family eagerly intending to collude possibly with russia. >> tucker: it's finally happened, we have a russian scandal, but instead approving collusion between the trump campaign and the government of vladimir putin, this one reveals deep wrongdoing and the obama administration, and it's real. we've known for several years that russian money was flowing to the clinton family and the foundations during the exact same period the obama administration approved the russian acquisition of 20% of this country's strategic uranium reserves. now new reporting from the hill newspaper revealed that as early as 2009 the fbi was investigating secret russian efforts to get the deal done by bribing americans. somehow the public, and even key officials whenever told about that investigation, as they made the decision to allow the deal to go forward. at least one american businessman says he directly witnessed russian efforts to convince the clintons to approve that deal. the businessman says he was blocked from publicly telling congress what he knew because he was ordered to remain silent by eric holder's justice department. it's a remarkable story and potentially a very significant one. peter schweitzer, dominic originally broke the story in his book, he's been covering it ever since and he joins us now. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: this is a kind of confusing cover to the story. the person who has apparently first-hand evidence that the russian government tried to get the clintons to support the deal has been prevented from speaking even to congress, how can that be and what's the justification for that? >> that's a great question. what we know, apparently based on the reporting is that he has been put under a gag order by the department of justice and has been told that if he speaks about this publicly could not only will he face financial penalties in the form of a fine, he could actually go to jail, that his liberty would be at risk. which is mystifying to me. why do we not want to know the details about this? that's what's so troubling, it reeks of cover-up. it just stinks. there's no other word for it. >> tucker: as a legal matter, how can the justice department from a previous administration told the congress of the united states, elected officials that they can't talk to an american citizen about allegations of bribery that put our national security at risk? how does that work? >> it really shouldn't work and can't work and what i mean is the department of justice today under president trump, attorney general sessions, could tomorrow come back and say we are removing this gag order, we believe that there's a compelling national interest to know. if we want this individual to testify before congress. we want the public to know exactly what went on. this is not something that's unbreakable, but it just simply takes a request from the department of justice to remove that gag order. if that gag order is not removed, i think it's doubtful this businessman will want to go public, because he doesn't want to be put in legal jeopardy. >> tucker: 's back to the core question, the approval of this deal, uranium one purchased by a russian company giving the russians in effect control of 20% of our uranium supply. the office of then secretary of state hillary clinton said basically she had nothing to do with the approval. is that true? how could that be true? >> it's not true and it's interesting with the emails that came out, the leaked emails, what you find is how they tried to cover this up. one of the assistant secretaries, a gentleman named fernandez came forward and said i was the one that really made the decision. she was not involved in that decision. but if you look in the emails, you see exactly how it went down. fernandez is communicating with john podesta and is saying let me know what i can say, how i can be helpful. she was intimately involved in the decision on this is the important thing to keep in mind, hillary clinton in 2008 when she ran for president went into detail -- she actually had a plan on toughening this body that would prove these kinds of comforter hooked on my controversial deals. she is very knowledgeable on the subject she's a hawk on this issue. for her to pretend like i don't know what was going on stretches credulity and that's one of the reasons we need to have an investigation and really to this point, we have not had a congressional hearing on this. we have not had a grand jury as far as we know. it's just shocking to me that there has been no investigation on this whatsoever. >> tucker: just to be clear, the dots we are connecting are not very far apart. the chairman of this uranium country is also on the board of the clinton foundation and the coastline of the clintons. the podesta group lobbied on behalf of this company. am i getting these facts wrong? >> you are exactly right. here's the bottom line. as this deal was coming for approval in 2010 the clinton foundation received from nine shareholders in this uranium company that was sold to the russians. none of them all of a sudden decided they were going to donate large amounts of money to the clinton foundation, more than 145 million. by the way, a lot of those donations were never declared publicly by the clintons, they were hidden. it stinks on so many levels. here's the other important national security implications. this deal was predicated on the fact that when the russians got control of this uranium it would not be exported out of the united states, that was part of the agreement. "the new york times" has now reported that that's not true. yellowcake from these uranium mines are being exported out of the united states and we don't even really know where they are going. that and of itself demands investigation. >> tucker: about 20% of it they've reported has gone to an unknown destination. peter schweitzer, the person who broke the story in the beginning it has been on it ever since. thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: questions of bribery aside, why exactly did the obama administration allow a foreign rival, russia, to control 20% of american uranium reserves? soderberg was in the to the united nation's and deputy national security advisor under president clinton and she joins us. thanks for coming on. >> my presser. >> tucker: leaving aside the questions of the doj investigation, why in the world would hillary clinton state department and the obama administration sign off on a deal that allows a rival power to control 20% of our uranium reserves? >> these business deals are ones that had review of nine different agencies and they agreed that since it was going to stay in the country that it would be an acceptable way to keep our uranium safe here and under appropriate control. i think the reporter that has been gone and yellowcake has been really disproven. i really think -- you are digging at the bottom of the barrel here. >> tucker: let me stop you there. you think it was a good idea for the obama administration to give russia our primary adversary in the world, according to the democrats, control of parnate, 20% of our uranium? why is that a good idea? i'm sincere. why is that a good idea? >> i'm not familiar with the details of this particular uranium deal but we have traded in uranium with appropriate controls throughout the last 40 years, bipartisan, both republican and democrat governments feel that we can keep the appropriate control. the bigger issue here is this whole issue is fake news in terms of an investigation. it's been shut -- all president trump has to do is ask his current deputy attorney general and deputy head of the fbi, who looked at this and closed it in 2015. this is fake news trying to divert -- >> tucker: i'm not engaging in -- you may have that view but i'm not engaging in that. i'm asking about the policies. >> why are we talking what happened wow something that happened almost ten years ago? >> tucker: hold on. >> the russians are -- invading in our own democracy, we should be talking with that. >> tucker: if we are as concerned about russia as you say we should be, as you just said we are to be, then why wouldn't we be concerned about the fact that according to the nuclear regulatory commission reported in "the new york times," some large percentage of this uranium in the form of yellowcake has been exported to unknown countries? what countries do think those are? switzerland? >> i have no idea. >> tucker: hold on. >> are not a government right now. >> tucker: you have no problem -- hold on. why are you concerned about that? >> look, what i'm more concerned about right now, i'm concerned about any breach of our national security. if there's a problem here we need to investigate it and look at that and that's what both residents at democrats and republicans do. what i'm more concerned about is the invasion of our democracy by that very power you are trying to go back ten years ago. what did the russians do in our investigation right now and why are the doj -- why are the current -- what i want to know and what your show should be talking about is why are the republicans in this congress trying to cut off the investigation of russia's role in our democracy? that's real news. >> tucker: you know what, i will grant you that point. i don't care. i want to talk about the fact that uranium is being mined in the american west and is controlled by the russian government, the very one that you say poses a threat to our democracy. why shouldn't every american sat bolt upright and safe, what? how the heck did they could control that? it's not ten years ago, it's happening right now. >> the uranium is under very tight control, security. my understanding is they own some -- they own some of the company that owns it. if it's a problem that we need to have the president look into that. he's in charge right now and president trump should look into it. >> tucker: would you upside off an ideal? knowing what you know about russia, you don't think this is insane? the country six or description, control of our uranium supply? >> this was a deal that almost ten years ago. 2010. it's almost 2018. look, no. >> tucker: that's not speculation, that's a fact. >> all of us take very seriously the control of uranium and plutonium, our stockpiles. absolutely i do. >> tucker: maria blowing past my questions, which are real? >> i've said several times these types of deals, i'm not familiar with this particular one, very, very tight control, reviewed by nine agencies, all of whom signed off. >> tucker: we don't know where the yellowcake is going. if that's been reported by "the new york times," it's not something i'm making up in the right land. why are you upset about it? >> i haven't seen that report and from what i know they have very tight controls on them. if there's a problem than the trump administration needs to immediately look at it. >> tucker: i agree. >> what i'm concerned about is congress doing russia's bidding for trying to stop the investigation of russia's collusion in our election. why are they -- >> we have an independent counsel investigation. >> congress are trying to it -- why the republicans in congress trying to do russia's bidding and stop the investigation -- >> tucker: i'm a little upset you are going to political bumper stickers. >> you are trying to dig back in history to deflect from what's going on in today's -- what's happening right now -- >> tucker: why am i the policy person in this conversation? >> as i've said, we need to address the security of the deal that was all most ten years old and we will. the president of the united states has the power to do that. what i'm concerned about is what's happening today and russia's interference in our election. >> tucker: this is happening today, they have control right now. >> why is the republican congress trying to cut that -- >> tucker: whatever, they have no control, it's an independent counsel investigation, they can't stop it. >> they are trying to cut the funding off. >> tucker: i'm worried about the dissemination of yellowcake, i will let our viewers to side. >> the american people need to know what happened in our election and that's the bottom line. >> tucker: all right, ambassador, thanks for joining us, appreciate it. the hollywood backlash against sexual harassment has named mike named inuit. this time ah, dinner. throughout history, the one meal when we come together, break bread, share our day and connect as a family. [ bloop, clicking ] and connect, as a family. just, uh one second voice guy. [ bloop ] huh? hey? i paused it. bam, family time. so how is everyone? find your awesome with xfinity xfi and change the way you wifi. >> tucker: : kaepernick became an icon on the left were voicing his political views and now, irony of ironies, he's going after the nfl owners for expressing their own political views. kaepernick started the trend of kneeling for the anthem. he hasn't been signed by a team in the nfl this year. he says that's because the owners, the team owners, have colluded to keep them blackballed from the league. he is now suing the nfl. does he have a case? saturdays 9:00 p.m. eastern, you already watch it but you should keep doing so. judge, this opens up a whole new list of possibilities. i would love to be in the nfl. can i sue because they haven't hired me? >> calling capper nick has a right to his opinion, but he doesn't have the right to be in the nfl. this guy is a crybaby, he's claiming he's a victim, he's claiming that this collusion in the nfl. think about this, tucker. what he has to prove in this collective bargaining claim of collusion and conspiracy is that several teams in the nfl, or the nfl officials, and at least one team got together and said we will prevent this great football quarterback from being in the nfl because of his political views. i got news for you: they can keep you out of the nfl for whatever reason they want. they can decide they don't like you and keep you out of the nfl. you don't have a right to be in the nfl. but he's got to prove by a clear preponderance of the evidence, with evidence, that they colluded. what evidence does he have a collusion? right now he's saying that there was a political atmosphere that the president was partisan in this. : kaepernick needs to understand he took a knee and, what was it, august of 2016, when the president had not even mentioned this and he became a free agent in march of this year. the president didn't talk about any of this until last month. he saying i'm a victim of the president and all this political partisanship, the president didn't open his mouth until a month ago. >> tucker: the claim itself is just ludicrous on common sense grounds. character is clearly not an important criteria in the nfl, they hire horrible people all the time. if it's a pure meritocracy. they hire the best football players. they have a long history of that, right? >> if you look at the rap sheets of any of these? the proportion of the guys who have been arrested. i'm not even going to go into it, but make no mistake, the domestic violence, some of the claims that we fight about, manslaughter, et cetera. what you've got with: kaepernick is a guy who, sure, he helped the 49ers get to the super bowl, but he was benched 2015 for the whole year. we don't say it because you decide you want to be a free agent and get out of your contract, now all of a sudden you have more rights than everybody else. you don't, and i don't care who your lawyer is, i don't care -- this seems to me to be a leftist agenda to bring donald trump into the issue, the president, everything is his fault, no, it isn't and you are not a victim. you are just not as good as you used to be. >> tucker: i like the argument. i've got political views are no nfl contract, i wonder if there was collusion. we've got another studio had brought down by sexual harassment allegations. roy price. a producer for the show "the man of the high castle," one of the most popular shows on amazon says that he aggressively propositioned her for sex. according to a hollywood reporter, this looks something like, a little bit like the harvey weinstein story. what does it add up to? if this evidence that weinstein is not alone? >> i think that it is more evidence that there is a culture in hollywood that allows men in positions of power to try to seduce, sexually harassed, sexually abuse young women that this casting couch, a.k.a. casting bed, and something that is so much a part of business that they don't even talk about it. and i think that -- look, amazon is huge. you and i both know it's huge. this guy is not only accused of sexual harassment, rose mcgowan said i was raped by harvey weinstein. under federal law you are supposed to look into those allegations. in addition to that, he then got rid of i believe it was -- there was some kind of project being developed by someone who had made a claim of sexual harassment and he got rid of it. this guy, price, was a very tight with weinstein. what we need now, tucker -- look, i was a prosecutor for a long time. i did sex crimes. we need to get to the bottom of this culture in hollywood. we need to have a liaison with the national va association, talk to women in new york, in l.a., wherever they are doing movies, motion pictures, get the motion picture association to find it if they really mean business, because this is going not just across the country, but across the globe in terms of the victimization of women who are young, vulnerable and want a career. >> tucker: i don't understand this. harvey weinstein was a big donor to planned parenthood, obviously he supports women. that's the one thing we know about hollywood, it's an empowering place. they voted overwhelmingly for hillary clinton, how could they not be on the side of women? >> this is part of the hollywood hypocrisy where do as i say, not what i do. by the way, harvey weinstein's support of women projects and programs is nothing more than a prophylactic, so to speak, for his attempt to do what he's got to do and then say i'm innocent, i love women. i love women, look at all of these issues. >> tucker: i hired lisa bloom, i'm a good person! i thought my indulgences. it's like the medieval church. >> that's classic hollywood and the fact that so many strong women, tucker, didn't come out and say anything, they just went along with it, tells me we need an outside, independent agency to oversee what's going on in hollywood. >> tucker: [laughs] i'm sorry to laugh, the ironies are so deep. it's great to see you. judge jeanine pirro. every weekend. thank you. he probably thought the threat of president hillary clinton was dead and buried, but like a zombie, it rises once again. professor lauren of harvard has a plan to reverse t what started as a passion... ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? ♪ look how beautiful it is... honey, we need to talk. we do? i took the trash out. i know - and thank you so much for that. i think we should get a medicare supplement insurance plan. right now? whether you're new to medicare or not, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. it's up to you to pay the difference. so think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. i did a little research. with a medicare supplement plan, you'll be able to stay with your doctor... oh you know i love that guy. mmmmhmmm. these types of plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. and, there are no networks. is this a one-size fits all kind of thing? no. there are lots of plan options. it all depends on what we need. and how much we want to spend. call now to request your free [decision guide]. it could help you find an aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. what happens when we travel? the plans go with us. anywhere in the country. i like that. you know what else? unitedhealthcare insurance company has years and years of experience. what do you say? i'm in. join the millions already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance... plans endorsed by aarp. remember, all medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could really save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose your own doctor or hospital as long as they accept medicare patients. and with these plans, there could be low or no copays. you do your push-ups today? prepare to be amazed. don't wait. call today to request your free [decision guide], and find the aarp medicare supplement plan to go the distance with you. go long. whentempur-pedic delivers.... only tempur material precisely conforms to your weight, shape and temperature. so you'll sleep deeply and wake up feeling like a champion. find an exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com >> tucker: it's been almost a year since the 2016 election, ten months send the inauguration, but the idea of a hillary clinton presidency refuses to die. >> she going to run, please run again. there were a lot of reasons she didn't when my, including the fact that she was not what she did. >> tucker: our next guest says hillary clinton may not even have to run again, she may be appointed president. harvard professor lawrence lessig recently wrote a piece explaining that she can still become president, hillary can, without waiting for 2020. what exactly is this plan? professor lawrence lessig joins us now. next are coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: i want to take this seriously because you are a harvard professor, you are smart. i know you are a sincere person. it doesn't seem like a very democratic plan, but how exactly does hillary clinton having lost, become the president? >> i didn't like a piece predicting anything. i wrote a piece in response to a question. the question i got was, what happened if it is shown that there was a conspiracy to steal the election? what i said was -- i'm not even sure i think i believe that. there's no evidence evidence of that, not enough to actually speculate about it in public, but if that is true, if it is shown than what should happen? and i think the fundamental point that if you steal the election, you have to give it back, is something we all should be able to agree upon. i don't know why there should be much argument about that. all i was trying to explain is one of the steps that would actually happen if this was the first thing that happen? number one, if it is shown without doubt that there was a conspiracy to steal, which is different from lots of other reasons you might impeach a president. this is a very particular one, the president should resign. if the president to resign, so too share the vice president resigned, and if that happens that under the presidential succession statute, paul ryan becomes president. that's where the hard question comes. should ryan remain president as somebody who has inherited because of this theft, or should he do what i think is actually the moral thing to do, the right thing to do, which is to correct for the theft. he could correct the theft very easily under the 25th amendment by nominating a democrat, hillary clinton, to be his vice president and then step aside. it's a speculation based on the question that was presented to me hundreds -- not hundreds of times, i'm a law professor, tens of times. >> tucker: a couple of things, when you say theft, do you mean literally theft? if it could be shown that the kremlin somehow controlled the voting machines? or is it theft in the sense in which it's used in washington now, that somehow sophisticated russian propaganda convinced a lot of right-wing mouth breathers and a couple of key states to vote against their own interests and selecting from? which of those? propaganda? >> its actual theft. it's not just actual theft. if you show that the russians actually controlled the voting booths and flipped the election, but trumpet nothing to do with it, in the sense that you can't show it was a conspiracy, i don't think there's anything that hangs on from. the only thing i was talking about was the extreme case, the unthinkable case where there is an agreement, a conspiracy working together between a foreign government and a campaign to bring about the actual changing of votes, or something at that level, to lead to the flipping of the election. that's the hypothetical i was trying to address. >> tucker: that is so hypothetical. by the way, just for the record, if that was ever shown, i would be leading the charge against anyone who would do something -- that's totally immoral and that would be hope's aversion. >> of course, that's why i'm kind of surprised by the outrage. >> tucker: here's the thing, that is so unlikely that it almost seemed like you were writing a piece of pornography were desperate for trump to not be president. saying this could actually happen, you know what i mean? you are rating escapist literature for unhappy lefties kind of thing. >> i'm not sure that's what i wrote. the first, the second paragraph of what i wrote, i don't know that i believe it, i certainly haven't seen clear evidence that i don't think is appropriate to speculate about whether there is clear evidence of it. but i get emails from people asking what if there was such a conspiracy? i set it up to say i'm not saying this is true, i'm just trying -- a lot of people say can we have a new election, or can the supreme court forced the electoral college to vote again? what i'm trying to say is none of those things are possible under our constitution. you can't have a new election, you can't have a new electoral college vote, all of that is fixed, there's no way to go back. but there is this path given the way the 25th amendment works that it could actually work. again, not a prediction, not a plan. >> tucker: i get it, it's a little like saying -- i'm not seeing the israelis are behind 9/11, but just theoretically, would it be better to say using the immoral authority you have is a tenure more professor, that's not true. there's literally zero evidence that the russians got into our voting machines at any level, we look into this, it's not true and move on, wouldn't it be better to do that? >> as soon as the actual ongoing investigation of what happened is finished then yes, i think exactly what you're saying is true. but when i started the piece by saying is that there's this chatter that is coming up. it could just be conspiracy theorists, i don't know, i don't really care. again, i wasn't making a press release and coming out and trying to do some big event drawing attention to this, i was just writing a blog post in response to a question. >> tucker: people pay attention -- you are not just writing a blog post. people pay attention to what you say because you are smart and you have this position of authority. let me ask you this thing. can you understand the perspective of the term voter looking on at this saying i voted for the car, i knew his boss, but i did it because i felt like he was better than the option -- and ever since i voted for him i've been attacked as a moral by the elites in washington, boston, new york and los angeles calling me immoral and trying to take the election are way for me and i'm offended by that? can you see that perspective? >> oh, my gosh, of course i can. it's not just seeing the perspective -- i completely understand. there's a segment of the people who voted for donald trump who were so deeply frustrated with what they perceived to be the deeply corrupted way that washington works and i'm one of those people that has been on that charge. i completely get it. i'm the first person to say i wish that all of these questions would be bracketed and put to one side, or answered at least. in the context of this ongoing investigation i don't think it's to be placed on me that i'm answering a question about -- something that came out of the investigation. all i'm saying is here's what could happen if something came out of the investigation. >> tucker: unlikely to happen. as a nonlaw professor. >> i will support you on that, it's unlikely to happen. >> tucker: thank you. lawrence lessig. up next, you pay for illegal immigrants to go to school, college, get food stamps, housing vouchers at a whole lot more. are you ready to start paying for their abortions? that's >> tucker: google has appointed itself the internet sheriff against big news, adding to a long list of jobs like controlling your life in every way. google says it's valiantly guarding the innocent and the ignorant masses from lies that would lead them astray, like voting for donald trump. that's the idea. there are some bugs in the system. earlier this week "the new york times" reported that fake news stories have persistently popped up as, believe it or not, google-driven ads on fact-checking websites. and adam pollitt affects said that melania trump was meeting the white house, a bogus story that joanna gaines was leaving her tv show. perhaps divining fact from fiction isn't google's strong after all. it's well-established at this point the left believes single person on earth has the right to enter this country are not. the avant-garde liberals are finding a new rate for illegal aliens, the right to have an abortion at taxpayer expense. kristin hawkins is president of her students for life for america. just wrote a piece about this, she joins us for night stomach tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for coming on. >> tucker: you fill in the blanks, liberals are arguing that u.s. taxpayers somehow have an obligation to fund abortion for illegal aliens? true? >> that's right. at this young girl entered our country illegally, she's from central america. she informed the government once she was apprehended that she was pregnant and that she wanted to have an abortion. not surprisingly, the aclu seized this opportunity, along with their abortion allies to mandate that taxpayers facilitate our abortion and this is just a shocking case because it shows you just how far the aclu, their friends at planned parenthood and the abortion industry want to take their extremist abortion agenda. they want to use this girl, and what they're trying to do is use or a sort of a way to internationalize roe vs. wade. declaring that she has a constitutional right to have a taxpayer-funded abortion. the last time i checked the constitution only applies to americans. >> tucker: i don't think it directly addresses whether or not we have an obligation to pay for the abortions of illegal aliens. it almost seems like -- the left loves abortion, they think it's the key to freedom. it almost seems like it's not really all about the abortion, if the aclu and affiliated group seeing how high they can raise the middle finger in the face of middle america and say we hate you, we despise your values and we will do exactly what we want to make you pay for it whether you like it or not. >> that's right. this is something that goes against the majority of americans. majority of americans are against taxpayer-funded abortions and now they are just doing this again. they actually try to use this gross case to add onto their additional additional losses that they are already trying to stop catholic charities, one of the largest charities in our country from receiving federal grants of up to help refugees and immigrants. this is their antilife, their anti-faith agenda coming out in full force and that's what we're seeing. that's why really it so important that we have president trump there in d.c. we have a pro-life administration, a pro-life hhs, because they are the ones trying to protect this young girl from the aclu, from planned parenthood, who are simply using her. >> tucker: i am pro-life, but you wouldn't have to be in order to find this appalling, the idea -- if some federal judge decides in fact the constitution has been hiding this obligation for 225 years, would this mean that u.s. taxpayers have an obligation to fund the abortion of anybody from around the world that comes here? >> that's right. this is setting up dangerous precedent. what this will do is tell any young, scarecrow in central america, or anywhere else in the world, come to the united states illegally or legally and we will find a taxpayer-funded abortion for you. this is dangerous stuff, especially when you consider this young girl coming from central america, who made that dangerous, life-threatening journey to cross our borders and this is the signal we will be sending out across the world. >> tucker: this is what trump is going to win back again no matter how flawed he is, normal people look at the alternative and say you scare me because you are nuts, actually. you are hateful. >> they are extremists. >> tucker: 's that's for sure. thank you for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: that is appearing las vegas guard his back, jesus compost appeared on the ellen to generous show today, but the res about las vegas remain unanswered. you didn't think it was possible, but it has, we >> tucker: mandalay bay security guard jesus compost, one of the only direct eye witnesses to the shooting indoors in the hotel in vegas over two weeks ago scheduled to appear on hannity last week, last thursday, but he abruptly back out without telling anybody and disappeared. today he resurfaced, he made an appearance on the ellen degenerate show. here's part of it. they go you just want this to be over so you're talking about it now and then you're not going to talk about it again, and i don't blame you, because why relive this over and over again. it's helpful for people to understand what a hero you are, because you being shot in the leg saved so many people's lives, so we just want to celebrate you, that's why you're here today. we want to thank you for what you've done. >> tucker: how exactly does that work? is that really an interview? it turns out it could actually be a bizarre case of cross marketing by mgm resorts, that owns mandalay bay. it sponsors the ellen degenerate show and features ellen theme slot machines and many casinos, including mandalay bay. maybe that's why he did the interview. meanwhile, mgm reached out to us after reports came out suggesting that jesus compost was using someone else's social security number. mgm company claims they verified his employment eligibility back in 2015 and it was a social security card. mark stein is an author and columnist and he joins us tonight. look, i'm not a conspiracy not at all and i'm desperately hoping the authorities will prevent me from forming my own conspiracies to explain what has become excrete singly and exportable, but it looks like that interview was managed by md that's what it but i'm on ellen show. does that give you confidence that the public is learning anything meaningful about the story? >> no, and i'm not a conspiracy not either, but you are entitled to be one on this, tucker, because whether by intention or design, nothing is proceeding normally in this case. up to the absurdity where someone says i'm only going to give one interview and i'm going to give it to ellen to generous. >> tucker: [laughs] >> i've got nothing against -- i've got nothing against ellen. >> tucker: i don't either! >> this seems very weird choice and as you say she manages to say you are a true hero because by getting shot in the leg you saved so many lives. that's not what happened. that was the old narrative. >> tucker: exactly. >> at the old narrative was that he interrupted the gunfire, took a shot in the leg and brought the massacre to a halt. then the sheriff said, sorry, i got things the wrong way around, actually mr. compost got there before the mass shooting started and then apparently the shooter between shooting mr. compost in the lake, there was then a six minute delay before he started massacring everybody, during which time he had a nice cup of tea, a call down to room service or whatever he did and then the hotel said that's not what happened, there's a third timeline and then everybody does the obvious and says why don't we ask mr. compost what happened and then they say suddenly, he has disappeared, he's gone now. he's off the scene, no one has seen him for a week. then he comes back and he's on the ellen to generous show. that's how conspiracy theories start and everybody is entitled to take a flyer on whatever conspiracy theory they want in this case because were, for whatever reason, mandalay bay and the ellen degenerate show have muddied the waters to total impenetrable lady now. >> tucker: i think it so nicely put because it's clear, and by the way, simply because mgm managed this interview, doesn't mean that it's an accurate, i'm not attacking mgm. but i also think it was managed, clearly it was managed. so they are under a ton of legal pressure because the usual ambulance chasers are circling the hotel looking for payouts and so that suggests that he's under a lot of pressure to give a specific story line that may not be that useful in understanding what happened. >> there's other issues here, talker. las vegas is one of the most surveilled cities on earth, because all these big casinos resort owners want to know what people are doing in the building from every conceivable angle. even before we got the big post-9/11 security, in vegas they had cameras everywhere linked to some back office where everybody is looking at what you're doing. and what's interesting to me is that there are some's that goes on in london or paris or brussels or wherever, the brussels airport farming is a very good example. they pulled some stunned at the brussels airport, kill a bunch of people. within 24 hours you've got the closed-circuit television picture showing the killer moving through the airport concourse. here, mandalay bay has not released any footage, any shots of the sky, the couple of pictures, event of the hotel room door are actually extremely limited. 200 rounds did indeed come through the store, that must be the best build hotel room door in the history of hotel rooms. >> tucker: exactly right. >> so, i might be wrong, there might be an explanation for tha that. he might not have been a very good shot so he was actually firing through the cheap sheet rock to the side of the door. i don't know. the fact is that mandalay bay has not done what brussels airport did in that terrorist attack. >> tucker: totally right. >> nobody knows what this guy was doing. >> tucker: there's dishonesty in her somewhere. quickly, just to prove i'm not a conspiracy not, want to ask about the jfk assassination. 54 years ago next month, a long time ago. we are about to get as released by law, the final tranche of papers from the investigation into the murder. the cia is apparently arguing those papers should be held for another 25 years, which would bring the total up to almost 80 years that they are under wrap from public view. what could be the justification for that? >> again, you are entitled to be a conspiracy not on this one too, and it makes you wonder when donald trump in one of his more inventive moves placed ted cruz his father on the grassy knoll that day in the late stages of the presidential primary campaign. makes you wonder, it seemed a little crazy at the time and i you look at the facts. we all know ted cruz was born in alberta, was his father operating on the instructions of the canadian government? we have some canadian deep sleeper operation going on here. >> tucker: one of my personal favorite moments. we are out of time unfortunately. more conspiracies. that was great i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, i went to a doctor and then i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma. that diagnosis was tough. i'm a concrete mason. i own my own company. i went from being a guy that could pick up anything i wanted, to having to ask for help. i'm a person that likes to take control. at that point in my life, i said there's nothing i can do. i have to rely on physician's information, physician's recommendations. i had to put my trust in somebody. and i found cancer treatment centers of america through the recommendation of a good friend of mine. i wanted a second opinion. it's actually uplifting coming here, seeing everything positive. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease. i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy when his disease progressed because i had been reading about some of the exciting advances in hodgkin's lymphoma. we have drugs that can specifically can affect the patients immune system, and unleash it against the cancer. the tumor is trying to attack him, so we're trying to block the tumor. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigued, nauseous. and with immune therapy, we've had such a positive result. the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. i believe that we will use it more and more. i'm back to working out, back to working hard. i've always worked hard, but now it's enjoyable again. and still have energy at the end of the day to have activities with my family. whether it's kicking the soccer ball around with my stepson, or playing fetch with the dog or going for a walk with my wife, i've honestly never felt this great. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now. >> tucker: we want to leave you tonight with recently unearthed footage. preparing for his morning sermon, here is the scene backstage before the start of cnn's morning show, new date. day. >> news time! >> tucker: mussolini and his final post? nope, that was chris cuomo cleansing body and soul well physically inverted in cnn. you don't have to understand chris cuomo to enjoy chris cuomo. or do we? that's it for us tonight. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." fox news alert. we are covering three major breaking news stories tonight. we have breaking news that we will share throughout the hour. democrats, and the media are proving they will attack this president over anything. they are now racing to politicize the death of an killed in action. also tonight, the massive and real russia collusion story. it's expanding minute by minute. john solomon out with an explosive report today. a lawyer for the fbi informant who says russian officials funneled money to the clinton foundation, saying her client was silenced by the obama justice department. they knew all along. the lawyer along with john solomon and sara