it means a lot. want to call me. that's all the time we have left and we'll see you back here tomorrow night. >> this is a fox news alert. a federal judge in san francisco struck down the order targeting sanctuary cities. welcome to "tucker carlson." the order sought to deny federal funds to cities that actively resist immigration law and try to shield illeague illegal aliens and the ruling is a big win for now for the many mayors who vowed to resist federal immigration enforcement. >> to congress welcome. the actions by president trump turn on the head upside-down what we stand for. >> this city will not be bullied

by this administration. the executive orders are counter to our constitution and the threat to the city's values. >> the executive order will not change how we enforce the law in new york city or how we do business on behalf of the people. >> i believe in our sanctuary city status. i think there are hundreds of mayors all over the country that are saying the same thing and we stand united. >> tucker: so the immigration order of the white house apparently violates the constitution. that's the position. and we're now joined from california. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: santa clara county sent a strong message to the trump administration the county

will continue to uphold the u.s. constitution and protect the rights of all citizens. what constitutional rights are you upholding here? >> the executive order was riddled with constitutional problems and according to the judge it was a sweeping victory. we can't hold people without due process or probable cause in a criminal jail for a civil vas n violation and the you can't cohers people in counties by threatening to take away funding. >> tucker: you packed a lot in that response. does the constitution guarantee a right of illegal aliens to be here in the country? >> the constitution guarantees the right of all persons to do process regardless of status and that's clear in the constitution

of the united states. >> tucker: do you believe people in santa clara county here illegally have a right to be here? >> we don't do deportation here. we do criminal law and civil law. that's what california allows you to do as a county. it's up to ice and homeland security to determine who is allowed to be here. >> tucker: what's your opinion. you tiook issue with the executive order. you took it to court. do people in santa clara county have a right to be there yes or no? >> i'm telling you when the president of the united states tells us to detain people without probable cause in a jail though they do not have a criminal record whether or not the president of the united states tells us to do that is a violation of the constitution of

the united states. >> tucker: so you're not answering the question. the president is saying uphold federal immigration law and if you don't there's going to be a consequence. we'll take your federal funds away. so you're basically establishing a principle the federal government has no right to tell you how to behave. so if jackson, mississippi decided to resegregate schools would it be ok to pull federal funding. >> we're not talking about that we're talking about the president of the united states telling us to detain people in criminal jails so ice can interview them and the courts have told us it's unconstitutional and we're subject to civil liability under several jurisdictions that have been successfully sued and the president of the united states

is saying do it anyway. a secure program is what he calls it. it was dismantled voluntarily last year and the president comes along and says do it anyway. >> tucker: this is the law. these are federal immigration laws passed by congress. these are not from the executive branch thought up members of the branch passed the laws and you're saying you don't have to follow them and you don't have to be punished and the point is the federal government continuously says follow the law or we'll withhold the law and you're saying that's no long their case. we'll act on our conscious? >> you cannot withhold funds according to the policy objective you're trying to achieve. it was an executive order. it was direct at cities and

counties and over 400 cities and counties joined together to say it violates the constitution of the united states and violates separation of powers. we have an executive branch trying to direct local governments and this executive branch is usurping over the constitution. >> tucker: we had eight years of this happening. the obama administration threatened to withhold federal government funds for states that didn't follow the bathroom policy. >> we made the decision here with two counties and others stood up to the homeland security and ice and said we won't hold people in an unconstitutional manner. we've been vindicated today and by every court -- >> tucker: i'm sorry. i've given you an opportunity to

give your editorial. my question is there's a precedence being set by a federal judge that said you don't have to comply with federal law and cannot be punished. that's a departure from where we've been my whole life time. was the obama administration right in withholding funds for states that did comply with their bathroom orders? >> i'm telling you this is the first president of the united states to threaten with federal funds. it's unconstitutional for had him to wield that type of power -- >> tucker: that's not true. >> the constitution of the united states -- >> tucker: it's not true. the obama administration threaten to pulled funds from indiana because of planned parenthood and others for did

obey the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit. you're saying because you don't like the law you don't have to comply but every taxpayer still has to send you money. >> it doesn't matter what i say the federal court today acted. they said what we already knew and what you should know the constitution of the united states is the law of the land. it's paramount. >> tucker: you're making this up. i'm not talking about federal codes or agencies. i'm talking about federal laws and when you ignore them does the federal government have a right to punish you and you're saying california's it's own country and good luck defending your borders is i guess my point. >> california's leading the country in the right direction because we're honoring the constitution of the united states and there's a lot of people across the country following our lead and we're happy to be in the lead and fortunate to have won the case today. >> tucker: thank you for joining

us. so president obama made $400,000 a year to be president and now commands that for a single speech. it was revealed yesterday obama will be paid $400,000 for the cantor fitzgerald wall street firm. quite the shift for the man who once said this. >> i did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on wall street. [laughter] >> tucker: but he left office in order to do that. is obama's the latest to become the party of the super rich. the obvious question, what can the former president possibly say, a, that we haven't heard and b, that is worth $400,000. >> i'm a former dnc adviser not current.

>> tucker: well in spirit. >> thank you very much. when we judge president obama in terms of his record in wall street we should look to the policies he has passed and that is the wall street reform which is a key measure that reins in the abuses of wall street to make sure what happened to the economy never happens again. >> tucker: you fell right into my trap. i was going to wait to hit you with the facts until the end of the segment but here we go. under the president obama the dow jones average rose and that doesn't benefit everybody. the top 1% share of income rose from 17% to 22%. in other words, the majority, the overwhelming bulk of wealth created under president obama went to people that were already rushed. saying he crushed wall street is ridiculous. >> but if you're saying they

liked the reform legislation have you another thing coming. the republicans are unveiling a new legislation next week to repeal that piece of legislation which is backed by the wall street banks. it's a wish list for the wall street banks. if you're asking which party is for the wall street banks and which is against we're the party against. >> tucker: so you pay if you make a lot 40% in income tax. that's the top rate. somebody working 9:00 to 5:00 what's he pay? >> half that. >> because it's a loophole by the obama administration to pay half the tax rate you pay. >> they put up the detail and it's a big wet kiss to the super rich and wealthy and corporations. >> tucker: how could it be wetter than the kiss the obama

administration gave? it's populist backlash by bernie sanders against the party. do you know what the margins was for hillary clinton in nantucket? 64-29. the affluent in the country -- i'm not against rich people i'm merely saying the democratic party represents them in a way it never has. >> it's not one or two or three or four but five executives that are posts and they're writing economic policy. goldman sachs executives. if you want to talk about the party that is pro wall street look at the cabinet for donald trump. >> tucker: he's hired a lot of goldman people. i agree with that. in the run up private equity funds and hedge funds put in a

lot for hillary clinton $48 million and for donald trump $19,000. $19,000 to $48 million. why don't we acknowledge the reality. the exit polls show the democratic party was the party of wage earners and now the super rich. >> hillary clinton was the only candida candidate reining in the abuses of wall street and donald trump was talking about busting wall street reform. >> tucker: $400,000 for an hour. now, i'm not against people giving speeches for pay, that's great but begs the question what is he selling? >> you should ask president obama. >> tucker: you represented him? >> let me be very clear, i don't care.

>> tucker: you don't care? >> i care about what policy you push while in office and president obama was not a friend of wall street business executives. donald trump is. that's an objective fact. >> tucker: i think it's possible to argue the tax reform on the table will not be what the president campaigned on. you can't argue that president obama did not do the bidding of wall street. overwhelmingly -- >> otherwise we wouldn't see wall street reform on the books which the ceos do not like and campaigned against and which the republican party in their pocket is looking to -- >> tucker: why did they give so much to hillary clinton? >> i have no idea. >> tucker: that's why they paid millions because they're just stupid? >> what i do know is hillary

clinton has the strongest platform to rein in the abuses of wall street of any candidate. >> tucker: you're doing a robust job as always. it's a tough -- let me ask you this for the third time, can you look in the camera and say i'm totally fine with president obama taking $400,000 from cantor fitzgerald for a speech. >> to the camera? >> tucker: yeah. >> i'm fine with the president of the united states passing wall street reform that reins in the abuses of wall street. >> tucker: it's indefensible and you just made the point clear r ir -- clearer than i caught. president obama's iran deal look more appalling and now we learn he agreed to release weapon smugglers and republicans apparently aren't going to give

president trump the border wall. what is wrong with the wall? stay tuned. stay tuned. my bladder wake me up from my sweet dreams? thanks to tena, not tonight! only tena overnight underwear ...with its secure barrier system gives you.... ...triple protection from leaks, odor and moisture. tena lets you be you

if you want to stay on top of your health, one simple thing to do -- is take the pledge to go and get screened for the cancers that might affect you. so stand up to cancer and take the pledge at getscreenednow.org it only takes a minute to take care of yourself, and nothing rhymes with "org"...

>> tucker: well, president obama's nuclear deal with iran was hated by lots of people from the beginning and new details are showing how much the country gave up to get that deal. politico revealed smugglers dropped arrest warrants for 14 wanted fugitives and prevented federal agents.

congressman, welcome. >> congratulations. >> tucker: thank you. you issued a statement when you went on board with the iran deal and said after participating in classified briefing after ask tough questions from the obama administration and listening to constituents i concluded it's the best deal we can get in effect. >> yes. >> tucker: so you were told in classified briefing in response to tough questions from the obama administration that we releasing fugitives that were smuggling. >> i didn't know about that deal but being further from a nuclear iran is a good thing and that's where we are now. >> tucker: the question is how do you get there. >> and we got prisoners back. >> tucker: you said you didn't know about this.

this is not a small detail. this is politico's description some of the prisoners release from the united states described by the president by the time as quote, civilians charged with non-violent offenses quote, were threats to u.s. national security according to the obama's administration justice department. would have you voted for that if you knew that? >> i won't go back in time but president trump has a nuclear problem in north korea and i'm glad he only has one nuclear threat to deal with. >> tucker: that's two things. one, dodging the question and the iran deal mitigated the nuclear threat. we don't know that's true at all. >> secretary tillerson last week send to congress that iran is in compliance. they went from being three months from having a nuclear weapon so if they restarted and

violated all agreements a year. >> tucker: we've been fooled before on a bipartisan basis but why do you think the obama people lied to you about this? >> tucker, i don't know they lied to congress or to anyone. >> tucker: you probably took a lot heat for it too including your constituents. >> i voted on taking nuclear weapons away from iran and we're safer because of it. now we need to count on allies. >> tucker: so in one case according to politico no one from the obama station has denied this as part of the deal u.s. officials even dropped their demand for $10 million a jury said the aerospace illegally received from iran and in another case the obama administration thwarted federal agencies bringing these people to justice. if you'd known that would you have voted for it? >> this is stuff i wasn't familiar with and think they could have done a better job of

work the agents on the cases but at the end of the day we're all safer. they're testing blastic missiles. >> tucker: he got 27 months for fraudulently obtaining faa credentials. he was an iranian national living in houston. why would someone like that get faa credentials illegally. why do we let a guy like that go? >> you have the wrong guy if you think i'm going to come here and defend iran. >> tucker: you voted for it and said it make us safer. why would letting a guy like that free make us safer. >> we're safer because they don't have a nuclear weapon. >> tucker: look, i'm not saying your pro-obama at all but you got lied to. you admitted you got lied to. you issued a statement saying i

know the truth. i was briefed. they lied to you and every other members and wondering why you would defend that. >> they're a different branch of government that need to debate on exacting detail. they brought a top-line deal to us and i thought for my constituents' sake and the country's sake and for the sake of the world to take a nuclear weapon from iran. >> tucker: the president said they were non-violent offenses they were trying to get military equipment to a terrorist state in one place hezbollah. these are big questions and knowing you as i do i don't think you would have voted for that and i think they shafted you. >> i'm focussed on iran not terrorizing the world and there's a sanctions act with ed royce and others support that

will make all of us safe. >> tucker: will you also concede that details are what matter. can say i'm making us safe but if i'm letting people smuggling missile technology into a terrorist state and go free and prevent the u.s. government from bringing others to justice that's not the same as making america safe ? >> i don't agree. i think our constituents wanted us to do everything we could to take nuclear weapons from iran and the secretary of state verified that. at the end of the day do you want to be at war with iran. >> tucker: nobody wants to be at war with iran. nobody wants them to have nuclear weapons. my point is a lot of your constituents and this is not a purely partisan issue and it's a bad deal for the united states and israel and you said i talked to the obama people and trust them. now we find out politico proving

they lied to you and they did things they would never do in daylight. >> i don't think they lied to me. i think they could have handled it better with the fbi agents and department of justice lawyers but the top line takeaway is we're all safer. >> tucker: the details matter. i hope the trump people lie to you like that. all that matters. >> and i generally only want president trump to deal with a north korea nuclear weapon. >> tucker: and the latest for america's corrupt and decaying media establishment. good news. this time the news is abusing itself. the editor at the huffington post resigned after publishing a piece called could the be time to deny white then the franchise, the vote. it was called many things and

the writer defended the piece and said the article's argument were standard feminine theor year. it was a hoax by a professor. the company said it was hugely damaged to it's already damaged reputation. several media figures and academics have predictably jumped to the editor's defense and said it's racist because she's a woman and a white male would have kept his job. germany is taking in a record number of immigrants and now seeing regard amounts of crime. who could have seen a connection there?

>> germany has taken in a staggering number of immigrants. and asylum applications have grown. who would have thought all the migrants are having a big effect on the crime rate. if you thought about it give yourself a star. the number of migrant criminal suspects has tripled to 174,000. is there a lesson or should we pretend it's not happening. jim hanson is at the center for security policy and joins us tonight. jim, do the numbers surprise you? >> not in the slightest. they horrify me. when you take in people who don't take the language and education and you throw in the cultural and religious problem with degradation of women you have a crisis. thrown in the jihadists you have a nightmare and that's what

germany's deal with. >> tucker: if you bring in people from other countries and cultures that speak other languages the first thing is assimilation and making them part of your culture. is germany trying to do that? >> not in the slightest and they can't because the mosques and the cultural centers are telling them not to assimilate. the saudis offered to fund mosques. it's like a jihadist kit. there's no assimilation. there's no dealing with the culture of germany in any meaningful way and have a lot of young males who are a problem on a good day. >> tucker: so germany is the economic engine of europe. why would they do that? >> it's the pc mentality that says let's make the world a better place.

i share that. i didn't mean you should bring all of them to a country where they don't have the ability to fit in. have you right now 50% of german women say they're scared to go out at night alone. that's a problem. even the 50% crime stats is a artificially lows because the police republic told to under report the crimes. the bureaucrats don't want the results of their policies exposed. >> tucker: what you're describing is masochism. you're describing a country that wants to hurt itself. >> or feels guilty. they want to make things better because they feel bad about what they have and i think angela merkel is a perfect example of that and the ruling class in germany wants to make up for bad things in their past and do the right thing because they're good liberals and progressives. in this case what they think is the right thing is an awful thing. for them, for france, for the

scandinavian countries they want to hold out as an example of social democracy. it doesn't work. >> tucker: so at some point ordinary germans will say we have a country that's clean and functioning and cohesive and being destroyed. and i say this with sadness, you'll see a resurgence in ugly german nationalism. >> that's it. it's horrible to think of but the assaults on new year's are so disgraceful and the way the police tried to hide it and the bureaucrats tried to pretend it wasn't as bad as it was here you'd have the same problem. hopefully it won't be the evil horrifying nazi like thing. >> tucker: you hope that that would be horrible for the world but if you wanted to bring that back this is exactly what you'd do. >> let's hope they learn from the fact they have a crime wave

of their own creation. le pen polled better in france than they expected and up the netherlands had slowed down the immigration platform. they can do that in germany too and maybe take care of the refugees where they are. what if we stopped that bad guys in syria and made it a good place again. >> tucker: too sensible. while germany struggles with immigration despite republicans controlling congress they're widely expected to leave out funding for president trump a border wall and they're hoping it get bipartisan support. we're joined on the set here. thanks for coming on. >> glad to be here.

by the way i don't oppose the wall. >> tucker: you don't? >> i oppose a structure on top of a cliff or removing two fences separated by border patrol in california that's working. i oppose things the people on the ground think are not in their best interest and those are the folks that put on the bullet-proof vests every day and protect the border who tell me the wall in certain places makes sense but intelligence, reconnaissance and makes it better. >> tucker: i'm for the border patrol. they do a good job but don't make policies. >> and southern command said we need a people/technology infrastructure approach. and supporting the border in

ways like israel who people agree have bad actors on the other side of the wall and fences where it's appropriate and a combination of structures that make the most sense for the people would have the job of protecting the border. >> but the people voted for a wall. and president trump got a lot of votes. 1 million more votes and people endorsed the wall. >> what sense would it take down a structure that is working and people on the ground say wouldn't. >> tucker: what percentage of the southern border should have a wall? >> i think it depends on the geography. if you put a wall on the rio grand may take decades. there's a lot of property owners. does it make sense in some places? absolutely. in some places the wall would

create pinch points and other technology could be used. >> tucker: it's a fair for voters. i voted for this guy he said we'd get a wall. >> the border is about 2,000 miles. the california sector seems to be working the way it is. there's probably a combination that would go in arizona and the west texas/new mexico sector and i've asked where do the geography and migration patterns make sense? does it make sense to put a large structure where i.s.r. may be a better way. >> tucker: you don't want any border wall in california? >> if it makes cincinnati sense but the fence is working. are we going to use a different technology to find out tunnels. if i remove all the sight lines and i can't see when the bad

actors are coming if i have a 30 foot structure and don't have in tell us gen intelligence a reconnaissance i can't see. >> tucker: why do both? >> you can't. >> tucker: border controls are easy to pull back like personnel can be pulled back quickly by new administrations or new congresses. why not build something permanent and create security for generations? >> in part because i don't know it's the most productive use of the money and the illegal border crossings and i was in laredo and they said they seized 30 kilogram of methamphetamine every 400 hours and said they're out in intercepting 10% of the drugs across. i'd rather use the money to

seize more drugs and secure the border. if we secure the border the american people would be behind it. >> tucker: you're proposing temporary legal status for people brought to this country by they're parent. >> ronald reagan provided amnesty. it's been proven not to work. we want to figure out how to stabilize the problem and secure the borders and give some sort of temporary stat us that doesn't provide a fast pass to citizenship while we solve the problem. >> tucker: why wouldn't the priority be to make certain we control our borders which we don't. >> that should be the priority. >> tucker: there's a quick way

to stop people from hiring illegals. >> we passed the verify mandate four or five years ago. it needs this the law of the land in the united states. they have to go in tandem. there are a lot of people abusing the visa systems we have today. we need to make an example of the people abusing it and for people who have a legitimate need. >> tucker: why would we provide amnesty to anybody before enforcing -- >> how do you stabilize things and then come up with strategies for dealing with the illegally present. those who think we can round up millions and mass deport them -- >> tucker: you can say we're going to punish those who employ them. >> we should. you have to verify on a national basis so you have a basis for enforcing that with employers who knowingly hire --

>> tucker: i still don't understand why you'd do that in tandem with giving people amnesty. >> republicans and democrats have been talking about solving the problem 40 years and all failed. >> tucker: they don't want to solve it. >> we haven't paired up things to get support from the other side of the aisle with law enforcement measure. e-verify and these sorts of things where there's a consequence for not following a reform process that i think could work -- it's not perfect and people who think i've proposed something or wrote a bill i haven't written but i'm part of a party to solve the problem instead of being part of those who promise and never deliver. >> tucker: thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: time for another installmentment of news. because the media is so abusive one segment a night is not

enough. in the genital mutilation case in houston instead of calling it mutilation "the new york times" is calling it genital cutting. the editor and science editor said she used the euphemism because mutilation is an unjust position of the western norm and some societies view that as necessary. one wonders what other culturally loaded terms will be coming maybe beheadings will be head cutting and maybe driving a truck into a store is something he will. and islam could be a religion of peace. and the u.s. dispatched submarines to north korea and there's a briefing on the north korean threat.

is the president's view the right approach? we'll weigh in next.

>> tucker: voter fraud never happened. it's a myth i tell you. something cooked up by right-wingers to take people's civil rights away. democrats believe that so strongly or pretend they do some argue against taking steps against voter fraud because it doesn't even exist. somebody decide to check on the question. an audit by the board of election found by 4.8 million vote casts 508 were fraudulent. and others voted twice. a handful were caught

impersonating other people. that's 508 votes. that doesn't sound like a lot until you remember major elections turned on fewer than that. in florida in 2000 the difference was 800 votes. george w. bush won that state and the presidency by 537 votes. so it does matter which democrats probably know in the first place. north korea's been sending threats our ways for years but now the threats seem closer than of to provoking a response. there's a submarine dispatched in a show of force while the trump administration has taken the step of inviting every senator to a briefing on the korean threat. are these the right moves or are things getting out of hand and what can we do about them if they are. brit hume joins us now. brit, it seems the intensity

here is increasing to what looks like a dangerous level. is that your perception? >> yeah, i think it is a dangerous level because it appears north korea is closer than of to putting together a nuclear weapon they have the ability to deliver even to the west coast of the united states. the threat is real and the alarm is reasonable. but i think there are some issues that have to do with the perception of the north korean regime that may need to be adjusted. for example, it is sort of commonly thought that the leader of north korea kim jong-un as president trump put it a crazy fat guy and he may be a fat guy and have a peculiar haircut but i don't think he's crazy or his predecessor. they've been shrewd indeed of scaring the daylights out of their neighbors and world community and have been able to

pursue their nuclear ambitions at pace while striking concession after concession and deals with the west and basically come out ahead. >> tucker: so your argument is they're predictable which seems right to it's not easy to hold on to power the guy knows what he's doing on some level. what do they want and how can we realistically stop this from getting to a nuclear war? >> well, i don't think they want a nuclear war and i don't think at the start one. what they want to do is continue along their way. they have a dysfunctional society and economy and they're vulnerable to overthrow and they want to continue along their police state ways and continue to build their military arsenal and continue to scare their neighbors and continue to receive support from china which is afraid any conflict would lead to refugees pouring across the chinese border and so on and

if they continue to do that they'll be able to survive as they have for three generations. tucker, it's worth remembering between the late 1950s and 1991 the united states had nuclear -- tactical nuclear weapons to defend the south against the possibility of an onslaught from the north and everyone seems to believe the north is capable of mounting and inflicting damage on seoul and that's the linchpin of the dilemma. sure, we and our allies would win a war against them but in the whole course of it would inflict unsustainable damage on an ally in the region. it's been effective black mail enhanced by the fact the leaders are nutty. >> tucker: they have us in a

hammer-lock. and do you think calling the cente centers -- senators, what purpose does that serve? >> it may be a tool to get members to understand the threat and the basis of the administration's actions which to this point have been sensible. you press china as best you can to intervene and do what china can which people believe is quite a lot since china is north korea's major patron. at the same time to put north korea on notice that military option against them is on the table. we've been taking military options off the table for a long time. it seems to be worth a try to put that them back on but the previous course wasn't working. >> tucker: brit hume. thanks for that. >> you bet, tucker. >> tucker: up next kristin

fisher joins us from "the friend's zone" and tell us what it's like to cover mar-a-lago every weekend. ains the best oral decongestant. live claritin clear, with claritin-d.

gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses

before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin. ♪ >> tucker: time now for "the friend zone." we have kristin fisher. every week she flies down to mar-a-lago. you may see her down there. you may look upon her with envy and think well, kristin fisher is having a good time. she shares the dark side of palm beach. there are some perils involved in covering this. >> absolutely, every time you go to florida you have to be careful of some critters and wildlife. we deal with a lot of that but i want to start with our very first live shot location. we wanted to do it right near mar-a-lago obviously. this is the beautiful causeway en route to mar-a-lago. the problem with that is there

is nowhere to go to the bathroom. you are doing live shots every hour. you don't have time to go to the bathroom and come back. >> tucker: this is the most powerful news organization in the world. >> we looked into getting a w porta-potty. it cost a bit more money than you might imagine. so since then, we have moved on to a new location.u it is right near the hotel. it comes with its own set of challenges. this is the new one.it what you are seeing, this umbrella we put up. we were sitting there without the umbrella.at we are working on our next and we feel some wetness on us. we think it's a bit of rain. it was not a bird peeing on us. there's more volume. look down, there is some group on her shoe. we look and thereow is a little turd about this big. s

it's from a massive iguana. >> tucker: that is gross. relieving themselves on you?'s >> we also had a poisonous caterpillar. in the middle of a live shot, do you see them right there? crawling on my shoulder. i didn't notice he was there. i guarantee you i probably would have screamed. greg gutfeld caught it and of course, he aired a segment on it on "the five." >> tucker: do you ever ask yourself how greg gutfeld caught that? that's a pretty close view of the live shot. did not make you uncomfortable? >> no. >> tucker: do you ever go into the club?

>> unless you are a part of the travel pool, no. you are forced to stay outside. >> tucker: wow. is it fun? >> it's really fun. it's a dream assignment. i've wanted to cover the white house. this presidency is just so unpredictable. there's never been anything like it. >> tucker: little did you knowo it would be in palm beach. you have added a whole newew dimension. going to be watching much more carefully. >> you never know what is going to beyond me. caterpillar, iguana.e. >> tucker: that is it for us tonight. tune in every night at 8:00 to the show that is still the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. you can see "the five" getting ready. they are live from

new york city. "the five" is next. ♪ >> thank you, tucker. i am jesse watters along with kimberly guilfoyle, bob beckel, dana perino and greg gutfeld. it's 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five." the showdown over the right to free speech is intensifying tonight. ann coulter vowed s to deliver a speech at uc berkeley on thursday even after the school pulled off her scheduled visit. a group of students have filed a lawsuit against the university for canceling the event. a riot erupted over a planned event with milo yiannopoulos a