front of it. check him out. he is adorable. thank you to the staff at the home depot. you are our heroes tonight. most watched, most trusted, most grateful you spent the evening with us. good night from washington. i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." a couple hours ago "the washington post", our hometown newspaper, published op-ed by former fbi director james comey. in the piece, comey explains whatever surveillance the fbi department conducted on the 2016 trump campaign was entirely justified and within bounds. nothing weird about it at all. yes, american citizens were monitored electronically without their knowledge. but it wasn't spying. of course it wasn't spying. it was investigating. it was done for your own good. and if you don't like it, you are unpatriotic and possibly mentally ill. that's comey's position. what the op-ed did not

contain was any evidence at all that what he said is true. comey is a bitter partisan with a long history of shading the truth. but, he suggests, you have got to trust him anyway. it's your duty to trust himit okay. well, here is another idea. t we could see for ourselves exactly what happened in 2016. we could declassify all the relevant information and then make it public. that way we wouldn't have to take anyone's word for what happened -- comey's word, trump's word, anyone else's word. the president suggested doing just that. the left is outraged by the idea. watch. >> trump has every reason to believe barr will use his new powers to aid the president's anti-deep state propaganda efforts. >> trump giving barr unilateral authority over classification is a huge deal in the world of intelligence agencies.er barr will be able to override other agency's independent classifications or terminations. and the goal of all of this here seems pretty clear. it's basically to give sean hannity material for his television show.

so the plan, as it appears p now, is essentially kind of purge of the ideologically suspect members of the intelligence apparatus. >> tucker: um-huh. it's a purge like joseph stalin. unless we stop the release of disinformation, people will die. that's what they're telling you. just another day of balanced news coverage on msnbc. keep in mind as you watch and rewatch that clip that chris hayes is not a flack for the cia. i he is a member of the national press corps, but he isn't arguing for openness, just the opposite. hayes is arguing, using his position as a public advocate to argue against giving the public more information. these are not military secrets or the names of u.s. agents working undercover overseas. the information in question is about how the fbi spied on americans while investigating crimes that we w now know did not occur. so what could possibly be the justification for keeping all of that secret, the details secret? really, the only justification would be to protect the intel agencies b from embarrassment.

that's what they fear and that's exactly why the former director of the cia john brennan and so many others are anxious to preserve the vale of secrecy. >> i think it's important that the counterintelligence professionals continue to carry out their responsibilities and resist these unwarranted and very, very irresponsible efforts to try to undermine what they're doing. >> tucker: okay. so john brennan thinks it's risky, unwarranted, very irresponsible to let american citizens know whether their law enforcement agencies abuse their power. that kind of transparency, again, is irresponsible. okay. so what if we applied the same standards to john brennan himself? know that after leaving the white house, brennan was allowed to keep his security clearance, and that clearance increased his value as an employee once he entered the private sector. a it allowed him access to classified information, which he could then selectively leak to his colleagues at msnbc. how does giving classified information to john brennan help american national

security? well, it doesn't. it helps only john brennan. keep in mind this is a man who has accused his political enemies of treason, a death penalty offense. >> this is nothing short of treasonous because it is the betrayal of the nation. he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. >> treasonous is defined asmy a betrayal of trust as well as aiding and abetting the enemy. that was the word that came to my mind. >> tucker: that was for the crime of holding a press conference with vladimir putin last summer in finland, he was talking about the president. what you just saw is not stable behavior. john brennan is exactly the sort of person who should not have a security clearance. close to a year ago on this program we made that point. brennan no longer works foro the federal government in any capacity. he holds no official post. and, yet, according to two sources we spoke too exclusively today, brennan retains perhaps the most valuable asset he had inin government, a top secret security clearance. it is terrifying to thinkit that john brennan still has

access to any of that information.re brennan is an out of the closet extremist. this is not a man who should have a security clearance. so shortly after that aired, the president announced that he was revoking john brennan's security clearance. w that was, as we said, almost a year ago. it was july of 2018. what happened next? well, pretty much nothing. apparently, as of tonight, john brennan still has a security clearance, amazingly enough, as he works for msnbc. according to the "new york times," the president's order was, "hampered by aides who slow rolled the president and by justice department officials who fought mr. trump on it." keep in mind that paul ryan, then the speaker of the house, mocked the idea publicly when trump said he was going to revokes brennan's security clearance. according to the "new york times," the same thing happened with documents the president wanted declassified. the bureaucracy fought back against the elected president and won. this seems to be happening a lot recently. according to bob woodward's book, on multiple occasions, gary cohn, the national

economic council director, prevented the president fromec pulling out of a trade deal simply by stealing the relevant order off his desk when he wasn't looking. the president ordered troops out of syria last december, you remember that, but that order has not been laid down. it's been delayed and mitigated again and again. now it looks like troops will stay in syria indefinitely. in fact, we are now sending troops to the middle east in even larger numbers, directly contravening the president's campaign promises. as we just showed you, the same might happen with the s president's latest call for declassification. john brennan, among others, is calling for bureaucracy to ignore the order. think about that. like so many on the left, brennan is doing precisely what he accuses others of doing. "you are undermining democracy," they scream, even as they work to do just that. how are they doing it? to recap civics at its most

basic level, all authority in representative democracy flows from voters. the president and the vice president are the only elected officials among the millions who work in the executive branch of government. if you subvert their policies, ratified by voters, you are subverting democracy itself. brennan obviously knows that he doesn't care. but the rest of us should care.. fox senior political analyst brit hume joins us tonight. brit, thanks for coming on. so it seems to me that if you have a government where the elected leaders are ignored unilaterally by permanent employees in the bureaucracy, it doesn't matter what the political affiliations of anyone involved are. that is subverting democracy, isn't it? >> well, it's been going on for a long time.e. >> tucker: yeah. >> whether there is a deep state, as it's often called, i remain skeptical. there is certainly a permanent bureaucracy that exists from one administration to the next. and it often resists presidents on orders they give. and sometimes that's a good things. sometimes presidents get talked out of doing things they shouldn't do. >> tucker: there's a huge difference between talking somebody out of an unwise decision, which i think is a fair thing to do. >> slow walking it.

>> tucker: and contravening the expressed will of an elected official. subverting it really, in a dishonest way. how is that not an assault on democracy? >> well, i think in many respects it is. i don't disagree with that.. i can't help remarking after seeing your monologue there and the clips from that guy from msnbc that i'm old enough to remember that when reporters were trying to get the government t from stop classifying so much information. it was hard to find in the respect for classified information was hard to find in the fourth estate. remember, the pentagon papers. that whole study, voluminous study, the whole thing was classified. the newspapers got ahold ofit it and published. >> tucker: it was really stolen at nine from a government building. >> it was stolen and the newspaper involved in that were considered heroes and i agreed that. >> tucker: i agree with that now. >> remember also, tucker, when devin nunes, the chairman of the house intelligence committee, was about to publish his report that contained a lot of information about how this investigation got started and whether or not there was the collusion that had been

so often charged, he was going to include some classified information and went to the white house -- and all of the same people were wringing their hands p and worrying about the loss of sources and methods. the report was published and we never heard another word about it. >> tucker: how many american assets were killed? >> none that we know of, that's for sure. and if it had happened, do you think the john brennans of the world would let usoh here about it, sure they would. >> tucker: should would we be nervous when news organizations hire people with top secret clearances who are basically running interference for the permanent bureaucracy?ng >> particularly when the guy is the same guy who had to t come on the air after the mueller report was released and try to explain how he got it all so wrong. he predicted there were further indictments coming and that mueller was really just getting started and then there were no further indictments. mueller did not find the collusion that had been so often alleged by brennan and others. he had to come on the air and say, i don't really know

and i got some bad information and so on. you would think after that, if he had gotten something that big that wrong for so long, that the enthusiasm at certain networks for having him on might be diminished. apparently not. >> tucker: that was my question. you have run a news organization and been in the bureau for many decades, would you keep using a guy who got it wrong like that? >> if i did, the first thing i would do is challenge him aggressively about how this happened and i wouldhi certainly not be prepared to, you know, let him spoutai off like that and sit there with a straight face. and i certainly wouldn't do what that anchor did and start whining about the release of information being -- listen, if what james comey, for example, is saying in that op-ed is going to be in the "the washington post" in the morning and is up on the web tonight, is is it all true? you know what, barr will find that. barr will say that, you know,

the idea that bill barr himself a former cia man, that's where he started his career. he has twice been attorney general. he is a pillar of the legal establishment. going to willy-nilly information the advice he gets from dan coats at cia. it's ludicrous. not only ludicrous, but it's not in any sense plausible. to see journalists buying into that is really distressing. >> tucker: one of many things they have bought into. thank you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: an independent journalist, one of the very few and one of the mostnd honest. he joins us tonight. what do you make of -- you have complained for years, literally years now about news organizations hiring the heads of government law enforcement and spy agencies and allowing them, unchallenged, to repeat their propaganda. it seems like we are reaching a new level of that now. >> right.d it will be one thing for chris hayes to have his colleague john brennan on for an extended rant as to why it would somehow compromise national security

for this classified material to be released, but chrisse hayes didn't even challenge any of his bombastic claims. he just let him spout unimpeded. and it's incredibly ironics that it's now being cast as some kind of a authoritarian power grab for president trump to delegate to attorney general barr the authority to declassify information that would shine a light on the conduct of the country's most secretive spy institutions in 2016. supposedly we are now to believe that it's authoritarian to release that information to the public and let them view it and somehow saving democracy to have spy chiefs go on tv and declare that it would somehow jeopardize national security or put lives at risk to keep that information concealed. it's truly an inversion of the highest order and, you know, more indication that we are in this weird bizarro world. >> tucker: the anchor you mentioned, who i know is a perfectly smart person, and

aware of irony and not unsophisticated. how can people like that say that it's totalitarian for the public to know more, without tripping some kind of internal sensor that says whoa, whoa, stop lying that much? >> i can't get inside a television anchor's head. i wouldn't presume to get inside your head either, tucker. frankly, although, that might be an enjoyable venture. you know, all the incentives on somebody in the position of an msnbc anchor is to elevate the most fanatical and alarmist interpretations of anything trump does on a given day. so if there is an alternate t explanation for why it might be a decent idea to release a information in the public interest that would shed light on the activities of, i don't know, the fbi, the cia, the nsa, the institutions that not so long ago, we were told it was progressive ideal to want to apply scrutiny to. that's why edward snowdent'

revelations, it's why throughout history it's been a pillar of the liberal interpretation of national security, really, to want to apply maximum transparency to these institutions, which have it as their institutional interest to keep as much information as possible concealed. and, yet, it's all totally flipped now because trump, apparently, has some interest in putting out that information and the point that you mention about his subordinates, trump's, and the executive brunch not carrying out his will, it is another weird paradox because we are constantly told that trump is a ruthless, unbridled authoritarian who can get anything he wants done with the snap of his finger, and yet his direct employees in the executive branch are constantly ignoring his directives and, as you mentioned, and away, they are subverting the democratic well and they are doing so, and nothing seems to happen. >> tucker: that is an attack. if you are looking for attack on democracy. m they hate democracy

actually truth as you know. michael, great to see you tonight. thank you for come on. >> thanks. >> tucker: back in may ofno 2017, john brennan insisted that the steele dossier had no bearing on the behavior during the 2016 election. >> do you know who commissioned this steeles dossier? >> i don't. >> did the cia rely on it? >> no. >> why not? >> because we didn't. it wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. it was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done. >> tucker: that's such a lie and we know it's a lie. just as when brennan claimed american drones never killed civilians, lying. lying intentionally and knew he was lying. other officials later saidw they knew it was critical to the intelligence committee's actions, including their decision to spy on a wholly innocent american citizen called carter page. carter page joins us tonights on our set. thank you for coming on. what's your -- when you see

that, what's your reaction? >> well, his cover-up has -- one of the big things he is pushing is, we have to protect our sources and methods. i was a source for the cia and fbi for many years. literally based on this dossier, you want to talk about protecting sources. i personally was getting frequent death threats from oklahoma and elsewhere related to this, you know, these threats or these, you know, false stories that they were pushing and kindnd of pushing through the system. >> tucker: was john brennan concerned about your well-being as a source? >> no. and not only that in myme meetings with the cia in march of 2017, i told them about the death threats i was getting from oklahoma. unfortunately, they only continued and escalated in april when they continued leaking this

false information or misleading information related to me being a source, first of all in early april and then the big "the washington post" piece when my fisa warrants were first revealed, which kind of has this spin to it -- what a bad guy.ke >> tucker: have you maybe more skin in this game than anybody i am aware of. a the president has promised to declassify all documents related to the spying in 2016. what do you hope to learn from that declassification? >> i just want exactly as you are saying, tucker, in terms of people that have been obstructing this administration's objectives and all the great things that they have on their agenda.n this has been, as was alluded to in the mueller report, that is has been a huge headwind for the administration. i just hope once the truth is out there, you know, our country could keep growing and continuing to do all the great things that the president promised. >> tucker: hopefully, you get an apology. you didn't seem to care as much.r: i care on principle. >> he deserves the apology. >> tucker: carter page,gy

great to see you tonight. >> you too. >> tucker: bad day for the creepy lawyer. he went to court for the criminal allegations leviedou against him. you can guess how he pleaded.ow we will have it for you anyway after the break. the brexit party dominated the most recent elections in the u.k. nigel farage, who heads that party, joins us after the break. ♪ that party joins us after the (photographers) candace! charlie! i'm so hungry. (photographers) look here! candace, starkist creations come in over 20 flavors-- right: chicken, salmon, or tuna

like my favorite! just tear, eat... mmm-- and go! starkist tuna, chicken, and salmon creations. bravo! jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter...music...life... call now for your free hearing test from an industry leader: miracle-ear.

hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass. >> i am confident that when a jury of my peers passes judgment on my conduct, that justice will be done and i will be fully exonerated.

>> tucker:er[laughs] creepy porn lawyer is creepy but boy, is he confident. today was no different. lesser men might have considered taking a deal when credibly charged with, i don't know, extorting nike and defrauding a vulnerable client out of $300,000. but that's why you will never hear their names. the creepy porn lawyer will not surrender. trace gallagher has more. >> tucker, he says he did not steal money from a porn star, did not try to shake down a fortune 500 company, but he does blame the trump administration. though he didn't explain why. in the first case, stormy daniels' former attorney is charged with forging her name and convincing her publisher to send him to porn star's $300,000 book advance. at the time, he wasag representing damages in a civil litigation against president trump that they ended up losing. the indictment filed last week accuses stormy's formerek lawyer of using her money to pay the lease on his ferrari, travel expenses, and $56,000 of payroll at his law firm.

in the second case, the allegation is that he tried to extort nike for $20 million saying if thee company did not come up with the money, he would go public with claims that nike t was facilitating payments to the families of high school basketball players. in court, as the judge read the four charges, stormy's former lawyer said four times, "100 percent not guilty." and after court he said this to the media, watch. >> for over 20 years, i have represented davids versus goliaths. i am now facing the fight of my life against the ultimate goliath. the trump administration. >> you heard him say he is also confident he will be exonerated. h remember, he is also charged with stealing other client's settlement money, bank fraud, tax fraud, and aggravated identity fraud, just to name a few.it all told, he is looking at a little over 400 years and change in prison. tucker? >> tucker: which may be why

he suspended his campaign for the democratic nomination for president. trace gallagher, thanks for the update. >> yep. >> tucker: good to see you. chadwick moore is a new york based journalist and frequent guest on the show. he joining us tonight. chadwick, it looks like not running for president anymore at least in this cycle. i is there taking, three steps back, a deeper lesson to the creepy porn lawyer saga?to >> i don't understand how this could have happened.r creepy porn lawyer was america's sweetheart. a man going to take down the trump administration.we we had from "game of thrones" a tv show called "reliable sources" on cnn. even he said this guy was a very strong contender for the presidency. and that he was going to pay a lot of attention to him. i do not think this is the time to go after journalists. they suffered a lot this year. they had a very difficult year. all of their hoaxes have been

proven to come -- not to be true. i just don't know why -- there were no red flags. this is so shocking to me. i mean, the guy who was also accused of beating his girlfriend, who didn't pay his rent, who owed his employees $4 million in back wages. now is facing coast-to-coast federal charges. i'm shocked. it doesn't make any sense tosn me. >> tucker: i can honestly say, in 28 years of interviewing people, i never interviewed anyone with a worst personal vibe. really a hostile character. why is it -- so it actually -- there is a connection here, and i don't think i'm smart enough tohe quite connect the dots, youno probably are -- why is it that the very worst people in the world somehow all wind up running for president in the democratic party? >> i -- maybe the party isf just full of the worst people in the world.he i can't figure it out. but, you know, the mediaia encouraging this man and i

think "game of thrones" summed it up best when he said that the media had created this man's political platform and gave him this shot at the presidency, apparently, which is not going to happen now.en but, you know, it's interesting. i always thought being a journalist, one of the key y personality traits you want to have is being a good judge of character and a good instinct about someone. you sat down with creepy porn lawyer and you said you immediately got an icky vibe about him. any one of her motive got in the about him. no journalist thought it was worth maybe they shouldn'tve have this guy speaking at democrat donor campaign events on the campaign trail during the midterms. nobody thought that maybe this guy might not be such a good fellow. >> tucker: no. they loved him. this really is the rorschach blot. i look at him and you look at him, oh, man, i don't want that guy in my house. jeff zucker looks at him and thinks, i must have him on my hair. laughter mark

more creepy porn lawyer! more cowbell! great to see you tonight. thank you. >> you too. >> tucker: well, public schools in new york city have spent continues of millions, tens of millions of dollars on implicit bias. of course they are encouraging it very aggressively. the details will shock you. as hard as you are shocked, this will shock you after the break.

>> tucker: congressman eric swalwell of california is running for president, that's his right to do it. in order to run, he has to answer a difficult question. with dozens of people in the most woke democratic race in american history, why would anybody vote for a boring, wrong colored eric swalwell? fortunately, mr. swalwell has thought this through. here is his answer. >> why should another white guy be president? >> a white guy who doesn't see other identities or experiences should not be president. i do.

where there would be gaps in my knowledge or experience, i will pass the microphone to people who do have that experience. i've also pledged that i would ask a woman to serve as vice president. >> tucker: so just save that tape. think about it. what is he saying? why should eric swalwell be president? is not like all those horrible people who share his genes, that look like him. they are bad because they try to treat people equally. he's a good person because he is willing to judge people based on their sex and skin color. to prove it, instead of finding the best person for on physical characteristics the ones that matter. that makes him deeply immoral. unlike you, who are immoral. with reasoning like that, it's no surprise that jim crow was making a vigorous comeback in t new york public schools.

under the rule of chancellor richard, the school city has meant unless of dollars to train administrators to fight something called implicit bias and achieve racial equity. we know where this is going.re the administrators who underwent training were told that racial equity meant favoring or disfavoring based clearly on skin color, regardless of economic or other background factors uncertainly regardless of their ability. in one case, administrators were told to give preference two middle-class african-american students over and above poor w white students because color trump's all. well, others who work in theer school system say they were demoted because of their skin color. deroy murdock lives in new york city, he has been there a long time. he is a contributing editorhe at for national review online and fox news contributor astr well and he joins us tonight. deroy, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: kind of remarkable, in the new york city school one of the most liberal places in the world, tiny

percentage of the students are white anyway in new york city public schools. they believe they have a problem with racism that's so profound they need to spend tens of millions of dollars to fix it. what is that? speak it with very strange, tucker. this is not selma, alabama, 1965, where we can say, this is an inherent problem, we got to route this out. this is new york city, these are people who voted formp hillary clinton, probably burst into tears when donald trump won. acthese are members of the teachers union, members of the principal's union. these are probably some of the most racially correct people in the united states of america and yet my taxpayer dollars, $23 million for this program, are being spent to root out the inner jim crow and inner klansman inside of these people. astonishing.f the price of a new teacher in new york city $57,000. for the price of this program we could get 405 brand new teachers, black, white, hispanic, and otherwise and do some good for them as opposed to chase these racial ghosts through the five boroughs of new york city.

>> tucker: are you allowed to say -- should you be allowed to say, and get away with it, that we are going to give preferencep to people based -- children based purely on their skin color and discriminate others purely based on their skin color? isn't that what we didn't like about the jim crow south, that attitude? >> we developed an orwellian situation where we tried to escape this sort of bias in favor of one race versus another. now it's being done in the name of racial equity. so inequality equals equality if you follow that. this is really -- it makes no logical sense. as i say, i think it's truly orwellian. >> tucker: last question. maybe should have been my first question. is there any evidence thatt any of this helps kids learn, that it produces better outcomes, that it helps children? >> i don't think so. i think it -- all it does 's engage in racial obsession, racial bean count, and it r creates a situation of implicit bias, we assume you are a racist, you have racial bias,

and that person is a racist. how about implicit decency? assume we are all decent people. if there is a racist around, correct that person. try to get along rather than assume you are a bigot, that other person is a bigot. if you set off on that foot you will not get very far and it just evolves.ou >> tucker: a pleasant decency is always a good bet. thank you very much. >> tucker, great to see you. >> tucker: a party demanding brexit just won the u.k.'s latest round of elections but as in america, the establishment isn't interested in democracy when it doesn't go their way. nigel farage leads that new party and he joins us next. breaking, sweeping tornadoes across the plains. more tornadoes expected at this hour. you are looking at purcell,ng oklahoma. wow. we'll continue to monitor their severe weather and bring you the latest as it occurs.

we'll be right back. ♪ u be was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed. i wish that i had gone to aspen dental on day one and not waited three years. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to flexible hours and payment options. yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. call now at 1-800-aspendental.

talk with your doctor to create a plan that works for you. go to loweryourhbp.org if i would've followed a treatment plan, i would not be in this situation.

♪ >> tucker: of course you have had that terrible dream where you have to go to class for a test or you have to give a speech and you look down and you are naked or in your pajamas. almost nobody has tobo live through moments like that,me that's a nightmare, but naomi wolf, the feminist writer, actually come about as close as a woman can.an wolf went on the bbc last week to discuss a new book she has written, "outrage," the book argues that victorian england was way more anti-gay than previously believed. instead of a breezy reception, wolf learned livest on air that her book, which she supposedly wrote, was a total sham built on bogus assumptions. listen to this. >> i found, like, several dozen executions. >> several dozen executions? >> correct.

>> i don't think you are right about this. death recorded is what is in most of these cases that you have -- you have identified as executions, it doesn't mean that he was executed. it was a category that was created in 1823 that allowed judges to abstain from pronouncing sentences of death on any capital convict whom they considered to be a fit subject for pardon. i don't think any of thee executions have you identified here actually happened. >> well, that's really important thing to investigate. >> tucker: [laughs] it might have been an important thing to know before writing the book but she didn't. melissa francis, co host of "outnumbered" and "after then bell" on fox business and she joins us. just for context for our viewers, this woman calls herself dr. naomi wolf. she has advised presidential candidates, al gore, most famously.

she was a rhodes scholar you and i were raised to believe she is really impressive but she is not. what does it tell us. >> the beauty myth, all about that when i was in college. she has a huge following. here is what happened. she basically said, her thesis was, that the course of history was changed because back in england ated this time, they started executing people for being gay. it was this huge discovery -- and i'm getting all of this from amazon, because i don't think the book is out yet. the whole thesis right there is she discovered these records that men were executed and this sort of set off this chain of events where now we still shame people for being gay.ei so, at this point in time, people who have studied this period are, like, what are you talking about? they executed for people being gay in victorian england? they invited her on the show. it turns out she misread legal documents from the time and she went back and she looked at them and this notation that she thought meant that they were killed did not. it meant what that other gentleman said, that it had been basically put aside and he didn't want to rule on it.

so horribly embarrassing. she found this out on air. but it's the thesis for the whole book. so now the publisher is saying, look, you know, it's up to the author. you know, we stand behind her. but she is the one that is supposed to be fact checking her work.s we basically think her thesis still holds up. it's terribly embarrassing. if you listen to the whole interview, it's so embarrassing. i really feel for her. here's the thing. you know, facts matter, and'ste checking your facts matter. and when anyone who has a huge following asks to you believe something and to go down this whole train of thought where suddenly you are condemning a whole group of people or finding the origin of why we are also flawed today and this we believe this certain thing, just make sure you see the facts with your own eyes. it goes back to what you arefi saying about wanting records declassified. trust your own eyes and look for it yourself. and in this case, there were i a lot of people that jumped on her bandwagon and, yes, she made a pretty simple mistake.

if she had consulted historians of the era or talked to other people, they would have said, gosh, i never heard of anyone being executed for this in this period. this is really groundbreaking. either you found something that no one else knew about or you made a mistake, and she could have done more, i guess, fact checking along the way. but, i mean, this is like the other story i brought up with john kerry, you know,ry and the state department when they said the syrian war was caused by this drought that didn't happen, they didn't check the rainfall, which was a very basic fact. but they made policy and then they left office still believing this thing. now the state department has gone back since john kerry left and corrected the record. but when you are sold the bill of goods, you make sure you see the facts foru yourself and don't just trust some person who is famous. >> tucker: melissa francis, who believes in science. >> and math and evidence. i'm so boring. i'm so crazy. >> tucker: you are good. that's why we love you. melissa francis, thanks so much.

last week, british voters went to the polls to vote ino the european union elections and the results were a biger victory for the brand new brexit party.nd the brexit party demands a very simple thing, that the british government honor the 2016 referendum to leave the e.u. britain was already supposed to be out of the e.u. months ago, but the people in charge have dragged their feet andra are now demanding a second vote. as in the united states, democracy is only welcome when it confirms the policies chosen by people in power. in case you haven't noticed. nigel farage leads the brexit party. and he joins us tonight. nigel farage, thank you very much for joining us tonight. if you could, crisply for our american audience, explain why after three years, after the brexit, the u.k. is still in the e.u. >> we voted referendum to leave the european union. the most ever in the history of our nation.n. we then, the next year, in a general election, voted for labor and conservative parties, our traditional parties.

both of whom promised they would honor the result of the referendum. and the date was set. it was put into british law. we were leaving on march 29th, 2019. and guess what happened? we didn't leave. and they kicked the can down the road to the end of october. the 31st of october. halloween. and i watched all of this, as being one of the architects of the original brexit referendum and vote, and i thought i can't stand aside. i can't bear the fact we are having to send members of the european parliament back to brussels so i founded the brexit party. would you believe,e, within six weeks of a brand new party being set up, we topped the polls, we smashed the conservative party, we smashed the labor party, and regrettably i'm back here in brussels, tucker, after 20 years, once again, as a member of the european parliament. >> tucker: i know it's complicated, but explain, if

you can, how it is a liberal or progressive position to remain in the german empire, which is basically what the e.u. is. why is that c considered liberal? >> because they claim that as a european union they will deal with climate change. they claim that because they have open borders, this is the modern liberal approach to the future. what they don't tell you is they are literally killing and destroying something. something so important that just next week, we're going to celebrate the 75th anniversary of d-day when america and canada and others came to our aid, helped us liberate, you know, europe from naziism to bring back something called democracy. what the european union does is it crushes democracy. it takes decision-making powers away from ordinary people and gives it tom unelected bureaucrats. >> tucker: the head of the european commission doesn't appear to be cutting you any slack. there is a remarkable quote just the other day.

i'm quoting now. "the stupid nationalists," he said, "they are in love with their own countries." it doesn't sound like people like this have learned anything from these votes. >> nope. nope. this is mr. juncker, that's his quote. the people i blame aren't necessarily the brussels bureaucrats. the people i blame are british politicians in westminster who have not had the courage to take back the independence, sovereignty, democracy of our country. last week, i have given them the biggest seismic shock that has been seen in modern british politics and i will make you this one promise: if we do not leave the european union on october the 31st, i will lead the brexit party after that into the next general election and we will sweep away parties that have dominated british politics for over 100 years. >> tucker: we could be talking to the next prime minister of great britain, nigel farage, thank you for joining us tonight and good luck.

>> thank you. >> tucker: obamacare was supposed to fix the crisis level wait times inms emergency rooms. did it? no. they are getting worse every year. we will show you how desperate the situation hasas become in the state of california after the break. plus, the navy just made a shocking admission on ufos. we will share it with you just ahead. ♪ chicken?! chicken.

chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter...music...life... call now for your free hearing test from an industry leader: miracle-ear.

male voice: put the keys down, kevin. but i'm gonna drive home.

i've taken 25 selfies in the last 10 minutes! male voice: 26. yep, i'm definitely going to call a ride home. [door shuts] ♪ >> tucker: ever needed emergency medical care only to find the emergency crammed with people, you know what a nightmare that is. obamacare was supposed to fixto that problem, but it hs only gotten worse. california is leading the way with issues. in 2017, more than 350,000 californians had to leave the emergency room early against a doctor's advice. that's a 57% increase from 2012. why? because wait times were too long. the w average in california is

more than five hours and rising. alwhy is this? the illegal immigration is a driver of it. it's making california poorer and much more crowded, people in charge can avoid the consequences, but normal people cannot, that's why so many of them are fleeing the state of california. instead of fixing things, the left, led by joe biden's demanding free health care for illegal immigrants. imagine what that will do to wait times in the emergency room. but they don't care, the democratic party has chosen its constituency and it is not the middle class. ♪ not so long ago, anyone who use the term ufo was a crank or a conspiracy nut, but now a growing number of military pilots are discussing their own encounters with strange objects in the sky. those experience are impacted in

some length in the upcoming history channel series called "unidentified." >> many of the politics have hundreds if not several thousands of flying hours. >> not really any interest to make it up. because professionally it could be very damaging to them. >> really no distinct wings or tail, no distinct exhaust. it seem like they were aware of our presence, because they would actively move around us. >> tucker: there are a lot of people like that. according to a recent "new york times" piece, ufos were spotted almost daily by the u.s. military along the east coast. michael wall, the writer of space.com and author of "out there" joins us, thank you for coming on. almost daily. it's hard to process that information. were you surprised to learn that? >> yes, i am surprised that it is coming out now, but yes, it speaks to a broader phenomenon

that this is not as a fringe pursuit that it used to be. people are not as embarrassed to actually entertain the possibility that we are not alone. and i think that that is probably a positive development. >> tucker: it came out of nowhere, two years ago we .started doing shows on this subject, because it sounded like maybe it was real, people dismissed it as crazy, just two years ago. but if this has been -- sightings almost every day, why are we just finding out about it now? >> well, yes, there is the groundswell like you are talking about. part of it is in the scientific community that it is not so fringe anymore. we have learned over the past decade that there are probably 50 billion habitablele planets n our galaxy alone. we have found other parts in our solar system that could be habitable, so it is just creeping across the public consciousness that this is not just a crazy thing to think a iabout. >> tucker: i have not thought of enough about it, because i live in d.c. and all we talk about russia, but should we be concerned?n r you think about this a lot.

>> i'm not concerned. i'm not a conspiracy theorist, i am skeptical, but i do not dismiss it out of hand. that's not very scientific. i would think, if there was an alien spacecraft, i would wonder why they got here on their own without being detected across vast areas of space and then zoomededd off. it just kind of would be weird to think about what they are doing and why did they allowe themselves to be detected, what is the point? all of those things factor in, but then you are into e.t. psychology, and that is a thing to wade into, we have no idea what we are talking about. >> tucker: no, we don't. but that is the point, we don't know. we can say that conclusively, there is an extensive phenomenon that we do not understand, correct? >> yeah, and it is important to keep an open mind. it is probably instrumentation, maybe a software issue.. maybe people do not know what they are looking at on the infrared images frome the fightr jet cameras, but that does not l

mean that we should just totally say that there is no way that it could be something we do not understand.meal >> tucker: and we won't, because we have an open mind on the show above all. m doctor, thank you very much. good to see you. we are back tomorrow. here is sean. >> sean: great show, tucker, hope you had a good weekend and a lot of barbecues, fun, because so many sacrificed for us so that we can do that stuff. f >> tucker: a man i agree. >> sean: welcome to "hannity," we will break a lot of news tonight. we have the classification issue we have not addressed yet, we tell you every night on thele program that we are so blessed that we live in the greatest single best country that god ever gave man. never in the history of mankind, barry farber has said, has a country acquired more power and abused it less than our country, and also never has a country used its awesome powers and resources for the advancement of the human condition, not only our citizens, but around the globe.