again, thanks for watching this special edition of "the o'reillt factor," the trump agenda, i am eric bolling in for bill o'reilly, who will be back on monday, please remember, the spin stops right here, we are looking out for you. >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" it's been a wild week in the news. republicans are in a civil war over the obamware -- obamacare appeal. wikileaks humiliated the cia. the headlines overshadowed a bunch of stories, one of which we're going to open with tonig tonight. the effort to kill obamacare isn't the only contentious part of the new republican health care bill. american health care act would cut off federal funding for planned parenthood that amounts to $500 million a year, 40% of its budget. planned parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider by far so unsurprisingly, those who view abortion as the linchpin of

human freedom are upset about it. the trump administration says they'll happily restore funding to planned parenthood as long as they stop performing aportions. the group isn't interested in that judy, thank you for coming on. planned parenthood line is that abortions are just a small part of what planned parenthood does, all the vital services they provide. that's why they need federal funding. the trump administration saying, ok, then just don't provide abortions and you get your half a billion dollars a year of taxpayer money. why wouldn't they do that? if it's a small part of what they do and the rest is so important, why not just get rid of the abortions? >> um, well, tucker, i think we should start with being honest with your audience that no such thing as a federally-of faunded abortion. there's a law that prohibits that from happening. so that's certainly not something that planned parenthood supports this legislation but they abide by

it. now, to your question. >> tucker: wait, wait a minute. since you moved off the topic, let me just ask you a question, if you didn't like the nra's lobbying for the second amendment but the u.s. government gave the nra a half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding and they said, that's nothing to do with our lobbying for the second amendment, it's just for something else that we do, gun safety, would you say correctly money is subsidizing the things i don't like. the same true of planned parenthood. as you know, it's like money. it's liquid it flows where it needs to go. >> the money is flowing to cancer screenings, flowing to std screenings. it's flowing to make sure that in places where health care providers are scarce and health professionals are scarce, planned parenthood is in many ways the number one source of health care and i heard you at

the top of the segment -- this is planned parenthood's line -- i would ask you to go to any woman in your life and see what her line is on planned parenthood, because there are 2.5 million women each year that are served by planned parenthood health centers. >> tucker: ok. >> this is not an issue of removing the funds and there'll be another the place for these women to go. it's proven, proven that that's not the case. >> tucker: ok, i'm thinking everything you say -- ok, wait, let me stop and agree with you by saying i am taking what you say at face value. whether or not it's true -- i'm going to stick to stipulate it's -- i'm going to stipulate it's true. why then won't planned parenthood just say, "because what we do is so very important, we're the only health care providers -- as you just said in some cases in this country -- assuming that is true let's say it is -- why not get rid of abortions?

if the rest of what they do is so important, why don't give up abortions and just do cancer screenings? >> tucker, abortions are a legal medical procedure. >> tucker: that's not an answer. >> in this country. that's something that -- you're going to have to just reckon with that, because there's a lot of talk -- i've heard you on your show, tucker, say so many times, look, donald trump won and we have to stop litigating this election. well, guess what? >> tucker: i never said litigate. >> the question of legality of abortion was decided before the two of us were even born. this is a legal medical procedure that many women -- >> i was born in 1978 -- stop, stop, stop, stop. you just undercut your own argue:you just said it's the law that taxpayer dollars don't fund abortion. it's a law for a reason because we don't as a country consider abortion just like any other medical procedure. i'm not contesting its legality. i'm aware of what roe v wade says. i'm merely asking the same question for the third time which is if planned parenthood's

services are so vital, nonabortion-related services, why wouldn't -- what's the attachment to abortion? why doesn't planned parenthood say, we do so many great things, let others provide abortions. >> what other people, tucker, seriously? because of planned parenthood and the services they provide and the education they provide in communities and even in schools, unintended -- . >> tucker: you're not going to answer my question, are you? >> answer this question, tucker, why is it you're so against big government on every issue except for one when it comes to my uterus and my vagina? can you imagine if the government. >> tucker: here's what we're getting down to. >> that's not ever going to be allowed by you or any of your male counterparts. it's time we get to the bottom of the issues. these aren't talking points, the talking points. >> tucker: can we get back to the issue of planned parenthood

funding? for the fourth time, you're saying planned parenthood does all these great things. federal government is saying we'll continue to fund the great things. we're worried about the abortion part. half the country thinks it's murder of it's not about genitalia. it's about a human being. >> 70% of americans are pro-choice. 50% of donald trump voters don't want planned parenthood to be defunded. guess what. >> tucker: you're wrong. >> abortion is a clinical, legal medical procedure. >> tucker: really? >> let's talk about the domino effect. you take abortions away, let's talk about the domino effect. then what? because life is actually more complex than you want to talk about in the situation. >> tucker: if you take abortions away -- hold so, slow down. slow down, why should people who think abortion is immoral and there are a lot of them, it's not 30%, much higher than that actually, it's about 50% but still more than 5%, why should

those people have to see their tax dollars subsidizing? that's the question. you're basically answering with a religious answer and saying it's the economy of the woman. >> your tax dollars aren't paying for abortions. >> tucker: what's the problem? why attack abortion? i don't understand. >> pay for low-income women to go into the health center in the community that's got the no other health center available to them within hundreds of miles so they can get a breast cancer screening. >> tucker: a mammogram? how many mammograms do get? >> this is men also. not just women. >> tucker: are they giving a lot of mammograms at plant parenthood? how much do you think they gave last year? >> i don't have the answer. >> tucker: it's a question for you here. you're on the board of it, not me. >> let's be honest. >> tucker: do you know the answer? i'm trying to get the answer from you. >> in health centers in rural areas in many communities where there are no other options.

>> tucker: how many mammograms are they providing? stop with the pop gandda. i'm asking you a simpl simple -- propaganda. i'm asking you a simple question. >> it's not propaganda. you're providing talking to demean an organization that provides critical services to women. >> tucker: building walls doesn't seem to be a big priority in congress. paul ryan didn't list paying for the wall as a priority until we mentioned it to him. here is what is happening south of the border in los cabos, six murder victims had been found in the past two days alone. three of the victims had apparently been wrapped in plastic bags after being tortured. a man and a woman found in that city shot to death near the airport. elsewhere in mexico, 87 people were arrested for alleged participation in a murderous kidnapping ring. what happens to the bad hombraes? how do we keep them out of the united states? with hope apparently. in france, the giant

construction conglomerate is being announced -- denounced by its own government for planning to bid on a contract for building materials for building a wall in this country it should reflect upon what its interests are because it's got social and environmental responsibilities. coming from the government official for nuclear armed power that's ominous to say the least. comedian samantha b attached tacked a cancer patient this week calling him a nazi. then president obama has been gone for 50 days now. there's more talk than ever that the same regime -- that regime is trying to sabotage the current regime. the trump administration. we've got details next. you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car?

now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. i'm all-business when i, travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro.

>> tucker: comedian samantha bee is having a tough week. during the wednesday episode of her show, "full frontal" she told this joke, watch. >> the bowtize replaced by nazi hair. nazi hair. nazi hair. >> what kind of a lame joke in the first place? turns out one of the men she ridiculed has stage 4 brain cancer. the backlash against bee focused on the fact she attacked a cancer patient. regardless of the man's medical stats, why was it ok to call him a nazi in the first place when he couldn't defend himself? joe joins us now. joe, this seems consistent with her show. i'm not a watcher. is this kind of thing a normal joke on the samantha bee show? >> very hateful show, tucker. this is what late night has become unfortunately. it's no longer the days of david letterman or jay leno or johnnie

carson. this is what it's about. look. that is the main focus here. not so much -- they wouldn't have attacked this kid if they knew he had stage 4 cancer and was suffering and going through chemotherapy. any reasonable person would say that. when you on national television show a 20-year-old college student and call him a nazi in the context of his hair and in the conference he's attending, here are the consequences that could happen. take the cancer part out of this. he goes back to campus. do you think he gets mocked and bullied given the hostility on college campuses? probably. then what happens next? he either brushes it off or it goes in another direction we've seen on so many college campuses and that is that it spirals into a thought process of possibly even hurting yourself or worse. we saw it at rutgers in new jersey where a kid was exposed as being gay and before you knew it, he's rolling up to the george washington bridge, tucker and threw himself off. that's how quickly these things

could spiral out of control. samantha bee has yet to apologize for calling this kid and other kids there a nazi. instead she does this half-baked apology. we're sorry we offended you. samantha, here is an idea, why don't you pick up a phone, this kid has stage 4 cancer. there is no stage 5. apologize him directly by phone in your own voice instead of a stupid tweet that wasn't a -- an apology in the first place. this got me angry. >> doesn't seem very funny. is this going to play on late night? political lectures rather than jokes? >> oh, well, i don't know if you call it stephen colbert on election night. he does a special on showtime. supposed to be a celebration of hillary clinton's victory. he doesn't have jokes planned if hillary actually lost. he doesn't know what to do when it's cleared trump is going to win. so he has someone on his panel and her name is jana friedman, an alleged comedian. he says, "how are you feeling right now?" let me give you the quote because this is what comedy is

in 2017. "says, "i feel as if i'm about to give birth to a baby that's already dead." stephen colbert is a devout catholic. we hear it all the time and instead of him saying, you know what? i get that we're in a politically incorrect world. i get that even if you're pro choice, you probably find that offensive, he doesn't say anything. instead, he makes a joke. he says. >> hey, that's the kind of panel discussion you have on showtime these days." that's where we are in 2017, tucker, where we call strangers nazis without them defending themselves or having the ability to defend themselves and if a president or a candidate wins a presidency, then we're comparing it to stillborn births. >> tucker: here's something i did find kind of funny. none of that funny. i read the other day where samantha bee was going after someone for not being diverse enough. someone is racist and hasn't reached the elevated moral status of samantha bee. not hiring enough women of color i think was her accusation. here's a picture -- i took this from your column -- here is

samantha bee and her writers at one of the awards ceremonies. those are writers. doesn't seem like a diverse group to me. where's the self-awareness here, joe? >> went after another cable network i used to work at at one time, msnbc saying they don't have enough black women working there. since i'm a journalist, i said, i wonder how many black women worked in the samantha bee full frontal writing show. i found 33 people. guess how many out of those are african-american women? >> tucker: 25? >> one. >> tucker: one? >> she's preaching about diversity and hiring more black women and she's one for 33. >> tucker: she's got 33 people writing for her show? >> writers, directors and segment procedures. >> tucker: how long is her show? >> once a week. i believe it's an hour. >> tucker: that's unbelievable. >> would with you like that kind of staff? you have the same thing. >> tucker: i can make my cocker

spaniel a star with a staff of 33 and it'll be more diverse than her staff. i'll tell you that. >> you own a cocker spaniel. didn't see that coming. >> tucker: we do. joe. great to see you tonight. the press claims illegal immigrants are more alaw -- law-abiding than you are. we'll talk about if that's true with ann coulter. man: i'll have the meat loaf. what about you? sorry, just getting a quote on motorcycle insurance from progressive. yeah? yeah, they have safe rider discounts, and with total loss coverage, i get a new bike if mine's totaled. but how's their customer service? great. 24/7. just like here. meat loaf! [dings bell]

just like here. anybody got a pack... that needs leadin'? serving all your motorcycle insurance needs. now, that's progressive.

>> tucker: there's fresh talk today holdovers from the obama administration are doing their best to undermine the current administration. more detail we go now to the great trace gallagher standing by. hey, trace? >> hey, tucker. this is kind of an i told you so moment for right-wing publications and others who in recent weeks have been banding about this theory holdovers from the obama administration were leaking information to derail the trump presidency and the former president himself was staying in washington to be actively involved in an alleged shadow government. then pennsylvania g.o.p. congressman mike kelley speaking at the a private dinner with fellow republicans said this. listen. >> president obama himself said he'll stay in washington until his daughter graduated. go some place else. he's only there for one purpose and one purpose only. that's to run a shadow of government that will totally upset the agenda.

>> as soon as the private dinner comments went public, they created a ton of interest, but congressman kelley wasn't alone in his suspicions. today, white house press secretary sean spicer said this. watch. >> i don't think it should come as any surprise there are people that burrowed into government during eight years of the last administration and, you know, may have believed in that agenda and want to continue to seek it. >> though congressman kelley's office is now trying to walk his comments back a bit saying "it is worth clarifying that representative kelley doesn't believe that president obama is personally operating a shadow government. he does believe it'll be helpful to the new administration if the former president would personally call for an end to all leaks and obstruction by personnel from his administration." we should note today attorney general jeff sessions asked for the resignations of the 46 remaining obama-appointed u.s. attorneys in order to ensure

what the white house calls a "uniform transition." tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher. thanks, trace. well, president trump created a new office in the department of homeland security for the sake of tracking crime committed by illegal immigrants here. well, today white house press secretary sean spicer reiterated halting illegal immigration is a top priority for the new president. watch. >> he made enforcing our nation's immigration laws a top priority signing executive orders that start work on a southern border wall, that enhance the public safety of americans through ordering the strong enforcement of immigration laws that are already on the books, halting funding to jurisdictions in the united states that don't comply with federal immigration rules, and directing the department of homeland security to hire a combined 15,000 new officers and agents to support the system and protect the nation. >> tucker: what a waste of time, say the "new york times", "washington post", associated press and virtually everyone else in washington.

illegal immigrants, they tell us commit far fewer crimes than native-born americans do. ann coulter is an author and spent a lot of time researching this matter and she says the times, the post and the rest of the press are totally full of it and joins us now. ann, thanks for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: so you're routinely described as a provocateur. at least on this subject, you're legitimately an expert. you wrote an entire book on this there was a lot of original reporting on it. i read it. a lot of people did. thank you very much for that. >> thank you. >> tucker: on this specific question, immigration crime, the "times" told us again and again, that's not true. they commit less crimes. what are the facts? what the numbers on this? >> i have all the numbers we have. there aren't very many. i do think it's quite telling it's always my side that wants the real numbers. and i hope we'll get them under attorney general sessions. i do think that's the entire reason for this hysteria. they absolutely want to take sessions out because they want to keep this dump of the third world going on america. it's not just that -- and there's a lot of evidence, um,

that immigrants do commit more crime, otherwise donk i don't think the left should be hysterical about why are you deporting if it's a small crime. i don't know, how many small crimes have you committed? and these are guests in our country, but it's also the kind of crimes they're committing. so, i mean, one thing that's been driving me crazy is hearing paul ryan, i mean, his specialty is we got the to reform entitlements. that means you americans will have to wait longer to collect your social security and medicare. we have to be means tested. maybe even paying in your whole life -- and it's true it's a ponzi scheme but i've another idea. that's to stop bringing in immigrants whose specialty is committing crimes against our entitlements programs. i was trying to capture this for my book, adios, america. just start noticing whenever you see a headline -- there was one last year, $1 billion stolen from medicare in florida, um, look at the names and see -- ask yourself, when i've seen them in

a phone book in america 20 years ago. up in michigan, it's heavily arab. florida, heavily hispanic. new york, well, all over. it's arab, russian, these aren't crimes we're used to. american aprils are dumb which -- criminals are dumb which gives the police a little bit of an advantage. they don't understand in other cultures, it isn't just dumb people who are criminals. and there's a specialty in computer hacking and credit card stealing and ripping off government programs which isn't barely even considered a crime! >> tucker: but these numbers shouldn't be hard to get. >> right? >> tucker: because people who are processed through the system who are arrested, adjudicated imprisoned, we ought to have numbers where they're from. what their nationality is. do we have the numbers? do they exist anywhere? >> no, they don't. that drove me crazy. that's how adios america became adios america. immigration was going to be one part of that book. i'd already drafted a few chapters for the book i was

originally going to write which i still think it's a great idea for a book. maybe i'll write it some day. and i got to the immigrant crime part, because i thought, isn't that the most basic thing we should know about people who we are bringing into our country. people who no right to be here. forget about how much they're taking out in welfare or contributing to our system. just about how many are committing crimes. what kind of crimes. how much does that cost the country? and i'm -- i'm -- i'm a fanatical researcher and, oh, you can't get that information. any time i described the process of what you find when you go looking for -- the census collects all kinds of information of. i can tell you how many samoans have battery-powered radios and how many americans have broken stair railings. if you want to find out how many illegal immigrants are in prison state or federal, good luck to you. >> tucker: clearly this is willful and indes indesk -- ineffective cover-up. what is happening in sweden right now where the government makes it a policy to lie about

the immigration policy. >> yes, that's right. it's not just that we're bringing in criminals -- you'll always hear, what's -- even if it were true tha immigrants -- and i mean legal and illegal -- were committing fewer crimes, no, the number we want is zero! we want zero! it's not like -- we don't want the same number of criminals as the native politicianlatio politicianlation -- population. it's crazy. you have bad food in the refrigerator, you don't get other bad food to bring in. you can pick any food you want. get the fresh food. that's us with immigration. let's get only good immigrants who are smarter, make more money. we ought to be like the patriots recruiting players. >> tucker: exactly. the other sfat you often se see -- the other stat you often see batted down by the "new york times" and others is immigrants consume a lot of welfare benefits. the line you often read is actually immigrants, legal and illegal, consume welfare at a lower rate than native-born americans is that true?

>> no, what they do is define only certain programs as welfa welfare. um, or there are other tricks. i mean, there are all kinds of laws that are used when it comes to the immigration topic, but one interesting little fact is the 1996 welfare reform bill, um as part of that bill, i was working for the senate judiciary committee back then. one of the provisions was, um, immigrants couldn't collect welfare for the first five years they were here. you know, across america, people were saying, that's not already the law? no. no. no. they were very upset about it at the "new york times". they denounced that provision over and over again. that provision, welfare -- you can't accept welfare for the first five years you're here if you're a guest in our country was the biggest cost savings of welfare reform. >> tucker: huh? >> it's all been overturned by now by the way. thank you. >> tucker: well, so and that's the question. so there's no factual basis to the claim that immigrants consume welfare at a lower rate than americans? >> no, it's quite the opposite. center for immigration studies has the numbers.

um, i think generally what they're talking about is, um, you know, um, what used to be called aim to mothers with dependent -- ed a to mothers with dependent children. there's one particular -- that one particular -- if you define all other forms of welfare, subsidized housing, section 8, food stamps, free health care. if none of that -- or social security or disability -- if none of that is called "welfare" a, they're looking at one and also, ha-ha, b, if an illegal alien drops a baby in america, well, that's not an illegal immigrant. it's maybe an immigrant, um, but suddenly the baby is allegedly an american citizen, something no congress has ever passed that law. no court has ever upheld that. a child porn in america is not a citizen and i hope trump starts -- a child born in america is not a citizen and i hope trump starts enforcing that. >> tucker: ann coulter, thank you. great to see you. not a lot of evidence that

vladimir putin hacked the election. none. we'll talk tie fracking faux. talk about a fracking foe about whether this is a means to hurt the united states.

what super poligrip does for me is it keeps the food out. before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. just a few dabs is clinically proven to seal out more food particles. super poligrip is part of my life now. my swthis scarf all thatsara. left to remem... what! she washed this like a month ago the long lasting scent of gain flings

how to brush his teeth. (woman vo) in march, my husband didn't recognize our grandson. (woman 2 vo) that's when moderate alzheimer's made me a caregiver. (avo) if their alzheimer's is getting worse, ask about once-a-day namzaric. namzaric is approved for moderate to severe alzheimer's disease in patients who are taking donepezil. it may improve cognition and overall function, and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. namzaric does not change the underlying disease progression. don't take if allergic to memantine, donepezil, piperidine, or any of the ingredients in namzaric. tell the doctor about any conditions; including heart, lung, bladder, kidney or liver problems, seizures, stomach ulcers, or procedures with anesthesia. serious side effects may occur, including muscle problems if given anesthesia; slow heartbeat, fainting, more stomach acid which may lead to ulcers and bleeding; nausea, vomiting, difficulty urinating, seizures, and worsening of lung problems. most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, dizziness, loss of appetite, and bruising. (woman 2 vo) i don't know what tomorrow will bring but i'm doing what i can. (avo) ask about namzaric today.

[waitress] more coffee? [student] yeah, thanks. [student] oh yeah for sure... [waitress] yeah ok [student] i can just quit school and get a job. [ex student] its okay daddy's here. [wife] daddy [wife] hi [dad] hey buddy [son] hey dad [wife] i think we can do this. [dad] really? [chancellor] adam baily. [chancellor] adam baily.

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. >> tucker: vladimir putin was routinely accused of hacking the u.s. election. recent reports from the u.s. intelligence stated that the u.s. government used russian government today to air dozens of anti-fracking documentaries and stories. if russians support delegitimizing the trump administration and the trump campaign, does it delegitimize the anti-fracking movement?

scott, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me on, tucker. >> tucker: it's a simple question and one we have to ask in the middle of this new cold war, you apparently were the beneficiary of russian propaganda. have you or anyone in the organization had contact with russian intelligence or members of the russian government in the past seven years? >> absolute the not. ridiculous question. >> tucker: why is it ridiculous? >> why? because we work on fracking for the very, very troubling impact it's having on american health, safety and welfare. has nothing to do with what anyone else, what any foreign leader thinks about fracking. i don't know what putin thinks about fracking. >> tucker: we do know what he thinks about it. the u.s. intelligence. >> you do. >> tucker: you do, too. you're a u.s. american. it said the russian government mounted an anti-fracking campaign in the united states. aired it on r.t.. bunch of documentaries. were you hacked as well? >> absolutely not. i don't follow what putin thinks

about fracking. if you want to know what putin thinks about fracking, perhaps you should talk to rex tillerson. he and exxonmobil signed an agreement with russian energy companies in 2012 to start fracking in russia. i've no doubt that once the sanctions are lifted that there'll be fracking in russia and perhaps putin will be a fan of fracking because he'll be making money off of it. we focus on fracking. it's not a political issue for us. it's not a partisan issue for us. we focus on fracking because of the documented significant impact that fracking is having on surface water, air quality and climate. that's why we work on fracking. not for partisan reasons. not for political reasons. putin's views on fracking are irrelevant to our efforts. >> tucker: ok. that's -- i mean, that's a fair answer. to be totally blunt with you, i was asking half in jest, it points out the ludicrous nature we're having on russia right now. your views align with vladimir

putin. doesn't delegitimize your views to be perfectly honest with you. i think energy extraction is always a mixed blessing. there's -- it's never all good. there's always some risk but given that fracking, whatever risks it entails, has also basically made the united states energy independent and lowered the cost of energy for poor people in this country. there's a lot of goodness that comes out of fracking. will you at least acknowledge that it's been really good for huge parts of the country and we're less dependent on the saudis? why's that bad? >> another form of fossil fuel extraction. for example. in pennsylvania in 2014, they released the results of 243 instances of ground water, drinking water contamination from the practice. if you look at wyoming, texas, colorado, again, in pennsylvania case after case after case of how fracking is impacting the health, safety and welfare of americans on a regular basis. the recent report last week

estimated out of the thousands and thousands of wells in this country that up to 17% of them are experiencing leaks on a regular basis. so. >> tucker: ok, i mean, look, i'm willing to stipulate that's true. i think you're likely overstating it but there are risks. why wouldn't there be? there's risk in everything. my only point to you is do you see the other side? fracking is taking place in some of the economically depressed regions of the united states. there's no denying people living there where it's been legalized have really benefited from it. these places -- there are no jobs in these places at all. you live in new york city among rich people. can you at least look out and say, yeah, there's been a real upside economically from fracking? >> those people have been given jobs in renewal -- renewable energy systems not in fracking systems. i think we should all agree that as a nation, as a world, as a planet we'd be better off if we were 100% renewable solar and wind as soon as possible and we put aside our fossil fuel addiction. i think that's what we should be driving toward.

>> tucker: i get it, as you know since you follow this, we're literally nowhere near anything like that. there's no way to store that energy as you know. so, like, let's be real for a second. we'd all like to see wind and solar as the basis of our energy program but we're not 10 years away from that or 20 years away from that. why can't we say that out loud or we have to pretend it'll happen tomorrow. >> we're not 100 years away from that if we allow exxonmobil or the other companies to dictate what the energy policies are in our country, which is what we're doing. we look around the world and see a highly industrial company like germany, july 25th, 2015, the summer of 2015, they -- i'm sorry, 2016, they achieved 78% of their electricity needs through pure renewable energy. small developing countries like costa rica is up to 99% renewable. uruguay is now at 99%. >> tucker: that's totally -- throwing costa rica,

nonindustrial country. >> i just raised germany. germany is an industrial region. 78%. what i don't understand, tucker, you're a conservative and believe in american exceptionalism. why are we checking american exceptionalism at the door by talking about renewable. >> tucker: i think you're smart enough to give me a straight answer but you're not. here's one. here's a simple one. where are you on nuclear power? no one has died. >> we're against nuclear power. >> tucker: why wouldn't you be? your donors are against it. that's why you're against it. >> our donors aren't against it. >> tucker: what's the reason? >> nuclear waste is highly toxic and dangerous. that's why we're against it we want to see renewables. nukes aren't renewables. we want to see solar. we want to see wind. we want to see geothermal. >> tucker: there's a literally limitless supply of the energy that comes from nuclear power. renewable doesn't play into it. >> there's a limited supply of energy coming from the sun. i would rather see sunlight

providing our energy system . >> tucker: look, if you care about c 02 emissions and presumably you do. nuclear power producers, let's see, none. it doesn't pollute. if kept contained. and the amount of waste is negligible and no one ever died from it. >> no one's ever died from nuclear power? >> tucker: in this country. i'm not aware of anyone that h has. >> it's a matter of time before we -- why would we want to have radio active waste as a by-product of our energy system? >> tucker: deep in the salt mine? >> when we can move to renewables. listen, i think what we can agree -- i think that what the basis of our disagreement is how quickly can we get to renewables and how can we create the drive and the motivation to get there as quickly as possible? i don't think that tomorrow we're going to wake up saturday and have 100% renewables in this

country. >> tucker: when can we get there? >> well, we have a goal, my organization has a goal that we believe we can get to 100% renewable energy in our electricity general rating sector by 2035 if we put our minds to it. >> tucker: now, in the meantime, do you -- i mean, do you use cars or airplanes or anything like that? if you do -- >> of course. we're not asking people to go back to the stone age and light candles. >> tucker: hold on. i'm not saying people but i mean you, who thinks those things are destroying the planet. why not opt out of them? >> we don't believe consumers are the problem here. we're not blaming consumers. >> tucker: i'm asking about you, not consumers. >> i'm a consumer. i'm a consumer. >> tucker: you run the organization dedicated to getting rid of fossil fuels. >> we're dedicated to getting rid of fossil fuels and replacing it with new energy sources. not asking people or myself to go without electricity. we understand we live in a

current situation in which we rely on cars and fossil fuels because that's how the system is now structured. we're not saying to get rid of that tomorrow and shut down our fossil fuel production tomorrow. we're saying we need to transition as soon as possible for the betterment of this planet for our children and grandchildren, 100% renewable. >> tucker: can i ask you a last question? if you're worried about fracking run throughout pipes, could contaminate grand ground water. you live in new york city. there are countless natural gas pipes comingled with water pipes. worried about that? seems like it would be a real risk. human waste flowing next to your drinking water. >> right, that's why we work on sewage treatment systems and clean water act issues and lots off issues. >> tucker: still need to have sewage pipes, right? >> you absolutely do have to have sewage pipes. >> tucker: worried about it? >> yes, we do. we're working on it. sewage pipes are regulated, highly regulated under the clean water act. there was no mistake back in

2005 when dick cheney and halliburton and his buddies pa passed exemptions from literally every environmental law in the country that heard the word clean, healthy and safe in it for the fracking industry. that's not an accident. >> tucker: all right. scott, thanks for joining us tonight. >> sure, appreciate it. >> tucker: good night. up next a brave professional went on facebook saying refugees don't share the values of the west and doesn't want them in this country. the campus left flipped. he's not apologizing. we'll talk to him next. the vals of this looking for balance in your digestive system? try align probiotic. for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. get 24/7 digestive support, with align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand.

now in kids chewables.

>> tucker: ken was the professor at university of minnesota at morris. recently posted a critique of immigration on facebook and wrote illegal immigrants "are harmful to an economy about to automate especially in its

welfare state." refugees are even worse, he said because "many adhere to a religious political cult with repulsive values." grang angry students protested wouldn't call the comments "an abuse of privilege" professor is not apologizing. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me on. >> here is part of what you wrote on refugees. i'm quoting. no country's ever taken the current crop of refugees and made it work. no school with many refugees or illegals is a good school. none of their neighborhoods are safe. not everyone has an extra $100,000 to avoid them. pretty direct. what was the response to that? >> yeah, well, i wrote that during the heated moments, um, after the president's first, um, travel ban. many of my academic friends were posting their own heated rants and i thought i would provide some pushback. i felt that the narrative had somehow switched from retched

ref [ indiscernible ] wanting to be free to the best of model. i wanted to speak out a little bit and point out, look, if we're taking refugees, this is an act of charity. this is something that we're probably taking a hit on and we can't discount the hard work and often successful work we do as parents and educators of training up the next generation of americans and act like someone arriving on our shores who come from the worst circumstances in the world. and who are taught views that are opposite to our own is on average, on average prepared to be as good an american as our own children. >> tucker: right so what -- considering you work in a university, i assume that others took you up in the spirit of open-minded academic debate on the issue or -- tell me the response? >> no, i had about two or three days of very just vigorous but

productive conversation on the issue on my facebook post. on my facebook page. i'm in sweden so i'm not talking personally. almost all of my friends are on the left. and i, you know, love them and we have a great time. but someone took a screen shot of the post and lifted in isolation from everything my friends know about me and the other views i have and which are quite nuanced about the issues. they circulated it. and including some faculty members circulated it. and even taught lessons with screen shot an no onemized i in -- anonamized in their classes. it created a bit of a controversy on campus. >> tucker: i bet it did. you're in sweden now. is the time there con sfirming or refuting -- confirming or refuting what you wrote on facebook? >> it is confirming.

i think there were five murders this week in stockholm. the people i'm talking to in sweden are very distressed about what is going on here. >> tucker: interesting. i'm amazed you didn't get fired for writing that. thank you for joining us. i hope you come back when you get back from sweden. i'd like to know what you saw there. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: coming up, what if we told you that the federal government is spending billions to kill 50,000 americans a year. that's next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sfx: engine revving ♪ (silence)

♪ why do we put so much effort into engineering the can-am defender? well, why do you put so much effort at everything you do? because a job worth doing, is worth doing right. can-am defender. tough, capable, clever. get a 3-year brp limited warranty plus a $1,500 cash

rebate on 2016 defender models. visit your local dealer for details.

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.

[ music playing ] . >> tucker: i want to share with you some figures from a remarkable essay by christopher caldwell. the essay concerns the depth of the drug ep deck december mick now at its peek in the 1970s

heroin overdoses killed one hun people over one hun thousand, the crack epidemic killed two people ver 100,000. this epidemic opioids are killing a staggering 10.3 people per 100,000. five times more than crack and it's getting much more. in 201515,000 people were killed by drug od's, opioid are the biggestit cull brit. life expectancy is falling because of that. more appalling is much of this is financed by the federal government. paid for by medicaid providing pills that cann be sold on the black market for big sums. the crisis is terrible. what is washington doing about it? not very much. what can they do? that will be the focus of many future segments on this show. as for tonight that's about it. tune in every night at 9:00.

dvr it if you can, and of course tune in to sean hannity. he is next. have a great weekend. [ music playing ] . >> sean: [ music playing ] . >> sean: welcome to "hannity." former speaker of the house newt gingrich will join us but first i've said since 2008 journalism in america is 0dead. now we see just how low the alt-left destroy trump media will go to destroy president trump at every turn. that's tonight's opening monolog. here we are today is day 50 of the trump administration. the commander in chief has been moving to keep his promises to you the american people, the things he campaigned on.ed he detailed a specific agenda and has been going down the list checking off items one-by-one and today we learned