♪ >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." for two long years james comey played the role of the america's moral martyr and for two years it had worked for him. in the closing days of 2016 you will remember, comey was likely the most hated man on the american left. that bizarre press conferenceth he held in july of that yearhe in which he described hillary clinton as legally innocent but morally guilty may in the end cost democrats the election. it's possible.he they hated him for it. less than a year later, though, donald trump fired james comey as the f.b.i. director. whatever trump dislikes, liberals love so comey is back in the good graces again.

he titled the book "a higher loyalty." meaning that he unlike you is a man of principle. accountable only to his god and conscience. in contrast to your grubby political concerns. james comey is the last honesto man in america. he makes that point every timeas he appears in public. as man of integrity, james comey would like you to know despite the fact he has no evidence to support the claim, he's certain that vladimir putin has been blackmailing trump since day one. >> i never thought the words would come out of my mouth but i don't know whether the current president of the united states with the prostitutes peeing on each other in moscow in 2013, it's possible but i don't know. >> tucker: possible. he's not sure. it's possible. that is when you run the f.b.i. you deal with thicks that are possible. even after the d.o.j. inspector general report came out, destroying comey's credibilities and the claims he forted over the years he persisted he published a smug op-ed in the "washington post"

claiming to be vindicated of all wrongdoing. why would james comey do is a that? it's like he didn't think you had the internet and couldn't read the report for himself. maybe he's so used to being treated as untouchable he believed that he was. but in end as always happens the reality intruded. the i.g. report didn't actually vindicate james comey. instead it revealed frightfuln' abuse of power for the f.b.i. that he ran that should terrify americans left, rightat and center. inspector general horowitz summed it up on capitol hill. watch. >> we identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the application. seven in the first application. total of 17 by the final renewal application. >> tucker: one omission that could be a mistake. it happens.. 17 of them? that is not a mistake. that is either malice or gross incompetence or combination of both. either way it's not reassuring.

in the end, someone as beloved by the news media as james comey had to answer for the 17 omissions. over the weekend, comey appeared on fox. he said this about the i.g. report. >> he's right, i was wrong..g i was overconfident in the procedures that the f.b.i. and justice had built over 20 years. i thought they were robust enough. it's incredibly hard to get aug fisa. i was over confident in those. he is right. there were sloppiness. 17 things that should have been in application or discuss and characterized differently. it was not acceptable. so he is right, i was wrong. >> tucker: it's incredibly hard to get a fisa. really? how incredibly hard is it, jim comey? how many have been turned down in the past 15 year? you don't have the numbers do you? not many is the real answer. but that wasn't even the most damning part of the interview with that liar you just saw. at one point jim comey was asked if lying to fisa court to spy on american citizen

might merit professional consequences. here is how he responded. >> if you were still there and all of this came out and it turned out it happened on your watch, would you resign? >> no, i don't think so. there were more mistakes more consequential than this in my tenure and the important thing is to be transparent about it. >> tucker: think about it.co there were worse mistakes than knowingly using partisan lies to spy on american citizen but jim comey won't tell you what they are because he believes in transparency. did you catch all that? that was all in one sentence, by the way. t sentence that contradicts itself. did anyone notice? nobody seemed to. we need new inspector general to find out what he is talking about. how worried should we be? can we trust the f.b.i. is no longer used as political tool from the left? we are joined by the author of "ball of collusion: the plot

to rig an election and join presidency." andy, thank you for coming on.: do you have any idea what former director comey meant when he said, "i have seen worse mistakes happen under my watch but i can't tell you what they are." what do you think they are? >> if that is so, tucker, it's frightening. i thought it was a pattern of distancing himself from the investigation that up until now we had every reason to think he was intimately involved in. >> tucker: so why would we revise the view of that? how could he not have been intimately involved in it? >> i'm not revising my view of it. i don't think it's possible for an f.b.i. director not to be involved in the investigation of this. t the magnitude of this, common sense tells us, you would want to be involved. we know that he was involved in meetings with incumbent president and the president elect where he was going to be

asked about the investigation. so any head of the f.b.i. would want to be brought up to speed if he wasn't already up to speed.p we know that when we went to see trump at trump tower on january 6, the f.b.i. actually treated that an investigative opportunity in the russia investigation where he was acting as if he were a case agent and he was gng to write a report for the investigation as he sped his way away from the meeting with trump. there is a lot of reason there to understand that he was involved. plus, under the fisa law he had to certify that the surveillance that they were looking for was for foreign investigative purposes. and that there weren't any lesser intrusive means to get the same information they were looking for. so the law doesn't let him off the hook either. >> tucker: so as you noted, he is running the f.b.i.

he is going to speak directly to the president-elect of the united states. unbeknownst to the president-elect the meeting is part of an investigation. comey is claiming he wasn'tt really involved in that investigation. i mean that just seems like it can't be anything but a lie. can it? >> not only that, tucker, but six days after that, they went back to the fisa court to get t the first renewal application of the fisa surveillance which it seems to me they clearlyy did because they wanted to get that button down and done before trump took office. when he could have been in a position to shut the investigation down. h so all of this looks to me like it is pretty strategic all along the way. >> tucker: really quick, do you sincerely believe that they sincerely believed that donald trump might have been a russian agent? >> yes. i don't think -- i think tucker that with the steele

dossier, steele was pushing on an open door. i think they were predisposed to think the worst of trump. i don't believe they would have had a situation where they would swear under oath that the trump campaign might be in a cyber espionage conspiracy with the kremlin unless they believed there was a good chance it was true. >> tucker: to believe maybe b trump had a weird personal life or wasn't good at managing casinos okay. but that he working for the russians?ng they are idiots obviously, i would argue. >> well, there was no evidence to support that. >> tucker: right. exactly. so weird. thank you for that. i appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: the former deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism at the f.b.i. and he joins us. terry, thank you for coming.b on. i know that you have been concerned over the last couple of years about what jim comey public appearances are doingea to people's perception of the f.b.i., to the bureau's credibility. do you think this interview he did over the weekend helps or hurts? >> it doesn't help at all but

i think everybody is glad he's gone. jim comey has told so many stories and he has painted hisgo own storybook land if you want to call it that, tucker, in the last couple of years.t he kind of walks around and he lets us all know the facts ofd what is going on in the little land of his. two reports from the i.g. and the mueller report, now we know that he didn't have the facts right. i think all along, though, the gnawing suspicion that many of us have had, especially former agents and the people who usedus to work on the senate floor isnd that there was a major, major breakdown of discipline inside the f.b.i. at the highest level. this isn't so much about case agents. in fact, in the i.g. report there is a great example of a case agent asking a very germane question. then he was essentially lied to by a high-level official. so those are the kind of things that are not going to go away.

we still really with all this paper and all this reporting, we still don't know why that occurred. but we can i think have some pretty good ideas. >> tucker: how distressingbu is it to you to watch the former director of the f.b.i., the most powerful law enforcement official in the united states, in the world likely, lie? clearly lying. he's clearly not telling the truth. how damaging is that to thely bureau? >> it's terribly damaging. especially when you are standing in front of the seal that says, "fidelity, bravery and integrity." and since we preach that from the minute an agent comes in an academy or any f.b.i. employee. not just f.b.i. agents. any employee, support employees. i don't think we will recover from that easily. i'm spoiled. i worked for many years with freese as the f.b.i. director. with comey it is minimized and there is a lot of work done to bring them back to life.

>> tucker: what a shame it is. terry, you have been here since the beginning. we appreciate it. thank you very much.e >> you're welcome. tucker, thank you. >> tucker: according to joe biden, he said this in public, president obama would endorse him. he is chomping at the bit to do so. but biden wanted the 2020 race to be a fair fight so he asked for barack obama not to aiendorse. here it is. >> why hasn't president obama endorsed you? you served together for eight years. >> because i have to earn -- i want to earn it on my own. >> did he offer to endorse you? >> i asked him not to. we didn't get there. he said okay. h i think he thinks it's better for me. >> tucker: sad. you can jump on joe biden with all four paws "you're lying!" it's much more poignant than that. the only reason obama is not saying anything about biden to avoid embarrassing biden. but indirectly, he is saying

it, actually. an event in singapore, the obama said the problems of the world are due to old people, usually old men not getting out of the way. not clear who he is referring to. in fact he said that women are categorically better leaders than men purely on the basisd of their sex. richard is an attorney and former adviser to the other dynasty, bill and hillary clinton. thank you for coming on. >> sure. >> tucker: for many levels here but for obama tell us that women should be in charge, i'm old enough to remember when we learned that the obama white house was paying women 88 cents to every dollar they were paying men. that is not speculation. that is actually true. why didn't obama governs according to this precept if he believed it? >> it's interesting. first of all, he is not going to go to a private meeting in singapore for which there is

no audio or video to deliver a political message about our presidential campaign. >> tucker: wait. we hearted it, didn't we? >> ronald reagan didn't endorse george h.w. bush until may of 1988. that would be next may relative to now. so this notion that somehow or other what is obama doing, clearly he doesn't like biden. that is nutty. >> tucker: if i could say ronald reagan was the sitting u.s. president at the time. a little different. >> barely. obama is the most recent democratic president. >> tucker: look. he is sending a clear message. you know as well as i if we wanted to endorse biden he could have. this whole thing would have been over with. he isn't. now he is saying women should be in charge. this is the man paying 88 cents on the dollar to women. a good deal for him, i guess. why aren't democrats on the cusp of nominating a female if they are so progressive? seriously.

>> remember the supreme court nominees were not the 88 cents on a dollar types. right? that obama put on the supreme court. this is not somebody who -- >> tucker: he put mediocre people on the court. >> these are people who didn't shirk away from advancing women and he didn't harass them. >> tucker: why didn't he pay them as much as men? >> historically they are under paid and that is a shame. >> tucker: why didn't he pay them more? >> it's a function of wheret they were when he paid them. >> the ledbetter act people are always saying you give them the same number. you are using the dodge conservatives use. >> i don't know if you represent the republican party. i think not on this. >> definitely not. >> the democrats who have far more females in the senate, house, governor, mayoral seats are not outraged by what obama said. >> tucker: i'm not outraged

by what he said but i wonder if he going to posture and jump up and down as some sort of fake feminist then he should pay women as much as men. i'm the only person to point it out. that is my job. really a quick. why aren't democrats if they're as woke as they claim to be, as obama says he is, why do they bother with biden or bernie? elderly white guys they say they hate every day but on the cusp to nominate one. >> democratic voters skew older in primaries. bernie has supporters from the 2016. and i think what if you had barack obama here he'd say yes, joe biden is older than i'd like. but so is trump. i think that trump poses a threat to the long-term viability of the united states as we know it. if it takes joe biden to beat him, god willing that -- >> tucker: why don't they nominate stacey abrams? this feels sexist to me. >> she didn't get in the race. >> tucker: blame the victim! i can't believe you are

blaming stacey abrams. >> they talked about joe biden being dead man walking on this network but he is advancing his lead with the democrats. >> tucker: you are right. that is true. richard, hard to believe but you are right. good to see you. occasionally. the impeachment saga taught america a lot about how joe biden used his father's name to get rich in ukraine. but there is another way that biden family enriched itself. by shilling for credit card companies. true. we've got the details. way more interesting than anything that happened in ukraine. our eye-opening report is after the break. ♪

be

>> tucker: well, thanks to impeachment proceedings now in progress, we now know a lott more than we thought we would about hunter biden's business dealings in ukraine. biden apparently received biden apparently received millions from a foreign company to do work he wasn't even theoretically qualified to do. the purpose of paying him all that money, of course, was to influence his father who at the time was vice president of the united states. and in charge of overseeingre reforms and wait for it, ukraine. it was a payoff. that was the definition of a corrupt arrangement obviously. don't let the liars in washington, the ones eager to protect their own corruption tell you it wasn't. it was.t but that is not the only scandal that hunter biden participated in. in fact, it's not even the worst scandal. here is a far bigger one. one that nobody in washington wants to talk about in part because it implicates them. here it is. immediately after graduating

from law school, biden took a lucrative management track job at m.b.n.a., the delaware based credit card company. hunter biden worked at mbna for three years. even after he left the company the checks kept coming.. from 2001 to 2005, mbna sent hunter biden more than $100,000 a year for doing -- well, it's not clear what he was doing. how do you get a job and paid for doing no work? it helps to have a father in the senate. doing bidding for the credit card company. n hunter biden met that requirement.t for decades biden was the enthusiastic servant of the consumer debt society. he was so shameless about it he was referred to the senator for mbna. he carried their water on capitol hill.

in '90s the cost of healthcare skyrocketed for most people and many americans turned to high interest debt to stay afloat.ck i was a lucrative period for lenders. credit card companies worried too many people might try to escape the debt through bankruptcy.an so they turned to the congress to make it more difficult and protect their business. one of the world's sleaziest and the most destructive businesses. joe biden was eager to help them. middle class joe was an eager backer of a law designed to hurt the middle class. because everything in washington is irony. the law was called "the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005." like so many bills that congress passes, everything about the title was a lie. there was no epidemic of bankruptcy abuse in america at the time. the bill did nothing meaningful to protect consumers. no. instead, the beneficiaries of the law were credit card companies. that is why they spent $100 million to get it through the

congress. before the bill was passed judges determined if a bankruptcy filing was abusive and should be dismissed. thanks to lobbying from the high-interest lenders the standard was changed to rigid means test of filer's income. it gave judges leslieway to consider facts of a particular case. it also imposed burdensome paperwork requirement and put liability on bankruptcy attorneys. the result was exactly what the credit card companies had intended. filingad for interruption took longer and cost more. therefore, this was the real point, fewer people could afford to do it. so in the bill's provisions were obviously cruel, the new law prevented young people discharging student loan debt through bankruptcy. even unwise and unfair loans from private lenders. bankruptcy could not erase them. that meant that 18-year-olds who had been pressured for taking on life destroying amount of the student loan o

debt could never get rid of the debt. they were stuck with it forever. think about that for a moment. america's middle class was beginning to crumbable in the face of the rising education cost. in the end it did crumble, as you know. what did congress do? congress rushed in to side e with the creditors and make the crisis far worse for normal people. joe biden was part of the problem.or he did far more than most to make it happen. why would biden do that? f he and his family had been thoroughly bribed by big finance. b by the credit card companies. to be fair, they weren't alone in that. we are not going to lie to you. in 2005, every single republican in congress voted for the bankruptcy bill. george w. bush the president at the time signed it in to law. what did voters think of that? they were not impressed. why would they be impressed? the republicans were crushed in the next two elections. in 2008, they lost to barack obama who voted against the bankruptcy bill. so what is the lesson of all of this? the lesson should be clear to both parties but for some

reason never is clear. so write this down. it's the iron law of modern politics. when you take the side of finance over voters, you lose. by the way, you deserve to lose. does that make sense? of course it makes sense. politicians are literally thees only ones who don't understand it. w well, impeachment has not been a good thing for the mental well-being of people appearing on msnbc. over the weekend, that channel suffered a spasm of the hallucinations worthy of the salem witch trials. actually, it's hilarious. you'll see it.or and then mark steyn wills. respond. next. d then stey mark steyn will

- 10 years ago, we started legacybox. 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.

back to tucker carlson. >> tucker: you think msnbc is far out during the week, you should see the weekend. it's effervescent. on a sunday panel, joy reid and her colleagues conjured up a vision. what if and follow the logic now president trump is impeached, convicted, and then simply refuses to leave office. >> what happens -- in all seriousness, what happens if donald trump, if he just says you know what? if i leave the office i might be prosecuted in new york. i ain't leaving. what would happen? he keeps joking about it. but dictatorships happen all over the world when the person who jokes about not leaving doesn't leave.

he talks about himself he says everyone addresses him as "sir." he speaks like mussolini. >> if he said i deserve a third term, he would get support from the base. that should scare everyone who believes in the republic. >> they will go to street and say yes, you are supposed to have a third term. >> he thinks i'm pardoning war criminals so if i have to overstay the term, i'll call on the military and they will help me. >> there is a slide to the belief in totalitarian. >> if you ever get a call to book the joy reid weekend show, take it as an insult it is meant tove be. it's the lowest level. w so be the clear, a factual matter since this is a news channel. trump has never threatened to refuse to leave office if he

is convicted in an impeachment trial. of course he won't be. he has not threatened to launch a military coup. this is part of the elaborate fantasy underway in joy reid's head where the f.b.i. is investigating a plot where her computer was hacked. or whatever. in any case the fantasy that others are eager to join. i got weirder than what we showed you. joy reid went on to speculate about what would happen if trump won re-election by having russia rig the votes in vermont. >> let's say that on election night it's announced that donald trump won vermont.t' everyone knows that is not possible. but somehow because we have another influences that get involved in the election, that is the way that he claims that he won the election. what can the public do about h it if they believe that the election is not, was not legitimate? >> tucker: is payota legal in some parts of the united states? apparently. do you have to eat the buttons

before hosting the show? you shouldn't. it's just wrong. author and the columnist mark steyn joins us and he watched what you saw. what do you make of that? >> well, you know, i loved it but i gather that 37 town clerks in small vermont towns below, with the populations below 500. 37 vermont town clerksks recently acquired daches inrk russia so putin may have it sewn up. joy reid finally figured it out. while the democrats have beenal distracted investigating trump for stealing the 2016 election, he has already stolen the 2024 election.dy that is how smart he is. you know -- >> tucker: like hopscotch theft. he is jumping over the current election to steal the next one.el >> yeah, yeah! they just haven't, they just haven't figured it out. you said, you said that thisai was like the salem witch

trials before the break. it's actually like the medieval ducking stool where if a woman went under the water and came up breathing it proves she was a witch. if the woman drowned, it proves she was innocent but she was already dead so it's no great shakes. the only evidence that trump stole the election is that he won the election. in the democrats' -- so the democrats, so the democrats, the only way that trump can prove his to be innocent on the ducking stool is to lose an election. the guys have already baked in the fact that he is going to win again and then they have already lost in paranoid fevers of him staying in power. you said something that basically they could just put up as a title card for the whole hour. you said something a couple of weeks ago. the left always accuses the right of what they are doing. when joy reid talks about not

accepting the results of the 2024 election, that is her eight years on. >> tucker: really. i wonder how the f.b.i. investigation on the hacked computer is going. i have a note to follow-up. >> no, no. don't worry. comey will really get it in the next report. >> tucker: i hope so. the great mark steyn. it's great to see you tonight. >> thank you, tucker.on >> tucker: well, in california, 2014's proposition 47 made it basically impossible for prosecutors to do anything about shoplifting. even big-time shoplifting. so not surprisingly, the state of california has seen a surge in theft. a lot of it brazen. but the trend is not confined to california. across the country, the so-called criminal justice reform and left wing prosecutors, a trend among rich people, if you haven't noticed, are effectively unleashing a wave of property crime. it's gotten so bad that it's affecting very large companies

and their bottom line. in a recent call for example with the investors, home depot said the opioid epidemic had caused a spike in left so profound that it's undercutting the company's revenue, its stock price. the retail federation says in the past year two-third of retail businesses seen a rise of theft by organized shoplifting rings. how did it happen? larry elders, radio host, is joining us tonight. the line you get from the left on shoplifting is people areht hungry. they take things they need. pampers and milk. is that what is going on here? >> no, that is not what is going on here. this whole thing started, tucker, because of the prison overcrowding and a supreme court case that ruled california's prisons were so overcrowded it was tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.rn so there was a push to use private prisons or build more prisons and nobody wanted to do that so the voters went to the ballot box and passed

proposition 47 five years ago.at now they basically reduced six categories that used to be felonies to misdemeanors to allow prisons who are inin prison, who would now bede convicted only of the misdemeanors to have the sentences reexamined. a lot of people who were let out and they also raised the amount of the money you can steal and not be prosecuted for a felony. so if you steal less than $950 you are a misdemeanor criminal. l and a lot of times the stores don't bother to call the cops because the cops won't prosecute them. there are stores who say people come in there with calculators, tucker, stealingho stuff so the amount they steal does not exceed $950. so in the event they get busted they won't go to prison for longer than a year. >> tucker: i mean the point of laws, of course, is to keep the rest of us safe. it's also to send a message about what we believe and what we value. a normal person believes that theft is wrong. what does it tell you that thet professional left doesn't

believe that theft is wrong? >> who saw this coming? what they believe is that bad guys are bad guys because of the environment.re you can't be too hard on them. so we'll let them out. not surprisingly crime has gone up, especially in places like l.a. and san francisco. the number one responsibility for government as far as i'm concerned is to protect peoplele and property. that is not what is happening here in california. we have enough money to build a bullet train and enough money to spend $25 million a year on illegal aliens but w don't have the money to put people behind bars for their sentences. it's outrageous. >> tucker: the first job of the government is protect people and property. you are right. not to solve global warming or raise our self-esteem.m. >> or ban plastic straws. >> tucker: that's right. great to see you. thank you so much. >> you, too. >> tucker: the left refused to learn any lessons from 2016. m from brexit in the u.k. orke from donald trump's election here.

now the international left has suffered the massive defeat. the biggest in many generations. are they ready to start listening to voters? don't bet on it. we will tell you how we know that next. ♪

>> deadly storms sweep across the south. for people had been killed and many more hurt by tornadoes and heavy rain. first responders are trying to reach hard-hit areas. they have downed power lines and several louisiana communities before causing more damage in mississippi. 20,000 homes and businesses are

without lights at this hour. more devastating rain and wind are expected overnight. the house is expected to vote tuesday to provide $25 million for government research on gun safety. the bipartisan deal marks the first time in two decades that federal money would be used on gun related issues. advocates say it's a major breakthrough. i'm marion rafferty. back to tucker carlson. >> tucker: the polls didn't predict it, but in the end jeremy corbyn's labour party got screamed in the election. parties that had voted for them for generations suddenly went for the boris johnson's conservatives. it's the left's worst defeat since the0 election of 1935, more than 80 years ago. stinging doesn't begin to describe britain's reduction of the left. as the writer put it, "imagine the overwhelmingly republican state of kentucky voting for alexandria ocasio-cortez in the next presidential

election." that is how shocking and unexpected the british election just was. what do the results mean for the rest of us? well, strikingly, almost nobody on the left seems interested in finding out what it means. in a long analysis with "the new yorker" for example, the british writer john cassidy concludes labour lost the election because corbyn wasn't a talented politician. that is his explanation. but in the same piece he cites a series of polls showing that the labour economic program remains popular. but wait a second. that is confusing. if the voters preferred the labour policies on pocketbook issues andnd apparently they did, why did they refuse to vote for labour on election day? liberals don't want to ponder that or consider the implications for them in the 2020 election. "time" magazine spoke for many on the left when it ran a piece, "does the u.k. election hold lessons for the democrats?" not exactly, the experts say. they say stop thinking so much.

everything is fine. by the way, anyone who disagrees with that is a racist. okay.s before we move to the next topic let's hear from someone who might know the answer. life-long labour voter whoho rejected the party. paul emberey is a fireman from london and long-time union activist. he wrote a fascinating article explain why labour lost and why he didn't vote for them. ask yourself if this is familiar to you as an american. he says the election results may have shocked the media but would come to no one who was paying attention and wasn't blinded by the fanaticism. some of us long warned working class workers that the post industrial and the smalltown britain were becoming alienated from the party but banging our heads against a brick wall. the liberals didn't listen to us. they believe hammering on

about the economic inequality would be enough to get labor over the line. doing so they made a major miscalculation. they failed to grasp working class voters desire something more than economic security. they want cultural security, too. they want the politicians to respect their way of life and the sense of place and belonging. to elevate real world concepts; such as, work, family and community over nebulous constructs like diversity and equality and inclusivity. by immersing itself in the destructive creed of identity politics in championing such policies; such as, open borders, labor placed itself on a completely different wavelength to millions across provincial britain without whose support it could not win power. in the end labour was using a cultural war i didn't realize it was fighting. if you replaced "labour" with "democratic party" and you wouldn't know it was britain. he goes on to say if labour

are be the party of the working class it's going to find the spirit of the early tradition that spoke to workers' patriotic and humanitarian instincts and offered them a natural home. they must exploit the sweet spot in the british politics that marries demands for economic justice with those for cultural stability. move heaven and earth to reconnect with voters in the hard-pressed post industrial and coastal towns who looked on bewildered as their communities were subjected to intense economic and cultural change. sound familiar? and felt that labour was indifferent to their plight. it must rekindle politics of belonging built around shared values and common cultural bonds. and crucially it must be unremittingly post liberal in perspective and policy development.

but to achieve any of that, labour must stop treating the traditional working class as though they were an embarrassing elderly relative. it must learn to respect those who for example voted for brexit. those who opposed large-scale immigration. those who want to see a tough and effective justice system. those who feel proud to be british. those who support the reassertion of the role of the family at the center of society. those who prefer a welfare system based around the reciprocity, something for something. rather than universal entitlement. those who believe in nation state. such people were once welcome build the labour party and felt comfortable voting for it. but now so many of the party activists look on the voters as if they were a different species altogether. the price has been paid in millions of lost votes." end quote. there you have it. patriotic, practical, tolerant

but skeptical of change for its own sake. that is how he describes the labour voters and he could write about the middle class in any country in the world. normal people are the sameou wherever you go.o. they believe in laws, borders traditions and family. they believe men and women are different. they believe in god. they are not libertarian onen the economic matters and they are distrustfult. of the finance. they know the down side of debt. they are making the interest payments.fi they are not eager to cutt entitlements either. they often rely on the entitlements. when the cost of healthcare and education and gas go up, they are the first people to feel the paint. they don't lecture you on the entrepreneurship or lobby for capital gains tax cuts. as a group, middle class culturally conservative and economically populist.

mirror image of people around the world. the politician who bothered to learn that, who cared enough to represent their views would be elected in a landslide in america, as in great britain. yet both parties in both countries consistently refuse to learn the lesson or acknowledge it. why is that? theology, really. every society has a state religion. whether it's acknowledged or not. in our country, our state religion is woke politics. to the left, it's really all that matters. when jeremy corbyn began to give his preferred pronounce in the campaign ads, alexandria ocasio-cortez promptly endorsed him. the two live on different continents but they speak the same language of the elite progressive left. frivolous and silly language, one that offers nothing to the voters who get them elected. that is why those voters are abandoning the elite left. in britain and here. you just saw it happen with

the labour party. at this rate, you will see it happen in our country. come november.en we told you about shoplifting this hour and a corrupt f.b.i. and the collapse of the middle class. how about we end with the positive news. we have a special announcement to make right after the break. ♪

♪ >> tucker: new developments tonight in the varsity blues

college admission scandal. actress lori loughlin said the government is hiding key evidence. now we know that sort of operation jim comey was running. can actually dismiss that as silly? trace gallagher has the answer and the details. >> hey, tucker, the allegations are significant, but the question why are they being released now? lori loughlin and her husband, mossimo giannulli, have filed court documents asking a boston federal judge for some "urgently needed help." the couple is accusing federal prosecutors of concealing exculpatory evidence they believe would exonerate them and here is why. the documents say the defendants believe all the payments made to the mastermind of the cheating scandal and to the university of southern california were for "legitimate university approved purposes were to other legitimate charitable causes." the documents go on to say, "if, for example, usc of the operation and accepted donations to the university from singer's client as legitimate, not only was there no bribery at usc, but

also no fraud conspiracy at all." the bottom line here is, the couple wants the feds to turn over all witness statements and interviews concerning rick singer and the payments he made to usc and right now, federal prosecutors have not yet responded. tucker. >> tucker: we will be following that. trace gallagher, thank you so much for that. we want to close tonight with a happy announcement. we are strongly pro-family on the show which means above all, we will always celebrate when one of our own starts a new family. so tonight we want to congratulate the new mrs. and mr. alex pfeiffer, our friend, married julie friedman in jamaica, saturday surrounded by more than 70 close friends and family from this show and my wife susie had the honor of officiating the wedding, and us at the show send love and

congratulations to alex and their life together. we hope you will be blessed. that is it for us tonight. we will be back at 8:00 p.m. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. sean hannity with more. ♪ ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity." the cliff politically, destroying themselves, never stop them. what we see tonight is to culmination of the pathetic so-called resistance against president trump. it is backfiring big time. lawmakers are set to vote on articles of impeachment. it is the last, meaningless step in what has been just the baseless political smear against the president. three years, do-nothing democrats, the latest chapter in what has a been desperate, dishonest nonstop effort to undo a duly elected president and take the president down to the take the president down to the