reatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. i am trace gallagher in los angeles. have a great weekend, everyone. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." with america's institutions under relentless attacks,lc successfully in some cases they are crumbling, it's a moment when it's worth thinking through what we would like to see from the actions. when theul revolution finally ends, and it will, what do we hope to have left? in other words, what are our best traditions? there are a lot of them. but at the very top of that list is equality under the law. equality is the most basic of all american ideals, the first principle articulated in the declaration of independence. it's why the founders broke with england. in america, they said, all citizens would be subject to the same rules, standards, same

penalties. rich or poor, black or white, all of us are equal under the law. that's the promise. of course it's easier to explain than it is to achieve. but we have tried hard through the centuries and we should be proud of that. yet some in power are no longer trying at all. equality, the thing we have fought to keep for hundreds of years is slipping the jeffrey epstein case is just the latest example of that. last night, dozens of unsealed court documents from the epstein case emerged online. some of them we've seen before. others we hadn't. they paint collectively a picture of a justice system in which the rich and well connected can do virtually whatever they want without penalty. in one sworn deposition, a woman called virginia giuffre claims that epstein and others including prince andrew of england and attorney alan dershowitz sexually abused her when she was a minor. giuffre says an fbi agent told

her that the agency didn't plan to do anything about it. epstein's case, she claims he said, wasn't going anywhere because of "the chain of command." that's her claim. the documents then describe what appears to be a remarkable abuse of power. epstein's accusers say that alan dershowitz and prince andrew helped epstein beat federal charges for sex crimes in 2008. they allege that dershowitz crafted an immunity agreement so that he himself would not face criminal prosecution. dershowitz hotly denies all of this in detail. he joins us in a moment to speak for himself, as he can. alex acosta will not be joining us tonight. we wish he would. he's a former labor secretary who at the time was a federal prosecutor. acosta is the one who agreed to the epstein deal. when asked why he let a sex abuser skate, acosta reportedly lsaid "i was told epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone." what exactly does that mean? what intelligent service did jeffrey epstein work for, if

any, and why did our government allow him to sexually abuse girls? we deserve answers to those questions. we should be demanding them. but so far, no one is answering them. epstein can't tell us obviously. he's dead. the media strangely doesn't seem very interested in pressing to find out. it's possible it's because t epstein was close to a remarkable number of prominent democratic politicians. the new document suggests the former president bill clinton,ic for example, visited epstein's private island with two young girls. giuffre claims epstein made her have sex with former new mexico governor bill richardson and former u.s. senator george mitchell and a famous mit scientist and others. is any of it true? we don't know if it's true. ghislaine maxwell probably does know. she's in custody and set to go on trial. will she explain what happened and why? it doesn't look promising. her lawyers fought the release of these documents. in just a minute, we will talk

to alan dershowitz about the allegations against him and the case in general. the first tonight, monica lindstrom is a former federal prosecutor who has been following the story closely ando we're happy to have her on tonight. monica, thanks so much for coming on. how would you summarize what we have just learned? >> it's very interesting because it's basically a nail in the coffin for maxwell. if this victim, alleged victim, is proven to be very credible and believable, she is essentially saying that not only epstein but maxwell was just as bad as epstein. in fact, maxwell was even worse because she's the one that brought her into it. she's the one who taught her how to give these massages and how to act towards these men and continued to do these things with epstein. so it's very, very bad for maxwell. you can understand why maxwell's attorneys are fighting against unsealing these documents. number one, because they hurt her but also they are thinking wait a minute. this was a settlement that happened several years ago.se why are we dealing with it again

now? >> tucker: what i don't understand is why she came back to the united states. she has three foreign passports and connections and a great deal of money. in fact, in denying her bail, the authorities made this point. she knew she was wanted here but she came back anyway spent a million dollars on a house in new hampshire. doesn't make any sense at all. why do you think you did that? >> one of them could be that she believes that she's innocent. she believes she did not do anything wrong, so she has innothing to hide. it also could be the fact that she got away allegedly with a lot of things, right, with epstein. maybe her ego is so big that she think she's untouchable, right, allegedly there's a lot of people, a lot of higher-ups in the government or used to be in the government that would protect her, so she's really not worried about anything happening. that could be the other reason why she came back. ego. >> tucker: what if she has a deal in progress withe prosecutors to testify against somebody else and she came back

here to effectively surrenderme herself? do you think that's possible? do you see any evidence of that? >> i think it's possible. the evidence we see is from these unsealed documents for example. people like bill clinton and other high-ranking officials in this kind of bubble of what we're dealing with, right, so there is evidence that she was somehow connected. now if i was a prosecutor, i would want to protect her. i wouldn't want her coming back here if she was going to testify and give additional information about other people. i would want to keep her safe. the reality is she's in jail right now. happenws what's going to to her? j think about what happened to epstein. >> tucker: right, that is an obvious peril. i'm sure she thinks about it. thanks much for joining us tonight. appreciate it. as we told you, professor alan dershowitz was named in the documents.

he has been accused by at least one person of having sex with an underage minor on several occasions. he vehemently denies the encharges. he helped broker the immunity deal between epstein and the federal government. epstein's accusers claimed that dershowitz crafted that deal to ragive himself immunity. again, we are merely repeating the claims of others. alan dershowitz has been on the show many times as you know. he wrote "guilt by association." we are happy to have them on tonight. professor, think so much for coming on. i appreciate it. >> "guilt by accusation." look, i agree with you, tucker. i think there ought to be a very extensive investigation. i brought this case to the fbi. i went to the u.s. attorney's office.. i went to the district attorney. i wrote an op-ed piece for "the wall street journal" saying "fbi, please investigate me. i have been asking for an investigation from day one. i wanted all of this material unsealed. it is giuffre, my accuser, who tried to get everything redacted, everything unsealed.cc

she deep-sixed tapes. she deep-sixed emails. she deep-sixed a manuscript all of which proved she never met me. in her own words. in the email, she is saying between her and a friend, why don't you name dershowitz in your book? he's famous. there's no proof he did anythin wrong but name him in your book. then she names me as someone she did not have sex with. she said she had sex with george mitchell and some of the other people, but she explicitly said she saw me once talking to epstein and did not have sex with me. her own lawyer admits that she made up stories about prominent people. her own lawyer is on tape saying that she is simply wrong to accuse me. it was impossible that i could have been in places she said she saw me. the evidence that she is lying about me is overwhelming

>> tucker: let me ask you about those places. in 2003, "vanity fair," the magazine, prepared apr piece abt jeffrey epstein having sex with underaged girls. they were bullied into not running the accusations, but the point is a glossy magazinene in new yorkn , they were out there. new york had heard them. he went to his home in new york and palm beach. he went to his island. you flew on his plane many times. how did you not know? >> of course i didn't know. i first met him through a the lady rothschild. prominent woman. she told me he was very charitable to harvard. i went to the island with my wife and my daughter. he had just bought it. i was at his home mostly when i was his lawyer. i was not a close personal friend. he lived his private life very privately. the president of harvard, the provost of harvard, nobel prize winners they all had the same kind of academic relationship with epstein that i did.

as soon as i found out when hecu was accused, my relationship with him totally changed. >> tucker: may i ask, may i interrupt. but when you were on "pedo" island, when you borrowed his place and palm beach were at his house in new york, with every -- every picture i've ever seen of his properties, you see young women around. were there no young women when you were on his plane? >> absolutely not. i never saw him in the presence of a young woman. when i was there with my children and grandchildren, there was a housekeeper andth the housekeeper's wife and that's it. nobody else was there. no pictures, i never saw him in the presence of a young woman. i never saw him in the presence of an underaged woman. if i had, i would've turned him in immediately. my wife never saw him in the presence of a young woman. the only time i was with him was in academic situations, when i was representing him as a lawyer. yes, he lent me his house because my granddaughter was in a soccer tournament, but it was empty. it was only the housekeeper.

and it was just a friendly gesture. if i knew anything had gone in that house, improper, do you think i would've brought my grandchildren, my children? >> tucker: i'm not accusing you of anything. i'm asking the obvious question. vanity fair knew but you didn't. let me ask you, you went on to represent him and get them off the hook. you are accusedff of writing an agreement that exempted yourself. we do know that the agreement exempted -- let me finish. the agreement exempted and i'm quoting "potential coconspirators." potential coconspirators. you are saying that didn't apply to you. why would the federal government agree to something like that? i'm honestly confused. >> let me be clear, i hereby waive any possible immunity. i would never accept immunity. i didn't do anything wrong. why would i accept immunity. >> tucker: i don't think you can unilaterally do that. >> it was drafted by another lawyer. i didn't know the provision was apart of the agreement. it never applied to me. no lawyer on the prosecution

side would ever allowed anybody who was suspected. you mentioned that she went to the fbi, yes, and she told them who she had sex with. she didn't mention me. she never mentioned me in her interviews with her lawyers, the fbi. >> tucker: i'm not claiming otherwise. >> her lawyers told her she would make a lot of money by falsely accusing me. >> tucker: you have definitely impugned her motives and character and i will let the teviewers decide. you make a strong case. i want to get to your defense of jeffrey epstein. you did get him off the hook and you did so with a lot of other prominent people. were you concerned -- so the accusations were clearly true. you knew that at the time. c did you have moral qualms about it, and why do you think thed feds went along with it? it doesn't make sense. >> ask the feds. >> tucker: you were there. >> we had a very, very strong federal defense.

it doesn't matter how many young women he may have had sex within palm beach. the government had to prove that he transported them in interstate commerce and they couldn't do that.iv they had a very weak federal case and a strong state case. so the deal we arrived at was he would plead to a charge and would not lead to the federal charge. it's very common.ri the job of the criminal defense lawyer is to get the best deal you can. the job of the prosecutor is to do justice. the job of the judge is to make sure justice is done but the job of the defense lawyer is to defend the client. in all ethical ways. i did that. i'm proud of it. i will continue to do that. i've done it for 55 years. that's my job. does anyone want a lawyer who wouldn't defend them? of course not. >> tucker: i don't understand the law around this, but i know that you do. the claim is that once the immunity deal was reached, the victims alleged, or peoplech making the accusations had a

right under federal law to know the outcome, and they weren't told the outcome and that's a violation of federal law. is that true? >> no. it's being debated. the district court found one way and the court of appeals found another way. it's being litigated. let it be litigated. that was not my job. as a criminal defense lawyer, my job was to get the best deal. if i got him acquitted and had him walk completely, i would've done an even better job. jeffrey epstein almost fired me. he wouldn't pay me my fee because he didn't think i had done a good enough job and he had to serve 18 months and register as a sex offender. he thought i did terrible job. i think i did a pretty good job but that's for people to judgeha me. that's what defense attorneys do. we are not supposed to throw the case. >> tucker: i'm certainly not suggesting you should have.su since you knew him very well, that is beyond dispute. >> i didn't know him all that well. i knew him as an academic. acquaintance. i hadn't met his mother or his brother.

didn't know about his personal life. >> tucker: when you are at -- i'm not attacking you. i think it's fair to say. people come and stay at my three houses if i have three houses would know me fairly well. do you think he wasi murdered? do you think he was murdered? >> no, i think he committed suicide. but i think he may have paid off guards to allow him to commit suicide. it seems to be very difficult of the would've been allowed, video cameras off, cellmate taken out of the cell. i wouldn't put it beyond him to have paid guards. to close their eyes. i don't think he could bear the possibility of having to spend the rest of his life in jail. >> tucker: so alex acosta suggested in the vetting before his confirmation as cabinet secretary that he was told by the feds that jeffrey epstein was working for an intelligent service. many claims to that effect. did you ever hear anything about that in your defense of him? do you believe it's true? >> i don't believe it's true. if it was true, he would've told me that and asked me to use it for his benefit and i would have used it for his benefit. i've had cases where i've defended people what

intelligence contacts. he never told me about that. i don't think he had any, certainly had no connections with israel, not with the cia. i can't believe he had any intelligence connections but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. lawyers don't often learn things about their clients. when he pleaded guilty, it was only two charges. one to soliciting an underage prostitute who was 17 and half and the other was an overage prostitute. i was not aware of all these other allegations of the time, that's why we were able to get the deal we got. the most important point, this woman, giuffre, who was at the center of all these accusations. everybody in his rolodex must be investigated. must look into her background. she has accused al gore and tipper gore of cavorting

with epstein on his island. they never met al gore. al gore didn't know them. she is lying through her teeth. the media has an obligation to investigate that. >> tucker: i understand, right. considering a former president a former president was on epstein's island. i think we can say that, bill clinton it seems clear. >> no, no, no. let me tell you, the former head of the fbi did a thorough investigation, went to the secret service. d secret service told us there was no evidence that he was ever on the island. he has categorically denied it. her story is so fake, her story is that ghislaine maxwell flew him on her helicopter when she had just gotten a license withw secret service men on board and flew bill clinton to the island where he sat next to underage young girls. totally false story. the secret service. reflects that. everything this woman has said. >> tucker: hold on, wait, wait, i'm sorry. olhold on.

the secret service is not required to disclose the manifest or the facts. they can say whatever they want, a. b, bill clinton said he was never on the guy's plane and that turned out to be a lie. >> he admitted he was on his plane.ne >> tucker: he has now. >> bill clinton was on his plane numerous times. i was on his plane. i never flew to his island on his plane. w i was on his plane once with my wife and my daughter when he just bought the island. let me be very clear. i have had sex with one woman since the day i met jeffrey epstein. i've done nothing wrong. i'm being falsely accused. this woman has made up stories about so many people. it's time for the media to investigate this woman. i have called for an fbi investigation. i agree with what you said in the beginning. let's have a thorough investigation. i wanted all these records to come out. i want all the rest of the records to come out. i want everything to be made public because i have nothing to hide. i hope your --

>> tucker: you are your own best defense lawyer i would say that. >> i am telling the truth. that's more important than being a defense lawyer. i have the evidence to prove it and she has not a single piecesh of evidence beyond her own words which is worthless because she has such a long history of lying. she is a serial liar who does it for money, and she's continuing to do it in the media has been taken in by her. the time has come to investigate me and her. i call for the fbi to do that. i hope they will. >> tucker: got it. professor, thank you. i appreciate your coming on tonight. >> thank you for giving me an opportunity to tell the truth. >> tucker: absolutely. i want people to speak in their own defense. great to see you. anthony fauci has ordered the rest of us to wear masks.ir he helped shut down the economy, put millions out of work and completely transformed our lifestyle but you know he's not concerned about? thousands of people rubbing up against each other in the street and shouting left wing slogans.

he's not going to judge that. meanwhile, put on your goggles, lbuddy. plus, every summer there is hysteria in the media about sharks. do you think we're above it? a no. no, we are not. a great white attack off the coast of maine. we will have the very latest on that.

♪ >> tucker: anthony fauci is likely the most powerful physician in the history of this country. he is one of the forces behind the mass quarantines that tanked the economy and put millions out of work. he says it's worth it because the threat is so profound. so profound, so imminent that you should wear goggles and stop shaking hands. iin the name of science. so it's interesting in light of that, that one thing anthony fauci doesn't seem concerned about at all are the riots going on, the mass protests where thousands of people crowded into together touching each other without goggles.te fauci was asked about this. >> should we limit the protesting? >> i'm not sure, what do you mean? how do we say limit the protesting?

>> should government limit the protesting? >> i don't think that's relevant. >> you said if it increases the spread of the virus. i'm asking should we limit it? >> i'm not in a position with the government can do in a forceful way. >> you make all kinds of recommendations. w comments on dating, baseball, you just said protests increase the spread, should we limit the protests? >> i would leave it to people who have more of a position to do that. i am just making a statement that's a broad statement, avoid crowds of any type matter where you are. >> no limit to protests but boy, you can't go to church on sunday. >> i don't know how many times i can answer that. i'm not going to opine on limiting anything. i'm going to tell you. >> you have opined on a lot of things, dr. fauci.i' >> tucker: wow, finally a member of congress capable of asking a follow-up question and he's absolutely right. there is nothing dr. anthony fauci won't opine on as long as it doesn't offend the popular and fashionable left.

sex with strangers online, no problem. shaking hands, bad. every day for the past several months virtually, dr. fauci hasr advocated for a new coronavirus policy. here he is on tape doing itca earlier this month. >> i can say as a public health official that i would urge thehe leaders, the local political and other leaders in states and cities and towns to be as forceful as possible in getting your citizenry to wear masks.n >> tucker: oh. so he is willing to weigh in on specific responses. government responses. what a fraud this guy is. put on your mask. get off your power boat. put on some goggles. do it for public health. by the way, the consequences don't matter. they are just inconveniences, he explained. >> i know it's difficult but we are having a lot of suffering, a lot of death.

it's an inconvenience from anav economic and personal standpoint but we just have to do it. >> tucker: oh. we just have to do it. really? fauci is 79, but maybe if he had like 22-year-old kids who were trying to make their way in this world in an economy that is headed down the tubes thanks largely to his recommendations, he would feel differently. it's not merely an inconvenience when your economy collapses. it's the end of the american dream. that's not a small thing. maybe it's worth it. maybe it's not, but if it is, then you probably shouldn't take a pass on the question, are protests and riots okay? unless you're a total fraud like a complete fraud. buck sexton has been watching this carefully. he hosts "the buck sexton show" and we're happy to have him on. especially the case of fauci who we've interviewed, always seemed like a nice guy to me.

not a stupid guy.e impressive bio and all that but you want to believe he's makinga recommendations purely on the basis of science. if he was, don't you think he would've said something about the protests? >> absolutely. we have known all along that fauci's a bureaucrat, but today he really sounded like a democrat, and that makes people really uncomfortable because put aside for a moment, you know, anything else, you know if your dr. fauci and you get the opportunity to tell people, if you're as concerned as he is, he's willing to push for lockdowns and mandatory masks and we've gone from no masks to suggested masks to mandatory masks in the blink of an eye. now he has an opportunity to tell everybody look, no mass gatherings and yes that includes protests right now and he won't touch it. couldn't be any more clear thiso is exactly the same bias that we saw from the beginning of this from public health officials who, by the way, in some cases some of the experts you see

going on tv were saying oh, it's good for public health that there are these protests because black lives matter. that's what they were saying. >> tucker: so in northwest d.c. which may be the most democratic neighborhood in the united states literally, there are signs and i'm quoting that say "thank you, dr. fauci." he's a political figure now it seems to me. >> well, this continues with a trend where the democrat party elevates any government figured that they find useful for bashing trump, right? we are supposed to believe federal agents arerm stormtroopers. they are bad right now becausese of democrats, but dr. fauci, we call him st. fauci in some quarters, he cannot be questioned. i would want to know how is it that fauci also doesn't weigh in on all the people at john lewis' funeral yesterday in georgia going back to d.c. tucker, they are supposed going to quarantine for twoo weeks, aren't they? i don't think anyone believes that's going to happen because rules are for little people. nyo >> tucker: that's totally right. the death of equality.

we see it at john lewis' funeral. r:the irony. buck sexton, great to see you. thank you so much.e the governments of all 50 states have issued warnings about mysterious seeds that have arrived in the mail from china. one of the weirdest stories of eethe year. potentially really significant story. we will have details just ahead. we will have details just

>> tucker: yesterday cnn aired a 16 minute interview with the commissioner of the nba, adam silver. in cable news time, that'se eternity. they needed it because there's a lot to discuss with silver. not least the nba's long and very close relationship with the communist government of china. the government that is sending minorities to reeducation camps and facilitating slave labor. but those questions never got asked. instead, a cascade of softballs. watch. >> i assume you would cancel the nba season if that would be the

right thing to do if it involved a players' health and safety and other personnel. coaches et cetera. you would just end the season, right? what will it be like watching these games on tv, to the cause of racial justice in our country? how do you see the nba's role in your role as commission when it comes to supporting those players? how do you think whoever wins the nba title should be remembered? >> tucker: wow. how do powerful people get a pass from the media? simple. by being woke. the nba painted black lives matter on its courts. it allows its players to kneel for the national anthem, giving the finger to the country that made this sport possible. burgess owens never kneeled when he was a professional athlete. he joins us to respond to all of it. mr. owens, thanks much for coming on. what do you make of it? a basketball league that's taken an explicit and partisan political position?

>> well, this is why i'm running. we need to make sure we aunderstand who were dealing with. talking about the radical left. there's more than antifa, it's more than the socialists and the democratic legislation. it's corporate cowards that had hide behind the misery of others to give them a way to get to their bottom line. their bottom line is profit. profit is power. nba's $1.5 billion contract, they know if they're going to get that, they have to make sure they cause havoc here and get a president elected and make sure they get back to china. it's all about november 2020 when it comes down to democrats. the radical left. they don't care about we the people. they don't care about the blacks in the black community and they don't care about the chinese people that are being oppressed in china with slavery and child labor and the whole bit.

these people are really about themselves. it's power and profitability. nba, nfl, nike. they all fit in the same mode. >> tucker: corporate cowards hiding behind the suffering of others. i don't think i've ever heard it better than you just put it. quickly, if you don't mind, wha. do you think this is doing to the sport itself? >> it's dividing us. the sport has always been used to bring us together.s that's the power of sports and the flag and our national anthem. it brings us together. these folks do not care about dividing. they do not care about destroying their game, their sport as long as they can get their profitability. if they get biden in, they are in china. they are in their money. keep in mind these are the worst of america. they care more about their profitability, their growth and their power than they care about we the people. they are destroying the game. they are destroying cities because they want to get biden elected in 2020. >> tucker: i wish i could

disagree with you. burgess owens, thanks much for coming on tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you, tucker. ♪ >> tucker: well, over the decades, we have received really a torrent of brightly colored plastic crap from china but that's not all they've sent us. they've sent us contaminated don food, lead infused toys, fentanyl, enough to kill hundreds of thousands of americans. now apparently they are sending mysterious seeds. they have arrived in cities all over the country, unsolicited from china. what are they exactly? it's a very weird story. gordon chang think he knows what's behind it. he's author of the book "the coming collapse of china."." happy to have him on. thank you for coming on. americans are receiving unsolicited seeds from china and officials in all 50 states are upset. what is it? >> i think china is testing the response of u.s. officials to

what in the future could be a horrible biological weapons attack. they are seeing how we react. these seeds, even if they are let's say, harmless, they are invasive species and that means they can damage agriculture. they can cause harm to livestock. they, of course, can ruin the environment. even if this were, let's say, a brushing attempt which is what some people say, in other words an attempt to generate online reviews that are fake, this can cause real harm to the u.s. by the way, it's not just the u.s. the u.k., taiwan, canada, other countries have also been the subject of these unsolicited t packages of seeds and soil. >> tucker: so i guess the coronavirus wasn't enough. this does seem like a very aggressive act. why would the chinese government want to provoke the united states by doing somethiny like this? >> i think that they see that this is asymmetric warfare. it's hard to identify the malevolence behind it.

we know that china's people's liberation army in 1999 wrote that book "unrestricted warfare: china's plan to destroy the united states."re they talked about biological attacks in that book. probably we are seeing them execute on part of that strategy. right after the coronavirus asob you point out, tucker, because china took steps in december and january to deliberately spread the disease beyond china's borders. >> tucker: it's amazing. it's an amazing story. it almost doesn't sound real but it is real.er gordon chang, thank you so much. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: ask yourself, the news organizations that dominate our media. cnn, msnbc, "new york times," "washington post." who do they spend more time attacking? the chinese government or the united states? it's not close. they attack the united states every day and they give china a pass. what does it tell you? it tells you a lot. up ahead, new scandal for ilhan omar.

there have been many. in this one apparently she's been enriching her husband with campaign contributions. is that even legal? we will investigate it next. this isn't just a wifi upgrade.

this is xfi complete from xfinity. you'll get the xfi gateway with advanced security, so your connected devices are also protected. and stay out! plus with unlimited data, you can stream and scroll more than ever. and we'll ensure that you get the most wifi coverage throughout your home. this is xfi complete. simple, easy, awesome. get the security, unlimited daa and wifi coverage you need. plus, xfi customers can add xfi complete for $11 a month. click, call or visit a store today.

♪ >> tucker: as ilhan omar's congressional district was burning because of riots, omar herself was busy funneling $600,000 of campaign contributions to her husband's consulting firm.st scott johnson as a writer based in minneapolis. happy to have him on this show. scott, thanks so much for coming on. please explain how this scam worked. >> well, it's working. it's worked for the past two years. it's become a scam since the two of them married this past march. ilhan omar married her political consultant and fund-raiser, was also her biggest vendor this past march. the $600,000 number that you referred to is what she has spent with her campaign funds just in the past three weeks. as things are ramping up to a democratic primary that's very competitive in her district on

august 11. she spent $600,000 on her husband's political consulting firm. that money is going to buy digital and other media advertising, but his firm of course takes a commission on that. congressmen aren't supposed to be able to enrich themselves or convert campaign funds for their own use, but unlike other scandals she's been involved in, i would say this one seems to br legal. >> tucker: i mean, this is someone who clearly married her own brother in an immigration scam and got away with it. it's clear to me, and i mean, you're the primary driver behind uncovering all of it, how can she get away with that? i don't understand it. >> well, she seems to be writing new chapters in scandal management. you know, with respect to her brother and that whole story, the lack of serious media interest i would say had served

to protect her.ou anyone who has looked into it she accuses of multiple instances of bigotry, given her being a woman and a muslim and so on. so it served as a great shield for many of her scandals. >> tucker: but just to be clear, because i think you are an attorney too, you're not allowed to take campaign funds and shovel them to your own family, right? that would be a violation of the law? >> tucker, you may recall that senator thomas dodd, the father of senator christopher dodd, back in the '60s was censured by the united states senate for converting campaign funds to his personal use. no, they aren't supposed to be able to do that. i think maybe until they are on their way out the door. there is no question but the campaign funds are ending up in what's now their joint bank account. >> tucker: it's unbelievable.p i would say in defense of the dodds, father and son, i don't

think they despised the country that made their success possible. ilhan omar does. scott johnson, great to see you tonight. thank you for that report. >> thank you for having me on. >> tucker: we don't want to whip up hysteria. there's certainly enough of it. we have to be honest, there's murder hornets and there's a hurricane and there was a shark attack off the coast of maine. we are going to get into the last tragedy next. it is shark night. now, simparica trio simplifies protection. ticks and fleas? see ya! heartworm disease? no way! simparica trio is the first chewable that delivers all this protection.

and simparica trio is demonstrated safe for puppies. it's simple: go with simparica trio. this drug class has been associated with neurologic adverse reactions, including seizures; use with caution in dogs with a history of these disorders. protect him with all your heart. simparica trio.

♪ >> tucker: earlier this week a woman swimming off the coast of maine was killed by a great white shark. numbers of shark sightings appear to be rising across the east coast. hempstead, new york, started shark patrols because the scenes of many. jeremiah sullivan knows a lot about sharks. he is a marine biologist. he says he's been bitten by sharks.ow he joins us from san diego.. jeremiah, thanks for coming on.

obviously you're not afraid of shark bites. should the rest of us be? >> yes. if you do get bit. you don't want that to happen, trust me. there are plenty of ways to try and limit or restrict that kind of event happening in your life. it's tragic about what happened in maine but not entirely unexpected. >> tucker: why do you say that? >> there have been increases in the numbers of white sharks that you're sitting up there. mind you, they've been around the whole time. but there were some things that have happened, not just the east coast but the west coast as well with the marine mammal protection act, the enactment of that some years ago, the marine mammals, the gray seals in this case up in your neck of the woods, they were heavily depleted. there are multiple reasons for that. they arere always going to follw the food, but the fishermen weren't happy with them because they were competing with fish. large predators need prey

so they are going to be moving around and following prey wherever they can find it. in addition to these shifts happening globally with the environment, water temperatures, the predator-prey relationships, it's been changing so we are seeing an expansion in which the localities are seeingt, higher numbers of these apex predatorsh along with their preferred prey species, which are not humans, by the way. >> tucker: there was speculation that because she was wearing a wet suit the she was mistaken for a seal. t would you recommend against wetsuits? >> i approach it in a locality way. places like the northeast where the preferred prey species of these large sharks are the large seals, i would not want to weary anything that resembles in any way what they're looking for. i would prefer something that, if you're down underwater t looking up, what you're seeing is a silhouette. meaning that the lower side of

that is going to appear black to whatever is down below. the only see the light from above. if i had my druthers, i would be wearing a lighter colored suito that would distinguish me from the prey in the area. unfortunately that's not that common anything because a lot of the colors.ghor black wetsuits are famous among divers and film people. >> tucker: so bottom line, no wetsuits? >> no. just don't wear a black wet suit in areas that white sharks are hunting. that would be my wisest recommendation. number one. number two, if there are predators around like that, obviously you don't want to be in the water with these guys particularly if you're in an area that's within range of their hunting territories. i wouldn't do that.

>> tucker: i think that's wise advice. great to have you on tonight. our nod to shark week. thank you very much. we are out of time. have the best weekend. see you monday. here is "hannity." ♪ >> welcome to this special edition of "hannity," the road to 2020.o i am jason chaffetz in tonight for sean with just 95 days until the election. democrats are turning every issue into a political lightning rod. many on the left or even accusing president trump of being personally responsible for the spread of covid-19. just today, congressman james clyburn floated a conspiracy theory that trump didn't have a plan to battle the virus because it was spreading and blue states. in today's coronavirus response hearing on capitol hill, dr. fauci painted a much different picture. he actually credited the president with