e-mail me yours at the story at fox news.com with your name and town. thanks for joining us tonight. that's the story. tucker is up next. >> tucker: welcome to tucker carlson tonight. believe it or not, it was a year ago today that buzz feed released the now infamous trump dossier. now a year later they are being sued for defamation by the president's lawyer. editor in chief ben smith of buzz feed news will join us later in the show to defend his decision to publish that dossier. but first tonight, president trump suggested yesterday that he's willing to sign any deal on daca that congress is able to hammer out. a deal does seem a long way off, but maybe getting closer today house republicans outlined a bill that would allow daca beneficiaries to remain in the united states, critically though, it would deny them path to citizenship.

those in favor of it know amnesty for illegal immigrants is crucial to their own electoral strategy of importing a new class of voters from abroad. democratic congressman from texas represents the border city of el paso. he's seeking the democratic nomination to challenge senator ted cruz this fall. he sponsored legislation that would provide illegal immigrants with taxpayer funded health care and free legal assistance to fight deportation. congressman thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: so if you're watching at home, if you're a voter watching this debate, you have the republicans conceding that daca recipients can stay in the country. you have democrats saying no, that's not enough. we want to make sure they can vote and bring their relatives over also. so can you understand how some people watching that might conclude that democrats are spending more time and energy worrying about people here illegally than ab american citizens? >> i guess i don't make the connection, tucker. i think that most americans, most texans, certainly those

that i have listened to across the state, want to make sure dreamers can continue to remain an thrive in their community. you have people who is a ph.d. student in math biology at texas tech. you have alonzo guirel who died trying to rescue fellow texans during the flooding after harvey. he was a dreamer. as republican as it gets in texas and they were concerned about dreamers because they had just deported one of the honor roll student. >> tucker: i'm sorry. hold on. hold on. stop your speech. there are a lot of good dreamers for sure. there are a lot of bad ones. more have been busted for gang membership than have joined the military. that's not an indictment of all people here under daca. let's just get real. these are normal people. some good, some bad. they're not all valedictorians. the question is there are a lot of good american citizens as well. can you see why, when democrats

say, we're not going to fund the government unless you allow these people to vote and bring their relatives with them is maybe not in sync with most people here. >> i guess i don't see that. from my perspective in el paso texas where i am raising my kids 11, 9, 7. i want to make sure our community continues to thrive. one of the reasons we are one of the safest cities in america every single year for the last 20 years is we are a city of immigrants including dreamers who crib to our success and our safety. that benefit is spread out over everybody in my community, throughout the state of texas and to this country. so it's very good for america, not just for dreamers, not just for their family. >> tucker: wait. hold on. let me just say this. i just checked the school numbers in el paso, the city you're bragging about. 39%, only 39% have graduated seniors from their schools are ready for college in math or english. maybe that's a bigger crisis

than whether or not people here legally can bring their relatives from abroad. wouldn't you think? again, priorities. >> i don't think working on these things is mutually exclusive. you'll fine no one has worked harder or done more for example for veterans in this country when it comes to mental care act access. that's a very sacred priority of mine. i have been able to make progress with republican members on this issue. at the same time, i can advocate for the success of our commune and our country by ensuring that the dreamers stay here. there's extraordinary positive economic benefit to those dreamers staying here. jobs that are created. >> tucker: i'm sorry. you don't have the numbers on that. you can prove that. >> i absolutely do. >> tucker: you don't actually. this has been looked at a lot. there's no evidence that bringing people who have lower than average educational attainment, as they do, into this country make the rest of us richer. there's just not evidence for that. >> economists have looked at this. it's measured not in the

millions but tens of billions of dollars to the positive that dreamers bring to our economy. that's good for all of us. >> tucker: lot of these aren't minors. let me ask you this. why is it good for americans, why should americans pay for legal representation for people here illegally? you sneak in taxpayers pay for your lawyer, you sponsor legislation that would allow that. how does that benefit americans exactly? >> i think it's keeping true to who we are. when you have asylum seekers from some of the most vie len brutal countries in the world like el salvador, who are young kids or young families. i want to make sure that they have every opportunity to apply for asylum in this country, knowing the law, having an advocate and aren't returned to a country where they face in some cases certain death. >> tucker: they came here illegally. they didn't come as refugees through one of our many programs to bring refugees here.

>> very often they came as asylum seekers who presented themselves to border agents. >> tucker: so taxpayers are paying for them to fight yearn law in court? >> not to fight american law. >> tucker: yes. >> actually, to get right to american law. to make sure they show up to their cower hearings. to make sure they follow our laws. again, that's in everyone's interest. but if you're concerned about -- >> tucker: for us to pay for lawyer so they can fight deportation. that's somehow good for us. why is it good for us to pay for healthcare bill force people who snuck in here? why did you sponsor legislation that would have allowed that, too? >> it's good for people who are in our country, who are contributing to this country's success to be safe, to be healthy, to be able to continue to contribute. >> tucker: did the law specify, did your bill specify it on applied to people who were benefitting our country? i don't think it did. i think it was anybody here illegally would get free health care at taxpayer expense. i'm sorry, with all respect, i'm

confused by why we should pay for healthcare of someone who broke our law to get here? does that make sense? >> yeah, i don't think you're reading the bill correctly. >> tucker: i think i am. >> i think you're losing sight of the benefit that we gain by those who are contributing to our communities, our states and our country's success. >> tucker: did that law specify that only people contributing to our country would get free health care or did it also apply to gang members or vagrants. i think they were covered too, weren't they? >> i think there's an interest in making sure that if someone is going to be sick, if someone needs help, that we deliver it in the most efficient effective cost effective way possible. >> tucker: cost tpbive to pay for healthcare of people here illegally? >> you can pay for i in the emergency room. >> tucker: how about not paying for it at all? >> then you can watch people die in your community. >> tucker: oh, gotcha. i must be a mean person. thank you for joining us. >> yeah. >> tucker: house republicans have released an outline for what they say a daca deal ought

to look like. it includes mandatory e-verify, authorization for a wall and more. congressman labrador join us. thanks for coming on. >> great to be on your show. >> tucker: we spoke to someone kphroes to leadership today who said he didn't believe republicans were at the number they needed to be to this done. do you think that's true? >> i think it's fascinating that the speaker of the house introduced tax legislation without 218 votes. he introduced a healthcare bill without 218 votes. but all of a sudden he's requiring republican, conservative republicans to have 218 votes before they introduce daca and before security legislation. do you think that's fair? >> tucker: no. i think it's very telling, actually. i didn't know that. why do you think that is? >> because i think they have a different agenda in the

leadership. i think we're trying to show them that our republican conservative bill is the only one that's going to get the majority of the conference together. in fact, i believe that after we educate the conference, we talk about this bill, we explain to people what is in this bill that we'll have over 218 republicans approved and sponsor this bill. i think we can do this. i think they should put the same effort that they put into healthcare and put into the tax bill into making sure that we secure our border, that we end the diversity visa program, that we end chain migration just like the american people told president trump and sum ported president trump by the millions and millions and he became president of the united states. >> tucker: what do you suppose the argument from within the republican side of congress would be against those measures, ending chain migration, ending the diversity, the e-verify? >> they don't have an argument against that bill. they say if i goes to the senate, the senate is not gonna

pass it. that shouldn't be our responsibility as members of the house. members of the house, our job is to present the best solution to the american people and the most conservative solution to the american people. let the senate handle what they're going to do in the senate. we can handle what we're going to do in the house. we do not need to do a daca bill. some people in our leadership believe that is a priority of the republican conference. it shouldn't be. the priority of the republican conference is to secure the border, to end chain migration, to do all the different things we told the american people we were going to do after the last eight years when we were asking for a majority in the house and senate and the presidency. >> tucker: do you think, i mean, you made this point by implication, but do you think your leadership in the house understood the lessons of the last presidential election? >> i'm not sure leadership in the house ever understands the lessons of the last election ever. they always look forward as to how they can manage the next

week or the next month. what they need to understand is that the american people sent a really clear message. they gave president trump the presidency because they wanted him to secure the borders. that was the number one issue, as you know, that he talked about throughout his election. he defeated 16 other republicans, very very articulate, very very strong republicans because that was the number one issue he campaigned on. that's what the american people want and that's what we should deliver as republicans. >> tucker: i think that's a pretty clear rational. congressman, thanks a lot for that. i appreciate your candor. >> it's great to be on the show. >> tucker: president trump's lawyer just sued buzz feed for releasing the now infamous trump dossier. editor of buzz feed ben smith will provide his company's response to that suit next. get ready for

centrum micro-workouts. the bottle curl. the twist n' turn. the stretch n' grab. the gummy squish. centrum micronutrients fuel your body from the inside out. grab a centrum and join in. repeat daily.

>> tucker: exactly one year ago tonight, buzz feed released the trump dossier to the public even though they couldn't verify any of its content, some of which were scandalous and salacious. we blasted them at the time. now they're getting sued. president trump's attorney, michael cohen, sued buzz feed and dossier creator fusion gps, the firm, saying the document defames the president by baselessly linking him to russia conspiracy theories. buzz feed editor in chief ben smith came on the show to defend the dossier's release a year ago and is game enough to join us again. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me on. >> tucker: you've been sued by

the president's lawyer. what's your response? >> very much what i told you last year. the dossier is a document of kind of obvious central public importance. it's the subject of multiple investigations by intelligence agencies, by congress. that was clear a year ago. it's a lot clearer now. before we published it, as we knew then. important elected officials, intelligence agencies were investigating this document. when we talked last time, that was a subject of some dispute. lot of people, i'm not sure if you said this but people on the right said this is an irrelevant nonsense document. now what i see on fox news in particular is that this document was central arguably too central to the fbi investigation. i think that's clearly established now. >> tucker: yeah. you're absolutely right. it was central. things that we know. there's a lot we don't know about its role in this investigation but it sure seems like that's right. you've been doing this for a long time. you know all kinds of

ineffective dossiers come across the desk of investigator, law enforcement agencies and people cover them and they're not made public because their contents are unverified, sometimes unverifiable and they're defamatory. so you see a lot of stuff that you don't pass on because you don't know if it's true. the words hang in the air. you libel someone n effect. so you don't run it. but you did run this because it was trump. >> your in box and mine, as you say, are full of tips of allegations of crimes. they are not full of documents that are being briefed to the president of the united states, to the president elect of the united states, being fowing over in an intense tug of war by intelligence officials. for instance, imagine covering the week that we just had, right? imagine covering the testimony to the intelligence committee, the battle between feinstein and grassley in a situation which you were not allowed to -- you had no idea what they were fighting about.

americans would have a lot of trouble understanding for the last year without this document. >> tucker: of course. but you're making a retroactive argument. >> this was true at the time. the dossier was a piece of dark matter that was pulling the fbi, that was pulling harry reid -- it's important to understand what they're doing. >> tucker: that's the point. we now have the context for it. we didn't then. >> lot of us did. >> tucker: it wasn't -- i didn't read it on buzzfeed. i didn't know this was part of the hillary clinton operation that she took up from an anti-trump republican donor operation. we didn't know the extent to which they had gotten some of this information from russian intelligence, shady russian sources. >> the characterization of field sources are in the dossier. it's true, there's been a ton of subsequent reporting. >> tucker: here's the pointed. you're arguing it's the center of the news so we are right to run it. i'm not attacking you for running it. i would like you to acknowledge

that partisanship played a role. >> that is just not true. we were in the exact same situation with president clinton, with would have run that. i can do that to you. for instance, there was a day last year, it was not the biggest story of the day because it was the day of the access hollywood tape, but also on that day, we were the first to report on the substance of hillary clinton's speeches of her secret speeches. i think there's this perception -- >> tucker: this is different level salacious. >> no one was interested in them once they came out. >> tucker: i was interested but they weren't claiming that she was into some weird sex practice. >> this is obviously very unusual. >> tucker: we have actually. we have. there was a lot of stuff floating around about obama and his personal life, the question of where he was born. we sort of laugh about it. now there's a big news story people making allegations about it, including now president

trump. if you came across a dossier that laid out that he was born in kenya, had a weird person, you would never run that. you would be attacked by everyone. >> if it was being briefed to the president, absolutely. >> tucker: if it was a republican president. if trump were president -- >> donald trump made these ridiculous claims about the birth certificate. we covered them. we didn't bleep them out. >> tucker: if there was a detailed dossier on the subject that had been assembled -- >> unfortunately the dossier was his -- he was smart enough to put all that stuff in a dossier he published in his memoir in obama's case. >> tucker: look, the truth is, this stuff was unverified a year agop it remains unverified. >> some elements of it have been corroborated. >> tucker: the big stuff has not been. there's still no evidence -- >> i think manafort indictment is pretty big stuff. >> tucker: we are no closer to

proving that he collaborated with the russian government or that he was with hookers in a hotel room. that's character assassination and still unproven. >> that is unproven. >> tucker: yeah, okay. >> the broad outline of the russian campaign penetrating the american election i think has been established. >> tucker: that's been going on for 100 years. thank you. >> thanks for having me tucker. >> tucker: president trump talking about diane feinstein ofry leasing testimony yesterday. the president tweeted this the fact that sneaky diane feinstein stated that collusion between trump and russia has not been found would release testimony in such an unhanded and possibly illegal way without authorization is a disgrace. must have tough primary. wall street journal editorial board member joining us. tim, thanks for coming on. >> happy to be here. >> martha: i'm grateful to senator feinstein for releasing

this. i think the public has a right to know. i'm glad i read it. there was interesting stuff in there. did you think that? did you learn anything from the release of this transcript that you didn't know? >> well, first of all, i think transparency is an intelligent idea. i would love nothing more than for congressional republicans to follow senator feinstein's lead. >> tucker: exactly. >> and in an organized fashion and a considered fashion release everything related to the dossier so that americans can finally make their own judgments. i have an issue with the way senator feinstein did do this. the reason the senate has rules of congress in general has rules about this is because when you unilaterally release testimony, it's unfair to other witnesses. you basically have one person getting to make their case in public and all the other people who might have differing view, they don't get their say. >> tucker: that's a fair point. >> and that's a problem. also, it discourages other

witnesses to come forward like jared kushner. if the democrats are truly interested in getting to the bottom of this question, he's an important witness. now, why would he ever come forward in light of this voluntarily? why would senator grassley ever agree to a subpoena for him knowing that senator feinstein could turn around and unilaterally release his testimony as well, too? >> tucker: that's a fair point. i don't think kushner would ever come voluntarily. but in reading this, i was really struck by simpson's claim that the obama fbi, the fbi under the previous administration, told steele the investigator working for the hillary campaign by proxy, dirt about the trump campaign. that they may have been in collusion with the russian government. is that allowed? that seems totally out of bound force an fbi agent to do that. >> welsh it brings up a lot of

question, which was, did the fbi know that steele was working for simpson, who was working for the clinton campaign? and if the fbi didn't know this, why hadn't it done its due diligence and asked what's steele's interest in this once. if you fine out they are passing along information, it seemed it did. simpson originally claimed he had information that the fbi had had an insider source within the trump campaign. he later had to come out and clarify wasn't true. he had essentially misled the committee and that he was referring to all the other news about an australian diplomat and george popadopolous. how did he find that out? how did he know that back to last year? it seems the only way it could have gotten to him is the fbi told steele, steele told simpson. did simpson then tell the clinton campaign? was the clinton campaign in

possession of confidential fbi investiga investigating evidence ab mr. trump? >> tucker: i don't see how you couldn't reach that conclusion. i hope the republicans take your wise advice and release everything they know so the rest of us can know. kim, thanks a lot for that. >> get it all out there. all of it. >> tucker: all out there. amen. well, tech giants like google and face book are omni present in our lives and increasing omnipotent as well. we'll ask mike lee if it's time for congress to take a look at the harm they could be causing to this country. stay tuned. >> tech: at safelite autoglass

we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids... ♪ music

>> tech: ...every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

>> tucker: apple, google, facebook, twitter. they all have your private information. they can control not just what you see online, but what you are allowed to say and maybe over time what you are capable of thinking an believing. in many cases their services are addictive and harmful and they know that. recently clear that tech giants are not just a threat to privacy, they are a threat to our basic american freedoms. for most people there's not much you can do about it instead of getting paranoid. congress can do a lot. congress, after all. mike lee of utah is the chairman of the senate subcommittee on anti-trust policy. senator lee joins us tone. thanks for coming on. >> thank you very much. >> tucker: so, there are a lot

of ways to come at this story but here's the bottom line from my per spebive. no company has ever been as powerful in the history of the world as google is. i would add to that apple and facebook. and it's now become really clear that they're misusing that power. so bottom line, they're too powerful and they're hurting people. why wouldn't congress step in to pare back that power? >> what we have to look at from the stand.of anti-trust law often centers on the concentration of market power. not just from the standpoint of what is too much, but from the standpoint of what is inflicting consumer harm? and something you mentioned last night that i feel the need to respond to about google suddenly being more of a threat to people's privacy than the government, i disagree with that. that is not to say that at some point a company like google couldn't be too powerful. but it in no way is as much of a

threat as the government to your privacy. google can't shoot you. i can't tax you. it can't regulate you the way the government can. and so that's why my much bigger focus is on the threat posed by the federal government to your privacy. google has your e-mail to one of your concerns. they've got your e-mail. the government can get your e-mail whether by google or aol without a warrant. which is incredibly disturbing. >> tucker: i'm fearful of that. i'm grateful for your work pushing back against that. all my life i have all assumed that the government is the main threat. i have come to believe the threat from these companies is certainly much more profound and insidious. i can vote out the head of google if i want. it's a private company. >> that's true. >> tucker: here's the single most -- >> you do have other options. you can leave the country. most people consider that a dire

drastic remedy. but as a consumer, you can use a different search engine. use somebody else to handle your e-mail. there are other market options available to you. >> tucker: here's the thing. look, we have, with the government, and i'm not defending the government and its frequent overreach, which terrifies me. i spend most shows talking about it. but we have foia. in the case of google which is the portal through which people understand reality increasingly, you don't know things if they're not on google. google has jittered its search results to eliminate concepts that it disagrees with, political concepts. this is not a fever dream of mine. this is a fact which is proven. if you don't believe it, play with google for half an hour. they have changed the search results to disappear ideas they don't like. so why is that not terrifying to the prospect of running a democracy that requires an informed citizenry. i don't understand why that's not scary. >> that's a fair question.

let's make one thing very clear. no one is compelling you to use google. >> tucker: i understand that argument. >> it is disturbing. i don't like it when they do that. i have raised this with google executives time and time again. i have made inquiries as the chairman of the anti-trust subcommittee in the senate with regard to google. but as of right now, google, of course, is not a government entity. google is not a public utility. they are a private for profit corporation, one that can make decisions as the corporation seems fit. >> tucker: google controls the overwhelming majority of digital advertising along with facebook. overwhelming majority. every news organization that relies on digital advertising, which are all of them that aren't on television, they are all dependent upon two companies that are wildly political and working against free speech. that's not a concern? that concerns me. >> i'm not saying that's not a concern. what i'm saying is not every

concern rises to the level of market concentration coupled with consumer harm. i'm also saying that in this circumstance, what we have options that consumers have access to. they can use other search engins. they can avoid google if they want to. that does make a difference here. >> tucker: all right. senator, thank you for joining us. i used to be a libertarian until google. thank you for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: 95-yr-old comic book legend stan lee, the man who created spider man, is the layest victim of hollywood sexual harassment backlash as me too becomes a war on people who don't deserve to be hurt by it. including stan lee. that is next.

it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions

from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. ♪ ♪ there are two types of people in the world. those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ all because of you ♪ ♪ hey, need fast try cool mint zantac. it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. zantac works in as little as 30 minutes. nexium can take 24 hours. try cool mint zantac. no pill relieves heartburn faster.

♪ keep it comin' love. 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: well, the backlash against sexual harassment is broadening in scope for about the 15th time now. it is now hitting marvel comic legend stan lee. he's 95 years old. at that age he needs nurses to

care for him at his home. now some of those nurses have accused him of groping them and asking for sexual favors. sexual harassment is appalling of course. on the other hand, this is a man who is already -- was 50 years old when the term sexual harassment was first coined. helpless elderly man does seem like preying on the weak not protecting them. what are we to make of this? ashley pratt joins tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: this is one of those rare cases -- i don't know the truth of it. it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. the elderly, for a bunch of physical reasons, sometimes do say inappropriate things related to sex. i mean, they do. this is a well known phenomenon. most nurses who care for the elderly are aware of this. so given that, it seems a little strange to hear charges against this -- this presented as charges against the guy. it is kind of comic.

>> well at the same time though we have to take this a little seriously and realize when these allegations are coming out, there needs to be an investigative process. we can't just go out there defaming people. i think that's one of the biggest issues that i have currently with the me too movement. it's doing a lot of great things, but it is also allowing a platform for defamation to happen. in this case, if these allegations are true, then it should be brought in a legal suit and they should be examined for what they are. if he was groping people and he was exposing himself and doing all of these things that they are alleging, then that is despicable behavior. but if, in fact, it's just jokes and whatnot, we can determine what those issues are there. i'm someone who i have worked on a campaign with all men multiple times. i know jokes versus inappropriate behavior. i think we need to trust women in these instances and realize that we know what is right and we know what is wrong. in these case of defamation that is an issue. >> tucker: what if there's a third explanation which -- i

don't know the truth, but having been around the elderly. i think everyone who has knows what i'm talking about. what if they're true, but a symptom of advanced age? this is not uncommon. so is there an age of which, maybe it's 95, where we say, you're not fully responsible for the way you're behaving. you don't represent all men. maybe you're just 95 and you do things that you wouldn't have done when you were 75 or 55. >> we can make excuses. if he's exposing himself and ask for sexual favors, that's a problem. when they came out with the allegations against george w. bush, that bothered me. those were jokes being made in front of his wife. you can have an argument about whrorpb he should be making them, but it is just jokes. in this situation, if he was groping women who were taking care of him that is a problem you can't blame on old age. if he's making jokes -- >> tucker: that's the thing. sometimes you can blame it on old age. >> that is a behavioral issue

that we should not tolerate as men or women. >> tucker: i'm totally opposed to it, except there are cases -- i'll be killed for saying this because everyone is required to lie all the time. that's america right now. but that is sometimes a symptom of age. i don't know what i should think. i should probably stop talking. thank you for joining us. >> thank you tucker. >> tucker: schools across america are trying to ban kids from having best friends because that's exclusive and dangerous. but do we really need a ban on busy bodies? social engineers tampering in the lives of your children. we'll discuss that next. stay tuned. i realize that ah, that $100k is not exactly a fortune. well, a 103 yeah, 103. well, let me ask you guys. how long did it take you two to save that? a long time. then it's a fortune. well, i'm sure you talk to people all the time who think $100k is just pocket change.

right now we're just talking to you. i told you we had a fortune. yes, you did. getting closer to your investment goals starts with a conversation. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today. but he hasoke up wwork to do.in. so he took aleve. 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. aleve. all day strong.

make the most of every hour. here comes a new year. of every single day. with the power of tempur-pedic sleep. choose the mattress brand ranked highest in customer satisfaction by j.d. power. tempur-pedic sleep is power. [burke] abstract accident. seen ♪ video-it. covered it.c we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

>> tucker: a fallout tonight on a segment we did last week. we talked to bar stool sports founder dave about his company's lawsuit against the nfl. now, bar stool routinely uses days are for the boys quote. the nfl promptly ripped it off for its own line of t-shirts. the league was initially dismissive of the suit from bar stool but they seem to have changed course. they tweeted this evening i am. peu to report the nfl commish bend at the knee to bar stool's sports and moved all infringing sundays are for the boyce t-shirts. we have conquered the tphufl. they conquered many too strong. the nfl is still receiving in billions in tax breaks to show spoiled billionaires heading their country. congratulations to bar stool. well, it's natural and healthy to have friends, or it was. just as it's natural and healthy to have a single favorite

friend. that's what we thought. something being healthy doesn't mean somebody won't find a way to ban it. in a recent article psychologist barbara greenberg endorsed efforts by schools in this country and europe to abolish best friends. you can never make it up. she said the existence of best friends is exclusionary, which is true by definition, and causes emotional distress. a psychotherapist joining me now. thanks for coming on. >> hi. >> tucker: i want to take this seriously. the things you laugh at are things that become federal law before you know it. having a best friend is, by definition, exclusionary, right? you're choosing one among many. but that doesn't make it bad. marriage is also exclusionary unless it's a plural marriage. that's not bad either. so exclusionary isn't always bad. why is having a best friend bad?

>> well, i think what's happening and the trend across america, both in public and private schools and in europe and in canada is that many schools are starting to adopt or mandate that children have certain behaviors in schools, certain behavioral policy, for lack of a better word. and it's meant to teach kids to be polite to one another. it's men to teach manners. it's meant to encourage diversity and tolerance. and the people who are against this kind of best friend policy are people who believe that it's not teaching children how to deal with negative social anxiety. you know, the negative feelings that children would feel if they are excluded. >> tucker: okay. >> i think the magic place here is actually someplace in the middle. >> tucker: why would the magic place just be stay out of it and kind of teach english and history and math? >> i tolly hear what you're saying. many schools have a no tolerance

policy to bullying. it's a way to encourage children to be nice to each other. it's a way to encourage manners. >> tucker: i wonder, let me just say, i'm totally for that. i'm totally for tolerance and good manners. >> yeah. anybody is for compassion and kindness. >> tucker: sure. but it does seem like oeu owe it doesn't seem like, it is a form of insidious social control to try and tell other people who to be friends with. i mean, who would want to tell someone who to be friends with in the first place? do you think it's a little weird? >> i don't necessarily think they're telling people which friends they can have. they're encouraging kids to have larger friend groups. the problem is the university of virginia did a study where they found, and they published this, they found kids who did have best friends grew up to have more positive mental health as they became adults. they also had less social anxiety. that's the argument against this

behavioral policy that a lot of schools are mandating. we need to teach children to deal with negative feelings. right? if we numb the dark, we also numb the light. but we all need to teach children that everyone belongs. you don't want to make any child ever feel unworthy or give them a sense of unbelonging in any kind of community. >> tucker: right. i guess. i mean, i'm totally opposed to meanness and bullying, obviously. i am. i mean that. but i also think these issues are enormously complex. the kind of people who teach school probably are not equipped to handle these issues better than, say, the parents of the child. i guess as a parent, i resent the idea that someone i hired to teach my kids facts is intruding into really personal question likes who you're friends with or how many friends you have. why don't they stay out of that stuff completely? >> well, i wish all kids didn't have any sort of behavioral issues in schools. but as someone who's worked in the school system, kids do.

oftentimes teachers are put in a position to help children learn how to modify and control their behavior so they do have certain policies on the books. you can have a bully running rampant in their school. >> tucker: having a best friend is not the same -- if you want to spend your time with one person, that's not the same as bullying other people. what would be the remedy of telling a kid you have to have more friends? how would you fix something like that? >> i think they're trying to avoid children having clicks. so what they do, they try to get children to play with larger groups of kids and sort of run in larger packs with each other. the thing that's really interesting here is that we can teach, we can have this in school and then at home we can encourage kids and we should encourage kids to have close interpersonal relationships with each other. not only is it good for their health but, as you said, it models a healthy family unit moving forward as well. >> tucker: yeah. last question really quick. >> sure. >> tucker: you used to taught

the kids in the classroom and let them go outside. as long as there was no gun fire you didn't get involved. why was that a bad idea, that model? >> i don't think it was a bad idea, but i think times have changed. reality is -- >> tucker: certainly. >> i live in a community that's not so far from new town. unfortunately bad things happen in the world when kids start to feel socially excluded. we have to worry about that. >> tucker: but those things didn't actually happen when weird middle aged adults didn't get into the lives of kids. i don't know if there's a connection or not. >> i understand your point. thank you, tucker. >> tucker: the trump administration announced that 800,000 el salvadorans had to go back home. we'll explain in interesting detail. so stay tuned. need a change of scenery?

kayak compares hundreds of travel and airline sites so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. cheers! kayak. search one and done.

you wto progress.move. to not just accept what you see, but imagine something new. at invisalign®, we use the most advanced teeth straightening technology to help you find the next amazing version of yourself. it's time to unleash your secret weapon. it's there, right under your nose. get to your best smile up to 50% faster. visit invisalign.com to get started today. it's time for sleep number's 'lowest prices of the season' on the only bed that

adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? it's the lowest prices of the season on the queen c4 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides. now only $1199, save $400. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

>> this week the trump

administration said it would be suspending the protected status label for immigrants from el salvador. no journalist had heard about it until this week and all of a signed nothing this bad has ever happened. the move affects 200,000 people from salvador allowed to live and work here since 2001 when an earthquake hit the country. temporary protected status alludes to what its purpose was supposed to be. supposed to provide short-term refuge for visitors from other countries in short term disorder. that's never what happens. they become an illegal immigrant amnesty program like daca except it targets specific countries rather than people of a specific age. people are protected from deportation and given work permits even if they came to the u.s. illegally. the excuse for this is not surprisingly paper thin.

the el salvador earthquake was bad. and another 57,000 hondurans because of 1998 hurricane mitch 20 years ago or the 51,000 haitians allowed to stay here because of the 2010 earthquake in that country. it's he laoets in washington letting hundreds of thousands people come here permanently without going through the ordinary immigration channels. you can tell that nobody ever expected for them to return home. the suggestion that they do return home is being treated as a massive crisis for some reason. monday "the new york times" commented on the sense of dread gripping employers in california, texas and virginia and why thaoe feel dread. it legalized hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers in those places and employers who rather not have to pay high wages to actual americans. politicians are upset at the prospect of losing hundreds of thousands of future state votes. that's what it is all about.

anyone who tries to say otherwise is lying to you or themselves. that's it for us tonight. join us tomorrow night. good night from san francisco. >> sean: stay home. you don't want to miss one second of tonight's hannity. we have massive breaking news tonight. the bigsest we've reported on since the russia investigator. three sources are confirming to us the phony, fake news clinton bought and paid for russian propaganda dossier was, in fact, used to obtain fisa warrants and to surveil members of the trump campaign. now these developments are just the tip of the iceberg and they are beginning now to snowball and they will make watergate look like an insignificant blimp on your radar. historically speaking. you will want to hear all the details tonight and president trump is blasting the russia investigation. he is rightly calling it a witch hunt and democratic