>> martha: thank you very much. that's the story everybody. have a ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." not so long ago cnn president jeff zucker gathered his minions on a morning conference call and commanded them to play up the ongoing impeachment proceedings in the house of representatives. impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, zucker squeaked. nothing else matters, yell about impeachment until your throat bleeds, that's an order. and with that he solicited to slithered off back to his later deep in the cnn center and the ice caves. and of course the minions obeyed, they were afraid not to obey. but we happen to disagree with jeff zucker. if you are committed partisan as he is, impeachment often looks

like the most important story there is, but if you're not, sometimes it seems like about the fifth or sixth most important story playing out in america right now. there's an awful lot of else going on. that's pretty much how we've been covering the story on the show, which is to say not very closely. but tonight, there some actual news to report so we want to take a moment to assess what exactly is happening with impeachment. speaker nancy pelosi has announced that later this week the house will hold a formal vote on procedures that could lead to a formal impeachment of the president aten some point. what exactly does that mean? why iss it happening? what will result from it? all of that unfortunately is still opaque tonight. it's still not exactly clear meat high crime the president supposedly committed. there some disagreement on thate question even on the left so to solve the riddle we are taking it tonight, as we often do when cloudy issues demand clarity, to the pride of yale law school, the oracle of newark, the single most famous bachelor vegan in the united statesam senate.

ladies and gentlemen, mr. cory booker, who reached west on it from his newly released spoken word prose poem entitled "politics be damned."im dim the lights, be still and listen to cory. >> politics be damned. i have a job to do. this is our country, this is our constitution. politics be damned right now. this is a sad day. a sad chapter in american history. >> politics be damned. politics be damned, i just want to get the truth, i want to do my job. >> politics be damned. i swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, i need to do the that. >> politics be damned. >> tucker: so there you have it. politics be damned. lawrence sorrow than anger. this isn't about politics, cory booker says, it's about doing what's right, as it always is in washington. and if you've got any doubt about that he will say it again and again and again and again until you are to exhausted or

hypnotized to protest, which ought to be a tip-off that in fact the opposite is true. actually this is entirely about politics. there is no real crime behind the impeachment proceedings. instead the president of austria's chief offense appears to be disagreeing with policies set by the bureaucratic state in washington. how do we knowgt that? because they've essentially admitted it. over the past two weeks, the house was her testimony from a diplomat called bill taylor and army lieutenant colonel called alexander vindman. their statements, we are told, will sink president trump. may be. so what have they said? well to start, both taylor and vindman are intense russiath hawks. both of testify that they want heavy american aid to ukraine because they want to weaken russia. both of emphasized they don't want anyny debate in the u.s. about these policies, they've said that out loud. in his remarks, vindman said he opposed president trump's phone call with borough p president of ukraine for this reason. "i realize that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the bidens and burisma, it would

likely be interpreted in a bipartisan play. it is thus far maintained." the application is that would be unacceptable. taylor said something almost identical to that. here it is. "to restore ukraine's independence, russia must leave ukraine. this has been and should continue to be a bipartisan u.s. foreign policy goal." so in other words, washington may have two parties, but only one position on ukraine is allowed here. and trump doesn't have it. this phone call wasn't acceptable because it might prevent america from automatically unthinkingly spending billions of dollars over many years to prop up a country that most americans could not findri on on the glot gunpoint. there's just one problem with this arrangement. the voters disagree. we know this because when he ran three years ago, president trump didn't hide how he felt about u.s. foreign policy. he told voters that america was involved in too many pointless wars. he criticized the then

president obama for having bad relations with russia. the trump administration, he promised, would pursue better relations with vladimir putin. that may sound shocking, but in fact it was not an unprecedented idea. obama ran on something close to this in 2012 and the public supported it and then too. he won. but now that same idea isn't simply unpopular in washington, our ruling class considers it illegal. former cia had john brennan put itn this way on twitter. "as in previous times of national peril, we rely on our military, diplomats, intelligence officials, law enforcement officers, and other courageous patriots to protect our liberties, freedom, and democracy. may they stay resolute and strong despite corrupt political headwinds they face." got that? unelected bureaucrats uphold, wait for it, democracy. elected officials subvert democracy. in john brennan's orwellian world, the most pressing and

imminent threat to this republic is voters. charlie hurt is opinion editor at "the washington times" and author of the book "still winning:why america went all in on trump and why we must do it again." joins us tonight. what do you think impeachment is actually about? >> i think without a doubt it is exactly as you just laid it out there, it is the attempt by the government first, deep state, whatever you want to call it. they will stop at absolutely nothing to remove this president, becauseth this president, as you rightly point out, represents what the actual voters want. i have all the sympathy inin the world for our kurdish allies who have fought alongside us for a long time. all the sympathy in the world for them, but it does not matter. voters are still in charge and that's what donald trump understands and that's why he is carrying out that agenda that got him elected, however unpopular it may be in the

state department or wherever. >> tucker: in the state department. if you've been hear an awfully long time in washington governing the news here. when you see two witnesses, and i give all of these people theop benefit of the doubt, i'm not saying they're bad people but they have deeply held beliefs about america's posture towards ukraine and russia. and when youa hear them say out loud without any shame at all, this is our policy, this is our position, you can't change that, what does that tell you about their understanding of democrac democracy? he>> it's completely backwards d of course they do come as you point out, they absolutely do believe this and they believe that the survival of america depends on upholding their twisted view of foreign policy, but again, it does not matter and itat is why we see -- all of these witnesses -- donald trump really sort of called their bluff when this whole thing began after we've been throughh all these other supposed high

crimes involving russia collusion, and all this other nonsense that never panned out. he really called their bluff when they decided to go with this ukraine call by releasing the transcript or the closest thing we have to the transcript of the call. so now americans can go and look for themselves and see whether there is a high crime here. but all we are seeing now are all of these weird -- they are not eyewitnesses, they are hearsay witnesses or their opinion witnesses and everybody wants to know what john bolton thinks of the call that donald trump made with the president of ukraine. that doesn't change the facts of anything. all that is is john bolton's opinion of it and sure, i'll be interested to hear what john bolton's opinion of it is, if he does i testify, but that does not change the facts. the facts have been released in the transcript of the phone call and that's the most important thing that matters here, but these people, they don't care about the facts. it has nothing to do with them. it has to do f with the fact tht they find donald trump so

appalling because he ran an election on promising to get out of situations like this, find alliances in places like russia to kill people like that horrid animal that we killed -- who blessedly killed himself along with his three children over the weekend with the help of russia. and when this all came out, what do democratsts do? what did they complain about? they complained that they weren't informed about it for the raid and furthermore they a complained about it that donald trump did advise the russians because russia -- he had to advise the russians because we were flying through airspace controlled by the russians, so they're complaining that there was this coordination with russia and why are they doing that? because they are going back to this ridiculous thing about how this collusion between trump and russia. >> tucker: if the collusion reduces the death of baghdadi, i think it's t collusion. >> i'm all in. >>sign me up. >> tucker: charlie hurt, great to see see you tonight, thank .

>> thanks. >> tucker: brit hume is the senior political analyst eric fox, not just for chronological reasons butut for reasons of wisdom and we are always grateful to have him on. what's the point -- as a political matter do you think, the point of the impeachment? we are all laboring under the assumption that will be no removal so why do it? >> the president impeached as a president to some extent tarnished and embarrassed. so if they can't get them removed or can at least touch them up a bit in the hope that that will contribute to his not being reelected. i think that's clearly what's in play here and, you know, the president clearly doesn't want this. he's set as much publicly. no president would want to be impeached, so this is something they have the power to do. the question is whether they can do so and at the same time protect democrats in t the house whose districts were carried by mr. trump from being damaged politically by the impeachment, which will not go down well in those predict ohmic districts, one presumes. and whether then they have any

hope of getting his impeachment confirmed, that is to say by conviction in the senate. everyone says it is clear the senate will not do this. i think it's very unlikely the senate would do this. after all, the president -- there are 53 republicans in the senate. the president can lose 19 of them. 19, and still survive in office. so a lot of this is about trying to protect those democrats and still proceed with thisoc impeachment inquiry and about trying to win over some republicans inin the senate anda majority of them can go against him and he still survives, so i think the president is really in pretty good shape here, but think about this, if you're a republican in the senate and the impeachment article conforms to this conversation that's supposedly all about. it isn't -- first of all youe have to kind of interpreted to

include that he was demanding a quid pro quo, that is to say he was going to withhold the aid unless and until the investigation was conducted. in the end the aide was not withheld an investigation he supposedly was insisting upon wasas not undertaken, so it does leave you wondering whether you're a republican senator you're going to vote for conviction of a man on that basis. >> tucker: so what you're saying as a factual matter as distinct from a matter of intent, nothing happened. >> right. this is another case -- it reminds you a little bit of that fabledhe trump tower meeting in which don jr. expressed a desire and willingness to receive dirt information from these russian representatives who came to see trump tower. nothing came ofe it. and it was considered to be kind of exhibit a in the collusion case. >> tucker: so he had impure thoughts basically. >> he did and when the possibility that he would receive such dirt was transmitted to him he said i love it, right? so that looks bad. >> tucker: i sent a lot of text like that. >> the mueller team investigates this for two years with all the

investigative powers of the disposal of the federal government and decided it didn't go anywhere and that was the end of it, so this in effect ended up not going anywhere. and it's so like this president to kind of lay about himself demanding this and demanding that insane people are treasonous and saying they ought to be fired in the article s to trail and the rest of it and a lot of it is just bluster. it's just bluster on his part. and he is inexperienced in foreign affairs, so he's on the phone with some leader and he has this rambling kind of disconnected conversation in which he says you need to do me a favor and any mentions some things and later on he says we need to investigate to see about the bidens. well, maybe he meant that as a quid pro quo, maybe he didn't. >> tucker: was interesting is at least a couple of the people, some of the most powerful testimony has come so far in the house from people who were legitimately shocked that the president might have a different policy position. >> one of the things you keepe hearing is the president -- one of the things the president was

disturbing here was established american foreign policy and that these diplomats and other officials, they represent that. as if the foreign policy is not supposed to be set by the president -- >> tucker: as if it's not a democracy. >> and democracy or no democracy, we have this constitution that reposes the power to set foreign policy in a president. it supposedly their job to carry out the policies that he sets for better or for worse. this may -- are not going to get into whether this is good policy or not. >> tucker: that's a different question. >> that's a different question but the fact that these guys didn't't like it is not a matter that should be in play here. >> tucker: it'sy his job to carry out their views. let's establish -- the pomposity. brit hume, thank you. >> you bet. >> tucker: the isis leader abu bakr al-baghdadi is dead and the credit may belong to some, true story, dirty underwear. we've got details onn the underwear next. ♪

♪ >> tucker: after hunting for him for years, american forces finally were able to corner and kill thena isis leader, abu bakr al-baghdadi, and they did it in part thanks to a pair of stolen underwear. this is one of those stories so strange that only our chief breaking news correspondent trace gallagher can unravel it and he joins us tonight, hey, trace. >> it was apparently carter's hype and let that initially confirmed thatat al-baghdadi was in a compound in northern syria. if they then began working with the cia for several months but last thursday the u.s. military

began a 48 hour countdown clock because baghdadi's next relocation was thought to be imminent. as you said, the fascinating part, the reason the kurds new when baghdadi was is because a kurdish undercover operative was able to sneak into the terror leaders compound and steel a pair of his underwear. a rapid dna test and then confirmed with 100% accuracy that it was in fact baghdadi and a commander with the kurdish led syrian defense forces told fox news the kurds also had an informant inside the compound during the raid and the state department hasta acknowledged the kurds played a key role in the operation, though u.s. officials they the raid itself was conducted solely by the u.s. military. al-baghdadi was killed after he fled down a dead end tunnel with three children and detonated a suicidee vest. his had remained intact allowing u.s. commandos to use biometrics, facial recognition and near instant dna analysis to

then verify his identity, but the identity of the dog who participated in the raid is still classified and despite at least one news outlet releasing it, for those who think dog doxxing is fine, a retired three-star general says revealing name could inadvertently reveal the handler's name and the military unit used in the raid. a a big time security concern, especially while the unit remains in syria. tucker. >> tucker: a story with everything, from dog doxxing took trapped by underwear -- that's why commandos go commando, so it won't go happened to them. over the weekend congressman katie hill announced that she was resigning from congress. she was caught in multiple affairs with people who worked for her. there's evidence shewo may have paid off at h least one staffero remain quiet about all thing but according to hill she didet nothing wrong, only the right-wingers are to blame for what happened, here's what she said. >> this coordinated campaign carried out by the right wing media and republican opponents

enabling and perpetuating my husband's abuse by providing him a platform is disgusting and unforgivable and they will be held accountable. >> tucker: yep, the press largely agrees, so here was a lawmaker who had sex with her staffers, a 22-year-old in one case, but that'sas okay, criticizing her as the real crime. >> i think there's a double-double standard on the hill, which is -- one is that women are treated more strictly than a man. our president gets away with so much more than katie hill. >> katie hill had this very promising political future but now her meteoric political rise isee been cut short by what she calls a smear campaign of revengels porn. if there was nothing necessarily improper about this woman living hers best life, it was the persn who was the stomach attempted to humiliate her and literally make or lose her job that is the one was problematic year. >> tucker: [laughs] this woman living her best life. we really are deep in the age of

euphemism. i hope someone is keeping track of all of this becausera it's jt too great, the stuff can't s disappear forever, we need to save it. deputynter of the story, editing manager at red state which broke the whole story. thanks so much for coming on. first and the legal part, the congress woman eye is threatening to sue you because you all ransom pictures, one of her naked combing her staffer's hair, another where i think she's smoking oblong naked with an iron cross tattoo. she said you didn't have the right to run these, do you expect that she will sueuexp yo? >> i hope not. we haven't received any kind of indication from attorneys that she would and i don't have any other comment on that. >> tucker: so where do these pictures come from? >> i'm not allowed to reveal my sources. >> tucker: i think from her statements she appears to believe they come from her husband. t tell us why you think this

was newsworthy. why did you run this story? >> the story was not the picture. the story was thery multiple affairs, one with one of our capitol hill staffers, one with the campaign staffer that are illegal and unethical depending on which one you're talking about and the story was also campaign funds being used to facilitate these affairs into possibly pay people often keep them quiet. the story was binge drinking to making someone, a congresswoman, missed flights to and from washington, d.c. there's a lot of other issues that i don't have anything to do with the photos and they are being ignored. >> tucker: to me that soundss like a young progressive member of congress living her best lif life. >> i disagree. >> tucker: that phrase cracks me up, i can't control myself. so i guess it goes without saying -- >> she's yolo-ing. >> tucker: if the situation were reversed, it's very easy to

see the msnbc panel condemning this member, a female beconservative. >> absolutely. absolutely. if it was a republican or a man, especially a republican man, they'd be goingg after them. >> tucker: look, i don't want to get too far out on a limb, i didn't feel especially threatened by whatever she was up to in her spare time. i don't think it really hurt the republic, but i'm wondering if this can be our new standard, where we decide not to hassle people over their personal weirdness, but the left won't keep to that standard, will they? >> no, they absolutely won't and i don't care what katie hill does in her bedroom either. i care that she holds two ethics standards she votes for them i care that she holds a result of the same standard that she holds other people too. >> tucker: yeah. so how did you feel -- she didn't use her name or the name of red state but i think she was referring to you when she blamed this whole thing on you as a

right wing website or her republican opponents. what was your response to that? >> right. i mean, obviously she's in a bad place right now so i don't want to respond in kind, but of course i didn't like being smeared as some kind of revenge porn paddler or o vast white rg conspiracy because this is simply not what happen. >> tucker: the self-righteousness is a bit much. i know an awful lot of people on the right end of any one of them were ever photographed naked to smoking a bongo with an iron cross tattoo, it would be on the cover -- >> yet. >> tucker: thanks. >> politico, everything. yeah, it would be the screen saver of everyone in washington. good to see you tonight, thank you so much for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: we often tell you about what's going on in california, our biggest state, physically are pretty estate by far and how it's falling apart. that's right wing span, right? turns out they literally can't even keep the lights on in

california. it's on fire and has no electricity. how did that happen? we will tell you after the brea break. plus, 2020 democrats are committed to confiscating your guns. who will that hurt most? we will explore that question just ahead. >> i don't go outside anywhere without a firearm but especially here in detroit. ♪ deadline is only weeks away. having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket. that's why i love healthmarkets your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies, to find the right medicare plan that fits you. in minutes you can find out if your current plan is the right fit. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? if not, maybe there's a better fit for you. call health markets now or visit healthmarkets.com

for your free fitscore. compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more. they work to help you and they do it all for free. ♪ healthmarkets only healthmarkets has the free fitscore. call the number on your screen call healthmarkets now

>> tucker: california was one of the greatest place in the world and had the best quality of life on planet earth and now the state is regressing to really estate before the industrial revolution. wildfires are ravaging it right now and that's happening partly thanks to decayingap infrastructure of the pacific gas & electric. in an effort to stop wild fires they have been cutting off power to millions of people, they can't keep the lights on or keep track of the quality of its infrastructure but it's very good at impressing california's

left-wing politicians. the company keeps, by contrast, precise data on the skin color of its employees and how many of their supplies come from diverse or lgbtq suppliers. it has made big donations to gavin newsom's gubernatorial campaigns of state leaders have in mindws too much as the state reverts back to essentially the middle ages. on fire with no electricity. dave rubin that lives in a state of california, host the rubin report on youtube, which requires electricity and he joins us tonight. thanks so much for coming on. you moved to california because it's a beautiful place and i agree with that. you've seen it really degrade in the time that you've been there but pg&e strikes me is all most a metaphor for the destruction of the state, so here's the utility which doesn't really know anything about its own infrastructure but knows everything about the race of its employees, how did we get there? >> it's just unbelievable. i've been in l.a. -- i'm in l.a. right now, i live about a minute away from one of the big fires that's still going, i have

friends that are evacuated.an los angeles, putting politics aside in southern california, might be the most beautiful part of the united states. the problem right now is that everything, everything from academia to public utilities to politics, everything that buys into this ridiculous progressive ideology that cares about what contractors are lgbt or how many black firemen we have or white this or asian that. everything that goes that road eventually breaks down. it is not how freedom is supposed to operate. what is supposed to happen, imagine if your house was on fire. would you care what the public utility or with the fire yompany, what contractor they brought in? what gender or sexuality or any of those things he or she was? it's just absolutely ridiculous. >> tucker: who would care? >> we got a situation -- of course he wouldn't care and we've got a situation right now where they are literally -- we are doing preemptive blackouts

in this state, which i think is the 11th largest economy in the entire world. we do preemptive blackouts because they don't want to put too much power --- too much pressure on the grid. try to imagine the absurdity of what's going on here and i hate to tell you, but we just don't have enough clear thinking, see more libertarian or conservative-minded people in california to fight with the progressives are doing to the state. >> tucker: but if you can't keep the lights on and you can't keep the place from burning down, you've reached a point where there's no w kind of lying about it l anymore. it's falling apart, it's a disaster, it's not civilized anymore. >> you know what, if i've learned anything by living in california and los angeles specifically, it's that no matter what happens, ideology seems to trump rationality. so in the six years that i've 'ven here, the amount of homeless encampments have expanded, virtually every exit you get off the 405 or the 101, there are no homeless people sitting right there were

actually that have basically built structures at the exits. now it's like if raising taxes on everybody and supposedly the progressive policies that care about poor people, if these things worked, wouldn't the places that progressive policies were enacted, wouldn't there bea less homeless? wouldn't there be less gun violence? all the things that theyy talked about but no, there's always more. this is not a coincidence. if these policies don't work, but if you just don't really think about i them, if you think we just have to throw money at things, throw money at things and they magically get better while you do whatever you want to do inet y your life you don't really want to think about the issues, then it all works and that's what we all have to fight. everyone across the country, because i travel the country often and people will say to me, dave, you've got to stop the people from california moving here to utah were moving here to denver for moving here to texas because then they bring the bad policies from california elsewhere. >> tucker: build a wall. walls are not just for our exterior borders, but that's just something to think about. >> can at least get on your side

of the wall? >> tucker: [laughs] join us here anytime in the swamp. good to see you tonight, thank you. >> thanks. >> tucker: some candidates running for president right now on the democratic side are openly promising what they privately wanted for years. if they want the nra stamped out, they want to ban guns. they may even want to take guns by force. >> the nra has got to go! the nra has got to go! >> the nra is the worst organization in this country. >> i am very much one who is against handguns and i know in my urban environment i see little to no need for guns at. all. >> tucker: just some rational discourse. we don't need guns. of course we need guns. if you're not allowed to have guns. that the adage of wealthy liberals obviously. bodyguards hide themselves away and safe gated neighborhoods. what about people who can't afford to do. that?

what will gun bans mean for people who live in, say, detroit, michigan? the show went to detroit to investigate that very question and here's what we found. >> my name is alayna and i live in the city of detroit. >> tucker: elaine it is an armed detroit air. >> i carry a lie 45. >> keep one in the chamber? >> definitely. keep it right here. >> tucker: she chooses to carry a gun to protect yourself. she says her guns helped her survive an armed carjacking. she was shot in the arm during the attack. she drove herself to the hospital. police never caught the attackers. >> they had a k and i hader my glock and it went down. they saw a pretty girl with pink lipstick and they just thought that they could get me and surprise, surprise. ♪ >> tucker: stories like hers are why so many people in detroit decided to take personal protection into their own hands. >> why do you carry a firearm?

>> because i live in detroit. [laughs] >> why not call the police? >> sometimes it takes a while. >> tucker: detroit's chief of ilpolice james craig agrees. >> it only takes a minute or less for violence to happen and it's over. >> tucker: that's why craig strongly supports the right to carry. >> if a citizen is armed, they have a better opportunity of staying alive than if they weren't. >> tucker: at michigan issues gun permits to anyone in detroit who takes a class passes a background check. took her firearms class with detroit native rick actor. >> let's do this. >> tucker: the detroit-based gun rights group named "legally armed in detroit" has helped thousands of women get there carry permits. >> we have a growing number of women here in metro detroit, we are learning about firearms and what it takes to defend themselvesth. >> to recommend law-abiding citizens go out and get that permit?

>> absolutely. i particularly found interesting going over -- all female who want carry and conceal weapons. >> tucker: where detroit is located, nearly one in every ten people has a carry permit. >> we have professionals. we have house moms, we have people who are just everyday normal citizens. >> criminals pray and look for victims, they are usually looking for those they believe are defenseless. we are talking about women, we are talking with the elderly. >> there's always going to be crime. as always going to be -- the devil came conceal and destroy up and he's not going anywhere. people would still carry. my dad always said i'd rather be judged by 12 and carried by six. if that how it goes? >> tucker: that's how it goes. she's hardly alone. part two of our series on being legally armed in the city of detroit airs tomorrow night.

good luck to beto trying to take those guns away. instead of focusing on actual skills, which are suspect, p public schools want to teach kids that math is racist. that's right. whatever happened to education? goodti question. sad story, we've got details next. ♪ devices are like doorways

that could allow hackers into your home. and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside

from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today. >> tucker: jeff bezos' "washington post," the newspaper that brought you democracy diesj in darkness has a new idea, get rid of freedom of speech. that's the case made in an op-ed by former "time" magazine managing editor richard stengel. he says it's time to cancel america's 200 year experiment with free expression. may have survived the civil war, two world wars, half a century

of communist subversion, but the first amendment, he claims, has outlived its usefulness. why? because he's worried that in thp marketplace of ideas, the wrong ideas are winning. according to him it's time for the united states to start passing so-called hate speech laws. americans shouldn't derive their rights from the founders of our ownfo history or from even what our people want. ought to be taken or tips fromm arab dictatorships. if this is direct quote. even the most sophisticated arab diplomat that i dealt with did not understand why thews first amendment allows a member to burn the koran. why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that? it's a fair question." his wording tells you a lot about the way he thinks. arab diplomats are sophisticated. perhaps they went to the same corrupt schools that heated or maybe they eat at the same restaurants. if they don't like free speech, then it doesn't matter if all of them represent corrupt backwards autocracies. their opinions are worth

listening to. chinese diplomats are sophisticated too, they read books and attend symphonies. maybe he listened to their views on human rights next. in the end what this is really about, to him and people like him, only respectable people, that as members of a coastal privilegedal opinion-setting class, our allowed freedom of thought. can you imagine if you tried to circumscribe richard stengel's speech? you're not allowed to saych tha, richard stengel, we are going to throw you in prison. would he be for abridging the first amendment then? know. but in his view the rest of the country can only debate on the terms set by him and his friends. but right now that's not happening. america's leaks have screwed up the country's ordinary people aren't listening to them anymore. most people don't care what richard stengel thinks. does "time" magazine even exist anymore? probably not. it doesn't deserve to, it was garbage. stengelit complains that free speech is allowing "falsehoods" to spread lies. he says free speech is undermining tolerance and enablingli determination. that's a smoke screen.

it's stengel who is pushing intolerance and discrimination. it is literally advocating against free speech, but he needs intolerance and discrimination because that's the only way he and his friends and keep controlling you. ♪ >> tucker: so recent public polling on the question of free speech shows an awful lot of young americans don't believe in the first amendment. that's not surprising, schools have been infected with an extremist woke ideology that attacks the idea of freedom of speech, and by the way it's not just in reading or social studies. even math is pray to the politics of the left. educators are pursuing an ethnic study framing that adds radical racial politics to multiplication and division. the framework teaches children that math is objective and of course is a tool used by some racists to oppress others.

professor at the university of maryland joins us tonight. whatever happened to the party of science? if you get to the point where you don't even believe in math, why should i listen to you? >> festival, we are we're not saying -- i don't think anyone in the world is saying that math in and of itself is racist. it's how it's applied. it like with anything, we can say science can be applied in ways that can be racially biased. matt certainly can be used as praxis or as a way to teach subjects using ethnic studies. >> tucker: a coffee cup can be used as a deadlydi weapon, but e don't teach kids that it's dangerous because it's not inherently dangerous. it can be misused because people are bad, right? >> i think math is a little bit different than a coffee cup. >> tucker: but math is not subjective. math is objective. >> math is not subjective but again, i think people are missing the point here. what they are trying to do in thee seattle schools is teach kids math and have them learn better, and they've seen results

using this ethnic studies framework. for example, one of things that happenedle in san francisco, and they studied this at stanford, is that they saw when they brought ethnic studies into they subjectub's, into their various subjects, they saw a 21% increase in attendance and grade point averages went up by 1.4 points. >> tucker: okay, that makes me sad because we both know that's not real. >> how is that not real? >> tucker: annoying about racism doesn't make you better at math sobo let's look at the countries that really do -- >> showing how you can apply math is what makes you better ac math. >> tucker: in singapore for example, mainland china. much higher math scores than we have. to think that they infuse their math lessons with lectures about racism? >> no, they may not. >> tucker: they don't. they are laughing at us because they know how pathetic this is. >> you're not privy to the curriculum over in singapore.

>> tucker: i'me privy to their attitudes, which is one of deadly seriousness where kids have to learn or else they fall behind. >> i think studies can be deadly serious. the point is that if it works, why would we argue against something that's been proven to work? >> tucker: but it hasn't -- >> but it has, that's a 1.4%. increase in grade point average. 21% increase in attendance. >> tucker: but these are schools that in a lot of cases, the state of california for example, the overwhelming majority of the kids aren't at grade level in math so the schools are terrible, the teachers are inept, the system is a joke. are these -- >> we are not discussing things -- in addition. >> tucker: on objective testability, not whether the teacher is pleased with you, but whether or not you can understand a math medical formula for example, talk about racism will increase the students -- >> that is what was seen in a

216 study from stanford. >> tucker: why didn't we think of this before? >> you tell me. >> tucker: [laughs] it's breaking my heart because we both know that in five years seattle isn't going to be leading the nation in math scoresco. >> what we want to see his improvement and we have seen it before. they are trying new ways to teach young children of all different backgrounds about math and science and many others -- >> tucker: us question, singapore is an ethnically diverse place. >> sure. >> tucker: why don't we just copy what they do if they really want the kids to be good at math? >> i think there have been many different attempts at trying to make -- >> tucker: they are nott trying that in seattle because it's too hard. >> i don't think it's any harder than if lamenting what they are implement in grade they tried many different ways. no child left behind. race to the top. they are looking for ways that work and they've seen evidence that this works. >> tucker: that none of that stuff works. we know that, we can agree on that. inc. you very much.

>> thanks a lot. >> tucker: covington catholic high school or nick sandmann nearly had his life ruined for smiling at a man beating a drum in his face. now there is no hope for his lawsuit against "the washington post," this country's most prolific disseminate or of lies. that'sol next. ♪ from the military and after i went in to aspen dental it was just like night and day. they told me they were gonna take some x-rays, she said "and it's gonna be no charge to you". i'm not used to getting that type of service. my name is robert chackley and my rank for the military was retired sergeant major. at aspen dental we're all about yes. like yes to payments on your timeline not ours. yes to free exam and x-rays for patients without insurance. and yes whenever you're ready to get started so are we. call or book online at aspendental.com a general dentistry office. if you're like us, you have a box of old video tapes, film reels, and photos, just degrading away in your closet. - [nick] legacybox saves these memories by professionally digitizing them on dvd, thumb drive, or the cloud.

- [adam] it's easy. load legacybox with your media, and you get back your originals and new digitized copies. - [nick] legacybox is simple and safe with over a half a million satisfied customers. - preserve your memories today. visit legacybox.com and get 40% off. - [nick] that's legacybox.com.

>> tucker: it's been close to a year since america's entire media class united as one. over the weekend, in fact, tooks time off from doingla whatever creepy things they do on the weekend to come together to destroy a few high schoolers from covington catholic high school in kentucky. just on principles, didn't like the way they looked. now, tonight, there is a renewed hope thatld those high schoolers could finally get justice for what they went through. this week, a federal judge partly reopened high schooler nick sandmann's $250 million lawsuit against "the washington post," a former newspaper, now a purveyor of filthy and dishonest stories.hi the ruling will allow sandmann

to obtain documents from the "post" which would almost certainly expose wrongdoing by the "post." owned by jeff bezos, the richest man in the world. todd mcmurtry is an attorney who represents nick sandmann and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on here and what does this ruling mean in practical terms? >> what the ruling means is that we do get to proceed with discovery. p although we had overcome some hurdles initially with the court dismissing our first complaint, the judge did allow us to introduce additional evidence, including some video evidence, and some additional allegations against nathan phillips, and now we can proceed. while we are not proceeding with the full complain that we initially filed, but we are proceeding with a different one. >> tucker: there are things you want to learn from "the washington post." what are you looking to learn? >> and litigation like this, what we will do first off is we will ask "the washington post" to produce its emails, its text messages, its internal messaging, which i think they use something called slack not

notes, that are related to nicholas sandmann. and then we will review that and figure out what "the washington post" was thinking when they republished the false, factual narrative -- >> tucker: hold on. you are not allowed to know that because journalism -- they get to destroy the life of high school kids but you can't find out why they did it. you know that, right? >> well, i think that judge in kentucky is going to allow us to inquire into what they did so i'm very hopeful we will be able to turn the tables on that s equation. >> tucker: so this is a paper that is owned personally by the richest man in the world, jeff bezos. this is his form of lobbying here in the nation's capital, really. $250 million. why doesn't he settle with the students whose lives he so clearly hurt? >> tucker, we have not really sought any opportunity to settle with "the washington post" but we intend to pursue the cases against "the washington post," cnn, and nbc, to see which of these cases is the strongest and

we will take some, if not all, of the cases to trial ultimately. the truth is that attorneys do get to points where they settle in their clients' best interest but we are not there yet. >> tucker: last question. if you find out this informatiot about why the post tried to destroy the lives of these kids, you are going to make it public, i assume? >> yes. that type of information is not confidential. it would be made public in court filings and in motion practice that would proceed with this case, so we are basically going to pull back the blinds and see what's behind there, and i expect we will get a very good look at the thought process of "the washington post" and others as we proceed in discovery. a >> tucker: i'm rooting for you. it's disgusting what they did. characteristically disgusting. thank you so much for coming on. i appreciate it. >> great, thank you. >> tucker: we are out of time. sadly. we could go on and on and on but the good news is, we will be back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity,

smugness, and groupthink. dvr it, if you have an advanced degreen in electronics -- electrical engineering or whatever. good night from washington. sean hannity takes the reins right now from new york city. >> sean: one swamp to the other. welcome to "hannity." today is day 35 of the democrats secret, soviet style, impeachment coup attempt, although it's really been their goal, think about it, from the day that you, we the people, elected donald trump as president. breaking just moments ago, the democratic party may be starting to fracture. look at this, at least one democratic congresswoman now reportedly planning to oppose his party's latest, unfair -- which we will explain -- impeachment measure.st we will have a full report tonight from capitol hill, but first, another day, secret meeting, secret hearing, secret transcripts, secret whistle-blower, non whistle-blower, here say whistle-blower, all because of a phone call between president trump and the president of