i think we may break this story. 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," we have three big stories all competing for attention. president trump issued a new executive order on immigration, we will talk to a pro-refugee activist who says the new order is rooted in anti-muslim bigotry. also republicans in the house unveiled their proposed replacement for obamacare. we will help you find out what is in it before the bill gets passed. trump delivered a big shock over the weekend when he proclaimed on twitter that president obama had wiretapped trump tower during the last presidential election. the former director of national intelligence went on tv and flat out denied that candidate trump and his campaign were wiretapped.

others disagree with that. then current fbi director james comey asked to reject thet. wiretapping claim altogether. the white house stood by what the president said. a democrat, he represents connecticut, most significantly he is on the house intelligence committee. he has been highly skeptical of the president's claims.. let us get right to the nub of it. right to the president allegations about the intelligence community. you have knowledge, does the u.s. intelligence community havu any information -- or communications in trump tower? >> i suspect if i did, i probably cannot talk about it on television. one thing is for sure though, the nub of it is if they do, it would have been pursuant to a

warrant issued by a judge, not by the command of president obama. as you know, that kind of surveillance happens only when somebody presents probable cause of a crime or of a foreign powea at work and been a judge says okay, do it. >> tucker: i did know that. you are speaking to whether the president's tweet was accurate and it wasn't. could the intelligence community be spying on the president during his campaign? >> that could not be. >> tucker: really? it looks like they were. there is a a lot of evidence. >> there's absolutely no evidence that there were. people who would be in a position to know like fbi director james comey wants to tell the world that the former dni said no, that is not true. as you know, the white house

produced zero evidence. they need to come out with some evidence. he can call the head of all these offices and say this is true or not? and they haven't done that. >> tucker: it doesn't change the fact that they were in fact conducting surveillance of the president's former campaign manager, paul manafort, during the campaign. >> it is irresponsible to say that's a fact. there are allegations, news reports but that is not a fact. >> tucker: you believe that to be untrue? >> i am on the intelligence committee, i probably know more than perhaps some other people -- right now, there's absolutely no evidence that suggests that the case. that's part of an investigation that has just begun. >> tucker: you are sayinge. everything we have read, these requests, the two denied -- one

approved, all the reports that paul manafort and other staff members were under surveillance -- that's not true? >> the guardian and "the new york times," none of this stuff has been confirmed. we do not know where it came from. who is being monitored pursuant is a highly classified thing and further as you know, you used the word spying. >> tucker: yes i did it because i will tell you what that means -- >> no, no. that is what police do when they are listening in on drug dealers? >> tucker: sometimes it isn justified and sometimes it isn't. >> when we go to russia and try to recruit russian generals to i give us russian secrets, when law enforcement is listening to anybody that is law enforcement. >> tucker: in a lot of cases it is legitimate. in most cases it is legal but it is spying.g.

our u.s. intelligence agencies listening in on american citizens connected to the trump campaign or the administration without their knowledge? you can call it whatever you want.ca >> no, they do not do that. the fbi may listen in on conversations that americans are having if a federal judge has been convinced that there is probable cause to award a warrant. >> tucker: this is why -- this is why people lose trust in government. you are playing word games with me. >> no, i am not playing word games. >> tucker: under barack obama, he controlled the executive branch.. whether through the fbi or nsa e or some other agency, into the conversations without the knowledge of those involved of trump's associates including his former campaign manager, paul manafort. is that true? it has been reported.

>> you can use barack obama's name as many times as you want but that will not change the underlying fact that the president of the united states does not have the authority to order a wiretap on anybody and in fact, if you did that, thatdy would be a severe violation of the law. >> tucker: i was making a distinction between this administration and the past one. under the last administration, run by whoever, where those people under surveillance by the u.s. government? it was a highly contested presidential campaign and i think that's meaningful. we know for a fact that general flynn was monitored by the fbi and that illegal transcripts of his conversations with the russian officials cost him his job. that seems like a big deal. do you think it's not? racing that that doesn't happen because it does.

>> as a routine matter we will often monitor the communications of people like the russian ambassador. do you think that that is a bad thing and of course, that russian ambassador will be talking to u.s. persons and the intelligence community have all kinds of protections to make sure that the u.s. person is protected. in this case, michael flynn lied to the vice president of the united states who then perpetrated, or, perpetuated that -- >> tucker: how do we know that he lied? >> he was fired -- >> tucker: how do we know what he said in that conversation? >> you do know he was fired and if i could just -- >> tucker: stop. you just said he lied. how do we know he lied? what is the basis for making t that judgment? it was in a classified transcript that was leaked by someone in government with the effect of hurting michael flynn that with a felony. you said last wednesday that people that didn't leak like that were patriots. >> no, i did not, tucker.

>> tucker: this is what you said. the fbi and the cia, and -- t >> i was talking about the intelligence community and the fbi, i made it very clear in the article that you are quoting from that leaking is not okay. i was making a point that souo many people within these institutions are concerned by the behavior and that the attacks. remember president trump sayingt comparing the intelligence community to the nazis? do you remember that, tucker? they risk their lives in places like pakistan and iraq, there is a bit of -- >> tucker: i am not defending that and i would never defend that. i thought it was unfair to those people, some of whom i know. it's not partisan, you are an american citizen and so am i. i want to believe that the government will not collect information on me and use it against me illegally fornt

political ends. you are in charge of the oversight of this. >> you are making statements like they are doing it and doing it illegally. >> tucker: you showed me the proof. you said he lied and he lied based on your knowledge of a transcript you should not have known about and i should not have known about it either. >> you are besmirching the fbi and the cia and others if you say they did that illegally with no evidence and you have no -- >> tucker: you tell me as a member of the committee -- imagine a scenario in which that transcript of general flynn was not a felony. >> the leaking was illegal. >> tucker: oh, it was? i thought you said it wasn't. >> you said they were using the information illegally.

they were not wiretapping -- of course, the leaker -- you are totally making that up. i did not say the leak was legal. you are making it sound as though the people who were listening in on the conversation were acting illegally. >> tucker: i don't believe that. i'm not saying that. i am merely saying -- i am making a nonpartisan point i think that i would expect youu o agree with. when you have a government that collects information and we have all the standards designed to protect them -- those protections did not work.e a guy fairly or unfairly had his reputation and career destroyed over this because someone did not like him. that is the behavior of a third world government, a police state, someone in charge of thed oversight, i would seem concerned about that. >> you are misrepresenting my position. leaking is wrong. leakers are not patriots. let me be very clear about that. you know the story here, the deputy attorney general and

others according to news reports went to the white house and said them vice president misrepresented what michael flynn said in his conversation. he could be black mailed, no one was trying to get michael flynn. people went to the white house inside your national security advisor could be blackmailed because he lied to the vice president. >> tucker: how to that end up in "the washington post," i wonder? >> because of the leaker. >> tucker: oh oh, okay. it is certainly not that complicated. since you are in charge of the oversight, how many americans have their personal information swept up by the intelligence agencies, by nsa or others every year? >> what you mean by swept up? >> the nsa for example taps into the fiber lines across the atlantic and other places. they sweep up a massive amount of data from the internet and on calls.

they are not supposed to be looking at the data of americans without a warrant but they collect all this data. my impression is from livingnt here that you guys who have the responsibility of oversight do not know how many americans data is picked up by these intelligence agencies and myy question is why did you not know and should you be interested in that? >> interesting question and we are very interested. it is critical for oversight. it will not surprise you to know that we have the capability and quite often we will want to listen in on phone conversations that potential terrorists and places like pakistan and otherre having. we may want to look at the emails that potential terrorists are having. it will not surprise you to know that from time to time, they may email or have a conversation with an american. when our intelligence agencies pick up the information, sometimes the information is either an american on the other end or about an american. we have an elaborate set of protocols to try to protect -- they are human, they do not always get it right but they try

to protect the information of those people who are u.s. citizens and therefore entitled to fourth amendment protection. do they always get it right?pl no, but there are an elaborateci set of protocols. if you want to go the edward snowden route, i hear that -- >> tucker: please do not call names, you are name calling. i'm not being critical of the intel agencies, i'm being critical of you because i don't think you really know to what extent they are following those protocols because i don't think your committee has demanded and received a complete listing of the names of americans or at least a description of the americans, the number of americans who have been surveilled intentionally or not by these agencies. my question is why? >> we receive on a regular basis reports from the intelligence community of the intensity of

when there are errors made, when there protocols are not followed. that's a key part of oversight. >> tucker: that is not oversight at all, right you saying that is they are doing a good job. >> we agreed that leaking was illegal. >> tucker: you are not checking on them and then you're calling that oversight. why should i trust that? >> when did i say we are not checking on them? it's a lot of fun on fox news when you put words in my mouth but -- >> tucker: i'm asking real questions. >> no, you are not. you are asking me loaded questions. >> tucker: we know what happened. you acknowledged what happened. and american general had his conversation listen to without his knowledge. i'm not contesting the right of the u.s. government to do that. i'm contesting the right to pass

that information on to others who want to hurt him and they did. that is illegal and wrong and you seem to make defenses of it. >> we had established that we both agreed leaking is wrong and probably a felony. you went on to say there are no controls and you are not doing l oversight. >> tucker: i did not say there were no controls. i merely said you are not getting a full accounting of those agencies and you know that you are not. i know you are not. let's stop pretending. >> should we stop doing oversight? tell me what you need. you want a public list of all americans -- >> tucker: i don't want that. i don't sit on the intel community, you do. when you have enormous power invested in these agencies, you better be really careful nobody misuses that power. or else everything collapses and it becomes used as a n political -- weapon and that's really scary. >> i'm really glad that you are

urging me to do good oversight. i feel the weight of that responsibility quite a lot. then when you go on to say otherwise it gets you into these super political purposes, that's just baloney. >> tucker: james clapper said yesterday on television that there was no evidence gathered that he was aware of of any collusion between the trump e campaign or trump himself and the russian government. since you have a valid such respect for the intelligence community, i will assume that you will retract your claim that the russians hacked this election and that trump is a puppet of putin or whatever.r. this sort of ends the story, doesn't it? >> this sort of says something about the tucker carlson show. you are think that dni said yesterday that the russians did not hack the election? >> tucker: i said yesterday on nbc, james clapper said there is

no evidence that he is aware of their risk collusion between thi trump campaign and the russian government. the allegations since day one has been there's been some kind of collusion. the dni says there is not. is that significance to you? >> there is no allegation that there was collusion. there is an investigation which by the way some republicans are fully participating in. there's no question about whether there was russian hacking which was the question you asked earlier. the intelligence community including clapper believe withth high certainty that there was hacking and it was done onon behalf of donald trump. whether there was collusion or whether there was contact between the trump organization and the russians is the reason that we have two investigations happening on capitol hill today. >> tucker: congressman, thank you for joining us. up next, we will give you all the key details of the new house republicans revealed bill

replacing obamacare. also, president trump unveiled his new executive order blocking arrivals from several muslim majority countries. we will talk to a pro-refugee activist who says the executive order is grounded in islamophobia. stay tuned. a... ...one of many pieces in my life. so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo is specifically designed to open up airways to improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid.

once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. learn more about better breathing at mybreo.com. 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. (elated) woooooo!!! life looks great with tampax pearl. you get ultimate protection on your heaviest days and smooth removal for your lightest. tampax pearl power over periods.

did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. >> tucker: a fox news alert, republicans initially promised that obamacare would be repealed on day one of the trump administration. it has been a month and a half and now the house g.o.p. has revealed its replacement for that law. for details we are joined by trace gallagher.

>> hey, let's begin with a name change. the affordable care act would now be the american care act. l here are three big changes. the new tax credits would be age based, not income based, starting at $2,000 for people in their 20s going up to $4,000 for people over 60. credits are reduced for those who make $75,000 a year and phased out altogether for those making $215,000. the new bill rolls back the expansion of medicaid which is a point of contention for republican lawmakers whose constituents rely heavily on medicaid.t individual mandate and employer mandate is out. if you do not have insurance, you no longer have to pay a fine. here's what stays the same. you can still get insurance with pre-existing conditions and you can still stay on your parents

insurance until the age of 26. what we do not know is how much the american health care act will cost because the congressional budget office has not scored it yet. we do not know how may people will gain or lose insurance. no surprise new york democratich senator chuck schumer does not like it. it would defund planned parenthood and force americans, particularly older americans, to pay more out of pocket for their medical care. kentucky g.o.p. senator rand paul does not like it for other reasons saying it still looks like obamacare light. they're still hundreds of billions of dollars in refundable tax credits. what would make them supported? rand paul says change. the bill gets marked up this week by the energy and commerce committee which oversees medicaid and the wage and means committee. the full house could vote on it later this month. tucker. >> tucker: change.e. rand paul, a man of few words.

extremely busy news day. we will finally get to president trump's new executive order, the one that blocked arrivals from six muslim majority countries. we will talk to a member of human rights watch who says the order is islamophobic. stay tuned. says the order is islamaphobic. order is islamaphobic. stayy pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. these are jobs that natural gas is helping make happen, all while reducing america's emissions. energy lives here.

>> like every nation, the united states has the right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm. >> the back door muslim ban 2.0. >> it is the same old fear, hatred and intolerance we have seen from this administration. >> the president weeded in all >> president trump is exercising his authority to keep the american people safe. >> tucker: >> like every nation, the united states has the right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm. >> the back door muslim ban 2.0. >> it is the same old fear, hatred and intolerance we have seen from this administration. >> president trump is exercising his authority to keep the american people safe. >> tucker: a tsunami of posturing. after several weeks of delays, the trump administration has a new directive order today. it removes iraq from the list and exempts those who already hold green cards or visas. permanent residents of this country could come and go as always. bill frelick, director of

refugee rights at human rights watch, who says this order is no better than the new one. iraq is not on the list. what is interesting to me is whether or not -- government of iraq has changed its policies and is going to help us vet travelers. is that not good? >> there are a lot of other issues. with waging the war there. i mean, i'm glad iraq is off the list. >> tucker: you acknowledge i they are off the list because they have addressed the basic concern of this which is that people whose background we know nothing about might wind up here. that is not a crazy concern. >> not a crazy concern but the history of terrorism in the united states doesn't really connect to the six countries that were on the list. that was the point that was made

again and again by the courts, by the ten senior terrorism and national security figures, two secretaries of state. that basically said we have seen up until seven days before the first executive order, we have seen all of the intelligence here. there is no specific threat whatsoever and there is nothing historically that shows a threat coming from the six countries. you have terrorist attacks that have come in the united states but they have come from completely different countries. >> tucker: that's not entirely true. >> 9/11 was saudi arabia. >> tucker: 9/11 had neverr happened before. just because something doesn't happen before doesn't mean it won't happen. there is quite a longitudinalpp study of this, western europe. it has been on the receiving end of massive immigration.tu

>> the effects have overwhelmingly come from citizens of these european countries. as is the case in the united states. it's happened by u.s.-born and naturalized u.s. citizens. >> tucker: oh, naturalized. people from those countries. one example, there are -- >> dylann roof? >> tucker: those are tiny minority groups. >> no, that is not -- since 9/11, the most significant terrorist attacks since the united states -- you were saying that is not significant? >> tucker: all i am saying is western europe is disintegrating. there has been a ton of violence in countries.n it's happening because they moved a ton of people from that region into their countries and they are paying a massive costap for it. it's not crazy to worry about it

and it's not islamophobic to worry about it. i am talking about terror threats, rioting, massive spikes in crime it. people lie about them. it is totally measurable. here's what i object to, do you think this is the best way to protect our country? you write it off as islamophobic or bigoted for people to haveay these concerns. >> let's talk about what was onf the table. during the president's campaign, president trump repeatedly -- no secret to anyone -- said he wanted a total and complete shutdown of muslims entry to the united states united states. >> tucker: that is correct. >> this he actually spoke to former new york city mayor rudy giuliani, again a matter of record, and looked for a way to make it look legal. to be able to do the muslim ban that he wanted.

>> tucker: it's not even close to a muslim ban. >> trump himself called at thate >> tucker: is this a ban of all muslims? >> it is not but it is the political firepower that he got out of this, was using the term muslim ban -- >> tucker: i thought you weree the one using that word. >> what contaminates the executive order -- >> tucker: it doesn't apply tont most of the world's muslims. the point, here is the only point i am making. it's not about trump or what is in his heart.po it is about the tens of millions of other americans who support this -- they are not supporting islamophobia. they are saying maybe there's a

connection between the people in these countries and these terroristic acts. that is not a crazy conclusion to read. >> there is a conclusion that is really not warranted in terms of when you're looking at refugee admissions to the united states, going back to 1980, it's brought about 3 million refugees to this country. there is not a single refugee admitted to this country since 1980, 3 million people, that has committed a fatal terrorist act against any american. >> tucker: really? how many have been -- >> libertarian, as few -- >> tucker: it must be true but -- f i will appear to want to be impressed by that. >> it was in the brief by the ten security -- >> tucker: what about the somali refugees in minnesota? in the past five years? >> you are cherry picking. >> tucker: there have been a ton of somali refugees that have moved into minnesota and maine.e

they've seen a massive spike in a threat for terror. i mean, that is not an accident, is it? >> i do not think that is the case. >> tucker: i think it is. we are out of time, email me. thank you, bill. up next, and highly partisan times, could a good idea rise to the top even if it is proposed by somebody from the other side? we will talk to a democrat about that. and president trump's claim, did obama wiretap him and his campaign? stay tuned. claim, did obama wiretapped him and his tech: at safelite, we know how busy your life can be. mom: oh no... tech: this mom didn't have time to worry about a cracked windshield. so she scheduled at safelite.com and with safelite's exclusive "on my way text" she knew exactly when i'd be there, so she didn't miss a single shot.

i replaced her windshield giving her more time for what matters most. tech: how'd ya do? player: we won! tech: nice! that's another safelite advantage. mom: thank you so much! (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace.

our insurance company may not have a name your price tool [ shouting ] but we got disses for days! your mother is so lame, she never put any notes in your lunch bag. sandwiches o-o-only. yeah! yeah, well if you use progressive's name your price tool, maybe you could use the savings to buy a decent suit. i got this jaime. ♪ you could throw shade all day ♪ ♪ but it'll never land ♪ 'cause we got the name your price tool ♪ ♪ in the palm of our h-a-a-and ♪ mic drop. mime: ouch. what? it was a sweet burn. progressive's name your price tool. word to your wallet.

>> it's something you will only hear on this show. >> tucker: president trump has said he wants >> tucker: president trump has said he wants a trillion -- yes, trillion with a t -- for y improving infrastructure. not clear how to pay for them.

representing maryland, the only member of congress who is a ceo of a company who has an ambitious and really interesting plan by convincing corporations to repatriate their earnings. they can invest in the country. could he win over congressional republicans and become law? can you explain how this works?k >> we have a $1 trillion infrastructure program, funded by about $170 billion -- when you count on their money that goes through these projects, third-party capital borrowing, state contributions, he gets to about a trillion dollarsy . the way we come up with $170 billion, combining with international tax reform. u.s. corporations haveon $2.5 trillion overseas. they have more money overseas and they do overstates. >> tucker: more money abroad than here? >> the reason is we have a

really bad international tax system. we do tax corporations twice. you pay money locally and then when they want to repatriate money, they have to true up to u.s. tax rates. which are 35%, the highest of any of our competitive nations around the world. we give them an option, we say if you don't want to repatriate the money right now, you don't have to pay the tax. o so they do for the tax. with the companies are doing iss they do not want to pay the additional tax so they are electing to defer the repatriation, which is why all that money is sitting overseas. what we propose to do is end the abilities of companies to defer paying their taxes which would allow them to bring the money back and forth whenever theyey want. and we lower the tax rate toal make it more competitive with our international competitive countries.s. what that does interestingly enough is generate a fair amount of revenue for the federal government, as well as allowing

all that money to potentially come back to the united states. we think about how that money could come back if the system was fixed. that is where the pay for comes from for the big infrastructure programs. >> tucker: that's just a tidal wave of money flowing outside of the country. >> it is owned by the corporations, then they divest it, they give it to their i shareholders, in addition it would generate federal tax revenues. right now the government is theoretically owed this additional money but they are not getting any of it because the companies are elected to defer. by lowering the rates and making it more competitive but making them pay right away when they earn the money, the federal government gets revenues, they get the flexibility to bring your money back and forth. we take the revenues and allocated 100% towards infrastructure. >> tucker: which means jobs.

>> we could potentially create 10 million jobs. we have democrats and republicans supporting this concept. >> tucker: if it does even half of that, that's great. >> the key is this deal which is international tax within infrastructure. there's 50 different ways of cutting the deal. whatever you do, we fix this international tax system that we have and we generate revenue for infrastructure. >> tucker: boy, if that does not get through, something is wrong. >> the president has not been that specific, he said $1 trillion. i think the only way to pay for it is quarter adjustment tax, if you do that then you generate a bunch of revenue. it has issues associated with it which is not a conversation. putting that aside, if you want to pay for big infrastructure programs, this is the only place

to find the money. >> tucker: i believe that. i hope this happens. up next, the fact-checking cartel labeled a reporter a liar saying some in leadership did not stand and applaud for a fallen navy seal's widow, carryn owens. who is watching the watchmen when it comes to fake news? up next. see things your way. ♪ ♪ you have access to the right information at the right moment. ♪ ♪ and when you filter out the noise, it's easy to turn your vision into action. ♪ ♪ it's your trade. e*trade. start trading today at etrade.com

companies across the state are york sgrowing the economy,otion. with the help of the lowest taxes in decades, a talented workforce, and world-class innovations. like in plattsburgh, where the most advanced transportation is already en route. and in corning, where the future is materializing. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov

>> tucker: shortly after the president's speech last tuesday night, there was an uproar when two people did not stand and applaud the widow of fallen navy seal, ryan owens. some reporters said it was a lie.

the only problem? it was not a lie, they sat through the entire ovation and video evidence proves that. who is fact-checking the fact-checkers? benny johnson is, great to see you. did i oversimplify it? there are pictures of you in the galley watching this and you tweeted out, boy, they are not standing for the ovation and they called you a liar.tw >> i was in the exact same pocket square -- not the same bow tie. sure enough, they did not stand. not for the second ovation.th there was the first ovation, where everyone stood. the entire auditorium stood. the really emotional one, the one that is on screen right now, your husband is etched on the

face of eternity, they did not stand for that. they sat along with another members. >> tucker: you notice this and immediately -- snopes, an oracle for some people, jumped in to call you a liar. they are the fact-checkers so by definition they are going to track down the facts because they must've called you or emailed to you? >> no call, no email. there was a lot of reporters who did call and write. there is nuance here. there is an important nuance. you cannot take photos in the press gallery as a member of the press. you are not allowed to take photographs, you have to report what you are seeing out in congress. i could not -- i did not have photographic evidence at the time to show that what i was saying was true. the nuance is not lost on video, that the white house released. they are clearly sitting down. i even put a little circle around them to show that. the firestorm that was created t

about the events really just are facts that are inconvenient, we refuse to accept them. >> tucker: those holy men at snopes, every writer looks for the real truth, they continued to call you a liar until thist video came out? >> they have issued an apology, at the bottom of the piece now they have said benny johnson's tweets removed because they were factual. that took four days. >> tucker: there were thousands of people watching this and millions watching at home who could have verified it also. all this adulation on the left, snopes is not a small thing. they got it wrong. does not make you more confident? >> facts are true.

you have to be able to bring receipts in this business. you have to show up and show that you were in the room and really that is the hard part about being a reporter. having people in the room describing what is really happening. the story that will not be seen by all the tv cameras. i thought that since keith ellison and -- if you are not standing for the widow of an american slain hero, that is a lot bigger than party politics. you should be able to stand for the widow of a slain american hero. >> tucker: of course. really interesting tick-tock on this, thank you for coming on. coming up, catherine herridge will tell us more about the president's wiretapping claim and how plausible it is. stay tuned.

claim (alarms) where's the car? it'll be here in three...uh, four minutes. are you kidding me? no, looks like he took a wrong turn. don't worry, this guy's got like a four-star rating, we're good. his name is randy. that's like one of the most trustworthy names! ordering a getaway car with an app? are you randy? that's me! awesome! surprising. what's not surprising? how much money erin saved by switching to geico. everybody comfortable with the air temp? i could go a little cooler. ok. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

because i'm a woman, do you think i'm going to crack under pressure or conquer the field? defy expectations any day with always infinity. made with flexfoam, absorbs 10x its weight.

rewrite the rules. always. ostriches don't really stick their heads in the sand. a peanut is not a nut. and a real john deere is actually real affordable. you learn something new everyday. the surprisingly affordable john deere e series tractors. now you can own america's tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer. i think we could finally get youra bigger place. yeah, let me check my score too.

try credit karma. it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit. >> tucker: president trump's allegation that president obama wiretapped him has triggered a wave of outrage and denial. congressional republicans were wary and even the white house has not shown evidence so far. catherine herridge is here to explain it as always. the most interesting part to me was the denial that came immediately from the obama camp. they said the president cannot order wiretapping directly inme any way and we have never done this to an american citizen. >> it's important to really fact-check that statement. it is technically correct the white house and the president don't order surveillance of u.s. citizens, but it would have been through their fbi and their justice department. if there was a surveillancebi order, it would happen on mr. obama's watch. second, the claim that they never interfered in a federal

investigation -- i would argue that is patently false because throughout the clinton email campaign, what we saw from mr. obama were multiple public statements where he seemed to w put his hand on the scales of justice and he minimized the handling of classified information. he called it careless, he said that national security was not impacted and he said it did note seem to rise to national security issue. >> tucker: those seem like editorials in favor of one side. a lot of stuff is hanging out there. can we expect more detail from the white house about what they believe happened? >> i think they will wait for the committees to do their investigation, specifically on this issue of whether there wasr an abuse of power. i think it is important for people at home to know that some of the intelligence we are talking about, these transcripts between the former national security advisor mike flynn and the russian ambassador, people who will go 30 years in the u.s.

intelligence community and they will never see an nsa transcript. c that is because it is so closely held. this is information at the seniormost level of the intelligence community that was leaked for i think personal purposes. >> tucker: it seemed that way. just to be clear, these are not just floating around. >> no, they are not. think about you are doing a story for television. you have all sorts of raw notes. you just publish the finished product, the finished product is what is sent out to other agencies or congress. it is only a very small pool of people who have that raw information and in this case, the transcripts and the fact that that was leaked to reporters? that is not a threshold we have crossed before. >> tucker: catherine, thank you a lot as always. that is it for us tonight, tune in every night at 9:00 to the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.

don't miss "hannity," up next. have a great night. >> sean: thank you, tucker. welcome to "hannity." a rare appearance, mark levin, it is time to cut through all the clutter and bring down what we know about wiretapping and the obama administration. that is tonight's opening monologue. over the weekend, president donald trump set off a firestorm and tweeted the following quote? unpredictably, the left democrats and the alt left propaganda cronies went into