reality star. during an appearance on "good morning america," she denied she was fired. most-watched, most trusted, most gratefully spent the evening with us. good night from washington. i am shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the fbi is america's most powerful law enforcement agency, its most powerful agency actually. it's got national reach, a budget of almost $9 billion. they can break down the front door of your house with guns. we trust them to do a lot of things, to handle investigations of the utmost sensitivity and importance, often against powerful national figures. it's critical, obviously, that a body like the fbi ought to be transparent and accountable. instead the fbi apparently sees itself as a fourth branch of government under no obligation to explain itself to our country's elected officials. this is a problem. republican senator ron johnson represents wisconsin, he chairs the senate homeland security committee. he and his committee have spent

years trying to get information from the fbi only to be, no other word for it, stonewalled in case after case. today, johnson released former fbi director jim comey's draft statement on the hillary clinton email probe. the draft makes it crystal clear that the document was edited in a way that considerably watered down the bureau's findings to clinton's benefit. the question is, who made those edits? the fbi will not say. many suspect it is peter strzok. strzok of course has since been exposed as a fierce partisan who detested the president, loved hillary clinton, and thought the fbi needed "insurance against a trump win." comey's letter is far from the only evidence of fbibi heel dragging. it has repeatedly ignored congressional requests for information related to a whole bunch of things, including the boston bombing attack, the attempted shooting in garland, texas, that an undercover fbi agent helped provoke. the bureau has even now imposed a nondisclosure agreement on another government watchdog in an effort to keep it from sharing its findings with congress. is that even allowed?

senator johnson has sent two letters to the fbi demanding they explain their behavior. he joins us in the studio now. senator, thanks for joining us.. your office released the draft of this comey speech and it's clear somebody changed it in hillary's favor. any reasonable person can conclude that.d the question is who?ra you've asked the fbi to explain who made these edits? why won't they respond? >> they don't believe they need to or they have to. they're not going to be compelled to. what's interesting about this is this new draft statement was done months before they completed the interviews. the fbi again, this investigation into clinton's email was not meant to uncover the truth leading to prosecution. it was meant to cover up theai truth and exonerate hillary clinton. you have the fbi director basically writing a letter exonerating hillary clinton, but in that letter in the earlier draft, he is using the term "gross negligence"xo

a number of times. he's talking with the sheer volume of material that would be classified, one of the standards in terms why he would prosecute, but he talks about -- just not the volume. the sheer volume would indicate this. there's so many things in the initial statement that would lead to people saying why didn't you indict? i remember when he held thatpl news conference, i had attorneys that were prosecutors and he was going through the evidence. people were going, man, he is going to indict her. and then he's not indicting her? >> tucker: it doesn't make any sense. the letter you sent lays out the timeline. the draft was written or edited beginning of may of 2016. comey didn't read it in public until two months later. when this was written, basically exonerating hillary clinton, they had not interviewed hillary, cheryl mills, and about a dozen other people. that looks like a sham to me. >> then you take a look at the immunity agreements they gave to cheryl mills

and heather samuelson, they basically blocked the fbi from looking at certain emails for certain timeframes that would have proven potentially obstruction of justice. they allowed them to then destroy their computers. this is not an investigation about uncovering the truth. >> tucker: if i am looking at this from home -- and i don't live in washington -- why shouldn't i conclude that the powerful get a pass? if i did this, i would be charged with a felony. someone like hillary clinton does this, she gets off. >> that's the problem. we see this now, with lois lerner in the irs, politicizing the most fearsome government agency from the standpoint of most americans, used as a political weapon. we have seen the politicization of the fbi, so we're losing confidence in these institutions that should be bedrocks of our democracy. again, i have no idea why the fbi doesn't just come clean and provide this information to congress.

what are they trying to hide? what are they trying to cover up? a >> tucker: have they explained this to you? i mean, how can you exonerate someone before interviewing that person or other key figures? have they answered that? >> no, absolutely not. other than hiding behind the nda, they are not telling us why they won't release this information. >> tucker: so you're a co-equal branch of government. unlike every person at the fbi, you were elected by voters, so the basic question of democracy hangs in the balance. what can you do? they are required by the constitution to answer your questions. >> we have legitimate oversight. that's our responsibility, duty, and right. we can subpoena, but we have no power to really enforce those subpoenas. that resides within the executive branch, the department of justice, and that's where the problem lies. >> tucker: so what can you do? >> keep making this public and hopefully public pressure will force the fbi to come clean if they really want to remove the suspicions surrounding not only what happened back under the

hillary clinton email investigation, but currently what's happening under the mueller investigation. the same cast of characters are involved in both. >> tucker: not as a partisan, not as an elected republican, but just as an american, do you find this a little scary? >> yes, absolutely. and more than frustrating. >> tucker: i can't imagine. senator ron johnson, thank you. >> have a good night. >> tucker: the state department apparently struck a deal with hillary clinton and huma abedin that allowed them to remove files, hard copies of files of records they claim for personal and keep them from the public eye. this does not happen and federal agencies typically. fox news chief national correspondent ed henry is on it and he has the details. >> good to see you. the documents are today suggest hillary clinton certainly got a lot of scrutiny about her email servers. she also had people deep inside the federal government including at the state department who helped try to keep her out of trouble. as you noted, this is a result of a lawsuit by the conservative group judicial watch.

what they found is that the state department allowed clinton and top aides like huma abedin to remove records before she left office the claim as they were unclassified records and they were "personal material." in fairness, some of the records were very official sounding records like her schedule, her call log, who she spoke to. huma abedin was allowed to take five boxes of physical material out of the state department headquarters here in washington including a set of records titled "muslim engagement documents." these records included s so-cald gift binders. what judicial watch believes that to be is lists of gifts that the clinton foundation received from various donors around the world. that could shed some light not only on the gifts that were

received, but the actions taken by the state department. here's the key question tonight that we don't know. whether there were copies made by the state department of these electronic and physical records because even if they took them out, obviously, there could be a record buried somewhere in the state department that will eventually comee c out. >> tucker: ed henry, thank you for that. we want to ask about the changes to comey memo. alan dershowitz is a retired harvard law professor. he joins us. professor, about the comb we memo which was apparently written two months before he read it in two months before the fbi completed its interviews, key figures including hillary clinton and cheryl mills, how could you write a memo exonerating someone before the investigation hadhe conclud? >> does anyone one to live a

judicial system where one's freedom depends on the conduct being grossly negligent or extremely careless? those of the biggest possible terms. if you asked 100 potential jurors which is worse, being grossly negligent or externally careless, they would probably split 50/50. these rules are absurd, the way we criminalize conduct using terms like that that endanger mieveryone. also, let's look at the other big picture. comey's decision to make this statement, calling her extremely careless, may very well have contributed to her losing the election. comey was not her friend, he was perceived to be somebody who is trying to strike an appropriatey balance. what i think happened here is ultimately, comey, not anybody else, made the decision that she should not be prosecuted. that's why the words were changed, because if he had said that she was grossly negligent,

people would say my god, that's a crime. he already made the decision based on the fact that nobody had ever been prosecuted.d in a position of authority like hillary clinton, for conduct in any way similar. that was in his statement. i think it was the right decision not to prosecute her criminally and i think the change of the language was designed t to simply support tht decision. look, no decision should be meat and until an investigation is complete. >> but congress have oversight and they asked a really simple question, who made these changes? they can't get an answer. isn't that unconstitutional? how can the fbi deny them that answer? >> they shouldn't be able to. our system is checks and balances.

the fbi is a creature of congress. it's part of the executive department. we have separation of powers. checks and balances permits congress to check on the executive branch. transparency and constitutionality require that the fbi disclosed that important piece of information. >> tucker: interesting. what do you make of the dealng with the state department's struck that allowed hillary clinton and huma abedin to take files out of the building and prevented those files from being seen? i've never heard anything like that, have you? >> routinely, people who serve as secretary of state are going to write books and they routinely take material home that's personal, usually it is copies. they are maintained at the government agency. i would expect that copies, exist of what clinton removed. it's worth asking about, but i wouldn't jump to any conclusions. again, i don't want to see criminalization become the first

resort. if we don't like what someone did, lock her up. we see that today. >> tucker: i agree with you vehemently on that. i don't think everything you dislike should be punished with the rule of law but i think one of the reasons everyone is so spun up and feels so threatened is because a lot of this is opaque. it's hidden from public view. lack of transparency makes people agitated. on what grounds should you hide your public schedule? >> you should never be able to do that. louis brandeis our government should be disclosing everything. everything is subjective unless there's an overwhelming national security reason for keeping it temporarily sealed. nothing should be permanently sealed and i think transparency trumps privacy when you're a government official.

>> tucker: right, thank you very much. a number of new revelations raised profound doubts unfortunately about that robert mueller investigation. how can we trust in the findings?un is supporter of his team is here to explain why you should be quiet and accept what they tell you. we know life can be hectic.

that's why at xfinity we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now with instant text and email updates you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for. because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. ♪ >> tucker: special counsel robert mueller's investigation has produced its own version of an advent calendar. you don't get chocolates on this one.

every day brings new reason to be skeptical. peter strzok to lease a page to andrew weissmann to bruce ohr. a number of members appeared to be partisan democrats. nine out of 15 of the investigators have given money to the democrats, to the clintons. no matter how partisan you are, have you ever given money to a candidate? probably not. only a tiny percentage of americans do. i have political views. i've never given a dollar to a politician. what does it mean that 9 out of 15 have given money to democratic politicians? al, you've been in washington for a long time and you kind of know how it works. you're a partisan democrat, that's fine. does it bother you at all that this investigation seems to have a lot of people close to the heart of it who are activelyis partisan? l does that shake your faith?

>> not really. look, director comey left, r i think the democrats and republicans thought he should go, so if you have problems, they need to be rooted out. one of the gentlemen you mentioned, mr. strzok has been reassigned. i think he works in hr now. >> tucker: why hide? strzokid was at the center of a lot of this. he conducted the mike flynn interview, signed the original investigation order of the russia-trump collusion story. why would the mueller hide the fact that he had been demoted for months from congress and why won't the fbi answer a very simple question? is he the one who revised comey's speech? what would be the point in not revealing that? >> i listened to your interview with senator johnson.

i think all the facts should come out. what's the problem with that? i think mueller runs a very tight ship. l you haven't seen many leaks at all. >> tucker: must be totally honest. at some point, democrats will take control of a branch of government.me >> i hope so. >> tucker: it will happen. the fbi is not mostly liberals. the career people are probably mostly pretty conservative. if you're setting a precedent now that the fbi can do whatever it wants, if they don't like you, they can crush you or if they do, they'll let you off, are you comfortable with that standard? >> i'm not comfortable what you just said being the standard. i don't think that's what's happening. i think the facts will take us where they take us and bob mueller is a patriot.. he is a decorated marine veteran. he served our country with distinction. >> tucker: so if you serve your country in vietnam, i think judge roy moore served in vietnam. >> he did. i was going further. he was a staunch republican,

appointed by george bush. >> tucker: i don't care about any of that. i care about his behavior does it pass of fairness test and i wonder. >> the facts will take us where they take us. he's trying to do is come to a conclusion. nobody's going to be criminally prosecuted and proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because of bias.s. if those things actually happen with respect to the individuals either in this a administration or some of those who have pled, it's going to happen because the facts take us there.n that. >> tucker: i used to believe that. i saw what happened to cheryl mills and huma abedin. both said that they were not aware of hillary clinton's private email server. cheryl mills said she didn't know what email server was. wikileaks released emails in which they discussed the private server. w they lied and then got off. they were not charged. there is a selective prosecution. that's an example of it. why wouldn't that make me

nervous? >> they don't always chase everybody down all the time. perhaps what you're saying isod exactly right, but that doesn't mean w necessarily you shouldn't trust the institution. my concern with respect to that period of time is why do people like rudy giuliani and others seem to know that the fbi was about to come out with the second comey letter. >> tucker: you will concede that the fbi has in a number of specific examples acted in an a political motive investigations. democrats are saying nothing. they're kind of happy with what's going on. but when they take power at some point, how do you think they will do against an fbi that has basically unlimited power and no oversight from congress?us >> again, we have to focus on the facts. you are suggesting they're going

to take facts, twist them, and enact an agenda, i don't see that. strzok strzok removed. comey removed. he just testified that mueller is totally credible. >> tucker: the genesis of all this was the claim with the trump campaign colluded with the russian government in order to alter the outcome of these american presidential elections. we see no evidence that that's true. if, at the end of thiss investigation, you see paul manafort and general flynn go down on perjury charges, thereou is no evidence of collusion. would it have been worth it? >> we had a president impeached for perjuring himself, so let's not belittle that. >> tucker: i am belittling it. in the case of bill clinton who should not have been impeached

for lying. i'm not defending lying. i'm saying you shut down the federal government, you basically undo the will of the voters in the last election and the service of nothing. i don't know how you could defend that. >> that's what the trump supporters believe and are hoping is the case. we are at the tip of the iceberg. is michael flynn, when he faced tens of years of jail time for other charges, there's something going on there. if papadopoulos promised to be a cooperating witness for months, we don't know what that cooperation will yield. flynn promised to cooperate. we don't know what that will yield. i think where the tip of the iceberg. >> tucker: if there is ever evidence that they colluded with the russian government -- i will be the first to denounce them but i haven't seen a single use of evidence of that.

>> it's because bob mueller -- >> tucker: [laughs] no, before that. the panic over sexual harassment isn't just ending careers, it's now claiming lives. up next, we will ask mark steyn whether it's time to take a break from all of this. take a breath and figure out what the rules are going forward. we'll be right back. ok, so with the award-winning geico mobile app, our customers have 24/7 access, digital id cards, they can even pay their bill- (beep) bill has joined the call. hey bill, we're just- phone: hi guys, bill here. do we have julia on the line too? 'k, well we'll just- phone: hey sorry. i had you muted. well yea let's just- phone: so what i was thinking- ok well we'll- phone: yeah- let's just go ahead- phone: oh alright- the award-winning geico app. download it today. ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin.

and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. the pen where you don't have to see or handle a needle. and it works 24/7. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, if you have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you're allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or symptoms like itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar.

common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor if once-weekly trulicity is right for you. ♪ ♪

>> tucker: the wave of sexual harassment allegations over the

past couple months has turned into a maelstrom which is now ending not just careers but lives. yesterday a kentucky state representative called dan johnson drove to a secluded spot on a rural road and he shot himself. johnson posted a suicide note online denying allegations that he kissed and groped a 17-year-old girl at a new year's party fivede years ago. police investigated the claim at the time and decided not to press charges. but when the allegations surfaced again recently, johnson again denied them, but apparently believed he had no way out. was dan johnson guilty? we can't say, and now that he's dead, we'll likely never know. meanwhile, yesterday, tv show host tavis smiley had his pbs program was pulled off the air after claims of misconduct were leveled against him. smiley responded by denying all the allegations. what's interesting is what smiley says about the process that ended his career. pbs, he says, launched anha investigation into his behavior without even informing him it was going on. "i learned of the investigation

when former staffers started contacting me to share the uncomfortable experience of receiving a phone call from a stranger asking whether i'd ever done anything to make them uncomfortable and if they could provide other names of persons to call. pbs investigators refused to reveal any of my documentations and the names of any accusers, refused to speak to my current staff and refuse to provide me any semblance of due process to defend myself against allegations from unknown sources." this is just smiley's word, of course, we can't confirm any of that. for what it's worth, tavis smiley has ever said anything we agree with politically. but that's not the point. the point is what began as a noble effort to eliminate sexual harassment from american life, an effort we agree with the vehemently is rapidly turning into something dark and menacing. innocent people fear persecution and that's always the hallmark of a witch hunt. others use allegations to settle scores or gain power and that's the opposite of justice.

the rest of the country looks on bewildered and afraid, unsure of what the new rules are but certain of the punishment for violating them. it is grotesque. imagine if you were accused by someone whose name you didn'tof know of a misdeed you couldn't remember or didn't commit. how would you respond to that? you might go on facebook to protest your innocence, but would that be enough to get your job back? would it be enough to regain your reputation or the respect of your children? probably not. what would you do then? mark steyn joins us now. mark, i feel so intimidated that i have to say out loud, i think sexual harassment is abhorrent.d and those guilty of it should be punished, but i'm starting to be concerned that innocent people are afraid of being hurt, and that's a bad sign. so the question is, what are the rules? how do we find out what they are? how do you know if you're guilty? what's going on? >> realistically, there are

no rules. just to connect it with the first half of the show, the only serious likelihood of ever getting rid of bob mueller and shutting down his investigation, for example, would be if a stenographer said he hugged her inappropriately in 1977. boom, he'd be gone. he'd be history. he'd be toast. he'd be like these pbs and npr guys who've had had 50-year careers vaporize in 24 hours. what has happened i think is what often happens. it's the end of any kind of proportion. this started with harvey weinstein who has been credibly accused by actresses on at leasf three continents of rape or brutal sexual assaults. there are names and dates and places backing up those accusations. actresses from new zealand, from

france, from the united kingdom, the united states, canada, all over the map with names. suddenly that has morphed into a general accusation by someone you don't know is enough to end your career. garrison keillor, i don't care for him any more than you care for tavis smiley. he was on my bbc show 25 years ago and he was cold fish and deeply unpleasant, but i feel about him the way you feel about tavis smiley. if he's going to justim be vaporized and have his life's work wiped out, at the very least, we should know what he did and who he did it to. >> tucker: so why is nobody saying that? >> i think there is a general t agreement on the left and that has been essentially driven by

left-wing dominated industries that they are now weaponizing sex the way they weaponized race. they've concluded it's a useful weapon to them and that necessarily means a kind of clearing out the decks. i mean, i'm astonished. on the vast empty plains of the pbs and mpr schedules, you can actually hunt buffalo there. all the septuagenarian hosts are gone in moments and it's absolutely astonishing to me and it will make social relations impossible. you must think, as i think occasionally, do i really want to be alone with a female employee now? who knows how she's going toe feel about it in 30 years' time? i don't think that's necessarily in the interest of women in the workplace. i don't think it's of the interest of social relations.

it's a moral panic that started with genuine rape and violence and power issues. now it seems to have degenerated into one anonymous accusation can end a career. >> tucker: i wonder why, again, it's always valuable and virtuous to make sure the guilty are punished.. that's what justice is. i also think that journalists play a role in this and they ought to be the responsible parties in these stories, and maybe somebody should pull back a little bit and make certain that the allegations are true and that the process is transparent before destroying people's careers and reputations, but they're not doing that. >> one reason they're not doing that is essentially, it's their business that is being clobbered. basically, tv and motion pictures are two of the most

desirable businesses to be in.. there are far more attractive women flying to work in those -- wanting to work in those industries than any other industries on the planet. i live in far northern new hampshire and the local feed store does not have a casting couch because if l you said to a comely young lady, there could be a really good job as a night clerk here if you play your cards right, she'd play your cards right, she'd laugh at your face and go off s and do something else. but in television and motion pictures, there is a supply -- these supply far outpaces deman demand. >> tucker: that's absolutely true. it's a perfect environment for misdeeds like this. mark steyn, thank you for your wisdom as always. >> thanks a lot.ha >> tucker: a college president says the sexual-harassment wave shouldn't surprise anybody because we spent decades literally training children to

behave this way. that college president joins us next. that college president joins us next. here's to the heroes -- america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean. you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia, that can take you out of the game for weeks, even if you're healthy. pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that in severe cases can lead to hospitalization. it may hit quickly, without warning, causing you to miss out on the things you enjoy most.

prevnar 13® is not a treatment for pneumococcal pneumonia... it's a vaccine you can get to help protect against it. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. help protect yourself against pneumococcal pneumonia. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®. 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. ♪ for every hour that you're idling in your car, you're sending about half a gallon of gasoline up in the air. that amounts, over the course of the week, to about 10 pounds of carbon dioxide. growth is good, but when it starts impacting our quality of air and quality of life,

that's a problem. so forward-thinking cities like sacramento are investing in streets that are smarter and greener. the solution was right under our feet. asphalt. or to be more precise, intelligent asphalt. by embedding sensors into the pavement, as well as installing cameras on traffic lights, we will be able to analyze the flow of traffic. that data runs across our network and we use it to optimize the timing of lights, so that traffic flows easier and travel times are shorter. who knew asphalt could help save the environment?

♪ >> tucker: a lot of people were caught completely off guard by how sexual harassment took over the news this fall, but to everett piper who is the president of oklahoma wesleyan university, all of this is as "predictable as the sun rise." in a recent piece, piper says "all we need to do is look at our public schools where we've been teaching for the past several decades. for years, we have mocked morality.li why are we shocked to find we live in a society where there is no understanding of morality?" everitt piper joins us tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: flush out what you mean by that. you are not surprised because why? >> i believe ideas have consequences.

i'm an educator. i believe that what's taught in our classrooms will bece practiced in culture. when we teach that is sex is recreational rather than moral, we shouldn't be surprised to find a culture of men that behave like this. it's predictable. when we teach that sex is something you can experience met -- rather than some of you can be morally responsible for. a you have to have a culture that's reflective of that. >> tucker: i think you're right. it's a little more complicated than that in the people were pushing licentiousness are also sort of pushing the kind of of puritanical view, expressions of sexual desire are encouraged, but also penalized by the same people if you see what i mean. i find it confusing that way.

>> i'm not sure what you mean with regard to those people who are pushing licentiousness are also being puritanical. when i see in public schools, i don't mean any local district, or anyt, particular teacher. i mean our national educational system is known for doing what jay oklahoma does and edmond, oklahoma, and cherry creek and fox ridge colorado and gail and other institutions and the ivy league and those institutions and university on the west coast such as ucla and berkeley. all these institutions have been celebrating sexual license for decades. they been giving instruction manuals and how to engage in sexual activities with the hope and prayer that a thin layer of latex will keep our kids from getting a disease. when there is no moral boundary left other than consent, it can merely find someone who can consent to your appetite, then what was wrong 5 minutes ago becomes okay because you found a willing accomplice.

when that's the discussion that revolves around the sexual appetite of our culture, andal then we'll have a predictable consequences that we see on the nightly news and that's why we talk to you. >> tucker: what would you teach if you want to prevent what we're seeing right now? >> you teach that the sex is a moral decision and not something that floats with culture. let's get to the issue of morality judged by consent. consent puts all responsibility on the other person and no responsibility on you. like i just said, what was wrong 5 minutes ago all of a sudden becomes right if i can find a willing accomplice. hopefully, we all recognize that morality has a more objectivee definition and standard than merely dumbing it down to the consent of another party. so do we agree that sex is a moral discussion or a recreational discussion? if we all agree it's moral and i would argue that culture is showing its cards right now and agreeing it does, great, we all agree.

now, where does that moral i standard come from and can we discuss it as an objective standard rather then a postmodern construct. >> tucker: interesting. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: omarosa manigaultuc just left the white house. one report said she was kicking and screaming. she denies that. we'll seek the truth next with the great greg gutfeld. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

♪ >> you're fired. >> thanks for the opportunity to be here.pp

>> omarosa has a huge chip on her shoulder. she felt she was superior to the other people. >> tucker: former trump apprentice omarosa manigault just left her job at the white house doing whatever she did there. now wild stories are coming out in the wake of her departure.an left wing radio reporter april ryan says omarosa got the news from john kelly and admittedly had a meltdown for the of reality television. shouting, angryit profanity. today, omarosa appeared on gma and denied being fired at all. >> i resigned and i didn't do that in the residence, as is being reported. john kelly and i sat down in the situation room which is a very secure, quiet room in thes white house and we had a very candid conversation and i wanted to make the one year mark, that was one of the goals i set out to. and then get back to my life. >> you resigned. you weren't fired.

>> no. i like to hear all of these interesting tales, but their -- they're 100% false. one thing i would ask of those people asserting that i did it so publicly is aware of the pictures or videos? if i had confronted john kelly, a very formidable person, it would garner enough attention for anyone in the room to at least take a picture or video or something. >> you are saying these reports are coming from one person. >> let's be clear. only one person. no one else has reported what she is reporting and this is the one person who has attacked me for the last year. you know this is personal. i was very respectful of the process. i had more access than most people have problems with that. people had problems with my 14-year relationship with this president. i've always provided him with the support that he's needed throughout this year in the white house.

>> you say you resigned. there were reports were escorted off the ground. were you? >> no. secret service put out a statement because they were bothered with the assertion that they were involved with any type of escorting or shutting me down. i think you should take the word of the u.s. secret service. >> tucker: april ryan is standing by her claims. >> when i was given the information about the negotiated resignation that people have seen, i said what about the other stuff? what about the drama i'm hearing about the firing? everyone went dark. i'm continuing to hear information from all sides, credible sources. i am not the only one.nd i may have broken the story but cbs, abc, "wall street journal," "new york times," i'm not the only one. i have noven data. i am a reporter covering the beat.

>> tucker: we are still engaged in important work greg gutfeld joins us. greg, omarosa got fired from what? >> that's a good question. she is one of those types of people who gets a job out of loyalty and no one is sure what shey does. this happens at fox news a lot. ed henry. what do you expect from the most unpopular reality star since the naked guy on "survivor." i think he is going to replace her. she was awful coming in. we knew that. her main goal was to last one year. one year on the job, i wouldn't call that ambitious. if you read how this whole conversation went, i guess they said that john kelly and her had a candid conversation. candid is a public relations for "i don't like you, you're a bad person, please get out of here."

then they said they went to the white house and the white house said something like wewe wish her the best, which means we hope she finds something else to do and leaves us alone because she scares the crap out of us. >> tucker: this morning, she said i have a lot to tell you about what the white house was like and i will be telling my story.he that's a direct pitch to publishers, isn't it? >> it is. it's all about a book.k. she said she had problems with the white house in terms of helping her own community. i am trying to figure out, what is that community? is that community consisting of unbearable self-centered reality stars? there are only two members. her and piers morgan. i like ribbing piers morgan because he deserves it. i have seven copies of that centerfold. >> tucker: how do you manage

if you are running the white house, how do you manage a former employee like omarosa? >> you put her in a job or she -- where she can't break anything.. if there's a vase in that room, she's going to break it because it's all about her. she lorded her relationship with donald trump over everybody else. that's why she brought that 40 member wedding group to the white house. i wouldn't do that at my house mainly because i don't like people, but you don't make good decisions based on loyalty. donald trump overlooked her competence because he felt he owed her something. loyalty is overrated. i would turn on you in a second. i owe you nothing. >> tucker: i couldn't disagree with you more. she did add levity. >> she did. this is the most interesting white house in the history of history. d this is a consequential phenomenon. >> tucker: i agree with that completely.

greg gutfeld, thank you for sorting that out. >> thank you, tucker, thank you. >> tucker: facebook has unbelievable new information about how russia intervened in the brexit vote. we've got the details. buckle your seat belts. sea ♪ what i want, you've got,

♪ 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. ♪ this holiday, the real gift isn't what's inside the box. it's what's inside the person who opens it.

♪ give ancestrydna, the only dna test that can trace your origins to over 150 ethnic regions- and open up a world of possibilities. ♪ save 30% for the holidays at ancestrydna.com

>> tucker: sorry to do this to you we have to close the >> tucker: sorry to do this to you we have to close the show with disturbing news. we have heard a lot about russian agents are able to swing an election in facebook ads. yesterday facebook revealed russian lynched firm bought ads to influence the 2016 brexit vote. brace yourself. according to facebook the firm purchased a total of three ads. seen by 200 people. total cost, 97 cents. not only can russia swing an

entire election at will but they can do it for the price of a diet coke. that's power, ladies and gentlemen: tune in every night at 8:00 show sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." this is a fox news alert. james comey, the former fbi director, is in huge legal trouble tonight. we have major breaking news. fox news has now obtained the draft of james comey exoneration statement about the clinton server investigation, remember before the investigation was even completed. we now know that the legal term grossly negligent was changed to extreme carelessness in two specific places.ne also, the word likely was removed from a section where comey talked about foreign actors actually gaining access to top secrets. special access program information on her server. plus, explosive new information about how the obama state department actually gave hillary