next. >> tucker: welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." an illegal alien from el salvador getting a six-figure payout from taxpayers current c of the city of san francisco. like many places in california, san francisco is a sanctuary city who privileges to turn illegal immigrants over to the feds for deportation. pedro figaro is an illegal alien from el salvador saying police reported him when he visited a police station two years ago. he sued the city after that and this week officials agreed to pay him $190,000, for the indignity of having the law enforced against him in a

country he is not supposed to be hidden. keep in mind that's more than doubled san francisco's median household income. the moral, crime pays in san francisco. roberto hernandez is an immigration activist in that city and he joins us tonight. inkster coming on. so, here's someone who was in this country illegally and he sues because the country enforced its own laws against him legally and then gets paid by the taxpayers of that country. is there another place in a world where that happens? >> first of all, let's talk about the failure of this country to do immigration refor reform. spoon first were talking about about -- >> that's why, san francisco. >> tucker: does that happen anywhere else? >> no. but san francisco had to create its own sanctuary loft because of the failure of the federal government.

so, can you imagine that a lot is passed and for two months. get incarcerated for showing up to the police department to reclaim your stolen car, because that's what he did, correct? >> tucker: he was in the country illegally. the theft of his car was one crime but he had committed a crime himself by being here illegally. the police turn them over to the feds who wanted him and now the city is paying him for enforcing american law, and i'm just noting the obvious, which is, that's insane. you shouldn't pay a criminal for breaking the law and that's what san francisco is doing. >> but san francisco has a sanctuary law, correct? that law was enacted because the federal government failed to do reform for immigration. congress fails, the senate failed, clinton failed, bush failed, obama fails.

so san francisco, being san francisco make sure that it protected those immigrants. >> tucker: they failed to pass laws that you like but our current immigration laws were passed by democrats and republicans in the congress of the united states, in washington. the system work is it supposed to work. people voted on these laws. republicans didn't do this, democrats did it too, and if it's the law. if you don't like it then you go and need to elect people who will change it but until you do that, you can't ignore the law. that's how the system works. >> again, the united states has been involved in wars in el salvador, correct? he's from el salvador. the united states was involved in the war in el salvador, supported that war and then after that were it was carter and ragan and all the presidents after that that welcomed people from el salvador and nicaragua and guatemala to come here as

refugees. >> tucker: but he didn't come here as a refugee. he's here illegally. he does not have legal status in the country. my question is what is this justified the people who came here. >> a lot of people who came here as refugees don't have that. why does this just apply to illegal aliens? why don't i benefit from this? if i'm wanted for tax evasion in another state and the san francisco police turn me over to the feds, why shouldn't i be able to sue the city of san francisco for cooperating with the federal authorities? why only illegal aliens with this privilege? >> it's the law. spoon what is in it protect american citizens. if i go to the open arms of san francisco as a tax fugitive, why are you protecting me? why just illegals? i don't understand. >> but he didn't commit a crime.

he's living in a city that has a sanctuary law that protects him. the one as of right now it's a component of a larger country which has control of its borders. san francisco does it make immigration policies with the federal government does. you're dodging my question. where are we extending these privileges only to illegal aliens are not to me, an american citizen, who would like to violate a law and hide out in your city? >> but you are protected protected. look at the sheriff from arizona. the sheriff from arizona, currently isn't he being charged in a criminal case because he violated the law? >> san francisco says that one group of people does not have to follow federal law. illegal aliens. but it doesn't extend that protection. san francisco has no other laws and i'm aware of that say to actual americans you don't have to obey this or that federal law

only illegal aliens and that strikes me as discriminatory. why do i not benefit, as long as you guys aren't ignoring the law, why only doing so on behalf of illegal aliens and on behalf of citizens? >> you're from san francisco. we are different. we are progressive. we think differently. we are leaders when it comes to being humanitarians. >> tucker: but where are you helping me. >> we started to marry people the rest of the country follow. we created sanctuary laws. it's when your federal government, they need to create laws. spoon what he think that other countries don't do this?

if i go to mexico and i get put in a longer term, why can't i see the mexican government for being mean to me and expect mexican taxpayers to pay me for the indignity of having mexican law enforced? >> you want to go to mexico? how many people live in mexico that are not legal citizens that are white? that come from the united states? check out those statistics. >> not probably very many. good luck out there. >> thank you. what we heard from san francisco a lot to be highlighting the need to focus on the immigration crisis which is real and bizarre and hurting people. but instead another news cycle has been consumed by trumps twitter habits has politicians in the press continue their

meltdown over his attack on the host of msnbc's morning joe. texas congresswoman sheila jackson didn't even bother to deny what he tweeted is true. she took that as an insult to crazy dumb people everywhere. watch. >> when you began to utilize, again the diminishing of those who have mental health needs, psycho joe, or low iq mika. >> tucker: wait a second. it doesn't sheila jackson have her own history of denigrating people with mental health needs? there was a time a few years ago when her staff told reporters that she, the suddenly sensitive congresswoman from houston referred to them as foolish and stupid and morons. [laughter] not to mention a number of other things we can't repeat on television. different context, i guess. not like with trump or it's an

attack on the disabled. msnbc booked a shrink to sorted out good she's never met the president but that doesn't mean she can't diagnose him as mentally ill. she's pretty sure those tweets were a sign that he could be a highly dangerous man. emphasis, of course come on man. speak up for me in terms of looking at his mental health, which i can't totally commentate on. i've obviously never treated him, although he's free to call me if he needs to and i think he does. but i would say that under times of stress people do compensate and when men compensate in particular they have impulse control issues. so that is what is concerning to me and they lash out, usually with violence or with this type of harassment. spoon can't commentate but did. congressman keith ellison said the president shouldn't even be allowed to speak on social medi media. >> i personally think that twitter should treat him just like any other social media

harasser and suspend his accoun account. spoon when you're rude to people on twitter that crosses a line and we need to silence you, but hold on. what about the roughly 80% of twitter users who are routinely rude to other people on twitter? will that's different. it's an entirely different thing. meanwhile, over at cnn the conversation lingered on his sexism. not but sexism, because when you criticize someone's appearance, it's sexist unless it's his hair or his weight or his skin color in which case it's funny. but when you do it to a woman that is sexist unless it's a woman you disagree with politically in which case it's just the truth and frankly pretty hilarious or whatever. >> what kind of impact do you think these type of sexist attacks on female anchors, for example, not the first time he's done this, will have on your own party, your republican party's reputation? >> there it is. he was rude to mika so it's a

sexist political party now. the whole g.o.p. is irredeemably sexist including the majority of married women who voted for. a sexist. everyone. former admit has thought a lot about this whole thing. the tweets in the sexism and frankly, he's just mad. furious, actually, on behalf of women everywhere. here's donnie's view of it. >> he is a pig. he's a vulgar pig. he's physically disgusting to look at. that's what i find ironic about the way he starts to always go after other people's physical attributes. he's not mentally okay. we have to start paying attention to this. he's disgusting to look at. i know everybody's gonna say -- >> on so many levels -- quote >> what's ironic is enough is enough with this disgusting, vulgar man. >> tucker: did you hear that, america? no wonder the muslim world dislikes donald trump so much, he's not even human. he's an animal animal with

cloven hooves. he hates women. we'll tell you who's not going to stand this, not for one minute. donny deutsch, that's who. he'll settle this thing once and for all the way they do it back in the old country in the mean streets of queens and the outer boroughs with their fists, like men, between stickball games in front at the candy store. just you and me, tough guy. >> donald, if you're watching, wherefrom queens brit i'll meet you in the schoolyard, brother. >> okay... >> no, no, no. >> we want to take it out of the schoolyard. >> i don't want to. >> tucker: has settled down. it's just twitter. [laughter] john daniel davidson is a senior correspondent of the federalist and he joins us now. so john, it seems to me that this is the single greatest thing that has happened to cable

news. nothing allows anchors to feel as virtuous quite as virtuous as it while donald trump tweets. >> when the media reacts this way it just confirms his criticism of the media to all his supporters. it's embarrassing to the media who should be focused on the important issues that they were talking about earlier. there's a health care bill debated right now. that's not to say that he should be tweeting. i want to be clear. he probably shouldn't tweets. when he does, he sorta provokes this overreaction on the part of not just the media but democrats and i think that they think they are really getting him. they think that they are really adding the best of him when they act like this. i wish somebody would pull them aside and tell them that it's

not having the effects they think it's having. >> tucker: i think on some level they love it. it's like christmas and new year's and your birthday rolled into them because the subtext of this criticism, and i agree with you, some of the criticism is valid. he shouldn't be tweeting. the subject of their criticism is a great person. i'm tough. i'd beat you up if i could. they're holding back but i get if i could. it's like, they love it. >> it's a combination of insufferable moral preening with this schoolyard naturalness and it's all put on, as well. these are not courageous people that were talking about here because as you noted earlier, their very willing to have this double standard when it comes to republican women. think of all the women that have been a part of g.o.p. administrations in the past. condoleezza rice. the treatment that sarah palin got into thousand eight.

for the media to cry foul when they are willing to turn a blind eye every time a republican woman is trashed by other members of the medium is a little rich. >> tucker: i could add a lot to the observation but you're absolutely right. these are not the people who should be making that claim at all. i like a lot of them, actually. they are nice people. i wonder if there is a kind of method behind this. my instinct when i saw these tweets was the president got mad and wrote this. they're attacking him and he gets mad and that's how the white house explains it but i wonder if there is a strategic element to this. >> i think probably from a business standpoint they think that it makes for good television. that's a lot of what these shows are about. i think that they think it will cast them as sort of the heroic role against a villain in the white house so it's a chance for them to get this kind of controversy and battle and not have to talk about really

complicated, really thorny issues that are effecting our national life right now like health care or immigration. >> tucker: do you think the president had that in mind when he tweeted? a lot has been happening in the last couple of days and some of it reflects well on the white house and some of it doesn't. but do you think that maybe this is something he did on purpose to draw attention to himself? >> i'm hesitant to assign motive to what he does and says because he has shown in the past when it seems like he doesn't mean a lot of what he says. the tweet about the comey tapes was really weird. i didn't record him at all. to make sure that he was honest. but it was a weird thing to do. i think maybe sometimes he thinks that this is the way for him to get back at the media which is unfortunate because he is the president. he doesn't need to get back at the media. he just needs to get on with the

job of being president and let the media do its thing and ignore them. he has been able able to do that so far. spoon he's drawn them out and they've exposed to they really are and i for one didn't want to see it. i like these people. i don't want to know what they really think but now i know i'm so it's hard to go to lunch with them now. thanks a lot. democratic officials have been refusing to turn over election data for the sake of investigating fraud. do they have an ulterior motive for doing so? that's coming up. and then reality tv star lisa vanderpump will be here to discuss her efforts to discuss the horrifying slaughter of dogs in china. she's trying to shut it down.

these days families want to be connected 24/7.

that's why at comcast, we're always working to make our services more reliable. with technology that can update itself. and advanced fiber network infrastructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever.

one that keeps you connected to what matters most. spoon earlier this year trump established the presidential commission on election integrit integrity. the commission's work is being impeded by state officials were refusing to cooperate with it. officials in new york, california, virginia, even mississippi have all announced their intent to hinder the commission that refuses to supply voter rolls and other information so it is next for this investigation? chris is the secretary of state of kansas and vice chairs the commission pair he joins us tonight. there are two different criticisms of your effort to gather this data. one comes from civil libertarians, some on the right, and the other from the party.

even the secretary stated mississippi who is a republican issued a statement saying that they can go jump in the gulf of mexico and mississippi is a great state to lunch from. what's his complaint, and is it valid and if not, why not? >> i don't think so. he's a friend of mine. he's just worried, you want to make sure that you don't have any sensitive information in the hands of the federal government. the information that we asked for today for the commission is just the basic identifying information that's all ready publicly available. anybody on the street can go in and get the voter rolls. they can get name, address, things like that. that's all that we are asking for. there is no security risk and so i think the concerns, but the more interesting objection comes from the folks on the left who are saying we don't care if it's

publicly available information we don't want the commission to see our voter rolls. >> tucker: why is that? what's the concern? >> my first question back to them is what are you trying to hide? for example, in order to do this kind of investigative work you have to have the voter rolls which again, in any given state, you have hundreds of candidates who by the voter rolls every election cycle. what we are going to do is do something that's never been done before and try to compare these to federal databases. for example, one thing that's ever been done that's very important as the federal government knows the names of more than 15 million aliens who are living in the united states. the individuals are here on green cards or temporary visas but the states have never been permitted to see hey, how many of those aliens have registered in my state? the numbers likely to be very high. let's find out what the number is not some of the reasons why i think california is afraid of what they might find out.

they don't have any sort of precautions to effectively ensure that noncitizens are voting. spoon i'm against federal databases as a general manager but a federal election seems like a federal concern. that doesn't seem crazy. here's the other criticism that this whole enterprise has been taking and you specifically have that, this was aghast earlier on this channel, on fox today impugning the motives, basicall. >> this is chris kovach the former secretary of state of kansas who has dedicated his life to voter suppression, who has dedicated his life to being funded by a white supremacist spread everybody here can look it up, coming in and trying to validate donald trump's imaginary mantra of the fact that he would've won the popular vote if millions of people have voted illegally. there is no evidence at that. >> tucker: that such a heavy duty thing to say that i wanted to give you a chance to respond. speak at what she was saying was

downright slanderous, the part about being funded by white supremacist that's false. but the other thing that's important is she saying, i've dedicated my career to fighting voter to muck to the suppressing votes? i've dedicated my car to fighting voter fraud by doing things like having voter i.d. which people overwhelmingly support in this country and in my state and by having proof of citizenship. kansas is 1 of 4 states that has proof of citizenship. we also do things like secure absentee ballots because in some photo i.d. states the voter fraud just goes to absentee ballots. the notion that this is suppressing votes is a standard diatribe or if you do anything to secure the election your suppressing votes. but her argument is kind of stupid. how does studying data in a federal presidential commission because somebody not to vote in some state around the country? >> is a pretty heavy thing to say about someone. thanks for joining us tonight. well, the professor of illinois

has certain types of free speech because ptsd and ought to be banned. that professor joined us next.

>> tucker: laura beth nielsen is a sociology professor at northwestern university. in a recent piece she argued for rolling back free speech in america. she argued that free speech protects the powerful and the popular. also argues that hate speech can cause physical effects.

ptsd, perpetuating discrimination, and she joins us tonight. so, professor, when i read your piece which i thought was interesting and provocative, the question that kept rising was his speech protected on the basis of its veracity? what if you say something that offends somebody else, maybe even causes the injuries that you described emerges going to assume those are real, but it's true? is that protected? >> thank you for having me on. that's a great question. it would be a much harder case to talk about if they were true but i'm talking about the kind of speech that we know to not be true. that singles people out on the basis of race or other protected characteristics and categories. so i'm not talking about debatable political ideas, i'm not talking about >> tucker: no, i'm talking about what you're saying. so if i were to say, for

example, a lot of scandinavians are drunks. i'm scandinavian, that might hurt my feelings but it's provably true that scandinavians have higher alcoholism rates than italians or greek spread and said that would be singling me out on the basis of my ethnicity and attacking me and making me feel bad but it would also be true. would that be allowed? >> i think it would be very difficult for you to show that it actually caused some kind of harm to you. i'm not talking about hurt feelings, i'm talking the pervasive discrimination and the supreme court actually has opened the door to this in the most recent place. clarence thomas wrote a concurring opinion about burning crosses and what they must always mean. the other justices were a little bit more reserved about it but the supreme court has said hate speech, when done with the intent to intimidate can be regulated. i'm here to talk about my research that shows the harm of intimidating hate speech are pretty real.

spent so henry clinton attacked the white working class and a bunch of different ways by calling them deplorable. this is a group whose life expectancy is declining, massive high rates of opiate addiction seek to make the case that she's hurting them physically. would you have banned her speec speech? >> i think that would be a great test case if we pass legislation that recognized the harms of hate speech, a protected categories. that would surely be a case that could be made. spoon what's a protected category? >> race, for example. the kind of things that we protect spread spoon but what do you think? as a legal scholar you argue that some speech should be banned. with that speech be banned? would you ban it? >> the statute would have to be written in a content neutral kind of way and then somebody would have to complain about the speech and then somebody would have to be subject to a lawsuit. criminal, civil, could be a ticket, like a speeding ticket

kind of thing and then there would have to be a constitutional determination process. we are napping to figure that out. >> tucker: but your talking process. i'm trying to figure out intent. do you think that attacking a group of people on the basis of their race, as she did, should that be banned or not. >> i think it's really, really hard. we have the same question with his tweet. i think politicians would have to be separated out in a way. let's imagine that some personality set it on tv. i think there should be intimidation and a threat of violence, this is the facebook algorithm for hate speech, so there has to be not just if they are drunks but their drugs and they're useless that we need to go kill them all. with are drunks and their useless and i wouldn't mind if people mowed them down. spoon but i wonder, though, what happened to happen, or number

when there were liberals that defended free speech? >> i remember. then they all became fascist and they decided were going to punish you for saying things we don't like us to mix because they not fascist. spoon the ones who wanted to curtail the freedom of speech that we've grown up with. >> in the legal academy it's a pretty small group. i will tell you that. one of the really interesting things, tucker, is that when you call and talk to people, find a social scientist and a legal scholar when you go ask people, and i include white men in my research, it's something that i get flack about. i get a little bit of flack about it. but i'm telling you that they don't experience these harms in public. they don't feel excluded from public places. spoon not to generalize about a whole group on the basis of their race or anything. okay.

>> one was last time somebody told you they were going to rate you? you're protected from somebody saying those things. you're protected from somebody asking you for money. but i'm not protected from somebody telling me they're going to rate me. >> i treat people as individuals. i don't think you do, actually, because you're generalizing. >> tucker: if you read the book. >> tucker: i noticed. >> 38% of african-americans report being targeted for racist speech every day. >> tucker: i'm not denying that. >> meanwhile 4% of white men say that. >> tucker: seems like you got the numbers on your side. thank you for joining us. >> i do. thanks for having me. this was really fun. >> tucker: more than 10,000 dogs were butchered in the last week in china's festival was the sight of it. it was a disgusting spectacle. next we'll talk with television

star lisa vanderpump about her efforts to save those dogs and have that festival band. tuned. a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. and now. i'm back! aleve pm for a better am.

♪ whoa that's amazing... 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. type in your idea. select from designs tailored just for you and publish your site with just a few clicks-even from your...

...mobile phone. the internet is waiting start for free today at godaddy. >> tucker: while the dog meat festival in china concluded today after ten barbaric days that resulted in the death of 10,000 or more dogs. the festival is just one small part of an enormous industry in china where millions of dogs are killed there every year for their meat, many tortured before they die. reality star and real housewife of beverly hills lisa vanderpump has started a mission to help these dogs. she joins us tonight as does john sestak, vanderpump's dog executive director. thank you both for joining us tonight. thank you. the dog meat festival it almost doesn't sound real and i don't want to horrify our audience too much by describing some of the tales but to sum it up, this is

really happening? what dogs are tortured and then killed and then eaten at this festival? >> i couldn't believe it. i couldn't believe it. i thought on social media and initially when you think of the festival for dogs you think it's something that celebrating, but when i saw their heinous activities that were going on over there, i'm a normal person. i'm on television, i've got restaurants come up i had to something about it. alongside my husband and my partner, it's been our mission and we've done everything we can. we've exhausted every avenue. john is actually going in the next day, the next 24 hours to deliver some medicine. we've had petitions. we are actually doing a documentary now, but it's been a

real mission because if you've seen what we've seen, and it doesn't sound like you've even seen half of it, the barbaric part is astounding. that's it's motivated us. it >> and you'll see in the documentary. i've actually gone to slaughterhouses. we've actually been to the festival so we've seen it firsthand. i've taken them off the dog trucks, the things that we've seen and the things that i think i've seen firsthand, it's something you can't come back from. it has motivated us to fight and fight every day for it. >> and also, tucker, some of these dogs are not feral dogs. a lot of these dogs are people's pets. there being stolen off the street. they've got callers on. it's a very depressing situation. now we would like to advocate, and that's what resolution 401 is. taiwan has just, and said they are banning it.

but resolution 30 is about banning the torture, which john has seen firsthand. >> week paired up with congressman hastings, he's been a huge advocate for us. >> tucker: in florida? >> yes. >> his whole staff has invited us a couple of times to d.c. and really lobbied on the hill for it. we pushed as much as we can. >> tucker: so you're going to china tonight. the chinese government, from what i us understand, has been in full support of this dog killing festival. how are your interactions with the chinese government? >> the last time i was there i was kicked out by the governmen government. i have to tread lightly when i'm over there. when you're dealing with 2006 dogs and i've got thousands of dollars worth of medical supplies, we can't not take action.

>> tucker: it's just grotesque. i hate to bring this up, but it's my understanding that the belief in china is that if the dog suffers, the more a dog suffers that more beneficial to meet us? is that true? >> they believe that it stimulates the adrenaline and makes the meat more tender. it increases a man's sexual power. that what they believe. this festival is only been in existence a few years, since 2010. not like it's an ancient tradition. it ought to be stopped. i'm so glad that you all are doing this. spoon the most important thing is people contact their congressmen and they support bringing resolution 30 and resolution 401. and if they want to donate, go to our web site. we have our own rescue center here. just for three months. >> tucker: we've got all the

information on our facebook page so i hope our viewers will go there. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: a doctor in nevada says that thanks to assistant suicide laws, health insurance won't cover his patient's treatment, but it will cover their suicide drug. that doctor will be here next to tell us what he heard from the insurance company.

>> tucker: here's one of those stories you might see a lot. a physician in nevada said health insurers are encouraging his patients to kill themselves. tonight he joins us. we talk to him last night about brian callister, he's an specialist in reno attempting to provide life-saving care for two of his patients.

he said the patient's insurance company stood in the way. they refuse to pay for the treatments the patients needed to live and instead, the doctor says, the insurers would only agree to pay for assisted suicide which is now legal in oregon and california. doctor, this is one of those stories that jumped right off the page at me when i read it and it's so horrifying that you'll pardon me for being a little bit skeptical. i know you are prohibited by hipaa, by federal law from divulging any details, but describe your experience and reassure us that you didn't misread what they said. >> no. tucker, first of all, i would like to thank you for having me on. i was really quite stunned at how this evolved. there was nothing in writing, of course. something like this, i tend to think folks like this would be too smart for that so i was looking to make hospital to

hospital transfers to patients about a month apart that were seriously ill and needed procedures that we don't do in northern nevada currently. these were not experimental procedures, these were standard care types of things. and this is typically the case, most physicians will tell you, i was asked to speak with the insurance medical director so well on the phone, the first medical director making the case for why i wanted to transfer the patient for a life-sustaining, and this was supposed to be a curative procedure. this wasn't extending life. the medical director on the phone said to me, you know, brian, we're not going to pay for the procedure or the transfer, but by the way, have you talked to the patient about assisted suicide? quite frankly, i was stunned. >> tucker: may i stop you there? so you were clear with the insurance company, this is a patient who could be cured, potentially, what a chance at living in the insurance people knew that. >> cracked.

it both of these cases the procedure that we were looking to perform what have been potentially curative in half to a majority of cases. so we were looking for just life extending. these patients would have been terminal without the procedure, and then less than a month later, the same thing happened again. different insurance company, different states but almost exactly the same conversation. and i'll tell you, tucker, with your skepticism, i was so stunned i started asking around, hey, what do you guys think about this, with colleagues of mine, and many of them kind of brushed it off and said, well, it's illegal in california and oregon so we are not surprised they might about that. >> tucker: i'm not surprised either. market forces are going to move in that direction because it's cheaper to kill someone then to treat someone, of course. but it's so unethical and immoral and creepy that it's

still stunning. is it illegal? is there a law against this? >> it's interesting you bring that up because the question i posed in most of these states where you have this law and people die of assisted suicide, you are not allowed to put overdose or suicide on the death certificate. you're supposed to put their underlying condition, which i wondered if that doesn't constitute fraud. but that being said -- >> tucker: it is fraud. >> i think it's important to emphasize that proponents of this law will say, there is no cause and effect here. the people who like assisted suicide, they'll say, while insurance companies deny care all the time, and yet they do cover assisted suicide in cases in states where it's legal, so where's the connect the dots? well i can tell you, i think any intelligent human being can connect those dots. >> tucker: are you allowed to tell us the name of these insurance companies? >> no, i am not.

briefly, let me tell you why. i transfer so feel a number of patients day today. >> tucker: i know that hipaa prevents it. i hope you'll come back. i think this is a big deal and i want to hear more of that. dr. mcallister, thank you. >> i think it's important. thank you so much. >> tucker: thank you. we'll be right back.

>> tucker: do you remember obama phones? it was originally called a lifeline to provide welfare for the poor soul phone companies would offer them free cell phones and cheap cell service. one obama supporter was very excited five years ago. >> everybody in cleveland has an obama phone. you sign up, if you have low

income i'm a you get one. >> tucker: happy customer. a new report by the government finds that program has been ripe with fraud ever since. and 36% of all beneficiaries from the program should have been rejected were not. it's one of the most corrupt welfare programs in america. lifelines $9 billion in federal funds were kept out, and missed used. the government has done nothing about it despite years of warnings. this upset liberals too. fraud is so rampant partly because the phone companies were in charge of approving participants.

and they have every incentive. so they signed up as many people as possible without caring who is ella eligible. bigger government means never having to apologize. have a great weekend. see >> jesse: hello everybody, this is "the five" ." the news media is one of the least popular institutions in america. and now it seems to get even worse this week. three journalists resigned monday with the trump story involving russia. and also there was a meltdown