from pearl harbor, hawaii as the president is here and will visit the u.s.s. arizona moments away. stay with us. "the story" continues and fox news continues tonight. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." it is all coming out now, a supposedly legitimate political base for the nation's highest office undermined by collusion between candidates and a powerful outside actor. american voters repeatedly lied to you. now our democracy is quaking beneath the blow of it all. we are referring, of course, to the 2,016th democratic presidential primary. that party reeling from a recent piece in "political" by acting dnc chair donna purcell. in the article, taken from her upcoming book, she says the dnc essentially handed itself over to hillary clinton's presidential campaign, giving

the clinton campaign control over fund-raising, strategy, and financial decisions. even had veto power over hiring at the dnc. the revelation is shocking, even on people who suspected it was true, and it is now splitting the democratic party. senator elizabeth warren now says the 2016 race was "rigged" in the primaries. current dmc deputy chair keith ellison supported bernie sanders, he said the party is betraying millions of voters. house leader nancy pelosi says, stop talking about it. time to move on and focused ont election not vote gnomic feud over the last one. what about voters? do they have a say question rick should they have had a say? we have a democratic strategists, president of new heights of medication, who joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> i'm really glad to be here. thanks, tucker. >> tucker: how is this not the definition of corruption? >> well, i know that donna brazile would like to sell some

books. however, she fails to account for two things. the main argument she makes in this supposedly except gnomic explosive pieces one that when she got to the dnc, two things e happening, things are mismanaged, and she felt things gnomic people there had their finger on the scale for hillary. guess what? we already knew that. that is why several people resigned and she took over. so it is really old news here, and confused as to why we are focused on it. >> tucker: i don't know why we are attacking donna brazile, personally, cool, i'll remind you, is a woman of color. but i don't think that your response accounts for the claims that she makes. she says there was an agreement explicitly signed, a legal agreement between the clinton campaign in august of 2015, a year before the primaries ended, and the dnc giving the clinton campaign financial and hiring control over decisions at the

dnc. that seems like corruption. i don't know how else he would describe that. >> no, it's not. here's what actually happened, and i'm sure it happened on the republican side as well, which is that when someone has secured their party's nomination, essentially they start acting as one with the party committee. so it seems as though the clinton campaign decided to make this agreement early which said, hey, guys, when i actually secure the nomination, you know that we are going to have to go over some things like that. that, to me, does not seem out of the ordinary. >> tucker: that's not actually what it said. look, if you're making the point that both parties tried to rigged the system in favor of the candidate they want, you're absolutely right, and the republicans tried to do that and they failed, and that is how they got trumped. no, it's true. both parties tried to rig it, but my question is, don't voters have a say in this? it doesn't belong to the party who is paid by it but by the voters that vote for it. they get to vote, it seems to me

an act of undermining democracy. >> it's not at all. the states are the one who controlled the primaries. the dnc and party committee staffers group frankly have little role in that. the other thing is that i think there is a suggestion here that it was so unfair as to that something might have changed the outcome. hillary clinton won the primary by 4 million votes, so it is really hard to see how this could have gone down any other way. again, look back on come up with this change things so that, you know, she would rightfully become president? well, she's not in office right now. >> tucker: right, but these are all hypothetical questions. what will we do know is that the system was not on the level, it was rigged. i'm not a democratic democrat,f people that have given their lives to the party have.

this one is not a democrat. "the campaign finance flows essentially that the claim to know my clinton campaign to bypass individual contribution limits by funneling millions of dollars to the dnc, taking control the dnc in the process." she is not selling a book. that is a real accusation from a lifelong democrat. >> it's not an accusation. i can, go back and think about what happened here hillary clinton took the dnc when they were in a ton of debt, when they were basically bankrupt, and got them out of bankruptcy, raised a lot of money for the dnc, raised a lot of money for state parties. then basically said, hey, we are also going to want some say in how that money is used, and that's not so unfair. as i understand, the same agreement was basically offered to the bernie sanders campaign as well. he chose not to raise money for the campaign. that sets up a larger contrast between the fact that

hillary clinton has been a democrat, you know, largely all her life. she talks about how she was a goldwater girl. >> tucker: and bernie is not really a democrat. i love that bernie is not really a democrat. a democrat his entire career in the senate, as he will know, but how about someone who has been a democrat consistently, elizabeth warren, saying the system is rigged. is she not a real democrat too? this is not just donald trump or right-wingers like me trying to cause problems in your party. these are actual democrats. would you think joe biden thinks of that, for example, who got chapter because the dnc put its thumb on the scale when it shouldn't have, and let's just admit that its corruption >> again, i think people like martin o'malley and bernie sanders have a legitimate complaint to say that, on a personal level, the staffers at the dnc probably preferred hillary clinton. i think that is true. >> tucker: [laughs]

okay, come on. >> but i don't think you can say that -- i just really don't think -- yeah. >> tucker: when national democratic committee staffers who are bound, i would say on abound, to remain neutral in the nominating contest, are figuring out ways to impugn senator sanders because of his religion, and they were caught doing that, you think that's not corrupt? >> i don't think it's corrupt. i think it is human that he thy had preferences. on the g.o.p. side, i'm sure that was the case as well. you may remember the previous administration wasn't terribly -- >> tucker: i'm not contesting that. the republican party didn't want donald trump. he bulldozed them and won. they tried to rig it too. that's true. i'm just saying, it's not supposed to work this way. the democratic party got caught raiding an election. they should just admit it and apologize. that's all i'm saying. >> well, i would disagree with

that assessment. again, i don't think that it was rigged. i think hillary did have outside control for a lot of reasons. again, it didn't change anything ultimately. >> tucker: unknowable. christy, thank you for that. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: last evening, president jeff stoker an interview for a puff piece literally entitled "how jeff made cnn great again." pretty hard-hitting speak gnomic peace. he gave his theory for greatness. hardness, hardness, her nose "i think our news is truly fair and balanced." he said that apparently without snickering. which raises the question, how much cnn does jeff zucker actually watch? yet here is acosta from two days ago, releasing what is

apparently prerehearsed editorial. >> i think president trump now has the world record for injecting politics into the aftermath of terror attack. that is exactly what has happened in the last 12 hours and the president has been reading about this. >> tucker: the president won a world record for injecting politics? according to jim acosta, reporter, that is "exactly what happened." can we get some documentation? a certificate from the guinness spoke, maybe? did they accidentally slip into third-grade pond injury? it looks that way. and it probably wasn't by accident, actually paid as a veteran acosta boettcher, we have noticed a theme here. here is a greatest hits real. >> i think we saw the president 's true colors today, and i'm not sure they were red, white, and blue. he is ushering in a cold war, a return to the cold war between washington and havana. not just seeing a press conference go off the rares or jumped the tracks. you are watching a presidency go

off the rails and jumped the tracks. at times, this white house has an unfit gnomic unhealthy fixation on what i call the 3ms, the mexicans, the muslims, and the media. >> tucker: keep in mind that as of this morning, jim acosta was still listed at cnn senior white house correspondent. that is a different job from being a talking head on one of those panel shows of 19 guests. at least, it's supposed to be a different job. as jeff zucker watching any of this? our guests tonight, i am not attacking jim acosta for bad pond injury -- although that is bad pump and treat -- i'm kind of wondering what the boundaries are. if you are a white house correspondent supposedly committing journalism, gathering facts, bringing them to your audience, how can that person coexist with the person we just saw? >> it cannot, tucker. as far as reporters are concerned, you can say jim acosta is the face of the

anti-trump movement. that is fine if he is an activist or even an opinion host like yourself. the problem is, as you've noted, he is a senior white house correspondent from one of the largest news organizations in the world, and what that does to cnn, by extension, fairly or not, because there are plenty of good report is over there, it's labeled us on an objective news outlets that reports of the facts but as the opposition party. if you talk to folks within the administration, and i have, and you ask them, are jim acosta's day-to-day antics in terms of making himself the story, is that good or bad for you? and they enthusiastically say, yes, because he is making our argument for us that, not only is the media as a whole -- because now they can use it broadbrush -- negative toward us, but they treat us with hostility, and there actually, during these press briefings, taking a side on the position and openly debating us on it. that is not what white house senior correspondence to. >> tucker: it's not. for all of the grief that fox takes, and i'm jumping around

and getting might face in your opinion, i get it, that's fine. our guys at the white house don't behave like that. they're not eating editorials about things. they never have been like that. does no one else noticed this is happening. i should say, you're right. there are some good people at cnn, and there still are, but jim acosta seems to discredit them. >> are your saying, is anyone noticing? of course they are. he is one of the most visible on the network. a lot of people watch the press briefings. that is a true fact. let me read you -- there was a profile on acosta in "politico"" this is how it reads. "acosta takes a sip of the beer. content that he was on the right side of history." "people are going to look back at this moment and ask each and every one of us, what did you do when trump was doing this to america? what role did you play?" now, that is taking a side in

saying that my ideas are better than your ideas and my worldview is more righteous than yours. >> tucker: he sounds like a theologian or something. i a german theologian who was murdered for his beliefs by the the's nazis. he makes it sound like he has a moral mission when i thought he was supposed to be a reported. >> not just jim acosta but other pond and that network. the senior political analyst, press secretary for hillary clinton, i asked her to make your producers to put together this tweets to put it on the screen because it really shows you what a political analyst should not be doing. "a life look at ed gillespie 's "ed gillespie is running for or you have april ryan who is a white house reporter for american radio, also a cnn

contributor and on the air quite often. and she asked the press secretary, just two days ago, do you think the administration thinks that slavery is wrong in the u.s.? you don't ask a question like that, tucker, if you want a meaningful answer. you ask a question like that to make yourself the story and get retweeted and go viral. stu and i love how they are attacking ed gillespie a sum certain extremists. someone told me the other day that keith olbermann isn't well. have you heard that? >> keith olbermann, since the theme tonight is making yourself the story, obviously likes to say things that are productive and over-the-top. not surprising. on "review," and i don't know if you have this sound bite -- oh, you do. play that real quick. >> you said recently via tweet that trump and his family have done more damage to america than bin laden and isis combined. >> yes. >> do you believe that? >> yeah. we did really well after 9/11. i don't think the country has

given itself enough credit for what we did not do. we did not restrict all of the freedoms in this country. we did not single out people. >> tucker: is he okay? are other people concerned about him? >> i would imagine so. but i'm concerned more about, tucker. did you hear the reaction of that audience who cheered when a guest compares a sitting u.s. president to the guy who carried out 9/11, bin laden, carried more than 3,000 people in new york, pennsylvania, and washington, obviously. and then also says that president trump is worse than isis, who just also took credit for carrying out attack a few blocks from where they killed eight people, and the crowd cheers that? and no cohost -- meghan mccain used to be with this network -- stood up to him. this makes you hurt. >> tucker: a little nervous. joe concha, as always, thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: got a fox news

alert. the nypd says they may have a criminal case against disgraced producer harvey weinstein. for an update on all of that, we are joined by jonathan hunt, who has the latest. jonathan? >> tucker, this is obviously a dramatic development in the harvey weinstein case with the nypd saying they are gathering evidence to prepare an arrest warrant and that they believe the allegations made by and actress that harvey weinstein raped her in october 2010 are credible. >> we have an actual case here. we are happy with where the investigation is right now. mr. weinstein is out of state. we would need an arrest warrant to arrest him. >> what makes this story so -- >> the ability to articulate each and every movement of the crime, where she was, where they meant, what he did. >> scores of women have now come forward with allegations of

sexual harassment and assault by harvey weinstein. he has denied any criminal acts and he said getting treatment for what he has called sexual addiction, although there have been various reports, tucker, from tmc and "the new york post" " that he is not taking that treatment seriously. he will have little choice but to take this news from the nypd very seriously indeed. tucker? >> tucker: jonathan hunt, reporting for us to live. thank you. army disorder bowe bergdahl received his feet today it has some people furious. we'll tell you why coming up. you wouldn't believe what's in this kiester. a farmer's market. a fire truck. even a marching band. and if i can get comfortable talking about this kiester, then you can get comfortable using preparation h.

for any sort of discomfort in yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it. our recent online sales success seems a little... strange?nk na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground. [notification tone] ♪ in the modern world, an app can help you find your perfect match. ♪ and with esurance, coverage counselor can help you find great coverage that's a perfect match too. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. ... dealership has great customer service ... (muffled voice) ... and has great deals! ... and has ... ... complimentary donuts.

... that's the one! cars.com. over 5 million expert and user reviews. ♪yea, you can be the greatest ♪you can be the best ♪you can be the king kong ♪bangin on your chest ♪you can beat the world you can beat the war♪ ♪you can talk to god while bangin on his door♪ ♪you can throw your hands up you can beat the clock♪ ♪you can move a mountain you can break rocks♪ ♪you can be a master don't wait for luck♪ ♪dedicate yourself and you can find yourself♪ ♪standin in the hall of fame ♪and the world's gonna know your name♪

>> tucker: bowe bergdahl is going free after he pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy and military court ruled today he should be dishonorably discharge from the military, demoted in rank, and fined $10,000, but he will receive no prison time. is that just or not? rob o'neill knows a lot about this, a former navy seal, he fired the bullet that killed usama bin laden. and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> great to be here. >> tucker: i know you have an informed perspective on this. give us some context for what bergdahl did. >> this is one of the many missions i happened to be a part of. i was on the base when bowe bergdahl walked out. i remember waking up and being told an american deserted and we had to go get him, and it was a large part of my team and other coalition forces that we actually stopped what we were doing in the war effort, which meant, for our team, we stopped going against high-value individuals to take on very,

very high-risk missions to get this guy that we knew very well walked off the base as the villagers turned him over to the network and tried to move him over to be in pakistan. we went night after night doing very dangerous stuff, and there were people killed. the army was quick to dismiss -- six soldiers killed in that time frame. maybe they weren't necessarily going after bergdahl, but they were in the right place at the right time. they were killed. one of my guys from my squadron was shot. he would have died had he been with anyone else. he was hit in the femoral artery. the dog he was with were killed. big dumb pipe because they landed in a spot right in what we call the x, next to the target. my team went to assist them with that fight. a lot of people were hurt and it's all because this guy was a deserter and it's that simple. he did get rolled up by the telephone, and he suffered a lot at their hands, but that is all because of what he did. the stuff he went through, that is a punishment for what he did.

now with this judge to just let him go, what about the people that were killed? what about the soldiers that were injured? what about the wife who said she could no longer hold her husband's hand because he's in a wheelchair, shot trying to get bergdahl. think about the countless high-value individuals that we stopped going after, that escaped, that may be made improvised explosive devices that could have killed marines going on. all of this war effort stopping because there is one guy left. i said before i was going to keep my mouth shut hoping the military judicial system or do something the right way, but i think this judge dropped the ball, i think it said, i think they have something against this administration. i don't know what it is. i think they made a bad call. >> tucker: just to go back to the beginning of what you told us that you knew from the outset that this was desertion, that he had left intentionally. >> we knew -- >> tucker: we didn't know that, those of us that were just covering the stuff.

we were told by the obama administration -- it wasn't clear. >> it was so bizarre. i've been in a lot of different spots. about eight months after we finish the bin laden raid, told to go rescue him out of a part of pakistan, and the obama administration sent their people there. we think this guy might have fallen back on patrol. i had to stop her in the middle. no, no, no, this guy walked off. i knew before my first cup of coffee. he is a deserter. we need to go with him. simply because he wears a uniform, we need never leave tn behind. this poor nitwit. what the judge did today was wrong. >> tucker: the obama people knew from the very beginning been -- i mean, if you know -- >> we knew they were going to spin it as something political like they did. >> tucker: but why would they like? >> why would they bring the parents of this deserter into the rose garden on the sunday morning show, saying he served with honor and distinction? i talked with some the guys from

my former command, the elite seal team, just saying a disgrace. a lot of guys that were there, one of my guys, i can't tell him right now. >> tucker: rob o'neill, thank you for that. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: the latino victory funds gubernatorial victory ad was so over-the-top it was pulled off the air. some think it was one of the great ads in american political history. why does she think that? we'll ask her next. on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

>> tucker: virginia's gubernatorial vote is just four days away, and the races ending in a really ugly way. earlier this week, the latino victory fund released and then pulled an ad that attacks republican ed gillespie's voters as racists who want to children. [car revs] >> run, run, run! come on! >> tucker: democrat ralph northam's campaign has tried to distance itself from the ad, which is self-evidently disgusting, but not everyone agrees with that. we have a member of the

democratic house of representatives. she joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me back, tucker. >> tucker: i guess what bothers me about the ad, it is clearly race baiting but factually untrue. there are no gillespie voters that i'm aware of who have run anyone down with a truck. this ad is only designed to play upon people's racial fears. it's hard to see how anyone could defend it. how could you? >> well, i find it interesting that you have managed to pull all of the gillespie voters to find out what they do in their private time. as a political consultant -- >> tucker: hold on. has a gillespie voters run down a minority child with a truck ever? do you know something i don't? >> know here in georgia there was just a woman convicted and given 30 years because she did go to an african-american child party with her confederate flag flying on her truck and drove in circles as they called them the and word. so that happens, it happens at 2017, and it happened to me in

the early 2,000 spirits doing awful things happen, for sure, and i never deny it, but this is a political ad ended a specific candidate and his voters, and there is no evidence that anything it suggests is true. there are no gillespie voters who have done this. by the way, we just had kind of a mirror image of this in new york city this week for a radical muslim random people in a truck, one of the reasons they pulled this ad. do you see any irony in that? >> what i do see the most irony and is, in america, you can look at what happened in new york as terrorism, but when we talk about charlottesville, in virginia, where this race is going on, you pretend like that is not terrorism. as if that man with a confederate flag on his car did not run over the poor woman. >> tucker: slow down. i don't know if you are talking about. i would never defend that. it's appalling. i think that is a kind of terrorism. of course, evoke terror in people. no one is defending that, certainly not on this show.

>> but you are saying this is a nonrealistic ad, and in america, we have to understand is, there are americans -- >> tucker: hold on. this ad is designed to enact votes for a candidate away from another candidate, to terrify people, and the ad says, this guy supports writing down minority children, and that's a lie, and it is the worst kind of racial demagoguery because it is preying upon people's fears. oh, it's racial demagoguery. here you have an example of racial demagoguery and you are endorsing it. why? >> you know what else the right does, the ray cote says , we don't have time to be politically correct. let me tell you something that is not politically correct in america. in america, there are americans who are as afraid of someone running them over with a confederate flag as they are of radical islamic terrorism, and instead of running from this and shaming it, you need to say, you know what, this is an ugly part of american history. whether it has to do with ed gillespie or not, i don't know. but i know it's the reality here in georgia.

>> tucker: first of all, you don't have a separate reality from anybody else. the reality exists independent of your -- >> i think you have a separate reality because you're not recognizing what america is showing right now. >> tucker: i don't want to have a philosophical conversation with you. i just want to make the point that this ad accuses somebody specific, ed gillespie, av specific crime that neither he nor his voters have committed, therefore, it is a lie, but more than that, it is bad precisely for the reasons you just explained. people are scared. this makes them more scared on the basis of a lie. therefore, it is demagoguery. it brings us farther apart. do you see what i'm saying. >> port tucker. what you don't realize is that, without this ad, there were already americans who were afraid of this reality. this ad just depicts that. the fact that you are running from it and trying to fight that is a problem with america. it's a problem with republicans. this is something that we are truly afraid of in the same what you want -- >> tucker: there for i'm part of the problem?

i'm confused. is there in a gillespie supporter who has done this? >> yes, you're part of the problem, not because you're part of the lie, because he want to turn this into a lie. you want to turn it into, charlottesville never happened. >> tucker: this isn't about charlottesville. >> actually, yes, it is. this is virginia. this is a governor's race in virginia. >> tucker: what does that have to do with ed gillespie? i mean, look, i'm trying to be reasonable. i'm not sure you're capable of it, but i'm trying to walk through this slowly and ask you, how does what happened in charlottesville relate to ed gillespie and how is he he responsible for it? maybe i'm too literal. >> no, you're trying to be literal, you're trying to be literal, and you're trying to be literal because you don't want to recognize their white people in america that can be as bad and worst terrorist as the muslim terrorist to put your defending it, not because it has anything to do with ed gillespie -- you could care less about at gillespie. you care about what it depicts. you want to show that the confederate flag is part of our heritage. i salute one flag.

that's the american flag. >> tucker: we are done. you are a deeply unreasonable person. i hope you never get near power. next up, the g.o.p. tax plan could have big consequences for business owners, tesla drivers, and our viewers, you, me, all of us. should we pass it? we'll talk to a republican congressman about what it means for you. that's next shut down cold symptoms fast with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. eight hundred dollars when wet switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey. oh. that's my robe. is it? you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. hey, bud. you need some help? no, i'm good. come on, moe. i have to go.

(vo) we always trusted our subaru impreza would be there for him someday. ok. that's it. (vo) we just didn't think someday would come so fast. see ya later, moe. (vo) the subaru impreza. the longest-lasting vehicle in its class. more than a car, it's a subaru.

this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value.

[music] [music] ♪ >> tucker: republican party revealed yesterday its plans for the biggest overhaul of u.s. tax code since the bush tax cuts of 2001. this bill would/corporate tax rates, increase the standard deduction for ordinary families, and impose a new tax on the endowment revenue of universities. it is a complicated bill. not all is clear. but is it worth passing? congressman sean duffy represents wisconsin and supports the proposal, and he joins us.

congressman, thanks for coming on. >> good to be with you, tucker. thanks for having me. >> tucker: if the message of the last election was, the middle class feels neglected, and an awful lot of americans make less than their parents made, and if that is the core problem in american politics, and i think it probably is, how does this bill address that problem postmarked >> two things. one, as he mentioned in your intro, we let more middle income americans keep more of their income, which is a great thing. we simplify the code so people don't have to go to their accountant and to itemize deductions. i think the biggest thing is, we are a global economy. we have businesses because the tax rates are too high, they go to some foreign country provided tax rates. if we bring our corporate tax rates from 35% down to 20%, we are going to see american businesses actually come back home and bring their money back home and invest here in america. and when you have more investment, more business, that means more jobs for middle income families with better

wages, which is what this is all about. how do we help the american family? i think this package that kevin brady and our ways and means committee put together, is pretty awesome considering the constraints we have. >> tucker: let's take one company, apple. its valuation is nudging towards a trillion dollars. it's going to get a much bigger rate cut than any other middle-class family. it doesn't imply that many people, actually. if this tax plan is good for apple, how exactly will americans benefit from that? you're confident they will? >> let's walk through the apple example. when apple makes money overseas, they keep that profit overseas. they don't bring it back on. the reforms in the tax bill will say, apple, all of the money you have made overseas, we will tax you, and he will have eight years to pay it off, but you will bring it home on day one. because we lower the rates make it easier to bring prophets home, we think apple will invest more in america and offer more american jobs.

one of the reasons why apple isn't here is, it tax code has incentivized apple to go somewhere else. this reverses that incentive and says, apple, we want you to come back home and employed americans and the innovative and creative jobs that make your product so wonderful. i haven't been able to get an iphone tenured, but i'm working on it. i hear it's great. >> tucker: i don't think it will solve anyone's problems. let's just take an example. let's see my wife and i each make 45 grand a year. that puts us pretty solidly in the middle class. we live in schenectady, new yor new york. 90 grand combined in family income. how does this change our picture. >> you and your wife make $59,000, your tax rates, your federal tax rates will go down by 75%. you'll pay a 75% less than you do today. and your taxes will be way easier. what i find fascinating, democrats, you have heard the

mantra every day on your show. democrats say, we need not give tax breaks to the wealthy. we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and preserve breaks for the middle income americans. what we have done in this bill is pretty simple. we have driven all of the tax breaks toward middle americans, and actually, we have taken some of the wealth away from the wealthiest americans. democrats become uncomfortable because they like the talking point of saying, no tax breaks for the rich. but when we actually accommodate them, the rich live in their districts. they have the limousine liberals who sipped their lattes and the love to talk about their social justice, but when we accommodate them, all of a sudden, they are like, whoa, we want to make sure you can write off the interest on $8 million home. when i live in wausau, wisconsin, tucker, we don't have any million-dollar homes. you are at wealthy if you have a $450,000 home. the left wing nuts are going crazy that they might pay a little bit more.

spoon the democratic party is a party of the rich, that is actually true. finally, what about the property tax write offs that people in states with high property taxes, mostly, of course, blue states, liberal states, they can't write that off anymore under this plan. how's that going to affect middle-class families? >> not to the same degree, but they can write up to $10,000 of their property taxes. you know, maybe your home, tucker, you might not be able to write off the full boat, but a lot of people and aren't paying off more than $10,000. recognize when you itemize, you know have gone from a $12,000 standard deduction to $24,000. if a whole group of people who want to have to itemize anymore. they will have enough in the simplicity of the code to make it work for them. one thing i want to bring up, you bring up the high taxes, new york, california, new jersey. they are concerned about the ability to write up the state

and local taxes. what is often times not brought up, the alternative minimum tax actually doesn't let them write off that stuff anyway. not helped as much as they would be as other people in low tax states. spoon congressman, thank you for joining us for that explanation. i appreciated. up next, a professor has people howling over a report he wrote on transgenderism. that next.

>> a professor at boise state university that i don't have has people calling for aspiring because he has violated the dash on transgenderism.

the professor argued that transgender ideology is undermining the traditional family by affirming the right of children to change their gender even if their parents object. they say he ought to lose his job for saying this. so far boise state says his job is safe that they dean has also issued a statement saying this rhetoric does not reflect the values of diversity, whatever that means. the professor joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker, for having the. >> tucker: can you explain quickly what you said that was considered so controversial by boise state? >> well, it is one of those things, it is almost difficult to know what, precisely, got everyone angry. most people concede the point that transgender rights can undermine parental rights. so the general trope is then that i have said misogynist and trans pope and homophobic things in the article. spoon but you were just noting that if you

allow a child agency, freedom to decide his or her gender, if you believe that is physically possible, if you let kids decide, that undermines the rigf parents to make decisions for the kid. that is like a statement of fact, isn't it? >> it seems to be a statement of fact. it's difficult to imagine what the family could look like if there weren't parental rights and parental authority that parents would have to raise their children the way they see fit. >> tucker: so what kind of response did you get for saying something obvious? >> well, i'm not sure that anyone ever read my article, and i have been proud of my administration for always defending my right to write on what i would like on academic freedom. at the same time, they have said that i have engaged in hate speech and that i created an unsafe environment and i have been uncivil, and i think we are beginning to see, at boise state, the conflict between a university that is committed to social justice and a university that is committed to rational inquiry.

that, to me, is the slow death of the modern university. >> tucker: or the quick death. it seems to be happening pretty rapidly. in what way do they claim you are uncivil? >> i think the instability that they see is that i don't affirm everyone's identity when i conduct my research on what the effects of identity politics are on the family. i think that is the new definition of civility. if you have to affirm people in their identity in order to be c. where is the old understanding of civility, which i think fits with the university that is dedicated to rational inquiry, you can disagree politely with someone. spoon reiko. you can say, i have a different view, but i don't hate you for it. that was my understanding. they have, in effect, denounced two in a modern way by saying that what you said it does not reflect the values of diversity. now, hear that phrase a lot. i have no actual idea what it

means. do you know what it means? >> i think i would go back to that understanding of civility, tucker. i think what diversity means is, the need to affirm everyone in their own identity as they understand it. and the failure to do that makes you uncivil or may be a person who perpetrates hate speech. >> tucker: so i thought diversity was the idea that you could have people with different backgrounds, different experiences, different views, and they could all kind of live together. it sounds like they are demanding uniformity rather than diversity. >> yeah, that's one of the great ironies, tucker, that boise state, for instance, has recently hired a diversity and inclusion officer, and he is one of the primary people behind denounced me in public. he has claimed by articles for charlottesville and genocide and call me a neo-nazi. what the effect of that is, to make people without tenure and without the protections that come with an academic job less

likely to speak, less likely to engage in ideas, and back to the diversity officer at the univer. students of the diversity officer is demanding conformity and nobody sees that as orwellir totalitarian? looking at the outside in at the university, not just rest but so many of them, it seems like a grotesque joke to a lot of people like me who are parents of college-age children. at what point do you think the rest of the country says, i'm not sending my kids to a place like that anymore? >> i would like truth in labeling on campuses. if a campus isn't going to be dedicated to rational inquiry, they should just announce that they are dedicated to social justice and eradicating prejudice as they understand them. and allow people to understand s they are going to. it's not clear to me that there's enough intellectual diversity on any of these campuses to conduct a genuine constructive dialogue if those

campuses are committed to social justice and set of rational inquiry. >> tucker: and it is the diversity officer strapped to stamp out inquiry. this is one of the craziest things, and i appreciate you having the bravery to stand up in the middle of it. thank you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: a sign outside a school is being treated as a hate crime because of what it said about white people. we'll tell you what it said nex next. . respiratory. respiratory. . k. why do you do it? it's not just a pay check, you actually like what you do. even love it. and today, you can do things you never could before.

♪ ♪ you're developing ai applications on the cloud. finding insights hidden in decades of medical documents. and securing millions of iot sensors. so get back to it. and do the best work of your life. ♪ ♪

>> tucker: here is the lived an actual washington post story. it is okay to be white. that was found taped to the maryland high school in an effort to spark racial division. officials said they ripped down the signs and called the cops and investigating the security footage to find the monster who did it. it's okay to be white, that is not what you can control.

you should attack people for it. yet the left does constantly. who is sowing racial division? they ought to stop. we'll have a great night. see you monday. hannity is next. >> sean: thanks, tucker, welcome to hannity. i can confirm framultiple doj sources that confirmed to me directly that the attorney general of the united states has not recused himself from the iranian one issue. that is huge news tonight. we'll have more from greg garrett and we are following new scandals all centered around one person, hillary clinton and the ruthless political machine that mowed down anyone who threatened her quest to be leader of the new world. we have evidence that