>> martha: "the story" tomorrow night goes to virginia. we want to hear what you think about the tax cuts. bret baier and i will be at a town hall with speaker paul rya paul ryan. good questions, lots of info. tucker is coming up next, see you tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight. we want to tell you about an op-ed that ran in "the new york times" over the weekend you might not have seen. the writer is a law professor in new york called ekow yankah, asked a simple question, can my children be friends with white people? he really asked it, and he wasn't optimistic. "i will teach my boys collection of generations old," he wrote. "i will teach them caution, suspicion, i will teach them distrust, i will teach my boys to have profound doubt that friendship with white people as possible." those doubts mirrored the writer's own as he put it.

"history has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people. that piece was one of the most popular on "the new york times" website even today. hardly unusual. go to any liberal website, salon, slate, fox, and you won't find an entire racial group is on trustworthy and dangerous. this is a big change for the left. for most of the 20th century, liberals, and it was noble, argue that it was immoral to reward or punish people based on their skin color. individuals ought to be judged solely by the choices they make, anything less is bigotry. liberals don't say that anymore. what happened? ekow yankah is the author of "the new york times" piece. a professor, benjamin cardozo school of law, and he joined us coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: what struck me about this piece, a couple of different things, but the first thing was the generalizations about a racial group based on their race. and i grew up probably not so

much older than you, in a world where overt expressions of that were not acceptable. you weren't allowed to generalize on the basis of race because the assumption was each person is an individual and to judge each person by the torches so mike choices he or she makes. i don't understand when it became okay to generalize about racial groups. >> to me it's a strange way to put the question. why with the case that we all hope that we can be judged for who we are, i think while some people have the luxury to be raised only being told to look at individual people, it should be no surprise to you that black people, in particular black men have been taught forever that they have to be careful how they behave around white people, and the way they behave will be interpreted differently. when they misbehave it will be punished differently, that if they laughed aloud, if they walk into a nice store -- with all due respect, tucker, what was true for you has never been true for lots of people. >> tucker: there are a lot of

ways to respond to that, one on a factual basis, and in truth, and a lot of places in this country the main threat that african-americans face is not from white people, as you perfectly well know. but beyond that, the idea that you could understand a person's motives merely by knowing his race dehumanizes that person, it's the definition of racism, and you are engaging in it in "the new york times," and nobody says anything about it. i just felt it was worth pointing that out and asking you if you feel it's okay to generalize about people you've never met, about whom you know nothing, beyond what they look like, and say i know who you are and what you believe. >> i first want to respond -- the first comment i think is ought not be let live. while it's true that of course people of color face threats from other people of color, it's also true that white people face the overall makeup for my people, that is people face threats from who they live beside. but i think it's fair to point out that we oughtn't be

distasteful and say things like the great threat, it does feed it does feed a certain narrative that we don't want. >> tucker: why does the truth ever feed an ugly narrative? the truth is worth telling for its own sake because it's true. >> you're welcome to tell the truth, but it is deeply suspicious that people are so quick to say things like the main threat facing african-americans as other african-americans, but you never hear people say the main threat facing white people is white people. >> tucker: i don't know, people say that. the point is. you face a threat from individuals who made individual choices. >> we should be honest, and not pretend that there is a phrase like white on white violence. that phrase doesn't exist. >> tucker: okay, what we can invent a cure. the point i'm making is that you should never generalize about people on the basis of their skin color, because it reduces them to the sum of their skin color, and that is the

definition of racism, and you are engaging in it in this piece, and i don't think it's helpful, i think it's wrong. >> are just entirely denied that what i said was you should generalize and dislike people because of their skin color. what i do think is true is that in the world in which things have gotten evermore dangerous for people of color, it is in fact the case that that undermines our ability to trust each other across racial balance. here is what's true, or at least here's what i wrote. not that white people are unavailable for friendship, but in this world it is up to our white friends and allies to be sure to stand up for those who are under attack. if i want to prove that i'm the kind of person who can be your friend, that means that when something is actually threatening you actually have to be there for you. >> tucker: again, you are making generalizations across racial groups. so you say, for example, i will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people. history has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people.

i have profound doubts that friendship with white people as possible. >> that's absolutely right. >> tucker: if i were to write i was mugged as a pizza delivery boy and i told my children that they should never trust anyone who looks like the people who mugged me, i would never do that, i think it would be immoral, but it would be the definition of racism, because i would be equating the people who mugged me with everyone else who looks like them. >> i think that that's the only part of the article you read they might sound like that, but of course the article has a much richer argument. and the argument they make is, look, in a country where it turns out that when the most vulnerable people of color are under threat, those who they count on are nowhere to be seen, or at least for some group of people, and i speak explicitly about the political environment we are in today. if we have a president who marshall's forces of hatred and anger and divisiveness and frankly just danger, quite aside from who he is, i'm not

particularly interested in who he is. if the people who call themselves or friends are not going to push back against that, then maybe you can tell me white as i should trust those people. >> i guess what you're saying is people who don't agree with their politics can be your friend, which i think is an unfortunate conclusion to reach, but definitely the one you articulate here. we were making again, for the third time, generalizations based on race, this is not a defense of donald trump, merely an acknowledgment of the fact that he received african-american votes than anybody in 2004. that's not a huge number, but that's tens of thousands of people. are they in the same category? cannot trust them? i don't really understand. if you're saying you can't trust from voters, fine, but white people? that's a grotesque generalization. >> i'm a little worried that you keep reading the same parts without -- you make it seem as though the entire piece was just that paragraph. >> tucker: it's the title of the piece.

separate graphs. >> i have no problem standing behind the title of the piece, but it is worth pointing out, as i have again and again, what the piece says it is when those who count themselves as your friend see that others put you in danger, it is their opportunity to prove they are your friend. let's just speak plainly about this. you have children like i do, right? >> tucker: i do. >> if your daughters were, i don't know, friendly with a group of people and it just turned out that repeatedly when they went out and her daughters were in danger, those group of young men just disappeared, i take it at some point he would tell your daughters, it's fine to be friendly with them, but these are not your friends. >> tucker: because i'm not a racist, what i wouldn't say is anybody of a certain race falls into that category, i would never do that. what if one of my daughters was mugged by someone of a certain color i would never say to my daughter that's more evidence you can never trust anyone who looks like that because i would

be putting race hatred in my children, as you are. >> obviously i denied that. what i said over and over which we live in a country where we shouldn't pretend that these divides have not consistently been on racial grounds. we see that over and over and over. when black people are in danger -- when black people are in danger from, say, addiction. we get policing. when white people are in danger of it, they get rehabilitation. when black people don't have jobs, we get stories about why we are making the wrong choices. when white people don't have jobs we get a presidential campaign about the forgotten class. to be fair -- just to conclude -- i think -- i'm going to go ahead and i will finish and then i'm happy to hear your point of view. if it's the case that we live in a country where these divides have always consistently been racial, and i think it's not only delusional, but it would be dangerous not to teach my boys that when they walk out in the world it will be a world that

treats them differently. >> tucker: tries say the same thing to my children, there are african-american law professors who dislike you and you should dislike him back? all african-american law professors? i would never say that, because that is grotesque. it is race hatred. >> you keep saying the same thing and i keep trying to save -- >> tucker: i can't get past it. >> apparently. what i've said over and over is look, what matters and people are in danger, if you are going to say that you are the kind of person they can trust as a friend, you have to step out. one is the case that these friendship lines break down on racial lines, financial return to step up because of these racial lines. i know that in my school there is a tense point because everybody hates the filipino student, when the filipino student walks into my area, i'm going to make sure that he knows i'm an ally. i'm not going to disappear when he's in danger and then placate myself by saying i'm his friend. you can't have it both ways. >> tucker: i agree with you. it's when you implicate people

you don't know simply because of how they look that you cross the line. i will ask you another question and let you answer it quickly, which is, how would you feel if i told my children in an op-ed in "the new york times" what you told your children, but the colors were reversed? >> can i ask you a question? >> tucker: of course. >> will you teach your girls to be cautious around men until they prove that they are men that can be trusted? >> tucker: man, but not men of a certain race, because i don't think that the races are as different as you think they are. you think one is good and one is evil, that's what you said in your piece. >> i didn't at all say that, and if you can cite that i would be very happy to see it. what i did say -- i did say tha that. >> tucker: i don't know if we are making headway. i asked you a question, can you answer it? >> forgive me, you ask your question and i returned the question, so i wanted to conclude on that. in the same way that you will teach her daughters to be careful around men until they have proven that they can be

gentlemen, if somebody said oh, my god, that's outrageous, tucker carlson isn't teaching his daughters that men are evil, that would be laughable. forgive me. >> tucker: we acknowledge differences between the sexes, but not significant once between the races. that's office on what you were doing. >> i don't think it is at all. i find it remarkable that you can live in the america we end and not see that racial lines are not equally divided. >> tucker: that's not what i'm saying, i'm saying would you be okay with me writing this piece to my children because the races were reversed? >> the facts are different. >> tucker: all right, got it. >> that's absurd. if i don't teach my boys how to be cautious, how to be careful, how to be perceived in the right way, i'm not just risking their feelings being hurt, i'm risking their bodies being broken. >> tucker: should i teach my kids that? >> you don't teach her daughters to be cautious until they can be sure that the men around them are trustworthy? tell me. >> tucker: that's not what the conversation is about, it's not about sex, it's about race.

i don't teach them that there are dramatic differences between the races. i'm not a bigot. >> to be sure, it's fine for you to care for your daughters and make sure that they are healthy and well, but if i care for my sons in the same way -- >> tucker: we are out of time. thank you, professor, i appreciate you coming on and explaining that. thank you. jeremy hunt is an active u.s. army officer, a leadership strategist for the douglas leadership institute, and he joins us tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. >> great to be on with you. >> tucker: great to be on with you. it seems to me, the reason i want to do that segment is i feels like there's a lot of, to be blunt, racial tension in america and i want to make sure that everyone with a public voice is doing his or her best to make it better. and part of that means treating people as individuals rather than as caricatures, i think. >> absolutely. everything i say on the air is

just my personal views. i just find it incredible that here we have a law professor spewing out such divisive rhetoric, stoking fear. when i was young, my father taught me the basic principle, he said especially as a christian, i should love my neighbor regardless of their race, that i should strive to live in harmony with people regardless of what they look like. these are basic principles that people learn in grade school. how is it that i'm having to tell a law professor not to make these generalizations of entire groups of people? >> tucker: it does seem like that is the line. you have to keep alive the possibility that just because people look alike, doesn't mean that they are alike. you know what i mean? i look like -- there were a lot of terrible white people through history, i would hate to take responsibility for their crimes. i want to take responsibility for what i do and not what anyone else does, that seems fair to me. >> exactly. the more we kind of engage and entertain these conversations

about the whole entire groups of people are racist, the more we are actually playing into the hands of actual racists. if you were a white super leftists in this country, your guaranteed news coverage, guaranteed to talk about all these great things, and we play right into their hand. we are basically carrying out their goal of dividing the united states. it is deeply disturbing. >> wondered we start believing in collective guilt? you are responsible for things done by people you've never met. when did that -- i thought the whole point of america was that we don't believe that. >> you look at after the civil rights movement, the new kind of protest politics. if it took on this new line of basically everyone is going to fill this collective guilt and we will trade you some type of moral authority in exchange for making you feel better about your guilt. it's ridiculous, it's divisive, and instead of viewing people based on the constant of their

character, we are still seeing this kind of movement to try to basically make displays of social justice, and make displays that we are helping the inner-city community or whatever it might be without actually looking to see if these policies are actually having a positive effect on our country. >> tucker: is creating wounds that will not heal for a long time unfortunately. incorporated you very much. good to see you. will the house republican tax plan actively help them or not? we will put that question to a top house republican, one of the people who wrote the legislatio legislation. that's next. ♪ when you have a cold stuff happens. shut down cold symptoms fast with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels.

sarah destroy.dent.

but when it comes to mortgages, she's less confident. fortunately, there's rocket mortgage by quicken loans. apply simply. understand fully. mortgage confidently.

♪ >> tucker: congressional republicans attempting to hammer out a tax reform bill that a majority of congress is willing to pass. who would win then who would lose under a final compromise? will the bills do anything to help the people in america were under the most stress? congressman kevin brady represents texas, the chairman of the house ways and means committee, a big deal in washington. he joins us now, what's going on? >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: under this proposed legislation, the white house is saying the corporations will get a tax cut in order to create more jobs and raise wages. would there be a way to structure the legislation or corporations don't get a tax cut in less they demonstrably raise wages and create jobs? >> the key here is people tend to think of -- the prophets, does that grow my paycheck? the other word that we are actually focusing on was productivity. businesses aren't invested in them, they've been on a

decade-long slide. they are not investing in new plants, new equipment, that is what drives productivity. that gives you the bigger pretext. we are going all in for growth for businesses. our local companies can compete and when mike anywhere in the world, but most importantly, for the first time in history we unleash business investment by letting them immediately write off from their taxes that new investment plans or equipment, software and technology, it really drives main street jobs. >> tucker: businesses are sitting on a huge amount of cash, stock market is at record levels. if productivity is good but we still have a consistent number of people not working. is there any way to tie their benefits to that? to wages? >> investment drives productivity. we've been on a decade-long slide for worker productivity. it weaves to be one of the best, we have really slid in a big way. that's why paychecks are going up. the other thing is we can't

compete internationally anymore. i think 31st out of 35 of our major competitors. they have just flown by us, so we are losing jobs in research and manufacturing overseas and the worst thing for your paycheck is to see it go overseas. this tax plan is all about leapfrogging america back into that lead pack. more importantly, unleashing all that local business investment that we just haven't seen for far too long. >> tucker: so some people's taxes are going to go up and you will see some people paying like carter-level taxes, 55% all in, particularly in new york and california. the idea of someone paying a majority of his salary to the government, is that acceptable? >> i don't believe they will. we lower the rates at every level, double the standard deduction, brand-new family tax credit that more people can use than ever before. in every scenario i run up at every income level, people see tax relief, including in states

like new york. >> tucker: you don't see anybody at the end getting these taxes raised? >> i believe every american will be better off, either with lower taxes or higher paychex going forward, and in high tax states, because we keep the mortgage deduction, the charitable deduction, the property tax deduction at twice the national average adds, in my view, to tax relief. >> tucker: i certainly want that to be true for sure, but mitch mcconnell the other day said nobody in the middle class will see has taxes go up and he walked it back and said actually there may be some people. that scared people. >> what i know is this, when you double that standard deduction, lower the rates at every level, create this new family tax credit, that provides relief across the board and the joint committee on tax said there is income tax relief at every income level. >> tucker: if it turns out not to be true when the senate is done with it, do you think the president will sign it?

>> i do think the president will sign this bill, but i will tell you this as well. we are getting ready historically to pass tax reform in the house this week. we are republicans, we like to make improvements at every step, so we are continuing, as the senate moves forward, as we work together for that final bill. i'm looking to make improvements and tax relief at every level. we are not even done yet. this step in the house really loses another big step forward. we are not to a final bill yet. >> tucker: your pledge as chairman of the house and ways communes and mide nobody is going to wind up with less money if this passes? >> in my belief between these tax cuts and higher paychex and growth, whether you are that worker on main street, or that small business on main street, you were going to see more in your paycheck. you will see more in your pocketbook. >> tucker: i'm rooting for that, of course. chairman, thank you. >> thanks. >> tucker: the trump dossier helped spark the national federal investigation, was it all a dirty trick?

we talk to someone who has it details about that. stay tuned. ♪ yeah, with liberty mutual all i needed to do to get an estimate was snap a photo of the damage and voila! voila! i wish my insurance company had that... wait! hold it... hold it boys... there's supposed to be three of you... where's your brother? where's your brother? hey, where's charlie? charlie?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

you imagine who i am. what i look like. where i live. but look past the things that won't make a difference to find someone who will. search for greatness. search indeed. ...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: this is a fox news alert. it we've learned tonight that attorney general jeff sessions has ordered federal prosecutors to evaluate the uranium one deal for possible irregularities. that evaluation could result in the appointment of a special counsel to investigate it. sessions is order was given in

response to pressure by the republicans. uranium one of course pay the podesta group to lobby on its behalf. a few weeks ago we told you that the podesta people have become the center of independent counsel robert mueller's investigation into russian influence on american politics. it was widely disbelieved and for that reporting, the podesta group of threatened to sue us, threatened us with legal action for saying anything. since then not much has gone well for them. they were implicated in robert mueller's indictment of paul manafort two weeks ago, than 20 podesta quit the firm in response. he blamed us on his way out. late last week, his replacement, kimberly fretz announced she was leaving too. now it's recorded that the podesta group itself will be shut down by the end of the yea year. reportedly told the employees to clean up the dust of the company will stop paying them this week. and they told us it wasn't true, and yet it turned out it was. the firm behind the infamous

trump dossier is ready to testify before the congress. one simpson, the former reporter who founded fusion gps put that money from the dnc on the hillary clinton campaign, we now know, in order to create the dossier. the dossier of course was full of salacious but still unproven gossip, and it was used in the end to justify a far-reaching federal investigation that has turned washington upside down and basically stopped all productive work here. kim stressful, she has written extensively on this. it recently she the trump dossier one of the dirtiest political tricks in history, she joins us. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: you called it a dirty trick. it was obviously opposition research. was it, do you think qualitatively different from conventional opposition researc research? >> that's a great place to start. calling it a dossier gives it too much mystique. this is an opponent research,

but an even lower quality than those research documents. all campaigns do this, but usually you take up driving under the influence conviction, or that you didn't pay her taxes one year, you planted in the press, it makes a candidate look bad. at this is a document based on unnamed, anonymous russian sources apparently. they have never been proven, a lot of them have been disproven. but then here's what they were particularly clever. if they want, and rather than give it to the press, they sent it to the fbi, and then they briefed the press, and then the press was able to claim that this was intelligence that the fbi possessed, and it gave it some air of credibility. >> tucker: this bundle of opposition research changed american political history, and not in the ways it normally would. you are just saying that this really is responsible for this chain reaction, that has paralyzed washington ever since. >> look at what happened. the democrats like to say this

document wasn't even used during the election, not true. we know that christopher steele, who put it together, he has testified in court documents that he briefed the press in september. yahoo! news came out with a huge story saying that the fbi was in possession of the intelligence showing potential collusion between the trump campaign and the russian government. the headlines were dominated by this, and the question that we shall have yet to know, we know the fbi relied on this in some regard, but to this document actually inspire the fbi to end up wiretapping a political campaign? which is no small deal, by the way. >> tucker: i'm unclear. i think that's right, that's the key question, that would be the most shocking effect of it, because that is so obviously corrupt. i don't understand what we don't know whether that happened or not. >> the fbi has been playing hardball about letting house investigators see their files. supposedly they've agreed to let them go in, they have started to

put some things, make available to house investigators, but all of this should be -- the thing i think some people don't understand is that when you were dealing with the foreign intelligence surveillance court, it's not like you put in a request and they say no. it's a back-and-forth discussion. somewhere in the fbi is a big file that explains exactly what the fbi was putting forward to the court as justification to go ahead with the tapping of carter page or paul manafort. >> tucker: the house oversees the fbi. i don't understand how the fbi can just ignore it. if i get subpoenaed by house investigators, do i just give them the figure and go to barbados? how are they allowed to ignore that? >> it's a separate problem that we have, the house is having trouble more and more with its enforcement authority, and that is in essence what the justice department did. they said we are just not complying with your subpoena for a while. they now appear to be putting some things out, but from what i understand, not everything that

they need to put out, and here's the funny thing, every time they have an excuse for not giving it, they say it's because the special counselor mueller. if special counsel mueller is actually doing was entirely because the fbi misused a dossier, all the more reason for house investigators to be looking at how this started. >> tucker: it's unbelievable. i will tie the doll might try that on my taxes next year. i just don't feel like paying, sorry. i'm going to pass this year. thank you for that, that was really interesting. we're talking about the tax bill. turns on america hands out billions in tax breaks and illegal immigrants in the companies will employ them for years. how does that happen and cannot be stopped? that's next. ♪ they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident with a vehicle, i actually called usaa before we called the police. usaa was there hands-on

very quick very prompt. i feel like we're being handled as people that actually have a genuine need. we're the webber family and we are usaa members for life. usaa, get your insurance quote today. i got this...n there? that's the new man, huh? yup. getting kinda' close to my ride. wow... now, that's how you make a first impression. they're going to love you... that's ford, america's best-selling brand. hurry in today for 0% financing for 72 months across the full line of ford cars, trucks and suvs! and just announced...get 0% apr for 72 months plus $1000 cash back! take advantage of these exclusive holiday offers during the ford year end sales event.

♪ ♪ well, well, well youuuu ue topped steak & twisted potatoes at applebee's. eatin' good in the neighborhood.

you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. hi dad. no. edon't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home. show of hands. let's get started. who wants customizable options chains? ones that make it fast and easy to analyze and take action? how about some of the lowest options fees? are you raising your hand? good then it's time for power e*trade

the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. alright one quick game of rock, paper, scissors. 1, 2, 3, go. e*trade. the original place to invest online. >> tucker: illegal immigrants are supposed to be in the united states, that's why they are called illegal immigrants, but they get an awful lot of breaks. in some states they are driver's licenses. in california more than half of

all driver's license issued 12 illegal aliens. free health care in hospitals across the country. several schools give free legal services to fight deportation. but there is more purity in the united states people here illegally or also the beneficiaries of billions in tax breaks. that's actually true, amazingly. dan stein joins us tonight. this is one of those things where it's hard to believe it's true. how was it true? >> we would like the irs to stop giving away taxpayer money with people who have no right to be in the country, but it has been going on for years. earned income tax credit, additional child tax credit. one of the things we've been working on is trying to deny businesses the right to deduct the cost of hiring people here illegally as a disincentive. >> tucker: businesses just just to go back, they can deduct the cost? >> it's a business expense. the great thing all the new idea act, steve king was just trying to get this on, brady.

couldn't get it in there, but basically said businesses couldn't deduct the cost of hiring unauthorized workers. that would take billions and billions of dollars away from the incentive that we all subsidize for hiring illegal workers. but of course they did put in the tax bill a new ban on people who don't have valid social security cards on getting the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit. tens of billions of dollars going overseas claiming they have dependents overseas, you're working illegally, trying to put a stop to that. can we get it to stick in the senate? that's the big issue. >> tucker: who is lobbying against that? >> immigration is a big income transfer program. irs is in your business and my business, but they don't care enough to validate whether someone has a right to be in the country before they send these earned income tax credits outcome additional child tax credit. sometimes people claim from mexico they have ten markets back in mexico, nobody has ever seen them. the irs is printing checks. requiring a valid

social security card and number instead of just taking the so-called i.t. in numbers, taxpayer numbers, it is an important step. in the end what we need is the irs to work with dhs to verify an alien status at the time of employment and sanction employers and deny them the tax deduction, tax deductibility of people working here illegally. you think the stuff would be common sense. 20 years we've been working on this thing and we couldn't get the new idea act on the deductibility in the house plan. >> tucker: there are massive business interests against it. can i ask you a 32nd question that i've been meaning to ask you for a year? after 9/11, my impression was that using fake federal identification, or state identification, became a really big deal. i interviewed people after 9/11, i interview people all the time who brag about being here illegally, using fake federal documents. >> under obama, all the enforcement stopped and actually states have administered lacks standards. what we are trying to do is

rollback what the obama administration did, they required securid, the real i.d. and other things. the irs doesn't care to check. it's not their money, they are just giving away your money, so they don't want to see the check. >> tucker: can i get a fake passport now? >> put in any old number, checks are coming in, they sent one woman in arlington like $10 million in taxpayer money. she filed like 170 different tax returns under different fake names and social security numbers on behalf of people working illegally. let's be honest, immigration is about income transfer. businesses make the money, subsidize labor, wages are driven down. a lot of powerful interests fight for the transfer program. it's costing us taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. we can fix this. we are working to fix this, and we have some of it in the hospital. how to make it stick in the senate, anybody's guess. >> tucker: this is not what people voted republican, to see this happen.

thank you. u.s. army according today -- an unannounced policy that began in august. the army will be granting waivers that will allow people to enlist, even if they have a history of depression, even self-mutilation. retired army colonel and psychiatrist, medical doctor joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> it's a pleasure. >> tucker: is this a real story? >> it is a real story, but there is historical context. since world war i, the army and the military has waived and how many people he should bring on, what should be the a session standard, what should be -- whether they are qualified, and if they are not qualified, whether they should grant a waiver. you look at their record of saying this is in a stellar person, let's make an exception. the pendulum goes back and forth. back in 2009 with the increase in suicides, the department of the army tax task force that wl cut all waivers for suicide

attempts, et cetera. now the pendulum appears to be shifting again to about people that in many cases should not command to possibly come in, although with a waiver. >> tucker: what jumped out and it was not the fact that troubled people go into the military. there's a long tradition of that and becoming really impressive while sobering in the military, which is a great thing it was the mental illness part, because when you buy a firearm you have to sign it -- saying you have not been diagnosed with mental illness. the idea people who would be disqualified from buying a gun to carry a gun seems odd to me. >> there's a few more hoops to jump up and just having a mental disorder and being disqualified from carrying a firearm. it may mean that you have to be committed to a mental hospital. and remember also there's a wide spectrum of mental disorders. on one side there's the psychotic disorders, you are out of touch with reality, you're crazy, schizophrenia. on the other side there's post-traumatic stress disorder,

which a lot of soldiers have served in iraq and afghanistan have and don't necessarily impair their judgment or their ability, it means they have nightmares and intrusive thoughts, which by the way a lot of journalists do too because they go through the same kind of traumas. this policy is trying to figure out where is the cut line. unfortunately i think the cut line gone too far towards allowing people with self-mutilation, which often is symptomatic of something called a borderline personality disorder, or bipolar disorder. bipolar disorder should not be the military, because they often need to be a lithium. lithium is a medication you have to monitor, you have to take blood levels. if you are driving down a desert in iraq in a tank and you were getting dehydrated, as often happens, you can't be worried about what is my lithium level. i'm not sure where this came from. i hope the military will reconsider it in the light of some of the publicity, because i think it has gone too far. >> tucker: it sounds like they are stretched really thin, which

is a scary thing. >> that is true, and when we are stretched thing either in time of war are 16 years after 9/11, then the standards tend to drop. i think one of the things we can think about is one of the reason they are stretched thin is too many young kids are fat, they don't meet the medical requirements. if we could have more of a national program to get people to become fit mentally and physically we could really improve the recruiting number. >> tucker: thank you for that, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: government declaring war on the louisiana landowner for the sake of a fraud that doesn't exist. the landowner shares his riveting tail next. ♪ risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but whatever trail i take, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too.

eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis ask your doctor about eliquis. ♪

we are the driven... the dedicated... the overachievers. we know our best investment is in ourselves. we don't take no for an answer. we fight for what we want. even for the things that were once a given. going to college... buying a home... and not being in debt for it for the rest of our lives. but we're only as strong as our community. who inspires and pushes us to go further than we could ever go alone. sofi. get there sooner.

♪ >> tucker: edward is a land owner in a state of louisiana. like most people, it's his land, he would like to use it the way he wants to. the federal government has stopped him from doing that, and all for the sake of an invisible frog. in 2011, he was informed that is 1500 acres have been designated a potential habitat for something, we are not making this up, called the dusky go for frog. it is not actually live in louisiana, assuming it exists at all. edward joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thank you for having me. i appreciate it. >> tucker: that i mistake that, have you ever seen a dusky gopher frog on your property? >> i've never seen one, because it's not there and it has not been seen in the whole state of louisiana according to the fish and wildlife service since 1967.

>> tucker: this would basically be and what claiming you had you had sabertooth tigers on your land. why did they claim it was their? >> they claimed it was there because they want to have us give over their land so that they can cut every tree on 1500 acres and turn it into a frog resort. they would absolutely have to maintain it every year, keep the land burned every year, and by the way, we own the property all around it, so would you want to live near our property that is being burned every year? i don't think so. the frog is extinct. and it will never come back. >> tucker: i'm struck by the irony. these are environmentalist in the name of environmentalism telling you they want to cut all your trees down and set fire to your land? that's environmentalism? >> that's correct. that is absolutely correct. >> tucker: pets demented, what

did you say? >> what i said was you were not going to take my land unless you pay me for it, and they won't pay me for it. they have certified through their own economists that the loss of value to us is $34 million, and they refuse to pay for it because it is not a taking legally. >> tucker: but they want to cut your trees down and burn your land in the name of protecting and extinct frog? >> a frog that does not live there, and has not been there for many, many, many years, probably even before '67, what their official literature says is that the frog is not been sef louisiana since 1967, not to mention my land. >> tucker: just for our viewers at home who might fear they have a dusky gopher frog or two on their property, what is the recourse here? what you do when this happens?

>> the recourses you have to go through the motions of going through a show trial, which they call a public hearing, where they gave me 5 minutes to speak, along with a lot of very strange people who got up and talked about the frog might cure cancer one day, and silly things like that. you then have to suffer through a long period of comments. they issued the rule as they said they would, and then you have to sue them in federal court to reverse it, and then if you get an adverse ruling, you take it to the court of appeals. we've done both of that, and we are now going to the u.s. supreme court in the hopes that they will see common sense and logic, and the fact that this law does not actually allow that, and hopefully reverse the lower court decisions. >> tucker: unbelievable, environmentalist want to cut your trees down and burn your land. thank you, and godspeed, we are

rooting for you. thanks a lot. >> thank you very much, tucker. >> tucker: thanks. at the new york subway system has a new scheme to make people feel welcome. we will tell you about it next. ♪

booking a flight at the last minute 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.

copdso to breathe better,athe. i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain

while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. >> tucker: new york metropolitan transportation authority making big changes to improve the experience. they are not fixing widespread delays, they are not cutting cost, they are not adding efficient new routes. all of those concerns are on the back burner until they've stamped out the real problem, drivers who use gendered language. they are telling train contractors and bus driver stopped to use the phrase ladies and gentlemen. it conjures up the senate's notion that there are only two genders, while cutting age by scientific researchers at facebook are actually there are millions of genders, with more being studied every day. like hindu deities. it less than acceptable terms like passengers, writers, and everyone. new yorkers already feel safer.

that's it for us, tune in every night at 8:00 to the show that is the sworn enemy lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. sean hannity up next. >> sean: congrats on the one year. that's awesome, and great job as always. welcome to "hannity." this just breaking, donald trump jr. responding to a report that he communicated with wikileaks during the election. he has released all the messages, and we have them. also the attorney general jeff sessions tonight, just now calling on a senior federal prosecutor to evaluate "certain issues regarding the corrupt uranium one deal and potential wrongdoing by the clinton foundation." it finally. and in a letter to congressional republicans, sessions is also saying he's leaving the door open for an appointment of a special counsel, what we have been calling for. but first tonight, a fifth woman is now coming forward with allegations against u.s. senate candidate judge roy moore. during a news conference today, the womaned