unfortunately, that's all the time we have this evening. remember the show will always be fair and balanced. we are not the left wing destroyed trump establishment media. thanks for being with us. see you back here tomorrow nigh night. >> tucker: good evening, and welcome, it was a short run, but none of us will ever forget it, anthony scaramucci is gone a mere ten days after he arrived, after trashing reince priebus in a now famous interview with the new yorker, his abrupt fall was ordered by the new chief of staff, john kelly, the goal was ending chaos in the white house, it became clear that kelly is in charge from here on out, white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders had this to say to dave about what just happened. >> the president it certainly

felt that anthony's comments were inappropriate for a person in that position and he didn't want to burden general kelly also with that line of succession. >> tucker: at citizens united, he was his deputy campaign manager, doesn't work at the white house, but he knows what is going on, and he is joining us tonight. thanks for coming on. so what is the take away her? what is the message from the firing of a anthony scaramucci? >> well, i think that there is a new sheriff in town, i think that general kelly's first day on the job, he put a stamp on his rain here at the white hous 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, that is what he is expecting from everyone on the white house staff, for them to follow his lead, and i think that the days

of no clashing between staff are going to be over, and i look forward to it. >> tucker: so the sin was the in-fighting, it was in the naughty words that he used, it was elevating internal disputes to the public eye. >> you are asking for his stomach specifically about anthony, i think that is a combination that people were displaced dumb i could displeased about the language that was used in that interviewf staff wanting to have his own people in the white house food that can then take his lead. >> tucker: and i think it is reassuring for a lot of people watching from the outside, he was there less than two weeks, but maybe with the missions, the white house chief of staff reince priebus and sean spicer, any chance any of them will come back now that scaramucci is gone? >> i don't see that happening, there is a new chapter born in

the white house today, it appears that this white house chief of staff can put together a incredible career, 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? >> what i have been told is that all people who are employees of the white house work for general kelly, that the chain of command goes through him, and i don't believe there are any exceptions. >> tucker: so that would included jared kushner? >> that would include everyone who is an employee at the white house, so i think that would include the family, and every employee that works there as an employee. >> tucker: boy, if that is true, it is of course a massive change of what has been going on for the past happy year, a huge change, so what is the new goal, now that the white house seem to

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 mulvaney and others who have stated 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's mitch mcconnell will be able to get one more vote out of those, and the senators who voted against it, they failed the republicans across the country, they fill the present, when they voted against that bill. and whether they understand it or not, it was a failure of character on their part, they should have voted 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 injuries are

more important than the present, i think it was a selfish move. >> tucker: 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 replaced part of the equation meant. >> well, look, i agree with that, and of course, we would have to go back to congress and get with a house bill that was very complicated as well, nobody knew, but the point was to get it to congress, to be able to move past this issue, to be honest with you, let's just be clear about this, the economy is growing at a 2.6% right now, the president has said it we going to get to two and half or 3% during the campaign, and people laughed at him. i want to say that we just have tax reform, not just tax cuts, taxes simplification and across the board, corporations and individuals, we are going to have an economic boom here in america that everyone can be very proud of. >> tucker: so let's say that

this vote fails, the third attempt at health care, how quickly will be white house regroup and focus do you think on tax reform? >> well, they are already moving forward on tax return done microform, they are working behind the scenes with members of the leadership, and i think that the staff lead by now general kelly and mick mulvaney, and this team, that they are doing an amazing job, and i think that they are going to continue to work towards tax reform for everyone. >> tucker: last question, really quick, where is scaramucci going? >> i understand that he may move back to the bank where he was for the last month. >> tucker: okay, thanks for coming on. for more on the dramatic rise and fall of anthony scaramucci, we are joined by author and columnist and a keen observer of washington. >> lets me add it to the last question, where is scaramucci

going? "dancing with the stars." [laughs] >> tucker: i wouldn't just recommend against us, 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's want to believe that this is a turning point, where the energy of the administration will be focus outward, and the debates that they are having will be policy debates, and they can win some of them, do you think it is tha that? >> i think it could be, they will date it to this last week it, which they just really hit rock bottom, and they got somebody in control, kelly, who doesn't suffer fools, obviously, his first saying was that scaramucci went way, way beyond the line, it is not just a matter of chaos, it was sort of unseemly, both because of the in-fighting, and because of the "colorful language,," and it

appears as if he is going to establish lines of communication, lines of control, and 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 raining in the president's impulses, then i think they have a very good chance of succeeding, if they don't, if he can do that, they will fail, and it will be trump two-point oh, and it will go the way of trump 12-point oh, >> tucker: people have said that the president likes chaos, he feels comfortable with it, yet he is the one who brought kelly in, and he brought 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. >> 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 ramp that you have on the new yorker from scaramucci, will you have the failure of health care, where you have the joint chiefs ignoring this essentially, in order for the president on a transgender's, that is sort of upping the order 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 is set recently in his last and final push for health care, we are going to make it congress abide by the laws they pass, they have members and their staff in washington, their 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 end, do you think you 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 after 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, he also can't be justified, but i feel the same way about earmarks, one of the great things that congress did but in a rush of hyper ethics, those 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 a legislating more difficult. >> tucker: you. >> so they have a perk on health care, keep it, but past 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 out, but unfortunately it is real, and illegal alien deported 20 times is now charged with sexual assault, after a sanctuary city relieved him and refused to tell the feds his whereabouts, lipsey of this unbelievable chaos can bring any sanity to what is out of contro control. plus will have part one of a weeklong series on ms-13. weeklong series on ms-13. stay tuned. when this bell rings...

...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and.

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: 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, now the feds it should have been notified that we are keeping some measure from him coming back again, so instead, martinez was released because portland is a century city that refuses to enforce u.s. immigration laws, guess what happened? he was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a

65-year-old woman, he is a former deputy secretary, he joins us tonight, isn't this exactly the reason you don't want century city's in the first place, if you don't enforce the law, then people are going to do appalling things to your citizens? and it just happened? >> the real issue is that what this amended, it is horrible, it shouldn't happen again, but the real issue here is that at this is an outlier, that's doesn't happen often, century city's are doing well, they are actually safer, century city's, by the way, not only that, but -- >> tucker: let me just cut in, we actually have data on this. i don't think that you do. last year, the university of north carolina at riverside did a study of 55 sanctuary cities, maybe they have some retold stranglehold and you won't believe the numbers, they would a sickly no statistical

difference between the 55 century cities and the rest of the country, but i am quoting now "a violent crime was higher in century 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 study 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. the real issue here is that donald trump is trying to defund century cities, what that is actually going to do, they are going to be less safe, you don't want policeman to have less bullets 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. >> they are supposed to keep citizens safe. a >> tucker: here is the point, you have a guy who was deported 20 times, he was a

homeless method, he gets arrested again, and rather than tell the feds about it, they released him, and he rapes someone. >> he should never be able to come back to this country ever again. the one hold on, at 20 times, so if someone come 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? >> 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 than 5% -- >> 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 -- it is

illegal alien, and so just slow down with that. so here's the question, at what point do you say i'm 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., by the way, if we eliminate sanctuary cities, we have to make sure that we have secure borders, comprehensive -- >> tucker: okay, i don't understand, comprehensive immigration reform, these are political terms, how many times you have to be deported before we say that we are not going to cover for you or protect you anymore? what is the number? three times? >> there is no number. you just said that, maybe that's what you believe, if you are in undocumented immigrant, you should not be in this country.

>> tucker: how about if you are a homeless meth head as the sky 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 in the 19th time? >> this is not about catching him, this is about making sure that 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. no, i am not, don't be silly. >> tucker: i'm not being silly. i am being fair. >> 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 enact federal law. >> tucker: so they should not have arrested the sky of the first 20 times? if they had taken this more

seriously, this guy wouldn't -- he would not to be, if we had said we are not putting up with this, -- >> he should not be allowed into this country, sanctuary cities are doing well economically, that is a fact. >> tucker: the hilarious thing 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 don't have the numbers on left, i know that they are not safer, because i have the numbers on that, so why do you not about to superior language on this? >> 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 conceded that that person has demonstrated he does not respect american law? >> for our border to 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. >> this is not a political issue. >> tucker: why wouldn't you call the feds and have them do it? >> so we need a wall, is that t you're saying? >> no, we need immigration reform. >> tucker: you say you are for securing our borders, why not just build a wall? 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 for canada? we don't need a wall. >> tucker: oh, we don't need a wall? we just need to secure the border. you know, why don't you say what you are really thinking, which is i don't believe in borders,

anyone who wants to can come here, because that is what you think. >> 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, this is like impossible. all right, we will let our viewers decide. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: pretty embarrassed last week when her staffer got arrested trying to flee the country, he has been accused of a bunch of crimes, it is time to investigate her herself, one of her colleagues said it is you totaled your brand new car. nobody's hurt, but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart.

with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> tucker: a lot of investigations in washington right now, remember that the u.s. house takes its time to start another one, this one on debbie's wasserman schultz, a former dnc chair from florida, she was dumbing down like her aid was recently arrested, on federal bank fraud charge, he has been suspected of other wrongdoing for months, he was banned from the computer network it, it is a red flag, to put it mildly, and yet congressman wasserman schultz kept him on her payroll for reasons that we can only speculate about, the whole thing seems a little weir weird, it stinks enough to order an investigation of wasserman schultz herself. so, congressman, for a sitting

member of congress to call for an investigation of a another sitting member, it is probably a pretty high bar, 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, i think you're probably going to see some procurement stuff, and then what we are waiting for, why are these people sending money to pakistan, what were they doing with the information they were able to obtain? so that's 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 in perspective, in my office, we spend about $1500 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, that how these people would have been brought into the system, why were not alarm bells

answered 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? >> tucker: now at least some of them are foreign nationals from pakistan, which anyone from the intel world can tell you, one of the sketchy are more anti-american places on earth, 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 have 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 appropriations committee for more funding so that they could expedite security clearances for more of their stuff, these guys would have been part of that truck load 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 d tangled 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. >> tucker: so we have seen other cases going back decades, where members of congress, thankfully a small number, but

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 seller to a member of congress, it is in puzzlement, basically, but it happens, is it a suggestion that something like that happen here? >> well, we have reports that 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 to 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 it debbie if wasserman schultz say? >> well it is interesting, she was a little odd, the capitol police doing their job, i am not saying that they are painting over the issues, but it was a little bracing at the time, and now looking back, you wonder why

was she taking that posture with this last topic, if she really wanted back, so again, those are answers that we need to get. >> tucker: do you ever run into her in the hall and say hey, wasserman schultz, why were you implying these people? why reading that? >> well, it is a good question, but there are other democratic members, obviously she kept him on even when the other ones fired him, so she is going to have to answer that question, obviously, that won't even be necessary for us, the press is going to ask her, and she is going to have to 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 to an end, congressman thank you. >> tucker: 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 a ms-13. plus a college professor says it

is okay to be on the speakers that she disagrees with from campus because their opinions are literally more harmful than are literally more harmful than physical violence, she joined

you won't see these folks at the post office. are literally more harmful than physical violence, she joined they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras

including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. >> tucker: it last week, we traveled along side of attorney general jeff sessions to el salvador, a small central american country, home to the headquarters of ms-13, one of the most deadly games in the world. we learned a lots 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, 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 violence and the dangerous gang of that is threatening your country, and our country. >> tucker: instead, it is one of the most dangerous places in the world, with a murder rate higher than iraq, they say that they are surrounded by wire, high-voltage fences, businessmen commute by armored car, their biggest fear? that the criminal gangs 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 several million, they say that they expect more killings. >> so six police officers in ten days? [speaking spanish] >> they try to kill police officers.

>> tucker: last week it, we traveled to el salvador to see the situation firsthand, what happens in that country is a direct effect to what happens here, where ms-13 has gained a foothold from california to new york at, they 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 that we interviewed, a man who claims to have murdered dozens of people for the gang, 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 abate people, they would abate people to bring them over, and they would come and pick them up, so they find him, and he stays there. >> tucker: later, we visited a detention center in el salvador

were 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. we are here in the capital city, it is where they await trial until conviction, and then they will move onto one of the cities bigger prisons, it was too dangerous to go there, in fact one of our security guys said that if we went there, we have to throw away her close, 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 seem to 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 new york or houston or los angeles, and we take them there. and we turn them over to

sometimes gang members, sometimes kids who have very little control over these young people, and they are drawn into the gang. >> tucker: all week, we will breathe 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 speaking about killing thousands 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. we want to keep you up-to-date on something that "the washington post"'s reporting, it is not clear how significant it is, but we 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., had 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 up on a promise that she had information about the hillary clinton campaign? right in the middle of us, donald trump junior issued a statement, and according to "the washington post," june 8th, 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 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, "the washington post" is reporting on that, and so we thought we would tell you. 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

>> tucker: she is a psychology professor at northeastern university, in a recent piece in "the new york times," she argues in defense of it banning speeches, 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, and speaking, some speeches literally as harmful as physical violence, professor, things were coming on.

>> thanks for having me on your show. >> tucker: is so if certain speech is tantamount to violence, we need to ban is, 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 it choosing speeches, some speakers invite to 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 provocative 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 it -- compass >> tucker: okay, wait. >> oh, no let me finish, it is important to make the point, no, the second point that i made is that at this particular moment in hate time, we live in a timn we are full of casual brutality, people say terrible things to each other on social media, bullying is rampant on social media, and now we have this kind of verbal aggression, if it goes on for long enough, it is harmful to our nervous system, it makes people more likely to be 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 debates 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 about who to invite. you run a television show, you have to make decisions about who you invite, and to you don't come are you telling me that all the people that you choose not to invite, you're censoring this people? >> tucker: know, what i'm 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. if you want your ideas are so bad, that they are not ideas, what i'm doing is trying to silence you, i am putting you outside, and that is exactly what you're doing, you are making a case for censorship. you are just too disingenuous to admit it. my question is who gets to make that determination? who gets to decide what is hate

and what is debate? to make that call? it is simple. >> i will answer your question about who gets to decide in a second, but i first want to address the perp points that you just made, i think that people start to call each other names when they think that they can to 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 means that you have to foster an opportunity for people to actually express their views, so when i tell you that censorship is different from choosing to invite, when i make the point of that free speech gives you the right it to say offensive things, but it doesn't necessarily give you the dash you shouldn't expect the right to be invited everywhere, and when i tell you, and when i tell you -- >> tucker: you are watching debate happened, and you don'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 is how do we decide? what are the standards? who gets to make that call? what is legitimate, and what is not? and you want to 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 recite what a reasonable person is? hold on, maybe i feel intimidated by you right now, i think i'm a reasonable person, can you consign me to the hate speech been? i mean, what does that even mean, these are objective categories, that is why normal people --

>> 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. >> tucker: 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, actually said that in my op-ed, what i am saying is if you are going to make decisions about who to invite, pick the people who will engage in debate and avoid people who want. and there is an actual reason for doing that's no. >> 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 not really is, i don't have to take them seriously because i don't feel like engaging with them, so shut off, so i am axing you to define these terms, and you don't seem like you can. >> i did define my terms. >> tucker: so that means what? how do you define it? >> are you telling me that you can tell the difference between censorship and the difference between who to invite? are you telling me that -- >> tucker: i am trying to get to you to define a term that you introduce into the conversation, i am asking you a simple question, what does that mean, you can't answer, you're changing 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.

>> tucker: 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 to have an answer. >> i asked you, you just didn't like my answer, and so instead, you just lobbed insults. i don't actually understand how that actually promotes the kind of debate which fosters a democracy. i really don't. >> tucker: okay, i don't think that you believe and debates. >> if i didn't believe in debate, i wouldn't be on here show. >> tucker: you didn't do a very good job, with respect. while, we let that go as long as we could, trying to find out what makes a reasonable person,

>> tucker: before we go, we just hit a million followers on twit our stuff that it's traditional for every follower to send in a dollar. see you tomorrow! >> jesse: hello everybody, i'm jesse watters, along with camilla guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino, , ad 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 is 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