confront russia? go to facebook .com. let us know what you think. that is is all the time we have left. remember the show, always fair, always balanced, we'll see you back here tomorrow night.

says this, says that. >> tucker: the ratings are incredible. never mind that the core story is untrue or that it's a distraction from an important event that's actually taking place in the world. or that maybe most importantly it is hamstringing our foreign policy to the point where america's vital interests are suffering as a result. who cares? it's ratings gold. it's all that matters. cnn president actually ordered his reporters to get off real news and back to russia because hey, the cash cow. >> so my boss -- i shouldn't say this, but my boss yesterday, we were having a discussion, he said i just wanted to know what we are up against here.

to give you some context, president trump pulled out of the climate accord, we covered the climate accord, he said good job everybody covering climate accord. but we are done with that. let's get back to russia. >> the ceo? >> yes. even the climate of courts he was like, okay, a day or so, we are moving back to russia. >> tucker: good luck explaining something complicate like science. in case you're wondering if the tapes it was real, we should say that cnn is not even contesting its veracity or backing away. real news obligation might have an obligation to explain itself. not cnn. instead they issued a statement briefly in support of the producer in question appeared here's what it says. "diversity of personal opinion is what makes cnn strong, and we

welcome and embrace it." of course, diversity. say the word five times and all is forgiven. it's like magic. the equivalent of the witches spell. the irony, though, of course, diversity of thought is exactly what is missing in the american media at this moment. almost every reporter in washington is on the russia story. those who defend are attacked as collaborators, clambering out there with trump or with let me put in himself. the result is to make everyone in the press dumber and more credulous. cnn had to fire three of its reporters after they published a bogus story trying to link a trump associate with the russian government. the piece was wrong, poorly sourced, and puffy. no other american news outlets caught it. in the end, that story was exposed by something called sputnik news. that the company owned by the russian government, ironically. where were the watchdogs in our own press? they were hypnotized by their own preconceptions.

the story confirms their vices, therefore it has to be truth, even when it wasn't. it's not just cnn. in december of "the washington post" claimed that russian intelligence had literally hacked our power grid in this country. that story was totally false in every detail. they published it anyway. slate.com or in a piece claiming that the trump organization had a secret server connection to russia. that turned out to be false, published anyway. even reliable old c-span, the straightforward news outlet, but it still got cut up for just a second and the red scare. in january they claim to have been hacked by the russian media. that never happened. part of this is just hysteria. at the moment when you convince yourself that the monster is under your bed are real. part of it is more sinister. it's a conscious decision to tell your viewers what they want to hear, even when you know the core story is wrong. it's called corruption. and it's happening in these tapes. joe writes about this for the hill, and he joins us tonight. this seems like a crisis point

for that network. mrs. back-to-back, two vivid >> i don't think you are engaging in hyperbole. these last two stories that cnn got wrong. the first couple weeks ago with james comey supposed to refute donald trump when donald trump said i'm not being investigated. james comey told me that three times. that story was wrong. i don't mind when you get it wrong, tucker. but the problem is, thinly sourced as an only one source. how many reporters are on the byline of that story? four. that's a four to one reporter to source ratio. you have the story just from couple days ago, same thing. a pulitzer winner is working on that story along with two other others. one source, three reporters. three to one ratio. to go to bat with just one unnamed source -- and again, we don't know that sources motive. it's probably to hurt the administration.

they may have a motivation to live. to go with one source, cnn got burned once, they should have learned. they get burned twice, people resign. i don't think a crisis point is engaging in any sort of hysteria. i think you are right on. >> tucker: all the mistakes are in one direction. we all make mistakes. i've made a ton of them. we hope that they are honest mistakes. what bothers me about the story is its preventing coverage of anything else. if you dislike trump and rip demonstration, there are plenty of stories that you can do to be critical of the white house. but they are sticking with the story they know. the producers notes bogus, and they stick with it because it makes the money. that's wrong. >> its preventing from reporting on other stories. mrc, i get that they are conservative, but nobody refutes their analysis. they come up with this today, stunning numbers. 353 minutes on the evening news cast since may 17th have been committed to russia or comey investigation. in a home may minutes have been actually dedicated to terrorism,

a very important topic. 29 it's. 353 versus 29. how about the economy. a number one issue that people vote on. how donald trump probably got into office considering michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania. hillary clinton didn't have that message. five whole minutes. trade? five whole minutes. you're saying were missing were other stories? you are right we are. >> tucker: it seems like their narrowcast into a small group of people that have eccentric views on russia, and they've decided this is our base and our advertising rates are going up as a result. they are getting big numbers relative to what they normally get after an election. this really is a business decision. >> let's be clear about that. cnn last quarter had its second-highest watch quarter ever. congratulations. here's the problem. all other cable news network's are up as well, and cnn despite being up year over year, they are in a distant third place in terms of total viewers in prime, and they are in third place in

terms of this younger demographic that advertisers covet most. i want to quote chris murphy. he is a senator from connecticut. he is a democratic senator. he takes the bus home sometimes, because he wants to talk to people that don't go to political rallies. just regular people that maybe aren't as involved with politics. but they still care. here's what he says. he says normally people don't call my office, don't write my office. i go on the bus and talk to them. i will say that they are never talking about issues like russia. they are not talking about what's on cable news and night. they are talking about wages, education, and public safety. let's take a cue from a democratic senator saying let's move on and let's talk about issues that people actually care about and want to be educated on. >> tucker: is one of those weird ruling class obsessions. excellent for that, joe. cnn isn't just having problem's with its narrative. it is having trouble with elementary concepts like raise your hand and wait your turn

before speaking. they ignore those rules, and rudely interrupted the press secretary. a judge for yourself. >> why don't you turn them on? tell us why you turn the cameras off? it's a legitimate question. can you give an ex-clinician as to why the cameras are off? >> tucker: after that, he went on cnn complained about being ignored. >> sean spicer has refused to take questions from cnn for weeks now. it has been going on for some time. he may have taken a question here or there over the last few weeks, but we've largely been blackballed over these briefings. we are not getting questions to the white house. that would not have happened in previous at ministrations. >> tucker: really kind of --dash brit hume spent a lot of time pit he is our senior

political analyst. i like an aggressive white house correspondent. even kind of a crazed aggressive. but the description of the turning off the cameras as like the end of democracy seems like maybe it calls for some perspective. >> i would say so, because i can a member during the clinton and administration and previous administrations as well when on camera briefings were not the norm. clinton administration try to for a while, didn't like the results, and went to a system where they would have some cameras on and microphones on at the top, that would be shut down and the rest of the briefing would proceed. remember this, no reporter for a news organization is sizable and important as cnn should be relying on the briefings to get news. >> tucker: good point. >> they can get their calls returned. "new york times" ," "washington post," fox news, we would get our returns, calls returned. the briefing is really there for the smaller organizations.

to get a question, could have answered, and learn with the schedule for the day is in the rest of it. if you had a really good question that really lead somewhere, you'd never ask it at the briefing. you don't want to inform the entire rest of the press corps what you are working on. >> tucker: its theater. you were there for a long time, "abc news." did you go every day? >> most of the time the briefings aren't helpful under any of administration. the best press secretary in my time was there for reagan and bush, but a lot of times they aren't informative. i usually had a crossword puzzle in front of me. in the clinton administration they got so uninformative that i didn't even go. i was in a booth in the back, i could hear, but i was busy with other things. these briefings have become a certain kind of tv drama. if they are not for the purpose of information, and no good reporter worth his or her salt would rely on the briefings. >> tucker: just for the record, the changes in the way

this white house is presenting the news to the press corps, do they seem out of line with you in general? >> i don't know what the day-to-day experience of reporters on the beat is, because i'm not there anymore. but the situation with the briefings seems like a sideshow. the real question is, there's something called the pool, which is a subset of the press corps echoes with the president because the white house is a small place, airplane is a small place, you can't take everybody and have time following the president everywhere. it's a good question whether the pool is getting the access it wants. i understand the president leaves them behind sometimes. i think that's regrettable. there's no inconvenience to the president to having a group of reporters in tow, it's not as if they get that barge and a social offense or join him on the golf course. we will see about that. by and large i don't think anything terribly draconian seems to be happening in the press freedom of america. >> tucker: my final question.

when you cover the white house from the briefing room and there are cameras present and you are a tv reporter, how powerful is a temptation to make it about you? >> well, it's a must be resisted because -- you don't want to advertise your best question. and i guess in this hothouse atmosphere with this antipathy towards the president as strong as it is now, it's a virtue signal to ask tough questions at the briefing. it seems to me, there's no reason to beat up on the briefer. if you want to ask tough questions, ask the president. >> tucker: or call the guy. because they will take the call. >> they will take the call. i asked the question in a press conference in the rose garden on time, ruth bader ginsburg nomination announcement, and president clinton had catherine on process were the white house,

had to go through, finally settled on ginsburg. my question was a zigzag process paid i asked the question very politely that suggested the people sought as a zigzag process, and asked if he cares to disabuse that notion. he got furious, the seller or tory event, these type of things can happen. i didn't do it a grandstand, it was just a question on everybody's mind. shouldn't ask questions to grandstand, used as questions because you want to know the answer. >> tucker: that was provocative, it shows you how far we have come. enke. >> you bet, tucker. one russian hacking supposedly the graded democrats threat since the second world war, and wearily we now know that the less president did nothing to do that.

last month, students got violent preventing charles murphy from speaking the part he has not spoken on elevation since then. we're going to talk to him tonight. tonight. just

tonight. just for years, centurylink has been promising fast internet to small businesses. but for many businesses, it's out of reach. why promise something you can't deliver? comcast business is different. ♪ ♪ we deliver super-fast internet with speeds of 250 megabits per second

across our entire network, to more companies, in more locations, than centurylink. we do business where you do business. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: the press and the democratic party of spent months telling us about how russian hacking altered the american election. it was an act of war. this isn't based on any new revelations following november 6. russia's behavior was known last october, and back then here's what the then president barack obama had to say about the threat to the integrity of the election. watch. >> there is no serious person

out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig america's elections. in part because they are so decentralized. and the number of votes involved. there's no evidence that that has happened in the past. or that there are instances in which that will happen this tim time. and so i did advise mr. trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. >> tucker: every night i think god for the geniuses in our tape library and their long memories. because it's so nice to be reminded what actually happened. what changed? the facts, or the reality of the democratic party? tonight's reality check, he joins us tonight. richard, you heard the former president say that you'd have to be in idiot to think that russia could alter the election. he didn't seem concerned in the slightest, probably because he

knew his party would remain in power. >> tucker, i think the single most thing that has come up during this whole russia talk was james comey saying not once in the nine times he talked to donald trump did trump ever ask about what happened with russia. it's reminiscent of oj not asking the police what happened to nicole. i don't know -- >> tucker: see were the last person in d.c. that believes president trump is colluding with russia? >> what i believe is testimony we need taken publicly -- so the suggestion we should move on. move on with the tables of turn. >> tucker: i'm here to ask you, shouldn't president obama be among the people whose testimony we hear? >> share. i bet you are going to hear anything, agonized over, which is look, he told lender put in face-to-face knock it off, we can debate whether that had any

effect or not. the intelligence agencies had mistake of coming out with their conclusion that the russians were trying to metal on the day of the excess hollywood types. poor timing. >> tucker: you can article simultaneously as big a deal as 9/11 or pearl harbor as a number of democrats have said. at the same time, argue that it's not a big deal as president obama argued at that tape in october of the election year. if this was really going on, why the hill that may do anything about a question mark what i need tell the public about it? why would he lie about it in the way that he just did? >> the effect of the matter is that there is a hypocrisy, you have to confess, with donald trump basically receiving stolen goods. >> tucker: that's fine, but answer my question. why wouldn't president obama, the president of the president of the united states, you're very spun up about this information, why did he withhold that from the public?

>> i think the evidence is that he did. talk with anybody in that group on capitol hill, the evidence was presented to them. >> tucker: the secretary of state in the majority of states had never heard anything from the administration. you just saw the tape where he said look, there is no way this is a problem. calm down. how could both things be true the same time? >> my forecast is that he is put under oath and asked to testify, that he and others will say that they engaged in an unprecedented -- >> tucker: why wouldn't they tell us about it? >> they were on the dilemma you imagine, that he would've said that trumps narrative about things being ready to -- look, the cover of "the new york times" -- >> tucker: we are at war, a act of war was committed, but he lied about it because it might've helped the other party. i can imagine a more disloyal thing. an act of war is not a political act, everybody deserves to know about it. >> and should he in retrospect have said more? one could make the case -- for

the reasons he said, because it looked like hillary was going to -- >> tucker: because it would help trump. he only cared about remaining in power. >> may have helped hillary you mean? >> tucker: he believed that hillary was going to win no matter what, so was that big a deal that the american democracy was being subverted. >> thought it was a hugely big deal. >> tucker: why didn't he tell us? >> he was convinced she would win, and it would be dealt with after the fact. >> tucker: you just admitted something profound and profoundly, you are saying political considerations drove the way he presented this act of war to the public. he was supposed to be leading. speak out now, the overriding consideration for the president is the integrity of the u.s. election. i think he thought that the integrity would have been challenged by donald trump, who was out there time after time talking about this thing being. >> tucker: what about the 320 million of us? we have a right to know we are under attack >> the fact of the matter is, in retrospect when

people are now quoted as saying they pollute, the public did have a right to know. that was a call that obama made that was not an illegitimate one. >> tucker: do want to know the real answer? they didn't hack our election. this amounted to nothing. this whole thing is hype and silliness concocted by the hillary campaign to explain their unexpected loss. there is no evidence. >> have you had this conversation -- the fact of the matter is, two 21 they think the russians were out to help trump and hurt hillary. that's true. >> tucker: i've become something of an expert. >> millions of postings on facebook, one year of the other, you don't know as much about communication as you think you do. >> tucker: oh, richard. thank you for joining. >> we will both be enlightened, as this investigation goes on. >> tucker: i hope so. up next.

that was charles murray onstage trying to speak. couldn't. at a college in vermont. he will be here to give his first televised interview since he was chased off people would ask me in different countries that we traveled, what is your nationality and i would always answer hispanic. so when i got my ancestry dna results it was a shocker. i'm everything. i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder what do i mark? because i'm everything. and i marked other. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.

you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> tucker: an investigation has revealed that high-profile anti-muslim hate crime in milwaukee is anything but a hate crime. on april 10th of this year, a 68-year-old woman was attacked by while leaving a prayer service. even though police didn't really make an arrest and still haven't, in fact, it was immediately denounced as a hate crime by at least one local official as well as many pro-muslim organizations, including the council on american islamic relations. which vocal it announced that the trumpet ministrations failure to respond to the attack. according to the actual police report, which nobody bothered to read, the victim of the attack repeatedly denied it was a hate crime. instead she believe the attack was related to behavior of her daughter who recently left her

husband to enter a relationship with another woman. she disapproves of her same relationship, and believed in this disapproval may have somehow provoked the attack. it's complex, but it's not what it was represented as. there've been a lot of bogus hate crimes since the election, which covered several. but this is a new low. activist groups with an agenda making up a hate crime even as the supposed victim actively denies it is a hate crime. she supports president trump's travel ban, and she joins us now. things let for joining us. to the hate crime question, it does seem like there was this spat of hate crimes reported against american muslims, and to the extent that we have looked into any of them, some perhaps a real, some are real. but it does seem like there's a political agenda behind the reporting of these so-called crimes. have you noticed this? >> yes, i have noticed that.

anytime there is a hate crime against any group we have to speak out, because that is definitely not acceptable. racism and bigotry are unacceptable. in this particular case, the victim consistently said that this was not based on her religion, and it was a personal issue. as you mentioned with her daughter. organizations that we know love to play the victim card, they love to promote this idea that there is rampant in islamic phobia and that muslims are being bashed in the streets of the united states. that's another extreme. we have to speak out when there is hate, but when that is not the intention and when that is not the true cause, then waved to be very cautious of the kind of messaging that they are putting across. >> tucker: yes. lying is always bad. you've been a rare voice as a muslim in the support, or in the qualified support of the so-called travel ban.

why? >> i call it a moratorium, which is a temporary stoppage, because five of the countries which i mentioned our failed states. iran, has been a perpetual war with united states, but the other five, our failed states. they have internal conflicts, radicalization, and they could come at any moment. they are a threat. as a cautionary measure, it made sense to stop immigration from those countries until the national security of the country can be sorted out. in the longer, larger interest of national security to actually implement this moratorium. >> tucker: it seems like -- i don't even understand this argument. but tell me if you have heard it. maybe you can explain. people are saying on the left that this temporary travel ban would somehow make this country more dangerous, would imperil us more. do you believe there is any merit to that argument? >> no, i don't.

these -- those people that have knee-jerk reactions. it is being done to actively strengthen the national security of the country because we only have to look back at this last year and see the number of attacks that have taken place. obviously there is a problem out there of radical islamist terrorism, and that has to be addressed. especially those people that say that this is about religion. it's not. i am up practicing, observing muslim. it is about the region and not religion. i support the ban because it sends a very strong message to those countries that want to ship their terrorists to the west. >> tucker: so really quickly, why would people attack this ban so vehemently. people on the left, upset, emotional about it, -- >> because they have an emotional reaction against the man, not against the vision and the office of the president who

has every right to implement policies for the betterment of the country and the people of america, which includes muslims. they have to be more sensible instead of having these emotional, knee-jerk reactions, exactly as you said. no matter what he says or does, there's going to be this emotional reaction. we need to take a step back, we need to ink reasonably and logically and understand that this is for our benefit. >> tucker: boy, you must get into some pretty intense exchanges at dinner parties. i wish i was there. thank you very much for that. >> i wish you were a fly on the wall. he would love it. >> tucker: i think i would. thank you for joining us. stevie wonder is, of course, a cultural icon. greatest singers of all time. he had some tough words for the black lives meadows moment. was he right or deeply misguided. we have a panel to debate that when i first started working with capital one, my dad called them up and asked for "the jennifer garner card" which is such a dad thing to do. after he gave his name the woman from capital one said

"mr. garner, are you related to jennifer?" kind of joking with him. and my dad was so proud to tell her, "as a matter of fact, she is my middle daughter". so now dad has the venture card, he's earning his double miles, and he made a friend at the company. can i say it? go ahead! what's in your wallet? nice job dad. 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.

>> tucker: stevie wonder is not impressed by the black lives matter movement. while speaking an antigun violence event in north minneapolis last week, he said this. >> stop all the killing, the shooting, however it might be. because you cannot say black lives matter and then kill yourselves. we've mattered long before it was said, but the way we show that we matter, the way that we show all the various people of color matter is by loving each other and doing something about it, not just talking about it. >> tucker: does stevie wonder have a point? kevin jackson, a radio show host, author, and critical.

if stevie wonder is a traitor to the civil rights movement, i give up. >> don't give up just yet. number one, stevie wonder is a musical genius, a wonderful guy, a great musician. i just don't think his point hit home. i don't think anybody is saying that black lives don't matter, that it's okay to kill other black people, that the folks who have the money to show up to a stevie wonder event are those who he would be talking to. i think that this is just rhetoric that you hear sometimes that's just not true. >> tucker: here's the part that struck me as true. there is no excuse for police brutality or unjustified shootings. but by the numbers, people are much more likely in every community to be killed by somebody within the community than they are by a cop. it seems like a fair point to me. >> are talking about white on white crime? >> tucker: you can't be

against just a certain kind of violence. >> and of course, the black lives matter movement, it quickly comes back to, well mexicans kill mexican, puerto rican scope organs, whites kill whites. that's true. but blacks still kill more people -- a higher number as a percentage, we kill more blacks within our own culture, and number two, per capita we kill more black people than white people when you look as a pretense to the population. again, to stevie's point, you can't be talking about black lives matter and trying again said that they for a cause when you are killing each other in those record numbers, and when, unfortunately, something like 6% of the people, these young black thugs are killing most 50% of the people in the country as well. >> tucker: that seems like the truth. >> it is, i completely agree. if these numbers are facts. the point is that i think stevie misspoke. >> tucker: by telling the truth? >> no.

he didn't misspeak by telling the truth, the point is -- kevin you make it very good point, look. crime is bad. black crime, if we are only looking at black crime and not talking about white crime for the moment of this conversation, we have to get a handle on all violence. we have to talk about how to make it so that it's more lucrative to go and get a job. let's make jobs available so that it's not more advantageous to gang bang and be in a gang. >> we are missing the point, he's making a point that -- look, this is a guy that is been forced not to look at color his entire life. >> literally. >> and is looking at the content of character. he is warning blacks, you can't go out and advocate that we've got a special thing that allows us to say black lives matter will be mad at people that say all lives matter and tried to split hairs on what that means. almost making that sound racist. when in fact, you are out killing people in droves.

i think the bigger point that i see, tucker, is that stevie wonder got a lot of grief over that and backtracked on that comment the same way that cosby backtracked, and other things that happen in the black mainly. when you speak out like this, you catch a lot of grief. and that's why a lot of blacks who feel identically about what we are talking about here won't speak out. black lives do matter. all lives matter. but if you can't stop killing yourself, it's tough to make a point. >> tucker: let me just get right to the heart of the question. if you write a song as good as boogie on reggae woman, is by definition everything -- everything you say is right? >> i'm more partial >> boogie on -- an american icon. >> tucker: that trumps the the argument. he has already won. >> he is one with the music behind it. take the music away. >> what about music for the cit

city? where he actually talks about -- >> if you make it advantageous, he never would've gotten -- >> tucker: as soon as we got the song list, your argument evaporate in. >> i'm glad to be here. things are have me. black lives do matter. the one this week we've got our first good look at how new corsets will behave. what's the verdict. that's next.

>> tucker: one of president trump's first acts as president was the nomination of neil gorsuch to take over in the supreme court. a big decision, thousands maybe even millions were skeptical.

you may know people who didn't, there were a lot of them. how did that pick turn out? an article published in yesterday on slate.com is illuminating. "neil gorsuch is everything liberals feared and more. on monday, justice gorsuch revealed himself to be everything, pro-gun, pro-travel ban, certainly more conservativ conservative, and possibly to the right of justice thomas. he is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project that he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades. this country is in terrible trouble." it's only been a few months, but it sounds like the president has made an inspired choice, one that short-circuits the progressive constitutional project, whatever that was. that is about it for us. tune in every night at eight for the show that as the sworn enemy of lancome pomposity, we will be

back tomorrow, but first "the five" from new york city. have a great night. >> hello buddy, i'm jesse watters, greg gutfeld, eric bolling. it is 9:00 in new york city, and this is "the five" ." what did he know and when he know it? that's the question many are asking about president obama after the bombshell report last night about how back in october, mr. obama said it was basically impossible to rig the presidential election. obama said this despite learning in august that russia was in the midst of a sophisticated cyber campaign aimed at influencing the election.