TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Just 24 hours ago, this country stood on the brink of cataclysm. After weeks of slow escalation and without a single vote from the Congress, the United States came within minutes of war with Iran. In response to the destruction of an unmanned drone, American forces nearly launched an airstrike on Iranian targets. According to some reports, our planes were literally in the air. But in the end, it didn’t happen. The President pulled back. This morning, he explained why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: They came and they said, «Sir, we’re ready to go. We’d like a decision.» I said, «I want to know something before you go, how many people will be killed?» In this case, Iranians. I said, «How many people are going to be killed?» «Sir, I’d like to get back to you on that.» Great people, these generals, they said, came back and said, «Sir, approximately 150.»
And I thought about it for a second. I said, «You know what, they shot down an unmanned drone plane,» whatever you want to call it. «And here we are sitting with 150 dead people.» That would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said, «Go ahead.» And I didn’t like it. I didn’t think it was — I didn’t think it was proportionate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: «How many people will be killed?» The most basic of all questions, but a question that is too rarely asked by leaders contemplating war. A hundred and fifty people wiped off the planet in retaliation for a broken drone. Every one of them the President reminded his staff last night, someone with a family.
The whole thing in the end offended his sense of decency. He said it seemed disproportionate, and it was. Moreover, airstrikes would have led to a wider conflict with Iran. That of course was the entire point of it. Policymakers in Washington crave a war with Iran.
Last night was supposed to be the first domino. At the last minute the president toward their plans. For that, he is being vilified. Watch CNN’s 36-year-old national security analyst attack the President for not killing enough people yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This is kind of a worst case scenario. The President is showing that since we made a decision at a National Security Council meeting and wasn’t willing to follow through. All in all, this shows gross disorganization and a President who can’t seem to make up his mind, even on something as important as a military strike on Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Only in foreign policy circles do people say things that stupid. In fact, last night was a high point in the Trump presidency, bombing Iran would have ended his political career in a minute. There’d be no chance of reelection after that.
Ill-advised wars are like doing cocaine, the initial rush rises your poll numbers, but the crash is inevitable. And in this case, it would be horrible. The hangover from an Iraq war with last years. Iran is not Syria or Iraq. It’s a big, rich, sophisticated country with an ancient culture and a cohesive population.
In some ways, it’s an impressive place, not at all like the chintzy prefab capitals of the Arab world like Riyadh or Dubai. We could beat Iran, but it would not be easy. It would cost trillions of dollars, many thousands of Americans likely would die. China would love it. They’d be the only winners in that conflict.
Donald Trump was elected President precisely to keep us out of disasters like war with Iran. So how did we get so close to starting one? Simple. The neocons still wield enormous power in Washington. They don’t care what the cost of war with Iran is. They certainly don’t care what the effect on Trump’s political fortunes might be. They despise Donald Trump.
Now, one of their key allies is the National Security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend of Bill Kristol’s. Together they helped plan the Iraq war.
When Bolton made it to the White House, the neocons cheered. Left-wing «New York Times» columnist Brett Stevens took a break from attacking Donald Trump to celebrate his hiring. Stevens assured MSNBC viewers that John Bolton was a great choice because he would push the President toward war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRETT STEVENS, COLUMNIST, «NEW YORK TIMES»: He is not the sort of caricature-ish hawk that he has been made out to be in some corners of the press.
I think someone like Bolton is going to restrain the isolationist impulses that have been really at the heart of Trump’s foreign policy thinking.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Got that? John Bolton is going to restrain Donald Trump from avoiding war. And of course, that’s exactly what he has tried to do from the very first day.
Shortly before Bolton took his new job, we invited him on this show and asked about some of his many, many previous foreign policy positions. Watch as Bolton denies being wrong, ever, about anything, not even a little bit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So you’ve called for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. In the first two countries, we’ve had regime change, and obviously it’s been, I’d say disaster, I think we agree.
JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: No, I don’t agree with that. And let me —
CARLSON: You don’t think it’s been a disaster?
BOLTON: No, I think you need to understand —
BOLTON: Is that life is complicated in the Middle East. And when you say, well, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a mistake is simplistic.
CARLSON: I would argue that I’m the one who understands how complicated it is, but it’s just my view.
BOLTON: It’s your long experience in foreign policy, I know.
CARLSON: Better record than yours, I would say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Got that? Hillary Clinton’s toppling of the Libyan government was not a disaster, says John Bolton. Keep in mind there are literally slave markets operating in the streets of Tripoli right now. No problem though. Bolton is fine with that. He is fine with the outcome in Iraq, too. That wasn’t a disaster either.
According to John Bolton, it was a raging success. We killed hundreds of thousands of people, lost thousands of our own troops spend more than a trillion dollars all to eliminate a WMD threat that despite John Bolton’s assurances never existed in the first place.
Bolton is glad we did all of that. Really happy about it. That’s demented. Normal people don’t talk like that. There’s nothing normal about John Bolton. Check out this piece of tape recently uncovered, in which Bolton promises that we’re going to overthrow the government of Iran.
Keep in mind that this was filmed long before the Iranians shot down a single drone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOLTON: I have said for over 10 years since coming to these events that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullah’s regime in Tehran. And that’s why before 2019 we here will celebrate in Tehran. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: In other words, last night has been in the works for years. John Bolton is that kind of bureaucratic tapeworm. Try as you might, you can’t expel him. He seems to live forever in the bowels of the Federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause pain and suffering, but critically, somehow never suffering himself.
His life really is Washington in a nutshell, blunder into obvious catastrophes again and again, refuse to admit blame, and then demand more of the same. That’s the John Bolton life cycle. In between administration jobs, there are always cushy think tank posts, paid speaking gigs, cable news contracts.
War maybe disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons, it is always good business.
Robert Merry is a former editor at «The American Conservative.» He is also a historian and author of «President McKinley: Architect of the American Century.» Robert Merry joins us tonight.
Mr. Merry thanks a lot for coming on.
ROBERT MERRY, FORMER EDITOR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So watching the last the last few days and one hates to be cynical about the Federal government. It’s our country, after all. But you couldn’t help but feel that what we were watching was a setup designed to get the country into war from the outset. Do you believe that’s what we were watching?
MERRY: Well, I try to be kind of careful about getting into people’s minds. But I think that the tape that you show from Bolton and many, many others indicate that at least John Bolton and there’s evidence looking at it. The same is true of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that these gentlemen really do want to get America into a war with Iran, they really do want to change that regime.
CARLSON: So why not be straightforward about it? I mean, it seems to me that it makes the rest of us cynical when we look on and we see people like Bolton, and he is certainly not alone in this, but he is one of the main people drivers pushing the United States to commit additional forces to the region, putting those forces in harm’s way, clearly in the hope of spurring some kind of conflict to precipitate a war. Why wouldn’t it just be easier for him to say, «I think we should overthrow Iran, we’re doing it.»
MERRY: Well, Tucker, our history is replete with instances in which Presidents and people around the Presidents wanting to get us into wars but they couldn’t say so because the American people weren’t anxious to get into wars.
So you can look at what happened with regard to the Mexican War with James Polk getting us into World War I with Woodrow Wilson, World War II with Franklin Roosevelt, Vietnam, and the Iraq War, all of which had lies, misrepresentations and maneuverings that were designed to get us into that war without saying so.
CARLSON: So you’re suggesting that voters — and since this is a democracy, it matters — voters aren’t in favor of wars, but if you read the media accounts, it makes it sound like Americans love war. You’re saying they don’t?
MERRY: That depends on the circumstances. Americans didn’t want to get into World War II. Franklin Roosevelt did want to get into World War II. So there was a conflict that he had to somehow do something about and he did everything he could including actions that I would consider to be unconstitutional and impeachable to get us into that war.
I think that the same thing took place with regard to Iraq. I don’t think the American people were intent on not going into that war, but we ginned up that war by suggesting that there were weapons of mass destruction and collusion between Iraq and the terrorists of 9/11, true in both instances.
CARLSON: So you’re saying that there is a long, almost unbroken history of lying our way into war?
MERRY: Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it’s manipulations. But yes, we do have a history of that. America’s war-making history indicates that there’s been significant instances of that kind of maneuvering, manipulation, and in some instances lying — Vietnam is a great example — to get us into wars that the American people weren’t clamoring for.
CARLSON: So you said you don’t want to get into anyone’s head, and that’s an admirable impulse, I would say. But why do you think John Bolton is so fixated on toppling the government of Iran, which doesn’t appear to pose any threat to the United States?
MERRY: Well, I have to tell you, I can’t figure it out. I mean, I know John Bolton, I don’t know him personally, but I know his work for many, many years, and it’s clear that he believes that America as a unipolar power on the globe, at this time, should be bullying other nations and deciding what other regions should be doing with regard to factors that are of interest to America, in his mind.
And so he wants America to basically determine the regimes all around and it has to be regimes that he likes and that he thinks America should like, and that’s his modus operandi for a very long time as you pointed out.
CARLSON: It hasn’t worked very well. Robert Merry, great to see you tonight. Thank you very much.
MERRY: Good to see you. Thank you.
CARLSON: Glenn Greenwald cofounded «The Intercept.» He joins us tonight. So Glenn, the reaction to the President not going to war last night has been really striking, very little celebration about it in certain quarters, outright attacks. You saw — we just played tape of CNN’s National Security analyst attacking the President for it.
Liz Cheney, congresswoman from Wyoming attacked the President. Others did, too. What about Washington makes war the first resort for both parties every time?
GLENN GREENWALD, COFOUNDER, THE INTERCEPT: Well, first of all, there’s an obvious answer, which is it is exciting, so it drives media ratings, it makes people buy newspapers.
Adam Smith, in «The Wealth of Nations» in 1776, wrote about how when a country becomes an empire, the people in the capital never get any risk for more.
So Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol and David Frum and the people who cheer war are never put at risk, but they get excitement and purpose from it. They get kind of a feeling of power.
Ben Shapiro on Twitter today said, «Let’s show Iran that we can match them.» That’s something that people say when they go through life feeling inadequate, and without any kind of purpose or strength, so it gives people strength.
And then there’s also this much deeper issue that after the Iraq War, almost nobody other than Judy Miller, the single scapegoat, there was no accountability for the people who lied to the country into the war.
So you look at someone like Jeffrey Goldberg, who for «The New Yorker» was writing award-winning articles, claiming that Saddam Hussein was in an alliance with Al Qaeda making people believe that Iraq did 9/11, is he out of journalism because of that? No, he has been promoted. He’s the editor- in-chief of «The Atlantic.»
You turn on MSNBC, there’s Bill Kristol. You open up «The New York Times,» there’s Brett Stevens, Marc Thiessen in «The Washington Post» and they’re all embedded in Washington culture, the think tanks especially, and they only become important and enlivened when the U.S. is at war. They get all kinds of psychological, economic and political benefits from it at everybody else’s expense.
CARLSON: If you claim that there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Saddam, it is clearly untrue. How in the world could you stay in journalism? I mean, do you know — how could Jeff Goldberg go on to run one of the most famous magazines in English?
GREENWALD: The amazing thing is, Tucker, the more you promote war, even if you get it wrong, the more you’re going to prosper. That is the sickness, the pathology of the DC media and political class.
Jeffrey Goldberg’s articles won a national magazine award for creating a grotesque conspiracy that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
Not only should he not be in journalism, he should be out of decent society. And yet, when it came time to compete for whether he was going to stay at «The New Yorker» or go to «The Atlantic,» the owner of «The Atlantic» gave him and his children, rare exotic horses to lure him away from «The New Yorker,» and he now runs one of the most important magazines in the world.
You see that all throughout the media, the same people who not just lied about Iraq, but who cheered all kinds of wars in Muslim countries, prosper from it, they get promoted, they continually get treated as the voices of authority and that’s why this continuously goes on.
CARLSON: It is so mind bogglingly corrupt, it’s hard to believe it happens in our city and in our business. Glenn Greenwald, thank you very much for that perspective. I appreciate it.
GREENWALD: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: A judge has ordered a special prosecutor to investigate the Jussie Smollett case to potentially bring new charges over how that was handled. We’ve got details on everything that’s happening in that case after the break.
CARLSON: Well, the Jussie Smollett hate hoax saga is far from over. Now, an Illinois judge has ordered the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate how authorities handled the case or mishandled it.
Fox’s Matt Finn has the latest night from Chicago. Hey, Matt.
MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, today, a veteran judge here in Chicago said that State’s Attorney Kim Foxx went against the law here when she recused herself and then assigned her right-hand man to be the quote «acting State’s Attorney.»
Judge Michael Toomin says there is no role of a quote «acting State’s Attorney» here in Illinois and when Kim Foxx recused herself back in February, then in there, a special prosecutor should have been assigned.
So now a special prosecutor will examine the entire Smollett case and can bring those same charges or even new criminal charges against the actor, and the special prosecutor will also probe Kim Foxx’s office for malfeasance or corruption.
Former Illinois Justice Sheila O’Brien submitted a petition back in April, requesting the special prosecutor arguing she felt compelled to do so because the public deserves the truth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEILA O’BRIEN, FORMER ILLINOIS JUSTICE: I think that it will give all of us answers. But the most important thing is that as the judge indicated, the confidence in our judicial system will be restored to all of us that this case will be handed by somebody who does not have a conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FINN: Justice O’Brien feels there was a conflict here in part because Kim Foxx recused herself for communicating with some of Smollett’s family members.
Today, the judge gave his opinion that he felt there was no conflict. In a statement, Kim Foxx responded a short while ago quote, «I am pleased that the court agreed there was no conflict of interest here regarding recusal. I follow the advice and counsel of my then, chief ethics officer. In any event. I respectfully disagree with the court’s conclusion that in the absence of any conflict, the appointment of a special prosecutor is required.»
Kim Foxx can appeal. The F.B.I. is reportedly investigating that death threat letter that police say Jussie Smollett sent to himself and the Cook County Inspector General is also investigating this case, Tucker.
CARLSON: Matt Finn from Chicago tonight. Thanks, Matt.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey scrambled to call Joe Biden a racist — a racist — for admitting that he once worked and serve in the Senate with segregationist Democratic senators.
But Booker may be better off worrying about his own use of racial rhetoric in support of Jussie Smollett’s hoax.
Fox chief national correspondent, Ed Henry joins us tonight. Hey, Ed.
HENRY: Tucker, great to see you. How often do we hear Democrats attacking President Trump for allegedly tweeting first and asking questions later getting the facts wrong?
Here is Democratic presidential candidate, Cory Booker again appearing to get a little ahead of himself. In this case, Booker and other Democrats are jumping on former Vice President Joe Biden, as you said for comments he made this week about working in the Senate with segregationists like James Eastland and others, when in fact, the full context of what Biden was saying was that he didn’t agree with those segregationists.
To the contrary, Biden made clear he disagreed vehemently, and in fact, fought the southern senators and beat them on issues like voting rights by passing legislation that the segregationists wanted to block.
What particularly irked Booker is that, Biden said one of the senators never called Biden quote unquote «boy» that he called him «son.» Booker said that was offensive to him as an African-American.
Biden insists he was just trying to make the point. He has a record which shows he can be civil with people he disagrees with.
Now Booker has a record of jumping to conclusions, like, as you mentioned, in the Jussie Smollett case where at the beginning before all the facts were in, he tweeted, «The vicious attack on actor, Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe.»
Booker is now all over Biden for the use of that word «boy.» Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Joe Biden should not need to be explained to about why that word is so hurtful. Why what he said would be something that people would find offensive and harmful and not advance like we should hope for, for nominee or for the leader of our party to advance the cause of racial reconciliation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now Biden called Booker to try to smooth things over, but it may be got worse, because Booker’s camp got mad that Biden’s team had the temerity to put out some talking points and include the fact that he worked with, yes, Republican Jeff Sessions, even though they disagreed on things.
Also interesting that since Booker himself in Iowa recently insisted he would be all about getting along with people he disagreed with during these Democratic primaries. Listen to what he said before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOOKER: We are not taking swipes at other candidates. The reality is, is we need to have a Democratic Party that shows how you run campaigns in this Democratic Party field by respecting people you’re running against. And so I’m going to continue to conduct myself in that manner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: That’s what he said before, so what’s changed? Well, next week, the Democratic debate starts in Miami. Like many Democratic candidates, Booker is stuck in low single digits. He is now lashing out. Maybe he wants to get some attention and a chance to break out — Tucker.
CARLSON: Amazing story, and yet not surprising at all. Ed Henry, thanks a lot for that.
HENRY: Good to see you.
CARLSON: Good to see you. By the way, if you’re watching this at home, and you can find a more fraudulent not just a United States Senator, but a more fraudulent American citizen out of 330 million people more fraudulent than Cory Booker, let us know. We’d be amazed if there is someone more fraudulent than Cory Booker.
Well, up next, the Mueller report was a big disappointment for Hollywood — such a big disappointment — some of them have gone into denial, and they’re insisting the report was everything they wanted it to be. It’s almost like a movie. That’s next.
CARLSON: Well, the tally of mysterious deaths in the Dominican Republic is rising. The FBI is now stepping in. Fox’s Jeff Paul is in the Dominican Republic tonight investigating for us tonight — Jeff.
JEFF PAUL, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Tucker and everyone right now, they are waiting on the results of three toxicology tests that we might not have results in until next month. These are the tests that the F.B.I. said to be assisting with because they are now involved in this situation that’s unfolding here in the DR.
We also heard from the Minister of Tourism today who said that this situation is just one big exaggeration that’s been fueled by a lot of speculation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Francisco Javier Garcia, Minister of Tourism, Dominican Republic (through translator): We have shown that first, there is not an avalanche of dead American tourists in this country.
All of the deceased that have occurred, the causes have been determined and the results are there does not exist — there does not exist any mystery.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: Now the Minister went on to say that the Dominican Republic has nothing to hide, and that it was the DR who reached out to the F.B.I. in the first place, but a lot of people within the community have said that they have not been as forthcoming with information and updates.
Their concern, at least from the tourism standpoint is that they’re going to be losing out on important dollars. A lot of jobs here in the Caribbean Islands center around people who are vacationing in the DR.
But we also got a chance to ask the Minister of Tourism if he had anything to say to the families of the at least 11 Americans who’ve died in the past 12 months, the Minister says that he is sympathetic to those who have lost loved ones. But he continued to say that this is not a mystery.
But if you talk to some of the families who’ve spoken out after hearing about what the Minister had to say, they don’t take this explanation at face value. They want to see the results of these autopsies and they certainly have a lot of questions that they don’t have answers to — Tucker.
CARLSON: Amazing story. Thanks a lot for the update.
Well, the Mueller report in the end didn’t quite reveal what the left promised it would. It spent two years telling us it would, millions and millions of taxpayer dollars spent, thousands of hours of investigation and in the end, no evidence of collusion.
So if you bought in a hundred percent to the idea that the Mueller report is going to vindicate all of your dreams, how do you respond? Well, denial works. Some are pretending it never even happened.
Out in Hollywood, a bunch of celebrities are fully in denial. They say the report actually did expose collusion and you could discover it too, if you just read all 448 pages slowly. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR: The Russian government attacked our democracy.
MARTIN SHEEN, ACTOR: They interfered in the presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
LAWRENCE FISHBURNE, ACTOR: And made hundreds of contacts with the Trump campaign.
STEPHEN KING, AUTHOR: All of this is a part of a massive covert operation.
ROB REINER, ACTOR: Investigate connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.
GEORGE TAKEI, ACTOR: Mueller delivered his report on March 22nd, and it contains the most damning evidence ever compiled against a sitting U.S. President.
ROSIE PEREZ, ACTRESS: Yet, virtually no one has read it.
Sheen: And before the report was even released, Trump’s Attorney General William Barr lied about its content. All of this is in the report. Please just read it for yourself.
FISHBURNE: No one.
PEREZ: No one.
TAKEI: Not even the President of the United States —
DE NIRO: Is above the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: What percentage of those people move their lips when they read? They have great voices though. That’s for sure, Tammy Bruce. It just makes me laugh.
TAMMY BRUCE, CONTRIBUTOR: It’s like Robert De Niro, it looks like he just got out of the shower and was really upset or something in that imagery.
The only thing missing from that tone and the nature of this was then a discussion about crop circles, and how hieroglyphics in Egypt and the pyramids were really communications to the outer space people.
Look, it’s pathetic. It’s obviously a group of people who are embarrassed as they should be, not just because of this video, but because they did tell people for years that this was going to be the case.
And it wasn’t just about collusion, it was that the President of the United States was a Russian spy. But what do you expect from people who make a living by living in make believe? And this is it.
Now, the other thing, of course, the next video that could follow would be all of them talking about that the government still has not arrested the Corleone family, even though we’ve had three movies exposing what it is they’ve done, and then in just a few days ago — it’s true and you know it.
Just a few days ago, we had a number of senators actually briefed on UFOs that we know that there was some briefing about some of the Navy sightings of lights that they can’t explain.
And yet decades ago, we knew about Darth Vader and Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker, and we did nothing then at that point, either. This is the same trajectory.
They’re telling people, just look at the movie, read the book, and you’ll believe it, too. But it’s also insulting, Tucker, because they’re behaving as though the American people or even their own constituency, other liberals, either are too lazy to read or read it and didn’t understand it properly, or have just given up that they are the only ones who truly understand what the dynamic is.
So look, there’s a lot of rehab for people in Hollywood who escape reality using drugs and alcohol. There now needs to be one to get them out of this pathological fixation on Donald Trump. They need to admit they were wrong and accept it, which is what most Americans do, and move on.
CARLSON: So it turns out, it must be more boring than we realize to be an actor because you’d think if you were — if you’re Robert De Niro, you’d think, «I’m sorry, I’m enjoying my 11 houses and my private plane.»
CARLSON: «You know, the fruits of my labor. I’m rich and famous.» But no, he is sitting in some little studio yelling about Trump into a camera. I don’t understand. Why the fixation?
BRUCE: Here is a large part of the problem. You have politicians and Hollywood who began to believe that they are the ones that matter, that they are better than everyone else, that we’re a bunch of, you know, deplorable plebes out here ruining things, and yet, we didn’t listen to them in 2016. We rejected their advice. We didn’t take them seriously. And we still aren’t.
So for them, it’s never about other people for these individuals, because the narcissism is too much. For them, it’s about their own sense of seriousness their own relevance, which of course considering that no one is taking them seriously, it gets battered every single day.
So this is an effort to regenerate themselves. It has nothing to do with the country, it never has.
CARLSON: The irony, of course is their influence is waning. I mean, their business is dying.
CARLSON: Being a movie star is, it’s not what it was even five years ago.
BRUCE: That’s right.
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, by contrast, is a bigger deal than ever. Check out Tammy’s new show, «Get Timmy Bruce» on Fox Nation.
BRUCE: Thank you, sir.
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, the best.
BRUCE: Thanks, my friend.
CARLSON: Good to see you.
BRUCE: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: We want to tell you about a new government official who is about to deport 2,500 migrants every day and secure the southern border. He says his critics can start by welcoming a few dozen migrants into their own homes. Who is this mysterious new official? We will tell you after the break?
CARLSON: Mayors across the country are putting the local police and open defiance of American Immigration Law. The White House has announced that on Sunday, this Sunday, it will begin launching immigration raids in 10 U.S. cities.
The intent of the raids is to detain and eventually deport thousands of people who have ignored existing deportation orders. It’s a straightforward effort to enforce the law, which is what the government is designed to do.
Except in Chicago, where the new mayor, Lori Lightfoot has announced that Chicago Police are now prohibited from assisting Federal immigration authorities in any way. The city has even cut off I.C.E.’s access to their police databases.
In the City of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the LAPD has also announced it will not assist I.C.E. in any way. By the way, the Feds assist those cities all the time when they need help.
In San Francisco, of course, Mayor London Breed issued an even more absurd statement, it accuses the Federal government of quote, » … targeting innocent immigrant families with secret raids that are designed to inflict as much fear and pain as possible,» end quote.
Consider that sentence. Everything in it is a lie. The people being targeted already have had their day in court, they lost. They were ordered to leave the country. They’ve refused. Removing them is the same as restoring the basic rule of law.
Mayors like London Breed don’t want that, maintaining the country’s new servant class at all cost is more important to them. But think of what we’re degrading in the process something important.
We want to tell you about a new government official on the scene. This is someone who is in charge of controlling migration into his country. He has made a lot of promises, almost 400,000 people have entered this country just in the past three months.
To fix this problem, he says he plans to deport 2,500 people every single day. He says he is going to block all illegal crossings over the river on his country’s southern border. He points out that illegal immigrants routinely get better treatment than the poor people in his own country.
And when he is attacked for saying all of this, he’s got a simple response, his nation is like a home he says and his job is to preserve that home’s wellbeing for the people who actually live in it.
If activists are so upset about deporting illegal aliens, he says, why don’t they accept 50 of them to crash indefinitely in their own homes? So who is this man?
No, it’s not the new acting DHS Secretary. It’s not even our President. No. This person is called Francisco Garduno. He is the new head of the National Institute of Migration in another country. Can you guess the country? Mexico. Good for him.
Well, for years, America’s tech monopolies have had their growth subsidized by the Federal government by you and the rest of the taxpayers in this country, all thanks to Section 230 of something called the Communications Decency Act.
The law protects tech companies for being sued for defamation and fraud on the grounds that they simply provide an online platform for users that anyone can use. But that’s a lie.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube aren’t open platforms, they are censors. They’re happy to ban and silence anyone they dislike usually on political ground.
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri wants to change that. He has a new bill that will take away tech companies lawsuit immunity if they carry out any politically motivated censorship. We recently spoke with Senator Hawley about that bill. Here is what he said.
CARLSON: I characterize that correctly. This bill would remove immunity from companies that practice politically motivated censorship.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY, R-MO: Yes, I mean, it’s very simple. Big Tech has gotten these giveaways from government, this sweetheart deal from government where they can’t be held accountable. They can’t be sued.
I mean, if Twitter decides, Tucker, to take away your platform, they take away all your social media, what can you do about it? Currently, nothing.
So what my bill says is, look, if they’re going to have this special immunity that nobody else gets, by the way, they should not discriminate on the basis of speech. They ought to embrace the same First Amendment values that everybody else embraces, and so no discrimination on the basis of your political views.
If they want to discriminate, they shouldn’t get the special deals from government.
CARLSON: That seems completely fair. What would be the argument against it? Why — first of all, why is it taking you — you just got to the United States Senate about 20 minutes ago? Why is it taking you to do this? And how many people are on your side? And who specifically is against you?
HAWLEY: Well, I mean, who is against me are all the big tech companies and all of their backers, you know, and they whine that, «Oh, my goodness, this is going to break the internet. I mean, this is going to be the end of all of our great innovation.» That’s just not true at all.
And let’s remember, these are the same people who last year said, «We can’t possibly stop sex trafficking online,» because that was going to break the internet, because that was going to be somehow infringe on these companies rights.
I mean, it’s just ridiculous. All that we’re saying is if you want to get special deals from government, if you want to be treated differently, you know what? Quit discriminating against conservatives and libertarians. It’s a common sense thing. And I hope they’ll be bipartisan support for it.
CARLSON: It’s fascinating. I mean, would a utility, would a power company or a local electric company be able to cut off service to you if they don’t like your views?
HAWLEY: No, of course not. And, you know, look, this is — these companies, these tech platforms control the big ones. I mean, they control the channels of social communication, they control the news that people get and receive.
HAWLEY: They have enormous power — enormous power — and they insist Tucker that they don’t discriminate. They say, «Oh, no, we don’t discriminate.» So fine. All my bill says is submit to an audit, an outside independent audit, prove that you’re not discriminating on the basis of speech, and you can keep your special immunities.
But if you are discriminating, or if you won’t open your books, you’re going to get treated like everybody else, same standard.
CARLSON: So you said a second ago that that these companies are discriminated against — conservatives and libertarians — and of course, it’s true.
Libertarians, whoever would argue against what you’re trying to do, and I think they’re arguing, well, if you don’t like it, start your own Google.
HAWLEY: Right. And the problem with that is, is that when you have a monopoly as Google really does, I mean, good luck with that. I mean, companies have the right to start up. Google buys them. Google suppresses them, engages in anti-competitive conduct.
You know, some people say, «Oh, this is for speech. My approach is forcing the companies to engage in speech.» That’s just nonsense. This isn’t for speech at all. It is stopping discrimination against speech by these companies.
I don’t want the companies to speak in any particular way. My point is just this — stop discriminating against conservatives. Stop suppressing other viewpoints that you don’t agree with. I mean, it’s just as simple as that.
CARLSON: But unless I’m missing something, what your bill would do would just remove the special protections that they have that for example, I do not enjoy as a broadcaster. Fox News is a news company. We don’t enjoy it, we could be sued.
If we defame somebody, if we commit fraud. We could be sued. We don’t have this immunity. And all your bill would do is just put them into my category.
HAWLEY: That’s exactly right. I mean, that’s exactly right. I mean, to be clear, these big tech companies — Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter — they have a deal that nobody else has, no media company has this deal. No other publisher has this deal.
They have this special carve out, this special handout from government. And if they want to keep it, my view is they should quit discriminating.
On the other hand, if they want to discriminate against conservatives, if they want to push a liberal agenda, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t get — they shouldn’t get these special deals that nobody else gets.
CARLSON: Exactly. Then they can live like the rest of us. Senator, God bless you for doing this. I’m so glad that you are and I really look forward to finding out who opposes this, because it will tell us everything, I think. Senator, great to see you tonight.
HAWLEY: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: It’s Friday, so as always, we’re ending the week with a bang. «Dan Bongino’s News Explosion.» Our favorite former Secret Service agent will join us with the week’s top stories. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: There’s a lot going on in Kansas City yesterday. Yesterday afternoon, hundreds of people in Kansas City began spotting strange glowing objects that appeared to be floating in the sky.
Of course, they must be weather balloons, right? Everything weird in the sky is always called a weather balloon. Not so fast though. People began contacting National Weather Service and they replied on Twitter this way, quote, «We honestly have no explanation for the floating objects over Kansas City.»
Ha. So some outlets reported that the object were balloons released earlier this week by DARPA. That’s the research arm of the Defense Department. And yet, DARPA, at least so far is not officially taking responsibility for the balloons.
So as of tonight, they are probably or possibly balloons, but maybe they’re not. It would nice if someone clarified that. We’ll keep you posted.
Well, it’s time to close out the week with a bang and what better bang than the «Dan Bongino News Explosion.» Our favorite New York City cop and Secret Service agent is here to give us his top three news stories of the past seven days. The Great Dan Bongino joins us tonight. Hey, Dan.
DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you’re lucky because I have four and the fourth story of the week—
BONGINO: Yes. It is going to be a nice segue from your UFO segment. Story number four, Tucker. Apparently, some of the United States senators have received an actual briefing on this UFO phenomenon. And now like you, I always wonder why this isn’t a bigger story?
Listen, Tucker, we don’t have to go all HG Wells «War of the Worlds» already. There is no need for drama. But if you had some stuff flying over your country with a technology no one could explain, maybe it’s kind of a bigger deal. Right? Maybe we should be a little more concerned.
BONGINO: Just throwing that out there for the audience, you know. That’s my number four story.
CARLSON: I think that that is a fair concern, I would say.
BONGINO: Thank you, buddy. We think alike, right? All right, story number three. The Iranians — a very serious story — hitting one of our drones, a $100 million plus drone.
You know, Tucker, you and I don’t agree on everything in politics, but I have to tell you, you have my respect on this one. You’ve been consistent on this from the start, and I think you’ve nailed this. It’s a drone it’s a serious matter. Iran is obviously not a friend to the United States.
But as you know, I think you know, Nassim Taleb describes in his book you know, «Skin in the Game,» it’s very easy to make these decisions about human lives when it’s not, you know, your butt on the line.
I understand they are serious decisions. But the way some of these people in D.C. just casually throw around war like it’s a trip to McDonald’s is candidly embarrassing for people with such high IQs or who believe they have such high IQs. So good coverage of Glenn Greenwald, he did a great piece on that for us.
CARLSON: A better description. Yes, he did.
BONGINO: I think so, too.
CARLSON: Who believe they do. Thanks, Dan.
BONGINO: Yes, he was great. Yes, no good job on that. All right. Story number two, Trump 2020 begins. Listen, regardless of — listen, I’m a supporter of the President. I’m a conservative on a lot of his conservative issues. You know, I’m not a news guy. I’m an opinion guy. I don’t think that’s a secret.
But listen, Tucker, energy matters and this rally in Orlando was a monster. And I mean that in a good way, not a bad way. I mean, I ran for office. You know how hard it is to turn out 20,000 people?
I live in Florida, Tucker, I know, you know that. It’s 94 degrees here on Christmas. It’s the greatest State in the Union. I love it. But you wake up Christmas morning, and you can roast marshmallows on the sidewalk.
You had 20,000 people sitting in Orlando, in the pouring rain in 90 degrees, waiting to see this guy. The President clearly has tapped into something here that the American public needs and wants.
And honestly, Tucker, the energy hasn’t waned one bit. He packed that entire stadium. And listen, one quick thing on this, again. Crowds are not necessarily dispositive. It doesn’t mean he is going to win — you know, I don’t want to get hyperbolic on either end.
But the Democrats ignoring this phenomenon again is going to be egg on the face twice if they underestimate this man’s capacity to win an election. Big mistake. Huge.
CARLSON: Great point.
BONGINO: I quote Julia Roberts from «Pretty Woman.» You like that? How I threw that in there? Pretty funny. Never laugh at your jokes by the way.
Story number one, the Biden boomerang. Listen, if you’re going to use identity politics, remember, Tucker, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney was going to put you all back in chains and the Republicans.
If you’re going to — if this is going to be your entire political strategy, attacking people on the basis of race, disingenuously, by the way, 99 percent of the time, it’s only a matter of time before it boomerangs in your face and it happened this week with Sloppy Joe, where of course, he made a comment about working with segregationists and he gave an opening to people like Booker and otherwise who don’t really believe by the way that Biden is a racist, but saw an opening, and they’re going to attack him because that’s what they do, Tucker.
CARLSON: So craven. Dan Bongino, thank you. Thank you for that explosion, Dan.
BONGINO: Yes, I’ll see you next week.
CARLSON: That’s it for us. Will be back 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying pomposity, smugness and groupthink. All next week from Japan, preparatory to G20, we’re interviewing the president.
Have the best weekend. Sean Hannity right now.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.