this week. that's all the time we have this evening. this show will always be fair and balanced. we are not the left wing destroyed trump establishment media. see you back here tomorrow nigh night. >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." it was a short reign, but none of us will ever forget it. white house communications director anthony scaramucci is gone a mere ten days after he arrived and four days after f he trashed then white house chief of staff reince priebus in a now-famous interview with "the new yorker." according to published reports, scaramucci's abrupt fall was ordered by the new chief of staff, general john kelly. the goal was ending chaos in the white house and making it clear that kelly is in charge from here on out. t white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders had this to say to say about what just happened. >> the president certainly felt that anthony's comments were inappropriate for a person

in that position and he didn'tre want to burden general kelly also with that line of succession. >> tucker: david bossie is president of citizens united, he was trump's deputy campaign manager. he doesn't work at the white house, but he knows what is going on over there, and he joins us tonight. dave, thanks for coming on. so what is the takeaway here? what is the message from the firing of anthony scaramucci? >> well, i think that there is a new sheriff in town. i think that general kelly'sf first day on the job, he put a stamp on his reign here at thn white house, and i think he is someone who is coming in there with a strong position. he is going to be a commander of men and women, he has been all of his life, and people follow,e and that is what he is expecting from everyone on the white house staff, for them to follow his lead. and i think the days of these clashes between staff

are going to be over, and i look forward to it. >> tucker: so the sin was the in-fighting. it wasn't the naughty words that he used. l it was elevating internal disputes to the public eye. >> you are asking specifically about anthony. i think that is a combination that people were displeased with language that was used in that interview, but i also think it is the new chief of staff wanting to have his own people in the white house that can then take his lead. >> tucker: and i think it is reassuring for a lot of people watching from the outside.an he was there less than two weeks. but maybe it was a kamikaze mission. he got rid of a lot of people, three of them.m. michael short, the press aide. the white house chief of staff, reince priebus, and the press secretary, sean spicer. any chance any of them will come back in other capacities now that scaramucci is gone? >> i don't see that happening. i think there is a new chapter born today in the white house.

this new chief of staff has put together an incredible career of public service and sacrifice and i think he is coming in there to work as a team member, as a leader of the team for president of trump, and i am looking forward to the job that he is going to be able to do over the next weeks, months, and years. >> tucker: do members of the family report to him? >> from what i have been told that all people who are employees at the white house work for general kelly,le that the chain of command goes through him, and i don'tse believe there are any exceptions. >> tucker: so that would include jared kushner? >> that would include everyone who is an employee at the white house, so i think that t would include the family ander every employee that works there as an employee. >> tucker: boy, if that is true, it is, of course, a massive change over what has been going on for the pastst half a year. a huge change, so what is the new goal, now that the white house seems be buttoned down to a greater extent than it has been.

health care looks like it has failed. where are they going to focus their energies? >> well, i think first and foremost, i think that general kelly's first job is going to be working with mick mulvaney and others who have stated the white house position that the senate is not to take up any other legislation before taking up health care again this week. and i think that is what we are going to see, and i hope that mitch mcconnell will be able to get one more vote out of thoseha three. senators collins, murkowski, and mccain failed the republican party, failed republicans across the country, and failed the president last week when they voted against that bill. and whether they understand it or not, it was a failure on their part, a failure of character on their part to vote correctly. the entire party, for eight years, has been running on this issue. they have been running on repealing and replacing, and these three decide that their interests are more important than the president's. i think it was a selfish move. >> tucker: yeah, i mean, i am

not defending what they did, but i guess i would say, as someone who watches this pretty carefully, i wasn't sure what the replace part of the equation meant. >> well, look, i agree with that. and of course, it would have to go back to conference and marry up with the house bill that was very complicated as well. nobody knew, but the point was to get it to conference, to be able to move past this issue. to be honest with you, getting to tax reform -- look, let's just be clear about this. the economy is growing at 2.6% right now. the president has said we are going to get to 2, 2.5% or 3% during the campaign, and people laughed at him. i want to say that if we just have tax reform, not just tax cuts, tax simplification and rate cuts across the board, corporations and individuals, we are going to have an economic boom here inoa america that everyone can ben very proud of. >> tucker: so let's say this vote fails, the third

attempt at health care, how quickly will the white house's regroup and focus, do you think, on tax reform? >> well, they are already moving forward on tax reform. in the house and senate, they are working behind the scenes with members of the leadership. and i think the white housecr staff led by now general kelly and mick mulvaney and the legislative team of marc short and rick dearborn, they are doing an amazing job, and i think that they are going to continue to work towards tax reform for all american.ue >> tucker: last question, really quick, where is scaramucci going? >> i understand that he may move back to the ex-im bank where he was for the last month. >> tucker: david bossie, thanks for coming on. for more on the dramatic rise and fall of anthony scaramucci, we are joined by an author and columnist and a keen observer of washington. charles krauthammer. >> pleasure to be here. let me answer the question,

where is scaramucci going. obviously "dancing with the stars" ." stu and i don't know anyone who's been on that show but i would recommend against it.il if he calls me, i will tell him that. so i think a lot of republicans, a lot of people who voted for donald trump want to believe that this is a turning point, where the energy of the administration will be focused outward, and the debates that they are having will be policy debates, and they can win some of them.es do you think it is that? >> i think it could be. if this is a successful presidency, they will date it to this last week which is where they hit rock bottom and they got some money and control, kelly, who doesn't suffer fools. obviously his first edict was scaramucci went way, way beyond the line. it's not just a matter of chaos. it was sort of unseemly. both because of the infighting and because of the "colorful

language," and it couldn't be tolerated. it appears as if he's going to establish lines of communication, lines of control. it will all go through him. if that is so, i'll add one more caveat, and that is attainable, the second one may not be, which is if he can have some influence on reining in the president's own impulses,in then i think they have a very good chance of succeeding, if's they don't, if he can do that,ry -- can't do that, they will fa fail, and it will be trump 2. 0 and it will go the way of trump 1.0. >> tucker: people have said that the president likes chaos, he feels comfortable with it, yet he is the one who brought kelly in, and gave him the latitude to make the key staff change. some may it suggests that the president has come to believe that he is not served by chaos.nt >> and i think what happened last week is that chaos became

pandemonium. i mean, chaos is tolerable to a certain extent, and the team of rivals theory and all of that, but when you have this kind of wild out-of-control rant that you got on "the new yorker" from scaramucci, when you have the failure of health care, where you have the joint chiefs ignoring essentially, an order from the president on transgenders, that is sort ofor up to the border of subordination, where you have it falling apart, then any chief executive with resolve, which is what trump is, deciding that he has to do something, he brought in a cop, a new cop, and maybe this will succeed. >> tucker: good for him, so the president has said recently in his last and final push for health care, we are going to make congress abide by the laws they pass. they have members and their staffs in washington. a carve out gives them a pretty huge subsidy for their health care,

basically, they are getting treated as no normal american would be under obamacare, and he is going to make certain that that ends. do you think he will do that, and why has no one done so far? >> because it is very bad politics. of course, it is good ethics. but that doesn't always mean good politics. he has just had an epic fail with health care. he needs to pivot immediately to tax reform. you don't endear yourself to the people you are going to cross the finish line by taking away their perks on health care. can't be justified, but i feel the same way about earmarks, one of the great things that congress did was, in a rush of hyper ethics, abolished earmarks, which is the giving of this, as a way to pay them off, of course it was scandalous, but who cares? that was the oil, that was the

lubricant for the legislation, and you talk to any legislator, they will tell you how much that has made legislating more difficult.t. >> tucker: yes. l >> so they have a perk on health care, keep it, but past - pass tax reform. >> tucker: may be just threaten them with taking it away.. very wise, thanks for coming out tonight. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: this is one of those stories that you couldn't make up, but unfortunately it is real, an illegal alien deported 20 times is now charged with sexual assault, after a sanctuary city released him and refused to tell the feds his whereabouts. let's see if this unbelievable case can bring any sanity to what is out of control.ab plus we'll have part one of a weeklong series on ms-13. stay tuned.

♪

it's happening, it's happening! in the modern world, you can control just about anything with an app. your son is turning on all the lights again! and with the esurance mobile app, you can do the same thing with your car insurance. like access your id card, file a claim, or manage your policy. it's so easy it's almost scary. let's get outta here! that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. when itrust the brandtburn, doctors trust. nexium 24hr is the number one choice of doctors and pharmacists for their own frequent heartburn. and all day, all night protection. when it comes to heartburn, trust nexium 24hr.

or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet.

you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. >> tucker: sergio jose martinez has been deported from this country no fewer than 27 times. he was recently arrested once more in portland. he was addicted to meth and living on the street. in sane society, he would have been deported, and the feds would've been notified. but we are insane on this question of immigration. instead, martinez was released because portland is a sanctuary city that refuses to enforce u.s. immigration laws.

guess what happened? he was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a a 65-year-old woman. jose aristimuno joins us tonight. he is a former deputy secretary. isn't this exactly the reason you don't want sanctuary cities in the first place. if you don't enforce the law, people are going to do appalling things to your citizens? and it just happened? >> the real issue is that what this man did, it is horrible. it shouldn't happen again. but the real issue here is that this is an outlier. that doesn't happen often. sanctuary cities are doing well. they are actually safer, sanctuary cities, by the way, not only that, but --re >> tucker: let me just cut in. we actually have data on this. >> i have data too. >> tucker: i don't think you do. last year, the university of north carolina at riverside did a study of 55 sanctuary cities, maybe they have some and you won't

believe the numbers, they would i am quoting "violent crime was slightly higher in sanctuary cities." on what basis are you saying that that is not true? i hate to get caught up in detail here, but this is a stud that showed that, and you have on your side, what? >> the real fact is that our current president, as you know, is trying to deport -- let me speak. let me speak. the real issue here is that donald trump is trying to defund sanctuary cities, what that is actually going to do, they are going to be less safe, you don't want policemen to have less on the street, do you? >> tucker: let's just stick to the facts here, no police department has been defunded, by the way, cities pay for their own police departments. please. >> they are supposed to keep citizens safe. >> tucker: here is the point. you have a guy who was deported 20 times.

he was a homeless meth head. he gets arrested again,le and rather than tell the feds about it, they released him,,te and he rapes someone. >> he should never be able to come back to this country ever again. >> tucker: hold on. 20 times, so if someone comes back 20 times after being deported, has he not, how many times is too many? how many times do you say that this guy does not care about u.s. law? i >> we need comprehensive immigration reform. we need a secure border, we also need to recognize that the majority of undocumented immigrants, i know that you know this, tucker, less -- are not criminals. the fbi has said -- >> tucker: you are dodging -- i wonder why this happens to illegal aliens, you have an american citizen -- the legal term in federal documents is illegal alien, it is not a

racist term, it is legal. it is illegal alien, and so just slow down with that. so here's the question, at what point do you say an american citizen is getting hurt, was hurt, i am taking her side, over the illegal alien, why do you have to make excuses for people like this? >> i am not making excuses, okay, number one, i am not defending the undefendable, this man should be deported, he should never be allowed to come back to the u.s.,e by the way, doesn't mean we eliminate sanctuary cities, we have to make sure that we have secure borders, >> tucker: i don't understand. comprehensive immigration reform, these are political terms, how many times you have to be deported before we sayav we are not going to cover for you or protect you anymore? what is the number? >> there is no number. if you are a criminal.

if you are an undocumented immigrant, you should not be in this country.a >> tucker: how about if you are a homeless meth head as thea guy was? how about if you are living on the street, smoking meth? and do you have been deported 20 times, why should we protect a guy like that? >> he shouldn't come back into the country. >> tucker: what about the 18th and the 19th time? >> this is not about protecting him. it's making sure our borders are secure. >> tucker: what are you talking about? you can hand him over to the feds, they might lock him up, i don't understand, what is your aim here? why are you covering for a guy like this? >> i'm not covering for him.e? >> tucker: yes, you are. >> no, i am not, don't be silly. >> tucker: i'm not being silly. i am being sincere. >> it doesn't look like that. policeman are supposed to protect the community, they are not supposed to be in immigration community, you may not understand that, but the federal government is supposed to execute federal law. >> tucker: so they should not have arrested the guy the first 20 times?

i don't understand. ifs liberals had taken immigration law seriously -- if you had, he wouldn't be accused. >> he should not be allowed into this country, sanctuary cities are doing well economically, that is a fact. they are safer. >> tucker: the hilarious thingng about the democratic party is that you think people are so stupid that you can keep repeating the same talking points, even if it is proven wrong. i know that they are not safer, because i have theon numbers on that, so why do you not bow to superior language on this? give up the talking point. >> you are funny. >> tucker: no, i am not even joking. but let me just ask you one last question on this final matter, if someone has been deported repeatedly and continues to come back, will you concede that that person has demonstrated he does not respect american law?

>> our border should be secure -- >> tucker: come back into reality. if he did, why didn't portland called the feds and say hey, we have a guy who has been deported 20 times. he clearly doesn't care about our laws, we don't want him in our city, take him away. d >> this is not a police issue. >> tucker: why wouldn't you call the feds and have them do it? so we need a wall, is that what you're saying? >> no, we need immigration reform. >> tucker: you say you are for securing our borders, why not just build a wall? guard towers and dogs. that would prevent it. >> you are right, maybe you should go to mexico, there is a wall there already, maybe you didn't know that. there is a wall already in mexico, okay, so why don't we put a wall with canada? we don't need a wall. >> tucker: oh, we don't need a wall? we just need to secure the border. but we don't need a wall. why don't you say what you really think?

i don't believe in borders. anyone who wants to can come here. >> we are a nation of immigrants, a nation of laws. >> tucker: i would love to go to the meeting where you guys concoct your talking points, those don't make sense. they are at odds with each othe other. all right, we will let our viewers decide. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, tucker.er >> tucker: debbie wasserman sholes was pretty embarrassed last week when her staffer got arrested trying to flee the country. $4 million went to this guys family. he has been accused of a bunch of crimes.he is it time to investigate wasserman schultz? to hydrate and soften. unblocking your system naturally. miralax.

>> tucker: a lot of investigations in washington right now, a memeber of that the u.s. house takes its time to start another one, this one on debbie wasserman schultz, a former dnc chair from florida, her aide was recently arrested on federal bank fraud charge. he has been suspected of other wrongdoing for months. he was banned from the computer network. red flags, and yet congressman wasserman schultz kept him on her payroll for reasons we can only speculate about. the whole thing seems a little weird. rhonda santos agrees. then congressman joins us.

-- ron de santos. why are you doing this? >> well, it is all about protecting the integrity of the house of representatives., there are criminal matters that the justice department is dealing with on this, the financial crimes,ju i think you're probably going to see some procurement stuff, and then what we are t waiting for, why are these people sending money to pakistan. what were they doing with the information they were able to obtain?t' so that may all be criminal, but the issue with the house is why were these people paid what they were paid, $4 million, over a number of years? to put it in perspective, in my office, we spend about $1,500 a month for i.t. support. it is contracted out, but then they had access to the files of members of congress who are serving on key committees, the foreign affairs committee and the intelligence. so you have to get the facts. how these people would have

been brought into the system. why were not alarm bells answeredys earlier? and why in heaven's name was this guy allowed to stay, even after we knew in february that these people were under investigation?s >> tucker: now at least some of them are foreign nationals from pakistan, which anyone from the intel world can tell you, one of the sketchier, more anti-american places on earth, not everyone who lives there feels that way. but it is a very dangerous and complicated place. why would these people have access to confidential committee information? >> there is no good reason, tucker, and some of these people weren't even showing up to the house, and they were getting paid, and others did haveeottttd access, not only the house and not only imran awan. he was on the democratic national committee for a time as well, so there is no good reason for it. it is also worth noting that during his time, several members wrote to the appropriationsg committee for more funding so that they could expedite security clearances for more ofy their staff.

these guys would have been part of that truck load of security clearances, so there is just a lot of behavior that is not easy to explain, my sense is that this was happening in the trump white house, and republican members of congress, this should be the number one story on "the new york times" web site. >> tucker: i don't think it's even being covered, it is pretty hard it to disentangle bipartisanship, we are living in an intense moment, but to be honest, how weird is this? how unusual is this behavior for debbie wasserman schultz to keep this guy on the payroll, when there is a criminal investigation. it seems very odd. >> it is extremely odd, we already knew in february about the cash. obviously at some point between then and now, we knew about the smashed hard drives, so what is the explanation for this behavior? there is just not a good one, so that is why i think we need to know what happened, and we need to be able to protect the house in the future.dd >> tucker: so we have seent other cases going back decades, where members of congress, thankfully a small number, but m they have had no-show jobs in their offices, where they give

someone a job, the person doesn't actually do the job, they kick back a portion of the salary to a member of congress, it is in embezzlement, basically, but it happens, is it a suggestion that something like that happened here? >> well, we have reports thatt some of these people worked at mcdonald's for a time, they did nothing, and another was running a type of car company, so you don't make $160,000, in the house as an i.t. technician, and then do those other jobs. so something's not right about it, whether it was kickbacks, whether it was something else, involving pakistan, i can only speculate, but don't the american people deserve or need answers to that? >> tucker: what does debbie wasserman schultz say? >> well, it is interesting, she was a little odd, the capitol police doing their job, i am not saying there can't be issues but looking back,nd you wonder why s

she taking that posture with this last topic she really -- laptop she really wanted back.et those are answers we need to get. >> tucker: do you ever run into her and say hey, why were you employing a family of pakistanis? >> well, it is a good question, but there are other democratic members, obviously she kept him on even when the other ones fired them, so she is going to have to answer that question, obviously, that won't even be necessary for us.vi the press is going to ask her, and she is going to have tosk explain that, because there's really no good explanation that i have seen so far. >> tucker: well, she is always welcome to come on the show and explain herself. thank you for coming on tonight. we just came back from el salvador, we learned a lot, we will show you what we found in our weeklong series, part one tonight, hunting ms-13. plus a college professor says it is okay to be on the speakers

-- ban a speakeres that she disagrees with from campus because their opinions are literally more harmful than physical violence, she joins us, just ahead. show me used trucks with one owner. pretty cool. [laughs] ah... ahem... show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new carfax.com. i tabut with my back paines, i couldn't sleep and get up in time. then i found aleve pm. aleve pm is the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.

>> tucker: last week, we traveled alongside attorney general jeff sessions to el salvador, a small central american country, home to the headquarters of ms-13, one of the most deadly gangs in the world..of we know that because a lot of them are here. we learned a lot on the trip about how ms-13 operates and how it has become such a threat to us in the united states. we will bring you the first part of our special series, "hunting ms-13." directly south of new orleans across the gulf of mexico is a small country of el salvador. it is a beautiful place. majestic dormant volcanoes.

it could be a mecca for tourism and investment, like its neighbor, costa rica, but it's not. >> i believe that we can weaken the violent, dangerous gang that is threatening your country and our country. >> tucker: instead, it is one of the most dangerous places ins the world with a murder rate higher than iraq. houses in the capital city are surrounded byur concertina wire and high-voltage fences. businessmen commute by armored car. their biggest fear? the criminal gang ms-13, which is holding their country hostage. in the past ten days, half of a dozen police officers have been murdered by ms-13. it is an enormous number in a country of just six million. they say that they expect more killings. o >> so six police officers in ten days? >> [speaking spanish] >> the gaining attempts to try

to go police t officers. >> tucker: last week, we traveled to el salvador to see the situation firsthand. what happens in that countryad has a direct effect to what happens here, where ms-13 has gained a foothold from california to new york. officials say that many of their career activities are supervised by leaders back in central america. that was confirmed to us by a former ms-13 assassin we interviewed, a man who claims to have murdered dozens of people for the gang. b he told us how easy it is for gang members to sneak into the u.s. based on weak border control. >> the homeboys of ms-13 get into the united states. they would wait at a certain point. they would bait people. they would bait people to bring them over, and they would come and pick them up, so they find him, and he stays there.ey >> tucker: later, we visited a detention center in el salvador

where suspected ms-13 members are being held before trial, more than 50 men packed into a single cell, their backs to us to avoid being identified.e we are here in the capital city, detention center where they wait until conviction, and then they will move onto one of the cities bigger prisons, it was toobi dangerous to go there, in fact one of our security guys said if we went there, we have to throw away our clothes,s because it is so filthy, it would be toxic to keep them. the squalor and the stench of bodies were unbelievable, but even more amazing, how young they were. some seemed barely out of childhood, in many cases, they were covered in gang tattoos, a sign of their total commitment. before long, some of these guys may wind up in l.a. or long island. it is happening now. >> so they say what city they want to go to, whether it is islip, new york or houston or los angeles, and we take them there.

and we turn them overke to sometimes gang members, sometimes relatives who have very little control over these young people, and they are drawn into the gang. >> tucker: all week, we will be bringing you dispatches from our reporting in el salvador because ms-13 isn't just their problem now. >> tucker: we hear a lot more from that former gang member tomorrow night, it is kind of an amazing interview, he is bragging about killing thousands -- dozens of people. the rest of the week, we will tell you more about how ms-13 gets to the u.s. and how they operate when they are here, we'll show you more in that detention center, the special series, "hunting ms-13", continues more this week.y we want to keep you up-to-date on something that "the washington post" is reporting, it is not clear how significant it is, but we c promise you do make every other channel is going wall to wall on it, so we feel a responsibility to give you some sense of what they are talking about. you remember earlier this month, the beginning of july, there is a huge kerfuffle over a meeting

that donald trump, jr., hadnn during the campaign with the russian lawyer, who many at the time claimed was acting on behalf of vladimir putin. and the question was why did he take the meeting? was it to talk about russian adoption, or was it to follow ud on a promise that she had t information about the hillary clinton campaign? right in the middle of that, donald trump jr. issued a statement, and according to "the washington post," june 8th, parts of that statement were dictated by his father, the president, coming back on a plane from the g-20 summit in germany, so he apparently got some guidance on what to say about his meeting from his dad, who is the president. is that a big deal? it is a huge story, or is it to nothing? we don't know yet, but "the washington post" is reporting on that, and so we thought we would tell you.u. up next, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words are deadly. up next, we'll talk to a professor who said it is okay to

ban speakers that she disagrees with from campus because their rhetoric is tantamount to violence and they should be treated accordingly. stay tuned. 's an american favorip of an american favorite, alice. it's like labor day weekend on top of the fourth of july. hotdogs. get your favorites on top of your favorites. only at applebee's. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, get your favorites on top of your favorites. and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions

can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. i'm leaving you, wesley. but why? you haven't noticed me in two years. i was in a coma. well, i still deserve appreciation. who was there for you when you had amnesia? you know i can't remember that. stop this madness. if it's appreciation you want you should both get snapshot from progressive. it rewards good drivers with big discounts on car insurance. i have also awoken from my coma. ♪ it's called a nap, susan lucci. ♪

>> tucker: lisa feldman barrett is a psychology professor at northeastern university. in a recent piece in "the new york times," she argues in defense of banning speeches, by figures like milo yiannopoulos calling him a provocateur and hatemonger, saying that there is nothing to begin from debating him, but she doesn't stop there. she says that this is based in science. s scientifically speaking, some speeches literally as harmful as physical violence. professor, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me on your

show. >> tucker: so if certain speech is tantamount to violence, we need to ban it. who decides under your plan what speech is allowed, and which is banned? >> well, first i have to point out the fact that i actually didn't advocate or in any way argue for banning anyone, i did not argue for censorship, and in fact, the article wasn't even really about free speech, it was about two things. okay, the first thing that it was about was choosing speechesh some speakers invite debate, and as i said in my article, debate is the lifeblood of democracy. it is really important, so it is important to invite people who will initiate a discussion and debate around provocativeti controversial and even offensive ideas. and particularly on college campuses, because debate opens minds, but hateful speech

closes minds, so just don't invite those people. and the second point that i made -- let me finish. it is important to make the point, no, the second point that i made is that at this particular moment hateful speech is problematic because we live in a culture that's full of casual brutality, that people say horrible things to each other on social media. bullying is rampant in schools and now we have politicians who just lob the f-bomb at one another. this kind of verbal aggression, if it g goes on for long enough, is harmful to your nervous system. grid makes people more likely to be m sick. >> tucker: i am going to sneak a question in here, i got it, so obviously, there is a pretext for censorship. my question remains the same, which is who decides what speech can be heard?

you are arguing against allowing all speech to be heard because some of it you don't classify as debate but as hate speech. my question is who gets to make that decision, subjectively, who is empowered to make it? you? >> no, not at all, there are two parts that i want to address on what you just said, the first is that i'm not talking about censorship, i am talking aboutrt who to invite. you run a television show. you have to make decisions about who you invite, and don't are you telling me that all the people that you choose not to invite, you're censoring this people? >> tucker: no, what i'mw,ha saying is that if i take you out of 1 classification and move you into another, it is an effort to silence you. >> not at all. >> tucker: if i were to state your s ideas are so stupid we shouldn't listen. we shouldn't debate.in what a i'm trying to do is silee you. you are making a case for censorship but you are too disingenuous to admit it.

who gets to make the determination? who gets to decide what is hate and what is debate? who makes that call? >> i will answer your question about who gets to decide in a second, but i first want to address the points that you just made, i think that people start to call each other namesad when they think that they can't win a debate on the basis of the strength or debates, debate is the lifeblood of democracy, as i said in my op-ed, and debates mean that you have to foster an opportunity for people to actually express their views. so when i tell you that censorshipip is different from choosing to invite, when i make the point of that free speech gives you the right to say offensive things, but it doesn't necessarily give you the you shouldn't expect the right to be invited everywhere, and when i tell you, and when i tell you --as and when i tell you -- >> tucker: you are watching debate happen, and you don't't like it, i am waiting for -- >> no, actually --

>> tucker: how do you answer -- i am soliciting an answer from you, i keep asking you the same question, which iss how do we decide? what are the standards? who gets to make that call? what is legitimate, and what is not? and you can't answer the question. >> i can answer the question, but you keep clouding it with insults. yes. the real answer is that a reasonable person, when a reasonable person is fearful for their own safety or the safety of someone else, that classifies as hateful speech. >> tucker: how do you decide what a reasonable person is? hold on, maybe i feel intimidated by you right now, i think i'm a reasonable person, consign you to the hate speech been? i mean, what does that even mean, these are objective categories, that is why normal people -- used to say we let everybody

talk. >> yeah, a reasonable person is actually a concept in u.s. law, it is a concept that is used by judges and lawyers and other legal actors to make decisions.t >> tucker: define it. i have 30 seconds, define what it means. >> a reasonable person is the average person. >> tucker: so what does that mean, the average person? >> listen, the point is that we have a public health crisis, and in that context, it becomes really more important to choose to invite people who will discuss controversial and offensive topics. i actually said that in my op-ed, what i am saying is if you are going to make decisions about who too invite, pick the people who will engage in debate and avoidn people who won't. and there is a reason for doing that. >> tucker: i still am confused by what you're saying, i mean how do we know -- who is the

average person? you haven't thought through your argument, it seems to me that what you're saying, with respect, is that there are some views i don't like, they are no real, i don't have to take them seriously because i don't feel like engaging with them, so shut up. so i am asking you to define these terms, and you don't seem like you can. >> i did define myhe terms. >> tucker: so that means what? how do you define it? >> are you telling me that you can't tell the differencee between censorship and the difference between who to invite? are you telling me that -- >> tucker: i am trying to get you to define a term that youyo introduced into the conversation, i am asking you a simple question, what does that mean, average person. you can't answer. you're changingg the subject, and you are the one who wrote the op-ed, but you are not listening. >> i am telling you that's my op-ed was one thing, but you seem consistent on making about something else.

you are cherry picking. >> tucker: i'm not. i am asking you to define what you are talking about. i am an adult who demands an adult answer, and you don't have one. >> i absolutely give you an answer. >> tucker: so i ask you for the fist time with that actually means, but you don't seem tobs have an answer. >> i answered. you just didn't like my answer. and so instead,ns you just lobbed insults. i don't actually understand how that actually promotes the kind of debate which fostersll a democracy. i really don't. >> tucker: okay, i don't think that you believe in debate. >> if i didn't believe in debate, i wouldn't be on here on your show. >> tucker: you didn't do a very good job, with respect. thanks for joining us. we let that go as long as we could try to find out what makes a reasonable person. we are still unsure. if you are a regional person --

reasonable person, call and tell us. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni. hey.

pass please. i'm here to fix the elevator. nothing's wrong with the elevator. right. but you want to fix it. right. so who sent you? new guy. what new guy? watson. my analysis of sensor and maintenance data indicates elevator 3 will malfunction in 2 days. there you go. you still need a pass.

there you go. trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.

>> tucker: before we go, we just hit a million followers on twitter. our staff that it's traditional for every follower to send in a dollar. see you tomorrow! >> jesse: hello everybody, i'm jesse watters, along with kimberley guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino, and greg gutfeld. it's 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five." another big shakeup in the west wing. president trump's communication director anthony scaramucci is out. less than two weeks after being hired for the job. this as a retired general john kelly took command as the new white house chief of staff. press secretary sarah sanders explained why the change was made. >> the president felt that anthony's comments were inappropriate for a person in