0 will be free . now we can do what we love without worrying even eliminate meat in twelve we get started at my vodacom. my grandma never mentioned this but her first job was working at a five and dime when she was only six years old. it's all right there in the census we were a few details in the 1950 census on ancestry. aloha. good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight. i'm tulsi gabbard. and i'm here in for tucker. the warrant behind the fbi's raid on michelago has been released and we have brand new details this hour on what exactly prompted that raid and what joe biden's just just justice department was looking for. so here's what we know right now. the fbi removed nearly a dozen sets of documents that the doj claims are classified. former president trump, however, disputes this and said all the records in question have been declassified. the other documents that were seized from our logo included binders of photos and oddly, a grant of clemency for roger stone. the raid was also apparently far more expansive than initially thought. the warrant granted fbi agents the authority to seize, quote, all physical documents and records that contained evidence of crimes dating all the way back from january 20th, 2017. to the day donald trump left office in 2020 one . in other words, every single document from his presidency was potentially up for grabs. and we now also know the fbi waited three days to execute the raid after judge bruce reinhardt signed off on the warrant. now, this was truly a matter of national security as attorney general merrick garland told us yesterday. why did it take federal agents so long to raid mar a lago that answer this and many more questions. we turn now to fox news chief legal correspondent and the new host of fox news sunday, shannon bream. hi , shannon. how are you people? hey, great to be with you. so glad to see you. tonight. thank you so much. i'm looking forward to hearing your expertise as we get all of this new information on the legal aspects of these documents, what's been seized and frankly, what will hold up as we move forward. yes, i mean, what is interesting and what i'm really watching for is the good stuff that's all the underlying documentation to that warrant. so, yes, we got the warrant today. we were trying to tell people don't get too excited. it's going to be pretty basic. even that item itemization list of what they took boxes of this folders of that, all the good stuff. we want to know what underlies this entire effort is in those affidavits. that's not something i think that doj will willingly, willingly release. what we do know is that there are a number of entities, judicial watch, a couple of media outlets, including the new york times who have actually filed motions to unseal all of it and the judge in this case has given the government until 5:00 p.m. on monday to respond to that request. so the judge is at least considering it and once we get to those things that will give us much more information about so many gaps that we currently have in the story. shannon, what do you make of the expansive nature of this probe? i mean, to literally put on the line every single document that existed during the trump presidency. is there a precedent for this? i mean, this seems like a gargantuan task. yeah, and this case is , as you know, unlike any we've ever seen before in the history of this country, i mean, a raid by federal agents on a former president's residence. there's nothing about this that we can actually compare to anything else because it's the firs of its kind in so many ways. but because of that reference in the warrant to all of those presidential documents, it takes us back to this argument that there's been with the national archives about presidential records, the president and his team and the former president and his legal team have said we were having negotiations. we thought we're having good conversations for this right. about those documents. there's a lot to take in here. shannon, thank you so much for your expertise and congratulations again on being named the new host of fox news sunday. we'll all be watching when you launch next month. for more on. thank you, shannon. for more on what today's warrant actually means, we're now going to turn to harmeet dhillon. she is a phenomenal attorney and the chairwoman of the republican national lawyers association. harmeet , thank you so much for joining us . you have been watching this as it has played out kind of moment by moment. what do you make of these new developments that we've just learned today? well, what we know that has been confirmed by the search warrant being revealed is that it was extremely broad, like shannon just pointed out, and what we don't know and what everybody wants to know is what was the justification presented to a federal judge to take this extra ordinary step on the part of the united states department of justice. and so generally speaking, that search warrant affidavit or affidavits are not unsealed until there's an indictment. and even then, if there national security implications, they could be restricted to the target of that subpoena and the or the search warrant, rather. and his attorneys. and so it's going to be a while probably before we see that. and i suspect that the department of justice is not keen to reveal exactly why they took this step. but what we can also say is that a federal magistrate judge does have the ability and in fact i think the duty to cut back on a subpoena that seems overbroad for the circumstances. now, in reality, they often just rubber stamp them. that's a real problem in our judicial system. and i think that's what happened here. and i really my mind is blown that this can be a justified search of a former president. and so this is deeply troubling for anybody who cares about civil liberties in our country. i couldn't agree more . has there been any discussion or what possible steps could be taken to explore any potential conflict of interest given this specific judge to approve this warrant, given his previous political contributions and kind of political leanings ? well, just about every judge these days has some political leanings or contributions. that itself is not a problem. but this specific judge has made specific negative remarks about president trump. and i think they rise to the level of recusal. but at this point, after the judge has already issued this ex a search warrant, which is how it goes, there's really nothing that can be done to unwind that specifically. but a party who believes that a search warrant has been executed unlawfully or it is overbroad or what have you can make certain motions in the criminal system there's room for and there's some other moves that can be made to get the return of this evidence. but there are many fishy things about see, including the fact that the government apparently was given access to these documents in june and their request to the former president was to put a padlock on the room and everybody went away and thought that this is all under control on the trump side. and then suddenly they come in with this sort of librarian issued swat team to take these drastic steps. and i think that that is very odd. what it seems to me and i'm not changing my view based on seeing the search warrant. this was a massive fishing expedition to see if they could concoct any evidence of anything that is not how warrants are supposed to work in america. and that should outrage every civil libertarian. i couldn't agree more . this is about so much more than whether or not people support trump or against trump. this is something that is directly connected to every one of our civil liberties. thank you so much, harmeet . really appreciate your analysis as always. thank you. now legal analysts quickly noted after the warrants released today that it was essentially impossible for donald trump to have classified documents at mar a lago. and they argue this because of his executive authority as president to declassify anything he took with him to mar a lago was therefore by default declassified. and the former president himself said all the documents in question were declassified. but the question is , will that argument hold up in a court of law? now, james gagliano is a retired fbi supervisory special agent and he joins us now. thank you so much, james , for joining us . i'm really interested in your take on this because i hear people arguing both sides of classifications obviously are are meant to be taken very seriously. the president has the authority to declassify anything at any time for any reason. how do you respond to these arguments on both sides of this? so first of all, totally let's unpack that. so there are essentially three levels of classification, top secret, secret and confidential. sometimes there's restrictive law enforcement sensitive. but the matters here with those three , we know from seeing an inventory list of what the fbi took that they took documents of each types of those. now here's where it gets interesting. all right. you also in issues like this, just like you're going back to the clinton private email server, there has to be the willful component to this. right? a crime is two parts right at this race, which is the act and then mens rea, which is actually the thought that i'm committing a crime. president trump did not packed these boxes, whether it was gsa or some other entity in the government. the president didn't pack these boxes individually. and the fact that attorneys, his and the attorneys from the national archives and records administration were actively engaged in working out a deal here to have them turn back over and then they do this. i don't understand it. i don't get the exigency to see it is mind boggling, this whole thing, you know, as it's been playing out all of the details ,you think, okay, well, maybe we'll learn more and maybe this will start to make more sense. but it seems like especially with the information that's been released today, all we have are more questions throughout your career in the fbi. you know, have you ever seen something so expansive in any scenario with any any person of interest? to me it was just shocking, again, to hear that they wanted to look at virtually any and every document through the trump presidency. well, when you get a search warrant, it's very specific, right? so it tells you what you can look for if you're looking for a pistol that you believe was part of a crime, a homicide, you can't look in a small jewelry box. right. you have to do that in those confines. what baffles me is when i heard that they dropped the foreign espionage act where people's heads are exploding and they're saying, hey, this means that the president was spying. he was talking to annoy moscow or pyongyang, right? no, it's a whole host of other things and it's just a matter of mishandling classified documents still blows my mind. this was the route we went. thank you. thank you, james . make it a lot of great points there. thanks for the fbi raid on mar a lago was a major escalation of the weaponization of the security state on the american public. it's about to get much worse because right here before the midterms we are seeing these entities being politicized and weaponizes. now, here's just one example. twitter just announced it's rolling out their new misinformation rules to, quote, protect conversation on twitter during elections. david sax is the co-founder of craft ventures and host of the all in podcast. i'm a fan of the podcast. he joins us here on set. it's so great to see you smiling as we're hearing these this new announcement coming from twitter. again, to control conversation and define essentially what misinformation. you've got a lot of background here. yeah, i mean, there are legitimate things that twitter could do to improve the integrity of our elections . they could basically help prevent fraud or spam accounts from posting. you know, if joe from idaho post something under that handleable. nice to know that it really is joe from idaho and not some foreign actor or basically who is trying to amplify sentiment. but the part to be , i think, concerned about this policy is where they say that they're going to take down misinformation that could jeopardize user safety. and we saw that during covid this was the code word, this idea of user safety that was used to take down long. think about covid and a lot of that opinion actually ended up, you turned out to be true. and part of the problem here is that twitter's employees have a real blind spot with regard to their partisan bias. it's something like 99% democrat. and so there's a lot of issues where they think the misinformation. but really it's just that that's their opinion on the matter. and no one has a monopoly on the truth. and it's very dangerous when they start censoring information that's relevant to an election based on what they think their view of the truth is going to be a lot better. whatever problems we have with misinformation in this country, a lot better to let voters decide for themselves. i couldn't agree more . i think what further highlights that point is when we know of examples that have been exposed publicly how this administration has been working directly with twitter, whether it was back when we were talking about the ministry of truth or some more recent accounts, the bush administration is concerned about saying, hey, we'd appreciate it if you why is this guy still on twitter? why hasn't he been blocked or canceled or so on and so forth? and so when you have that direct connection, it's not even a question of who they're working for, what to speak of the end run around the first amendment right. and you saw that. you know, that was there was an example, jen psaki admitted from the white house podium that they're working with social networks to take down suppose that this information is not appropriate for government to be coordinated with private companies to censor the free speech rights of american citizens. but a lot of this isn't just nefarious. it's sort of a result of misunderstanding because the two sides really talk past each other because twitter employees by and large are only part of one political bubble . and so you saw an example just recently where there are people now talking about taking down or censoring the hashtag civil war because they're saying that conservatives and civil libertarians are actively calling for violence. well, that's not what they're saying. they're concerned that a civil war is being declared on them because of this raid, our logo, because of things like the ministry of truth that the department of homeland security tried to impose, which by the way, is a federal law enforcement agency. so conservatives have real reasons to be concerned. back to the basics, civil liberties, freedom and the constitution. and i think what's so concerning to people is is that we have government finding ways to try to undermine those fundamental freedoms. thanks for all that you do on this and appreciate your voice. great to see you, david . thank you. now the fbi raid on michelago earlier this week marks the beginning of a new and dangerous task for america. we're going to recap the week and explain what this all means. straight ahead, we did one drop of work and the cavaliers wanted it and it doesn't gloss over the past 40 years. more than 20000 animals have been killed in a very strange way. the mammary glands, grain is cleared out like a mystery to overwhelm law enforcement. there's no evidence to point to one thing or another to go replicate that would not leave evidence. i don't think that would be possible. people see helicopters, for instance. it could be that theologica or weapons testing, lots of speculation, a willingness to come in and hire animals. the greatest unsolved crimes for u.s. so we took up the case ourselves. tucker carlson, original cattle mutilations streaming now on fox nation side of the fox station. .com