doesn't matter. call the number on your screen, and that's all the time we have left this evening. thank you as always for being with us, especially my friends in the media that ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" ." when does the left turn violent? historically, may day has been a day for labor activism. yesterday, the american i've decided to make it about illegal immigration, which ironically lf american workers. there was also quite a bit of violence. take a look at this. ♪

♪ ♪ >> tucker: 25 people were arrested in portland, oregon, after their march devolved into a riot. multiple arrests in berkeley, california. all of this raises the question of why are some of the political left so readily embracing violence in the early days of ta administration, there are plenty of tea party protests, people dressed in tri- cornered hats. and of those turn into a riot. jose antonio vargas is an illegal immigrant, he is also the ceo of a fine american, april illegal immigrant organization. he joins us. jose, why the violence? all of us can agree the disagreement over policy. but this is not a fight between left and right, this is the left setting fire, breaking things. >> first of all, i am neither from the left nor the

i i don't know who you talk to those people who were protesting and ask them if they were from the left. i don't know what that means. >> tucker: they were people shouting pro-illegal immigration slogans and a setting things on fire. they are pro-left. that is correct. >> i know many conservatives and our republicans who believe in immigration reform. >> tucker: for sure. that is true. none of them are on the street yesterday in portland or in paris or berkeley. he didn't talk to everyone of them. the ones shouting left wing slogans are left-wing. we have seen this for the past five months, almost all the political violence, there's been a lot of outcome has been perpetrated by the left in the name of the fight against fascism. my question is where is this going and what is a justification for this? >> first of all, i really take offense to the very simplistic left and right way that you are framing this. it suits your viewers and fox news but it doesn't suit reality. second of all -- >> tucker: it is reality. what you were just watching on the screen were not people who voted for trump.

they were people who believe -- they were screaming at each arm slogans, that is why. i am not impugning everyone that is against for trump, i merely say that a subset of the american left is using violence in pursuit of their political aims and nobody is saying anything about it. they are getting away with it and people like you, who should be denouncing it, aren't. >> first of all, i did not participate in the protests. my protest yesterday, i was an undocumented immigrant and his country, 1 of 11 million who were viewed as criminals. my own way of protesting was just very quiet and respectfully thinking about what it means to be and immigrant in the trump era. that was my way. >> tucker: thank you for not breaking anything. i am not accusing you of setting fire. where are people who agree with these folks standing up and saying that you're not allowed to do this? you can't block traffic, you can't break things, you can't set fires. >> i cannot speak for all those people and why they did what they did. what i can tell you, for many of us, the issue is not just political, it is personal. we are talking about millions of

people who are related to undocumented people, that you call criminal illegals every da day. for me, -- >> tucker: what should i call people who are here illegally? >> you asked me to come on your show, once a week, i come here as an undocumented person, -- >> tucker: you may be overstating it. here is the point. >> here is the point. i am here illegally, talking to you as an undocumented unauthorized person who doesn't have authorization. but i come as a person, and not illegal. semantics aside -- >> tucker: i robbed a a liquor store but i am not illegal. i am not saying you are bad person, i am saying your status is in violation of the law. >> i came out voluntarily six years ago so we can tell the truth about this issue. but to tell the truth and have facts, to become i have to say, part of the way you are framing this conversation right now, consistent with thinking of the left or emigrants as some sort of violent people, when the

reality is, immigrants actually come undocumented immigrants specifically, commit to less crime that native born -- >> actually, what i was doing was rolling tape from yesterday. let me bring it back to reality. this happened yesterday. people stood in the streets, blocked traffic, committed acts of violence in the name of a specific political point of view. i am not saying all leftists are violent, i'm not saying all illegal aliens are violent. i'm saying people on the screen where. you don't see mayors of cities, governors, who agree with their politics and saying you can't do this. we are tolerating the stuff and it's ripping the country in half. >> what is that martin luther king quote about wright being the voice of the unheard? many of the people who are rioting, i can't speak for all of them, but i know for a fact that many people who participated peacefully were just there to participate, to have a voice, to say that my parents are not criminals. please stop terrorizing us. please stop trying to -- >> tucker: what you are doing is building a straw man.

i am no way i'm criticizing people who have a legitimate disagreement. i do it on a show every night. i merely saying that when you blocked traffic, would you break things, when you commit acts of violence gives other people, the rest of us need to stop you from doing that or things while apart. would you appear to be doing is justifying their behavior. >> i'm not justifying anybody's behavior. i can't speak for them. i can't speak for white people did what they did. but what i can tell you is this is a time of terror and fear and a lot of people. people want to be heard. >> tucker: you know who else wants to be heard? the american citizens who were born here who see their country changing and becoming chaotic. they are to have a voice and who comes here. your argument appears to be that they have no right to say who comes here. >> tucker, you just got the bill o'reilly slot representing most people, people like that -- >> tucker: the majority of americans who were born here. i think they have a right to say who comes here. this is a fundamental disagreement. >> we agree with that. >> tucker: really?

you are here illegally and you're basically saying i dare you to do something about it. >> i am here illegally, voluntarily coming out and saying how do you define american, how do we fix this problem, how do we live with the fact that undocumented workers in this country -- i actually brought you a little country. it is from the find american.com. our fact sheet. six facts. these are independently sourced, journalistic facts, about undocumented people in this country, why they are here. if you talk to the social security administration in washington, d.c., the chief actuary of the social security administration said that undocumented workers have contributed $100 billion into the social security fund. >> tucker: i'm familiar with these statistics. some of them are true and some of them aren't. here is the fact i want to bring us back to. don't american citizens have the right to determine who comes here and who doesn't? you are an illegal alien and you are lecturing me about your right to be here. you are throwing this in my face and saying you should like this. >> i did not. i said it journalists --

>> tucker: which i am. >> independently verifiable facts, i did not throw them out to you. all i am doing is trying to provide. if i did not want to have a conversation about this, if i wasn't comfortable, i would have kept it in the closet and didn't tell anyone i was here illegally. we when i am grateful you were here, i'm willing to believe that i like immigrants and i'm willing to believe that some of these are true statistics. it doesn't change the fact that american citizens have the right to determine who comes here and people who are here illegally have no right to demand that we keep them here. you don't agree with that. you say that illegal aliens and somehow ought to have a political voice? my position as being illegal here puts you by dish definition outside of the political process. >> i am not from mars. millions of these illegal immigrants are related to u.s. citizens. right now, u.s. citizen children are in foster care because both

parents have gotten departed. are you telling them that they cannot -- >> tucker: but i am saying is that the people who live here and control our government, the citizens of the united states, have a right to say the determination. you do not. here is my second question. what is the level of immigration appropriate for this country? what is best for this country? we have 1.1 million coming in illegally, some unknown number of immigrants here living illegally. we don't have a number. >> people say 11 million. >> tucker: people say 20 million. what is the right number? >> numbers usa, labeled a hate group by the southern poverty -- >> tucker: spare me the nonsense. i'm asking you a simple question. you say you are a pulitzer prize winning journalist -- >> you want to figure out how many immigrants we have come a wee issue about 1 million green cards a year. >> tucker: i just -- that is my question to you since you do this for a living. i ask this question on most night and they haven't found it true. i'm asking you now, what is the number, since you do it for a living, that we ought to be

admitting into this country? >> for me, we have to ask hard questions of ourselves. let me -- >> tucker: you don't have an answer? >> i have an answer. my mother is in a 12 year waiting list to get a green card to america. 1 million green cards issued per year. is that enough? for example, companies in silicon valley -- >> tucker: you are not suggesting what it ought to be. >> i am here to have in a comfortable conversation with you. >> tucker: you can make it more comfortable well by answering a simple question. >> first of all, it's on a simple question. it's not a simple question, tucker. >> tucker: we are unfortunately out of time. i will give you some time to think about this and i want you to come back on with actual numbers. >> for people watching, go to the -- >> tucker: sell the product and we'll go. i want you to think about it. it's a real question. >> i have more. it doesn't fit -- >> tucker: i will give you 8 minutes. just tell me the number. >> 8 minutes, great.

>> tucker: jose, thank you. it's been visible ever since trump started running for president close to two years ago. his campaign rallies and inauguration almost every police policy action he has made as president have all been treated as a chance to begin a violent act. ♪ [chanting] [chanting] ♪

>> tucker: what is driving the left political violence? there's an awful lot of it and it's worth thinking about it. brit hume joins us tonight. you have covered politics for an awful long time. this kind of thing hasn't happened in a while. it is a bigger than it was amis '60s and where's it going? >> it reminds me of the 60s, tucker, when the change of "hey, hey, lbj, how many kids did you kill today" was on the lips of demonstrators across the country. we had violence, we had violence in the streets during the famously during the democratic convention, 1968. we had violence on college campuses, we had flags burn, we had this sort of behavior we are seeing now. but i agree with you. not since then have we seen anything on the scale. i think that it is all about basically two things. one thing, there was unrest in the democratic party when hillary clinton won denomination and rested it from bernie sanders. you had a none too happy cadre within the democratic party, going into the election. they all believed, i am sure, that she would win, while she wasn't her favorite, she was

better than the other person whom they thought and think was unthinkable. he won. and they haven't been able to get over it. this is all, i think, basically about trumped about trump derangement syndrome and the behavior you are seeing and nott the demonstrations, but in the rhetoric about well-known people, it is beyond anything i have seen a since back in the '60s. it is literally deranged. >> tucker: for stuff tends to feed on itself. just as an argument between people of those. as you say things that are increasingly aggressive and crazy, it tends to escalate to the point where you are hitting each other. is that where we are going? nobody seems to be pulling back on the left. >> that is the danger. of course, you have this sort of behavior is -- it goes unpunished in many places. particularly on the campuses today. you had and calls are unable to speak at berkeley because there were sure to be a riot. you had the hideous episode up

at middlebury college in vermont, where charles murray was basically shouted down by a mob, for which there has only been the mildest sort of punishment going on up there for those students. we do have real intolerance. you had stephen colbert in this rant last night on his comedy show on cbs, which was just obscenity started, something you hear off-color cracks on late-night shows from time to time, but nothing that i have seen is as unrepeatable he vulgar as what i heard last night. these are restraints that are being broken through as we go. it does make you wonder if we are on a slippery slope to it real violence. >> tucker: ed kind of does. my question is, what about the leaders, such as they are? chuck schumer, for example, i think he is a loyal american. he is certainly a smart guy. why wouldn't he stand up as the senior democrat in the senate, and to say generally to his people, you are not allowed to

block traffic, you can't set things on fire, stop with the violence, this is crazy? why doesn't he do something like that? >> let people speak. but people speak, right? the democrats in congress, we can see day by day, i think are trying to get synchronized with the mood in the electorate, which is mutinous. i think they are looking at the attitudes, they are no doubt hearing from their constituents, no doubt hearing from pressure groups on the left, and the rest of it, that says, don't you dare condone this man and treat him, what is the one they say, mainstream -- >> tucker: normalize. >> normalize him. don't you dare pretend that this man is in some hideous freak. this whole attitude, this whole idea of civility is out the window. not to say that they are personally uncivil to him, but the attitude, this whole idea of resisting, which you heard spoken by none other than hillary clinton today, indicated that she was now a a member of

the resistance, which has spent the whole posture of the left since trump's election and the democratic party is now fully and wholly a part of it. >> tucker: the resistance is what the gall raged against vichy. >> [laughs] there is a certain romance about that but i'm not sure it applies here. >> tucker: the stakes are too high. we are not fighting fascism. this is insane. it will wind up at a really ugly place. thanks for your perspective. >> you back. >> tucker: hillary clinton still blaming russia and james comey for her defeat in november. we'll talk to ed henry about why she believes this if indeed she actually does. also, america's posters wept on the november election, now, one top poster say they are scrg up again and und

♪ >> if the election had been in october 27th, i would be our president. i am now back to be an activist citizen and part of the resistance. [applause] >> tucker: [laughs] part of the resistance. hillary clinton is still shifting blame for her stunning and unexpected loss in november. ed henry joins us with the details. >> is fascinating, tucker. it's been what, six months since the election? yet, secretary clinton and much of the democratic party are still all over the map as to why she lost. she declared that she takes personal responsibility but then she claims that gender played a role. just as vice president biden said that there was a double standard because of her gender. then, there is this book, "shattered," which quotes clinton advisors and saying that she never had a clear message.

that's the reason. then, yesterday, "the washington post" said that the democrats have done private focus groups are saying that she did have a message but it was too pro-wall street in favor of the rich and that it let obama voters to go to trump. and then, gosh darn it, and james, he did it. >> i was on the way to winning into the combination of jim comey's letter on october october 28th and russian wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were in trying to vote for me but got scared off. >> now, more remarkable is the fact that clinton went on to claim that all of the mainstream media did was focus on personality and that in the three big debates, the moderators never once asked her or mr. trump about creating jobs. except, we checked, and it turns out at the very first debate, the very first question was to her from lester holt. it was about jobs. guess what? we have it on tape. >> beginning with you,

secretary clinton, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of american workers? >> thank you, lester. thanks to hofstra for hosting us. >> what are you going to do about jobs? she said thank you, lester. at hofstra university. then, she talked about her job's plan. that is why these excuses sound a lot more like rewriting history, tucker. >> tucker: are they sincere? you certainly covered -- >> i think she is trying to find an answer. i just got an email from a friend who is a longtime democratic operator in washington. he saw some of these quotes and she has been a long time hillary clinton quotes. i think hillary clinton is giving a lifeline right now. after all of these interviews were trump is getting a lot of grief, by her entering the fray again, and she is just handing there hope against all kinds of weapons. he said, look, i am disappointed that these democrats that they lost. but it is not the russians, the russians did not prevent

african-americans from turning out in detroit, for example, or in milwaukee, where she lost wisconsin. she didn't even show up in wisconsin. a lot of this sounds like rewriting history. >> tucker: it also cuts against her message. you can't be the toughest person in human history and a whiner. ed henry, thanks. >> good to see you. >> tucker: mark pence spent years as a poster for bill and hillary clinton. he now, oversees the harris polls. now wow like many other pollsters, he didn't see the election coming, the trump win. now, and a new piece, he says posters are making this a mistake once again in underestimating the support for the presence. he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: in what ways are pollsters miss measuring public opinion now? >> we had to be wary of a polling bubble. the polls have switched, many of them from voters to u.s. adults. they don't screen for citizenship or likelihood to vote anymore, so, that's a whole different group. we haven't come together after

the selection the way we normally come together after elections. so, these polls really don't reflect the electorate. when you look at the electorate, it is pretty simple math. 94-96% of trump voters say they are sickened with him. that would be 94, 95, 46%, 43. about 10% of the people didn't vote for him approves me that would be about 48. realistically, we are right back where we were on election day, and we are not set back the way most of these polls show. >> tucker: on many levels, we are right back where we were on election day because almost none of the parties with skin in the game have assessed how they blew it. the republican establishment has it, the democratic party hasn't. we just saw hillary clinton blaming the russians. the polling community hasn't, either, it's what you are saying. nobody is has asked the hard questions, how did i screw up? how is that? >> one of the bay things to me, would you look at the questions that pollsters ask, they are the kind of questions that you

make up in new york, washington, or los angeles. none of them covered whether or not sanctuary cities are popular, corruption in washington, support for the police, none of them really covered higher american, buy am. none of them covered the trump message points where they typically cover the opposition message points. so, they are in a bubble. they don't see both sides. america is split, there are two sides. >> tucker: the people in charge really are resistant to learning. is this a theme? is it fair to say that? they just don't seem to learn anything ever? >> i think -- they go out of the way to trust the trump messages. some will be successful. there is a puzzle as to why authorities and cities wouldn't take people they arrest and in form inform immigration authorities. on the other hand, a lot of people don't want to build a wall. there are pluses and minuses in what trump says. we have to be realistic that

both exist quite strongly. spoon fascinating. thank you for joining us tonight. >> the trump administration is launching an aggressive crackdown on ms-13, the gang. we'll talk to an expert who says that the president is going too far in demonizing ms-13. stay tuned. ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here.

>> tucker: it's not too much to say that the specter of ms-13 haunts america, this country's deadly skin, with more than 10,000 members in the u.s. and thousands more abroad, mostly i. they are active almost everywhere in the country, with hot spots in new york and california. they have an especially deadly in suffolk county new york out on long island where they have been blamed for 15 murders in just the past few months. their motto in spanish translates as " "rape, kill, control.." luis salinas is an expert on ms-13 and he is criticized at the trump campaign for demonizing him again and exaggerating the threat they pose. professor salinas joins us. thank you for coming out. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: in what sense is the administration being too mean to ms-13? >> when i use the word demonized before, i said that it was sending the wrong message because i don't want anyone to think that i am trying to protect or excuse any of their

actions. while i was trying to do was strike a balance pose wear, while they are guilty, guilty of some horrific crimes, they are not guilty of some of the other things they have been accused of. my position was, for example, they accuse them of being a cartel. they are not a cartel. they are not organized enough. they have too many young members. they don't have enough resources to be able to put off what the cartels do. they are not this in a lower cartel. they are not a cartel. they are not drug importers. it seems like -- >> tucker: but they are drug dealers, right? >> that is correct. they are just repeating at the very local level. these are not very well educated, poor individuals who kind of hang out on corners, selling drugs. >> tucker: they murder people

with machetes, they sell children into prostitution, and they deal drugs in poor communities. in what sense are they being "demonize"? what is the upside of ms-13? >> i'm not saying there is an upside. what i am saying is the attorney general should be more accurate on what he accuses them of. he accuses them of being in a cartel and they weren't doing that. he accused them of -- >> tucker: it's not my job to offend the attorney general's description but a cartel doesn't just refer to people, drug distribution, can be any group of people who are coming together for an illegal purpose or have a monopoly in the area. i think that is a definition. >> that's not the way it is generally used. that was my issue with him. i think why they are front and center in being called america's public enemy number one, which when you have that title, you will call a lot of attention to this group from all over. the reason they have been named

that is because the horrific way that they like to kill people. yes, i am saying they kill people. they don't like to shoot somebody. >> tucker: [laughs] i'm glad -- >> hacking them with a machete leaves a much more gruesome picture. so, they are more feared in the community. >> tucker: okay. so, i am trying to be patient and understand what you are saying. i don't have a ba demagogue about this. what would you say the administration is wrong because they are demonizing a group that murders children's machetes and sells them into prostitution and sells addictive drugs, it is kind of hard to demonize a group like that if you see what i am saying. >> i do, actually. that is why i have said before that i withdrew my use of the word "demonizing," and i said that what this administration, particularly the attorney general, should use their words very carefully when they are talking about of this group. >> tucker: so should you. [laughs] it sounds like you are the one

who should use his words more carefully since you withdrew your statement. let me ask you this. immigration is coloring this debate and people who don't think we ought to be enforcing immigration laws, who are in favor of sanctuary cities for example, are in effect, defending ms-13 because according to the most recent numbers, the overwhelming majority of ms-13 members arrested were here illegally. so, they don't want in any way to make illegal immigration look like a bad thing. they are embarrassed the trump people are highlighting ms-13. that is what i think is going on. would you agree? >> let me put it this way. these are official, federal figures. i.c.e. deported 114,000 people last fiscal year. of those, 429, less than half of 1%, were gang members. so, simple deportation is not a very effective way of getting gang members. >> tucker: hold on, stop, stop, stop. there are over 10 million people here illegally. we departed a little over a

hundred thousand, you just said, a small percentage was gang members. that means deportation doesn't work? know. maybe we should deport the gang members. what you just said does not prove the argument you are trying to make or come close to it. >> actually, what i'm trying to say, let me rephrase it for you. what i'm saying is, we focus on these massive deportations and these massive deportations tend to carry very few members of gangs in them. less than half of 1%. what i am saying is -- >> tucker: why don't we just deport a ms-13 member who is not a citizen? is really simple. that is with the justice department is saying. i think most people think it is a good idea. if people are horrible. they are machete colors. not to put too fine a point on it -- >> i am not disagreeing with you. the only question is, how do you do that? >> tucker: i don't know, every time you will rest one who is not a citizen, you deport him immediately. sorry, el salvador, you got to take this guy back. what is wrong with that?

>> what makes you think that doesn't happen? >> tucker: what you just said, that's why. [laughs] we are out of time, professor. i appreciate you coming on anyway. thank you very much. nobody seems to care much about russia's alleged takeover of the american republic but the republicans in congress are investigating it anyway. why are they doing that? congressman trey gowdy here to tell us next. plus, stephen colbert made a career out of it but he made liberals mad last night, too. we'll tell you why. we'll tell you why. ouliberty mutual stood with me

when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. apparently, i kept her up all night. she said the future freaks her out. how come no one likes me, jim? intel does! just think of everything intel's doing right now with artificial intelligence. and pretty soon ai is going to help executives like her see trends to stay ahead of her competition. no more sleepless nights. - we're going to be friends! - i'm sorry about this. don't be embarrassed of me, jim. i'm getting excited about this!

we know the future. we're going to be friends! because we're building it.

♪ >> tucker: the story of russian hacking of the election is so two months ago, even msnbc's but barely talking about it these days, of course, we wouldn't know. for some reason, republican lawmakers are still investigating the matter. the house intelligence committee is holding a meeting on russian

involvement. the press will not be there. the meeting is classified, the public not allowed in. what is is about? congressman trey gowdy of south carolina will be out the hearing. he joins us now. thanks a lot for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: it seems in light of the foreign policy developments of the past month or so, the united states has assumed a hostile posture towards russia, that most people have decided, how would trump be doing the bidding of vladimir putin when he and putin are so at odds? why, given that, is this going forward? >> some of the folks initially who thought that was the motive behind, you have to accept as accurate, that donald trump colluded and coordinated with the russians and that they have a motive to help him. all of those assumptions had to be made before you could say, but he is taking a more belligerent stance towards russia, therefore, that must not be true. i start at ground zero. what happened in 2016, whether it was russia or another foreign

actor, did they try to interfere with our election? order several responsive 2016? not two months ago, what was our response in 2016? of polonius dissemination of classified material to me is always relevant, whether it is getting headlines or not, and the issue of unmasking is important. >> tucker: it does seem like in a world where there is only so much time and priorities, and a congress where we didn't get a wall pass, obamacare has not been repealed or replaced, where there are a lot of priorities of the president ran on remaining unfulfilled for the republicans in the body to pursue is basically a fever dream from cnn. it seems a little weird. >> there are six of us. through republicans and three democrats that have been assigned. we are all on house intel. we do have broad jurisdiction but it doesn't include the border wall, health care, tax reform. we are just intelligence. whether it is north korea, whether it is human trafficking in south america, it is what we are supposed to do and providine

intelligence community as part of it. the intel committee has a robust jurisdiction but this is part of it. no other committees of congress to my knowledge are holding hearings on the house side. quite frankly, tucker, we have time. those of us that are on intel, we can talk about north korea come we can talk about other things that we are investigating. this is one of those rare exceptions where we can do it and i'll tell mike ultimately answer peoples questions at the. >> tucker: the only crime that we are pretty certain occurred in the u.s. was the leaking of michael flynn's conversations with the russian ambassador. is that part of the investigation? >> i would say the hacking of the dnc would also constitute a criminal act. the fbi would have jurisdiction over both of those. but i don't think congress is well-equipped to investigate crime. in fact, i know we are not. so, the constitutional injury or things are of significant public interest, there is a role for congress to play.

we are dreadful at investigating crime and should be -- we should not attempt to do so. that is why you don't hear us alleging a people committed crimes. there is a constitutional -- >> tucker: it doesn't stop your colleagues. >> it disappoints me because i think you ought to wait until all of the evidence is in and ask the jury to draw whatever you want. we only have one of rotation. it is so easy to accuse someone of a criminal act. and we do it unfortunately in modern-day culture a lot. it is just unfair to the individual plates. i totally agree. are you confident that director called me is stable and trustworthy? >> i am. i have a rich and provocative history with director james called me back to 2016. i prefer to talk to him in private than in public. >> tucker: that hasn't stopped him for making provocative public statements and not explaining them. >> i have a rich and provocative history with him.

we have agreed on some matters. we have not agreed on some matters. whether i like it or not, he is a foundational witness. in fact, he touches all four tranches of our investigation. it may be the only witness that touches everything from polonius dissemination all the way back to window the bureau initiate t. he is foundational. it is not fair to ask him questions in public that i know he cannot answer. from him, we will develop other witness leads and documents that we need plates. when i would like to ask a few questions. i don't think he is coming on. >> you just have to tell them what our he is on. we'll switch. >> tucker: congressman gowdy, thank you so much. president trump remains in note locked in a democratic stand up with north korea. michael moore says he is not pulling from the american president. the panel will discuss that and other

♪ >> tucker: oh, celebrities, they act, they walk the catwalk, the endorsed charities they know nothing about, but they also pontificate on politics. that is a subject of tonight's panel. tonight, we are joined by ashley pratt and madison jesse odo of "the washington times." our first topic is late show host stephen colbert, he has been political for years, even more so when he took over for david letterman. but on monday, he took it to a new place. watch this. >> mr. trump, your presidency, i love your presidency. i call it disgrace the nation. he doesn't stand by anything except the dressing room door at miss usa pageant. let me read this presidential briefing, yep, i got the briefing right here. you attract more skinheads than free rogaine. you have more people marching against you then cancer. the only thing your mouth is good for is being vladimir putin's [bleep] holster.

>> tucker: is that comedy comes madison? what is not. >> here is the way i see it. yes, the first amendment gives him the right to say these things where there is a certain level of respect you should have for the president. just because you are allowed to say something doesn't mean you should be saying it. i think he needs to hold himself to a higher standard. >> tucker: my problem -- i don't care about his views one way or another, actually, but i think he was a pretty funny guy, then, they are something about presidency that has turned him and a lot of people into figure waking people. what is that? >> i also think there is a decorum. was it okay for donald trump to disgrace the nation? at the same time, did colbert take it too far? yes. i think he will lose a lot of fans and viewers because of it. i think that is the benefit of a free-market, capitalist society. if people were disheartened by things he was saying and taking it too far and being highly inappropriate, that is a choice that viewers have to make. again, he is the president of

the united states. i think that the decorum for that, for the presidency, goes one way. again, for people who are late night tv hosts, should you be doing that? did they do it to obama? i don't know. >> tucker: is it funny? that is my bottom line. just amuse me. i don't have to agree with you but say something funny. if you are mad, not as funny. next topic, film maker michael moore, also not that funny, says he is not rooting for president trump to succeed in his double medic stand up for the nuclear armed north korea. this actually happen. watch this. >> i find myself genuinely rooting for him to handle the north korea situation well. >> there's also some areas, you are rooting for the man, being competent -- >> i don't know why if i agree with that. >> you are not rooting for him? >> it's like rooting for a 6-year-old who suddenly swiped dad's car and figured out how we could take it on the road. i'm not rooting for the six road to get on the highway and drive that car. i want the 6-year-old off the highway. >> tucker: [laughs]

are you not even allowed to say that you are hoping that trump will prevail in a contest with north korea? >> according to michael moore, no. this is just ridiculous. even chris hayes and this is saying that i hope that he does well. what else would you hope for? we are the people that are going to be heard. the american people would be hurt if things blow up between united states and north korea. i didn't vote for president obama and 2012. guess what? i hoped for the absolute best when he came to him interacting with other foreign leaders. we are affected by it. i never heard of such a thing. >> tucker: there is no moral equivalent. it is nihilism to suggest that they are the same or that somehow the north korean government is better than ours. i watch that and i thought, first of all, good for chris hayes for at least being awake do something and say that just happen on his hat. i bet you that there are a lot of viewers -- chris hayes defending trump. >> maybe they will loose and viewers. maybe they'll come to fox news. at the same time, what is important is realizing that michael moore is a rabble-rouser.

he is hounding the benefits of socialism many times. life is better in another country, go there. if you want to go to north korea, go. at this point, i think it is fair to say that any sane person would not wish a nuclear war with north korea. maybe he is not a sane person. he is being very unpatriotic by not defending our president. or at least supporting our country. >> tucker: i bet you the majority of the viewers were on his side. i hope i am wrong. madison, ashley, think about the -- thank you vote no mike both very much. both very much. the when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected.

that's the power of and.

you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. >> tucker: the signature initiative of first lady michelle obama died this week, killed off by the trump administration. in a proclamation issued by monday, public schools will be granted more leeway going forward into what foods they are allowed to serve at lunch. the new requirements will allow

this flavored 1% milk nonwhole grains and foods with higher levels of salt all of which would be banned under the obama administration. the 2016 report for the department of agriculture had found that the obama requirements didn't really work, not that you didn't need a study to get that, the regulations did substantially increase the amount of waste in the school lunches as kids tossed in the trash much of their food instead of actually eating it. one piece of good news about the program was the obama administration did get to control what your kids ate for lunch and that pleased them very much. more control over your life being always and everywhere better to liberals who know a lot more about how you want to live than you ever will, but now that fascist donald trump has come along and let kids eat more what they want. the rest of the country is celebrating with pretzels and chocolate milk and feels pretty good about it. to her and every night at 8:00 to the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity,

smugness, and groupthink, to our friends over at the five in >> kimberly: hello everyone, along with jesse watters and greg gutfeld, it's 9:00 in new york city and this is the five. we begin tonight with a brewing battle in washington over how the government is going to spend your money. on sunday, congressional leaders signed a bipartisan deal on a $1 trillion budget to fund the government through the end of september but with no money for a border wall and more cash for planned parenthood and statuary cities, some conservatives expressedy