ballistic missile system. thank you for joining us tonight. most-watched, most trusted, and motes grateful that you spent the evening with us here on "fox news @ night." good night from washington. see you tomorrow. i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." believe it or not, it was a yeab ago today that buzzfeed released the now infamous trauma dossier. aa year later, they are being sued for defamation by the president's lawyer. veteran chief ben smith of buzzfeed news will join us later in the show to defend his decision to publish that dossier. first, president trump has suggested,um he did yesterday, that he's willing to sign any deal on daca that congress is able to hammer out. an actual deal does at this point seem a long way off but may be getting a little closer today, house republicans outlined a bill that would allow would allow a daca beneficiary is to remain in the united states, critically, though, it would deny them a path citizenship.

democrats don't seem to favor, but they know that amnesty for illegal immigrants is crucial to their own electoral strategy of importing new voters from abroad. democratic congressman from texas represents the border city of el paso. he is seeking the democratic nomination to challenge senator ted cruz this fall. he sponsored legislation that would provide illegal immigration with taxpayer-funded health care and free legal assistance to fight deportation. he joins us tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. >> thanks for having me. we want if you are watching at home, watching this debate, you have the republicans conceding that daca recipients can stay in the country, they we deported and you have democrats responding by saying, that's not enough, we want to make sure they can vote and bring their relatives over also. can you understand how some people watching that might conclude that democrats are spending more time and energy worrying about people here illegally than about american citizens? >> i guess i don't make the connection, tucker. i think that most americans, most texans, those that i have

listened to across the state want to makete sure that dreames can continue to remain and thrive in their communities. you have people like someone who i just met, aph student at mathematical biology at texas tech. she's a dreamer. you have people who died trying to rescue their fellow texans during the flooding after harvey. he was a dreamer. as republican as it gets in texas, and the people in poker were concerned about dreamers because they had justam deported one of o the honor roll students at booker high school. >> tucker: hold on. stop your speech real quick. there are a lot of good dreamers for sure and there's also a lot of bad ones. more dreamers have been busted for gang membership that 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 are not all valedictorians. the t question is, there's a lot of good american citizens, as well, and can you see why, when

democrats say we want from the government unless you let them vote and bring their relatives with them, that maybe it suggests a priority that is out of sync with most people? that is my only question. >> i guess i don't see that. for my perspective, in el paso, texas, the city and represent, e i am raising my three kids whoxa are 11, nine, and seven, i want to make sure that 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 contribute to our success and 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 families. >> tucker: hold on. i just checked the school numbers and el paso, the city you are bragging about, and el paso is a great city but 39%, only 39%, of graduating seniors from your school is ready for

college. i think that is a bigger crisis than whether or not people can bring their relatives from. abroad. again, priorities. >> i don't think working on these things as mutually exclusive. you'll find no one who has worked harder or have done more for veterans in this country when it comes to mental health care access, a very sacreded priority of mine. i've been able to make progress with republican members on this issue. at the same time, i can advocate for s the success of my communiy and our country at large by ensuring that the dreamers stay here by anyone's measure, theres extraordinary positive economic benefit to those dreamers staying here. the jobs that are created, the dollars that are spent -- >> tucker: i'm sorry. o you don't have the numbers on that. you can't prove that. i spent a lot of time on this question. don't, actually, this has been like that a lot and there is no evidence that bringing people who have lower than average educational attainment they do into this country,ent and high-tech economy, makes the rest of us richer. there is no evidence. >> economists have looked at this and it is measured not in

the millions, but the tens of billions of dollars to the bring toof dollars to the the economy. it's good for all of us. >> tucker: a lot of these are minors. these are extrapolations and theoretical, i hope you will concede this. 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 sponsored legislation that would allow that. how does it benefit americans exactly? >> i think it is keeping true o who were we are. when you have asylum-seekers the most violent, brutal countries in the world like el salvador, who areng young kis or young families, i want to make sure that they have every opportunity to apply for asylum in this country, knowing the laws, having an advocate, and aren't returned to a country where they face,he in some case, certain death. >> tucker: these are people -- just to be clear, they came here illegally. they didn't come as refugees through one of the many programs to bring refugees.

> very often they came as asylum-seekers who presented themselves to border patrol agents at the border, to customs officers at the ports of entry. >> tucker: sor: taxpayers are paying for them to fight american law and court? >> not to fight american law. to get right with american law, to make sure that they show up to their court hearings, to make sure that they follow our laws. i think again, that is in everyone's interest. if you are concerned about security -- >> tucker: for us to pay for lawyers so they can fight deportation, that is somehow good for us? why is it good for us to pay for the health care bills with people who snuck in here against our law? 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 thisng country success, to be safe, tofe be healthy, to be able to able to contribute. >> tucker: did the law specified -- did your bill specify that it only applied to people who arefi benefiting the country? i thinkdi it was anyone here illegally would get free health care at taxpayer expense. i am sorry.

with all respect, i'm confused by why we should pay for the health care of someone who broke our lot to get here. does that make sense? >> yeah, i don't think you are reading the bill correctly. i think you are losing sight of the benefit that we gain by those who are contributing to our communities, our states, and our country's excess. >> tucker: to that law specify that only people contributing to our country would get free health care? that it also apply to gang members or vagrants? i think they were covered to come over and they? >> i think there is an interest in making sure that if someone is going to be sick, if someone needs help, that we deliver it at the most efficient, effective, cost effective way possible. >> tucker: cost-effective to payo for the health care? >> you can pay for it in the emergency room -- >> tucker: how about not paying for it at all? >> you can watch people die in your community. >> tucker: oh, i'm a mean person for not being in favor. congressman, thank you for joining us. houseub republicans led by bob goodlatte of virginia have

released an outline for what they say daca like to look like. includes automatic e-verify, authorization for the wall, and more . congressman raul labrador joins us tonight.co thank you for coming on. >> it's great to be on your show your show. >> tucker: you're on the inside of the congress, i'm far outside but we spoke to someone close to leadership today who said he didn't believe that republicans are at the number to be to get this done. do you think that's true? >> i think it is fascinating that the speaker of the house introduced tax legislation without 218 votes. he introduced a health care bill without 218 votes. but all of a sudden, he is requiring republicans, conservative republicans in the house, to have 218 votes before they introduce daca and border security legislation. do youhi think that's fair? >> tucker: [laughs] no, i think it's very telling, actually. i didn't know that. i didn't know that. >> because i think they have a different agenda in the

leadership and i think we are trying to show them that our republican conservative bill is the only one that is 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 explained to people what is in this bill, that we are going to have over 218 republicans approve and sponsor this bill. i think we can do this. but i think they should put the same effort that they put into health care and that they put into the tax bill into making sure that we secure our borders, that we end the diversity visa program, that we end chain migration, just like the american people told president trump and supported president trump by the millions and the 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 lottery, e-verify? what would be the argument against it? >> so they don't have an argument against that bill. they say if it goes to the

senate, the senate is not going to pass it. and that shouldn't be our responsibility as members of the house.ho 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 pray about this the senate handle what they will do in the senate. we can handle what we will do in the house. we do not need to do a daca bill. to some people in our leadership believe that that isme a priorif the republican conference. it shouldn't be. the republican conference, the priority is to secure the border, and chain migration, to do all the things that we told the american people we will do the last eight years when we were asking for a majority in the house and a majority in the senate and the president. >> tucker: do you think -- you've made this point by implication, but do you think yourut leadership in the house understood the lessons of the last presidential election? >> i'm not sure the leadership in the house ever understands 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 republican republicans, very, very articulate, very, very strong republicans come because that wasmb the number one issue thate campaigned on, that is what the american people want, and that is what we should deliver as republicans. >> tucker: i think that's a pretty clear rationale. congressman, thanks a lot, i appreciate your candor. >> it's great to be on the show. >> tucker: president trump lawyer just sued buzzfeed.com for releasing the now infamous trump dossier a year ago today. editor in chief of blood for buzzfeed news, ben smith, well-versed provide his company's response to that suit. ♪ ♪ video-game dance music

[burke] abstract accident. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪ 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.

running a small business is demanding. and that's why small business owners need more. like internet that's up to the challenge. the gig-speed network from comcast business gives you more. with speeds up to 20 times faster than the average. that means powering more devices, more video conferencing, and more downloads in seconds, not minutes.

get fast internet and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more per month. comcast is building america's largest gig-speed network to give small businesses more. call 1-800-501-6000 today. ♪ >> tucker: exactly one year ago tonight, buzzfeed released the trump dossier to the public even though they couldn't verify any of its contents,co some of which were scandalous and salacious. we blasted them at the time and now they are getting sued. president trump's attorney has sued both buzzfeed andre dossier creator, fusion gps, saying that it defames the president by baselessly linking him to russian conspiracy conspiracy . buzzfeed's editor ben smith came on to defend the release a year ago and he's gave enough to come on. thanks for coming on. >> thank you for coming on. >> tucker: you been sued by

the president's lawyer. what'ser a response? >> it's very much what i said last time. it's a document of obvious central public importance. as the subject of multiple investigations by intelligence agency, by congress. that was clear a year ago, potentially 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 and a lot of people, i'm not sure if you said this, but a lot of people on the right said this is irrelevant nonsense document. now what i see on fox news in particular is that this document was central, arguably, to central, to the fbi investigation. i think that is clearly established now. >> tucker: you're right. it was central. there's a lot we don't know about its role in this investigation but it sure seems like that's right. but you been doing this for a long time mind you know that ald

kinds of an effect dossier is come across the desks of investigators and intel agencies and politicians and people who cover them and they are not made public because their contents are unverified and sometimes unverifiable and they are defamatory. 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 liable someone in effect. you don't run it but you did rum this because it was trump. >> you are desks and mine are full of all sorts of dossiers and tips and claims. they are not full of documents that are being briefed to the president or the president-elect of the united states, being fought over an intense tug-of-war by intelligence officials, for instance, imagine covering the weeks that we just had, imagine covering the simpson's testimony to date intelligence committee, thege battle between feinstein and grassley prayed in a situation in which you are not allowed -- and what you had no idea what tg about. i just think that americans

would have a lot of trouble understanding last year and without this document. >> tucker: of course but you are making a retroactive argument. >> this was true at the time. the dossier was a piece of dark matter that was pulling the fbi, pulling he reread, it's important to understand. >> tucker: that's the point. we now have a context for it. we didn't then. >> a lot of this we knew then. a lot of the reality of this case we knew. >> tucker: i didn't read it on buzzfeed, i did not know this was part of the hillary clinton awful operation that she took up from the anti-trump republican donor operation. we didn't know the extent to which steele had gotten that information from russianan intelligence and russian sources. there's a lot we did it now. >> the characterizations of steele sources are in the dossier. it's true. there's been a ton of subsequent reporting. >> tucker: here's the point. you're arguing that is at the center of the newsng and so we were right a year ago to run it. i'm not attacking you for running it. i would just like you to

acknowledge the partisanship that played a role. >> that. is just not true. we were in the exact same situation with a president hillary clinton. we would have run the dossier. for instance, there was a dayu. 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 speeches. i think that they're -- >> tucker: her secret speeches to goldman? that's a different level of salacious.l >> they were pretty interesting. >> tucker: i was interested. but they weren't claiming that she was into some weird sex practices. there was a lot of stuff floating around about obama, his personal life, and of course, the question of where he was born, the birth certificate, we laugh about it now but it was a big news story and people were making allegations.

including now president trump. if you came across a dossier in the middle of the obama administration that laid out in some detail but he was born in kenya, had a weird personal life, he would never run that. >> if it was being briefed to the president, absolutely. >> tucker: if it was a republican president -- look, if trump or president -- is all theoretical -- >> donald trump made the ridiculous claim about the birth certificate and recovered at. >> tucker: if there was a detailed document on the subject that had been assembled -- >> the dossier -- he was far enough to put that in a dossier that he published and sold in m his memoir, and obama's case. >> tucker: flux. the truth is this step was unverified a year ago, it remains unverified, i hope you will at least -- >> some elements have been cooperated. >> tucker: the big step has not been. >> the paul manafort indictment is pretty big.

>> tucker: we are no closer to proving that he collaborated with the russian government or oowith and hotel room. that is character assassination and it still unproven. >> that is unproven. the broad outline of the russian campaign to penetrate and influence the american election has been established. goingen established. on for 100 years. ben, thank you. president trump tore into senator dianne feinstein for releasing the behind closed door testimony of glen simpson yesterday. the president tweeted this... kimberly strassel is a "wall street journal" editorial board member and she joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> happy to be here, tucker. >> tucker: i must say, i am grateful to senator feinstein

for releasing this. i think the public as a right to know. i'm glad i read it. interesting stuff in there. did you think that? did you learn anything from the release of this transcript that you didn't know? >> first of all, i think transparency is an excellent idea, and i would love nothing more r than four congressional republicans to follow lead, and ino follow an organized fashion, and a considered fashion, release everything related to the dossier, so americans can find we make their own judgments. i have an issue with the way that senator feinstein did do this. the reason of the senate has rules, congress in general, has rules, is because when you unilaterally released 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 views, they don't get their say. >> tucker: that's a fair point. a speaker that's a problem.

also, it discourages other witnesses to come forward, like jared kushner. if the democrats truly are interested in getting to the bottom of this question, he is an important witness. why would he everan come forward in light of this voluntarily? and by the way, why would senator grassley ever agree to a subpoena for him knowing that senator feinstein can turn around and unilaterally release his testimony as well, too? >> tucker: that's a fair point, though i don't think jared kushner would come voluntarily because he would be foolish to do that because everything would be leaked. 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 russianrn government. is that allowed? that seems totally out-of-bounds for an fbi agent to do that. >> it brings up a lot of

questions, which was, did the fbi know that steele was working for simpson, who was working for the clinton campaign? if the fbi didn'tth know this, y hadn't it done its due diligence and asked what feels interest in this was? then, if you find. out that they are passing along information, and by the way, it would seem like they did, simpson originally claimed that he had information that the fbi had had an insider source within the trump campaign. he later had to come out and clarify, w that wasn't true. he had essentially misled the committee, and he was just referring to all this other news about an australian diplomat and george papadopoulos. okay. how did he find that out? how did he know that all the way the back last year? it seems the only way he got to them is that the fbi told steele,te steele told simpson. by the way, did simpson then tell the clinton campaign?

was the clinton campaign in possession of confidential fbi investigatory material about mr. trump during the election? >> tucker: i mean, i don't see you couldn't reach that't see conclusion.'t he was being paid to gather information for the clinton campaign. but i hope the republicans take your wise advice and release everything they and also the rest of us can know. kim, thanks a lot for that. >> get it all out there, all of it. >> tucker: amen. tech giants like google and facebook are omnipresent in our lives, and increasingly omnipotent, as well. we'll ask senator mike lee if it's time for congress to look at the harm they could be causing to this country. stay tuned. ♪ nk 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. having moderate to seis not always easy.is it's a long distance run and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for nearly ten years. it's the number one prescribed biologic by dermatologists. more than 250,000 patients have chosen humira

to fight their psoriasis. and they're not backing down. for most patients clearer skin is the proof. humira can lower your ability to fight infections including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems. serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over two hundred and fifty thousand people who have chosen humira. ask your dermatologist about humira and go. mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

but after an electrical fire from faulty wiring, mary's vintage clothing and designer shoe collection were ruined. luckily, the geico insurance agency had recently helped mary with renters insurance, and she got a totally fab replacement wardrobe at bloomingdale's. mary was inspired to start her own fashion line, exclusively for little lambs. visit geico.com and see how affordable renters insurance can be. need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel and hotel sites so you can be confident you're getting the perfect hotel at the best price. soak it in. kayak. search one and done. dear freshpet, zooka had digestive problems and wouldn't eat. then i fed him freshpet.

>> tucker: apple, google, >> 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're capable of thinking and believing. in many cases, their services are addictive and harmful and they know that, but increasingly, 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 except get increasingly paranoid. congress, though, can do a lot, is congress after all. cook i republican senator mike f utah joins us tonight. if anyonean can take action against tech oligarchs, it's him. thanks for coming on.

>> thankss very much. >> tucker: a lot of ways to come out this story. here's the bottom line for my perspective. no company has ever been as powerful in the history of the world as google is and i would add to that, apple and facebook. it has now become really clear that they are misusing that power. bottom line, they are too powerful if they are hurting people.n' whyo wouldn't congress step in o pare back the power? >> what we have to look at the antitrust law, often centering on the concentration of market power, not just from a concentration of what's too much, but from a standpoint of what is inflicting consumer harm. something you mentioned last night that i feel a need to respond to about google suddenly being more of a threat to people's privacy then the government, i disagree with that.. that is not to say that at some point a company t like google ce and become too powerful and inflict consumer harm. but in no way, as it is much of

a threat of as a government tor privacy. google doesn't have guns. it can shoot you. itit can't tax you. it can't regulate you the way the government can. my much bigger focus is on the threat posed by the federal government to your privacy. by the way, google has your email, one of your concerns, they got your email. the governmentt can get your email, whether it is carried by google or aol or anywhere else without ah warrant. that's incredibly disturbing. >> tucker: i'm fearful of that and i'm grateful for your work as a libertarian infused conservative pushing back against that, what you have done, and all my life as a conservative i've always assumed as a matter of fate that the government is the main threat but i've come to believe that a threat from these companies is more profound and certainly much more insidious and there is no recourse. i can't vote out the head of google if i want. it's a private company. >> that's true. you can use a different search engine. you have different options. you can't as a citizen, you can't just leave -- you can leave the country, most people consider that a very dire,

drastic remedy. but as a consumer, you can choose to use a different search engine, use somebody else too handle your email. there are other market options available. >> tucker: here's the thing. we have with the government -- i'm not just saying the government and its frequent overage, which terrifies me come of course, i spend most shows talking about it, but we have for you, i can find out what's going on. in the course of google, which d is the portal through people understand reality, google has triggered its search results to eliminate concepts that it is agrees with common 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 that an informed citizenry? i don'tdo understand why that's not really scary. > that's a fair question.

let's make one thing very clear, though. no one is compelling you to use google. you have other options. 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 antitrust subcommittee in the senate with regards 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 deems fit. >> tucker: hold on. google controls the overwhelming majority of digital advertising, along with facebook, theel overwhelming majority. that means that every news organization that relies on digital advertising, which iswh all of them that aren't ony television, they are all dependent upon two companies that are wildly political and working against free speech. that is not a concern? it seems a concern to me. >> i'm not saying it's not a

concern. whatay 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, we have options that consumers have access to. they can use other search engines, they can avoid google if they want to, and that does make a difference here. >> tucker: all right. senator, thank you for joining us. i used to be a libertarian until google. [laughs] u thank you for coming on page >> thank you. >> tucker: 95 euros comic book legend stan lee, the man who created "spider-man" is the latest victim of hollywood sexual harassment back glass. has "me too" become a war of people who don't deserve to be hurt by it? including stanley. that discussion is next. ♪

>> tucker: well, the backlash against sexual harassment is >> tucker: the backlash against sexual harassment is broadening in scope for about the 15th time now and is now hitting marvel comics legend stan lee. he is 95 years old and has had

nurses care for him at his home and now some of those nurses have accused him of them and favors.used him of them and sexual harassment is appalling, of course, on the other hand, this is a man who was already 50 years old with the term sexual harassment was first coined. a helpless elderly man does seem like praying of the week, not protecting them. what are we to make of this? actually proud as a contributor to "u.s. news & world report" and she joins us tonight. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: this t is one of those rare cases -- i don't know the truth and i don't want to pretend that i do -- it wouldn't surprise me if it were true because the elderly, for a bunch of physical reasons, sometimes do say inappropriate things related to sex, it's a well-known phenomenon, and i think most of nurses who care for the elderly are very aware of this. given that, it seems a little strange to hear charges against the p guy when it's kind of common.

>> at the same time, though, we have to take this seriously and realize that 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 is one of the biggest issues that i have currently with this. 23 movement. it's doing a lot of great things but it's also allowing a platform forat defamation to happen. in this case, if these allegations are true, it should be brought in a legal suit and examined for what theyfo are. if he was groping people and he was exposing himself and doing all of these things so they are alleging, of course, that is despicable behavior. if it is just jokes and whatnot, we can determine what those issues are there but i am someone who, i worked on 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. but in the case of defamation, that it is an issue. >> tucker: what if there is a

third explanation -- again, i don't know the truth -- but being a runny elderly, what if they are true but a symptom of the advanced age? this is not uncommon. a is there an age at which, maybe 95 where we say, you are not fully responsible for the way young are behaving? you don't represent all men, maybe you are just 95 years old and you do things he wouldn't have done when you are 75 or 55. >> we can't make excuses for behavior. if he is exposing himself and asking for sexual favors, that's right there is a problem. it is like when they came out with the allegations against george h.w. bush. that bothered me because those were jokes being made in front of his wife. you can offer an argument that whether he should have been making them but it's just jokes. int this situation, if he was actually exposing himself and groping women who were taking care of him, that is a problem like it you can't blame on old age. if he is making -- >> tucker: that's the thing! you can blame it on old age!

>> that is a behavioral issue that we should not tolerate as womener are as men. and that is my problem. >> tucker: i am totally opposed to it, except -- i'm sure it will be killed for saying this because everyone is required to lie all the time in america right now -- again, that is sometimes a symptom of age and, you know, i don't know what i should think. i should stop talking, i guess. actually, thank you for joining us. schools across america are trying to ban kids from having best friends because that's exclusive and therefore, dangerous. do we really need a ban on busybodies? social engineers tampering in the lives ofpe your children. we'll discuss that next. t 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 ♪ 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.

he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using. tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.

♪ >> tucker: a follow-up tonight on a segment we did last week. we talked to barstools boards founder, known as el presidente, about his suit with the nfl. the league was initially dismissive of this suit from bar stool but since he came on our show, they seemed to have change course. he treated this evening... concord may be too strong a word. the nfl is still receiving billions in tax breaks to show spoiled billionaires hating their country. but a win is a win and you take what you get.s congratulations to barstool. 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 you thought, but that's what you thought, but healthy doesn't mean that somebody won't find a way to panic. in a recent article, psychologist barbara greenberg endorsed efforts by schools of this country and in europe to abolish best friends. you can't make it up. she says the existence of best friends is exclusionary couple which is true by definition, and causes emotional distress. a psychotherapist joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> hi, thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: [laughs]] i want to take this seriously because the things that you laugh at are the things that become federal law before you know it. but having a best friend is by definition exclusionary. you are choosing one among many. but that doesn't make it bad. i mean, marriage is also exclusionary, unless it's plural marriage, and that is not bad, either. so exclusionary isn't always bad. why is having a best friend bad?

>> well, i think what is happening in the trend across america, both in public and private schools and in europe and canada, is that many schools are starting to adopt, or mandate that children have certain behaviors in school,io certain policies, behavioral policies, for lack of a better word. it's meant to teach kids to be polite to one another, it's meant to teach manners, it's meant to encourage diversity and tolerance. the people who are against this best friend policy are people who believe that it's not teaching children how to deal with negative social anxiety, the negative feelings that children would feel if they are excluded. i think the magic place here is actually someplace in the middle. >> tucker: why wouldn't that magic place just be stay out of it and teach english and history and math? >> i totally hear what you are w saying. donnie schools now have a

no-tolerance to bullying policy on their books. more, both public and private schools. it's a c way to encouragege chin to be nice to each other, it's a way to encourage manners for lack of a better word. >> tucker: i am totally for that. i am totally for tolerance and goodod manners. >> anybody who is more compassion and kindness -- >> tucker: sure. but it does 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 t someone who to be friends with in the first place? do you think it's a little weird? >> i think what is happening -- i don't think they are telling kids which friends they can have in which they can. they are encouraging friends kids to have larger friends groups. the problem with it, the university of virginia found a study, they found that kids who did have best friends grew up to have higher rates of more positive mental health as adults and that they also had less social anxiety. so that is the argument against

this sort of behavioral policy that a lot of schools areee mandating. we need to teach children to deal with negative feelings. if we know him the dark, we also numbed the light. but we also need to teach children that everyone belongs. we don't want to make any child ever feel unworthy or give them a sense of belonging in any kind of community. >> tucker: i guess. i am totally opposed to meanness and bullying, obviously, and i am, iat mean that. but i also think these issues are enormously complex, kind of people who teach school probably not equipped to handle these issues better than to say the parents of the child. i guess, as a parent, i resent the ideaa that someone i hired o teach my kids facts is into really personal questions, like we areou friends with her how my friends you have. why don't they stay out of that stuff? >> i wish that all kids didn'tav have any behavioral issues in school. as someone who has worked in the school system, kids do.

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

taught thek. kids in the classroom ande you let them go outside and as longs as there was no gun fire, you didn't get involved. why was that about idea, that model? >> i don't think it was a bad idea but i think that times have changed and the reality is that i grew up -- i live in a community that is not so far from newtown. unfortunately, bad thingsew hapn in the world when kids start to feel socially excluded. we have to worry about that as educators. >> tucker: bad things didn't happen when we are to come a middle aged adults didn't get involved in the social lives of kids. i don't know if that is their connection. >> i understand your point. think, tucker. it's a pleasure. >> tucker: the trump administration recently announced that 200,000 salvadorans need to return home. we'll explain what that story is really about an interesting details. stay tuned. ♪ due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem.

but no matter where i ride, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis. ask your doctor about eliquis. ♪

i realize that ah, that $100k is notwell, a 103fortune. 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.

>> this week

>> tucker: this week the trump administration announced it will be suspending the temporary protected status label for immigrants from el salvador, basically no journalist in america had heard of this until this week but all of a sudden, nothing this bad has ever happened. we've read that again and again. here's what it's about. it affects about 200,000 salvadorans who've been allowed to work in here since 2001, the year and earthquake hit their country. the name of the program, temporary protected status, alludes to whaty its purpose ws supposed toed be. it was supposed to provides short-term refuge for visitors from other countries that were in short-term disorder. that's not what happened, that's never what happens. in fact, it became and it illegal immigrant program just like daca, except it targeted pacific countries rather than people on post specific age. people are 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 from a very bad, but the notion they can't return home 17

years later, absurd. the same goes for the 57,000 hondurans who are still here because of 1998's hurricane mitch, 20 years ago, or the 51,000 patients that were allowed to stay here because of the 2010 earthquake in that cou. this is not about providing short-term refuge. it's elites in washington using illegal loopholes to let hundreds of thousands people come here permanently without going through any of the ordinary immigration channels. you can tell that no one expected for them to return home because the suggestion that they do return home is being treated as a massive crisis for some reason. on monday, "the new york times" commented on "the sense of dread dripping employers in california, texas, and virginia." it'sin obvious why they feel dread. gps effectively legalized hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers in most placesd rather not have to pay higher wages to actual americans. politicians, meanwhile, are upset of the prospect of losing hundreds of thousands of future state votes. that is what it's all about,

anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is lying to you or themselves. that's it for us tonight. join us tomorrow night, for the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, velocity, smugness, and groupthink. good night from san francisco. >> sean: thinks, tucker. you don't want to miss one second of tonight's "hannity." we have massive breaking news. the biggest we have ever reported on about the rush investigation. sara carter is now reporting threest sources are confirming o us that that phony, fake news clinton bought and paid for russian propaganda dossier was in fact used to obtain fisa warrant's and to survey all members of the trump campaign. and these developments are just the tip of the icebergg and thy are beginning now to snowball and they will make watergate look like an insignificant blimp on your radar, historically speaking. you want to hear all the details tonight. plus, president trump is blastingn. the rush investigati, rightly calling it a witch hunt and a