thing tomorrow morning on "america's newsroom" as well as outnumbered. if both at 9:00 a.m. and 12 noon, and i will be back here tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. pleasure to join you and now here's tucker carlson. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the president of the united states wound up in a very public brawl today with a man who was once one of his closest advisors, steve bannon was a senior figure in the 2016 trump effort, and for the first governments of the administration until august, he was one of the top staffers in the white house. now he appears to be at odds with his former boss, to put it mildly. in an upcoming book, bannon is quoted as saying that a meeting between the trump campaign and its officials and the russian lawyer back in 2015 may have been "treason and unpatriotic." the president responded almost immediately with the statement

as pungent as it was direct. here are a few selected passages. "steve bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. when he was fired he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. steve was a staffer who worked for me after i had already won the nomination by defeating 17 candidates. now that he's on his own, steve is learning that winning is not as easy as i make it look. steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country, yet steve had everything to do with the loss of a senate seat in alabama held for more than 30 years by republicans. steve does not report that my base, he's only in it for himself. we have many great republican numbers of congress and candidates were very supportive of them make america great again agenda. like me, they love the united states of america and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up rather than simply seeking to more than all down." pretty amusing. and there's some truth in there for sure, but don't let that

obscure the larger truth. if the ideological gulf between the president and steve bannon is small. this is not a fight over ideas, it's a fight over who deserves credit for an election win. talk about missing the point. if the legacy of 2016 is not a single person, any person, it's a set of ideas, the ones that reflect the hopes and their needs and the fears and the aspirations of a badly mistreated american middle-clas middle-class. those voters came to the polls because they wanted real borders, higher wages, they were dispirited by the opioid epidemic, why wouldn't they be. they were sick of being lectured by political class of washington that despises them and holds them in contempt. they were the other country, but they had come to recognize that it is hard to make the rest of the world better and very easy to make it worse. above all, they voted for leadership that promised to put americans first above any foreign nation or domestic interest group. that is the real legacy of 2016. at that agenda. getting it done as the central

duty of this administration. regardless of who staffs it. match lap is the chairman of the american conservative union and he joins us tonight, good to se. >> good to see you. we had a lot of different lead segments in mind because there's a lot going on. this statement sort of overtook the entire new cycle here in washington and i'm still trying all these hours later to figure out exactly what this is all about. who's served by this argument and what does it represent. >> i think the only people that were happy today with the people on other cable news shows that are prosecuting the case against who was a legitimately elected president. resistance and all the forces that feel a little wind in their sails because of this statement from steve bannon, which is over the line, inappropriate and he really should take it back because i know that he doesn't believe what he said. >> tucker: which statement are you referring to? >> the idea that jared kushner or don jr. are traitors or acted in a treasonous way. >> tucker: there unpatriotic.

>> are treasonous, way beyond the pale and he ought to take it back. that's really not what this is about, because what he said earlier is that this investigation was a canard, that there was no rush or collusion, that he saw nothing inappropriate. and i think that's where the american people, who are good-natured and fair, are going to come down on this whole set of questions and this will be a drama that we will have to deal with over the next couple days. but i think it's a very unfortunate thing. >> tucker: so if you get for the bottom of the president's statement i'm a very colorful statement, he says this. steve doesn't represent my base, he's only in it for himself. that seems like the nub of it here, the debate over who represents trump's voters. is that the president or is it his chief strategist steve bannon? with the answer? >> the conservative movement is not aligned to any one person, but they are head over heels overjoyed with the first year of the trump presidency and the trump agenda. they know that we could be looking at one or two additional supreme court openings

potentially in 2018, and they know that there is going to be a huge election at the end of this year where the majority in the senate and the house are up for grabs. and they believe -- they might have been unsure about trump in the beginning but they are not unsure about him now, tucker. there's no question as to whether or not who their allegiances -- who their allegiances with, it's the leader of their party. if the president of united states and its the agenda he's pushing. and steve bannon's for that agenda too. so why do anything to help #resistance, which is all about trying to delegitimize trump, and i think that's where steve made a big mistake with his talking to a very left-wing journalist who we shouldn't be talking to. >> tucker: that journalist is not very left wing, by the way. the point of fact. i don't think he has. >> do you think that this journalist is somebody who he should talk to in this manner in order to really try to harm the trump agenda.

i don't think it's smart. >> tucker: i'm not saying that, i'm just saying i have confidence that that journalist, michael wolf was actually representing the clip he heard because i think is an honest journalist. >> i don't think he has an ideological agenda here. what i'm struck by is the fact that it was set in the first place by steve bannon. >> exactly! >> tucker: that's the question, why? what's the point of this? >> i think the point of this is when you are a staffer at the white house, you are a staffer. by the way, he did this as a staffer. if you serve a president, i served a president, right, and you don't talk to journalist with her on the record or off the record in any way to try to harm the agenda. if you're trying to harm the agenda, who was disloyal? >> tucker: this is not the first time. >> it doesn't matter. >> tucker: i'm just saying. in five different interviews in the past couple of months you have seen direct attacks on trump by bannon or attacks that clearly came from bannon and i'm just wondering is there a point, where is this going? you are one of the leaders of the institutional conservative

movement in washington. do you see steve bannon leaving part of it five years from now? >> i think steve bannon is an important voice but i think is greatly marginalized his voice because this looks personal, this looks petty. it's about who did the most to help donald trump win. it's about revision and it helps the left. i think activists around this country, conservative activists see this for what it is. it's a distraction on president trump and conservative republicans pushing this great agenda. anything that gets in the way of that agenda, certainly when it's about ego claiming credit as a destroyer's distraction. i think he hurts himself unless he comes out and says look i might have disagreements with jared kushner or donald trump jr., but i don't think there's anything to this investigation, because that's what all his other -- >> tucker: very quickly, there have been reports that he is considering running for president in 2020, is that true, does he have a shot do you thin think? >> he does not have a shot, period, and he certainly doesn't have a shot of the republican

primary. no one will run to the right of donald trump. he has captured that by making his commitment to conservatives with his agenda and delivering on the agenda. it's ironclad. >> tucker: thank you. kate koestler has spent a lot of time thinking about steve bannon. he's the author of the book "bannon, always the rebel." some would say the definitive biography. great to see you. >> i would say that too. >> tucker: you know bannon well, you wrote a book about him. what's the point of this to mike he doesn't do things presumably for no reason. >> i think that he was angry. i think that at the time he said that it could have been either july or right after because they said it was soon after our july story in "the new york times." it didn't have to be while he was still a staffer. it might've come in august right after he left the white house. i'm not sure. either way, he was involved in these vicious struggles within the white house. i don't think there's necessarily a point to this.

i think you might roll it back if he could at this point. i doubt he will. i differ a little bit on the results of this, because i think that -- what happened here is that the president issued a statement condemning an individual. i've covered the white house for 20 years. i've never seen that. maybe osama bin laden. other than that, i've never seen an official presidential statement condemning an individual. bannon does is not going to ret well to this. he probably artie has had some trouble with trump's flirtation with daca deal, maybe even a little bit with a tax cut. the problem for trump as this, he has basically declared war on steve bannon steve bannon. steve bannon likes wars and i think is going to go for it. he may not come out in, you know, immediately against trump, but little by little he may end up picking apart trump. and the problem for trump is that bannon aces conduit to the base, his best conduit to the base. if he loses bannon he cannot afford to lose a lot of the

base. he may think he won the popular vote, but he didn't. the base is what elected him and he needs manager support him. >> tucker: you think that trump voters trust steve bannon more than they trust donald trump? >> i'm not saying that although bannon is a rock star among the voters that elected trump. what i'm saying is that if bannon does even a little damage to trump, which he could do. let's say trump wins the war, if there is a war, against a bannon. if bannon damages and even a little bit, trump cannot afford that. breitbart news and bannon himself is the most important conduit to the base that trump has, other than from his self. let's be clear, trump is the best person for that. he won by 60,000 boats turned in the election, he loses it. if it's another type of election like that and he's got one of his premier spokesman -- she's also been a spokesman for bannon for many months -- against him, then trump can have a problem. >> tucker: since you know his mind, let me ask you the question i asked matt, which is clearly this is not an isolated

occurrence of him attacking from. he's been doing this through in effect cut outs. he's been doing this for months. what's the point? what's he trying to get out of that? >> mostly he's been supportive of trump. the people that he is angry with other people around trump. ivanka trump, jared kushner, who he calls jivanka. he's been doing that without penalty for a while now. you can understand that he's upset that his son is being called treasonous. what he's trying to do is marginalize people within the white house who have a more establishment republican agenda and keep trump's ear and keep trump focused on the things that he was elected on, not -- trump's family over everything. he loves his family. in terms of his personality and actually help political beliefs he's actually a lot closer to steve bannon that he is to ivanka trump. >> tucker: it seems that way. keith, thank you.

on the left, it suddenly has become acceptable to attack people on the basis of their skin color. how did that happen and what is it doing to our country? we will tell you in sad and thorough detail next. ♪ and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief. you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle

and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. if sleep is essential to happiness. what's essential to sleep? introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. expertly designed for support, pressure relief, cooling and bounce. read our

reviews then try the leesa mattress in your own home. sleep on it for 100 nights and love it or get a full refund. order now and get $100 off. go to

♪ >> tucker: is a basic moral principle that was for a long time conventional wisdom in this country. you probably grew up with it. it was this. people would deserve to be treated as individuals judged by their own efforts on their abilities on the things they can control. attacking people on the basis of

their race is wrong. that was the standard and for a long time almost everybody in america believe it, or claimed to believe it. not anymore. now in the left it's acceptable, even encouraged, to attack people based solely on their skin color. you are not supposed to say the thing about it but suddenly it's everywhere. online magazine owned by the media company univision. it's not some obscure hate site looking on the dark corners of the internet. it's considered a mainstream destination. it's got 8 million visitors a month supported by huge advertisers like toyota. here are some recent stories that were just published. "white people need to be better people." "five life x who want to make white people uncomfortable at work." we need a reset button for something for white people. if there are plenty more just like that, you can google it if you want. at the a pretty clear intent to attack and ridicule an entire race for the crime of being born with certain genes.

imagine a news website that tried to rank the most useless types of fill in the blank people. would you be embarrassed to read something like that? would toyota advertise on a site that ran a piece like that? of course not. but it advertises on the root, not even close to alone. take a look at busby, one of the most popular websites in america. in 2016 that company is valued at 1.5 billion. six times what jeff bezos pay for "the washington post" a couple of years ago. just last week, just last week was feed published a piece entitled "37 things white people need to stop ruining in 2018." one of the items on the list, america. it is not just wrong, it's nuts. it's actually suicidal. as they are always correctly reminding us, america is a multiracial society, which is great. multiracial societies are great. but they are fragile, always. the only survive when people of different races decide to treat each other as human beings with equal dignity. when they square off into

warring tribes it's over. liberals say they are poor white nationalism and they should, but at the same time they are promoting it like this. when liberals pull up the speed for the latest list of why white people are wrecking america, they are happy to last long because they are saved safe in the knowledge that it doesn't affect them. the joke looks a lot different when you were not reached. you've lost family friends to heroin, you haven't painted your house in 20 years. everybody you know is being crushed by the rising cost of education and health care. you're fairly certain your kids are going to make even less than you do, assuming jobs will even exist when the robots get here. you are worried, and you should be. and now some smug private school kid from brooklyn is lecturing you about how you are the problem because the color of your skin and the privilege it conveys. how much of that are you going to take before you explode at the unfairness of it all? at that point, why wouldn't you embrace a racial identity? everybody else seems to be doing it. that's a disaster, and it's not

theoretical, by the way. that's what's going to happen in this country unless people start deciding they're going to treat one another as individuals rather than as members of group groups. jason nichols is a professor of african-american studies at the university of maryland and he joins us now. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: my concern here is that visas like this, attitudes like this, which are ubiquitous on the affluent left, the privileged left are driving the country apart along racial lines to an even greater extent that than we are already divided by racial lines and you will wind up with a totally vulcanized society. i don't know why people do this and i don't know when it became okay to do this. >> so when we talk about what drives us apart as a society, let's talk about the fact that black people are three times more likely to be denied for a home loan. at that you have a better chance of getting employment with a high school diploma than i do with a college degree. let's talk about many other

structural issues that we have. >> tucker: happy to, but you are not answering the question, which is why does this help? with always been divided along racial lines, it's a tragedy. one of the worst things -- it's the worst thing about america. and you don't want to get worse, which is why you don't attack people on the basis of their race in public. and now all of a sudden the left has decided that's okay. it's crazy to me. >> again, you have to enter in nuance and context here. i think that many of these articles that you brought up are actually lampooning the ridiculousness and absurdity of racism itself. they are trying to turn racism on its head and say look, white people do these things, this is absurd. and again, in a society where white people -- >> tucker: so it's a joke? >> it's a satire. >> tucker: but you know that nobody -- if you were at buzzfeed. i have idea for a piece, 30,000

reasons that mexicans are wrecking america. you would be canned. why is it okay to say that about another race? if we really believe it's wrong to attack people on the basis of race, why isn't it wrong to attack people on the basis of race? >> if you put out this article are one of those articles and black people or mexican people or whomever said that about white people. let's say 80% of the black outlets and latino outlets said these things about white people. it would not affect white people in terms of their socioeconomic status, their health outcomes, their housing, their education, or incarceration. none of that would be affected. that's the big difference. there are bigger consequences. >> tucker: you are living in a world that doesn't exist anymore. you're living in a world where all the which people are white and all the poor people are nonwhite. in modern america, the one group of americans whose life expectancy is declining as working-class white people. i'm not whining about racial -- i'm just saying if you are one of those people were saying why are you attacking me? i don't have any privilege, why

are you doing this to me? and you are pushing -- stuff like this pushes people to be more racially conscious, which is bad, in my opinion, if you see what i'm saying. >> again, i think if we want to talk about the way people experience poverty, i think first of all, it's been proven that a black person who makes $100,000 is actually owing to live in a poor neighborhood with fewer resources than a white person that makes less than $25,000. because white property and black property are not equivalent. >> tucker: undressing the life expectancy of working-class white people is in decline. if that's true for no other group. i'm not saying that the toughest road, i'm just saying it's bad. why are rich private school hipsters from brooklyn attacking them like they are all weaving at palm beach? why wouldn't that stir resentment? >> i looked at some of those buzzfeed articles and have looked at the root articles. for the most part they are attacking the wealthy people that move people out of

brooklyn, not the working-class person in alabama. >> tucker: you can see where this would lead to resentment. we don't need any more resentment in america from anybody i would think. >> absolutely not. >> tucker: let's just make it super simple and say probably about a idea to make generalizations about people based on their skin color, because it's not the most important thing about people, actually. >> again, i think you need to look at these articles where in many cases it's not just about race. class is in there as well and again, if you're looking at it intelligently and with nuance, you will see that they are actually lampooning racism. they're trying to see dominic say how ridiculous racism is. >> tucker: of course they are. you can't see about any other group. there's only one group you can attack. i hate even to say this out loud because it sounds like whining, and i hate whining. i just honestly think you are pushing a whole group of people to become way more racially conscious, and i don't want to live in a country where everyone primarily identifies by race, do you? you don't. >> first of all, we live in a

country where race and race consciousness is forced upon all of us. >> tucker: but you want more of it to you? >> i don't think his articles are doing that. i think they are trying to show how absurd racism is. that's the whole point. >> tucker: the only white racism, as if that's the only kind. >> that's the only kind that has systemic consequences on people. >> tucker: fat -- i'm telling you, it's just not fair to say to someone who lives in the middle of the country whose economic prospects have been devastated who really doesn't have much of a future, you'll don't make it your part of the problem. it really? and what part of the world is that person oppressing anybody? >> and i honestly don't think that most of those articles are saying that about that person who's in the middle of the country who is suffering economically during >> tucker: it just seems like another example of the powerful marking the week in order to feel virtuous. and i hate that. >> first of all, i would disagree that some writer or staff writer or contract writer

for buzzfeed represents the powerful. that guy is making $40,000 a year. >> tucker: name one who went to public school in the midwest? i bet you can't. we are out of time. congressman, thank you. congressman. i hope you will announce in the future. journalist in new york city, home of brooklyn and people who write buzzfeed, and he joins us tonight. chadwick, i know i'm painting with a broad brush, but i can kind of picture the staffer in question sneering at the middle of the country and blinding an entire group based on their skin color, which i thought was not allowed. >> right. i don't believe your guest for one second when he thinks -- a former guest when he thinks these articles are meant to be satire. to make fun of racism. it's exactly i think how you painted it. the sort of liberal oberlin kids who graduated to live in brooklyn and for some reason want to believe in the sort of dismantle the wealth narrative. i think the way to do that is to

attack white people. marxism, it's socialism. it has the mainstream media's ear, mainstream society's ear. when you see these people who obsess over victimhood so much, it's so fascinating because if you want to see racism everywhere, if your brain wants to see racism everywhere, or homophobia everywhere, then you will. that's the world you will live in. i was having a conversation with a woman not too long ago about this, a young upper middle-class black woman and she was talking about how badly she gets treated on the street here in new york and i said to her, what if you live for one day as a white woman and you were treated the exact same way? people were just as rude to you, what then? >> tucker: it doesn't make anybody happier to see everything through that lens. let me ask you about something that happened yesterday. i personally missed it but it's in the tape, maybe you saw it, cohost joy behar reacted to the ongoing protest we've been seeing in iran by saying the u.s. is on the very brink of executing gay people in the

street. >> it's not apples and apples, it's not equal, but we are on a very slippery slope in this country towards throwing democracy out the window. >> we have to defend the present civil rights. >> we do, but not being stoned in the streets for being gay. >> tucker: how close do you think we are to a country where people are stoned in the streets were being gay as joy behar suggests? >> i have to tell people this all the time, we can't even get funding for the wall, so the gay death camps are definitely not have until the second term. she is completely ridiculous. this narrative that they want to push is so absurd. there's no proof to it. it's such a load of bull. in that same discussion she was sort of ironically saying that the protesters in iran and the so-called women's mergers here, the resist protesters, she called them protesters, are basically fighting for the same thing. she said the details are

different about what they are fighting against, but the general thing, they want democracy and freedom and ours is deeply under attack in this country. firstly, let's talk about that. in iran young women tearing off their headscarves in there for jobs and here in new york and washington you women and men putting them on as a symbol of liberation. and when she says -- it's so funny to see her saying our democracy is under attack. >> tucker: it such grotesque overstatement. i know what it's like to get him out on television, but part of your brain says pull back a little bit, don't say more than you mean, don't overstate things grotesquely, because if you do you will be called on it. you shouldn't say things that aren't true. no one ever calls anybody on the left when they say ludicrous things like gays are about to be stoned in the streets. what? >> exactly. it's just this hysteria and they have no evidence for it. they have absolutely no evidence for it and it's exactly -- they are just showing what they are, they have no arguments.

>> tucker: childish. chadwick moore, great to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: thanks. congressional investigators say they found evidence the fbi rigged its investigation of hillary clinton. if you don't want to believe that. a former fbi official joins us next. he has an informed view of that, stay tuned. ♪ patrick woke up with a sore back.

but he's got work to do. so he took aleve this morning. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. aleve. all day strong. all day long. and for pain relief and a good night's rest, try aleve pm for a better am. ♪ ♪ keep it comin' love. ♪ keep it comin' love.

♪ don't stop it now, ♪ don't stop it no. ♪ don't stop it now, ♪ don't stop it. ♪ keep it comin' love. ♪ keep it comin' love. ♪ don't stop it now, if you keep on eating, we'll keep it comin'. all you can eat riblets and tenders at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

>> tucker: congressional investigators said that they have found troubling irregularities in the fbi's investigation of hillary clinton

and her email server. according to a report in the hill, fbi agents heather investigation micromanaged by higher level officials in contrast to ordinary practice. you know what that means. the investigators also told the hill they found evidence the fbi began drafting and exoneration of hillary clinton before it had even gathered all the relevant evidence were interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses. chris is a former assistant director of the fbi and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> good evening, tucker. >> tucker: you've seen this report. i don't think any american wants to believe the fbi is on the level and subject to political manipulation, but that's the conclusion i'm reluctantly reaching. what's your conclusion? >> as an experienced investigator, it doesn't take a congressional investigation to tell me that nothing about that investigation was right. those of us that have conducted federal criminal investigations no that you use the grand jury, you use search warrants, you don't hand out immunities like candy.

everything investigation runs contrary to the way a real credible, thorough fbi investigation is conducted. >> tucker: given as you are watching this, give us the specific examples that this tipped you off that this was not unfolding as it ought to have been. >> first and foremost, in any complicated federal investigation, the basic tool of the trade is a grand jury. use of the grand jury to obtain records. you don't go to witnesses and say mother, may i have that computer hard drive? may i have those emails? uu subpoenas and process and grand jury and search warrants and that sort of process. that was the tip off from the beginning. so many deals were made with people not knowing what kind of information they had in the deals being made simply because they lawyered up and didn't want to talk to fbi agents. that's when you throw them in front of a grand jury. >> tucker: a lot of subjects, most subjects i would think lawyer up and nobody wants to talk to the fbi, of course. but the fbi doesn't normally cave to that, does it?

>> no. when jim comey was the deputy attorney general running the corporate thought tax force and i was running the criminal division, we play hardball in those investigations. you use grand jury process. you didn't just ask for records and you didn't give them an opportunity to hand over what they wanted to hand over. and if they did lawyer up you went to the trouble of throwing them in front of the grand jury to put their statement on the record, or they can take the fifth and then you can make a decision as to whether to grant them immunity at that time. but none of that was done in this case. >> tucker: why? >> this was like driving a car with the brakes on. >> tucker: why wasn't it done do you think? >> that's what puzzles myself and all of my former colleagues, people who have retired from the fbi from executive level positions on down to the street level. the only thing i can come up with is that director comey placed the investigation in the hands of his inner circle and

they had their own agenda, obviously. we've seen that from some of the information that has since come out, the text, et cetera. >> tucker: so you think it was political? >> i think that there were people inside that inner circle in the comey inner circle that had their own predetermined opinions about trump -- excuse me, about hillary clinton and the president, what then was a president-elect or someone running for president. >> tucker: let me ask you about something that i found really striking, tell me if you had the same reaction. we now have documents that came out in a lawsuit that show, internal documents from the fbi that when the then attorney general loretta lynch had the famous meeting on the tarmac with bill clinton, whose wife was being investigated at the time, the fbi's first reaction was not to figure out how did that happen, the first reaction was to find out how the news it leaked. does that seemed like a very wed reaction to me. >> that's not the fbi that i

know and as i've said, my former colleagues that i compared notes with all the time, former director comey's rationale, shall we say for making this prosecutor decision that the fbi director has no business making, that she was not to be prosecuted. that was based on that tarmac meeting. if that were the case, all he had to do is hang the investigation to the attorney general's office, let her recuse herself from making that decision, knock it down to her number two level person and then if that didn't happen, then maybe raise the issue publicly. >> tucker: it really distressing to watch this. thank you for your perspective on that, i appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: in order to get the federal government funded, democrats are demanding that daca recipients be given amnesty. they may try to shut down the government if they don't get it.

that story next. ♪ my friends and family never thought i'd be the one to quit smoking, i was such a heavy smoker. but i was able to do it with chantix. i did not know that chantix would reduce my urges so significantly. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. everybody had doubts, including me, but i did it. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

nice man cave! nacho? [ train whistle blows ] what?! -stop it! -mm-hmm. we've been saving a lot of money ever since we switched to progressive. this bar is legit. and now we get an even bigger discount from bundling home and auto. i can get used to this. it might take a minute. -swing and a miss! -slam dunk! touchdown! together: sports!

you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

♪ >> tucker: with each passing day the possibility grows that daca will force a shutdown of the federal government because, of course, legalizing people who are here illegally is the single most important thing our government could do. if president trump says amnesty for daca beneficiaries as a possibility but should be tied o long-term immigration. democrats argue there should be no concessions in return for amnesty. some are willing to shutdown the government during budget negotiations to get their way. one was willing to compromise, still a democrat though, congressman, thanks for coming on. >> good evening, tucker. happy new year to you. and all the rest of the world. >> tucker: happy new year! this is one of those where negotiations were one side has already set i'm willing to

compromise. at the president has said look i'm willing to support legalization amnesty for these people for these people here illegally. they have to assure us they will not bring all of their relatives with them and being able to prevent people in the future for coming with them like border security like a wall. why would democrats be against that? >> certainly the democrats do not want the government to shut down, period. that's our position, frankly we were not responsible for the shutdowns of the past. however, going forward, what are we to do? we did -- we did, or the did put a 150 some alien dollar hole in the money that we need to fund all government programs for the next year. if that was the tax cut that we just passed last december. so we start off with a very, very difficult financial situation in which $150 billion

that we were counting on to solve some of the financial issues, some of the funding problems disappeared and that tax cut. >> tucker: actually would agree with you on that. that's a kind of legitimate argument to have. do we have enough money or we get the money, but why are we having an argument about people who aren't even citizens? i feel sorry for them, but that's like number 111 on the list of priorities for most americans, why is it number one for democrats? >> unless you happen to be one of the 800, or 800,000 that are daca -- of which 160,000 have actually graduated from one or another of our universities. >> tucker: they are great, but there are also 325 million actual americans here and their concerns are going down the list so the concerns of illegal aliens and take the top spot, why? >> there's also a host of other problems that are in that funding question and keeping the government open. the military wants more money

and frankly needs more money. we also need to provide money for the children's health insurance programs and on and on. if infrastructure, anybody mentioned the trillion dollar infrastructure and where's the money for that? it mostly disappeared in the tax cut. >> tucker: i'm not disagreeing with you. can we just get past the daca thing. if we are spending an awful lot of time on other country's citizens when our citizens are waiting for congress to do something so why not just say, look, that's fine. we will build a wall, not why not build a wall? why not sneak in a bring your relatives. what? you sneak in and then your relatives get to come, why is that fair? >> i think that there is a reasonable solution to all of this. the dream act, which has been around five years now, it deals with most of that issue. the chain migration issue that you talked about, chain immigration issue. that needs to be addressed. it can be a serious problem.

certainly these daca students, or daca individuals are more interested in their own circumstances, the issue of their parents and relatives, yes, that should be dealt with. going beyond that, a wall. it's been pretty well determined that there are far better ways to spend tens of billions of dollars than to build a wall. certainly we could use new technology. the coast guard, for example, needs money to patrol the oceans, which happened to be the major way in which drugs enter the nation. >> tucker: under our current system we give out, in effect, green cards, which become citizenship on the basis of a lottery, the diversity lottery. why in the world, if citizenship mattered, if we cared about our country, if we just randomly give green cards to people on the basis of chance, a bingo? why do we have that program? why can't we get rid of it? >> well, there certainly needs to be comprehensive immigration

reform. and that needs to be one of the pieces of that. border security absolutely essential. how do you spend the money for border security? a wall, is that the best way? many of us think that is not the best way. we also need to deal with the agricultural guest worker program, which is a major problem here in california. >> tucker: i know your growers want cheap labor as they can get. i would like cheap labor at my house too, but can we just agree that we should stop letting people in randomly under the diversity lottery, and it's not fair to let illegal aliens bring all the relatives? and we agree on those two things? >> i think we can. let's write a lot. >> tucker: thing you should have no problem getting the government funded! good luck, thank you, congressman. i appreciate it. >> you got it, thank you. >> tucker: iran has been wracked by antigovernment protests. the american media seem weirdly unenthusiastic of them. it is that our imagination or are they trying to hide something? what is it?

very confusing. mollie hemingway will sort it out next. ♪ and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ whentrust the brand doctors trust for themselves. nexium 24hr is the number one choice of doctors and pharmacists for their own frequent heartburn. and all day all night protection. when it comes to frequent heartburn, trust nexium 24hr.

♪ >> tucker: there has been a wave of protests they may run against the authoritarian government there. americans are of course freedom loving people so surely you

would think our press would be excited to see these protests in progress. it doesn't seem so for some reason. if the past couple of days the impulse of the press has seemed to be to downplay or even criticized those protests. nbc, cbs, cnn all criticized, -- made in response to it "rare antigovernment protest." "the new york times" tweeted that the protesters "ignored calls for com from iran's president." are we imagining it or is there something we are going on here? mollie hemingway is the senior editor of the federalist, she joins us tonight. what is this about? >> i think there are good reasons why you're not seeing a lot of coverage and a lot of bad reasons. the good reasons is that iran is a very impressive regime, they kidnap foreign tourists. we don't have good lines of communication and it's very difficult to cover what's happening there. if there are a lot of bad reasons why you are seeing a lot of coverage, and that could be everything from how these waves

of protests completely undercut the narrative that we heard throughout the obama administration. and i think that our media tend to want to protect and defend president obama. >> tucker: how do these protests undercut that story line? >> president president obama ae iran nuclear deal. they placed these bets with this person who they pitched is very moderate. they used people in the media to help sell this deal. when we see these protests, very different from what we were told. we were just told by "the new york times" very recently that iran was a very unified country. they were unified behind their regime. they were united in their opposition to donald trump. obviously that's not true when you look at these protests, however big they are, that there is at least some coalition of people who are extremely upset with their regime and the corruption of the regime and the economic consequences of that. some of the signs talk about how that they don't like that they are involved in all these foreign conflicts and how they are supporting terror in the region. that's completely different than what we've been told and i don't think journalists like to come

clean when they are shown not to be telling the truth. >> tucker: could also be that it's far away uncomplicated and that is much easier to write about some stupid lunch carter page whatever, or some 26-year-old fake foreign policy advisor had during the campaign. at the russian nonsense maybe is closer to the heart of most journalists? >> that's why it's actually so frustrating to read "the new york times" coverage because so many people have just dropped foreign bureaus. if they don't have good resources in these regions. it is very difficult to cover when you don't have people on the ground, but "the new york times" does. a lot of what they've been publishing has been sort of very friendly to the regime and parroting the regime's lines. part of it might be that they are afraid that they are reporting resources there or vulnerable, but you shouldn't subvert journalism. >> tucker: pro-american are potentially pro-american and kind of reasonable. not really represented by its regime at all. that sort of weird that american

journalists wouldn't be more sympathetic to the population of the country yearning for a new government. >> particularly a few years ago, many people in our media were so excited by arab spring, revolutions that they saw were even in some of those cases you are getting rid of bad leaders and replacing with even worse leaders. in this case there's no question that iran is completely oppressive country. doing a lot of bad in the region. there are people there who are very frustrated and should be -- at least you should see some sort of vocal support or coverage of what they are trying to accomplish. these are very brief people and their chances are not very good of actually achieving revolution. not just because of the military there, but the secret police and all these other resources that the regime there has. they are pretty impressive work. >> tucker: it does seem like a lot of the countries we saw sort of become democratic for about 20 minutes were not ready for some government. iran seems a lot closer to being ready. he seems to have a much more impressive population, if i can be blunt than some of those other countries. what a shame that we are not

helping more. >> has more of a history and it has been a great empire. >> tucker: only for 3,000 years, not a big deal. mollie hemingway, thank you. californians can't ban guns, the government camps, so they are doing the next best thing. they are basically taking away ammunition to disarm the population. that grim story next. ♪ mom, i have to tell you something. dad, one second i was driving and then the next... they just didn't stop and then... i'm really sorry. i wrecked the subaru. i wrecked it. you're ok. that's all that matters.

(vo) a lifetime commitment to getting them home safely. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

♪ >> tucker: a lot of new laws taking effect in california this week. one of them prevents anyone from buying ammunition in the state, from doing so freely. now you have to pass a government background check and pay a fee. if this goes for all ammo, ak-47

ammo as well as relatively harmless stuff like 20 gauge birdshot or 22 long rifle. all of it you've got a permit and a background check to buy it. he also can't privately bring ammunition into the state anymore either. that is now a crime. for a day, dozens of stores were outright banned from selling any ammunition at all because california's government was behind on granting permits, surprise surprise. while this may california safer? of course not. criminals ignore the law, they always do. the real and the only, indeed, intended fact will be to disarm the law-abiding population. keep in mind, that same state has declared itself a legal sanction area for foreigners were breaking our most basic laws. so the nonthreatening activity of american citizens is criminalized and lawbreaking of foreigners is protected. the message? normal people are no longer welcome in the state of california. shouldn't surprise anybody that they are fleeing.

a sad story. if that's it for us tonight, tune in every night at 8:00 p.m. to the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. dvr it if you can figure out how that works. above all have a great night, "hannity" is next. >> sean: thanks, welcome to "hannity." breaking news tonight, then media is going nuclear, melting down the way we've never seen before. why? because your president dared to stand up to the north korean dictator kim jong un who was threatening us, and we will explain how hating trump is the media's drug. they are drug addicts, complete addicts. and we will show you the most insane, unhinged examples the latest liberal media freak out. plus, media get ethernet over the back and president trump and steve bannon, and of course, that's who they are. they love inviting. my exclusive take on that. all of that and more in our breaking news opening monologue. ♪ >> sean: we start tonight an important monologue on the mainstream media. here is what i wan