brutality against minorities but at the same time i don't hear from him. until he starts doing interviews, i don't know. >> shannon: b got to go. most-watched, most trusted, most grateful that you spent the night with us. good night from washington. i am shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." today, more than 30 democratic senators demanded that senator al franken of minnesota resign in response to multiple allegations of sexual harassment. >> i do not feel that he should continue to serve. >> we can't force him to resign, but i hope he will do the right thing when he tells us what his decision is. >> but i think it would be better for the country for him to offer that clear message that he values women, that we value women, and that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. >> senator franken's conduct was wrong. he has admitted to it, and he should resign. >> tucker: franken's office says he will make an c announcement tomorrow.

it is widely believed, and it is probably true, that he will announce he is leaving the senate. many on the right are reacting gleefully to all this, to what is happening to franken, and you can understand the impulse.. franken was a mediocre senator and a thoroughly miserable person, cruel to those beneath him, narcissistic, monumentally self-righteous. al franken should have beenma exposed years ago for the nasty poser he always was. instead, he was celebrated by the media. he was protected by the democratic establishment that found him useful. very few people who knew al franken personally, including me, are mourning his departure from washington. good riddance. but there is a downside to all this for anyone who cares about justice or due process or, for that matter, living in a free country. today's calls for al franken's resignation were sparked by p a new accusation that he tried to kiss a woman against her will 11 years ago after a radio interview. w it certainly sounds plausible. on the other hand, the allegation is unproven.

worse, it is anonymous, and that means franken cannot answer it. none of this would pass muster in a court of law but in a trial by social media, and that is what we are seeing, it is enough to destroy your reputation, a career, a life. so enjoy the schadenfreude, the pure animal thrill of watching a person knocked from a high perch, but at the same time, ask yourself, what if this happened to you? imagine being accused by someone whose name you didn't know of something that supposedly happened more than a decade ago. how would you respond? how could you respond? what if you were innocent, by the way?th what if nobody cared? our entire justice system was designed to prevent moments likt this. the sixth amendment guarantees the right to face your accuser, just as in roman law. 2,000 years ago. if there's a reason for that. there can be no justice without transparency.nd democrats have abandoned that ancient right because they sense a political gain in doing so. losing franken right now cost

them nothing. another, likely more liberal democrat, will be voted in to take his place. a vote to expel ray moore will be a lot easier to hold if democrats don't have to account for al franken. this isn't principle. in fact, it is the most cynical kind of politics, and if you don't believe it, look no further than democratic senator kirsten gillibrand, the first to demand franken's resignation. on the subject of harassment, gillibrand is a opportunist and a phony, and so are many around her. when it was convenient for gillibrand to give cover to a sexual abuser, she did enthusiastically. unlike al franken, former president bill clinton has been credibly accused of rape,em forcible rape. gillibrand didn't care. in 2013, she tweeted "happy birthday, president clinton! thank you for your friendship and support as well as your incredible leadership!" in april of last year, gillibrand said she was, "honored to campaign alongside bill clinton in new york."

at the democratic national convention, she even posted a picture of clinton with his arm around her. now she calls the former president a sexual predator. she says he should have resigned 20 years ago. but we haven't learned anything new about bill clinton. nothing has changed except for gillibrand's own political calculations. she is a fraud, as are many of her colleagues who came out against franken today.y. they all covered for bill clinton too. it will be interesting to know how the democrats making windy statements about the horrors of sexism treat actual women back in their actual offices. if any staff are watching tonight, any hill staff, reach out and let us know. sexual harassment is not the only kind of abuse the staffers put up with on capitol hill. just because you are female and claim to be a feminist, doeses that mean you don't throw staplers at the women that work for you. that kind of thing happens regularly, as everyone who lives here knows. let's stop pretending, and above all, stop the nauseating hypocrisy and self-righteousness. what goes around comes around, remember that. christy setzer, a democratic d strategist, president of new

heights communications, and she joins us. thanks for coming on. >> things were happening me. >> tucker: the last thing i want to do is put myself in a position to defend al franken, who i know well. he's kind of creepy. this is all plausible, as far as i'm concerned, but i'm struck by a couple of things, and one is the pivot that the entire i democratic conference and the senate seems to have made. a year and a half ago, they were defending hillary clinton, who everyone knows attacked women who accused her husband of sexual harassment and assault, and today they are saying, on the basis of anonymous accusations, that they can't o support al franken. where were they a year and aat half ago? >> a couple things wrong with that statement. first, i think we could agree that it would be better off if the women were in charge. >> tucker: really? because i see a lot of women covering for sexual harassment here. i don't think that is true at all. it depends on the woman. >> so i think -- here is what is wrong with that statement. one is that we are, again, in a different moment.

even from when senator gillibrand had not comec out against al franken and today when she has. we were talking about one accusation, and now we are talking about six, seven, eight, and they are not, actually, in anonymous accusations. these women have really put themselves out there at the potential for great personal cost. >> tucker: no way you're going to put me in a position to defend franken on anything. i think the majority are anonymous. i am sure they are mostly true. my point is, they are not alll true, that is why we have due process. >> they are almost all true. the rate of false accusations for that -- >> tucker: is unknowable. >> it's made out to be about 2%. >> tucker: you can't know that. as someone who was falsely accused for a crime, i don't think it's common, but it happens. we have a justice system for a reason. not everyone tells the truth all the time, which we all know. you are dodging my central

point, which is, bill clinton was accused far more credibly than al franken has been by juanita broaddrick. my point is really simple. until juanita broaddrick is invited on cnn respectfully, ing can't take this seriously. >> that's interesting. for one thing, and i think we have actually talked about it, there has been a bit of a reckoning to say, you know, if we were in this moment now that we were -- if we had this moment 25 years ago that we're having now, we actually probably would see some of bill clinton's misdeeds a lot differently. >> tucker: i think that's right. >> i think that's true. however, i think there is a big problem in looking at this through such a narrow lens that we forget the man who is sitting in the oval office had, what, 20 women come out against him. >> tucker: again, we are not peering through the mists of time here back 25 years to the democratic primary of '92.

what we are looking at is last year in the presidential election, where kirsten gillibrand and all of these other people jumping up and down self-righteously didn't believe the women and took the side of someone who attacked the women for the crime of accusing someone of sexual harassment. my point is, why should i take anything you say seriously, kristen gillibrand, when you were doing this a year ago? >> there is a huge contrast that seems to be the official motto, "the women are all liars," literally the position of the w white house. >> tucker: that's not my position at all. i don't think most women are liars. i give everyone the benefit of the doubt. i mean that. >> yeah. >> tucker: i'm saying in the case of the united states senator who campaigned for her a year ago to jump up and down and say, i can't serve next to this man, when she just providedt' cover for someone accused of rape, knowingly provided cover, where's the credibility, honestly?

>> i think the credibility is and what she's -- again, i'm not affiliated with kristen gillibrand. >> tucker: not your fault, just a sincere question. >> i think she feels sincerely about the issues. she certainly led the conversation on military sexual assault. i think this is something she personally feels very strongly about. >> tucker: then why didn't she say anything when it mattered? franken doesn't matter. he'll be replaced by someone else, it's all fine. but it mattered last year when a woman who attacked self-described victims is running for president and everyone gave her cover. >> hillary clinton didn't do anything.. >> tucker: she attacked monica lewinsky as a stalker. i was there.t the white house called me when that happened. i was a reporter covering it. >> but you don't think that she was acting as a wife who was angry at her husband -- >> tucker: so do wives get a pass? if your husband is accused of rape, it is okay to attack the woman that accuses him? >> no, i think you see it very

differently than you would as if she's got some machine behind her that is, you know, out to attack the women. >> tucker: first of all, there was a machine attacking theus women, and it destroyed many of their lives, including monicaa lewinsky's life. she didn't do anything wrong. and juanita broaddrick's life. let me end on this. if this is a sincere turnaround, a change of position, a change of heart, then why aren't we seeing juanita broaddrick on cnn being interviewed respectfully? >> because juanita broaddrick has nothing to do with the current political climate. she has no relevance to the news. you know who does? >> tucker: really? she accused someone -- >> donald trump. >> tucker: that is being covered. but poor juanita broaddrick had her life destroyed for the way of getting in the way of a democratic politician. i think it is time to atone, don't you? >> i think we can and have had that conversation. at the same time, bill clinton, hillary clinton, they are not running for anything right now.

>> tucker: it matters when you destroy people, i think. >> i think that, you know, when the president is ready to resign... >> tucker: christy, thank you.t >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: julie alvin, seniorve lifestyle director at "time" and she is joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: i said, and i think it is what most people think, most people accused of misdeeds are probably guilty of the misdeed or some version of it. i don't think most people are innocent who are accused. but i keep thinking of al franken, putting myself in that position. i don't like al franken, i don't agree with his politics. i'll be glad when he leaves d.c. but put yourself in his position. if somebody said, julie, someone whose name i'm not going to tell you it has accused you of something, of a misdeed, 11

years ago, wouldn't you say, kind of hard to respond unless i know who the person is? there is a kind of unfairness about that, and i think we should be honest enough to admit it.a >> you can focus on that unfairness, but you could focusi on the fact that this is not ont isolated incident of one accusation against al franken. it's one of which there is photographic evidence, there are people on the record, there is cooperation from various sources. if this were one sort of random person who we had no reason to believe based on other circumstances, i might be more upset about this. >> tucker: a fair point. let me agree with you. it does seem like a pattern, absolutely. the reason i am bringing it up now, in light of the al franken story, is because we have seen other examples where random people with no pattern at all have been accused of felonies anonymously. thinking of the duke rape caseee or the uva rape case that "rolling stone" wrote about. both of them were lies. in both cases, the person who made the accusation was granted anonymity by the media and that anonymity , allowed the lie to persist, and it crushed people and wrecked

their lives. my question is, why should we allow the media to go along this, why should we grant one side anonymity? >> i think this is really incumbent on the journalists here to be extremely comfortablg in their vetting processes, and obviously the uva story in "rolling stone" was a huge example of an anonymous source gone awry, but it is really on the journalist to do extensive vetting to cooperate and fact check, and those were failures. not saying this is a totally perfect process and that anonymous sources never go wrong, never exaggerating, but the instances where they are telling the truth are those instances that allow things like this, this #metoo movement, this reckoning of us learning aboutut the rampant sexual harassment happening in washington and in journalism, and those are cases propelled by anonymous sources, much like cases like watergate or the pentagon papers. >> tucker: let me half agree with you. i think you are making a smart point.me there are plenty of times we see

justice done with the help of anonymous sources.al that is real, and i have seen it. i hope you will be honest enough to concede that you open yourself up to the potential for real abuse where you empower people when you grant them anonymity to make recklessss claims and crush people, and maybe in the media, our job isn't to do that. maybe it is to present the facts as we know them rather than takh the side of something the truth about which we can't really know. >> i see your point, but i think what is more important here is less the few cases of abuse that are made by people using anonymous sourcing incorrectly and journalists improperly, and more the actual cases of abuse, whether that is the sexual harassment scandals, whether that is cases of anonymous sourcing in the past. yes, there can be abuse of the system, but i think by and large that does not happen. journalists are particularly careful about it. >> tucker: okay, but the difference between using an anonymous source to prove, say,

corruption, and one for sexual harassment, in the case of corruption, you're never going to go on the case of someone anonymously. you need documents, actual evidence that the crime took place. in the case of sexual harassment, it is enough to just to have someone's word. if you are going to destroy someone's life, why shouldn't that person have the right to look into the face of the person making the accusation and explain himself? that is the essence of justice, isn't it? >> i think that if this goes to a court of law, if al franken'se sexual harasser goes to a court of law and accuses him of sexual harassment -- and they will need to do that not under the veil of anonymity, but in this case, this is a case of journalism. this is a case of blowing the top off of this horrific sexual harassment that women are experiencing around the world, and right now i think it is necessary. if we are talking about a court of law, that is a different story.y >> tucker: finally, shouldn't we, a, be really upset about those rare cases where theas innocent are prejudged and destroyed? should we really care about it, not just give it lip service?

be troubled by it? and, b --re >> those cases are rare. >> tucker: we don't really know that. >> about 2%, that is the stat is have seen as well. >> tucker: that is a made-up statistic. we don't really know. i agree there are rare. the point is, should we acknowledge how much power we have in the media to destroy people, wreck their lives, make their kids not like them, and shouldn't we take thaw power seriously? >> i absolutely agree. i think that needs to be taken very seriously. i think the use of anonymous sources needs to be taken very seriously. but i don't think they can be disregarded and i don't think the power to tell anonymous sources to tell crucial stories that may not otherwise be told should not be disregarded, because this is how we learn about things the public needs to learn about.el >> tucker: i disagree with you, but i think you made some smart points, so i appreciate you coming on. thank you. we were told we needed to investigate russian collusion, but then robert mueller's investigation doesn't seem to be about russian collusion anymore. what exactly is it about? we'll ask a former federal prosecutor about what is

actually happening here. stay tuned. you coming on. i love kiwis. i've always had that issue you coming on. with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free. it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. just a few dabs is clinically proven

to seal out more food particles. try super poligrip free. ♪ does it look like i'm done? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait. you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog!

champion. wifiso if you can't live without it...t it. why aren't you using this guy? it makes your wifi awesomely fast. no... still nope. now we're talking! it gets you wifi here, here, and here. it even lets you take a time out. no! no!

yes! yes, indeed. amazing speed, coverage and control. all with an xfi gateway. find your awesome, and change the way you wifi. ♪ >> tucker: former national security advisor mike flynn plead guilty last week to the charge of lying to federal investigators. in his account of the crime, special counsel robert mueller described how flynn had reached out to russian officials during the transition period, apparently for the first time. in other words, trump staff began talking to the russians after the 2016 elections. doesn't that pretty much invalidate those claims thatad

you've heard from more than a year of collusion with the russians? it appears that way. so if this investigation is no longer about russian collusion, what exactly is it about? t andrew mccarthy, a contributing editor to the "national review," has thought a lot about that, and he joins us to tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: details are emerging from all kinds of directions all the time in this story, and so it is easy to lose track of the core point of this. my understanding was, this investigation was designed toht determine what influence the russians had on the 2016 election. is that no longer the point? >> i think ostensibly it is still the point. if you ask them, they would tell you they were conducting a counterintelligence investigation, the meddling in the election with a side line

campagin collusion in it. my own view, for what it's worth, that is the guise under which the investigation has gone forward, really what a lot of people on the democratic side wanted to do was assign a prosecutor to the trump administration and this was a way to do it. where i think they are headed is an obstruction of justice investigation, and collusion has pretty much gone by the boards,e at least as something potentially actionable in the way of charges. >> tucker: so the charges would from behavior conducted during the investigation itself? >> process crime, just like the two -- the two guys who fled to lying to the fbi agent, a way of obstructing the investigation. i think the ultimate target ishe trump, and their theory is that he knew that there was this investigation into his campaign and potentially would be compromising with russia. i should say here that, this is my theory, this is what i think their theory is. that flynn had this contact with the russian ambassador, that

trump leaned on comey to go easy on flynn or drop the investigation on flynn becauseou trump was worried it would bounce back on him, and when comey didn't do that, ultimately trump fired comey as part of the obstruction. i think it has got a lot of holes in it, but i think that is what they are doing. >> tucker: i guess what bothers me -- i'm obviously not in favor of lying to anyone ever -- but it doesn't sound like, in the end, we're going to see the kind of core crimes exposed. it doesn't seem like this has anything to do with what we aret told it was about. and it also seems, to some extent, like if you threw an investigation like this at anybody you might be able to -- i'm not defending the behavior, some of the really dumb behavior. this could be done to anybody if you wanted to do it to somebody. am i overstating? >> this is why i was so upset at the beginning, tucker, that they

carry this as a counterintelligence investigation, because counterintelligence is just an information gathering exercise. the regs, when you appoint a special counsel, say you are i supposed to describe the offenses that require a criminal investigation and that the justice department is recused from, and the importance of that, criminal investigation has a beginning and an end. it's got concrete elements that you know you have to prove to prove the transaction is being investigated, whereas counterintelligence can go on forever. and in some sense, because it is about threats to the united states, it probably should go on forever. >> tucker: right, that's right. >> if you are going to attach a prosecutor to someone, and you're not even giving them notice of what it is that is being investigated, it really becomes almost like a general warrant under the fourth amendment, that is the reason we have the fourth amendment. >> tucker: so if we come away from this, whatever happens, with half the country believing this was, in effect, a coup

staged by the ruling class against a president they didn't pick, if people really believe that, that is a disaster, and shouldn't the justice department be doing everything it can to make sure that people don't think that, that they think this is legitimate? >> i think we have to let it play out, tucker, before we make a judgment about what people will think about it. for all of the heavy breathing that has gone on, there've been three sets of charges, one indictment that doesn't havet anything to do with the 2016 election or president trump, and two process crimes that also don't have anything, really, to do with the election of trump. there is a lot of noise, but, you know, if that's all it is at the end, i don't know what people will make of it except that it was probably a waste of time and it was very bad for the country, because it is hard for an administration to govern when everybody has to look at everybody else like a potential suspect.t. >> tucker: that's right. and that's a problem.

administrations come and go, you just wanted to run the country. that is the danger. >> you want good people to be willing to serve. you don't want them to think that a week into the job they have to lawyer up. >> tucker: i'm beginning to think that. thank you, that was really interesting. appreciate it. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: one group thinks we can fix the world's problems by abolishing all countries and borders and implementing what they are calling a single global democracy. we'll talk to the founder of that group next. ♪ i'm 65 and healthy. i'm not at risk. even healthy adults 65 and older are at increased risk of pneumococcal pneumonia. isn't it like a bad cold or flu? pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious bacterial lung disease. in some cases, part of your lung may fill with mucus, making it hard to breathe. can i catch it from a pneumococcal vaccination? no. the vaccines do not contain live bacteria. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about how to help protect yourself.

talk to your doctor or pharmacist ♪ pudding... [sigh] did grandpa win again? yes! download the new words with friends 2 today.

>> tucker: president trump announced today that the u.s. will recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel and move its embassy there from tel aviv. meanwhile, the administration announced it will pull united states out of a u.n. immigration compact, saying the compact is incompatible with its efforts to restrict immigration and enforce american border security. some people think of forcing borders is exactly the wrong idea. in fact, they dislike the idea of borders themselves. peter schurman, founder of theun group, group one -- one globalat democracy, rather, wants to create a single world government where everybody gets a vote. peter schurman joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. i don't know if you can hear me, peter. i think we may have an audio problem. huh. we were in different worlds, ironically, for a moment. as i said, peter schurman runs a

group that would like to abolish all countries and give each person a vote. we are going to take you to a fox news alert as we fix the audio. we have got dramatic footage of massive wildfires that are ravaging the west coast of california, specifically los angeles. take a look at this exclusive footage shot this morning by someone we know who is driving to the airport, l.a.x. both sides of the interstate on fire. throughout the day, matters got even worse. more than 80,000 acres have burned.. police eventually forced to close interstate 405. our correspondent will carr is in bel air, one of the prettiest places in l.a. well, how is it? >> tucker, fire crews are keeping an eye on this community after what can only be described as a terrifying day for the thousands of people that live in this community. the fire broke out around 5:00 this morning. it really exploded. 4600 people had to evacuate this

area. it burned four homes to the ground, including this home. you can see where it is gutted. it is still p smoldering. we were here when these homes were going up in flames. take a look at what we saw. we are in the bel air community just east of the 405 here in los angeles, and you can see that this neighborhood is under attack from these flames. firefighters doing everything they can to try to salvage these homes and protect the homes near this. what you are looking at is this home that was hit by an ember. it was fully engulfed. the firefighters are spreading this and the homes in the surrounding area down. this entire neighborhood is under mandatory evacuation. and you can see the smoke has set in here.he clouds of smoke all the way up and down this street. to an extent, it looks like armageddon with the flames jumping out of these homes. this is an incredibly dangerous situation that is continuing to play out.

with that in mind, the biggest concern moving forward is the santa ana winds. they are going to continue to flow throughout the course of night and the rest of the week.i with that in mind, they have actually closed 265 schools for the rest of the week, tucker. >> tucker: will, did authorities see this coming? watching the wildfire, both sides of the 405 this morning, major freeway in los angeles, you got the impression no one a was fighting the fire at that point. was anyone? >> it was so early in the morning, around 5:00 a.m. the difficulty with these winds is, they pick up the embers they can push the miles down the road. it is really difficult, if not impossible, for firefighters to predict exactly where the next fire will break out. i do have to say, these firefighters did a fantastic job getting up into this neighborhood. these are multi-million-dollar homes. they were able to come and save so many. like i said, four were destroyed, but there were so many that were in the path of this fire. they really did a great job of

saving so many homes, tucker.ye >> tucker: will, thank you very much. good luck out there. >> you bet. >> tucker: well, it is increasingly accepted that everybody is allowed to define his or her own identity. your gender is not determined by your chromosome. race is a social construct, not a matter of genetics. taking that to the natural conclusion, born a white man, ja du now identifies as a filipina woman. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tuck. >> tucker: i'm not here to mock you but ask you sincere questions. among them, what does your mom think of all this? >> well, you know, she did eventually find out all of these stories going on about me and about my group. she is kind of still trying to come to the realization that i

am not exactly joking. >> tucker: that you're not joking, that you went from being a white man to a filipino woman. >> well -- sorry. sorry for -- >> tucker: what did she say? did she accept that? >> well, she saw one of the stories that went on about me,e and she came in the door, like, hysterically laughing, and i didn't know what was going on. i came downstairs, and she is holding the phone with a video that was made about me on youtube. and she was just -- she was just cackling and saying, this is the best thing ever. i can reflect on myself in the third person and i can see why it's silly, and it is silly. >> tucker: it sounds like she doesn't take it that seriously.

do you take it -- the reason i wanted to talk to you was, i always wondered if you can -- if we are telling kids, or ifys adults are agreeing that you can change your sex, why not change your race? why would that not be allowed? why would that be considered impossible?n' when did that occur to you that you wanted to do that? >> well, in short -- in short, you know, the filipino culture just kind of resonated with me. and, you know, i can see -- i can look at myself in the third person and, you know, i understand it's silly. and, you know, identity issues are issues. it's a very small part of myself, as well as my transsexuality. a lot of people like yourself find it interesting, and i'll talk about it. >> tucker: i think it's interesting that things that we thought were immutable and that scientifically remain immutable,

like your sex or your race, now we're saying you can change. i wonder, since you're saying you believe you've changed your race, do you think the rest of us spend -- or the left particularly seems to invest so much significance in race, you are this race, you are this race, that is kind of the whole point of being a progressive now. do you think they put too much emphasis on race? >> i think they do, and i think in some instances they use race as kind of a basis to divide people. and i'm talking about -- what's it called? and i'm talking bout intersectionality. you have a few people that are all of a sudden enemies just for existing. i wish people would just talk to each other instead of trying to silence each other with, you know, draconian systems that they tried to implement into laws. >> tucker: well, they must be deeply -- i'm surprised i'm

saying this. i agree with you completely. they must be deeply offended by you then. >> exactly. i tell a lot of people that, you know, the lgbt community, and there are some left communities that aren't as tolerant as they may seem. i actually think about -- like, a lot of the same things you do, i'm just a little bit weird. >> tucker: yeah. that's fair to say. yeah. i mean, your mom agrees. i don't think it's news to anyone. but, if so, like, we give all sorts of rewards based on race and we also punish on the basis of it, and you are saying -- you're breaking the rules by saying, then i'm just going to change mine. that must drive the people who are making these rules totally crazy. >> i suppose so. you know, i don't believe you can actually change your sex and i don't believe you can actually change your race.

you are born as you c are. but really, that's why i refer to, you know, transgenderism or however you want to call it as gender dysphoria. it is a problem, and even fully transitioned people, i would say, must be unhappy. if you have to strive so differently from where you began, are you really happy? >> tucker: i don't know. i can't answer that question. you should know, i don't believe you're allowed to say that. you could be arrested. thank you. >> all right. [laughs] >> tucker: as we mentioned, one group thinks we can solve the worlds problems by abolishing all borders, implementing a single democracy. that group is back on the program for real this time. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪

♪ think of your fellow man, ♪ lend him a helping hand, ♪ put a little love in your heart.♪ ♪ you'll see it's getting late, oh please don't hesitate...♪ ♪ put a little love in your heart.♪ ♪ in your heart... ♪ in your heart... ♪ in your heart... ♪ in your heart. (vo) going on now, our subaru share the love event will have donated over one hundred fifteen million dollars to those in need. this is not a cloud. this is a tomato tracked from farm to table on a blockchain, helping keep shoppers safe. this is a financial transaction

secure from hacks and threats others can't see. this is a skyscraper whose elevators use iot data and ai to help thousands get to work safely and efficiently. this is not the cloud you know. this is the ibm cloud. the ibm cloud is the cloud for business. yours. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> tucker: the trump administration has announced it will pull the united states out of the u.n. immigration compact. some people dislike all borders though. peter schurman founded the group one global democracy and advocates for abolishing borders and countries. he rejoins us now. great to see you, peter. sorry about that. so i just wonder, why now? it seems like the rest of the world is moving in exactly the opposite direction. you had brexit, the catalonian you are seeing things getting disaggregated, people don't want to be a part of big organizations. you're saying the answer is a global government. why? >> hey, tucker. thank you for having me on the show. one global democracy is here to create a new conversation about how we can make a better future for everyone by dissolving separate countries and international borders and giving everyone worldwide an equall voice in handling the big issues that affect us all, like climate change which, of course, is a major cause of those tragic wildfires in southerner california.

like inequality, which is hollowing out the middle class, like you covered last week. like unlocking the doors to economic opportunity for everyone. we have a super powerful new video that makes the case a for video to make this on our website at oneglobaldemocracy.com, and i encourage everyone to check that out. >> tucker: i would encourage them, too, i think it is an interesting idea, but it seems very antidemocratic to me. people don't want this, they have never wanted this. the league of nations had to be imposed on them. same with the u.n., the e.u. actual people don't want to be ruled from a great distance by people who don't speak the same language or have the same history or values. they don't want this. they never have wanted it. why do you think otherwise? >> well, the key distinction here is between being ruled and democracy. democracy is about everyone having an equal voice, and we don't have that today. international borders and separate countries are getting in our way. our current patchwork of

separate countries dates back more than 350 years to the days when horse travel was state-of-the-art for communications. an awful lot has changed since then. >> tucker: no, if i can correct you, people have always had different countries. not nation-states, but they have always had, going back to the beginning of time, tribes,l distinct groups that have s different rituals and customs, cultures, languages. people aren't all the same, and maybe that is why this would never work. does that worry you? >> respectfully, tucker, i disagree. that is what is so exciting about this moment in history where we are right now, because right now, for the first time in human history, we have an opportunity with new technology to actually implement a global democracy for the first time. so much has changed since we had the treaty of westphalia in 1648 or whenever it was. we have had the laws of physics

articulated. we've had domesticated electricity. we have had the arrival of the internet. >> tucker: but none of thatob changes -- >> massively changing the world. >> tucker: but why what you want someone in a country you have never been to making decisions -- presumably, if it is a one man, one vote democracy, like, the chinese, with whom you have nothing in common, making decisions thatke affect you.e why would you want that? >> well, as a matter of fact, one person, one vote, you would be surprised, actually. if you look at the available international polling data, it is really surprising how much in common we have with people all over the world. even if you look at a major population centers like china and india and islamic countries. it is truly surprising. >> tucker: how many countries have you been to? >> quite a number. >> tucker: thanks for joining us.on

people using airbnb to renthi rooms, now some users are discovering hidden cameras spying on them. how does that work for creepy? we'll tell you how to protect yourself next. run, jthe power of in to tempur-pedic sleep with our 90-day trial and being the highest ranked mattress

in customer satisfaction by jd power, it's easy to love. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com

>> tucker: several airbnb users have made horrifying discoveries recently, cameras hidden inside the bedrooms of their rentals. pretty disturbing. how do you know if your rental room has a hidden camera and what do you do if you find one? we have lance ulanoff, editor at large of mashable, and whitney boan, criminal defense attorney. they join us tonight. lance, how do you know -- do you really want to know -- if there is a hidden camera in your airbnb? >> you want to know, take a good look around, look at screw heads, no exaggeration. if you see a black dot

somewhere, take a closer look. look at your alarm clock.se if an alarm clock is sitting next the bed, maybe throw a towel over it. you have your phone. check if there is a motioncr detector pointed directly at your bed. why would it be pointed there? take a look at that. also, the smoke alarm right over your bed, which is supposed to protect you, it should, but if you see a black dot, take a look. maybe even open it up, don't break it. if it looks weird, you might want to call someone. m and the last thing you might want to do is, look for hidden cameras. you can do that with fing app that looks for the ip address for cameras around there. there used to be a camera outside the airbnb, but if you've got a bunch of ip addresses. you might want to take another look. lastly, unplug the router. you'll live without netflix but you'll be safe. >> tucker: that is so creepy. whitney, if you find that there is a camera in the smoke alarm over your bed, what is your best recourse? >> bust up the smoke alarm. i would say, definitely let airbnb know immediately.

honestly, i would call the cops. this is an issue of peeping toms. your right to privacy in the bedroom and the bathroom is absolute. it is against airbnb's policy to have cameras in the bathrooms or the bedrooms for any reason whatsoever. in most states, it's illegal. there is no legitimate purpose for that to be happening. not only is it a violation of the policy, but it is a violation of your right to privacy, and it is creepy. >> tucker: lance, is it avoidable? if you are staying at somebody's house, and somebody you've never met, you hooked up over the internet. i guess, why should we be surprised that there might be a camera over the bed? >> airbnb is in hundreds of countries and thousands of locales around the world, and most of these are good. you can read the online reviewss and get feedback and find out about these people. and the point is, they reallyme want to make money from people staying there. there are some creeps out there. and, by the way, you're not going to pull it out and find a cable that leads back to the room where they are watching you. it doesn't work that way. you find an sd card where they

are storing this stuff so theyou pick it up later. >> tucker: whitney, how do you keep it -- very quickly -- from winding up on the internet, footage of you in other places, airbnbs. >> i don't know if you can, but if you catch on quickly, you have recourses in terms of contacting airbnb, pursuing litigation with them if necessary to have them try to fight it and certainly pursuing it with the police, like i said. if all else is in doubt, go to an attorney too, and they can help you take the rightt recourses on how to stop that. >> tucker: lance, whitney, thank you for that. appreciate it. what a story. the show continues next. ♪ in

♪ ♪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: that's it for us tonight. hard to believe another hour has passed. tomorrow night, don't miss the final weekly news quiz studying up for the week. the high-powered weekly news quiz. hope you have been studying up. the undefeated shannon bream

is back, she will face off against new fox news correspondent gillian turner. our old friend. you can play alongng tomorrow. the prize, of course, the mug. every night, they show that is the sworn enemy of lying, smugness, and groupthink. see you tomorrow at 88:00. sean hannity is on now. >> sean: this is a fox news alert. wildfires are raging in the state of california. burning up hundreds of homes in the los angeles metro area. nearly 200,000 people tonight are under evacuation orders. adam housley is on the ground and joins us with a live report. also, we have new, big breaking information about the special counsel, robert e mueller's partisan, extremely biased, n hyperpartisan attack scene. we are going to name names tonight and explain who exactly these trump painting investigators really are and why this entire witch hunt needs to be shut down and shut down immediately. what is beyond clear tonight is that robert mueller has assembled the most partisan special co