tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News May 19, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
thank you for being with us. see you back here monday. have a great weekend. tucker carlson is up next. >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the news media are liberal. if you grew up in this country, you probably know that for quite a while. it's obvious in the stories they choose, may be even more evident in the ones they ignore. the only people who deny widespread media bias these days are the people directly benefiting from it. that would include progressive activists posing as reporters and the democratic politicians who's water they carry. but exactly how liberal and biased is the price? the answer to that, we have to go to social science. for the first time in a while, we actually have real data. a new study from researchers in
harvard university looked at ten major news outlets and found the overwhelming majority of their coverage of the new administration's first 100 days was hostile. cnn and nbc both purportedly straight news outlets, 92% of the stories were negative. which is remarkable. considering there is no way that 93% of their stories about, i don't know, pick someone, fidel castro, were negative? 92% is a lot. it's not really news coverage at that point. it's advocacy. the press doesn't like trump. we knew that. but it's not just trump. it's the issues that trump's voters favor. the media disagreed with those tour go and they skew their coverage. take immigration for example. most americans believe it ought to be illegal to come to our country without permission. that's why the congress has made it illegal. that's not what the people in the media work they think. they believe defending the border is an act of bigotry and so that's how they have portrayed it with no other side were presented at all.
most of the time. the harvard study found that stories on trump's immigration policies, 96% were negative. there is more diversity in the romanian -- here is new york times for example. the "l.a. times." "trump's crackdown strikes fear onto immigrants illegally." and america's least on his new paper, "the washington post," which wrote in a headline, "immigrants are canceling their food stamps" appear where are the stories about americans hurt by immigration? there aren't any, most television news is more distorted than this. >> president trump drew an ex today through the welcoming words of the nearby statue of liberty. >> trump has always -- he chose
to punish ordinary men, women, and children who are fleeing terrorism and violence. >> this is just a proposal, but immigration authorities are telling me it's harsh and un-american. >> tucker: un-american. well, that's news with a message in its core. just like in a political campaign. it's exactly what this is. tim grahn is director of media analysis and he joins us tonight. tim, this harvard study surprise you, the results? 96% of the stories hostile to immigration? >> no. because that certainly is what we found in our 100 day study at the media research center. i guess it's surprising that harvard would admit it. if you are studying the media, this is what you are going to find. they are overwhelmingly hostile. and i think what you have to ask them now is we know you are
doing it. now defend how that's the right thing to do. they clearly feel this is exactly what trump deserves and what american needs. >> tucker: what's interesting to me is the moral self-righteousness all of a sudden you are seeing in news coverage, especially on television. i want to play you a clip. you may have seen this trickle days ago. this is over at c and cnn. watch the anchor. this is not an opinion person, this is an anchor of the show responds when one of her guests suggest, maybe you should be skeptical. watch this. >> two formal officials knowledgeable confirmed, two formal officials -- tell you what, compile, and then those people, then we'll have something to talk about. >> two, is not should see an end. it's "the washington post," "the new york times," "the wall street journal," cnn, nbc, -- people who are the source of clicks make they are hiding
behind anonymity. >> please! do not even start! you are just going to attack sources? that is ridiculous. >> mcmaster is lying? >> i'm not saying mcmaster is lying. he did not answer the question. that is his opinion. >> do not attack the stellar reporters of cnn -- >> i don't know what to say about that other than 20 years ago an anchor who did that come a complete loss control of herself, started screaming and clapping her hands. is that not considered weird anymore? >> i thought you were going to say it reminded you of dan rather yelling at george h.w. bush. but yeah. clearly, lost any notion of professionalism. and she really should enter an anger management program. but he was making an excellent
point. the news media today gets to use these anonymous sources, the anonymous sources can say also to terrible things about trump. but you attack a cnn reporter? watts? that's just intolerable. you can't do it. they'd start screaming at you when they suggest somehow that the so-called mainstream press might, you know, have a bad motive. >> tucker: he was actually -- carl kb is a former navy seal making a point that reporters used to make. all the time. be skeptical. don't accept things at face valuable. ask what this actually means. and yet now skepticism is a sin, i guess, in the eyes of a lot of the price, the skepticism undercuts the message they are trying to deliver. >> this is a whole week of news media about trump that has been driven by anonymous sources trying to destroy this president. so what you have is the media used to say we aren't here to be stenographers to power. what they have been this week is
worst. they have been stenographers to anonymous power, to people they call "current or former u.s. government officials" who we don't know. are the obama officials? are they the clinton's? are the current government officials who obama appointed? all of this misinformation would help us decide whether these sources, what they are saying, might have an ax to grind. >> tucker: of course, in so doing, they are being handmaidens to power. these are powerful people who run the government and they are working out their agendas anonymously with the help of -- credulous help of reporters. really quickly. i was doing that read a second ago, and it occurred to me, i've never seen the story, i don't think, in a mainstream outlet of the effect of americans in the legal illegal illustration. do you see those stories? >> they do not want to do stories about the burning of the litigation on the health care system. they are very anxious -- they don't talk about the burden of
illegal immigrants on the education system, our schools. they don't talk about the burden of illegal immigration on anything, on crime. that's all considered, likes, a pro-trump angle. we don't do that. they certainly don't do stories like case signed late when an illegal immigrant who they try to deport several times murdered someone. we had one near my house were an illegal immigrant drove into a car full of nuns, they try to deport him. those are stories where they are like, no, that's not newsworthy somehow. >> tucker: yeah. that's just advocacy then because that's part of the story. it's the part of the story, they should cover it otherwise they are hacks, which they are. tim, you know it better than most. thank you. >> thanks. >> tucker: which ones are a pretty good time if you are the mob. it's a diversion from the drudgery of real life. the pure animal excitement that comes torturing the helpless. but they are definitely less fun if you are the designated victim. of the witch hunt.
david, congress and in a row back is discovering this the hard way. he represents the same orange county district for almost 30 years. in that time, no one has ever accused him of not loving the united states until now. robots are glossary of sin seems to be holding the same view of the u.s.-russia relation that barack obama held in 2012, namely the u.s. and russia have more to game through cooperation than hostility or war. that's pretty much the same as violating a loyalty oath. this morning's "new york times" reported that five years ago, rohrabacher was warned by the fbi that russian intelligence was trying to recruit him as an asset. there is no suggestion of what rohrabacher might've done as a secret russian agent, much less evidence of all that he committed a crime or in the moral act nor there are many, any names attached through the entire repetition destroying piece was based on anonymous officials, obama era your cats o
want to destroy this -- his upcoming election is already suggesting improper connections to putin. according to the times, >> anyone could lose his seat as resort to that. mission accomplished, and more proof that mccarthyism still exists and it still works. of course, it's increasingly unreasonable to expect any kind of rational restraint and rhetoric on the question of russia. all bets are off when that topic comes up. maxine waters in california exceeded herself yet again claiming that vladimir putin took time off from governing russia to come up with donald trump's campaign rhetoric. watch this. >> i think that when you saw him absolutely calling hillary "crooked" ," "lock her up," allf that was developed. i think that was developed strategically with people from the kremlin, with putin. i think it's more than bank records. >> tucker: richard do is be
advised hillary clinton's credential campaign in both 2008-2016. joins us tonight. richard, thank you for coming on. >> glad to be back. sure. >> tucker: i think it's fair to have you comment on maxine waters because she's not just what she was a year ago, this fringe figure out in california, but she is one of the most popular members of the democratic party and articulated things that are common currency among the net roots, as you know, on the democratic side. how can a member of congress stand up and say she believes with no evidence whatsoever that a foreign government wrote a personal campaign's talking points and get away with it and nobody says, well, settled on maxine waters. you don't know if that's true. >> you were talking about mccarthyism earlier. i thought you were doing a pond about kevin mccarthy saying that putin was paying both trump and dana rohrabacher. when people left, he said it's no joke. i thought that's where you are. as the maxine waters -- >> tucker: it's not my job to
defend what mccarthy says or any republican leader or anybody. i'm saying as a american, this is unfair. people's lives are being hurt. >> you know what? >> tucker: on the basis of innuendo. it's wrong. it's always wrong. >> i totally agree. we should stick to facts that maxine waters is going to have to depend yourself. but the facts themselves, the undisputed facts, or so incriminating about the possibility of collusion. i don't think you need maxine waters to drum things up between the contacts between manafort, mike flynn, carter page, the fact that 17 intelligence agencies said indeed the russians did get behind wikileaks to help trump and hurt hillary. >> tucker: listen to yourself. you are incriminating as to the possibility! you can't incriminate someone to a possibility. either it's incrementing or not. >> no, no, no. >> tucker: why suggest otherwise? >> well... i would say the piece de
resistance is having trump send out the u.s. rise, inviting the russian press, yuck it up with the press, and then brag the fact that he got rid of comey to take the heat off. he said "i'm not under investigation," sean spicer didn't even dispute! is that evidence? of course not. what's evidence is all the people -- >> tucker: do you believe what you are saying? >> those are undisputed facts. >> tucker: he gave them state secrets? >> what do you think -- >> tucker: is is having the actual -- >> what do you call it? what you call classified information -- >> tucker: look, the president decides what's classified now. i think the president probably talks too much. i've said that a lot. >> you are very didn't tell me. >> tucker: that's very different from giving away state
secrets. here is the point. this has an effect on our ability to conduct foreign policy that helps america. this is crazy. >> do you know what's crazy? it's crazy for the president of united states to send out the u.s. press, you might use my term "state secrets" -- >> tucker: your term is wrong. >> when you talk about classified information that reveals assets that are very hard to come by and it gives the russians the ability -- state secret is whoever that is really is that is buried in isis in the town that trump is mentioned, that is a state secret. i don't care what you called it. i bet the israelis call it that. >> tucker: so -- so he betrayed israel now. so trump said there is an israeli in this town giving us this information? how do you know that? i don't know that is true. i don't believe it's true. i don't know why you would say something like that with no evidence. but maybe you are part of this whole echo chamber that just
repeats innuendos hoping it will become true. this is bad! because it's not fact-based! we don't know that. >> i tell you what we do know. what we do know are the reports coming out that were undisputed. i'm not saying that the white house disputes every cockamamie thing that gets reported. what this is pretty central. if they had a dispute, they would put it out there and they are not disputing what was said, even general mcmaster did not dispute the essence of that. they talked about sources and methods. of course he didn't go there. he said we've got this information -- >> tucker: can we leave politics for one second? crusher is a major player geopolitically. massive -- we have a lot of common interest with russia. why is it and democrats are saying this out loud, immoral for the united states to conduct foreign policy with russia? is russia a country that's beyond the pale? north korea, you can't have a conversation with russia if it helps you?
is that what they are saying? >> i think russia basically undermined the sanctity of the u.s. election, right? they taught us about it. no. we should do with a quick smack of course. they are a big country. they need to be dealt with. to dismiss the u.s. press, to yuck it up -- >> tucker: i'm trying to take what you are saying seriously. i'm almost giving up on the sho show. does that mean we should be having bilateral negotiations with china? this is insane. >> no one is saying we shouldn't have bilateral negotiations. we shouldn't be giving china classified information. incidentally, how many million times did trump whine about what hillary had on her email, nobody even access, versus him handing it on a silver platter to the russians? >> tucker: it's not my job to defend his campaign comments.
according to the wii q. week dump, the less immigration -- still controlled by putin on the nuclear capabilities of great britain. i don't know. was that treason? was that in the same category? trump isn't being accused of anything like that at all. you guys don't like trump and you're making this russia thing -- this is insane, actually! >> i guarantee you six months from now, whatever it is that we get the results of the investigation or we actually have testimony, publicly, from man manafort and his compatriots, maybe even comey -- >> tucker: what you expect we will find? >> carter page and et cetera,t was not an accident that the wikileaks -- hold on. podesta ed one hour after the wikileaks. but we will find somebody close
to trump said, go, now. you've got them, go with it. which is why they couldn't help but brag about the fact that there was going to be podesta's time in the stock. he couldn't help himself. so somebody in the trump orbit said -- let me ask you. >> tucker: i thought democrats are going to think, how did we lose the middle class, how did we loose the upper midwest. we should think about the program we are offering. you run into carter page and roger stone -- >> well, perhaps... but when it's all crazy red >> bye-bye, talker. thanks. >> tucker: -- democrats need to stop being elitist snobs and care more about helping the middle class. next, we will talk to former presidential candidate jim webb who is a senator from virginia and a democrat. has his party gone astray? plus retired harvard law
-- the appointment of robert mueller, special counsel. how is that going toork? we will tell you straight ahead. ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here. it's straight talk. the big wireless companies lure you in with great coverage. but then charge you a really high price to use their cell towers... not cool. straight talk wireless uses the same towers, but charges way less. you get the same 4g lte networks so your phone works in more places for a lot less.
i need the phone that's where i happen to be... to be the one that rings. i need not to be missed phone calls... to not be missed. i need seamless handoff... canyon software. from reception, to landline, to mobile. i need one number... not two. i'm always moving forward... because i can't afford to get stuck in the past. comcast business. built for business. >> tucker: chicago mayor rahm emanuel is no stranger to very aggressive politics, so it meant something when he recently told democrats that simply hating trump won't be enough to reclaim power. they need a winning message too permit watch. >> we don't talk about the middle class -- we believe they
are for them, there are certain things we have wandered off from things, being the party that fought for hard-working families. i think we come off and can come off as parties disdainful of them. >> tucker: democrats, the party of the workingmen, the party of the new deal getting called out as unlikable snobs? we truly live in an awed world. nobody knows it better than former virginia senator jim webb. he ran for the democratic nomination last cycle and he's completely castigated democrats abandoning their base. thank you for coming on. >> how are you? >> tucker: i'm great. i'm thinking, i remember that there you are nobody by virginia democrats. you were fairly progressive on the economic questions. more conservative on the cultural questions. pro-second amendment. can you imagine with somebody with those views getting the nomination in virginia today? >> well, i can't speak for virginia. but i can speak where the national democratic party has
gone. over the last several years. and what i was saying previous to the presidential election and what i was trying to put into a platform when i was running for president is pretty similar to what mayor emmanuel just said today. it's no surprise to anyone in that respect. i think what's happened here if i may, we have a situation where the democratic party has moved very far to the left during the obama years and they can think their selves -- there is a denial inside the democrat party. they bet on democratics, and i don't think -- the way they thought they were going to stay. on the other hand, president trump has two serious challenges here. i hope people in the white house
will come to grips with this. but first is the manner in which he is conducting the presidency itself. when you are the president of the united states, you are a steward for all of the people and it's quite a transition from being a business person. by the way, for anyone out there who is wondering how to conduct yourselves in public office, don't ever have a one-on-one meeting with someone who you believe is going to become your adversary unless you are taping it. we have a rule of threes. only three people in that room if we are going to have disagreements. we will write our own's memorandum for the record. this is an administration that has not populated its appointee appointees. we are well into this administration. the best demonstration in my lifetime, my professional lifetime, was the reagan administration. they brought in highly competent personnel people from the outside world and they cleared their people and they got them
confirmed. and we don't see that. we barely see a cabinet in the trump demonstration right now. how are you going to get your message out when you've got people and these sub cabinet positions who really aren't demonstrating the message and the loyalty? >> tucker: that is true. democrats are obstructing it. republicans in the house and senate aren't helping much. really quickly, i thoughts -- you and i talked about this, that after trump won unexpected way, there would be a period of soul-searching where party leaders on both sides thought "how did this happen, and how do we change our message in order to win back these voters back to us"? why hasn't that happen? >> one would hope that is happening, but i really don't see it in what the -- i just don't see the democrats coming to grips with the reality. they are still betting on the long-term demographics of the country that were the demographic groups have changed for a lot of reasons beginning with the 1965 immigration reform
bill. so they are wrong on that. and they are pushing toward the '18, both sides need to become more positive about how to get agendas through, and the trump and administration has got to populate it to people. with all due respect to the president of the united states, he really needs to tighten the way he is mitigating in his meetings and in these tweets. >> tucker: yeah. i think that is wise advice. senator webb, thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> tucker: democrats praising the decision to robert mueller. but top attorney alan dershowitz says trump might be that big winner in the end. mr. dershowitz joins us next to mr. dershowitz joins us next to explain how thattttt
>> tucker: democrats like congresswoman maxine waters have hailed the appointment of a special counsel to investigate donald trump's presidential campaign saying it's the latest step toward his inevitable impeachment. but one of the country's top lawyers is not convince me harvard law professor alan dershowitz says the council could been the -- vindicate trump then lead his downfall. >> read the statute. i don't want us to become what stalinist russia became when stalin was told "show me the
man, i will find you the crime." what is the crime? >> tucker: mr. dershowitz joins us for a professor, i was struck with this. i didn't think he was a big trump supporter. >> i'm not. >> tucker: i know that. you asked the question nobody has asked, "what is the crime to which the special counsel is responding"? what is the answer? >> first, i'm here not as a supporter of donald trump. i voted for hillary clinton very proudly. i'm here as a supporter for civil liberties. i just don't see a crime here. i see perhaps some political wrongdoing. i see leaking information on both sides. but even if, for example, the campaign coordinated, which there is no evidence of, but coordinated activities with russia. even if russia and the campaign, wouldn't it be better if trump were elected? that's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime. nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. a prosecutor is only allowed to
look for evidence of a federal crime. the reason i think trump may benefit from this is this will be a secret proceeding. muller is an honorary guy, so he's not going to anything. in the end, he's not going to find any crime. maybe he will issue a report, which in my view would be improper, but he will say there is no crime. it may be the worst-case scenario for the trump administration is maybe flynn gets indicted for lying, the president probably pardons him and that point. but it's two years from now. or a year and a half from now. in the meantime, he has a reprieve. if the appoint an independent investigative -- the whole story would come out, and it would be inculpatory. the public would know. all we get in the end is no indictment or a low level former official gets indicted it and i think in the end that helps the trump administration. >> tucker: i want to get back
to your first point which is there is no crime being alleged. i'm hearing democrats every night say it's likely that the trump campaign coordinated with the russians on the timing of the wikileaks dump. if there is no evidence of that, but if that turns out to be true, that's not a crime? >> of course not. why would that be a crime? it's like "the washington post" but wishing wikileaks. as long as we drove it administration or no told them to hack the dna, that would be different, or give them information that is useful in hacking the dnc, taking advantage of that fact, it's not a crime. >> tucker: so why -- i mean, you know, i've been doing this every night for six months. i'm embarrassed to admit i never thought about the point you made not one time. why is there than a special counsel? >> there shouldn't be. look at the letter. the letter says you should look into the russian thing and anything, but nobody points to
any kind of crime. and there can't be obstruction of justice for the president to fire comey through betsy's constitutional and statutory right to do that. even if the president did say to comey, let it go. period under the unitary theory of the executive, the president has a right to direct the justice department and the right to direct the fbi to what to do. thomas jefferson told his attorney generate to prosecute aaron burr. he called witnesses. the president gave them community. john marshall, threatened to have him impeached if he didn't convict aaron burr. ehrenberg got acquitted in, but not to any failure to thomas jefferson. historically, the president is the head of the executive badge and it cannot be committing obstruction of justice for committing his constitutional duty. if you tore up a subpoena or erased tapes or put out a perjured testimony, that's
different. by exercising his causational rights, no obstruction of justice here. >> tucker: on what grounds with the acting attorney general would put mueller in that job? >> i think he did it to protect his own reputation. i think we are seeing a lot of people doing a lot of things to protect their own reputation. it starts with sally gates, refused to defend the travel order. it goes to comey who wanted to have his cake and eat it. he has the president and then he turns against him. we then see that -- he wants to preserve his reputation. he does what he wants the president to do, write a memo. now he's turning against him. we see a lot of that going on here today. reputation protecting, playing it both ways, wanting the president to like you but when things turn sour, turning against him. >> tucker: amazing. there are nine actual civil libertarians left in america. you are one of them. >> i'm going to speak out on civil liberties.
sometimes it's going to help trump. sometimes it's going to hurt him. i'm there to speak out on behalf of civil liberties. that's more important than politics. >> tucker: god bless you. thank you, professor. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: britain voted to leave the e.u. in part to protest higher immigration levels, now the u.n. is pressuring them to accept 10,000 additional refugees into the u.k. katie hawkins of the daily mail will be here to tell us what she things of that in just a moment. plus more bad news for united airlines after national guardsmen returning home from afghanistan was hit with huge my business was built with passion... but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line.
let children reenact with their parents if they are actually children aged 18 or younger is, otherwise, children, real children. he also is that many refugees would help the countries they are leaving. he really leaves out their effect on the countries to which they are coming. katie hopkins is a global columnist for dailymail.com and one of our favorite gas telecasts, and she joined us tonight for the position of the u.n., katie, great britain doesn't take enough people from other countries. is that true in your opinion? >> well, certainly it's the position of the u.n. that we don't take enough refugees. certainly the position of the u.n. that we only allow children who are under 18 to it and we don't allow children over the age of 18, which i think you and i would agree anyone saying that would agree those are actually called "adults." i would also say that we get 3.5 billion pounds to the syrian refugee camps, we give a whole bunch of money. i would also like to point out i don't think the u.n. is in a position to lecture anyone. if you google "unhcr scandal,"
the list is endless, people. cash for food, blackmail for food. they have so much scandals, so many levels of bureaucracy, they started off with a budget of $300,000.70 years ago. their annual budget now is $7.5 billion a year. that's in 70 years they have managed to get that much money going their way! they've got 10,000 individuals in what is another agency. my personal opinion is to spend the whole thing, to spend the unhcr, get rid of the 10,000 bureaucrats, and give that $7.5 billion annually to the refugees. i think we don't want to see another 10,000 people put ahead of british nationals were held and schools and hospitals. i think that would be a great thing to use those resources more effectively. >> tucker: but why -- i never
understood this. why the u.k. and the united states and australia? why not, i don't know, japan, or china with the world's fastest growing economy. why does the united nations never put pressure on those countries to accept 10,000 or 10 million refugees? why? why always the u.k.? >> we are such an easy target, i think, because we have a whole bunch of liberals here that stand around with a placard saying ""refugees welcome." they see an easy place to try to put people because we are a welcoming kind of nation. and people always quote, we have a vast history of helping refugees back in the ages. it's a question i always ask, which is why is it christian countries that always host individuals from muslim countries. if that's so fantastic, why not stay in the islamic nation. but certainly, we are supposed to open our doors and borders and already we recognize we have
2,000 illegal migrants crossing into the u.k. each week from camps. and that number is only increasing. we also see from the pictures all the boys that said they were under 18. many of them were 30 years old, 40 years old, and we have to take him at their word because it would be against their human rights for us to question -- >> tucker: they are older... [laughs] our president is going to be touching down in europe. he is going to be out there this weekend. what kind of reception can he expect? >> he's going to have a nightmare. he's a man with a huge heart. he's a man with huge, emotional engagement with people. he's going to meet with macron, who's the closest thing to automated intelligence that we have. he's going to belgium which, you know, is the center of bureaucrats. it is the swamp. he's going into the heart of the swamp, and he's going to meet people there to talk about nato, all the countries he's going to
don't spend the required 2% that he wants them to spend on nato. and finally, he's going to end up in sicily which, as you know, is a halfway point for the ferry that runs from my grades from libya to italy. and the other thing i want to say is once he's in sicily, all of the borders are being shut down. the borders are being closed, so all of these liberal leaders that preach to us about having open borders, having migrants go wherever they like, having half of africa come to the u.k., the g7 meeting, all borders are being shut for their safety. it makes you think, i think, of the hypocrisy that we have in europe. >> tucker: of course! >> i look forward to trump coming blasting a hole through all of that. he will meet the pope who said any man who thinks about building walls and not bridges is not christian. of course, the pope is the one who largely is surrounded by walls which were built to keep out the marauding muslims back
in 840. >> tucker: [laughs] i'm glad someone remembers that! katie, it's great to see you tonight. thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: country star colby toby keith is going to the kingdom of saudi arabia for a concert. thanks to that, there is going to be almost no women there. could that be the weirdest story of the week?
cheryl, you first. >> here's what i got for you, tucker. i think this is pretty crazy. first lieutenant john rader, he was overseas in afghanistan for two years. he was coming home finally. he had his bag. it was full of a kevlar vest, two helmets. it was over the weight limit for united airlines. they want to check and said they are going to have to pay $200. he said, come on, seriously? the gate agent and war fought him on it and made them. $200. they told him, you can put this into separate bags because we will give you five free checked bags. they can each be 70 pounds, but he had one bag way over 70 pounds. united charge him. the good news quick making that he came back and said, folks, we will refund you the $200. [applause] he did the right thing! >> tucker: finally! can you top that?
>> may be. i brought hats, props, and pictures, okay? my story is about toby keith. and i used to be a country music d.j. back in a day, tucker carlson. i don't know if you know this about me. i never met toby keith. i'm a huge fan of his. but he is going to be traveling to saudi arabia while president trump is going to be there too. no word if they are going to get together, but he is going to be performing saturday in front of a crowd of men because they do not allow women due to their strict adherence to islamic law. and this is a big deal. he's not talking about it on twitter and social media or anything. it's not listed on his concert listings on the internet. so i don't know it's going to happen. hopefully there will be pictures. but i do hope he plays his greatest hits, "beer for my horses," "i love this bar" -- >> tucker: you win, janice!
>> tucker: a dean at yale university is discovering that it's not enough to mouth empty platitudes about diversity though apparently it does make you feel virtuous. try not to hate people who are different from you and that's harder. june chu was a dean at yale's pearson college. in that role she was needless to say a champion of diversity and cultural and every other fashionable buzz word because that's the whole point of yale. she once wrote an entire article for inside higher ed about the need to consider other's cultural baggage while talking to them.
it turns out that when she wasn't virtue signaling in the preferred venues chu had a very different attitude about diversity. a series of yelp reviews discovered by the daily news exposed chu as a woman with bitter hatred for all kinds of people. she reviewed a japanese steak house if you are white trash this is the perfect night out for you exclamation point. other view she quind cafe's fair was only worthwhile white person no clue what mochi is. barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese. ouch. well, after about a week of bad publicity chu was placed on temporary leave by yale though she still has her job. we are not going to complain about that because we are not progressives. we don't believe people should be fired instantly for saying the wrong thing. the whole episode is a reminder cultural sensitivity good for some groups it's probably good for everyone. athens abouthat's about it for s
tonight. the sworn enemy of lying pomposity and group think. dvr it and stay tuned "the five." that's next. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> hello, everyone, i'm dana perino along with kimberly guilfoyle, jesse watters, juan williams and. greg gutfeld. this "the five." we begin tonight with multiple major developing stories. first, president trump is on air force one enroute to saudi arabia on first overseas trip as commander-in-chief. there is breaking news here on the home front. more bombshell reports about the russia investigation. according to the "new york times" in a meeting with russian officials at the white house, president trump called ousted fbi director james comey a quote nut job. and that has his firing relieved quote