will probably never happen again. amazing moment. credit to them, and the school and their parents and their families as well. bravo. well done. that is "the story" on friday, may 3. see you on monday night at 7:00. tucker carlson is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." as washington fusses over the russia hoax for a third year in a row, a lot of other things are happening that don't get the attention they deserve. for example, the big tech companies launched the fiercist attack yet on your right as an american to follow your conscience, and to say what you believe. unlike the earlier generations of the authoritarians. the tech moguls don't say it aloud. they are not honorable enough to state it clearly. instead they drone it in the soothing banality.

listen to zuckerberg saying free speech is something to get behind. >> we are taking a proactive role to make sure that the partners and the developers use the services for good. we are focused to make sure that the recommendations and the discovery services aren't highlighting the groups where people are repeatedly sharing misinformation or the harmful content. we work hard to completely remove groups if they exist primarily to violate the policies or to do things that are dangerous. >> tucker: who knew fascism could be so chirpy. groups that do things that are dangerous. dangerous, what does it mean? dangerous hurting other things or saying things that zuckerberg doesn't like or considers bad for business? yesterday we found out facebook released the latest enemies list. alex jones, milo yunapoli, is louis farrakhan, laura lumar, all designated dangerous individuals and banned from

facebook. the company infowars banned as well and described as a dangerous organization. didn't say how. how dangerous is infowars? facebook said you can be banned for sharing content unless you simultaneously denounce it. think about that. he is not just censoring opinions, he is describing which political opinions you are allowed to have, which conversations all of us in the country can have about america. keep in mind that nobody voted for mark zuckerberg. he is 34 years old. he is completely cut off from reality. he is worth $72 billion. yet, he can single-handedly make the first amendment irrelevant after 250 years. here is the most amazing thing of all. the media thinks that is great. journalists are supposed to defend free speech. you would think that is their job since they make a living from it. when corporate america issues an order and mark zuckerberg

says jump, the question is how high, mr. zuckerberg? listen to them celebrate mark zuckerberg and sell you out completely. >> why are they doing this now? >> well, that is a good question to why they waited this long. >> yes. exactly. >> so jones has been banned from facebook for a long period of time. but now they banned him and they banned his underling. >> kick him off the platform. great for now but it doesn't roll back the clock. >> you have the first and the second amendment right now and i don't think that the forefathers said well, you can say all sort of hateful things and spread it around the world, literally spread it through the internet. >> i have no issue with it at all. i want them shut down. i want them silenced and muted. they are horrible for the society. >> tucker: i want them shut down. i want them silenced. i want them muted! don't worry. these people aren't terrifying or anything. don't kid yourself. it's not just alex jones they

wanted silenced, muted, shut down! recently the pointer institute a non-profit that is supposed to support journalism put out a list of what they called unreliable news outlets. he crafted the list with the help of the southern poverty law center. you can imagine who made the list. washington free beacon, "daily caller," "daily signal." everybody who is not msnbc or precisely aligned with the politics. pointer called for the advertisers to blacklist and therefore bankrupt the news outlets. crush them. the fellow progressives applauded. as far as they are concern, this is total war. what we are watching in real time is the country become unfree. so who is defending us in all of this? us who might dissent from mark zuckerberg's view or think msnbc leaders don't tell the

whole truth the whole time or don't trust zuckerberg to control what we think. who is standing up for us? where the leaders in congress? where is the white house? nowhere. if big tech isn't hassling them personally and directly and their accounts are open, they don't seem to care. they are fools. any of the people get re-elected in a country where left wing tech companies control the terms of the political debate? can you really win a presidential election if google opposes you? no. you can't. not a chance. not right now. without free speech there is no democracy. it's time to stop lying about that. chad is a journalist and thank you for coming on. i don't think anyone is pretending that this is just about alex jones or paul joseph watson or people you have only sort of heard of. or whatever. this about anybody who

dissents from the corporate view of what should be talked about. they are crushed. why is no one defending the majority of the americans against the threat to the speech? >> that is a good question. there is one person calling for mass civil disobedience. brace yourself, it's snoop dogg who just ordered all of his followers to share louis farrakhan video and footage on instagram and facebook. good for him. i agree. you have a republican class. a spent sitting milk toast conservatives terrorists of having their precious accounts taken away they won't stand up for the people. they refuse to stand up for the people. they are frightened. sorry to say that the censurers are coming for them next. they were not in violation of any terms of service. >> tucker: of course. >> they have been time on social media.

i followed both of the accounts. the designation that facebook gave them underneath the security guidelines being "dangerous," that wasn't just an ajektive they pulled out of -- adjective they pulled out of nowhere. that is a designation they give specifically to serial killers, mass murders, terrorist organizations and the human traffickers. paul joseph watson is in an interesting situation because he is a british citizen in the united kingdom. they have much stricter libel laws. in this country the libel laws are not strong because the first amendment is supposed to be so strong. so he might not have much of a lawsuit there. but you are right, there is no one standing up. one of the most interesting things is that facebook released a press -- sent a press release out before they even banned the accounts. they set up the press release out to the journalists. oops! they realize the accounts were still active as they sent a

press release. so why? if we still had journalists in this country -- and we don't anymore because they have all been kicked off facebook -- they'd be asking what is going on? who are the people colluding with? who are they communicating with? why do they have to make this to a media stunt if they were merely banning people for violation of the terms of service? they would have just done it and not made in a production. >> tucker: exactly. why are the media cheering on the totalitarian impulse to crush people you disagree with. it's terrifying. chadwick moore, you're a voice for free speech. thank you. last august radio host jesse came on and said he would eventually be censured. >> i don't agree with the alex jones views, but that is not the point. if you silence this guy because you don't like what he says why can't they silence you or me? >> that is the point, tucker. they are coming for you and me next. >> tucker: and they were, actually. in november, jesse's twitter

account was shut down temporarily until he complained about it. he joins us. jesse kelly, thank you for coming on. so they are coming. it's not just alex jones. let's let lie to ourselves. but i wonder if the republican office holders who are standing by and allowing this stuff to go completely unchallenged understand that they are not going to get re-elected if you don't have freedom of speech in this country. it will be impossible for them to win the next election. do they get that? >> they don't get that. in fact, they are complicit in it. their silence makes them complicit in it, tucker. the social media companies are banking on the weak spying republican politician -- week-spine republican politics standing by as they pick off the weak member of the herd. that is all this is. clip off the weak member of the herd and surround it while they get ready to eat us all. >> tucker: that is exactly -- what will it take -- what is 2020 going to look like if people are not

allowed to express views that mark zuckerberg doesn't agree with? seriously. >> it's going to take politicians losing their job. frankly it should media people losing their job. what we need is a media outcry. as you pointed out at the beginning of the show, they are clapping like seals when this happens. conservatives have to wake up and realize you cannot only rely on social media now. they hate you. they want you removed. if you rely only on social media as a conservative for your career, you are going to be wiped out. soon your career won't be worth as much as a price of a wnba ticket. >> tucker: it's gotten the point where i am cheering on snoop dogg, whoever that is, who is defending louis farrakhan, who i have never considered defending louis farrakhan. i'm not defending him now. i'm defending the first amendment to the bill of rights. so why is it only snoop dogg doing this? >> i am defending him, tucker. louis farrakhan is a worthless

scumbag. i'm not denying that. but he is somebody who should be allowed to speak. we shouldn't be afraid of hearing him speak. why would we be afraid for somebody we don't like to speak? he can compare his ideas with my ideas and let the best man win. it's not as if he is insighting masin --inciting a m. >> tucker: you asked a deep question. why are they afraid? why are they afraid to hear views they didn't agree with. what is the answer? >> that is what the totalitarians do. the history of the left, the history of every form of the left involves censorship. in america that means shutting down people so the voices can't be heard. in the most extreme cases in history it means kicking down your door in the middle of the night and hauling you off to a political prison so you can't

speak anymore. they need us to not speak. but we don't have a great solution either. the government can't step in. you saw dianne feinstein a couple of days ago. do you want that person in front of facebook? >> tucker: i would like facebook to be stripped of the protections that the u.s. congress granted it, immunity from the lawsuits on the promise it was a platform, not a news organization. here they are editing content. i don't know why -- i don't have that extension. if i libel you on this show, you can sue me or fox news. be you can't sue facebook. they have a special exemption. why do they have that? >> they have that because they have a bunch of money to lobby congress. that is the one thing -- it's the truth! it's the one thing they should change. that is what they are scared of. they are publishers. they are not platforms. they are trying to remove voices and call everybody a nazi. somebody with guts should step up in congress. >> tucker: amen. i home someone will. thank you, jesse. >> be good, brother.

>> tucker: brian worked as an engineer at facebook. left the company and he came on this show to explain why. >> i'm leaving because of the content policy direction, which, you know, trying to draw the lines around what is acceptable and what is offensive or too offensive, i think it's dangerous and impractical. >> tucker: now those warnings are coming true. we are grateful to have brian back on the show tonight. thank you for coming on. so you used the word "dangerous" the last time we spoke about facebook's behavior. facebook yesterday described the people it was censoring and their supporters it would be censoring as "dangerous." who is more dangerous? people with the hetrodox opinions or out of control tech company shutting down the speak? >> the out of control tech company is dangerous. there is a limit to what you want to do about that. you have to be really principled if that the way you think of reacting to that.

i think facebook is a lot more dangerous. >> tucker: so i guess i'm fascinated by the unwillingness of anyone to say that outloud. you are one of the relatively few people we have had on the show to explain it as clearly as you do. why is that? why are we slow to recognize the threat to speech? >> part of it is this is just a really complicated situation. part of what people don't realize is that this is an unprecedented situation. people at facebook, they don't really know what they are doing. no one has ever run a platform with 2.5 billion people on it. congress doesn't know how to deal with this. people don't know how to respond to it. this is completely unprecedented. so for me it gets back to that we have to be really principled. when the intuition fails us we have to principled thinking what is the role as users in the veracity of our own

knowledge? what is the role of government protecting our rights? i think facebook ought to be doing more to think about what its role is in the distribution and the creation of the market of ideas. that is why i resigned. i think they are doing a poor job of that and heading absolutely in the wrong direction. >> tucker: they don't seem to perceive threats like real threats to -- like for example they seem to find alex jones a greater threat than the fascist government of china. how could -- i'm serious. how? how could they reach that conclusion? >> i mean, i don't think i have any answer to that question. i think on one side the demographics of the company lend itself to having incredibly left-leaning perspective. not because there is an explicit bias and they are trying for that to be the case but the demographics of the company mean they don't even have the non-left-leaning perspective in the room when making the decisions.

i think that was a big part of it, which is why i wrote the note i did. people that don't share the perspectives need to be encouraged to speak out about them. when they disagree with where the company is going. >> tucker: right. you wrote a powerful plea for diversity and were ignored. add it to the list of the deep ironies of 2019. thank you for coming on. i hope you will come back. >> absolutely. thank you for having me, tucker. >> tucker: thanks. a lot of things that are obvious are the ones that are denied. in fact, the more vehemently denied they are, the more obvious they tend to be. add to that list the federal government, the obama administration did, in fact, spy on donald trump's presidential campaign. the truth is coming out in stages. some after the break.

the word "spying" was used. he is probably one of the people leading the effort on spying. >> that is a very serious charge to make. >> i know, i know. we'll find out whether or not it was true. i think it could be true. but we'll find out soon. >> that was president speaking yesterday with catherine herridge. >> tucker: he thinks that he was spied on. we need the d.o.j. i believe specter report to be -- d.o.j. inspector report to be certain. how long before we get that? catherine herridge joins us. >> chuck grassley and ron johnson are investigating the text messages to tell the attorney general they may be evidence that the f.b.i. used official transition briefings to gather information on the

trump team. sent nine days after the 2016 election. lawyer lisa page and peter strozk discussed strategy and staffing for upcoming intelligence briefing for vice president-elect mike pence and strozk writes they should use an agent whose specialty is espionage. he can assess if there are new questions or a different demeanor. i the statement after vice president lashed out at them as the disgraced agents who considered infiltrating the transition team and failed. william barr and hor wits are running -- horowitz are running separate reviews to see if this was a campaign justified and based on the evidence. including the warrant from page that was secured two weeks before the 2016 election. speaking to fox the president said all associated records

will be declassified. >> president trump: yes, i'm going to be allowing declassification soon. i didn't want to do it originally because i wanted to wait. i've seen the way they play. they play dirty. i decided to do it. i will do it soon. far more than you would have even thought. >> the attorney general recently testified that horowitz and his report is expected this month or next. tucker? >> tucker: i know you will be on that. >> i sure will. >> tucker: i can't wait. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> tucker: great to see you. another potential conflict of the interest exposed tonight in the kim fox's corrupt handling of jussie smollett. matt finn has been on the story from day one and joins us tonight. >> the latest chapter in the jussie smollett saga one of the most powerful judges in chicago deciding whether the special prosecutor should launch fresh investigation in the jussie smollett case and also in fox's office deciding whether he should recuse himself from the own decision because it was revealed his son works for kim fox as an

assistant state's attorney. this all began last month when the former illinois appellate justice sheila o'brien looking for a special prosecutor, arguing that a special prosecutor should have been assigned. when fox recused herself from the case. when leroy martin was set to address that in court but in a sudden twist in a feisty exchange, o'brien argued that judge martin should take the high road and recuse himself. you judge martin fired back that his son's job has never been an issue before but agreed to look over the recusal. it says she was less than truthful when having to admit she only coloqually recused herself. and there was only a need for special prosecutor if she

couldn't do her duties. but foxx says she already admitted he is couldn't fulfill the duties. and o'brien subpoenaed foxx to appear in court this week but she objected and did not appear. the case continues may 10. tucker? >> tucker: matt finn for us in chicago. thank you, matt. this is not really up for debate. california public schools are failing. miserably. disorderly classrooms are one reason why. but instead of making it better they want to ban teachers from restoring order. literally. it's about to happen in california. we have details after the break.

>> tucker: in california, the state lawmakers may soon legalize anarchy in the public schools. a bill that has already passed the state senate in california would prohibit schools from suspending students for what they call willful defiance. that meanings students behaving in a noisy, hostile,

threatening or disruptive manner that makes learning impossible for everybody else could not be punished. so what would the effect of the law be? according to the supporters suspending disruptive students, you could have guessed this, racist. but it's not racist to condemn the classmates to failing schools where learning is impossible, which it already is. only made worse by this. murdoch is a contributor editor to national review online. troy, their for coming on. you grew up in california and it has one of the best public schools in world but now it has some of the worst. reassure me that this is not going to make it even worse than they already are. >> i'd like to think this would be an improvement. i don't think it is. this is taking place not in the jim crow south of 1968. this is california in 2019. the idea here is somehow the black students are suffering at the hands of the racist teachers and the racist principals. if these are the principals

and the teachers in california they are probably member of the teacher unions and the principal unions and i think some of the most liberal open-minded, tolerant diversity celebrating people in the world. but we're told they are racist and bigoted so we have to let undisciplined out-of-control kids run loose. the black and the minority kids are trying to learn to do something with themselves and advance the prospects. they suffer, they are not able to focus. some of them get injured or worse. i guess all in the name of social justice. we'll let social bedlam coin the realm of the california schools. >> tucker: that is a great point. it doesn't help the kids at all. how does it help a child if the kid sitting next to him can get the finger to the teacher, "f-you" and how does it help anybody? >> it doesn't help anybody. it's not good for the teachers or the students trying to learn. ultimately not good for the

kid that needs to be disciplined and told to behave. sometimes you get through the kids and tell them to shape up and they do and go on to have prosperous lives. but if you let them run loose they don't learn the lesson. the other kids don't learn the lesson. often as we have seen in the school with the undisciplined campaign takes place the teachers get verbally or physically assaulted. >> tucker: so why not pass a law right away, a federal law to make all lawmakers subject to consequences of the legislation they pass? why certain every person who votes for this in the california legislature have to send his own kid to public school in the state? >> how about that? wouldn't that be something? if the lawmakers had to send the kids to the public schools or live under obamacare and experience the consequence of the failing policies they might be on the side of the people that want to see major reform and privatization and other things that would make the upside down disastrous policies effective. >> tucker: you are 100% right. deroy murdoch. thank you. it's hard to see you.

>> thank you. >> tucker: hard to remember that far back because the united nations was created after the second world war to resolve international disputes and later took on expanded mission of protecting human rights and now it'sdy generated to something like your cousin's facebook feed and pushing politics on confused population. u.n. women, a twitter handle, tweeted how to be a champion for gender equality? defy stereotypes. talk the talk. disrupt culture of toxic masculinity. share the care. don't stand for the intolerance. morons. and mark dobney is a british journalist r candidate for the brexit party and we recently spoke to him about what is happening at the united nations. here is what he said. so it's hard to believe -- it's hard to believe that this

is real, that iran is a member of the women's rights committee. it's like who has taken over the u.n.? that is the bottom line question. >> it's hard to imagine that in 1945 the u.n. was created to end the scag o scourge of wad be a shining light of how to leave our lives. and fast forward and 2019 it's taking over by the work experience kid. on one hand we all talk things like we talk to gillette or the silly brands that dabble with the politics and hugely damage reputation. in fact, the u.n. themselves are getting massively trolled by the people who are sick of this. you are right to point out that inequality only seems to exist in the west, america, and the united kingdom. racism and sexism don't seem to exist anywhere else, apart from the west which we know to be untrue. the fact you mentioned that

iran on the women's committee is pure exemplary information about that. how can we say a culture where women make up 19% of the workforce and posting about equality on facebook can get you arrested, where women aren't allowed to watch sport is somehow a shining bastion of equality. whereas, when we hear about a special investing officers from the u.k. abroad at the great expense, elected people. trump won't allow them in the usa. i think he should stick with that. we had two come to the u.k. one in 2014 concluded that the u.k. was the most sexist country in all the u.n. despite that the reports are published from south africa, which has horrible stats. 40% of all women were likely beto be raped. one of the world's violent crime episodes. and secondly, we have one last year after brexit where the

report concluded that britain was much more racist. as soon as the people leave our shores they are reviled and meet nothing but disaster in their wake. frankly it makes you wonder why we bother with them and why we are paying for them? the u.s. pays $10 billion a year to the u.n. for the privilege of being trolled by a teenager on twitter. >> tucker: let me ask you a question. i want to check. your woke quotient here. so if i force my wife to cover herself with a piece of cloth because i demand that she remain modest, that is not woke. >> no. >> tucker: but a foreign country requires its women to do that, that is woke? >> it's observing faith. >> tucker: so a burqa can be woke. a state. of feminist solidarity? >> yes. and it's much safer to not

have a position on that. i think this is what this is all about. the u.n. is seeking, it's going through an existential crisis. what does it stand for? it can't enforce world peace because the power of veto is toothless in actual terms of power. so it seems to have made the new mission to be like a moral arbiter, particularly of the west. they are on the television in u.k. he is talking about how the venezuelaen regime overthrown was overshown by right wingers. people are diving of starvation. literally they are eating their pets. wiping their behind on bank notes which are cheaper than toilet roll. but in their eyes this is right wingers and fascist and overthrowing this. they are always underpinned by donald trump there. we have it. every wrong in the world is perpetrated by the catalyst,

by the west and every right of the world is perpetrated by the rest. >> tucker: unbelievable. what a perfect description of their world view. thank you. martin, great to see you tonight. thank you for that. >> pleasure. thank you. >> tucker: ebola is back. one of the world's most horrifying diseases. one of the most deadly outbreaks ever. many experts are concerned. should americans be worried? dr. marc siegel is here with an updit on that. and u.f.o.s just declassified. we're the only station covering it. we're not embarrassed. an amazing story. don't miss it. back then, we checked our zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed! but ocuvite has vital nutrients to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today.

the pressure cooker that crisps. it's the best of pressure cooking and air frying all in one so in as little as 30 minutes it will be crispy on the outside, juicy on the inside, and on your table. the ninja foodi, the pressure cooker that crisps.

>> tucker: i want to bring

you a fox news alert. this one reported minutes ago. south korean media. not yet reported in this country. north korea has apparently fired short range ballistic missile. if true it would be the first time north korea has done that in the past year and a half. the launch apparently came from the hodo pennsylvani hodo . the u.s. officials are analyzing details to see what happened. but that would be a setback for the administration diplomatic efforts in the region as they are seeking to reduce the tension between the countries. we will follow this and bring you more information as it comes in, as it doubtless will. in other developing news there are new fears that ebola could be heading no this country. one of the worst outbreak of the disease in history is underway and spreading fast. nearly 1,000 people have died of ebola in the congo. one of the deadliest, infectious disease known to man. fewer of one-third of the

people displaying symptoms survive. five years ago there was a major outbreak of ebola made to our country. how concern should we be, if at all, this time around? for the answers we go to the medical professor dr. marc siegel. thank you for coming on. >> all right, tucker. >> tucker: this so this seems like a development really in the history of ebola. a thousand people. should we be concerned? >> yes, we should. i will tell you why. this is in an area of the democratic republic of congo where there is not an infrastructure and militias forming around. 119 ebola clinics attacked by militia. it's a security problem in addition to a health problem. it's also erupting now. we have had a hundred cases in the past week alone. you said 1,000 deaths out of 1,500 cases in the last year. 100 in the past week alone. the world health organization is in the middle of this but they don't have money. there is not enough vaccines. here is a good development since 2016.

we now have a highly effective vaccine. it's been given to 100,000 people. that may sound like a lot. it needs to be given to millions. we don't have the vaccines. people are dying without knowing they have ebola. 40% of the deaths, ebola identified after the person dies. it's erupting and spreading and getting out of control. >> tucker: interesting. but ebola at least as it has been explained in the western media, it seems to be kind of hard to miss. you hemorrhage from various orifices. it's horrible. people don't know they have it? >> they don't know they have it because there is no one identifying it. there are no healthcare workers in the region. world health organization, people have been killed. this is not a situation -- granted, someone who knows infectious diseases and even medicine could identify it. again, it's going to spread to neighboring countries, i believe. here is one positive thing about it. it's very hard to spread. you can only spread it if you come in contact with secretions with blood. so it's not spread casualty.

so even if a traveler were to bring it here, which happened in 2014 with craig spencer and others, it's only spread if proper precautions were not taken. if another case shows up in the united states hopefully they would isolate the case and it won't spread here. but there it's an enormous problem. people themselves don't know what it is. they know it's a horrible does but they don't know it's ebola. >> tucker: unbelievable. ebola is far from the only deadly communicable disease floatal around the globe. politically would it be possible to block people coming from any other country in world >> could we do anything the face of an epidemic at this point? >> what we usually do in a case like this is bring more and more of the workers in rather than blocking the travelers. i said there were 100 cases in the last week. we considered that in 2014. if it gets where we thousands of cases and nothing is done internally. the democratic republic of con

grow is trying to help -- congo is trying to help. but the militias and the security problem is there. the u.n. forces are there but nothing with what we need. this is becoming not just a health issue but an issue of having to bring in armies and a mess. it's a total, total mess. not diminishing. it's growing and it will spread to neighboring countries in africa. >> tucker: i'm not surprised at all. thank you for your perspective. >> thank you, tucker. ♪ >> tucker: well, there is something going on in the skies above us. even the government isn't certain exactly what it is. recently declassified documents show that the u.s. government has for years maintained a program that investigated the health effects of the u.f.o. encounters on those who saw them. huh. meanwhile in response to the news that it's crafting a new u.f.o. reporting system, the navy, the u.s. navy openly

admitted to repeated encounters with unusual aerial objects near its bases. nick pope, investigates u.f.o. sightings for the ministry of defense. he was dismissed by others as a conspiracy but turns out he was totally right. he joins us and we're glad to have him. first to the news that the u.s. government investigated the health effects of contact with u.f.o.s. what does that mean? >> well, this is a part of the pentagon's atip program that studied these unexplained phenomena. this is a part we haven't heard much about. everyone has been concentrating on the videos of the navy jets chasing the u.f.o.s. but if you go back to harry reid's letter to the department of defense he describes this in terms of the human interface and human effect aspect of the program. then recently, more recently when the d.i.a. wrote to

congress about this, in amongst all the papers on exotic propulsion systems that they produced was a paper entitled "field effects on biological test use." it seems as if what they were interested in is the effects of all of this on the people that witnessed it. i understand that this involved for example things like blood sample, d.n.a. tests and other medical tests and procedures. >> tucker: so, i mean, what this really tells us is that u.f.o. encounters are so common that they worried about the health effects of the encounters on americans. so there is really no question that the u.s. government has known for a long time that something profound is going on. i'm not saying they know what it is. but they have lied about that. why have they lied about that for so long? it's bewildering. >> well, i think there are difficult defense and national security issues here.

there is also this blurring of the lines. we don't know, we really don't know whether with some of the things we are talk about russians, chinese, or something from shall we say farther afield than that. and so there is embarrassment. you also can't say we have lost control of our own air space. but i did a cold case review on a case in the u.k. where it turned out some military witnesses were probably exposed to u.a.p. radiation. u.a.p. is the british government term for u.f.o., unidentified aerial phenomena. and the people are now trying to get medical settlements for health issues they attribute to the close encounters. >> tucker: it's almost like there is a whole kind of parallel world going on, where these stories are addressed but the rest of rus not even aware of it. we sort of know that there are the u.f.o. nuts but it turns out lots of sober, well-educated people have been

devoting a lot of time studying this stuff for decade. i'm amazed we didn't know. >> well, the ministry of defense was studying it. the department of defense here and the defense intelligence agency. and, of course, as you said in your introduction, just last week the navy have announced a new policy on this to encourage their pilots and their radar operators to come forward and speak out, to destigmatize it. i support that. it's unfortunate that we are not going to get apparently the data that is actually produced under this. i hope we can get unclassified summaries. i certainly hope we can get for example a copy of the guidance that they say they have just issued on this. >> tucker: yeah. >> that will give us some clues as to what is going on here. >> tucker: why the hell isn't "the today show" leading with this every morning for the next ten years? is there a more interesting story? i don't think there is. nick pope, i know you agree with that. thank you. >> yes. absolutely i do. and look, if the navy wants to

diffuse the u.f.o. hysteria all they have to say is look we are just talking about aircraft and drones but they don't. >> tucker: no, they don't. telling. great to see youn't to. thanyou -- see youtonight. thank you. it's friday so that means it's time for the dan bongino news explosion. he will join us in moments to break down the most explosive stories of the week.

>> ♪ >> ♪ >> ♪ >> ♪

>> ♪ >> ♪ >> tucker: it's friday. waiting for it for 7 days. time for dan bongino's news explosion to break down his top 3 stories of the week. the great dan bongino. >> i appreciate. it let's get to it. story number 3. most interesting stories. joe biden laughs off the china threat. it's a topic sensitive to your

heart. what he was doing for the 8 years of the obama presidency? the whole territorial expansion? was he eating marsh mallows. he was not the hall monitor. he was the vice-president. >> tucker: unbelievable. nobody said anything which other weird thing. >> story number 2. new york the gift that keeps on giving. i live my home state. i was born there. we have two politicians making news. bill may run for presidency appealing to a constituency of 1. a town hall 20 showed up and 14 were patseding.

-- paddling. secondly. alexandria ocasio-cortez, she released this video about her garden. she may be trolling us but it's worth her time. >> i was so nervous. i was in new york for 2 weeks. oh my god, look at this. look at the collard greens. i am shocked that comes out of dirt. it's magic. >> tucker: [laughing]. >> aoc discovers agri guilture. i get it. it's a joke. you got elected to congress, congratulations. but you just discovered farming

methods. it coming out of the dirt. >> tucker: next week the wheel and fire. >> [laughing]. i get it. having a little fun at your experience. story number 1. here's the story. the "new york times" yesterday breaking news finally what you and i have every sane person has known. spy assets were employed to surveil the trump campaign. the news story here: it is the news. the news took 2 years to report on this is absolutely gross! everybody knew this was coming. they reported that the fbi had to do it because it was frantic around election time. frantic is not an excuse to throw the constitution out the window. it's during frantic times we should be adhering extra to the

constitution. this is a terrible story. >> tucker: i don't think it was just the fbi. dan bongino, thank you. we are the sworn enemy of of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think. have the best weekend. >> sean: hasn't. "hannity." tonight a major breaking news. a letter from devin nunes surrounding a shady foreign figure named joseph misfud who is linked to the origins of the fbi's russia witch hunt. mueller portrayed him as an academic with ties to russian intelligence committee. the letter makes clear me may have connections to russian governments. that raises questions about how the russian investigation got started and how intelligence

so