thanks for being here, tucker carlson is up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," for many years, decades in fact, harvey weinstein's conduct was an open secret, the public may have been oblivious to what he was really like but the people who knew him and worked around him knew that harvey weinstein was a creep and a predator, it was glaringly obvious. some of them were brave enough to joke about it at awards shows. >> congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to harvey weinstein. >> tucker: so when ronan farrell began an investigation into his behavior, it didn't

take long to unearth a mother lode of evidence, evidence that the movie producer was a monster. it was a remarkable scope, the kind that reporters stream about, so they took their story to executives at nbc where they worked. instead of congratulating them, the network killed the investigation. farrow who later wrote a book about it said this. >> this should get on air immediately, we had a record of the admission of guilt from harvey weinstein security during a police sting operation. this was a case where a news organization didn't behave journalistically, they ordered us to stop, to not take the call, and to cancel interviews with alleged rape victims, this book explains why. >> tucker: at farrow's book is a best seller on the amazon list, nbc meanwhile has not budged. it's executives still claim they didn't do anything wrong, they didn't kill the story they say.

the chairman called farrow spoke fundamentally untrue and news division president noah oppenheimer called it a conspiracy theory. may be the most powerful cooperating witness received little attention so far, his name is rich mccue, a reporter in the investigation unit and he was ronan farrell's producer. he spent eight months of his life reporting on the weinstein investigation, ten days ago he published a story in "vanity fair" about it. if his peace amounts to one of the most devastating accounts of malfeasance by a television network ever published, get yourself a copy of this story, it is jaw-dropping. and the lack and noah oppenheimer not only personally intervened to shut down the investigation, they refused to allow me to follow-up after his history of sexual assault became front page news. if they more like members of weinstein's pr team than the journalists they behaved to be.

they did act as p.r. agents for harvey weinstein, the story is crammed with details. the cumulative effect is so overwhelming and so clearly true that nbc hasn't responded to the story, instead have ignored it hoping it will go away. just today, "the wall street journal" reported that nbc has -- and this was a remarkable even by their standards -- renewed noah oppenheimer's contract and its expected he will take control of the entire company soon. before that happens we want to speak to rich mccue directly and we are happy to have us join us tonight. one year ago, i resigned from nbc news because they ordered me to stop reporting on harvey weinstein which they clearly did. in the piece, you unearth evidence that weinstein lawyers,

david boys had been assured that you would not do reporting on harvey weinstein. >> that's correct, part of this goes to ronan, what he unearthed in his book -- the piece quotes an incident where that happened where david boys who's an an attorney for weinstein at the time on behalf of mr. weinstein went to get assurance from nbc of what was going on with the story and was told that we are no longer doing a story on him. >> tucker: you've worked at a number of different television networks, you're a supervising producer at nbc, not a small job. have you ever heard of a network assuring the target of an investigation or the subject of a story that they are not going to report on him? >> never. never. >> tucker: what do you think this was about? >> i think everybody who has read the book "catch and kill"

and hopefully people who read what i wrote now see what it was about and ronan did an excellent job of connecting the dots. a, this was a very powerful person, harvey weinstein still had one of the biggest producers of hollywood and had an extreme ability to shut down stories and had done it for years. i think this was about -- i think he figured out that nbc had an achilles' heel. ronan paints it more succinctly through facts in his book but nbc had a matt lauer problem. everybody was aware of it. i think weinstein exploited th that. >> tucker: not to jump ahead in the story but at the end of your piece, you recount a scene were you confronted noah

oppenheim directly and said "did you have any indication that your chief anchor had been accused of sexual misconduct and matt lauer had a problem with women" and he said, i'm quoting, no. is that true? >> that happened, i confronted him in a meeting, and did i believe it? no. i don't think anyone else in the meeting believed it either. we all knew -- everybody at nbc was aware that matt lauer was off having affairs and whatnot. the extent to which we have now learned through documents and settlements that have been revealed in the book, it was much more than that. executives at the company were aware, they were told, even and curry and she's gone on the record saying she did tell they

had to be aware of matt lauer with women. >> tucker: it's remarkable they could live right to your face. you have an account of what it was like to spend eight months of your life reporting on harvey weinstein without support from your own employer. if in this, you say your phone wound up bub, someone broke into your house and tampered with the phone lines and the suggestion is it was private investigators, former mossad, hired by harvey weinstein, did you ever get to the bottom of it? >> my situation independently -- parts of it i did. ronan has unearthed because he spoke to some members, he was privy to a lot of details and we have been able to piece together what happened. he was able to figure out exactly who is tracking him. my situation was a little different but i consulted security experts and whatnot and it was pretty clear what was

going on. it still continues, i have people trying to break into my emails right when i was writing the "vanity fair" story. i wish i could say it's over but it's not. >> tucker: to go that far out on a limb for a story and have your employer sell you out -- at one point, you say no one oppenheimenoahoppenheim was excy texts with harvey weinstein after killing your investigation into them, how do you feel about that? >> i was pretty upset to learn a lot of that stuff, to be honest. i have no animosity against these people, but it's clear to me that we were lied to over and over. it's just not right, especially coming from a news organization. it's the very crux of what they do, it's their mission to tell the truth. i think they not only lost sight of it but they didn't hear their

basic principles. >> tucker: so noah oppenheim was just re-signed, "the wall street journal" reported today at a huge salary, and he is next in line to take over the entire company. how do you feel about that and how do you think employees still at nbc feel about that? >> i know employees at nbc are upset about it, i've spoken too many of them. i feel it's rather a tone deaf, it's going to be hard for journalists at nbc to report on corporate malfeasance elsewhere because it makes their job ultimately harder when the leadership at the top isn't listening to the facts that are coming out in this case. there is a complete disconnect. >> tucker: it's baffling, i know noah oppenheim, i don't think he's an evil man or

anything, but he's certainly mediocre. i imagine you could hire a lot of people to run nbc. why is he still there? given the fact that he's been caught lying repeatedly. >> that's a very good question, i truly don't know except that i would have to guess that they decided on a narrative from the beginning of this -- i even warned them. i said if you go down this road with this narrative, it's going to be around for a long time, it's better to come clean and say we messed up, we should have done this and should have done that and we chose not to do it. and here we are. >> tucker: you gave them that advice which is the only advice, how do they respond? >> like baffled. what do you mean? and i said "i know what i know to be true, my experience in this story and that's what i know is the truth. anything other than that is a narrative." it put me in an odd spot at nbc,

let's say that. >> tucker: you resigned. have you heard from them since this piece came out? >> i've heard from a lot of employees who thanked me for it and said this is a public service and kudos. it's unfortunate we have to live in this existence. >> tucker: it was a public service, there has been an awful lot written about harvey weinstein in the past year but this is the clearest account i have read about the cover-up and nbc. thanks for coming on tonight. robbie swap he is an associate editor, he joins us. this account, i think you will agree leaves no room for debate. they acted as a pr team for harvey weinstein. >> he has the evidence in the piece, it's not a matter of being a human lie detector or and i believe him, he makes the

argument in his story and what he told you, i don't think there is anyone who could doubt, this network not only stonewalled the investigation from the beginni beginning. and then when it was already out is not interested in telling the story, they weren't tested and talking about it. >> tucker: i should put this in some context because it adds to the credibility of the men we just interviewed. everyone in this story is a liberal of good standing. nbc executives are liberals, harvey weinstein a democratic donor, rich mchugh is working for al gore. there is no political motivation going on here, it's just the truth and they are lying. >> if it was what executives were claiming, they would be behaving differently. we screwed up, there's a miscommunication, we let it get away, that was bad on our part. none of their subsequent actions comport with that. they have been attacking ronan relentlessly trying to say what

he didn't have any of the evidence, we know he had tons of evidence. he had a tape and people willing to go on record and he turned it around at the new yorker two months later which was a short time. they would've had to recheck everything he was praying, it's not like he could drop it in their laps and they could run at the next day, that's not how journalism works. it's baffling their strategy has been to deny they have done anything wrong which speaks to some of the more out there explanations, they were afraid of stuff coming out. there was some suggestion or some kind of business that weinstein blackmailed -- those incentives. i think it's reasonable to say, to wonder whether those incentives what was really at play given how they behaved. >> tucker: i think that is what happened. i am fascinated by the responsive nbc because it speaks

to a much bigger problem we have in corporate america where mediocre people are elevated, nobody is punished for screw up you can invade iraq under false pretenses and go on to run the world bank. marissa mayer runs yahoo and the value of the company disappears and she's still a heroin. this guy, no on noah oppenheim y is a fraudulent character, covered up for harley weinstein and they respond by giving him a race, how does it work? >> a kind of story that you tell and don't tell is a journalism company affects the kinds of stories you could tell in the future. i've written a lot about child protective services, people who have cases where kids were taken away wrongly and not all the stories are true, we don't instinctively believe everything we are told but that's kind of person who wants to tell me their story. i have to imagine if you are someone with a sexual misconduct story, you are not going to trust nbc to cover it after this stuff has happened and that

sucks for the people who work there, the people who want to hold people accountable. >> tucker: it's ominous, if you have a country that cannot reward excellence and punish malfeasance, the future doesn't look bright in a place like th that. >> the myth of meritocracy to some degree. >> tucker: robbie, great to see you. every day, democrats on the campaign trail are slamming a place as racist, evil, what places that? our country. we are asking obvious questions, what if voters don't hate america is much as they do? and you get elected to slamming the country you want to lead? we will address that after the break. 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: so what's elizabeth warren's strategy for becoming president? it's coming into focus. she apparently believes she can win the nomination with a simple approach, on every issue find the most left-wing possible issue and go even further than that. promise medicare for all but without any tax increases, imagine. use america's wealth to fund race-based reparations, because almost no one can pay for that. on the border, it's not easy for warren to stand up because almost every other democrat wants amnesty, free health care for illegals, what did she do? she's found a way. in a new letter to the department of homeland security, she demands all transgender illegal immigrants, she doesn't say how many there are, but all

transgender illegal immigrants must be let into the country immediately. she says it's dangerous to be transgender and mexico so anyone who claims they were born in the wrong body must be allowed to stay here, no questions asked to receive a taxpayer-funded transition. it's a daring gambit and she's thinks she can alienate every normal person in the continental united states and still become president. will it work? we are about to find out. bernie sanders and elizabeth warren are both running on a medicare for all plan and they really mean for all -- they promised to give free medical care to everybody who was here illegally. that's about 22 million people, that number is rising and of course it will rise dramatically if this handout becomes law but let's pretend it won't, let's pretend it stays static at 22 million. how much would it cost to get free health care to illegal immigrants already here?

according to a new calculation by the american enterprise institute, medicare for all would cost about $10,000 per person per year. multiply that by 22 million illegal immigrants and you get to $220 billion every year. even in an era of supersized numbers, that's a ton of cash. that is for some perspective. ten times the entire budget of nasa, it's also more than the current veterans administration budget, the va budget which means that america would quite literally be spending more on illegal immigrant health care than it does on veterans. melissa francis' cohost of "outnumbered," she cohosts anna fox business, she joins us tonight. you are the numbers person, you are one of the good people who went to harvard, assess our math. it's true, there aren't many, you are one. assess our assessment.

our numbers we are throwing out their correct? >> the number you quote on the number of illegal aliens, who knows what that number really is? there's no way of knowing. mit was the latest one to do a study with gail, they are very good at math and they came up with this idea of 22 million people. if you do all that math out, it doesn't matter because we already can't pay for medicare for all and i don't mean we can't pay for -- we can't tax middle-class, i mean there isn't the money at all. i don't know why more people don't press elizabeth warren and bernie sanders on them because even when bernie sanders admits that taxes would have to go up dramatically on the middle class, that still wouldn't do it. if you confiscated all the money, every person that makes more than 200,000 a year makes

and you threw them into an abyss somewhere to die and you took all their money, it still would not pay for medicare for all. what difference does it make if we add a lot of illegal aliens? why don't we add canada? they are nice people, why not? >> tucker: that's exactly it, i have always thought the most illegal aliens are probably nice people, they came here because they like america and most americans like immigrants, they really like them. if you really want to make -- most americans aren't able to pay for the health care they want. you know what i mean? >> it's absolutely true, the reason why people love medicare and you talk to seniors in florida, they love it. it's because they use four times as much in dollar terms has what they paid in. that can't work on a larger scale, it means everybody else is supporting this group. the elderly, we love them and we are happy to do it, you can get the medicare add-on insurance

but you can't put the whole population on that. it's amazing to me, democrats and a lot of people in d.c. including republicans, i think they think math is a myth. it's a vast right-wing conspiracy, they are allergic to math. they don't want to do any of these numbers because it would make everything impossible and it is depressing when you can't pay your bills and you continue to rack up credit card debt, who wants to sit down and crush those numbers? certainly not the politicians in washington but the truth is there literally isn't enough money for medicare for all. it's not about taxes because if you raise taxes on everyone, it's the wind pay for it. >> tucker: they are liars and that's what it comes down to. it's good to see you. >> really disingenuous, see you later. >> tucker: a democratic congress woman was just caught sleeping with one of her 22-year-old staffers, and something called a throuple.

if what's a throuple? will tell you next.

>> tucker: a democratic member of congress is refusing to admit any wrongdoing as she was caught having an improper relationship with a 22-year-old member of her staff. trace gallagher has the latest on this story. >> democratic congress when katie hill is viewed as a rising star in the party's new progressive wing, she got a glowing media coverage and was brought into the parties leadership.

then news broke about her being in a so called a throuple, a relationship with her now estranged husband and a 22-year-old unidentified female staff. red state obtained both casual and intimate pictures and critics said the relationship with his now over was inappropriate but hills supporters say it was between consenting adults. now red state has obtained text messages that appear to call into question both the power structure of the two your relationship and how the female staffer felt it was abusive, writing "it was a dark time and you treated me really poorly, but i also stayed which i have to own." in response, she writes don't take full responsibility for staying with people that are abusing you, that is victim blaming and none of it was your fault. the staffer also said she was afraid to push back against katie hill for fear of losing her partner and her job and now kenny ha says katie hill was an

abusive wife. hill denies the affair and told political it was kenny who was abusive and he is trying to humiliate her by making vindictive claims. if she claims her opponents are using a private matter for political gain, we reached out to katie hill for further comment, she has not gotten back to us. >> tucker: wow. that's not your average personal life, not that we judge. great to see you. congresswoman hills throuple, whatever that is, may not be the most egregious personal scandal even with her own house caucus. the congresswoman ilhan omar has directed almost $150,000 in campaign funds to a company owned by her alleged lover tim wynette. scott johnson is an attorney, he blogs at power line blog.com, he's an expert on congresswoman omar and he joins us tonight.

thanks for coming on. tell us what this means. if she is sending money to her boyfriend's company, why is that legal? >> i'm sure their relationship must have started on some kind of professional basis and that is his business, he's a political consultant and fund-raiser, but the question is whether she is using campaign funds for personal purposes and that harks back to her time in the state legislature, we learned at the conclusion of a year-long investigation by minnesota state campaign finance board that she freely used campaign funds on a penny antitype basis for personal purposes on at least nine occasions and they ordered her to pay back the funds and find her for it. there are complaints that have been made to the fec related to the facts that you laid out about her financial relationship

with her lover, but the fec isn't entirely a functioning agency and it's going to take some time for that to play out. in the meantime, i would encourage your viewers to take a look at what can be learned from the state campaign finance board investigation that incidentally discovered that she had filed two years of tax returns jointly with a guy -- she's now married to but wasn't her husband at a time when she was married to her brother, who she married in 2009. in omar's case, we don't have an old-fashioned kind of woman or man cheating on her spouse scandal, not just that, we have a scandal of a new kind. president trump talked about it with great point at the rally in minneapolis. it's of interest here, you

covered this in trace gallaghe trace gallagher's hit last night on the daily mail story which has had a huge impact here in the somali community. to my surprise, i've been talking to some mollies all day, this segment is live on my friend facebook page because of the interest in the somali community about this daily mail story which is a classic stakeout on her affair with this fund-raiser. i thought this story was more of the same, this is the second or third daily mail story on her affair but this one had a photo of the guy carrying in what looks to be a six pack of stella artois into their apartment in d.c. and that has added insult to injury, especially in the clan that her husband belongs to hear.

>> tucker: alcohol being forbidden. >> as i say, she is a fraud in every respect. >> tucker: she married her biological brother and lied about her identity to sneak into the country, there's a preponderance of evidence. scott johnson, the world's expert on the subject, we are grateful for your expertise. the democratic field in 2020 is uniting finally around the following message, america, the country they hope to lead is a horrible place. it's evil and racist and we need a total remake, social revolution immediately. that is the message, beto o'rourke if nothing else is communicating at the most efficiently, watch. >> the racism in our criminal justice system is also a racism in our economy, is also a racism in health care, it's also a racism in education in america. the foundational racism in

america, the foundation of this country, it's in our fourth of july 1776 on the 20th of august, the first time people were brought here in bondage. >> tucker: what is so interesting and what ought to make you pause and really worry about the future of this country is that beto o'rourke is supposed to be the most impressive kind of person that we produced, he went to the world's most asked to make expensive all boys boarding school, then columbia which is a member of the ivy league. from a rich family, he's been compared to one of the kennedys, he is our leadership class and yet he hates the country he seeks to lead. he's not shy about it, he was

taught to feel that way. what happens to a country whose leaders hate it? i guess we'll find out. in his case, he's not going to be president, it's not strictly speaking relevant in political terms. elizabeth warren who has a pretty good shot at being her party's nominee is taking up the same message, she is leading in the polls. her tone has some of the left worried, a new "new york times" piece describe it several big democratic donors saying that the parties lurched to the left will lose them the election. these donors are scrambling for an alternative who can enter the race at the last minute, may be hillary clinton, michael bloomberg, maybe first lady michelle obama. would she be better than beto? that's an open question. >> people in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics. let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult life, i am proud of my country. >> tucker: robert portillo is

a democratic attorney, thanks a lot for coming on. i would put you if i had to guess sort of a little left of center on the spectrum politically, probably a biden voter would be my guess. you are exactly that person i want to ask this question of, it seems like -- we can't see the future, but the biden candidacy is cratering and certainly a lot of democratic donors think that. if he's not going to be the nominee, who is and can that person win? >> i don't think you should write the obituary for joe biden quite yet, joe biden has been under attack for the past year. whether it's ukraine, whether it's hugging, whether it's any of these other issues, joe biden has been attacked continuously from both sides of the aisle and continues to be one of the top two contenders in the race. as the field narrows down, we are going to get into more debates. beto o'rourke is not going to be

president, what he said it is interesting, it's good to push the argument forward but will it actually impact the national conversation? i think once we get to talking about issues like social security, infrastructure, union rights, the kitchen table issues that families are interested in, that is when we will have a real debate and that is where joe biden will shine. >> tucker: union rights, that shows how old-school you are, that's an interesting topic but the democratic party in 2019 is a coalition of private equity moguls in ms-1 ms-13 there's nor union members anymore. that's 1975. >> that is the spin -- >> tucker: it's not spin. it's totally true. i would like to see a democratic party that cared about ordinary people. >> when you have a field of 25 plus candidates, people say crazy things in order to get attention. people play to whatever gets you the best sound bite. once we get back to the issues that average americans, rustbelt

americans care about, that's when we will have a real conce concept. >> tucker: elizabeth warren is leaving and she's saying things every bit as extreme as bento. hillary clinton weighs in out of nowhere and attacks tulsi gabbard, calls for a russian spy. my theory and i think it's true and someone who works for the clintons for years confirmed to me, the clintons don't do everything to make anything haphazardly, everything's strategy. i'm starting to think hillary clinton wants to get in the race. >> i think she's absolutely going to get in the race. it's be what you think she's going to get in the presidential race. >> what we have seen is the democratic party has been looking for that standard-bear standard-bearer. they are looking for the bootstraps after obama, somebody who can carry on that legacy. the idea of warren and bernie if you take their combined numbers is still about 30% of the party. you have 70% of the party that is looking for something

different, they are hoping it will be biden but as his campaign continues to get hit over hunter biden, gets hit over ukraine, all these other scandals, that opens the door for somebody like hillary clinton who has 100% name recognition, who already has all the mechanisms in place from 2008 to be able to step in and run. >> tucker: why are we ignoring the obvious? that's not to belittle your point, it's a smart point and no one else is saying it but i think you're right. of course she's getting in. >> any time a candidate mysteriously has a book tour for some random book, the running for something. >> tucker: the obvious things are the ones you miss. thank you. a special team of police is credited with saving the lives of homeless people in seattle but some members of the city council in seattle, some of the craziest people in the world, want to eliminate them. how could that be? will have that story after the break.

we want to do whatever's best for the individual service person. we want to be known as america's mortgage company for veterans and active-duty service people, and they and their families. we're the ones there to help them. people are doing hard, arduous, difficult, dangerous things. some of them are giving their lives right now, today, for the freedoms that we have here in this country. they're willing to do that for you, for me, and for our family. so for us, at newday, to have the opportunity to turn around and help those people at this point in time. it's a labor of love, it's a noble service, and that's what we're all about.

in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change their tune,

causing uncontrollable tremors. now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons. restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever. the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life.

>> tucker: the crisis of vagrancy end homelessness in seattle is more of the worst in north america but for some officials, things aren't quite bad enough. they have tried to make them worse, making the crisis as harmful as possible, it always seems to be the goal of elected officials. the navigation team as a group of specially trained police and social workers who help clean up dirty homeless encampments and get people into shelters, during cold days they almost certainly save lives. but to council members want peopldefund it completely, theyt more homeless people filling up the seattle city centers.

normally with the stories i can see the motive but in this case, it seems guaranteed to produce more suffering, more people living on the street, more needles, more encampments, why would a city councilmember possibly want that? >> two main reasons, the navigation team operates in the seattle police department, they have cops on board. these are two council members, they do not like cops. you have one councilmember literally calling cops bigoted murderers. >> tucker: will you say their names again? they are elected officials, i think they should take credit. what are the names? >> come sa>> one acknowledging a socialist the other voting alongside, they don't like cops and they end up making some really easy political moves to placate the people in seattle that don't like cops and they push ideologically driven

agendas and affordable housing. the reason why people are living on the street in such big numbers is not about affordable housing. these were people who weren't born homeless, they were born into a home and they got onto a path for a variety of reasons, they're just going to continue the suffering. >> tucker: 20 minutes east of seattle, anywhere in rural america, this a housing glut -- people have abandoned, there is more housing than we know what to do with, it's not about housing it's much deeper than that. it does seem like in seattle you have reached a level of crisis where liberals are saying you can't live like this. why are your elected officials promoting homelessness? >> there's a lot of special interests behind the scenes, we have union money that is absently flooded the upcoming

election. kshama sawant is up for reelection, she says the soul of seattle is on the line and i truly believe that, we have an opportunity not just to get these people out of office but it's important to back the navigation team. 700 tons of trash and human waste has been cleaned from the streets just from the first half of the year thanks to the navigation team. they cleaned up 200 incredibly dangerous encampments. we called this compassionate in seattle when we let people live out on the streets and not get swept away -- they are not being swept away, i said this on the show before. seattle compassion is killing people. if we got this team, people are going to die on the streets of seattle. >> tucker: they don't have the right to wreck one of the prettiest cities in the country, they didn't create seattle, it's been there for a long time -- it's a real city. this generation of lunatics woke dumb people doesn't have a right

to wreck it, right? >> they are so woke, they pretend that socialism is the reason why we got the city. while they demonize amazon which is located here and responsible for the growth that they have seen, the economic growth in particular. they like to blame amazon because they are a corporation and big and evil and they pretend that that's the reason why people are out on the streets. people move here, cost of living goes up, and all of a sudden they are one missed a paycheck from living on the streets -- i'm sorry, we have to stop downplaying the fact that they are people living with mental illness, people living with dangerous and deadly drug addiction and that's why they are on the street, that needs to be fixed. >> tucker: this country specializes in ignoring the drug crisis. thank you. the left has a new label for people who want to protect themselves constitutionally, terrorists. that's next.

>> tucker: one thing about political campaigns, they change people. if you spend all day giving a speech, over time, your opinions tend to change. in the last year on the democratic trail, a trail for the nomination of the democratic party, there is a new agenda, clearly. no matter which one of these candidates win, millions of ordinary americans are going to have their guns taken away. if you don't like that idea, if you think the second amendment may mean something, you are a terrorist.

in the city of san francisco, the council voted to ban the nra a domestic terrorist organization. >> supervisor rode a scathing decoration reading and part chemical, the national rifle association spreads propaganda tennis informs and aims to defeat the public about the dangers of gun violence. >> the nra has a coming to them and i will do everything i possibly can to call them out on what they are, which is a domestic terrorist organization. >> sean: the host of the dana show, she dons tonight. so, call me paranoid, and i don't think you can actually be too paranoid in dissent of your constitutional right but this is a predicate to something. they are saying this for a reason. they start telling you the people who have a 12 gauge at home to defend themselves or terrorists, they are setting it up to do something to those people. no? >> yeah. well, i completely agree with your analysis here talker and also, first off, you know, all

day today, these same individuals that have the same - they've been screeching and raging because president trump used accurately the phrase lynching to talk about the witch hunt on him, these are the same lawmakers that having calling innocent law-abiding americans referring to them as quote, domestic security threats and terrorists. so i think they kind of need to look in the mirror a little bit if they want to start the rhetoric police. >> tucker: yet. that lynching is just noise. but i think you're absolutely right. so just to be clear, they are calling americans who committed no crime, who pose no threat, who merely want to exercise their constitutional right, a terrorist? but what you do to terrorists? >> exactly and that's the whole point had what do you do to terrorists. these are also the same individuals come to him because i bernie sanders, kemal has come a joe biden, and particularly biden and harris have been trying to run away from their heart on crime, tough on crime

stances because now it's in vote for democrats to be soft on crime. bernie sanders and all these other democrats have been blasting innocent american gun owners while at the same time bernie sanders says he wants to get violent offenders, people like the terrace from boston, people like the murderer in parkland, he things giving them the right to vote on who is going to determine your loss, that's totally okay. that's a mainstream democratic candidate that is talking about allowing violent felons to vote while simultaneously completely endorsing through silence and/or remission of it in any of his speeches, calling innocent law abiding americans bed terrace. aoc is someone who wants to and mass incarceration and here's something else to talk about, these same lawmakers who are referring to innocent people is terrorist and security threats because we disagree with them on the second amendment, are also the same lawmakers that want to implement the red flag system and i want you to trust their judgment while they are simultaneously smearing people with these awful terms. >> sean: is not going to

happen. great to see you tonight day and thank you for that. we will be back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn in since your enemy as lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. sean hannity is next. good night. is the musical >> sean: welcome to "hannity" here we've begun with the fox news alert. we had big breaking news on multiple fronts. now senator lindsey graham will be here with a huge announcement tonight that he is planning to introduce and motion in the united states senate to condemn the so-called impeachment inquiry in the house. it is corrupt, it is unconstitutional. i have a very special message for the senator met romney tonight. you're not going to want to miss it. first, this is very important. we are going to break down tonight, in detail, something corrupt and dangerous to this democratic republic that we love. we will expose on this program the democratic top secret, the