♪ back here at 7:00. "talker" is up next talker is >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." she is back, despite being rejected by the american electorate in two separate evidential contents, hillary clinton is looking to reestablish herself in politics. first off, she publicly changed, explained james comey and the media for her to feed, sending the message to loyalist that she didn't lose at all. >> i was on the way to winning until a combination of jim comey's letter on october 28th and russian wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were in line to vote for me but got scared off.

>> tucker: her countless fans in the media including the one you saw interviewing her in the clip left this up and cheered her return to the scene. >> this is the most astonishing hillary clinton experience i've ever seen. it was... it was perhaps her at her most authentic. >> i think what jim comey did is to throw overboard a justice department procedure because of political reasons. his own internal politics, because of the hatred of hillary clinton within the fbi -- >> 20% of people voted because of racism. and i think after eight: years of the black president there was no way this woman was going to win. >> tucker: they live in an irony free world, it's not so surprising if you've been following it. remember these "new york times" headlines from the days right before the election? on the hillary side, here's one. "hillary clinton sees ugliness and joy in the race's closing

days." "big names -- how about this one? "donald trump's moments and missteps: a look back," or "black voters aghast at trump, find a place of food and comfort." wait, didn't trump get a higher percentage of the african-american vote then that romney did? the press didn't know what they were talking about, maybe they still don't. other than that, it's hard to argue that they were rooting for donald trump to become president, and many hillary fans disagree with that. peter dao for example an advisor of the -- thank you for coming out. >> pleasure, thank you. >> i don't doubt that the comey announcement had an effect, i thought that at the time. but the press was four square for hillary clinton the moment that donald trump got the nomination. they didn't hide it at all. the emails that were clipped from john podesta's email account proved they were collaborating with the hillary campaign. there is not a much of an argument to make, you think,

that the press was on trump side? >> a conservative is going to say the mainstream media was against donald trump, president trump. the liberals, progressive, democrats will say they are against hillary clinton. the fact is there have been independent studies that were done, and both candidates got very bad press. candidate trump got terrible press. hillary clinton got very bad press. one thing that was potentially different so on the emails was particularly, 300 days from a research team. 600 consecutive days of coverage that far, far outweighed any coverage of any other trump story. >> tucker: where was that coverage? was that in "the new york times," "washington post" -- oh, it was in. i ran one of those news organizations at the time. nope, that's not true. "the new york times" did not run 600 days -- >> gallup had an analysis that said the only thing that the voters heard was they hurt hillary clinton's name was emai

email. the word email was larger than every single other word in the word cloud through the email story dominated coverage from the very beginning. she made a mistake. >> tucker: on the right it did, but not in "the new york times," not in "the washington post." "the new york times" wrote pieces like this. three days before the election, "hillary clinton at a campaign rally. "there is an unfamiliar sense of abandonment and joy. the rain grows heavier, her wet clothes turn as shade darker, she takes in the seed around her and last before she finishes her sentence." i'm feeling creepy about it. meanwhile, same day, i won't go on, but the headline in the "times" was in line -- trump is a villain, hillary is a hero. that's the story line in every media organization in america. >> i dispute that completely. you can sherry

cherry pick stories. at the end of the day, the overall narrative in the mainstream media, and my issue has been with "the new york times," "the washington post," and other networks. three nightly news coverage, 6:1 ratio over her policies. how can voters decide -- donald trump won de election, he's a legitimate president. i've always said that this is about telling the truth about what happened. let mt say this, tucker. >> tucker: these kind of studies are done by political hacks posing as journalists. the insurance teen center? i am a journalist! i know people who work there! you aren't going to tell me, because i know them, they are publicly independent because they are not here they are glorified as martha raddatz was when she fought on television about trump's victory. that's true! >> let me give you a narrative,, and frameworks, tidy through everything. a lot of people fail in this trap. it's the basic narrative of the race. that donald trump is a terribly weak candidate, came down of his

fellow escalator, mocking him, laughing him. i tweeted the next day, take this guy seriously. >> tucker: you are smarter than most on that. i think you're absolutely right there. not taken seriously by the press. they like him because he thought he was a sideshow, divided a pretty strong the and build. when it became clear he had a remote chance of winning, they piled up -- the guys who campaigned on "the new york times," we don't have to guess what they wrote, they wrote it. as a "new york times" reporter, "we had fearless journalism throughout 2016. voters wanted what they wanted." in other words, we tried our best to keep this guy from becoming president, they voted for him anyway. >> i don't want to litigate michael barrow in "the new york times." i was going to finish my point in the coverage. the premise was he was such a terrible candidate that if hillary clinton didn't win by 20 points, he somehow was going to do a -- the others a field of 17 republicans. this guy was very tough to beat. the fact that hillary clinton made history -- this is a

country based on fairness, we celebrate the people who had great compliments. hillary clinton was the first woman ever in american history to win nomination. you have people yelling at her to go away, shut up, apologize. as far as i'm concerned, it was a contest of two strong candidates, they both made mistakes. at the end of the day, he became the president through our constitution. he's the president based on our constitution. >> tucker: i agree with a lot of what you said, it just grates to hear the press describe everything what they were, which was much more in favor of hillary clinton then donald trump. they are horrified by trump! he attacks them directly, they take it personally. they really wanted her to win. they might not like her personally, not a lot of them did, they wanted her to win. that's just true. >> [laughs] looks, it's what you are stating. i see it the exact opposite. that's 6:1 study of issues over emails. the playing field was tilted against her. this is not about relitigating, this is about telling the truth. she did not face of fair playing

field, that's just a fact. >> tucker: it's so interesting. obviously, i was at a newspaper in arkansas 25 years ago. i watched the clintons closely for the longest time. have you noticed a continuity of story lines? "we are being treated unfairly, we are the victims of some kind of bias, people are mean to us for no reasons we can explain." >> i wasn't there, so i'm talking about this particular election and i covered carefully. there were two candidates under investigation, the public only thought when one was. as i say, two candidates fighting one another, one ended up being president, but the playing field was not leveled for hillary clinton. >> tucker: just to a point of fact, we don't know that the state right now that donald trump has been the subject of an fbi investigation, but his campaign and the people around them, do we know something different from that? >> i'm just saying what i've heard from fbi director comey who was testimony with the elections committee has said. i don't know more what i've heard publicly. what i heard publicly, there is confirmation that there's investigation. >> tucker: on him? i don't know if that's true. >> i also tweeted that i don't

think it's going to take him down as many people on the democratic side believe. >> tucker: they should listen to you, peter. thank you for coming on. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> tucker: dave weikel is a politics reporter for "the washington post," including that he's likely not a fan of the show. indeed, he is not, judging by his reaction to an interview we did wednesday night. ben smith, the editor of the boat speed came on, and we had a vigorous discussion about liberal groupthink in the press. we disagree with each other, but i wasn't hostile, i enjoyed it, and i think smith enjoyed it too. weigel didn't enjoy it, too many opinions on display and those he doesn't agree with. like the d.c. journalist he is, weigel whined about it on twitter. "why does ben smith keep diving into this endless pool of bad faith," he tweeted. and smith has been on this show two times and we gave him time to answer those questions. it's called legitimate debate.

to a "washington post" reporter, someone who lives in a world where every single person has identical views of everything, all of them fashionable, all of them unquestioned number that looks like bad faith to him. naturally, we invited speed 24 to come on tonight and explain himself. i emailed him this morning. he couldn't do it, he was planning to watch a movie. two obvious points. first, diversity means different spread guys like weigel love diversity when it means people who look different, but the diversity of views? that's terrifying to them. it's a threat to the moral monopoly they believe they hold in american life. it suggests that people who aren't evil or stupid might have come to different conclusions from the ones they came to and may even have a valid point. that possibility is an acceptable to them. it shakes their faith in their own virtue. so they backed it away with name-calling, they always do. bad faith, fascism, basket of deplorable's, whatever. you've heard it all before. they are going to keep saying it until you shut up because that's the point of seeing it in the first place. and the second point here. it takes a lot for liberals to

come on the shoulder thanks to people like weigel, there's a lot of peer pressure to come on. when they do come on, it won't be fluffy. they are going to have to answer the question. night after night, they come out anyway and we are grateful for that. they may be wrong or misguided, but at least they aren't ours. for 14 years, the town of pennsylvania has featured a bed with an inspirational quote that mention god. the atheist police are on the scene and are forcing its removal. we will talk to a representative from the american atheists up next. president trump's executive order on consecutive cities may be blocked, but texas is taking matters in its own hands with a bill to punish officials. we will talk to texas governor greg abbott in just a

>> tucker: well, a city in pennsylvania is removing a park bench with a religious quote in order to placate angry atheists. a public park in oil city features a bench donated in 2003 by a local branch of the vfw. the bench says, "men that are governed by god will be governed by tyrants." american atheist sent a letter demanding the removal of the bench in the town complied, fearing the cost of litigation if they didn't. amanda can , thank you for comi. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: if they are governed by god, they will be governed by tyrants. are you the tyrants in the story? >> we are the folks that fight for equality for everyone. the bench was put on a veterans

memorial, it was demeaning to anyone who was a non-christian veteran. >> tucker: it's not just christians who believe in god. everyone but you and buddhist believe in god. speak about 25% of military enlistment either claim no religious preference or atheist, agnostic. >> tucker: the idea is the word god is offensive, the appearance of the word god -- >> not the word god, but assuming if you aren't a religious person or a christian judeo-christian, you will be governed by tyrants, this dismisses morality and compassion that our veterans and shoulders have. but because they don't believe in god doesn't mean they are -- me when no one is suggesting that. this is a park bench in a town down on his lock, not a rich place at all. you're coming with a well-funded group and say, do what we want or we will price you in court. >> that is not what we did. >> tucker: short, it is. >> if you look at the first letter, we went for a complaint. >> tucker: who was the complaint from? >> a resident in the city.

>> tucker: who? on the basis of an anonymous complaint, someone thinking forward -- >> we know their name. >> tucker: but don't the residents... look, you do not live in -- >> is not in litigation. >> tucker: it's a park bench. so one guy who doesn't even have the courage to stand up and reveal his identity gets to control the entire existence of this park bench? >> no, the constitution covers the bench. >> tucker: it has nothing to do with this. >> this defense had nothing to do with veterans either. >> tucker: is the bench establishing a state religion? >> it's on the city park and the city agreed to accept it, they were saying that anyone is a veteran that doesn't believe in god is someone who will be ruled by tyrants. again, dismissing the compassion and the morality that comes from -- >> tucker: it's something that you don't agree with, which is okay. lots of things that the government says i don't agree with. this is not an establishment of state religion -- >> according to the

supreme court, if you do not open up to all points of view -- >> tucker: the supreme court didn't say that, that's why the currency says we've trusting god on it, federal judges are also one in invoking god. i'm just saying, we live in a country where the u.s. government uses the word god all the time. >> the supreme court says it is ceremonial deism. we think it is wrong -- >> why not take on the currency? >> we have! >> tucker: basically the point is -- you crush the little guy -- >> i'm not crushing the little guy. we offered to pay for a brand-new bench. >> tucker: really? what were the bench would be like? >> we told them that the vfw would pick out a quote that is appropriate to the veterans, we would pay for a brand-new bench. >> tucker: but you want one for american atheist. >> we want someone a little plaque -- >> tucker: you are putting your religion on the bench, but you aren't violating the first mm in? >> because we weren't making any

statements about -- >> tucker: sure. they have the word god there, the word god is offensive -- >> not the word god, it's the phrasing -- >> tucker: it's a very old quote. >> you are talking about ideas and things. you may feel that. but you are christian. people who aren't christian look at that and still feel the same way. >> tucker: i get your point. but you are violating your own principles because you're saying you want to replace the bench you claim is a representation of christianity with a bench that has an explicit statement about atheism -- >> no. we don't want any explicit -- >> tucker: but you want a donation to the american atheism. >> that's where it's frumpy we wouldn't have a problem with the vfw putting it on there that they paid for it. the statement itself -- >> tucker: but your name itself is a statement. the quote is not an endorsement of religion. >> well... that is your take on it, but we believe it is. >> tucker: having a bench that has american atheist on it, doesn't that make nonatheist feel demeaned? look, here's the point. this is not about making a group of people feel included, it's about crushing people --

>> no it's not. >> tucker: of course it is. >> no it isn't. >> tucker: why aren't you doing this to the federal government? >> we are. there are several organizations and we have ongoing lawsuits about how christians get special tax treatment, how they don't have to have transparency, how preachers get a special election on their mortgages and homes. all kind of things -- >> tucker: what about the declaration of independence? >> what about a? >> tucker: it says the word god -- >> no it doesn't. it says creator. >> tucker: that is another name for god's >> in your opinion. >> tucker: okay, but it's a founding document that is part of our secular religion here in the united states, the declaration of independence is central to us. >> it is. >> tucker: it's something all schoolchildren learn about, and yet it's got god -- >> it doesn't have god, it's got creator. >> tucker: god, creator, deity, it's the same thing. >> okay, but when they did in our constitution, they left god out of it. >> tucker: do you think the

declaration shouldn't be stored in the national archives? >> it has historical value, but we have to recognize the people who wrote it back in the 1700s had very different views than we do and had a very different understanding of the world. >> tucker: if you saw a swing set in oil city, pennsylvania, that had a cross on it to muscle and cardio cross on it, a christian symbol, would you tell them to take it down? 's people know. >> tucker: why? >> unless the city approved it, it's graffiti. i wouldn't. >> what if the city had a swingset that had a swing set? >> what would have a cross? >> tucker: i don't know, it's a christian symbol. >> that's your point of view. there are people in the town, veterans, who did not like it. >> tucker: who where they? >> i'm not going to give that. >> tucker: if you will not give them their name, you asked me to believe that there are any people offended by this, you won't see who they were, a lot of people say they like the bench -- >> okay. >> tucker: we know their names, but the basics you claim is an anonymous complaint, nobody likes the bench?

>> the bench is now in the vfw site, so it's still there. >> tucker: last question, why has all people? let's be totally real. in a country where every senator swears in on the bible, you are haggling some little town in pennsylvania -- >> not all members of congress where in the bible, many of the constitution or -- >> tucker: koran, but but religious documents. why are you bothering these people? >> someone came to us and we thought there was a constitutional issue and the city agreed, they removed it. >> tucker: okay. i think it's awful that people anonymously can hurt other people without standing up in sync with ar. >> you know, the threats that we got when we did this -- >> tucker: whatever. >> you are claiming that some anonymous guy hassled this litte town, and doesn't have the courage to say to the face of his neighbors, i find it deplorable. >> i'm sorry. we have a reason why he came to us. >> tucker: thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. i appreciate it. >> tucker: a widely publicized hate crime has been exposed,

exposed as a total sham, an organizer in indiana admitted te spray-painted his own church with a swastika and an anti-gay slur. the organist is a man called george nathaniel stang says he wrote wanted to give local people a reason to fight for good, even if it was a false flag. the ends justify the means for notably, this specific case was one of many alleged hate crimes that was used by the press to vilify and marginalize republican voters in the last few months. "the washington post" ran the story at the lead anecdote in a piece that chronicled "numerous incidents that have occurred in the wake of trump's election." in fact, tentioned this incident and a bunch of articles, but for some reason they haven't posted a single piece about how the attacks are a hoax, because they are liars. another hate crime in the same article, a michigan student told she had to take off her he hijr she'd be set on fire. it didn't happen. many more, the surge of threats

against jewish committee dissenters, that we heard a lot about? that turned out to be the work of a left-wing journalist and an israeli man. they took white men who attacked a muslim woman at uc san diego, remember that? they didn't exist either. these hoaxes have been happening for years, you can pay a visit to bighatecrimes.boardforhundredss owhydoesthe press -- close -- more likely because hoaxes like this suit their political agenda. they keep repeating them. well, a professor at ucla says the school is trying to fire him for refusing to endorse a culture of political correctness. he joins us comingngngngng ♪ ♪ ♪

i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here. yeah. well, we gotta hand it thto fedex. glasses. they've helped make our e-commerce so easy, and now we're getting all kinds of new customers. i know. can you believe we're getting orders from canada, ireland... this one's going to new zealand. new zealand? psst. ah, false alarm. hey! you guys are gonna scare away the deer! idiots... providing global access for small business. fedex.

>> tucker: this past february, we welcome attorney ucla professor keith fink on the show. told us about how his school is bent on stepping out conservative beliefs including in his classroom. watch. >> you feel like it's a microcosm or a microcosm, they continuously and consistently trample students rights. they abuse the law, they twist the law, they send out these emails which either kill speech that they don't like or they actually punish students that run afoul of these types of policies that don't conform to the liberal ideology.

>> tucker: have things improved since then? we like to keep up with these stories, and according to professor fink they have not. he tells that the school is trying to fire him. professor fink joins us. there is a petition signed by some of your students that say this. "ucla taught us to fight injustice wherever it rears its ugly head. we will not sit idly by and watch a beloved have his teaching career discarded in a politically motivated and morally bankrupt fashion." is your career being destroyed by ucla? >> my teaching career is being destroyed. it's being destroyed at ucla. i've had other schools reach out to offer me teaching positions, but i am a ucla alumnus and the one school i want to teach is the school where i've spent my formative years. they are doing everything they can to fire me and let me just take off you what happened after i came on your show two months ago. yesterday, they held a meeting in secret which the meeting can only be described something akin

to a modern-day star chamber. i was not allowed to come to the meeting to state my reasons for wanting to teach at the school and address any questions or concerns that committee had. worse than that, the person who did the single most important thing that goes into the committee's decisions was someone who was biased. part of the evaluation process is there has to be a faculty member sitting in the class and doing a review. they asked me at the beginning of the cross as he was biased. i told them who was biased. and who did they choose? somebody that was biased. why did they do that? if you have anybody sit in my class and sit in and listen to the way i thought, they would conclude they were excellent and then some. i then asked the university of those who are biased against me on the committee would follow basic notions of due process and fairness and recuse themselves from the boat yesterday. what was i told? no. ucla does not have a policy

where on prejudice or bias would recuse themselves. third, those on the committee are unqualified! if you -- ucla's own policies as when you have an important review like this, you will make sure that there is somebody qualified to do the review. there was not a single person who was a lawyer, there was not a single person with any knowledge in free speech, the first amendment, or due process. >> tucker: let me stop you there. i've been following this case fairly closely. and at one point, it seems like the school solicited reviews of your classroom kids who had not taken your class. is that true? >> well, i don't know of the 8,000 students who has taken my class, i don't know how they solicited. but you are correct. when i look at my review file, there is a review from a student that said, i don't know why you reach out to me, i don't know professor fink. >> tucker: is there anything -- bottom line. if you one of a relatively small

number of nonliberals on ucla's campus. do you have any recourse? clearly the people who run the place don't like you. what about donors? what about the board of the school quite like what about political figures in the state? is there anything you can do to keep from getting bounced because you are saying things they don't like? >> look. if they bounce me, we know this. this has been going on now for the last two quarters through the entire administration knows it. the board knows it. we've seen national news coverage but not a single person has reached out to try to speak with me. what do people do? i'm writing this on principle. the principles on fighting for our very important to this country. it's free speech and due process. what can people do? students are rallying to my support. students can fight for me and fight for the principles i'm standing for. but most importantly, donors can stand up. and donors should not contribute -- well, that's exactly. donors should not contribute to schools, even my school, if they won't comply with basic notions of due process and fundamental

fairness. >> tucker: we've got to go, we are out of time. the other thing they can do is defund the coverage, which the u.s. congress funds for in part. keep us posted. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: a sheriff who -- he joins us in a you won't see these folks at the post office. 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.

i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him.

[ male announcer ] you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. >> tucker: mark napier is the sheriff of pima county, the arizona. he's a republican elected the same night as donald trump, but he's not a fan of the proposed border wall. he says is a medieval solution to a modern problem. instead of spending money on the wall, he says that the trump administration should give $5 million to his department so he can improve policing on the order. sheriff, thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me, tucker. >> tucker: i've heard this line a bunch. you think this is a medieval solution to a modern problem, but it's really a medieval problem for people sweeping across europe borders. romans dealt with it.

2,000 years ago, the solution then was awol. the chinese built a wall, english built hadrian's wall, israel was built a wall, they work. why wouldn't it work in arizona? >> good many reasons. one is cost, tucker 310,000 men will make years to mug mankind has been building around walls and things. a robust array of -- we can come up with a better solution. i am absolutely a proponent of securing the border. my fear is we are continuing this dialogue of a wall, awol, awol, which too many of us doesn't seem credible. and in that this court, we are losing the more serious discussions about how to better secure our borders at a lower point, more effectively. that's my concern. it's a public safety problem, human rights problem. all manner of transnational crime is coming where the border is.

about 150 people a year die in the desert, western pima county, a community event, i'm one of the only sheriffs that has an industrial refrigerator outside one of my district stations that only purpose for which is the stove store human remains of people who die in the desert. >> tucker: is awful, i agree with everything you say. nobody in washington wants to secure the border, that's why we've never done it. there's a lot of political pressure. democratic party once more voters, it's never happened. the beauty of the wall is it's permanent, and as permanent as things get. why at least not do that. if it's a cost to have illegal immigration, why not try that? nothing else has worked. >> tucker, there are many reasons. one is there is an infrastructure near the ports of the border that we want to construct a wall, the workforce we would need to secure a wall in a traditional sense. i would much rather we change the discourse to looking at a wall as an analogous term, and in impenetrable barrier that

might be in place of technology, it might be fixed barriers and other places, it might be human resources or a blend of all of the above in other places. but there is land-use things, typography, we have a native american reservation here. the there are some environment or problems as well. >> tucker: i understand all that, it would be expensive and difficult. can you see why voters like the idea of a wall? they don't believe you or anyone in washington. nobody wants to deal with the problem, they say they do, but they really don't. they think it's racist to keep people out of the country. and so, like, they just want concrete evidence that somebody is taking this seriously. i think maybe that's what it's about. >> i think -- tucker, moreover, it's an easy sound bite. it's easy to digest. we start talking about the fact there are 380 miles of international border in my state, i'm responsible for 125 miles of that. it's easy to talk about a wall.

it's an easy sound bite to suggest. when you start talking about mountains and rivers that flow from the north and travel reservations, this is a very complex issue. and perhaps that's why we are still dealing with it. >> tucker: do you know what's an easy sound bite? it's a medieval solution to a modern problem. that's the most facet of all sound bites on it. and the truth is people don't take it seriously. i'm not saying you particularly, but our elected officials don't take it seriously. again, you sound like a sincere person, but nothing we've done in the past 15 years has really worked. and so what's the guarantee that your solution will be different and will work? >> well, tucker. you are holding the sheriff county responsible, let's hold the people in washington, d.c., responsible and kicking the can down the road for decades. this is my home, tucker. i live with these problems day. >> tucker: hold on, you are also asking for federal money. you say we don't want to spend all this money, you have concerns with the federal budge

budget. i want money for my department, which is fine. but how do you know that's going to work when it hasn't worked in the last five decades? >> we have to have that commitment. we have to change the discourse on this and hold the people in washington, d.c., responsible. i'm struggling to buy cars for my deputies, they are responsible for patrolling 9,200 square miles of my county. there is nowhere in this discourse any discussion about helping border sheriffs and border communities that deal with this problem every day because washington, d.c., has failed us under many different administrations to address this problem. >> tucker: that's true. >> it's not a new problem, tucker. >> tucker: it's not. >> i've been dealing with this problem for 30 years. >> tucker: is not just peanut county, arizona. people keep moving. the country has been totally transform. north carolina, completely different state. all of us have a stake in this period sheriff, thanks a lot for this. i appreciate it. >> thank you very much, tucker.

>> tucker: congress keeps stonewalling president trump's wall, and a federal judge has blocked his order, so what is next? some states are taking immigration to their own hands. in texas, the legislator allowed state governments to impose big fines, even jail time, on local officials who ignore federal immigration laws. governor greg abbott claims he will sign this bill. thank you for coming on. what does this do exactly? this law? >> this ensures we are going to ban sanctuary cities in the state of texas and imposes civil penalties that can add up to more than $25,000 a day, it can impose jail time on officials who don't follow the law, and it can lead to the removal of these public officials from their jobs such as a sheriff like in travis county who allowed century state policies to operate in travis county. >> tucker: right. all of that is from an outsider perspective makes perfect sense, but i'm struck by the number of local sheriffs who say they are against this. why would they be against this?

>> well, as you might imagine, shiva probably doesn't want to wind up in jail, which would be one reason why they would be against it. if you look at the sheriffs who come out against it, they are sheriffs in counties that are democratic in nature. and so i think they are talking more to their electoral base as they are to what the real issue is, tucker, what the real issue is here is public safety. people have to realize the first role of government is to keep our people safe, and that means removing from the streets those who pose a danger, and that includes making sure that if the federal government wants someone detained, the state should cooperate in detaining that person. screw liberals are making the argument that basically illegal aliens have a right to live and work here. excuse me, how long before they make the argument that illegals have the right to vote here? >> we heard echoes of that already, but tucker let's go back to your first premise. what we are talking about is

whether or not illegal immigrants have a right to be here. what we are talking about is going after those who have an i.c.e. detainer request on them. someone who has already committed a crime, someone who has proven themselves to be dangerous, and someone who should not be on the streets. remember, tucker, there was a tragedy that led to a lot of this. that is kate steinle. people are forgetting about kate steinle and what happened and the reason she was killed was because in part of a century city policy of separate cisco. as governor of texas, i cannot allow a san francisco kate steinle situation to be repeated here. no governor, no law enforcement official anyway should allow that allow that tragedy to occur. >> tucker: it's awful. the reason they are allowing it to occur is because there is a political benefit to the democratic party, which expects all of these people to become democratic voters sooner rather than later, in turn texas blue, and end national politics. no republican can get elected if texas becomes a democratic state. do you acknowledge that the motive here and is it working?

>> i believe that could be a motive behind their thought process. i disagree with their conclusion, because i don't think it will turn texas blue or any other place blue because i know that it doesn't matter what your background is. whatever voter is concerned about is their safety. any type of act by any official, republican or democrat, that promotes lack of safety, is going to lose their office. >> tucker: i hope that is true. thank you for coming on tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: on the alleged rape case out of rockville, maryland. we did a number of shows, it was one where a teenage girl was reportedly raped. after investigating the matter, prosecutors are saying they are dropping rape charges against the two accused. the two still face child pornography charges. there is no status update for them, but we will be waiting for it and we will tell you when we

learn. wanda sykes is making a bizarre claim about obamacare being replaced, which two of our contestants have the craziest story of the night? there are a lot. top that's coming

>> tucker: read the paper lately? everybody has gone insane. we decided to join in and rate the relative insanity out there in the news. time for top that, we will decide which is the craziest story of the night/week. our panel tonight, can be shallow , -- and carrie lucas of the independent women's forum. great to see you those. gabby? you first.

>> you are watching "the view" this morning -- >> tucker: of course i was. >> liberal comedian wanda sykes was wondering why republicans chose to dismantle obamacare. >> they are trying to erase anything president obama did. they want to act like that man never existed like telmex, like it never happened to her mitch mcconnell was on the phone with david copperfield now. "what else you got"? i want to make them disappear. how can we make him disappear? >> why? >> racism! that's it. they couldn't handle a black president and they want to get rid of it. >> tucker: yeah. so if you are against obamacare, you are a big? >> it's racism apparently. i would like to ask her what she thinks the thinks president trump's decision to allow daca continue, these plates number of policies and legislations from the obama era he had originally said he wouldn't. if this is racism, what are

those? is that a good thing? is she able to admit that as a liberal comedian, or is every single thing's administration and his republican-controlled congress does rooted in racism and bigotry quickly >> tucker: sure, obamacare was passed by and overwhelmingly democratic majority in the congress. what does that mean? that's pretty nuts. >> let's see. i don't know if you are a "star wars" fan, tucker, but you may know that yesterday was an important day for "star wars" fans, it was may 4th, or the may the fourth be with you, people are encouraged to be dressed up as their favorite "star wars" director. one kid in green bay, wisconsin, showed up in a darth vader outfit and instantly called the cops. there is a lock down and not just in his school but the next school until the situation was resolved. >> tucker: because he had a light saber? >> no, he was just dressed in a scary uniform. the sad commentary that instead of talking to the kid, asking them what he was doing, making sure he wasn't planning to shoot

up the school, the instant reaction was to call the cops. >> tucker: green bay is full of nice people, produce a part of the country. >> the good news is the cops said they looked into it and, you know, there is no charges being pressed, they are recognizing that it was a mistake. but man. >> it's not that they thought the kid was weird, they thought he was a threat. >> they thought this could be something going on. two schools lockdown as a result. >> tucker: depressing. both are pretty bizarre. yours makes me a little sadder, though. because of wanda sykes used to be a comedian at a really talented one and she's gone completely off the deep end with this trump stuff, it's distorted her so completely that she's become someone who is screaming at you on the subway. >> she's not listening to her fans either. she was shouted down after insulting the president at a show recently. >> tucker: you won. you get the trophy, everybody gets a trophy. especially you! thank you.

>> thank you. >> tucker: track on nights ago we took you to uc santa cruz where they have taken over the eminence rate of building. that standoff just ended. who won? we will verify your instincts coming

>> tucker: i want to update you on a story we did yesterday. events at uc santa cruz where a group took over administrative building and refused to leave until demands were met. three days the school was capitulated to every single demand, of course they did. include painting the school's black, red and green colors of black liberation only black students have a right to live there every student must undergo diversity training contents reviewed and approved by the group that took over the building because they run the school now. segregation and terrorism carry the day once again in california and you're paying for it with your federal subsidies and may be sending your kids there something has got to change. that's about it for us tonight. tune in every night at 8:00

p.m. the show sworn enemy pomposity and group think. stay tuned for "the five" that's next. good night from washington. ou monday. ♪ >> hello, everyone, i'm kill kimberly guilfoyle and this is a fox news alert. just after sundown in chicago where the city is bracing itself for another bloody weekend. last year there was 769 murders in the wendy city. the most brutal in 20 years. and this year the problem is getting even worse. earlier this week, the situation escalated when gang members opened fire on two chicago police officers, targeting them with a high powered weapon. >> kim