page to help send him to college, and hit $24,000. good job. thank you so much for your hair was in. we'll see you tomorrow night. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." robert mueller's investigation, you'll remember, was supposed to be about russian collusion, them hacking of our election. obviously there's a new goal now, what is it? in a minute, brit hume and jonathan turley join us to spell that out. first, mark zuckerberg spent hours on capitol hill today taking questions from senators about facebook's role in the 2016 election and in american society more generally. we'll talk to one of the senators was there and spoke to zuckerberg and what it meant. but first, brad larsen who covers tech for our show, has big moments from today. >> facebook ceo mark zuckerberg

checked in with congress today for day one of hearings. we learned a little bit about the inner workings of the sociay media giant.it one thing we heard repeatedly was exactly what facebook is and is not. >> what you think of as the facebook service, everyone has control every single time they go to share that, they can delete that data anytime they want. full control for the majority of the data. >> sharing everything? not so much. >> mr. zuckerberg, would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? >> [laughs] no. >> i think maybe what this is all about, your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy, and how much you give away.o >> with 2.2 billion users and in the wake of concerns about more than 80 million users having their data stolen by

political consulting firms, cambridge analytica, is facebook your only choice? >> if i'm buying a ford and it doesn't work well and i don't like it, i can buy a chevy. if i'm upset with facebook, what's the equivalent product that i can go sign up for? >> the second category that i was going to talk about -- >> i'm not talking about t categories, is there a real competition you face? don't you think you have a monopoly? >> it certainly doesn't feel like that to me. >> there is also concern about first amendment rights and would control the social media giant has over what you see, say, and share. >> you say you have 15-20,000 people working on security and content review. do you know the political orientation of those people engaged in content review? >> no, senator. we do not generally ask people about their political orientation when they're joining the company. >> senator ben sasse asked a

similar question and ceo see mark zuckerberg said any time someone to hurt others. he is also concerned about addiction to the social media site. >> as a dad, do you worry abouts social media addiction as a problem for america's teens? >> my hope is that we can be idealistic but have a broad view of our responsibility. >> tucker, we'll get more from zuckerberg tomorrow when he sits down for day two. he has certainly been very frank and hisnd responses and a little obtuse about specifics, which makes the lack of understanding of exactly how facebook works in our understanding of it very clear. >> tucker: thanks for that, brett. we appreciate it. senator john kennedy of louisiana was one of the many senators who spoke to zuckerberg today. here's part of it. >> here's what everybody's beenu trying to tell you today, and i say this gently. your user agreement socks.

i'm going to suggest to you that you go back home and rewrite it. and tell your $1200 an hour lawyers, no disrespect, they are good. but tell them, you want it written in english. >> tucker: senator kennedy joins us tonight. senator, thanks for coming on. >> you bet. >> tucker: what was the point of this hearing? what laws are you considering tt constrain facebook? >> you know, tucker, i was mildly disappointed with the hearing. i wanted to point to be -- i wanted mr. zuckerberg to step up to the plate and say, three words, "i'm on it." i get it, i can fix it, we'll do it together. that is not what i heard. i heard -- i just didn't feel like we connected with mr. zuckerberg today. look, facebook is an extraordinary company. it's done magical things. but it's clear that the digital

promised land has some minefields in it. one, the privacy issue. the other is the propaganda. i don't want to have to vote to regulate facebook. by god, i will, unless they are willing to step up to the plate and address those two issues. i think they can. i hope they can. if they can't, we've got a bigger problem than just what we talked about today. >> tucker: here, you've got the biggest provider of news in the united states with far more power than william randolph hearst ever had, with a long and proven track record of censorship in this country and other countries, with the power toto change election results. you don't think that's enough of a threat right there to act? >> i think that is a very important issue. senator tom cruise, senator ben sasse made that point. i ran out of time, i wanted to make that point. i think it's true, poisonous being spread on social media. okay. what ismedi poison? defined poison.

a lot of our democratic wants made a big deal about, cambridge analytica may work for president trump, i wanted to ask mr. zuckerberg today about this statement made by somebody, ms. carol davidson, from president obama's reelection campaign in 2012. this is what she said. she ran media analytics for the president. she said, "facebook was very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side." i wanted to ask if that is an accurate statement. but i ran out of time. >> tucker: you don't think -- i mean, finally, congress would have uniquely the ability to get this under control, to think that too much power is vested in one company, and they are in effect, enemies of the first amendment, , i know republicans don't like to regulate things but do you think we arere approaching a point whe for the good of the public, that

may need to be done? >> i don't think we're there yet. i think a a lot of it depends on how mr. zuckerberg reacts to this. i'll say it again. they are two issues. one is a privacy problem and the other is a propaganda problem. the issue there is how do we solve it without impinging on people's first amendment rights. that is a tough one. >> tucker: it is a tough one. >> i want to be assured, didn't get it today, maybe we'll get it in a second round, that facebook is not politically biased one way or the other. i don't want to pitch for the republicans or democrats either, though. >> tucker: y senator, thank you. from our discussion, -- for more discussion, both of them join u us. roger, first to you. the head of facebook, mark zuckerberg said today that he and the company are happy

to censor hate speech but was unclear exactly what hate speeches and suggested that artificial intelligence will settle that question.nt if youse care about freedom of speech, does that make you uncomfortable? >> the whole thing makes me uncomfortable, tucker. the fundamental issue is that the business model is based on inflammatory emotion. once you build a business model on that, there's no way to put it back in. facebook has shown itself to be less than good at managing the dialogue on its site. as you point out, they are absolutely editing everything. there are a million different things they could show you at any moment in time. they pick the 20 that serve their business model best. quite clearly, they have failed. precisely as senator kennedy just described. >> tucker: dave, we had a researcher on, a psychologist recently, and he's looked at a bunch of different tech companies, if mark zuckerberg

had sent a targeted message to people identified on facebook as hillary voters and encouragedd them to vote, he could have made it will look like 450,000 and changed the course of the election. that's a lot of power for one media company to have. even if you are for mark zuckerberg's political views, should any company have the ability to change election outcomes the way facebook does? >> no. i think you are giving them too much credit. first of all, i am not a fan of that political worldview. i am a fan of free enterprise and letting them do what they will. by that standard, you can say, how many people vote, does "the new york times" editorial accusing a candidate or anyone else making an influence. i am very wary of the facebook site as a user. but this discussion of, should we censore that, knock back ther political influence, and are they a gigantic monopoly, i think that's crazy. >> tucker: they are literally a monopoly. in the digital ad space --

>> they are not a monopoly, tucker. >> tucker: i have worked -- let me give you the following number. facebook and google control over 90% of digital ads. that means if you run news or anything else that is ad supported online, you're beholden to them. they control the market completely. why is that not a monopoly? >> if you want to say to monopoly for digital ads. if you want to say it's a monopoly for political content, it's not. >> tucker: digital ads are what supports all online news coverage apart from the nonprofits. that is the whole -- you control the outcome you control the company. >> tucker, are you worried about a monopoly in the digital ad business or a concentration of political power? >> tucker: i don't think there is a distinction. i am worried about both come with a total inability of the congress to respond to a looming threat to its own legitimacy from facebook and google. am i being insane here, roger? >> i'm on your site on this issue. at the end of the day, the

problem we have here is a massive concentration of power. that concentration of power is in the hands of people who preserve the rights of the first amendment for the corporation, but theyns tend to overlook the first amendment rights of the people who are the users of the site. in that process, what we have is these things that are global, they are influencing democracy all around the world, and we can't find a single example of them influencing it for the better. i am with senator kennedy. this thing has gone on both sides. we've seen massive abuses of facebook on both sides of this thing. it doesn't look good either way. we need to produce facebook's influence so that f we don't hae it determining the outcome of any election. >> tucker: i think that is right. in the end, this is not an american company, more precisely, a company that sees itself as an american company. i would argue that it is but they don'tf, believe that. google doesn't either. they are companies of the world. yet they have more influence potentially over our voting

patterns than russia or china or any other government. why wouldn't that be a threat to democracy? >> the worst part of it, tucker, they behave as though they don't have an influence. as a result, bad actors have been him in a play the system, essentially undefended. my simple point is, having watched this company from its earliest days, has evolved into something veryry different thant started out as. i, also else, am a believer in free enterprise. i'm also a bigger believer in democracy. >> tucker: does any of this bother you? i get that you are for free enterprise. as any of this bother you at all? >> i largely stopped using the apps in january when they went through their latest news revision to decide what i could see and not see. but thatse doesn't mean that i believe that senator kennedy or those other knuckleheads down there today and that hearing, which gives -- i say it was a goat rodeo but that is unfair to

go to rodeos. you can't let those people make those decisions. consumers have to make those decisions. your a assertions that it's an unbreakable monopoly, it's just not just not. >> tucker: it's not of theon unbreakable, it's growing. thank you both. we are out of time. i appreciate it. tonight, and just the past 12 minutes, we've seen evidence that two other cable networks ae colluding with "the new york times" to put negative stories on the trump administration. sort of. our proof and both brit hume and professor jonathan turley coming up next. ♪ u what are the ingredients of a life well lived? is it the places you go? the things you own? or the people that fill it with meaning? for 150 years, generations of families have chosen pacific life

for retirement and life insurance solutions. protecting what's most important to you. that's the power of pacific. ask a financial advisor about pacific life.

♪ >> tucker: cnn, msnbc, and "the new york times" are working together to pushr: a story at te trump administration. of the top of the hour, those two are "times" reporters, who coauthored a piece that said that donald trump tried to fire robert mueller in december. the investigation was officially created to uncover russian hacking because they hacked our democracy. that is not what it is anymore. it's an all-purpose probe into the president, his personal and financial life, designed to make us feel safer, help you feel safer. yesterday, fbi agents raided the office of michael cohen, the president's personal lawyer. apparently looking for evidence about payments tovi stormy daniels, the porn star who is not from russia and who did not hack our election. the constitutionalist would be thrilled by this, they always

hated the bill of rights, those. >> if you listen closely tonight, you can hear the faint applause from heaven of this country's founding fathers, who bequeathed to us a nation where thes rule of law is supreme. we are a nation of laws. >> tucker: yeah, the founders wanted to know, did the money go to stormy daniels? what happened to stormy danielst jonathan turley is a professor at george washington school of law and he joins us tonight. i think i'm a professor, you are one of the trustworthy people in this conversation. i don't know what your politics are. but i trust her legal views. what do you make of this raid on the president's lawyers offices? >> part of this is of the cohen is making, and the fact that cohen tends to blur his relationships between being a lawyer, a fixer, a friend, a business partner. that is dangerous under any circumstance. in particular dangerous if you

will invoke the attorney-client privilege because first you have to prove that you are acting like an attorney. he may have trouble with that when you look at the stormy daniels agreement. itl is still not clear what role he is playing there, whether he is this company he created, trump's lawyer, that will come back to haunt him and honk the president when they say some of this stuff should remain confidential. i think the president's right in the sense that whenever you have a raid on attorney's office, it should raise very troubling concerns for everyone. i mean, this is a serious problem when someone can't rely on their attorney. >> tucker: is the core potential violation here that the payments to stormy daniels, miss daniels, we'll call her, where some form of campaign finance violation? >> actually, that is strengthening, some of the statements made publicly. when the president said i>> didt know anything about this payment, it sounds a lot like an in-kind campaign contribution. that is what john edwards was

charged with and prosecuted for. he ultimately was not convicted of that. but he has they could make a case like that. supposedly, the warrant covers everything from stormy daniels to taxi medallion. there's a lot in between. >> tucker: is there any indication that stormy daniels was working with russian agents to influence the outcome of the election?ha she was herself part of the hacking of our democracy? >> i'm not familiar with all of her movies but no. >> tucker: [laughs] i guess we can say the nature of the investigation has changed profoundly. >> absolutely. there is no question this is far off the mark. so was paul manafort. what is fascinating about this is that rod rosenstein didn't have much of w a problem when mueller came and said i want to expand paul manafort's investigation to include stuff that w occurred years before, nt connected to the campaign. some of the stuff is actually closer and yet rosenstein said i want the southern district to do this. >> tucker: could rosenstein have said, no, that is not the

original charter, not the original point? >> he could have. it gets tough. if mueller says, we have evidence of crime that we have uncovered, it is hard not to give that to a prosecutor to look at. we don't know what was shown to rod rosenstein. that is part of the problem. >> tucker: i think what you are saying is that you would have too be either dumb or inactive drug user to allow an independent counsel to start.ion >> [laughs] look, this is one of those things where it is easy to unleash the dogs of war, hard to get them back. a special counsel is a torpedo in the water, to use another metaphor. he is stillth there. what is interesting about this move is that they haven't just expanded the investigation. they've expanded the prosecutors. so now, even if the president moves against rosenstein, moves against mueller, it wouldn't necessarily stop with the southern district.

>> tucker: thank you for that. professor jonathan turley, i appreciate it. democrats are gearing up for an impeachment push against the president. what's the point of that and what will the outcome of it to be, assuming they take back the house a number of terms? brit hume joins us next. ♪ 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. you agreed to never give up. to ask, what else can i do? you agreed to remember the good people who rise with every challenge, to remember their strength.

to serve, with grit and grace. you made a promise. we did too. the all-new ram 1500.

you wouldn't accept from any one else. so why accept it from your allergy pills? most pills don't finish the job because they don't relieve nasal congestion. flonase allergy relief is different. flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. start your day with flonase for more complete allergy relief. flonase. this changes everything. >> has the president at any time thought about stepping down before are now? >> i think that's an absolutely

ridiculous question. >> tucker: nobody can quite come in the light of day, tell you why the stormy daniels story is so significant but clearly, it is, judging by the air time it gets. i guess is more important on the looming war in syria, more important than our economy being eclipsed by china, more important than the vanishingei middle class are the tens of thousands who will die of drug abuse this year. affective matter so much that president trump should consider leaving office over it.t. is anybody who doesn't work in media believe that? brit hume is our senior political analyst at fox and he joins us tonight. so maybe i'm blinded by my reflexive repulsion about this story, but is it, in the scheme of stories, concerning the world is on fire and changing faster than we can keep up with, is the stormy daniels story as significant as the airtime it's getting? >> of course it's not. >> tucker: thank you. >> the problem with the story from the start has been this: it doesn't tell us anything about donald trump that we didn't already know or should have

known. indeed, the story itself came out, at least a piece of it that he had this liaison with her, came out before theh election. americans who voted for and against donald trump knew or should have known that he was a habitual philanderer, demanded greater public spectacle of it in the past, a man with a taste for flashy women. the story was entirely credible and arranged so to this day. the fact that he denies it is a detail i don't think most of the people who are for him think his denial is true. but it simply doesn't rise to the kind of level that you are talking about here, unless you want to take very seriously thei possibility that the money paid to keep her from blurting all thisp out sooner was a campaign contribution that well exceededh the proper limits for campaignd contributions. that is about as big as you can get it to be as far as we know.

>> tucker: that seems like ake pretty tenuous connection to news, just me. by the way, i think other channels have covered this exclusively since we started 28 minutes ago. that is all theynu have covered for this hour so far. >> i think there's a lot of excitement about the search of the cohen offices and so on. but the question that you still have to answer here is, what really is the underlying crime and doesn't rise to the level of something, for purposes of impeachment, or as the questioner at the briefing said, the possibility that trump will resign -- an interesting question. is anything about trump's behavior, reaction to any ofge this, suggest this is a man contemplatingin quitting? obviously, palpably not. >> tucker: i'm not sure that he or anyone in the white house fully understands what would happen if democrats take the house this fall, as many polls suggest they will. it seems like the very top of

their agenda will be impeaching president trump. that is whether voters want. yesterday congressman beto o'rourke of texas, running against ted cruz, said he would vote to impeach drum, although he acknowledged it wouldn't make sense to do it now. democratic voters want impeachment. do you think democratic members, if they take control of the house, can do anything but start impeachment? >> i think there will be moves in that direction. of course the last time this was done, and the case of bill clinton, and the charges were among perjury and obstruction of justice, he lied to a grand jury, they impeached him in the house. he was not anywhere near convicted in the senate.ed he ended up leaving office in something like a blaze of glory. it kind of backfired politically on the republicans. democratic politicians, those of the house of representatives, might be giving some pause by how all that turned out. you are right about the base. the democratic base cannot stand the ground that trump walks on. they want to mount and they want

him impeached and they want the members toar be part of the resistance. little mr. o rourke running against ted cruz seem confused t work because he is running for the senate, and the senate is a vote to impeach. the house votes to impeach, the house votes on whether or not to convict. his sentiments reflect that of many democrats. i think there will be a move to do that if, in fact, they get control of the house. how well it will work out for them politically remains to be seen. >> tucker: it has remained to be seen. brit hume, thanks as always. great to see you. all are geniuses here in washington are unanimous on this question. we must act attack syria and ae who asks questions about why we should attack syria is working for vladimir putin. tout is almost everyone in power lined up behind yet another military intervention?ry is the public crying out for one? glenn greenwald has watch list

closely and he joins us with an answer. ♪ who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. so we swapped your car out for the all-new chevy travyes.. do you think it's going to surprise your daughter? absolutely. wait, is mom here yet? where's mom? she's in this car. what the heck? whoa. yo, whose car is this? this is the all-new chevy traverse. this is beautiful. it has apple carplay compatibility. do those apps look familiar? ohhhhh. do you want to hit this button? there's a hidden compartment. uhh, whoa. mom, when i'm older can you buy me this car? i wanna buy me this car. janice, mom told me you bought a house. okay. [ buttons clicking ] [ camera shutter clicks ] so, now that you have a house, you can use homequote explorer. quiet. i'm blasting my quads. janice, look.

i'm in a meeting. -janice, look. -[ chuckles ] -look, look. -i'm looking. it's easy. you just answer some simple questions online, and you get coverage options to choose from. you're ruining my workout. cycling is my passion. that you don't think about is very much. counties it's really not very important. i was in the stone ages as much as technology wise. and i would say i had nothing. you become a school teacher for one reason, you love kids. and so you don't have the same tools, you don't always believe you have the same... outcomes achievable for yourself. when we got the tablets, it changed everything. by giving them that technology and then marrying it with a curriculum that's designed to have technology at the heart of it, we are really changing the way that students learn.

and i can't wait for ten years from now when i get to talk to them again and see, like, who they are. ♪ theseare heading back home.y oil thanks to dawn, rescue workers only trust dawn, because it's tough on grease yet gentle. i am home, i am home, i am home

>> tucker: virtually all of official washington, republicans and democrats, have united around the idea that the united states has a moral obligation to go deeper into war in syria. we have thousands of troops in syria, though you wouldn't know it from watching the other robert mueller based channels. they are all stormy daniels all the time. one american soldier has died in syria. we've killed hundreds of russian citizens so far there. that is not enough, the pundits say. we e need a real war, something big and deadly, primarily to avenge the syrian president, assad, poison gas attack on his own citizens over the weekend. here are some of the growing consensus. >> assad and his inner circle should be considered war criminals, legitimate military targets,s, if he had the opportunity to take them out, you should. >> it is very clear to me that this president, after using such rhetoric on sunday, has to take a stronger military action then we did last year.

>> we have a leader who is now a war criminal supported by the iranians and russians, that demands a strong and risky response. if the west won't stand up when a leader uses gas multiple times against his own people, we live in a very dangerous world. >> tucker: so that's the consensus. last night we asked the obvious questions about her. before we go to war, are we surr all of this is real? to be know that assad was behind the gas attacks? it's not an offense of assad but it's an obvious question. how can we know that conclusively so soon after it happened? we did not have americans on the ground. why would assad do that, given the certainty it would hurt his own interests? while we are on the subject, why is a war in syria a good idea for the united states in the first place? how would that make us safer, happier, more prosperous? those seem like reasonable questions, in fact, the exact questions you would want yourak policymakers to ask. they are not asking them. they are offended to ask dumb i cure them. the first person we ask those

questions to imply that we were somehow aligned with vladimir putin just for asking. other than that, he had no answers at all. it wasmi embarrassing. he did not seem embarrassed at all. others denounced us right off the top. "the washington post" tweeted, "he is insane. fox is not a new garden." nothing less than undiluted russian propaganda. summarizingor the criticism perfectly, tweeting, "shut the f up." these are journalist, by the way. no explanation. of course, shutting the f up as the whole point of tweets like that, they want you to be quiet and wanto you to do what you are told. no questions, shut up and obey. no chance of that, though, sorry. glenn greenwald is the founding editor of "the intercept" and he joins us tonight. leaving aside the real question of how you should respond to syria, is it a threat to the world order, to us our neighbors, it's a fair question.

but why, the universal attempt in the media here in this country, left and right, to shut down a meaningful conversation? >> the only time i think the media praised donald trump was almost one year ago today when he bombed an airfield in syria in response to what had been alleged at the time was a chemical attack by the assad regime, people who ate donald trump and go on air every dayry took a break for 24 hourso proclaim him presidential because that is what u.s. presidents do come with a drop bombs on other countries with no declaration of war, no reason why u.s. interests or the u.s. borders are t at stake when it happens. i think that is the ethos in washington, not only is it an inherently good and presidential thing to do, to drop bombs and other countries, that is why polls show the greatest threat to world peace in the eyes of the public and around the world is the united states. also adam smith wrote 300 years ago that the reason people who

live in capitals and the elites and factories love to watch their countries from other countries as it becomes it givet and purpose in this pulsating simulation. it doesn't matter whether they accomplish anything, it makes them feel strong and purposeful. bombs away. >> tucker: human nature explains a lot of this. i agree completely. but journalists exist to push back against that. not necessarily against war, but against a heedless rush toward anything. our job is to be skeptical and ask real questions. why is no one doing that and anyone who does isis attacked? >> is so, you know, just about every name that you mentioned in the media who attacked you for raising questions about we ought to go in and bomb countries are deal comments, people who were doing this in 2002 and 2003, saying that people ask questions about whether we should go to war and remove saddam hussein,

an admirer of the saddam regime, they to the same in 2011, when they tried to remove ghaddafi. it's a standard tactic. what we have is this union between neo-cons, who been embraced by the establishment wings of the republican democratic party and the militarists, people like lindsey graham and lots of democrats, who love every war. this climate arises that you are supposed to cheer when it comes time to drop bombs and other countries, not ask whether there is evidence to justify, not ask whether it will do good, kill civilians. if you do ask us questions, it means youse are on the side of america's enemies. it's an incredibly authoritarian tactic that gets used to suppress debate. >> tucker: its poison. glenn greenwald, thank you as always. >> good to be with you. >> tucker: richard goodstein is an attorney who advised both of hillary clinton's campaigns

and he supports strike on syria. richard joins us tonight. it seems to me, no matter what conclusion he reached, the first question for everybody ought to be the same, which is, how is this in america's strategic interest? i haven't brought a single person who can answer it or is even willing to try. that is a problem. wouldn't you say? >> it would be if there was no answer. i saw your interview last night, you ask the question, how do we know assad was behind this? because general mattis basically said, we weren't sure. but what we know is that a u.n. commission saw links between sarin gas that we know was used and has the hallmarks of what -- >> tucker: i am totally open-minded! i am not flocking for assad, my god. i just want to be certain that wewe are acting on the basis of your verifiable information. of last week's information, let's stop lying.

there is no way we could know and 48 hours, 24 hours, when the cable news show started pushing for war, that he was behind it. let's stop lying. that is my only point. >> i'm not sure who it is. it had all the hallmarks of something we know assad did. he was destroying towns willy-nilly. the notion that somehow the rebelsth would kill their own women and children and have them foaming at the moutham and so forth to make a point for cnn or fox, that seems a bit much. i think what we are trying to do -- >> tucker: okay, so the first sarin gas attack took place within a week at the trump administration say we will no longer remove assad from power. that happened, bam, we went back to the original policy. this attack took place less than a weekss after the trump people said we will pull the troops out. i don't know who did it. i'm not accusing anybody. i am merely saying, there is clearly a questions that we need

to be asking about this and anybody who does -- i am a living example -- is shouted down and called a tool is putin. it's's a insane. >> i applaud you for feeling the umbrage -- >> tucker: i'm attacked all the time. i i don't care. i care about when and where we commit american troops. i have a son who is 21. it's not a joke. >> it's not a question of committing troops, sure, there will be troops. we are talking about degrading their air force, degrading the helicopters, doing something we didn't do -- >> tucker: what does degrading mean? >> having so many of them -- >> tucker: plus not use euphemisms. >> lets blow up airplanes and helicopters, if there are people in it, so be it. they've made their choice, aligned with assad. these are the very people who are dropping -- i think we have had photographic evidence -- dropping chlorine bombs on civilian populations. do i feel badly about that? no. should we be doing it? yes. >> tucker: what's the goal? we take assad out -- don't tell

me that's not the plan when you wage war against the government, you are not rooting for its continuation. who runs syria? >> i don't know actually, taking him out is the objective. i agree with you. >> tucker: what's the objective? kill more people? >> the objective is that assad knows that his dropping chlorine gas on people is something that he w will pay a price -- >> tucker: we are not sure he did at. >> we have to establish whether he did it and the fact is they shouldn't be a feel-good exercise like it was last year when trump was basically talking about that great piece of chocolate cake with president x president xi, that was a feel-good exercise. if we do-ge. something, we shouo something that assad can to it as easily. >> tucker: does it bother you when there is universal consensus on the left, among establishmentt republicans, that we just know. stop asking questions, let's go ahead and do this for reasons we can't fully explain. we can't tell you how it will make you richer or safer or

happier purchase to shut up and do it anyway? >> we think we need to go after war crimes. the question is whether assad did it, it has all the hallmarks of assad. i don't blame people for concluding it did. dodo we need to establish with some certainty that it was assad? yes. >> tucker: any time a government does something appalling, we need to bomb them? >> no. we can't address every war crimes but also that we can address, we should. >> tucker: i can't think of -- >> plenty more. i agree. >> tucker: richard, thank you. my head is spinning. one of the internet's top prostitution sites just got shut down. it's getting confusing and feminism world.at is it pro women are antiwoman? we'll get the line on that next. ♪

a company you can trust. geico even helped us with homeowners insurance. more sounds great. gotta love more... right, honey? yeah! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. the wonderful thing about polident is the fact that it's very, very tough on bacteria, yet it's very gentle on the denture itself. polident's 4 in 1 cleaning system consists of 4 powerful ingredients that work together to deep clean your denture in hard to reach places. it kills 99.99% of odor causing bacteria and it helps to remove stains. polident should be the first choice of every person that wears a denture, to clean their denture. termites, we're on the move.24/7. of every person that wears a denture, roger.

hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> tucker: for sites that pigott shall calm, classified ad side, has been shut down and several top officials who work there have gotten in trouble, they have been indicted over allegations that that site facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking. you would think feminists would be happy about that and some are. others are outraged by it. women's march tweeted "they're shutting down of backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers, who rely on their site to get in touch with clients. their rates are women's rights. a talk show host on a feminist who supports keeping backpage up joins us tonight. great to see you. >> thanks for having me back. >> tucker: i know you are a libertarian, i don't agree with you but i respect that, i think it is an intellectually coherent way to look at the world. ioo also know you are a feminis.

he seem at odds with each other. the libertarian side of you would say, people have a right to enter into voluntary contracts, prostitution falls under that heading. for the feminist part of you can't really believe that prostitution is empowering to women because it is the opposite. >> here's the thing. we are talking about governments shuttingnt down a website. regardless of what you and i think ethically about prostitution and other types of sex worker, the question to ask is whether it violates anyone's rights. we need to come in order to empowers. women, leave all chois up to them in terms of how to conduct their own personal sex lives. i think that's a reasonable thing to say. as libertarian. the feminist position is about empowerment and dignity and not objectifying women,, reducing them to the physical appearance, which is what prostitution does. >> my version, and so far as i

can just dumb i consider myself a feminist, in terms of protecting women's rights, whenever there is an actual threat women's rights, i'm going to be there and argue against whatever it is and say that we need to take action accordingly. insofar as this website was just facilitating transactions having to do with prostitution, or other types of sex work, you need to leave the choice of to the women. it is not the american way to force a particular type of lifestyle choice just because they disagree with it because of your own ethical position. we need to look at the perspective of the individual. >> tucker: that doesn't mean that all "lifestyle choices" are the same. sure why feminist groups like women's march would describe prostitutes arts sex workers. many of them are very young, many of them are being pimped out.

to speak ofbl that problem would be only worse if they are not online opportunity for these wo. tucker, there are two further troubling implications of something like this shutting down a site like backpage.com. one is it is in conjunction with a couple of pieces of legislation that are also troubling, designed to remove content about sex off of the internet and i am myself think that sex is a good thing. i don't think we should be cutting down content on the internetet. the second thing is that i think this is ominous in terms of other types of websites and tech companies coming under government control in the future.. we just saw zuckerberg in front of congress to dave, you think, oh, right now it is just a prostitution and sex trafficking website. but next it will be tindr, maybe

we can control that down. then it will be facebook and twitter. this is the problem, tucker -- >> tucker: i can't wait for that date to be honest with you. >> today's websites, tucker, they are not only the method of distributing content, including the content that is necessary to change the culture for the better, theyr also collect information about users. so it's a very different type of media. >> tucker: i am aware of that. >> we have to be very careful about putting that under government control -- you would agree with me, -- >> tucker: i agreed with you ten years ago when i was a mindless libertarian who thought that government was a greater threat to our freedom. >> we don't want to end up in george orwell's "1984." if you think that information is troubling in the hands of somebody wants to make money, think of it in the hands of government. >> tucker: which is elected.

amy, thank you. it's always nice to have you here. mark zuckerberg testifying at the hill is a big story but another tech date and revealed his vision of the future and it will wreck your night. stay tuned. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it.

this one's below market price and has bluetooth.

same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value. your society was led by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney,

and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 5 times more detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com >> tucker: mark zuckerberg consuming all the headlines recently. >> tucker: mark zuckerberger consuming all the headlines recently. lucky for twitter ceo jack dorsey who revealed his terrifying vision of the country's future. he shared an article last week. he called it a great read. published on medium. it says there is no bipartisan future for the country. one side must win and destroy the other. describes the country in a nonviolent civil war. the only way forward c is to do what california has done. the piece is explicit about importing a voter base. and all debate. allow only the left to speak. in other words, make america a lot more like twitter. a one-party state were armies of serfs happily serve tech gods like, well, jackck dorsey.

that's the future we are all hoping for. we didn't have sex-crazed pandas tonight but we are on it because we are journalists. stay tuned for the rest of the week for developments. that's it for us. in new york, sean hannity standing by. >> sean: great show as always. covering several major breaking stories. we have new information about robert mueller's never ending partisan witch hunt. this so-called of mesh investigation into russia collusion has officially moved beyond its mandate into a political takedown of the presidenttica you elected in a minute, we will uncover the shocking, unfair, two-tiered justice system in the country and show you how abusively biased and corrupt mueller and his team of investigators are and that they have declared an all-out political war against this president. also tonight, the media spinning out of control following the fbi's raid on trump's personal attorney michael cohen. we will explain. also tonight we are closely monitoring the situation in