he warms our heart, he's our hero tonight we hope he is yours too. most-watched, most trusted most grateful you spent the evening with us. good night from was i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." it turns out the doj failed to dictate the final result of the 2016 presidential ection, but a year and a half into the trump administration the justice department still seems to at times be operating as a shadow government, a place that s considers itself beyond the reach of normal oversight. a back in the real world, congress has the explicit constitutional power to oversee the fbi and all other executive agencies, lessea that's the way supposed to work. apparently that fact infuriates the deputy attorney general rob rosenstein.

earlier this year in january, rosenstein threatened to appeal the email sent on staffers because of her being too aggressive. the message from rosenstein, back o you don't investig will investigate you. fox's chief correspondent catherine herridge broke that story and she has more on it tonight. >> the emails written on government accerly douary meetingd for the house office of general counsel. the tough lawyer for protecting congress. fbi director christopher wray, their senior advisors as well as house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes and hisi senior staff. it came at the height of alleged government surveillance usage abuses aimed at the trump campaign. today they responded to allegations and rob rosenstein threatened to subpoena records and turn the tables on republican-led house intelligence committee and staff over the russia case. >> it is deeply concerning themt instead of having a cooperative relationship with his agency, respectful of the importance of

the congress having access to documents regarding matters that they are investigating, that they have out oversight responsibility for, this is not the way to conduct that. >> the fbi and jdepartment stroe characterization. the justice department official told fox news that rosenstein never threatened anyone with a criminal investigation. the house committee democrat took aim at german nunez who >> i know the reputation of rob rosenstein and that is one of impeccable character. and i know the reputation of it devin nunes, and that is one of misleading, obstructing, attempting to intervene in an investigation. >> today, chairman nunes and members of the house intelligence committee sign this letter to rob rosenstein rejecting another briefing by the fbi saying, anything short of providing the records thatce are under subpoena in theirr opening and is an obstruction of justice. tucker?he

>> tucker: thank you ford breaking that story in the first place. rod rosenstein's recent behavior is not the only example of the doj apparently viewing itself as beyond normal oversight.el months ago, we discovered that fbi agents peter strzok and other page were using their personal views intruding on their law enforcement duties. how far will that may be involved? the public has a right to know that but we don't because the doj keeps trying to censor the text messages before relisting them. here's one example. in a september 2015 text, he maintains about the handling of a case but the exact route mplaint was redacted. thanks to work by senator ron johnson's office, we know that he wanted to quote bargain away everything and that it had a

quote stockholm syndrome. and how they did ehey could to avoringing charges nst any of clinton's team. what is clear, is that nothing he said was a security threat that would require a reduction in order to protect the country. the doj was just trying to cover itself from keeping the public learning the truth about what was going on, is not a defense? jonathan turley is a professor at george washington university law school and he joins us tonight. it's a very simple question, is the department of justice allowed to redact information solely for thele purpose of protecting its own reputation? >> it is not even though it has a long history of doing so not just in congress but in the courts. what's really funny is that they will charge someone who gives them misleading information, but theyillgress redacted classified information that proves entirely unclassified. there is this sense of acting with utter impunity when you

redact these types of documents. if you look at the language that was uncovered by senator johnson and his staff, that material could not besidered classified under any definition. the question is why the committee has long accepted this type of conduct including democrats. if they can disagree with chairman nunez in the white house but they should all agree on the fact that this isnt a proper use of reduction. redaction. >> tucker: is not a new way of doingusiness. >> unfortunately it is, i'v ounseling national security cases against the government where they have redacted material and i have objected to the courts. it's clearly not t classified. i've been allowed into classified settings where i've reviewed the material end of this is recurring complaint among counstional security cases. >> tucker: in this specific

cahave the deputy attorney general and no one disputes these facts, the characterization is different another side. nobody disputes that rod rosenstein went over to congress and threatened to subpoena communications of members there. have you ever seen anything like that and what does it suggest about theat relationship between the doj and oversight committee? >> it reflects the mistreatment of congress. these committees have not had a robust oversight record, they often roll over. this is something new and frankly those of us who wanted more oversight have welcomed the last year because finally you have a committee saying wait, were not going to accept any redaction's you have, were not going to take no for an answer on something we clearly have oversight duties. threatening whether it's criminal or civil staffers or members is clearly inappropriate. i can understand that rosenstein

may have felt he was mistreated but that doesn't matter. you have to get over it. the congress created the department of justice, this isn't personal. it is oversight business. if no matter how aggrieved you may be, you cannot speak to an oversight committee and threaten those staffers taking something like subpoenas to the doorstep. >> tucker: t congress does have oversight over the executive agent. you're watching the channels and youme think that is something right-wingers last week. it's a constitutional principle. >> shouldn pick fights wie with oversight power power. >> tucker: i guess you shouldn't. dana goldman is a formal federal prosecutor. you heard of jonathan turley i thought aas good point, this has been going on a long time.

the department of justice withholds information and claims that information is classified, wentie unredacted, why would any body defend that practice? >> the prosecutor may have some belief at an initial stage that things mayay be classified in tt case or in other cases, there may be some theory that it is not classified, and ultimately a judge decides it. this is no differe. tucker: thie bit different, the trump depa of justice i will withheld this information from their congress that andrew mccabe spent $70,000 on a

conference table. you can't argue that that information is in self classified or critil to american national security. that is butt covering, why would anyone defend that? >> you're trying hone in on one particular reason why things are redacted. >> tucker: what would be that justification for redacting that he spent $70,000 on a conference table? >> i don't know the detailed circumstances. the point i would want to make to you in listening to what jonathan turley just said as well, we are looking at these as redaction's and were looking ate department of justice. t i think you have to drive very clear line between investigations that are overt such as the c email investigation and investigations that are ongoing such as the trump-russia investigation. practice a long-standing

that the department of justice does not give over information relevant to ongoing investigations to congress. that's something the house intelligence committee through the use of the purported ovsight role has done away with >> tucker: when you say purported oversight role, do they not have an ovee? >> they have an oversight role. >> tucker: what do you mean purported? >> they are using the guise of the oversight role to ask for o information either that they should not get or that they are potentially and by many accounts coordinating with the white house and others who are the subject of the investigation, that's an entirely different problem. >> tucker: i understand you're a partisanke involved in a paan debate but take three steps back. there is a public t interest hee soth we know that the last administration had a paid informant spying on at least three members of the trump campaign.

maybe there was a good rn for that and maybe there wasn't, the fact of a distro true and it's known by the public. if it shakes the public's faith in the integrity of the department of justice. y wouldn't responsible people do their best to explain why it happened as soon as they possibly can and calm public fears because the system is to beliets, why wouldn'teginning we know why it happened? >> t i'm not at all partisan, i think the people who use the term spy in the context of a confidential informant are doing so only for partisan reasons. a spy does not exist within the fbi. when you're going down that road of using a spy -- >> tucker: i'm speaking in english and note what you you'e doing is carrying water for a political party. >> tucker: they gathered knowledge without -- >> it happens in thousands of investigations across the country.s

>> tucker: it doesn't answer the question, i think i have a right to know which is why that happened? >> you don't have a right righo know. fbi investigations are confidential for a very important reasons including the protection of people who aren't charged including for the protection of sources and information. you don'have a right to know. >> tucker: i would disagree with you completely and i know thatuc you are a former prosecur coming at this from a different point of view obviously. we know this happened, no one disputed it happens, we know the names of the people involved. all that information is public it's been in "the new york times." you don't acknowledge that there is a public interest in explaining this to the public so they can trust our government again. why was the obama administration spying on the trump campaign? >> i don't dispute there is a public interest, absolutely there's a public interest. it is outweighed in the current moment by an ongoing and confidential investigation. the public does haveti a right o

know at some point after the ongoing investigation is not jeopardized. >> tucker: why are people like me who were asking in my case sincerely nonpartisan questions like how did this happen, why am i beingacked as someone who is challenging the ruleaw or seeking to undermine the system. my position as i'm trying to preserve public faith in the system with sunlight. i thought that was a traditionally liberal position. >> i agree with you. all i'm saying is that there absolutely is a public interest, i think that you and others have a right to know what happened during the course of an investigation just not while the investigation is goingf on. that's the critical difference. if. by preserving the rule of law it, you have to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation so witnesses can't tailor their testimony, so sources are protected and ultimately it will all come out. that's why i draw the

distinction between that and the email investigation which is over and an ongoing investigationnd where this confidential informant is very relevant. >> tucker: thank you for that, i apte it. house republicans make another push at immigration, are theyca yet another salve to the donor class? will get to the bottom of that question next. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. everything. and that 2% cash back adds up to thousands of dollars each year... so i can keep growing my business in big leaps! what's in your wallet?

our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. ♪ crawl inside, wait by the light of the moon. ♪ applebee's to go. order online and get 20% off $20. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. and now for the rings. ♪)

i'a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit o swall. still won't eat my broccoli, though. you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here?

>> tucker: house republicans once again trying to hammer out a >> tucker: house republicans trying to hammer out a deal on immigration head of the fall

elections they feel that's important for some reason. if a current draft proposal is probably better than prior proposals but it falls farhort of what the current president campaigneded on. it would give amnesty t some daca recipients, in turn it would fund a border wall, and create a more merit-based legal immigratio system. but it would not end chain migration, cut overall immigration levels are critically implement e-verify to keep employers from employing illegal aliens. what to make of this plan exactl [buzzer] lou dobbs of course is the host of lou dobbs tonight on fox business and may be more than any person on public life has followed the subject carefully over a decade. what do you make of this? it's complex but i know you can it.to the heart of >> let's cut through the complexity but first of all we don't know what's in it. there has been no writing or

amendments, it is a preposterous closed room deal entirely drawn up by the speaker who is owned lock, stock, and barrel by k street, we know one. it's not going to be in the favor of the american middle-class or american working families. indeed that is the hallmark for 20 years in the house. he works for k street. >> tucker: why the push to get this through? it seems like republicans can win this debate, the public is basically on the side of the administration on this question, why not run at? >> you can slice and dice the demographics anyway you want to,

more people are disgusted and appalled by the deleterious and negative impactillegal immigration into this country and that's just simply the straightforward fact. they can't even raise a voice that is even remotely comparable to the ownership of the establishment and the global elite that are demanding cheap it is their purpose to bring more immigration into this country and to preserve lower wages. just as presiderump has wages rising, the middle class is growing it is stagnant and declining for 20 years until president trump moves into thee oval office. >> tucker: the current republican leadership is willing to ignorele the most basic lessn from the last election and the expressed will of the american population in order to serve the interest of a very smallup ple. ryan is a lame

duck speaker who would normally be in office until january of next year. he resigned but it's only the republicaned can do -- he is nowth enfranchised with te leadership of the confee and what will almost assuredly be a loss of 50 seats in the midterm elections as a result of moving into the amnesty abyss. the base will not stand for this for one minute, no matter how popular the president is and he is wildly popular. no matter the fictions that are spun up by ryan and his so-called leadership council. >> tucker: do they have pollsters who are telling them politically this ismart? >> they have well-paidel strategists telling them they should run on the tax cuts rather than the trump agenda which is tax cuts, deregulation,

balancing international trade, creating jobs, bringing back manufacturing. dealing with all of the important issues in foreign policy whether it is the immense success of the singapore summit -- which is just one of a litany of achievements of this president, unprecedented achievements over the course of the 16at months. it is the most mindless lemming like rush i have ever seen even though they are rinos to absolute disaster. >> tucker: rinos rushing like lemmings. >> the mindless i admit was redundant. >> tucker: it's great to see you. berkeley has a plan for fixing the climate emergency they have identified, population control you knew it was coming to that at some point. that story next hi.

it's me. your sleep number 360 smart bed... checking in last nig iarmed yo feet so you fell asleep faster. i sensed you roll over and automacally softened your side to melt away pressure points and keep you sleeping blissfully. , this happe so, i took care of it. does your bed do that? now you can wake up to smarter sleep. let's meet, only at a sleep number store.

>> tucker: 50 years ago berkeley, california, was famous for its free-speech activism, today is a different place. this week they unanimously declared in a climate emergency. if to fix that emergency, they called for a push to halt all carbon emissions worldwide,goveo

ot for coming on.e population. i'm a pretty literal person, they say it's a climate emergency that's fin to me. if it's an actual emergency, why does anybody in bhave an ai conditioner? i hate to ask people out there their purported belief if there telling the rest of us to have fewer kids, why are they still driving and using ac? >> i agree with you but i don't think they're telling us to have less babies. climate change, and the impact human beings have on the environment is related to a lot of stuff. it's about carbon emissions it's about eating less meat, i thinkn we can all agree we care about our planet but it's not just about having less children. >> tucker: i don't think it is

is. >> are we agreed? >> tucker: i think the idea is insane and grotesque and it's a window into what this really is. >> isn't that what berkeley is saying? there not saying it's an emergency everybody stop having babies. >> tucker: okay, but hold on. if they are saying it's an emergency it presumably they believe it is. how can they justify riding buses having cars, refrigerator refrigerators, any activity that adds to the sum total ofor co2 emissions, why are they still committing these activities? why should i listen and take anyone seriously who is driving aa car and telling me not to hae more kids. >> i don't think they are saying that it's a combination of factors. the claimant is complex. it's not just one thingg you ned to stop having babies, i need to stop. writing my car. i think in general the younger generation the millennials are

becoming more environmentally cautious. we have more ridesharing apps, the technology is catching up to the fact that people are becoming more conscious of that. >> tucker: young people are much poorer because they are deeply in student loan debt. >> that is also true, it's not one of the other there are many factors. and they have no. it's not that they are environmentally conscious. >> they are, the millennials are. that's also one part of it there is moreironhe than one factor wt comes to climate change and what we can do to reduce our impact onon it. >> tucker: i am in favor of a clean environment so i wonder why -- have you noticed this -- places that spend the most energy telling the rest of us that the world is ending because of climate change also tendo have the dirtiest streets and largest number of people relieving themselves in the sidewalk and the most trash? if you care about the environment, maybe you could clean up the sidewalk innt

ofy hall, does that ever occur to liberals? >> it's not liberals that are responble for climate change, are. agree with you, we can't t talk the talk we have to follow up with actions. >> tucker: but seriously, if you care about the environment and world cleaner. >> can we agree that we agree with that? we want to keep the environment cleaner? >> tucker: have you been to berkeley, been to new york city, been to san francisco? there are people relieving themselves in? the sidewalk and walking around them are environmentalists. >> is not necessarily about where in the world is more populated,ss it's about who is using more resources. i completely agree with you, we all have to do much better.d >> tucker: were talking past each other, can you agree if were going to make the world cleaner we can start by cleaning

up the sidewalks.rl then maybe we can get to the part about fixing the hole in the ozone layer. >> it doesn't have to be either or? >> tucker:k where the cities with the most open and aggressive commitment to the environment of the dirtiest? why is portland, oregon, a filthy place downtown. >> that's not necessarily true. >> tucker: have you been to portland? >> not all cities that are saying that we need to do better about our environment are filthy. where are you getting stat from? >> tucrack with me really quick just for this oneac question. if you say you care about the environment, do you agree or disagree that maybe you should start by cleaning up the street in front of your house. >> why can't you do both? dohyoth? we all care about the planet, we

can all do more. >> tucker: we don't all care about the planet, i care about the planet that's why my house has nobody'sou living on the frt steps because i care about the environment. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: up next the creepy porn lawyer but he knows exactly who to blame for his troubles. lawyer update coming up next won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. with expedia, you can book a flight, hotel, car, and activity... all in one place. ♪ everything you need to go.

♪ di® everything you need to go.

♪ hi, and believe us;uys. on't want this-- or this for father's day. we want something awesome! (man) man crates has reinng withicked gear and diy projects guys will love. (second man) most gifts come sealed in a wooden crate with a crowbar. (third man) man crates! 's morthan a gift;ate with a crowbar. it's an experience you'll never forget. make his day this father's day. go to mancrates.com/tv for 10% off the perfect father's day gift.

sorry, one second it's loading, look. security: let's speed this up please. security: thank you. ♪ uh! ♪ can we fix this phone tonight? it's really slow. you can turn off the performance management feature. battery throttling. or you could just upgrade it ♪ the per fast galaxy s9. available now. >> he is overexposed and he has under delivered. >> you don't go on cable news 10-12 times a day, that's bush league. all of those things are what bush league lawyers do when they're in it to get the publicity. >> it's feeling very gloria aled on me, overexposed.

>> tucker: the fickle media, they use him then discard him. the creepy porn lawyer appears to have overstated his welcome, you saw that coming. even now msns getting tired him. what's the creepy porn lawyer's next move? it's obvious, russia. in the interview with "the daily beast," creepy porn lawyer says putin is running a smear campaign against him in the press. the left has blamed russia for pretty much everything you can think . trump winning the 2016 election, the release of dnc emails come up rexex at, the nra, left-wing populism in mexico, that's russia's fault. so as right wing populism netherlands, therelee the devon, joel stein here in the united states, the catalonian independence movement in spain,

media attacks on paul ryan hacking the electrical grid. facebook support for bernie sanders, the desire to investigate pfizer abuses, opposition to deep state, an airplane crash that killed 69 russians in february, not wanted to give guns toe ukraine and president trump's decision to bomb syria in which thousands of russian troops are currently stationed -- that was a russian operation too. this is the amazing thing, and a credit to slavic bigger to go after a creepy porn lawyer here in american cable news world. they are amazing, those russian russians. ♪ on the show we've chronicled the war on standards at the faa

where irrelevant biographical questions were a imposed on aspiring air traffic controller controllers -- sadly this is far from the only example of standards declining in the tes. e iste never debate on any of this, it just happens. if it's happening and scientific fields, you wouldn't think it would but it is. in the pages of the city journal heather mcdonald has chronicled how schools and other institutions are cutting requirements i an effort to be more diverse whatever that mean means. she also wrote the upcoming book the diversity delusion and she joins us tight. you for comin on. we were stunned because it's insane and dangerous but youan wouldn't think that same imp would find its way into the hard sciences come into medicine or research sciences, you say it i is. >> there is not a single

meritocratic information instis freeis from identity politics. pressuring scientific labs into hiring by the irrelevant criteria of race and gender. it's doing research on tersection malady in the stem field, research conducted by two specialists in gender identity. it's not what congress had in mind when they created the national science foundation in 1952 sponsor serious scientific research. we are putting our scientific competitiveness atat great risky introducing theal irrelevancy of race and gender diversity into scientific accomplishment. >> tucker: i'm confused, i thought they left believed in science. s they had a march announcing that a year and a half ago. as our scientific evidence that the race or gender of a scientific researcher is

material, that affects the outcome? >> the left hates science when it's proving facts but they don't like it hates objectivity. there is no scientific evidencea we have had 200 grantees of the national scientific science fod of won nobel prizes, discovering dark matter, discovering how viruses work, this is with utter indifference, true meritocracy.t that diversity matters in scientific thinking, no it doesn't.n if the lab is all-female, great, if it's all asian great, if it's all black, great. are you work to cure about is alzheimer's? the way you do that is hiring on merit and not race and gender. >> tucker: it's terrifying,

they've infected science with politics. i hope you will come back in future days with details on all of this. the doj inspector general is set to finally release his report on the clinton email investigation, what will we learn from that? glenn greenwald adjoins is next. so i'm not happy unless my hands are dirty. between running a business and four kids, we're busy. auto insurance, homeows insurance, life insurance policies. knowing that usaa will always have my back... that's just one less thing you have to worry about. i couldn't imagine going anywhere else. they're like a friend of the family. we are the cochran family, and we'll be usaa members for life. save by bundling usaa home and auto insurance. get a quote today.

to most ...most people.like... but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief from fibromyalgia pain, and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts orctions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness,

weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain i can do more. ask your doctor about lyrica. if you're elligble, you could pay as little as $25 a month.

♪ display when it's turning out to be a tough time to be a bureaucrat at the department of justice. for decades most of us didn'tre really know what they did. uphold the law, that's all we knew. now sunlight is pouring in to that agency and their learning a lot. deputy ag rod rosenstein has been caught threatening

congressional staffers with subpoenas for trying to do their job. tomorrow, doj inspector general michael horowitz will leave his report on the hillary clinton email investigation, it could shine a harsh light on a number of key players in that probe. what exactly can we expect from it? joining us now is grand clean gn greenwald. what we like to the scene tomorrow's ig report? >> the focus is behavior of the fbi and the justice department, particularly investigation. there are a consensus of reports that suggest they intend -- the report will lambaste jim comey the fbi director, andrew mccabe, as well as criticize atey general lorettaew lynch.

it could cut both ways because a lot of the criticism of comey came from democrats that particularly he should never have stood up at thatress conference in 2016 when he announced that there wouldn't be charges brought against hillary clinnd proceeded t ize her for what d that's not the role of the fbi director. s it's also possible they will conclude there was politicalo bias that led to the decision not to charge her in the first place.rs it's unclear who politically it will help but it's going to reflect very poorly on top of justice department and fbi officials. >> tucker: he shouldn't have criticized her i've said so at the time. i'm very struck by the reaction ink the s the default seems to be you don't have a right to know what your government is doing and pressed too hard to find out, there's something

wrong with you, you're unpatriotic. why wouldn't the press be more interested in knowing what actu happens? >> this has been the principal defect with the media for many years, they so closely identify with the very government agencies that they claim to be serving as watchdogs over, they more often than not endp defer prerogas and secrec powers. rather than trying to do their job which is to shine a light on what it is they are doing. obviously like every agency, the justice department does occasionally have legitimatewh secrecy issues when they're conducting a criminalr investigations or being involved with a grand jury, it's legitimate to that the public should know to protect the people they're investigating, you don't want their name being smeared until there's evidence theye done anything wrong. when you're talking about something as politically momentous as jim comey's investigation into the two major presidential candidates -- once the election is over and it

ads in hillary clinton's case of the investigation has been brought to an end, we ought to know everything about what they did internally and what they said. not only is there very littlet interest in the part of the media,d. there's anger at those people who want to bring transparency to the people with the most powerful authorities in the world to read through your emails to look at your phone bills, to make you say things actually did. i think that's veryyroblemat. >> tucker: deeply revealing of them. you've covered this stuff for a long time. when the truth comes to light how often have you noticed that information you want allowed to see because it was classified and held back in the interest of the safety of the united states turned out to be not classified at all? it's just butt covering. >> in the overwhelming majority of cases when the government claims things must be kept a secret because of national

security, 1 of things is true. either the information is incredibly banal or isbly the information that should be kept from the american people are the reason they wanteo to kp national security but to shield their own reputations and potentially their own legal interest because they were engaged in secret wrongdoing. in a healthy democracy that presumption should be the people should know what the government isow doing of the government should knowhat the people are dog and we've reversed that, it's really disturbing. >> tucker: totally true. how about for getting a of that? glenn greenwald is not only of the most honest commenters on americanhe politics, he is also deeplyen to dogs and runs a dog shelter out of his house. we are going to talk to him about that in great next inside of the issues of special later this summer, stay tuned for that. up next, robert de niro's run of

anti-trump comments inspired hollywood but could their enthusiasm help the president win reelection? that's next it's just a burst pipe, i could fix it. (laugh) it's just a burst pipe, i could fix it. no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just beacuase of a claim. i totally could've... (wife) nope! switching to allstate is worth it. ♪ now that i'm on my way ♪ do you still think i'm crazy standing here today ♪ ♪ i couldn't make you love me applebee's 2 for $20, now with steak. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

napoleon is duping us! all around louisiana... you're a nincompoop! (phone ping) gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, e! instant purchase notifications from capital one. so you won't miss a purchase large, small, or very large. technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet?

♪ >> tucker: robert de niro has fired up all of brentwood and most of santa monica with his profane attack on president trum the tony awards in his subsequ unintentionally hilarious apology to the people of canada. >> i'm going to say one thing. [bleep] trump.of i just want to make a note of apology for the idiotic behavior of my president and i apologize to justin trudeau and the other people at the g7. it's disgusting. >> tucker: a lot of people get deeper and more thoughtful as they get older.

not the case with robert de niro but he's getting support from g hollywood. what does this mean for american politics? does the image of rich actors swearing at the president at an awards show help the president or hurt him? joe piscopo joins us from the streets of the metropolis of 8 million. joe, great to see you. >> great to see you from the bronx, new york. our lady of mount carmel. i'm getting my blessings. god bless you, my son. >> tucker: [laughs] good for you. i feel blessed. what effect does this have on normal people, do you think? who weren't in the audience or aren't "huffington post" charter subscribers. how do they react to robert de niro's speech? his 2-word speech? >> from the streets of the bronx here, a great italian-american

community, we idolize robert de niro. great respect for the brilliance of robert de niro but to go on live television -- he's from new york. i'm telling you, this will ensure donald trump's election in 2020. to be that reprehensible and to be that vulgar on live television. again, i have immense respect for this man, but it will resonate with the united states. what the prent has done, you have to give credit for. the g7 summit was a negotiation. the president said -- it's a negotiation. then he sits down with kim jong un, it's monumental.-- it's epic, it's historic. the country is embracing it, and north korea is embracing it. we are talking i about peace he, and to get one of your heroes to be that vulgar on live television, tucker, it doesn't play across the rest of the united states. >> tucker: it's a weird response.

isn't the argument against trump that he's vulgar? it's hard to make that argument if you're screaming "f trump" at an awards show. >> that's exactlyy right. it would be great if bobby de niro got up there and said, "i heard things. i heard some things. i heard things."." he could have fun with it. "are you talking to me? are you talking to me?"the brilr greatest entertainers in the world are on the great white way. the brilliance of broadway talent. to take that show to that level, it was very, very uncomfortable. and i am being polite. >> tucker: especially since he has made so many great movies. he doesn't needed to end this way. joe piscopo, great man. have fun at the festival. good to see you. >> father johnson says god bless you, my son. >> tucker: god bless you.

sadly, that is it for us ght. tune in every night at 8:00 after the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and especially groupthink. n good night. sean hannity's next from singapore. hey, sean. >> sean: especially groupthink. good to see you. good show. welcome to "hannity," yes, we are broadcasting live from singapore. days ago, president trump ushered in a new era of diplomacy, meeting one-on-one with the north korean dictator kim jong un.he president trump and kim jong un have now departed but we will be in singapore foror the rest of e week. one off the reasons is, i havea threeadio show, this tv show, and a 22-hour flight to new york. i can't miss a single minute of coverage. why? because the all-important inspector general's report is coming out tomorrow. in moments, we are goingo preview the hugely consequential report. if it's done right and fairly and without prejudice or doj obstruction, this rep