>> shannon: first lady melania trump spreading some holiday cheer, taking part in the toys for tots toy drive. said the season is about family and gratitude. good night from washington. i'm shannon bream. >> tucker: well, good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the fbi has conducted a number of politically sensitive investigations in the past couple of years. and no single agent has been more closely involved in more of them than peter strzok. strzok helped lead the investigation into hillary clinton's email server. he was personally responsible for changing then director jim comey's finding in that case from what it was originally, "gross negligence," to the much less serious "extreme carelessness." strzok went on to sign the order launching the federal investigation into collusion between the trump campaign and russia, the one that has paralyzed the federal governmenn for more than a year even as it has dramatically boosted the ratings at a number of progressive cable channels. strzok also oversaw thely interview of michael flynn at

the white house, the one that led to felony charges against the former national security advisor. until august, strzok was a f central member of robert mueller's independent counsel investigation. like zelig, he's everywhere. peter strzok is a major figure in american political history. his fingerprints are all over events that will likely send people to prison, events your grandkids will be learning about years from now. so it is vital that peter strzok's ability and his integrity are beyond question. unfortunately we are no longer convinced of either one, with evidence. yesterday fox news obtained copies of the famous text messages strzok sent to his mistress, lisa page. the ones that got him kicked off the mueller probe last summer. they are devastating. in one exchange from august 2016, page told strzok "maybe you are meant to stay where you are," the fbi, "because you are meant to protect the country from that menace." what menace would that be? well, just days before, strzok had signed off on

the start of the fbi's investigation into ties between russia and donald trump. later that month, strzok textedt this to page. "i want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in andy's office that there is no way trump gets elected, but i am afraid we can't take that risk. it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you are 40." the andy in question apparently is deputy fbi director andrew mccabe. mccabe, you'll remember, came under fire after his wife accepted hundreds of thousands dollars in political donations from bill and hillary clinton's best friend, terry mcauliffe at the same time that mccabe himself was running the fbi's washington office and helping to oversee the hillary clinton email investigation. a clear conflict yet for some reason, mccabe did not recuse himself from that investigation. now it looks like top fbi officials met in mccabe's office to plan some kind of insurance against trump becoming president. would that insurance include hamstringing the presidency with a politically motivated russian investigation?

we can only guess that would have been an effective plan. this trove text messages does raise deep and troubling questions about the political motivations of the leadership over at the fbi but it also makes you wonder about the intellectual caliber of the people running that place. as you read the messages, strzok comes off less like an incorruptible g man of old and more like a drunk guy on facebook. in the spring of 2016, for example, strzok exchanged a series of strikingly banal messages with his mistress about the presidential race. "omg. trump is an idiot," he said in one message. "america will get what the voting public deserves." a little weird coming from a public servant. around the time of the democratic convention, strzok sent this message to his girlfriend. "congrats on a woman nominated for president in a major party! about damn time!" later he enthused that hillary should win the 2016 presidential race "100 million to zero."

during the republican convention, strzok ridiculed the trump family, messaging page in all caps. "turn it on! turn it on!!! the douchebags are about to come out. you can tell by the excitable clapping." keep in mind this is the man the "new york times" described as "one of the most experienced and trusted fbi counterintelligence investigators." other fawning accounts in the press painted him as a fusion of sherlock holmes, j. edgar hoover, and batman. when you read his texts strzok sounds a lot like the 6th host of "the view." that's not good news for robert mueller's investigation of the -- of russia. the legitimacy of the l investigation depends on the public's faith that the people doing it are unbiased and capable of high-level thought. one man who potentially could restore some legitimacy to this investigation is the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein. in testimony today before congress, rosenstein insisted this is no problem at all.

everything is fine. >> i expressed concern about certain aspects of certain things done by the fbi. but in general, in my experience working with the fbi agents over decades, i found them to be an exceptional group of public servants. very loyal, faithful and dedicated and some of the finest people i know. >> tucker: rosenstein went on to say he has total confidence in robert mueller. >> it would be difficult for anybody to find somebody better qualified for this job. direct mueller has, throughout his lifetime, been a dedicated and respected and heroic public servant. after college, he volunteered to serve as a marine in vietnam. >> tucker: he is a vietnam veteran? okay, so is roy moore. that's an impressive resumem. point. obviously america thanks him for his service. but what does that have to do with the question?'s nothing, of course. it's a non sequitur. worse than that, it's misdirection. nobody is attacking mueller as a man or questioning whether he

will make it to heaven in the end. instead the question is why did mueller hire so many partisan democrats to investigate a republican president? 9 out of 15 are clinton donors. at least one of them worked for hillary personally. was that a wise idea? why did mueller hide the reason for peter strzok's demotion for so many months? and why has he stonewalled congress's many attempts to p exercise its constitutional oversight of what he is doing? to answer that last question, we are happy to have congressman john garamendi join us he is from california, and he is a democrat. thank you for coming on. >> good to be with you. >> tucker: i would think that you would share my interest in seeing this investigation is nod only fair but has the confidence of the public. >> exactly right. >> tucker: so given that we know that peter strzok was a seething partisan, does it bother you he had a hand in so many key investigations in the last 2 years? >> as far as i can determine the

current fbi director is also partisan. he is a republican. given money to republican causes around. so within the fbi, there are men and women who are democrat and republican. i would probably say that the majority of the fbi team agents tend to be conservative and on the republican side. >> tucker: that tends to be true, yet robert mueller himself was so concerned by strzok's partisanship, he pulled him off the investigation. >> as soon as he found out. >> tucker: apparently. we are not exactly sure because he won't answer basic questions. he hid for months from congress these texts. he won't answer questions like what else did strzok do? does it bother you that the fbi is stonewalling your body's efforts to get answers? >> not at all.ng there is a criminal investigation under way, an investigation of

national security of extreme importance to this nation and the future democracy and the way we run our elections. we ought not be in any way slowing down, harming or stopping or rather in one way or another, causing that investigation to not go forward. it's about our democracy. it's about a foreign governmentc involvement. what it has to do with the president is just one piece. >> tucker: here is one piece we think we know. the fbi apparently used this steele dossier to inform its investigation and perhaps paid for it. that already happened. you're not affecting the investigation by getting an answer to that question. the fbi won't answer the question, did they pay for that dossier? to what extent did they use it? why doesn't your body have the right to know that? >> whether they did or did not, the question begins with what is the dossier? n the dossier has been a template

for the investigations. it turns out that much of that a dossier has already proven to be accurate and correct. it was important enough that the intelligence community informed the president it existed so the president would know that these issues are out there and they were being -- >> tucker: where did that information come from? o do you know where it came from? it came from russian intelligence. does that bother you? in the dossier. the claim is russian intelligence influenced our election. you just said the dossier provided in part by russian intelligence influenced this investigation. why wouldn't that bother you? >> well, apparently, and we do not yet know where all of that information came from. but we know it came from an individual who was involved in the british intelligence services for years, 3 decades working on the russian

portfolio. he knew what was going on and had contacts. some of whom would talk, russians and others. he put together the dossier. the dossier becomes an extremelg important part of what happened. it's informative. >> tucker: hold on. your concern, a fair concern, is that a foreign government may is influenced our election. >> well, we know that they did. >> tucker: we know that dossier came in part from a foreign intelligence service and the t u.s. government may have paid for part of it. so why isn't that vital? why wouldn't you be calling the fbi and say what? you gave money to gett information from russian intelligence? >> no. the information came from mr. steele, a retired british intelligence agent. >> tucker: where do you think he got it? >> from a variety of sources some of whom were russians.

either in russia or maybe -- >> tucker: that information provided by the putin government influenced a u.s. investigation into a sitting president. >> i think you are going way out on a limb. >> tucker: i am not. >> you are. >> tucker: you are saying that's okay.. that information from russian intelligence -- >> back up a bit. we know from our intelligence agencies who got information from their sources in russia and other places that the russiane government attempted to and did engage in influencing the american presidential election. we also know from our intelligence agencies that got information from russians, not only did they attempt to influence the presidential election, they attempted to hack into our electoral process. t description, russian intelligence is influencing a federal investigation into the

president. >> you are way out on a limb. >> tucker: no, i am not. we know some of the information in the dossier was the basis of this investigation. >> no, i said it was an element. it informed -- >> tucker: the fbi should settle this for us. did they pay money for that dossier? what was their contact with mr. steele? congress can't get answers. why? >> it may be interesting, but so what? >> tucker: because it would show that a foreign government was influencing a federal election. seems like a big deal. s >> back up. it's not necessarily a foreign government. a the information of the dossier and the information collected by all of our intelligence agencies, some came from sources in russia. we do know this: we do know that from all of that gathering of information, the dossier being one piece of it, perhaps a small piece, we know

that the russian government at the highest levels attempted and in fact did get involved. >> tucker: our congress is supposed to be providing oversight of these agencies and this process is content to sit back and take the word of federal bureaucrats. i don't understand why. you could tell them to answer your questions. >> you are -- you are dealing with a fly on a dog's back. you need to look at the over-arching issue. there are things we know. all of our intelligence agencies said russia involved itself in the american election. they say russia hacked oursi electoral system unsuccessfully. >> tucker: i want more information. >> we all want information. >> tucker: good. thank you. there are tough exchanges during that testimony on capitol hill. mr. rosenstein, here's a selection. d

>> any opinion on the lack of the fruit from the poisonous tree via peter strzok? >> i can tell you if evidence is tainted, and that would raise a concern for me, our cases wherel we prosecute based on witnesses and documents and not on the agent unless the agent were a witness in the case. that would concern us if there were tainted evidence in the case.geke >> tucker: jonathan turley, a professor at george washington law school. what was your take? >> we didn't learn a whole lot. >> tucker: no. >> many of these questions don't go to witnesses. they don't go to sensitive issues.'t they go to the role of prosecutors. i don't understand why some of those questions couldn't be answered. i think what we have is we have allegations on both sides of the political aisle both involving

foreign influence, involving questions of political corruption or influence on the department of justice. it seems we are in agreement. these are bad things. how do we respond? i think it would be nice to both parties would say fine, there ,are so many questions here. let's have an independent and full investigation on both sides. let's investigate it all and be transparent. i think congress can investigate the doj allegations but we do need a commitment on both sides to say at the end of the day, the mega people have a right to hear it all. we didn't get that today. >> tucker: we have ann obligation to preserve some public trust that our system isn't corrupt. i think that's the point of the independent counsel, to take it out of the department of justice a little bit anyway so there's no political interference. given that, why in the world with the fbi apparently and the investigation hide these texts from strzok and the news from the congress for months he was demoted? what was the point of that? >> i find that perhaps the most troubling aspect.mo there was no reason for thisth

information to be withheld. it's an example of how agencies thumb their noses at congress. congress doesn't enforce its contempt authority. they should've been held in contempt. congress has a right of this information. it's our government, and these are very serious allegations. you talk about someone involved in this core investigation, we are spending millions. more importantly, we all have a lot at stake here. there are people there who are partisan or biased, we have a righte to know about it. >> tucker: in this case, it looks like mueller did the right thing. it turns out he has this high-level fbi official, strzok, who stepped outside the lines pretty dramatically and he demoted him. why would he be uncomfortable telling congress that? it shakes your faith. it suggests there is something else going on. >> that exactly right. they fueled a lot of this narrative, these concerns. the only way to sanitize this is exposure to sunlight and they are resisting the disclosures.

some of these texts are deeply disturbing. some are just stupid. major justice officials going to the campaign party of one of the two major candidates. it's just stupid. >> tucker: it is especially weird. the congressman made a fair point which is a lot of these people have political opinions. it doesn't mean they can't do their jobs right. but if you are an independent counsel and you are under intense public scrutiny and you hire 9 out of 15 investigators who are donors to the other candidate in the last election, one of whom worked -- you are ad law professor here. is it impossible to find competent investigators who didn't just donate to the otherm teams political campaign? >> you can walk on any corner in d.c. and throw a stick and hit a lot of competent lawyers. there is no lead to come up with a list that can be challenged. i thought mueller's appointment was a mistake.

i think he will do a fair job. but his connection to comey and his interview for comey's job baffled me. you would think after that start, he would sanitize this team.ar >> tucker: public faith is at stake here. >> it is. >> tucker: thank you. more evidence of failures and foul play at the fbi. the agency doesn't believe it should submit to oversight of congress or anybody else we investigate next. liberty mutual saved us almost eight hundred dollars when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey. oh. that's my robe. is it? you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

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.

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: the many partisan democrats working on special counsel's robert mueller investigation thought the only cause for concern at the fbi, the bureau has acted with out right contempt for congress. the elected body it is supposed to be subordinate to. the fbi won't tell congress how much it relied on the trump dossier or whether they paid for any of it. looks like they may have. it took a leak to get peter strzok's text messages. we can report that the fbi forced the government watchdog agency to sign a nondisclosure agreement so that it would not share information about hillary clinton's emails with congress. the fbi isn't just ignoring congress. it's actively sabotaging them and their oversight. doesn't seem to be allowed in a

normal government. kim strassel, a columnist at "the wall street journal," joins us tonight. how can the fbi force the government agency to sign an nda preventing congress from seeing the information. is that even legal? >> as far as i know for my reporting, that has never happened before. congress was so unhappy about this, it sounds as though the osc will never agreed to do so again. it's absolutely unprecedented. what it means now is that very vital information that congress is seeking, namely in this case some of the transcript of interviews that were done with some of jim comey's closest associates cannot be turned over to congress because the fbi is forbidding the office of special counsel from doing so. it's an astonishing thing. >> tucker: what is at stake here and among other things is the whole country has to believe the system isn't corrupt and

that when some kind of verdict comes down, we can all accept it. like it or not. the office of special counsel in the fbi are making a very hard to have faith in them. wire -- why are they doing this? >> the office of special counsel is the government body set up to investigate. there can be no faith when you see these text messages, when you hear the news that one of the senior department prosecutors, his wife worked for fusion gps, that he was meeting with them off the grid. one of mueller's team members was sending emails to sally yates, an obama holdover. there can be no faith. the whole reason, i think trey gowdy made this point today any hearing with rod rosenstein, he said the reason we have a special counsel is because the statute says you need one when

there is too big of a conflict of interest to restore the public's faith. the conflicts are no bigger than the ones dealing with the trump-russia collusion investigation. >> tucker: you're going to have massive social problems of people think the system is rigged. you had a suggestion for how congress could force the fbi to do what its constitutionally required to do which is disclose information in the process of being overseen by congress. how should congress go about it? >> the white house will have to step in here. there is no reason why it should not. this doesn't require president trump to meddle in the investigation. requires the white house, where there is the chief counsel or the president himself, needs to order the fbi either to hand over this information and cooperate with congress or maybe even appoint a special employee of the department of justice whose only job is to ensure cooperation with congress.

you are not going to get it from the department of justice or fbi. they are -- they are the fox guarding the hen house because they are the ones, as we saw from these texts, with potentially damaging things to hide. >> tucker: the whole thing seems out of control. kim strassel, thanks for your reporting and for coming on. police in las vegas are trying to block information in their investigation to the shooting that took place october 1st. why? what could they be hiding? that's next. jack and jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. all because of a burst water pipe in their house that ruined the hardwood floors in their kitchen. luckily the geico insurance agency had helped them with homeowners insurance and the inside of their house was repaired and floors replaced. jack and jill no longer have to fetch water. they now fetch sugar-free vanilla lattes with almond milk. call geico

and see how affordable homeowners insurance can be.

>> tucker: got another >> tucker: got another update on the investigation into the mandalay bay shooting from october 1st. las vegas police announced they are seeking to keep 14 search warrants pertaining to the shooting sealed. the news media are trying to have them published. it's unclear why the authorities want to keep those hidden. there are no living defendants being investigated. it doesn't make a lot of sense. we will update this story on friday if not before. if you were watching tv the republican party suffered an embarrassing set back in alabama. democrat doug jones defeated roy moore to replace jeff sessions.c the loss means alabama, which the president won by 20 points last year, will have a democratic senator until at

least 2020. are there lessons we ought to be learning? tammy bruce is a radio host and our friend and she joins us. you watched the election as carefully as anybody. what did you take away from it? >> first of all, i won't miss roy moore. i can kind of glad that's over. people are saying it was a shocker. oh, this is a sea change. it's an amazing event. it wasn't a shocker. even with roy moore's previous election, they were kind of close. he has one republican who didn't have major success in a lot of ways, like president trump did in his election. but we saw here in the biggest issue we experienced with a lack of a unified g.o.p. you hadsuk a horrible candidate, frankly. kind of the end result of the beginning of what mitch mcconnell did. a lot of people talk about mo brooks.

that was a candidate that it would've been good for president trump. yet i think it was mitch mcconnell felt luther strange would be more answerable to him. that's when mitch mcconnell first interfered. the end result was the election last night. ultimately everyone was saying the democrats are saying, this is a huge thing. it really isn't. >> tucker: to be clear, you are saying it was meddling by republican leaders in washington that because the chain of events that got us roy moore? >> it would've been very, very close but when you are looking at shelby saying i'm going to write people in, giving people permission. not telling you to vote for doug jones but in fact i tweeted that if you write someone in you are effectively voting for doug jones. here is theor difference. it reminded me of the scott brown win in 2010. that was supposed to be a seami change, the ted kennedy's seat in blue massachusetts. hello, elizabeth warren. this is similar. doug jones will be a senator for

about 2.5 years. alabama will elect a republican to that seat. what the republicans and the president must learn here is that the establishment interfered from the beginning, separate from the election last night. and that caused a typical republican debacle. this is the lesson for the president to intervene here. it's not a sea change. democrats would make a huge mistake thinking this could be applied to other races.er it was a unique dynamic and a local experience. it also won't have any long-term impact on what the republicans need to do. but we need to look at the midterms. now they have a better chance of expanding their majority in the fall. if the republican establishment wants the majority. i am not so sure they do. >> tucker: i agree with that. i am not sure they do either. tammy bruce, thank you.

a student at harvard university which is a highly impressive place you would've had no chance of getting into has offered a groveling apology for what is now a grave sin on that campus. he evaluated the attractiveness of the opposite sex. that's now banned. we've got details coming up. with most airline credit cards, you only earn double miles when you buy stuff

from that airline. is this where you typically shop? is this where anyone typically shops? it's time to switch to the capital one venture card. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day... not just airline purchases. seriously... double miles... everywhere! what's in your wallet? guess what i just got? ♪ ♪ hello again. hi. ♪ ♪ get up to $400 towards a galaxy note8 or s8 with qualifying trade-in. only on samsung.com you won't see these folks they have businesses to run.

they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

>> ♪ >> ♪ >> tucker: in a recent piece for the harvard crimson, the school newspaper, but considers itself so more. a graduate student reproached himself for discussing the attractiveness of the opposite sex. he said he was out drinking during the orientation for his class when his fellow students raised the matter of which girls in the class were "the hottest."

he says he failed to object. that calling women pretty is a form of objectification, instead he says, i uncrossed my arms and yes, i had discussed which girls were hot." apparently cambridge is no better than a boko haram camp. cathy areu joins us. you are our spirit guide into the brave new world of progressive america. i didn't know that it was a crime now. >> it's objectifying women not seeing them as the intelligent people they are. to see them at harvard as justst hot, that's not right. >> tucker: how about if a woman is intelligent. not all people are. the same with men. is it okay to acknowledge that you find someone attractive?

or is that a form of assault? >> he felt that it was wrong because they had a group of guys sitting around. they were not talking about how intelligent these women are. they were ranking these women according to how hot they were. he felt it was wrong and he was helping a culture of rape on the campus of harvard. he said. >> tucker: but they were not raping people?we >> well, harvard has a high incidence of rape and 30% of women graduate from harvard say they are victims of sexual assault. h it is a problem. >> tucker: i don't know where you got those stats but in this case, these men weren't planning on going out and assaulting anybody. they were just saying i find this girl attractive. >> we don't know what these men did. but we know men were behaving badly and are behaving badly at

campuses around the country and that we find out that it harbored these guys are speaking in a properly about women. >> tucker: is this a transferable crime? if a bunch of women are sitting around and they say you know, i that guys kind of attractive or hot. >> women are not the ones committing the rapes? >> tucker: they are allowed to say that? >> women aren't harming anyone. it's not a problem if they do this. if men are harming women, which we know they are, then it's a problem. >> tucker: because -- i am trying to get the standards, as i always do when you come on. trying to figure out the new rules. so because some men harm women, know men are allowed to say they find any woman attractive? but because no women harm men, all women are allowed to say they find men attractive? is that the rule? >> it is rare for men to be objective eyed and go through

the experiences like sexual assault. >> tucker: am i right? is that the rule? the rest of us are looking, those of us over 40 especially, looking on in horror. we see the countryry changing. >> it is changing for the bette better. >> tucker: maybe so. but change is hard. whoever makes these rules, no one gets a head's up on the new rules. they just appear and you are held to account. i am trying to get an accounting of the rules so i don't break them. >> society is dictating thee rules and saying men can't get away with this behavior anymore. >> tucker: who is in charge? is there a basement room where a bunch of people who are somehow in charge --so >> women are. women are speaking up. we have the #metoo movement going on. we are holding men to a higher standard and letting men know they can't get away with this. >> tucker: just to be clear.

i could not be more opposed tois assaulting or hurting women. i have four in my own house whom i love. >> i know. it's not you. >> tucker: i wonder if you thought this through.f if it's now a crime to think or say that a woman is attractive, do you feel like maybe you or women in general might lose something in a society where men were too afraid to say they thought you were attractive? >> it's not right to objectify a woman, not right to say woman only as an attractive human being a. >> tucker: what if you say i respect you in many ways but i also find you attractive. >> that's not what this writer said. he wanted to speak up. he helped these guys treat these women like they were less of -- >> tucker: let me ask a totally honest question. you have a little bit of contempt for this guy, don't you question like he didn't do

anything wrong, didn't assault anybody.y. he is filled with self-hatred because he said he thought that woman was attractive. you can't respect a man like that. >> he was sitting around drunk with a bunch of guys. we don't know what they do the next day. they were saying that women were hot on a scale of 1 to 10. >> tucker: women are hot! whoo. more key players in the rise of facebook are admitting that their website is destroying this country. we are not exaggerating. they are meeting it. -- they are admitting it. super-power. didn't know i was allergic to ibuprofen. and i had fallen asleep... (scrappy barks) (amanda) he was totally freaked out, digging and pawing at me. and when i woke up i realized that i was in anaphylaxis and went to the emergency room. i don't know what i would do if he wasn't there. he's the best boy. (vo) through the subaru share the love event, we've helped the ascpa save nearly forty thousand

animals so far. get a new subaru and we'll donate two hundred fifty dollars more to help those in need. (amanda) ♪ put a little love in your heart. ♪ but having his parents over was enlightening. ♪ you don't like my lasagna? no, it's good. -hmm. -oh. huh. [ both laugh ] here, blow. blow on it. you see it, right? is there a draft in here? i'm telling you, it's so easy to get home insurance on progressive.com. progressive can't save you from becoming your parents. but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto.

>> ♪ >> ♪ ♪ >> tucker: facebook made a handful of people massively

wealthy. but now that they have made their billions, more are admitting that the company they created is destroying society. literally those are the words they used. former facebook president admitted the website was designed to be addictive and like cigarettes or prescription drugs, then bragged his wealth would let him live to 160. last august, an early investor called facebook a threat to democracy. now formerth vice president of e site says "facebook is ripping apart the social fabric of how society works." the author of "disconnected," joins us tonight. tom, the directness and some of these former facebook employees is stunning. this is one from the former vp. "the short term feedback loops are destroying how society

works. no civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruths." he says facebook is destroying society. >> let's like a slow dopamine drip. people don't understand the psychology of the human being in the cravings from every thumbs-up, every lycan every bit of attention. they know they have lured people in, and i think the latest gentleman that made the comments expressed he feels guilty now. >> tucker: if the people who created the product admit it's harming people, destroying american society, and won't let their own kids use it, then my question is, what other consumer products in the world would remain unregulated? the people who created it admitted. >> a silicon valley executives, there's a school and they don't

allow any technology. it's all paper and pencil. 75% of the students enrolled in that school are the sons and daughters of silicon valley tech execs. they know a lot we don't know and that's a good question. unregulated like any other product or service that we know is affecting people, white arm going to do about it? i think we are going to see some legislation or something. >> tucker: d the closest thing i can think of to facebook are slot machines or video gaming which clearly overpowers people's defenses and creates attics out of a lot of people and drains their bank accounts. that's why it's so heavily regulated. why would we do the same thing with this kind of social media? >> i think we have to. i think we're going to start seeing that. talk about video games and example, idealist therapist end of the author of this book idea with kids on at, daily bass and these kids get sick tender this -- sucked into this. kids who are remotely quiet. it's very artificial. it's not real. reality is what you and i are doing right now.

having a conversation. >> tucker: you are the expert on the effects on the human brain. i live in washington so i can you they have a massive lobbying budget. tom, thank you. a canadian broadcaster was fired from his job for an unfilled unforgivable sin. he came on the show and theyca canceledoi it.

this is 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. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424.

♪ but it might be hard to handle ♪ ♪ like the flame that burns the candle ♪ ♪ the candle feeds the flame ♪ topped steak & twisted potatoes at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. >> ♪ >> ♪ >> tucker: not long ago we had a canadian tv show host on this show to >> tucker: not long ago we had a canadian tv show host on this show to defend his country's use of using a long acronym. something like that. we had a great conversation.

but his fellow canadians were upset. following the appearance on the show, he was suspended by his employer on the grounds that he had been helping the competition somehow. now he has been fired outright. that is terrible, but at least no one can complain that he is helping the competition by joining us again. >> my pleasure. you are obviously a powerful guy. >> tucker: i didn't know i was in canada. the irony, i feel for you, having been fired myself, more than once. the irony is, we were talking about freedom of speech in canada. you were saying, i can say whatever you want in canada, and i said, i don't think you can come and you got fired for saying that? >> it was two weeks ago tonight, that we were talking about freedom of speech. it's one person -- my media is a great organization come but one person runs the local cable sho show. i was told that it's against the

and i said, why? what is the rule, going on? you are not paying me. we were just having a discussion and they said, well, as you put it so well, fox's competition, you can't go on the competition. later that day, i was suspended. you don't tell everybody that i was suspended for seven days without explaining why and so i said, clearly they thought that fox was competition to canada, and after that, they said, now you are fired because you're mocking us. no one likes to be ridiculed. a ridiculous decision. here i am, talker, you said you have been fired before. do you know any good agents? >> tucker: [laughs] no. i don't think we even have a bureau up there in toronto. how were we competition? >> there's lots of good stuff going on. we could debate trump and trudeau at least once a week. >> tucker: you live in a country that will fire you for going on a channel they disagree with. we have got a lot of refugees streaming into this country and

i guess my suggestion to you is, come here.om housing vouchers, we'll take care of you. you should come here as a free-speech refugee. i'm serious. >> [laughs] i don't need to be taken care of. i haven't sold my rolls-royce yet. i still am in pretty good shape. but if you want me to come to washington or to new york, thos are pretty good places to be. you are in good shape, tucker. >> tucker: you can say -- this made be changing -- you can say whatever you want on this country and no one can fire you for it, supposedly. jail.y can put you in >> tucker: not here they can't. it's a free country. h call me when you are in the land free end we'll have lunch. great to see you. we are out of time. don't know how that happened. to an row night and every night at 8:00 p.m. to the show that that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and

groupthink. guess who's next? will give you three guesses. if you guess sean hannity, you are absently right. hey, sean. >> sean: tucker, thank you. be appreciated. fox news alert. t welcome to "hannity." we are sipped on my following several breaking news stories. the deputy attorney general general rod rosenstein isam totally grilled by about the political bias of the doj.ou this comes after fox news obtained those anti-trump, pro-hillary clinton text messages between the fbi agent peter strzok, has fpa lawyer girlfriend, both working for mueller, lisa page. we have all the glorious trump. you can handle tonight. fusion gps, the firm behind the clinton bought and paid for fake russia dossier, guess what? they admit the wife of recently demotede doj official worked ato the company on trump opposition research. this can't be in a novel anymore, you can't make it up. also republicans reach