tonight. i am bill o'reilly, please remember the spin stops here. because we are definitely looking out for you. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," we will see what we did not show you last night from our interview with president donald trump.er first up, federal district court judge derrick watson of hawaii blocked president trump's revised travel order. people opposed to the order were quick to celebrate their win. >> snap your fingers. substituting one document for another. >> we felt compelled to assure we will not tolerateng discrimination.

>> they were trying even harder to mask what was a religious -- hostility. >> this important victory for the state of hawaii and for the country of the united states of america. >> tucker: one of those with the attorney general of hawaii. president trump blasted the ruling. and said he will keep fighting for the executive order. >> a judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into ourck country. from certain countries.to the order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first order. this is the opinion of many. an unprecedented judicial overreach.

>> tucker: illegal director at the national immigration law center, supporting judge watson's ruling. thanks for coming on. >> looking forward to a respectful conversation. >> tucker: as always. i understand why people do not like the executive order. i don't understand the legal reasonings here. how does this apply to people of other countries who have never been here? >> in our case, that was decided this morning by a districtde cot judge in maryland. the premise of the first amendment is for citizens and those who are in this country whose relatives are seeking to come in and who are muslim. >> tucker: they are not u.s. citizens or in the country but w we are now expanding or in this judge is now expanding the coverage of the first amendment to our constitution to foreigners who aren't here, have never been here and have no legal right to be here. how does that work?

>> that is not what's going on d at all. the constitution, one of the things that is fundamental about it is that almost all of what we consider the bill of rights talks of language of person. it doesn't protect only u.s. citizens. like i was explaining in the case was decided in the wee hours of the morning in maryland, involved individuals like jane doe two. a permanent resident here in the united states whose sister is abroad and is trying to come in as a a refugee. to twist and say these cases are only about folks outside of the u.s. with no connections whost don't have family or a right to reunify is actually a misreading of the law. >> tucker: there is no constitutional right to reunify. this decision is rooted in aaw reading of the constitution.n. extending that constitutional right to a noncitizen who is not in the country. that's not the traditional way we understand that.

does notdi mean that the other first amendment rights, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, we guarantee those also for people who aren't here? think about the ramifications of this. >> we have so far on muslim ban 2.0, one in hawaii and one in maryland. what they say is a key principle of what our country was founded on is you can't have a state sanction policy that disparages or disfavors a religion. there's evidence that that is what muslim ban 1 and muslim ban 2 is grounded on and that is what was blocked in court. >> tucker: i think going forward could be a huge --nd its a massive obligation to the rest of the world before we make this decision. the reasoning behind this decision.

it says the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor of particular religion despite the neutral purpose, we are inferring the motive of the people who wrote it based on i don't know, news stories, clairvoyance, our own deep insight into human nature. how exactly what they know that? that's kind of a reach, no? >> not at all. unfortunately the truth is there is an incredibly long trail of evidence from the president himself when he was a candidate, he pledged that one of the he thinks he would do as president was to enact a muslim ban. we look at all of this evidence on the campaign trail, and the executive order itself, statements made by the drafters afterwards, by the president, this is a highly unique case. where we can tell and it is clear under the law thatem there is intent here to disparage islam. >> tucker: is just hilarious

-- this is not a far-reaching muslim ban, it applies to six countries that do not constitute the majority of muslims around the world but that they can know what is in the heart of the person who wrote it. i'm not certain that something we should run with. for future decisions, or maybe you think it is. >> i actually think it is. again, one of the beauties of the constitution is you do not have to violate the rights of every citizen in the united states to violate the constitution. if someone violates your freedom of speech, that's a violation, regardless of whether they violate mine. >> tucker: i can see -- you are making the argument that trump has all kinds of bad intentions. we could debate that. you do not like the ban, fine. i don't understand where in the constitution it says people in somalia have a right to come to the united states. where is that? >> again, that is not what thehe

courts are finding. what they are finding is in the constitution, the establishment clause, the founders of our country were fleeing religious persecution. in their wisdom they said we don't want a government that either puts on a pedestal or a disparages a certain religion because we know what the consequences of that are. that is what the decisions are saying, they are saying no one is above that basic constitutional foundry, even the president. >> tucker: it saying no one around the world is not covered by the u.s. constitution. if you apply this standard -- not just with reference to this case, future generations build upon this precedence, we institute a bombing campaign -- more than 20 of them against muslim majority countries. i think exclusively against muslim majority countries and we've been doing that because of religious problems iny these countries. pick a country, syria, yemen,

somalia, because it has a disproportionate impact on muslims. don't you think it could be a problem? >> i think that's really extreme.e. one thing you and i can definitely both agree on is that we want this country to be safe. we can agree on the rule of law. unfortunately, i'm someone who is around these courts all the time, that's not how you get this outrageous boundary stretch. but what we got from these decisions -- the court said, your plaintiffs have a right to bring these lawsuits because of their connection to the united states. i see an executive order, that disparages islam. >> tucker: look.f you say that i am stretching it. if you had told any person youcu meet on the street two years ago that some judge would say that since somalis who have never been to this country are covered by the first amendment.

you would get blank stares.d doesn't this empower judges in a way that is uncomfortable? trump has over 100 judicialld choices to make. 123 i think. most of them probably conservative. if a judge says, i don't like abortion, i'm going to invalidate it because i'm a judge and i have this power because i'm a judge. that is not the way the country is supposed to run, is it? >> that is not the way i viewed judges. i am around judges all the time. i don't see them at hearing while the lead to political police. i see smart judges who have been appointed by presidents on both sides of the aisle. i don't buy into that as a ramification. if you had told people two years ago that we would have a president who made it a hallmark in his campaign to disparage a religion and to make a difference between people in this country based on how they choose to pray, i think you would have gotten a blank stare.

>> tucker: do think it is unconstitutional for the united states president or congress or citizens to make a meaningful distinction between immigrants from somalia and immigrants from norway? we are not allowed to say there is a difference. on the fact who already live here? a that's unconstitutional? >> at no time did i say that. that's the basic conflation with his executiveay order. the fundamental principle of the first amendment establishment clause is the u.s. government cannot favor or disparage a religion. you are talking about countries. i'm talking about freedom to pray. >> tucker: so for 20 years, the official u.s. policy, under for preference and emigration from the soviet union to the net estate to living in a very systematic world under soviet communism. that was our policy. do think that was unconstitutional? >> i think you are citing the amendment which was duly passed by congress after specific

evidence of persecution of a thinkic group and i don't that was unconstitutional as a specific legislated response. >> tucker: not true, that was happening long before. it made common sense. people were suffering because ow their religion, religion played a role in the decision and nobody said boo because it was the right thingel to do. but that's unconstitutional now. >> no one said that is unconstitutional now. that was based on finding the facts in a legislative process. this is the stroke of a presidential pen, without those basic foundations. >> tucker: karen, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: we did not show you all of yesterday's interview with president trump. we also asked him how he keeps busy after the day is done. here is what he said. what you do at the end of the day? what you read, what you watch? >> i love to read.

i am reading a book, i'm trying to get started, every time i get half a page i get a phone call about some emergency. this or that. we will see the home of andrew jackson today in tennessee. i'm reading a book about him. i love to read. i don't get to read very much because i am working very hard on lots of different things. including getting costs down. the costs of our country are out-of-control but we have a lot of great things happening. a lot of tremendous things. b remember this, when i came into this job, i inherited a mess. it was a mess in the middle east. whether you like it or not, the economy was a very, very weak. youy look at 96 million people, all of these people. i have good work numbers.d very good work numbers, employment numbers. unemployment numbers. they say 4.6%, 4.7%. they aren't really the numbers because you have people that want jobs that have given up

looking for jobs and whenn you estart adding those numbers, its not really reflective of what i see. a lot of those people are the people that got me elected. they elected me. i will take care of those people. i'm here today because we are going to be opening up automobile plants in michigan, ohio, places, pennsylvania -- places where the plants have left. and not just automobiles. places where the plants have been stripped out of our country. the jobs have been absolutely destroyed by -- i could say stupid management, politicians that did not know what they were doing -- plants that have movedm to mexico. look at what has happened in mexico. the eighth wonder of the world in terms of plants, in terms of what is happening with automobiles. it's going to stop. hopefully we will get along with mexico. we will see what happens but we cannot continue to close plants in michigan and have them move to mexico.

since i was president-elect the word is out, if you want to open a plant in mexico, that is fine but you have to pay a very, very big import tax. you know what? ford, general motors, fiat, so many others we will see in a little while, they are not going to be moving anymore. i had my actual highest poll numbers today. people see i'm working for them. back to your tax thing. i want to start that so badly because it is unfair. i paid a lot of tax. $38 million in tax for that year, where it was illegally given out. honestly, the percentage is a lower percentage. $38 million, that's a lot of money. that's a lower percentage of somebody working in a factory someplace. that should not be. >> tucker: up next, president trump says he will be the final victor in the spot over whether president obama wiretapped him. charles krauthammer next to assess that.

nbc did its best to create ahe scandal this week over a pretty innocuous tax return. the real scandal is how nbc news secretly behaved during the last presidential election. details ahead. the last presidential election. details

♪ 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.

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: white house press secretary, sean spicer got into the press today. over the claim that president trump was wiretapped to make by former president obama. we go to trace gallagher, standing by. >> it was not exactly a rumble in the jungle but it was a good battle..

jonathan carl asked sean spicer about the house and senate intel communities saying they did not see any evidence of wiretapping. watch. >> i understand that, jonathan, where was you passion and concern when they said there was no connection to russia?er where was it then? no, no, hold on. i am trying to answer your question, jonathan. if you can calm down. >> after a few more counter punches, spicer spent the next 10 minutes quoting media. the obama administration expanding the national security, saying the new rule significantly relax long-standing limits on what the nsa may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations. which are largely unregulated by american wiretapping laws. then the briefing got combative

again, with jim acosta saying he had done plenty of reporting on this and it is already all beenh looked at. spicer called acosta's comment cute and questioned how he became such an expert with all this. >> you've read on all of these things which i find very interesting. you're coming to some serious conclusions for a guy who had zero intelligence -- [laughter] >> give me some credit. >> i wasn't on. maybe both. clearance. maybe both. >> acosta later tweeted it was a troubling sign that spicer would not address the issue. >> tucker: trace gallagher. president trump insisted in our interview that he would be vindicated in his claim that president obama spied on him, wiretapped him during the 2016 campaign.

why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? people value your words -- >> "the new york times" wrote about it. not that i respect "the new york times," i call them the failing "new york times." other people have come out with -- >>me tucker: you are the president, you have the ability to gather all the evidence you want. >> i think we have a lot right now. if you watched bret baier and what he was saying, what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word wiretapped, you would feel very confident that you could mention the name. he mentioned it. other people have mentioned it. if you take a look at some of the things written about wiretapping and eavesdropping, those words were in quotation marks. wiretap covers a lot of different things. i think you will find very interesting items coming to the

forefront over the next two weeks. >> tucker: charles krauthammer joins us now. the oddest thing about that, i think, it's overwhelmingly likely that electronic communications were swept up by american intelligence agencies during the campaign but i think it likely happened but i think the white house is unwilling to prove it -- that distracts from that and undervalues their case but detracts from the conversation we should be having about surveillance. >> it makes you question the credibility of theul president n anything. he really should stop -- the digging we have not had the heads of the senate and intelligence communities, democrat and republican come out and say they have not seen a shred of evidence that is true. there is no one in the administration who will say this

isisl true. they will say we have to investigate. why? as you said in the interview.l you're the president president,t you called up the fbi, the dni, you have the answer at your fingertips. you don't need an investigation. there's not a person in washington who thinks there actually was a wiretapping.on look, he seems to have a belief in conspiracy theories. this is after all a man whoie sd that ted cruz's father wasl involved somehow with lee harvey oswald. that's some twilight stuff.. there's no evidence because as

you said, it detracts from the fact that we do know there was legal wiretapping of russian officials that might have swept up americans in it -- i would go one step beyond that, there could have been improper handling -- one americans are swept up in that kind of legal wiretapping of a foreigner, the intelligence agencies are supposed to cover up and disguise the identity of the american to protect them. there could have been mishandling of this particularly in the case of general flynn and that is i think an issue that should be raised. >> tucker: do we know that that happened? i agree it distracts, but all of this should be horrifying -- a private citizen was surveilled by the u.s. government and then destroyed, whatever you think of flynn by the leak of the transcript. >> i think you can even say, if you want to talk conspiraciesk here, here is where "the new york times" -- the failing "new york times"ac reported there appeared to have been a relaxing of the standards for releasing the names of the

americans who should be disguised and protected at the end of the obama administration. the spreading of that so that it flynn example ended up exposed in a way he should not have been.pl i think it's really odd here, tucker, we have two conspiracy theories. the wiretapping of trump tower that did not happen and we are chasing our tails on this. the other is the collusion between the trump campaign and the russians, the alleged collusion. you have democrats saying that. there's no evidence of that either. we just had a mike morel who is sort of a pro-clinton former deputy head of the cia saying there is no fire here.-c the head of the dni, jameser clapper, a guy who was at odds with trump, had no reason to favor him, he said he has not seen a shred of evidence. two conspiracy theories, a huge investigation, the town is swept

up in a frenzy on two accusations where there is no evidence. >> tucker: every time i talk to people on the intelligence committees were supposed to be -- in charge of oversight, they always strike me more as fan boys and defenders of those agencies rather than people who are acting as a backstop against overreach and protecting our r interest. why is that? why the stockholm syndrome? >> they are not libertarians like you.s >> tucker: i am not libertarian, i'm an american who doesn't want people reading my emails. >> i am a psychiatrist, i am allowed to do this kind of stuff. they probably get exposed to all kind of hair-raising -- weird plots we never hear of. scary plots that are stopped at the last minute. imagine you hearing that every week. you might be slightly moree inclined to see the sacrifice of

privacy given the fact that you are exposed to the threats out there. in drawing the line -- >> tucker: i think that is a a totally fair point. >> that might be the reason they do that. >> tucker: always with the right answer, charles krauthammer. >> i try. >> tucker: this week, msnbc tried toam bring down president trump using a 2005 tax return. it did not go so well. we will discuss other efforts by the nbc news team to influence the opinion of the public on politics. stay tuned for that. on po dear predictable, there's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free.

see you around, giulia the following ad for your viewing convenience. so i just switched to geico. what took you so long? i know, i saved a ton of money on car insurance. that's what i'm talking about! geico also gives you 24/7 access to licensed agents! booooyah. good game, you really crushed it. no son, geico crushed it. ♪ ♪ batteries you can trust against the ear hair you can't. without them you're conducting business with an armpit on the side of your head.

that's not just some battery. that's a duracell battery. that's a power you can trust.

>> tucker: earlier this week, rachel maddow sent a now famous tweet saying she had donald trump's tax returns. she had two pages of a single return in 2005. she finally unwrapped the package, inside was drum roll please... not a lot. trump made a ton of dough that year, he also paid a lot of taxes. he paid more than obama and bernie sanders. there was no scandal here, at least one involving trump. that doesn't mean there was no scandal at msnbc. indeed there is and as it happens, almost the precise moment they put old their nothing burger off the grill. remember the access hollywood tape that was leaked? dominating the campaign moreingt

year? it turns out the whole thing was a set up devised by nbc executives in an effort to derail the trump campaign. that was nbc property shot by nbc cameramen for an nbc show. but it was leaked to a "washington post" reporter. nbc news division knew about it, so did matt lauer. the company's motive was pretty straightforward. keep trump from becoming president. but didn't work but one of the biggest news networks in the world took an active side in a closely fought political race and then lied about it repeatedly. they posed as journalists but acted like political hacks. we have asked nbc to explain but they have weirdly refused comment, perhaps they are concocting a new coat in conspiracy theory.

despite their fervent efforts, hillary clinton lost the race anyway.. joining us now, tammy bruce. >> nice to be on. >> tucker: news organizations are by definition committed to openness. if you say to a news organization, hey we think you have done something dishonest and then lied about it, don't they have an obligation to at least respond and explain?? >> they would if they held those same standards.on of course you do. the problem is to not project on to these other entities. it's clear that some still hold those standards and others do not. with nbc, the problem is clear. you saw it not just with the access hollywood tape which in many ways backfired. the only person harmed was billy bush, he lost his job. originally people thought it had to have been a rogue staffer when in fact, it was people in the nbc news division. the man by the way running the w today show at the time, just

last month was promoted to heading up nbc news in its entirety. what transpired some help. there is a desperation to in fact -- if this was personal, they had an interest in influencing the election. when you get desperate and it suddenly news is not the issue or a genuine critique it, you i will make mistakes and won't know where to stop and your judgment is clouded and that is what is this entire framework. >> tucker: they put their political aims above their jobs. it was a real story, real tape. you can debate whether trump sew he was on camera but it was a real thing. they didn't run it on their own network, they gave it to "the washington post" because they wanted the outcome to be the same but they didn't want to be tied to what was clearly a partisan act. >> there was some debate evenhe then, california lost -- it

would have been risky, they wanted to maybe take out billy bush's comments. it got all messy and it was just easier to move it to another friendly outlet that it would in fact move it. now on the left, when i was working with media, this is how it works. if you cannot find an outlet i that would handle something first, you would get it to another outlet who then would do it and everyone else would pick it up from there. this is the nature of collusionw it's been going on for quite some time. for nbc, this is of course a message for everyone, you canteo ultimately whatever you want. you can see your own desperation but it will backfire. you can't lie to your own audience and take themir for granted as miss maddow did and as the today show does. >> tucker: i think that is right.t. you can have opinions. i have a ton of them. i make a living out ofgh my opinions.

what you cannot do is live. you're not allowed to lie. you can also make mistakes whicn i've done many times.re but you can't do it intentionally. no one asked them about this. they never did an internal investigation or announced the results and no other news organization said how did this tape get to "the washington post"? >> this is when an audience -- you have an audience that agrees with the politically, there's still an expectation of some level of transparency. they want to believe that in fact, you might not even agree with is being said but the moment you feel that you are being taken along on this side show and you have some snake oil salesman and you are being taken for granted -- drawing your audience along, the only person exposed that night was rachel maddow. the only people that were taken advantage of were her audience. for nbc as an entity, you can

see it has infected every network and it has probably infected the nature of the talent in general. desperation for ratings, desperation to achieve their goal which in this case is notto information to impart but to harm the president of then united states. >> tucker: i think that is right. we thought he paid no taxes, he paid 25%. but you have to hype it to theo point of dishonesty. great to see you.e up next, the tolerance police fired a university of wisconsin lacrosse employee because she defended president trump's policies. we will have her on after the break.si billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums.

schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. with new herbal essences bursting with argan oil of morocco and notes of jasmine to put more life in your head. and now with the power of bio:renew

to put more life in your hair. try new herbal essences and let life in" what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org.

( ♪ ) i moved upstate because i was interested in building a career. i came to ibm to manage global clients and big data. but i found so much more. ( ♪ ) it's really a melting pot of activities and people.

(applause, cheering) new york state is filled with bright minds like victoria's. to find the companies and talent of tomorrow, search for our page, jobsinnewyorkstate on linkedin. >> tucker: the forces of tolerance have struck again inin the state of wisconsin. working as a police dispatcher from the university of wisconsin la crosse, after she defended

president trump's executive order on immigration to a coworker, the school informed her she would be fired for using threatening or abusive language. the school's chancellor hastily offered her job back saying she should not have beene canned without a hearing, you think? kim and her attorney join us in wisconsin. this is apparently -- you have been offered your job back but this was after the universitysc explained to you had threatenedf and intimidated people. tell us your version of whatou happened. >> hi, tucker. i had received the email everyone else had received in the university system regarding the chancellor's opinion and his apology. and i had a casual conversation with the young lady i was training that i had hired to work in our department, and apparently she was offended by

me, indicating that i thought terrorists or immigrants should be sent back to their middle eastern country. >> tucker: that is what you said? terrorists or immigrants should be sent back to their countries? >> i said yes, terrorists should not be allowed into this country and any type of terrorist in this country should be sent back. >> tucker: and thenrr she tattled on you to the school which fired you? >> apparently, yes. >> tucker: so, can you do that? t it's pretty hard to fire people anywhere for expressing agreement with the presidential policy. that is grounds for firing in wisconsin? >> they clearly did not use the standards that they should have and they did not follow their protocol. one of the problems here is that we do not know what the standard

is. we don't know what the chancellor will be offended by. it could be anything.he apparently the word immigrant is a racist, according to what i've come to understand and that immigrants going back to their country is a racist thought that should not be expressed in modern america. even though saying that immigrants should go back to where they came from is just talk and president obama send millions of people back to where they came from. president clinton sent 13 or 14 million people back to where they came from. i'm not sure why their actions are okay -- but my client's words are not okay.

the chancellor of the university who spoke, his emails are just fine. even though he retracted them. and apologized to the state of wisconsin. >> tucker: what i'm struck by here is that you are not a tenured professor, you are police dispatcher. i don't know how much you make but a lot less than a tenured professor. this guy with lifetime employment disagreeingen with yu and just stamping you out. just crushing you.u. do you want to go back to work there after this? >> you know, intentionally i wanted my job back in the beginning but now i am worried about going back and being letg go for basically any type of reason. >> tucker: it right. i noticed in the note announcing you are being fired, it said you had poor job performance. what'd you you think of that? >> i take offense to it. i had received a communication from my direct supervisor in

december indicating that my performance was superior. >> tucker: that was before you agreed with trump. big mistake. thank you, kim. good luck. up next, it seems like every day the press is hyping a new scandal you're supposed to care deeply about. and now one enterprising journalist has created a web site that will remind you what was supposedly the end of the world just two weeks ago. you can't remember, there's too much. we will talk to her next. e reme it's the best time of the year.

time for the can-am spring fever sales event. ♪ get a cash rebate of up to $3,000 on selected models. ♪ or get the outlander l, starting at $5,499. don't miss out. visit your local dealer for details. hurry, offer ends soon. can-am. the ride says it all. ♪

>> when i say things, the press does not cover it accurately. if they cover it inaccurately. some of the finest people are reporters. reporters are wonderful. i'm talking about the fake media. the fake news and there is a lot

of fake news. >> tucker: it seems like the sky has been following every day yet somehow the sky never actually lands, we have noticed. hyping every story as a huge deal, only for each to be discarded like trash when a younger, more attractive story comes along. one writer is holding the press to account. she is the founder of twoweeksago.com. all the stories that were super important two weeks ago but yet you cannot remember now becausee they were not important. renee james, doing america a service joins us tonight. i love the idea of this site. it's so fantastic. like, wait we are supposed to mourn the end of democracy?y? what should we have remembered but we didn't for the last mont month? >> oh, gosh, there is a lot, tucker. what we try to do is pick the thing that was really all over

social media, whether it was twitter or facebook and reallyy try to sort through because there is a lot like you said. one of our favorites was the nordstrom story. how we all had to stop shopping at nordstrom because they carried ivanka trump products. it was enormous, outrageous. it was constant. it was effective. at nordstrom said it got it, got it. dropping everything. i don't know why they did buthy they did. the question is this -- fine, you don't have to shop at nordstrom or buy her line. it's all fine. but no one said anything about bloomingdale's or lord and taylor. no one said anything about dsw. or bed bath & beyond.r all these people are involved. it's just disingenuous and it

seems to me -- i don't get it. >> tucker: i'd forgotten about nordstrom.uc >> how could you forget! remember when he asked women to wear a dress? >> tucker: vaguely. i was deeply upset about it. >> because it was more than two weeks ago so it's ancient history. when it was two weeks old, it was again, enormous. women were outraged. it's a very odd statement to make. i get that. it's a very sort of statement. you don't understand why he made it. when did he make it? when did he say something so ridiculous and misguided? we looked and looked and looked and you know what? he did not. it was somebody heard -- maybe that's why you did not remember it.

i just thought, you know, it is fine if it is that but you know what? he didn't say it. i concede that saying it was dumb or even having that thought is probably not smart. if everyone else could concede what the dress code is in the white house. >> tucker: wreck mye night, tell me one more story that i was really upset about. and can't recall now because i'm getting old. >> do you remember that the world was ending because theec white house stop talking to the press? right? everyone was kicked out? that was a very big deal. i have not heard one word since about anybody being kicked out. >> tucker: i'll be totally honest, i remember where i was. it was like the jfk assassination, when princess diana died. renee, thank you for rememberinn that. great to see you tonight. >> you're welcome.

>> tucker: coming up next, are foreign workers improving the lives of americans here or not?c or just keeping wages down? it turns out somebody decided to check. at the numbers are interesting. stay tuned forio that. aaaahh!! uh! hooooly mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. it's truck month. get 0% financing for 60 months plus find your tag and get $5500 on select chevy silverado pick-ups when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. you know win control? be this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy! oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me.

which makes me one smooth operator. ah! still a little tender. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

>> tucker: we want to bring with you >> tucker: we want to bring with you a pretty telling study that may have just come out. it's about visas, companies bringing in workers who allegedly possess skills that cannot be found here in america. a lot of people support them. an economist from the university of michigan studied wages in the sector from 1993-2001 where there was a massive expansion in visas for high skilled labor. their findings are unambiguous. in the absence of immigration, computer u.s. scientists would have been 2.6%-5.1% higher and employment for american workers would have been 6.1%-10.8% higher. wages were lower and job opportunities fewer.

they provide a big boost to profits. thank you for joining us tonight, "hannity" is next. see you tomorrow. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." lou dobbs, austan goolsbee, herman cain, corey lewandowski are on tonight but first, president trump unveiled his budget that keeps key promises like strengthening our military, building the wall -- here is the talking about some of his priorities. >> we are proposing a budget that will shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy and i mean bloated. my administration is also following through the promise to secure, protect, and defend that border within our united states. our southern border will be protected always. it will have the wall.