in grand rapids, michigan, 7:00 p.m., i look forward to meeting you there. have a great weekend. good nate from washington. i'm shannon brean. >> tucker: well, good evening. welcome to a special "inside the issues" edition of "tucker carlson tonight." we are taking a deeper dive for the next hour beneath the headlines into some of the issues that influence the way america is changing. first tonight, when robert mueller's final report on russia came out this spring, the geniuses on television had one word for it. "damning." truly and completely damning. so damning you could block the colorado river with it and create your own hydropower. it was that damning. watch. >> the report contained a potentially damning list of ways the president tried to influence

the investigation. >> it's arguing that the mueller report is far more damning. >> it's not pretty. it's an ugly, damning piece of business. >> i agree with him that it's absolutely damning. >> democrats say the report is damning. >> the report, apart from the special counsel, is more damning than all those reports. >> far more damning to the president than the attorney general initially indicated. >> but, it's still very damning. >> tucker: as we told you, "damning." that is what the geniuses concluded before a single one of them had even read the report. in fact, they still haven't read it. but other people read it or skim it, and those people let our trusted television journalists know it didn't say very much. there was no collusion. much less treason. not much of anything.it was dis. at that point, the democrats had a choice to make.

they could have moved on and worry about america's actual problems. there are many of those. or double down on a weak hand and demand robert mueller testify before congress. as you know, they chose the latter. mueller himself didn't want to participate in this, he didn't see the point of it, but democrats insisted. so this wednesday mueller shuffled to capitol hill, and the democrats prodded him like a zoo animal to hope he would transform suddenly into clarence darro and denounce trump as a traitor to the nation and a war criminal. but, he didn't do that. so california's ted lieu pushed him. he tried to make mueller explain that even though he didn't indict trump, trump should still be in prison. >> i would like to ask you that the reason again you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president. correct? >> that is correct. >> tucker: get it? orange roussollini was a criminal all along.mueller nevep committed a crime in his report or in his press conference or

opening statement, but finally, ted lieu was able to extract the truth from robert mueller. president trump is a criminal. except not. a few hours later, mueller backtracked and clarified he had not called the president a criminal. watch. >> before we go to questions, i want to add a correction to my testimony this morning. i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lieu who said, and i quote, you didn't charge the president because of the o.l.c. opinion. that is not the correct way to say it. as we said in the report, we did not reach a determination whether the president committed a crime. >> tucker: as we say in the report, and i said in the opening, in other words mueller wasn't saying anything new. he was just repeating what he had been saying for months. congressman ted lieu was not convinced by this.

indeed, ted lieu smelled a rat. there has to be a reason that mueller was unwilling to disavow two years of work and his prior statements for a talking point for ted lieu. what could the reason be? he had a good idea. clearly, the russians had gotten to mueller, too. >> you were at the center yesterday of one of the most dramatic moments of the hearings with robert mueller. he had to walk back his testimony to you in response to your questioning. >> it wasn't until there was a recess, and the intel committee, that he started to walk some of that back. i don't know who got to him or who talked to him but that was very odd what he did. >> what are you suggesting? are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone? >> i don't know. but, he clearly answered the way he answered to me and then he had numerous times to walk that back. so i don't really understand what happened. >> tucker: hmm.

now to be clear, this is a diagnosis, this is how crazy people talk. tinfoil ted is a nutcake. he's like your cousin who is convinced the moon landing was staged on a stage. ted lieu thinks he knows everything. how did the russians get to mueller? crash bribe with rubles? brainwashing? did they get to his kids?hopeful congressional correspondents will ask ted lieu for details. we would like to know. but, first, it might be worth checking in with his colleague eric swalwell, if you think lieu has gone around the bend.lt vladimir putin is somehow controlling our voting machines. watch this. >> i fear that we are more vulnerable than we were in 2016 because russia and the other countries will see the united states as open for business when it comes to interference. >> do you worry that the russians have developed the capability to actually change

vote counts in the united states? >> yes. >> tucker: yes. and to think there are people who believe we should legalize hallucinogenic mushrooms. a mind is a terrible thing to waste. it's sad as hell to watch, actually. they have to exist in tangible reality. the democratic party no longer does. for two years, they accused anyone who ever read a tolstoy novel of being a russian agent. they mean it.losing go by 50,00. alexandria ocasio-cortez told us recently that the border enforcement is a plot to build the nazi death camps in america and so on. these are not minor figures in the democratic party. these are the leaders. what will happen when these people get to run the country? buck sexton is host of the "buck sexton show" and he is a frequent guest on our show and we are always glad to have

him. buck, i have been dismissing these claims as absurd, but i just want to run them by you as a fact check. is there any evidence that the russians are controlling robert mueller? >> no, absolutely not. but, let's remember that there have been former very senior members of the intelligence committee where i used to work as a c.i.a. analyst, there have been people who have come out, former directors who have also indicated, without any evidence, by the way, without evidence, like the journalists say about some things, maybe someone got to donald trump. they have something on him. he is a russian asset. he is a traitor. there is nothing that is too extreme for them to say in this regard. yet, they never provide any evidence. it used to be, oh, once the mueller report comes out, then we'll see this elusive evidence. now it's, well, mueller didn't get it, but the gumshoes in congress are somehow going to find this stuff out just in time for the election. it's just bad faith at this point. it's been bad faith all along.

and if someone believes trump is controlled by the russians, they are very cynical or not very smart. >> tucker: but not just trump. now it's robert mueller. and now it's our voting machines. i wonder how long it will be until the russians control our polling companies. >> there is also -- >> that will explain why eric swalwell had to get out of the race. the russians dropped his polls to negative numbers. do they believe it, or are they just saying it? i'm starting to think they believe it. >> i think there are some who believe it.certainly, the audiences of cnn and msnbc have been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that the big reveal was coming that i don't believe at this point the democrats could walk it back. i don't think that the hosts on those networks could say you know, maybe we got this mostly if not entirely wrong all along. so they have to double down and play into this. but, let's also remember, the big reveal this week was that

bob mueller was not, in fact, running this investigation. was not the paragon of virtue that mueller was supposed to be. he was used as a front and he was essentially a cover story for a whole bunch of people that everyone knew all alongwore effectively democratic, pro-hillary operatives with law degrees. but we were told, don't worry about it.robert mueller would nt them run wild. it couldn't be a political vendetta. but he was a figure head and it was a political vendetta. now they're talking crazy-- evey usually do on this stuff because they want to change the topic. the day that eric swalwell dropped out was the saddest day in democratic history for .0001% of democratic primary voters, but just by planting the seed, there will be nutcases on the left with the major platforms and when trump is

elected again to office in 2020, i think he will, they will make the claim that is based on swalwell's speculation on television. that has been the m.o. the whole time for the democrats with the mueller probe. >> tucker: of course. they don't believe it because if they did, they wouldn't be for internet voting. they would be for same-day paper ballot voting with i.d.s. they are against all of that. they are for voter fraud. so, if they really were afraid that the russians were subverting the voting system, they would do something about it. >> it's all about national security until someone says what about voter i.d. guys? then they don't care anymore. >> tucker: exactly. it's great to see you tonight. thanks. >> tucker, thanks. >> tucker: it's getting harder and harder for people who make wild claims like the ones you heard to win the elections on substance. but, coming up, they may not have to. america's largest tech companies are overwhelmingly in the democratic column and they're not afraid to use the power for ideological purposes. tonight we have a remarkable guest joining us. he's a current google employee who says his company is far from

politically neutral. a current google engineer and he joins us tonight. greg, thank you very much for coming on. >> thanks, tucker. good to be here. >> tucker: so first, i'm grateful that you are here. i'm surprised that you are willing to come on and speak to us live. but, we're thankful. you're telling us that google is what they claim not to be which is partisan and political. is that correct? >> well, here is what i would say. i would say that as a user of the various tech products, i notice a lot of the same biases that a lot of people have been concerned about in terms of the end result. >> tucker: yes. >> and, the one thing i just want to communicate to anyone maybe who isn't used to launching software productions in to production, basically, any software launch reflects the outcome of thousands of human decisions. if you made different human decision, you would get a different result. and, so, if you see a result, if you see a resulting end product that seems to encode a bias of one sort or another, there

must have been that bias in the process that produced the end result. because, like i say, different human decisions that went in to the process would produce completely different results. >> tucker: so this gets to the core business at google and the core question about google, which is google search. so all human information essentially flows through this portal. if you ask google, and i have, how is it sorted? they will say by an algorithm. and the suggestion is that it's unbiased because a machine is doing it. you are saying that is not true. >> right. in fact, in my experience, as algorithms get more complicated and more advanced, that only means they have more human decisions going into them. so there is actually more opportunities for human beings to influence, you know, the final product. >> tucker: so, this is a meaningful -- this is not an academic conversation.

because we've got a presidential campaign on the horizon. and, again, all american voters get the bulk of their information about everything, including candidates, on the internet and google, of course, is the portal to the internet. so, do you think that the biases you are describing will influence the outcome of the election? how could they not? >> i think it is going to. if people aren't able to think critically about the information they're given especially if there is kind of this illusion that maybe somehow technology exists in a world apart from humans or you can somehow create a computer to think for itself and be free of human biases, then, you know, people could be easily mislead or manipulated. >> tucker: so you are basically saying that google is a liberal company, and its liberalism will tilt the presidential election. are you going to be punished

for coming on our show to say this? >> i'm not sure what is going to happen. i'm on administrative leave at the moment. i'm not sure about the future. >> tucker: okay. i hope you will come back and tell us what happens. greg coppola, thank you for that. >> thank you very much. >> google's agenda is not just a concern for the conservatives. it's worrying to anyone who believes in free speech and certianly anyone who wants to challenge the status quo.for ex, after last month's democratic debates, tulsi gabbard was the single most searched candidate.as she well deserved . she was the only one on the stage saying anything interesting and sane. it was a great opportunity to buy ads for her campaign but google wouldn't let her. for several critical hours, tulsi gabbard was blocked from buying new ads on google. she is now suing google, accusing them of deliberately censoring her adsand sending hem

at a higher rate. is that true? we can't say for sure. it sounds true. given what we know about google, it is definitely possible. we hope gabbard's lawsuit is able to find the truth, and we'll keep you abreast of what it does find. we want to bring you a fox news alert. supreme court handed the trump administration a major victory in the fight to build a wall at the southern border. last february, you'll remember, the president declared a emergency at the border and sought money to be spent for a wall. but court blocked his funding. but now supreme court overturned that administration will have access of $2.5 billion of pentagon funds. a final ruling has not yet

issued, but the administration can now begin wall construction before the litigation finishes. the president treated in response, "wow, big victory on the wall. the supreme court overturns lower court injunction and allows border wall to proceed. big win for border security and the rule of law." we will continue to follow the story, of course. congressman ilhan omar is finally getting attention she deserves for her radical viewsat and her obvious duplicity. there could be real drama in her personal life. trace gallagher has the story for us, next. plus, the white house plans to execute five criminals. the democrats are outraged. why exactly?that's ahead as ourl continues.

>> tucker: welcome back to our "inside the issues" special.l. congresswoman ilhan omar is facing increased scrutiny for her views, and she is also getting attention for a story building for years. her unusual marriage history. several journalists have looked closely into her background and they believe omar had a fraudulent marriage to a man who could be her biological brother. the local paper has been unable to get anywhere on the story because omar refuses toer answer even basic questions about her family. now a new report in "the daily mail" says her current marriage could be in trouble as well. trace gallagher has more on all of this.trace? >> trace: it's reporting she is splitting with her husband. this would be her second divorce. but legally it's the first. me here.ly it's the first. she religious married hersi in 2002. had two children andnd

religiously divorced him back in 2008. they got back together in 2012, had another child. but didn't legally get married until last year. when asked about the latest separation hirsi said, "wow, i can't comment on that. i'm sorry, i can't say anything." then, of course, there is controversy surrounding her other marriage.in 2009, she legd religiously married ahmed nur said elmi. investigative reporter david steinberg and judicial watch claim they have significant evidence to prove that her first husband is ilhan omar's brother. and she married him as a sham to get him in the country. fox cannot confirm the reports. but we can confirm that ilhan omar was found to have violated campaign finance laws by filing joint tax return with ahmed hersi when she was still legally married to somebody else. tucker? >> tucker: byzantine. trace gallagher, thank you so

much. well, thanks to the recently passed first step act, more than 3,000 criminals have been released early from federal prison. do you remember when the first step act was being debated, we were all told that only nonviolent criminals would be the beneficiaries of the law. some, like senator mike lee of utah, told us that the bill would not provide early release to criminals, only incentivize participation in the so-called "recidivisme reduction programs." but, that turned out to be completely untrue. in less than a year, the first step act has granted early release to a lot of dangerous people, and it didn't require any of them to do anything to earn it. here is one example. in 2008, okwan white participated in an armed robbery of a brooklyn apartment. during that robbery, he and the accomplices tied up two children, including a 7-year-olddr girl. they pistol whipped a woman and threatened to kill her and her family if she didn't

reveal where the cash and the drugs were hidden. every victim of the robbery had to be hospitalized. one for more than a week. white would still behe in prison right now where he deserves to be, but thanks to the first step act, he was released last week. here is the key. he didn't join any recidivism reduction program. instead, since the bill retroactively increased his good behavior credits, his sentence was simply shortened. white didn't have to do anything.t he is out of federal prison now, along with hundreds of others like him, convicted of sex crime, robbery, assault and other acts of violence. remember, these are the nonviolent marijuana users who are getting out early? right. it's not true. butri washington doesn't care. for them, crime is an abstraction. they don't live with the consequences so it's not a big deal. they get to feel virtuous and your neighborhood gets more dangerous. senator tom cotton representsart vocal against this, and he joins us tonight. are you surprised? >> i'm not surprised at all that almost 5,000 serious felons, as you say, murderslo and sex offenders, robbers

drug lords have been released early under this law.. i predicted this would happen exactly as it has. you can read the plain texted law and know that thousands of felons would be released months after the passage. >> tucker: so, i'm one, i think of myself as one of the people who you could convince on this. i think there are people in prison who deserve to be released. i don't think that everybody who commits a crime should spend the rest i of his life in prison, and i believe in rehabilitation. what i'm infuriated by is they told us that the people getting out early would be sent to recidivism reduction classes. in other words, they'd be rehabilitated. in a lot of cases, as the one we just described, they haven't been. they have just been released early. they lied to us. >> well, tucker, i agree with what you said about the goals of what that legislation should have had, which is to get people back on their feet and give them an education, to l help them find the lord so when they leave prison, as

everyone does, if they are not sentenced to death or life without parol, they become a productive member of society. but it was always the case that thousands of serious felons would be released early if the bill passed. i said it at the time and it has come to pass now. >> tucker: i mean, is there anything that can be done about it? if you are going to release serious felons, violent felons, then why can't they go in to one of these much o talked about recidivism reduction programs? why do they have to just be released? >> tucker, the good news is that attorney general bill barr believes firmly in law and order. and, he is taking a deliberate and careful approach to crafting some of the programs and the way that prisoners who go into them will be released from prison in the future.el his hands have been largely tied, though, on thsee releases up to now. but look at what he did this week. signing execution warrants for five heinous murders. one who murdered an 8-year-old girl and her parents a few

miles up the road from where i grew up in arkansas. it gives you a sense of where attorney general barr's mind is when it comes to criminal justice. that he wants to make sure that we are protecting the vulnerable among us and our communities. >> tucker: let me just ask you one final question on thiss friday night. i mean, you were again probably the lead of the opposition to this law. some people you work with, who are your friends, supported it. now that we know that the law isn't working the way they told us it was going to work have any of those people come up to you and said, "i was wrong. i'm sorry." >> tucker, not many people in this town of washington, >> this is a town that a lot of people that have predictions that don't come to pass and they come up and say, "i told you so." what has come to pass is what i predicted. there are thousands of seriousas felons being released. to myhe knowledge none of them have committed a crime yet. i said at the time, given the recidivism rates, especially

if they don't go throughany kinf anti-recidivism training they are likely to commit crimes in the future. i hope i'm wrong in that prediction, but i fear i won't be with thousands released early. >> tucker: senator tom cotton, thank you so much for joining us tonight. i appreciate it. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: well, the black plague killed a third of europe 700 years ago. now,rs thanks to the homeless epidemic in some of the biggest cities, the black plague is back. that's next as your "inside the issues" speciall continues.

>> tucker: welcome back to our "inside the issues" special hour.ou almost 700 years ago, the black death, bubonic plague, killed a third of the entire population of europe.e. the disease behind that again bubonic plague, and we think it came from rats. fortunately, the plague is almost unheard of in modern

times, but now it could be coming back. where? to the city of los angeles. why? massive homeless encampments there are so filthy that they have brought rats, rats have brought fleas and those fleas carry bubonic plague.now the cig point. 1.5% of the rats in los angeles are now believed to be carrying the plague. if the figure hits 2%, it will start jumping to humans. dr. marc siegel is fox's medical expert and frequent guest on our show and we are glad to have him back tonight. doctor, this sounds like an imminent threat. >> i think it is an imminent threat., you already mentioned that rats are carrying the fleas. the fleas are on the rats, and the fleas are carrying a bacteria called "y. pestis" that causes the bubonic plague. rats are all over the place in los angeles, and garbage is all over the place. rats eat the garbage.

even if they bring garbage trucks to take away the garbage, more garbage is formed and also human waste. the rats are proliferating and the fleas are proliferating. we are going to start seeing the bubonic plague.we can treat, whiz we couldn't in the middle ages, but first have to know somebody has it and get the antibiotics to them. which is the point i've been making, as long as 670,000 people are living on the streets of los angeles, we can't treat their drug addiction, illnesses or infection on the street and we certainly cannot treat the plague. >> tucker: that is the point. the reason we haven't had the bubonic plague really since the middle ages is because we have modern sanitary standards. and now we don't. so it's not hard, right, to create a society where there aren't so many rats that you get the plague, is it? >> that is so true, tucker. i have to emphasize your point. we cleaned up the plague even before antibiotics because of public health. here we are in the middle ages

type situation. let me tell you how we can fix that. i worked in the bellevue emergency rooms in the '80s and the '90s. you know what we did? we used to have a diagnosis, found on street, came in for three squares and a blanket. the patients came in with infections. they were dehydrated, they were malnourished. what do we do? we build shelters in new york. new york is another democratic stronghold, but two republican mayors were behind the expansion of the shelters. 95% of the homeless in new york are now living in shelters, and we don't see the same kind of diseases. wake up, los angeles. you have a democratic mayor that is waving his hands saying here is another garbage truck and a shower i'm sending to the street. we have to get the homeless off the streets or we're neverge problems. >> tucker: it's absolutely horrifying. it gives you a sense of how tenuous our hold on society and modernity is.dr. siegel, th.

>> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: after decades of flat-out lying, the defense establishment is finding admitting some of what it knows about u.f.o.s. the navy admitted that the pilots come in contact with unidentified aircraft often thaw reporting guidelines for the me lots to come forward. they are seeing things in the sky they can't account for and doing things they cannot understand. should we be worried?y congressman mark walker is a republican representing theus state of north carolina. he just sent a navy to the secretary of the navy will spencer about the u.f.o. investigation. we recently spoke to the congressman. here is part of what he said. should we be worried about this? >> well, we are are concerned about it. as the ranking member of terrorism and counterintelligence, we have questions. it comes down to some of the

new infrared radar systems thats they are detecting things. we call them unidentified aerial threats. that is something we look at. u.a.p. is what we call them. we are taking a look at this. >> tucker: this is going onan ae there is a lot of data the government stored about this. most of it is still classified. there must be theories about what the objects are and what the aircrafts are. what is the most plausible theory, do you think? >> we don't know for sure obviously.we want to know if ths another defense mechanism of another country. what we doge know and the question we want to go to is china looking at the hyper sonic missiles. to break it down to our language it will get from d.c. to l.a. in nine minutes. we don't know that nuclear warheads can be attached to those. is it something like that? or is it something more? we don't know. but i feel like this is

something to take a look at that. that is why we have written secretary spencer of the navy. >> tucker:in is there any indication that you are aware of that these sightings are foreign aircraft, russian or foreign aircraft, russian or >> we don't know. we have no evidence to support that.th we do know something is traveling at that speed of what we call hypersonic now. which is a mach 4 or 5. not to get too technical. that is something we want to know. is this something that another defense system in another country is more advanced? or isor it something else? we are not trying to spook people out. but the a.a.t.i.p., which basically, is a program that the government monitors this was to close down in 2017. so part of my question, tucker, is it really closed down? are we still spending are we still spending or is there more documentation that this program is still being able to file somewhere? that is something that we need to know, even if it's just for the defense purposes alone.

>> tucker: we spoke to a government employee who hasme worked on this issue who said that the u.s. government has wreckage from one of these aircraft. do you know anything about that? >> we don't know but that is one of the four questions that we are asking. is theree evidence being held somewhere? not to get too spooky, once again. but, if there is evidence, i believe it is important for people specifically in my position as the ranking member of terrorism and counterintelligence, we need to know what this is. >> tucker:nc of course. those are all legitimate questions. >> i believe so. >> tucker: i'm grateful you are not being bullied or mocked in not asking them. we hope you come back to tell us what the answers are. >> we look forward to coming back.thank you, tucker. >> tucker: thanks, congressman, i appreciate it. time for the final exam. the question, can you beat the expert remembering the weird things that have happened in the past seven days? that w is next as the special continues.

here, it all starts with a simple... hello! -hi! how can i help?

a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

>> tucker: it is time now for final exam where we quiz the professionals here at fox news to find out who has been paying the closest attention to the obscure news of the week. we have a very special challenger tonight. martha maccallum, of course, hosts "the story"