thin you love the most can stink. and try febreze small spaces to clean away odors for up to 30 days. breathe happy with febreze. have a great night. ♪ >> tucker: well, the president is speaking at a rally in the state of>> missouri. we are keeping a close eye on what he is saying. there is a lot of news going on and if the president responds to any of it, we will bring it to you right away. good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." one of the stories we're following, there is a new deadline for brett kavanaugh's accuser chrstine blasey ford to respond to the senate judiciary's committee. her attorneys according to the chairman of the committee, have less than two hours fromci right now to respond and explain when and where she will testify. if they don't, the vote will be held on monday. obviously, we're monitoring that. the other big story, blockbuster. "new york times" dropped remarkable allegation today about the number two man in the department of justice. the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein.

according to the paper in the spring of 2017, in the middle of a meeting, rosenstein proposed secretly recording the president in an effort apparently to expose chaos of the administration and discredit it. the "times" says rosenstein talked about recruiting members of the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment and remove the president from office in an internal coup. rosenstein denied the story but almost nobody in washington seems to believe him. that is not surprising. rosenstein is not a particularly popular person here. he is a permanent federal bureaucrat, a group working to undermine the president since the inauguration. two strike against him. but none of it means the story is true. before you decide whether itit is, consider where it came from and why it was published now. the piece seems to be based on notes that the f.b.i. employees lisa page and andrew mccabe typed up. after meeting with t rosenstein. but mccabe don't mention anything about the 25th

amendment. he is the core source for the story. if it's a question of deciding between rod rosenstein and andy mccabe, who are you going to believe? it's not a great choice, admittedly. but it's also not a close call. mccabe was fired from the f.b.i. for leaking and then lying about it.. federal prosecutors are looking now at the evidence. mccabe could soon be indicted for that. he has every incentive to want to see the president impeached. how could he get the president impeached. he might start leaking this story to a reporter called adam goldman at the "new york times." a reporter whom his coworkers believe he has been looking to for a long time. he would do that knowing that story might cause the president to fire rod rosenstein. democrats have long argued firing rosenstein would constitute obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense.ng come november assuming they take the house, the democrats would be in a position to file impeachment charges. even if they don't impeach, the story would doubtless drive the president crazy and cause division in the white house. perfect. a stick placed in trump's

path. is that what happened? we can't say for sure what happened. but if you were laying a trap for donald trump, this might be exactly how you'd do it. before moving forward, the president might ask himself why do andy mccabe and the "new york times" want me to fire rod rosenstein? and why do they want me to do it now rather than a year ago? when your enemies give you political advice it's worth asking questions like that. fox correspondent christine fisher following today's news and she joins us in studio. >> hey, tucker. it's a complicated story even for those of us who follow it. to bring you upto to speed, start at the beginning. this started with the "new york times" report claimingo that the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein had contemplated secretly recording the president at a r meeting with the top d.o.j. officials in may of 2017. that is right after president trump had fired f.b.i. director james comey. citing anonymous sources the "times" claims that rosenstein discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to remove mr. trump from office.e.

in response to this, rosenstein put out a statement saying, "the "new york times" story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. but let me be clear about this. based on my personal dealings with the president there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment." so rosenstein calls this story inaccurate." but you will note he doesn't categorically deny it. that is likely or it could be according to justice producer jake gibson who spoke with the d.o.j. official who was in that room in the meeting, rosenstein did say somethingm like that. but he was joking and allegedly in the middle with a heated exchange with the acting f.b.i. director andrew mccabe. the source says -- this is a direct quote -- "the statement about secretly recording the president was sarcastic andec was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president." you might imagine that democrats and republicans on capitol hill are worried that this could lead to the deputy attorney general's firing.

but so far tonight, at least publicly, the white house is not weighing in. >> tucker: a conversation behind the scenes, i would think. >> i imagine so. >> tucker: thank you for that. republican congressman matt gaetz represents florida. thank you for coming on. this is no defense against rosenstein who never struck me as someone i would trust personally. but does it seem odd that the "new york times" and andrew mccabe clearly would like the president to fire rod rosenstein? what does that tell you? >> we are only going to find out the truth if we can get rod rosenstein under oath to find out what he said in the context. there appears to be no denial he talked about wiretapping the president. so now we are supposed to policye the insurance wasn't really an insurance policy. the secret society didn't exist. this is sarcasm when you talk about taping the president. when they said no, we'll stop him. they didn't mean they would stop donald trump. they meant america would risep to the greatest virtues. i guess we can believe the lying department of justice or our lying eyes.

>> tucker: so, again, i don't want this to come off as a defense of permanent d.o.j. personnel who i said many times i would not trust. on the other hand, consider this. andrew mccabe is under investigation by thein u.s. attorney in d.c. based on the i.g. report from the d.o.j. that said he leak and lied about f it. so he could be indicted. if that is true and i think it is, then no one at d.o.j. could call andy mccabe a liar without invalidating the case. in other words, the prosecutor can't call the person he is charging a liar before the case or a judge there throw it out so maybe they can't actually deny this for that reason. >> well, there were other people in room, tucker. i've had sources who said scott schools was in the room and he is the other anonymous source cited in the "new york times" piece. so let's bring in scott back from the uber job and bring rosenstein down. why not put them under oath and ask them? if we are afraid to do that as a republican congress, then we are derelict in the oversight responsibilities.

we have to find out if -- how appropriate -- let's assumee this was a joke, tucker. how appropriate is it for the deputy attorney general to be joking about wiretapping the president while he is overseeing an investigation of the president in front of his colleagues and subordinates. rosanne barr got fired for a joke and i think rosenstein might, too. >> tucker: interesting. speaking of the congress obligation as oversight body the documents pertain to the russia investigation. particularly, the fisa warrant to allow the obama administration spy on carter page. we were promised they would be declassify and the permanent bureaucracy prevented that from happening. it's frustrating for those of us who believe in transparency and the people's right to know details of what the government is doing behind its back. can anything be done about it or is it final? >> i think some convinced the president that since the attorney general is looking at the con spent if the inspector

general finishes it will come out anyway. that is frustrating for guys like that, that want to turn all the cards face up on the table. but i have confidence that they will get to the bottom of this and issue a fair report. we may have to wait longer than we like but i don't think the deep state will hide behind their inappropriate redactions for too long. >> tucker: so one final question. i think you are absolutely right. everything in the end becomes known. nothing is hidden forever. when the documents are released to the people who own them, the american people. and it turns out none of things were redacted were not questions of national security but merely butt-covering from the federal employees, will all the people who lied get punished? they should. >> they have never been punished before. we had text messages redacted because strozk was friends with a judge or andys mccabe bought $60,000 conference table, there were no consequences. there was no punishment. we just sort of threww our hands in the air and lost trust in their ability to do their own redactions. but time and again bureaucrats

redact information that is embarrassing to them that american people have a right to know. that is why we have are to continue to fight for congress to have a robust oversight role. >> tucker: nicely put! congressman, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: the brett kavanaugh saga continues and it changes minute byug minute. why is the republic hostage to this and what is happening next? we'll keep watching the president's rally in missouri. we will go there if he reacts to either of tonight's breaking stories and he may. stay tuned. >> president trump: a vote for any democrat this november is a vote for massive regulation, massive taxes, and i hate to say, massive crime. ♪

hey, what are you guys doing here? we've been helping you prepare and invest for retirement since day one. why would we leave now? because i'm retired now. so? we're voya. we stay with you to and through retirement... with solutions to help provide income throughout. so you'll still be here to help me make smart choices? well, with your finances that is. we had nothing to do with that, uh, tie. or the suit. or the shirt. voya. helping you to and through retirement. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. flonase.

moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis was intense. my mom's pain from i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse. joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace

where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years.

♪ >> president trump: kavanaugh. i said we have to fight for him. not worry about the other side. and by the way, women are for that more than anybody would understand.

>> tucker: that is the president speaking at event in missouri. addressing the chaos around at the kavanaugh confirmation. there is, in fact, a lot of it. the main debate is the timing on the kavanaugh hearing. according to the schedule most of us assumed it was real two weeks ago the senate shouldss have already voted on the nomination by now. kavanaugh almost certainly would have been confirmed. he had the numbers. then the wrinkle. democrats leaked the name of chrstine blasey ford to the press. ford alleges in high school 36e years ago kavanaugh jumped on her at a party and groped her over her clothes. she provided very little details. including when and where it allegedly happened. kavanaugh denied it and so has the other person ford said was present mark judge. a that is what we know. to know more we need to hear from christine ford. both sides once agreed on that because it's obvious she should have a chance to speak. everyone thought it was a good idea. consensus view.

republicans in the senate asked ford to testify this week. she refused.d. they offered to send a staffer to her house in california and take her testimony privately. she refused that,o too. they asked her to testify this coming monday, she said she won't but won't explain why she won't. ford's lawyers are now saying she is willing to explain herself in the senate next thursday. thursday is a significant date in the story.s because of senate rules, which are complex, if ford testifies next thursday to vote on kavanaugh, it will be pushed back at least another week. in this environment, that very likely means forever. his nomination will be over and so will any trump nomination to the court. there is a time for the midterms the for the white house to introduce and vet a new candidate. the democrats will have prevented the administrationdt from filling the vacancy and we have eight justices for the foreseeable future and probably until there is another democratic president. you may have voted for trump in hoping he will put reasonable people on the supreme court but tough. if the testimony is delayed until thursday that is likely not going to happen.rt

that is what is at stake over this timing question. what is amazing is that no one on television is telling you that. they pretend this is protecting christine ford's feelings or civil rights or something like to that effect. watch. >> this is an emotional decision to make. for people to cast doubt on the timing of this or to t be rendering judgment on how she proceeded is probably inappropriate. >> tucker: we may know disrespect to christine ford and we have shown her none. we have given her every benefit of every doubt and we assume she believes everything she has said. but this is absurd. whether she intends to be or not she is now the center of the partisan effort that has nothing to do with sexual abuse or protecting women or details of a high school party close to 40 years ago.s this is about political power and how it'sow apportioned in washington. in the process of trying to regain that power a party corroding the legal norms and

threatening the system of the t impartial justice. in the system the individuals do not get to dictate terms of the investigations. you can't just say you don't feel like participating. why don't you try that? try the next time you get summoned for jury duty or are supposed to appear in small claims court or blow up a speeding ticket and see what happens. you can't do that because the justice department is not just about you. it's about all of us. in this case, brett kavanaugh could sit on the court that shapes the lives of 330 million other people. so the rest of us have a right to know what christine ford is alleging here. the operatives posing as her defenders claim ford was so traumatized by an event that supposedly happened in 1982, rules cannot apply to her. that is many things and it's patronizing. democrats treat a middle age women like a child. she is not a child. she is an adult. she has a family, an advanced degree, and a high level job. she accused a public figure of

a felony and in vague terms. she is part of destroying his life, wittingly or not. she needs to explain herself or allow the country to move on. if there is one good thing about the spectacle it's drawn the usual cave-dwellers from the holes and expose themselves as the buffoon they are. this is joe biden explaining why ford cannot asked to explain her own allegations. keep in mind he was thinking of running for president next year. hard to think it happen after this. watch. >> it's important that peoplear understand -- and i think people do now understand how hard it is to come forward. i always say to men, why is it so hard? how if you have been abused? did you see "deliverance"? how about if you wear that guy strapped to the tree, would you come forward? would you want to relive that? i'm serious. i'm deadly earnest. >> tucker: "deadly serious"

says biden. serious, not as serious as joe biden's presidential campaign. and tonight chuck grassley chairman of the committee delivered an ultimatum on ford lawyers. settle on a time to testify by 10:00 p.m. tonight, two hours from now, or the vote on t kavanaugh will go ahead on monday. we will keep you posted on what happened. and dana perino is host of "the five" and one of your heroes. thankfully she joined just now. what do you think of this? >> it's smart and it follows the lead. mitch mcconnell gave a speech -- s he is a steady, easy-going guy, and he took a big risk when president obama was president and antonin scalia passed away in january 2016. mitch mcconnell said we'll follow precedent and we are not going to have a hearing and a vote on a nominee on the

supreme court in a presidential election year. he held to that. he was ridiculed by the left. but think how risky that was, tucker. because president trump was not a sure win. most people thought hillary clinton was going to win. but because mitch mcconnell held strong he was able to allow president trump the opportunity. not only to get neil gorsuch on the bench but also to have the opportunity to nominate a second justice. that is brett kavanaugh if he is confirmed. this morning mitch mcconnellll said value voters there don't worry, don't get rattled. judge kavanaugh will be a supreme court justice soon. i do think if it does get down to raw politics of this, then i think the republicans would be smart to go ahead and call the vote. >> tucker: i think it's absolutelye right. otherwise, i mean why wouldn't the "washington post" and democrats on the committee be deluged with anonymousnd

accusations against kavanaugh?e the temptation is too strong. i do wonder, though, five nights in a row we have done the story. five nights we said at the outset and meant it. she seems sincere. we are not attacking her. we take the claims seriously. all people following should want to know what they are and what does it mean? given that, it does seem that she is being used very badly by a number of highly political lawyers will take an uppercase and are yanking the rest of us around with this timingim question. why would it be so hard to allow an investigator to fly to california and get a full story? >> well, maybe we will never w know. but perhaps we will. there is an hour and 40 minutes left for them to decide if she is going to testify. then you have a late minute thing today, she didn't want to fly to washington, d.c. but the committee said they would go to her. but what she wants is for the senators to have to attack them and the senators are counting on that america will be so unhappy that 11 white men are going to be doing the

questioning when is that really the issue? or are we trying to get to the truth? so it does seem to me that there is a strategy going on here. but i do think that republicans have been quitee open to saying we just founds out about this a week ago tonight. we'll have a hearing and we'll come to you and we will accommodate.e. but we won't wait forever. i think that is what chuck grassley is saying tonight. following mitch mcconnell's lead and the will of the people who voted for president trump. they wanted someone to go in there and not going to roll over for the type of accusations without any chance to have due process. i did think it was strangee that one of the demands fromss christine ford's attorneys was that judge kavanaugh d should speak first at the hearing. what is he supposed to say? we don't know what the full story is. they are turning justice on its head at the senate judiciary committee.

i think the republicans are going to say we are not going to stand for that. >> tucker: leading kavanaugh and the house and the senate republicans who i have no allegiance to them. the whole thing makes me nervous because you want your basic judicial norms to remain in place, i think. >> absolutely. we should all want that. because as they are saying now when you break norms like harry reid decided to do by breaking the filibuster for nominations, well, look what happens. >> tucker: you are right. >> you can figure out a way.y. all the things come back to haunt you. we should not allow this to happen at all. we should have a hearing if she wants to testify. if she does not want to, they should call the vote. >> tucker: dana, thank you for that. have the best weekend. >> thank you. >> tucker: the debate over brett kavanaugh has given rise to quite a bit of race-baiting. not that race has literally anything to do with this story. not one thing. we'll ask why is that after the break. plus we are watching the president's speech in missouri

for comments on today's big breaking stories.es there are a couple. o we will be right back. >> president trump: ask israel whether or not a wall works. it works. ♪ ♪ flintstones! meet the flintstones. ♪ ♪ they're the modern stone age family. ♪ ♪ from the town of bedrock. ♪ meet george jetson. ♪ ♪ his boy elroy.

with instant acceleration, electric cars are more fun to drive and more affordable than ever. electric cars are here. plug into the present.

>> you see on display a metaphor of what the party is. ignorant white men. you just see it on display. >> white men -- >> all white men. >> white male republican. >> white men. >> tucker: wow. a whole path full of dumb people have been on tv recently using the brett kavanaugh story to inflame racial tension in this country. it's confusing because this case has literally nothing to do with race at all. everybody in it accuser and accused and the only supposed eyewitness we know of are the same color. no one accused of making racial threats or using racial epithets or mentioning race. but time and time again you

hear race highlighted in outrage about the case. what could that be about? chris hahn is attorney and radio host and former aide to chuck schumer and he joins us tonight.os chris, i'm confused. if there was a fire at my house and you showed up and the first thing you started to do is denounce some race or other, that would be a weird response. you would be a racist or crazy person. what does race have to do with it?re what is this about? why am i seeing this all week? >> i think they are comparing the 1991 republicans on the senate judiciary committee with the 2018 republicans on the senate judiciary committee and how similar they look. whereas, the democrats which were all white in 1991, are not on the senate judiciary committee. so there is a comparison to be made there. there are no women on the committee.ic that is more important.

this is an issue that is sensitive to most women across the country. >> tucker: it is. >> the democrats made the point and a lot of pundits made that point. i have made the point to you as well. >> tucker: i'm confused. this is a legal case. so the race or sex of anybody in it, certainly anyone judging it should be by definition irrelevant. the legal cases are determined not on the basis of race. that is a nazi thing, which we are against, i think. but determined on the base of the facts. the evidence. why would race beas relevant? this would not be allowed in a court of law. why is it allowed in the judiciary committee? >> i agree this is not a case about race and we should take the time to do what is relevant in this case. this is not anything with the strict timing on it. but it seems the republican only concern, that we get it done by wednesday. the woman has asked to come on thursday. that is one day later. why can't they wait until thursday? >> tucker: because it delays the vote -- hold on.ne you know why. it delays the vote for a week.

that is the point of saying you can't come until thursday. >> so what? >> tucker: her lawyers -- well, her lawyers who made a career of excusing sexual assault in the case of bill clinton literally are political operatives trying to affect a political result. get back to the core question, which is i don't understand how they feel good about a party that divides people by race in the middle of a story that has nothing to do with it. do you worry that constantly picking at that wound is going to hurt the country? how is that good of america when you point out the race of people when it's irrelevant? >> i don't think the democratic party is pointing out the race of people. >> tucker: yeah, they are. i showed you a montage. >> political pundits point it out. but arguing about the timing is like arguing about the time of a baseball game. they kept it open for 44 days and one more week won't hurt anybody. let's get to the truth. let's call some witnesses. >> tucker: i read talking

points and you are doing a great job of that. but let me ask you a final question. why has there been a hesitance for her to testify? if the senate republicans, if grassley offered to talk to her in her home -- i thought the point was to give voice to victims of sexual assault. now morons like joe biden are saying that is an assault on her to ask her to explain what happened. how does it work? >> i think we will find out exactly why next week. whether we found out in a senate committee or on "60 minutes" she will be heard before the vote happens and it will not be good for thesee nomination very much at risk. whether she comes to the senate -- v >> tucker: "60 minutes"? why not just speak -- >> there are more forums and toe american people want hear from her and they will hear from her.re the senate republicans shoulde let her come on thursday and stop playing games. you don't know what is going on in her life. >> tucker: there will never be another confirmation hearing again for supreme court -- you just blew up the

system. it's over. >> we were both young in 1991 and we remember it. we said the same thing then. things change. >> tucker: all right. sure they did. thank you very much. >> thank you.he >> tucker: the left hasuc cast the kavanaugh case as a war of men against women. that is a talking point. fascinating, though, a new poll by gov finds -- buckle your -- ugov -- finds women less likely to see ford's allegation as credible. 25 to 28%. not a big difference. 5% of democrats and believe accusations keith ellison, despite more details and evidence against him. beverly joins us tonight and i'm confused because i heard from everyone. including the last guest.

this is a subject that inflames women. if that is true why do fewer women than men believeen christine ford? d >> they objectively look at this and they realize there is no proof to the claims at that point. but beyond that, i think women realize they have men in their lives they care about. sons or a husband, or brother. i don't think any of us would want these accusations, whichf could be false accusations placed against them without due process. >> tucker: could it be that women in general trust other women much lesss than men trust women? are we not allowed to say that because it's too obvious? >> if you live in washington, d.c., you believe what democrats say that only women tell the truth and only men lie. you even had senators come out and say i believe her, yet we don't know what the truth is.ay there is something going on with the democrat party.th of course, this has a lot to do with the political posturing and trying to rid kavanaugh of a supreme court seat he is for. i think it has a lot to do with abortion.

what they want to do is pit women against men. what this does is extremely damaging to the #metoo movement. when you politicize this, when it's not about really finding the truth, you do a grave disservice to women who dong need to be heard and who have been attacked in the past. so i think women are standing up because they are concerned about that. >> tucker: just the lying is so nauseating. i'm surrounding by women, i have four in my house. i believe almost everything women tell me. instinctively as a man. and most men i know are the same way. the people who are deeply suspicious of women who i know are other women. do you know anybody who hasn't had that experience and doesn't know what i'm talking about? k but we all have to pretend it's not true. why? >> the women i talked to, friends of mine, we talk about this. and we look at the accusations that are made. and we say a lot of this doesn't add up. she can't remember when or where. why is that? if this happened and i want to hear what she has to say, this is a traumatic event,pe you would remember the details.

so women know that. >> tucker: the reason in k me is starting to believe that this is really a set-up. but my first instinct and it's almost always with women, she seems sincere with me. >> and women talk to their friends. where are the other friends coming out? >> tucker: fair point. >> that is something that women do. there is an aspect that i want to know what is going on but women listen to this and say it's not adding up. >> tucker: i have noticed that with the women i have spoken to. beverly, thank you. good to see you. last night we exposed how google employees plotted to subvert and corrupt google search, a monopoly on searchle in this country, to push a political agenda and not telling the users to lie about it. how is google responding today to the revelation? update to the exclusive continuing investigation in to google coming up after the break. we will continue to monitor the president's trump underway in springfield, missouri. if there is breaking news, we will bring it to you. stay with us. >> president trump: chinese

made goods and we will come back with more if they retaliate. we have a lot more to come back with. ♪ what do you mean it's not working out, craig? i just introduced you to my parents.

psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened? i don't know. is she okay? ♪ craig and sheila broke up! craig and sheila!? ♪ as long as office gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. craig and sheila broke up! what!? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. ...most people. 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 moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain, and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. 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 with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help.

talk to your doctor today. breathe right strips are designed to simply when nighttime nasal congestion closes in,

open your nose right back up. ♪ breathe better. sleep better. breathe right. >> tucker: last >> tucker: last night we showed you internal e-mails from google employees in which people who work for google plotted to alter search results to bolster left wing groups and undermine thete administration's travel bann order. disturbing discovery. google is the most powerful company in history. it can change not just what you know but how you think. if it is willing to use its influence secretly for political reasons that is a real threat to us. a bigger threat to our democracy than a few russians. facebook ads. it's a big deal. how is google reacting to the story in fox businesss correspondent hillary vaughn trying to find out all day and joins us now with what she found. hey, hillary. >> hey, tucker.il google says this type of brainstorming is encouraged att the company and they are not going to do anything to stop

it from happening again. google says the management level employees were spitballing when they came with ways to change google search function of their personal opinion. but google is saying they will not take any action because no changes were actually made to the platform, even though employees were caught crafting plans that, if enforced, would violate their own standards. i asked there was a company memo sent out to let employees know brainstorming to alter platform in favor of their w political biases was not okay but google says they didn't and tell me they didn't reprimand any of the employees on the e-mail chain that exposed effort to use the roles at the company for theirr own political activism. we are learning more information about mckenzie thomas, the search product marketing manager that suggested that google, "actively counter search results for words" she says

are prejudice, islamphobic like "muslim" or "mexico." and thomas said they generate skewed search results are her own personal opinions and don't reflect the opinion of google, the company. tucker? >> tucker: amazing story. thank you for following up. i hope you keep on that. a we are going to. u great to see you. we'll have more on allegationst that the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein considered spying on the president wearing a wire and organizing in effect a coup of cabinet members against him. should the president fire him immediately or is there more to the story? dan bongino just ahead to discusss that. plus, the president still on stage in missouri. awful lot goingnt on. as you know, he is apt to comment on it. if he does, we will bring you right back there. we'll be right back. >> president trump: we are letting the bases and equipment fall in total disrepair. we are now purchasing the finest planes, tanks, missiles, artillery and

submarines than anywhere on earth. nobody makes it like us. ♪ we just upload our logo, and if we have any questions, customer service is there to help. - [male] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you look and feel like a team. get started today at customink.com. when the guy in frontd down feel like a teamthe highway slams on his brakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates

because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪

all the tools you need for every step of the way. make it, squarespace

>> tucker: we have a fox news alert for you. the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein issued a brand new statement. in it, he is categorically denying a "new york times" report that he discussed secretly taping the president wearing a wire and considered mobilizing the cabinet to remove the president using thea 25th amendment. which has never been used. rosenstein said this. "i never pursued or authorized recording the president and any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false." that denial is much more explicit than the one the newspaper published today where rosenstein called the story merely inaccurate.

dan bongino was n.r.a. tv contributor and author of "spy gate, the attempted sab staj of donald j. trump" and close observer of all things happening now, which is saying a lot because a lot is happening. dan, there are so many ways to look at this. it is not a defense of rosenstein to suspect maybe this is a trap being laid for the president. what is your view of it? >> you know, tucker, if it's a trap or not at this point, i don't know. we are in to triple double reverse psychology at this point. >> tucker: yes, we are. >> the bottom line is -- really! i don't want to get off the topic here but listen, the republic the premise is that the government by the people for the people. it wasn't meant to be a bumper sticker or a silly slogan. that is out the window. that's gone now. it's now clear by the op-ed that they are embedding themselves in the government and the allegations to be fair

against rosenstein, which heer has not been to many of us by the way, covering spy gate. to be fair, that there weree discussions of removing a duly elected president from office. tucker, not with the guy at the mcdonald's. with the deputy director of the f.b.i. and ad' lawyer working on the investigation of trump. tell me again how the deepn state stuff is conspiracy theorists with the radio antenna. i this is insane. >> tucker: i have been late to the deep state idea. i hate the phrase, i don't want to sound like a nutcase, i have lived here most of my life. it's hard to get me on board with the idea. watching how they preventedd and the president isis buying into it, to his discredit, prevented release of the fisa warrant to allow the obama people to spy on carter page is making me think actually the people who run the credit

governments are against the people who pay for the government. us. >> tucker, i get it. i don't want to play the euphemism game with you either. i don't care if the "new york times" op-ed writer calls it steady state, which they did. call it the sloppy state, the smarmy state, i don't care what you call it. i agree with you. they will use the deep state as a tinfoil cap wearer. i get it. i'm with you. i don't saying any i can't back up. my book, it's exclusively footnoted with the left wing media sources saying things like oh, british intelligence was passing information about the trump campaign to the trump team. tucker, that is an actual cnn headline from april. i did not make that up. they wrote that. so tell me again how we're all crazy. a foreign intelligence entity was assisting the united states government in spying. the only reason i bring it up is trump in the interview with sean hannity last night dropped a hint there are foreign governments that object to the fisa release. really? why? what were they doing in this? it's crazy.

>> tucker: why are theirhe concerns more important than the public's right to believe in its government? we are out of time. dan bongino, so great as always. good to see you. >> thanks, buddy. >> tucker: hollywood is rallying to support the accuser of brett kavanaugh.ha do they know something we don't know? are they more informed than the rest of us? we will find out from someone who works there. plus we are still watching the president speak in missouri. we'll go live if anybody happens. of course we will. stay tuned. >> president trump: we will never give up, we will never back down and we will always fight on to victory. we will always be victorious. ♪ from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

they seem to be the very foundation of your typical bank. capital one is anything but typical. that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes.

this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? mike and jen doyle? yeah. time for medicare, huh. i have no idea how we're going to get through this. follow me. choosing a plan can be super-complicated. but it doesn't have to be. unitedhealthcare can guide you through the confusion, with helpful people, tools and plans.

including the only plans with the aarp name. well that wasn't so bad at all. that's how we like it. aarp medicare plans, from unitedhealthcare. aarp medicare plans, to me, he's, phil micwell, dad.o golfer. so when his joint pain from psoriatic arthritis got really bad, it scared me. and what could that pain mean? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop irreversible joint damage, and helps skin get clearer.

enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 15 years. >> tucker: well, a group >> tucker: well, a group of actors in los angeles deeply informed by spinning over an hour on twitter have banded together to produce a videoos supporting christine ford and demanding a halt to brett kavanaugh's confirmation to the supreme court. watch. >> we know how difficult it is to stand up to powerful people. >> he should not be confirmed.

>> he should not be confirmed. >> he should not be confirmed. >> tucker: i don't know any of those people. you probably don't either. dean cain does.. actor and producer from los angeles, his dad was in the business and joins us tonight. what do you make of that? >> wow! sexual assault, i feel for any victim. >> tucker: for sure. >> no question. male, or female. but that is just completely political.l. where is the video for karen moynahan, keith ellison's accuser? where is the full length movie for bill clinton accusers? it doesn't exist. it is completely political. that is tragic because sexual assault is a s serious thing. it cheapens it. they are doing this specificallyap for political reasons. >> tucker: that is such a good point. these are not standards theyt apply equally. so kermit gosnell was anhe abortion doctor and abused all these women and they tried to make a movie about it in los angeles and not everyone was on board.

you did make a movie about it. what was the reaction? >> we had to raise the money on indiegogo because nobody would pay for it. we did that and we made the film. it's a good film and it comes out october 12. nobody would put it out there. nobody would distribute it. we found distribution. we finished the film two years ago and now we can tell the story. it deals with abortion. we couldn't even buy the add time on n.p.r. because we called him an abortion doctor. we had to call him just a doctor. >> tucker: all he did was commit abortion.sl he doesn't doing appendectomies. >> no. he was pushing drugs and busted on narcotics charge. that is how it got started. >> tucker: that is a subject you are not allowed to deviate from the prevailing view. are you concerned? >> no, not at all. i'll tell story i want to tell and i don't worry if it has repercussion on my job or hiring. it should never do that to tell stories. we are telling a true story.

this happened. i play a real-life detective james wood and this happened. the way we tell the story. we don't take a side on it.l- i'm pro choice. that shocks people.up to degree, up until the viability of a child. but i won't tell people what to do with their body. but i think this is a hugely important film and peopleha should make up their own minds.hi >> tucker: i hope all the viewers watch this movie. i am going to watch the movie. you are a brave man for doing it by the way.i >> thank you. >> tucker: everybody who spent time in liberal america where you and i live, you know that is the one subjectsp you can't have your own views on. >> no. absolutely not. >> tucker: good for you. dean cain, great to see you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: thank you. amazingly, we have come to the end of this show. so much going on. at least two huge stories both of which will bleed into next week. rosenstein accused of trying to foment a coup against his boss.

and brett kavanaugh's nomination still hanging. not sure if it's by a thread. but something. we will be on it monday. have the best weekend. "hannity" is next. >> sean: welcome to "hannity."s an incredible breaking news night on all fronts. rod rosenstein is in big t trouble tonight as are others as we are witnessing a deep state coup. i'll explain in detail. there is no doubt any longer. by the way, we have a veryth special message for thege president of the united states. he needs not to fall in a trap. according to breaking news from the "new york times" today in the spring of 2017, the deputy attorney general actually plotted to secretly record his conversations with president trump. but there is also more. the "times" is reporting that rod rosenstein floated an idea to invoke the 25th amendment. to remove a sitting president. this president, from office.