tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News August 14, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
the show will always be fair and balanced. a lot more to cover tomorrow night. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, welcome to tucker carlson tonight. lunatic bent on murdering a crowd of people with his car. everything that happened in charlesville over the weekend was awful. maybe the feeling you got when you watched it that things were completely out of control. this is what chaos looks like. one man swing ago confederate flag like a club. his opponent trying to burn him with a homemade flame thrower. all of this happening on the city street in midday and no one trying to stop them. what country was this? where were the authorities? what happened to the police? is this america?
our colleague doug mckelway was there in charlesville on sunday and he had that same question. >> when the tear gas started to fly. thrown by protesters the police themselves began to evacuate that i asked the guy who was in charge i said where are you going? he said we're leaving. it's too dangerous. they had an opportunity to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to. >> tucker: multiple videos show marchers beaten with cops nowhere to be seen. one video shows law enforcement hurting a group of white nationalists directly toward left wing counter protesters with predictable results. none of this seemed to bother elected officials in the state. virginia governor terry mcauliff said this morning the cops did, quote a magnificent job. the over his head head mayor of charlottesville agreed with that unfortunately a long history in this country politicians for whatever reason preventing the police from doing their jobs in times of crisis. way back in 1991, new york mayor david dinkens let the
crown heights riots rage for three days before allowing police to restore order there have you seen similar scenes recently in ferguson and baltimore, berkeley. police stood aside while demonstrations turned into riots and now in charlottesville. a woman died after authorities allowed chaos to spread. political violence is a virus. once it flares up in one place it's likely to spread elsewhere. cowardly politicians are not just hurting their own communities when they allow this. they are putting the rest of us at risk. dan bongino joins us tonight. dan, what i find so striking about what happened in charlesville is there is no debate did. there this ♪ something the left is saying or the right is saying they both are saying it the aclu are saying it. the marcher ares confederate flags are saying it. the police stood by and allowed violence to accelerate. why would they do that? >> yeah, tucker. it's perplexing. the reason you are seeing this kind of political
ideology on both sides of the aisle. free speech means i'm free to punch you in the faces a you are speaking. that's not free speech that's straight up hard core criminality and violence. why is this phenomenon the stephanie rawlings-blake baltimore give them space to destroy phenomenon happening? i have no goods answer other than let them vent theory? is it one of these sociocycle babble theories that if you let people go out there they will get tired of breaking stuff or punching people after a while? i have no good explanation because there isn't one this is pure unadulterated idiocy. one thing, tucker, this is not the rank and file cops. the cops know exactly how to do their job. this is politicians and police managers beholden to politicians who have made these awful decisions to let them vent or, quote: give them space to destroy as was said in baltimore. >> tucker: it's such a
betrayal of the rest of us. i mean, we, obviously, through our tax dollars support law enforcement but we also give them enormous latitude. a ton of power. we let them carry guns in public and use them all in the belief that when it comes down to it, they will maintain order and protect us. and so i just wonder where -- and i believe you that the police are for order, they are against this. but where is the policing standing up to these politicians and saying we need to be allowed to do our jobs? >> >> yeah. i'm not sure. what's really disturbing is this isn't an isolated incident. we've seen this repeatedly. >> right. >> we saw it at chicago at anti-trump rallies. like you said baltimore. we saw it in ferguson. another thing about this why this is so dangerous this stand-down mentality from politicians or let them vent mentality tucker social media has changed everything when it comes to these riots and these an tiff if a people and these white nationalists whatever they are. these nazi sympathizers.
it has changed everything. it has made it so easy to coordinate a group of people dedicated to one thing and one thing only. violence. you know, 30, 40 years ago if walter cronkite didn't talk about it on the evening news, nobody knew about it right now have you a fringe operator with 100,000 twitter followers who puts out meet me on the corner of 47th and myrtle and we'll beat the ♪ out of some an tiff if a people. next thing you know have you a full scale riot on your hand. it's a new era for policing and politicians and managers better get it through their heads or you will see more of this. >> tucker: i think you already have. i think later in the show we have video, someone sent it to me of a statue being pulled down. some kind of confederate war memorial i think it just happened. see people gather around, attach a strap to the head of the statue and pull it down. i'm sure it will be applauded by the left. they don't like these statues, that's fine.
there it is right there. i think this just happened. okay. there it is. now, i'm ♪ exactly sure where this is. but it's clearly a public space. no police to be seen. my crowd strong political views can destroy a statue, why can't they set your house on fire? in other words, why doesn't this stuff accelerate into something really dangerous? why wouldn't it? >> well, that's a great question. tucker, it almost happened on berkeley, on the berkeley campus where they literally almost set the building on fire. you know what needs to happen here? you need to go back to the old rudy giuliani approach after crown heights. you mentioned the david den constituency with the crowd heights i remember that the giuliani theory was if you throw a bottle you are going to jail. if the guy behind you throws a bottle he goes to jail, too. nobody gets a free pass. you know what happens? people learn very quickly that's not going to go down that way in new york. did you go down to new york. you have the absolute right to free speech and protest.
have you no right as well to launch a bolts, rip down a statute or burn someone's house down. that has to be some kind of national police effort on behalf of police management and politicians to set that new standard that no more with this. you have free speech salutest on this. free speech does not include physical assault and throwing of objects at people. absolutely not. if you are a politician, if you are the mayor of a city, spare me your political. your first job is to keep your city orderly and safe. if you can't do that get off the stage. dan, thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. >> yes, sir, you got it. >> tucker: for more reaction to what happened over the weekend we are joined by white house aide omarosa newman. thanks for coming on tonight. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: the president was roundly attacked by a lot of republicans, too, for somehow -- some have said inspiring what happened in charlesville, for not condemning it with the precision that they wanted.
what's your response to those criticisms? >> well, i think the most important response is that we have to put this into context. when the shooting happened at the charleston church. president barack obama did not come out in his first statement and condemn all white supremacists. in fact, he specifically said i'm going to exercise great caution while the investigation takes place. when the black lives matter officer went and started shooting five police officers, he was a military guy. and he shot and killed five police officers, barack obama did not come out and condemn black lives matter by name. in fact, he said again i'm going to wait until the investigation is over. our president, president trump, he said that he condemned the acts. he knew that they were disgusting and loathe some. he did not come out until the facts were known about the investigation. and today he made a statement that was very clear and very decisive about where he stood on these acts.
>> tucker: what kind of reaction do you get? i mean, the people who dislike trump are really convinced that he is basically responsible for what happened in charlesville over the weekend. so as you are like walking down the street or did you go home to see your parents, do people ever say anything to you about it? >> well, you know, i think that the fact that i am a conservative african-american woman, that already makes me a target. >> tucker: yeah. >> because they believe i should align only with the democratic party and i shouldn't have differing views. but i'm a very strong person and a very strong viewpoint about what's right and my vision that aligns with this president's vision for this country. >> tucker: so the reason i asked you that was there is a video out there of you on stage at a black journalist event i think a couple days ago. >> that's right. >> tucker: it was on friday
moderator basically went after you, it was ed gordon. it evolved on stage. for our viewers that haven't seen it here is what happened on stage. most of the black community does not understand. that is how you would sit in the white house with a man who clearly is sending a signal to this country that police don't have. >> walk away? we have to have a way. >> have you i do my best to try to keep it as civil as possible. >> you are being aggressive. ask your question and don't lecture me: you want to ask about -- my brother and issues, ask about my story. >> no. >> tucker: that was a black journalist association. weren't those journalists in the audience? because they were booing you for your political views.
that didn't seem like the way journalists behave. journalists? >> well, can i give you some context? i was there to share the story about the death of my father. my father was murdered when i was 7 years old. my brother was killed in 2011. he was murdered in youngstown, ohio as well. the national association of black journalists invited me to come and talk about my experience. and to tell my story and so i told my story for about two and a half minutes. and then that video starts to play. you will see that the moderator, came from behind the podium and stood directly in front of me. and he started to talk over me in a very antagonistic way. but what you don't see are black lives matter protesters who start to align on the side of the stage and they start to get up, stand up, raise their fists and then turn their backs. so there was a lot going on. i was very surprised once he came from behind the podium and tried to get up in my face. >> tucker: at least in that clip, i mean, you are being
treated like a traitor, not just someone they disagree with you about someone who is like betraying something really important. you are a quiz ling. you are committing teach. is that the sense you got from them? >> absolutely. because the base of the democratic party. a big part of that base are african-american women. so i'm a huge threat to the democratic party by the fact that i know longer support the policies have undermined our community for years. and so when i'm outspoken and i'm strong in my stance against their politics, they have attacked me in every single way. but ed gordon specifically tweeted earlier that day about having a very controversial interview with me and that controversial engagement with me. and so i believe that it was premeditated. in fact, i just felt very much ambushed during this process. >> tucker: yeah. they don't think people should have their own opinions. get in line or punish you are as you just found out. only rosa, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, tucker.
>> well, for the entire year, our political process, washington itself has been utterly consumed with the claims now viewed as certainty by many that russia hacked the u.s. election. whatever that means. but a lot of people who know a lot about it, including people who spent their lives in the intelligence community don't buy it at all. we'll talk to a former high ranking nsa official about what actually may have happened next. plus, the engineer fired by google for his manifesto or diversity joins us for a fascinating interview. that's up in just a minute.
>> tucker: have you heard it all by now. in fact that's all have you heard. russian hacking collusion, undermining ever our democracy. endless theme in congress, in the media the only solution we are told day after day is all encompassing investigation. continuing with that end until the guilty parties have found and punished severely. yet, let's go back to the core allegation. some members of the intelligence community are not convinced it's true. the group veteran intelligence procialsz for sanity or vips has been looking at the evidence of russian hacking and says a lot of it does not add up at all. worked at the nsa for more than 30 years and a member of ipsa. he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> just to be absolutely clear with our audience. what you are saying is not just that the president didn't collude with russia. you are calling into question the core allegation which is that russia is
responsible for hacking in to the dnc's server, why would you call that into question since every smart person in washington knows that happen? i give up, no. when this first came out last year i started opposing that simply because of the way the intelligence community was talking and knowing that the nsa has all the fiber acin the united states and trace route programs embedded in hundreds of places all over the network. i knew they would know if packets were being passed around the u.s. or outside the u.s. or anywhere in the world they could trace them and see who got them. they did that several years ago with the chinese hack that came in that said it came from that building, i think in shanghai. well, they could do the same thing with virtually any hack. right away i began to question that assertion that they were hanging in to the
dnc. then we had a fellow who basically had access, it seems to me had to have access to the network log of the dnc server, which means that any transactions going in to and out of the dnc network log get registered or logged inside that log. and it goes into a list of what packets come in from what ips and so on and going back and forth. so, that to me said from there, he listed out the raw data from the transactions in the log, which meant the time, the transmission started, the time it ended. the amounts of data that passed, you know, and any other identifying ips are buried in those packets that are passed, too. and if they would ever give them to you. but i think this is probably one the reasons the dnc didn't let the fbi look at it because it would sho at the rate. it was taken out at the rate of, well, 109 -- 1976 mega
bites or it was takin taking a total of 87 seconds. >> tucker: i make the point too fast. couldn't have gone out over the internet. it had to be have taken directly in person from the computer, downloaded on to some sort of mobile storage device. so, given that, given that the nsa clearly doesn't have the evidence it would have if it happened, and that it couldn't have been hacked over the internet, then why is everyone in government still pretending that's what happened? that's the confusing part to me. >> well, i guess it appears that many people are emotionally tied to this agenda, to tight russians with president trump. and the trump administration. one way or the other they want to do it. so, it's hard for them to give up that argument. i mean, it's like they are emotionally stuck with it. so, i mean, we in vips try to look at things just
straightforward. what are the facts? find the exact facts in the case, and then make a decision from that. not from other agendas driving us or anything that's motivating us to do or say things that we can't substantiate with facts. so, and that's the problem, you see, everything that's come out about this issue hasn't been backed up by facts at all. the only facts we have been able to get. >> tucker: let me ask you one last -- right, they are generalizations and you are supposed to accept them and then be quiet and just sort of obediently nod and accept that it must be true. as someone who worked in that community for your entire adult life, are you struck by how all of a sudden people who know nothing about how it works are demanding that everyone else accept these assumptions that have no factual basis? >> well, it's kind of hard to believe. but i guess they are applying the old rule from
ancient greece. they would say simply repeat the argument over and over again many different directions by many different people and eventually gets believed. that's exact philosophy that adolf hitler had. if you are going to tell a litel it often until it gets believed. make it a big one, too. >> tucker: only -- have you to be crazy not to accept it i know. let me just say for the record i know some of the people involved in your group. and, you know, they're not trump voters. this is not some sort of right wing group here from what i can tell. bill, thank you for joining us. nice to have somebody on that knows something about the subject that rarely happens. appreciate it? >> thank you. >> tucker: next up a google engineer dared to have his own opinions at work. instead of praising his bravery, google fired him. that engineer will join us next. you owned your car for four years. you named it brad. you loved brad. and then you totaled him. you two had been through everything together.
two boyfriends, three jobs... you're like nothing can replace brad. then liberty mutual calls... and you break into your happy dance. if you sign up for better car replacement™, we'll pay for a car that's a model year newer with 15,000 fewer miles than your old one. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
>> tucker: two weeks ago a software engineer wrote a memo assessing the political culture at google where he then worked. at google he wrote we talk so much about unconscious bias as it relates to race and gender but rarely discuss our moral biases. considering that the overwhelming majority of social sciences, media and google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices. well over 10 pages he examined those prejudices in some detail. notable among them is the belief that for women bigotry is the main impediment to professional
advancement. fewer female engineers than male engineers liberals believe because men are biased against women. now damore suspected that was not the entire story. quote we need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. on average men and women biologically differ in many ways. these differences aren't just socially constructed. now, damore is a former childhood chess. he is from harvard. precise. he repeatedly pointed out that biological differences pertain to groups and often do not apply to individuals. none of that mattered. danielle brown google's vice president of diversity released a statement charging damore with having, quote, incorrect assumptions about gender. brown did not explain what those assumptions were or are they were incorrect. she didn't need to because no one in the media asked. flew home from vacation to respond to the growing crisis. many of damore's fellow
employees how old for his dismissal. former executive wrote an op-ed saying that damore should be escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you. others fantasized on social media about assaulting damore. all news organizations described it as anti-diversity memo when in fact he had around google's culture needed more diversity. that was the whole point it didn't matter within days he was fired and mostor wellian statement written sincorwell finished himself he explained the firing part of building open and inclusive environment means fostering a culture those are alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. okay. so in order to foster a culture in those those with alternative political views feel safe sharing their opinions google fired james damore for the crime of
sharing his differing opinion. at no point did they rebutt the points he made i the fact he made them was enough. raising questions was his crime. now, why does any of this matter? well, it matters because google is the most powerful company in the history of the world. it's the portal through which the bulk of our information flows that means that if google isn't on the level, neither is our understanding of the world. to an unprecedented extend, google controls reality. now google has already shown a disturbing willingness to distorst reality for ideological ends. until they were sued for it in 2008, google refused it allow anti-abortion advertisements on its platforms even though they freely allowed pro-borings one. google often blacklist certain sites from certain ads which denied them revenue. recently google owned youtube has introduced procedures to cut off revenue to, quote, offensive content. what's offensive? who decides? well, it's no opaque process controlled by employees of the company and the last two
weeks have shown us conclusively what those employees are like. no surprise then that the offensive label is routinely being applied to right of center content creators they don't like. google has also appointed itself the online sheriff of fake news. changing its search algorithms so that what it calls misleading or offensive news doesn't even show up in searches. you will never know it existed. it's now obvious that google cannot be trusted to do any of this. why should a company that shuts down free speech for political reasons have the power to dictate what the world knows and thinks? well, of course it shouldn't have that power. google's long time motto was don't be evil. today it uses do the right thing. we should have seen this coming. those are super villain slogans if there was ever such a thing. none of this can continue. in europe google has already been hit with a nearly 3 billion-dollar fine for violating antitrust law. congress here and the trump administration should go further than that. since it has the power to
censor the internet. google should be regulated like the public utility it is to make sure it doesn't further distort the free flow of information. rest of us that needs to happen immediately. too bad it's come to this. a lot of us trusted google not to be evil. silly us. james da more once trusted google not on evil. probably not anymore. he joins us now. james, thanks a lot for coming on. i read this saga from beginning until right now. and one question that kept coming back to me is did anyone at google, before firing you, bother to respond to any of the points that you made? it's a data driven company. they always say that did they say here is why you are wrong or did they just say you are being punished for asking questions? >> yeah. when i shared it with individual googlers. they actually had an actual reasoned discussion with me. only when it became viral did this huge emotional outrage happen of all places
you wouldn't think google would have a culture where emotional outrage drives decision making. the whole point of google was they are rational. they don't sound rational at all. >> yeah. there is certain dogmas that you really can't defend against at google. and one of them being that there is any difference between people. >> so the diversity officer, ms. brown, who said that your assumptions about gender were incorrect. did she ever explain how? did she ever point by point rebutt what you had asserted? >> no. they haven't really given any details. they have just the entire time either just called me names, shamed me, or just made broad generalizations saying that what i was saying was pseudo science when real there is scientific consensus.
>> tucker: that there are differences between the sexes. i didn't think that was up for debate. are they contesting that? >> it seems like it. >> what did they say to you when they canned you. when they called you, in how did the conversation go? what is the justification for ending your career at google? >> so the official justification was perpetuating gender stereotypes how did that convey that to you. was there a star chamber where they were sitting up in a dais james have you per at the twatted gender stereotypes? how did they tell you? >> they really just called me and said you have been terminated for perpetuating gender stereotypes. when i asked for more detail, they wouldn't give me any. >> tucker: what did they say? we're not giving you any? >> yeah.
it's just oh, it's final. there's nothing more that we can do. you're fired. now let's go over the details of actually getting your stuff to you. >> tucker: it's hard to believe that anybody, even people who disagree with you and whatever your -- i don't even know what your politics are. but disagree with the memo that you wrote. it's hard to anybody could defend that kind of reaction from google, because it's so deeply unreasonable and childish, stupid, authoritarian, unamerican. nothing good about it. are you surprised to see a lot of your fellow technology people defending that decision? >> yeah. quite honestly, i am surprised. although i sort of predicted it in the introduction to the document. so, i realized that this happened at least the small scale where people will shame you if you say
anything that's not politically correct but i never realized they could get so far that they would actually fire me for trying to actually improve google. >> tucker: without even explaining why you were wrong. so i mean. >> right. >> tucker: the question is if you have a company as big as google is and as powerful as google is, acting in a way that that is this irrational in public, what does it say about the way they conduct business in private? should the rest of us being worried seeing as how so much we see the world is filtered by google? >> there are definitely some political biases in google that i was trying to shed light on in the document. and that they effect many parts of the business and, for example, who they do business with and what type of content they create. and i really think that those political biases need to be addressed.
>> tucker: man, i think so too. james, thanks a lot for coming on. i hope to meet you in person some day. you are a brave man. >> yeah. i appreciate it. >> tucker: thanks. well, supporters of islamic migration to the west routinely deny the existence of no-go zones. those aren't real. now a british exmuslim has written an entire buick about how they are real. he has details. he is joi la quinta presents "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.
>> tucker: in the debate over islamic migration in europe and u.s. no-go zones are a common topic. in these zones there are virtually no non-muslim residents allowed, supposedly. sharia law remains supreme and even police try to stay away. the left has argued for years these zones are imagery they don't exist and anyone who says they do gets attacked. next guest is an ex-muslim and tried to get to the bottom of it and has the truth about no-go zones.
editor and chief of breitbart london is he nigel farage in the u.s.a. no-go zones how sharia law is coming to a neighborhood near you. he joins us now. rahim, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: you will remember vividly a show on this channel was roundly attacked for asserting there were parts of paris where non-muslims couldn't go. no-swo zone. left said that's outrageous. bigoted to suggest something like that. you just wrote a book on it what is the truth. >> did i write a book on it i got tired of the viewers of this channel will be tired of which is denialists. it is fingers, la la la we can't hear you. we don't want to admit what's going on in our cities and our countries and our neighborhoods. that's what this book is really about. i traveled across europe and even to places in the united states where i see sharia law emanating. where i see dominant muslim
populations dictating what does and can happen in their neighborhoods. i have seen areas in which terrorists find enclaves and find shelter. i found places that actually young white girls just can't go otherwise they are harassed and set upon. these phenomena aren't new but we do have a way to go before the political establishment, especially appreciates just quite the level of degradation in these areas we are talking about. these are areas where police are often afraid to go in small numbers. they often have to go in large numbers. in some places they actually have to negotiate their way in with local community leaders, postal services won't go to some of these places. and i will tell you what, tucker, you know, walking around these areas myself and seeing for myself the rampant welfarism which is pushed upon these people, upon these immigrants by the left wing political parties. i was absolutely mortified. >> tucker: well, it's shocking. i should say you can't say
there is a live picture beneath you of the president of the united states arriving in new york city there it is right there for our viewers. that's, of course, the marine one, the famous presidential helicopter in new york and is he getting out. raheem tell me. this i have noticed over the years a weird embarrassments probably inspired by guilt on the part of political european leaders they don't want to talk about this. they deny they exist. where do they come from? what is that about? >> it comes from many places, actually. a lot of it combings from rampant corporatism we have now in the west. these demands for cheap migrant labor forced on government by massive corporations and massive corporations sponsor a lot of this stuff. they sponsor a lot of the hard leftist groups that protest when something like this comes out truth about these issues.
a lot of political leaders across the world right now who simply don't have a vested interest in the future of the west if you look across europe, for instance, the leaders in germany, angela merkel in italy. united kingdom and france. all childless. and it's interesting. because the leaders that do have children are far more invested in the future of their nations than the leaders without. and i think there is this -- >> tucker: can i stop you right there? i don't think i have ever heard anybody say anything like that in public, certainly not on television. and i just want to say god bless you for saying that. because there is something to that right there. you do have a different perspective when you have got to think through the next 70 years, right, when you are not going to be there. >> of course. for saying something like that. >> tucker: well, you know what? i'm glad that you did. i'm going to steal that. because it's true. >> it is. >> tucker: it's absolutely true and everyone knows it's true. thank you. thanks for coming on tonight. we hope to see you again.
♪ >> tucker: breaking tonight. north korea has announced that kim jong un has been briefed by his generals on a potential missile strike near the island of guam. that announcement comes after a week of threats between the u.s. and north korea. last week president trump vowed to unleash, quote, fire and fury, if the kim regime goes too far. the president later said he possibly hadn't been tough enough on north korea.
meanwhile, with venezuela on the brink of civil war, trump suggested there could be american military intervention there as well. charles krauthammer is an author, a columnist and all around brilliant person. he says the public may be missing the point of the president's threats. charles krauthammer joins us tonight. so, charles, the point of a threat is that you have to be able to back it up. and i don't think any american president would say something like that without having in mind how he might make good on it. what would be the point of military action against north korea or, for that matter, venezuela? is either one of those a good idea? >> well, they are both separate issues. i think. the north korea one is quite straightforward. and we heard from general mattis, secretary of defense today. look, if the north koreans launch a missile, at the united states, at guam, at our troops, perhaps even seoul or tokyo our allies. we are not going to wait for
it to land. the launching would be an act of war. and i assume we have plans for a complete obliteration of the north korean regime. now, people got all upset when trump used the words fire and fury overkill and all this other stuff. they forget the fact that john kennedy, president eisenhower, and most of the cold war presidents had a policy called massive retaliation, which meant if the soviets attacked us, we were not going to be secret and proportionate in our response. a massive retaliation was understood as code for we're going to obliterate russian cities. now, that wasn't a pleasant prospect. but it was that threat that actually kept the peace for 50 years and is the reason we had no major war between the great powers for 70 years longer than any time in modern history. so there is a place for that
kind of overkill threat. my problem with what president trump said is that he said they would have to face fire and fury if they continue their threats. the problem is that north koreans have been threatening us insulting us, all kinds of blood curdling stuff every day and twice on sunday for about 50 years. it's not the threats that we would be retaliating for, it is any action. any move to threaten our allies, ourselves, our territories. i think needed to make that clear. but the fire and the fury, that was a perfectly reasonable recreation of massive retaliation. >> tucker: have you ever seen a scenario where the u.s. uses military action against north korea and millions don't die in seoul? that seems such a high price to pay. do you really think the administration is willing to risk that with military
action? >> if we are attacked there won't even be a question. our response will be automatic. and there will be deaths in seoul. but this a city, look, it's not going to be easy. it could be evacuated but the other part of it is that we can attack the artillery. it isn't as if this is untouchable artillery that the north koreans have trained on seoul. remember the bomb we dropped in afghanistan, the better of all bombs. you don't have to go nuclear and north koreans. i'm not trying to strategize or to play out a war scenario. but if we're attacked, the response is automatic. the question is if we are not attacked. are we willing to push the north koreans to the point where they would start a war. and that's a different question. it's a more delegate question. and it's a more morally fraught question because, you're right. where just the idea of the
threat of the north koreans having a bomb, unused but the capacity to hit any american stipulate, is that enough to push us into a scenario where millions are going to die? that's not an easily answered question. and i suspect, tucker, that in the end, if it came to that, if it was just a potential threat, a threat out there of sort of dam close that we would decide to acquiesce rather than go to war. >> >> tucker: you would think. so that would be an awfully big deal otherwise. charles krauthammer, thank you for that. that was interesting. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: coming up, a democratic politician tried to speak at a progressive. should be easy. right? show you video where the candidate is booed off of the stage because of her color. color. it's in you won't see these folks at the post office.
color. it's in they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
>> tucker: here is something remarkable. georgia is holding an election next year. primary contest is underway. two declared candidates in the race. stacey a black woman and evans a white woman. evans tried to speak at net roots nation which is a big progressive conference. she is a democrat so she thought she would be fine talking there, right? no she wasn't. here is what happened. >> we are going to talk, y'all. [shouting] [shouting] >> tucker: evans a progressive denied the right to speak. instead she got shouted down with cries of support black women. the message is that evans is an untouchable running against the member of one race while being in a different race herself. that's a textbook definition of, let's see, oh, yeah, racism. that's it for us tonight.
crowds by the weighed at a few protesters outside of trump tower in new york. the five will be taking that up. up next, we will see you tomorrow. have a great night. ♪ ♪ >> kimberly: hello, everyone, welcome to the five, i'm kimberly guilfoyle. tonight brand new developments on the domestically attack on charlottesville. bloody white supremacist protest extremely difficult weekend for virginia and for our nation. today, president trump once again condemned the violence, this time directly addressing the racist hate groups responsible by name. >> to anyone who acted criminally in this weekend's violence. you will be held accountable. justice will be delivered. racism is evil. and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the kkk, neo