clock. good night from washington. in the meantime, i am shannon bream. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." for months, trump defenders have alleged that robert mueller's investigation is tainted with partisan politics. they've noted, for example, the strikingly high percentage of prosecutors on mueller's team who are also major democratic donors. the president himself has frequently echoed these charges, implying that the investigation is a partisan witch hunt concocted by his enemies to overturn last fall's election results. basically a coup. we haven't joined the chorus. prosecutors like military officers and surgeons are trained to rise above their own politics in the service of duty. and most of them do that. in the absence of hard evidence

to the contrary, it seemed wise to give this investigation theto benefit of every doubt and wait for the outcome. we are americans, we believe in the fair application of justice. we think that's what normally happens. unfortunately, it's getting harder to maintain that faith. two days ago, news broke that a key figure in the mueller investigation, a longtime fbi official named peter strzok had been removed from his job for sending highly political text messages to his mistress, another fbi official. apparently those texts attacked president trump and expressed affection for hillary clinton. ordinarily this would not rate a headline. even career government officials are allowed to have political views. but this is no ordinary moment.. peter strzok is at the very center of the two most politicized justice department cases in a generation. strzok was first of all deeply involved in the investigation of hillary clinton's private email server last year. at the conclusion of that investigation it was apparently strzok who changed the fbi's's description of what hillary did

from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." the first description is a crime, the second is merely a blunder. in effect, peter strzok exonerated hillary clinton in the middle of a presidential campaign. but then he kept going. strzok went on to sign thehe document, the official document that opened an investigation into russian meddling in an election. the very same investigation the hillary campaign was calling for at the time. the one that has now completely overwhelmed the trump presidency. wasn't enough, it was also peter strzok who, according to news accounts this afternoon oversaw the fbi's interviews in january with general mike flynn at the white house, the ones that resulted in flynn pleading guilty to felony charges on friday. apparently flynn had no idea he was being interviewed and that would explain why he didn't have a lawyer present. if true, that would qualify as h trickery, unethical. again, peter strzok in the middle of it. you can see why strzok's politically charged texts to his

mistress might matter at this point. what does he say in those? we still don't know the answer, for reasons the fbi won't even explain, they will not tell tonk congress. all the way back in august, they sent a subpoena to the fbi asking for, among other things, information for why peter strzok was removed for mueller's team. instead of replying, the fbi stonewalled and said nothing. it's not just infuriating, it's unconstitutional, because thee fbi is not its own government. it's a single agency within the executive branch of our a government and is accountable to, among others, the united states congress. and therefore to voters. keep in mind, nobody elected peter strzok to anything. you elect members of congress to keep people like peter strzok in line.ype when people like peter strzok decide that congress has no power over them, they are givine you the finger and they are threatening democracy. that should not be allowed.r and yet, amazingly, it's common. it happens literally all the time in washington.

last summer for example, congress sought basic information about the infamous trump dossier. did the fbi pay for it or part of it? did fbi agents believe the contents or use them to drive their russia investigation? these are basic and central questions and yet the fbi just ignored them, they didn't feel like answering.. they rarely do. back in 2015, two islamic extremists attempted to shoot up a mohammed cartoon contest in texas. later it emerged that anst undercover fbi agent knew the two shooters personally and had even egged them on to "tear up texas." that agent even traveled with the terrorists to the scene, was present right before the attack and try to flee as it began. it's hard to believe that actually happened in america, but it did happen. you would probably like to know why it happened, wouldn't you? senator ron johnson of wisconsin would like toba know. he has repeatedly asked the fbi to explain why it shielded terrorists, how it could have failed to stop the shooting that

happened later. and he still doesn't know. senator johnson's request to repeatedly have been stonewalled by the fbi. a year before that, in 2014, senator from oklahoma asked the justice department for information about the guns the brothers use to kill a police officer after the boston bombing. he never received an answer to that question. we could go on. there are many examples of this. the point is clear, the fbi is out of control and not just in the trump investigation.is but much more broadly. an agency charged with enforcing the law clearly considers itself above the law, and that is a threat to you and every american, no matter who you voted for. joe is a former u.s. attorney for the district of columbia and he joins us tonight. joe, given the centrality of peter strzok in these two investigations, on what pretext

could the fbi be denying these texts to congress? >> it's very difficult to see how they have any basis for denying congress access to this data. they publicly leaked the reason that he was fired, removed from the case. there can't be a personnel reason for doing it. and even if there were, it wouldn't matter. congress has a right to that data. they can receive it, they have to receive it. i think what is going on at the bureau right now is very, very serious. it's very depressing for a former federal law enforcement official. this is not your mother's fbi.ce what's wrong with the fbi is not the average, every day agent. they are great. it's the management at the fbi that is the problem and that management has not improved with the arrival of mr. christopher wray. i cannot understand howw the current fbi director can tolerate having andrew mccabe u on his staff at this point given his history and his track record. i think the fbi is in very serious trouble.hi it started with james comey. comey, the dirtiest cop in

america, destroyed the fbi's reputation with his bizarre personal behavior, beginning way before his july 5th news conference. the bureau is in trouble. it needs a major overhaul, and if it continues to resist congress, i believe the contempt of congress for the current director and other people in the agency is absolutely justified. >> tucker: this is the most powerful agency in the federal government, they can literally take break the front door of your house and take your freedom away. >> or show up when you were in bed in order to frighten you like they did with mr. manafort. what a disgusting awful display of raw political power. not law enforcement power, political power.r. i think the bureau has been politicized by comey. christopher wray has a short time frame to fix it. >> tucker: is it conceivable -- this was reported this afternoon, we have been confirmed it -- that general flynn at the white house aegean, january,

newly installed national security advisor, meets with the fbi, talk to them, they don't tellel him this is a formal interview and it's on the basis of that that he is charged and pleads to perjury. >> it was andrew mccabe who sent those agents there, by the way. >> tucker: but can you do that? >> you actually can. here's what's disturbing about it. it's technically okay to do that, but you have to askk yourself, given the history of everybody involved in that case, who were involved in the hillary email server case, where they conducted a totally irresponsible, unprofessional criminal investigation and then they turn up the heat on this investigation of flynn, the same agency. this is politics. the bureau has been politicized. you compare the email server investigation of hillary clinton with the investigation of general flynn and president trump's aides and what you have is a despicable politicalization of the bureau. they can no longer insist that they are fair and what they're doing. >> tucker: it's the same

charge. the same guy, peter strzok, apparently let former secretary of state off the hook for lying and then pushed the indictment on felony charges of the national security advisor for lying. how is that? >> mr. strzok has beenes hopelessly compromised since he expressed his political views to his paramore, another fbi official that he was having a sexual relationship with. strzok is no longer credible inside the bureau. that's why he is now in the human resources department.hy >> tucker: just shakes the faith of every american. >> and it should. >> tucker: it undermines the country. quite apart from this investigation. thank you very much. newly released documents showve more evidence of fbi misbehavior. it is depressing to report this, but it's real. when news leaked that attorney general loretta lynn

held a private meeting with bill clinton, the famous one on the tarmac, the fbi apparently was former concerned, according to newly released documents, with finding who had leaked the news of that meeting and it was with the meeting itself, which was obviously unethical. tom fitton is the president of judicial watch. he sued to obtain these documents. we wouldn't know about them if it weren't for him so we are grateful to have him on such a night. thank you, tom. >> thank you. >> tucker: tell us what you learned from these. >> the fbi didn't want to give us these documents. we only found out about them through another lawsuit because the fbi said they didn't have anything. s >> tucker: they lied you. >> they lied to us. >> tucker: you are acting under the freedom of information. >> they said they couldn't find anything but another lawsuit, the justice department showed up, found records that involveep the fbi. >> tucker: here you have a law enforcement agency ignoring federal law, just to be clear. >> and they took six weeks to turn over the 29 pages and they. show that the fbi was more concerned about a whistle-blower in the local phoenix police department, they think, who was

talking about the meeting and how it happened than about the meeting itself. and they talk about trying to find the guy and they talk about reaching out to local phoenix -- >> tucker: trying to find a whistle-blower? >> they wanted to get him. and punish him, presumably.nt and secondly, they were reaching out to the phoenix fbi office to stem any further damage, i guess prevent any further leaks about the truth. >> tucker: the agency charged with protecting us from terrorism and crime is spending its time trying to punish people who leas its own misdeeds, is what you're saying? >> that's right, and trying to prevent further leaks about the meeting between bill clinton and attorney general lynch. remember, that meeting was never supposed to be disclosed. it was only uncovered thanks to a local i think "abc news" reporterws in phoenix. and then you had other law enforcement back up the accountr of the meeting and that is what set the fbi off. we haven't gotten any documents showing the fbi was concerned about the meeting itself, which according to the attorney general of the

united states at the time, general lynch, she admitted itg cast a shadow over her. >> tucker: the result of that meeting.ca >> she said she did, but she didn't. she made the final decision, not to prosecute hillary clinton. a few weeks after meeting with herr husband, a witness and punitive target. >> tucker: she ands attorney general holder, who preceded her, both obviously political. you would think they would be nonpolitical and be really worried about basic ethical questions like this one. but you don't see that they were? >> this is the leadership. we are getting the top-level emails. as joe mentioned earlier, the leadership of the fbi was ruined by james comey and the politics and trying to protect hillary clinton. the justice department and the fbi became arms of the clinton campaign last year and frankly it continued into the trump administration, as we saw with the ambush interview of general flynn. i think there was a significant crisis not only at the fbi, but at the justice department.

we had this other fbi agent involved in the clinton email investigation. also involved in the rush investigation. a key decision-maker in both investigations.. both investigations in my view have been irredeemably compromised. the clinton investigation needs to be reopened and the mueller investigation needs to be shut down until we figure out how badly it's been politicized. >> tucker: it's not just the inherently political investigations that have troubling elements. some of the criminal investigations, the ones into the mass shootings, i thinkme raise questions that are striking. we are going to vegas tomorrow. to look into the fbi investigation there. >> we still don't have basic information about the vegas shooting. >> tucker: that's why we are going. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> tucker: how will longtime clinton ally respond to these recent revelations about mueller's team?

we will bring them on to find out. stay tuned. ♪

♪ ♪ >> tucker: general mike flynn lied about conversations he had had, and that was a criminal offense. hillary clinton lied about illegally sending classified information on an illegal private email server, and that was just careless, according tol the fbi. all this used to be baffling, but the recent revelations about fbi agent peter strzok just another interpretation. supporters in the fbi were looking out for hillary clinton during the last campaign. richard goodstein advised her presidentialar campaign and joins us tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. >> happy to do it. >> tucker: i'mnd not a conspiracy nut and i actually resent the implication that our

justice system has not been on the level, but i think it has been over time fair. fairest in the world. but the fact that the guy at the center in the email investigation and other russia investigation is a partisan, and clearly is, and he deemed hillary's lying just a mistake and flynn's lying a felony, suggest they are are not on the level. >> i disagree with a couple ofe premises of your comments. one is that about hillary lied.h james comey under oath said, no, they had no basis for saying she lied to them when she testified and when she talked about information goinges through her server, which was referred to as nothing that was markedoi classified, right? ultimately -- >> tucker: there were documents marked classified. there were. >> there were three, comey said under oath, one of which was about a condolence call to the president of malawi.

and even the state department said that was actually human error. that they should not have been marked classified. >> tucker: let's be totally real and i don't want to relitigate the hillary thing, but she was able to talk to the fbi not under oath. she faced no perjury trap in her conversations. >> i don't know if that's true. >> tucker: i think it is. by the way, she did lie. she didn't know there was classified information, there was. we can argue about whether it was significant or d not, but it waswh classified. i'm not going to defend flynn, who i think made a huge moral error in lobbying for turkey. but the guy just plead to a felony for lying in a conversation with fbi agents that was under oath. there's a double standard. >> hillary clinton did not lie to the fbi, according to james comey and every other piece of information we have. there's a standard, and i think if viewers need to know this, about what constitutes a possibility for a crime for which it had regarding her emails. one would be intent.t. grossly negligent is not intent. you need actual intent to disclose it.

that's what david petraeus did with his mistress. the second is espionage. even the most addled viewer doesn't think she did that. >> tucker: i'm not charging her with espionage or mass murder, either. i'm seeing that general flynn just pled to a felony. his name is tarnished for life. hillary clinton got a special deal where she was not speaking under oath. who gets that deal? i know a lot of people who have been interviewed by the fbi, some have gone to jail after thoseso conversations. and not one of them got that deal. how did she get that? let's be honest, that is unusual.s. you wouldn't get it, i wouldn't get it. she got it. >> when you're talking to a federal agent, whether you can under oath or not, it's still a triable offense, if you like. that's the standard from a legal standpoint. i understand you're trying to make something out of, my respect, nothing, but the fact that she was not put under oath is frankly not relevant. just like strzok is not relevant. her emails were out there, just like loretta lynch is not

relevant, because she did not make the decision, that was all comey. >> tucker: strzok is the one, apparently, and we are still filling in the blanks. but as of today, we believe that strzok is the one who changed the language in comey's speech that initiallyom described hillary's email server as "grossly negligent," which would be a crime.hi >> no, it means intent. sorry. it's not an interpretation. >> tucker: gross negligence is a crime.nd extreme careless may not be. he changed it from a potentially actionable offense to an innocuous one. >> your viewers would believe you rather than me. i would ask any one of them to go and look at the statute with require specific intent, not negligence, intent to disclose information. nobody is saying that by virtue of setting her server of the way she did she intended to put it out there. >> tucker: you are intentionally i think missing my

point, which is in the description of it, he changed it from something you could argue is criminal, to something you could not argue was criminal.rgt negligence could intentionally be criminal, carelessness never is. he changed that. we know at that time he was a partisan rooting for hillary over trump. we also know he signed the document that initiated the restaurant investigation. why is this not a big deal? >> donald trump said there is a double standard in his tweet. i agree. s the fact that comey had his press conference on july 5th, that was a violation of the rules. the fact that he put out his letter in 11 days out, that was a violation of the rules.is because there were fbi rogue operators, and the fact that he didn't tell the fact that he didn't tell the public that the russians were trying to get trump elected that is the double standard that all ran to the benefit for trump. >> tucker: you will not get me

to defend comey under any circumstances. i merely will repeat what i just said and i want your response to it. this guy, strzok, was at the center of both investigations. apparently he was removed from his office because of hisht partisan politics. why doesn't the congress, which oversees, provides oversight to the fbi, have the right to see those? >> i agree with you on that. >> tucker: why it in time and again are using the fbi refused to respond to congress when its own integrity is in question? that is a cover up. >> there are hundreds of requests for documents from this administration from senators and house members that have not been responded to. >> tucker: first of all, this is a big one. >> i agree. >> tucker: and second, every single one should be responded to. you are going to regret, you and all the others on the left, i'm serious, of the agencies working to overthrow the president you hate. you will regret encouraging them to do that. >> i don't -- i'm taking myself out of that. i don't think people are asking the fbi to do anything other than its job. i don't think it did its job when it was investigating hillary or failing to disclose what they know about trump and the russians last fall before the voters went to the polls. that was negligent. that was negligent. >> tucker: the collusion, you

mean. the collusion that they just proved on friday didn't exist. >> the intelligence community came out saying, it's unanimous that the russians were trying to help trump. yeah, that. >> tucker: you agree with me that the agencies, the intel agencies, fbi and law enforcement agencies acting independently of congress and the white house as their own little fiefdom, they can do whatever they want, that bothers you? >> yeah. >> tucker: good. >> oversight is important. >> tucker: it's terrifying. thank you. >> sure. >> tucker: supreme court just handed a big victory to the trump people and the travel ban, which they upheld. mark steyn here to tell us what that means, next. this is tim barckholtz. that's me! this is something he is researching at exxonmobil: using fuel cells to capture carbon emissions at power plants. this is the potential. reducing co2 emissions by up to 90%...

while also producing more power. this could be big. energy lives here. you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. it's a like, a dagger?a worm! a tiny sword? bread...breadstick? a matchstick! a lamppost! coin slot! no? uhhh... 10 seconds. a stick! a walking stick! eiffel tower, mount kilimanjaro! (ding) time! sorry, it's a tandem bicycle. what? what?! as long as sloths are slow,

you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. the moment a fish is pulled out from the water, it's a race against time. and keeping it in the right conditions is the best way to get that fish to your plate safely. sometimes the product arrives and the cold chain has been interrupted, and we need to be able to identify where in the cold chain that occurred. we took our world class network and we developed devices to track environmental conditions. this device allows people to understand what's happening with the location, but also if it's too hot, if it's too cold, if it's been dropped... it's completely unique. if you have a sensor that can keep track of your product, it keeps everybody kind of honest that way. who knew a tiny sensor could help keep the food chain safe?

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

♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. >> tucker: the supreme court handed the white house a meaningful victory today. it ruled that a travel ban affecting eight countries can go into immediate effect. that division isn't final. instead it means the ban, which effects iran, lybia, can remain in place while the courts evaluate whether or not it's legal. of the nine justices, only sonia sotomayor and ruth bader ginsburg signaled they opposed it. letting the band take affect, f course. mark steyn, thankfully not covered by any of the countries listed in the travel ban. he joins us tonight. great to see you. >> good to see you. he could ban me.

>> tucker: how? >> you are right. it's a big victory. but if you take it in harness with the last half-hour, essentially you have had since this administration won anc year ago, the bureaucracy and the courts ganging up, basically, to cripple the executive branch. the fact that he had to go to court to get a temporary stay in these two lower-level court bans on his travel ban, actually tells you something about what an insane situation we are in. the statutory language is quite plain. the president has thent authoriy to ban by proclamation any aliens or class of aliens. so he can ban me personally by proclamation. he can ban all canadians by proclamation. or he can ban classes of canadians. he can ban canadian tap dancers because he thinks they are a threat to the american tap dancing industry. the language in the statute

couldn't be plainer, and they horribly politicize judiciary, like the horribly politicized policeman has pushed language beyond its meaning in order to deny the president's most basic executive authority. >> tucker: so here's the trend i'm seeing, tell me if you see it too. the least democratic parts of our government, which would be the courts and the bureaucracy, neither elected by voters, are getting more powerful, and the most democratic parts, the president and the congress, are getting less powerful. so the democracy is actually withering right now. >> absolutely. you have a permanent state. a president obama famously said in 2009, elections have consequences. the permanent bureaucracy and the courts are saying it to the people, elections have no consequences. you can vote for whatever you think you want, but we are going

to go ahead and conduct business as usual. and that's why this court decision is actually -- the fact that it's necessary is an affront to any kind of self-government by the people and for the people. >> tucker: they love that. in the orwellian turn they keep warning us that the election of someone they don't like is a threat to democracy.ur "democracy dies in darkness." but the control of the federal government by people who have never been elected, whose names you don't know, the permanent bureaucracy.rn that's democracy? literally the opposite of what is true. >> and what is disturbing to me is you find this attitude in brussels, for example, where there's a bunch of civil servants that seriously think they know better than the people of 28 nations. and the whole point about the

u.s. system is that it was created to prevent this kind of divide between the governed and the people. and this -- and actually i think they should have gone further, the supreme court. they should have in a sense skipped the temporary stay and just declared that this is obviously within the terms of the president's statutory authority and that if you object to it, you might as well do what democrats and the civil service seem to want to do, and that is to simply pass a constitutional amendment to say that in the event, god forbid, any republican should happen to be elected president, then the entire executive branch will just be put in the deep freeze for four years and will cease to do anything whatsoever, because that's what they've been trying to do since last november. >> tucker: that is basically what has happened unfortunately. mark steyn, thank you, deep analysis. i appreciate it. >> thanks a lot. >> tucker: a gun-control group is using horrifying photographs of a murdered woman lying

covered in blood on the ground from the las vegas shooting two months ago in order to raise money. the defender of that approach is here next. stay tuned. ♪

♪ ♪ >> tucker: a gun-control group is literally trying to raise money from the blood of las vegas shooting victims. a group called stop handgun violence sent letters to the white house and members of g congress inviting them to "wipe the blood off your hands and end mass shootings." they also sent the flyer out to reporters. they show images of las vegas shooting, one of which is so gory that we have blurred out on the screen. a very clear picture of a woman lying dead on the ground covered in blood. mark glaze joins us tonight. mark, i welcome a rationalin conversation on any topic that might reduce violence, including guns. but this isn't an attempt to

change minds or to come to an actual solution. this is an attempt to make monem off of people's deaths. >> look, if this group is trying to raise money this way, i think that's a bad idea, but my only w objection if they are just trying to make members of congress see these images, is that these images were not graphic enough. they are not as graphic as the average mass shooting.h. >> tucker: what would we learned? that shooting people is bad? i think everyone agrees with that. it's not about teaching anybody anything, or having people confront the horror. everyone understands the horror. >> i actually don't think they do. people see it as a statistic. it's like numbers on a page or they see the sanitized version that we see on the nightly news or hollywood movies. when people actually see how devastating any shooting is, but particularly, a mass shooting, i've seen it, and it is shocking. >> tucker: this mass shooting has been basically ignored. we are going to las vegas tomorrow because we think it is worth figuring out why this happened.

so i disagree with your premise, that people don't understand how horrible it is. they saw it on television. what i'm bothered by is this is not an effort to propose a solution, it's an effort to demonize people they disagree with. wipe the blood of your hands, whose hands? whose hands have blood on them from this shooting? >> i think in a view of the people who sponsored this ad, people who express thoughts and prayers for the victims when this kind of thing happens. a >> tucker: when you pray for the victims, you have blood on your hands? >> we all pray for the victims, but after that. >> tucker: so we all don't pay for their victims? you attack the idea of praying for the victims? >> i do. but it's important to actually look for a solution after that. >> tucker: what is the solution in thisre case? presumably there are solutions that are relatedfi to confiscatg people's guns are violating second amendment rights. presumably there are solutions around mental health for example. but those are of no interest to stop handgun violence.

by the way, there were no handguns even used here. this is not even related too their supposed admission. but the point is they only want to talk about what?al what law on the books would have prevented this? >> in fairness, they do talk about twohe things. one was background checks, was not an issue in the shooting. but they also said we ought to ban assault weapons. the fact that this guy had a lot of assault weapons. >> tucker: they didn't. they said that we were new the federal ban on military style assault weapons. >> right. weapons ban.ur it didn't show any decrease in crime during the ten years it was in place. >> not quite true. >> tucker: i think it's pretty conclusive. it would not have prevented this because these funds are already in private hands. there are like 100 million of them that are. so what would be the legislative solution? i've asked this question to like 30 people and they would rather grandstand and call other people murderers than actually try to find a solution. what's the solution?nd >> you and i have had this conversation and i will again say something that a lot of people on my side don't want to say because people yell at them for it.sa

but the fact is, we need to have fewer guns and we need to talk about banning entire classes of especially dangerous firearms like assault weapons. and i think we have to talk about not just banning them, but requiring the people, allowing the government to buy them back. >> tucker: universal gun confiscation is what you're talking about.g >> no. not universal gun confiscation. >> tucker: you are saying ban a class of firearms. that would be and a rifle with a capacity of more than one above a certain caliber. i don't know what the criteria are that you are suggesting, but basically any gun they would use for deer hunting would be banned. >> i would make a distinction between long guns that are technically semiautomatic like the kind that my dad uses to hunt, and semiautomatic assault weapons. >> tucker: two gun owners and hunters, these are meaningless distinct things. let's get to the meat of it. what you do to people who won't sell them back? >> i think you at a bare minimum sort of find them severely for it and build an incentive for them. >> tucker: are you ready for the civil war that would ensue?

when you tried to take people's guns? i amit serious. >> i take it seriously. as you said, we ban these things for ten years in the country did not go up in flames. >> tucker: you couldn't ban them, you couldn't sell certain goods, but people had them. i had one at home, nobody came and took mine for me. >> how about half measures. let's do this, let's reimpose the band on all new sales. over time the supply will dry out. >> tucker: [laughs] all right. i love it. thank you. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: the las vegas shooting remains a mystery more than two months later. tomorrow night we will visit las vegas and search for answers. we hope you will tune in then. a documentary filmmaker visited uc berkeley to see what students think of the american flag. you probably won't be surprised by the result. >> the greatest country on planet earth that protects all freedoms, right? no? greatest country in the world,d, right? the opposite? >> tucker: that filmmaker joins us next. ♪

>> tucker: despite the tremendous benefit that this country has given its many citizens, an awful lot of people don't like america. some of them, especially among the young, hate america passionately. they've been taught to by their teachers. surely only the absolute deranged would reagard america as worse than, say, the islamic state. maybe not. a filmmaker recently traveled to the university of california berkeley to see how they would react to a patriotic display of the american flag, here's the result. >> greatest country on planet earth and protect all freedoms, right? no? greatest country in the world, right? the opposite? no? why not?e

>> canada is pretty great. >> [bleep] america. >> [bleep] america. >> why would you say that? >> i wanted to see what their reaction would be with another flag that is out there in the news. i stand against america, isis protects islam. i denounced the united states. >> good for you, man. good for you. >> i love that you are saying i that. >> thank you, i appreciate that. >> tucker: he joins us now. that was infuriating to watch. did you get anybody who said god bless america, i'm against isis? >> there were a minority of people who, basically when i was out there with the american

flag, said god bless america or good for you. they were an extreme minority. it was probably about five to one who were negative to positive unfortunately. >> tucker: these are the people who will be running our country then? >> people always liked as a university of california place. berkeley, some leftist place. this is a temple of higher education in this country. this is a place which produces people in the state department, lawyers, politicians, leaders of industry. this is a real major university and it's not some kind of lunatic fringe placeceth unfortunately. >> tucker: after stanford it's biggest state in america. who taught them this? >> say again? >> tucker: who taught the students to hit the country they live in? >> their professors. i don't think it comes from their parents. it comes primarily, if not exclusively, from universities. garbage in, garbage out. this is what happens when you have years and years and years of teaching these kids to not have any fidelity to our basic concepts as a country. and i think this whole tenure process is part of the problem. you allow these people who you t know are spewing hatred against america to continue to teach and educate our kids. >> tucker: it's depressing. again, infuriating.

thank you for that. >> pleasure. >> tucker: despite routinely regarding america as a racist country, colleges are activist in demanding mass immigrationga into the country. dozens of schools defined themselves as sanctuary campuses opposed to the enforcment of immigration law. they clearly regard open borderr as a good thing, even a moral obligation. all of which raises an interesting question. why don't these schools practice their own version of open borders by instituting an open admissions policy? a college professor at a very prestigious school i couldn't have gotten to joins us tonight to answer that question. i'm taking what i'm hearing on college campuses seriously, which is nobody is illegal, you have a right to come here, there's no reason you should exclude people just because they are poor or uneducated. they have no skills, we should let them in anyway. why don't colleges practice that same philosophy on their campuses? >> in what manner?

>> tucker: if i am not a tuition paying member of the college community, why can't i just show up and get a college i.d., illegals can get drivers licenses in california. why doesn't harvard or your school issue me a student i.d., i go to class for free, eat for free in the dining hall, and have all the privileges of a student at the college. they want that for the country, why don't they allow that on their own campuses?? >> some campuses actually do allow that. harvard has a policy that if you make a certain amount on your income you are able to go to that school completely for freey >> tucker: no, but you have to go through an admissions process.at >> you do have to go through an admissions process. >> tucker: an elitist admission price process. they say that we should allow anyone who wants to come here to come to america. >> absolutely. >> tucker: to get into harvard or the elite school where you work, you need a certain score, you need certainl grades, recommendations. you need skills and qualifications. they call that racist when

that's applied to immigrants in the country. you guys get away with doing it at your schools, why is that? >> we don't get away with doing it at our schools, and what we are saying is that education and equity are intrinsically woven. we can't have people coming through the daca act and say midway through theirmi education they can no longer be here. >> tucker: why not just have them at your school? why not say your school will preserve 80% of its seats for illiterate refugees? >> they are not illiterate. >> tucker: how about who can't speak english and can't pay tuition w? people that you are saying america ought to let in and d py for and we are racist we don't. why doesn't your school have student ids and free meals in the dining hall and get to go to class and get a diploma and get all the privileges that rich kids get at your school? >> you are looking at it from a very myopic viewpoint. >> tucker: i am? i am just being honest. >> you are not being honest. because we allow individuals who come in for low social economic status to come to the school. we have people who are undocumented. and we also allow a great percentage of individuals who are considered legacy to come to the schools.

schools are open borders for all people. >> tucker: i found out that the hard way when i applied to them in high school and didn't get into any because i didn't meet the qualifications. that actually happened to me.ge because i didn't meet their arbitrary sense of what was important. >> is that the college's fault or yours? o >> tucker: probably my fault actually. i thought that then and i think that now. but i'm hearing on college campuses, you can't keep people out of this country just because they don't know anything or can't speak your language or don't have any money. you have to let them in and if you don't, you're a racist. why don't you apply the same standards to your college?e? k why keep it this tiny, little, elite place? >> it's not. it's not. >> tucker: it is, though. >> it's really not. these universities -- >> tucker: what's the school you work at? >> not going to tell you. >> tucker: why should these goals demand that the rest of the country apply no standards at all, and then take federal dollars to hike their standard so most people born in this country can't get in? >> there are standards and for s

you to say that individuals who come in through the deferred dream act don't have standards, that's not correct. they go through a rigorous qualification process.s >> tucker: no, they don't. how many have been deported? >> they do. let's look at this. 61% of them who have been in this country since they were 14, all of them go to college. >> tucker: it's not just daca. >> you cannot have a criminal record. >> tucker: why not use the same standards? we have a diversity lottery that says because you live in underserved country you get to come here. all colleges support that. why don't we apply that to your school?up if you live in burkina faso? you get free tuition. or if you're just walking by and you cross onto the campus and just squat in the middle of the quad, i bet they would arrest him, wouldn't they? >> why are you looking at it from that lens when we don't look at it from that lens when it comes to employment process? can anyone just walk in and say hey -- >> tucker: i don't agree with any of this. but i think standards are real. >> standards are real and what

you standards. >> tucker: colleges argue that the country -- >> that's not true. what we are arguing is that you cannot illegally deport people who come into the country. >> tucker: so next time i squat on your quad, i will see if you can illegally deport me. >> you won't do that. >> tucker: a man could lose his job simply for coming on the show, that's true, we will explain it next. ♪ if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change.

ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

this ♪s electricity. this is a power plant. this is tim barckholtz. that's me! this is something he is researching at exxonmobil: using fuel cells to capture carbon emissions at power plants. this is the potential. reducing co2 emissions by up to 90%... while also producing more power. this could be big. energy lives here.

>> tucker: if you are a liberal or have friends who are, you've probably heard of the mythical land ofy canada. it's way freer and better than our dumb, oppressive country, plus better health care. you may have heard t all about . last week, canadian stephen le drew came on the show to defend sensitivity training on behalf of what he described as the lggppttiqqqa, or something close to that. in response, his employer suspended him for a week, why? because he dared come on this program. we wanted to have him on tonight to tell us about it, but he d hd to cancel at the last minute because he said he would be i fired if he sets foot in a

fox news studio ever again. that's a fair punishment, we suppose, for trying to escape, even briefly, the overwhelming freedom of canada. [laughs] that's it for us, good night from washington. "hannity" is next. >> sean: thanks, tucker. welcome to "hannity." major breaking news about special counsel robert mueller's witch hunt against president trump. this is an information overload hour right here on this program. we will lay out the case tonight about how the american justice system, your system, is literally hanging by a thread. our constitution hangs in thee balance tonight, and we will butain all of this to you, it's going to take thehe entire hour., please stay with us.hi also tonight, an inside look at how donald trump shocked the political world and won the white house in historic fashion. the coauthors, they were there of the new book, "let trump be trump." corey lewandowski, david bossie, they will give you the ins