inspire -- you guys are are midnight heroes. hope you had a great time. most-watched, most trusted, most grateful you spent your evening with us. good night for now from washington. i'm shannon bream. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." maybe you've noticed this from watching tv in the past couple of years. when it's about tax returns or executive orders or of courseou russia, the left strikes and law and order post. nobody will finger wagging your faces above the law in this country. nobody. not even drumroll please, the president of the united states. >> he disrespects law and believes he's above the law. no president is above the law. >> nobody ought to be above the law. >> nobody is above the law not even the president of the united states. >> we live in a country where

nobody is above the low. >> nobody is above the low. >> the american president has no respect for the rule of law? >> nobody is above the law. >> nobody is above the law. >> nobody, especially this president is above the law. >> tucker: it is one of their favorite talking points in its highly effective because it is absolutely i true. in america, nobody is above the law. that is the promise of this country and it is the best thing about this. that's why this is in the third world. if only democrats actually believed their own bumper stickers, would be far better off than we are, but in this case they don't. nobody is above the law? please, spare us. the democratic party's entire electoral future depends upon making certain that millions and millions of people are above the law. in real life, our laws are unambiguous. nobody is allowed to move to this country without our

permission. people who come here illegally must be sent home. that is what the law says. the democratic party is built around ignoring and subverting that law. just this month the president called for ice to deport an illegal aliens facing final deportation orders. to be clear these are not people pulled at random out of restaurant kitchens but people who at our expense have received their day in court.ut they have gone through the process but in the end, theyre lost and have been ordered to leave. they have chosen to ignore that order.n they've chosen to give the finger to our t laws. so if you cared about the rule of law, you would send these people home immediately. but the left doesn't care so t they denounce any attempt to force that law as bigotry. hillary clinton actually shared a guide to help these people, the foreign nationals evade federal law enforcement american law enforcement. it is insanity. but it is normal now. it is now mainstream within the democratic party to compare border facilities, our border facilities, to nazi concentration camps.

this is a country that liberated concentration camps and border enforcement and virtually every democratic run scene is declared itself a sanctuary for illegal aliens. the state of california private businesses banned from giving assistance to federal immigration enforcement, to ice. meanwhile the obama administration you may remember an entire program called daca specifically to protect millions of illegal immigrants from ever having the law enforced against them. so maybe you support daca, many americans do, we don't hate you for that but don't lecture ustu about how nobody is above the law. dreamers the beneficiary of daca are above the law by definition. that is the point of the program. it's just the beginning. there doesn't seem to be a single democratic candidate in the race right now who believes in enforcing immigration law. many argue we should award with taxpayer-funded benefits, watch. >> from day one, i will make sure that number one we and the ice policies and the customs of border policies that are violating human rights.

>> if you could, would you take the wall down now? >> absolutely, knock it down. >> offer a home to refugees. that is who we are, that's our values. that's part of what we i do. >> so instead of building a wall or closing the border -- we should choose compassion instead of cruelty. >> we welcome refugees and bring people out of the shadows. >> immigration is not a security issue. it is an economic and humanitarian and a family issue. >> i think undocumented people need to have a means by which they can be covered when they are sick. people, just common decency. >> tucker: so come here without being asked, break our laws, take our benefits denounce us as racist if you want and we will still give you free health care. that is their message. the message is not going unnoticed in the world's poorest countries. since may 30th of this year, more than 1100 african migrants from 19 different countries have been caught trying to cross our

border. these are not people fleeing starvation. obviously they had to buy transatlantic plane tickets to get to our continent. they are coming because they know they will be paid more in america. that's not irrational. you shouldn't hate them for it. but think about what that means. there are billions of people just like this all around the world.bu check the global population number if you don't believe it. they are astounding.pl the democratic party decided all of them deserve to come here and stay permanently at our expense. the law does not apply to them. this is totally nuts and it is scary. even some on the left think it is. the center for american progress is the preeminent liberal think tank in washington and a new report warns that the parties immigration position could cost democrats the next election. the report says the position is so extreme that they are forcing american voters to chooseatth between being a nation of immigrants or a nation of laws. in the end, most people are poot most people are for laws.

in a newly released marist poll only 27% of american adults supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings. that is a position many candidates on the democratic side have taken recently. 66% of americans are opposed to that by the way almost a racial gap they are. a large majority of african-american, hispanic and a asian voters think it is a crime to cross illegally, of course. it also found that just 33% of americans support giving illegal aliens free health care. 62% are opposed to that and once again the big majority is the majority of all colors. it's not a racial question despite what they tell you on twitter. it is just a lunatic idea. most people of all backgrounds know that. americans don't hate immigrants. they are notac bitter racists no matter what st. pete buttigieg claims. this is a kind and decent country, but it's also -- and has always been --tr a nation of laws. once we give that up, it's over. victor davis hanson is a senior

fellow at the hooper institution and he joins us tonight. thanks very much for coming on. what's your reaction when you hear democratic candidates lecture you about a nation of laws? nobody is above the law, "law & order," how do you respond to that? >> well, first of all, i know they are never subject to their own ramifications. they are not involved in the actually illegal immigration process. they are in gated communities or far from i it. there was over a million .3 i think taxpayer identification numbers that the irs found were fraudulent. that's a felony. nobody was prosecuted for that. you mentioned sanctuary cities. nobody else can say our city, our county, ourr state, is exemt from gun legislation, federal gun legislation or environmental legislation. so the american progress think tank understand what's going on when they are looking at not just the swing states of 2016 and saying illegal

immigration is an issue that people are really concerned with. along with the economy pulled the two most pressing issue, not the green deal or climate change. we lost these swing states because we didn't bring out the so-called reagan democrats border and this is one of the issue trump appealed to them and we didn't. but there even more interested in places like nevada and colorado and new mexico because in these places, as you pointed out, hispanics and african-americans are not even for open borders. the final thing is, i think when you are outside the bubble, the thinkers or the policy analyst or the strategists of the democratic party to say, okay, you guys, we have reached the theoretical most hard left position. it is no longer a question of democrats sort of giving concessions on border security or amnesty and say we will get to amnesty for security. this is crazy because when you have 500 sanctuary city

jurisdictions and you have actual candidates, beto o'rourke or cory booker, escorting people across the border to facilitate that illegality and you have people calling for the abolition of ice, you can't go any further existentially. you can't get theoretically further to the left., they are already there. it results in nihilism because that position means there's no more sovereignty. you are just part of mexico and what's south of mexico so people in the democratic party are saying wow, these guys on these debate platforms keep going to the left and now they've reached the most left-wing position possible. how can you go further left than where we are now without total nihilism?fu they are looking at the polls and electoral college states and as you said, they are panicking? >> tucker: their position is literally to the left of fact of the mexican government which is abetting illegal immigrants for many decades. that is how radical they are. thank you for putting that in

context. >> you are absolutely right. thank you. >> tucker: it's shocking. thank you. the trump administration is trying a new strategy that could allow ice officials to speed up the deportation of certain illegal immigrants. fox's david swan has the details. >> this is a big deal and it would certainly put deportations on a fast track. it right now there are nearly 1 million immigration cases backlogged. the trump administration expected to make this announcement tomorrow on the federal register of the daily journal. the track goes on in the government. the big headline here, tucker, immigration officers to arrest and deport undocumentede immigrants with no hearing in front of a judge. and this is some cases. right now there are hearings once an arrest made in instances they get delayed for months or years, but this will change that.ar this new policy will affect illegal immigrants that have been in the country less than two years. already reaction fromm capitol hill senator dianne feinstein of california

put out a statement that reads in part "what we are seeing is a sustained attack on immigrants considering the country's history is a bastion of freedom and a beacon of safety. it's a shame the president feels the need to go after immigrants in this manner. i urge him to reconsider at this callous actions." president trump is ready to sit down with chuck schumer minority leader chuck schumer about the conditions at the border. schumer and delegation made the trip this week into the bordermo and we will hear more in the trump administration on this new policy probably tomorrow and the days to come, tucker, back to you. >> tucker: we appreciate that preview, david spunt, thanks a lot. this country as of right now the victims of illegal immigrant crime are not allowed to sue the sanctuary cities that made those crimes possible. they are not allowed. american citizens are not allowed to. meanwhile, with lefts active support, immigrants who came

here foreign nationals are suing our government for millions of damages claiming they suffered excessively in federal custody. so american citizens can't sue but illegal alien foreign nationals can sue. a professor of politics at the community college and host of pas report podcast and joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. so the contrast is kind of remarkable.. i just want to make sure we are not misstating the facts are. american citizens are not allowed to sue the sanctuary cities that abetted the crimes they suffer from, why? >> well, it is aggravating because you hear elected officials and the courts and it sounds like they are fighting harder for illegal immigrants than american citizens. so the case is the best example because it dealsls with the idea of sovereign c immunity. the family was murdered by someone who was deported several times. they were in the custody of san francisco a law enforcement.

they were released. ice was never notified, and the guy ended up ordering her. her family sued and yet the case was thrown out on the basis of sovereign immunity that the government can't be responsible for anything and everything. and this is where we will start to see pushback as more and more people become aware of the double standard that exists for legal immigrants, american citizens versus illegal immigrants and it gets to a point of ridiculousness. because you said it before it. the elite don't face the problem. it is the people most vulnerable in the communities that are facing it. the resources are stretched thin in the communities. the infrastructure is crumbling. the education systems have collapsed. and if these people speak up against the idea of illegal immigration, they are deemed asc a racist, bigots, and basically told to shut up by the elected officials. so who these elected officials are supposed to be representing. the citizenship becomes a real question. what good is good is citizenship where illegal immigration if yo. get all the perks and potentially some advantages of being an illegal immigrant?

california providing health care. 7-10% of california citizens don't have health insurance. but't they don't matter. and nobody speaks out against it out of fear that they will be labeled. that is what we are seeing from our society. >> tucker: think of all the americans separated from their children that are in prison. nobody cares. nobody cares. >> no, they don't. >> tucker: one happens to foreign nationals coming here to break our laws, stop the presses, it's a natural tragedy. how exactly are foreign nationals who broke our laws empowered to sue our government, how does that work? >> because the federal tort reform several years ago that allows the government to be sued for negligence. and that's the ironic thing. how was a sanctuary city not h negligent? but they can't sue the american citizen, but these people can for emotional a distress. that the government placed undue burden and it's because the federal government forced into separation.

even though the separation was legal. everyone needs to remember that. 1997 agreement forced the separation. even though the separation was 97gal, the federal government themselves forced the separation. so essentially what the courts are saying, if the federal government forced her murderer to murder the family than the family would have legal precedent to sue but since the federal government didn't force the gun in his hand and didn't force them to pull the trigger, then he can't t be sued -- the government. >> tucker: but illegal aliens who were detained because they ignored our laws, they broke our laws. >> correct. >> tucker: so in other words you could break into my house and if i knock you down, you can sue me for assault. like only a masochist would allow something like that. you would really have to hate your country to allow that. >> if the syndrome. when you're looking at it, there's two agendas going on. you have one party that's basically saying we need all

this illegal immigration because we want to turn them into citizens which turns them into voters. and it's kind of racist to think all hispanics care about illegal immigration. they don't. then you have another agenda where they just want to do away with citizenship -- make no mistake about it, these caravans that are coming up are organized, they are coordinated, and they're all designed to break the immigration system. if that's what it's designed to do, where cases can get her for years at a time. then you have to release them into the population and 90% of them aren't showing up for their courthe cases. >> tucker: totally, totally transforming the country and those from us should have a say in the outcome a democracy. professor, thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: so it turns out in contrast to what they promise you, many dangerous criminals wound up back on the street may be in your neighborhood afterr these first step act became law. just how many?y? our investigation has uncovered new and unreported numbers and it is frightening.

the report is next. ♪

♪ >> tucker: so far this year, just this year 2019, more than 2,000 federal prisoners have been put on the nation streets thanks to passage of the first step act. you may remember that law. sold to lawmakers and the rest of us as a way to ease overcrowding and a second chance to nonviolent criminals.s. that is not what it turned into. in fact, that law has allowed violent criminals and sexual predators back on the street.

an administration official provided this show exclusively with data on what crimes are committed by the felons being released under the first step act. it turns out most not in jail for smoking a joint 30 years ago. instead, of the roughly 2,200 inmates who have been set free so far, 496 of them were in prison on charges related to weapons or explosives. 239 have committed sex offensess such as rape and assault and 160 armed robbery and aggravated assault or murder. not what we were promised, is it? to remind us, we are happy to be joined by senator john kennedy a republican that represents louisiana. thank you for coming on. w i don't remember and we did a number of segments at the time, but i don't remember anybody advocating for this law saying and then we will let this happen. how did this happen? >> well good intentions sometimes have nothing to do

with actual consequences. i voted against this bill, 12 of us did. it got 87 votes, an overwhelming majority, sometimes the majority just means that all the fools are on the same side. we were told that this would only allow low level, nonviolent criminals to go free. i didn't believe it, and i didn't believe it because i read the bill. and now, we find out that in the first tranche of prisoners left free, 500 committed weapons or explosive crimes, 250 committed sex crimes. i think there were 60 or 70 that were guilty of aggravated homir aggravated assault. and those are not low-level, nonviolent criminals. i told my colleagues. i said, look, if you want tona have a debate in the senate about the federal criminal code

and what the maximum and the minimum ought to be, i will stay here as long as you want to have that debate. but they didn't do it that way. they turned over all of our power to the administrative state, to the bureaucracy at the prisons, and they can pretty much let loose anyone that theyv want to. the other reason i didn't --in >> tucker: just to be clear, not only is this not about releasing nonviolent felons, but the majority according to these numbers are for crimes of violence. the majority. so it was a complete lie what they told us. >> yes. i tried to explain to my colleagues, well, number one, i offered an amendment to require the victims of the crime to be notified, not to give the victims a veto but to let the victims be notified. my colleagues would not accept that. and i objected to giving all of this discretion to the

administrative state at the bureau of prisons. look, to me this is pretty simple. i believe in the definition of justice, c.s. lewis talked about it, st. augustine talked about it. just takes exists when people get what they deserve. justice is not necessarily deterrencece or rehabilitation, though that can be a byproduct, but justice is when people get what they deserve. and i don't know why it is, tucker if i make it to heaven d i'm going to ask, but there are some people in this world that are not mixed up, they are not confused, they are not sick and is not a question that mama and daddy didn't love them enough, they are just bad. and when they commit criminal acts, justice requires they be punished. and again, i can't say i'm surprised because i've read the bill. but this bill was sold to america as only affecting low-level, nonviolent criminals.

and that is just not accurate. >> tucker: this is a o parenthetical appointment but i can't resist asking you. the people who backed this bill and i would say the majority of them like to take my guns away. and they say it. and yet, this law has allowed hundreds of gun offenders out of prison early. how does that work? they want to take my guns away but people convicted of gun felonies go free.. >> look, this thing rolled through the senate like thunder on a summer night. it wasn't just democrats. all 12 were republicans voted all but 12 republicans voted for it. some of my good friends. and i offered an amendment with tom cotton to try to eliminate the bureau of prisons from turning loose some of the criminals that i knew were violent. that amendment was defeated. then i offered an amendment, look, at least till the victims

that you are going to turn these guys or gals loose. and if you are going to turn a rapist loose, you ought to tell the victim. and that was defeated as well. >> tucker: that is the most telling. senator, i appreciate you coming on with that. it is infuriating but worth knowing, thank you. well, it's not just the dominican republic. tainted alcohol is killing tourists in another nearby country. trace gallagher investigates this for us next. plus, bernie sanders stoppers said they deserve more pay. they're not getting it. it turns out, mr. sanders is cutting their hours. what a boss he is. that's just ahead. ♪ empowering people out of poverty.

helping kids like grace, and her whole community, to shine. there's nothing quite like it. at world vision, we've seen what happens when a child gets clean water, or nutritious food. when she feels safe, gets to learn in a classroom, or discovers that she has infinite worth. together we're working to help every kid, everywhere, grow into who god created them to be. reach out with us today and help people change their own lives for good. learn more at world vision dot org. >> tucker: the investigation continues into a wave of mysterious deaths in the dominican republic, but that country is not the only one

where tourists arepu dying. tainted alcohol suspected in tourist on a nearby island, where? fox chief breaking correspondent trace gallagher with more. >> it is interesting, tucker, looking at dominican republic tainted liquor being one of the possibilities there. that brings up an interesting scenario because the cause of 19 deaths in costa rica, investigators are trying to figure out if tainted alcohol was being deliberately put into drinks there or if it was accidental. experts say when it comes to counterfeit liquor, that toxic methanol is added to the boozede because it increases the potency and profit margins. but they also say that because of shabby practices, those that try to make alcohol otherwise known as ethanol can accidentally make methanol instead. watch this. >> the problem with methanol is that it's so much more dangerous than alcohol.

it can make you blind, damage your kidneys, and you might not even realize it at first and then you can die. >> yeah, it might take hours or days, the death but it depends when your liver starts processing it because it turns it into something much more dangerous. in the meantime, the dominican republic it is announcing new safety measures to lower the fear level a little bit. the measures include inspecting hotels, more often requiring hotels to post emergency contact information in every room and boosting the medical facilities inside of these various resorts. the dr maintains the american tourists died of all natural causes but one case, a healthy couple died of the same thing at the same time. an expert say that is highly unlikely that the fbi, of course, is also investigating three of the toxicology reports of americans. but the results apparently are taking much longer than we anticipated. tucker. >> tucker: trace gallagher,

great to see you, thank you. it wasn't trace gallagher that implied that costa rica was an island. i did. and of course that's absurd. it'sca not. kamala harris that if she is elected president, speaking of absurdity, she will put more than 200 million people on to a single-payer system. she says she can buy the whole cost, more than $30 trillion, without raising taxes on the middle class. >> and all of this done without a middle-class tax hike? >> yes. >> 30 trillion over ten years. >> there are ways to payy for i, also understanding the investment that we are going to be making in a way that is goinb to reap great benefits in terms of other cost. >> when people question that there is no formula for this, that you are going to find money in magical ways is not realistic thinking. how do you respond to that? >> not enough. >> tucker: $30 trillion

without taxing the middle class. that's possible? justin haskin's the editorial director and research fellow at the heartland institute. thanks a lot for comingnd on. this sounds like magic but i'm keeping an open mind. you are a math guy. is it possible to do what kamala harris said she's going to do? >> even by kamala harris' standards, this is delusional. there is absolutely no way that you can pay for single-payer health care without taxing middle-class people. we have an analysis coming out next week probably on monday that shows not only do you have to double taxes for everybody,dd double taxes, but that tens of millions of middle-class people are going to end up paying more in taxes than they will receive in any sort of health care benefit that they might receive from the federal government. this is a terrible deal for w americans, and that is why kamala harris is selling like you can pay $32 trillion,

probably close to $38 trillion, that you can pay this massive amount of money without raising taxes on the middle class. that is absolutely not true. $ >> tucker: has she, i mean, it doesn't seem like it could beth true, but has she proposed another way to do it? some magic way? what is it? >> what she is saying whatme everyone on the left is saying. all you have to do is tax wall street. as if there is this magical amount of fixed money wall street has sitting around. here is the truth. you could take every penny from every billionaire in thehe entie world and you wouldn't even pay for close to half of the cost of single-payer health care in just the first ten years. not even close. that's every billionaire in the whole world, never mindd americ. it wouldn't even pay for 10% in america if you take every penny from the richest people in america.ic so there's no way you can pay for this byeo taxing wall street

or taxing the wealthy or any of the other things the left is always telling us. you have to tax the middle class and even lower income people too. >> tucker: so speaking of economics, i have to ask you about bernie sanders. so he's pushing a $15 an hour minimum wage. his staff did the math and discover they are not making $15 an hour. they complained about it and went public. bernie said you are not allowed to complain in public. somehow. you can't criticize bernie sanders in public. so he's under a lot of pressure. in response to their demands, he's cutting their hours. am i missing something or is that basically exactly the behavior that he criticizes for a living? >> this is great. this is the best of the year. here you have a socialist presidential candidate running around telling people that if you don't pay $15 an hour, you are exploiting people. exploiting them. and then while he is saying this, bunch of his workers his lowest paid workers are sayingpl privately, we are being

exploited. we deserve more money. then in reaction to that, well, okay maybe we will give you more money, but only if you are willing to cut your health care benefits. you have to pay more, contribute to your health care. wait a minute i thought so you have bernie sanders c exploiting his workers, exploiting his own workers, and then denying them a basic human right. this is great. so after this reaches the media, what happenser next? he decides we will cut hours and we will not make you work 60 hours a week anymore. this is crazy. >> tucker: he really should be managing a walmart. probably when this is over, they will hire him.m. clearly, he is tough, a heartless man. great to see you. >> thanks. >> tucker: it's been only six months since the disgrace of the jussie smollett story, and another crime, how easily.

the press got tricked by another crime. how easy are they to full? we will investigate after the break. ♪ with all day comfort for all day fun...

depend® fit-flex underwear features maximum absorbency, ultra soft fabric and new beautiful designs for your best comfort and protection guaranteed.

life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®.

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. ♪ >> tucker: actor jussie smollett's attorneys fighting to prevent the appointment of a special prosecutor who would investigate the actor's fake hate crime and the decision to drop charges against him, which looks clearly corrupt. matt finn is with us from chicago and cover the story from day one. he has an update for us tonight, hey, matt. >> tucker, right now the searches for a prosecutor toic investigate the entire jussie smollett case from the start. the actor faces the same or even new criminal charges, but right now his legal team is trying to stop this independent investigation.th smollett's attorneys and motion

1 requesting the courts cancel the special prosecutor. smollett's lawyers called a ruling for a special prosecutor a travesty of justice and evidence shows the actor is innocent of planning the attack. smollett's attorneys argue the veteran chicago droughts that rolled on the prosecutor accepted false media reports and presumed smollett to be guilty of charges of lying to police. however in court and we were there at the veteran judge clearly ruled a special prosecutor should be assigned in part because states attorney kim foxx did not have the authority to recuse herself and then assign her right-hand man to investigate smollett. now a chicago judge is set to hear these new motions again next week and tonight the fbi is reportedly stillex investigating smollett for that death threat letter that chicago police that he sent himself. tucker. >> tucker: matt finn, thank you for the update, appreciate it. in a state of georgia last week, two people got into an argument at a supermarket in the same society -- in a sane society

that would be the end and nobody would have heard about it and we would have moved on with our lives. this is no longer a sane society. so a fellow shopper told georgia lawmaker erika thomas she had too many items to use express checkout lane, she had immediately accused him of being evil and attacked him on the basis of his race. watch. >> people are getting out of control with this. with this white privilege. >> this white man comes up to me and says, you lazy son of a [bleep], they hate is real. for that white men to come up to me and call me a son of a [bleep] and lazy and to go back where i came from because he had a couple items that he wanted to get in front of me? and he said i had 20 items in a ten item line, what would make you that angry to yell at somebody like that? you see ilhan omar and you see all this stuff about send her back, but it's getting out of control. there's so much hate in this world and it's being incited by

our president every single day. >> tucker: so the press having forgotten the last two or three or was it four doesn't fake hate crimes immediately believed thomas completely implanted administration for grading a climate of hate. they wouldat still believe or kw if the man she accused didn't come forward on his own. but he did come forward. his name is eric sparks. he's not a member of the clan, he's cuban and he's a democrat, an avid democrat, a liberal democrat. he says thomas lied completely about what happened. thomas didn't even fight back. in an interview with the television station, she said she had backtracked and sparks never said go back where you came from. but it didn't matter to "the new york times." good journalists are supposed to state the key facts first. "new york times" does the opposite. their headline said this. "go back where you came from, georgia lawmaker says she was told."

she said she was not told that. in the story, times waited 14 paragraphs before telling you, the reader, that thomas had actually retracted her phony accusation. which seems like fraud. and the author of "panic attack: radicals in the age of trump" joins us tonight. you've done journalism your whole adult life. if you run a story with the headline that is completelyir false and you know it's false and in fact in paragraph 14 you concede it's false, that's not really journalism, is it? that's something else. >> no, it's not. it's not much of a story. it starts to make you wonder, why was this written? who decided a trivial dispute between two stressed out shoppers is a national news item and not only a national news item, but one that confirms all of the sort of worst biases of

"the new york times" readers about what'sse going on in trums america, et cetera, et cetera. every story must be about term, right? somehow it's about racism and trump when we get to it. that angle has to be in there, and we have to find it. that is the operating thinking of so many people in the mainstream media. this was not news. this was something that happened that just happens to people and i think the guy was kind of a jerk. i think she was kind of a jerk. people are jerks to each other. that's it. there's no story here. >> tucker: so maybe the real point of the story had nothing to do with erika thomas or sparks, the apparently falsely accused perpetrator, but it's really about the people writing the story and the message they're sending is we are good people read we are not like the president. we are virtuous. it does seem like -- a story like narcissism that are designed to make the person telling the story seem like a really good person. >> they want -- they are goodhe and they want you to be angry.

if they want you to be confused and angry and think that everyone is out to get you because that's what sells more newspapers or attracts more people to click on the article. there's something you should be mad about and everyone is mad about it and why are you worked up enough yet is the kind of ethos that prevails in this social media culture where you see something, looks back, you've decided there is no need to follow-up. these stories are always more complicated, even when they are true. there's always something more complicated about them and we are too quickly -- we are not looking into that because no, we know what we think already. and it must be this is about trump, of course. >> tucker: you would think "the new york times" would be a above that, but in fact they are beneath it. thank you for that. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: a recent interview congresswoman retreated to tlaib says she has no regrets about calling the president a mother [bleep]. swearing makes are authentic, he makes a real.

it turns out this believed it for a while. a video from 2016 a not yet congresswoman attending a trump campaign event. how did she behave at the event? watch. >> you guys are crazy. >> you are an animal! >> tucker: yep, she is now serving in congress. a hero to many. watch that video again and again. pretty unbelievable. senator al franken of minnesota forced out of office in disgrace. remember he was a sexual harasser. now a new report from the left, refutes those allegations. i can't believe we are defending al franken. we believe in what's true. that matters more than anything else. we will tell you exactly what we know about al franken after the break. f ♪ has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows.

with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma♪ ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™

- [announcer] your story doesn't have to end. as an organ donor, the good in you can live on. in fact, you could save up to eight lives through organ donation. sign up to give the gift of life after you're gone. you'll be happy you did. just maybe, someone else will too. sign up online today as an organ, eye, and tissue donor at organdonor.gov. it saves lives. ♪

>> tucker: it has been a year and a half since al franken resigned in disgrace. hesg was driven from office by s own party over sexual harassment allegations. the height of the me too movement by democratic party's opportunity in chief kirsten gillibrand was friends with bill clinton, close to bill clinton, harvey weinstein, anthony weiner, but she was quick to destroy al franken when she saw a benefit to herself. >> we need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is okay. none of it is acceptable, and we as elected leaders should i absolutely be held to a higher standard. i do not feel that he should continue to serve. >> tucker: i knew al franken kell personally, he is one of the most unpleasant people i have ever met in my life. truly an unpleasant person. we share none of his political views. but it does not matter. he was innocent, and we defended him at the time because it was the right thing to do. imagine being accused by someone whose name you did not know of something that supposedly happened more than a decade ago. how would you respond?

how could you respond? what if you were innocent, by the way? and what if nobody cared? our entire justice system was designed to prevent moments like this.ed >> tucker: al franken deserved a fair hearing as all american citizens do, he was a victim of a frenzied mob, as were others, many others. recently published piece in "the new yorker" debunks the major allegations against franken, showing that he was railroaded. seven democratic senators say they regret pushing franken out, it was one of the biggest mistakes in 45 years as a senator, and he has made a lot of big mistakes. trust me. so what about kirsten gillibrand? she said she has no regrets about destroying franken's life. "i would do it again today." of course she would, it was never about the truth. it was about power. it is always about power. heather macdonald is theru author of "the diversity delusion." one of the smartest people we

have on the show with us tonight. what are the lessons from this? >> i wish we could say that the fever has broken, and the moral panic that has beholden american females, the most empowered, liberated females in human history in the world today, the moral panic that has them living in a rape culture had ended. i doubt whether it it has. the lessons are the ones thatt you have alerted us to that those precious principles of american -- anglo-american jurisprudence, such as you do not assume guilt, you put an accuser through cross-examination and allow a defendant to defend themselves and present his cases. those principles are important in defining the truth and finding the truth. but i fear that this is not over yet, tucker, because though the lore of identity politics and victim ideology in the democratic party, as we saw in the previous story, and the push from the campuses, the

universities, to destroy western tradition in the name of putting as many females as possible in power has not ended. this was an absolutely classic case of me too fanaticism taken to absurd heights. not only did it have the duese process problems that you pointed out, where he was railroaded, there was no opportunity to test the anonymous accusations against him.m. but let's look at the substantive standard for what now constitutes career ending sexual harassment. one female said that he looked at me and said he was going to kiss me and it made met feel uncomfortable. therefore i was harassed. simply make kirsten gillibrand echoed and said if a female feels harassed, she is harassed. that subjective standard is ludicrous. then this photo taken of franken pretending to go in for the breast of the main accuser,

that was a funny photo. the fact that she was asleep is precisely what makes it funny. for any female to claim that that photo, taken ten years ago, should derail a senate career, regardless of what we think of al franken, is simple hysteria. females have to get a grip. >> tucker: heather macdonald, it goes without saying, one of the single bravest people, always good to have you on the show, thank you very much. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: amazing. defending al franken, something we never thought we would have to do, but the truth is moreke important than any individual senator. we are out of timeto tonight. we will be back tomorrow night and every night of the week, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. dvr it if you can figure that out. in the meantime, have a great

evening. get your seat belt ready, sean hannity, ladies and gentlemen, standing by in new york to take the reins. >> sean: and i'm not defending al franken, he is weird, he is a psycho. he chased me down the hall once. >> tucker: i don't like him at all. [laughs] i don't like him at all. but you have to stand up -- >> sean: the presumption of innocence and due process. but he is a creep. i'm just saying. >> tucker: he sure is a creep. i agree with that 100%. >> sean: i have watched him, i have seen it, he is unhinged, he is off his rocker. all right, tucker, great show as always. welcome to "hannity" as we kick off what will be an exciting busy news week and probably a week of a boomerang. we start, though, tonight with a fox news alert. because at this hour, the hostile iranian regime is on a mission to destabilize the free world.