them. small groups of citizens are beginning to come forward to defend their laws in history and culture. and deep it does not own those things are black lives matter. they have no right to destroy them. a group of citizens gathered to defend the statue of teddy roosevelt. the most popular president in the history of this nation because he was a sterling moral example. and tivo wants him erased. local officials said they will comply with that demand. no one asked the public with the public thinks of this. our leaders don't care what they think. this group decided to be heard. >> you fall so hard. >> get back over there. >> who are you talking to? you've got something to say, little boy? no, you don't, do you? i'll stand wherever i want. is that the best you've got, baby boy? is that the best you've got? >> tucker: that's the new york we love. is that the best you've got? actually, yes, it is the best they've got. turn down the volume and you see it very clearly. the mob is not fearsome, it's pathetic. these are pampered children play acting a revolution, cowards. that's why they move in packs. they have no skills. all they can do is destroy paired the closer you get to them, the clearer all of that is. >> this is not about race anymore. never really was. this is about taking apart the fabric of america. >> tucker: exactly. it never was about racial justice. the president understands it too. last week, he issued an executive order to protect our monuments from the mob. on saturday, charged for people with destruction of federal property for vandalizing monuments right across from the white house. federal park police posted 15 wanted posters online. the corporate revolutionaries were outraged by that enforcing the law? enforcing the law is racist, they lectured us. msnbc anchors enjoy seeing statues topple as they glide by. makes them feel alive. >> another sign of where his priorities are during this time, the president signed a new executive order yesterday centered on protecting monuments, memorials, and statues. not people. >> so he threatens prison terms, threatens retribution, defendant statues. he ignores the substance of the message and holding misses the mark. >> president trump signed an executive order about the protests, but not to protect people dying at the hands of the state but instead signed an order that denounced protesters that vandalize civil war monuments protecting statues well will people suffer and some died. >> tucker: they are such liars. civil war monument. they are taking down statues of abraham lincoln abraham lincoln. but did you catch the last line? while real people suffer. they are real people. they live in st. louis. as their city degraded and fell apart around them became dirty and dangerous over the last decade, they did not flee to the suburbs many of their neighbors dead but stayed in their home. they've been in the same home for 32 years. they built it entirely slowly and painstakingly. they love it. on sunday, they sat on their backyard together having dinner. suddenly as they ate, a mob of hundreds of screaming people destroyed and came pouring in moving toward them quickly. they were terrified and watched as mobs looted and burned citizens around the country. was clearly intent on violence, they said so. when mccloskey told them to leave, they threatened to murder him and his wife and threatened to kill the family's dog. panicked, they called the police, than the call the neighborhood security patrol but no one came. they had no choice to protect themselves. they went inside and got there yes, legally registered firear firearms. it worked. met finally by citizens who dare defend themselves, and the mob retreated and melted away, but the terror did not end. the site of ordinary americans standing up for themselves and their home enraged and immediately put the mccloskey name and home address all over the internet. threats poured in. he spent last night boarding up his office downtown, he had no choice. still, no one stepped forward to protect the mccloskeys, not one person. amazingly, missouri has a republican governor, former sheriff called mike parson, but did not spend state troopers to protect them, he didn't even call the mccloskeys. there's a lot he could have done. good of an that as long as he runs a state, no citizen will be prosecuted for exercising the most basic of all rights, the right of self-defense against the mob. let the governor didn't do that. so sensing they were completely undefended, they descended. st. louis is district attorney announced that she was considering filing criminal charges against the mccloskeys for resisting the mob. a mob that was threatening to murder them. he vowed to "use the full power of the that the power to defend them against people threatening to kill them, but the full power to crush them for resisting. the media meanwhile immediately set about trying to show the mccloskeys were racist. here's how "the washington post" framed the story. as the peaceful crowd of 500 walked along a private gated street, a white couple who emerged from a marvel mansion had something else in mind. "the new york times" agreed this was definitely a hate crime. "president trump on monday morning retweeted a video of a white man and woman brandishing a semiautomatic rifle and a handgun got it peaceful back protesters. almost every word alive. in fact, the mob was not black whatever that means that it definitely wasn't peaceful. was murderous. no one explained what i had to do with anything. a white man, a white couple, okay, they are. so what? why is that relevant? why is it ever relevant in a situation like this? it's not. but again, no one bothered to explain. online, the digital enablers took the bait. time to hate the mccloskeys. a longtime libertarian activist in washington called jerry taylor immediately tweeted this "if i were in that march and these racist looted techs were waving guns at me, i'd like to think i'd rush them and beat their brains and, and i wouldn't apologize for it for one second." jerry taylor b by the way isn't some lone lunatic. he runs a think tank in washington and yet here was jerry taylor, libertarian in good standing encouraging brutal violence against strangers for defending themselves. no one even seemed to notice, nobody cared. the message to everybody else was crystal clear. the mob is in charge. their power cannot be curbed. don't even consider defending yourself all but said that out loud today, demanded that her state make racially motivated 911 calls a hate crime, it's already a crime in the state of michigan's what would be the purpose of this order? you know the answer. fear. the mob once the power to destroy anyone who wants police protection from mostly peaceful protests. it's an impediment to their power, so gretchen whitmer is trying to sweep it away. you can see exactly what's coming, it's obvious what they are planning. what's fascinating is the people doing this and know it, they know the consequences of these plans, and they don't plan to live with those consequences. on friday, the minneapolis city council voted unanimously to abolish their city's police department. a number of them explain why they were voting this way. watch. >> now is the time for us has a city to start paying those who have been doing this work for decades that need to get paid. all that money has been going to the police department and what have we gotten in return? pain, trauma, and hurt. we will be taking intermediate steps towards ending the mpd through the budget process. >> showing up as a person that believes that we should and can abolish our current minneapolis police system. >> tucker: those were awfully emphatic statements which might be a good stomach easy to be misled by them. the minneapolis city council isn't actually opposed to armed protection, they are opposed to you having it. they are opposed to the police protecting your family and your homes. but they are not opposed to protecting themselves, and that's why the three minneapolis city councilman you just saw requested and received taxpayer-funded security guards. you pay for them, they stand outside their homes. of course they did that. they don't want to get hurt. the nationally syndicated radio host, happy to have her on. thank you so much for coming on. so what do you make of the reaction against the mccloskeys as racist and lunatics, armed bigots for the crime of trying to defend themselves? >> they committed no crime, and i am shocked. st. louis is my hometown my so i am well aware of all of the players that are in this game, kim gardner who was a circuit attorney who amazingly and i'm sure you are familiar with is having talked about it on your program, has refused previously to actually bring charges against some of the violent rioters that committed arson and assault and robbery and all these other crimes during those several weekends in a row when everybody was going crazy all over the country and to see the mccloskeys smeared and maligned this way, these are individuals who were simply protecting their home. i want to make this very clear for everyone, this area is private property so this is off of the highway, i lived right by this area in downtown st. louis before moving to texas, so it's kind of like a gated community, a private residential area. these protesters were not peacefully walking past anything. because there residential area is separated from the public way by a very impressive iron fence, a gate, these beautiful brick structures, a very historic area, and so they moved through the state, pictures of it all over the internet, so i daresay that legacy media can stop trying to cast light everyone into thinking that private property damage didn't happen, and they were screaming threats at this couple. when you are damaging private property a month when you are trespassing, you are ceasing to engage in peaceful protest and is amazing to me that kim gardner and all these other individuals out there across the country that are so certain the mccloskeys are guilty of defending themselves that it's okay for a riot mob to do what they did and to damage property but it's bad for these innocent individuals to defend themselves? that doesn't make sense. >> tucker: not that this is relevant because strictly speaking not relevant because these are universal principles, but the fact is that mark mccloskey is a lawyer, not a huge personal injury lawyer anything but one of the cases i read today he is currently working on his representing a young black man who was suing for police misconduct. so i don't know what their politics are, but there is zero evidence whatsoever that these people are racist. what do you make of the coordinated effort for "the new york times," "washington post" lunatics, libertarian nutcase should denounce them as racist on the base of no evidence? >> they are not racist. there is no evidence that they are racist. anything, just homeowners that want to protect their property and you can't tell me that after watching weeks of violence and arson and destruction broadcast into your home that you see a rage mob down the street and think something good comes from it. want to also remind everyone that just down the road, david doran was murdered by violent rioters and just about 15 minutes away, there's a statue of st. louis in front of that art museum, people getting beaten up on tape simply for protesting or counter protesting and hoping that the statue remains where it is. so no, they are not racist. i don't know what their politics are and i would be shocked if they are republican because that area is very predominantly leftist, but it doesn't matter because everyone has the right to exercise their second amendment self-defense. people wanted to defund the police, this is what defending the police looks like. this is what the second amendment looks like, and if people want to continue pushing communities to get rid of the police and protection for citizenry, the citizens are going to be the backlash. >> tucker: when a mob of hundreds of people threatens to murder your family and your dog, i think it's fair to say you have a right to scare them away. you are not a racist to do that. great to see you tonight, thank you. >> good to see you, thank you. >> tucker: the story says so much both about where the country is going on about where our leaders are. so we will continue to follow it. tomorrow night, we will speak to the mccloskeys on the show. don't miss it. the country is seeing a big spike in coronavirus cases. europe has imposed a travel ban against the u.s. and yet hospitalizations and deaths remain below the peak of two months ago. why is that exactly and what the right response to it? plus, we will seek to spen speao senator about suing police officers. straight ahead. the best tv experience just got better because now you can watch all your favorite hulu shows and movies on xfinity. you're only a voice command away from award winning shows like the handmaid's tale, to new hits like little fires everywhere. and fx originals you can only watch on hulu. that's just the beginning of what you can experience with hulu on xfinity. tv made simple, easy, awesome. >> tucker: suddenly, coronavirus cases seem to be surging across the sun belt, tens of thousands of new cases in florida, texas, arizona, and elsewhere. is it time for another two months of quarantine? not so fast. while cases are going quickly, deaths and hospitalizations are not. it's not clear exactly why. meanwhile, the american academy of pediatrics have strongly recommended that schools should reopen this fall with students physically present in the classroom. in the physician and senior fellow at the hoover institution joins us tonight. thank you so much for coming. so first question first, why do you think it is we are seeing a surgeon cases but with a lower hospitalization and death rate? >> we expected more cases with more social mingling and of course as you are saying, we had a lot of social mingling and it has to be weeks. with that social mingling, going to see more cases. with more testing, we will detect more cases but the fact is the overwhelming majority of these cases are younger, healthier people. these people do not have a significant problem, they do not have the serious complications, they do not die. so it's fantastic news that we have a lot of cases but we don't see deaths going up. what that means is that we are doing a better job detecting the vulnerable, and we are in good shape here. we like the fact that there's a lot of cases in low risk populations because that's exactly how we are going to get herd immunity, when low risk people with no significant problem handling this virus which is basically 99% of people who get this become immune and they block the pathways of connectivity to more contagious, sick of people. >> tucker: you are already hearing people say we need another set of lockdowns presumably that will end the presidential debate schedule this fall, no doubt about that, and will close schools for kids. why are they saying that, do you suppose? >> i said before, it's hard to understand people who think irrationally. i don't know why they're saying it, but we know why they shouldn't say it. there's no reason for a lockdown we have something happening we have no problem with. these do not translate into people going into respirators. the hospitalization phase is half the length that they were before. we are doing very well with this, but the point about the schools is really critical because this is the most irrational public policy probably in modern history. children have virtually zero risk of having complications at zero risk of dying. we know that from the data all over the world not just in the u.s. there is no arguing about that data. we also know all over the world that children who only rarely if ever transmit the disease, so there is really no risk, but there is tremendous harm and not having in person schools as the american administration for pediatrics pointed out and one of the world's best hospitals for pediatric medicine pointed out when they recommended no masks, no distancing. there is no science behind having children not attend schools or those who have zero risk from the disease. people that are older in the teaching age, teaching as a young profession, 50% of u.s. teachers are under 41 years old. they are not high risk, and 82% are under 55. for the few high-risk teachers, i think by now, they probably know how to isolate themselves from 6 feet away and from others and if that's not enough, then those high-risk teachers can stay home and teach from a distance. you don't lockdown the children because you are personally afraid. it's totally outrageous. >> tucker: the most irrational policy and history. might be the most irrational institutions in history so maybe we shouldn't be surprised by this but thank you for your clarity. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: another segment coming up that you won't want to miss. we told you last week about a republican senator's plan to make it easier to sue the police. he has to come on and explain that policy and he joins us next now, simparica trio simplifies protection. ticks and fleas? see ya! heartworm disease? no way! simparica trio is the first chewable that delivers all this protection. and simparica trio is demonstrated safe for puppies. it's simple: go with simparica trio. this drug class has been associated with neurologic adverse reactions, including seizures; use with caution in dogs with a history of these disorders. protect him with all your heart. simparica trio. >> tucker: as you've seen an increasexcruciating detail, no institution has come under more ferocious attacks than local police departments. in minneapolis, police being abolished entirely. in los angeles and new york, funding is being slashed dramatically. monuments to the police are being vandalized or ripped down. in a city of atlanta, officer garrett rolfe faces the death penalty for shooting a man called rayshard brooks after he stole his taser and fired at him. so what are republican officeholders doing in the face of this unprecedented attack? not a lot. you have stepped up to defend the police from totally bogus accusations of systemic racism, some are repeating that. one republican has gone farther than that. as we told you last week, senator mike brown of indiana has entered legislation to make it easier for left-wing activists to sue police officers. we must do this, senator braun explained in part because rayshard brooks' death was egregious. >> i wanted to put a template out there that protects law enforcement from frivolous lawsuits but holds the egregious departments accountable in these instances of george floyd a rayshard brooks over breonna taylor. >> tucker: in case you suspect we somehow selectively edited that clip, here he is going all the way in endorsing black lives matter. >> do you support the black lives matter movement? >> i support that movement because it is addressing in an equity that has not been solved from a grassroots level. >> tucker: after a segment on thursday, asked to come on this show to detail his position and of course be happy to have him, thank you so much for coming on. before i ask you about qualified immunity and your attempts to water it down, i was very surprised by that endorsement that you gave on camera of black lives matter, black lives matter has of course called for the murder of police officers. why do you support it and are there any other revolutionary movements that you support? >> thanks for having me on in the first place, i know when you came out, and i like it when somebody does challenge especially something like this, when you're talking about changing something that's been around for a while and i come from mainstreet. your viewers are my supporters and i've got one of the most conservative voting records. that's true. you'd have to check with them just like i check with the indiana state police, indiana sheriffs association, spent over an hour with them last week to make sure i wasn't off-base. and here's. >> tucker: i'm confused, really quick. you were in your supportive black lives matter, have you read their web site? are you when -- what do you support? >> not at all. i support anybody that does have a grievance to be able to err it and that is it. that doesn't mean all lives don't matter, it just means that if you think a certain sector of society has a grievance, it ought to be through transparency and a willingness to debate it and get it out there. i'm going to always go on the merits of the particular case and going back to what i learned last week, first of all, law enforcement in indiana was talking about eliminating it. for drastically modifying it. this was to define that sweet spot to where they said they are being unduly stigmatized because of these events because in some cases, their own aren't held accountable, and when they knew that, they basically said we need to be in the discussion. got with obamacare refusing to discuss it ten years ago. >> tucker: i'm sorry, we do show tape review saying that we need to pull back on the need to make it easier to sue the police because of the egregious incidents like the death of rayshard brooks. you said you wanted to speak about specifics. do you believe that he was killed unjustly >> melissa: to believe officer rolfe deserves the death penalty, what did you mean by that? >> i believe you ought to have the ability just like when anyone civil rights would be violated that you've got access to due process to have your case heard. >> tucker: they do have that right. a qualified immunity has nothing to do with that case. he's been in charge and they have the right to sue him. as you know since you are writing the change to the law. so that's irrelevant. i'm asking about the case you cited. do you believe the office are now facing the death penalty deserves to face the death penalty and if you don't, tell us what he should have done. >> i think that will be determined by the courts. >> tucker: you cited it. what do you think of it? you're the one who called it egregious, so why don't you tell us what officer rolfe should have done when this man fired a taser at him. what do you think? >> i think that you should have had the judgment in a traffic stop like that. you don't shoot somebody in the back. we keep doing that. >> tucker: hold on. i want you to explain. i think it's fair. you are an office holder. i don't normally press people like this but it's not fair for you to filibuster without answering the question which is very simple. the officer facing the death penalty had a guy fire a weapon at him, what should he have done then? >> probably not have killed the man. >> tucker: what should he have done? let him go? >> do you think he was going to get away? they were going to find him. >> tucker: you tell me. you're the one judging the officer so maybe you could explain why you're judging him. >> that'll come out in the court process and all i'm saying, let me finish this, if we don't get better at it for all of us on main street, democrats are going to spin it, chuck schumer has already decided he can make a of this in the election and we will end up on the short side of it again. >> tucker: who controls the senate? i thought republicans controlled the senate. so you're taking your cues from chuck schumer saying he might criticize me and therefore i have to pass a law that makes it easier? >> you know you have to have 60 votes in the senate to get anything done. you can check my record, i stand on it and law enforcement indiana things and some of these cases, it is giving them a bad name and bad apples. there ought to be due process therefore the victims. >> tucker: so what law enforcement groups are endorsing your bill? >> not endorsing it but they said it was a good place to work from. >> tucker: why aren't they endorsing it? you've cited them twice as supporters of this idea but they're not endorsing your bill so they don't actually support it so why are you bringing it up as evidence that it's a good idea? >> they think it's a better idea to be in the discussion then to be outside of it. >> tucker: if you care what they think, why don't you write something they'll endorse? >> that doesn't necessarily mean we won't get there. that's not going to be done today. the democrats now think they can win with that in the election, and that's why we need to be engaged now in a way that would have kept it on the table. >> tucker: so you need to write a bill not because cops are burning it down but because the mob is, but you think the morally culpable party as the police so you're making it easier for left-wing groups to see them. am i missing something? >> you are, trying to put words in my mouth. >> tucker: i'm not. >> i don't justify any of the looting, any of the writing, and if you don't address the underlying issue, you think it's going to fix itself on its own? >> tucker: you think the underlying issue is rayshard brooks being shot? you're telling me that what's happening now is the result of police behavior, the fault of the police? that's what you're saying? >> i'm saying what they are getting by with on the other side is trying to generalize and they will get away with it if we decide to do nothing. that's just a general disagreement and approach. >> tucker: are you making it easier for business owners to sue the mob for burning their businesses down? haven't noticed that bill coming out of the senate. >> if we are not in the discussion, we are going to be on the sidelines like we are on so many issues as conservatives because we failed to engage and they run circles around us in the end. >> tucker: you think you're going to keep the senate in the fall on this platform? >> i think we are going to keep the senate if we at least are willing to engage in issues that are important to the american public and that we don't always stand on the sidelines until it's too late. it's more about when you get involved in the issues. >> tucker: i don't think the public supports you at all on this. >> i think law enforcement knows they need to have a better system than what they've got now because it is stigmatizing them unduly. >> tucker: okay. thank you for joining us tonight, appreciate it. another interview that you won't want to miss, we just mentioned garrett rolfe. he remember he was the atlanta police officer now facing the death penalty. defended himself from a taser attack. right after that happen, his stepmother was fired from her job at a company called equity prime mortgage which we reported on this show. why exactly was she fired? that you do something wrong or where she punished for the fact that her stepson became unpopular? she will tell us tomorrow, first interview 8:00 p.m. eastern. for years, left-wing politicians pushed gun controlled and surrounded themselves with armed guards and now getting even more guards as they push to abolish police. more on that story for minneapolis. >> tucker: safety for me, but not for the period he was seeing that from leaders around the country and in new york city, bill de blasio wants t to slash the nypd budget but don't expect bill de blasio security detailed to be cut in anyway. will be enlarged as the city becomes more dangerous. in minneapolis, city leaders have try to work around. three city council members are receiving a $4500 a day private security detail in response to threats against them supposedly, fake threats. who in this world doesn't get threats right now? all of those city council members just just voted to abolish protection for citizens, the city's police department. scott johnson is an attorney in minnesota, a regular guest on the show. always happy to have him. thank you so much for coming on. am i missing any of this? they are abolishing your police protection but making you pay for your own? >> you just took on my bullet points. the only thing i would add is this is a story that was broken by a local fox reporter who is very talented investigative reporter with good sources and the police department in city hall, and unbelievably, he found that three city council members who just voted last friday to pass an ordinance putting the police department on the chopping block and serve up a department of lollipops and rainbows for the city of minneapolis were having city paid private security provided to them supposedly because of threats against them. he was unable to confirm the existence of any threats, he doesn't question their veracity, but those are the facts. is kind of hard to put it altogether. doesn't quite compute. >> tucker: it does because they claim the threats came from "white supremacist, which i think we are going to hear a lot more about going forward as they use that pretext for the whole population. do you think that's true? >> that is one of the three. the other two weren't really talking, and it really makes you wonder. i kept looking for a white supremacist while 500 buildings were burned to the ground and damaged in minneapolis and st. paul during the riots that ensued following the death of george floyd, and i have to say, they are few and far between, a lot more black lives matter rioters and a lot more antifa rioters, and i have yet to see a white supremacist, but i'm sure there are a few around. >> tucker: didn't they tell us at first it was white supremacists burning the building or russian agents, can't remember which one. >> i don't know if you remember the truck driver who drove into protesters on highway 35w heading through downtown on the sunday following all of that, local head of the democrats in the minnesota house of representatives ryan winkler asserted on twitter that the driver of the truck was a white supremacist with a confederate flag on his truck and it was all so far from the truth that it really was a scandal that he has yet to answer for, so i would say there's a lot of that going around, and i'd like to see it with my own eyes before i believe it. >> tucker: i don't think of minneapolis as a hotbed of the clan. i think of it as a hotbed, but what do i know? scott johnson, thank you for that, good to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: no one understands mob behavior better than former evergreen college biology professor brett weinstein in may of 2017, he refused in order to leave his campus for a day because of his skin color and immediately, the mob set out to destroy him. you said people shouldn't be allowed to speak or not on the basis of their skin color which seems like a foundational belief of the left and one that i agree with strongly and for that, they physically threatened you and are trying to get you fired. >> yes, they are absolutely trying to get me fired, and they believe that my words in my email are transparently racist and i think were caught quite off guard when people who are not a evergreen read my letter and couldn't find any racism in it. >> tucker: it all looks like a preview now. for weeks, the mob harassed and threatened the professor, faculties denounced him, campus police said they could not protect him or his family and instead urged him to stay off campus entirely and eventually he resigned. now the mob that once seemed limited to places like evergreen dominate our country. now a visiting fellow of princeton and joins us tonight, thank you so much for coming on. i've thought of you since all of this started and i should say at the outset you want a conservative last i talk to you and you are now but you are one of the people that saw this most clearly earliest, so what is your reaction to watching it happen to millions of others? >> i wish we had gotten to it earlier, this is the same phenomenon we have seen on college campuses may be most dramatically at evergreen, warned congress when they had me testify that this was going to spill out into every other facet of civilization and that appears to be what's happening. but i do think we are may be missing the deeper part of the story. people are obviously frustrated and angry, and they spilled out into the street but the reason they have done that has to do with political corruption in both of our major parties, which has two a large extent frozen the working population out of the prosperity that they have generated. so is not surprising to see them protesting but what is surprising is that those protests have been hijacked by a fringe ideology from the corner of the academy, a fringe ideology in which almost no reasonable person could possibly believe and yet it is building tremendous power as we are seeing in every facet of our lives. >> tucker: you make such a deep point that i want to play at night after night, which is the problems that people are angry about are mostly economic problems, problems of political corruption but have been reframed as racial problems. has that reframing been intentional? >> i think two things have happened. one, the ideology has discovered that it can hijack that anger, and then we are seeing on the democratic side, seeing powerful political forces embrace the ideology and those similar reasons basically have to do with the fact that if americans were angry at the right thing, they would be going after political corruption and if we are angry at each other because we imagine we are guilty of prejudice, then we won't do that. so the key question is how can we get leadership at the top that addresses the issue of corruption at its root? and if i might, i have unveiled a plan to do that, and i'd like to run you through it briefly. >> tucker: please do. >> so the plan is called unity 2020, and it involves we the people drafting, one from center left and one from center right who have three characteristics. they need to be courageous, capable, and need to be patriots. they would join together and agree to govern as a team, they would discuss every decision, and only when they couldn't reach agreement or when a decision had to be made quickly with the president rule. after four years, the team would reverse on the president would run as vice president and this would continue until one of them was ineligible. >> tucker: changing the system of government. seems to me like we're going to change a system of government no matter what we do and that might be a better way to do it. i'll need to think about that but i appreciate your bravery and your clarity and i hope you will come back because i love to know what ordinary people can do in the face of a moment like this. professor, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> tucker: so one way the people in charge keep their power year after year, generation after generation is by jailing their most vocal opponents. one of those is about to go to prison. we will tell you. >> tucker: a federal judge has ordered roger stone to report to prison in about two weeks by july 14th. once he reports, stone will be imprisoned for three years and four months. he apparently missed remember the details of emails related to a debunked conspiracy theory, the whole thing added up to nothing and yet for doing that, he will spend the rest of his healthy life in prison and do much more time than almost any of the violent criminals who have destroyed our city. burnt businesses, looted them, torch police stations, terrorize the population for the past month. you were shot dead, you'd think cnn would send a special news crew to capture the man who killed you, no, they wouldn't, but they did that for roger stone and they are relishing his suffering. they care more about putting roger stone in prison than about punishing looters and arsonists. why? the same time they want the mccloskey family arrested in the same reason they want michael flynn in jail, the same reason they want anyone critical of black lives matter to be fired because stone oppose them, he mock them. he can get away with it, others might try, and that's not allowed. that's it for us tonight. thank you for spending the hour with us. in the meantime, the great sean hannity takes over from new york. >> sean: busy news night tonight. violence once again a rafting and many of america's major cities tonight. decades of democratic rule has resulted in what is now predictable disaster, who was going to fix this? so called leaders, democratic party have no answers. think about this. joe biden, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, they combined have been in public life in the swamp in washington, combined more than 125 years. ask yourself this, what have they ever done to make things better in american cities? it's going to be biden, schumer, and pelosi. donald trump hasn't been there four full years