lines during operation tailwind. eyewitnesses say he went back into save his fellow soldiers again and again and again. an american hero is recognized. we will see you tomorrow in america's newsroom. good night from new york. >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." for months, you could hear the word echoing from congressional offices and television studios all over washington. russia, russia, russia!! the very people who spent 70 years making excuses for the soviet union were suddenly convinced that russian agents had visited our shores in the dead of night to murder american democracy and install their puppet in our white house. trump won because of vladimir putin. that was their claim. it seemed confusing to most people.e. but to our decadent and completely unimpressive ruling class, the explanation made perfect sense. how else could their candidate, the candidate of

both nancy pelosi and the bush family, have lost last november's election? the media assured them that would never happen. in fact, a year ago today the "new york times" ran this prediction: "hillary clinton has a 93% chance to win. and they believed it. when she didn't win, our elites assumed a foreign power must have intervened. no other explanation made sense to them. the only thing they lacked was evidence that it had happened. so to find that, they told us we needed an immediate all hands on deck investigation of russian interference. so we got one. boy, did we. it turned out to be one of the most comprehensive investigations of anything in this country.ut the fbi kicked it off and was soon joined by a fully staffed office ofe independent counsel as well as both houses of congress. almost every media outlet in america jumped obediently on board, pouring massive resources into a news story that started to look a lot like a conspiracy theory. but ahead they went. an entire generation of non-russian speaking cable news hosts remade themselves into

amateur criminologists. remember that? the frenzy spun out of control. soon, liberals were not simply talking about a stolen election but about war, actual war. >> if russia is going toal keep attacking america, then america really should fight back. there is an entire buildingic in st. petersburg filled with a russian troll army creating thousands of tweets, memes, news sites comments and flat-out fake o stories designed not to take sides on any issue but just to get us fighting about it. hillary clinton spent overto a billion dollars on the campaign, and the russians beat her with 150 grand because they were able to turn facebook into fake book.bl >> tucker: so you are accusing a nuclear armed adversary of committing an act of war and you are doing it purely in order to gain an advantage in a domestic political dispute? no normal person would do that. it's too reckless and crazy.l

yet, that's exactly what many of our leaders did. including, buy the way, sitting members of congress.s. they called it war too. mass hysteria does not even begin to capture this. we are living in a moment that makes the mccarthy era looc reasoned and considered.iv at least joe mccarthy was on to something real. there really were soviet spies. there was no russian collusion in last year'sth election. so how are all those investigations going? the "new york times," to its credit, took a look at that this weekend. it turns out that if the russians got trump elected, they left no trace of it. even senator dianne feinstein of california hadra to admit that after wasting untold time and money, her committee has not found evidence of collusion between putin and the trump campaign. the whole thing is a dry well, a crock. a fraud, a scam, a politically induced hallucination. it's totally nuts. a lot of people should be deeply ashamed of this. not that they are, of course. but that doesn't mean wey haven't learned anything. robert mueller's team of t investigators apparently has

found evidence of suspected wrongdoing by the podesta group, which you will remember is a lobbying firm founded by hillary clinton's's campaign chairman, john podesta, and his brother tony. according to news accounts, the podestas may have violated criminal law by failing to register as lobbyists for foreign powers. not exactly a development democrats were hoping for when they cheered mueller's appointment asev independent counsel. and then there is the ongoing uranium one scandal, which has been explained in a series of devastating pieces by "the hill" newspaper.n back in 2010, in a move that virtually nobody will now defend, the obama administration allowed a russian firm to gain control over about 20% of our uranium o reserves here in the united states. before the deal was approved, obama's department of justice uncovered a massive russian racketeering and bribery ring working to get control of that uranium. the obama administration kept that information secret, even from congress, and let that deal gogo through. now, why would they do that? did it have anything to do

with the more than $100 million hillary clinton's familyo foundation took from uranium one board members? she was the secretary of state at the time. u maybe. just a guess. at some point, we will find out for sure. that's the upside of the hysteria over russiane. collusion. its unintended consequences will be fun to watch. because when you make up a fake scandal, you never really know where it's going to go. richard goodstein has seen a lot of fake scandals. he has been in d.c. a long time. he is a lawyer who has advised both of hillary clinton's presidential campaigns. he joins us tonight. >> great to be back. >> tucker: i was thinking you know, russia obviously is the greatest geostrategic threat in this country. i know that because i listen to the democrats, all my neighborst and i wonder if this has caused you to rethink the position democrats had for 70 years when the soviet union existed where they made excusesd for the soviet union and prevented missile defense from being built in this country. are you rethinking that? is anyone atoning for that? because i watched it, and that happened.

>> yeah, i don't think that's a fair characterization. i think what this uranium one scandal, pardon me if i put it like that, shows me that the u people pushing this feel like the noose of mueller is tightening. otherwise, no self-respecting person, based on the facts, not an ounce of uranium has been exported. >> tucker: untrue. >> the price has dropped by two thirds since this was passed. there's zero evidence, not withstanding the republicans controlled the house andnd senate and could have investigated fairly well, not one stitch of evidence that hillary clinton had anything to do with it, didn't even know about it, nor should she have. >> tucker: i agree with that last point. the republicans could have investigated and they didn't, and that's a fair question. it's hard to believe that you're going to defend that decision signing off on the uranium one deal as a policy matter. knowing what you know about russia, was it really a good idea for the obama administration and the secretary of state, hillary clinton, to approve a deal giving the russians control of 20% of our uranium supply? why was that in our interest? >> again, none of this will ever -- the nuclear regulatory commission keeps this from

being exported. >> tucker: that is absolutely false. you are wrong. >> where is the evidence on that? >> tucker: the nuclear regulatory commission hass conceded that that material has left wyoming, which is where the deposits are mostly in the united states, and left this country. i they have no export licensees as printed in the "new york times." that material has left. so, my question is, you know, first of all, who is surprised by that? the federal government, they can't keep track of anything? why was this a good idea? why did hillary's office and the obama administration sign off on giving the russians a fifth of our uranium? >> so, again, i will tell you i do not subscribe tom? your facts and the evidence i is that -- at our ports, one thing we monitor for is fissile nuclear material. >> tucker: it went through canada. you can read the "new york times" about it. why was it a good idea to allow, to sign off on this? >> again, as your audience should know, there were 9, 10 different federal agencies that all had to sign off. >> tucker: obama agencies. they all signed off. why? >> of course. they did it was noncontroversial.

>> tucker: that's not a good reason. why was it in america's interests to give a fifth of our uranium supply to the russians, which you are now arguing constitute the greatest threat we face. >> some has left the country. a fifth hasn't. >> tucker: they have control of it. why is that a good idea to give a hostile power 20% of our uranium supplies? it's insane. >> there is no shortage of uranium.o that's why the price has dropped. >> tucker: so it is a good idea? >> the price has dropped. why? because natural gas is so cheap that building nuclear power plants frankly doesn't make sense. >> tucker: that is not the concern. the concern is not that this uranium will go to build nuclear power plants.ken. the concern is it will be used for offensive weapons. that's the concern and the fact that a fair amount of it, according to the "new york times," has been exported off this continent. not just to canada but off this continent. but here's the point. you are not going to answer the question. i can't find a single person who will defend this as a decision made by hillary clinton and

barack obama and others in that administration. why would you do this? >> and i'm saying it wasn't a decision made by them. >> tucker: yes, it was.. >> it was made by people in w agencies that they ran. the fact is, again, there is zero evidence. this was raised a year ago, again. >> tucker: so they didn't know? how would hillary clinton not know if a russian company was getting 20% of our uranium supply. what was she doing? >> that is the central fact, conjured fact, that people who are promoting this story have to hold on to. that hillary either was derelict in her duty or knew. neither of which is the case. why should she have known? in the fact, the fact of the matter is, as this case -- the foreign law that deals withr approving or not approving the export of material, that's something that -- doesn't rise to the level of the secretary, her or eric holder or the president. >> tucker: what you said rises to the level of nonsense. o the guy who founded uranium one was a board member ond their family foundation board, gave over $100 million to the clinton family foundation. >> right. >> tucker: they just kind of didn't know.

i think it was over $150 million. frank weister. you just didn't notice that the company he founded is about to go through the regulatory approval process with the agency you run? >> the clinton foundation spent its money largely to tackle malaria, aids, childhoodap obesity, poverty and women empowerment. >> tucker: how is that going? have people gotten a lot thinner? >> millions of people have benefited from this. >> tucker: [laughs] >> go to africa. you can laugh here in northwest washington. go to africa. the fact of the matter is -- so that is a scam. if russians are underwriting that, we pulled one over on them. >> tucker: can i ask you a question? t my final question because sadly we are out of time. you are going to say with a straight face the guy who founded this country gave over $100 million to hillary's family foundation, that company needs approval from her agency, and yet she was somehow unaware of this?fa on a topic that's inherently important to american national security. >> my answer is people in the state department were under oath by the

republicans in the house and senate and two to one, there has been zero evidence to suggest it got to her attention. let alone -- she was one of 10. >> tucker: the fact that her husband was taking half a million dollars in speaking fees from the russians, that didn't come to her attention? >> either that or you haveol widespread examples. >> tucker: this is a tough one to defend. i will give you a-minus mostly for effort. thank you, richard, thank you. >> tucker: victor davis hanson is a fellow at the hoover institution. d professor emeritus at the university of california at fresno. one of the smartest people in the state of california. also author of "the second world wars." he joins us now. mr. hanson, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: i think we can both agree and any sober witness to this whole non-scandal over the past 11 months would also agree we haven't found collusion between the putin government and trump campaign. what have we learned from

this hysteria over russia? >> i think we spent 95% of our investigatory resources -- congressional, independent, media, political -- and we came up with nothing on the conclusion. -- collusion.hi 95% of the narrative whether it was the steele dossier which involved taking theel fifth amendment behind closed doors so that devin nunes' house intelligence committee or the unmasking and leaking in which one member, who was unmasking claims now that the numbers that were masked did not match the times that she did it, in the case of samantha power. now we have the uranium one deal. we have the podesta deal. so what we are seeing is the investigators are being the investigated and because there was never a collusion and the reason the trump administration begs the question, tucker, was this anger, hysteria? a, as you, i think rightly surmised, anger over the lost

election that was blown or b, an effort to overturn the election by impeaching or denigrating trump to such a degree to be ineffective or c, was it a preemptive active effort to disguise a lot of exposure in these scandals that we have talked about? your prior guest was sort of, with all due respect, absurd, his logic is sort of drunk driving is not a threat until you actually kill somebody in a car.ri drunk drivers pose no threat because they haven't killed anybody lately today. and we don't really have 20% of our own uranium.ay we only have about 5%. of that 5%, that's used to generate about 20% of our electricity. so we are dependent on a company that's now controlled by russian interests. we should ask your guest, does he really think that ifif bill clinton went to moscow he would get $500,000 today?es or does he think that the clinton foundation would receive a donation of $145 million today from russian interests? to me, that's absurd. the only reason they got that kind of money, because they had something to offer. that was to green light, as

you said, the authority of russian interests to gain control of uranium. they thought it was at least in their strategic interests. all part of the reset effort by the obama administration. >> tucker: i think it's a great question. richard goodstein has not made it out of our studio yet. i will put him on the screen and pose him the question do you think if he went to moscow today, he would be getting 500 grand for a speech? >> he is getting money like that all over the place, certainly well past the point that hillary was no longer a candidate. >> tucker: you really think when you have got a deal of this magnitude and importance going through and the former president, whosepo wife is one of the people signing off on the deal,l, gets half a million dollars for a speech, i think weeo both agree that's insane. the people who pay him ws expect nothing in return? >> was it insane when ronald reagan got $2 million from a japanese company? >> tucker: if he gave them

20% of our uranium supply. >> what you say is and i hate that fox is doing this, doesn't subscribe to the free market. >> tucker: no, i don't always subscribe to the free market, actually. i think there is such a thing as greed. not every manifestation of capitalism is morally right. some of them are disgusting. prostitution is wrong. that's the market. i'm against it. >> was reagan prosecuting himself? pointing to big dollar numbers of speeches by the president. >> tucker: do you think it's fair to put ronald reagan in the same category as clinton? >> no. reagan wasn't selling anything. he was out of office. the whole donation was designated that hillary clinton was secretary of state and likely be president of the united states. you can ask your guest this year, next year or the year after, the clinton foundation is going to get $145 million from russian interests. the answer is no. they had something to sell. that's what they sold. they don't have anything to sell.. so by their own calculation, they have no market value anymore. h

the market is adjusted. there is a market, but it's not -- there is a free market. but what he fails to point out, it's not a crony capitalism market thatre clinton indulges. now they are in the free market and there is no motive to deal with them, so they are not going to make any money. >> tucker: good point. professor hanson. we're out of time.he thank you for the market lesson. richard, i know you agree. >> absolutely. >> tucker: up next, the firman behind the infamous trump dossier is fighting to keep its records secret. why would they be doing that? what would those records reveal? in a minute, we will talk to a lawyer at the center of that case. stay tuned. t over the course of 9 days... steve chooses to walk 26.2 miles, that's a marathon. and he does it with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.

(hard exhalation) honey? can we do this tomorrow? (grunts of effort) can we do this tomorrow? if you have heart failure symptoms, your risk of hospitalization could increase, making tomorrow uncertain. but entresto is a medicine that was proven, in the largest heart failure study ever, to help more people stay alive and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby.

don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ when can we do this again, grandpa? well, how about tomorrow? ask your doctor about entresto and help make tomorrow possible.

>> tucker: remember the trump dossier, the mysterious, totally unverified document that was made public by buzzfeed?si it included both scandalous allegations about donald trump as well as claims that the web company webzilla was a front for russian hacking of the dnc. it was like a parody of a scoop. it was so juicy it had to be true. except it wasn't. since the dossier's release, webzilla and buzzfeed tre battling it out in court, fusion gps, the company that may have created the dossier is fighting efforts to open its books. this week, the company's executives pleaded the fifth f to congress. why would they do that? what could they be hiding? is there an innocent explanation? we have a founding member of a a boston law group representing webzilla in all of this. thanks for coming on tonight. so, this is one of those stories that central to the russia scandal and hysteria around it, maybe the most interesting thing we have

seen in the 11 months of all of this and yet undercoverred by the press. bring us up to date really quickly on where we stand now. you're representing a company libeled by the people who wrote this. this how does fusion g.p.s. play into it? >> fusion g.p.s. is the party that hired christopher steele, the british mss spy who wrote the dossier. it would be interesting to know who was fusion g.p.s. representing in this transaction. in other words, who hired fusion?ng who is fusion's client?? what was the underlying purpose of the work that fusion has done. and so we sent a subpoena ofof our own to fusion, which they are also trying to fight in court in washington. and i understand that their folks took the fifth which tells me you can't take the fifth unless you have air reasonable cause to believe that the evidence you would give would put you in harm's way.

so that you would actually be admitting to some kind of a crime and begs the question what is it that they think that they did wrong?ha >> tucker: maybe that they are protecting -- they may be protecting the person who paid them. now, i don't know the answer to who paid for this dossier. but i can tell you, which you may know already in washington, is universally believed to be a major republican donor, who was unhappy with trump. do you know, do you have any evidence as to who paid for this? >> we do not as of yet. we will -- we are looking for it. but, again, yes, they are clearly trying to protect the identity of their client. how is revealing that identity a crime, however? in other words, pleading the fifth doesn't just -- youri can't simply plead the fifth because you don't want to reveal some information. have you got to think that -- so i kind of view this as well, a neighborhood boy was hired to

throw a rock from your window and you now want to know who hired him and the bully doesn't want to tell you. that's kind of where i see fusion. >> tucker: whoever hired fusion gps to do this to hire steele and write this dossier did so in order to derail the trump campaign. would there be another reason you would do this? >> i don't see another reason, and certainly from my client's lawsuit, this would be actionable important evidence because it's up to us to prove, since we're the plaintiff, that the agencies -- the allegations are completely false. one way to prove it is to show that the entire motivation for that document was something nefarious. >> tucker: so i don't understand. this is probably a much longer conversation and we have only got a minute. if you are investigating the russian collusion story andnd you are a congressional committee, or you are robert mueller, wouldn't you want to know who paid for the dossier? wouldn't that be one of yourto first questions? >> well, of course. from that point of view, maybe the russians paid fusion and, if so, they

should admit to it and i suppose then fusion might have a problem with everything, including treason. >> tucker: that's a good point. we will find out who paid for that dossier. it's going to be fascinating. >> i'm working hard to find out. >> tucker: thank you, val,l, great to see you tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: nancy pelosi led the democratic party to defeat after defeat after defeat. basically her full-time job. she says getting rid of her would be, of course, sexism. we'll talk with someone who agrees with that next.e,

in the modern world, it pays to switch things up. you can switch and save time. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it.

so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? we see their hunger. their courage. we see their dreams. we see the things that built our nation. and we wonder, what would happen if everyone had equal access to education? what would they discover? what new worlds would they build? that's why we built a university for everyone. southern new hampshire university.

>> tucker: we reported on congresswoman maxine waters many times on this show. it's unbelievable she sits in congress still. t she is corrupt. she doesn't live in her own district. she once cheered on a race riot. because of this, she has become a hero on the left. she is called auntie maxine for her willingness to say anything once the camera goes on. for the record, she is too afraid to do this show. we asked her a number of times. now waters has graduated from impeachment fantasies to, it seems like, assassination fantasies. here she is at an event in new york october 13th of this year. watch. >> with this kind of inspiration, i will go and take trump out tonight. [cheers and applause] >> tucker: now, we have called and emailed maxine waters' staff for comment on this to see if they can provide additional context for the remark.me

maybe we are misinterpreting. we are always open to that possibility. they haven't responded. for some reason, most media aren't badgering waters to explain. we know this because waters was interviewed two hours ago by msnbc. he didn't even bring it up. imagine if this had beenen a year ago and a republican congressman said i look forward to taking out barack obama, how do you think that would have been treated? well, nancy pelosi has taken the democratic party to four straight defeats in u.s. house elections. she has played no small role in the party's defeat last november at the national level which, as you know, was shocking to them.. perhaps it's time shel stepped down and give another leader a shot. but no, pelosi said she has got to remain in office. she has to. not for any reason relating to political vision or acura -- acumen. pelosi deserves to stay inec charge, she says, because she is a woman. >> the president invited us to dinner and some of the cabinet members who were at the table.

i was the only woman at the table. and that's why i have to stay there to be the one of the top women -- top people at the table. >> tucker: cathy areu is the publisher of catalina magazine. she joins us tonight to explain what nancy pelosi meant.at thanks for come on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: she says you need me because i'm a woman.n. leaving aside the fact there are a lot of women to choose from. on the hill. why is her gender essential to the job. >> that's not the only reason. she has been in political power for 30 years now. she is a great leader. ore she is great at what sheor does. she is a wonderful role model for women. so she didn't exactly say that she can be the only woman at the table. but she happens to be thehe only woman at the table. >> tucker: she said that t it's important that i'm a woman. >> it's important there is a woman at the table. >> tucker: why is that important? >> because of thent demographics of this country. 51% of the country are women.. we should have the demographics of our politics look like our country.

>> tucker: no, that's not true. >> that's not true? >> tucker: according too modern progressive orthodoxy there are 63 different genders now. not just men and women. not binary, cathy. keeping up with this stuff. >> i'm sorry.us >> tucker: i think it's insane, of course. but you are required to believe it. if there are 63 separatete genders. >> then we should have them all at the table. we should have many genders at the table. w >> tucker: just same old man, woman, man woman. why shouldn't we give someom other gender. >> fabulous.wh we should start with having her at the table and let's invite the other genders at the table.e. let's keep nancy pelosi. she is smart. she is great at what she does. the players on her team want her to lead the team. they want her to be the captain. the dnc chair supports her. the chairman supports her. her caucus supports her. >> tucker: but in real life, look, she held her democrats together for the healthcare vote in the first obama term. that was impressive. i agree with that. >> very, very. republicans can't do that.t. >> tucker: you are right. she lost a historic number of

seats for doing that she did a good job there.e. she has had no victory since then. you know as well as i, i talked to a congressman about it today. she is not going to get to 218. if democrats win in the midterm, she is not going to i be reelected speaker because she has failed again and t again and again. >> everyone in d.c. knows that those losses cannot be blamed solely on nancy pelosi. >> tucker: not solely. >> so many other factors that play into that. >> tucker: okay. i mean, look, pulling the woman card is a little bitit weird to me since we live in a moment where we're told as a matter of official orthodoxy, my kids learn this in school, that you cand change your gender just by saying so. >> okay.ou >> tucker: so in a world where can you change your gender just by saying so, why is it important to be a specific gender? it's meaningless if you can change it just by saying so, isn't it? >> so then we should have a woman and all those other genders at the table.o >> tucker: why is it meaningful to be a woman if a woman can change into a man by snapping his or hero finger, which is what we are supposed to believe. >> if she leaves, then we have all the men back at the table and we are back 50 years. we need her there.

she is a step forward in the right direction. losing her is a step back. >> tucker: okay, try to put a finer point on this. what about being a woman or a man or a member of the other 61 genders makes you a different and better leader than if you weren't? what inherently about being a woman?? >> you have a different perspective. you have a different viewpoint. you see things differently. we need as many people to come to the table so we see things differently. that's what our country is made of. w we all just can't be the same white guys sitting around the table because we are afraid to invite anybody else to the table because men happen to be afraid of women in power.e i mean, that's a fact. >> tucker: democrats are? i live with four of them. i'm not afraid at all. >> no? >> tucker: i'm wondering though.. you are talking about democratso she is not elected by republicans. >> but the g.o.p. loves to take shots at her. >> tucker: the republicans doesn't like her. -- the public doesn't like her.

last question. she lives in one of the richest zip codes in the world. >> just like trump lived. >> tucker: that's fine. i'm not here to defend trump's zip code. i'm just asking, do you really think that nancy pelosi represents all women? >> well, absolutely. she is not bought and paid for by anyone.el >> tucker: your faith is childlike and impressive. media don't hate trump. they don't like or understand who voted for trump. that's the real story. up next, we will talk to the former head of npr who thought a lot about this and decided to spend a world outside of his world in red state, america. and came up with a very different view than he had going. it's a really interesting story. we will be right back. right as i was stepping into the tee box mentioned a tip a pro gave her. no. yep. did it help? it completely ruined my game. well, the truth is, that advice was never meant for you. i like you.

you want to show me your swing? it's too soon. get advice that's right for you. investment management services from td ameritrade.

...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? ♪ ♪ >> tucker: president trump >> tucker: president trump has an unlikely semi defender these days. former president jimmy carter who i think is 94. the former president told the "new york times" that,

quote: the media have been harder on trump than any other president certainly that i have known about. the big driver of that hostility could be an unprecedented divide between the american media and the country they write about.ca ken stern was ceo of npr "national public radio" and distinguished member of the liberal bubble himself. as a long-time democrat, he realized he didn't know that many conservativet republicans he did what no one ever does travel country to meet people who think different from them on their e own terms. he has a book out called "republican like me." how i left the liberal bubble and learned to love the right. ken stern joins us tonight. what does your family sayet when you say i want to get out there and meet people who vote differently. >> they thought i was crazy. i live on a nice democratic street in washington, d.c. and my house is 100% democrat. my wife and 10-year-old son was not -- were not too approving of this notion and i suspect my neighbors weren't either. i went out and reallyg saw a world i didn't know of. and it was remarkable experience. i learned tons about republicans, about the country as a whole.

and that's really the source of the book. >> tucker: we do segments all the time about the divideme and increasingly no one ever talks to anybody they disagree with. what were your first impressions about this new world? >> one of the impulses for the book was a notion that we have actually become much more geographically and culturally divided than ever before. 10 years ago, there were about 1,000 landslide counties. counties that one party won byby 25% or more. this time, 2500. increasingly dividing ourselves so one side doesn't know the other. i think going in, i had a typical democratic attitude g not very flattering towards republicans. i sat in churches. you sent me pig hunting in texas. >> tucker: that was my recommendation. recommendation. >> it was a great recommendation. >> tucker: meet any liberals pig hunting in texas? h >> maybe the pigs. but no one else. it was just a remarkable experience.

i met people who i never would have met otherwise. led remarkable lives. served their communities. who had deep thoughts about the way their communities and their governments should work. i learned a ton from them. that's really the experience. >> tucker: funny thing is you told me about this book a couple years ago. i thought it was a really cool idea. now it seems like a completely radical idea that no one would ever do. how do you think having done this and been in the media so long this divide effects the way that we cover news? it seems like most people who work are in the press are from one america but not the other. >> yeah. i think it's a fair criticism.m i think, so i was at npr for a long time. i still know that the people there try to tell a balanced story. but what i never gave credit for until this time is that they live inside a certain bubble. we all do. and it drives what stories are important and what source they look to. how they think about the story. and it's enormous challenge,e, i think for media.

because it means that they don't tell the story of half of the country. i think that's really what's missing from mainstream media. >> tucker: i think that's right. there is very little cultural diversity. i actually learned something as somebody who has spent his life hunting around guns. i didn't know how often guns were used defensively. >> yeah. >> tucker: by law abiding people in this country until i read it from you. >> it's an interesting thing.op all the issues i plunged into. climate change, poverty programs, and guns, i really learned a lot from people, from experts i wouldn't ordinarily talk to. i talked to john lott about guns and learned enormous amount about them. e gun homicides in this country have gone down by over half in the last 20ic years as the number of guns in this country have gone up. we spend time talking about gun control. we don't actually talk about the things that actually drove gun homicides down over the last 20 years. why don't we talk about that more? the interest of the story, i didn't even know the term

defensive gun use before this. and the department of justice ends indicates this happens 60,000 times a year. d florida state study says about a million times a year. >> tucker: but a lot. >> either way. high end, low end, it happens a lot. i actually found stories, i told one of them in the "new york post" this week about o how people use guns to protect themselves.ut it's an important part of the gun story.y. not spoken about very much. >> tucker: you wrote about a store clerk who repelled a a robber with gunfire. walks out, knocks the guy down with a bullet.re cigarette in his mouth andut says "castle doctrine," baby. >> modern day clinton -- clint eastwood. >> tucker: what a great book. good for you doing that i don't know anybody else who would do that in your world. thank you. >> thank you, tucker, for your help with the book. >> tucker: i love it. california is about to punish people more than using wrong pronoun than deliberately spreading disease. are you woke enough? that's the next segment. stay tuned. eryone's got to list.

when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet coke, dr. pepper, and pepsi hear you and we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org

today, innovation in the finger lakes is helping build the new new york. once home to the world's image center, new york state is now a leader in optics, photonics and imaging. fueled by strong university partnerships, providing the world's best talent. and supported with workforce development to create even more opportunities. all across new york state, we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov.

>> tucker: california's lawmakers are chopping up their state's criminal code to keep up with rapidly changing values. values changing so much it's bewildering. they used to fear people deliberately spreading hiv which remains an incurable virus. no more under a new law taking effect next year deliberately spreading hiv, doing it on purpose, knowing that you are doingde it, is now in california a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of six months in jail.if meanwhile, there are terrible new crimes in california, and most terrible of all, mis-gendering someone. also starting next year, healthcare workers who persistently use the wrongso pronoun when working with seniors could be imprisoned for up to a year.

radio host he joins us tonight to explain how exactly this works. so, law -- ethan, thank you for joining us, especially on this topic. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: law sends a clearus message what our values are. not just who we want to put in jail but who we believe. it is worse to call someone by the wrong pronoun than it is to deliberately infect someone with a fatal disease. that seems like an inverted value structure to me. >> well, it's not worse. and i'm not quite sure where the year is coming from in terms of punishment and, off course, that's up to the judge. but what we have is something called elder abuse is what happens. as our demographics change the law needs to keep up with that. if you want to be called something, shouldn't i as basici human decency, call you what you want to be called. >> tucker: i do that. >> that's not what we're talking about.

>> women get married, for example, or whatever. i want to call you whatever you want to be called. that's my view because i'm trying to be polite. that's different from the state weighing in and saying if you somehow use the wrong name more than once or t several times or in a way that we consider, quote, persistent, we are going to w punish you more severely than we would if you knowingly gave someone a fatal disease. what the hell? >> well, so, we have a couple of different issues there. first off, h.i.v. is no longer the fatal disease. when you and i were going living through the '80s and seeing people dying left and right in san francisco, among other places, it was fatal. and now medicine hasn advanced that it's not fatal anymore. we are keeping people alive. t look at magic johnson. >> tucker: that is true. but if you know people who have h.i.v., i'm sure you do i do. >> i do. >> tucker: first of all, people do die from it for sure. it's a huge deal, it's a big deal. it makes you really sick. it's super expensive. it's terrible. you can say the same thing about tuberculosis. should we decriminalize the intentional transmission of tuberculosis or malaria? of course not.

the only reason you are doing this with h.i.v. is because there is a specific lobby dedicated to achieving this. that's the last government you want to have, one whose laws are written by various lobbies for various reasons. you see where i'm going, right? >> i absolutely see where you are going. and i still disagree with you. what we have here is we have a specific demographic who generally has h.i.v. who is being discriminated againsts and has a tremendous history of discrimination in the united states. otherwise we wouldn't need things like the stonewall riot in the new york city for example. and what's happening. >> tucker: wait a second, why is it discriminatory? >> sigmatized by this. >> tucker: look, i don't care what, quote, demographic you are.e. if you intentionally givee someone an incurable disease, i don't care how much money you give to nancy pelosi, you should be charged with a felony for that. that's ridiculous behavior. i mean, right?, f why are we making excuses for that behavior? >> because it isn't -- it's not attempted --

it's not manslaughter, attempted manslaughter.mo attempted homicide anymore because we are keeping people alive with h.i.v. the medicine has advanced tremendously. >> tucker: so if i give you tuberculosis, which can be managed with antibiotics, most of the time like h.i.v. which can't always be managed but most of the time. should that be a misdemeanor, too? >> yeah. morally speaking, why not any std. gonorrhea for that matter. >> tucker: legally. no, because gonorrhea has nevert had the consequences of h.i.v. or tuberculosis. look, tuberculosis sufferers don't have a lobby, that's the truth hire. as a moral question, do you think it's okay, it shouldn't be a felony to intentionally give someone tuberculosis, is that what you are saying? >> i think it's wrong, just like you do. but is it a felony? is this something that we should be putting? >> tucker: to give somebody potentially on purpose. just to be clear. this is on purpose. this is not, you know, diseases are spread accidentally and we understand that.w, through recklessness or carelessness, this is onon purpose. i'm trying to give you this disease. that's not a felony.

>> no. it's a misdemeanor in the state of california. we have determined. up to six months in jail for each offense. >> tucker: i got it. i wasn't for california becoming its own country. i i'm getting close. ethan, thank you. up next, the great ainsley earhardt needs no introduction. the star of "fox & friends" here to discuss her brand new book.r stay tuned. 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. introducing walit's a great days. for a great deal! tender, center-cut sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, a draft beer or a coke, all for just $9.99. only for a limited time. so don't walk, run to outback. ♪

>> tucker: ainsley earhardt, cohost of fox and friends in the morning. a brand-new book coming out called "through your eyes: my child's gift to me." congratulations on the book. what's it about? >> it's about seeing life through your children's eyes. and how many kids do you have? i can't keep them straight. >> tucker: a ton. four.

>> it was about what i wanted to teach my daughter. my dad always left me little notes before i left for school. i was pregnant and this book, now that have had the little girl, it's what i'm learning through her. through her eyes. we learn through our children. i think my daughter was three months old and i was shopping and flipping through some close at the store. she starts cackling and i turn around and there is a dog behind us. in new york, these ladies take their dogs into the store toto shop. i turn around and my daughter -- she's so excited. i thought she is seeing a dog for the very first time. how cool is that? we love dogs and animals but i got to witness a human being who happens to be my child, who iit love so much, see dogs for the first time. one time i left my umbrella upstairs. i didn't even know it was raining. i came downstairs. i live on the 16th floor.

i come down and it was raining. i am perturbed. now i have to go back upstairs and get the umbrella. i have to turn the stroller around. we are probably late anyway. i'm upset about that or kind of upset about it. look at my daughter and she's id wonder. she sees rain and i realized she is seeing rain for the very first time. this is so amazing. i have a better appreciation for rain. >> tucker: let me say the fact >> tucker: let me say the fact that in the middle of turning the stroller around, they you could pause and appreciate that. it says a lot about you. >> you are so nice, tucker. on my cross. >> tucker: i've hadd a lot -- it's hard to appreciate what you're saying. the fact that your daughter likes dogs at such a young age means that she will be a great person. >> thank you, ainsley earhardt -- if you want to buy it, go to

ainsleyearhardtbook.com. they give scholarship money for soldiers who don't come back. the ones who sacrifice everything for their kids. >> tucker: thank you, ainsley. that's it for us tonight. every night at 8:00, we will be here. sean hannity is right now. >> sean: thanks, tucker. welcome to "hannity." fox news alert. we are following four major breaking news stories involving what is the biggest russianws scandal in the history of this country. the evidence is now incontrovertible. overwhelming that the clintons sold out our national security e to the russians and the obama administration did nothing to stop them and then they covered it up. democrats and the media have been lying to you for over a year about what is really going on. we have brand-new details as we continue to expose the truth that they won't even talk about. also tonight, ivanka trump will join us for an exclusive interview. newt gingrich coming up later. but first, nbc news reporting that the brother of former clinton campaign chairman john podesta is under investigation by robert mueller.