of men which taken at the flood leads to fortune. admitted, all the voyeurs of their life. when much take the current when it serves or lose our ventures. a good night, everybody. >> tucker: welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the attorney general of the united states jeff sessions testified before the senate intelligence committee and as expected, strongly denied that he has had secret or improper interactions with the russian government. >> a.g. sessions: to suggest that i participated in any collusion that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country, which i have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process is an appalling and detestable life. >> tucker: that's what he

claims, it's always possible that a high-level russian defector will appear sometime in the future with documents proving that jeff sessions is in fact a foreign agent, perhaps of a sleeper cell sent to alabama during the cold war and activated at vladimir putin's request during the last election, that would be a game changer. otherwise the russian conspiracy seemed to hit a cul-de-sac this afternoon in the senate, but that doesn't mean there are no scandals for congress to investigate. maybe the biggest one about, our intel services are corrupt and politicized and they're making very hard to run u.s. governmen government. they are running it themselves to some extent. consider how much of american politics now revolves around information that has been strategically, often misleadingly and illegally released for political effects. if the hearing he watched today are just one example. they took place in part because former fbi director jim comey told senators last week that sessions may have met russian ambassador kislyak at the mayflower hotel in washington

last april. why would he think that? because of classified surveillance of kislyak's conversation suggested may, it may have happened. that was released in order to hurt jeff sessions and by the way was apparently false. many more examples of this. every day. in december an unnamed source told "the washington post" that russia helped donald trump in the presidencies. a week later someone told them that he was personally involved in helping trump win. in february current and former -- released a phone call between mike flynn and ambassador kislyak of russia, it was monitored because he was being spied on. michael flynn's name was leaked and his career and reputation were subsequently destroyed by that. surveilled by american intelligence and then lead to. his call with the australian prime minister, same thing. again, leaked by the intel community.

how could this possibly have advanced american security interest, which is what they were supposed to be doing? none of it did. it was entirely political. in march a half dozen people told them how they sought to spread the information widely as possible to assure that it would all eventually leaked. the leaks are as old as government and sometime they are welcome in general. we are seeing something new at work here. these are not leaks from political appointees, defined in the base of of bob woodward burks. these are strategic leaks, the release of classified intelligence from people whose job it is to collect and safeguard that intelligence and in that way it's an honor perversion of the system. we give annulments power to our intelligence agencies, cia, nsa, the rest of them. we let them listen to our phone calls, water emails, water from satellites. we let them do that so that they can keep a safe. not so that they can pick our

policy leaders. in democracy, we are in charge, not them, not unelected bureaucrats. that's changing, and we ought to be worried about that. congress isn't worried, because a lot of people would rather have the policies they prefer than a constitutional government. it's worse than immoral. it's a mistake. once they shove aside unelected government, they can do it again. at that point it's over, it's ted. katherine harris joins us for more on today's hearing. >> reporter: one of the big moments came when the attorney general testified that he recused himself in march from the ongoing probe because of his trump campaign will and not his alleged contacts with russia. >> a.g. sessions: i recuse myself from any investigation into the campaign for president that i -- but i did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. >> reporter: another big moment came when sessions was challenged by a senior democrat on claims made last week before the same senate panel by fired

fbi director james comey. >> mr. comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn't talk about them. what are they? >> a.g. sessions: why don't you tell me? there are none, senator, there are none! i can tell you that for absolute certainty. this is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me and i don't appreciate it. >> reporter: sessions debunked widespread media reports that he met with the russian ambassador in april of last year at washington's mayflower hotel during a major policy speech given by then candidate trump. he also insisted he was not blocking congress when he refused to answer questions about his discussions with the president citing historic justice department policies. fox news confirming that the columbia law school professor that served as an intermediary between comey and a "new york times" reporter providing information from memos

documenting his conversations with the president, that law professor is now providing relevant material to the special counsel, robert mueller. >> tucker: catherine herridge, thanks a lot. during today's testimony, attorney general sessions expressed his frustration, you just saw it, over the use of anonymous leaks to sabotage his career. >> a.g. sessions: some of these leaks, as you well know are extraordinarily dangerous -- damaging to the united states security. we have got to restore irregular order principal, we cannot have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies or in congress leaking sensitive matters on staff. i'm afraid this will result, is already resulting in investigations and i fear that some people may find that they wish they hadn't leaked. >> tucker: congressman sean

patrick mullen. now that sessions is finally testify, has his view changed, he joins us now, thanks for coming on. i don't expect you to agree with the attorney general's policies or his core beliefs as a senator, but i think we can both agree that when the former fbi director comes into open testimony and suggests as he did that sessions had some sort of untoward ties to russia or had done something wrong that he couldn't expand publicly and therefore had to recuse himself from the investigation, that's impugning a man's character without being specific, therefore unfair and it's awful to do that. >> i think you are putting a little bit of a spin on it, you said the attorney general did recuse himself because of his conflicts in the area so that's all the fbi director was saying. he actually said the opposite. >> excuse me, i appreciate that there was a bit of an error left there of impropriety and i agree with you is what i'm trying to say. we went there were other reasons, i think i'm quoting,

there are other reasons but i can't say what they were in public. he goes behind closed doors with senators and says we believe he may have met with the russian ambassadors for a third time. that's exactly what you don't want the guardians of your national intelligence to do, use it for unfair reasons for political gain. >> congressman maloney: you wouldn't have said that -- >> tucker: i'm not sure i know what you mean. i would always say that it's wrong for intelligence offers, or people whose job it is to hold the sequels atomic secrets, to use them against others for political gain. >> congressman maloney: are you saying we had preferred we would never have known about the watergate scandal? >> tucker: i would say i wish their careers and jobs wouldn't be destroyed. >> congressman maloney: a lot of white house aides went to jail. that's exactly the point i'm making. the point i'm making is, saying that jeff sessions had done something improper with russia, there were specific he testifies

openly today and at the end of it, are you convinced he's not a russian agent? >> congressman maloney: i'm actually not that concerned with what jeff sessions did. i think you're making a fair point that he has come in for a lot of suggestions for inappropriate activity for the russians without a lot of proof. there is a mountain of evidence that people like michael flynn and palmetto fork were getting paid improperly, lied about it. >> tucker: paid improperly by the russians? >> congressman maloney: as a matter of fact, exactly that. michael flynn has admitted to taking tens of thousands of dollars for a speech in moscow, didn't disclose it. as a former military officer he was required to. didn't get permission, lied about it on his forms and did the same thing with his interactions with kislyak. that's almost certainly a crime and i'm very concerned, i'm very concerned that we not muddy up the two things. >> tucker: jeff sessions the attorney general of the united states just testified all afternoon, mike flynn didn't. i'm talking about the sitting

attorney general who has been the subject of these implications that he is somehow betraying his country. >> congressman maloney: when you take these positions, sometimes you take some hits and the fact is that the last time he testified, he testified falsely under oath. that's not in dispute, he testified falsely about a meeting with the russian ambassador kislyak, who we know is the chief spymaster here in the u.s. >> tucker: hold on, if you are going to stipulate it, let's be clear, it is in dispute in his position as i was not acting, he was asked by the senator of minnesota, or you acting in a surrogate position, he wasn't. are you suggesting he was having an proper contract with the russians? >> congressman maloney: excuse me, i did not say that, i said he testified falsely and he admitted such later when he went out and sought to amend his remarks. he also failed to correct that testimony for months. >> tucker: i don't think he admitted that he testified falsely. i spoke about it on the side.

what is this about? it's about the implication that he's working for the russians. what is that? >> congressman maloney: the fact is that he testified falsely and that raised some questions, that's what we want to hear them. >> tucker: there's a couple other points, let's talk about those. one, he recused himself from the russia investigation, the president of the united states said that the firing of the fbi was at least in part or related to that investigation, there's a lot of legitimate questions about why jeff sessions was involved in t. that's also why -- >> tucker: not my job to defend jeff sessions, but it is nonsensical to say that the head of the justice department oversees the director of the fbi can't supervise because of the rest of russian investigation. >> congressman maloney: he should be recused from a conversation about firing that individual because of that investigation. that's the point. >> tucker: i think everyone would agree there are multiple reasons jim comey was prior.

the president gave us a number of them and one of them was his conduct more generally, his conduct earlier, but the point is jeff sessions runs the justice department, are you saying he shouldn't be involved? >> congressman maloney: i think what we understand is that rod rosenstein and jeff sessions gave reasons why jim comey might be at dismissed, i happen to agree with those in terms of his conduct in the last campaign. it was the president was that i was thinking about russia. that's the point, if the firing is about russia and sessions is recused from russia, he should not be involved in the firing, not stomach it's pretty simple stuff. >> tucker: if not actually simple in any way, you're making it so because it makes a clearer political hit. if you may agree or disagree with some of them, but it's not just about russia. the guy runs the justice department, you don't want them to, you didn't support it first place, get it, but it government democrats didn't win the presidency so you can't make that choice. the idea that he can't run the agency he's in charge of -- we do i didn't say that. >> tucker: what are you

saying? >> congressman maloney: he can absolutely when the agency for as long as the president wants them to, but he should not be involved with russia. the firing was about russia. >> tucker: would it be a little easier if you disagree with the the trump administrats policies on various things to just explain why you disagree with those rather than try to derail the whole executive branch of government with an insane merger conspiracy. can we just admit jeff sessions was not working on behalf of the russians, he's a patriotic american just like you are and we will drop the innuendo in the mccarthy tactics because it's counterproductive. >> congressman maloney: what we know that all all of the people we pay to do this tell us that we face an unprecedented attack by a hostile power. some of the stomach us want to know what they found that was. in the last few days we learned that they found 39 states. that's on top of what we knew if they did. i thought the jeff sessions was a senator from alabama and donald trump was a presidential candidate when that happened. barack obama was the president when that happened.

you are conflating things. the truth is jeff sessions had nothing to do with russia hacking various computer systems and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, so why continue the charade? >> congressman maloney: what we know is that the russians were laser focused on lifting sanctions against the regime. they were successful in having republican party platform change, we don't know how or why. let me finish, excuse me. >> tucker: you don't know that. >> congressman maloney: they did change the platform, we don't know why. >> tucker: was kislyak there? i didn't see any russians. >> congressman maloney: excuse me, we know the platform was changed. >> tucker: or the russians in the meeting? the two i didn't say that, i said we should find out why it was changed. >> tucker: you just said that russia was white changed the republican platform. >> congressman maloney: i wouldn't make that allegation, but we ought to get to the bottom of it. >> tucker: [laughs] i'm against sanctions on russia, does that make me -- >> congressman maloney: you don't care about the invasion of

crimea or ukraine? spent i have a legitimate policy disagreement. mis by? >> congressman maloney: you are not a spy. >> congressman maloney: it is a mystery why they change that platform. there's a larger point that you i think were addressing. let me finish, the fact is that if the russians engaged in this attack, we should find out why. we should do it in a way that's fair and gets to the facts. >> tucker: he is allowed to do his work, you're implying that the russians were somehow in charge of the republican party platform, that they had an influence on the positions of the candidate for the campaign. >> congressman maloney: can i ask you a question? does it bother you that the administration officials are refusing to answer without invoking executive privilege in front of the united states senate committee? >> tucker: it depends what. i always want to know information rather than less. i do think, think it's fair for government officials in any administration to say it's privileged information. that's exactly right. >> congressman maloney: on

what basis -- >> tucker: he can say look, there's no national interest at stake, there's no reason, i don't want to divulge what i said to the president and if it comes down to it we will invoke executive privilege, you can debate that, i don't have strong feelings about it. if what i have strong feelings about is that democrats are trying to win a political argument by impeding the character of people. >> congressman maloney: these committees are chaired by republicans, you understand that? both committees. >> tucker: i'm aware. i literally don't care. people like you are leading and innuendo-based charged against her political opponent. >> congressman maloney: you're talking about senator mccain and senator burke. >> tucker: fair at fault for letting this -- >> congressman maloneyocrats, ws distinguished that. you were outraged on this network in 2012 when the fact that the committee was not allowed to get information. >> tucker: i don't remember my outrage at the time. >> congressman maloney: it's a difficult thing. luckily, we looked it up. >> tucker: [laughs]

, you got me there! i was in moscow taking orders, getting my payment. >> congressman maloney: why are you not outrage? >> tucker: [laughs] i don't know! i don't know what you're talking about! we interviewed sessions three months ago on march 2nd. he was entirely forthcoming or seem to be, but the nature of his meetings with kislyak during the rnc in cleveland. >> according to news reports we will met twice with the russian ambassador in person and had one phone conversation with him, is that the extent of your contact with them, those three? >> a.g. sessions: i don't remember whether i had a phone conversation with him or not. i spoke with the republican convention at a conference with some 50 ambassadors. after i spoke i walked down from the podium and i mingled with a number of people and we met at that occasion and have a chat. otherwise i left shortly thereafter. that's the only two times i recall having met him, perhaps i

have. i'm on the armed services committee and sometimes you meet people like that, but i don't recall having met anyone, having met in any other time. >> tucker: why do you think the russian ambassador wanted to meet with you a couple times? what was their objective? >> a.g. sessions: i met with him after i spoke and we chatted on the floor of this meeting and then he called to meet with me, i literally met with 25 ambassadors during this period of time. many of them were attempting to sell their country, assert the issues that they thought were important to their public safety and their issues that they felt were necessary for them and i would just listen, frankly. very little occurred in those meetings, but i kind of enjoyed them, it was a good experience. >> tucker: it made sense. in the months since, how much of

what he said has proved to be untrue. none of it that we have seen, it sessions admitted there could be a short encounter he may have forgotten about, again we ask, why did the senate pull this off in the first place, why did this hearing happen? for the answer to that question we go to really our favorite person to ask these questions of that is brit hume, our chief political correspondent. what's the point of this? >> i think the point was to give sessions a chance to clear his name, which had been dragged through the mud over a period of months now by various leaks and suggestions and innuendos including the most recent bash from james, himself, who by the way it did not have a good day today. i think this is a hearing that should not have needed to be held, but it was. so that sessions -- by the way, meeting -- appearing before a group of men and women who know him very well and have known him, most of them, for many years and know that he has

basically a decent and honorable man of whom it would be almost absurd to imagine that he would be, colluding with the russians on anything. he was a conservative senator from alabama. the absurdity on the face of it hasn't mattered. >> tucker: he was tough on russia when it actually mattered, holding half the world hostage. >> brit: there was never any real evidence that he colluded. but we ended up talking about was meetings with the russian ambassador. it's possible to think of things more commonplace in washington than officials and members of congress meeting with the russian ambassador, but it's not that easy. >> tucker: [laughs] >> brit: this man and his predecessors have been around town for years, they meet with all kinds of people. the last time i was in the senate dining room was some years ago, the russian ambassador was in there having lunch with diane feinstein, i never gave it a step, second part, and why would i, such meetings happen all the time. >> tucker: [laughs] >> brit: your previous guess was referring to the ambassador of the chief spymaster.

>> tucker: [laughs] the chief lunch-haver! what i object to is the discrimination of policy differences. there are reasons to be against them, you are somehow bidding of vladimir putin. can you have a disagreement without being accused of treason? >> brit: of course you can. the people were raising these accusations don't really think anybody has committed treason. you're looking for ways to bring down donald trump and get out the people around him, that's what this is about and what it's been about from the start. to them his election is unthinkable, a catastrophe for our nations. this cannot be allowed to proceed and they are trying everything they can and this idea that the russians colluded and somehow perhaps even arranged to elect donald trump has been a piece of it for a long time. of the problem has been from the beginning, no evidence.

evidence of russian attempts to intervene in the election, to influence the election have been present everywhere, evidence of collusion with donald trump and the people around him has been in very, very short supply to the point now where you notice that the collusion story is sliding away from us now, they are not hearing that much more, they got nothing out of it today, they didn't get anything out of comey either. be there was obstruction justice, you see in the firing of comey. these investigations at the congressional and the justice department were about to be from the start, the whole idea of russian efforts. it has been described one way and one way only, a counterintelligence investigation, which is to say that the fbi in carrying this out under comey and since has been trying as an intelligence agency investigating to find out what kind of spying activity went on. >> tucker: which is totally legitimate. i love talking, you bring perspective. >> brit: thoughts for this is supposed to be, it has strayed

very far. >> tucker: very far away. attorney general sessions didn't say anything incriminating toda today, one person says he still must resign, that person will join us next. ♪ hey, i'm the internet! i know a bunch of people who would love that. the internet loves what you're doing... ...so build a better website in under an hour with... ...gocentral from godaddy. the internet is waiting. start for free today at godaddy. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine.

talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

>> a.g. sessions: director comey was sitting in front of the president's task and they were talking. that's what i do remember. i believe it was the next day that he said something, expressed concern about being left alone with the president. that in itself is not problematic. he did not tell me at that time any details about anything that was said that was improper.

>> tucker: the attorney general frustrated democrats today by thwarting their attempt to expose more information about the firing of the fbi director jim comey. the national security analyst says the attorney general's testimonies has the attorney general must resign. why should he resign? he joins us. >> let's begin by explaining that mr. sessions should not have been there to begin with as attorney general. but since president trump values loyalty so much and he happens to create a little cult of personality around ten, mr. sessions, the senator, embattled as a nominee for a federal courtship, he finally got the position. i'm not saying -- let's be clear about this. >> tucker: so what's the point? you're not saying there traders. >> arash: it not at all, far from it. unlike your camp, that called

president obama a muslim from kenya. >> tucker: [laughs] this is the longest windup i've ever heard. >> arash: having said that, having said that, these were grown adult men, most of whom are patriotic americans who thought it would be a good idea to get help from a foreign adversary to get their dialectic because they thought hillary clinton was a nasty woman and she should have never gotten elected president, that's what they did and they will pay for it. >> tucker: they will pay for it, their trials for treason are coming up soon. >> arash: i didn't say treason, don't put words in my mouth. i didn't say treason. absolutely. >> tucker: to have any evidence at all or is this just something that you heard on msnbc and you are repeating? >> arash: if you happen to read newspapers, which is a good thing to do, "new york times," "washington post," or if you read memos, fbi, nsa, you will see that there are 17, 17

intelligence on law enforcement agencies that say, pick up a newspaper and check it out. >> tucker: your blowing my mind. >> arash: you are in the news business, you are no longer in entertainment, -- >> tucker: for my be the weirdest interview i've ever done. to have any evidence that the attorney general of the united states, jeff sessions, at any improper contact with the russian government and that it influenced his views about american policy on russian -- none of that evidence came out in today's testimony, but maybe you are privy to something from the national reconnaissance agency since you were there documents coming aside. >> arash: is not national reconnaissance agency, it's national reconnaissance office, if you ask one of your frat brothers they might send you some literature. here's the thing, if jeff sessions or people like jeff sessions, cushion or people like kushner are not worried about a thing, they should testify, they

should testify openly, they shouldn't invoke the fifth amendment. they should testify, where did they find you? >> arash: he kept talking about how he didn't remember. >> tucker: we are almost out of time. the sands are flying to the hourglass now, but you have any evidence, again, that jeff sessions had improper contact with the russian government and that that in some way influenced his behavior that undercut american interests in favor of russian interests, do you have evidence of that at all? tooth there was a lot of circumstantial evidence that links him to improper behavior, he recused himself, and guess what, here's a line, i know you don't like to read, but here's another line from shakespeare. it's from shakespeare. check this one out, ask one of your frat buddies to send you this book, it's from shakespear shakespeare, we think the lady doth protest too much. >> tucker: what play is that from, do you know? >> arash: you actually should

look that up. it's either macbeth or hamlet. >> tucker: [laughs] >> arash: look it up! >> tucker: very quickly i want to ask you about an exchange that happened today, i don't think you saw the hearings, but here's one exchange that took place between calm tom cotton. >> have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting united states senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded in an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history? >> a.g. sessions: thank you for saying that, it's like through the looking glass. what is this? >> tucker: if a person would collude with a foreign government, a person in authority like a senator over sitting attorney general, that person would be a deeply bad and immoral person, really an evil

person for selling out his own country, is that what you're saying about attorney general jeff sessions? >> arash: the first thing i said coming on your show was i don't think these men are traders, but i think they thought it would be a good idea to get some help from anybody, including a foreign adversary to get their boy elected, but the problem, they will pay for it. we cut democrats in this country, we got republicans, conservatives, you've been on for a long time, you've been around for a long time. the third group of people that are scary and dangerous, and i hope somebody like you -- i have an apple watch. the third group of people are called trompe l'oeil list. if he is creating a cult of personality, it's their responsibility and duty to question that and to bring that down because if you don't do that -- >> tucker: i think our viewers had a pretty good chance to assess your level of knowledge of the story and your views on it. let me ask you now, do you speak to democratic members of the

house or senate about this? do you advise any current democratic officeholders, russia question? >> arash: you would be surprised, it would be surprise surprised, but any conversations i do or don't have with members of congress or people in the intelligence community is confidential. if you want to subpoena me to come to fox, you don't have to -- >> tucker: i'm not suggesting that you be subpoenaed. i don't believe in that. >> arash: i know you're not a lawyer -- i know you're not a lawyer, but let me give you little law 101. you should learn in college that if you want to subpoena someone -- i know you're not a lawyer, but i can give you a little 101, i will send you a bill for that. let me know. >> tucker: i'm afraid were out of time. an amazing conversation that says it all. as for joining us, i guess. the pulse nightclub shooting happened a year ago. up next we will talk about how individual monitoring honorings

of that massacre was hijacked by political activists. we'll talk about that next. think again. this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes.

and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov where are mom and dad? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. love mom and dad' i'm takin' a nap. dude, you just woke up! ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. itit's how well you mow fast. it's not how fast you mow... ...it's how well you mow fast. woooh! it's not how fast you mow ...it's how well you mow fast! it's not how fast you mow ...it's how well you mow fast. they're not just words to mow by, they're words to live by. the john deere ztrak z345r with the accel deep deck to mow faster, better.

save 500 dollars on the z525e ztrak residential mower at your john deere dealer today. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms.

serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. but i keep it growinge at by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet?

>> tucker: yesterday was the one year anniversary of the pulse nightclub massacre in which 18 murdered people in florida. outside the stone wall, the site of a 60s gay rights, it became an anti-gun rally. journalist was there to tell us what happened next. this was supposed to be a vigil for people who died in that massacre, but it became something else? >> reporter: i think most people showed up, the stone wall is sort of the holy site, the equivalent of mecca for muslims, it's where everyone goes when there's a large event that has affected the community, whether

that's tragic or celebratory. it's where people would have instinctively shown up to commemorate the one-year anniversary. what happened was is this far left anti-gun group essentially got the permit, i'm assuming, to hold a rally that they yesterday outside of so long. they were the sponsors of the event. people were coming to mourn, coming to be together to reflect, want to give politics a break instead were being subjected to the sort of anti-gun propaganda, all of the signs, all of the anti-trump-is anti-trump-ism. >> tucker: is that really the message of the murder spree, that guns are bad? >> apparently, according to this group. no reference to islam that i heard whatsoever. trump was the bad guy in the room for whatever reason. trump came to orlando immediately after the shooting, he waited four or five days, president obama. this was about guns and only

guns. >> tucker: i'm sorry to laugh, but isis has bragged -- first of all, they endorsed the killings at the nightclub in orlando because a lot of people who were killed were gate and they said we are glad that all of these people died. they've also bragged about murdering people for being in the territories they hold, none of the people noted that? >> this is sort of a strange phenomenon that when you have a large dense population of leftists, whether it's a college campus or in the sessions stomach gay community, they are loudest and the mentally and emotionally unhinged. bullying everybody to go along in with them. yesterday because i was so personally affected and emotionally affected by the tragedy, i said i'm not posting anything political today. i'm going to post about remembering the victims,

celebrating their lives, but attacking radical islam can wait until tuesday, this group couldn't wait two hours so they subjected everyone who showed up into the radical ideology. most gay people are political, most gay people care about pop music and going to the beach. they probably don't even know what the second amendment is. if they show up to be together to celebrate the community, to mourn together and instead they are just fed the anti-god nonsense. >> tucker: where you think of guns or revenue are on gun control, here's the scoop that hates you, that wants to kill you for who you are and says so out loud and get organizations like this are more angry at chick-fil-a than the art radical islam, i find it inexplicable. why wouldn't you be, i don't know, fighting back against a group that says they want to kill you? >> it is so mind-blowing. it makes no sense whatsoever. it's one of the great bizarre

paradoxes of the left when they are bringing these people, these groups together, you are absolutely right, extreme, radical muslims. they are not fighting sweetheart to bake a cake for a wedding, they want us dead. their philosophy preaches it in the media still won't call it terrorism, "the washington post "the washington post," the washington compost as we call i it, they would not say islam or terrorism in their reporting, it was gun violence, even in "the washington post." >> tucker: it's like they are so ideological that they subvert their own interests, they refused to see what's in their own interest because it is somehow not allowed. >> i seagate, xp people and i know many other people in the left are waking up to this every day at their flame, they are fleeing the left in droves and i think islam, i think radical islam is one of the huge reasons for that, especially for gay

people. they see it makes no sense and they note that the right -- they don't wish us any harm, people on the right. >> tucker: you certainly see that in europe, that's absolutely a trend in europe, the nationalist parties have big support from the gay community. thanks for coming on tonight, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: good to see you. we will have an update on the case of otto warmbier, the sad case. he has finally been returned to his family, his release was announced this morning by the secretary of state rex tillerson, who provided few details about how exactly it happen. unfortunately not all is well, he is in a coma and has reportedly been in one for more than a year. the north koreans say, you cannot trust what they say, that he developed a form of food poisoning and fell into a coma after taking a sleeping pill. if we don't know if that's true. regardless of the circumstances, fred and cindy warmbier have been reunited. we will have an exclusive interview with them tomorrow

about his release. despite the release of otto warmbier, three other americans to remained imprisoned in north korea and they are a nuclear threat to the united states. as the development mean anything for the relations, the former u.s. spokesman at the u.n., he joins us tonight. if rick, what can you tell us about the release of otto warmbier, we don't have a lot of details? >> this is a total win for diplomacy, it's been happening for a while. my sources have told me that specifically rex tillerson brought the case to president trump in the oval office within the first 30 days of president trump taking over and president trump looked at secretary tiller an end said do everything you can, you have the full assets of the u.s. government to get this done. from there if there was a series of diplomacy in norway. we had our diplomats meeting with the swedes who do have a

post inside north korea. if they were allowed to go visit otto. in that meeting is when they were able to confirm to the u.s. diplomats that this was a very serious situation, but he was in a coma. from there we went to what we call the new york channel for all north korea diplomacy, and that's because the north koreans do have a mission for the united nations and so we can meet with them up in new york under the offices of the u.n. setting. u.s. diplomats then met there with the north koreans and the north koreans had come get him. a plane went, a u.s. government claim with the u.s. diplomats landing in north korea, and they took him out. tucker, one thing to note here is that he was released, no taliban prisoners were swapped, no planes full of money were given, this was pure diplomacy by the trump administration.

rex tillerson and donald trump made this a priority. it wasn't a priority under president obama. otto was in a coma for more than a year under the obama presidency and he just lingered there. it's really atrocious and kudos to those who actually believe in diplomacy still. >> tucker: i'm withholding judgment on some of that, i don't think we have all the details and i think there are questions about how the state department under both presidents treated the family, we'll find out a lot more about that tomorrow, but there is the sadness of the case, he is apparently not well and in a coma. what does this mean? >> one thing to add, diplomacy only works if you have the head of the government, the president of the united states making a priority, you can't do other stuff, so if john kerry was fighting for this, we don't know about it because it wasn't a priority from the obama white house. >> tucker: i can say that for certain, having followed the story for a while. it was not a priority for the

obama white house, or for john kerry, and is shameful. does this suggest some changing of relationships between north korea and the united states, why did they do this now, was there some incentive offered and what about the three americans who remain in the country? >> first of all, one thing to know is that the state department actually believes that there are more than three, the media have been reporting three, but we have high suspicion is that there are other americans inside there, too. what this really means for diplomacy is that it's a good day for diplomacy. whenever we are able to talk to the north koreans directly and to take a small step like this and reassure them that we are going to go, pick them up, bring them home and we thank them for this one little thing, it does begin to build some sort of confidence. we got a long way to go because the north koreans are not irrational government.

and we know that they've been trying to put the pieces together for nuclear program. we got some very serious and tough issues faced before us. but the new york channel when it comes to diplomacy, utilizing that new york channel is a very good thing. >> tucker: it's a disgusting government run by monsters and they hurt this boy and they let him anguish and a coma for over a year and you would love for there to be some way to punish them for that, really punish them, but the probably isn't one, is there? >> i think there's a whole list of things the north koreans should be punished for, this is one of them, absolutely. i do think that the special relationship that donald trump is pushing with the chinese on, we have seen some action from the chinese when it comes to north korea diplomacy, unlike any other time, i do think that we can do more to push the chinese, we haven't considered banking stations, some of the really tough sections that would get the chinese government's

attention. i think that we showed, i think that we should have the full tool belt, so to speak of the u.s. government at the disposal because this is a very serious issue, not because of just otto, but certainly because they are a threat and they have a motive to commit the united states, and they're trying to get the tools to send a missile our way. i think what we must do is make this a top priority with the chinese. we haven't done that enough. >> tucker: you can't hurt american citizens with impunity, or else why have u.s. government to mark thanks for joining us, great to see you tonight. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: tomorrow at 8:00 we will have an interview with fred and cindy warmbier. many more details on the story tomorrow. mark ruffalo said msnbc hires way too many people from a certain group. our panel will discuss the latest start on the hollywood walk of shame, an amazing story up next.

hey. pass please. i'm here to fix the elevator. nothing's wrong with the elevator. right. but you want to fix it. right. so who sent you? new guy. what new guy? watson. my analysis of sensor and maintenance data indicates elevator 3 will malfunction in 2 days. there you go. you still need a pass. you need one of these. you wouldn't put up with an umbrella that covers you part way, so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day?

aleve, live whole not part. tell you what, i'll give it to you for half off. ♪ dynamic performance, so you can own the road. track-tuned handling, so you can conquer corners. aggressive-styling, so you can break away from everyone else. experience the exhilaration of the bold lexus is.

experience amazing.

>> tucker: time for our weekly look at the intersection of politics and hollywood. that's an intersection you should never go to. our first topic tonight is a guy called mark ruffalo thinks that too many conservatives and nbc. something you never thought before. calling nbc to stop "promoting right wing hate." he told msnbc news to stop the white conservative hiring spree. our panelists tonight, ashley pratt, and lisa boothe of the "washington examiner." they are both is saying.

>> i didn't know that msnbc or nbc could be the mouthpiece for right ring conservatives. i'm kind of blown away by that one. this actor has a fascination with diversity, and yet he doesn't want diversity of opinion on the network, which makes no sense at all. with that said, celebrities like him and leonardo dicaprio who come out for climate change activism but still fly in their private jets, hypocrisy everywhere. >> tucker: their assistance thing on the left a lot that is like, down with white people, as said by white person to show that he is the hippest man in brooklyn. but when you start saying don't hire people on the basis of their skin color -- >> exactly. as ashley pointed out, this guy is a bernie sanders supporter. other progressive is trying to shut down diversity of thought or opinion, but also, back to the main point, i wasn't aware

that msnbc was on some sort of conservative hiring spree. this network is known for not having many conservatives, especially to those speaking to to those whose views are on the left. it's that basic hypocrisy that we always see from these types of folks. >> wow >> tucker: i have no idea what mark ruffalo is talking about. all right, next topic. apparently oliver stone has not been keeping up on the right opinions. just finished up a document on vladimir putin, and found himself grilled on expectedly by stephen colbert and ridiculed by the studio audience. watch this. >> he never really says anything bad about anybody. he's been through a lot, and he's been insulted and abused. i didn't sense any kind of -- abused in the press and the media. no question, he's a social

conservative. he believes -- i don't know why you are laughing. >> because that's like a milder description of him. that's what i laughing. anything about him, negative that you found? >> tucker: oliver stone is so old that he has come all the way around and become unfashionable with the left. he never thought that was going to happen. it's a little weird to see oliver stone booed by a liberal audience. >> it's weird for stephen colbert to be blown away by something. that was the weirdest dynamic. he comes out and some pretty much says that this was a softball interview, and you have oliver stone saying, we had to give him his space. this is a two-year deal and he is a busy man. you have a few minutes to sit down with the leader of russia, who right now as we look at our political climate on what's going on and the investigations, this is a serious interview. it could have been won, instead

he takes the opportunity to just ask him softball questions and say thank you with no follow-up. it's mind-blowing. >> tucker: it was 20 hours, he cut it down to four. >> what do people expect them to ask? they think they were going to get something of substance from vladimir putin? do you kill journalist? i'm glad you asked that questio question. >> megyn kelly had the opposite approach, trying to do any forceful interview. she got nothing from him. this is the same person that george w. bush thought he could see into his soul and president obama tried to reset relations with. the point of this interview series, my understanding, is that the documentary is to try to get some insight into the way he thinks, and i think it got that goal. but -- >> tucker: it's weird, because oliver stone has interviewed a lot of dictators.

i doubt he would be criticized by anyone on the left for that. we are talking oliver stone, by the way, i think tomorrow night on this show. >> do you think stephen colbert stephen colbert's question to him, do you have your dog in the case? >> come . >> tucker: we will be back live at 11. this shows the sworn enemy of lying hypocrisy smugness and groupthink. we will see you soon. next up, our friends from "the five." tomorrow, an interview with the warmbier's on their son returning to the united states. see you at 11:00.

>> dana: hello everyone i'm dana perino, along with. it's 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five." more high drama on capitol hill today as attorney general jeff sessions testifies under oath before the senate intelligence committee and push back hard against any suggestion he was colluding with the russians. >> let me state this clearly, colleagues. i have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with