her parents she wants to hug all of the police officers in every state. most trusted, most-watched, most grateful you spent the evening with us. shannon is back tomorrow. good night from washington. i am emanuel. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." for the past 18 months democrats in the congress and their p.r. consultants in the press have told you that donald trump wons the 2016 presidential election mostly because his campaign somehow colluded with the government of vladimir putin. to prove that, they have brought the usual business of government here in washington basically to a standstill and launched the most divisive special counsel investigation in the history of the country. it has now gone on for more than a year and yet remarkably to this very day we still have no proof of collusion. just this weekend, democrat mark warner of the senate intel committee, someone everybody in washington pretends is impressive, was offered a chance on television to provide actual evidence of russian collusion.

he declined. of course he did, they always do. you've seen this before, but tonight we have something c different for you.he we have a democrat who says he has the smoking gun. three months ago, we made this offer to congressman swalwell of california, a member of the house intelligence committee. watch. >> if you have any evidence at all of collusion, any, and i don't care how small it is, i will give the floor to you, and i mean that. i want to wrap this up. i'm sure you do, too. >> tucker: we offered the congressman a full half-hour live on the show if he could give us evidence, real evidence, of russian collusion of trump's campaign and to his credit, tonight he is taking us up on that offer.at there's nothing staged about this conversation, the one you are about to see. if the congressman has proved the trump people colluded with a foreign power, we'll be the first to call for indictments. but if he doesn't have that proof, if after all this time there is still no real evidence of collusion, then we will know for certain that this whole thing is a lie that has badly damaged our country.

we are going to find out in just a minute.g meanwhile, the russiano investigation continues to expose deep and terrifying corruption in washington, not in the ways people who launched it expected. on friday, "the new york times" and "washington post" reported that the obama administration employed a spy who posed as an advisor to the trump campaign during the 2016 election. he was a longtime cia asset who fed information back to federal intelligence agencies. the obama people lied about doing this.d but they did it. as far as we know nothing like that has ever happened inin american history. richard nixon was accused of less than that and he left office. you would think the self-described guardians of democracy in the media would be horrified by the suggestion of partisan spying, no matter what they think of trump personally. but they are not horrified. instead they are aggressively defending it like the craven lackeys they are. "the washington post" over the weekend actually ran an op-ed with this headline, we are not making this up. "the fbi didn't use an informant to go after trump, they used one to protect him."

amazingly "the new york times" agreed with that. here was its story on the subject.ew "fbi used informant to investigate russia ties to campaign, not to spy." in other words, donald trump should be grateful that obama's fbi's spied on him. it's for their own good. the people who wrote crap this should be ashamed.te it's partisan cheerleading and embarrassingly credulous. just transcribe whatever spin you got from your fbi source ana call it a news story. how with these idiot reporters feel if the trump administration read their emails or tapped their cell phones or sent a spy to spy on them and then claimed it was all for their owl good? obviously they would be outraged and so would we, because we are not hacks. obama's cia director john brennan, by contrast, is a hack. he's also a liar who has done more to embarrass and discredit the intelligence community than any other single person. brennan has been on twitter attacking trump and anyone else who wants to know more the abou. the obama administration's spying efforts in the last campaign, as if americans don't

have a right to know when the government was spying on them and why. a ruling class is completely out of control, that the real lesson of this russian nonsense. we are joined by byron york from the "washington examiner" and jonathan turley. professor, first to you. does the public, do americans have a right to know if they were spied on and why? >> i think that they do. these are very serious allegations and they are unprecedented. we don't know what the truth is. maybe there was a valid reason for the investigation. maybe they used valid means, but we should want to know. what i think it is being a case of willful blindness here is i that we have confirmation that trump apparently was correct when he said over a year agoon that he had people in his campaign that were under surveillance and it turns out that it was much broader than we thought, even though people like clapper and other in the obama's administration denied it, it does appear to be a

surveillance program, it does appear to be an investigation, and now you have an individual who reportedly offered to be an advisor in a campaign when he was an asset for the fbi or the cia or both. i can't imagine what justice official would sign off on that. you can try to split this as you may. whether this is an investigation or surveillance. but from trump's standpoint, there is a legitimate issue. you can tell a victim this isn't a mugging, it's just a forced divestiture, but it sure feels like a mugging unless you can prove to the contrary. >> tucker: if bush had done this to obama, i would want to know why and i think it's fair to want to know.a what do we know? you have been reporting on this. when did this start? >> the emergence of this informant has kind of thrownwn into doubt our previous timetable of this. we've always been told that the fbi investigation formally started on july 31st. they wrote up something called

the electronic communication that started this investigation, but now we hear that the informant was actually reachingr out and talking to trump campaign people well before that, at least weeks before that, maybe longer before that and i think what you are seeing on capitol hill is some investigators, republican investigators, are looking evenn further back than that. >> tucker: what would that mean? that he was doing it unilaterally because he was interested or that he was doing it at the direction of one of the obama agencies? >> that he was doing it at the direction of an agency before they had a pretense, a pretext to actually do this. so that would be a big issue inside the fbi. also, we are seeing some investigators looking even further back to march. on march 21st, trump goes to "the washington post," meets with their editorial board. >> tucker: i remember very well. >> he was under a lot of criticism for not having a foreign policy advisors. in part because the entire foreign policy establishment had shunned him. they ask him, who are your advisors?

he pulls out a piece of paper says here they are. he reads off a list. and on the list he says carter page and george papadopoulos. we know now that james comey and andrew mccabe personally briefed loretta lynch about them. back then, that is in march. and then shortly thereafter they were discussed at what is called the national security council principals committee, which is secretaries of state, treasury and defense, cia, all these people are talking about carter page then. >> tucker: totally shocking. professor, quickly since you've got more historical perspective on this, than most people, it is anything like this ever happened that we know of? >> i know of no precedent. they have a case to make. the point though is for those people that are objecting, what are you objecting to? this is a serious matter. no matter how you feel about trump, we need to find out the truth about this. if there was an investigation, if there was an asset who tried to become an advisor in the campaign, those are serious

matters for all of us. and i think that trump is right. he went about it i think in the wrong way, but he has a legitimate objection here that we should know the true facts. >> tucker: i agree and i don't think it's about trump at all. thank you both very much. i appreciate it. glenn greenwald is cofounder and editor at "the intercept" and he joins us tonight. you are not a trump supporter. i don't think this is about trump, i think this is about oversight of our intel and law enforcement agencies. what do you think of the coverage, which you've been following closely, of this alleged mole in the campaign? >> it's incredibly bizarre, because for the last two weeks all we heard from the fbi and of course the media reported it uncritically, was that it was extremely dangerous to try and expose or determine the identity of this informant because to do so would be to jeopardize his life, the life of other people, national security,

all the things they always want to hide from the public what it is that they do and now that "the new york times" and "washington post" published huge amount of details about this informant, making it incredibly easy to know that it was stephen halper because "the daily caller" two days earlier had reported all the same details and named him. we all now know who the informant is and we know that that was just a fairy tale, that he's not some covert undercover agent, but somebody who is a well-known cia operative whose name has been repeatedly published in newspapers as a cia operative and as a republican operative for decades, and so the whole claim that the media was circulating on behalf of the fbi that this was some sensitive covert asset turned out to be a lie and "the new york times," "the washington post" knew that, which is why they did everything but name him by publishing all of the details to let us know who it is. >> tucker: it wasn't just the media. you saw mark warner of virginia, who's on the senate intel committee, seen as a pretty sober person, basically threaten his colleagues with criminal prosecution if they in any way divulge the identity. what would be the justificationc for that?

>> this is what the intelligence community does. and i've been trying to essentially make this point for 18 months now as we've been told we are required patriotically to accept whatever they say. i spent three years reporting on the nsa. they constantly said it would be a crime if we divulge this, it would endanger people as we reported on it. nobody was ever hurt. there were trying to cover themselves and their own wrongdoing and not the national security of the country and that's the same here. you have people like mark warner and inside of the fbi and justice department who don'tar want us to know the name of the informant, not because they'rere worried about national security, but because they are worried about themselves, and that's why they are using the language they always use. you will be engaged in espionage, you will be jeopardizing lives. this is what they always say and the reason why i think the medib deserves criticism is the medias knows better than anybody that when they say that in the vast majority of cases they are lying and trying to cover for

themselves and that's why it's so important that we keep digging. >> tucker: i remember your nsa reporting well. i apologize for not taking it more seriously at the time. you were right. thank you for being one of the last remaining civil libertarians.ar i appreciate it. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: congressman eric swalwell says he can show real evidence that the president colluded with the russian government, but first we would like to hear his thoughts on the fbi's spying operation on the trump campaign and the congressman joined us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> of course. >> tucker: you are up for reelection of course, almost all members are. if you found out the trump fbi had begun spying on you and was reading your emails and listening to the phone calls of your staff and in fact had ann advisor of yours calling back to fbi hq reporting what's going on in your campaign, and they said it's just for your protection,i would you feel okay about that? >> if they didn't have probable cause i would be pissed. >> tucker: what would constitute probable cause?

>> the evidence that you put forward to a judge and the judge would have to sign off on it. that has happened mostly through this investigation. >> tucker: we know in this case, this judge, you just heard fresh reporting that apparently this person, this advisor, fake advisor of the trump campaign, was doing this long before july and may be as early as march. i don't think there's any indication of a judge signed off on that, does that bother you? >> i've seen the evidence, i don't accept the premise of your question.. there's a multiplicity of different individuals who saw concerning things, judges who signed off on fisa applications. >> tucker: did a judge sign off on this?gs i'm quoting "the new york times" and "the washington post" and they are saying that a long time cia asset was spying on the trump campaign on behalf of the obama administration. did a judge sign off on that? >> i can't go into classifiedd information.ob >> tucker: you brought it up. you said a judge signed off on it. is that true, do you know that?t >> i haven't seen anything improper. i've seen a lot of evidence that was concerning. but what i do see that's

improper is a president who is a subject of an investigation and using his doj to look into the evidence locker. >> tucker: let's not make it general. let's make it really specific. i said we know from reporting "the new york times." >> now you're trusting "the new york times." you don't trust them most of the time.u >> tucker: if i'm wrong, tell me. you are on the intel committee. they are reporting that a guy who was claiming to advise the trump campaign was reporting back to the obama agencies.o you just said a judge signed off on that or suggested that one had. >> a lot of the evidence judges have signed off. >> tucker: that the spying operation. >> i can't say on what is being alleged. i can say all the evidence i've seen -- i believe a judge has signed off on a lot of good evidence. >> tucker: on that specific -- does that not bother you? if he were spying on your campaign, trump was spying on your campaign. and you didn't know whether or not a judge signed off on it, would that bother you? >> it's a good question. >> tucker: it's a great

question. >> considering all the evidence i've seen in this investigation, all the contacts that trump has had with the russians, i want judges to sign off on anything that would make sure that a foreign adversary wasn'tmeur meddling in our election. >> tucker: do you care if a judge signed off on spying operations that are waged against political campaigns?s? >> i think you have to be a little more careful andou understand the political consequences. >> tucker: what about the moral and legal consequences? should a judge have to sign off on a spy within a presidential campaign, especially when the agency is controlled by the opposing party? should a judge have to sign off on that? >> we should trust judges to be independent, investigators to be independent. i haven't seen any improprietyt, yet. >> tucker: you don't know if ae judge signed off on it, and you don't care. s i don't want to put words in your mouth. >> i'm not going to give you classified information. >> tucker: why would that be classified? why can't i know that? >> i'm not going to report on "new york times" reporting of classified information. >> tucker: do you believe this happened? >> the evidence i've seen there were very good reasons to be concerned. i can go into that. >> tucker: we are going to spend the whole next segment going to the evidence and i can't wait to hear it and if you can convince me, i will call for indictments.

i mean that with total sincerity. >> are you concerned about the leaking that is taking place on the story? >> tucker: were you concerned that the dossier was leaked, did that bother you? >> i thought the dossier was the beginning of the investigation. you keep moving and shifting. >> tucker: it's really simple. i'm an american. if it turned out the trump fbi was spying on your campaign, even though i don't agree with you on the issues, i would sayou you better have a pretty good freaking reason. >> a damn good reason.av >> tucker: exactly. you better have legal pretext. you better have a judge's order. they didn't have a judge's order, you know that. it doesn't bother you, i'm asking you why. >> i'm telling you i've seen a lot of evidence, a lot of contacts that the trump team had with russia. >> tucker: but you've seen no evidence that this mole was approved by a judge. >> you are trying to acknowledge something we have not acknowledged yet.l there's plenty of evidence. you don't have to be a lawyer or have the access that i have to be concerned.

>> tucker: i'm obviously not going to move you into theu factual realm. >> or in the break a law or realm.he >> tucker: if it turns out they spy on your campaign, as god watches, i will call them out that because i think it's immoral. >> if they didn't have probable cause. >> tucker: probable cause means nothing as you just said. we will take a quick break. it just a minute the congressman will present his evidence that the collusion investigation is rael and that the trump e campaign worked with the prudent government and worked to beat hillary clinton in 2016. stay where you are. ♪ ♪ ♪ you're simply the best. ♪ better than all the rest ♪ applebee's new bigger bolder grill combos. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. hello. give me an hour in tanning room 3. cheers! that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel sites to help me plan the best trip. so i'm more than confident. forgot me goggles.

kayak. search one and done. better things than for rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate.

ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

oh hi sweetie, i just want to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. ♪ ♪

>> tucker: welcome back. we are still joined by eric swalwell of california, member of the house intel committee.. if you been watching cable news no doubt you've seen the congressman talking a lot about russia. here's part.ta >> russia attacked our democracy this past election. >> and then they showed up to his trump tower, offered the evidence to his family. they received it, they didn't turn it down. donald trump for years had been working with the russians, he brought people on his campaign who had ties to the russians. >> we've seen a candidate and a president who has spoken in very flattering ways about vladimir putin. >> all the arrows continue topo point to a personal, political, and financial relationship that donald trump had with the russians.co >> tucker: the congressman's come on tonight and we've given him a lot of time to present to us evidence, actual evidence, of collusion. congressman, thanks a lot for coming back.k. >> of course.

>> tucker: trump's campaign -- i want to bring us closer to russia.. i certainly agreed with that. a lot of people on his campaign -- >> why? why did you agree with that? >> tucker: i think is a geopolitical matter the enemy is china. >> we have more than one enemy. >> tucker: absolutely. i don't agree with the trump administration posture towards russia. it's too bellicose. it doesn't make you a traitor. but is there actual evidence, i have followed this pretty carefully.n where is the actual evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and putin? >> 2014, '15, '16, russians hack into our dnc. they weaponize social media. 2015, they make what i think is the first approach that we know. felix, russian-american, former business partner with donald trump, approaches l donald trump's lawyer michael cohen and says let's getet donald trump to build a trump tower in moscow. we can engineer this, get trump and putin together and make ourr boy president. that's the first known approach. the hacking is going on. you start to see the different approaches. there's two different types of approaches. the approaches to get trump and putin together, which is unusual

because he's a candidate, and then the approaches to preview the hacked emails that the russians have against hillary clinton. you see that offer made to george papadopoulos while he's over in london by a russian. he lied about that and he pled guilty to lying, admitted that had occurred. you see the approach with the june 9th meeting. russian developers close to putin trying to get trump and putin together. they offered dirt on hillary clinton. that june 9th meeting, they moved heaven and earth to take the meeting. donald trump, days before the meeting occurred, once his son knows the meeting is happening tells the world new information is coming out about hillary clinton. days after the meeting julian assange tells the world that hillary clinton's emails are coming out. then you start to see the hacked emails released.d. what does candidate trump do? he doesn't disavow them.ow no one in the family has says we have taken these meetings. instead, he invites the russians on a public stage to hack more.m he asked them to do it. he made an invitation.

>> tucker: he did. this is july 27th, 2016, at the dural national which he owns. here's the clip you are talking about.t. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. let's see if that happens. >> tucker: two questions. >> he was rewarded. >> tucker: do we have the 30,000 emails? that russia ever come up with thosee ? they didn't actually. >> do know that for a fact? >> tucker: we haven't seen them. >> let's let the mueller investigation continue. >> tucker: maybe mueller is in contact with the russians but trump didn't come up with those from the russians.t it didn't happen. let me ask you this -- >> there is still an attemptat there, right? you can attempt to do something and fail. >> tucker: i hate to inject common sense into this.>> >> would you do it in broad daylight?

>> tucker: when you are trying to make secret contacts with russia, would you dialwo them up on the short wave in the basement? would you really sent a coded message in the middle of a joke in a press conference? >> i'm not saying he's the i smartest guy in the world, tucker.. never accused him of that. >> tucker: that's the smoking gun right there? >> as part of the evidence. an invitation made by a candidate telling them it was okay. he's not the smartest guy in the world. >> tucker: so he's both a secret agent for putin but he's so dumb he spills the secrets at a press conference on tv. >> the latter. he makes an invitation. he doesn't disavow what they are doing.he what do they do?sn they start to do more. >> tucker: the russians don't actually give him the 30,000 emails. >> they start to do more, they start to hack more. >> tucker: you heard the people laughing at what he said, right? >> he's committing the offer in broad daylight. >> tucker: why didn't he just hack all the many russian agents? >> let me continue. >> tucker: those are for questions, right? it's a little confusing.

>> why wouldn't he admit to obstruction of justice in public? you let theirs know they are so stupid they commit the crime and public exception. he did it. >> tucker: has any agent ever broadcast a message to his handlers ever? >> has any businessman ever been elected president?ny >> tucker: [laughs] okay. >> he made the invitation in public and then you start to see during the summer of 2016 -- we have an email that is titled kremlin connection, an offer made to paul erickson of theer campaign to connect donald trump and vladimir putin again. kremlin connection. >> tucker: did they connect? do we have evidence he talked to putin? >> i don't believe they connected. >> tucker: where's the evidence? >> first, don't confuse evidence with a conclusion.st evidence gives the fbi and the department of justice -- >> tucker: where's the smoking gun? i watch rachel maddow. i get it. there are a lot of russians and russian people and emails, but where is the actual proof that something happened after more than a year of this?si >> i don't have subpoena power. bob mueller does. >> tucker: you have high't

security clearance and you're on the intel committee. presumably you have more than i like a clip of him at a press conference. >> i'm only giving you the evidence i've seen in an unclassified manner. i'm telling you all of that warrants looking at whether or not we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt conspiracy to defraud the united states. >> tucker: aren't we working on that? we've been at it for a long time. >> not with the obstruction that we continue to see. the continued undermining. >> tucker: that's all you got? >> no.ke >> tucker: with the part we haven't heard? i'm waiting. >> it's right in front of your nose. nose. >> tucker: more secret messages? >> when we look back on this in 25 years, we will be amazed at how much of it was right in front of us. so they are hacking. >> tucker: we are all speaking chinese at that point and people are like, people thought russia was the threat. >> they never turned out any of the approaches. the candidate makes an invitation in broad daylight. they continue to try and arrange meetings through the summer and then you start to have what i

call -- if there's a quid pro quo, there has to be a quo. candidates positive favorable statements about putin. even if those are as you said so we have a better relationship. how do you explain the national security advisor, michael flynn, who had been over to russia just a year before, telling the russians don't worry about the barack obama imposed sanctions. how do you ask when that? how do you explain bringing the russians into the oval office and giving them nationalalng security --- >> tucker: here's what i would hope, that we would stop with the sanctions on russia. i think they are counterproductive but the trump administration has done just the opposite. we sent javelin missiles to the ukrainian rebels. we have opened up domestic oil production here, which hurts them in gas production. we have killed over 200 russians in syria. we have bombed the government, which is their closest ally outside the borders. in what sense has he been pro-russia as president? i say this with sadness because i don't think he should be doing anything. >> all the favorable things, bringing russians into the oval office, kicking out americans.

leading russian press -- >> tucker: can we be reality-based for just a second? >> failure to impose the congressionally passed sanctions. you know how hard we had to work? >> tucker: what about killing the 200 russians? >> did he kill them? >> tucker: he sent the u.s. military. >> i think you give him too much credit. >> tucker: i'm not flacking for trump.i i don't think he should've done it it. i criticized him on the show. he's killed 200 russians, obama did not do that. he sent missiles to ukrainian rebels. obama did not do that. he is competing with energy in ways obama's never tried. why is he more pro-russian that obama was? >> don't excuse what he has to because the public sentiment -- you are giving him too much credit. >> tucker: i'm just saying this whole thing is insane, that's what i'm saying. >> then you have all the consciousness of guilt evidence. all of the lies that have been told.io

whether it's the june 9th meeting, the russian adoption excuse and what it was really about. g that's conscience of guilt. a lot of times, the way someone acts after an investigation is launched can tell you what they were doing. don't confuse evidence with a conclusion.vi. there's more than enough evidence to continue and find out how close are these ties? >> tucker: i was hoping for something.lo we are going to take a break right now. we will continue our conversation with congressman eric swalwell of california. g ♪ conversation with congressman eric swalwell of californi insurance that won't replace the full value of your new car? you're better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. if your adventure keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips

you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh... enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or difficulty breathing... stop taking myrbetriq and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may affect or be affected by other medications. before taking myrbetriq, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold symptoms urinary tract infection, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more.

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. with savings on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses and automatically adjusts on both sides, for effortless comfort. right now during our semi-annual sale, save up to $700 on sleep number 360 smart beds. ends soon.

the commute is worth it.me, the more you know you and that john deere tractor... you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it.

>> tucker: we are continuing our extended conversation with congressman eric swalwell, democrat of california. you've talked a lot about russia but you've also become known for your position on guns and you are one of the very few democrats i think who has been honest about that. you say that the u.s. government ought to ban a certain species of rifle, you wrote a piece about this. this is not a secret view you have. eroded an "usa today." you say this.ou we should ban possession of military style semiautomatic assault weapons. we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. so we should confiscate? this entire class of firearms. what do you think would happen if the federal government tried to do that? >> did you read the op-ed?ar >> tucker: i just quoted it extensively.y. >> i'm not calling for confiscation. we should invest in a buyback. we should restrict any weapons>>

that aren't brought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shootingg ranges. keep them there where it's safe, not on our streets, and if you are caught, just like if you were caught with drugs or anything else, they have probable cause to go into your home and you had one of theseh weapons, you'd be prosecuted. i'm never suggesting sending troops out.onon >> tucker:es i'm going to quote my good friend eric swalwell, a congressman from california. can you put this back on the screen please? i'm going to quote once again. and we should buy back those weapons," and i'm quoting, "criminally prosecute any who refuse -- would choose to defy it by keeping their weapons." you're going to prosecute people who don't give up their weapons. that's gun confiscation. >> if they are caught with them. i'm not sending troops door-to-door. >> tucker: what you thinkve would happen? the overwhelming majority ofe those people are law-abiding, have committed no crime, nono plans to commit a crime. a you would instantly turn them

into felons. do you think you would have a civil war, are you worried about that? >> what do you think will happen if we do nothing? do you think more kids will be killed? do you think more churches will be shut up? more churches will lose parishioners? >> tucker: i'm critiquing your very specific suggestion, and you are a lawmaker so this is meaningful, what you said. >> i trust the american people are law-abiding, that their weapons could be bought back or keep them at a gun club. you don't have to give it up but keep them at a gun club. >> tucker: what if you want to keep them at a gun club. you've done nothing wrong, you haven't hurt anybody, and you just made them into felons.yo >> there's no troop round up here. >> tucker: you just made them into felons. you just said that in the piece. i'm not making this up, you wrote that. if i'm a gun owner and i have one of the weapons you say should be banned and i don't feel like bringing it to a gun club, i feel like keeping it in my bedroom closet.ouin >> i don't think you are giving the american people enough credit that they will be law-abiding. >> tucker: that they would obey you. >> i'm suggesting we have a conversation in congress and pass a ban like this. it would have to be passed by a majority. >> tucker: would you apply these standards to yourself?

>> absolutely. >> i don't think cops though. >> tucker: your bodyguards. >> i don't have bodyguards.. >> tucker: yes, you do. i was there today. >> i don't personally have bodyguards. >> tucker: you are surrounded by bodyguards.th that you are surrounded by bodyguards that i pay. >> they are police officers, they are sworn, they are trained. >> tucker: they are there to protect you. >> i have two brothers who are cops, my dad was a cop. i don't want them to protect me, i want them to protect the people getting shot up in the schools. >> tucker: the capitol police to protect you. >> this isn't about capitol police. >> tucker: it is though. >> this is about the kids who are dying. they are afraid to go to school. they hear a book dropped, they think a shooter is walking into the classroom. don't they deserve to be protected?r >> tucker: they do. >> so let's protect them. >> tucker: you have them in your building where you work. >> don't denigrate the cops. >> tucker: i'm not denigrating them.

>> they shouldn't be outgunned. and they shouldn't be outgunned. >> tucker: you don't actuallyth care more than i do, we care the same. >> do you think cops should have guns? >> tucker: i think your bodyguards have the same guns i have to protect my family. >> they are america's bodyguard bodyguards. don't denigrate them like that. >> tucker: if he comes to protect my wife when i'm at work -- >> protecting the constituents. >> tucker: they are protecting you actually. why shouldn't my wife have the same firearm at home that your bodyguards used to protect you? >> that's a ridiculous argument. it's absolutely ridiculous. >> tucker: because you are more important than me?>>bs i'm asking a sincere question. why should you go to protect your -- - >> our cops should not be outgunned. period. our military shouldn't be outgunned.dn >> tucker: why don't we just limit them to the same guns i can have at home? >> why can't we have a real conversation about this? >> tucker: this is at real conversation! why is it nonsense?

>> you are calling cops bodyguards, and that's disrespectful. they were all here in town honoring the fallen and you are calling them bodyguards. my dad was a cop, he's not a bodyguard. he protects people. that's ridiculous. >> tucker: do members of congress have bodyguards? >> you are calling a cop a body card, man, that is so disrespectful. >> tucker: they are. the government pays for them. >> they protect you and your kids and our families.th >> tucker: can i get the same in my office and the taxpayers can pay for it? t >> they shouldn't be outgunned. >> tucker: can i ask a question? if i walked on the office, great guys, i'm not attacking them. they are not under attack at all. >> they are under attack. >> tucker: i'm merely saying that you have better protection than i do. and you are saying that my family doesn't deserve to have a certain species of weapon. you get to decide what we can protect ourselves with but you are not going to in any way take the ability to protect you away from the capital police. >> i'm saying every police officer in america is outgunned. for their safety and the people

they protect, we shouldn't have assault weapons. >> tucker: you do want to apply the rules to yourself. >> let's protect the kids first. >> tucker: i agree. thank you very much. the left has a new cause, defending ms-13. why are they letting anti-trump sentiment drive them into the arms of a gang that kills people with machetes? great question!p we will ask it next. ♪ next. ♪ i thought i was managing my

moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep,uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. 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. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

>> tucker: the democratic big ten has grown a little bigger in the last week or two. it already included illegal immigrants. now it explicitly includes dangerous gang members as well. after the president described ms-13 as animals last week, the left lectured us on how it's wrong to be mean to a group that butchers people with machetes. here's part of it. >> is it appropriate for a president to ever call anyone an animal even if they are sadistic gang members? >> i think that's something to watch out for.r. the history of political leaders

dehumanizing opponents, even criminals, and using animal metaphors is a dangerous one. that is not something we should accept from an american president. >> i do think there's a serious problem with the president dehumanizing any group in the united states, even if they are hardened criminals. >> tucker: [laughs] so many buffoons on tv. where do you start? none of these people, by the way, live anywhere near any neighborhood threatened by ms-13, so they can ignore the-1 gang. but a lot of people,e, particularly poor immigrants, do live near ms-13, and that's a huge problem. timothy sini is a district attorney in long island.em it has become an ms-13 stronghold. he knows a lot about the gang and he joins us. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: do you think that of all the people you can defend in america, ms-13 would be near the top of list of groups that you want to stick up for? >> without getting into name-calling, let me be very clear about something. this is one of the most violent gangs that we have in the world.

it's a transnational criminal organization whose motto is rape, kill, and control. and on long island, i can tell you firsthand, in september 2016 they brutally killed two beautiful young girls in april 2017.20 they killed four young boys, brutally hacking them up with machetes and instruments. this is a gang that must be taken extremely seriously. that's why suffolk county, whether it is the police department, my office, ourpr federal counterparts, are all working together to eradicate this gang from our communities. >> tucker: tell me if my impression is right, ms-13 isn't really active in the neighborhoods where, say, msnbc contributors might live.it it's really immigrants were t getting the brunt of this.th >> there's no question that this gang preys upon young hispanic boys. i will tell you a quick anecdote. in december of 2017, the suffolk county police department prevented a murder. they received a tip from the

community. they did surveillance and they actually interceded in an attempt by ms-13 gang members to abduct a young hispanic boy from a hamlet in suffolk county that is a very diverse hamlet and it includes large salvadorany population. time and time again, this gang preys upon young immigrants. t we need to do everything in our power to protect everyone in suffolk county, everyone in this country, including immigrants, and this gang is one of the biggest threats to their safety, >> tucker: it's unbelievable. now of course they are a big democratic constituency. thanks a lot for coming on for that perspective. glad to know what you're talking about. hillary clinton's world bitterness to where went to yale this weekend.t she was the commencement speaker. yale is very impressive. mark steyn is with us next. ♪ hey shrimp fans - this one's for you. it's red lobster's create your own shrimp trios.

pick 3 of 9 new and classic creations for just $15.99. try new creations like savory crab-topped shrimp, and parmesan truffle shrimp scampi. but hurry, shrimp trios ends may 27th.

♪ >> right now we are living through a full-fledged crisis in our democracy. there are not tanks in the streets, but what's happening right now goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. and i say that is not as aea democrat who lost an election, but as an american afraid of losing a country. >> tucker: as a general matter, if you watch the show you know we don't cover hillary clinton because she's sad and we feelhe sorry for her for real. then she showed up at yale, which as you know is one of the most impressive places in the world with some of the smartest kids on the planet, obviously we are very impressed by yale. they invited her to be the commencement speaker and so we kind of have to cover it. during her totally not bitter at

all address, clinton pulled out a russian hat because she is hilarious, and said "if you o can't beat them, join them, because that's not a cliche. of course we can never beatec author and columnist mark steyn at analyzing this behavior so we are outsourcing it to him so our hands are clean. we are not being mean to hillary clinton, who deserves our pity, we are letting mark steyn explain it for us. hey, mark! >> hey, tucker. i love the way that hillary is now doing visual comedy. she is disappointed she didn't get to be -- by the way, i like it when you do a visual gag, but you explain it, what you are meant to find funny about it beforehand. so when she said this is a russian hat. i think obviously she's at a loose end, doesn't know what to do. i think vladimir putin should make her chief commissar. of state approved jokes in moscow. i think she's eminently qualified for it. i personally would have preferred it -- by the way, i do actually think this is the

actual russian hat that russian intelligence agents left the fusion gps dossier under for christopher steele to find in a men's room in moscow. normally it's not mi6 tradecraft to take the hat but he thought it might make a nice souvenir for chelsea. unfortunately she had already been given one by the uranium one guy so she gave this russian hat to her mother, which is very thoughtful. for my own part, i think it would've been a much more effective routine if she hadad worn the -- which as you know has been warned by macedonian content farmers who cost her the election, or perhaps to establish her authority of the traditional -- originally worn by alexander the great if i recall my schooldays and still favored by macedonian content farm overseers when they want the masses to cower in terror before then.

like many women at the royal wedding, she made a poorn headgear choice. >> tucker: [laughs] i knew you could bring mirth out of 1 of the saddest, most heartbreaking moments i've seen in a long time. do you think -- being honestou here, being sincere -- do you think yale is aware of hownc thoroughly it degrades its own already eroding reputation by inviting someone like this to be the commencement speaker?de >> i do think as a serious matter that partisan politicians, when they are invited to give commencement addresses, should not talk about partisan electoral politics. i mentioned chelsea a moment to go. for some reason chelsea gets paid -- or she did before november of 2016, she got paid seven-figure sums to deliver speeches on diarrhea and africa. i wouldn't want to hear a speech on diarrhea in africa for

commencement but i think that's actually more seemly and appropriate for the occasion. >> tucker: i agree, and less dirty than what we saw. mark steyn, a genius, self-evidently. thank you, great to see you. >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: we actually have more hillary clinton news. an update on the investigationon of the fbi into her emails. we will have them for you after the break. ♪ you after the the sun is shining so why binge in here, when you can do it out there. with this clever little app called audible. you can listen to the stories you love while doing the things you love, outside. everyone's doing it she's binging... they're binging... and... so is he. so put on your headphones, turn on audible and binge better. i'm still giving it my best

even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. 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. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner.

gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one . technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet? 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. 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

>> this is a fox news >> tucker: this is a fox news alert. fox news reporting tonight the doj inspector general likely will fall to fbi leaders for moving far too slowly to review a batch of hillary clinton's emails in 2016. the fbi knew about those emails, found on anthony weiner's laptop in september of '16 but waited until october to get a warrant to review them. weird. jim, he only notified congress days before the election.

the ig's upcoming report is expected to blast the fbi for the w tardy report. we'll keep following the story. that's it for us tonight. sean hannity is coming up next. >> sean: yeah. can we pan and a little? they have us back so far. i can't even see -- >> tucker: where are you? >> sean: if we could just pandan, james, help us out. too far away. come on and pray that's all right by the people at home understand is a p live televisi. they do, tucker, great show as always. welcome to "hannity." this is unbelievable. the deep state should be totally terrified as all of their nefarious deeds that we have been telling you have been exposed. this is the worst abuse of power corruption scandal in american history. it is all coming out. everything we have been telling you. the president rightly demanding to know just how pervasive this playing was on his campaign, and who in the obama administration was involved. rod