tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News March 19, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
they are apart. thank you for your service, you and all the other folks on the front lines of those military families who are separated, you are our midnight heroes. most-watched, most trusted, was grateful you spent the evening with us. good night from washington. i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlsonto tonight." when the founders of this country designed the american republic, something we arepu grateful for, obviously, but not everyone was impressed by it at the time. much of europe scoffed at the idea, not just because they were monarchist, though many of them wear. even freethinking people of the time by contemporary liberals, or worry that it wouldn't work. they didn't think it would. they thought that democracy was inherently weak system. at some point, they believed, scrupulous politicians could come to power, change the rules in their favor, and establish a one-party state. what began as government by the people inevitably would become tyranny.
that is with a set of the time. it has not happened.th for more than two centuries, this country has relied in our institutions, brilliantly designed it remarkably durable institutions, to survive as democracy. we have come from the civil war, world wars, great depression, 9/11, and more. all of those events have put great stress in our system. none of them broke it. then came 2016.d donald trump's election has convinced many on the left that our institutions no longer work. they must be torched and replaced by a system that will prevent trump and then anyone like trump from ever being elected again. that is their goal.. they are starting with the judiciary. at least four leading democratic presidential candidates have suggested packing the supreme court of united states, enlarging its size, adding more democratic appointees, making it expressively political, a tool of elected officials rather than an independent branch of government. here's elizabeth warren explained that changing the court is a form of revenge for
the crime of having a republican president. >> first base deal a supreme court seat they may turn around and change the rules on filibuster on the supreme court baat. and so, it swings back around to us, what are we going to do? my answer on that is, all the options are on the table. >> tucker: apparently cory booker got the same talking point. the left is not in charge of everything at that moment. therefore, the supreme court is illegitimate. >> eric holder, the former ag, talking about expanding the number of people on the united states supreme court beyond nine to get more progressive's. why are you on that? >> i think we need to fix the supreme court. they stole a supreme court seat. >> should we keep it at nine? >> i would like to explore a lot of options, a national conversation, term limits for supreme court justices might be one thing. give every president the ability to choose three. >> tucker: every president gets three justices. keep in mind, that for a centuy and a half, the court has been limited to nine justices. by the way, nice work just fine.
some in of the decisions has been misguided, some of been appalling. americans still trust that they are a real institution, on the level. that trust in the court and keother institutions keep this country stable. with the public still have trusted my court once he becomes an arm of the democratic party? the feeling is, who cares what they think? how people feel is not a concern for the democratic party. they want their power back now and forever. that is where you are hearing their calls for the electoral college. state-by-state, they've been working to circumvent electorat electorate. democratic presidential candidates strongly approve. >> was that an idea that you support? >> i think there is a lot to that. because you had an election, 2016, where the loser got 3 million more votes than the vector. i think there's a lot of wisdom in that. >> we should have national
voting and that means get rid of the electoral college. >> the electoral college does not favor one party for another and hasn't in history. in 2012, i favor the democrats. if that election had been tied to the popular vote, barack obama still would have won by the electoral college gives the country from becoming a colony of california, chicago, and new york. it demonstrates that america is a union of equal states, not aco collection of provinces that revolve around a few powerful cities. the electoral college discourages the rise of factional parties or dominate only a small portion of the country. we could go on. the best argument for keeping the lacrosse college is pretty simple. for 230 years, it has worked. better than any other country system in history. because i do not help the left when a presidential election two years ago, they wanted gone forever, and along with it, any restrictions at all on who can vote. violent felons, illegal aliens,
even children. that is a new democratic coalition. whatever it takes. >> i myself has always been for lowering the voting age to 16. i think it is really important to capture kids when they are in high school, when they are interested in all of this, when they are learning about government, to be able to vote. >> tucker: the supreme court, the electoral college, voting restricted to citizens, burned it all down. what also stands in the way of the left's quest for power? they are arguing the center should be abolished. the border, the left is telling us it's immoral to defend our border. the first and second amendments, they hate those, they are speed bumps on the way to total control. the relics of a lesser time. our newly practiced supreme court. it would have them come at they will. keep inn mind, once our institutions have disappeared, it's impossible to rebuild them. chris hahn joins us tonight. i understand -- i do come i sincerely understand why democrats were shocked that trump won. they are appalled by his
presidency. i get it. but i don't think burning down our core institutions like the electoral college or the supreme court is an answer that is going to be worth it 100 years from now. do you? >> you couldn't just burn it down. first of all, remember president trump was for getting rid of the electoral college. >> tucker: i don't care. i'm sure hewo was. that doesn't make it wise. >> we should have a nationalt debate about whether or not there should beti national votig at this point in time in our lives. in 1789, the electoral college may have worked. right now, we've had two president and the last 20 years that lost the popular vote and won the presidency. how many can you have? >> tucker: it's frustrating. i'm being sincere. i understand why it's frustrating. it's a democratic republican, and you want the majority well
expressed. on the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would mean that this country is basically run by three states. so it would mean gavin newsom and bill de blasio would be some of the most important political figures and everybody else could go suck an egg. do you really want to disenfranchise the weakest, poorest people in the country, rural america, at a time like this? why would you do that? >> both new york and california have recently had republican governors. esso to suggest that a republicn coded putter those estates is not really looking at the fact as they stand. the third largest aid, the second-largest date is texas, which always elects republican governors. look, we have three states that are actually economic engines and the population centers of this country whose wells are not necessarily demonstrated in the electoral college he college and in the united states senate, which needs reform, too. it's absurd to me that california has the same boat in the senate as idaho does. >> tucker:r: that's the way it's set up. that is the way it has always been. there are reasons for it. i know you're an attorney, so you know those reasons are.
>> absolutely. we were not haphazard or random. it has served this country's interest really well. his comfort stable. only one civil war and a continental country with a vast population. that is hard to pull off by the electoral college is one of the reasons that we have done because everybody is represented. democrats lose an election and they are like, we don't care about rural america. we hate them. they are dying, unlike everyone else, life expectancy is going down and we want to disenfranchise them further. really? >> i'm not for disenfranchising anyone. if you had a national election, new york's boats would count as much as ohio's boats. it's a much smaller state than new york. but their votes matter more. people don't campaign in new york and texas and california, they do campaign in ohio and pennsylvania and wisconsin and michigan. they should campaign in ohio, michigan, wisconsin. it goes both ways, tucker. i feel what you are saying. we have to have a balance come a long conversation. obviously, to take amending theo constitution. nobody can do it with the stroke
of a pen. it would require a national consensus not to change it. s >> tucker: not likely to happen now. i guess what i am struck by, though, after two years of lecturing us over how trump is a threat to institutions -- none of which has really changed, despite this area -- democratsck are saying, let's pack the supreme court -- are you joking -- get rid of the electoralt college, let illegal aliens and children vote. who is destroying institutions here? >> i'm not for packing the supreme court. i'm not for allowing noncitizens to vote in federal elections. i'm not for lowering the voting age at this point in time. >> tucker: okay. you are too right. we have to change our chyron. you should be banned from australia. you are so right wing. chris hahn, welcome to our site. good to see you tonight. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: i took this country's entries to to to the
-- in 2009, it is a party of reparations. presidential candidates say americans should be rewarded or punished based on their skin color. here you go. it's time to start the national, full-blown conversation about reparations. >> i have long believed that this country should address slavery, the original sin of slavery, including by looking at reparations. by whatpa i do compensate people who actually werepr property? >> tucker: jason nichol is a professor of african-american studies at the university of maryland and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. i agree that slavery is america's original sin. it has consequences i dribble through the centuries. the question is, what do you do about it? because it it is not a racist country, we've had a tononri of intermarriage and immigration sense of slavery ended.
how exactly what this work? how would you decide who gets rewarded? >> number one, we shouldn't think of it as a reward. we should think of it as a debt that is being paid, that's been owed for a very long time. the idea of reward or punishmen punishment -- >> tucker: who gets the money? how do you decide? at some point, you have to make real decisions. >> what people are calling for areas where john conyers have been calling for for very long time, and that is a national conversation about how you would dispense this, what is the right way -- >> tucker: that is why -- everyone calls her conversations, no one wants to have them. i always do. so let's get super specific. who gets the money and who pays for it? if my ancestors came in 1980, am i on the hook for paying?ur if your ancestors came in 1975, do you get the money? >> no. this is for the descendants of
enslaved africans. so if you, yoursc ancestors came in 1960, that would not necessarily fall under -- >> tucker: necessarily. >> what i will say. >> tucker: it wouldn't at all, right? >> it is something it is being paid for by individuals rather than the united states of america. we are talking about the country's debt that it owes to descendants of african -- >> tucker: but the people who live here would be paying for it. no one alive participated directly. a ton off peoplepa here who are descended from the union soldiers, who were killed tryin to end slavery. even more who were the children of recent immigrants.th with a b on the hook? against the answer is yes. let me ask you the most basic question, if we did this, i'm not arguing against it, with the slate to be clean?ul could we try to become a less racialized society? could be end affirmative action, preferences and hiring? why wouldn't we? >> when we talk about
reparations, for the most part we're talking about the economic issues that are involved -- that came from the institution of slavery. when we talk about affirmative action, many of the other programs that haveth been used o address discrimination, a lot of times, they are used to address discrimination right now. >> tucker: so we pay reparations but we keep affirmative action -- >> by the way, affirmative action, the primary beneficiary, despite what you hear from abigail fisher and jennifer and all of those other people who complain, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. not african-american. >> tucker: i agree. the system has been scanned like no other. elizabeth warren was a beneficiary. no one should be a beneficiary of a reward the -- >> we all know that elizabeth warren -- >> tucker: we do. she bragged that she was was at tenured law professor of color. >> there's nothing that says you got anything from affirmative
action. that is what raises people. >> tucker: [laughs] she wasn't american indian. she exploited pete somebody else's culture and time the racs for pointing it out? [laughs]yo i love that! >> i didn't call you a racist. other people do but i didn't call you that.t. >> tucker: pretty funny. professor, great to see you, as always. thank you for clarifying. you caner always have those conversations on the show. rising tuition rates and student loans are strangling americanss middle class and hurting an entire generation of young people. has our academic elites become the problem with our economy and with our dwindling and dying and deceased anmiddle-class? yeah, and there's a solution, and we'll tell you what it is after the break. ♪ evereveryone's got to listen . when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet, coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that.
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ >> tucker: student loans have become the single biggest bird biggest burden weighing down young people in this country. total student debt in america exceeds $1.5 trillion in a
number gets bigger every year. even successful young people are taking for a to get off the ground, buy owns, get married, have children. millions more are finding themselves completely mired in debt servitude. this is changing our society. young people are not leaving their parents homes, when they do, they live with roommates, they are delaying marriage. some are not having children. colleges, though, by profound contrast, are doing great. if you haven't seen how great they are doing, drive out and take a look at one. why are they so affluent? they hiked tuition every year and there are no consequences. with this money come with have funded a building boom that has lasted for decades, top administrators live like feudal lords and rich white population of student service. the cost of college is distorting our college has changed our country. make colleges share the risk by cosigning student loans of their students. if a student can pay the debt, college is on the hook.
a professor of law and accounting at the university of southern california joins us tonight.th thank you very much for coming on. this seems like something may be would have proposed a long time ago. i can find a record of that, not sure why. if you you and i go into busins together, we assume we will share the upside but we are also on the hook for the downside if it goes in the wrong direction. colleges have this amazing deal where it's only upside for them. they get federally backed student loans that make them incredibly rich, and if the kids don't succeed once they leave, it's on them. why is that fair? >> tucker, let's talk about the upside of education. thede upside of education is people who are educated earn substantially more money, they are more likely to be employed, they are less of a burden on rasocial insurance programs, lie unemployment and disability, and that provides benefits to the students but it also provides benefits to the government, that government budget in the form of higher income tax revenue, higher payroll tax revenue, and
lower expenses. the benefits to thegove governmt in the form of high revenue and lower costs are actually larger than the benefits to the educational institution in the form of tuition. >> tucker: i think that's true. a lot of what you said is true. you want an educated workforce and a lot of people benefit from college, especially in the sciences, i would never deny that. but the student loan bubble is larger than any other form of debt other than mortgage debt right now. it's clearly crocheting an entire generation of youngng people. colleges, as you know, because you work at one, are richer than ever. why shouldn'tsh they share in te risk? why should taxpayers be on the hook for that dead? and colleges assume no responsibility for it. what is the answer to that? >> tucker, if they were sharing in the upside as well as the downside, colleges would actually be being paid more, as far as the size of the student loans, $1.5 trillion, to put
that in context, household net worth is $104 trillion. according to the federal reserve. the present value of government spending, if you do a discounted analysis -- >> tucker: i'm confused. are you arguing that student debt -- >> $1 quadrillion. student loan debt -- >> tucker: smaller than the known galaxy. those comparisons don't read very much. i don't think you are arguing that student debt isn't having -- isn't exerting downward pressure on the way young people live because you know that itle is. it's distorting the society. >> actually, no, it's helping people to live better because they earn -- >> tucker: student debt. >> if you look at household net worth, income, if you look at any measure, people who are more highly educated, they are doing better than people who are less educated. >> tucker: but not everybody who goes to college winds up highly educated. many but don't get their degrees in the first place, still on the hook for student debt, thousands take women's studies courses and
become women studies majors, they are obviously not situated to succeed well in the market. i'll give you some examples. at baylor university in texas, the president can start, fine guy. his comp station, $5 million as. year. the average debt for someone graduating from baylor, the average career pay, $54,000. so you tell me if those numbers make any sense at all? the college gets rich, kids assumed massive amounts of debt, and there's not an economy to support them and pay off that debt. why are they getting scammed? >> most people do pay off their loans, student loan default rates i forgo your institutions that are either public or private nonprofit, are only around 67% and recovery rates around 80%. programs are profitable for the federal government. > tucker: so you shouldn't have any problem cosigning. if it's a good deal, why
wouldn't you cosign? >> without even getting into all of the benefits to tax revenue, the problem we have, tucker, his underinvestment in education. >> tucker: [laughs] >> there are huge benefits in terms of higher earnings, morein innovation, a factor of economic growth, and, studies show this. >> tucker: as someone who lives ins this country, though studies are a crock because actually young people are now socialists because of it. >> to get back to your question about university pay, since you talked about socialism and whether we should be concerned about presidents making too much money, there is a for managerial talent. if you look at how much executives -- >> tucker: it's a free market. i'm sorry, we are out of time for now. i didn't think we'd find someone who would defend student data. you will, and i hope that you will come back.d yo can talk about this in greater depth. thank you very much for joining us, professor. a professor at king's college in
new york who chairs the business and finance program joins us tonight. professor, thank you very much for coming on. you just heard one of your colleagues, and the same business anyway, argue that student debt is a great deal, doesn't hurt kids at all, colleges have no responsibilities to put any skin in this game whatsoever. everything is fine. is that true? >> this is a problem. your previous guest was really interesting. he said something time and time again. he said, student to go to college are more successful in their careers. it's this insidious view that student to succeed in life are dependent on the college education they got. there is another view out there, tucker, and that is, students who can succeed in life go to college but colleges that have anything to do with their preparation. we look at colleges and we see what's going on, people look at the way money is spent, they look at the classes students take,, and they say, wait a second, is college really the key to students making it in life? or is college simply a way station on the way for them?
without it, they would have been just fine. your previous guest or not answer that question. he's operating on that assumption that i must go to college, you don't have a shot. that is just patently not true. >> tucker: this has beenn going on for a long time, and i'm on your side. but what i am never look look t until recently where the money numbers. you have a taxpayer backed programs created by lobbyists, and effect, exempt from bankruptcy law, that funnels billions and billions of dollars into these left-wing citadels, our colleges, and they don't have any liability whatsoever, it's just free money for them. there is no downside. isn't that the definition of a scammed? >> schools ought to havet skinn the game. there is no question about it. youit are right, when it comes o these big institutions that have been around for a very long time, they just don't have a lot of skin in the game because they are living on theei reputation. i think what is interesting, if you look at younger schools, officers schools, that are trying to disrupt the space,
it's a different story for them. they don't have the reputation. every student they send out on the marketud place, they've gott going in the game. if that student has an perform, they are not going to hire students from your college, your reputation takes a hit, you are right, it is a scam, and it's a taxpayer funded -- this is really, we talk about socialized costs, this is socialist cost. >> tucker: inserting whole generation of kids. >> they are getting awful preparation for the real world. they are skimming through college, they are not getting challenged, when they are challenged, there's always somebody swooping in, saying, no, don't punish them. you're not going to make it in the real world. >> tucker: i've noticed. professor, thank you very much forr that. congresswoman ocasio-cortez says that her approval ratings are low andti the reason, you are racist. we'll tell you the real reason after the break. ♪
>> so many of these >> so many of these republican senators have turned their backs on not just christine blasey ford in her testimony, but they turned their backs on america's women. they have turned their backs on a survivors. speed when you heard it, kirsten gillibrand is drawing a pretty clear battle line. a republican senators are sexist bigots. they don't care aboutstst women. gillibrand is their champion. was she friends with bill clinton and harvey weinstein? asked. whatever, she cares about women. now gillibrand faces accusations that she mishandled, greatly mishandled, a sexual-harassment situation and sent her own office. trace gallagher is on that stor story. >> most damaging to kirsten gillibrand is at a former staffer says the senator knows exactly what happened in her office and is fully aware of al complaints. in other words, gillibrand, an outspoken supporter of the me too movement, and who called out former senator al al frankn
and bill clinton, is now turning a blind eye to sexual misconduct in her office. last year, the there was an accusation of unwanted advances and sexist remarks. three weeks after the young staffer filed the complaint, she resigned. saying she had retaliated against her and that the office failed to question staff members who would have corroborated her story. gillibrand says the matter was investigated. watch. >> her allegations did not rise to sexual harassment. we did find evidence of derogatory comments. >> but no action was taken until politico wrote the story and then he was fired. the long-time deputy chief of staff who headed up the investigation resigned. because that matter among public, we also learned that in 2017, another gillibrand
advisor, 32-year-old mark bremmer, resigned because of alleged sexist remarks to young female staffers. despite his alleged misconduct, he reportedly continued to be paid for three months. one aide told the "washington examiner" off-color remarks were common but discipline only happened when gillibrand was being contacted by as journalist or running for president. tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher, thanks a lot. here's an interesting new poll. it shows that alexandria ocasio-cortez has wasted no time and becoming deeply unpopular among voters in her home state of new york. a total of 33% of those polled said they liked ocasio-cortez. a whopping 44 percent did not. how did someone who's been in congress only a few months you're not so many people and so quickly? the congresswoman has a ready answer for that. as she excludes on twitter, republicans, working in concert with the dastardly fox news,
"otherize and demonize anyone who isn't a white male." his bigotry, pure and simple. they may look like bad poll numbers. what they really are is racism. it's possible you will scoff at this explanation. it's whining and predictable and self-serving. it's also unsupported by evidence. so skepticism is a peer response. let's go a little deeper for a second. what we have here is not simply a cynical excuse for personal failings, when we heard a thousand times and politicians. racism. what is ocasio-cortez has given us, instead, is ast litmus test for our souls. it is simple. when you agree with alexandria ocasio-cortez, you are a good person. when you disagree with her, you are not. you are racist, if they, hater, loathsome human being. got that? okay. prepare for the exam. we are not proctoring this text. we are on tvg and you are at he or in a bar. we have to use the honor system. we will play you a series of
clips. be honest about how you feel about them. everything hangs in the balance. first, we'llco consider aoc's views on children. she doesn't have a need, and there's a reason for that. she cares too much. her heart is too big. watch or explain. >> our planet is going to a disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like there is scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead, i think young people, to have a legitimate question. is it okay to still have children? >> tucker: is it okay to still have children? thatat is aoc's question to you. if you answered, are you kidding? of course it's okay to have children -- by the way, back off, you authoritarian creep, how many kids i have is none of your business, if you answer it that way,lo you fail the test. you're probably a white supremacist. if, on the other hand, you pause for a moment, thought deeply about climate change, and
realized that actually, some on mary 29d year old member of congress probably should be in charge of your childbearing decisions, then congratulations. you passed. you are virtuous. not a racist at all. lots of number two. this one is about food. >> my twitter matches, a lot of references about cow farts. can you explain that? >> we got to address factory farming. maybe we shouldn't be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. steve went to the question is, how many hamburgers should you d to eat in the course of a day? they are trigger possible answers. the first is, huh, what kind of question is that? stopped eating off my plate. that, unfortunately, is the racist answer, the one that bull connor would have given if he were still alive enough to eativ big macs. the correctan answer, i will eat exactly as many hamburgers as congress on monday ocasio-cortez allows me to eat and i will be l for them.
if that was a response,u congratulations to you, you are a good person. now to number three. this one is about immigration. >> women and children trying to come here with nothing but the shorts on their back to create an opportunity and to provide for this nation are acting more and the american tradition on this president is right now. >> tucker: the question is, who is more american? actual americans or foreigners who spit in our customs that mock our laws by speaking into our country illegally and calling us racist if we try to make them leave? this is a tough one. keep thinking. okay, times up. the answer is, illegal aliens are the real americans. duh, if you doubt of that for a second, please hate yourself, you deserve it. now for the final question, this is the daily double. see how you do. >> criticisms of youic is that - "the washington post" reported you four pinocchios breaks because there's a lot of people more concerned about being
precisely factually and semantically correct then about being morally right. >> tucker: factually correct. this one gets right to the heart of it all. are you one of those people who still cares about facts? about numbers and evidence and physical reality? at his 2019, man. physics is just a preference. if you persist in being factually correct, and continue to read books, speak in complete sentences, please know that you are committing racism. you, sir, are a bigot. congresswoman ocasio-cortez condemns you. she come by contract, it is morally right, and utterly certain of it. on that test, this is all that matters. lisa boothe is a senior fellow at independent women's voice. i should note, this is a reflection of the generosity of the spirit of the show. we said that ocasio-cortez was admired by 33% of new yorkers, actual number, 31 points.
>> i failed your test. >> tucker: [laughs] you are a bad person, lisa boothe. >> i help my parents aren't watching. i'm a terrible person. [laughs] tucker, what's hilarious is the college bowl maxima president trump is more popular with new yorkers right now than alexandria ocasio-cortez is. i found out little tight but interesting, as well, it turns out gallup had a poll on march 15th which found that her unfavorable ratings have increased by 15 points since the last poll in september of 2018. the reason being is that the more americans find out about her, the less they like her, they more they get to know her, the more they form an opinion on her, the less likely they are to like her because back in september of 2018, 50% of americans didn't know who she was. or they hadn't formed an opinion. now that number is down to 29%. people don't like her, the more they hear from her are the more they get to know from here.
>> tucker: you already failed our test. by generous i suspect that you are being defensive and pass the buck? >> i could say could go to the gala poll and look at it for yourself because that is with the gallup poll found. look at it this way. a lot of americans don't like the fact that she went out -- shet was in an event last month ventral people, or critics, i'm the boss. a29-year-old member of congress. she's a freshman, telling people that if you don't agree with her, she's the boss, this is someone who holds dumb ideas, that i think most americans don't want to give economic security to people who are unwilling to work. most americans don't look at cow farts as some sort of eminent problem. most americans in -- >> tucker: correction. most americans are just racist if they don't like aoc. she said that.t. she'd be an interesting person if she wasn't just so self-involved and dumb. lisa boothe, thank you very much for coming on tonight.
>> tucker: liberals >> tucker: to their credit, liberals used to be suspicious of plutocrats and huge corporations, but those days are long gone. billionaires are now woke. the democratic party loves them for the power they wield on their behalf. here is one example. when jeff bezos' leaked personal tax got him into a view to the "national enquirer," instead of being amused, onlookers, the press, rally behind the world's richest man. boy, did they.n >> jeff bezos, the wealthiest man in the world, the founder of amazon, going from being the punch line of this sordid affair to all of a sudden becoming raised as a hero of journalism. >> it makes them almost human, just like us magazine, he's just like you and me. he's playing this brilliantly. >> there's a certain amount of badassness about him that makes us proud to work for him. they muster their bronchi and they found that out. >> a source close to bezos told me last night, do not poke this
bezos bear. >> tucker: [laughs] don't hurt the bezos bear, whatever you do. the press didn't just offend bezos bear, stroking him lovingly, they also speculated wildly that his texts were leaked by president trump and collusion with saudi arabia, presumably, wasn't busy helping russia. >> we know he despises jeff bezos. is ami still doing trump's dirty work? what is going on? >> the two leading theories seem to be that ami is either doing the saudis' dirty work, president trump's dirty work, or a combination of the two. >> trump has had a hard on for bezos. it's no surprise that he turned to his good buddy, david packer, at the "inquirer," to do a hatchet job done my job on him. >> he does not believe that jeff
bezos' phone was hacked. he thinks it's possible that a government entity might have gotten hold of his text messages. >> tucker: [laughs] a government entity. don lemon agrees. a ludicrous theory. there was never any evidence to show it's true. now it turns up it is false. yesterday, "the wall street journal" reveals that bezos' texts were sold by the brother of his girlfriend. another ridiculous theory has been exposed as a sham. where were the consequences for this reporting? does anybody say, i'm sorry? i like you? know. richard goodstein is an attorney, he helped advise bill and hillary clinton. he's a wise man and this even -- the macro question, why is everyone defending jeff bezos? >> he stood up to extortion. it wasn't because he leaked things. he leaked what he did, which didn't put him indi a very good light because ami, the parent company of the "national enquirer," try to extort him.
tapes and emails and so forth. it raises the question, who also they they extort? that he stipulatedat in court tt they made contributions to help trump won. they engaged in felonious conduct, which is why he got the immunity deal. >> tucker: they did to him was stormy daniels to do trump, trump gave him he didn't pray good for him for not caving. i don't think you should keep to extortion. more broadly, here you have a guy who is the richest person in the world, who runs this giant company, that's? a question mark in retail and put countless millions out of work, that runs distribution centers where people regularly call in suicide threats to 911 because they are so unhappy, and the left acts like he doesn't exploit anyone, he's a great guy. >> the fact is, any big organization regrettably has people who are a little unstabl unstable. the left didn't like him because amazon is driving out all these brick-and-mortaric stores. for everybody who benefits from a lower price, and the ease of
ordering something -- again, what turned it was for standing up to extortion. it wasn't -- anything else -- but then i thought, hey, maybe this guy actually kind ofon has some common sense after all. >> tucker: are you bothered by the fact of the world's richest man owns the biggest newspaper in its capital city, personally owns it? we are upset about william randolph hearst. he owns the only real newspaper in washington, d.c. lobbying arm for his business, nobody says that. >> acceptbo there is zero evidence -- i happen to be with the editor in chief of the "post-close, and he said this, he has zero influence. they report -- >> tucker: you are saying that one of jeff bezos' highest-paid employees says he likes jeff bezos. >> if there was any reporter, drew. the story of the year of the century if, in fact, bezos had
influence -- >> tucker: what do you mean?wi he personally owns the newspaper. he has a propaganda arm in the center of d.c., the most influential news organization in the city, its lobbying in effect for him, and that is cool because marty baron is happy? >> except it's not lobbying for him. they've done exposes about amazon's influence -- >> tucker: oh, yeah, a lot of hard hitting -- [laughs] i guess we are all sucking up to billionaires. >> if he starts exhibiting any influence, you'll call it out, i'm sure you'll be the first one. >> tucker: that paper is disgusting. richard, thank you very much. former "nightline" host ted koppel did something brave recently. said something that was obviously true. during remarks, he said the press has abandoned objectivity. he is now pursuing a political vendetta. >> i'm terribly concerned that when you talk about "the new york times" these days,
"the washington post" these days, we are not talking about "the new york times" of 50 years ago. we are not talking about "the washington post" of 50 years ago. we are talking about organizations that i believe have in fact decided as organizations that donald j. trumpfo is bad for the united states. >> tucker: fox nation or don macleanl your political analyst brit hume worked with ted koppel for a long time. i don't they give him as a political figure as all but he just said something that many on the left will hate. is it true? why did he say it? >> was unmistakably true, tucker. you are right. i did work with ted koppel for many years. he is old school, much as i am, we came out of the same tradition, wages neutrality in news coverage, opinions reserved for columnists to editorial writers and broadcast journalism, certain commentators, and you have
correspondence to cover the new news. those lines of separation have become increasingly blurred, and in the age of trump, as he suggested, they've gone completely out the window, because of the sense among journalists that the election of donald trump constituted a national emergency, and it was their duty as patriots to resist it and to do all they could to undo this presidency. which they have tried to do and we see it affected constantly. >> tucker: what i find so infuriating about it is how indirect and dishonest it is. opinion people are pretty straightforward about her. we are in this show. rachel maddow, i'm not mad atct her. she says exactly who she is, there's no misleading anybody about being an opinion person. why shouldn't news people who decide to become activists just say so? >> i agree with that. i think what happened here,
watergate really is a factor here. at that moment, which was the most exciting, the most extraordinary moment and modern journalistic history in the united states, these two young reporters that we were seen as bringing down a president of the united states, we had all been told that this date was powerful but none of us had ever seen anything like this. it was truly remarkable, it was glamorous, celebrated in movies, the subject of endless books and so on and it was an extraordinary moment. it created an atmosphere in which journalists want to relive that. here comes a target even more popular than richard nixon was, and the person of donald trump, they have gone about their business,ne and back in those days, "the washington post" reporting on watergate, which was so celebrating, was pretty dark solid.en when donald trump gave his state of thee union address this yea, the headline in the next days
"washington post," banner headline said, "a discordant appeal for unity. that is an opinion. you did not use to see that it headlines. in the news pages of any newspaper, let aloneid "the washington post." as ted koppel said, things have changed, and they have, not for the better. >> tucker: they are undermining their own currency. brit hume, thank you. great to see you. >> you bet. >> tucker: a new investigation, an amazing investigation, reveals how the policies of the left have destroyed, not an overstatement, the city of seattle. the local leaders ready to change at all? wait until you see the pictures after the break. ♪
homelessness and drug use. now the documentary about a local news station "komo" warns of the consequences.ru the middle-class people cannot live in seattle anymore because the city is dying. >> the city mayor does not give the cops authority. that is the problem. >> this is one of the most beautiful regions in the entire world, and right now for lack of a better word it looks like [bleep]. >> it is infuriating, every camp i walked into there was a weapon. i found modified weapons. i was constantly on the side of the road talking to people swinging machetes. >> i've not talked to anyone else who has been in some phase of addiction. of use, of serious use. i think that that is theon starting point. you just have to address that.u you have to figure that out. >> you said call 911. do you understand that the police have told us to vote you all out so that they can do t their jobs?
>> tucker: putting the whole video on their facebook page, because it is remarkable. doing a great job, jason rantz he's a seattle radio host, and he joined us tonight. that video is really stirring. do you think that it actually accurately depicts what seattle is like right now? >> if anything it under plays what isct happening. within the last ten days there was an instance in which a mentally ill homeless man, 6'3", 270 pounds, try to throw a woman over a highway 6 overpass. that same exact free way, i-5, a major freeway had a bunch of homeless people burning garbage dangerously close to a gas pipe. the seattle fire department had to put out a memo saying that we are worried about the structural integrity. and just today literally hours ago in the community of ballard, there was a homeless man attacking people with a crate. he hit one individual in the head. you know, they asked a question
asked whether or not seattle is dying, not only a seattle dying, but we have a bunch of leaders who are letting it die. you have a council and a mayor's office that is playing politics, going after anyone like me who has to say that maybe we should be helping these people, putting them into treatment, putting them into housing, but they say we would just be inconveniencing them.ut that it is not compassionate to move them from site to site. i'm sorry, it is not compassionate to let them live like this. your compassion is killing them. >> tucker: and they are drug addicts, it sounds like your mayor does not care about seattle at all. >> the mayor on this issue loves to talk about how much he cares. and that is the theme across the country. with some progressives. they like to tell us how much they care, but they don't actually follow it up with any action. we have a governor right now who is desperately trying to become president was talking about how amazing washington is while completely ignoring that a major city in washington, aes hub for business in the economy is dying because of a lack of leadership. it is a shame. >> tucker: it is absolutely shocking that this could
happen, is there anybody, i wish that we had more time for this. is there anybody in elected office in seattle who is going to fix this? >> there are some republicans and democrats who are in olympia, in the capital who are looking at this from a bigger picture. they are going to help in small quantities. but unless we get a change in leadership in the council in seattle and the mayor's officei i just don't think that theyn' are going to be able to move anything through. there are some democrats and republicans who are taking this very seriously because they live in the neighborhoods that are impacted. the problem with seattle politics is it spreads to other parts of the state. >> tucker: i hope that they do, because what is happening is cruel and awful. how wild on that one hour news documentaryy was. it is "komo," posted on the "tucker carlson tonight" site. we hope that you will look at it. a lot of times tomorrow night, we will be back with the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and
groupthink. there is a lot of all of those things going on right now. but someday it will be better. good night from washington, guess who is next? okay, take three guesses, sean hannity from new york. >> sean: all right, thank you. great show, as always. welcome to "hannity," we have a number of breaking news stories. we will cover them all including another insane anti-trump conspiracy theory by the cowardly shift himself. a huge development today in the mueller witch hunt, and an update on the massive college admission scandal. and we will continue the "hannity watch" on the radical 2020 democrats i would like to be president with an investigation into beto "bozo robert francis" o'rourke in his home state of texas. but first, we get started with the round up of the worst moments from the democratic hopefuls for president, something that the mainstream media, we know that they will never do. it is only tuesday, butt