celebrated the installation of the 18-foot fir tree and traditional spot in the blue room, decorated with ornaments bearing the state of every u.s. territory. that is all for today. to see tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" ." a middle aged man going through divorce begins dating a woman he met online. the relationship becomes torrid and eventually the man sends his girlfriend lewd text and nude photographs of himself.se 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 explained, "the washington post" treated bartond like the heir to harvey weinstein anonymity to theda woman hole overturned his life and humiliated him. sex abuse stories have dominated the news beginning with weinstein predators in hollywood, the media, and 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.

as the "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 or murder. from behind the shield of anonymity. why do media outlets allow it in cases of sexual harassment? if you are going to name thehe 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 hardng 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 alsoso apparently delusional. her claims were grotesque

but they were highly specific. 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, none of it was true. i spent the next two months trying to stay out of jail. i couldn't have telll 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. everybody knows that as i knew that no one would believe otherwise. this isn't a defense of sexual harassment or misbehavior, obviously. it's a reminder that real life is complicated, more complicated than sermonizing on twitter. sometimes the mob is wrong. sometimes the innocent are crushed.tts that's always a tragedy, no matter what the charge is. of course, crushing the

innocent may also be the point of the exercise and we are seeing that. last week a feminist called emily lindin announced on twitter that she was quote "not at all concerned about in the men loses their jobs in the search for perpetrators of sexual harassment." "if some innocent men's reputation have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy that's a price i'm absolutely willing to pay." not surprisingly, she is a columnist at "teen vogue." we asked her to come on tonight to talk about her views.d 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. sn i want to be really 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 saying that it doesn't matter that all men are guilty by virtue of being men. that's the opposite of justice. that's collective punishment.wo 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 microscopic compared to what women have been through. you mentioned witch-hunt, there were no warlock hunt or withered hunts.re women are the often ones persecuted and the mobs that you are talking about, the mobs are usually men that are burning innocent women at the stake. women are usually the ones that suffer much more than men.uf i think that's what emily lindin was trying to say. >> tucker: just for the sake of argument, i will say that true. we are not teaching history here.. people have been unfairly persecuted by mobs. >> for centuries, women have been appropriate persecuted. >> tucker: some men, too. leaving the sexist side.e. if it was wrong then, why wouldn't you be every bit as horrified that it's going on now or could potentially

happen now?it 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 ah 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. >> may be she's 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 genders 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 ment 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 feel if the standard, which is horrifying, 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 in her article, she was saying that, and herer tweets, she was saying that it's rare that it happens. >> tucker: she doesn't know anything.yt >> that's what she was saying. >> tucker: if you could present the stats on actual social science -- she doesn't know anything. 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, when we know 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 in that. s we 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 hunts. everyone burned at the stake a if everyone is going to burn at the stake. >> tucker: wouldn't itre be better to treat people as individuals and assess the claims against people on individual basis? >> absolutely.ll 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 t 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?g? >> 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. they commit 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 accuser. 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. h before then you are the accuser. why would we jettison 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 that are guilty right now. >> tucker: sure, there are. there are many men 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: what weighs on my conscious is that some of themu aren't. so i'm wondering how you would feel if i said, you know, kathy, i have spoken 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 the 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: but they haven't been accused anonymously coming out of this country, because it's never been allowed in this country. that would include the puritan times, the air rate that 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, and a microscopic way, compared to the way that women have suffered, so bebe it. >> tucker: i hope you never sit on a jury as much i like you, cathy. >> i like you, too. >> tucker: a former speechwriter at the white house recently wrote a piece called "in the defense of masculinity" as he is here. thanks for comingar on. >> thank you, tucker. glad to be here. >> tucker: how does your piece bear on the national conversation we are having about sexual harassment? >> 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 objects in print and film and normalizing 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 inin self-discipline. we actually believe in virtue. the other great irony in all of this, tucker, the left not only created toxic masculinity, they enabled it. you look at the harvey t weinsteins and bill clintons and john conyers and al frankens 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 toxicic masculinity. t 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 wonder if they would reassess that now in light of everything we have seen in the last six weeks? >> no. i think one of the funny things we have seen in the last couple of weeks -- i wouldn't say w 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 turnsse out those that are sneering at us were actually in fact

the patriarchal, mysoginistic 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 of 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 decades 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 experimentationrn

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 throughs they have made, for girl power. all of those great things. i think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.g 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 refuse 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 dollars to john conyers. michigan democrats are not --

marc stein has thought about why and he is joining us next. ancestrydna is the gift of the season. and it's now just $59! 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. helping small businesses.ut, jamie -- damage your vehicle? we got you covered. [ glass shatters ] property damage? that's what general liability's for. what?! -injured employee? -ow. workers' comp helps you pay for a replacement. what's happening? this is carla. how's it going? and if anything comes up, our experts are standing by. ♪ boo! you only earn double withmiles when you buy stuffds, 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: 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 judiciaryed committee. democrats have not been eager though to push him out of congress entirely.ea 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 accusers? >> i don't know who they are. they haven't come forward.or't >> you don't know if you believe the accusations? >> that's for the ethics committee to review. f >> tucker: nancy pelosi doesn't like anonymousr: accusations when theyny are leveled against democrats we noticed. mark steyn is anga 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-sequitor. what does that have to do with anything? >> i have been listening to what you were saying earlier, tucker. i have grave misgivings 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 the 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 woman in democrat progressive politics just gave a textbook illustration of how vulnerable women in low level jobs are cowed into not 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? s 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 nows 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 the accusations quote disturbing. i don't know whether she will be calling on him to leave the congress. she does seem a little slow to 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 w weinstein and the othersrs made. when she started saying oh, he's -- he was very important in 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 private 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: to get back to something what you said at the outset, 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.h and the danger is that we're a hypersexualized society. almost from the word go. the pop songs that 7 andm 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 pursues that and

reestablishing that kind of architecture is really the challenge. what cathy was 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 steyn, thank you as always for your wisdom. >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: president trump's wall along the mexican border remains a fantasy for now.r. that may not matter. up next, we will discuss how trump is surrounding thisdiun country with an even more formidable virtual wall according to the "the washington post." stay tuned for that. ♪

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

don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ when can we do this again, grandpa? well, how about tomorrow? ask your doctor about entresto and help make tomorrow possible. >> tucker: congressional hesitation a euphemism for you work on >> tucker: congressional hesitation -- there is a euphemism for you --dash has suspended work on the presidents border wall, the one that he ra? on. what if a physical wall isn't even necessary? well, if you read "the p 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 a joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> hola. >> tucker: hola. 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.iz all he is doing sen forcing the laws 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 i 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 to 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 itt can 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,s, disagree with that that, just the headline here, seems to me, you think it's okay for the president to enforce existing immigration law, right? >> yeah. but when we're talking about selective immigration law enforcement, what about all of the illegal russians thatfo 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 t 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 allowow 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 and everyone mocks the phrase, but you would see self-deportation because what would be the option?ir 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 inm california.m. you are from california like i am. in california, how many growers, that grow grapes,if tomatoes, lettuce, and all the fruits and vegetables

that we grow in california, hire people 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. a 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 thatat guy to shill 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 radically 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. roberto, thank you for joining us. congress can't fix taxes or immigration. they haven't made your life better recently, i bet that's fair to say. they do have the will to come together to approve further monitoring of you and me through our email and phone calls. we will tell you the details next. i switched to geico and got more! more savings on car insurance!? they helped with homeowners, too! ok! plus motorcycle, boat and rv insurance! geico's got you covered!

like a blanket! houston? you seeing this? geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. geico. booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

♪ ♪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. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> 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 taw america's private communications, is up for congressional reauthorization. and congress seems poised to approve it quickly. should they? alan dershowitz is a lawyer and professor emeritus at harvard law school and he's studied these questions for years. professor, thanks for coming on. >> thank you.us >> 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 theo 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, both 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, 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 t to make a decision. is it better to err on the side of losing some terrorists or picking up some o americans? that's a very complicated and difficult question. >> tucker: it is complicated. her's a 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's 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 beforeo you turn the material over to the y justice department. we do more than that. we also turn information against americans over to foreign countries. if we pick up some domesticic 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 a 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. t some libertarians say it's very simple you should have a warrant for everything. some on the other side say you shouldn't have a warrant for anything.. this is complex.fo 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 strike but we have to do it. >> tucker: i wish there were more people speaking up for american citizens.ng 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. you will see it here next. ♪

i love to eat. 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. ♪

♪ >> tucker: an obama appointee in the federal government says he was marginalized and threatened by his superiors simply because he tried to raise the alarm about classified information that resided on hillary clinton's private email server. our catherine herridge has that exclusive tonight. >> there was personal blow back to me, to my family, to my office. >> few people know more about the clinton emails than charles mccullough, the former internal watchdog for the intelligence community. >> what should the american public know about those 22 top secret clinton emails? >> i have heard people say this is overblown. i have heard people say this is much ado about nothing. had the information been released, there would have been harm to national security. >> so putting lives at risk? >> absolutely. sources and methods. lives, operations. >> speaking exclusively to

fox, mccullough says he went to director of national intelligence james clapper about a year before the presidential election. the intelligence agencies had just found their classified information in the clinton emails. >> he read through these affidavits very thoroughly. he said this is extremely reckless. he mentioned something about the campaign would have -- will have heartburn about that or something. >> shortly after mccullough says his team was marginalized. >> you felt you were on your own in this. >> i was totally on my own. and i was told by senior officials to keep the director out of it. >> you drafted this letter in january of 2016. >> sure did. >> in the letter, mccullough told congress that emails beyond top secret passed through the former secretary of state's unsecured personal server. >> all the sudden, i became a shill of the right. i was told by members of congress, be careful, because you are losing your credibility. there are people out to get you. >> by february of 2016,

clinton campaign emails released by wikileaks suggest mccullough was a target. >> i think there was certainly a coordinated strategy that, in fact, i not only think it, i think it very, very much. >> based on evidence? >> yes. >> even though the fbi email investigation was far from complete, the clinton campaign nailed down its talking points. >> was there an effort to deliberately mislead the public about the classified emails? >> absolutely. there was an effort certainly on the part of the campaign to mislead people, and say there was nothing to see here. frankly, the thing that disappointed me the most was the president saying that there is classified and then there is classified. a lot of people in the intel community spent a lot of time keeping secrets secret. to sort of inject that sense of confusion into people, i don't think was altogether responsible.

>> as election day approached, mccullough says the threats went further, singling him out and another central government email investigator. >> youou were giving a warning? >> we were told that we would be the first are going to be fired in 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 doing what i had to do and all of sudden i was the enemy. >> more than 2100 classified emails passed through clinton's personal server and to this day no one is accountable. would happen to you? >> i would be sitting in leavenworth right now. >> asked a spokesman for the clinton campaign, theof office of the senior senior democrat as far as director of national intelligence for comment but there was no general response.26 he recently retired after 26 years of government service. he told fox news today he is

grateful now to tell his story, tucker. >> tucker: that is the story.y. catherine herridge, thankha you very much for that. richard goodstein advised hillary clinton's 2008 and 2016 campaigns and he joins us tonight. richard, this isn't really a political story, so much as it is a story about bad government, corruption. it's kind of a classic whistle-blower story.nt here is a guy, a permanent employee. he is an inspector general, not a low-level character. he brings it to light and his job is threatened. that seems like something you would want to get to the bottom of. >> 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 instst 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.t 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.l. >> tucker: where is the theoretical part? we know there were classified --ja >> stop. i'm sorry. i don't mean to beim 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 malawi. >> tucker: you are missing it. >> i'm not. >> tucker: this is the 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. f he is a permanent federal employee. he is told that he is going to be fired for doing this if and when hillary isil elected.

that's why we have whistleblower statutes 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 this will be taken seriously when the people in the trump white house, bannon, priebus, who used private emails and private servers are examined. >> tucker: is this as simple as part tit for at that time? if there is ever found to be private material on a private server of a white house employee, i will say m you can't do that.us 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 was hacked. >> tucker: the white house servers were hacked by the chinese military. >> shockingly, we have zero 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 a 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 didn't "put anything on there." she was receiving emails from hundreds -- >> tucker: she set up the server.>> i don't want to relitigate this. can you be honest and sayou 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 pored over during the '90s. that's a different s story. i have no basis for that. all i'm saying, 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 pocahontas, actual person, is a racial slur. fact checking peoplein w who disagree with them. there is racially offensive behavior afoot, however.fo we will tell you what it is after the break. ♪ 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. -ahh. -the new guy. -whoa, he looks -- -he looks exactly like me. -no. -separated at birth much? we should switch name tags, and no one would know who was who. jamie, you seriously think you look like him? uh, i'm pretty good with comparisons. like how progressive helps people save money

by comparing rates, even if we're not the lowest. even if we're not the lowest. whoa! wow. i mean, the outfit helps, but pretty great. look at us.

♪ >> tucker: well, today, the president honored the surviving navajo code talkers at the white house. he threw in a job at

elizabeth warren. 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 described it as "a racial slur." twitter 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 american 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 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. that's it for us tonight. tune in every night at 8:00 to the sworn enemy of enemy

smugness and group think. dvr it if you can figure out how that works. 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 remain 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 we will 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 important message to those in the u.s. senate