this evening. as always, thanks for being with us. see you back here tomorrow nigh night. ♪ >> bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on tonight. >> i leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would. >> bill: former national security advisor under o president obama susan rice denied any wrongdoing in surveying donald trump and his associates. however, fox news is reporting that ambassador rice was deeplyru involved. we will give you the facts tonight. >> the facts will come out with susan rice but i think she ought to be under subpoena. she should be asked, did you talk to the president about it? >> bill: senator paul referring to president obama. that's where republicans want to take the trump surveillancerr situation. we'll have information on that scenario. >> [chanting] >> bill: also ahead california moves a step closer to declaring sanctuary for illegal aliens statewide. echos of the civil war

and civil rights situation. we'll tell you what's going on. caution, you are about to enter the "no spin zone."" "the factor" begins right now. >> bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. the trump surveillance story explodes. that is the subject of this evening's "talking points" memo. tonight we will give you just the facts. no speculation, no hysteria. the latest from fox news correspondents adam housley and malia zimmerman is this: "multiple sources tell fox news rice requested to unmask the names of trump transition officials caught up in surveillance." apparently ms. rice was doing this for more than a year leading up to the november election. that's very troubling. and if it can be proven,n,

susan rice is in major trouble. also because the national security advisor was so close to president obama, he is going to have to answer questions as well. so you can see an enormous story is developing and it really doesn't matter whether the liberal mainstream media ignores it, congress add the fbi willet not. to be fair to ms. rice and we do want to do that, she denies all wrongdoing and should be given the presumption of innocence because that's the american way. >> there were occasions when i would receive a report in which a u.s. person was referred to, name not provided, just u.s. person. and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that u.s. official was. >> did you seek the names of people involved in -- to

unmask the names of people involved in the trump transition? trump campaign. people surrounding the president-elect? >> let me be clear.. >> in order 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 toid nobody. >> bill: nothing to nobody should be nothing to anyone. now, here's my question. if susan rice did surveil the trump people, big if, for a year, what was her motive? why did she do it? i mean, think about it. this woman is a national security advisor to the president. she has got a lot of work to do.ri so why would she be running over to the national security agency or the cia reviewing wiretaps? summations of all intelligence are delivered to the white house every morning. and why, if a trump personse was involved, would she want the name?

the key question to this big story is motivation. now, i know many cable news programs will speculate, will convict susan rice without a trial or attempt to cover for her as we saw last night. we, at the factor are not going to do that. we're in business to report the truth and give opinion based upon facts.si so let's sum up. talking points believes reporting from adam housley and malia zimmerman is accurate. other news agencies are getting information as well.ah so at this point you, the viewer, can assume that susan rice took an amazing interest, amazing interest in what the trump people were doing well before the folks voted. why did she do that? we don't know. what we do know is both the house and senate intelligence committee should subpoena susan rice immediately and both committees should send written questions to president obama. b

also the fbi should interview ambassador riced and conduct a very thorough investigation of her behavior. that's reasonable, is it not? because if the trump campaign or the trump transition team were spied upon by the obama administration, again, a big if, that has to be uncovered. and that's the memo. now for the top story. let's bring in maliaia zimmerman an investigative reporter for foxnews.com who was covering the story. did i leave anything out, malia? you are in l.a. tonight.ox did i leave anything out? >> there is so much to the story. it could take an hour to cover this or more and i'm sure we will be covering it for many weeks if not many months and possibly years ahead. it's so vast. we don't know some things. we don't know why they were surveilled. why they came up in the surveillance this incidental communications. why then trump -- president trump as well as his family might have been included in the surveillance, maybe his donors, his associates. his trump transition team

members and possibly even his campaign members. we have to think about this in terms of this was going on for at least a year, according to our sources, possibly longer. >> bill: well, let me stop you there. if it was going on for a year, then it had to be the trump campaign people. so, look, the questions you raise are the same questions i raise. motivation. all right. t we don't know why susan rice r took such an avid interest in this. the extent. so, let me ask you some very simple questions because as you know i'm a very simple guy. you got the story from a government official, you and adam, correct? >> we got our sources, they are u.s. intelligence sources and adam and i have different sources. so the wonderfulli thing working with adam we areur able to confirm what we find t out from varying sources. >> bill: intel people gave you the story and bloomberg the story and other peoplele the story as well. >> yeah. >> bill: i'm sure you are reasonably certain that whatat they told you is 100% true,

right?t? >> absolutely. we had been hearing this for a while. on friday we knew it was a top intelligence official.we we believed it to be susan rice.y on monday we were able to confirm that. >> bill: you were able to unmask, pardon the pun, susan rice. when she went on msnbc and said i didn't do anything, did that strike you as unusual? did you -- what was your reaction to her denying everything? y >> well, it was odd because on her show on -- when she went on pbs, she basically said she didn't remember anything about that. she didn't recall.sa >> bill: that was march 22nd. >> right. and then today she said well, you know, she did have to do it. it was required in some cases. d so those are two different conflicting statements. and then she also said she didn't remember it escalating after the election.ft which we believe it did. so, in terms of the surveillance. so, you know, if terms of what government officials, you know, we don't know for sure yet whether or not all

the facts have come out. >> bill: as i mentioned in the talking points, the national security advisor and the president of the united states each morningng get a summation of intelligence that comes in. they have it given to them, all right? so it strikes me as strange that susan rice would then go over to the nsa or the cia or whatever and t then probe deeper in to documents, taps that concern the trump people. i mean, what was the reason for that? did that raise a flag for p you as well? >> we believe it might have actually happened the other way, where someone in another agency told her to request those records and have the names unmasked. so we think it actually could have happened the other way. that's what our sources have told us. >> bill: spell it out for everybody because people don't know the inner workings here. you believe it might have happened this way? >> sure. so somebody from the nsa, for example, would have told her to ask foror those

reports, to ask for those names to be unmasked. that is what we have heard from some of our sources. >> bill: okay. >> we are looking into that angle as a possibility. >> bill: did you ever hear a why as to why somebody from the nsa would call her and say come on over here and ask for this information. was there ever a why? >> you know, this whole thing was really about from what we have been told bringing out information about president trump, the intentional leaking of information to the media was about embarrassing him, about making his presidency unstable, when he was just getting launched. this was all happening. and it was more of a political attack rather thanni anything that needed to be released.po i think that's what's reallyyt going to come down to. >> bill: all right. so you and adam right now are investigating a track, a track that the hypothesis is ms. rice, acting as a national security advisor, was trying to get information about the trump people during the campaign

and then after the election in order to leak it out, somebody, maybe not her, to embarrass donald trump? is that the track that you are on?s >> that's the track we're on. and there's a lot more to it. and we believe there is more people involved. >> bill: do you believe laws were broken? >> it's pretty clear theyu were broken because the names were released to the media, so i believe that's the case. but whether or not it was susan rice or someone else, we have no evidence to show. >> bill: no, we can't make any accusations. all right. >> no accusations, right. >> bill: this is an amazing story, malia, it really is.ht an amazing situation that's developing. we only want to go as far as the facts take us. i think you have done that so far. >> that's right.t. >> bill: thank you very much. >> thank you.nk >> bill: next on "the rundown" we will talk to a congressman and senator on the intel committees about what happens next in the rice case. later, california may declarepe itself a sanctuary state. is that against the u.s. constitution? those reports after these

messages. ts after these messages. ♪

>> bill: continuing now with our lead story. did national security advisor susan rice spy on the trump campaign and transition team? joining us from washington congressman peter king,tr member of the house intelligence committee. senator james lankford, a member of the senate intelligence committee. now, letters have been circulating demanding that susan rice come in and testifyav in front of both of your committees. how do you assess the situation so far? say 10 is the most serious story. 1 is the least serious.. where is this? >> i would say it's pretty high, close to a 10. the accusation as it sits out there is that the obama administration and people within the obama administration were usingt their office in excess to official documents to get access to accusations.

this is the same accusations flying around with the irs, for instance, that the irs was using their tools for political purposes to be able to silent conservatives. if we get close to the campaign time period and they are using official documents, classified documents at that to either release names that's obviously a legal issue, to target individuals that are american citizens that were masked, that's called reverse targeting. but when you say you are targeting people internationally but actuallyly using that to be able to target american citizens, that's not legal, or to be able to use any official document for political purposes. those are all serious. >> bill: you heard malia zimmerman say the track she was on with adam housley was that it was a political play just as you are concerned about. but if susan rice comes before your committee, i can almost guarantee she is going to take the fifth, senator. not going to answer your questions. >> we still need to ask the n questions. i mean, we have a voluntary reach-out to be able to go to her. we don't want to raise it toh- a level of subpoena unless you absolutely have to. but we have got a lot of witnesses that we're in the process. so far all of the witnesses

we have requested have t voluntarily agreed to meet with us. we would hope she would, as well. >> bill: you need to be under oath, congressman king, for it mean anything. >> absolutely.y. >> bill: do you expect that the house is going to aggressively pursue that? >> i am certain they will. we have to ask chairman nunes to be certain. i'm actually confident that he will. this is -- as jim lankford said if all, even most of these charges that are out there, accusations out there against susan rice are true. this does rise to a level ofio very high scandal becausee. it's such an abuse of privacy.f i believe it violates the law. and it really is undermining the presidency of the united states. whether it's hillary clinton or donald trump. this is something that cannot be allowed. so, again, we don't know yet, but based on this very reliable sources, these are very, very serious charges that she has to answer. by the way they follow logically what devin nunes has been saying for the last two weeks. >> bill: now, do you expect your colleagues in the

democratic party on the house intel committee to agree with you, congressman? that this has to be done in a way that's methodical to the american people know the truth or do you expect obstruction? >> i think there will be some obstruction. they will accuse us of trying to deflect the issue away from russia. we are going to go ahead with it. we have to go ahead with it. to me, i'm one of those that believes we have to examine the russia issue as far as we possibly can and also this. right now to me, there is more credible accusations, if you will, on the side against susan rice than there is against president trump when it comes to russia. >> bill: now do you see it in the senate as being an obstructionist thing on the senate intel committee or do you think they are going to cooperate?mi >> i think they will cooperate. we have really locked arms throughout this investigation from the very beginning which was for us months ago in the starting that we agreed we are going to go where the facts go.n we don't know where those facts are going to go. we need research. we have got to be able to pull original documents and sources. talk to people originally involved in the investigation.

pull as many people out as we can to get their personal testimony. let the facts lead us through it not let bipartisan pull us through it. >> bill: a lot of people disagree with me that she'll take the fifth but i think she will. senator, when you heard her on march 22nd, said she didn't know anything about any trump surveillance and then changed a little bit, a nuances that, yeah, i was interested for this reason, telling msnbc that did that raise anything or do you think that's a natural answer? >> i think that's a natural answer. the bigger issue is to be able to press some of these a issues when she said she didn't leak anything. ask why were these names so important to the national security advisor? obviously the fbi, some of those folks, i can understand in a criminal investigation or background. but to the national security advisor, why is it important? how many staff around her were receiving that and was she aware any of the staff around her were leaking it the question to her was very specific. i didn't do it. and what you need to know is how many places did that

information go after it was unmasked. >> bill: one more question to you, congressman. every morning the white house gets a briefing from the intel agencies. have you ever heard of national security advisor taking this kind of an interest for more than a year in a campaign or a transition or anything like that?t? you have been around for a while. have you ever heard of anything like that? >> bill, i think it's very unusual for a national security advisor to take this type of interest at all. may happen occasionally, but, to me, that's not her job. she's not an investigator. she is he not a cop or fbibi agent. her job is to set policy. if this is what people are saying it is, this is totally unusual and totally wrong and inappropriate. if we are talking about veracity here, remember, our first impression of susan rice and lasting impression is when she went on all the shows to say that the video was the sourcece of the benghazi -- >> bill: i don't think that's fair here. this is a different situation. i know she is embarrassed by that. she had to be. >> she is embarrassed because she got caught. >> bill: again, you are assigning a motive to her. i can't.

she does have a history there. but i don't know if that's. -- if we should prejudge. >> i'm not prejudging.g. i'm just saying when you are factor in everything you consider prior statements and prior conduct. >> bill: and that's true. gentlemen, thank you very much. please keep us posted. if you get anything, please let us know. our audience is very, very interested in this story. >> thank you, bill. thank you, senator. >> bill: directly ahead, no doubt partisan politics also impacts the investigation. we will tell you how. president trump being sued by protesters. "law and order" on the case upcoming.

with hydrogenated oil... ...but real joyful moments are shared over the real cream in reddi-wip. ♪ reddi-wip. share the joy.

at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. 'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

♪ >> bill: "impact segment" tonight, reaction to all we have told you so far this evening. joining us from st. petersburg, florida, jessica erhlick, a democrat.t. and from washington, lisa boothe, a republican. now, i want full disclosure

to the audience, ladies, right before we went on, i told you both very politelyy and in a charming way. >> very charming. >> bill: i don't want any talking points. we know that both parties send talking points to people like you, tv analysts every morning. and the democratic talking points is this is just tos object secure the russian investigation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. and the republican talking points is rice is guilty. she should be deported or beheaded. one of the two. i don't want anything like that. what we want, lisa, is t what you heard on this program so far, what has piqued your interest the most. >> look, i think we should get to the bottom of this. first and foremost regarding this, there is potential legal ramifications as senator lankford put out ifam some of this information is true regarding susan rice and some of the motivesf behind what she did, if she did unmask these names. there could be legal ramifications. we also know the illegal

leak of classified information is a felony. i also think there is political ramifications in the further erosion of trust from americans in some of these institutions in the r obama administration and a susan rice essentially abused u.s. intelligence to spy on the trump administration. so, i know, which is why we need to get to the bottom of all of this. >> bill: all right. getting to the bottom is obviout that everybody, fair-minded americans want that and they want that in the russian thing, too. what jumped out at you, jessica? >> well, there are a few things. i think one of them is that there are a thousand unanswered questions here. >> bill: yes. >> there is a lot of obfuscation going on between surveillance, what that means and having an unmasking of names of people who are already talking to foreign officials who are under surveillance by -- >> bill: what would you like to know about that? >> well, that's a very different situation of having

someone where a situation where there is a wiretap or surveillance cameras, various things going on, specifically at the trump organization or conversations that are picked up in the form of business carried out by our national -- >> bill: the point is you have the national security.nt >> it is the point because there is nothing illegal. >> bill: we not adjudicating this.. we are basically saying that the national security advisor, very close to president obama, took an avid interest in thisna situation involving trump campaigners and transition people.. do you, jessica erhlick, want to know why she took the interest? yes or no? >> she has already addressed that. >> bill: no, she hasn't. >> on television. she did. >> bill: no, she has not. >> she said she did not take specific interest in anything than she thought were affecting the security of the nation. >> bill: from adam housley and malia, you don't believe the reporting from bloomberg? you don't believe the reporting that says for more

than a year, jessica, she was on this trail? so you don't believe it. do you believe it, lisa? >> they do not have. >> i do. >> she even said specifically that's speculation. >> to answer your question,>> but i absolutely do believe it, bill.. i think you can't just look at this information in a vacuum. you also have to look at the fact that the obamast administration, it's beenn reported, changed the nsa rules for being able to more easily and widely disseminate -- >> bill: we know that it's a circumstantial thing. >> it is. a question ask. in the context of all of this other information it becomes important. and there has also been numerous reports, bill, that the obama administration rushed to preserve some of this intelligence data, whether a "new york times" story.rk there has also been an nbc story as well. numerous reporting of that i think when you look at this more broadly, it is all veryep concerning. we know, bill, real quick, we know that the obama administration abused their power in spies on james rosen and also the associated press. this wouldn't be the first time. a >> bill: again, that doesn't pertain directly to this.

>> no. >> bill: last question for you, jessica. it is obvious that president obama is going to have to be asked questions about this. all right. because susan rice was so close to him if this starts to develop, if susan rice takes the fifth, which i believe she will, then the president becomes directly involved. do you see that happening? >> no. >> bill: why? >> because there are -- she could have had this information, let's just say for speculation purposes once again, and it wasn't communicated directly to the president. >> bill: he is going to have to answer some questions? >> nothing illegal about it so why would the president be brought into that? >> bill: to ask whether she was directed to do it. very simple question. all right, ladies. thanks very much. >> thank you, bill. >> bill: plenty more when "the factor" moves along this evening. an amazing situation, california takes another step in possibly becoming a sanctuary state.

that would pit them directly against the federal government. and then a lawsuit filed against donald trump by protesters who tried to disrupt one of his campaign appearances. wait until you hear this. i hope you stay tuned to those reports. ♪ ♪

>> bill: "factor follow-up" segment tonight. yesterday the california senate passed a sanctuary state bill that forbids californiana authorities from helping to enforce federal immigration law. another step toward the golden

state becoming a sanctuary place from top to bottom. of course, this is reminiscent of the civil rights struggle in the '60s when some southern states refused to obey federal immigration laws. jfk lyndon b. johnson opposed a federal power. joining us now allen and senator stone from california. senator stone, you voted against the measure, why? >> well, bill, fb534 ist basically make california a sanctuary state. a sanctuary state on steroids. it's purposely written to shield dangerous, felonious noncitizens which represent about 2% of our immigrant population from having to beus deported. it actually makes it unlawful for our department ofla corrections, our county sheriffs, our police departments, our probation officers from having any discussions with i.c.e. about the pending release of these dangerous criminals back intodi our streets and neighborhoods. >> bill: now, you are talking about, because i knowur in the bill, it's written that if you are a murderer or rapist, that they willtt

cooperate, but you are talking about people convicted of drug offenses, duis, manslaughter, assault. correct? >> well, let me elaborate on that. first of all the bill did include assault with a deadly weapon. the pro tem couldn't get it through the senate. he watered to down. human trafficking, child abuse, taking a hostage, stalking, solicitation to commit murder. elder abuse, felony with a hate crime enhancement, crimes for the benefit of aging, duis and domestic violence. i think any of these crimes should be justification for deportation. >> bill: all in the bill saying we are not going to tell the feds if illegal alien commits them and is convicted of them, correct? >> this goes along with the plan in the state of california every monday we have a dump on trump hour where they are just getting in his face. this is to antagonize the president. a and what's going to happen here is if this bill passes, it's going to cause illegal immigrants from all over the country to come here because they know they are probably not going to be deported. >> bill: sure.

if they are convicted. >> i.c.e. is going to go out into neighborhoods and interrogate neighborhoods and people that have been quietly following the law, except for their immigration status are going to get arrested and potentially deported.ra so i think this is going to actually backfire. >> bill: all right. now, mr. allen, do you think it's going to pass in the assembly?al >> yes. i think it's going to pass in the assembly just like it passed in the california senate. it was entirely a party line vote. and the democrats are unitedit on this policy. the thing that's so crazy about it, bill, is that californians don't agree with the policy. californians, immigrant and native born, californians don't want these criminals in their community. and we're talking, again, as senator stone mentioned, these are not simple crimes here. these are stalkers. these are child abusers. these are druge dealers. there is even a category of criminal, this is someoneg who had anthrax with intent to actually do something with it. those people wouldn't be subject to the i.c.e. detainers. >> bill: people from watching from the country, gentlemen are just aghast. why?

how crazy has your legislature gotten? i mean, i don't know, mr. allen. you are there every day. this sounds insane. >> it is crazy. you take a look at the bill's author, kevin de leon. his real name is actually kevin leon. he changed it.t. he publicly admitted that half of his family is in this country or came to this country illegally. you get a situation where the california democrat party has moved far far away from the majority view of californians -- >> bill: that's for sure. a >> who love immigrants but just want safe communities. >> bill: my last question, mr. stone, i only have about 45 seconds.e >> i just want to add. >> bill: is it as crazy in the senate as the assembly? >> i think it's even crazier. especially when you understand what's at stake, bill. the state of california collectively with cities ands counties gets over a billion dollars a day in federal funding. we know where president trump has stood on sanctuary entities.

he is going to turn a lot of that money off, which is going to cause a lot of chaos in our state. i think travis allen is right. i think the assembly isn going to pass it. jerry brown probably will sign it, and if he does -- >> bill: unbelievable. >> if he does, i already started offering a referendum to overturn this law. your listeners can go to standwithstone.com to stand up. i will need your help to get this initiative started. >> bill: we will stay on this story. w we appreciate your time tonight. when we come right back, a law and order segment. a federal lawsuit against president trump by protesters. you are not going to believe this one. moments away.er otesters. you are not going to believe you are not going to believe this z282uz zwtz y282uy ywty

i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree. when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward.

♪ ♪ >> bill: than >> bill: thanks for staying with us. i'm bill o'reilly. in the "law and order" segment tonight, federal lawsuit filed in kentucky against president trump. three anti-trump folksntky claimed distress and injury because then candidate trump i said this in louisville about some disruptive people at one of his rallies. >> all right. get him out. get him out. get him out. get him out of here. get him out. >> bill: those people were removed. with us now, attorneys and fox news analysts eboni williams and kimberly guilfoyle.th

this sounds crazy. >> wow. >> bill: disrupting a rally and he is directing security to remove them.. now is he being sued. any merit to the suit? >> listen, i don't think i don't find there is factual or legal merit to the suit.y i think he is making sort of a preliminary finding to let it go forward. >> bill: this is a judge that ruled that it could go forward. >> judge david hale ruled on friday it can proceed forward. these people have alleged assault and battery and assignment to right and duty to protect saying it was foreseeable that harm could result as a direct result of the president, then candidate's comments and, therefore, that he also in his campaign had a personal duty to protect them. >> bill: seems like -- doesn't that seem like a stretch? >> that's broad. this isn't a verdict. >> bill: just that it can go forward. >> it's all about foreseeability, bill. >> bill: about what? >> foreseeability. >> bill: foreseeability.y. so if i say -- if somebody run into the factor,

all right. >> heaven forbid. >> bill: and starts to yell and scream, and i go to james over here, get him out of here, they are going to be able to sue me. >> this judge is being construed by saying that you were kind of encouraging some type of violent action. >> bill: encouraging james to get him out of here. >> gutfeld and mcguirk. >> bill: i hope you understand how insane this. >> i do, yeah. >> bill: a president can be sued. in the clinton years, that became very clear only for actions, by the way he or she does before they're president.y >> yeah. >> bill: can't -- so i expect this somewhere along the line to be tossed. >> can you imagine? >> bill: i know. that's why i'm doing it it's so insane. >> people have to remember on this type of preliminary thing though, the judge has to convey what's in the complaint is fact. he is not bound by that. >> bill: i'm not criticizing the judge here. i'm just saying the whole thing is insane. all right. now, in california the crew

that exposed planned parenthood by undercover videos as wanting to sell baby parts, and we ran that story here on "the factor," have now been charged with what, kimberly? >> now they have been charged with felony counts for each person covertly w recorded, an additional felony charge for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy. >> bill: it's a privacy breach. >> they are saying they are the bad guys even though they were trying to uncover illegal activities. >> bill: a lot of the people feel they are bad guys because they like planned parenthood. in texas, there was a similar case against the same crew. >> blown outla completely. not enough scope to go forward so they through it out. same facts, different politics in california. i'm not going to pretend like that's not an impact. of course the politics matter. >> bill: this will be political rather than justice situation.s >> i think it's both. >> bill: can't be both. >> yes. it can be both. >> bill: if the judge is going by the law.. >> sure. >> bill: they are going by the law. if their politics intrude, it can't be both, ebony.

>> can i tell you that the judge can go by the law andnt it can also be influenced to pursue it by politics? >> bill: no. you can't tell me that it's got to be just the law. you cannot tell me that somebody is liberal that they can interpret the law in a different way than it's written. >> that's not what i'm saying. they are more encouraged to pursue it. two party consent. >> bill: that's where they got these people. but they are going to say this was journalism, undercover journalism. this is what we do. i can't predict the outcomede because, you are right, ins california it's different than texas. and some judges do rule on politics, which is a-i damn shame.. ladies, as always, thank you. gutfeld and mcguirk on deck. the liberal reaction to the susan rice story. wow. the boys are next.

♪ when it comes to heartburn... trust the brand doctors trust. nexium 24hr is the #1 choice of doctors and pharmacists for their own frequent heartburn. for all day and all night protection... banish the burn... with nexium 24hr.

>> bill: "back of the book" segment tonight, what the heck just happened? as can you imagine,>> the left is not happy about the susan rice/trump surveillance deal. >> president trump wants you to believe he is the victim of a crooked scheme those are his words. here are our words. there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. >> people do have power to unmask those names. susan rice would have been one of them. there is no big bombshell there. names can be unmasked if there is a counter intelligence investigation, which we know there was and for other reasons. >> this appears to be a story largely ginned up partly as a distraction from this larger investigation. >> bill: about russia, the larger investigation about russia. now, that's the liberal line. the rice deal distract from russia's interference in our election. here now to assess the reaction you just heard, bernard mcguirk. and greg gutfeld.

i tee it up for you and you say. >> i say everybody stakes out their own turf. it's like they invest in a stock and they can't let go. cnn invests in the collusion stock, right? and so that's the one they are going to stick with. r and then they see this other stock which is about leakinggo and surveillance and they go but i didn't invest in that stock, so i'm not going -- i'm going to pretend that stock doesn't exist. meanwhile that stock is rising. they are finding evidence in that stock. meanwhile your stock,at the collusion stock is speculative fog. there is nothing there. >> bill: that's the russia collusion. >> right. i can't admit that this other story might be more important than this story. it's like the oscar madison-n- felix unger of stories. they live together. they hate each other.. >> same media that was shellshocked and suicidal on election night. it seems like they are suffering a relapse as they scramble to deal with the realization that there was no collusion

between trump and russia and that, yes, oh, my god, maybe trump was right. obama may have spied on the trump people that obama is the new tricky dick and susan rice is the new g. gordon lidy. look, if donald trump -- they are not going to admit he is right. if donald trump cured cancer the headline would be that president trump is taking work away from doctors. that's exactly what the headline would be. they are out of their minds. >> bill: it is, after one day of the story, to hear people say there is nothing to it. that's pretty -- you know. >> i'm just happy, bill, that after, you know, five-plus decades of communist destruction and oppression, now the media is wary of the russians. oh, the gulags were fine. since they might have helped hillary get elected. now the russians are lethal. >> started with bloomberg >> bill: now they are. >> now they are.

the page 16, the paper of watergate. buried in, that runs to msnbc today they don't ask her why she lied three weeks ago, this susan rice, i know nothing. >> bill: i don't think it's faio to say she lied, but it is fair to say that the interviewer did not say gee, on march 22nd, you said...this. >> right. to refresh everybody's memories, including gutfeld who is kind of zoning out here in the conversation.in ms. rice said that she didn't know anything about any trump surveillance but today she told the interviewer that, yes, but i didn't do anything wrong and i didn't leak anything and it was just my natural function as a national security advisor. so the two statements weren't put side by side. >> nor was she asked who instructed you, if anybody to do this. >> bill: she didn't have to because she said, quote,sh i didn't do any -- nobody to nothing. nothing to nobody. double negative. double negative. >> by the way, if she were a republican, would be

watergate. since she is democrat, it's water under the bridge. >> bill: not bad. >> just thinking when i was zoning out. >> bill: last word? >> that last cnn guy used to work for the obama administration. >> bill: he's a reporter, not a commentator.ba >> opining. he used to work withr evelyn farkas, who spilled the beans on this four weeks ago. >> farkas and the beans. >> bill: footnote, "no spin" newscast tonight just for you. deals with inside stuff on the susan rice story. you might want to check that out. factor "tip of the day." where to get honest news, apart from us. "the tip" moments away. ♪ like a human fingerprint, no two whale flukes are the same.

because your needs are unique, pacific life has been delivering flexible retirement and life insurance solutions for more than 145 years. ask a financial advisor how you can tailor solutions from pacific life to help you reach your financial goals. (vo) when you wake up with miracle-ear... ...your mornings can come to life with sound. our exclusive speech isolation technology transforms a bustling café into a clear connection that helps you hear the laugh that made you fall in love with her

in the first place. and, at miracle-ear, we take the time to get to know you, grandpa! so we can ensure you hear what matters most in your world. call, click or come in today to learn how to start your better days. miracle-ear...hear a better day. we ship everything you atcan imagine.n, and everything we ship has something in common. whether it's expedited overnight... ...or shipped around the globe, ...it's handled by od employees who know that delivering freight... ...means delivering promises. od. helping the world keep promises.

>> bill: factor tip of the day where to find honest news in me. first, the mail. susan rice did what she was >> obama knew everything. not so fast. yes miss rice and i have taken such a deep interest in wiretaps without cost, that's true. let's wait for that to emerge without rushing to judgment. susan that's what we have the fbi four. investigations can overcome silence. so what, bob? so what? every politician is low in some quarters. it doesn't mean that you try to destroy a sitting president.

on principle, i have no problem with that. sabotage everything, i have a problem. come on, chris. there are judges who rule from ideology, we all know that. democrats will be more comfortable with a left-leaning justice. neil gorsuch looks like an honest man to me that will grow with the intent on the constitution. i believe it also think merrick garland is over spec to receive his nomination. to carry that into a payback scenario to tonight judge gorsuch hurts the nation. so it should be done.

don't forget my co-author nailed it. congrats to you guys. great achievement. i would also likere to wish general harry goldsworthy a happy 103rd birthday in california. way to go general. i am very sorry for your loss. great patriots like your husband deserve to have their stories told. we did that and a rising sun and spent a lot on okinawa, which is why it is still commanding the best-selling list after seven months in the marketplace. finally tonight dr. "tip of the day," it's not easy to get

honest news. perception iss everywhere in the media. there are a few standards. but this morning when i needed some perspective on the susan rice story i went to the place i usuallyce go. "the wall street journal" editorial page. their lead editorial laid out the facts of the race situation and it drew fair conclusions, as usual. here's the factor "tip of the day." you ought to be misled by the american media, but not by "the wall street journal" editorial page. and that is it for us tonight. please check out the fox news factor website which is different from billo'reilly.coma we like you to spout up from the factor anywhere in the world. if you wish opine, word of the day, comes from norway. tomorrow we'll have more on the rice situation. we are working on a number of different tracks on it. it's a big story. neil goresich coming up for

confirmation on friday. we are definitely looking out for you. >> tucker: good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." two days ago it was revealed that the formerr national security advisor personally ordered the unmasking of several of donald trump's associates whose phone calls were being cnitored by the previous administration. today susan rice strongly denied the unmaskingng had anything too with politics. >> did you seek the names of people involved, to unmask the names involved in the trump transition, trumpo campaign, people surrounding the president elect? to spy on them. >> absolutely not, for any political purposes to spy, expose, anything.