sean, not the establishment media. we are different. we are fair. we are balanced, we are thankful that you are here every night. thank you for being with us. ♪ s up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight. hillary clinton's epic cross-country blame to work continues tonight in a series of interviews promoting her book, "what happened," she insists that what happened is everyone else screwed up or was out to get her. she said as much this morning on the today show. watch. >> when it comes to the self-inflicted wounds, when you look at the list of them, and you go through them in the book, did you make enough mistakes yourself to lose the election without any of the other things you talk about? >> i will say no. i don't think that will surprise you. >> tucker: so how did she lose? one hillary clinton is telling the list of guilty parties is

long, not surprisingly it does not include her. in an interview she blames the media, whose members supported her in the race, but somehow sabotaged her campaign anyway. >> i don't think the press did their job in the selection, with very few exceptions. >> is it as it's just not as, you know, as enticing to the prs because the other guy is running a reality tv show, which is hard to turn away from. whatever he says, we think it's kind of goofy but, hey, it's good tv. >> tucker: on nbc she blamed an unseen conspiracy by none other than a diabolical puppetmaster, vladimir putin. >> there was certainly, we know, a plan from putin and the highest levels of the kremlin to influence our election. we now know that it was everything from facebook ads and phony people acting like americans who were russians,

what we know so much more than we did even when i turned the manuscript in. >> tucker: but it continues, it wasn't just ba. on the view she blamed bernie sanders for daring to challenge her inherited right to the job. watch. >> you talk about bernie sanders and you say he shares responsibility. what you mean by that? >> i know what it's like to lose because i lost in 2008 to president obama. as soon as i lost i turned around, i endorsed him, i worked hard for him, and i didn't get that respect. >> tucker: 's i don't respect me. if that wasn't enough, all of it, hillary also, it goes without saying blamed sexists, and that would include the majority of married women in america, they voted for donald trump. apparently because they hate women too. >> i write in the book about an incredible conversation i had with sheryl sandberg. she said, the research is absolutely clear. the more professionally successful a man becomes the

more likable he is. the more professionally successful a woman becomes, the less likable she is. when a woman walks into the arena and says i'm going for this myself it really does have a dramatic effect on how people perceive. >> tucker: that according to noted social scientist sheryl sandberg. for the record, ellery is not yet blaming illuminati, but the book to her is still young and we will follow it. in the meantime, mark stein is an author and columnist and he joins us tonight. mark, what you make of all this? >> it's beginning to remind me of o.j. hunting for the real killers. the whiter she looks for the real killers for campaign, the more you suspect, and in fact the more your view is confirmed that the answer is closer to home, considerably closer to home. >> tucker: that's a perfect analogy! what is the effect of the

democratic party? not that i'm a reliable democratic boater, it's really not my business, but i'm a watcher of the stuff and i'm thinking if you are the democrats, trump is having problems, you want to make the most you can of that. into the calculation comes hillary clinton, this coast from the past to talk about herself. >> i think it's actually very revealing. if you look at bernie, for example. bernie is plowing on now to try and introduce socialized health care in america because to him american health care isn't wrecked enough so he would like to take it to the next level. bernie, in fairness, whatever one believes about -- whatever one thinks about him, is plowing on with policy concern. hillary is writing a book that actually has nothing to say about policy, has nothing to say about where the democrats should go. instead she's mired in all kinds of weird issues, including, as you say, among the people that

she blames are "phony people acting like americans." i don't even know what that means. it indicates a high degree of paranoia. if you are out there on the street and you're worried that all around you are phony people acting like americans, i might even be one of them, you can tell anymore! that's how crazy it is. >> tucker: [laughs] and i suspected this for 25 years, since i started covering the clinton's. it's not very clever. if she has this line in her book, and i know that you are in orwell's collar so i wanted to run this by you. she compares the trump campaign to the state and the novel 1984. she says the aim of state propaganda is to "make you question logic and reason and to soul mistrust the exact people we need to rely on, our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence."

she sang basically the message of george orwell is you need to trust the government, the experts, and the media. is that, do you think, a fair reading of his message? >> of course not. and the idea -- it would be, to revive the old line about history repeating itself, the idea of a remake of 1984 with trump and his bili bush tape enters rosie o'donnell jokes and all the rest of it, the idea -- the fact is there is a grain of truth in what she said. the media loved her, the media looked at her adoringly. but the media, even in their bias, are sufficiently human that trump was just too interesting. the fact is that every time trump got up on stage you never knew when he was going to say. he might go on about the iranian nuclear program or he might go on about how macy's stock price has tanked sense he stopped

carrying his stuff. hillary was the most robotic presidential candidate. that was the issue. the idea that it wasn't self-inflicted wounds, yes it was because at heart she had no much nomadic rationale for her candidacy and she wasn't a goodh candidate. >> tucker: you're missing it! what she's saying is you are a deeply shallow man, mark steyn. you are not smart enough to dig into complex policy she proposed. if i actually read her campaign book, her infrastructure plan among many others, the single largest collection of banalities i've ever seen. there was no substance there. if entries trying to convince us that we missed it because we are not as sophisticated as she has. >> in fact, in fairness to donald trump, e may be the reality show candidate, as she says, but he stood up on that first day when he went on about mexico is not sending us the best people, they are sending us

all these rapists and murderers. he introduced the issue into the campaign which was immigration and the wall. so you can mark the joke candidate but actually one of the things that prompted that was incredibly useful is that he destroyed all the boring, tedious conventions of professional american politics that resulted in the year 2016 in one party offering the wife of the previous president and the other party offering the son and the brother of two previous presidents. and i say this is the subject of the tyrannical -- that ought to be unseemly in the republic of 300 million people and she should have known that and jeb bush should have known that. your husband was president, that's enough, clear off, go to martha's vineyard, go to bahamas, get out of here, and the same for jeb bush too. your dad was president and your brother was president and they weren't so indispensable that we

need a third one. we are off ! that's unseemly in a republic and if i sound like a phony guy trying to pass myself off as an american, so be it! you real americans should try saying that. >> tucker: i just want that implant so i can keep it in my wallet and consultant once a week. mark steyn, thank you. >> always a pleasure, tucker. >> tucker: thank you. we always tell mike almost forgot another of the excuses, the benevolent figure of fbi director james call me. >> i think the determining factor was the intervention by comey on october 28th. as i write in the book and i could have put much more into the book, independent observers like nate silver and others say, yes, but for that intervention i would have one. >> tucker: advised the clinton campaign in both 2008 and 2016, joins us on this estimate. this is the key question of never understood and i mean it with all sincerity. if hillary clinton was such a

strong woman, she's always telling me she is, why is she playing the victim? >> she's playing the victim because she was victimized. indulge me with the first point that mark just made about o.j. the single most telling moment of this whole russian investigation was james comey testifying that in the nine times that he talked with donald trump, trump never once asked what are the russians do? which is like o.j. never asking the police what happened to nicole. he knew. >> tucker: that's evidence right there. >> not colluding. his son has already admitted to collusion. it's like going to rob the bank, unfortunately, he claims, the vault was empty. he definitely tried to rob the bank. >> tucker: let me ask you a bigger question. she blames for sexism, she she always does and always has. i'm not a hillary hater at all. she's got good qualities, but

the sexism trope is annoying because it's so stupid and so patronizing. the majority of married women in america voted for donald trump, are they sexist? >> have you asked carly whether she was objected to sexism? have you asked other leaders in the industry? >> tucker: i'm not saying sexism doesn't exist, , and sayg hillary clinton is saying that sexism among american voters, their distaste for powerful woman led to her defeat. my question is, if it played such a role, why is the majority of married women, not men, women, both for hillary? unless they are sexist too. in which case it's a conspiracy more avastin than i even imagine. >> she did better among women than barack obama had. the fact of the matter is -- >> tucker: she lost married woman! >> what she would tell you is that all these messages that the russians and the macedonians, your favorite, paid for that went into people that were undecided in the swing counties in michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, actually

influenced opinion. just like your balance of advertisers on fox news want to change people's minds. >> tucker: what she's saying is, opposition to me is unreasonable. if either you are hoodwinked by a foreign power or you are blinded by your own bigotry. she doesn't allow for what actually happened, which is a lot of people took a sober look at her and trump and said i got problems with him but i prefer him to her because i just don't like her. she's not even open to the possibility. >> was into this discussion, you would think that trump won in the way that lbj be cold water. he got under 63 million and he e got 66. >> tucker: there are a bunch of reasons he lost. i always thought that comey did play a role in her loss. >> the polls show that. >> tucker: i speak to i think e comey actually hasn't real -- lots of other things, people

just didn't like her. none of those things are even a possibility to her. it's always either you are a vacant or you would like to. >> i don't know if you've read her book yet. >> tucker: i haven't. >> i'm going to a book event for her in washington next tuesday so i will read it then. she's not saying that she didn't make mistakes, she of course she has treated. if what she's saying is, notwithstanding, whatever the mistakes were made, that on the eve of the comey letter she was substantially ahead and imagine if the tables were turned in on that day, october 29th, comey said the trump campaign, we believe, may well be colluding with the russians and we are investigating that. for donald trump would be today. >> tucker: i guess. she doesn't seem strong to me, i'm not hitting her on this, she seems very fragile to meet very self protective. this is someone who can face her own weaknesses. that's not a sign of strength. >> i think if you were that you wouldn't be going out there, putting up with questions from a lot of people on things that are frankly not very present topic,

her loss. if what i think she's done is write a book at a future female candidate will use as a touchstone to know not what to do or what not to, but at least learn from her experience. >> tucker: anyone who reads the hillary clinton campaign memoir to win -- [laughs] richard, thank you very much. the city of college park, maryland, right outside washington has just given the vote to illegal immigrants. in this country illegally but now legal voters in college park. we are city be far behind? this is obviously the plan. we will talk to a supporter of this new law. also, millions of people were excited for the imminent release of the iphone 10, is it time for a public debate on the effects of smartphones? they've reordered our society in ways we never talk about. just ahead we will talk to a researcher ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b

here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive.

and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

♪ >> tucker: one of the most obvious privileges of citizenship is the right to vote but in college park, a suburb of washington, d.c., maryland, it's just another outdated position. the college park city council just voted to give noncitizens the right to vote. it does not justify apply to a legal permanent residents, even illegal immigrants can cast a ballot. a resident of college park who campaigned in support, he joined us tonight. thanks for coming on. i may not, we try to get a lot of people involved in the cresting, crafting of this law, it was hard to get anyone so we are glad that you are here to rt the side of it. this is one of the stories that seems remarkable to a lot of people. also seems like the beginning of something new. i think a lot of people suspect

that all the publicity around protecting illegal immigrants is leading to this. letting them vote. let me ask you the obvious question, if noncitizens can both promote what's the point of being a citizen? >> has a lot of reasons people want to be citizens in the united states and a lot of people in college park were currently not u.s. citizens are striving to be. they are getting green, becoming citizens to vote and democracy, which includes voting in federal elections. what college park is done is to allow them to vote in local elections. it's just for the mayor and the city council about issues like trash collection, all the things that we all share together in college park, maryland. >> tucker: those issues are meaningless -- local elections matter. allowing illegal immigrants to vote dilutes the voting power of citizens.

mathematically. >> i don't think that's a good way of looking at that. i think the better way to look at it is that all these folks are residents in the city of college park, they are all contribute into the community commit many people own homes. they take part in local events, they are helping to fix up the community. one of those requirements for voting? so you don't actually know? you are saying some of them may be doing that but some of them may not be doing it. the law is agnostic on the question. >> absolutely, it's agnostic but what we are seeing folks say these are my neighbors, these are people that i like, these are people that contribute to the community in many ways, why can't devote? to be the point of this obviously is 80% of illegal immigrants support democrats, this is a way of obviously packing the boat. but what if i'm a republican who works in college park? i spent time in college park, i'm not a resident legally. why can't i vote? >> because you have to be a resident of a municipality to vote there.

>> tucker: if i'm living on the sidewalk in college park but i'm here illegally from guatemala you will let me vote. >> you have to have an actual address in college park. >> tucker: homeless are not allowed to vote in college park you might >> currently under the law no. as long as you are a resident of college park you can now register for the 2019 election and be able to vote. >> tucker: that seems kind of discriminatory to me. you are not letting american homeless people vote for you are letting illegal aliens vote back >> i think what we're looking at here is really that folks put down roots in college park, they are here to stay in college park, they are contributing to college park. >> tucker: but none of those are voting requirements. that's just propaganda. they are great people, they're doing a great job, you don't know that in the law doesn't require them to be any of those things. which is nothing anybody can vote as long as you are a resident in college park. >> the issue here is if you look at it in terms of students. if you declare your residency as college park and are only here

for two years or four years you can actually vote in college park elections but we have a lot of immigrants who have been here for ten, 20 years in college park but they can't vote. >> tucker: what does it mean to be an american then? the whole promise of citizenship is once you become a citizen now you are an american and you get to determine what your government looks like in contrast to many of the countries that many of these peoples are coming from. if you are erasing that and now it doesn't really matter. being an american has no advantage over being citizen of another country. >> there's a lot of privileges of being a citizen of the united states. not just the municipal election. that's a very minor thing. >> tucker: voting is of course the key privilege. >> you have to be a citizen to vote in a federal election. that's federal law. >> tucker: it was affected by the vote last night -- by the way, there's no question that within your democrats nationally have been calling for illegals to vote because there are a ton of them and they would help them. this is the beginning of a national debate on the subject, let's be honest.

why does it help you at all to be an american in college park, why does an american, what does that citizenship have any meaningful upside in college park? >> let's be honest, this is not some slippery slope to changing the way the united states is governed, this is actually something that's been going on in college park for years and in maryland for years. there are a number of municipalities who have been doing this for decades. it's just a way to say -- a municipal election, you are welcome. >> tucker: whether you are for or against, let's be totally clear, this is an attempt to change the way america is governed, indeed is changing the way america is governed and may be or for that. let's not pretend it's always been this way, it hasn't. >> actually for most of our country's history, non-u.s. citizens were allowed to vote all over the united states. for decades. up until the 1920s until there was an anti-immigrant backlash in the country. >> tucker: so you think, just to be totally clear, you think they should be allowed to vote everywhere? >> no, my point is that that is the history of our country.

>> tucker: if they should be able to in college park, why would you be against it in other places to mexico that's not the issue here. >> tucker: you don't want to admit it because this is part of a pretty radical program. >> i don't think most people wouldn't hate allowing local people to vote in local elections. field school board elections opening up to non-u.s. citizens all over the country. >> tucker: i've noticed, thank you for coming on a defending record appreciated. congressman steve king is one of the domestic illegal immigration's biggest foes, here to discuss the new laws in college park. illegal immigrants should live in the liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

i enjoy the fresher things in life.o. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest... ...prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices... ...from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

>> tucker: porters are what make a country, the most obvious division between us and the rest of the world and yet these days most members of congress don't care about and forcing borders preserving any distinction between citizen and noncitizen. that's not an overstatement. one congressman steve king from iowa. why is it a bad idea to extend the franchise of voting to illegal aliens in college park, maryland, ? they live there, they should have a state in the services they get or don't, why is that bad? >> first place, citizenship needs to be precious. it's got value to it and that's why we define it as either natural born or naturalized. that's why you reach the voting age before you get to vote and you can be disqualified from voting for being a bad citizen for committing a felony.

in college park, maryland, the language i saw come down once we don't care whether you are a legal or illegal, we don't care whether you are deportable, we just want you to weigh in and voice your opinion on our local election. at that so devalue citizenship and it devalues being a good citizen and it has contempt for the law" rule of law. if we will descend into a third world country if we will tolerate such a thing. >> tucker: this is one of the stories, college park, maryland, is a pretty small place, but it doesn't seem like a national story except when i saw it i thought this is the future. this is what this is about. all of these states are way over -- there really making a massive effort to protect, to coddle even, people here illegally. because they think it will get the boat. >> that's it. it's long been the case and i would point out when i first came to congress, the senior members told me don't accuse democrats of having a political agenda just because they are soft on immigration. we don't want to get into that argument and now today i think

we know that there's a powerful political motivation, mostly for democrats. they want to count bodies and they want those bodies to vote. as citizens or as bodies if they are not citizens. big business wants cheap labor. there's two interests there, it's kind of like a barbell, the voting -- another point is that we count them in the senses, the united states census bureau . when we redistrict and the members of the house of representatives -- members of congress that are representing districts, a high percentage of illegals in them. be when actually shocking that their presence gives political weight. after the trump administration announced the suspension of daca you said that illegal immigrants can live in the country as long as they're "willing to live in the shadows," sort of the opposite of what you hear from left. what you mean by that? >> i followed up with that

statement, until they might be encountered by law enforcement under normal practice. in other words -- here's the objective, define amnesty. they will find stomach try to redefine amnesty for about the fourth big time in american history that i've experienced. but to grant amnesty is a pardon, if amnesty is a pardon for immigration lawbreakers and it's coupled with the reward of the objective of their crime. if they cross the border, it's a crime and that makes them criminals. if they used false documents to get a job, that also makes them criminals. if you reward them with the objective of that crime, that's amnesty and for the daca recipients, they been granted an unconstitutional quasi-legal status in america, however temporary it is, along with a work permit. that's barack obama violating the constitution and that's why prompt remedy would end the program. if we reward them then there will be more of them and there will be more fraught. >> tucker: it's so unfair, if

i get caught with a fake federal document, a fraudulent passport or social security card, real trouble, it's not a joke. >> you would be. >> tucker: but you are hearing democrats republicans -- whatever, they are great people, which they may be, i'm not against them personally. why did they get a pass on having fraudulent federal documents and as a citizen i would not get a pass? >> i think they get a pass because there's a growing lobby -- i don't know a democrat that opposes illegal immigration today. he saw a democrat candidate for president, hillary clinton, saying we will fast-track them to citizenship. >> tucker: college park. >> that's what happens to america, must restore the rule of law. thanks. >> tucker: told you a lot about congressman debbie washington schultz and her refusal to fire an i.t. staffer even after he was labeled security risk and banned from the computer network. new evidence suggest it was much larger than it seems.

we were driving it, investigative reporter for the daily foreign news foundation, full disclosure, i helped to found some time ago, but no longer run. luke, what's the latest on this? >> where finding out some of the basics on this, cyber investigation has been going on for months. it turns out they had a secret server and these guys didn't just work for debbie washington schultz, they worked for 40 other members of congress. if they were taking their data and moving it over to a secret server it was completely outside of these members control and possession. they were also backing the stuff up to a band account that the house didn't have the ability to shut down when these guys were kept off the network. this is just like such an insecure -- it just violates all the basics security tenants. >> tucker: what kind of data was on the server? >> all their constituent data, it was everything on every staffer's computer and all the emails. this is just a totally insecure server that violates all the

basic rules. if the democrats at this point, they don't need to be worried about russia, i think antarctica could tack into the center. they hear about this because it happens to be housed within the office. the reason this all came out in february is he goes to become a california attorney general and the requests that it be wiped. they say it's the subject of a investigation, we will meet at copy of that before you can delete it. the police are provided with an elaborate falsified image of the server. the police at that point said holy cow, we are dealing with criminals who are very aware of what they're doing, they are sadly and they are going to great lengths to cover it up. this was all a very deliberate act by criminals. at that point on february 2nd they are banned from congress. >> tucker: and your cheek, i want to have you back to talk about this, we are almost out of time, she keeps at least one gue

payroll. why? >> that's the question. once every 20 minutes in american become the victim of a cyber attack. i know what americans are referring to, it's debbie washington schultz. it keeps happening to her again and again. >> tucker: against her own instruments interest. she keeps them on the barrel, why would she do that? >> to be clear, at least on the surface, there was a cyber intrusion, the democrats were the victim. they have refused to acknowledge it and they haven't taken any steps necessary. that raises the really serious questions when you keep in mind that they may still have access to all these emails with potentially embarrassing, compromising information. >> tucker: one of the weirdest stories i've ever seen in wasserman. thank you for your work on this, i hope you come back. the iphone 10 was just announced, should we be excited by that or should we be horrified? up next we will talk to a researcher that says that smartphones, no exaggeration,

have destroyed an entire generation of young people. if you have kids you may know what she's talking about. plus president trump said if we turn on the robert ely statues, thomas jefferson will be right behind him. that's crazy. a month later it turns out he's right. a recent attack on the jefferson a recent attack on the jefferson statue at♪ hey hun, huh! we gotta go. come on. ♪ ♪ "grandma! grandpa!" ♪

lilly, look how tall you are. how are you? i love you. look! you brought it. lilly. no! me me turn, me me turn... thanks mom. here we are. look, right up to here. principal. we can help you plan for that. stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.

you can do endless move 201online research.t, or, you can take advantage of our best offer ever on an xt5.

don't wait. our 2017 models will be moving fast. you can drive a car... or you can drive a cadillac. come in now before the end of our made to move 2017 clearance event and leave with the perfect cadillac xt5 for your next adventure. choose a low mileage lease on this xt5 for around $339 per month. >> tucker: apple unveiled the iphone 10 yesterday, met with intense enthusiasm and enormous media coverage. why would we celebrate every new advance in the tiny devices and help an end how the totally dominate our lives. not everyone is excited. a college professor at san diego state university. in a recent, widely read peace in the atlantic she argued that smartphones have created a mental health crisis for young americans and devastated an entire generation. her new book is called "i-gen --

all of which rings true if you've been around kids with recently. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: let me just ask the macro question first, technology has completely reordered our lives, from the most minor details to the biggest facts of our lives. there has been almost no publicly available serious research available on the effects of this technology on people. why is it left to you to write this piece? >> there has been some research but i agree with you that it has not gotten the attention that it has deserved. i found with teens for example that those who spent more times on screens, social media and texting were less happy. more depressed, and actually had even more risk factors for suicide and there's other studies that have found the same thing. there's a couple for example that follow people over time and

from the more they use social media the more unhappy they wer were. it wasn't the other way around. >> tucker: that just seems like a really important fact. i see the coverage of the iphone and i have one sitting on the desk right here, which i use a lot, too much. i'm part of the problem. i see the coverage and it's just breathless technology reporting. but i never hear anybody mention the obvious, which is the more you use this thing the less happy you become. that meat seems like a salient point, no? >> absolutely. and i think it's really having an effect on young people. if i've done this work on generational differences for about 25 years and around 2012 i started to think see similarly striking patterns and is very large national surveys that are done on teens, their mental health started to really deteriorate right around that time and 2012 is of course exactly when the percentage of americans who owned a smartphone

crossed 50%. that is when depression started to increase, suicide rate started to increase, they said they were more lonely and it really has had an enormous impact on their lives. >> tucker: it's remarkable. the upside is, you often hear this from parents, it's easier to communicate with her children, smartphones have allowed over to flower and that has reduced the amount of drunk driving that goes on, i think that's all real. the downsides, you say include social isolation. what does that mean? it seems like kids are always talking to each other, but their isolated? >> if they are talking to each other on the phone a lot, lots and lots of electronic medication but 6-8 hours a day on phones and screens for the average teen. but that is a lot of time, and that has the time that teens used to do other things. for example, hanging out with

her friends are going to parties are going to the mall or driving around in a car. anything that teens do face-to-face, the in person social interaction, these teens do it last maintains just five years ago or ten years ago. they are not hanging out with their friends as much in person, which we know is good for mental health and instead they are communicating via screen. >> tucker: that's just amazing amazing. if you grow up immersed in this, what's the likelihood you will be able to -- even able to finish reading a 300 page book at some point? >> pretty low and sure enough again in these big surveys that's exactly what you see. you look at, say, high school seniors. the percentage of them who say that they read books and magazines, even occasionally, has just plummeted. that's what happens when they get to college, college faculty say they are not reading the textbook. they complain if i ask them to read anything longer than a few

paragraphs, which of course that's what they are used to. they are used to things really bright, changing every ten seconds or so on the phone. and they don't have the attention span to sit and read a book or even a long magazine article. >> tucker: massive implications for our democracy. one was the last time you read and even faintly critical piece about apple? you know what i mean? they should be treated like phillip morris in my view. thank you for the important work that you are doing, popularizing the truth and thank you for what nobody else is saying. appreciate it. >> thank you so much. >> tucker: "the star-spangled banner" has been united americans were more than two centuries, now writers say there's actually a

♪ >> tucker: a few weeks ago the

city in charlottesville, virginia, placed burqas over the statues of robert ely so people would not be offended by them, triggered or hurt. uva students have gone further, less by placing a burqa over the statue of thomas jefferson saying it must be torn down as well. meanwhile in the city of baltimore a statue of francis scott key was defaced with the words like racist anthem. the verse the anniversary of the star-spangled banner. snow storm in august, francis scott key and the forgotten race riot of 1835. he's called the national anthem a neo-confederate symbol, and it's time to examine it. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: obviously the national anthem was written long before the civil war. because yes. >> tucker: there are no racist terms in it that i'm aware of. i've been to multiple baseball games. >> no. and once on what sense is that a racist anthem? >> i didn't say it was a racist

anthem and i'm not a vandal so don't try and attribute that to me. what i said was -- "the star-spangled banner" was not the national anthem when it was written from 1814 until 1931. the story, what i want to do is people to know the real history of "the star-spangled banner." why is that our national anthem? the reason it's our national anthem is because a group of people who i would describe as neo-confederates campaigned throughout the 1920s to get "the star-spangled banner" designated as the national anthem and when that happened they celebrated by marching in a parade in baltimore in june 1931 behind two flags, the confederate flag in "the star-spangled banner." the people who wanted to make it the national anthem considered it a victory for the confederate cause. >> tucker: it doesn't surprise me that people -- they also

probably like dogs and pecans, it doesn't disqualify me as a dog owner because they like dogs. >> what i'm saying is the people who wanted this to happen the most, the people who are most in favor of "the star-spangled banner" were neo-confederates. it's important at a time when we have a lot of controversies about the star-spangled banner, collin capra is he a hero? >> tucker: before we even get into him and other overpaid athletes and their phony social activism, the question is is there something inherently, intrinsically troubling about "the star-spangled banner." your case is people -- it doesn't mean anything. they probably like picasso paintings too or whatever. it doesn't devalue the paintings. is there something inherently wrong with the song? >> no, what i'm saying is there no mike we should know the real history to the song because it's so central to these controversies that we have. >> tucker: this is why this is

why there is a hole in your logic progression. you think they like the song for racist reasons? >> what they were trying to do is send a message and this is the same motivation that led to "the star-spangled banner" being designated the national anthem. the same motivation that led to, for example, the statues to men who took up arms against the constitution. >> tucker: the point is -- >> let me finish your. it's a subtle point. the point is that this kind of racism is baked into some of our public symbols. we are at a time now because we have a president who says white supremacists are good people, neo-nazis are good people. >> tucker: there's nothing inherently -- there's nothing racist about the star-spangled manner. that's the point. you are implying to something racist. >> i don't think there something racist about the star-spangled manner, what i'm saying is very

precise, neo-confederates made at that so why is that, what does that tell us? that tells us that racism has been somehow -- hinges or has affected our notions of public memory and patriotism. >> tucker: if i'm with my kids at a baseball game singing it should i keep in mind the wackos 80 years ago who also like to? why is that relevant and does it, in fact, evaluate devalue it, why is that useful to know? it's irrelevant in any like that i can understand. >> that's like saying it's irrelevant that we have a memorial to confederate war heroes. >> tucker: no it's not because the confederate memorial is inherently controversial. the star-spangled manner has no reference to race, it's an american song. there's nothing racist about the song itself you are trying to introduce in the public consciousness this idea that there is something inherently racist. >> i'm trying to remind people of the history of how this came about in saying this is relevant

to the controversy we have today. >> tucker: relevant how? should we feel guilty when we sing it? >> we should just know it. >> tucker: letter racist likes it, but it's not a basis on? >> why is that relevant? it's the real history. you didn't know that. >> tucker: i don't like it, i like the song, i'm an american. i'm not racist for liking it. we are out of time unfortunatel unfortunately. great to see you. thank you.

>> tucker: pumpkin spice latte's are delicious, they are only a beverage. but are they also racist? feminist group is arguing that, yes, they are. find pumpkin spice latte's they say promotes white supremacy. somehow. debating it tomorrow night because things just couldn't get crazier into thousand 17. that's it for us, to an in every night at 8:00 for the show that is the sworn enemy of lying,

pomposity, smugness and rudeness. prepare for our friends over at "the five," they are next. have a great night. his musical ♪ >> on jesse watters along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino and greg gutfeld. it's 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five." ♪ >> did you know hillary clinton has a new book out? the field presidential candidate is embarking on a massive promotional campaign for her memoir of the 2016 election. she is again blaming everything from james coming to the russians to sexism for her loss and she is again condemning the so-called deplorable's for president trump's triumphs. >> is willing to -- let's not