tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News March 11, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
legacy. so she is our midnight here tonight. thank you. you serve so many people. most-watched, most trusted, and most grateful you spend your evening with us. tonight from washington washington. i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." as anyone who has ever beents caught can tell you, the great american outrage machine is remarkable here in one day you're having dinner with your family imagining everything is fine, the next your phone is exploding with calls from reporters. they read you snippets from a press release written by democratic party operatives that demand to know how you could possibly have said something so awful and offensive.ha do you have a statement on how immoral you are? it's a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more a than a decae old. there is not really much that you can do. it is pointless to try to
explain health thet' words were taken out of context or spoken in jest. in any case, they are no resemblance to what you actually think or want for the country. none of that matters. nobody cares. you know the role you are n required to play. you are a sinner begging the forgiveness of twitter, so you issue a statement of deep contrition. you apologized profusely, you promised to be a better person going forward. with the guidance of your contrition consultant, you send money to whatever organization ulclaims to represent the people you supposedly offended. then you sit back and brace for a wave of stories about your apology, all of which are simply pretext for attacking you again. in the end, you get fired. you lose your job here nobody defensive. you are neighbors your gaze as you pull into the driveway. you are ruined. yes, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how despised and humiliated you may be, there is one thing you can never do. one thing that is absolutely not allowed. you can never acknowledge the
comic absurdity of the whole thing. you can never laugh in the face of the mob. you must always pretend that the people yelling at you are somehow your moral superiors. you have to assume that what they say they are mad about is what they are actually mad about. you have to take it at face value, you have to remember that it is about virtue and not about power.r. your critics argue from principal and not from partisanship you're no matter what they take from you in the end, you must continue to prepend that these things are true. you are bad, they are good. the system is on the level. but what if we stop pretending for a minute. what if we acknowledge what is actually going on? one side is deadly serious. they believe that politics is war. they are not interested in principles,, rules, or traditio. they seek power. they plan to win it, whatever it takes. if that means getting you fired, threatening your family at home, throwing you in prison, okay.
they know what their goal is. if you are in the way, they will crush you. what's interesting is how reliably the other side pretend that none of this is happening. republicans in washington do a fairly credible imitation of an opposition party. they still give speeches, they tweak quite a bit, they make concerned noises about how liberals are bad, but at the deepest level, it's all a post. in their minds, where it matters, republican leaders are controlled by the left. they know exactly what they are allowed to say and do. they know what the rules are. they may understand that those rules are written by the very people who seek their destruction. they ruthlessly enforce them anyway. republicans in washington police theirce own with a never ending enthusiasm. like trustees of a prison,, they dutifully report back to the warden, hoping for perks. nobody wants to be called names. how many times have you seen it happen? some conservative figure will
say something stupid or incomplete or too far outside the bounds of perceived wisdom for the guardians of cable news? twitter goes bonkers. the mob demands a response. very often, the first people calling for the destruction of that person are republican leaders. you saw what the covington catholic high school kids. kevin mccarthy spent half of his day telling republican members not to do it. paul ryan to the scene before him. a couple of years ago, the entire democratic party decidedc to deny the biological reality of sacks differences, an idea that is as insane as it is dangerous. they decided not to criticize them. people might get upset. this is a system built on deceit and enforce a silence. hypocrisy is the hallmark. yet in washington, it is considered rude to ask questions about how exactly it works. why are the people who considered bill clinton a hero lecturing me about sexism? how can the party that demands racialal quotas denounce other people as racist?
after a while, you begin to think that maybe their criticisms aren't sincere. maybe their moral puffery is a costume. maybe the whole conversation is an absurd joke. maybe we are falling for it. you hear modern progressives called a puritans. that is a slur on them. they cared about the faith of the human soul into the moral regeneration of their society. those are not topics that interest progressives. they are too busy pushing cross-dressing of fifth-graders and late-term abortion.ng they write our movies and or sitcoms. they are not shocked by naughty words. they just pretend to be when it's useful.n it's been very useful lately. the left's main goal, in case you haven't noticed, controlling what you think. in order to do that, they have to control the information that you receive your google, facebook, twitter are fully on board with that. are happy to ban unapproved thoughts, and they don't apologize for it. the other cable channels, and virtually every other cable news
outlet in this country. one of the only places left were independent thought is allowed is right here. the opinion hours on this network. just a few hours in a sea of television programming. it's not much, relatively speaking.or for the left, it's unacceptable. it demands total conformity. since the day they went on the air, they have been working hard to kill the show. it is so french sovereign tradn we can pretend that it's not happening. it is happening. for now, though, two points we will leave you with at first. fox news is behind us, as i have been from the very first day. toughness is where quality, and they are grateful for that. we have always apologize when we are wrong. we will continue to do that. that is what decent people do. they apologize. but we will never bow to the mob it. and ever. matter what.
he is the president of independent women voices. tammy, thank you for coming on. i have worked at fox for ten years. i have never said this on the air, but i thought it the whole. time. you've got one channel that disagrees with all of the other channels. an island of dissent in the middle of the sea of sameness. that is too much for them. i wonder if we have been laying to ourselves, about them shutting this channel down. >> speak i don't think so. what you described in your commentary is tertullian to taln area -- it is called "the new thought police." warning about this trajectory. complaining about words or opinions. it goes beyond the conversations that we normally have. now i love coming on this show. i am honored and proud to be a
part of fox news, specifically for what you discussed. i have never been told what to say. i have never been told what not to say. i've never been removed because of what my opinion would be. you and i will disagree and have, and we disagree on many issues. we will take issue with each other. we even will disappoint each other on occasion, but what we embody here is that we care about each other. we will have those conversations, and we will be able to have them about other people and how that exchange. what's manifesting here is a desire to shut that down across the board. and if the left thinks that that's a monster they are going to be able to control and adjust aim at us, they are going to be very surprised when that monster gets out of the bottle and begins to moveo amongst all of them. this is what i think is a problem for a society in general. and for the larger effort about being able to have these conversations, become a better
nation, and become better peopl people, and brace ourselves. the first amendment, especially when it's difficult. >> tucker: so i don't really understand the mind-set that leads to seeing it on display on the other channels even now. i grew up in a world where magazines were important. the american spectator. it never occurred to me to want to shut the other side down. why would they want to stop it? what is a point of that? speak up part of what i had a hand in, and what it still work on making up for in these years is this design of individuals who we really couldn't argue the details of the issue. we couldn't really persuade people on the issue. of course, it's not just the american left about the left around the world. the only way that the left can survive is by shutting down dissent, literally, and
eliminating the individual who might speak up even with a different idea.ea as you have noted, the issue of conformity. any voice or any individual that is a reminder that we can approach things differently. sometimes offend people and sometimes make mistakes. sometimes you should apologize, but the difference is that the left can't withstand an environment where there is any challenging because they rely on the collective. they rely on fear and division and controlling people within that framework. you see that unfolding of course still in venezuela, in cuba. it is the antithesis of individual personal freedom, which involves the need to have larger conversations, to be able to speak our mind without fear and without being bullied or threatened because we might deviate from what the left deems to be proper and pure thought.
>> tucker: weou are almost out of time, but i just want to know if you think it's right that republicans in washington, some of our leaders, people who should be standing up for the other side seem terrified to stray outsidee the lines that have been set up by their enemies. speak out our society, social media, there is a lot of great stuff about social media, but there is a concentration of rage that very often is contriv. it's manipulated and managed politically, and on social media, it suddenly seems like it's organic, but it's not. and it frightens politicians, whons think that's a real reflection of real life. look. people are genuinely involved and engaged in the thing that matters in our lives. as a feminist, it matters to me, how are all portrait, but at the same time, we've got to have freedom of thought. we have a role in that, and so do the politicians. they've got to feel strong enough and free enough that theh can speak their minds and stand
up for what's right. >> tucker: an old-fashioned liberal, tammy bruce. >> thank you, talker. >> tucker: democrats are working hard to make the federal government more powerful, so powerful that democracy, theyis are going to need to control it no matter what. so they are making a bid to flood america with votes of people who are not citizens. amazing, but true. after the break.
democrats, but they still lost a numberwa of races, and others we pretty close. this was intolerable to the democratic party for one simple reason. power. since the second world war, the federal government has expanded and the power that it holds over your life has grown exponentially. the vast bureaucracy is capable of policing what you buy, what you see, what you think. they have almost total control. perhaps that's not enough. they have big plans to take even more of our economy over. health care, energy. that's what it's about. controlling our economy. they want nationally is that state day care services, so the government can take over parenting itself. kamala harris promises that the next thing that they will control is your own behavior. watch. or>> it is a fact that we can change human behavior without much a change to our lifestyle, and we can save the future generation of our country and to this. >> tucker: there is nothing
they can't't do, really. you are going to change human nature next. just like the soviets. good luck with that. the vision is pretty consistent. the left is fighting for an all-powerful state, a state that is so powerful that you couldn't really responsibly give it over to your political opponent. democracy is a threat to their plan. they would obviously prefer elections where there is only one possible outcome. winning over existing voters doesn't work. it hasn't. they're not even trying anymore, so instead, add new voters and replace the old ones. that is the plan. they are saying it all out. they did it last week. they passed a bill that protects voting rights because voting rights are a threat. voter suppression. it's ridiculous. there's no number that shows that is true. every number shows that that is a lie. it's more propaganda drummed up
by the dnc, reported by the morons on cable news and believed unfortunately by a lot of people. there is no danger that voting is going way, despite what they are telling you again and again. what democrats want is the votes of noncitizen children and criminals. they say that. >> the focus needs to be on bringing more people to vote, not driving them away. not throwing them off of the voter rolls. v >> we want them when they come be fully part of our system. and that means not suppressing them up there are newcomers to america. >> young people should also havw them.in who represents >> amendment number one to seven, which would lower the minimum voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16 years of age. >> restore voter rights to felons, they have paid their debt to society. >> more americans to participate in their democracy. we need to work to remove barriers to voting. >> tucker: where to begin? restore voting rights to felons,
but not gun rights. house republicans forced vote on an amendment. that would condemn letting illegal immigrants vote in elections. that amendment fails. all but six democrats voted against it. make no mistake, democrats believe that anybody in the entire world has a right to enter this country illegally or not and start casting both in our elections. it's odd because this very same party tells us that russian facebook trolls are a threat to our democracy. yet by the standards they themselves have lay down, they have no problem with 1 million russians walking across the mexican border and voting. as you just saw, ayanna pressley got dozens of democrats to back a bill that would hilariously lower the voting age to 16 nationwide. no one wants to be mean. some of us know a lot of 16-year-olds. nice people. they can't smoke, they can't drink, join the military, get married, undergo surgery. why? for a reason.
if they break the law, their parents can be held liable. what's the theme here? they're not adults. we don't treat them like adults because they're not, but soon, democratic party consensus will be that they should vote. only for one reason, by the way. not because they are wise, but because they areot asked not to make decisions. they are much more likely to giose democratic as a result. they would give them to votes apiece if they could. they want to felons voting for exactly the same reason. no offense, those are the stakes, though. and they are giving a push to change the electorate so much that they never have to worry about elections again. the current electorate has to allow thatat to happen. we are the only ones who can stop it. a professor from maryland on african-american studies. thank you very much for coming on. i want to start with the age question. you are a professor. you teach young people..le presumably, they are at least 18. but you have been around kids.
i'm sure you love 16-year-olds as much as the rest of us. are they capable of making a wise voting decisions closer mike >> i think there are a lot of peoplee were capable of makig wise voting decisions. we have seen that, but we don't stop them from voting. >> tucker: you're right. that's tribute >> we allowed 16-year-olds to drive, we allow 17-year-olds to join the military. we put them in positions where they could literally determine life and death for it many of us, including themselves, so the idea that they can't vote, it's something that we can at least question. >> tucker: okay. howr: about 13? i mean, 13 euros and some places can a work. >> they can't drive, though. they can't at -- >> tucker: they can drive on farms. what is the limit, would you say? >> i mean, again, i'm not necessarily endorsing 16, but i think that it is a conversation
that we can have. i think that's a fair conversation. the fact that we get on the roads, we all put our lives and our hands. we allow a 16-year-old to make life and death decisions there. and as a 17-year-old, you're able to potentially join the military and certainly make life and death decisions while you're in the military. so i think we should have that conversation. at least you have the conversations. >> tucker: good. i'm for the conversation. i think it does say a lot because you want the wisest people you canes find it to vot. you won't be able to make smart votes. right? >> but i think that's dangerous for us to sit here and try to choose whose wisest and who's not. who is fit to vote and who's not? there is no man who was so wealthy or so great or so smart that he can determine that the destiny of who is voting here to that's not what i'm voting. i'm arguing that children are not adults. and if you care about the system itself, you don't want to encourage her children to do
something that they are not capable of doing. but why would you ever encourage people who are not citizens to vote? i mean, that destroys the whole idea of the country, right? what would happen if 1 million russian facebook trolls move here? swept over the border and came in and voted, would that be okay? >> that would not be okay. and i don't think that people are saying that undocumented or unauthorized immigrants should vote. at least in state and federal elections.i i think what people have talked about, and at least entered into a conversation about is very local elections, in college park there was a resolution to allow undocumented people to vote. the reason being because they pay property taxes, they own property, they should be able to determine whether a pothole gets fixed or something in their community. >> tucker: there is a requirement? i didn't knowqu we still requird people to own property to vote. >> it's not a requirement that
they own property. >> tucker:ui so they don't actually, most of them probably don't own anything. >> they have a vested interest in what goes on immediately on their community. now as farar as the federal and state elections, i haven't heard anyone on the left push for undocumented immigrants to cast votes in state or federal elections. >> tucker: super quick. how long would you guess it will be until someone, i'm just guessing, may be a former bartender, until someone suggests that? >> i don't think she's going to do that. she's idealistic, but i don't think she's going to make that decision. >> tucker: all right. i'll be monitoring twitter andde have you back. >> all right, talker. >> tucker: thank you very much geared >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: everyone is steadfastly denying that there is any crisis of the border. you are crazy if you think so. everyone who is trying to protect the border has a very different view. they are preparing for a
record-setting wave of migrants coming in the spring. order patrol chief. he joins us tonight. thanks very much for coming on. i keepep hearing even from guess we have on this show, but also others, that we are at record low levels of illegal immigration. what are these numbers? >> first of all, it is just another false narrative among many. wght now, we are facing a skyrocketing number at the border. border patrol right now, they are estimating that if the numbers continue at this pace, tucker, we could reach 1 million apprehensions this year. real quickly, the difference between '90s and the 2000s are the demographics. we had 1 million, but 90% of them were removed. this year, we could reach 1 million. the difference is because they are family units, we will release 65% of that million, 650,000 will be released into the united states. that's the difference.
it's a crisis. >> tucker: so to the extent that we know of that 65%, how many will ultimately be deported? >> right now, if you look at other activism that has just been passed, right now, afterha you've had due process, and you've had your hearing, now the court just ruled you can appeal thatat hearing. that's basically a lower court creating amnesty. so basically, as a family unitd or child seeking asylum, you are here indefinitely. >> tucker: so in other words, the propaganda that we were hearing about child separations, you saw all the people crying on television about it, that was all the pretext for setting up a system in which nobody can actually be deported. >> that's absolutely correct. and they knew that. they absolutely knew that, tucker. they pulled a number out of the
air that you can't detain kids for more than 20 days. so now, the kids are being used as pawns. we have information that kidsns are being sent to cross, sent back to mexico. they come back across with another adult so they can all be entered into the united states. >> tucker: why isn't this being covered on other channels? not that you are in charge of their news coverage, but this seems like a significant story. shouldn't there be other news outlet other than this one that notices a question markrk >> ye, and the men ande women losing their lives every day, this is what is so frustrating. political ideology is so abused. they know the truth. law enforcement, we can only draw one conclusion, this is being driven by political ideologies, rather than what is in the best interest of this nation, as well as those illegally emigrating. kids are being used as pawnsri
more and more every day because congress do their job, tucker. >> tucker: really stunning. mike morgan, thank you for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: well, for two years, the left has fantasize the day about the day that me r report drops, but what will they do if there is nothing really in the report? what will they say? we're going to fantasize when we get back from the break.
♪ >> tucker: robert beal or special investigation has gone on for several lifetimes. npr just add an unintentionally hilarious piece, like many of them, but outside elderly liberals who were dying without a chance to read the mueller report. their final request. his takedown of the president is what they live for. so what happens if it doesn't really have anything in it at the end. over at abc, they just want about the possible effect of that scenario. watch. >> the central and most serious question in this investigation, the reason robert mueller started at as did the current te united states assists the kremlin and an attack on our democracy? if he comes back and says i don't have the evidence to support that, that's our reckoning. that's a reckoning for progressives and democrats who wouldo hope that mueller would
essentially erase the 2016 election, it's a reckoning for the media if, in fact, after all of this time, there was no collusion. >> tucker:: yet, you think it? it might be time for some people to apologize. not one of them ever will. you can bet your house on that. nancy pelosi seems concerned that russian collusion might not be in the report. it might not be proved in any case. she warned that a push towards impeachment may not be worth it. but the party base, represented by maxine waters, is not deterred. >> i believe that we have everything that we need to basically impeach him. i believe that, andalch t you're absolutely right. we are depending on mr. mueller. >> tucker: former secret service officer. the author of the great book, and he joins us tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. so, i mean that is kind of the bottom line a question. ifqu the report comes out and
there are rumors in any case that this is imminent, and it doesn't show that the trump campaign colluded with the kremlin to subvert the election, what are the press going to say? >> nothing. let me say i am happy to be here with you tonight, and i sincerely mean that from the bottom of my heart. >> thank you, dan. >>r you know it. before the rage mob. we can all be better, talker. don't ever take a knee in front of the rage mob ever. ever. ever. okay, moving on, because that's not what i'm here for, what will happen with the media? nothing will happen. here's how the media handles republican scandal. they cover it until somebody leaves office or is punished. i mean, it started with watergate. it ended just recently with trump cabinet officials.
they take a flight on a privatea plane. he had to go, they have to get rid of all these people. with democrat scandals, no one can deny that they covered the clinton email story, but who has been punished on that? here's the answer. nobody. it's a big fat zero. there are no demands from the media that anybody be punished. they cover for her constantly. listen. tape this show and pin this to your youtube account or whatever. nothing will happen. they will move on. they willov not be embarrassed, horrified, and disgusted like normal rational people who make mistakes like you and i would be. they won't do any of that. none of thatat will happen. >> tucker: saw al capone's vault is finally open, there's nothing in it, and they pretend it's full of gold? we would not have had this investigation or any of these without the claim that there was collusion. at no collusion no legitimacy.
so i guess there is nothing we can do about it. >> think about this. we have heard nothing, not a scintilla, a shred of evidence that trump colluded with foreign russian actors to overthrow the election.. no evidence that any of that is true, correct? we do know that the dossier, this fake thing used to spy on them. the additional information is going to come out. jim comey described it as the mosaic of information,as right? the corpus of intelligence. and andy mccabe describedte it as articulate facts. is anyone ever going to articulate what that says? all we have is the dossier. is anyone ever going to articulate what the actual facts are?he the answer is no because there are no facts. it will not work. and i'm sorry, but your of moron if you believe in this collusion hooks. i'm very sorry, but you're
really stupid.li you believe in and aesop's fable. it did not happen. you believe in sasquatch. no, there is more evidence of sasquatch than this. there's photos. they may be fake, but there's photos. there is no evidence. >> tucker: i think there is upheld out there. a hair sample. [laughs] it's great to see you. i love it. dan bongino. >> thanks. >> tucker: alexandria ocasio-cortez says he ought to be excited a that the robots are coming for your job, and your reason to live. you won't have to work anymore. i wonder what that will be like. that's after the break
♪ >> tucker: it's obvious there's something really wrong. something bad going on at the center of americanis society. drug overdose isl, the highest since record-keeping began. any of those who are still around rely on psychiatric pills. it's not a big mystery. and a world without meaningful work at, many people feel lost and miserable. it is central to the way people feel about themselves. they need a purpose.ut automation is likely to make this crisis much worse. pioneer alexandria ocasio-cortez says she's excited. we should be thrilled were about to lose our jobs. listen. >> we should not be haunted by the sector of these don't like being automated out of work it, right should not feel nervous about the tollbooth collector not having to collect tolls anymore. we should be excited by that, but the reason were not excited by it is because we live in a
society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die. >> tucker: so this is common, and she is right to say that it's coming here she is honest enough to admit it's coming, but how odd to think it is in a crisis that it's coming. according to ocasio-cortez, the upside is we will tax the robot. >> bill gates has talked about taxing robots at 90%. what that means, what he's really talking about his taxing corporations at 90%. it's easy to say tax thehe robo. >> tucker: the former bernie sandy as a surrogate, democratic socialist. she joins us. nice to me. thanks for coming on. unlike a a lot of people on the right, i don't dismiss alexandria ocasio-cortez. i don't think everything shein says is wrong, i admire the fact
that she's brave enough to say what she thinks, and i think she says interesting things. i want to take this point seriously. she's right that automation could eliminate a lot of jobs. that seems like a tragedy to me. she seems to dismiss it as no big deal. why shouldn't we be really worried about that? >> i wouldn't say that she is dismissing it as no big deal. she said that it really comes down to economics. and she's a democratic socialist, as am i, and that means that more democracy is brought to our government and our economics model. right now, we have a system where there are very few who are profiting off of debt, illness, and profiting off of automation, which is essentially putting people out of work. if we build an economic system that with innovation, it should not be at the expense of jobs. we need to innovate or else we would be in a horse andti buggi. but it doesn't mean at the expense of a labor force, which ultimately hurts creativity. when fewer people are able to innovate because they cannot, they are working three or four jobs, that hurts.
small businesses, our ability to innovate, that hurt society as a whole, but we need to make sure that when we are innovate and, we are also protecting workers. where making sure people have benefits, that they can paybe of their debt, and when you have a system like capitalism, leap state capitalism that we have now, where very few are making an extraordinary amount of money off of exploiting workers are keeping people unemployed or inor debt. >> tucker: so i actually agree with the majority of what you said. and i'm concerned about a system where a smaller number of people get a larger percentage of the shares. it makes society unstable, and it is unstable as a result. i just don't understand her point about automation. if all of a sudden, mckenzie and lots of other forecasters predict in 30 years, each percentage of our jobs will be gone, people have nothing to do. you could get a revolution. so why shouldn't we be really worried about that? >> i think the revolution is
happening right now. look. the rise of democratic socialism, when the majority of young people who are burdened bm debt, who can't find stable employment, or if they do, they have multiple jobs to pay their rent, living at home with their parents. >> tucker: i get it. >> that is a revolution. that is a political revolution. and it is what alexandria ocasio-cortez -- >> tucker: i think you are absolutely right. there's a lot more economic insecurity among young people, and that is why they are all socialist. that's what i've been saying for two years. i just think that we need an answer, and it is not that we are going to pay you one $1,00a month to smoke weed. they need to feel like they have meaning. i'm serious. so robots take our jobs, where's my meaning? >> historically, if you look back at these transitions, whether it was from horse andti buggy to car or other forms of technological innovation, radio, the television. it was always a concern about jobs being lost.
there's always work. there is always work. we need to make sure that work is protected. i think what she's referring to is --th i don't want to speak on her behalf, but if what she's referring to is innovation is going to happen, we need to make sure that the companies who are making money off of that innovation are being taxed appropriately, and right now, they are not. when you look at the companies that don't want to pay their workers a $15 minimum wage, they choose to automate, they are not paying enough in taxes. when you look at that -- >> tucker: i get it. it may be that those aren't job jobs. that would be very bad. >> listen, there are always going to be jobs.e we have to essentially innovate with new job creations. there will be architects, scientists, there will be lawyers. the more educated society gets, and of course, millennials are a very overeducated generation, but they don't have the jobs to
match their education. >> tucker: we have just agreed more than we ever have. >> your democratic socialist no now, tucker. >> tucker: i thought i'm out. >> i am not for more lawyers either. thanks, tucker. welcome. >> tucker: right. well, ocasio-cortez doesn't seem very worried about jobs that will be lost due to automation because far more jobs will be lost implementing the green new deal. he has been aggressively critical, and we thought that we would find out why. thanks very much for coming out. so you're one of the founders of the most famous environmental organization in the entire world, and do you think that the green new deal sounds terrifying. tell us why. speak up well, because it would be basically the end of civilization if 85% of the world and also 85% of the u.s. energy in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas were phased out over
the next few years. at like tenew years. we do not have anything to replace them with. yes, if we want to eat into a crash course of building nuclear reactors, we could produce electricity, but that isn't going to happen because they are against nuclear, and even hydroelectric dams, which at least is renewable. but they don't support that either, so basically, they are opposed to approximately 98.5% of all the electricity that we are using. nearly 100% of all the vehicle and transportation, ships, plans energy that we are using. so when i tweeted the other day, i had a huge response. over 3 million impressions on twitter when i said you don't have a plan to feed a billion people without fossil fuels. or get the food into the cities where it's needed. that requires large trucks, and there's not going to be any
electric tracks any time soon hauling 40 tons of food into the supermarkets where the people in the cities probably think it originates in the supermarket. but it does not. it's coming from farmsms out in the country where a few million people are growing the food for all the rest of the population. and if we ban fossil fuels, first agricultural production would collapse and a very short period of time. there is these things called tractors, and they use fuel. and all of the other implements on the farm. then there's the transportation. so when you have no fuel, how do you get the food to the center of new york? to manhattan, where aoc is from. you don't. then the people there will begin to starve. that will spread out as a rot, and half the population will die in a very short period of time. and as i also pointed out, there wouldn't be a tree left on this planet.
say this was a worldwide thing because the united states isn't going to ban fossil fuels, if no one else does, but say the paris agreement came into effect fully all around the world, and everybody ban fossil fuels, there wouldn't be a tree left on this planet because that would be all there was for fuel for heating and cooking as they did in the old days when there was hardly anybody on the planet compared to what there isny tod. so just that one point, never mind the insanity of banning aircraft and fossil fuel using vehicles. >> tucker: well, you just completely blew my mind. and i knew some of that, but the way you put it is really great. patrick moore, i hope you'll come back any time. >> any tucker. >> tucker:uc well, cnn was just hit with a massive lawsuit for coverage of the covington catholic students. well the press ever pay a price for rushing to judgment and
♪ >> tucker: jussie smollett did what his age and couldn't do. he tried to boost his career. unfortunately, he did it by defaming half the country. now he is facing 16 felony counts for what they are calling upland hoax. they raced to believe him after his initiall allegations. we are quoting when we say
"beautiful." they also raised to defame the covington catholic schools. a new lawsuit, $250,000 in damages for the channels absurd coverage of the covington incident. he is the associate of reason, the new book "panic attack." we should also know that he is one of the world's experts on hoaxes of this kind. the suit against cnn for what they did, doesn't have a shock it? >> that's a very complicated question. i think that some of these thingsed are opinion, wrongful opinion, things that the media claims it was notps correct, but you have to show that it was a fact, a demonstrated fact. some of it, you could make an argument that when nathan phillips, the native american man claims thateded he couldn'tt
out of the situation because his way wasau blocked, that, accordg to to the first amendment lawyer seems like a fact you could maybe prove. let's keep in mind that theypr e actually the second sort of source purveyors of the misinformation era. the primary purveyor is the native american man, right? i mean, jussie smollet is facing 16 counts of charges for the lies he allegedly told, whereas this guy, he is not being sued, which i find kind of interesting. >> tucker: wait a second.g wait, hold on. before you defend the guy, i know for a fact that native american man you referred to is "try tribal elder." and vietnam veteran. >> i don't know that he has any money, so it wouldn't be worth doing it. i think the broader point, though, we do need to hold that media accountable for the
mistakes it's made.ou i would rather do that in the court of public opinion rather than lawsuits that could icpotentially -- i am a free-speech person. i'm s concerned that they got suckered. they are going to pay big. maybe it shouldn't be through the lawsuit. the broader loss of trust in the media, the erosion of trust in the media, when they get things like smollett and covington so wrong, it's better for the country. it's on them to do better, to be o skeptical, to not trust everything they hear. we politicize that the concept of fake news, but it's true that the media gets things wrong, and there are real consequences i think to the integrity of our did demonic democracy. >> tucker:th and do the lives of individual people who are defamed. there was an actual fraternity that was accused of rape, and they didn't commit it, and no one ever apologized. i'm not mad at jussie smollet,
but what about everyone else who carried his water and have never really apologized? i'm not saying they should be fired or anything, but shouldn't someone admit we went along with the hoax? >> yeah. maybe they could hold back a little on social media in particular. i think that, especially in the smollett case, that was were too many sort of journalists,he writers, pundits, whatever you want to call them, learned the line between objective reporting and sort of advocacy. that's where you see kind of the activist corner. the things that they are tweeting aren't being approved by editors, so they are not as cautious. they're not as calculating as their story. social media has maybe allowed too many journalists to kind of let the mask slip and it determined that they have these deep-seated biases that often go unchallenged and that that has contributed to a loss of faith in them. perhaps deservedly. >> tucker: really quick, do you think the next time zone
makes an outlandish claim like this, "the washington post" will pause, maybe for example before lying to us again? >> i would hope so, but you know, unfortunately, i see it day in and day out. not all of them are the sensational. the media and people allow themselves to be deceived, so i hope that's not the case because i like a lot of the reporting that the poster does. hopefully they'll do better next time. >> tucker: you are a helpful man, robbie. great to seel you. we are out of time. we could go on forever, but were grateful for the hour that we had. will be back 8:00 p.m. tomorrow night and every week night. the sworn and sincere enemy of lying, smugness, and groupthink. we are proud to be the show that you watch at 8:00 p.m. we do the best job that we possibly can for you for as long as we possibly y can for you. >> live from new york right now
standing by 9:00 p.m. we have a surprise for you. by the way -- i know. like a dog i'm always surprised. i can't believe it. you had a powerful open. >> sean: this is a mob. >> tucker: thank you, sean. in appreciate that. >> sean: welcome to "hannity." our left democrats in the country. congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez suggests the country is garbage. ronald reagan and