#the story. we will see you right back here tomorrow night on wednesday at 7:00 p.m. my friend tucker carlson is coming up next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i lay the blame on both sides. i have no doubt about it. >> tucker: well, good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight. the president as you may have heard fired back at the media today in new york after delivering a short speech on his proposal for a national infrastructure project president trump held a heated news conference where he defended his reaction to the street fighting and the car attack in charlottesville, virginia over the weekend. well, gues we will get to what the president's marks meant next. first ed henry. >> tucker great to see you. cnn charging he went quote off the rails. and to be sure suggesting they were fine people on

both sides on saturday when there were neo nazis and white supremacists there is going to be a problem for this president. but a loss in the hysteria is that he did, again, very clearly denounce neo nazis and he pointed out something liberals do not want to admit that there was violence among some of the counter protesters like an tiff if a. watch. >> let me ask you. this what about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs. do they have any problem? i think they do. [shouting] >> as far as i'm concerned, that has a horrible, horrible day. >> then the media pushed the president again. why didn't you initially call it terror on saturday. the president could not have been clearer about how he felt about the person among those neo nazis who killed a woman with his car. here is what he said. >> i think the driver of the

car is a disgrace to himself, his family and his country. and that is -- you can call it terrorism. you can call it murder. you can call it whatever you want. >> then as he was pressed whether he was putting radicals of the alt left on the same moral plain as white supremacists. he was pressed about that. he made points about the danger of knocking down statues eracing our history. he seemed to undo the positive nature of his statement yesterday at the white house when he clearly denounced neo nazis. he went back to what he was saying saturday that there was blame on both sides. somehow added there were fine people on both sides as he was asked about whether statues of thomas jefferson should come down next because he was a slave owner. watch. >> you are changing history. you are changing culture. and you had people, and i'm not talking about the neo nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. but you had many people in that group other than neo nazis and white

nationalists. okay? and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. now. in the other group, also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the blackout fits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. you got a lot of bad people in the other group, too. >> unfairly, you were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? i don't understand what you are saying. >> there were people at that rally. i looked the night before, if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of robert e. lee. i'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. the following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people neo nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. but you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest because you, you know, i don't know if you know, they

had a permit. the other group didn't have a permit. so, i only tell you this, there are two sides to a story. i thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country. a horrible moment. but there are two sides to the country. >> to take a step back yesterday was going to be all about cracking down on china for unfair trade. today was going to be all about infrastructure. the plan that the president thinks can create a lot of jobs. very little of that message on either one of those big campaign promises is going to break through now. tucker? >> tucker: thanks, ed. one thing the president said today deserves more attention than it will likely get. yesterday a monitor down a civil war soldier's memorial in durham, north carolina. police stood idolly by and liberals across the country applauded it which statues are next, the president asked today, george washington, thomas jefferson. it's not a joke. suddenly it's a serious question. thomas jefferson

indisputably was a great man. he was the author of the declaration of independence. founder of the university of west virginia and most importantly the greatest thinker in american political history. all of us live in his shadow. unfortunately, however, jefferson was also a slave holder. that's real. it's a moral taint. we ought to remember it. but the fanatics on the left it means that jefferson must be purged from public memory forever. the demands are already coming that we do that. in 2015, the students at the university of missouri demanded the removal of a jefferson statue. two years ago, on cnn, anchor ashleigh banfield suggested the jefferson memorial in washington might have to go. needless to say there is literally no limit when you start thinking like this. last year hundreds of activists in new york demanded the statue of theodore roosevelt at the american national history museum be dismantled. they argued that roosevelt was a racist. that's the standard. nobody is safe. watch out abraham lincoln.

you're next. now, to be clear, as if it's necessary, slavery is evil. if you believe in the rights of the individual, it's actually hard to think of anything worse than slavery. but let's be honest. up until 150 years ago when a group of brave americans fought and died to findly put an end to it, slavery was the rule, rather than the exception around the world. and had been for thousands of years, sadly. play dough owned saves, so did mohammed peace be on him. the aztecs did, too. before he liberated latin american. slave-holding was so common among the north american indians they brought them with them on the trail of tears. wasn't something they learned from european settlers. indians were holding and trading slaves when christopher columbus arrived. by the way he owned slaves, too. none of this is a defense of the atrocity of human bondage. it is an atrocity. the point however if we are going to judge the past by the standards of the

present. if we are going to reduce a person's life to the single worst thing he ever participated in, we had better be prepared for the consequences of that. and here's why. 41 of the 56 men who signed the declaration of independence held slafsz. james madison the father of the constitution had a plantation full of slaves. george may have been the 235er78 of the bill of rights also owned slaves, unfortunately. but does that make what they wrote illegitimate? if these men were simply racist villains and that's all they were, then the society they created is as evil as they were. there is no reason to respect its traditions or uphold its laws. >> the first amendment, for example, the right to speak freely for hundreds of years americans have reveered it the left dismisses it as the work of white supremacist slave holders. it is worthless, they tell us. it must go. it is now routine to hear liberals claim that hate speech, whatever that is, isn't protected by the first amendment. of course the whole point of the first amendment is to protect speech that offends people. it's a statements of

shocking ignorance and yet it is now common. criminals cuomo said it is he supposedly a lawyer. that pa mona college in california free speech a tool incorporated by hegemonic institutions. whatever that means. the right of free expression should only apply to certain racial groups. that's not racist because as you know there are no racists on the left. they are just sincere people care about hate. there an important debate going on in the country right now. it's not about statues and antifa, it's about american institutions and whether they are worth preserving. radicals on the left want to tear it all down as they did the statue in durham yesterday. quality under the law. protections for the individual against the mob. the absolute right to say and believe anything you choose. those will be gone. replaced by something darker and more rigidly conformist. is that a country you want to live in? if it's not, now is the time to speak up, elites are refusing to. they are too afraid.

daniel davidson senior correspondent at the federalist. he joins us tonight. john, this does seem like a turning point somehow, not just on the right but also on the left, these events of the last two days and there seems to be a new intensity on the left. am i imagining that? >> no, you're not. and we do seem like we are at a turning point. but this has been coming down the pike for a number of years. i remember two years ago we had the 150th anniversary of the confederate surrender and had you people in the mainstream media at that time calling for the desis he creation of confederate graves. not just tearing down statues but digging up remains, removing them, you know, bull dozing over cemeteries and this iconic clastic impulse is native to the left. this is what china's cultural revolution was all about. if you want to see where tearing down statues by mobs will get you, look at

pictures of china's cultural revolution where they tore down statues, temples. >> tucker: that's exactly right. >> the whole thing even stomping on them. >> tucker: but move did that and the cam region did that and the taliban did that in afghanistan for political reasons. look, i'm not -- for whatever it is worth not sympathetic to confederacy i'm an american and insurrections, period. it's not about that. the people who are attacking these statues know nothing about history. they don't know who robert e. lee was. they don't know who stonewall jackson was. they are trying to delegitimize the utes government and tradition of american society because they don't believe in them. this is transactional. they are doing this to achieve a goal that has nothing to do with the cill war. >> yeah. >> that's right. i think a lot of people on the right, conservatives on the right who are saying yes, maybe we should move these statues to a museum, missed the point. this is not about the

confederacy. this is not about the civil war. this is about political power and it's about a small group of people on the left trying to exert outside influence on american politics by following in the footsteps of mao, of the armed thugs in the why march republic of the taliban. these are tactics that are well-known. you start by tearing down statues and burning books and eventually you go after people. tuck tongue one of the ironies of all of this and been interesting to watch on the split screen left and right fighting each other horrifying but also instructive. one of the things i don't like about some of these white supremacist groups is that race is at the center of their world view. i don't want to live in a world where race is at the center of the world view. but i see the same on the left. i see people with signs attacking white supremacy or it's always about race for them as well. they seem every bit as race-obsessed and angry as the people they are fighting. but nobody acknowledges that for some reason. >> this is what happens with

white -- with identity politics. if you push identity politics, eventually you get around to identity politics for white people, which is a dangerous thing in a country that has a huge white majority. you know, this is why the left has been sowing these seeds of what's been happening for a long time. are they surprised eventually some white people are going to say yeah, let's do identity politics and we have white identity politics. it's all poisonous garbage. >> tucker: this is the determinative. what do you think happens when you force people to line up by their characteristics by race. do you think you are not going to wind up with every group doing that? of course you are. this is what identity politics looks like on left and right. why does nobody make that point? >> it's totally unamerican, too. america is not about ethnicity. it's not about national origin. it's about creed. there is no place in the american constitutional system for identity politics left or right. plain and simple.

>> tucker: thank you for saying that u. will probably be attacked as the something for doing so but i'm glad you did. john, thank you. >> thanks. >> tucker: riders in durham, north carolina destroyed a royal memorial. local governments are not keeping order in the streets for some reason. the chattering classes don't care. they are more concerned with rolling back free speech rights for the population than in protecting us from disorder. why is that the case? we'll try to get to the bottom of it. also president obama's biggest program for illegal immigrants turns five years old today. we have a cake. we will talk to the supporter of that program up ahead. ♪ each year sarah climbs 58,007 steps. that's the height of mount everest. because each day she chooses to take the stairs. at work, at home... even on the escalator. that can be hard on her lower body, so now she does it with dr. scholl's orthotics. clinically proven to relieve and prevent foot, knee or lower back pain,

by reducing the shock and stress that travel up her body with every step she takes. so keep on climbing, sarah. you're killing it. dr. scholl's. born to move. and life's beautiful moments.ns get between you flonase outperforms the #1 non-drowsy allergy pill. it helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause symptoms. pills block one and 6 is greater than 1. flonase changes everything. will people know it means they'll get the lowest price guaranteed on our rooms

by booking direct on choicehotels.com? hey! badda book. badda boom! mr. badda book. badda boom! book now at choicehotels.com

♪ >> tucker: rioters in the city of durham, north carolina destroyed a statue honoring confederate war dead they pulled it down yesterday while cops stood by and did nothing. [chanting] [screaming] >> tucker: you would think the government allowing policy decisions to be made by mob violence would be a big concern among liberals. not a good precedent to set. but they don't seem bothered at all. instead a top priority on the left is securing a roll back of free speech rights for you and me. yesterday on msnbc black lives matter co-founder patrice colors said the first amendment protections don't apply to whatever is

deemed to be hate speech. >> we are seeing a movement of white nationalists rising up because they have been emboldened by trump at his government. hate speech which is what we're seeing coming out of white nationalist groups is not protected under the first amendment rights. >> tucker: jez minute is a political commentator and she joins us tonight. jazmine, thanks for coming on. so,. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. you hear this allot. of course hate speech is not mentioned in the bill of rights there are a bunch of supreme court decisions brandenburg vs. ohio i think being the most important that explain it very explicitly, yes, language you disagree with is covered by the first amendment. but tell me where this idea comes from because everybody seems to be repeating it. >> well, first of all, patrice colors is a good friend of mine and i definitely understand what she is saying. >> tucker: um-huh.

>> you know, legally is hate speech protected? absolutely. should it be? that depends on where you fall on the issue. when you are talking about white nationalism and white supremacists, yes, there is a lot of hate speech from that side. and she is absolutely right. when we talk about issues around black lives, and issues around equality, you know, there isn't the hate that is coming from the other side. let me put it to you that way. >> tucker: depends on what you think is hateful. >> you know, kkk -- when you have the kk and white folk talking to death to african-americans, calling people. >> tucker: that's awful. i aa agree completely. >> it's not awful. that's hateful. that's perfect example of hate speech. >> tucker: it's absolutely hateful. wait, slow down. let me ask you a question.

this is a pointless -- this is actually kind of the point i was making. and i agree with everything you said. that is hateful and it's awful. i'm offended by it. >> it is. >> tucker: but really what you are saying is you're offended and that's the problem with hate speech, this fake category that we have made up all of a sudden because it's entirely subjective. what's offensive to you or hateful to you may not be as offensive to me. we are both american citizens. we both live under the same biffle rights. >> i agree. >> tucker: you see the patrol car. the attempts by the left to ban speech as r. as bad by attempts to the right to ban speech. call i truce and -- >> i agree with you on that. it's a slippery slope when you try to define what is hateful and what is not. >> tucker: right. >> it is really clear especially given the images and the video that we saw coming out of charlottesville. there was a lot of hate speech. you know, there was a lot of hatefulness. i think that a lot of americans are really tired of it i don't think it's just. >> tucker: i agree.

>> i think americans, period, are very tired of the rhetoric on both sides. and when you talk about charlottesville, for example, what i thought was really interesting is you had a lot of politicians coming out and condemning it and calling for unity. i remember saying to myself you need to lead by example there is a lot of hateful rhetoric coming out of washington, d.c. that americans are watching every single day and then you have instances like charlottesville and what's going on around the country. people are angry. people are upset. >> tucker: i agree. but, hold on. we can't have that conversation or any conversation until we both agree that we have the right to say what we believe and we are not going to be punished for doing that i see a lot of attempts on the left to shut down the conversation because they don't like what the other side is saying. that is not the road to reconciliation or harmony. that's the road to division and war. look, i don't think attempts by the right to shut down. >> attempts by the right. >> tucker: to shut down people's speech? name one. >> even on this very network. come on, now.

>> tucker: name one. are you kidding? everyone with any point of view is allowed on my show. in fact welcome to my show. let me ask you a question since we are talking about the events of the last couple of days. left wing protesters are upset by the existence of civil war memorials. robert e. lee statues because they are symbols of racial discrimination and hate. if you knew that there were 50 public buildings paid for by taxpayers, maintained by taxpayers in this country named after a ku klux klan recruiter, would that bother you? >> look, there are buildings in los angeles. there was a building in los angeles named after one of the most racist police chiefs on the los angeles police department. >> tucker: no. there is no comparison -- hold on. hold on. this is not a racist police chief. this is the exalted cyclops of the kkk robert byrd, the longest serving u.s. senator who just died several years ago. why is there no effort to take his name off these buildings as a former klan recruiter you would think

people would be offended by his name. >> i think you need to give it time. but i think one of the issues is that you can take down all of the monuments. you can change the names of a lot of buildings, but you can't change american history. i think that's part of what is missing from this conversation. do i want to see monuments and statues of people who are racist or supported slavery? not really. but at the same time i don't completely want to erase american history either because i want to make sure future generations know what happened. and i think we are in this cycle right now where we are in such a rush to get rid of things that remind us of bad times in our history and it's like, yeah. it was bad. but you know what? we also have to remember what happened and pass that down in hopes of not repeating it as well. >> tucker: i think that's right. also the united states ended slavery around the world and maybe we should get some credit for that, too. don't you think? >> eh --

>> tucker: we are out of time. think about that jazz min. >> we can't get americans to think about reparations so. >> tucker: yeah. think we deserve some credit. the memorial was destroyed. police did nothing to stop the protesters or the people to pulled it off the pedestal. didn't even bother to arrest the head vandals. up next talk to two law enforcement veterans about why police are toler rating destruction in the public square. stay tuned. g.com. booking.yeah! that complain about dry mouth they feel that they have to drink a lot of water medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works! i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out.

sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can even warm these to help you fall asleep faster. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store. [woman] so you're saying you didn't eat this ice cream? [man] baby, i swear on my lucky shirt...

i ate it. [burke] fright-ning bolt. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ (boy) and these are the lungs. (class) ewwww!

(boy) sorry. (dad) don't worry about it. (mom) honey, honey, honey, honey! (vo) at our house, we need things that are built to last. that's why we got a subaru. (avo) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. get 0% apr financing for 63 months on all new 2017 subaru legacy models. now through august 31st.

some stood by or diagnose nothing or don't mistake restraint for inaction. had i ordered by deputies to engage a hostile crowd, there would have been serious injuries. statues can be replaced. lives cannot. it's time for some ground rules. we must make clear what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior. no one is getting away with this. >> tucker: in other words, don't worry that the police let anarchy reign because they are watching videos of what happened and they are going to try to identify and arrest the people responsible at some point.

we hope you are assured. imagine the fire department making the same case. let your house burn down and then they're going to sift through the ashes to try to find the arsonist afterwards and by the way don't complain. the message of all of this is clear, of course, the left has free reign to destroy what they don't like and police will do nothing about it we have seen that a lot. what will they feel empowered to destroy next. stacey abrams governor of georgia has demanded the destruction of stone mountain the world's largest sculpture masterpiece but it commemorates confederate figures so she wants it taken off the wall. that would put her in the same league as the taliban which you will remember blew up immense ancient stone buddhas because they offended the official ideology. if you have got views the left doesn't like, this should give you pause, especially now that police won't intervene what can't they do to you? that's a question that ought to be rattling around your head. vincent hill national police officer.

former homeland security advisor for new york state and they join us now. vincent hill, to you first. why is this different from the fire department say we are not going to put your house out. it's on fire but it would be pretty dangerous if we showed up on scene. we will find out later what happened. how is this different from that? >> well, tucker, thanks for having me. i think there is a huge difference, of course, when there is a fire. there is an immediate imminent threat of a loss of life. what the police in charlottesville were dealing withenned we have seen it from the left time and time again. the black lives matter protest where people when police show up, they immediately escalate. they don't want to listen. they start to throw rocks, urine at police. so i think the police were right in watching and a lot of people don't realize they were actually keeping the peace because you can actually arrest someone at a later time if you have probable cause to do that. so i think if police would

have shown up in riot gear we would have had the left again police had to use force because someone wanted to resist or use force against them. then we would have the left say look at these white racist thug officers that are there beating on these people. so it would have fed into what the left wanted us to see. >> tucker: you are right. they would absolutely would have said that on the other hand, michael, what's the point of having police if think don't stop violence while it's occurring. and by the way people were hurt in charlottesville and the police didn't do anything about it i mean it was discouraging to watch that. >> the purpose of a police officer is to protect life and property, preserve the peace. and i think we're kind of missing the point in terms of this whole event. where were the police not when the moment and the violence occurred. where were they beforehand? good policing involves intelligence. involves people on the street. knowing what's going to happen. anticipating the violence that could erupt and putting resources to apply that.

this is such an ironic situation in the sense that, yes, we could prevent something from happening by not getting engaged. but if you take that to the extreme. what would happen if had an active shootner a school and had you a police officer show up and said i'm not going to go into the school. i'm going to wait for backup because it may be too dangerous or maybe i could escalate the situation. that response has been rejected after columbine. so there is a responsibility. but it begins way before the violence occurs. >> tucker: right. that sounds exactly right. vince, let me just say i'm deeply sympathetic to the police. i can't imagine what it must be like to weighed into something like that and people throw rocks and urine at you. i get the sense in watching these. not just in charlottesville but also in baltimore and ferguson and berkeley that the police are being told by the political figures to whom they report don't get involved. this is a political decision coming from on high. i wonder if you think that's what's going on? >> yeah. and that very well could be the case, tucker. i mean, when you look at it from a numbers standpoint.

and i always look at things factually, right? when you look at the size of these crowds, take durham, for instance, you had a crowd of over 100 people. i'm sure you didn't have that many officers there on the scene, right? so let's say you had to call for backup. let's say you had to call other officers in. then you have taken those officers off the street to allow other crimes to happen. so, you know, when you are looking at things like that, it's a lot easier to say yeah, i'm going to monday morning quarterback this when you are not there and not having to make these decisions in realtime. >> tucker: well, of course it is. that's why we hire the police. that's why we give them money and guns. so they can make those hard decisions. i'm not being glib i'm being sincere. that's why we respect the police because it's a hard gig. michael, what do you think was going through the minds of cops in durham, yesterday, when this group of angry children pulled the statue down and they had to stand there like do you think the average cop wanted to stand there?

>> i can't imagine that they did. one of the ironies, of course, the picture of the woman climbing up on that ladder, if she had fallen down, would she have been able to sue the municipality saying wait a minute, i got hurt -- why didn't you protect he? that's a part of the irony here. when you come in, you have to establish the rule of law. there is no protected speech that is violent. it just isn't. so what you do is you separate the folks. and, by the way, this didn't come out of the blue. you had charlottesville before hand. it's about a 360-degree awareness as to what's going on not just in your community but around. and so the folks in durham didn't think this could possibly happen. well, they need better intelligence from my perspective and by the way, it is the job of folks in government to do the monday morning quarterback because we're going to be a part of a review panel and review board to say were the actions of the police officer appropriate. it's our job. >> tucker: right. and this is going to happen again. gentlemen, michael and

vincent, thanks for coming on. i appreciate it? >> tucker, always a pleasure. >> thanks. >> tucker: today is the fifth anniversary of president obama's biggest program to assist illegal immigrants, dhaka up next. talk to somebody who wants the trump administration to preserve the program. she'll explain why. stay tuned. ♪ [dog barks] trust safelite autoglass to fix it fast. it's easy! just bring it to us, or let us come to you, and we'll get you back on the road! >> woman: thank you so much. >> safelite tech: my pleasure. >> announcer: 'cause we care about you... and your co-pilot. [dog barks] ♪safelite repair, safelite replace.♪ - i love you. - love you too, dad. ♪ i will love you ♪ in the morning ♪ when the dew is

♪ on the ground ♪ will love you... man: hey, good luck! dad, dad, your tie! ♪ when the sun is ♪ rising and the wolf huffed like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition

or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! (child giggles) symbicort. breathe better starting within 5 minutes. get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more.

[ gasps, laughs ] you ever feel like... cliché foil characters scheming against a top insurer for no reason? nah. so, why don't we like flo? she has the name your price tool, and we want it.

but why? why don't we actually do any work? why do you only own one suit? it's just the way it is, underdeveloped office character. you're right. thanks, bill. no, you're bill. i'm tom. you know what? no one cares. >> tucker: today is the fifth anniversary of daca, president obama's program deferring immigration for families that arrived under age. despite promising to do so during the 2016 campaign, the current president has not yet ended the program. the administration says it's still under review. demonstrations in support of daca were held around the country today. the executive director of the national immigration law center wants daca to remain enforce and she joins us tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. >> thanks for the invitation. >> tucker: you wanted to remain in place. it's an executive order, not a law. why not do the it the american way, democratic way

and have the congress pass it. why aren't you lobbying members of congress to embrace your view? >> yeah, so thanks again for the invitation, tucker. the thing is daca is working. it's been in place for five years. it's been part of our economy. as of today we have nearly 800,000 young immigrants who have come forward voluntarily, have trusted the federal government, passed the national security test screening and have paid a fee and they have had this temporary protection from deportation. in keeping the program in place, president trump has made a decision so far and has seen that it's actually working and he himself as is he learning about the program and learning about these so-called dreamers or young immigrants has talked about the importance of finding a way to keep them here and doing something good for them. >> tucker: right. that would be, of course, direct betrayal of his campaign promises made repeatedly during his '16 campaign. you are not answering my

question which is in a democracy why not let the people weigh in. why not congress make this law rather than jerry rigged system. the answer is people don't support this. they don't want more illegal immigration into this country. they are bypassing their will and doing it through the white house, right? >> no. i completely agree with you, tucker. absolutely. look, the daca program is only a temporary protection from deportation. and, you know, president trump can continue the program in place and exercise the same presidential authority that previous administrations like republican administrations like eisenhower, reagan, bush sr., et cetera. but at the end of the day, i agree with you completely we need congressional action. dreamers should be put on a road to citizenship. >> tucker: let's be real. do you this for a living so you know as well as as i -- better than i, the amount of lying around this issue. democrats are jumping up and down you are a racist. you hate children if you are not for damascusca. they are not leading the charge in the congress to vote on this.

let's see the legislation. the legislation that says, hey, if you make it offer over the border and you are under 18, you get amnesty. that's what daca is. why don't they codify that in the u.s. code? because they know voters don't want it. that's why. people don't want more illegal immigration. and so they won't try and pass it as a law. >> right. no, there are actually efforts right now, tucker, right? so the dream act was introduced recently by senator graham and senator durbin. there are about five, seven other bills both in the senate and the house. the polls actually show that americans do support dreamers and, in fact, some of your own fox news colleagues right like charles krauthammer, rush limbaugh all talk -- even rush limbaugh says this is logical. >> tucker: i don't think that's how you pronounce his name but hold on. look. the country is crowded in a lot of places. there were 320 million people here. current immigration

continues. we are going to get to half a billion by the end of the century. s that a lot. that's an awful lot of people. and i think that if you were to say to the public really clearly, any time someone comes into the country legally under 18 they automatically become a u.s. citizen. i think you would find support for that would be, i don't know, maybe 10%. like nobody would be for that let's be honest. >> tucker, you know, you are a smart guy. that's not what the daca program does. >> >> tucker: yeah, it is. >> talks about a exphawl category of people who came when they were children. look, they have grown up here. they have gone to school here. with daca, many of them have bought cars, have bought houses. are paying for their college tuition. it is completelily illogical. >> tucker: it makes no sense to enforce your immigration law? this is insane. >> that's not what i'm saying. >> tucker: you are saying that people who break the law ought to get a special pass because they have political clout. that is not the way it's

supposed to work. if you think that anyone who comes here underaged illegally should become a citizen, pass a law that says that but this is basically the executive branch of government saying to the congress we don't care about your laws and that's why it's being challenged, of course, if in the courts as you know. >> no. listen. daca has been challenged in the past. and it's lost, right? bothth stated of mississippi the ice agents tried to challenge daca. it actually has survived legal muster. on the other hand though, one of the things is in daca or dream act context we are talking about individuals who have been here for many, many years who came when they were children, who have to pass certain criteria and would then be eligible. it's not an automatic simply because you came unlawfully and you are under 18 you are eligible for that and it's -- there is a reason that this program has survived for the last years and has been in place even in the first 8 months of this administration. it makes logical sense. it's good for our economy. it's good for america. and your viewers know that.

and president trump should exercise his presidential authority. he should not allow himself to be bull idea by people like paxton in texas. >> tucker: um-huh. being. good for the economy. i wish we had more time and you could explain in some detail how it's good for the economy. >> happy to come back and talk about that. >> tucker: good luck with that thank you for that good to see you. >> thank you, tucker. really appreciate it. >> tucker: gay rights group preparing to sue the trump administration for keeping the transgendered troops out of the military. what is their argument exactly? a member of that group will join us after the break. i recently discovered that pistachios are a good source of protein. that's why they're my go-to snack while i get back in shape.

that one's broken. choicehotels.com. badda book. that's it?. he means book direct at choicehotels.com for the lowest price on our rooms guaranteed. plus earn free nights and instant rewards at check-in. yeah. like i said. book now at choicehotels.com what twisted ankle?ask what muscle strain? advil makes pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer

what pain? advil.

the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear.

who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: it's been three weeks since president trump announced his plan to reinstate the ban on transgender soldiers serving in the military, which

existed without issue until 2016. the policies revival is still forthcoming but the gay rights group illegals say that plan will be challenged and will be challenged as soon as it's revealed. legal director of strategy joins us. sharon, thanks for coming on. >> it's a pleasure to be here tonight with you, tucker, thanks. >> tucker: i want to know if i understand the idea behind. this not necessarily the legal details but the kind of the philosophical idea. is it that transgendered troops have a right to serve in the military, which is to say anybody who wants to serve has a right to serve? is that the idea? >> well, what secretary carter said back in 2016 when he announced the roll out of the policy is that our american military needs to have all hands on deck. and so any man or woman who is able to meet the qualifications, physical, mental, emotional qualifications for service, the american military wants to have those individuals

available to them. so the issue here is making sure that we don't put discriminatory barriers in place that take people out of the run hog otherwise have talents that we could put to the american defense. >> tucker: so if you were to do a survey of active duty colonels and the majority said we don't want transgendered troops nothing personal but too much expense and too much trouble. would that be enough for you? would you say the military doesn't want transgendered troops we are going to drop our challenge? it's okay now? >> no. that wouldn't be enough because what we know is that. >> tucker: oh, oh. then what were you talking about then? i'm sorry you just said you are filing a challenge because you think the military wants transgendered troops but trump is getting in the way so i said if you found out they really didn't want transgendered troops, you would still file a challenge? why? >> in a world in which we are taking a blanket ban approach and disqualifying a category of people who are otherwise eligible and able to meet the qualifications for service, that is discrimination. and that is neither good for

the american military nor is it consistent with american values. and so that is why we see 18 of our allied nations throughout the world having open service with transgender individuals and tucker you and i both know many of these arguments are the exact same arguments that we heard in open service by gay and lesbian men and women. >> tucker: spare me on that. because hold on. if you want to go down that road, let me ask you this question then. i would like to serve in the military. let's say i want to serve in the military. i can't i'm 48 years old. i'm at least 8 years too old by current pentagon rules to serve. i'm offended by that because i'm a patriotic american. not in great shape but like i could probably do it and they are keeping me out on the basis of my age. they are practicing ageism. do you think i have legal standing to sue. >> look, tucker i applied for west point i have lazy eye i wasn't allowed to serve either. >> tucker: no, no. i'm asking you a sincere question. military regulations say people over 40 can't join. so are you saying that if -- that's that okay, that's

okay with you. that seems ar arbitrary to me. that's okay with you for some reason? why? >> we are talking about whether or not being transgender is something that disqualifies you from military service. >> tucker: i don't know. >> we certainly have. >> tucker: it always was. >> so the fact that it always was doesn't necessarily answer the question as we know african-americans were not able to serve and we have no doubt about the valor with which they served. >> tucker: why can't people over 40 serve? i don't understand. why can't people over 40 serve? >> people over 40 cannot enlist because the military has sort of made an assessment with respect to certain qualifications. but this is one of those places where you have. >> tucker: oh, i get it so you are making the same argument that the military made about transgenders up until a couple years ago when obama decided to get involved. they said we have assessed this and by the way it's too much trouble. it doesn't help readiness to have transgendered. you are making the exact same argument. are you aware of that.

>> the point is -- >> tucker: what's the point? i'm losing fact of the point. >> the pointed is when you have a blanket ban that takes out qualified men and women who are otherwise able to serve, paced on a characteristic that hassing in to do with their ability to serve this country, that hurts. >> tucker: like age? >> i don't really think your argument has principle here. let me ask you this question and it's sincere. nothing against transgender people. why should military be on the hook for sex change surgery? why is that germane to like war-fighting? why should taxpayers have to pay for that? i have never understood that. >> this isn't a fight about transgendered people and having surgery. this is about transgendered americans who want to serve. >> tucker: no, no. i'm asking you a sincere question. >> take a bullet for our country and they should not be gatt gore rick there. >> transgender are more than the sum total of their medical care in the same way that women may rack up medical bills when they get

pregnant. tucker we all know that transgender men and women serve with valor and distinction. >> tucker: it's not a real answer. have you got to give me more than bumper stickers. i'm sorry you didn't. sharon, thank you for joining us. we'll be right back. ♪ you guys going to the company picnic this weekend? picnics are delightful. oh, wish we could. but we're stuck here catching up on claims. but we just compared historical claims to coverages. but we have those new audits. my natural language api can help us score those by noon. great. see you guys there. we would not miss it. watson, you gotta learn how to take a hint. i love to learn.

watson, you gotta learn how to take a hint. hi..and i know that we have phonaccident forgiveness.gent,

so the incredibly minor accident that i had tonight- four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.

>> tucker: the russia collusion story seems to have cooled down of the last couple of weeks but don't think it's going away. on monday, "the washington post" published the following headlin headline. the implication is that the meetings took place and that the emails are evidence except if you read the story you'll see that the proposal was quickly shot down by more senior members on trump's campaign. the culture was not interested at all at a meeting with the russians, charles kubik retired admiral warned the meeting could violate u.s. law and embarrass the campaign. everyone basically on the team running for president thought it was a bad idea. you will not see that in the post headline which suggests the

opposite. it has not been updated in any way. to an end every night at 8:00 to the show that's the sworn enemy of line, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. here's "the five" ." >> jesse: i am jesse watters along with kibler guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino and greg gutfeld periods 9:00 new york city and this is the e five." president trump has taken fire from critics on the left and the right for three days over his initial response to the white nationalist violence in charlottesville on saturday. today he fired back in a combative news conference as trump tower. >> president trump: i didn't wait long. i wanted to make sure unlike