"justice with judge jeanine" right here on fox news. thanks for joining us, i had a lot of fun. have a great night. 7:00 p.m. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." we hope to be off the twitter beat by now. there is actual news happening in the world. but there was a development in the president's ongoing feud with a certain cable news outlet that we felt was revealing enough to bring you details tonight. remember that professional wrestling video the president weeded out the other day, the one with the cnn logo superimposed on the face of a billing? how could you forget that. we interrupt this broadcast force in breaking news, because cnn had its own crack investigative team working through the night to hunt down who made that seconds-long piece of tape because nothing is more important than that.

what they found out, let them explain what happened next. >> posted an apology after cnn identified and tried to contact him. he apologized for some of his other posts that were racist and anti-semitic. cnn is not publishing the user's name because of his apology, his removal of all the offensive posts, and his pledge not to repeat this behavior on social media. >> tucker: there is a lot to unpack here. first, one of the biggest news organizations in the world spend a ton of money and a ton of time trying to find out who made this video. you probably do not care who made it because why would you care? some dude on the internet is not that important. but cnn felt it was vital. why did they feel that way? in politics, all of this narrative response, even if it was a joke. whatever it takes to beat your opponent, in this case, trump, is worth doing. this is often research opposing his him. then there is this guy, his

name, cnn is keeping it secret. where are they doing that? the adjuster them explain, because the man in question has apologized and promised he will never do it again. wait a second. when did cnn become a law enforcement agency or religious order. since when is it cnn's job to police the internet for a immorality. maybe they will start selling indulgences next. that was just the first explanation for why they are withholding the name. cnn later knows that he decided "to not publish the name of the reddit user out of concern for his safety." that turned out to be more problematic since the network it already announced that if the knotty internet guy in question ever got nobby on the internet again, for example, i don't know, by criticizing cnn, then they would release his name, which, by their own description, might imperil his life which, to a lot of people, seemed pretty much like blackmail. do as we say, or we will hurt you. news organizations don't typically make threats like that ever. so it was a tough day for cnn

today. one of the morning show increase may have come up with the simplest answer of all -- lead social media decide what to do about this guy's identity. twitter, the perfect form for thorny moral questions. here is the quote. "should cnn reveal the name of the reddit user who made trump wrestling video?" a lot of heated and bigoted material on websites. releasing this guy's name would endangering his safety, but he's got bigoted and hateful material, so maybe he deserves it, you decide, citizens of twitter, spare or kill him. your call. this is getting grotesque. you were all better when cnn stuck to wars and airplanes. mark started as a long-time news watcher, author, and calmness, and he joins us tonight. they put their crack investigators on the question who made this on the internet, why not find out where

al-baghdadi is if you're that good at that stuff? >> that's what they should be doing. this guy is entirely tangential to it. the way things work on the internet is, somebody send somebody a picture, and that person emails it to somebody else, and that person tweets it to somebody else, and 37,000 links later, it has become a thing, and nobody cares who created it or what other content he has created. even if you accept chris cuomo's definition of hate speech and bigoted and racist and anti-semitic material, ought to be the standard applied across the internet. basically, a major news organization is policing some no-name schlubb's internet content. that is completely nuts. wolf blitzer has basically put a

horses head in this guy guy's bed, and i don't how this happened. cnn was, like, the world's most boring cable network just a month ago, now it is behaving more and more nuttily each day. >> tucker: [laughs] they seem to have come up with this remarkable standard. we are not releasing the guys name because of his safety, his physical safety, but we are going to release his name if he says something we don't like. people are calling up blackmail. i don't know if that is blackmail but it is weird for a news organization to, in effect, threaten or harm if somebody doesn't do what they say. >> the name is either newsworthy or it is not, but he got the message, they contacted him, and he immediately takes on all of his internet posts. i'm not a great believer in anonymity on the internet. i get tired of being called out by some twerp who has, you know, some books name and an avatar from "game of thrones" but he

thinks i'm not being manly enough on the internet. i'm not a particular name of internet anonymity. but this guy got the message. he understands that cnn is watching him, so that if he were to make another anti-cnn gif, another anti-cnn tweet, then they would release the fact that he has got a $500 lien on his home for unpaid property taxes or his car was seen last night parked outside madame fifi's bondage parlor. this is a ridiculously for a news organization to behave. but the threat of people -- the idea, by the way, of chris cuomo and others cnn anchor is a saying, oh, i'm so relieved. at last, there were physical threats to our safety, and at last, were all relieved because now we've got the goods on this guy and we can sleep at night and journalists are free to walk the street once more. get lost you creeps.

by the fifth anniversary of the danish cartoons, i appeared on stage with five other people. of those five other people i was in on stage with in copenhagen for 45th anniversary of the danish mohammed cartoons, one was shot at point-blank range, the other had his events shot up and two people were killed, another was forced out of public life entirely, and the fourth had her family's restaurant firebombed. those are real threats against media figures that go on in europe right now. the idea that reworking a joke that everyone knows is a joke is a threat to chris cuomo's safety is the most narcissistic, solipsistic act of navelgazing in a profession that is already so self obsessed nobody who isn't in the media can stand the media. >> tucker: [laughs] that is so nicely put. and the sense of humor is always

the first thing to go. that is always the sign you have lost perspective. cnn's ministry of truth. mark steyn, god bless you. thank you. >> thanks a lot. >> tucker: meanwhile, in the realm of real news, the fourth of july holiday's are ominous actions from the country of north korea. on tuesday, it launched its first ever icbm, a rocket they can travel more than 3,000o hit alaska. today, the u.n. ambassador nikki haley warned that military action is on the table as a result to aggression from north korea. what happens next? we have an expert on that country and a biographer of kim jong-il. we have the founder of geopolitical futures. they both join us now. first you, michael. as an expert in north korea, what is the point of this exercise. the kim regime obviously thinks it has some strategic purpose. what would that be.

>> when you're trying to analyze north korea, trying to read a book upside down in a mirror underwater. you have to read backwards. but i realized is this. north korea has always asserted their right under their sovereignty, just like the u.s., to engage in shipment and sales of weapons. what we are seeing, in my opinion, incidentally or by accident, is north korea having commercials for their product. they are showing that their missiles worked, and they are also showing that their missiles allow them, a country the size of -- and basically be invincible. this is a great sales pitch for them to show that they have weapons that they can sell and make a lot of money off of, and they realize that is the case. it's been fascinating. a dangerous sales technique. you came things out for a living, i think pretty accurately. we are going to press china to help mitigate this threat. if they don't respond and we are forced to use military action of some kind, what happens next? >> first, the chinese have no reason to solve this.

they don't want north koreans to have problems, they would love the united states to have the military need. in that case, the united states may fail, it will be portrayed as an aggressor, and so on. i don't think there is any chance of china really solving this. the next step is to continue to press so that the united states makes it very clear that they have tried everything possible. at the point where that fails, secretary of defense mattis has made it very clear, the united states were not allowed north korea to get an icbm that could reach the united states, it is not going to wait for military action until they do get that ability. >> tucker: so what does that -- a quick follow-up. what does that mean? what form would military action taken, do you think, most likely, against north korea? >> the obvious goal is to take out the nuclear facilities. the problem is that the north koreans have massive

artillery and at our allies, south korea, m.seoul, a city of 25 million, designed to deter anybody. we are there for going to have to go after those artillery pieces. the problem is, they are defended by heavy air faces, we are going to have to take down the air for numeric forces, this is way more complicated than a surgical strike. this is one of the reasons why the united states has tried to do everything possible not to have to do this, because if we do it, it is complicated, messy, and dangerous. >> tucker: it sounds incredibly dangerous. michael malice, do you see another way out? >> we are past the point where we have tried everything. we had the sunshine policy with south korea. we try to be threatening with sanctions and kim jong-il chose to allow his population to starve rather than let the u.n. bring in food because he said, if we live the u.n. income and they won't need the government. we have tried threats, we have tried to be nice, and it

continued on the path. i disagree, and they now have in icbm that is capable of reaching the united states. they have crossed a red line. at the same time, i don't think it is realistic that we are going to engage in military action with them, certainly not in the near future, and certainly not when they both said very recently that military action is off the table. >> tucker: george friedman, it seems so reckless of china, my understanding is the one country that might be able to have sufficient pressure to stop this, to stand back and allow it to happen. do you think the chinese leadership has thought this through? >> i think they have. i don't think the moment for military action is there. i don't think they have a capable icbm at this point. i disagree with my colleague. i think they are close to it, but their guidance system isn't there. it is proven. the chinese feel that we will act before they reach that point. we probably are getting very close to that point. and they're prepared to let us go do that.

the chinese are not necessarily reckless, but they think the americans are predictable, and we are, in this particular case, and they are going to carry the burden. and i think the problem is that the united states really doesn't want to attack, but i think the addition point here is, when do they have a literal nuclear weapon? my view is, they don't have that. >> tucker: i don't see a good outcome or certainly a good option. thank you to you both. well, democrats are eager to unseat the current president, of course. so eager that this week they are promoting a kind of medical coup d'etat against him. could it happen? the 25th amendment is what they are citing. we'll tell you what that is and what it may mean. up ahead. plus, another cop lies dead by the killer apparently driven by hatred of police. are they fostering a climate of hatred that cause this? that next.

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: well, democratic plans for getting rid of president trump before the next election are getting increasingly zany and maybe a little far-fetched. he will remember it the electoral college was on the agenda. that didn't work. impeachment was supposed to fix it. that's not going anywhere. and much to their chagrin, trump is a teetotaler, so he's probably not going to drink himself to death. so here is the new idea. the 25th amendment. if you watch any kind of lefty media, you have heard a lot about it recently, democratic congress and want to recreate an

11-member medical commission that would remove a president from office if they deem him mentally unfit. obviously they believe trump would be no make immediately be ousted. >> the 25th amendment is utilized when a president is perceived to be incompetent or unable to do his or her job. >> he needs to resign, and i stand by that, because he is inappropriate for the office. >> when we sent our troops into harm's way, they need to know that the president is of sound g it for the right purposes, and these tweets make us question that. >> if any of the viewers want to google narcissistic personality disorder, i am concerned about his fitness to be a president as well, and may be a commission as a way to get at it. >> tucker: why wait for an election? a shapiro professor of interest law at george washington school of law, and he joins us now. professor, thank you for coming on. the 25th amendment, i think most

people are not aware it exists. explain this and whether it has been used before? >> it has been used. it has various parts to it. one is a temporary transfer of authority. we have had presidents who have gone through situations where they have handed over presidents to the vice president pending the outcome of their operation. what hasn't been used in section four, the nuclear option, it is when a vice president goes to the cabinet and says, i think this president is not capable of discharging the powers of his office. there is also a provision for congress to do that. that is what this bill is all about. but this is, in my view, wildly premature, and i can't imagine it could get much support, even in these rather zany times. >> tucker: so would it require the vice president's complicity? what do you have to go to the cabinet or the congress with his

concerns for this to work? >> pence would have a key role in whatever avenue they took. first of all, he would have to be a key player in taking the first approach, which is to go to the cabinet and get them maturity vote of the cabinet. but he also has the ability to derail the second fold. the biggest problem is that the 25th amendment really foresaw physical disability, that is what most people were thinking of, they were specifically thinking of eisenhower. eisenhower had a heart attack and then a stroke that affected his speech. then, of course, we lost john kennedy in an assassination, and that sealed the deal. the 25th amendment was fashioned at that time, and it was ratified. it does extend to mental disability. but a lot of people don't realize that a lot of our presidents had mental disabilities. you know, lincoln was thought to suffer from depression. kennedy, nixon, pierce, coolidge, they all had

conditions that people had raised. but it is a dangerous thing once you get into the mental disability area, because that is when you can really get a lot of political mischief. you know, when a member of congress said, just google narcissism, if you do that, it would apply to probably two-thirds of the members of congress, you know. >> tucker: i don't think that's true. i think it would apply to every single one. i don't know any of the 435 who would fall outside that description. i guess the point is, everywhere you go in lefty news world, you are hearing about the 25th amendment. but it is not as simple as a couple of left-wing congressmen getting together and deciding, i don't like the president. were moving him. we are in paneling and 11-dr. panel, or whatever. this is a process that is very unlikely to happen because it would be hard to pull off. am i right? >> would be very hard to pull off. in fact, in that second option, you need a two-thirds vote of both houses. but even if it were possible,

what people have to keep in mind, this is a dangerous game to play. it wasn't long ago that i was critical of the democrats for frittering away their legislative authority under the obama administration. they tend to do things with not much foresight. this would be a very dangerous game indeed. if you succeeded in actually removing a president because you think that he is narcissistic or, as one member said, he is not doing the right thing for the right reasons, that is an awfully dangerous standard. the framers didn't want that. that's why the 25th amendment was passed as late as it was. the framers created a very simple and short and, frankly, and adequate process, and the reason they didn't go further, i think they were uncomfortable with the thought of letting the legislature remove a sitting president. >> tucker: right, because we have these elections, or used to

have these elections to decide the outcome. i thought that was the whole point. jonathan turley, thank you for joining us. that was interesting. well, an nypd officer and mother of three was assassinated, the latest blood episode caused by widespread hatred of the police. up next, we will ask if some of the rhetoric, the antipolice rhetoric you have been hearing a lot for the last year, has had any effect on these attacks on

>> tucker: a new york city police officer was assassinated today in a cowardly attack sitting in her car, shot out of nowhere, never saw it coming. miosotis familia was shot by men called alexander bonds, a two-time compact. bonds subsequently was killed by police. but it is the latest in a series of horrifying murders driven, apparently, by hatred of police. jim garrity of national review tweeted a compelling country. he said this. "if you think the wrestling tweet is likely to inspire anti-media violence, do you think antipolice rhetoric inspired today's nypd shooting?" which seems like a fair shootin shooting. a former nypd officer and former secret service agents joins us tonight. i always want to lay blame on the person who pulled the trigger, but i also think as long as we are talking about fomenting hate and creating an atmosphere where violence is possible, there are a lot of people fomenting violence

against the police. >> yeah, well, tucker, i agree with you. i don't do guilt by association either. but here's the critical distinction. no credible person is going to blame bernie sanders for the alexandria shooting, right? even though he was a standard supporter? that guy clearly had psychopathological issues. but that is not what we are talking about with this antipolice rhetoric. tucker, these are active calls for violence against police officers. it is not heated political rhetoric. it is not socialism versus capitalism. it is this was a chant on youtu, you can still see it. what do we want, and get cops. what do we when we wanted, now. this wasn't one or two people. a person on the fifth floor of a building got it on tape. that is totally different than guilt by association, and i believe they do share plan because they got what they wanted, they got a dead cop, horrifically so. >> tucker: what is so remarkable is, outside of this

channel, i'm not sure anybody said anything. hillary clinton, who, by the way, was a presidential candidate seven months ago, endorsed the group who held the rally where that was chanted, whose members chanted that. i didn't hear any outcry about that, did you? >> this is the tough part about that, having a lot of brothers and sisters who are still out there, and a friend i with today who is with the nypd. this is an nypd veteran who had three kids. these kids are never going to run and that mother's room in the morning again and jump on the bed. every christmas, they are going to member their mother is not there. every easter, every holiday, every fourth of july, they are going to have memories of their mother. they are not going to have memories of their mother anymore, they are over. as of yesterday, they are over. again, where was the outcry when it mattered against these cowards in the democratic party -- not all of them -- but these activists far left liberal clowns who gave these people a platform at both the dnc and,

tucker, they were invited to the white house. i'm not going to do what they do to us. i'm not even blaming all of black lives matter. but this was a significant portion of engaging in heated violent rhetoric, and they were given a platform. they would be considered domestic terrorists if they were republican, and everybody knows that's true. this is a disgrace that these people weren't called out sooner, and they did it because the new it was their action in space. >> tucker: and when asked, do all lives matter? hillary clinton said, in effect, no, just black lives matter. there is no complexity of black or white in this merger. this was a cop who was sitting in her car, and a guy -- she wasn't involved in an altercation with the guy, no undercover drug bust gone wrong, she is just sitting there and a guy comes out of nowhere and murders her. there is no way to read this other than she was killed because she was a cop. >> let me give you some blood inside info i got from one of my sources today. he told me, and some of it may have been recorded, but the guy who did this was actively casing

it before hand, tucker, meaning there was an element of premeditation to this. this wasn't some random emotional outburst. he had planned this. he had walked by that thv, that temporary headquarters vehicle, before walking by and shooting her in the head. if i could get a hat tip and a salute to the partner there. i don't know if you notice, but the radio call by the partner said 1085, 1085, my partner is shot as he is screaming for hel help. tucker, 1085 is the code for officer needs assistant, not emergency. what does that tell you? that is how heroic that guy was. you call a 1085 when you need help but you don't want people rushing to the scene getting hurt getting there. his first instinct even though he was under fire is cop, the hero cop who survived, was to rebut his fellow cops getting there safely and not getting hurt and not his whole on life. you'd still want to talk about pigs in a blanket, you don't have a tenth of a they got that

guided calling a 1085. the real code is 1013 in an emergency, and he was thinking about his partners first, not himself, even though he was under fire. >> tucker: that is an amazing detail. thanks a lot for that. >> yes, sir. >> tucker: up next, bernie sanders and his wife reportedly now under investigation by the fbi, but the evidence he allegedly broke the law has been around for years according to our next guest. we will get to the bottom of that or try. plus the aclu says the new texas law banning sanctuary cities is proof this is becoming a totalitarian police liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> tucker: well, since we live in a world -- excuse me -- where pro wrestling references are now the very same thing as violent threats, one wonders what to make up remarks that california congressman michelman maxine

waters recently made about hud secretary ben carson. audrey said that when carson appears before her congressional committee, "i'm going to take his ass apart." excuse me. "he believes that if you are poor, it is your fault, and he doesn't know the difference between an immigrant and a slave," whatever that means. now, we have marks to maxine waters before on this show, but we should take her seriously on this subject. congresswoman waters is a confirmed expert on the question of housing, especially her own housing. consider where she lives, in a 6,000 square foot, $4.3 million mansion in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in los angeles. now, how did she afford a place like that after having spent the last 40 years working in government? we hate to speculate. how did she keep getting reelected despite not living in her own congressional district? no clue there either.

the district waters actually represents in congress has the second-highest percentage of african-american residents in the state of california. the neighborhood where waters actually lives is just 6% black or, as she might put it herself if she didn't live there, it is segregated, like a 1950s level segregated. and it is really, really rich. how did maxine waters pull off a housing who like that, who knows? but it may also know mike almost qualify her to be hud secretary herself. well, the sanders client has lawyered up. agents reportedly are investigating whether jane sanders, the wife of vermont senator bernie sanders, committed fraud by going to make lying on the loan application for burlington college, which she ran from 2004 to 2011, and went under not long after that. sender sanders says this is all a witch hunt orchestrated by one man who has managed drums

presidential campaign in the state of vermont, is that true? is it a witch hunt, we decided to ask the man himself. he joins us from burlington, vermont. thank you for coming on. >> tucker, thanks for having me. >> tucker: so let's get to the basis of the claim. there was a story a couple of days ago touted by the sanders campaign or office that the person who supplied the notion, who told you originally that jane sanders committed fraud on a loan application in fact was passing on hearsay and therefore, it says senator sanders, this whole claim is false. how do you respond to that? >> well, thanks for bringing that up, because there has been quite a bit of confusion over that issue. now, there is two aspects to this claim. the first one came about as the result of a letter that i sent to united states attorney that presented facts that were culled from the public records act requests, and those facts were analyzed, and then after that, there was quite a bit of reporting done by excellent

reporters. those are firmly based on facts and figures and analysis. there was a leader bit of evidence that came to me after the school closed where a state legislator told me that a bank executive told him that the sanders office interfered with the loan and, as a result of that interference, the bank wrote the loan conventions and my conditions so stringently that the college failed. >> tucker: huh. so that is not even related to what i understood they claim to be, that jane sanders borrowed more than the college could hope to ever repay and, in fact, was not able to repay, and that constitutes fraud. is that true, do you believe? >> well, all right. so jane sanders bought a huge piece of property from the catholic diocese. in order to buy that property, she had to borrow $10 million, six and a half million dollars from the bank, about three and a half million dollars from the

catholic diocese. in order to get those loans, she had to confirm guaranteed donations of $2.6 million. of that $2.6 million, the school is only able to collect about 25%. >> tucker: so does that constitute fraud, do you believ believe? >> well, it certainly is something that needs to be looked at, and of the confirmed donations, three of the donors have come forward to say that the school overstated their pledge amounts. >> tucker: oh. here's what i don't understand. i don't think anyone contests that jane sanders tenure at thes he had of burlington college which, as we said, no longer exists. she walked away with quite a bit of money. how did that happen? >> when jane sanders was asked to leave by the board, she glared up back then and was able to extract a $200,000 golden parachute before she left.

>> tucker: how can you -- how can you take a college and then walk away richer? >> that is a great question, tucker. and if you look at who was harmed by this whole financial debacle, you see the catholic church lost almost $2 million. the taxpayers of vermont lost almost $150,000. the bank lost untold amounts of money. and the school went bankrupt, and so the students were harmed and benders were harmed as well. but the sanders, they were not financially harmed. >> tucker: i don't think there is any concession on that, i think that is factually supportable and shocking, and i'm glad you were here. brady, thanks a lot. >> thanks for having me. spoon the state of texas is trying to ban sanctuary cities . the aclu doesn't just oppose that. and aclu lawyer will be here to explain their reasoning

♪ >> tucker: well, texas lawmakers passed a new law abolishing sanctuary cities in their estate. the bill does not compel place to compel immigration law, adjuster and city leaders with fines if the categorically orban police from asking about immigration status, an individual can't know my cops can use their own conscious under the law. the aclu though is furious and it is suing to block the law from taking effect. we have a lawyer for the american civil liberties union joining us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> so this seems, as i just

said, pretty mild anti-immigration statute that allows individual cops to opt out if they so choose. so how is this a step along the road? >> probably an immigration police state, not a police state. i actually thought that you would be with us on this case, and the reason is -- let me just explain how the law works. it requires a local police, local sheriffs, and to enforce immigration law, and even more than that, the police chief can go to jail if he makes a mistake. and so it is going to lead to profiling, it is going to lead to mistakes, but let me just talk about what i think -- >> tucker: i think you are factually inaccurate, though. i don't think that it requires -- at least i have it right here, it doesn't seem to require police chiefs to enforce immigration law. it just says that they can't categorically opt out and they can't prohibit, blanket lee

prohibit, their officers from asking immigration status. >> i think we read the law as saying that officers do, and that is one of the things the judges will decide soon. we had a hearing, and texas is saying, no, we think it does because it requires entities to enforce the law and entities include employees which includes everyone. but even if you are right about that, talking about a small city with five deputies. two go out and enforce immigration law, three don't preach depending on what street you are in that town, someone is asking about immigration statusr not. let me just talk about. i think what you are most concerned about, which is public safety, can i make that point? >> tucker: let me just say, you are going to say that it's going to make the city less safe, i have done this segment a million times. there actually is a carve out for that, for whistleblowers, they can't be prosecuted once they do it.

but what bothers me is, you don't like immigration law, you want open borders or you think we should have less stringent qualifications for citizenship, that's fine. we have a legislative process to effect that. you can change the law. what bothers me is encouraging people to ignore existing lot rather than change the law itself. why don't you spend your time doing that? >> the aclu has never called for open borders but let's put that aside for a minute. it is not me who is saying it is going to make cities and counties less safe. it is the county's. i have an op-ed here from all the major police chiefs in texas, and those are not people who vote aclu down the mine. it is san antonio, it is houston, talton mcnellis, it is not the aclu. it is all of those cities who have sued. and they are all saying it is going to make them less safe. you can disagree -- >> tucker: because police departments say, we need to racially profile to keep our city safe, and the aclu bursts in with a lawsuit. don't tell me because you are doing this because you are on the side of cops. that is just city.

do they have their own agenda, but don't know my cops don't get to make the laws. they enforce the laws. parent lawmakers. >> what they are saying is, they are the experts on the ground, and they are the ones who are saying, it is going to make our cities less safe. they are saying it is politicians going for sound bites. the major police chiefs are all against this law from a safety standpoint. i'm not saying were suing only because of that, but we happen to be representing sheriffs and mayors in this suit. but they are the ones coming -- >> tucker: they don't have a say in it. they don't get to make the laws. by the way, if you're concerned about a police state, then the last arrangement he would want is cops deciding what the rules of the state are. they carry out the law is passed by the people's representatives. remember, i thought you guys were against dictatorships. >> you know very well they are going to carry out the bar, but they are using the court and saying, we think this law is unlawful. we are going to be sued because of this, we are not provided the training.

so they are asking the court to decide. if a court decides against them, of course they will carry out the laws. >> tucker: low, they are charged with carrying out the laws, not with making them. they don't feel morally capable of doing that, they can go join the fire department. that's the way it works. same with all civil servants. so the question is, why would you attack a municipality for enforcing a federal law. if a murderer was loose in austin, texas, would you be against the local police capturing him because he violated federal law in another state? i don't understand it. speak what you are not being responsive. no one is saying that. and they do, with serious criminals, turn them over to immigration, but they don't want to be out there asking every car for their immigration status. they don't want to be doing that type of thing. they don't want to be investigating they don't have to. especially because they're not getting the costs and the training. >> tucker: is that the new legal standard that cops get to

do what they feel like doing and anything they don't like to do is unconstitutional? i don't understand. speak what you know that's not our position. these cities have gone to court to challenge the law. if they lose, they will enforce the law. but what they are telling you, and they are the experts, that it is going to make the cities less safe. they are the ones saying it. dallas, houston, el paso, san antonio. they have all come forward to say, this is not a good idea for texas from a public safety standpoint. >> tucker: well, we can have that debate, but they don't get to decide. voters get to decide, and they have. lee, thanks a lot for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: when outraged transgender activist has a harsh message for straight men. we have got that next.

>> tucker: some of them don't seem to make much sense. especially in support of the high school biology you want to learn. tough, you got to learn them anyway. people are getting fired for saying the wrong thing, even accidentally. so pay attention. a few years ago, the goal for transgender rights was acceptance. sounds pretty reasonable. most people thought so. then it was legal enforcement of transgender identity, with punishment for anyone who doesn't use the right pronouns or equally shared bathrooms. that happened. now, we are advancing toward mandatory transgender dating. for real. a transgender activist lit into straight men because so few of them want to date by other biological men who are transgender.

jones added, "these angry declarations that they have some absolute right not to be with trans women is just made placed and inappropriate. "an absolute right today who you want. you thought you had such a right. silly you. your personal romantic preferences, they are no longer let your own. they are an extension of your political preferences, and therefore public property. if you are a biological man who prefers biological women, you are a bigot. virtually, everything that seems too absurd, ugly, or totalitarian to be real, it will inevitably become a mainstream cause for the left at some point. and then what? why wouldn't facebook and twitter ban users for the hate think of the opposite sex. that's about it for us tonight.

tune in every night to the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. stay tuned for "the five" from new york city. that's up next. >> dana: hello, everyone. i am dana perino along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, greco failed, and jesse watters. this is "the five" ." america puts the world on notice after north korea testfired an intercontinental ballistic missile on our independence day. the trump administration says global action is required to stop a global threat and called an emergency meeting of the u.n. security council today. the u.n. said it's prepared to use military force to defend ourselves and our allies if we must. more from national security correspondent jennifer griffin