Skip to main content

tv   Tucker Carlson Tonight  FOX News  March 21, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT

5:00 pm
>> the smartest thing you said, you don't want to see that video. >> no one does. >> that's the story on this thursday night. see you back here tomorrow night at 7:00. tucker carlson up next. >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." various news outlets are telling us that the mueller report is finally on its way. we have no inside information about that. we should say apparently the white house believes it, too. mueller's report does arrive, it will go first to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. there's not much debate about what should happen after that. democrats have demanded the release of the entire document. the president agrees with them. he said he'd like to see that report go public so voters can assess it for themselves. for now, we'd like to take just a second to put this entire sprawling story into some
5:01 pm
perspective. our job on this show is to remember things, to create a record of what has happened in this country over the past few years and what has happened to it. our grandchildren will want to know. if the left has its way, it will all be whitewashed like so much else in our history has been. let's recall for the record what the robert mueller investigation is all about. the point was not to discover be whether the president fudged deductions on his tax returns 30 years ago, not to find out whether he wanted to build a hotel in a foreign country. the mueller investigation was justified by a single question: did donald trump collude with the russian government to steal the 2016 election? did the president betray his country? for three years, the democrats have told us, yes, he did do that. >> it's beyond a shadow of doubt to me, there was at least the
5:02 pm
effort to collude. >> there's more to be learned about it. i believe there's been collusion. >> it's starting to smell more and more like collusion. >> we saw cold, hard evidence of the trump campaign, the trump family eagerly intending to collude possibly with russia. >> tucker: these are not minor charges. if you grew up in this country, it is hard to shrug them off. maxine waters is irrelevant. she's a living side show. nancy pelosi is third in line to the presidency. adam schiff is the president of the house intelligence committee. john podesta was the chief of staff in one white house. he was a senior advisor in another white house. beto o'rourke has raised more money than anyone running for president in 2020. they're the most serious people in the modern democratic party, and we took them seriously.
5:03 pm
we felt we had a duty to understand why they were calling the president of the united states a traitor. we interviewed a number of those people on this show. one of the most persistent accusers was from california, also a member of the house intelligence committee. if was therein deed evidence of collusion with russia, he would have seen it. he never produced any, and we asked him repeatedly. he accused us of cutting him off on the air. finally, we offered him a full half hour live on this show to tell us what the evidence was. >> if you have any evidence at all of collusion, any -- and i don't care how small it is, i will give the floor to you. i mean that. i want to wrap this up. i'm sure you do, too. >> tucker: months later, he came on the show, but he never produced a single piece of evidence that the trump campaign colluded with anyone. instead, he accused us of working for a foreign power. we asked why the public couldn't see a memo related to the russia
5:04 pm
investigation. here's how he responded. >> in the case of today's memo, what specifically have i espoused that empowers threats to our country? >> you're peddling the narrative that the trump administration is putting out, which also is the putin narrative because they're retweeting this with their russian bots. >> do you perceive -- >> -- wikileaks and putin, you should take a step back and wonder whose bidding are you really doing. >> tucker: so for asking to see a government document he himself had seen, he suggested we were treasonous. there's been an awful lot of talk like that the past couple years. people in this city are afraid. they watch what they say, they don't send e-mails. the beginning of this investigation, there's been virtually no honest, public
5:05 pm
debate about what is happening or has happened. watch this exchange from the early days of the administration. congressman schiff came on the show. we asked a fact-based question about what we know and don't know. it was: are we certain the russian government hacked john podesta's g-mail account? >> can you say i know for a fact the government of -- >> absolutely, the government of vladimir putin was behind the hacks of -- >> of john podesta's e-mail. of john -- >> also in europe. >> you know what -- look and say i know they did -- >> and i think that ronald reagan would be -- >> ronald reagan. >> as you're carrying water for the kremlin. >> you're a sitting member of congress and you can't say -- >> you're going to have to move your show to russian television. >> tucker: so to this day, even the most basic, the most
5:06 pm
elemental questions about the claims in this russia story remain unanswered. we've upended our entire foreign policy and put americans in prison all on the basis of charges that no one has been willing to prove. the conspiracy hawks seem totally impervious to shame or reason. they wouldn't engage. they just threw slurs. they felt no need to demonstrate any of it was true. >> at what point do you draw the line and not accuse the president without any evidence? >> he's betrayed or country. i don't say that lightly. >> betraying the country, by the way, we want evidence before you say that, but you said an agent of russia. >> he works on their behalf. >> as a prosecutor, you know the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence. >> i think it's pretty clear. it's almost hiding in plain
5:07 pm
sight. >> tucker: some of the most respected, supposedly sober figures in our society engaged in this behavior for years. they said things that were so reckless and damaging to this country it's hard to believe it was happening. not so long ago, john brennan was the director of the cia, the most powerful intelligence agency in the world. >> reporting right now that special counsel robert mueller has evidence that michael cohen secretly made a late summer trip to prague during the 2016 presidential campaign. according to news sources familiar with the matter. confirmation of the trip would affirm part of the steele dossier. >> reports that mr. cohen was in prague despite his denials. there is more and more occasions that there is -- indications that there is something here that is far, far from being anything near a witch hunt. >> tucker: michael cohen was in prague meeting with his russian handlers.
5:08 pm
that's what brennan just told us on cable television. you'd think if anyone would know that fact, it would be the director of the cia. the cia knows all. except perhaps on this one question, michael cohen himself might know more. he was asked directly about it. cohen had no reason to protect donald trump. he had many reasons to hurt him. >> i've never been to prague. >> never have. >> i've never been to the czech republic. >> yield the balance of my time. >> cohen also told congress in all his years working as donald trump's personal attorney, one of the most intd mat relationships in donald trump's life, he'd never seen any evidence of collusion with russia. case closed. but it was too late. by that point, the russia investigation had become such a bonanza that they couldn't slow down. they had no incentive to admit defeat or acknowledge reality. they continued as they had as if
5:09 pm
the story was entirely real. they brought us an endless parade of screamers, bafoons and half wits. malcolm nance delivering his analysis on msnbc. >> when benedict arnold gave the plans to west point, they did not have any real information linking those plans to benedict arnold other than the fact he was in his presence at one point during that day. everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man and they hung him. at some point, there's going to be unsailable. >> thanks for the history lesson, mr. nance. they hung him. let's hang this guy. after a while, after years of this, voters started to agree. thanks to propaganda like you just saw. 53% of registered voters believe the trump campaign worked with
5:10 pm
russia to influence the 2016 election. among democratic voters, 67% believe russia somehow rigged the vote tally. nobody's ever explained how exactly the russians might have done that, but of course they did it. russia rigged the election. cnn says so every night. there need to be consequences for this. once the mueller report appears and it becomes apparent that donald trump did not collude with the russians, many people that claim on no evidence that he did collude with the russians ought to be punished. thoroughly shamed and forced to apologize. if republicans spent three full years falsely claiming that president obama colluded with the government of iran, would they ever work in media or politics again? lying and recklessness should never be ignored. the united states invaded iraq on the premise that they
5:11 pm
possessed chemical and biological weapons. many believed it, but the claim was false. nobody was punished. to this day, max boot takes a paycheck from the "washington post." no crystal appears on msnbc. john bolton is this country's national security advisor. there were no consequences to their foolishness and dishonesty, none. instead we start wars with entirely predictable results. nobody learned anything. will the same cast of liars move onto the next scam. climate change, the green new deal. it's too important. obey or else. that could easily happen. in fact, it will happen for certain unless we remember exactly what we've just seen. a former trump campaign advisor joins us tonight. if this report comes back whenever it comes back and shows or doesn't show collusion
5:12 pm
between the russian government and the trump campaign, you'll be owed an apology, no? >> i think so. but there's no office of, you know, return of your -- of your reputation in the united states capital, and certainly not at the offices of msnbc. if you're ought in this like i am, others who are mere witnesses and ruined anyway, whose careers have been completely destroyed, whose families have been completely destroyed as marginal witnesses, you understand if there are real key players in the bowels of this thing. you talk about brennan, you talk about the players in front of everyone. you have players like dan jones. you know about dan jones. the federalist published a great story. he's a guy i talked about in front of the senate intelligence committee almost a year ago. this guy was a senate
5:13 pm
intelligence committee staffer, a former fbi analyst. he today has raised $10 million to continue the work of fusion gps. he's working closely with glen simpson today with christopher steele, the former british spy who hillary clinton and the dnc paid. let's working with him -- he's working with him today. he puts out a daily e-mail to -- to reporters and democratic committee staffers on the hill still peddling the russia collusion hoax. still peddling stories completely disproven and he's still getting hits in the media even today. >> tucker: any idea who's paying for that? >> he has admitted it's being paid for by george soros, by rob reiner, meat head from all in the family, this impeach trump
5:14 pm
now deal. these guys have put up -- i think it's almost over $10 million right now. by the way, while my family and j.d. gordon's family and carter page's family and dozens of other families related to the trump kind of orbit have gone completely bust due to this bogus russia investigation, they're getting rich. rich beyond their wildest dreams. and here's the thing, tucker. i know you -- you believe and others believe that there's nothing criminal going on here, but i disagree. all you got to do is look up 18 usc 2384 and apply that to dan jones. if we don't have some kind of investigation into dan jones, christopher steele and glen simpson and fusion gps. if we find a crime related to that, then we have no country. we have no rule of law. >> tucker: at the very least, we're learning who has real
5:15 pm
power in this country. >> no doubt. no doubt. >> tucker: thank you very much. we have a former communications director joining us tonight. i think it's fair to say we took this seriously from the beginning and asked, i think, real questions. didn't dismiss it. i'm against any president who would do that. if it turns out that the mueller investigation did not find collusion shouldn't the speaker of the house, the chairman of the intel committee, don't they owe apologies to the president? >> i don't think that's going to happen. i think that's whang to happen is neither extreme will get exactly what they want. there's going to be plenty on this report is my guess. that both sides will cling to and be able to highlight at issues. every time donald trump goes out and criticizes and undermines and attacks the intelligence services of the united states in defense of himself and in defense of putin -- he stood next to putin in helsinki and took his side over the american intelligence services, he is
5:16 pm
doing a great disservice -- >> tucker: i don't know -- i don't know how your civics grades were, donald trump whatever you think of him, was elected by voters. the so-called intelligence community was not elected by anybody. they're government bureaucrats who work for one man, the president of the united states. he's allowed to disagree with them. if they don't like it, they leave. all of their power derives from the elected official in the white house, the president. the idea you're not allowed to criticize the intel agencies, doesn't that make you think there's a coup in progress? >> not at all. you would make the same argument about the u.s. military attacking democrats. >> tucker: if there was a flak officer insubordinate, i would say that's not allowed. it's the executive branch of government. >> here's the key thing. this investigation, the whole mueller report is not coming out
5:17 pm
of left field as donald trump would have you believe. it started as a counter intelligence operation because there were clear signals and clear signs and clear evidence that the russians were attempting to interfere and use the trump campaign -- >> i understand. >> the candidate and his staff as witting -- >> tucker: the charge on the speaker of the house -- i'm not fixated on maxine waters. nancy pelosi is not student. she's the head of the democratic party. why wouldn't she apologize for that? >> there's so many things that we've seen that have to raise this question. meeting with russians in the -- >> tucker: i got it. let me just pin you down on this one thing. let's look at the report. >> i definitely want to see what's in the report.
5:18 pm
i will tell you -- >> tucker: yeah. >> both sides can take from it. >> tucker: you either colluded or you didn't. you're either a traitor to your country or you're not. >> bill barr could decide even if there's obstruction of justice where trump insisted on an investigation to protect himself, that barr will decide that -- that that can't be indicted -- >> tucker: i think -- >> -- very clearly stated the opinion that the president can do -- >> tucker: i think people see what's going on. >> -- it's congress' role -- >> tucker: i don't want to lecture you about how much this has hurt the country. >> you know what else has hurt the country is donald trump taking vladimir putin's side at every step. >> tucker: all right. all right. got it. thank you very much. >> thanks, tucker. democrats have turned america into a war zone of identity politics terrifying everybody, now they turn it on their own candidates which is highly amusing and worth watching.
5:19 pm
so stay tuned. -we're doing karaoke later, and you're gonna sing. -jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ]
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
-please. -okay. down two runs in the bottom of the ninth. because there's always another game on deck. with mlb extra innings on xfinity x1, you'll get
5:22 pm
up to 90 out of market games per week. and all of the body sacrificing catches, home plate heroics, and 6-4-3 double plays. plus, with x1 you can get every stat and every score all with the power of your voice. that's simple. easy. awesome. order mlb extra innings for a great low price. plus, access your favorite team on any device. go online today. >> tucker: well, as we've repeatedly noted on this show, the left refuses to live up to its own standards most of the time. now suddenly for once they are. for decades the democratic party has opposed the preceps of identity politics on others. simply because of their perceived ranking in some imaginary hierarchy of privilege. they made it so questioning any of this is a social crime. ask questions about this or
5:23 pm
disagree, you could be silenced or censored. they are turning society into a humorless p.c. hell hole. democrats could be having an interesting conversation about policy ideas. but they don't. they agree on virtually everything. and they attack each other on issues of identity. a colorado governor recently entered the race. and last night, because he's a man, he was interrogated about whether he'd accept a woman as his vice presidential candidate. >> some of your male competitors have vowed to put a woman on the ticket. would you do the same? >> asking, not asking more often the women would you be willing to put a man on the ticket. >> oh, they hissed at him. it was a big mistake. he immediately went to the new religious orthodoxy. he wasn't enthusiastically
5:24 pm
enough about doing it. inquiz tors soon demanded that he burn. >> his answer about the possibility of a female running mate sparking backlash. >> i don't know what the heck he was talking about. there are a lot of democrats that feel women haven't been given their just due. he's basically dismissing those concerns. >> i don't even know how to reply to that. 45 presidents have been men. i think that speaks for itself. >> i think it's just one of those answers that you really groan at. i think i'm going to send governor hicenloop er a copy wih all the presidents' faces on it, all men. >> tucker: he's not the only candidate accused of bearing tainted blood.
5:25 pm
andrew gillam said o'rourke had a set of perks others don't. meaning he's white. kamala harris has had her racial credibility called into question since her mother is not black and she married a white man. even democratic presidential candidates are not safe from the mob. we have an attorney and talk show host joining us tonight. i have to say part of me is disgusted by this. part of me is amused by it. wouldn't it be better to have a debate about how to make the country better rather than qualities people can't control? >> tucker what you have to understand is diversion and inclusion and representation are not the same thing as you put it. america is 51% female. they want somebody in power who
5:26 pm
reflects their needs and reflects their values. here in georgia and other states, we've had men voting on women's reproductive rights. we have to create a country where everybody has a place at the table. >> tucker: wait, wait. hold on, hold on. so men shouldn't be able to weigh in on abortion. should women be able to weigh in on prostate surgery? it's so stupid it's hard to -- just for monfun. hold on. should female members of congress get to vote on that? or they just not get it? do you see how this is a dead end? >> when you're dealing with people since the inception of this country we've neither had a female president or vice president, giving them a seat at the table should not be seen as identity politics but as catching up with the times. >> tucker: hold on.
5:27 pm
i'm not making -- angela merkel is probably the worst leader germany's had in the last couple at least. it's not detracting from women. maybe we should hire the most qualified person. male or female. >> that is exactly the point. we are no longer using someone's gender as a immediate veto to take them out of the race. this isn't like john mccain picking sarah palin. these are completely competent and vetted women who are saying they need a seat at the table -- >> tucker: just so funny. i love -- i'm not attacking you. watching all these liberal men who you know i'm sure have totally primitive attitudes in private sort of berating themselves into this i'm a feminist, too, routine. i'm more sensitive than you are kind of thing. do you feel like saying i just
5:28 pm
want to say what i think and maybe i should stop be intimidated by people who control our language and thoughts? does that never happen? >> i'm always honest. that's the best thing about me. you don't have to worry about that. that's part of the problem the democrats had in 2016. by being too reflective, they let somebody like trump come in and take up that -- what i call the shadow maga. the people who would never go to a rally, but they'll go into the booth and vote for him because we grab them by the you know what, they laughed, that's the kind of guy i could have a beer with. >> tucker: i'm fascinated by this. since you're always honest, would you describe yourself as a pretty big feminist? >> not at all. not in the slightest. but i do respect women's rights and women's ability to lead and to represent. i don't think you have to put a label on it. with labels comes all the baggage -- >> tucker: there's nothing
5:29 pm
embarrassing about being a feminist. now that you said you're not a feminist, i'm not sure they'll let you back into the democratic club. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: mark stein joins us tonight. how amusing do you find it to see the democrats eating each other on the basis of identity politics standard? >> i love it. to use that line that we've just been hearing about about everyone wants a seat at the table so they can stick a fork at the other guy. that's basically the reason. just to clear up your thing about sort of men then only have a say about prostate cancer. i was reading a newspaper in canada last week about a woman who died of prostate cancer. so it is totally transphobic of you for you to imply that prostate cancer has anything to do with men just as it is totally transphobic to imply that abortion is anything to do
5:30 pm
with women. and that's the lesson here. no matter how woke you are, you can be outwoke by the next guy in the democrat nominating process. basically hickenlooper doesn't get it. he made the same mistake as martin o'malley saying all lives matter or whatever it was four years ago. instead of black lives matter, he said all lives matter. hickenlooper has it wrong here. you're asked the question, will you put a women on the ticket to show how far you're prepared to abase yourself and mitigate the hideousness of your white maleness. if you're like beto, you're basically a rich, white middle aged guy, but you pretend to be some hispanic skateboarding 12-year-old and all the democrats go, oh, wow, this is so new, it's so different. he's the first hispanic middle schooler to run for president.
5:31 pm
[ laughter ] this is incredible. if you're like -- if you're not, then you have to abase yourself by saying like joe biden is going to put a black woman on the ticket. he said he's going to put stacy abrams on the ticket. hickenlooper has so damaged himself, he would have to put a hispanic transgender woman. it won't be enough to just put a woman on the ticket. he'll have to move it into the next thing. this is where identity politics leads. it's the point about white -- mitigation of your white male hideousness that is actually at the core of it. >> tucker: your point saying that abortion is just a women's issue, that's transphobic. i agree completely. >> absolutely. >> tucker: i intend to make that point consistently on the show. >> thanks a lot tucker. great to be with you. >> tucker: here's news you may not have heard. cnn is being sued, hundreds of millions of dollars, for its fraudulent coverage of the
5:32 pm
covington story. what exactly does the lawsuit allege and could it succeed? we'll have the details ahead. woman: my reputation was trashed online,
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
i felt completely helpless. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705. >> tucker: cnn is battling a $275 million lawsuit over its coverage of the covington high school incident. for some reason, cnn hasn't said much about it. they finally commented on the suit a few hours ago. trace gallagher looked into it
5:36 pm
for us tonight. >> reporter: tucker, there's no rational way to argue that cnn and other media outlets didn't vilify nick sandman during the early reporting of this story. the lawsuit itself focuses on journalistic standards and ethics saying in part, contrary to facts first public relations ploy, cnn ignored the facts and put its anti-trump agenda first in waging a seven-day media campaign against nicholas. when cell phone video was posted on social media, the narrative was that sandman and the maga hat wearing covington kids were wrong. but the entire two hours of video dramatically changed the context and perspective. and showed the altercation began with the students being verbally attacked. even an independent investigation showed the students were not the i
5:37 pm
instigators. cnn taking care on report on additional facts as they developed and to share the perspectives of eyewitnesss and other participants and stakeholders as they came forward. legal experts say nick sandman's burden of proof is certainly high. they believe they do have a reasonable case. tucker? >> tucker: seems that way. trace gallagher, thanks a lot for that. we have a former secret service agent. dan, i'm a little bit confused. cnn calls itself a news network. they have their own media reporter. they have said virtually nothing about this on the air. why aren't they covering this, i wonder? >> they're incredible, right, how the intensity of the coverage seems to have lapsed dramatically. i was reading a piece earlier today that in the first day of this, or two days of this, there were 43 minutes of coverage. >> using that lower third of the
5:38 pm
screen, things like bigotry and harassment on the -- on behalf of these kids and taunting on behalf of these kids. i thought this was the network -- remember their thing? they had that viral ad. this is an apple. you can call it a banana, but this is an apple. it's not an apple when cnn becomes the focus of their own terrible coverage. >> tucker: is it ethical to not report on your own role in a major news story, this lawsuit? >> no, of course not. i mean, listen on the opinion side, do whatever you want. those are opinion shows and they're based on people's opinion. but if you're claiming to be a news network -- that's why i brought up cnn's ad that this is an apple. we're a journalism network. we get the facts right. in journalism -- i can't say this enough. you have one job in journalism. one job. to put out the facts. it's the public's job to then
5:39 pm
form an opinion based on an accurate statement of facts. cnn is proclaiming on their news side that they have the facts in this case tucker when they didn't. they -- as a matter of fact, they had the entire story backwards. completely backwards. no, it is not ethical. they should do the right thing and give the same intensity of coverage to their screw-up as they did initially to the story about sandman which was inaccurate. >> tucker: right, i mean, they're dishonest, so we shouldn't be surprised. we're not -- they slandered the guy, obviously. all of these kids, they called them racist, they mischaracterized the native american activist. why didn't they just apologize for it? >> i don't know if it's some -- well, you know, i'm kind of laughing because you're opening segment today, by the way, was awesome about russian collusion. this is the same network who when i work out in the gym, it's the only tv in the gym. only tv in the whole gym.
5:40 pm
it's the only time i see cnn. it's an all day, hyperbolic fest about a fictitious hoax called collusion. >> tucker: you're right. >> there's more evidence for sasquatch. >> tucker: i'd be willing to believe in sasquatch. final exam is here. lauren blanchard is going for a record-tying tenth win in a row. never missed a question in the first nine. amazing. can you beat her? you'll find out after the break.
5:41 pm
man: seven more weeks. wow. good news is, we bought a house in time. woman: but...we're a little low on cash after the down payment. man: and the baby room needs new carpet. woman: and a door. ugh, and a window. man: and we still got to patch that mystery hole. woman: and then make it super adorable. man: ridiculously adorable. this is why we sofi. with sofi's no-fee personal loan, borrow up to $100k for home projects.
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
>> tucker: finally a break. it's time now for final exam where the news professionals compete to see who has paid the closest attention to what has happening in this country. lauren blanchard has played very close attention. she's now tied for the second most wins on this segment. tonight, she goes for ten in a row. we brought in a challenger for her tonight who also had a notable winning streak of her own. >> thank you. i'm going up against a titan, tucker. >> i'm nervous. >> tucker: both of you have the same kind of sleeper affect. you come in and know everything. this is the one show i haven't bet on. you know the rules. hands on buzzers. i'll ask the questions. the first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. you must wait until i finish asking before you answer. every correct answer is worth a
5:45 pm
single point. each incorrect answer detracts a point from your total as you well know, bitterly. you ready? >> yeah. >> tucker: question one. by order of the national game show commission we must begin this quiz with an animal question. the most expensive bird ever sold at auction was purchased this week for $1.4 million. what kind of bird was it? >> how did you know that? >> it's armando the pigeon. >> tucker: you know his name? >> yes, armando. >> tucker: it's armando the pigeon. >> lauren sitting in this room right now. >> did you know pigeons were -- they're very expensive. >> a european racing pigeon was recently sold for a world record $1.4 million. before this story, i would have believed you if you said the world record price for a pigeon was $6. [ laughter ] >> i'm kicking myself because i did -- i passed that story.
5:46 pm
>> tucker: it's funny, i have the answers on my cards and armando is not even on here. we're just going to assume. >> she could be wrong, though. >> tucker: we'll check with the judges. question two. an artist named stan heard is rooting so hard for one 2020 candidate that he created a 2 acre crop circle of his face. who was it? >> beto o'rourke. >> tucker: aliens are real. is it beto o'rourke? [ music ] >> this is intense. >> oh, my gosh. >> nice detailing. >> tucker: you know what, applaud the innovation no matter on whose behalf. how is a distant second after y. >> but his hands weren't in the
5:47 pm
crop sickle. >> no, they weren't. >> and that is a flaw. >> tucker: okay. i'm just -- i just want you to know i'm taking orders from my bosses in new york and they're saying this is a two-point question. this is the third question. san francisco recently banned plastic straws last year. now san francisco wants to become the first city in america to ban which other product? >> oh, gosh. if i get this wrong, i'm negative two. >> tucker: that's true. >> okay. plastic bags. >> tucker: is it plastic bags? >> san francisco, looking to ban e-cigarettes. officials don't want them in the city at all. >> no! >> tucker: you get -- you get points for boldness. >> san francisco will be the first city in the country to ban -- >> -- on national television. >> tucker: we're not on television right now. >> okay. good. >> tucker: no one's going to see this. >> this is for fun.
5:48 pm
>> tucker: question four. multiple choice. if you looked up at the sky last night, you saw the final super moon of 2019. what's the official name for any super moon that occurs in the month of march? is it a, a spring moon, b, a worm moon, or c a pink moon. >> it's a worm moon. because it's like spring. all the little worms are coming up. >> tucker: really, a worm moon? >> a chance for a rare super moon that will hit full phase at 9:43 eastern. in march, they're called a worm moon because the ground is thawing. >> my worst fear in the world. >> i am such a fan of this woman. i'm not even upset. >> tucker: she hasn't missed a single question. here's the final question. here's a tough one. kirsten gillabrand likes to
5:49 pm
workout in the gym. she took a video of herself doing dumbbell chest presses. something humorous was written on her shirt. what was it? >> it was the phrase, i just want to get some ranch. >> tucker: i just want to get some ranch. >> or i'm -- >> tucker: just trying to get some ranch. is she helping you? >> no. >> posted this video today on twitter of her lifting weights wearing a shirt that says "just trying to get some ranch." that's an woman that interrupted her at a campaign stop last month. >> tucker: so you're absolutely at par. you're even. >> that's right! i tried -- >> tucker: mediocrity. that's the mean. you recognize that. you are like a savage. i'm not even sure what to say. you get another -- it's a little
5:50 pm
weird to hear you do this great deed and we -- you're getting a crown or something or a new car. >> maybe? >> tucker: you deserve one. thank you so much. you're the best. >> thank you. >> tucker: great to see you. >> you're the best. >> tucker: that's it for this week's final exam. pay close attention to the news all week. tune in every thursday to see if you can beat our experts. we'll be right back.
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
and florida group of lawmakers introduced a bill that would allow illegal aliens living in state to get driver's license. it raises obvious questions. wisest of priority for the governor of florida? how was it a crisis that people are not even allowed to be here don't have driver's licenses? has every problem in florida been solved so that lawmakers can ignore the plight of the people who are there legally to focus on illegal rivals? in fact, this move could make life worse for actual floridians. the state of connecticut in the same, they gave driver's licenses to illegals. they go out of applications caused a massive increase in wait times at the dmv as it would. state officials had lied about , they ordered local officials not to talk about why government has ground to a standstill. citizen suffered for the sake of people not allowed to be here. let's be real. this is not about helping the people of the state of florida.
5:55 pm
it's about power. there are only two reasons to do this, to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. first make it harder for them to be deported and second is to make it easier for them to vote. that's great news if you have decided the future of the country relies on importing voters rather than helping ones who already live here. it's bad news for everyone else. meanwhile the campaign trail, beto o'rourke argues that the mexican border situation is so awesome, so fantastic, we just knocked on the walls that are there. >> we do not need any walls. 2,000 miles long, 30 feet high, to solve a problem that we do not have. >> tucker: everything is great in bud-smoking beto's fantasy version of the 1990s but what about right now? currently isis detention facilities are so overwhelmed that they are giving up and releasing legal immigrants back into the united states on the street, don't expect any of
5:56 pm
them to be returned to the countries from which they came. so how can we make this better? former walmart border control chief mark morgan joins estimate for some ideas. thanks for coming on. the situation and this does point out the lies we've been getting for the past couple years, the situation sounds legitimately bad on the border. >> it is. i would say now it's actually worse than it was in the late '90s and 2000 because of the demographics change. even their way have branded more back in the tooth 2,000 euros, the demographic has changed and we remove 90% of those illegally coming in. now because of the judicial activism and other case law, or allowing 6 of 8% of people apprehended, family units and children, they are allowed in and we are releasing them into the united states. >> tucker: this is not why people voted for donald trump, i would say. how would you fix it? >> there's three things we can do right away. the first thing is all three of
5:57 pm
these elements on the humanitarian side. we need to remove the incentive for the family units and the children that are coming here and finally for the most part false asylum claims. that's just a fact. the majority of the claims are false and they are denied. we have to remove those incentives and one where we can do that is when they come to the united states, whether at a port of entry or in between the ports, we return them to mexico and we make them wait new mexico while they wait for their immigration hearing. >> tucker: at such an obvious answer it's surprising we are not doing that. most of them came through mexico. why aren't we doing that? >> actually they just started in san diego, they are actually doing that and they started with a port of entry and they're starting to expand it in between the ports. and of course, who filed the lawsuit, the ninth circuit right now? there is an ongoing suit to challenge that. that's what they need to do. they need to challenge it because once you stop that and you make them wait new mexico while they wait for the asylum hearing, you're taking away an
5:58 pm
interval incentive for them. >> tucker: what are port courts? >> this has been done and this is another example. they need to triage down there, through intelligence and experience. the cvp, the officers and agents, they can triage the people to come to the board and claim asylum. ones that appear to be legitimate, bring them in and port courts means we put down on the border of the immigration judges in all the resources we need from a holistic approach to bring the men, go through the hearing and determine whether it's legitimate. if not remove them. >> tucker: a serious country would do that right away. >> step three is easy. i.c.e., you need to give more funding to i.c.e. for detention beds. 95% of the removals are expeditiously quicker and faster when they are done in detention. we need to fund i.c.e. and get more bids. >> tucker: what's the argument
5:59 pm
to get that? >> i think the argument against that is what you did in your monologue. >> tucker: that's my belief but i want to think well of people and i mean that. you can't think of a sincere argument against that? >> no, because the facts will show there is no other argument. we know the fact that the majority of asylum claims are false claims, fraudulent claims. most of them either they have never followed through the filing, they don't show up to court and the ones that do show up are denied. for because of the broken laws and other judicial activism and what states are doing, they are allowed to stay in the united states. >> tucker: i'm starting to think that a lot of the people that we debate on the show are disingenuous. they don't mean what they say. >> that's why i broke my silence. >> tucker: mark morgan, thank you very much. we are out of time, sadly. we'll be back tomorrow night 8:00 p.m. to show that is the sworn enemy of lying, verbosity, smugness, and groupthink. all of which are in great abundance right now.
6:00 pm
you have recourse. you have an option. you can laugh in the face of authoritarianism and we hope we do. good night from washington. surprising appearance from the empire state, sean hannity. >> sean: i am really proud of you because you have been a champion of speaking out for freedom of speech. and you've never been better. and everyone's got to understand that we are under fire all the time and you have been strong, articulate in the face of many attacks. we all support you. >> tucker: if our viewers knew how much time we spent on the phone and how grateful that we are that the fox news channel supports us as strongly as it does, thank you. >> sean: the country needs at least some conservative voices. they want 99.9% liberal voices on the air. tucker, great job. welcome to "hannity." i have a special message for jim

21 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on