a look at it. the fact is there is so much smoke here and russia is a grave threat to the united states. >>o name one specific way that the russian government influenced the outcome of this election, just name one. >> please don't set that up straw man, tucker, i didn't say that. >> you said about nine times that all americans should be concerned and all of us who care about democracy should want to know more. namere one indication of the effects of the outcome.

there isn't one. >> it is the affects of the standard family someone takes a shot at my head and misses, i'm still going to care about it. >> give me one example -- see if you noah you're talking about. do you believe they broke into the voting machines and affected the vote counts. >> i don't think there is any evidence of that, but what there is evidence of, and it is not in dispute, i wish you would take it more seriously. >> i wish you would take this more seriously and not make this into a purely partisan thing and it is clear that's what you are. >> i saw your interview with the attorney general and i thought you did a good job of asking him tough questions and taking it seriously. >> he gave me actual answers, unlike. >> you don't raise the straw man of influencing the outcome because that is a bridge too far. >> i know that the whole thing that is a charade, that's what i know. >> the election is not in dispute. those are the intelligence agencies. >> we're out of time, i will say

i've taken this seriously from day one,io i've asked democrat e democrat, give me something and none have, just sanctimonious none says. you're making this into a joke, congressman. thank you for joining us. >> if you want to make measure a greaamericagreat again, you've e work cool tonight. >> tonight we will welcome the founder of an organization gets kids great jobs without a college degree first. >> first up, rand paul says house republicans are hiding from him and he is trying to find. it we will tell but the showdown that took place on capitol hill.

>> with the, internal republican party feuds on capitol hill took weird and interesting new direction. senator rand paul today was traveling around the house of representatives with a copy machine, claiming he was searching for the house republican's obama care replacement bill. for more on what happened, we go to fox news correspondent trace gallager. >> it was an easter egg hunt come early involving dogs, democrats and senator rand paul who supports repealing obama care as long as it isn't obama care light with a portable cop fee pe i machine in hand and journalists in toe, he made his well-publicized plea. >> i'm part of the legislature, shouldn't i be part of the process. i was elected to represent my state and i'm not allowed to read the working product so i can comment on it? >> senator paul said he was trying to avoid a repeat of

nancy pelosi's famous we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it comment. she and her two beagles were scavage the halls of capitol hill. pelosi tweeted just helping rand paul release the hounds, where's the bill. releasing the hounds usually involves a hunt whip, they settled for a minority whip. they brought theatrics by confiding in a former republican president. >> i can't find the bill. you know -- you are as upset with your party as i am. >> but, apparently, the game isn't hide and evening is, it's keep away. house speaker paul ryan said with all due to the senator paul, that's the way it works. listen. >> that's exactly how legislation is supposed to be written. the thing he is described are just not accurate, and like i

said, when the committees write their bills and put their bills to mark up, everybody will see what they've done. >> and we're told wednesday is when the committees will begin to mark up the bill. tuck nearly that sounds like a lot of fun. thanks, trace. >> sure. >> congress has been back in session morefo than two months t the day one repeal of obama care on day one has not materialized. mike pence says the party has unified outlook but some say the like will he replacement is diet obama care.re eric novak is and and orthopedic surgeon what has beenri an opponent of obama care emsays it must have transparent pricing or it will do nothing to fix the rot of the health care system. doctor, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. >> how do you get to that? it is often noted most patients have no idea what anything costs in the journey through the medical system. how do you fix that?

>> the lack of transparency has been an issue at every level of health care for a long time. if we look at health care c spending in the country, one half ofhe the country, so about 165 million people, only account for a little bit less than 3% of the costs which means they spend on average less than $300 a year on health care services. >> okay. >> so we need to be thinking about how can we put policies in place that really encourage people to get access to those prices and be able to use their own resources to get it. >> to use our own resources touc get the prices or to pay for their own health care. >> well, to pay for it. i think one of the challenges we've seen is with the massive increase in prices of premiums. not only are people seeing the significant co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles go up but the complexity of getting the care has gone up and premiums have skyrocketed, not only in the individual market but the employer market, as well, when you look at the family policies and deductibles.

>> it crushes a lot of people. if you were replacing obama care with something better, what are the first two or three things you would do? >> well, i think you need to recognize that it did create a new entitlement and conservatives and fans of limited e government would loveo wipe it clean, but the reality is insurers, hospital and providers have spent six years spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to adapt so simply wiping the slate clean will not be effective there needs to be a recognition of that. we need to recognize an open-ended titlement of medicaid is being abused by all the states, include be the republican-driven ones and really the country and the federal government has to get a handle on that and make that stop. >> the abuse of medicaid, so how would you make that stop? by not reimbursing at the rates we are? >> no, i think that one of thear things even president obama had in several budgets is a recognition that the way states get federal funds is very easily

gamed, and actually you have many democrats on record sawing that system wasn't effective and could be too easily abused. >> right. >> so there is a whole series of tricks and techniques that really states spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or more on consultant as year to try to figure out how to pull down tens of millions of dollars more of taxpayer federal money. >> of course. >> so figuring out some way we can block grant or capptate it in a way is incredibly important. >> obamathe care, the least popr part, according to poling, and the most popular part, requiring insurers to take you even if you're sick. >> you can come up with solutions to get at it from a differentlu direction. s first thing to recognize, while halfou the country spends almost no money on health care, a very small percentage spends

the vast majority of the dollars. we've not going to let those people go by the wayside. finding ways whether it is high risk pool funding or reinsurance funding through the individual and even employer market to be able tie louou some of the high-cost i have -- able to allow some of the high-cost individuals to pull out so families paying 300, 400, $500 a month only to have the luxury of having a $6,000 deductible can see the costs come down. >> the bulk of healthy people supporting a small group of high-cost patients. thank you for joining us. that was interesting. >> thank you. >> up next, spoiled children at middlebury college in vermont forced the cancellation of a speech but charles murray, they said his ideas about inequality were so offensive, they could not be heard. we talks to someone who says his ideas are that offensive and shouldn't be heard.

[chanting] shut it down! shut it down!

>> sociologist charles murry was supposed to speak yesterday at middlebury in vermont and would have done so if protesters hadn't decided to stop him. watch. [chanting] >> shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! >> well, students at the $61,000

per year college called murray sectionist, antigay white supremacist and screeched until they had to cancel the speech. they jumped on his car to keep him from leaving campus safely and hurt a professor, forcing a brief stay at the hospital. when murray spoke last year, she led students and faculty in a walkout of that. event. carolyn rouse, thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> i've read a lot of the criticism with charles murray, whose work i'm pretty familiar, and they don't bear resemblance to what charles murray has written so i want you to put a fine point on why he should not be allowed to speak. >> i'm not sure what you're referring to, what are you referring to in terms of his work? >> a couple of things. at middlebury, he was denounced as antigay, he is not antigay

that i know of, he was a proponent of gay marriage. he was called a purveyor of racial pseudo science, i don't think you could consider him that because the book was written by him and dick ernstein, a professor so i'm wondering what you're talking about, exactly. >> you mean you think black people have lower iqs than white people? >> no, i think the bulk of charles murray's scholarship has nothing to do with race at all,i and i'm wondering, to be totally blunt with you, professor, if you've read his books. >> yes. >> which ones you did read. >> into the first one i read was "losing ground" in college. and that was -- >> okay, i beg your pardon, go ahead. >> that was really interesting book for me because the argument that black people were

culturally dysfunctional and had all of these behaviors that were incompatible with democracy and capitalism to be fascinate bug completely falsese or fake news. given that i know the black community well. >> i read the book, too, and i don't remember him making the case that black people about somehow unable to live in a democracy. you did read the bell curve? >> i read parts of the bell curve, yes. >> but not the entire bell curve. >> no, and i read critiques of the bell curves as well. the law center has a docear on him, i don't want to debate whether or not he's made claims about the sort of degeneracy of black people and poor whites. it's just not a -- it is just a fact. if you want to talk about freedom of speech and his right to speak freely, i think that makes sense, but what he's

written is out there for the public and i don't think that we need to debate that. >> but that's kind of your point is that it is known and we don't need debate it, but you've already conceited his central work, the bell curve, you haven't read. you read critiques of it and part of it but b haven't read te book and instead you point to the southern policy law center, a political organization. shouldn't you takeg this scholarship seriously and if you disagree, explain why. >> there is black man who wrote about how more people with more melanin are more intelligent. i do need to read this work? do i need to invite this person to speak because he has written that black people are more intelligent than white people. i do need waste my time and your time and the institutionees resources because he said it. just because somebody said season doesn't mean i need to waste my team reading every word they've written. he have other thingswr to do tht are more positive and constructive and more interesting scholarship. >> sure, but one of th the thins

you're spending your time is trying to keep people from speaking. >> we didn't speak, we didn't shout him out we can literally walked out the door before heuc spoke smooth larger point here it seems like to would appeal to you as an academic, if you disagree with the point someone is making, you should understand what they're saying because the bell curve was not about race, at all. air not rebutting -- >> do you know how much energy -- we, black scholars around people that work on african-american, have had to spend so much time challenging racic scholarship and not enough time doing positive work. at some point we have to stop paying attention t to this. just because somebody says something and 0 they're wealthy and privileged doesn't mean we need to run and accept it astr good scholarship and there is a

lot of scholarship out there. his work is bad scholarship. >> you don't know what it is because you haven't read it. you have not read the entire book, which was not about race, except for a small section, and it was actually an perform book and i would think you would watt to grapple the ideas in there. >>ta do you know how many important books you haven't read. >> many, but you're pass jum on something you don't understand, and that bothers me. >> you say i don't understand it? >> that's true. what is the thesis of the bell curve. do work in anthropology, there is no such thing as degeneracy of a certain population which he claims, based upon poor whites are degenerate, black people are degenerate. he has a thesis that these genes are floating in these populations and they're no longer able to take advantage of the freedoms and democracy that we have in this country. and so, therefore, you know -- yeah, i know this. >> have you read the book? i think you're grossly

mischaracterizing it. grossly mischaracterizing it and i'm surprised that you're claiming you read the whole thing. this free speech part you brought up, do you think that people have a right to say things that you find offensive? do you agree with the? middlebuy protesters. >> absolutely -- well, those are two different things. >> if you're supporting shouting someone down, you don't think people have thehe right to say what they think. >> we never shouted charles murray down, he was allowed to speak [chanting] >> shut it down, shut it down! >> tucker carlson, we have ai limited pool of resources at princeton, i don't think we need to be spending money ons. this. we have many, and your audience knows this, many lower middle class white peel, working class white people that would love to get an education. let's spend that money on helping them go to school. right? that's what we need to spend that money on, not on constantly sort of giving money and

resources to scholars who already we know their scholarship just doesn't pass the mettle. >> i don't think -- by the way, you're over stating the consensus on that, i think a lot of serious people regard charles murray as serious. let's get to the middlebury protest. do you think it is okay for people to prevent a speaker from speaking because they disagree with him. >> no, that's why we didn't do that [chanting] >> shut it down, shut it down. >> we don't want our resources going towards somebody who claims people with more mel minute are more intelligent. we don't -- melanin are more intelligent. >> charles murray is not claiming that. >> but there are people who do, that is my point. his work is as absurd to me as that. >>bsur yeah, well i would challe you to read it and then pass an informed judgment on it. i think that might be more effective. we're out of time, professor, thank you for joining us. >> thanknk you. >> earlier this week, mike roe

came here and toll us this. >> 5.6 million jobs exist right now as we're talking. 5.6 million jobs. 75% of which don't require a four-year degree. >> up next, the founder of an organization that is helping kids skip electora college and o skilled, excellent jobs. this will change everything.

>> the price of college continues to rise year after year, faster than any other commonly-used commodity in american life and far faster than the inflation rate, even public suvs, tuition is routinely above 10 grand year. don't even consider the most expensive private schools, it will make you sick and put new debt. the obvious question is what is the point of all of this. praxis organization places kids in tech start-ups without

requiring them to attend college first. a really interesting idea and isaac morehouse joins us now. thanks for coming on. >> glad to be here. >> why did you do this? what was the need you wanted to meet with praxis. >> i spent a lot of time working with young people, high school students, college students, and seeing them graduate and say, i've got all this debt but i can't find -- there nor jobs. and then i started working with, ii switched jobs, this is -- i'm working with entrepreneurs and business owners saying i'm hiring all the time and i can't find good talent. something amiss. people are spending all this time, five years on average, thousands of dollars, sometimes six figures and coming out no better prepares than to go and create value and get a job than they were wheno they went in. in fact, i would argue sometimes they come out worse because they pick up habits. >> stop right there, that is totally true and nobody ever

says it, college helps a lot of people and also destroyed some people that's real. >> absolutely. we see that all the time. practice, when people get into the program forecast they've had some college,am especially, we joke about, we have sort of a de-schooling process because the mindset of obey the rules, you know, follow procedures, change credentials, chase grades and wait to be told what to do and you will be handed this magical ticket to a job, it's just not true. if you stand t j in line with yr resume and says, look, i have a degree, hand me a john, whether or not you have a degree, you need more than that today. but the good news is, it is easier than ever to do more than that, to demonstrate your act to create value, to embark on projectsts and things that you n show not just trust this degree, but here is what i've done, here is what i've built. that is really what we're all about trying to place people in the position where they can learn by doing. >> so you are a, in effect, a placement firm for people who

are by-passing college and want to go right into the work place. is that right? >> it is a little bit more than that. actually it is a lot more than that, but that is definitely a key part of this. the program, we have a three-month bootor camp, where f you've got the raw drive, if you've got the work ethic. i call the sleep in your car test. there are people willing to sleep in their car to get what they want in life and those who aren't. if you've gotha that, skills can be gained. you think learn it relatively quickly if you've got that drive. we help them build a personal website, gain specific skills that are valuable for our business partners. we place them in a paid apprenticeship, getting practice and a whole community and it is about a mindset that no one is going to give me anything. no one is going to give me a job. no one is going to give me job security. i've got to create that for myself. whether or not i actually start a business, i have to think entrepreneurly andy i'm telling you, thereto is more opportunity than ever out there today. but, unfortunately, a lot of

people don't see it. they just see fear and they're worried and looking for some guarantee so they're sinking themselves into debt and they don't have s to. >> so, quickly, by the way, we're putting the explanation of your company and website on our facebook page for viewers who want to know more. but if i've got kids and they're thinking whether or not to go to college, i can call you up with some assurance that child will wind up in a decent job? >> absolutely, i mean, if you get into the program and, again, what we look for is that drive and that ambition, you know, the work ethic. if you get in, we -- once we place new an apprenticeship, you're guaranteed to get a job at the end of the program. slightly. we have to screen for quality people, but we're there to coach and p help. our advisers work participants throughout the apprenticeship and before hand to guarantee they will succeed in those roles. the bitses we work with love us. they come back and say give us more of these people.

>> i'm glad out of a country of 330 million people, someone is thinking for himself in an original way. >> it almost seems so obvious in some ways, apprenticeship concept of learning by people who are doing but we've got this weird, bizarre mentality people are paying tons of money to be kept out of the real world and then all the sudden they graduate and being taught by people, most of whom have never really worked in the business world, it is kind of crazy and backwards. >> kind of.ar >> the idea of america itself, we are a country of history letters, grinders, -- hustlers, grinders,or innovators, people e not willing to take well enough alone and that gets beat out of new school process. get out of the classroom and get into a business and get your feet wet. >> i'm going to have to stop this interview because i'm going to start sucking up to you in an embarrassing way because i love this sof much.

>> i'm talker. >> i love it. appreciate it. >> absolutely. the. >> the mayor of an american town on the mexican border is demanding m an investigation afr his city was deluged with 140 million-gallons of mexican mierda. a beach in california, san diego county, says mexico deliberately dumped raw sewage in tijuana knowing it would flow in this country and didn't tell anyone in america for 17 days. it washed up on the beaches and residents complained about the rank odor. they will look into the spill. mexico sends us its raw sewage, it is not sending its best. up next, a spector of the obama administration. we will we talk to one reporter who says the press are deliberately letting members of the previous white house sabotage the new one. we will explain what he meansable stein. stay tuned.

>>s that ever struck that you trump's scandals seem to arrive with precision tim clock work? new revelations cropping up whenever they're needed to sabotage the new administration. maybe it is not just you this occurred to. noah rothman is a commentator at a magazine and accused the obama administration of waging war against the white house, trying to destabilize the new administration. noah, thanks for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> you are assaying there is a method to all this all these revelations about contact withut the russian government, et~cetera, this is orchestrated. >> wednesday night was particularly frenzied because we had three stories that came out with quick succession, one after the other, all of them having the, quote, unquote, former official, former administration

official, ubiquitous presence, just about all of them alleging this administration doing something we didn't do this particular aspect of how the administration functions is not how we functioned be. i'm not sure it is just and attempt to change the white house. >> i'm not sure this hasn't received more attention, we know the obama administration, spied upon,, wiretapped general michal flynn in his conversations with foreign officials and leaked the content of those conversations with the press. i don't think that is legal butk it is a scandal because you shouldn't be spied on your political opponents, right? why isn't this being covered? >> it iss being covered but the obama administration left a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators to discover related to the russian candle, if anyone wanted information. the classification was reduced or some of it was, you know they

can just allowed people to seeee information they didn't want to see. what you're referring to is r transcripts that were apparently taken of calls intercepted to russian officials which is apparently standard but the fact those were transdescribed and relate -- transcribed and related to reporters is far from it. they're making it noble and virtuous, and it is valuable information but this is not normal, it is unique. >> maybe it is normal, when you have a power of intelligence agency at your disposal the temptation to use it against your political opponent is overwhelming, that's what happens in other countries and now it is happening here. >> that's what is disturbingin about this sort of thing. what we know about this flynn situation, this information likely came from former administration officials and it was very sensitive.. how did they get their hands continue to and why did they relate it to the press?

it is political in nature. the last administration was deeply concern about thes allegiances of current members of the administration, and that's fine, but we're also not investigating the fact that the last administration was credit criticized heavily by the press, by people on capitol hill by the hillary clinton campaign for not responding as forcefully as they should have to the russian hacks. the fact there is a careerist element to this probably deserves more scrutiny than it has received. >> and there always is. if these revelations are connected, are part of a strategy, where do you expect it to go from here? what's the next? >> we are aseing the next wave rate now with regard to -- i'm sorry, attorney general sessions. he did himself no favors by not being as clear as he could in senate testimony but the information we received, again, on this wednesday night flurry of information that "the new york times" report about the breadcrumb trail included information about former senator sessions contacts with russian

officials. the "washington post" later confirmed that, all of this came from sources that were unattributed andat talking freey to the press. so i expect to see a lot more of that. frankly this administration should getnd ahead of some of these stories if they want to blunt the momentum. >> probably. i always thought people who talked about the deep state were conspiracy nuts, i don't think that much any more. noah, thank you. >> thank you. >> good to see you. coming up next, a gruesome case of new abuse. the press had a horrible time fact checking the president's speech on tuesday night. we will tell you what they came up with. it is pretty good.

>> tucker: it's time for the news fact checker edition. the press failed in its attempts to fact check. trump said 94 million american, out of the labor force.

that was completely accurate and msnbc news said it was false and adds jobless with those who are not. 'd out of circumstance or choice. and they are not alone. the washington post assigned the true statement for. the murder rate in 2015 experienced the largest single year increase and checkably true. they say many factors affects such rates including the weather. trump said obamacare premiums uncreased by double and triple. new york times it said was a cherry pick even no bench mark ps on healthcare.gov rose double-digits. none of the fact checkers took us up on the offer to come to

the she. that's it for us tonight. sworn enemy and pointless cold wars. don't forget to dvr. sean hannity is next. have a great weekend. ♪ . tune into "hannity," next. >> sean: welcome to "hannity," >> sean: welcome to hannity, we are broadcasting for the full hour. our 43rd president will join us and along with brave members of the military featured in the book called "portraits in courage and joining us now is the cleared book, "portraits of courage." mr. president, how are you? >> good to be back w you. >> sean: i've gone through part of your museum. i am stunned, shocked, i do not know how to describe it. you've only been painting for