evening on. that's the story from here. we'll be back tomorrow night at 7:00 here in new york. tucker carlson is up next. have a great night, everybody. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: geographic and welcome to tucker carlson sent to. a middle aged man going through divorce begins dating a man he met online. the relationship becomes torrid and eventually the man sends his girlfriend lewd text and nude photographs of himself. several years later the two break up and in revenge the woman shares their private correspondence with other people. nude pictures of the man wind up on the internet and ultimately in the media. he is ridiculed and humiliated. so who is the victim here? if you guessed the 68-year-old man whose five grandchildren can now find naked pictures of him online you obviously haven't been reading "the washington post" lately. the man in question is

republican congressman joe barton of texas. according to the "the washington post" he deserves to be ashamed of his, quote, secret sex life. keep in mind that nobody has accused barton of abuse or even abuse of power. the relationship was consensual. if anything, it is barton's former girlfriend who may be guilty of a crime, so-called revenge porn is illegal in many places and ought to be. yet for reasons never explansd, "the washington explained treated barton like the heir to harvey weinstein anonymity to the woman hole overturned his life and humiliated him. sex abuse stories have dominated the news beginning with weinstein predators in hollywood the media in politics have been exposed and they have been punished. that is good news because justice is always good news and we'll continue to bring you updates on those stories when we get them and we're sure we will. going forward, we should also be careful that the noble effort to end sexual harassment does not degenerate into a witch-hunt. it can happen. articles "the washington post" just proved. so with that in mind, two

things to remember: first, anonymous accusations always lead to abuses. the right to face your accusers is the corner stone of justice and has been since ancient rome. that's why it's enshrined in the sixth amendment. that's why we ban star chambers. we don't allow people to accuse others of armed robbery and murder. why do media outlets allow it in cases of sexual harassment. if you are going to name the accused. you ought to name the accuser, assuming it's an adult. news organizations are not courts. they shouldn't take a side when guilt and innocence are in dispute. it's too easy to get it wrong and they often do. second, not everyone accused of a sex offense is guilty. not every accuser is telling the truth. i learned this the hard way a number of years ago when i was accused of felony rape by a woman i had literally never even seen. she was a certified public accountant in indiana. upstanding member of her community and also apparently delusional. her claims were grotesque

but they were highly specific much the assault she said took place in the back room of a restaurant in louisville specific day at 10:30 p.m. she included loads of graphic and horrifying detail. it was stomach-turning. and, yet, none of it, noble ononeof it was true. i spent the next two months to stay out of jail. i couldn't have tell my children because i knew they would be ashamed. i couldn't tell my employer because i knew i would be fired immediately. i spoke only to lawyers and spent a fortune. i took a polygraph exam at the fbi. i never stopped worrying that the charges would become public and destroy my life. everyone accused of sex offense did something wrong. i knew that i knew everyone would believe otherwise. this isn't an offense of sexual harassment bad behavior obviously. real life is complicated. more complicated than sermonizing on twitter. sometimes the mob is wrong. sometimes the innocent are crushed. that's always a tragedy, no matter what the charge is. of course, crushing the

innocent may also be the pointed of the exercise and we are seeing that. last week a feminist called emily lynn kennel announced on twitter that she was quote not at all concerned about in the men loses their jobs in the search for perpetrators for sexual harassment. if some innocent men's reputation have to take a hit in the pro-sells of undoing the patrioty that's a price i'm absolutely willing to pay. lyndon not surprising solid a columnist the teen vogue. we asked her to come on tonight to talk about her views. she refused. instead we have cathy areu. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: if someone perpetrates a crime legal or moral like sexual harassment that person ought to be held to account. >> right. tuck particular i want to be clear i would never defend that. >> i would never defend that either. >> tucker: the whole point of the exercise is to bring about justice to make sure that the guilty pay and the innocent go free. >> exactly. >> tucker: this woman seems to be is saying that it doesn't matter that all men

are guilty by virtue of being men. that's the on sift justice. that's collective punishment. you wouldn't be for that, would you? >> no. i mean i'm not for social injustice. what she is trying to say it would be mike scrop pick compared to what women have been through. you mention witch-hunt there were no warlock hunt or withered hunts. women are the often ones persecuted in the mobs that you are talking about. the mobs are usually men that are burning innocent women at the stake. women aren't usually the ones that suffer much more than men. i think that's what emily lindin was trying to say. >> tucker: for the sake of argument i think that's true. we are not teaching history here. people have been unfairly persecuted by mobs. >> women. >> tucker: some men, too. leaving the sexist side. if it was wrong then, why wouldn't you be every pit as horrified that it's going on now or could potentially happen now? why would you be horrified by what this woman wrote? >> well, she was defending it saying that it would be

wrong but microscopic in the sense that what happens to women and women's reputations is so much worse than what would happen to a man's reputation. women's reputations are destroyed constantly on a daily basis. >> tucker: so facts don't really matter? in other words, she is saying you should respect me when i make the case that facts don't really matter? that's what she saying. >> let's level the playing field and men are starting to feet pain that women have felt for a long time for centuries. >> tucker: that's good? >> it's good when the sexes, when the jernsdz are equal. she is saying maybe it's about time that they're equal. >> tucker: in other words, you are saying i think what happened to women was wrong i'm going to do it to men because it feels wrong. why should i take you seriously as a person? >> social injustice is not okay. she is saying it happens to women all of the time. so men are finally getting a taste of it. women are finally getting a little bit of power. now men are starting to feel a little buy of the pain. welcome to our club. >> tucker: huh. how would you if this standard, which is

horrifying. >> yeah. >> tucker: were applied to crimes like, i don't know, murder or armed robbery. i don't know if you did it but you look exactly like someone who has done it, therefore, if you are punished for it like, you know, at least you now know how it feels. how would you feel about that. >> it's rare. women rarely accuse men of sexual harassment. in her tweets she was saying that it's rare that actually happens. >> tucker: she doesn't know anything. >> that's what she was saying. particular tuck here is what she doesn't know. if you could actually present the stats on actual social science on this. people are flawed. most people tell the truth but not everybody does. that's why we have the justice system to try to determine objectively who is guilty and innocent and punishes only the first category. she is suggesting and you are suggesting throw that out because everybody who makes an accusation is telling the truth that's not true. i don't want to live in a world you are describing. do you really want to. >> no like i said social injustice, i don't believe this n. that. live in a world where somebody's reputation let's

take not just women. not just women are called names not just women's reputations are at stake. let's not have the witch hunts. let's have wither hunt. everyone burned at the stake if everyone is going to burn at the stake. >> tucker: wouldn't it be better to treat people as individuals and assess the claims against people on individual basis. >> absolutely. but it's not happening. it's not happening for women, no, women are the minority in this country and we still are fighting for our equal rights. so, men are still in power. you are still in power. >> tucker: so you are suggesting that if women ever took power, whatever that means, i don't buy the premise of what you just said by the way but let's just say that if a group that felt itself to be oppressed took power that it would oppress the group beneath it as kind of pay back is fair? is that what you are saying? >> no. that group is not in power. if that group were to be in power, it would probably be a better place. women are less violent than men. create less murders than men and women are just not that way. it would actually probably be a better world if women

were in charge. >> tucker: you may be right. you are not making that case very persuasively, i have to say? >> why not? >> tucker: why isn't it in the case of these kinds of allegations the accuser's identity is shielded like the basis -- >> -- because the victim. >> tucker: no, not the victim. >> the victim. >> tucker: no. none has this gone to court. the facts are not fully known. >> okay. >> tucker: the victim and accuser are two different things. once have you proven have you been harmed, you are the victim. before then you are the accuser. why would we jet son thousands of years of tradition, of jurisprudence prudence and hide the identity of the accuser? how would you feel if you were accused of something and you didn't know who was accusing you? >> we are seeing many men ha that are guilty right now. >> tucker: sure, there are. >> many nebraska then that are guilty. you weren't one of them. these women are speaking up and they are having a voice now. it's wonderful that they have a voice and feel empowered to do so. >> tucker: a voice but no name or face. let me ask you again.

by the way, i think most people accused of these kind of crimes are guilty, okay? >> that's been proven, yes. >> tucker: some of them aren't. >> right. >> tucker: so i'm wondering how you would feel any said, you know, cathy, i have spoj spoke to someone who accuses you of something that's career-ending, that's life-ending, it's a grave, moral crime. >> right. >> tucker: i'm not going to tell you who this person is but i'm going to tell everyone who accuses you of of. wouldn't you say wait a second who is that person? i want to face my accuser. >> i would have felt like every woman has felt over the century like scarlet letter. women have been accused of for hundreds of years of crimes that they didn't commit because they weren't pure enough. >> tucker: they weren't accused anonymously in this country because it's never been allowed that would include the puritan times the era you are referring to. people are not accused anonymously because that leads inevitably to abuses.

i just want to leave on that concept. do you understand what i'm saying? >> absolutely. as i said, i don't believe that anyone should be accused falsely but i understand her way of thinking. emily lindin's way of thinking. i can understand what she is saying. if men suffered microstop pick way to the way women have suffered so be it. >> tucker: i hope you never sit on a jury as much ace like you, cathy. >> i like you, too. >> tucker: ned ryun recently wrote a piece. thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. glad to be here. >> tucker: how does your piece bear on the national conversation we are having about sexual harassment? >> no. i think one of the things, one of the points i made in that piece, tucker, just really addressed the fact that we're dealing with some of this toxic masculinity that hollywood and the media created. you go back and look at the years and years of conditioning of objectifying women, of turning them into, you know, these octobers in print and film and

normalize abhorrent behavior. now people are reacting on the left and the media in hollywood, you know, they are acting self-righteous and horrified at the behavior that is the end result of the conditioning that they received for years. tucker, one follows the other. if people have been conditioned for years to act in a certain way, they're going to behave a certain way. and so when you see them attacking the toxic masculinity. i want to make the argument, this is a culture that the left created. some of us, and this is why i wrote that piece have rejected that culture. we actually believe in self-discipline. we actually believe in virtue. the other great irony in all of, this tucker. the left not only created masculinity, they enabled it you look at the harvey weinsteins and bill clintons and john conyers and al franksens and they want as your guest just tried to make the argument they want to pin that terrible behavior of some men on all men and in fact say all men are guilty of toxic masculinity when, in fact, we are not and we are not

even capable of abusing those around us. i think this is a conversation that we have to have about what we're really discussing and who actually created the toxic masculinity. it didn't come from the right. it was something that was created by the left. now we are seeing the end result of it. >> tucker: it seems like 10 years ago but it was just several months ago when the vice president said, i think to a reporter that he does not go out to dinner with women alone. >> that's right. >> tucker: he was accused of being some snake handling fundamentalist freak and jumped on by feminists. i won determine if they would reassess that now in light of everything we have seen in the last six weeks? >> no. i think one of the funnely things we have seen in the last couple of weeks. i wouldn't say funny, perhaps ironic that these liberal elites who smeared at us, practice faith respect for women and respect for the institution of marriage, well it turns out those that are sneering at us were actually in fact the perverts and predators there are some of us -- many

of us that actually believe in this world that we're in that, again, what sets us apart is self-discipline and respect and virtue and a certain behavior. it's the small decisions that make the man. and, again, we refuse to be pinned with this toxic masculinity because many 6 us have lived our lives in a very different way. and, in fact, where it's coming from is the behavior of the left and their conditioning of the culture that they have created. >> tucker: i have to say with one exception, the allegations against roy moore would be the exception. but in almost all these other cases these are not evangelicals being accused. these are self-described feminists. >> that's right. that's right. no, and so i think the other thing, too, that needs to be discussed, tucker is, this. we are seeing the end results of deck cadle and decades of conditioning in this sexual harassment this period of what we are seeing right now. the other thing that concerns me a little bit as your former guest was trying to get, to i think. i am concerned about about the social experimentation

taking place and trying to remove the manliness out of our boys. when you see some of these things taking place in our education system, it's of deep concern to me. listen, i'm all for women, for all the break through they have made for girl power. all of those great things. i think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. left behind. >> tucker: being for women does not mean being against men, of course. >> see, i think that's where the left has gone wrong. >> tucker: no, i couldn't agree more. >> but in responds to the toxic masculinity they have created they wanted to keep our voices suspended in peter pan state and rev to let them be men. they don't want us to be boys. they want us to be girls. we have to push back right now and not let it continue down this path. >> tucker: ned ryun, thanks for joining us today. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: taxpayers shelled out tens of thousands of dollars to john conyers:

mark steyn joins us next. shut down cold symptoms fast with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. 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. ♪ ♪ohhhhhh, ou! guess what i just got? uh! ♪i used to be spellbound hello again. ♪i used to be spellbound hi. ♪i used to be spellbound that's a big phone. ♪in your arms. [screams] ah, my phone. ♪you built the flame ♪that warms my heart, ♪but lying and cheating ♪has torn us apart

♪and i'm moving on. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: last week it was reported that democratic congressman john conyers had been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women in congress and reached a settlement with at least one of them. yesterday, conyers stepped down as the top democrat on the house judiciary committee. democrats have not been eager though to push him out of congress entirely. yesterday, instead of demanding his resignation, the house democratic leader nancy pelosi praised conyers as, quote, an icon. >> just because someone is

accused, and was it one accusation? is it two? i think there has to be. john conyers is an icon in our country. >> do you believe john conyers. >> i don't know who they are. they haven't come forward. >> you don't know if you believe the accusations? >> that's for the ethics committee to review. >> tucker: nancy pelosi doesn't like anonymous accusations when they are leveled against democrats we noticed. mark steyn is an author and columnist. and he joins us tonight. mark, i kind of have to agree with pelosi in that look we don't know all the facts and i'm willing to suspend judgment. i'm totally baffled by her line about conyers being an icon that seems like a non-sector. what does that have to do with anything? >> i have been listening to what you were saying earlier, tucker. i have grave misginks about a lot of this because i think as a society we are short of what we used to quaintly call courtship rituals and actually risk making things worse by having nothing between cold

world of hookups and friends with benefits and on the other hand harvey weinstein staggering around in his bath robe. >> tucker: right. >> in the case of conyers, nancy pelosi, the most powerful woferl in democrat progressive politics just gave a textbook illustration of how vulnerable women in low level jobs are cowed into whatnot coming forward. what does he's an icon mean? it means is he a somebody and you are a nobody. what does it mean who she says i don't know who these women are? they are just girls in the typing pool so they don't count. he's the icon. >> tucker: that's right. i'm just getting right now in my ear, actually, an update on this. pelosi has just released a statement saying that she did speak to one of the accusers, apparently whose name is melanie sloan and she finds th the aaccusations quote disturbing. i don't know whether she will be calling on him to leave the congress.

she does seem a little stlo make a judgment about chairman conyers and i don't want to think it's partisan but i can't think of another good explanation. >> well, no. she is essentially making the same argument that weinstein and the others made. when she started saying oh, he's -- he was very important and passing the violence against women bill. well, you know, the old line is the bank robbers rob banks because that's where the money is sexual predators use the cover of liberal progressive feminism because that's where the girls are. that's what harvey weinstein discovered. that's what charlie rose discovered. and that's how john conyers seems to operate, too. and in conyers' case it's worse because if a guy wants to behave like a pig, and abuse women in his privates life, that's one thing. conyers took it to the next level. he made you and me and all the other american taxpayers pay for it.

>> tucker: that's exactly right. >> which is disgraceful. absolutely disgraceful. >> tucker: get something back to what you said at the outseth which is maybe what bothers me the most it does seem like we are moving toward a complete breakdown in the way men and women get along which may be the worst possible outcome. what's the solution to that? >> well, i do -- i do think that almost every other generation in human history had it easier in that whether you are talking about accepting a dance in the 19th century or going for a chocolate malt at the soda fountain in the middle of the 20th century. we seem to have lost all that. and the danger is that we're a hyper sexualized society. almost from the word go. the pop songs that 7 and 8-year-olds listen to exist in a world of hyper sexualizization but then if you want to act on that, there are no longer any agreed social rituals as to

how it is you are meant to pursue that and reestablishing that kind of architecture is really the challenge. what cathy waste saying at the top of the show when the women take over, and we have, what did she call it warlock hunts, i don't think warlock hunts are the answer. and i think that kind of tortured view of relations between the sexes will make a miserable world for people. >> tucker: i agree with that completely. that's what you want to avoid that kind of zero sum thinking. mark stein, thank you as always for your wisdom. >> thanks a lot, tucker. truck truck president trump's wall along the mexican border remains a fantasy for now. that may not matter. up next we will discuss how trump is surrounding this country with an even more formidable virtual wall according to the "the washington post." stay tuned for that. ♪ ♪ before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you.

xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. .

.

with most airline credit cards, you only earn double miles when you buy stuff from that airline. is this where you typically shop? is this where anyone typically shops?

it's time to switch to the capital one venture card. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day... not just airline purchases. seriously... double miles... everywhere! what's in your wallet? >> tucker: congressional hesitation a euphemism for you work on the president's border wall the one that he ran on. what if a physical wall isn't even necessary? well, if you read "the washington post," you already know this. "the washington post" piece says that the president is, quote, building a border wall no one can see. he is doing this, they say, by cutting refugee numbers, speeding deportations, implementing virtual vetting and simply enforcing immigration law as it exists instead of ignoring it in so doing the paper says he is creating what some are calling a virtual wall around the country.

alberto hernandez is an immigration activist and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> ola. >> tucker: i want to talk to you because you are my measure of where the left is on this. so here is what we know, according to the "the washington post" which i will stipulate for the purposes of this conversation is a legitimate news organization. the president hasn't actually built the wall. all he is doing sen forcing the law us on the books passed with democratic support years ago. is that okay with you? >> yeah. i think that we live in a country where there is law. >> tucker: right. >> i believe that the problem that we've had is that a lot -- there is too many laws and one of the things as the latino community we have been saying we have take all these different laws and create immigration reform and every president and every congress and every senate in the last 20 years has failed to do that. >> tucker: well immigration

reform is a meaningless phrase or mean whatever you want it to mean. what you're saying is activists have demanded that people here illegally be given amnesty and then citizenship and then some people, american citizens disagree with that you, just the headline here, seems to me, you think it's okay for the president to enforce existing immigration law, right? >> yeah. but when talking about selective immigration law enforcement, what about all of the illegal russians that have been coming here to this country. >> tucker: yeah. i think they are in the same category. i will talk about them right now. i have think it's totally wrong to come here illegally. why not throw every person, regardless of country of origin or ethnicity or native language out of the country and say apply like everybody else. why would you be against that? >> but the system that we currently have in our

government doesn't have the capacity to be able to even process those applications. and that's been part of the problem. >> tucker: well, then, what if you just said look, current law does not allow people to work here if they don't have a green card or the correct papers and if they are using false federal documents. right? that's the current law and i think you would never want to defend using fake documents on tv. what if you just said we're going to make sure through everify that nobody can employ somebody here illegally and nobody can get welfare if they are here illegally and everyone mocks the phrase you would see self-deportation because what would be the option unless would you be against that? >> well, let's talk about -- you talked about not hiring people. and let's begin by looking at farm workers here in california. you are from california like i am. in california, how many growers, that grow grapes, tomatoes, lettuce and all the fruits and vegetables

that we grow in california hire hermine who are not here with documents? >> tucker: right. so you are saying that big business doesn't like it? >> yeah. of course. you know, it's interesting that now the growers are saying we need to have comprehensive reform. because if you had every farm worker in the state of california. >> tucker: right, making an american wage and treated like a human being, that would be a disaster for big business. yes, it would. let me ask you really quickly, when you were growing up a young liberal did you ever think you would find yourself in a position defending big business that wants to pay people less for working outside? did you ever think i'm going to grow up and become that guy a shrill for business? >> i knew that from a very young age that farm workers were being mistreated and abused. >> tucker: yeah. exactly. >> i was part of the united farm workers movement which

chavez -- >> tucker: who was radical dickly against illegal immigration as you know, physically assaulted immigrants. >> because you don't have a system that takes care of those who take care of you. >> tucker: that's not what caesar chavez says as you know. as you know he was totally opposed to immigration in all its forms. robert toe, thank you for joining us, thank you. congress can't fix a taxes or immigration. they haven't made your life better recently i bet that's fair to say. they do have come together to approve further monitoring of you and me through our email and phone calls. we will tell you the details next. ♪ ♪ 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.

so we know how to cover almost we've anything.st everything even a "red-hot mascot." [mascot] hey-oooo! whoop, whoop! [crowd 1] hey, you're on fire! [mascot] you bet i am! [crowd 2] dude, you're on fire! [mascot] oh, yeah! [crowd 3] no, you're on fire! look behind you. [mascot] i'm cool. i'm cool. [burke] that's one way to fire up the crowd. but we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ when food is good and clean and real,

it's ok to crave. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be. it can detect a threat using ai, and respond 60 times faster. it lets you know where your data lives, down to the very server. it keeps your insights from prying eyes, so they're used by no one else but you. it. is. the cloud. the ibm cloud. the cloud that's designed for your data.

ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for business. yours. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: congress hasn't yet been able to agree on how to fix healthcare, immigration or the tax code, but they might be able to come together on at least one thing entrenching america's surveillance state

which, by the way, is aimed at you. for the first time since edward snowden fled to russia the fisa law which enables the collection of america's private communications is up for congressional reauthorization. and congress seems poised to approve it quickly. should they. professor, thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: so i think everyone agrees, essentially i think you want robust intelligence agencies defends you from foreign threats, which are real and are proliferating. so i think we need surveillance. i'm just concerned because the bulk of the surveillance is of american citizens and i'm not convinced the government does enough to separate them from the potential bad guys. >> well, you are 100 percent right. it's one of the most complicated problems that we have though tech technologically and legally. terrorism doesn't recognize national boundaries or national citizenship. so, when you want to surveil conversations of bad guys who live in yemen or iran or

lebanon, you are inevitably going to pick up some american citizen. some innocent, some guilty. >> tucker: right. >> we don't need warrants to pick up foreign conversations but when foreign conversations are with americans, the question is do you need a warrant to protect americans? there are some potential solutions to it one, you pick up the conversations and if you find incriminating evidence against americans, did you go then later and get post facto warrant that at least justifies and shows that there is now probable cause for continuing to surveil the american. otherwise, you really have to make a decision. is it better to err on the side of losing some terrorist or picking up some americans? that's a very complicated and difficult question. >> tucker: it is complicated. shear less complicated question. should our intelligence agencies be allowed to pass on information on americans that they pick up to the justifiable department for prosecution of domestic crimes? it happened and that seems

to basically put the government in the role of secret police. what do you think of that? >> i think it should require a warrant before you turn the material over to the justice department. we do more than that we also turn information against americans over to foreign countries. if we pick up some domestic surveillance that shows that an american is planning with a non-american against some other country, we turn that information certainly over to our allies in great britain and france and in europe. so, i think a warrant has a role to play. you can't have warrants for general surveillance. because you don't know what i are going to pick up. you are looking for conversation. you are looking for noise and then the experts filter through the noise and figure out when there is relevant information. >> tucker: right. >> it's very complex to get a warrant. once you are turning it over to the justice department or other governments, a warrant requirement makes some sense. >> tucker: bottom line, i don't think you need to be crazy to be worried about this though, do you? >> you should be worried about it. again, there are no simple

minded solutions. some libertarians say it's very simple you should have a warrants for everything. some on the other side say you shouldn't have a warrant for anything. this is complex. it's nuanced. we need congressional input. >> we need to change the statute to be more protective of american citizens while not giving up what we're getting from the surveillance to stop terrorism. hard balance to trike but we have to do it. >> tucker: there is i wish there were more people speaking up for american citizens. as always, thank you. >> thank you. it's a pleasure. >> tucker: there is exclusive new information tonight on an investigator who says he was targeted for raising the alarm about top secret material that resided on hillary clinton's email server. a whistle blower in other words under attack. he is here next. ♪ ♪

whcold sore.et you? grab lunch? cold sore. when a cold sore takes over, campho phenique's topical anesthetic plus anti-microbial action soothes pain fast. what's for dinner? meat loaf. campho-phenique on, cold sore pain gone. (vo) purchase $999 or more coat helzberg diamondsx. and get an xbox one s, with 3 months of xbox game pass and xbox live gold. at helzberg diamonds. while supplies last.

why did you take credit card debt on? second kid. private school. medical bills. moving costs. solid ground. a personal loan from sofi is a smart way to consolidate credit card debt. certain borrowers cut their credit card interest rates 42% and increased credit scores 17 points on average. borrow up to $100,000 with low rates and no hidden fees. find your rate in just two minutes, and take on your debt at sofi.com.

approached threats went further, singling him out and another central government email investigator. >> you were given a warning? told that we would be the first to two be fired with her administration. that was definitely going to happen. >> is that how it's supposed to be? >> no. i was in this context a whistleblower. i was explaining to congress i was do al the sudden i was the enemy. >> more than 2100 classified emails passed through clinton's personal server and to this day no one is accountable. >> if had you done this what would happen to you. >> i would be sitting in leavenworth right now. >> asked a spokesman for the clinton campaign, the office of the senior senior democrat as far as director of national intelligence for comment but there was no general response. 26 years of government service. he told fox news today he is grateful now to tell his story, tucker. >> tucker: that is the story. catherine herridge, thank

you very much for that. >> richard good stein advised hillary clinton's 2008 and 2016 campaigns and he joins us tonight. >> whistleblower. here is a guy permanent government employer. inspector general not low level character. he finds wrongdoing job to light and job was threatened. that seems like something you want to get to the bottom of it. >> the predicate for your question, finding wrongdoing and so forth, let me tell you why i take issue with it i will take serious issue the minute that you look into a real threat to national security. which is the president taking the russian foreign minister and ambassador in the oval office shoeing out u.s. press, inviting in russian press and disclosing to them top secret information that did disclose where israeli assets were. that's when i will take this whole thing seriously because we know that happened. >> tucker: so, in other words, because you

disapprove of the current president's behavior, nothing that happened before his election -- >> -- no. i'm saying that's known. what you are talking about is something that's theoretical. >> tucker: where is the theoretical part? we know there were classified. >> we don't. i'm sorry. i don't mean to be rude. james comey testified under oath the only time he testified under oath he said there were three documents that were marked classified. we know at least one of which was a condolence call to the president of that lou buy. >> you are missing it. >> i'm not. >> tucker: this is the enemier general whose job it is to keep track of this who says that there were large amount of classified information as distinct from documents marked classified. information from the intelligence agencies, gathered by them. on her server. and that he perceived this as a threat to american national security. so, i don't think there is any evidence he is some partisan ax grinder. is he a permanent federal employee. he is told that he is going to be fired for doing this if and when hillary is elected. that's why we have

whistleblower statues to protect freedom like that to tell the truth so our government doesn't become third world. does that make sense? >> i would love to cross-examine him and his people who said they were in a position to say for sure that he was going to be fired. that sounds like the kind of thing that, you know, at the end of an administration you are kind of are fearful of. again, all taken seriously when the people in the trump white house from bannon, priebus who used private emails and private servers are examined. >> tucker: is this as simple as partisan at this time part tt time? >> if there is ever found to be private material on a private server of a white house employee i will say you can't do that. that's illegal by the way. now that you said the russian government was trying to hack, the greatest threat we face, trying to hack into computers in this country, private and public, it doesn't bother you at all that there was classified information on hillary clinton's unsecured private server? i'm serious, actually. >> as a literal matter, the

state department server was hacked by china and russia. we know that. that's a fact. we actually have no evidence that hillary clinton's email server weighs hacked. >> tucker: the white house servers were hacked by the chinese. >> shockingly we have severe evidence that hillary's server was hacked. i would say it's against the odds but it's true. >> tucker: that's not the question i asked. we spent in the run up to the election months hearing from democrats it's not a big deal. are you right wing crazy person now that she has lost and gone away and offered a book tour can we admit kind of crazy behavior to put this kind of stuff, classified intelligence on your private unsecured server. she was receiving emails. >> tucker: she set up the server. i don't want to relitigate this. can you be honest and say what was that and by the way, if you did that under a heard the ig say it, you would be in jail. >> i have a theory as to what it was which traces back to, you know, how the

clintons had their private quarters kind of poured over during the 1990s. that's a different story. i have no basis for that all i' m say something that i don't think she was reckless. she certainly didn't do anything illegal. the statute either called for intent to disclose or espionage. i don't think her worst critics think she did either of those. >> tucker: i think we would both be in jail-time if we did it. the media very convinced that the word poke hand as it, actual person racial slur. fact checking people who disagree with them. there is racially offensive behavior afoot, however. we will tell you what it is after the break. ♪ ♪ (matthew) my wish was a

clubhouse, but we call it "the wish house". (mom) and it just immediately brought something positive in our life. "oh, i gotta get up get matthew on his treatment." (matthew) it's not that bad, though. (mom) yeah. (matthew) the good thing about the surgeries is i get to have a popsicle at the end. (mom) he makes the best of everything and he teaches us to be strong and brave, too. (vo) through the subaru share the love event, we've helped grant the wishes of fifteen hundred kids so far. get a new subaru and we'll donate two hundred fifty dollars more to help those in need. ♪ put a little love in your heart. ♪ i love hanging out. with my friends. i have a great fit with my dentures. i love kiwis.

i've always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free. it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. even well fitting dentures let in food particles just a few dabs of super poligrip free is clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. super poligrip free made even the kiwi an enjoyable experience try super poligrip free. ♪ aand it's now just $59! of the season. but the real gift isn't what's inside the box. it's what's inside the person who opens it. ♪ give ancestrydna, the only dna test that can trace your origins to over 150 ethnic regions- and open up a world of possibilities. save 40% at ancestrydna.com. the lowest price of the year! ends monday.

whstuff happens. old shut down cold symptoms fast with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. ♪ >> tucker: well, today, the president honored the surviving navajo code talkers at the white house. he called elizabeth warren as he often has before pocahontas and swiftly

denounced for insensitivity. resident genius slash white house correspondent jim acosta said this one. pocahontas is not a racial slur. fact check it is. apparently jim acosta checked the racial slur dictionary on that one. senator warren agreed she quoted racial slur. bitter erupted in applause. busted. but, wait, what's more offensive? jokingly using the name of a famous american indian or spending almost a decade pretending to be an american indian so can you benefit from affirmative action program designed to help actual personal indians? elizabeth warren did that. no one really disputes the facts of that case. warren stole the identity of a historically oppressed group for her own gain. talk about tel cultural appropriation. good thing she didn't joke about it though, that would have infuriated jim acosta he would have been back in his racial slur dictionary. tune in every night at 8:00 to the sworn enemy of enemy

smugness and group think. good night from washington. sean hannity is next. >> sean: all right, tucker. thank you. great show as always. welcome to hannity. we are following multiple developing stories tonight. first two high profile so-called champions of women and women's rights. democratic senator al franken, congressman john conyers we main in hot water tonight over numerous allegations of sexual misconduct. and you won't believe who all of a sudden is calling for due process. under the law. in order to defend her embattled colleagues. we will tell you about that also expose the phony double standard within the democratic party today. plus, we're continuing our investigation of the investigators that are carrying out the russian probe. tonight, we have new damning information about special counsel robert mueller and one of his top investigators andrew weismann. also tonight, for the next three and a half weeks, republicans, you are now facing the biggest challenge in a generation. i have an