near goresich coming up for confirmation on friday. we are definitely looking out for you. >> tucker: good evening, welcome to tucker carlson tonight. it was revealed that the former national security adviser personally ordered the unmasks of phone calls. she denied the unmasking had anything to do with politics. >> did you seek the names of people involved, to unmask the names involved in the trump transition, trump campaign, people surrounding the president elect? to spy on them. >> absolutely not, for any political purposes to spy,

expose, anything. >> did you leak the name of mike flynn. >> i leaked nothing to nobody, never have, never would. >> the establishment press almost moved to her defense. we'll have more on rice and the media. congressman voted sense wire tapping, against book collection. he's not commented on rice's behavior. he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> i do want to differ with you on one thing. when you use the term monitored, it makes it look like trump was involved. it doesn't mean they are monitoring papa john's. >> they were monitoring trump associates. whether they were the intended target, the law allows the u.s. government to monitor u.s.

citizens when they are speaking with people from foreign countries. >> the word monitoring is a little unclear. the person being monitored is the russian ambassador or russian officials. obviously, if they are talking to an american. >> tucker: if that person wasn't being monitored, why would susan rice be monitoring? you want to know who that person is? >> yes. the unmasking is not just -- the unmasking may not have anything to do with the voice of the american. if he's talking to moscow about flynn, and you want to know what is he talking about, which official do they think they can manipulate? which official is really smart? >> i understand. you. >> you want to know what they think. >> tucker: you are not

monitoring that person, but his identity is key to understanding what you are monitoring? >> exactly. >> tucker: do you see the path we are now trotting. these people are not being surveiled. >> he's talking to the kremlin about an american. the american may be asleep. >> tucker: in this case the american wasn't asleep. the american was speaking. we know in the case of general mike flynn who was speaking that he was monitored. he's an american citizen. >> he was talking to the russian ambassador. >> tucker: you can describe the motive or justify it, it doesn't he change the fact that he was his government without a warrant. >> when i talk to the russian ambassador i expect to be monitored. if they are having conversations, why are we giving them billions of dollars. >> tucker: s that

>> tucker: that's a separate question. but the 4th amendment seems to say americans should be immune from monitoring, surveillance, spying without a warrant. you went to harvard law school. why is the 4th amendment suspended when i'm speaking to someone from a foreign country? >> it's impossible to listen to half the conversation. it is entirely appropriate to monitor what the russian ambassador is doing. file on thif i'm on the phone, n the phone, you will be monitored. >> tucker: so you have the expectation you are being monitored, your voice is being picked up. hillary clinton talk a lot to foreign people. those conversations were picked up by the u.s. government. what happened to them?

do you know? >> well, they haven't been leaked by the trump administration. one would expect that there are hundreds of thousands of pages worth of information collected every day and that hillary's name has been in them since the '90s because the russians have been talking to each other about bill and hillary clinton since the '90s. >> tucker: this is exactly why i wanted to talk to you specifically. i think you have been a pretty assertive voice for privacy on behalf of american citizens against their government and yet you seem to have suspended your normal suspicion in this case because it pertains to the trump administration and russia. >> no. i think we have been picking up what the russians communicate back to the kremlin all the time. and that invariably involves american names. and one would expect that the kremlin is talking about president clinton, president

bush, president obama all the time. >> tucker: we don't know, as far as i know you don't know, the purpose for this surveillance. it's not uncommon for intelligence agencies to reverse it. i want to spy on you, i find out who you are talking to, then i can pick up your half of the conversation. would they explain the purpose of this surveillance before engaging it? >> when they get a warrant, they need to explain it. if you are monitoring foreign officials, that's their job, especially if we are talking about hostile foreign officials such as china and russia. >> tucker: shouldn't they explain it? >> yeah. russia is hostile to the united states and we are keeping track. >> tucker: how about in this sense. our government has ground to a halt. our relations with a key country in the world, russia, are on edge as a result of an investigation we know literally

nothing about. we don't know its conclusions, we don't know with any specificity its purpose, and all of us are proceeding as if this is normal. why is that normal? >> we need an independent investigation of whether russia colluded with trump to hack hillary. now, i think the first part of that has already been proven. russia did it. >> tucker: did what? >> did the hacking of the dnc and e-mails. >> tucker: is there evidence of that anywhere? have you seen, as a member of congress, have you seen any evidence? i know you are skeptical of the agency, they have spied on congress and not been punished. >> when i see comey and clapper and coats agree, first appointed by republican presidents, that conclusion is something that i'm willing to accept because they are not going to give me, let

alone anyone outside of congress, the sources, methods and details. >> tucker: you read the january 6 intelligence community report on russian spying. i'm sure that you did. it said two things that got lost in the noise. the first, we did not make an assessment of the activities had on the impact of the election. >> i'm more qualified, you're more qualified to make that assessment. >> tucker: judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a proof. now, we are operating, you are operating, all of operating is operating on the assumption that we know for certain that the russian government hacked those e-mail accounts. the inside community says we don't necessarily have proof. >> that is january. >> tucker: what has changed? >> gathering more information. >> tucker: look, people's lives

are being changed, reputations are being impugnedded. you saw a member of the committee, he expects people to go to jail. people are being threatened with imprisonment, there is no evidence for public view. why? >> the only person that's being impugnedded is putin. no american has been identified as engaging in any illegal behavior. >> tucker: are you kidding? every day, i don't know anything about paul, they are held up as russian agents who changed the outcome of the election. isn't it incumbent to provide proof? >> we need an investigation. >> tucker: i thought there was an investigation. >> the cia is conducting an investigation. i know you have concerns about comey. i would like to see a special

prosecutor to that investigation from a justice department office. and we ought to also have an independent commission. this is important for us to know. we do know this. e-mails were hacked and they were significant. they were much more significant than the files stolen from the democratic national headquarters back in watergate. those we know didn't affect the election. >> tucker: we are out of time. i would love to hear points that voters should know that information. >> you can be any candidate if you can publish anything on their e-mail. i'm sure if voters knew what hillary thought on bernie's hair style, we would have lost more votes. that kind of personal chitchat should not be published. >> tucker: thanks for joining us. there is something that seems to

have driven people in dark places. obama was touted as living proof as he himself noted that the arc of history bends towards something awesome. everyone in washington believed this was true. and then hillary clinton lost, proving that the rest of the country never bought into that program. what a shock that was. the result, suddenly no conspiracy is too nutty to be taken seriously, as long as it pertains to russia. no act too improper to be excused. extremism against putin is no vice. just a month ago the media told us it was absurd to say obama spied on trump.

far from a crime, they are telling us it was routine and necessary. at this point there are two key questions that remain unanswered. first, did susan rice i include the unmasked names for the president, president obama, and did rice or her associatings leak those names to the press? either one would be a stunning misuse of the national security apparatus. it ought to be the media's job to discover if in a happened. jim shuto told viewers that the susan rice story was a distraction. until 2013, he was a political apparentee working for the obama administration. the question is why did cnn put him on this beat in the first place? next, brace yourself, a friend of susan rice's had denied on background she did anything

wrong. don lemon announced he wouldn't insalt the intelligence of his viewers by talking about the rice story at all. the channel is committed to covering trump's collusion with russia although there is no evidence. you have seen seen it. it's mass delusion. some time washington will wake up from this. this is not the only news work. we'll talk about the press is pretending the susan rice story is not happening. ivanka trump is for equal pay for women. that's intolerant who don't agree with her on anything.

and we'll stop at... nothing to make sure you get it. one, two... and we mean nothing. ♪ ♪

an[ [ screams ] ]ng. [ shouting ] brace yourself! this is crazy! [ tires screeching ] whoo! boom baby! rated pg-13.

[ screams ] >> tucker: the susan rice revelations are big news affecting not just the trump administration, but our beliefs about how far the federal government is willing to go for the sake of a political agenda. looks like they went pretty far this time. you wouldn't know any of that from the american media. >> there is no evidence that backed up the president's original claim. on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise. nor will we aid and abet the people that are trying to misinform you, the american people. >> rice did not spread the information according to this official that insisted there was nothing improper involved. >> there is nothing illegal, improper or expected about a

national security adviser unmasking those names. >> this is a story gined up as a distraction from this larger investigation. >> tucker: they call susan rice's college room made. she insists everything is fine. mark, are you satisfied this is a distraction from the swamps of right wing media? >> the media is basically annoyed because this is a distraction from their distraction about the collusion between russia and trump. the most interesting thing to me about all this is that susan rice has apparently, as a practical matter, been surveiling trump. you can bet that if in that time

they found any kind of meaningful collusion between trump and the russians, it would have been leaked by now. and it hasn't been leaked because it doesn't exist. >> tucker: have you noticed how the boundary markers have changed? last night on cnn, don lemon, he said let's be very clear about this. there was no evidence whatsoever that the trump team was spied on illegally. which is kind of a big thing. a month ago, totally false. now they weren't spied upon legally. >> and that's the distinction. we know that under the national security state, we can, awful us, be spied on at all times. it's not a great protection against that. it depends on normal codes and conventions that would stop this from happening. and you flip it around, tucker. imagine if in the last year of the bush administration the bush

national security adviser had been surveiling obama's inner circle? do you think that would be legal? >> i wouldn't defend it. what i find striking is the press has jumped on trump for not providing evidence to support his claims. and yet you are seeing in the last couple of days the press makes claim that's every bit as unsupported. this morning on cnn, it was described as the fake susan rice scandal. all of a sudden the suggestion pension of curiosity. >> i think as you said at the top of the show, tucker, the biggest clue that this is a real story is the fact that so many media institutions don't want to cover it at all.

and what they have to cover instead is really very thin gruel. someone who happens to be the brother of a minor cabinet secretary met a russian in the four seasons after the election. wow, hold the front page for that. my daughter, my little girl, met trump last year. next month she's going to be in st. petersburg where she is going to meet some russians. it's a dangerous place. i would be reassured to know she's under surveillance. this stuff, that's the fake news. they are annoyed in a sense in that someone has managed to outfake their own fake news with the fake story. that's who they are complaining

about. >> tucker: nicely put. nice to see you as always, thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: up next, two weeks ago susan rice said she knew something about surveillance of the trump team. turns out that was the latest time she said something that's not true. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine

to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers

with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. click to activate your within. usaa gives me the and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life. dearthere'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 ♪ it can seem like triggers pop up everywhere. luckily there's powerful, 24-hour, non-drowsy claritin. it provides relief of symptoms that can be triggered by over 200 different allergens. live claritin clear. >> tucker: the revelation that susan rice played a key role in

president trump's transition team, she said she knew nothing about it. imagine that, telling lies. perhaps we should not be surprised. susan rice has a history of saying things that are not true. >> what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world. the point is that he's back. he's going to be safely reunited with his family. he served the united states with honor and distinction. i know nothing about this. i was surprised to see reports from the chairman on that count today. >> tucker: she's political, been caught lying a lot. people in washington are eager to justify susan rice's action. max, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me.

>> tucker: why wouldn't we be concerned that she had access to this information and did something unusual with it? >> tucker, as you know, i'm a life-long republican. i was an adviser to mitt romney and mccain. i am no susan rice defender. i'm no defender of the obama administration. if they did something wrong, they should be exposed. my concern is that we have not seen credible evidence of wrongdoing and my real concern is that this is largely a smokescreen concocted by the white house to distract attention from the scandal that the russian intelligence service intervened in our election. the fbi is investigating whether there is collusion and his

senior aides. we need to get to the bottom of this. we need an independent commission and special council. let's throw in all these allegations that trump is throwing out against susan rice. >> tucker: i don't think this is about trump. i know you don't care for trump. independent and apart from trump, independent and apart from your political views, we have a very political national security adviser doing something that violated the privacy of american citizens without a warrant. maybe you can argue it's legal, but argue other stuff is legal. >> i think by all means we should investigate. would you join with me in calling for a bipartisan 9/11 style commission. not only against donald trump and the charges against the

obama administration. >> tucker: you are arguing process. >> we got to get to the bottom of this. >> tucker: we have had an fbi investigation going on since last spring into the question, did the trump campaign collude with the russians. we have seen a ton of leaks. it's zero evidence that such an arrangement was reached between the trump people and the russians. but it hasn't stopped the hyperventilating. >> there's a lot of suspicious things including attorney general jeff sessions lying about his meetings with the russian ambassador, you had fining flynn lying about his meetings with the russians. donald trump himself says, if you haven't commit a crime, why do you need immunity? >> tucker: i'm not here to defend mike flynn who should not have been taking money from the

turkish government. so you wrote an l.a. times column, you said, i'm quoting you now, trump was elected with the help of a hostile foreign power. >> right. >> tucker: there is literally no evidence that that's true. if you have a silver commitment to finding out the truth, which i assume you would, that's not helpful to make allegations you can't support. >> let me read to you from the cia, the director of national intelligence, we assess putin aspired to help donald trump's election chances by discredit continuing secretary clinton. does the consensus product -- >> tucker: i have read the report. that's not what you allege. you said he was elected with the help of a foreign hostile power.

>> he was. >> tucker: exactly the same report. we did not make an assessment that the russian activities had on the outcome of the election. you are saying that the russians got this guy elected. it's unsupported by evidence. unless you know something we don't. >> tucker: i'm not saying that the russian interference was the only thing that got donald trump elected. >> i said with the help of. donald trump was elected by 70,000 votes in three states. every day of the last month of the election. he mentioned wikileaks. why was donald trump so eager talk about it? clearly it had an impact. >> tucker: let me ask you this. >> that goes to the very integrity of our election

process which has been called into question. >> tucker: your point is that information that was secret was revealed, it shouldn't have been revealed and unduly influence voters. >> my point is that the russians stole e-mails and other information from the democrats, then weaponnized that information to influence the outcome of the americans. >> tucker: and convinced americans with facts they should be voting for trump than clinton. if you could go back, would you remove those facts from the public conversation, keep them from voters? >> those were selective facts. >> tucker: should people not have known that? >> the intelligence -- >> tucker: there were e-mails. >> let me finish my sentence. the intelligence community said russianings broke into republican accounts. if they were going to share results, they should share

results of ransacking republican e-mails. there is a lot of stuff in your e-mail, my e-mail. >> tucker: i'm not advocating for the burglary of e-mails. >> which was something donald trump was advocating. >> tucker: they leaked it to the washington post. should not that have been there? are you saying we shouldn't have seen the access hollywood video? i want as much information as i can have. >> there was a concerted effort by a hostile country. this is not business as usual. we should get to the bottom of it. i'm flood to hear you agree we need a new -- >> tucker: where do you get this? >> i'm not a talking point. i'm a life-long republican. >> tucker: thanks for joining us.

>> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: up next, a former white house aide says the susan rice story is a smokescreen. he will be here to make his case. stay tuned. 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. hi, i'm frank. all while reducing america's emissions. i take movantik for oic, opioid-induced constipation. had a bad back injury, my doctor prescribed opioids which helped with the chronic pain, but backed me up big-time. tried prunes, laxatives, still constipated...

had to talk to my doctor. she said, "how long you been holding this in?" (laughs) that was my movantik moment. my doctor told me that movantik is specifically designed for oic and can help you go more often. don't take movantik if you have a bowel blockage or a history of them. movantik may cause serious side effects, including symptoms of opioid withdrawal, severe stomach pain and/or diarrhea, and tears in the stomach or intestine. tell your doctor about any side effects and about medicines you take. movantik may interact with them causing side effects. why hold it in? have your movantik moment. talk to your doctor about opioid-induced constipation. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ...better than a manual, and my hygienist says it does. but... ...they're not all the same. turns out, they're really... ...different. who knew? i had no idea. so, she said look for... ...one that's shaped like a dental tool with a round... ...brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's rounded brush head surrounds each tooth to... ...gently remove more plaque and... ...oral-b crossaction is clinically proven to...

...remove more plaque than sonicare diamondclean. my mouth feels so clean. i'll only use an oral-b! the #1 brand used by dentists worldwide. oral-b. brush like a pro.

>> tucker: welcome back. first democrats and republicans seemed eager to ridicule trump's claim he was spied on. today's republicanner? s called to an investigation of susan rice's behavior when she was in the obama white house. here's part of what they said. >> i believe susan rice abused the system and did it for political purposes. she need to be brought in. >> i believe she should be called in as a witness. >> if she was involved in unmasking trump transition figures, what was the reason and was there a political motive.

i would like to know that and we'll get to the bottom of that. >> tucker: if the surveillance story is bringing republicans to trump's defense, it must not be worthy of coverage any more. >> yesterday my friend tucker carlson, i like tucker, i have been on his show. but i'm sorry, he's turning into a high-paid smokescreen. he's trying to distract you from the real news yesterday. >> tucker: fighting words. why don't you come say that to my face. wait, here he is. david goodfriend. on the set. why am i the civil libertarian here? why am i the one worried about privacy rights of americans? i thought that was supposed to be a liberal obsession. >> if we talk about edward

snowden, that brought together on the far left and the far right saying that was too much invasion by the state. i, for one, i would love to see you support this as well. i would like to see reauthorization of the patriot act. >> tucker: now you are get abstract. we know a political appointee, susan rice, an adviser, requested american names and monitors trump's entourage for months. we know her behavior is unusual. >> i will explain why i called you a smokescreen salesman. >> tucker: i don't take it personally. >> your previous guest, life-long republican, i'm not talking about politics. >> tucker: as an american, i'm not talking max, i don't care

what his political affiliation, as an american, you are not bothered? >> i'm bothered by our country being compromised by a number one adversary being compromised. the reason i took a hit at you is because yesterday, or april 2, right when the washington post was going to come out with its story about the meeting between trump people and russians, that's when we decided to hear all about susan rice and the character assassination started. if you can distract your audience, you got an an intellit audience. >> tucker: okay. slow down. >> aren't you upset. >> tucker: i'm not a political consultant. i get my information from people at lunch and washington post. this story came out it doesn't

change the facts of the story. the facts of the story remain exactly what they were. these are two separate strands. one does not preclu precluded te other. you have a political actor surveilling her opponents. it was admitted today. hasn't bothered you? >> okay. we ought to get rid of the patriot act. >> tucker: i'm not talking about the patriot act. >> it stems from the same statute. >> tucker: i'm worried about you guys. here's the big story, you said this morning to shannon. >> i saw the clip. >> tucker: you said we now know that a representative from the trump camp made a representative from the russians. >> the brother of the secretary. >> tucker: you said as of yesterday, the connection between the russians and trump

campaign has been proven. that was long after trump already won. so your basic claim that trump colluded with the russian government to win the presidency remains not only unproven, but lacking any evidence at all. >> oh, tucker, now listen. we have an ongoing criminal investigation. >> tucker: do you have any evidence? >> as a matter of fact, yes, when you have the head -- >> tucker: where's the evidence? >> i have seen you do this on the show before. you just berated a republican guest who said we have 17 -- >> tucker: i don't care what your political association is. >> tucker, you can ask and bring on the show, senator mark warner, james comey. >> tucker: i have a parade of senators, not one person can answer that question. look, we may find out in a year's time that trump and putin were taking solids every afternoon or chatting on their

cellphone. we know nothing to that effect. >> tucker, you are contradicting yourself. you spent the entire day berating susan rice. >> tucker: she said on television today. >> look, suppose she got a transmission -- >> tucker: that's cool now because it's anti-trump. >> two sides of your mouth. >> tucker: david, i'm cutting you off because we are out of time, i'm told. thank you. ivanka trump, a panel of ladies will explain what ties these threads together. stay tuned. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad.

is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. now that fedex has helped us we could focus on bigger issues, like our passive aggressive environment. we're not passive aggressive. hey, hey, hey, there are no bad suggestions here... no matter how lame they are. well said, ann. i've always admired how you just say what's in your head, without thinking. very brave. good point ted. you're living proof that looks aren't everything. thank you. welcome. so, fedex helped simplify our e-commerce business and this is not a passive aggressive environment. i just wanted to say, you guys are doing a great job. what's that supposed to mean? fedex. helping small business simplify e-commerce.

with the deduction findingombine superpower of ibm watson? ah! you get more money. that's what you could get. h&r block with watson. get your taxes won. don't let dust and allergens and life's beautiful moments. flonase allergy relief delivers more complete relief. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause all your symptoms, including nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. flonase is an allergy nasal spray that works even beyond the nose. so you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6>1 changes everything.

>> tucker: a fake native american, fake black women and

billionaire daughter of a president walk into a bar. elizabeth warren, rachel and ivanka are in the news. why are they making headlines? joining us to explain is katie with the washington times. i will admit, i have been so deep in this russia thing, i missed a lot of the news. what did we miss? >> equal pay day. although equal pay has been in law for 50 years, ivanka trump is tweeting we have a pay gap. while conservative women responded to politely, feminists who agree with her policy, the socialist party weighed in and said, quote, waged work is waged slavery. even though she falls to the left of the issue, is her voice on equal pay, there is no

protesting. >> how does elizabeth warren play into this? >> she's always preaching about how they are not equally treating women, there is a war on women. according to the senate data sticks, elizabeth warren paid her female staffers 30% less than male staffers which amounts to $20,000 less for women. >> tucker: what? elizabeth warren, a champion for women? >> she doesn't care about women. >> rachel dole is out, she passed herself off as black for a year. they asked are you african american, her parents adopted her. she's back. so she writes a book, goes on msnbc, she claims to be trans-black. if i wake up tomorrow and

feeling chinese, i should be addressed as such. cnn and msnbc are spending a lot of air time talking about it. because rachel has white parents, she married a black man and picked out a black doll, maybe this is true. hi a mulan doll, i did not grow up to be mulan, i'm italian. she's crazy or a con artist. it's crazy. i think quite insulting. >> tucker: by the way, why not? the new rule is you are what you say you are and anyone who disagrees with you should be fired. >> doesn't make it true. >> isn't that cultural appropriation? you can't have dreadlocks if you are a white person.

you can be trans-black and it's acceptable. >> tucker: she has a lot of guts. thanks for filling us in on the stuff we missed. in 2008, the federal government placed fannie mae and freddie mac under federal control. that may be the last you heard about either company, but more are overseeing trillions of dollars in moorin mooringdollar. that's amazing if true. the federal government, while the rest of us were reading stories about the kremlin s looting fanny and freddy? >> it's nice we can go from a story of allegations to an

actually factually based story, in 2012, to avoid dealing with the republicans, to fund obamacare, the obama administration took fanny and freddy's profits, have taken hundreds of billions of dollars. we don't know where that money has gone. we do know what the purpose was. there's been no accounting. then the government for covering its tracks, end up claiming executive privilege on over 11,000 documents that they won't unseal. frankly, until we see those documents, we are not really going to know the cost of obamacare, we shouldn't be thinking about what we do on housing finance reform. >> tucker: you are certain that some of this money wound up funding obamacare or filling shortfalls? >> correct. that's one of the things that happened. on a quarterly basis, the

government takes all of the earnings, puts it into the general treasury fund. they are not considered part of the budget for appropriations purpose. there's been no accounting of what happened to those fund, where they went. and again, the government has claimed executive privilege. these aren't issues of national security. so why they would claim executive privilege on 11,000 documents when most of the people involved in the obama administration white house and treasury in doing this, are now working for big banks, too big to fail banks. and really pushing for a model that would essentially put the community banks out of business, underspend on affordable housing or increasing homeownership and supporting the two big to fail banks. >> tucker: why would they exert executive privilege? because they can. they have the guns. >> so this administration has an

opportunity to expose what is a clear, simple and straight forward scandal and let those 11,000 documents out. the public has a right to see this. >> tucker: thanks for telling us this existed. i don't think most people had any idea. >> thank you. >> tucker: president trump's immigration policy may already be paying dividends. a surprising number.wi we'll give it to you, next. sure we could travel, take it easy... but we've never been the type to just sit back... not when we've got so much more to give when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise

a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow. not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home.

>> want to check some interesting numbers we got on the border situation. today in written testimony to the senate homeland security secretary john kelly said there were only 12,000 apprehensions on the mexican border in march. sounds like a lot. but it's a 35% drop from last month and a 63% drop from a year ago. in fact, the 12,000 apprehensions, that's the lowest figure measured in 17 years. all this was achieved even though not a single mile of the border wall has been constructed, not a single additional border agent has been

deployed. apparently immigration law is something to be enforced rather than ignored. it pays off. that's it for us. hannity is up next. see you tomorrow night. >> sean: welcome to hannity. we'll check in with laura ingram, senator rand paul will join us. first susan rice now responding to the bombshell reports that exposed that she is the obama administration official who requested that the names of trump transition team members who were caught up in surveillance be unmasked. now, tonight we'll expose the obama administration's sabotage and that is tonight's very important opening monologue. we want to take you through this step by step because it's a h