this is something the president predicted was right was never a legal basis for this, correct? >> president trump won the legal argument today. and the supreme court came out on his side and lifted the stay that the appeals court put in place. but the legal argument was never the strongest argument against the ban. it's the policy argument. really bad policy. >> tucker: will you concede that there was a legal argument against it, that the left as a group made and it was that a single judge in hawaii had more power over america's foreign policy and control of america's borders than the president did and the supreme court today said that's absurd. >> it wasn't just hawaii, tucker. there were a number of court cases in a number of courts that stayed this travel order. and it was a close call legally. it was a close call for the appeals court that upheld the stay. it was also a close call for the supreme court. >> tucker: the president has got a right to make judgments like this and enforce them with law. that's why we have a president. you will concede that. >> i think that's a valid argument and that's the argument that was made. that's one of the arguments that persuaded the supreme court today. although, keep in mind, that the court only lifted the stay. it will hear the merits of the case in october. but, yes, you are right. but, as i said, the stronger argument against this travel ban is it's really bad policy. it doesn't accomplish the goal which is no-to-make america safer. >> tucker: it doesn't. you would argue the counter case that the more immigrants that we have from say somali coming into the country the safer we are? what point are you making. >> what i would argue on policy grounds this ban is both too broad and not broad enough. let me explain. here's why it's too broad. it denies muslims from six predominantly muslim countries. >> tucker: let me stop and correct you. it makes no reference to religion at all. it doesn't badge muslims. it bans people who live in six countries the obama administration designated as all somalians. as you may know the u.s. has people inside somalia. we have diplomats and soldiers inside somalia fighting terrorists. they are working with somalians. if they counter good people who are helping them and brave and putting their life on the line and they can't have the option to put them through a refugee program to dom back through america when they have helped america fight terrorists it doesn't make sense. too broad. >> tucker: you are making this up on the spot. >> no, i'm not. i was in iraq during the war. >> tucker: you worked with somworksomalians in somalia. quite a number of them have been involved and been arrested for it. what percentage of those somalians relocated here once worked for the government fighting terrorism. >> i don't know the answer to that. >> tucker: none, probably. >> my point is we are banning some of them. and we are not banning people from countries that have actually produced tastes who have killed americans, which makes no sense. and, by the way, we are also banning people from countries like syria. we also have american soldiers who are serving in harm's way. they have syrians who are helping them. they might want to put those syrians through a refugee program because they risked their lives to help america. it's too broad. >> grandmas and grandpas and 3-year-old kids. >> tucker: you are trying to outshout me here. but you raise the sector of the u.s. government keeping the yards out. whatever group has fought with american soldiers abroad. you can't name a single person from somalia who has done that there are likely not very many. that's not the point at all. you saw how open border policy keep the country safer. most people would disagree with that because it's demonstrably false. >> i know somalians who have helped. good law abiding citizens in america right now. like i know iraqs when i served in iraq during the height of the war and there were iraqs who risked their lives and to help me and farmer and have you sheep. sometimes sheep get killed. sometimes sheep get killed by thousands of wolves. you build a fence to keep bears out even though a bear hasn't killed a sheep. >> tucker: i want you to look me straight in the face and say people from these six countries are as likely to commit acts of terror as people from japan? is that what you are saying? >> no. that is absolutely not what i'm saying. but there are other countries where people come from those countries and they are more likely. >> tucker: add to the list you and i are in agreement on that. we will expand the list. thank you, david. >> thank you. >> tucker: time now for news abuse. cnn's dissent from news organization to political campaign is nearly complete. last week the channel published a story linking trump ally anthony scare scarmuc i to an investment fund. on saturday they had to apologize. they retracted the story and admitted it did not meet cnn's editorial standards and that's saying something. tonight three reporters who worked on the piece resigned their jobs. one of them a guy called eric nicbluo worked at the "new york times." worked on a piece earlier in the month and that piece turned out to be false. you may remember it. when he told us that the jim comey the fbi director was going to come before the president and contradict the president's claim he was not under investigation and jim comey told him so. it turned out to be untrue. he helped write that one, too. he may go back to the "new york times" where he came from in april. we'll see. it's been seven months though since trump won the presidential election. since then, precisely no evidence has emerged to support the claim that trump somehow colluded with the russian government in order to win the race. but you would never know that from watching that channel which has become home for conspiracists on the russian question worldwide. last february seeing yet another example. cnn produced a story accusing trump associates of repeated contacts with russian intelligence. that report turned out to be almost identical to a report by the "new york times" that jim comey called out specifically for being grossly inaccurate. we could go on and on and on. overall, 93% of cnn's coverage of the trump administration has been negative. 93%. amine would get more balanced coverage. anybody. we fidel castro certainly has. cnn, in other words, is no longer just a news organization. it is a campaign with a political mission run, not surprisingly by a man named jeff zucker who once expressed interest in running for office himself. great pushing a message, hurting opponents and not so good at others like reporting the news. this is a change. how did it happen? sharyl attkisson hosts full measure. she is the author of a very fitting and really interesting new book called "the smear" it comes out tomorrow and she joins us tonight. cnn was liberal, i think, for a long time. this is different from what we have seen before. it's not just cnn. it's other news organizations. what changed? >> i worked there a long time ago from i think it was 1990 to 1993. but i think a lot of news organizations in the past three to four years have undergone a huge seed change last two months to three years campaign 2016. i talk about in the book, i there this is a confluence of factors including we have now invited pundits and political operatives into our newsroom not just as commentators and pundits but reporters, anchors in editorial positions. sometimes little meaningful difference now i think between the people reporting the news and the political operatives who want to advance news narratives. that's a problem. i also think that the establishment, i'm talking democrats, republicans, and the media establishment have exempted themselves from the normal journalism rules and rules of political behavior because they see donald trump as such a big threat. they would say a hitleresque threat. that means they don't have to follow the normal rules of journalism in this case. i think it's more of a threat to the system of favors, money, and access that has been developed through what we have known as a political establishment. >> tucker: it's not just the conventional left-right thing. they are liberal, trump is conservative, they hate him. there is something different going on. populism with trump that scares them? >> i think it's the fact that washington survived, as welyouknow as well as i do. access and money where people have spent decades paying into certain politicians, democrats and republicans alike, to make sure certain political hearings don't happen. to make sure certain laws have provisions written in. all of a sudden, overnight, all of that access they have bought, all the hard work they have done as lobbyists and so on is almost worthless if trump's reality of washington comes into what happens then? >> i kind of liken it in the extreme to the situation as it must be in north korea. if you have a tv and can watch the news and it's going to be a version that's approved and put out by the state, i think in some respects we are getting artificial reality created by people who are putting out narrow tifsz whether democrats, republicans, or corporate interests and people sense, at least some people, that they are not getting an accurate picture. and i think if you are like me, there is very little that i see reported on the news that i instantly believe without doing my own checking. >> tucker: i agree with that. >> so many former reputable news organizations have been proved to be 180 degrees wrong not just a little bit wrong. in the case some insisted president trump was under investigation when he wasn't. so many that insisted it couldn't be true that comey had told him three times he wasn't under investigation, when that was the case. these sorts of things with very little repercussions when the reporting turns out to be wrong based on, i think, highly inadequate standards, reporters doing things that wouldn't be allowed in journalism schools but doing them now with impuberty. impunity. >> tucker: no one is ever held to account for lying, in effect. >> or getting something woefully wrong because they aren't doing due diligence. >> tucker: exactly. sharyl attkisson the book is great. thanks for coming on. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: several house democrats seem to be turning on the former president saying obama did not do enough to stop russia from affecting the elections. what is happening? we will talk to victor davis hanson about that. plus, seattle, the city/country recently hiked its in minimum wage to 13 bucks an hour. sounds great but in a real and cruel twist of fate you might have predicted the higher wage is causing the poorest workers in the city to make less. is that the weirdest story of the day? we will decide and top that. 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. ♪ tuck particular here is kind of an amazing turn of events. one the house of representatives top democrats is pulling no less a figure than barack obama in to the vast web of russia conspiracies. well, appearing on where else cnn on sunday, congressman adam schiff of california, who is the top democrat in the house intel committee said that president obama should have interfered more in the election in order to stop alleged russian interference. >> i think the obama administration should have done a lot more when it became clear that not only was russia intervenes but it was being directed at the highest levels of the kremlin, given the seriousness of this, i think the administration needed to call out russia earlier. needed to act to deter and punish russia earlier. i think that was a very serious mistake. >> tucker: he is not alone. there is a song sheet going around in addition to schiff hymes and falwell recent guests on this show have criticized obama in the last week. why the sudden attacks on the democrats' former leader? weird. victor david hanson fellow at the hoover administration and cal state fresno he joins us tonight. what is this about? >> i think the whole political landscape, the investigatory landscape and the cultural landscape is starting to shift. trump may be victorious on this travel order. it looks like is he going to have some progress with the healthcare reform and the tax reform. the economy is doing pretty well. joblessness is at all time low and stock market is soaring it looks like there may be a shift on dependent energies coming back to the united states. that all creates and he has won four special elections. that creates a momentum and people want to back off a little bit. secondly, i think we underestimated james comey's testimony. it was a pandora's box that left off a lot of demons we haven't fully digested them. loretta lynch is facing a lot of exposure because unlike the trump allegations of impediment of an investigation, she -- comey admits that he exceede exaccedeo her request that's de facto impediment. we haven't digested that bill clinton tarmac meeting with her. we had comey who said he leaked a letter so he could prompt a special investigator and then as soon as he finished that investigation his best friend was appointed to the job. we have a house intelligence committee that's now looking at rice and brennan and power, people are going back and looking at this russian collusion from new eyes as adam schiff pointed out that the first thing that strikes one is that conversation in 2012 where on hot mike inadvertent admission barack obama said i need more space. under today's climate that might constitute some sort of collusion itself. why was he being soft on the russians when hillary had a lot of exposure with the russians. he himself had this failed six year reset ga gamut. >> tucker: this might wind up in places we don't anticipate enough to. >> it's a progressive boomerang if you are going to take out the king, you have got to take him out. it didn't work. trump is a figure that anything that doesn't take him out makes him stronger. third thing is culturally, people are tired of finding another day, another celebrity tries to imagine a way of killing the president of the united states. and when you add in the shakespearian ritual murder of trump every night or look at trying to challenge the election on voting machines, on sabotaging the electoral college, on cherry picking judges, recusals, deep state obama bureaucrats, impeachment, 25th amendment. it is just saturating the people. they are saying you know what? give him six months, but this slow motion cue is running out of steam. i think the perfect storm of politics, the reversal in the aims of these investigations and then just exhaustion on the part of the public with a story that didn't have any legs. it all is working to trump's benefit in a way that none of us ever imagined. >> tucker: fascinating. you may be absolutely right. you get caught up in the day-to-day it's hard to see that thank you, professor. i appreciate that. >> thank you for having me, tucker. >> tucker: the man who attempted to murder the house majority whip steve scalise is political extremist. talk to the radio host shooting spree actually prompted by his understanding of the constitution. the conservatives are somehow responsible for this. sty tuned. yet, according to a seattle radio show host dave roth hodgkinson may have been motivated by a conservative understanding the constitution believing his assassination attempt was a constitutional live protected use of violence to resist tyranny. there is a theory for you. dave ross joins us tonight to explain. dave, it seems to me like here's a guy who said exactly why he did what he did, pretty clearly. and yet, you're blaming the country and the constitution for what he did. >> not at all. no. when i saw that he was being described as a left-wing terrorist, essentially, i wanted to find out what motivated him to actually use a gun to carry that out. you are allowed to hate the government if you want to. where i draw the line, of course, is using violence against it. and it brought to mind the militia story which used to be a big topic years ago, right? this idea the second amendment is the last extreme protection against the tier ran call government. did i some searching around to see if that was still pretty current. i noticed ted cruz himself not long ago had talked about the second amendment in just that way. i said it would be worth illustrating this is what that looks like if that were to be carried out. did he actually say that? did he actually use that as justification? he is dead. i don't know. >> tucker: see, this is very much like lee harvey oswald who defected to the soviet union, self-described communist murders the president and somehow the right is to blame for it? hate in dallas? >> tucker, i don't think the right is to blame for this. the right is not to blame for this. >> tucker: of course, this is about hate. no, the guy was avowed communist. this guy was an avowed bernie volunteer. >> that's not what this was about. >> tucker: all spun up about politics. that's why he did it? >> what do you think the purpose of the second amendment is? what is your own opinion of the second amendment? just for target practice or hunterring? >> tucker: i think the purpose of the second amendment has no bearing on what hodgkinson did. i think we know pretty much why he did what he did. >> what it looked like in practice. >> tucker: because he said. so that's why. and if you're suggesting that he believed he was overthrowing tyranny, the truth is the constitution says you know, you need to take a judicious view view of this. there is no tyranny with this. this guy was responding to. it's just silly. >> you feel that way. i feel that way. how do you define tyranny? if you look in the darker corners of the internet thought we were under tyranny when barack obama was president. when you were on with alex jones last year you referred to the second amendment as extreme case a last resort but you use it. >> tucker: you are blaming the second amendment for this. when this guy. >> no, no, no. no. i'm saying this is what -- if the second amendment were used in a way that you have talked about that ted cruz has talked about, this is what it would look like. >> tucker: i love this. this is very -- this is very clever. so, crazy msnbc viewers shoots a bunch of republicans and somehow it's the fault of the right? >> are you blaming msnbc? >> tucker: of course. needless to say i'm not blaming msnbc. >> why did you point out that aspect of his personality? >> tucker: this guy's politics are really clear. motivated him to act in the way he did. fault of conservatives. i'm saying that's wiley but also ludicrous. >> you keep saying that i don't think it's the fault of conservatives though. i'm telling you i don't think it's the fault of conservatives. if you are going to choose how to categorize it he is also a legal gun owner. should we blame legal gun ownership for this? >> tucker: this is like when a jihadi shoots up a gay club to call up 911 saying he is waging jihad, i don't know why did he it? he did it for the reasons he said he did it. long trail online saying i'm mad at the president. the president is a fascist. hate republicans. they are taking away healthcare and then a list of six republican members in his pocket. i'm not blaming all liberals for this. but this guy's specific brand of politics spurred him to do what he did. and you are trying to spread the blame around to people that don't deserve any of the blame. >> no. i'm not spreading the blame around. i'm pointing out the constitution of the second amendment has been interpreted as a last resort to go up against a tyrannical government. who decides when is tier ran call. search around the internet. is this the only guy who says trump is a traitor? no, it's all over the place. i want to put the coul kibosh os idea tier ran kel government. free democracy there is no reason to use force against a government. >> tucker: nobody is making the case for violence against the government now. >> good. >> tucker: except a pretty small group of radicals on the left. that's what i see. i see it everywhere. people justifying the shooting of steve scalise. >> not true. >> tucker: are you kidding the last week the professor in hartford, connecticut. should have let him die, et cetera. you are seeing this on msnbc host, well, how should we feel? steve scalise was a conservative? i have mixed feelings about this. there are a number of people on the left who have done repeatedly on this show basically made excuses for violence. >> there is no excuses for violence. >> tucker: good for you. >> there are no excuses for violence in a democracy, no. >> tucker: so i wouldn't say that this had anything to do with the second amendment and i would bet you money that if hodges were alive to answer questions, his views on the second amendment would be the same as the views of most liberals, which is it's not real, it's the one part of the bill of rights i get to ignore. >> um-huh. >> tucker: so you are trying to paint him as some sort of second amendment supporter when he seemed to me a garden variety liberal. >> well, no. maybe i just didn't use the proper language in my piece. but, the idea is to point out that when people who call upon the second amendment as the last resort against a tier ran call tier ral government. useful in this day and age in that way this is what that would look like. you talk about going up against the government. >> tucker: not what this would look like. well, of course not because steve scalise was not, you know a despots trying to control the life of hodges, that'hodges -- hodgkinson. it? >> is absurd. i think you know, this that you will find plenty of sites on the internet that believe in that interpretation of the second amendment. >> tucker: it's the conservatives' fault. i got it dave. nice try. >> no. >> tucker: pro-life group blocked from advertising on twitter because their message is too sensitive says twitter. do you think planned parenthood gets the same treatment? think again. the latest example of of corporate censorship up ahead. plus, bernie and jane sanders presented them asstselves as antidotes of corrupt parties. why are they facing an investigation by the fbi for possible branchepossible bank whoooo. you could find the right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. >> tucker: christopher columbus ceremonially deported from the state of alaska under a new bill signed by the alaska governor bill walker. columbus day will henceforth be known as indigenous people's day. alaska joins california, tennessee and south dakota in refusing to commemorate the discoveriry of the new world by europeans. why? well it's an apology of sorts, obviously. the message is it would have been better in europeans had never come here at all. that's not absurd, it's literally an attack on civilization. things are in fact better on this continent than they were 700 years ago in cases of democracy and penicillin and internal combustion engine didn't make that obvious. the u.s. played a key role in creating a better and freer world while helping to free the real world from fascism and communism. more human freedom and happiness. far less cannibalism. it's a&it's an achievement not mourn it proaction is a pro-life group like other groups. they want to advertise on twitter it sought to put up the following ad. it shows a picture of a baby in utero and it says i'm not a potential human, i am a human with potential simple enough. but twitter is refusing to run the ad. twitter says live action has tweeted sensitive material in the past. unless live action censors itself and deletes these tweets twitter says it will not be allowed to buy ads. lila rose is president and founder of live action. she joins us tonight. it's hard to believe this. you are trying to give money to twitter. and they are turning it down on what sounds like ideological grounds. >> yes, absolutely ideological grounds. planned parenthood the nation's biggest abortion schan advertising on twitter. live action the leading pro-life platform is not allowed to. the kind of tweets they are flagging, tucker, they are calling the violation of hate insensitive policy show ultrasound images, fact checks of planned parenthood. they are discussing the prenatal life and its beauty. these are the sorts of tweets that twitter is trying to block. >> tucker: got on the screen that's what twitter considered too offensive for people to look at? >> it violates the hate insensitive policy. and this is a platform, of course, that is a public company. so, this is not something they are telling their shareholders or their telling their users that they're actually going to be blocking the advertisement of pro-life speech. this is something they have been keeping a secret and now trying to get this news out there that they have been blocking us. >> tucker: meanwhile the abortion industry gets to advertise all it wants to. >> exactly. >> tucker: planned parenthood is subsidized by the u.s. taxpayer. >> exactly. they have billion-dollar budget and half a billion dollars is coming from taxpayers and planned parenthood is committing almost 900 abortions a day. but they are allowed to do promotion and not violating the hate incentive policy. live action pro-life group exposing them. talking about the value of preborn life. messages that a lot of americans agree with twitter was responding to us for months twitter box saying this is banned. we won't let you put this out. finally got in touch with a real live person and they told us that twitter -- we would have to actually delete almost all of our tweets and delete our website and create a new website in order to do advertising on twitter. >> tucker: that's unbelievable. we reached out to twitter because this seems an atrocity to us. i think we have a statement. put it up twitter has clear transparent rules that every advertising is required to follow and viewpoints of the organization do not impact how these rules are applied. >> so transparent that it took over a year for us to finally get from twitter what's wrong with these tweets showing ultrasound and fact checking planned parenthood. they said any tweet that shows ultrasound, shows prenatal life and affirms it that exposes planned parenthood violates the hate and sensitive policy. twitter -- i think the big picture here, tucker is, there is an epidemic on college campuses, in legacy media to silence speech that you don't like. and twitter is supposed to be a place. i mean their own mission statement says that they are a place t to empower people to share ideas and information without any blocks, with freedom to get out to as many people as possible. yet, that's exactly what they are doing here. and it's clearly ideological. >> tucker: there is nothing more offensive to the left than opposing abortion for sure. so, i mean, is there anything else you are leaving out? i just want to be absolutely certain. they are letting planned parenthood come on. they are not letting you come on. >> exactly. >> tucker: they are calling, basically calling this hate speech. >> exactly. and violation of the hate and sensitive policy. again, tweets that are critical to planned parenthood. tweets that are exposing abortion that are showing images of prenatal life of children in the woman. womb. tweets shouldn't be funding them with taxpayer dollars. this is what they are calling against their hate insensitive. planned parenthood promoting tweets. tweets ultimately going to go towards their taxpayer funding and their public image. bias is so blatant it's almost unbelievable. >> tucker: are you going to delete your tweets. >> absolutely not. we are going to keep tweeting. and actually doing a campaign right now to get people to fund live action and to get out the information that twitter is trying to block using other platforms. using facebook, using youtube. using the blogosphere, coming on here and talking with you. the key thing here the information needs to be available to every american. about the humanity of life in the womb. that's our mission. that's what we are fighting for. life in the womb is precious. every life is precious. we're not going to back down because twitter -- >> tucker: even if i disagree with you, and i don't, i would stand up for your right to say what you think. >> i hope twitter hears this and stops this ridiculous policy and picking and choosing because of ideology that is, by the way, i think passing. this ideology that life in the womb doesn't matter. human rights women want abortion. that's yesterday twitter. and i hope they will catch up and fulfill their own mission statement as well as fulfilling -- promoting and empowering people. >> tucker: maybe stop censors, too. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: national debt approaching $21 trillion. why is it it spending 20,000 on musical illegal immigrant who falls in love with an ice agent? i'm not sure. that's why we have top that. we'll find out. when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and. you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. things for workers. the second phase they found out just released a study today. actually hurt low income workers in their city. liberal economists across america, agaft to discover that this thing that they thought was the perfect policy raising the minimum wage all the way to $15 turns out it is possible to raise it too much. >> tucker: fewer people have jobs? >> fewer people had jobs. some people kept their jobs had fewer hours. >> tucker: of course. >> costs so much to keep them employed. folks are trying to poke holes in the study. commissioned by the city of seattle. >> tucker: you knew it was going to happen. i would like the minimum wage to work. i want people to make higher wages. >> about finding the right level and it seems like they may have gone too far too fast. >> tucker: does sound that way. interesting. ashley, what have you got? >> self-proclaimed socialist theater group in san francisco which who thought it would exist there? receiving federal government dollars in the upwards of $500,000 to promote plays that have socialist jeandz. i'agendas and i'm all for free speech why are tax dollars funding them? i don't know. the latest one is tag redick lus. little bit immigration and lesbian falls in love with ice agent and that's the latest one. they all have different themes based on liberal socialism and apparently tax dollars are going to fund them. so i find it a tad extreme only because, you know, conservatives have been targeted for a long time by the federal government but apparently we can support socialist agendas with our taxpayer dollars. >> tucker: does federal art grant money ever go to like some right far out right wing group? it always geese to singular people. >> i would like to get penalty funding. beautiful conservative photos of reagan. >> tucker: how about if you like the art you can buy it. you like that? >> personal choice. >> tucker: that's a weird story. but you win. you know why? because that story makes me sad. i want the minimum wage to work. >> the segment wasn't about making you sad. >> tucker: only one who wants the minimum wage to work. i want a $25 minimum wage to work but it just doesn't. thank you both for joining us. >> thank you. >> tucker: bernie sanders hasn't ruled out another presidential run in 2020. some concerns with that though. you may have to worry about his wife going to prison in the meantime. we will tell you why the fbi is investigating her. it is happening. we have got details after the break. ♪ don't judge. if he does want to run, it's possible he would have to do it while his wife sits in a prison self. according to politico, burning and his wife jane sanders just hired a lawyer in response to a scandal that his been gifted in a long time, about seven years. from (220)042-2007, she was a president of a college in vermont, only a couple hundred kids there. sanders had big dreams for a period in 2010, she took out two loans with about $10 million to buy a -- the deal turned out to be a total disaster. the small school could employ its debt and in 2016 and went broke and shuts off completely. not that the sanders family got hurt by any of that. jane sanders took a separate package when he was fired in 2011, money that helped pay off a crippling world. as president, she also get a sweetheart deal to her own daughter, giving her more than half a million bucks in three years to teach were looking to students. now the fbi is investigating evidence if jane sanders fraudulently inflated the amount of donations going into the college in order to trick a bank called people's united to including a little of the school never should've had. according to sign documents admitted by sanders, the school had already walked in $1.2 million. that's what she claimed. that year she only actually got $279,000 in donations. that's a huge discrepancy, why? how did that happen? possibly, fraud. into the investigation. certainly more evidence to that than there is for collusion between trump and vladimir putin, but for some reason, you may not hear about it on msnbc. weird. that's about it for us tonight. excuse me! tomorrow night, no frog in the throat. we will be back at 8:00 p.m. tune in up to our friends at the five in new york city. ♪