>> martha: life well-lived, billy graham. send me a tweet at martha maccallum. also check out an interesting sound bite from president george w. bush there as well. see you tomorrow at 7:00. tucker is up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight. the white house held what they described as a listening session today where survivors of last week's florida shooting gathered with the parents of children killed in previous shootings to discuss what the country ought to be doing going forward. here is some of what was said. >> we must create a culture of connectedness. we must create a culture in which our classmates become our friends. every single one of these school shootings have been from young men who are disconnected. >> one school shooting and we should have fixed it. and i'm pissed because my

daughter i'm not going to see again. >> i want to feel safe at school. you know, senior year and junior year are big years for me when i turn my academics arranged, started connecting with teachers and i started actually enjoying school. and now i don't know how i'm going to step foot on that school again. >> teachers gun on them go. for special training and they would thereby and you would no longer have a gun-free zone. gun-free zone to a maniac because they are all cowards, a gun-free zone is let's go in and let's attack because bullets aren't coming back at us. >> tucker: you feel for those kids and their families. seems likely a political matter that some some of gun control may be coming. the white house has signaled support for stricter background checks and federal ban on burden of proof stocks. that's not close to what many on the left are demanding. you saw some of those demands today at widely

televised. parkland, it's understandable. people become political activists all the time in response to tragedies. that's their right. nobody ought to attack them for it. we are certainly not attacking them. we never would. we assume they have the best motives. most of us have the best motives. almost everybody is against school shootings. the question is what do you do about them? now, if you watch a lot of cable news, you know that the answer is simple. you simply stop taking money from the nra and do you something about guns. not anything specific, just something. but, first, you have to defeat the evil conservatives who love school massacres. once do you that the violence will go away like magic. that's the demagogues on the other channels are telling you. they use the traumatized children of parkland as a human shield. ask them what they are calling for, ask them to describe these policies, supposedly fix everything. and these childless news anchors screech that you are attacking the children. it's funny, every january

thousands of other children come to washington for the march on life. like the kids from parkland, they are against killing. some of them have had abortions. a few of them have survived abortions. do the media hold these kids up as the last word on the subject? do they attack anyone who questions them? please, a lot of news outlets don't even bother to cover that march at all. all kids at any march, just like all americans have a right to talk. and to do so in public to give their opinions anywhere, including on television. unlike many on the left, we support that right unequivocally in every case. but the rest of us also have a right to add our voices to the conversation. we have an obligation to do that. because we all have a stake in this country's laws. then the truth is, this is a remarkably complicated subject. that's why we haven't fixed it yet. any answer has to balance our need for safety with respect for the civil rights for individuals and acknowledgment that this is a constitutional republic. it's not the set of morning joe. for example, pretty much everybody agrees that

everybody with mental illness should not have firearms. that sounds simple. what do you with more than 400,000 iraq and afghanistan vets who have received a diagnosis of ptsd. that's a mental disorder. should they lose their rights to gun ownership because they were injured by war? all of a sudden it's not so simple. or how about domestic abusers? nobody thinks they should have guns. weave don't, obviously. what if they haven't been convicted of anything yet? can you strip rights from somebody who is legally innocent? and if you take their gun rights away, how about their voting rights or free speech rights? we're not sure of the answers to those. but we're positive they are real questions. they need to be debated and considered by smart people, sincerely trying to make the country better. the media screecher are not helping. they are telling us it's a simple fix as long as you care enough. that's a lie and they're using children to tell that lie. spare us. we're for the children. we're not for you. congressman jim hines a democrat who represents connecticut he joins us tonight.

congressman, unlike a lot of people have you been specific about what you want. i admire that you were on cnn on monday and i'm quoting now we want to be no different from canada or australia or great britain. so, in australia, and you hear this a lot from the left, 650,000 guns were confiscated from citizens. and that's what you are calling for. who would do that? who would take those guns in this country? >> no. that's not what i'm calling for, tucker. australia is a pretty good example because after the massacre of 35 of its citizens in port arthur in 1996 they implemented a whole series. i don't usually agree with you tucker you are right. this is a complicated problem that won't get solved certainly by the media on either side it will get sold either time not perfectly by lots of measures some of which were tried by australia. australia doesn't have a second amendment. they are not the best example. we do know if weekend get universal background check no matter where you buy a gun, you get a background check. we do know if you could find a way and i admit that it is complicated with rights to make sure that people with

temporary restraining orders, temporarily give up their weapons. if you could do a whole bunch of those things, there is no question that like australia, we could see our gun violence in this country plummet. >> tucker: there is a question about that. we don't actually know. we had the assault weapons ban of 1994. it seemed like it would reduce killings and it didn't. we know that conclusively. you are never quite sure what the effect is. you twice pointed to australia as a model for gun policy here. so what specifically about australia. again, a country that confiscated its citizens' guns by the hundreds of thousands. what did they do. >> can you keep using the word confiscation. >> tucker: they did that's a fact. >> it's also a fact that they insubstitute add mandatory waiting period for the purchase of a gun. it is also a fact that they instituted a universal background check. two things that we don't have in this country that might be considered constitutional. so you can leave the confiscation behind because that's not what anybody is talking about.

>> tucker: that was the essence of what they did. you are not allowed to own a gun in australia except under circumstances where the government says you have got a right to. same with yin. you pointed to great britain. in great britain you are not allowed to own a gun. you have to prove that you should be allowed to have one. are you calling for that? >> no. i'm not. in both of those countries in the absence of a second amendment, you are right. you have to show a cause. a reason to have a gun. we have a second amendment in this country which you may be surprised to hear i support. so. >> tucker: doesn't sound like it? >> require the citizens: you can say that as much as you want, tucker that's not true. >> tucker: i'm saying that in response to what you said. >> what i'm calling for the president -- i'm not usually in the habit of praising the president, what the president has said he is willing to consider. things like tightening up the background checks. things like restrictions on technology like bump stocks. nobody is calling for confiscation or for everything they do in australia or great britain. >> tucker: just to be clear, don't paint me as a demagogue. you just said this two days

ago on cnn. you pointed specifically to a country that got rid of gun violence because they got rid of guns. i think it's a fair question to ask when you point to australia, why are you not calling for confiscation because that's the core thing they did. >> first of all australia did not get rid of guns. still a lot of guns in australia. plenty of guns in canada and plenty of gun notice united kingdom. these are countries that are different than other own. no, they did not get rid of guns in any one of those countries. you keep talking about australia. i never called for confiscation. >> tucker: you were the one talking about australia not me. >> australia is a good model in one way which was that after a tragedy 35 people dead in port arthur. they got together, the prime minister and six states got together and said let's pass a package of gun safety changes that will reduce violence. now, not all of those changes would apply in the united states and i'm not calling for that. >> tucker: like taking them away by force from the population. let me ask you this. >> again, can you keep say

that but that's not what anybody is calling for. >> tucker: i'm sorry. i know a lot about this and that was the whole point of the bill. >> no that was a part of the bill that i'm not calling for and frankly almost nobody is calling for confiscation. >> tucker: let me ask you this, those countries all have universal gun registration. you own a gun you have to register with the government. are you for that? >> you know, they actually cancelled the universal gun registration in australia because they felt that it was more of a burden on legal gun owners. >> tucker: are you for it was the question. >> no. i'm not necessarily for it in the united states. i am for everybody having a background check. i am for people with temporary restraining orders temporarily giving up their guns. i am for a limit on the size of the magazine that you can use. things that we have done here in the state of connecticut which have been constitutional. and have not resulted in people's second amendment rights being violated in connecticut. >> tucker: i was wondering this. you work up on capitol hill

surrounded by armed guards. do you think they have too many guns and do you believe that their magazines hold too many rounds and if not why not? >> tucker, nice try. you're not going to get me to say. >> tucker: it's a sincere question they protect you. you feel safe with a lot of people with high capacity magazines but i'm not allowed to have them in my house to protect my family >> let me explain to you i would be perfectly happy with the general public having the same firearms that the capital police have if the general public were like capital police required to undergo a criminal check, required to recertify themselves every single year for the use of those firearms, and personally accountable and professionally accountable for how they are used. if you are willing to put all those restrictions on the general public's right to own firearms. what police have and marines have sign me up. >> tucker: let me ask you one last question. >> nice try my friend. >> tucker: some of russ confused by the details you

endorsed the most recent iteration of the assault within a. i have asked this question of a lot of lawmakers. ban barrel shroud. those would be illegal. >> yeah. >> tucker: what is a barrel shroud and why would you ban? >> a barrel shroud as you probably know because have you talked to other guests about it covering on the barrel of a gun that allowed you to hold that gun when the barrel has overheated because of multiple rounds being fired. >> tucker: that's right. >> so we agree on that. i'm not all that worked up over barrel shrouds and not interested in saying that an assault within ban will solve our problems. i happen to support a ban on technology that allows you to get squeeze off 20 or 30 rounds in a minute or two. >> tucker: why would you support the bill that would have banned that and pistol grips and folding stocks and bayonet lugs and all these things that are irrelevant? it makes you seem not serious if you support something like that. >> you know, lots of states have apassed assault weapons ban.

i heard you talking about the desire of the populist earlier. a lot of states including my state of connecticut assault weapon ban. the number of people who die in this country as a result of assault weapons, though they make the headlines that is a relatively small percentage. >> tucker: i'm aware of that. >> nonetheless i don't want people to have guns that allow them and most police officers don't want them to have guns that allow them to squeeze off 20 to 30 rounds very rapidly without reloading. look, you asked about barrel shrouds. >> tucker: i'm sorry, congressman, i think i let you unpack it all and i appreciate your willingness to come on and explain your views on this. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you, tucker. >> tucker: rachel campos duffy is a fox news contributor and she joins us tonight. rachel, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: you talked to these politicians about what just happened last week in parkland. the story is at least in part about the failures of the government, of the fbi, of local police, but really

the federal authorities to respond to a lot of warning signs, consistent warning signs. should we surprised government officials just ignore that and the solution is always taking rights away from people who never do anything wrong and holding account to people who did which is the fbi in this case? why don't they mention that? >> it's a great point. i also say this to you. i come at this on two very personal points of view. one is i'm a military brat who was raised overseas. and the buses that i was on had armed security. the schools i went to were fortified and i felt very safe. so, when i hear that part of the conversation, that we should be fortifying our schools, that's something the federal government could do, state governments could do that as well. and i'm 100 percent for that i'm also the wife of a congressman as you know this year we had a bernie sanders volunteer who shot up a bunch of republican congressman on a baseball field. and the only reason we didn't have a mass execution of those congressman on that field is because steve

scalise happened to be part of that baseball team. by the way, he was going to leave five minutes after the shooter came. had he left there, would not have been -- he has a detail of capital policemen. he is the only one. he and leadership. so had he not been there, we would have had a massacre on that baseball field. so, you brought up an excellent point in that in your discussion with the congressman from connecticut which is that nancy pelosi and many politicians have security. why aren't we securing our schools and why aren't people allowed to take responsibility for their own security? >> tucker: because, in the end, you know, if there is a real disaster and i have seen it firsthand a couple of times, the cops leave. they have families, too. they are not going to protect you. i have seen it you have got to protect yourself or you are not going to be protected. why are we allowing blow hard from the congress to try to strip our ability to protect ourselves? i don't understand. >> well, we shouldn't. as citizens what we should do is expand the conversation. it's very dynamic.

it's very complicated. it's about fortifying our schools. listen, adam lanza's mom, before he killed her, after he shot up the children in newtown, she wanted to have him committed. and after that massacre in newtown, many parents came forward and said i'm scared of my mentally ill child who has had violent tendencies and they can't get those children committed. so there's a problem there. >> tucker: for sure. >> there's another problem, tucker that people don't want to talk, about that is that we have a family crises in this country. there are broken homes, broken families. there is moral crises. and we have families in schools that really, frankly a culture that's unwilling to talk about right from wrong. >> tucker: you are right. >> that's also a part of the problem that hollywood and the left is unwilling to talk about. >> tucker: yeah. turns out of the nuclear family worked pretty well. we should have thought about this before we destroyed it rachel, thank you very much. great to see you. >> thank you, tucker.

>> tucker: rogue judges are determined to impose their will on this country regardless of what the law says, regardless of what voters think. what's the solution to that? is there one? that's next. ♪ when you have a cold, stuff happens. [ dog groans ] [ coughs and sneezes ] nothing relieves more symptoms than alka seltzer plus maximum strength liquid gels.

when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that.

don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: you've heard a lot about our failing institutions on this program. we now know the fbi is riddled with incompetent partisan hacks. the intelligence community seems to exist mostly to spy on you, and leak information about politicians it dislikes. your state and local governments are full of bureaucrats who are paid more to deliver less every year. and then retire with a fat

pension in their 50's. academia, meanwhile, is apparently dominated by lazy mediocrity at this more interested in political activism than teaching. there is a lot of rot in our halls of power but our federal courts may be the most decayed institution of all. though they receive very little attention. under the last two administrations, the courts increasingly have come to see themselves not as interpreters of the law, their constitutional role but as the country's main policymakers. consider for example what's been happening with daca. now as a factual matter it is indisputable that any president has the authority to end daca. the program was a creation from whole cloth the obama administration. it has no legal basis actual federal law. not work permits. the obama administration simply chose to ignore that law, setting the right of prosecutorial discretion. now, the argument could be valid, theoretically, though we are skeptical. here what happens we know.

if obama can choose to ignore the law, it is obvious the trump administration has the right to enforce the law. the law passed by congress. and, yet, left wing judges disagree. several have ruled already it is somehow illegal to end daca. their justification for this is legally ludicrous. last month san francisco district court judge william blocked the end of daca nationwide. he said getting rid of it was, quote, arbitrary and capricious. part of his ruling he asserted daca should continue because it was, quote, in the public interest. in other words, the judge likes the program, therefore, ending it is illegal. last week another judge, judge nicholas garifus in new york ruled daca can't be eliminated because the administration has not provided a valid reason for eliminating it as if following the law were not enough. the first bizarre ruling from that judge in 2010 garafus ordered the new york fire department use racial quote as it for hiring

rather than merit to achieve goals he had in mind results were immediate. injuries went up. dropout surged from 10% to 24%. later reversal in appeals court said his bias was so bias and severe that parts of the case had to be assigned to a new judge yet, of course, he is still on the bench. he and a lot of judges like him. in michigan, a judge has blocked the deportation of convicted iraqi criminals in this country citing the alleged danger they would face if they returned to their own country. it new york a judge released illegal immigrant criminal prior to deportation claiming he had a constitutional right to, quote, say goodbye. in florida a judge blocked the deportation of nearly 100 somalis because of the conditions on the airplane that would fly them home. for real that happened. this is commonplace now. in the name of progressive resistance to the president anything can be declared unconstitutional and is. for example, it's been settled law pretty much forever that a president has the power to exclude

foreigners from the country based on security concerns. but in the past year, multiple judges have ignored this and struck down the administration's travel bans. some have taken the legally meaningless position that the bans were unconstitutional because of things trump said on the campaign trail. judge james wynn of the fourth circuit compared the president's travel ban to fdr's internment of the japanese personal citizens of japanese dissent during the second world war. that's not legal analysis. it's political punditry. get that man a cnn contract. for more than 200 years the u.s. military determined who could serve in uniform based in part on which medical conditions might negatively affect a person's ability to fight wars. there are a lot of them. that makes sense, of course, it's no longer the law thanks to judges. in his final months in office, president obama declared the military must admit transgendered soldiers regardless of the effect on political readiness. that was a political decision obviously. thanks to activist judges it is now a constitutional

right somehow. a judge in maryland and collin collie of the district of columbia ruled unconstitutional to bar transgender volunteers from service. the ruling went on to order the government to cover gender reassignment surgery at taxpayer expense. these judges are not interpreting the law. much less enforcing it. they are inventing the law. they reject the core idea of democracy, which is a country whose policies are determined by its citizens. its voters. the judges are in control no matter what you want or who you voted for. increasingly the elected branches of government are irrelevant. this is especially true in the issues of immigration. 1980s limited amnesty for farm workers was supposed to end in 1988. the courts ruled it had to be extepsded further. thousands of additional people were given amnesty they weren't supposed to receive. lawmakers were ignored. 1990s, california voters overwhelmingly passed proposition 187 but denied state social services to people here illegally. courts gutted that law

without even allowing it to take effect and now california's entire middle class fleeing the state illegal immigration utopia suited for the poor and very rich. that's exactly what the voters didn't want but the judges didn't care. how long before some judge on the ninth circuit have the illegal aliens can vote in our elections because just because. some laugh but it's coming. judges are essential. their job is to restrain politicians have from trampling our core governing principles. by core governing principles we mean ones written in the constitution not in the "new york times" editorial page or at the base of the statue of liberty. our system has worked well for hundreds of years but it's breaking apart. it's breaking apart because of judicial integrity. there isn't enough of that full find yourself arguing the constitution does not contain the right to keep and bear arms but does contain a right to abortion, you are lying. that's not a difference of interpretation, it's

dishonesty. one is in the text. one is not. right now this is happening almost exclusively on the left. it's not hard to imagine conservatives doing it too. why wouldn't they after a while? what happens when republican appointed judges start striking down laws a democratic congress passed on taxes heck, abortion you name it simply because they don't like them. the jewish area will lose whatever honor it once had. it will become a political weapon that has happened in a lot of countries it's a disaster a lot of times. judges who misuse their power ought to be called to account. they are not gods. they are government officials who work for us. when they are corrupt or dishonest, they ought to face the same criticism as politicians or bureaucrats. abraham lincoln accused. this high justice prouding to increase slavery. he was right. the administration points out judicial malfeasance and there is a loft it, the ruling class responds with howls, that's attack on democracy, they say. >> i find these attacks on the judiciary an absolutely

abhorrent and unacceptable. >> i will be honest, i don't understand language like that we don't have so-called judges, we don't have so-called senators, we don't have so-called presidents. >> so-called judge, is it appropriate for the president to be questioning the legitimacy of a federal judge in that way? doesn't that undermine the separation of powers and the constitution written right next door? >> tucker: they are lie talking as they always do. it's not anti-democratic to demand the public's views should fundamentally shape public policy. that's the essence of democracy itself. jonathan temperature solid particularly distinguished professor at george washington university law school. and he joins us tonight. professor, thanks for coming on. >> thanks. >> tucker: that's kind of the essence of the whole debate is to what extent should public policy be guided by the public's views in a democracy and obviously there strurecketsd, congress, judiciary, he can executive. basically if you get too far from what the public wants it's not democracy. >> we have limited

democracy. you elect people to make decisions for you. you hopefully won't have too much of a disconnect at the end of the day between the policies being pursued ultimately those laws have to be written by people who are political representatives. >> tucker: exactly. >> and that means that the courts must we taken a fairly narrow role in this system otherwise the system doesn't work. madison created a system by which factional interests was sort of roll around between the legislative and executive branch in congress. out of that would come the major tarren compromise. work out our differences. that system only works if there is no alternative to that system. if you start to make decisions, for example, in the courts that are really political decisions, it takes the system off line. and that's what has given us the stability. you have countries like france that went through constitutions with almost a seasonal regulator. and they were very unstable. ours has been stable. you can say a lot of things about problems that we have,

but we're still here. we have gone through incredible pressures and periods. and we're still here. and it's largely due to the fact that we all have sort of skin in the game. we all know that if we respect the political system that is worth working for change. >> tucker: i agree with that completely. i have always believed in our system and i want to believe in it. but if you have judges who clearly aren't even making a good faith effort to pretend that their decisions correspond to the text in the contusion, don't the rest ofs have you a right to say something about that? >> well, i think that there is no problem of criticizing the courts. every president in modern times has taken the courts to task. and they have all pledged to change the courts on the left or the right. that's a natural part of the process. there are times when you cross the line. >> tucker: i agree. >> the president's criticism of the ethnicity of that one judge crossed the line. >> tucker: i hated that i agree with you, i hated that. that doesn't mean that if a

judge doesn't see the right to bear arms, which is written explicitly in the bill of rights but somehow imagines the right to abortion which is nowhere to be found. we take that for granted but it's very common. doesn't that raise the question like, what? where does that come from? >> i think the people of good faith can disagree on these issues. i think issues of the second amendment, abortion, these are all issues-out the second amendment is expressed in terms of abortion the court refers to as a right. we can disagree about those things and do it civilly. there is no problem with citizens or president saying that's just not what the law says. that's not what we created as a free. >> tucker: we're in charge. george stephanopoulos does not like it though if you say that keep that in mind if you dare. professor, thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: we have terrifying new numbers about the growth of ms-13 which is actually real despite what they tell you. it's in fact america's deadliest gang. we have got the numbers next.

♪ ♪

don't we need that cable box to watch tv? nope. don't we need to run? nope. it just explodes in a high pitched 'yeahhh.' yeahhh! try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. no satellite needed.

and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

>> tucker: we brought you sad news on this program a couple of times how many american stipulates seem to resemble slums. you may have trouble visualizing what that means and this is for you. after last night's program we were sent this picture by a viewer who lives and works in the city of san francisco. it shows the sidewalk outside his office littered with by our count more than 30 syringes and other drug paraphernalia. this is not in some

abandoned lot or freeway overpass. it's right outside the offices of spotify, a top tech company in downtown san francisco. it's right across the street from we work and one block away from zen rez and twitter and uber. some of the richest companies and richest city in the united states and their employees work in a circus of trash and drugs. the question is do elites even care? and the answer is no they don't. u.s. cities aren't just plagued by homeless drug addicts but deadly central american gangs. it's not propaganda. it's real. new numbers out about the extent of ms-13 that's the primarily el salvadorian gang become the deadliest organized crime ring in the country: jessica joins us with those numbers. thanks for coming on. >> i'm glad to be with you. >> tucker: so ms-13, despite, it sounds like, efforts from the federal government is metastasizing, is what whais that what the nums

show. >> it is. some people have been dismissive of all the attention to this gang, but it has rebuilt itself. it's not a homegrown gang. it was formingd by people who came from central america decades ago illegally. so that was a failure in border security. but, ice and other law enforcement agencies were able to stifle it for a while there. but in recent years, it's really rebounded because of this -- it took advantage of this surge of unaccompanied minors that's been going on for several years and also the lack of immigration enforcement. so they have come back with a vengeance and this is not just petty gang violence, nuisance crimes. we're talking murders. hundreds of murders that ms-13 members have been arrested for. and it's a surge in scourge ina

number. >> tucker: it has spread. tell us what that looks like. >> at a certain point in time, the gang decided to almost open up franchises around the country. places like long island, boston, charlotte, north carolina. as you said the suburbs of washington, d.c. because this is a gang that's controlled from el salvador and the clicks in the united states do send money back to he will value is el salvador tot the whole gang. at certain point in time the leaders put pressure on united states to kick it up a notch and start doing more and bring in more people from central america. recruit more from these kids who recently arrived. they do extortion, home invasions, sex trafficking, prostitution. and murder to prove themselves to each other and intimidate others in the community. and we found that they were active in 22 states just in

the last few years and concentrated as i said in those areas that experienced a lot of the illegal arrivals from central america. >> tucker: right. >> it's urban, it's rural as well and some places that have never had these -- this kind of a gang presence before. and it's difficult for them. >> tucker: we should point out that the victims are almost. >> sanctuary. >> tucker: victims are almost all immigrants. something that imgrant right advocates ignore. ironically. jessica, thanks for coming on and telling us that i appreciate it? >> thank you. >> tucker: the companies google and twitter, two of the biggest companies in the world are once again working to silence free speech online. that story next. ♪ ♪ copd makes it hard to breathe.

so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder,

or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. most people come to la we came with big appetites. with expedia one click gives you access to discounts on thousands of hotels, cars and things to do. like the garland hotel for 40% off. everything you need to go. expedia

♪ >> tucker: we have talked a lot on this show and we are going to talk a lot more

about the growth of the power of big tech companies and how they are now a far bigger threat to your civil liberties than the federal government ever was. now the head of a social media network says that google is censoring his company. how? bill 00man is the co-creator of mind.com and he joins us in the studio.com. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: google is trying to censor your company, how. >> we got banned from advertising platform probably caught up in their out-of-control algorithms which basically ban companies with key words with no rationality. >> tucker: not overstating it saying if you are banned from google's ad platform it can be death for a company. >> it can. it has actually killed tons of countries and content on youtube demonetized pretty serious. >> tucker: they have the power to snuff out a young company. why did they do this to you, do you think? did you do something wrong? >> probably some key word that got caught up in algorithms but it's actually a symptom of a big her

problem of censorship algorithm happening on all of the major networks. we are actually building our own ad network to battle this and completely transparent on the block chain so that everyone can see what's happening with our system. completely open sourced. anyone can expect it, pier review it this is how things have to be. it can't be proprietary. >> tucker: can't. one thing the news consuming public doesn't understand almost all news you read online is controlled by google or facebook because they control 90% of the ads. they are in charge. they own all the news sources in effect. >> and when you go to people's websites who host google is spying on you through those websites. by putting google ads on website you are becoming an agent of google. that's why we need transparent, more freedom based ad platforms to emerge which don't spy on people by default. >> tucker: so you are challenging one of the most complete monopolies in american life. why would they let you do that? >> it's not about them

letting us do that decentralization. open sourced. block chain, transparent social networks are emerging and there is really nothing they can do about it hopefully they will transform. that's what you can hope. >> tucker: so you think that they have this power, the federal government has done nothing about it they have a monopoly basically over all digital information. and the federal government refuses to reign it in for whatever reason. you think you could provide an alternative to that. you can free up the system from their control. >> yeah. i mean, it's happening, free open sourced, decentralized networks are rising up. >> tucker: what's it going to be called? >> i mean, it's going to be a network of networks. next big network is probably not going to be a centralized site. it's going to be mull tuesday of networks interoperating so it can't get censored. >> tucker: you think this will radically disempower google and facebook. >> i think this move will for sure. >> tucker: hire body guards. just kidding.

god speed. we will be rooting for you. that will be transformative in ways people don't understand. we are definitely on your side. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: cnn's anti-trump hysteria dropping the network to remarkably new lows. can't wait to show you the latest next. senate ♪ 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. a heart transplant... that's a whole different ballgame. i was in shock. i am very proud of the development of drugs that can prevent the rejection and prevent the recurrence of the original disease. i never felt i was going to die.

we know so much about transplantation. and we're living longer. you cannot help but be inspired by the opportunities that a transplant would offer. my donor's mom says "you were meant to carry his story". [thud] [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying]

[phone ping] with esurance photo claims, you could have money for repairs within a day... wow! that was really fast. huh. ...so it doesn't have to hurt for long. hmm. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

♪ >> tucker: cnn has been so completely over the top in its coverage of this administration that those of us who remember it from 20 years ago or who in my case used to work there stare slap jaw at the screen really can this be happening? last night even farther than normal editorialized in its kyrons the script at the bottom of the screen twice first in the situation room one kyron read white house repeats false claim is he

tougher on russia than obama. as if that's an objective claim. mean while up front with erin burnett it's clear russian meddling had no impact followed by in parenthesis, no, it's not. fact checking own kyron. has a facial twitch and joins us tonight; joe, kyrons, we should be fair to wolf blitzer who does try hard to keep it straight, they don't write the kyrons but like nobody saw that and said that's too far, we can't do that. >> oh, no, obviously that was a decision in the control room, tucker. and same with aaron burnett. i have been on her show a couple times. i respect her professionally. i think she does a good job. they don't have any decision as far as those kyrons. afterwards they can read the criticism and say hey, guys, it's my face that's on the screen. i'm 00 only one that's going to get criticism for it but

and an end to it kyrons like we are seeing below our screen right now. editorial opinion show like yours it's fine like your newspaper. you go to your editorial page and that's fine. but on news programs, that's something that plays into the narrative if you are cnn that you are the opposition party, that you are leading the resistance against the trump campaign and not serve as an objective news organization now, what's a factual kyron for instance like today in new york, new york experienced record high temperatures in central park. that's a fact. billy graham dies at age 99. that's a fact. when you have breaking news white house repeats trump's false claim objective on russia: sum this up best senior counselor for military and defense affairs for senator tom cotton and john noonan is no relation to danny noon none i want to make that clear cnn respectively please tell

your producer not to do this you can't appoint yourself arbiters in the debate. debate the merit of each administration's policies that's perfectly fine. this isn't putting your finger on the scale that's sitting on it i think that sums it nicely. >> tucker: the trump kyron is a banner at the bottom of the screen. >> a headline. >> tucker: that the host is not aware of. have you noticed this all day, these cable news anchors most of whom as far as i know are childless lecturing the rest of us about how we don't love the children if we don't agree with them on very specific political issue, guns? have you ever seen the press preachier than it was today? >> i remember on the gay marriage rulings a couple years ago a side was taken. it was a side that many americans agreed with. but you can't do that right? and the problem is now it's not a matter of okay, i think the age to buy guns should be raised to 21 and no, i think it shouldn't and here's why.

it's always you know what? you are a bad person. you want children to die as a result. and, you know, we saw it on the conservative side as well on the liberal side as far as people saying that these children are actors. actually being coached. please, i mean, i had a friend that had a daughter in that school hiding in the closet and the emotion is real. i would never doubt these kids in terms of their sentiment around. this they are not being coached. tucker. >> tucker: because we are not liberals we believe in free speech. and we mean it joe thank you so much. >> good to see you. >> tucker: up next, we bid farewell to the great billy graham. in the eastern united states supported by innovative packaging that extends the shelf life of foods and infrastructure upgrades that help us share our produce with the world. all across new york state,

we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov (avo) if yand constipation,ling and you're overwhelmed by everything you've tried-- all those laxatives, daily probiotics, endless fiber-- it could be wearing on you. tell your doctor what you've tried, and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess

and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. ask your doctor if 90 days of linzess may be right for you. don't we need that cable box to watch tv? nope. don't we need to run? nope. it just explodes in a high pitched

'yeahhh.' yeahhh! try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. no satellite needed.

than♪ you. imagine if the things you bought every day... earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go. with the united mileageplus explorer card, you'll get a free checked bag. two united club passes. priority boarding. and earn fifty thousand bonus miles after you spend three thousand dollars on purchases in the first three months from account opening plus, zero-dollar intro annual fee for the first year, then ninety-five dollars. learn more at theexplorercard.com ♪ ♪ >> tucker: the great evangelist billy graham died today he was 99 years old. there are a lot of remarkable things about graham's life. maybe the most strike something this: within living memory a fairly

orthodox christian became a national celebrity in this country. graham ministered to presidents and actors and captains of industry, all of whom were proud to talk to him in public. graham didn't become rich and famous by promoting self-actualization or selling real estate advice or staging walks over hot coals. he never said one time you go girl. he basically just preached the bible. in the america of the time that was enough. people stopped him on the street to shake his hand. we live in a different country now. but billy graham never changed. in an age when virtually every one of our leaders seems hollow and craven, graham spent almost a century here without disgracing himself. that's a life well-lived. billy graham, rest in peace. we are confident he will. amazingly, the hour has slipped through our fingers like sand through an hourglass. that is it for us tonight. tune in every night to the show that the is sworn enemy of lying pomposity, smugness and group think, all of which are everywhere these

days but we continue forward with your help. good night from washington. have a great night, we'll see you tomorrow, sean hannity is next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ this is how we roll ♪ this is how we roll ♪ this is how we roll ♪ this is how we do >> sean: how we doing? [cheers and applause] >> sean: hello cpac? how are you all doing? [cheers and applause] >> sean: first night of cpac. have a seat. you are on live television. text mom and dad and grandma