and victory it was. send me one of your favorite quotes and maybe we will put it on at the end of the show. you can email me at foxnews.com. have a great night, that's our story for tonight. tucker is is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" ." he's been on tv for a long time but he had his show suspended last week by pbs after pbs says it received "credible allegations of sexual misconduct." smiley admits to having several relationships with his employees, but he says he's not a harasser, has never groped or coerced anyone. he also said pbs never gave him a chance to response to the anonymous allegations against him. meanwhile on cnn this weekend, former obama spokesperson jen saki said that all accusations of sexual misconduct should be presumed true without exception.

>> there are false accusations out there. it does happen. even the most liberal, most progressive advocates for women against violence could concede the point. as an accusation enough? >> yes, it is enough. i completely agree that in the time we are in right now this is going to be perhaps a bloodied period. the fact is that democrats and democratic party -- where you have a waiver, zero tolerance, but... >> tucker: that's the state of play. kevin smiley joins us tonight. >> is my pleasure, thank you. >> tucker: what specifically did pbs accuse you of doing when they enter show off the air? >> it's hard to know. the clause in my contract that they originally suggested to me they were looking to sort of inside baseball, clause 5.1, we all have those clauses in our contract. the clause that they invoked when they pulled the plug on the show was clause 9.1 which is the call that allows him

simply to simply not distribute my show anymore. they told me they suspended me under 5.1 but they said to the press it was 5.1. cbs to this moment has not specifically told me what i'm being suspended for. >> tucker: they issued a statement accusing you of some nonspecific sex crime in effect. you don't know what that is, you don't know who has accused of this and you don't know the substance of it? >> i do not. cbs launched an investigation without telling me about it. i found out in the streets one former colleagues of mine started calling me they were receiving strange phone calls asking strange questions from investigator asking questions like did he ever make you uncomfortable? are there other persons we should talk to? they started letting me know about these calls, that's how he learned of this. i contacted of course my attorneys. my attorneys reached out to pbs and these investigators and for weeks my attorneys offered for me to sit down at any time, place or point to answer whatever questions they might have. they rejected that invitation

for weeks, only under the threat of lawsuit, our suing them did they agree to finally sit with me for three hours and talk with me and in a conversation i was never told what the accusations were, what the accusations were, who the accusers were. i was never allowed to provide any data or evidence to debunk anything what i could have debunked. they wouldn't allow me to present any evidence and they frankly didn't give me a due process and on top of that they have come into this moment, not talk to anyone on my current staff. not my coo, who was in charge of hr. it's mind-boggling to me that they have sort of kind of had to play this game of pick and choose who they actually want to talk to and all the persons they have talked to our former employees. some of them who are terminated. i've been at this 30 years. when you were in business that long to hire people and some people get fired, but they won't talk to, for whatever reason, my current staff or the person in charge of hr to ask where he simply did he ever instruct you to make any workplace decision

based upon his relationship status? the answer is no but they weren't even asked those questions. >> tucker: do know where the original came from? >> i do not. >> tucker: you don't know how this started and you don't know who's making the accusations. you don't know what the accusations are, so what did you talk about for three hours with their lawyers? >> a bunch of vague questions. what if, might you have ever done this, sir? it was basically a bunch of what if scenarios. no specifics, no places, no times, no data for three hours. i'm a conversationalist but it's tough to have a three hour conversation without really knowing what you're talking about. >> tucker: which of the process have looked like do you think? >> it's a very good question, i'm glad you asked. i understand in this moment why any network would be concerned about these kinds of allegations and they ought to be looked into. my complaint is the way that pbs has gone about this, not even telling me that a complaint has been lodged against me, never telling me they were starting investigation, refusing for

weeks to even speak to me. again, not talking to my current staff. any number of things that could have been done here they just bungled this. as i said, they made a huge mistake. they have engaged in a sloppy investigation and something needs to be done to fix this. >> tucker: so you have said you had romantic relationships with people who worked for you. >> over 30 years of being in the business yes. >> tucker: first of all, is that a wise idea? and second, is it against the rules? >> at worst it is misjudgment. over the years i have learned. 30 years or so, there are things i might have done 30 years ago that i might not do now. not because it's illegal or immoral or unethical but just because it might represent that judgment. i've written two books in my career talk about mistakes i've made and lessons i learned along the way. there are many things in my life that i've done in the past that i might not do today but it does not rise to the level of this kind of public shame, this kind of public evaluation and this kind of wrongful termination in this kind of personal destruction. >> tucker: what you think this is about?

why did pbs do this do you think? >> whenever something like this hits the media, there was always more to the story than meets the eye. i don't want to say much more than that because my attorneys are hard at work. there's a lot more behind this. i did say earlier today that it is strange when you finally get this three hour meeting, an hour and a half after that meeting ends they pull the plug on the show. clearly when we went into that meeting pbs had already made up its mind without talking to me early on in the investigation process. without having talked to my current staff. they had made up their mind and soul about 90 minutes after this meeting ended we got the letter that it was indefinitely suspending my program. 12 minutes after that, this exclusive story broken variety. i ask how does an exclusive story break 12 minutes after we were informed that the plug was being pulled? in that story there are quotes from an unnamed sources is

overly from inside pbs, person close to the investigation, that's the phrase these. they have time to research my background, there is background material about me in the story. leaks they placed in the story, i assume an editor looked at this before it went online. but all of that was done inside of 12 minutes. you tell me whether or not we have an agenda here. >> tucker: yeah. do you think the rule ought to be that you are not allowed to sedate your subordinates, should that be allowed? >> i certainly understand that there are persons who believe there is no such thing as a consensual relationship in the workplace. i hear that, i respect that point of view, but there are other opinions on this. in my employee handbook we do not encourage interoffice relationships, but we don't forbid it either, because i don't know how things are going to turn out in your life and you start hanging out with our company. i don't know who you are going to meet. let's face it, nobody is working 40 hour weeks and more, 40, 50, 70, 80 hour weeks. what else are you going to meet people? our business is full of people,

producers and talk show host who met on the job. millions of americans who met their spouse at work. i don't think i have the right to tell people who to date. the problem here is that we are starting to criminalize legitimate relationships between consenting adults and that's a real problem for me. and if this does in fact end up in court, millions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent by pbs to defend itself and i don't think the taxpayers want their money spent that way. >> tucker: i've never agreed with you are very much, tavis, but i have said i agree with you on a lot of what you just said and i appreciate you coming on. >> my pleasure, thank you tucker. >> tucker: last week lisa bloom was further disgraced, as if that were possible, by the revelations she sought to make payments to various women's in exchange for accusing donald trump of sexual misconduct. embarrassing, grossly unethical, could also be illegal? gibbons is an attorney and law expert and it joins us tonight. you said this may present a

problem with the fec? what with the problem be? >> a potential problem. the -- they regulate campaign elections. if this is clearly intended to influence an election. that does not mean this falls within fec regulations. for example, we don't want to discourage people from coming out before an election and saying a candidate for office committed some unlawful acts. we don't want to discourage that by discourage that. the amounts of money here -- it's ironic that the left is so adamantly against dark money, here we have presumably the left engaging in use of dark money. it may be somebody other than associated with the left. it could be some republican. >> tucker: or whatever. it was designed to affect an election outcome. therefore you think it would fall under that category. so leaving aside fec questions,

wouldn't the bar have something to say? all lawyers of course are members of the bar. this seems like unethical conduct. why wouldn't the barbie taking this off? >> i think it's unethical conduct. there are certain circumstances in which a lawyer may pay a fact witness, for example if you need the fact witness to travel. those are the exceptions to the rule prohibiting payment to fact witnesses. this goes beyond paying somebody to travel to appear and testify. this is a lot of money. this was proposed money from an undisclosed source to testify about allegations about unlawful conduct. i think she has potential ethical problems with the bar association. >> tucker: but they never do anything, do they to police the wrong? what's the point of having a bar, you never hear about any more disciplined by the bar for lying for example.

>> you are correct. in the bar association may tend to protect its own a little bit too much, i think this is a good example of a time when the bar association does need to step in because if we are allowing lawyers to pay witnesses to testify about facts outside the rules that currently authorize it for a limited number of exceptions, than we are going to have chaos in society. >> tucker: how could you get to a just process if you are paying people? >> that is correct. it tempts people to live. if you are being paid to testify, at times to library >> tucker: you think? unbelievable. thank you for that, appreciate it. the obama administration didn't just leave america's immigration laws are enforced, it may have deliberately enabled drug smuggling ring run by terrorists. that actually happened. details ahead. ♪ ♪

when you have a cold, stuff happens. ♪ { sneezing ] shut down cold symptoms fast [ coughing ] with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels.

eight hundred dollars when wet 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.

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

♪ >> tucker: according to a lengthy and extensively reported new piece in "politico," the obama administration deliberately and systematically undermined a major drug investigation by the dea for the sake of preserving the iran deal. the report describes the dea unraveled the billion-dollar cocaine and weapons smuggling ring organized by hezbollah. lebanese islamic group supported by the iranian government. but instead of helping it bring down the ring, the dea was blocked by the justice department and the state department, both of which refused to press charges or help make arrests. the apparent goal of all of

this? improving relations with iran preparatory to the deal. peter brooks is a senior fellow for national security affairs, the heritage foundation of washington and he joins us tonight, thanks for coming on. >> good to be with you. >> tucker: this piece is very long, dozens of people are interviewed and it and it sounds like they nailed it. the obama administration prevented the dea from basically doing anything about hezbollah smuggling guns and drugs because they wanted to get the deal. >> it fits thematically into the obama administration's general way of dealing with threats, and that is if we are nice to them they will be nice to us. even though we had iran in a terrible position with the sanctions, they let them off a number of ways on the nuclear deal, which is the same sort of thing. there were side deals. they remain a threshold nuclear state. we don't get answers on the nuclear program, no visits to their nuclear military sites. this kind of fits along the same lines.

i think it's very much possible and it's very troubling because hezbollah is one of the world's most powerful terrorist organizations. isis, al qaeda, hezbollah. american blood on its hands and we should've taken the opportunity to take it apart because this money that they were using in the drug smuggling ring, the drug trafficking ring was being used for weapons, used to support their alliance with iran. they are an ally of the syrian regime of aside. this is really troubling if it's actually true. i want to hear the other side as well. >> tucker: the allegation is by the way that in the absence of enforcement has been up or working drug game in mexico, smuggled tons of cocaine into the united states and laundered hundreds of millions of dollars. if this is an obama administration on the background. "the world is a lot more obligated when viewed for the narrow lens of drug trafficking. you will not let the dea do it either. their point is there's a lot of stuff going on here, the dea's

priorities weren't at the top of the list but america got something out of this anywhere in the end, do you buy that? >> it's a bad nuclear deal, that's what we got. when you get time to the bottom line. it's possible. that's why i think we need to hear the other side of the story. they will put a different case out there saying there were other things we need to think about to get iran to the negotiating table and we had to look aside of this. but my concerns about hezbollah. like i said, one of the world's most powerful terrorist organizations, american blood on its hands. remember the 1980s, the american embassy in beirut, the marine barracks in beirut. the attack against the jewish community center in buenos aire buenos aires. they even arrested hezbollah operatives here in the united states. this is a group that has worked hand involves with the iranians. they are involved in syria today. i think it would have been more appropriate if the story is true to take apart this organization because they are a danger to us, our allies and friends and partners around the world.

>> tucker: here's catherine bauer, a treasury official in the obama administration. written testimony to the house last february. and i'm quoting. under the obama administration fees investigations were tamped down for fear of rocking the boat with iran and jeopardizing. it sounds like it was an all hands on deck situation where everything was subordinate to getting this deal. why was the obama administration so focused on getting the iran deal? >> they thought it was very important. we all thought it was very important. like i said, we didn't get a good deal but we also thought that stopping iran from moving forward with a nuclear weapons program was important. i think that's what they would argue and they should have an opportunity to do that. this is also something that congress may want to look into. it's a very explosive report and should be very concerning as we go forward with our dealings with iran. thankfully it appears to me that the trump administration is taking a very different view on this and putting more pressure on iran encountering them wherever they can. if you counter has blocked you counter iran. i don't think we are in a better place today with iran than we

were previously. i think things have actually gotten worse considering what they have done in syria, the shiite, the instability in lebanon, what they're doing in yemen, iraq, afghanistan. i think we should take every opportunity we can to counter anybody was an ally of iran. >> tucker: more than 60,000 americans died of drug over these last year. if not a small thing to know that your government wasn't doing anything to keep the legal drugs out of your country. speeches that's important. they are also being sent around the world, they were being sent to europe as well. it wasn't just the united states. but there's also this terrorism angle that i don't want to overlook. >> tucker: thank you. robert mueller's investigation was just accused of properly receiving thousands of emails from the trump transition team. we will break down the latest blow to the parent legitimacy of that investigation, that's next. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ it all starts with a wish. the final days of wish list are here. hurry in and sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down and a complementary first months payment. ( ♪ ) when watching what you eat

is causing a whole lot of food envy... ( ♪ ) try something delightfully doable with new marie callender's delights. introducing a new take on comfort food, like our baked turkey meatloaf in a roasted red pepper sauce, that's only 300 calories. because eating well calls for marie callender's delights.

i was wondering if an electric toothbrusthan a manual.s better and my hygienist says it does but they're not all the same. who knew? i had no idea. so she said, look for one that's shaped like a dental tool with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's rounded brush head surrounds each tooth to gently remove more plaque. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the only electric toothbrush brand accepted by the american dental association for its effectiveness and safety. my mouth feels so clean. i'll only use an oral-b. oral-b. brush like a pro. 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. >> lie from america's news headquarters. three people are confirmed dead after an amtrak train derailed in washington state. 77 passengers and seven crew members were on board the train when it skipped the tracks on the highway overpass near dupont. 13 train cars fell onto the highway below. it is unclear if the dead were all on board the train. more than 100 people were also transported to the hospital for treatment.

vice president mike pence delaying his mideast trip until early next year. this is the second time the trip has delayed as congress tries to pass a sweeping tax reform. republicans hold a narrow 52-48 majority in the senate and if tuesday's expected vote is a close one, vice president pence might be called upon to cast the tie-breaking vote. he will now lead for the middle east on january 14th. if news breaks out, we will break in. i'm trace gallagher, now back to tucker carlson. >> tucker: the last couple of weeks have raised a number of legitimate questions about special counsel robert mueller's investigation into russian collusion. number of members of the investigative team over there have been exposed as intense democratic partisans. no president trump's lawyers have accused mueller's team of improperly seizing transition emails without bothering to supply a warrant or even a subpoena. they just took them. mark starting as an author and columnist and he joins us now for his perspective. can you just take things?

>> apparently you can. if you are a so-called independent counsel. i should be the on assimilated foreigner here and say i don't think there should be a two and a half month transition between governments, which is unique to the united states in the developed world. and it makes no difference anyway because the democrats in the senate slow walk everything. here we are a year later and all the deputy assistance, assistant deputy under secretary's and every department are still the obama guys anyway. if it's meant to give you time to start the departments it's a waste of time. but in this case it is particularly relevant because the transition was used by the outgoing administration and the permanent bureaucracy to set up their destabilization of the incoming administration, the trump administration. and i see no reason at all why a guy who was supposed to be investigating russian

interference in an election that took place on november the eighth should be able to seize effectively and incoming governments government's entire confidential communications between each other in the period after the election took place. that seems to me entirely unwarranted by mueller. >> tucker: you are aware that by saying that you're putting the station at risk? i was watching msnbc this morning and learned that those who raise questions about the mueller investigation are, this is almost a quote, inciting violence in the streets. delegitimizing the u.s. government. may be precipitating a coup. do you feel uncomfortable with your criticism because it is wrong to criticize the government? >> no. mueller and the whole independent counsel that is designed to delegitimize the institutions of government starting with the president. by the way, while we are at it, mueller is the last guy on the

planet who shouldn't be an independent counsel, because he's not independent in anything. he used to work for paul manafort's law firm. he's connected with everybody. ever since he was appointed, for the last six months i have sadly watched fox and i watched msnbc, and cnn and all the others, and the endless parade of beltway insiders saying i've known bob mueller since 1972 and you couldn't find a straighter arrow. he's an eagle scout. that's exactly why, whether or not that's true, that's exactly why he shouldn't be independent counsel. he's not independent. he's the insiders insider. but just to go back to that point about destabilizing everything here. if you take msnbc at their word that this guy is a straight shooter doing incredible job, for it to carry conviction, if

you are to investigate the guy who won the election according to the rules of the election, you had better be seen to do it in a clean way as possible. you don't do it by appointing psychologically weird people who think they are somehow topped supersecret agents who have been put on earth to save the republic like this peter guy. you don't do it by involving people whose lives worked for hillary clinton's opposition research team. you don't do it by hiring people who want to hillary clinton's nonvictory party on november the eighth. not everything that mueller has done discredits his own reputation and discredits his on investigation. >> tucker: for my account you've got 9 out of 15 investigators so far having donated to democratic

politicians or the clinton's. i've got pretty strong political views, very strong. i talk about them every night on tv. i've never donated a single dollar to any politician because my views aren't strong enough to warrant a donation. you've got people who are so spun up over politics that are giving money to specific candidates investigating it on the other side, why shouldn't that at least raise the question what the hell is going on? >> exactly. look at it this way, mueller can't win now. in fact, the country can't. the tragedy is that the country can't win. let's say that mueller finds trump guilty of something. the heart of the country that voted for trump is going to say this is ridiculous. a bunch of people who were hillary donors who want to hillary's parties, who worked for her opposition research team, who were having hillary fans who were having illicit affairs because they love hillary so much or turn them on so much. as you pointed out, those tweets

and texts between strzok and his lover, it sounds like john will carry rewritten by team. it's preposterous. the half of the country that voted for trump won't accept a verdict against him. likewise, the other half will not accept if the mueller exonerates trump, they will say that is just because the republicans demonized him and trashed him. mueller has killed the whole point of this investigation. >> tucker: you are exactly right. the whole point of independent counsel investigations is to reassure. thank you for that, as always. >> thanks a lot, tucker. sorry i got worked up about it. >> tucker: i love it! harvard university is this country's most impressive university. there's literally no chance you could have gotten in, but is it practicing racism, and does the school have racial quotas to keep asians out? we will talk to someone who has the numbers on that next. ♪

i used to have more hair. i used to have more color. and ... i used to have cancer. i beat it. i did. not alone. i used to have no idea what the american cancer society did. research? yeah. but also free rides to chemo and free lodging near hospitals. i used to maybe give a little. then i got so much back. ... i used to have cancer. please give at cancer.org.

you only earn double withmiles when you buy stuffds, from that airline. is this where you typically shop? is this where anyone typically shops? it's time to switch to the capital one venture card. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day... not just airline purchases. seriously... double miles... everywhere! what's in your wallet?

♪ >> tucker: harvard is america's oldest, richest and most prestigious university. super impressive people go there. it's not a power to be taken lightly. a small group of activists is determined to go head-to-head with them. we sat down recently with edward bloom, the president of students for fair admissions. they are suing harvard for anti-asian discrimination, watc watch. >> thanks for coming on. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: harvard intentionally controls the number of asians who are admitted. that seems like the clearest -- if true, the clearest possible treatment, example of racial determination you can imagine. >> its racial discrimination at a quota. the quota today is against asians, much like the quota back in the 1920s in '30s was against jews.

in 192219% of harvard's incoming freshmen were asian. in 2013, 18% were asian. during this period of time, the number of asians applying to harvard came close to doubling. it was this just a coincidence that every year from that '92-2013 the number stay the same? that's not a coincidence. >> tucker: maybe they just didn't do well enough on the s.a.t. >> i don't think so. studies have been done for the last two decades that show asian-americans score about 140 points higher than their white counterparts, 270 points higher than hispanic applicants to harvard and the ivy league, and 450 points higher than african-americans. >> tucker: this is real, everyone knows it. everyone with kids applying to college knows this is happening. there's really no debate about it.

people involved will admit it after two drinks. why is this permitted to continue when it is so clearly racial discrimination against the letter and the spirit of laws banning this kind of thing? >> 70% of americans believe that students' race or ethnicity should not be a consideration in college admissions. sadly there are two institutions that we are fighting against. number one, college administrators and bureaucrats and admissions officers are wed to the idea that your race should be used to help you or your race should be used to harm you in your admissions process. that's the big problem. >> tucker: why is this different from the practices we rightly decry from, say, the 1950s where institutions punish people and rewarded others on the basis of factors they couldn't control like the rays? why is this different? >> its not different. it racial preferences that favor whites back in there '40s, '50s, 'six descent '70s was

wrong. now racial preferences that favor african-americans and hispanics, that's wrong as well. if you cannot remedy past discrimination with new discrimination. >> tucker: the argument is that nobody is hurt by this, but it sounds like you have numbers that show the opposite. so the question is, how can you get documents that prove intent here? >> this lawsuit against harvard is now in its third year. harvard, by order of the court, had to turn over six years of admissions data to us. our experts have analyzed that data, they have compiled acute report that will be submitted to the court, and sooner or later the american public will have these numbers that they can analyze themselves, and we think it will be incontrovertible that harvard is discriminated against asian-americans specifically. >> tucker: is harvard denying it, just to be clear?

>> yes. >> tucker: 's they are saying it's just accidental that the admissions rate for this one group is exactly the same even though it's population has doubled? >> it's a coincidence that harvard doesn't really put a farm on the scales. they are weighing holistic admissions criteria, leadership abilities and social ability, much like they did with jews back in the 1920s in '30s. >> tucker: good luck with your suit. >> thank you. >> tucker: whether harvard currently has a quota system, and it does, or not, one visiting professor thinks it should. education professional professa recent blog post that elite universities should explicitly implement a quota system for all races as a way to fight white privilege. jason nichols is a professor and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: the idea that elite universities are two of the quota system, harvard does, it's

hard to know what it would achieve. i just pulled this at random, but harvard, for example, admits a higher percentage of african-americans than the population of the country, the country is about 13%, harvard's incoming class is about 15%. what would a quota system mean there? >> first of all, i refer you to two cases. students of the university of california in 1978, and 2003. both of those determined that racial quotas are illegal. if you don't have a racial quota, i would say if you are absolutely certain there is a racial quota at harvard, which i don't think there is, i would say -- at the same time -- >> tucker: we just interviewed the guy suing them. >> for a different reason. at any rate, i would say that to talk just about quotas misses the doctor's primary point, which is that we have a dearth of african-american and latino

students at top-flight universities. as a matter of fact, the brookings institute just did a study where they determined that 4% at flagship universities around the country are african-american. whereas college aged -- the college-age population is 15% african-american. you can see that there is a gap there, and he's trying to say that something drastic needs to be done. i don't agree that necessarily that has to be quotas, or we have to go back to that, but something needs to be done. >> tucker: i actually agree with that, something does need to be done. >> absolutely. >> tucker: part of the problem is secondary high schools are terrible and black neighborhoods. almost all of them, not all, but almost all are terrible and no one ever says anything about it in our solution is just to import immigrants to make up the difference. i think that is a massive failure on the part of the country toward its african-american population. i agree with you completely. i just am very skeptical that setting quotas for

african-americans in in college will help anybody on the southside of chicago for example. you know that it won't. it will help the kids of affluent parents and not the people who need it. >> let me tell you one thing that was done, at the university of texas. they made it so that if you were in the top 10% you could get into the university, automatic admission to the university of texas. that actually made for a relatively diverse population at the university of texas, and guess what? right wing people complained. they said it wasn't fair. i'm in the 11th percentile, and to me that says something about entitlement. >> tucker: i don't know, you could also make the case -- not to argue texas education policy, but high schools are very different. highland park high school is really hard and other high schools in texas are really easy, so it's not a one-to-one comparison, that's the point. if the real point is that america is much more complicated demographically than it was 20 years ago, ten years ago.

nigerian immigrants, for example, make more on average -- from africa -- make more on average than white americans. that's kind of outside the narrative that you're pushing it it seems to me. >> going back quickly to fix one thing that you said about the university of texas. their graduation rates rose, more people were graduating, which means that a lot of those kids from some of those schools that you see were terrible were actually very capable of matriculating at the university of texas. >> tucker: that doesn't surprise me at all. a ton of smart kids in all neighborhoods. i'm just saying, look, the truth is you can metal with the admissions policies at universities all you want and it doesn't change the core problems, which is the schools are terrible, the overall majority of kids don't have a dad at home. these are not problems that are not solved and admissions offic office. we ignore those problems in

britain harvard can fix them. >> there are social issues that we need to fix, but i still think at the same time we need to recruit students from all different backgrounds because one of the things that has been proven in many different studies is that diversity actually helps all students. learning in a diverse environment, economically, racially, ethnically, actually helps all students and that includes affluent white students. >> tucker: since you believe in diversity, does this number bother you? the percentage of americans who identify as white protestants, about 30%, at harvard white protestants make up about 17%, s than 17%. they are dramatically underrepresented. for more underrepresented than black students at harvard. it is not a cause for concern? why wouldn't we care about that if we care about diversity? >> i think we need to look up -- >> tucker: i'm using the rules that you set. >> here's the question. >> tucker: all universities are just ones you like? >> are you trying to tell me

right now that white students are the minority? affluent white students -- let's talk about -- >> tucker: i'm saying factually the white protestants of all income levels are dramatically underrepresented at harvard. if it's a concern that this group or that group is underrepresented, why wouldn't that be a concern? >> let's talk about universities nationwide. >> tucker: how about just harvard? >> why just talk about harvard? we are talking about education. >> tucker: i happen to have the numbers right here, suggest answer. does it bother you -- >> i don't believe that white protestants are underrepresente underrepresented. it when i just gave you statistics from the brookings institute that said blacks are underrepresented nationwide. >> tucker: absolutely. >> white protestants -- >> tucker: i didn't contest that. white protestants are dramatically underrepresented at harvard, the most prestigious college in america. >> what historical issue has

kept white protestants out of harvard university? >> tucker: i don't know. >> there is not as what you are saying. >> tucker: i'm not saying that. >> what is it? if you are not aware -- >> tucker: hold on, does every group need to be represented proportionally or just some? >> i'm saying one of the things -- >> tucker: answer the question. the go it's not an easy question to answer. >> tucker: not every group needs to be represented proportionally, is that we were saying? >> what i'm saying is every group that has been underrepresented historically and actually at present nationwide, that needs to be fixed. >> tucker: the rules are more complicated than i realized. >> they are complicated. >> tucker: thank you. the pentagon spent more than $20 million a year investigating ufos. they may still be doing it. what did they find? that story next. ♪ ♪ ding dong, ding dong $50 gift card for them, $10 bonus card for you.

only at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. when you have a cold, stuff happens. ♪ { sneezing ] shut down cold symptoms fast [ coughing ] with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels.

♪ >> tucker: "new york times" over the weekend exposed a $22 million program in the pentagon's budget dedicated to searching for unidentified flying objects and investigating reported sightings of those. right larson host fox news headlines on sirius xm channel 117 and he joins us tonight. the pentagon has been hidden from public view searching for ufos. what started this program? >> it seems to be harry reid started it back when he was the majority leader in the senate. he threw a couple million dollars towards the project, about $22 million. not a big chunk of the defense budget. little enough that it didn't go unnoticed until just recently. they said they stopped it in 2012, but in that short amount of time one of the things that

we saw, we definitely saw this, the video that i believe is playing right there on the upper right corner of these two fighter pilots who see this unusual phenomenon that is flying around in front of them. when you listen to these guys, you initially hear them say there's a whole bunch of them, and if you watch that little object in the middle of the screen, i'm in airplane enthusiast, that doesn't look like anything that i've ever seen before unless there is some new kind of drone that can fly at 20,000 feet. what is so cool about this, at least from my perspective, is that they are actually talking to military personnel, to pilots, to people who through the years historically have had these unusual things happen to them. they are taking down their information and following up on it. it's very similar to the project blue book that the fbi did and stopped back in the late '60s. >> tucker: it sounds like two things, there are an awful lot of pilots, military pilots and commercial pilots who have seen objects that appear to defy

physics. and second, the sightings appear to be clustered around nuclear sites, either nuclear powered aircraft carrier submarines or nuclear power reactors. why is that? >> conspiracy theorist will tell you that the aliens are very interested in our nuclear capabilities. that may or may not be the case. i'm not going to dismiss anything that the conspiracy theorists, people like to believe in or follow up on. it could also be, and this is another reason why they kept this division going, it could also be our enemies, and it could be technology that maybe they have, and that is something that they want to keep an eye on. they want to keep an eye on on nuclear capable submarines. keep an eye on our nuclear power plants. they are certainly of interest to a lot of groups of people. that's another reason why i think having something like this is important, because when we say an unidentified flying object, that doesn't necessarily mean that et is coming or else is going to walk off the ship or we are about to have our close

encounter finally. if it could very well be foreign technology, it could be the russians, the chinese. they may have figured out some way of making a better stealth device then we have, though i strongly believe we have some of the best military equipment in the world. so it's interesting that it's the sort of split where we want to keep an eye on these unusual phenomenon. if we want to follow up on this stuff and see what it actually , but at the same time, if what we are seeing is technology that someone on planet earth has, we need to know about that. we need to keep an eye on that, we need to make sure that we are not being outpaced with our own technology. >> tucker: i don't really see a nonterrifying explanation for any of those. >> the only terrifying explanation would be if they are literally hiding something from us. if we have been visited by some terrifying creature. >> tucker: they are definitely something from us! thank you. >> thanks for having me. good to see you. >> tucker: the show is not over just yet, we will be right

back. booking a flight at the last minute doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

we're on a mission to show the new keurig k select brewer is the strong way to start your day. pop that in there. hit strong. press brew. that's it. strong. bold. rich. i feel like you're toying with me. show me how strong you are. (screams) lift me up! dan! lift me up! (screams) 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.

>> tucker: another hour done, hard to believe it. tune in every night at 8:00 to the shell that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. good night from washington, judge jeanine sitting in for sean. ♪ >> welcome to "hannity." i'm jeanine pirro in for sean. there's a lot of breaking news tonight. special counsel robert mueller's team is once again under fire. this time for how it obtained emails from the trim transition team. it's raising serious legal questions. a lawyer for the trim transition team is saying the documents were acquired improperly while mueller's investigators are claiming they did nothing wrong. gregg jarrett and alan dershowitz are there with their expert legal analysis. and president trump delivers a major national security speech on p