Customs and Border Protection head censored by Twitter over wall post

Published November 14, 2020

This is a rush transcript from “Tucker Carlson Tonight” October 29, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. I spent a lot of the day on the phone with UPS trying to figure out what happened to our package that we overnighted on Monday. We got some answers, we are missing others. We'll get to that in just a minute.

But first, the big picture we've been reporting on for quite some time.

It's been obvious for really decades now that the Biden family has gotten rich from selling influence abroad. Joe Biden held a series of high level jobs in the U.S. government -- Senator, Vice President. Based on that fact, and that fact alone, Biden's son and brother approach foreign governments and companies, sovereign wealth funds, energy conglomerates, third-world oligarchs and dictators, and they offered to exchange favors from Joe Biden for cash.

The polite term for that practice is influence peddling. Sometimes it is legal under American law, sometimes it is not legal. But it has always been the economic engine of the Biden family. They've never done anything else.

Until recently, no one debated this fact. Several liberal news organizations in fact have written detailed stories about the Biden's secret business dealings over the years. Look them up, assuming you still can.

It's only since Joe Biden received the Democratic nomination that anyone in the media has claimed otherwise.

This week we introduced you to one of the Biden family's former business partners, a man called Tony Bobulinski. Bobulinski confirmed more conclusively than anyone ever has what the Biden's have been doing.

On two separate occasions, Bobulinski met personally with Joe Biden to discuss the family's business deals in China. Biden repeatedly has denied knowing anything about those deals.

Joe Biden is lying, Tony Bobulinski proved it.

It was a major story and not just because it happened here. We only interviewed Tony Bobulinski in the first place, because nobody else would.

There was a complete media blackout on his story, and there still is.

In the last three days, and we just checked, the name Tony Bobulinski has not been mentioned a single time on any other television network, not one time.

Finally, today, it fell to an anchor on a small financial news called Cheddar to bring up the story. Here is his exchange with the Biden campaign spokesman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. DURKIN, CHEDDAR NEWS ANCHOR: There were more accusations made this week on that most watched FOX News interview a couple nights ago from Tucker Carlson. Did those meetings happen, as they had been alleged when Joe Biden was a private citizen?

JAMAL BROWN, NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY FOR THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN: We're not going to waste any time on this smear campaign because it just another distraction, to distract again, from four years of Donald Trump's reckless policies and his failed leadership.

And I'm not going to accept the premise of the question. We have five days to keep our eyes on the prize. And again, that is to vote Joe Biden as the next President of the United States.

DURKIN: OK, fair enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "We're not going to waste any time on the smear campaigns," says the spokesman. In other words, we don't feel like answering a simple fact- based question of relevance to voters in the days before an election, so we're not going to. We're not embarrassed to admit that we're not going to because no one has the courage to make us answer, including you. "Fair enough," says the anchor.

There you have it, the state of the American news media in October 2020.

Keep in mind, the anchor you just saw, Mr. Fair Enough, is still one of the bravest people in journalism. At least he asked -- sort of. The rest of them pretend it's not really a story. But it is a story and it's not going away.

Tonight, James Rosen of Sinclair confirmed that the F.B.I. opened a criminal investigation into the Biden family, quote, "Hunter Biden and Associates" last year, apparently on suspicion of money laundering. That investigation is still underway tonight.

Less than a week before an election, we learn this. What else will we learn? Well, very little if the people in charge have their way. Our professional class has dismissed from day one the revelations about the Biden family as part of a Russian Intel operation.

There's no evidence for that no matter how many people repeat it. There never has been evidence there never will be evidence. It is totally untrue.

And yet the public is buying it anyway, we are sad to report.

Voters have been cut off from the facts which of course is the point of shutting down the free flow of information. When all the news receive is manufactured propaganda, you are apt to believe it and why wouldn't you believe it? You have no alternative.

Here are the effects. A new Harris survey out today conducted by longtime democratic pollster Mark Penn found that 51 percent of respondents, the majority believe "The New York Post" is disseminating, quote "Russian disinformation."

It's hard to imagine a scarier or more depressing result than that. You assume the "Today" show and "The View" and the rest of it is just harmless garbage, but it's not harmless. They are liars and their lies have consequences.

How do you maintain a Democratic system when reality itself has been banned? That's something we're going to have to figure out.

Glenn Greenwald has thought a lot about that question. Greenwald is a traditional leftist. He has committed above all to forcing transparency on people who hold power.

Years ago, Greenwald co-founded a news site called "The Intercept." Today, he resigned.

In a statement, Greenwald explained why, quote, "'The Intercepts' editors in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I removed all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New York based 'Intercept' editors involved in this effort at suppression." And he went on.

Greenwald's full statement is up tonight at an internet platform called Substack, which has not yet censored. No matter who you plan to vote for next week, we recommend that you read it. Glenn Greenwald joins us tonight.

Glenn, thanks so much for coming on. The idea of you resigning from a news organization you have found is stunning. Tell us why you did.

GLENN GREENWALD, RESIGNED CO-FOUNDER, THE INTERCEPT: Well, the news organization that a co-created was in 2013, at the height of the Snowden reporting. I left "The Guardian" to do it, because I was seeing that there were a lot of constraints imposed on journalism and their ability, our ability to report freely against governments, against power centers, against all kinds of institutions that wield authority.

And the premise of the news outlet, the core overarching premise, the reason it was created was to ensure that journalists would always have complete journalistic independence and editorial freedom, never have to pull punches journalistically or pay homage to pieties, because of the preferences, the partisan or ideological preferences of editors, or anybody else. That was the core founding idea and vision.

And then that is what makes it so amazing that at the very outlet that I co-created that was built on my reputation, my credibility, my journalistic accomplishments, then tried to intervene to censor me six days before an election, because I wanted to publish reporting and analysis about the evidence that raises serious questions about the conduct of the candidate that all of the editors out that outlet vehemently and enthusiastically support.

CARLSON: I would imagine that some of our viewers don't read "The Intercept." You live outside our country, which is one of the reasons I think you say what you think is true. Tell us what this portends for the future here in the United States.

GREENWALD: So "The Intercept" was actually for a while, a unique publication, and I think the vision I just described is one reason, but another was that it was intended above all else to be highly skeptical of the claims of Intelligence Agencies.

At the time when we were doing the reporting, the attacks were coming from the N.S.A., the C.I.A., and the Deep State against me and against my source, Edward Snowden and against the reporting. And we knew they were lying constantly and disseminating propaganda in a very powerful way. So we set out to say, we're going to investigate them. We are going to be skeptical of them. We are going to subject their assertions to critical scrutiny.

And I am so embarrassed and angered that the media outlet that I created along with two other excellent journalists to do that, the only article it published about all of these documents that have emerged about Joe Biden other than a column of mine, where I denounced Facebook and Twitter for censoring it was an article that made reference in passing to those documents, very snidely and dismissively to say that no one should pay attention to it, because it was Russian disinformation.

And it cited a letter from John Brennan, James Clapper, Mike Hayden, and the rest of the goons from the C.I.A. and the Intelligence Community asserting it and where still that letter said we have no evidence that Russia is involved in any of this. "The Intercept" omitted that phrase, simply cited that letter to try and encourage people to ignore this evidence on the grounds that Russia had manufactured it and that the evidence was fabricated, even though there's never been any evidence that that's been true and everything since has just proven it showing Russia was not involved in any of this. And nobody, certainly not even Joe Biden disputes that these e-mails and other text messages are completely real and authentic.

CARLSON: It's horrifying. So, what you're watching is agencies of the U.S.

government, turning their awesome and unconstrained powers against the American population.

GREENWALD: This is the real story of the last four years of the Trump administration, which is that for a long time, on the left, there was a healthy skepticism of the C.I.A.

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENWALD: There was a lot of anti-war activism in the Bush and Cheney years. That has all disappeared. And the reason it's disappeared is because the C.I.A. from the very first days of the Trump administration, even before he was inaugurated, devoted themselves to sabotaging the administration because Donald Trump questioned just a few of their pieties, and that can't be done in Washington and whoever does that must be destroyed.

And so the C.I.A. and the Deep State operatives became heroes of the liberal left. The people who support the Democratic Party, they are now in a full union with the neocons, the Bush-Cheney operatives, the C.I.A., Silicon Valley, and Wall Street. That is the union of power along with mainstream media outlets that are fully behind the Democratic Party which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them in the coming election.

And that is a very alarming proposition because they are authoritarian.

They believe in censorship, and they believe in suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.

CARLSON: For a U.S. government agency to try and disseminate propaganda within the United States, I mean, is there any clearer attack on democracy than that?

GREENWALD: So when we were doing the Snowden reporting, one of the things that brought -- induced Edward Snowden to come forward, someone who had worked in the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. was his anger and horror that the tools of the N.S.A. had been turned on the American people.

They are supposed to spy on foreign adversary governments, but they weren't. They were collecting our phone records. Same with the C.I.A. They are trained disinformation agents, that's what they do. They lie for a living.

But they are supposed to do that in other countries where we want to induce some sort of change, overthrow a government, topple a regime, whatever, quote-unquote, "interference," the U.S. government wants to do the way we are all so upset that Russia did in 2016. That's what they are trained to do.

The law though, and the obvious foundational prohibition on having a security state -- a national security state after World War II was it was never supposed to be turned domestically. They weren't supposed to be involved in our politics or disseminating propaganda.

Go turn on any of those other cable networks or pick up the op-ed page of any of the biggest newspapers and all you'll see are ex-members of the C.I.A., the D.O.J., the F.B.I., the N.S.A., telling Americans what they ought to believe.

They have infiltrated the means of communication domestically. They do it through leaks. They do it through clandestine operations and through lies.

They propagandize the American people in a way that is incredibly dangerous no matter what your ideology is.

CARLSON: I totally agree and I'm ashamed of the times that I made apologies for those agencies for this behavior. I really am.

You are telling the truth. That's really clear. Glenn Greenwald, congratulations on getting out of there. Good to see you.

GREENWALD: Thank you, Tucker. Appreciate it.

CARLSON: Mark Morgan is the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. On Wednesday, Twitter banned him -- hard to imagine a head of an agency being banned on social media, but it did, and it did so for engaging in quote, "hateful conduct."

So what did Mark Morgan do exactly? What did he write that was so dangerous, so vile that you should never be allowed to hear from him again?

Well, he wrote this, quote: "C.B.P. (Customs and Border Patrol) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to build new wall every day. Every mile help stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators and drugs from entering our country. It's a fact, walls work."

You might disagree with Mark Morgan on policy, maybe you don't like Donald Trump. But how is that false exactly? Ask the many other countries around the world that have built walls? Why do they do that? That's true.

So maybe there was some mistake. Maybe Twitter did this by accident. So Mark Morgan appealed his ban. And here's what Twitter wrote back to him, quote, "Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision. You will not be able to access Twitter." End quote.

In other words, we banned you on purpose. Truth is not a defense in this country. If we don't like what you're saying or its political effect, we will silence you.

So there wasn't inevitably news coverage of this. After 20 hours, Twitter reversed its decision claiming as Twitter always does, it was a big misunderstanding, quote, "After reviewing your account, it looks like we made an error." But they didn't make an error. They showed us who we know they are.

Mark Morgan is the Acting Commissioner, as we said, of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He is currently along the Rio Grande where a section of the wall is being built.

Mark, great to see you tonight.

MARK MORGAN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: You, too, Tucker. Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So, how does it feel to live in a country where someone who runs an agency expresses a fact-based opinion and finds himself censored?

MORGAN: I didn't understand. I didn't think I was living in America. I mean, what happened to me, Tucker, should scare every American citizen right now. They really should be listening to your show, and Tucker, let's be clear, this wasn't about that tweet. That was just a vehicle that they used.

What they were trying to censor was my message that I've been trying to get to the American people about how successful this President has been by providing us not only the tools like the wall system behind me, but also the network of policies that allowed us to effectively absolutely be successful in addressing the illegal migration crisis we had last year.

And I've been equally as vocal on the critics whose policies want to undo all of that, Tucker, and which actually would end up with absolutely open borders. We wouldn't just have another illegal immigration crisis that would have -- that would result in an illegal invasion. That is what they are trying to censor. That is the truth they are trying to keep from the American people.

CARLSON: Not to mention the humanitarian disaster. But isn't a discussion of public policy sacrosanct? Isn't that why we have a First Amendment so people can express their political views so we can openly debate the best course forward for the country? I mean, you were making a public policy argument, were you not?

MORGAN: That's exactly right, and I'll stand behind what my policy argument is based on facts, statistical analysis and historical trends. But that's exactly right.

This is exactly the type of debate we should be having right now. But Twitter did what they did on purpose. Let's make no mistake about it. With just a few days before the election, they knew what they were doing intentionally.

And now after they did it, after they got their hand caught in the cookie jar, it is disingenuous, saying they made an error. Though the only reason why they reversed it is because it went viral and got national attention.

That's the truth.

CARLSON: Right. If they are doing that to you, imagine what they're doing to people with less power.

Mark Morgan, thanks so much for joining us. I appreciate it.

MORGAN: You bet. Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: Last night, we told you part of a very weird story about how we sent documents, primary documents relevant to the Biden family from New York to Los Angeles and they went missing.

Well, today UPS returned the flash drive that disappeared in this new envelope, not in the original envelope. But what they didn't include was an explanation for what happened.

What have we learned about that? We've spent all day reporting on it. We will tell you straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Last night, we told you about a pretty weird experience we had this week. On Monday, one of our producers in New York overnighted a package to our executive producer, Justin Wells and to me in Los Angeles where we were there preparing for an interview with the former Biden family business partner called Tony Bobulinski.

Somewhere along the way, the contents of that package disappeared. Inside it was a flash drive that contained primary documents pertaining to the Biden family. We should tell you those documents did not come from Tony Bobulinski, and of course, we made a copy of those files before we sent them because we're careful.

We get a lot of documents from a lot of different sources all the time, but that's especially true in election years. Before we put them on the air, we have to determine first whether they are real -- these were real -- whether they are newsworthy, and whether it's legal to show them. We wanted to assess what we have and we're still assessing it.

But the point is, the package never arrived. Proprietary reporting on the Biden family, documents sent between journalists by supposedly secure overnight mail disappeared. They vanished on the same day we were conducting a heavily publicized interview based in part on documents from the Biden family.

So as you can imagine, we wanted to know what happened. Unfortunately, we still don't know what happened.

This morning UPS issued a press release announcing they had found our flash drive and then boasting about their Customer Service, quote, "UPS will always focus first on our customers and will never stop working to solve issues," which is fine. UPS is a reliable company. They rarely lose anything. We agree with that. That's why we use them in the first place.

And yet, they lost our Biden documents. How? UPS won't tell us how.

We spent a lot of the day talking to executives there. They claimed that the flash drive was found on Monday night by an hourly employee at the UPS building on 43rd Street in Manhattan. They suggested it might have been sitting on the floor there.

They couldn't prove that because remarkably, in a room where millions of high value packages are handled, there are no security cameras. That's what they told us.

UPS says the employee who found our flash drive simply dropped it on top of a supervisor's desk. Our documents sat there undiscovered for more than 24 hours until we announced on television that they were missing. That's their story.

Obviously, we had some questions about it. But UPS executives did not answer our questions, quote, "There are no more details. Security is returning it. Apologies again that we were unable to deliver it next day at the service level you requested."

Our exchanges went on like this for hours, and the main question we had never changed. How did our flash drive get separated from the package that we sent it in? That seemed like something worth knowing.

The envelope was securely sealed. We know that. Two witnesses saw our producer seal it and UPS does not dispute that. Was the package torn open accidentally by a machine? That seems unlikely. UPS says that almost never happens.

So we're left with the obvious explanation. Someone for some reason, opened our package and removed a flash drive containing documents that were damaging to the Biden family. We'd love to know who would do that and why.

It would be helpful to see the envelope itself, but UPS says we can't see it because they threw it away.

So here we are. We got our flash drive back today, and that's great. But we'd really like are some answers.

And speaking of answers. It occurs as we are reading this that we mentioned, the documents that we get from a lot of people and we've received an awful lot of documents recently about Hunter Biden. We haven't aired all, in fact, many we have not aired. The ones that are pertinent to his business career abroad favors he did on behalf of foreign clients with the help of his father: that seems relevant and it seems like news and we brought it to you and we are not ashamed of that.

But there are a lot of documents about Hunter Biden's personal life that we haven't brought to you and we're not going to and we should tell you why.

One is the obvious answer. He is not running for President, and so to the extent those documents pertain to his dad, of course.

But Hunter Biden is a fallen man at this point, and I should also say that I knew Hunter Biden fairly well. We lived near each other in Washington for quite some time. I knew his wife who is an absolutely outstanding person, a good person.

I never thought Hunter Biden was a bad person. I thought he had demons. But in the time I knew him, he kept them mostly under control. At some point he lost control of those demons and the world knows that now. He is now humiliated and alone.

It's probably too strong to say we feel sorry for Hunter Biden. But the point is, pounding on a man, jumping on, piling on, when he is already down is something that we don't want to be involved in.

So with that --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: If you're into identity politics, classifying people by their immutable characteristics, you'd think Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation of the Supreme Court would be good news for women. A lot of people see the world that way.

But surprisingly, we know this is a shock, feminists who pretend to represent women are angry. That's weird. They don't want anyone celebrating Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation. The Girl Scouts learned that the hard way today.

Lisa Boothe is a FOX News contributor, a senior fellow for the Independent Women's Voice and she has that story for us tonight. Hey, Lisa.

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Tucker. They sure did. So yesterday, the Girl Scouts sent out a tweet to congratulate Amy Coney Barrett for being the fifth woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. However, the backlash was swift, including from people like Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, so the Girl Scouts of course, caved.

They took the tweet down, and then they put out a statement saying that the tweet was viewed as partisan and political and they are a nonpartisan and nonpolitical organization. However, here's the kicker, Tucker, they have previously sent out support of Hillary Clinton in 2017, and even prior to that and they put out a tribute to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So as a former Girl Scout, the message is clear to young girls across the country and that message is, you don't count unless you're a liberal. And that's the same message that Hillary Clinton and her campaign sent in 2016 when Madeleine Albright said that there is a special place in hell for women that don't support Clinton. It's the same message that Joe Biden is sending to black voters that you aren't black if you don't support him.

So clearly, if you don't bow down to the altar of progressivism, you don't count to the left.

CARLSON: They clearly feel that way. But why do they have to wreck all of this country's institutions in the meantime? Like why wreck the Girl Scouts? It seems kind of a sweet group. What -- you know, you know what I mean? And why are people putting up with that?

BOOTHE: Well, and also, this is what I just think is so ironic, all of these people right now, when they point to Trump as the problem, but they say, why is America so divided? And then when you look at the NBA, you look at the Girl Scouts, everything is poison, but like everything is poisoned by progressive politics.

So that's why we're so divided, because you're essentially shutting out half of America from the equation. And that's the problem.

I mean, everything is tainted in America with politics and partisanship and we can't have anything nice anymore, and it has just ruined all the fun.

CARLSON: Well, politics does poison everything. It would be nice to have some nonpolitical, and some sincerely, nonpolitical institutions in this country, I think.

BOOTHE: I would like that.

CARLSON: Lisa Boothe with a smart point. Amen. Good to see you.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker. Good to see you.

CARLSON: Well, if you look at the polls, the President is trailing, more in some places than others, leading in other places. But there's one demographic he seems to be making kind of remarkable progress with.

We are not making this up. Some of the world's most famous rappers are now sort of aligned with Trump. Kanye West, sort of. He has met with the President many times since he supports some of his policies. Of course, Zuby, probably the best-known rapper in the entire United Kingdom.

But this evening, we add another rap artist to the list, the musician, Lil Wayne. In case you're not a fan, his real name is Dwayne Carter, tweeted about an hour ago this, "Just had a great meeting with Donald Trump.

Besides what he's done so far with Criminal Justice Reform, the Platinum Plan is going to give the community real ownership. We listened to what he had to say today and assured he will and can get it done."

Well, OK. What does that mean for the rest of us? What is the Platinum Plan that Lil Wayne is excited about?

Well, according to the White House, the Platinum Plan would address the issues on every voters' mind: things like making Juneteenth a Federal holiday and prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan, which some say still exists. Lil Wayne couldn't resist a plan like that. If there was ever a bellwether rapper, a one-man sign of how this election is going to go in the rap community, Lil Wayne is the guy. When you've lost Lil Wayne, you've lost Lil America.

Amazing. You can't make this year up. It's just too good.

Well, it's not just the presidency, of course on the line next week, it's the Senate, and so this is a topic we probably haven't spent enough time taking a look at. Tonight, what races should we be watching?

Dana Perino knows the answer to that and many other questions. She is the host, of course, "The Daily Briefing," co-host of "The Five." Happy to see you tonight.

Dana, what should we -- those of us who have been focused on one race, what are the others we should look at?

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, there are several, but we're going to -- we don't have enough time to get to all of them and be like, totally nerd out with me. But I think one thing to keep in mind overall, Tucker, is that there are very few ticket splitters left. That means that when people go to vote, they're voting straight Republican or straight Democrat. We used to get a little bit more ticket splitting in the past, but those days are kind of behind us.

But President Trump in this last week, obviously, he is working very hard to try to close this and that could really help make the difference between a Chuck Schumer or a Mitch McConnell-led senate next year.

I would start in Georgia. There are two Senate races in Georgia and Georgia has a system that if you don't get to 50 percent, you have to go to a runoff in January. Well, one of those races is definitely going to a run off. That is the Kelly Loeffler and Doug Collins race. They're not going to get to 50 percent.

The other one, though, is incumbent Senator David Perdue against Jon Ossoff. Now, this one is a lot closer. And I think that David Perdue, he has announced that he is not going to do the final debate with Jon Ossoff and instead will join President Trump at a rally on Sunday. That probably makes sense for him. He did not have a great debate the other night. And I also think that it shows that President Trump is not taking Georgia for granted. So Georgia is one that I would look at. I mean, the Republicans are a little nervous on that one.

Another one, Tucker, is Arizona. President Trump is going to be there on Tuesday. Trump and Biden both very much want to win Arizona. The senator there that's up for election is Martha McSally. That race is going to be tough, but she has a very good ground game probably better than any of the other Senate candidates. And she is bringing in Mike Lee and Ted Cruz to campaign for her this weekend.

However, that race -- however the President does there is probably how she will do there. So that one is one to watch.

The last one is North Carolina. Cal Cunningham is the Democrat. He is basically trying to take Thom Tillis out. Cal Cunningham is running on character, Tucker, and about a month ago, it surfaced and he has been having an extramarital affair and he has been trying to hide from the media and not talk about that. That now race is probably within one point. So North Carolina is another one to watch.

CARLSON: Interesting. And you think, finally that all three of the states will track the presidential results.

PERINO: I do think that they probably will. But I also want to mention one other one, just kind of a sleeper race that no one is really talking about.

But take a look at John James up in Michigan. He is running -- he is the Republican. He is a black man who has been running real hard against the incumbent, Gary Peters.

Gary Peters doesn't have a great -- you know, he just doesn't have a great campaign. John James has a pretty exciting campaign and President Trump when he was there this week really gave him a lift, so they are also on the ticket together.

CARLSON: John James is an impressive guy. I think we had him on once. Great to see you. Dana Perino, thank you.

PERINO: Yes. OK, see you next week.

CARLSON: See you. Well, we've shown you footage of violence and looting, rioting in Philadelphia this week. It's going on for days in a swing state that could have an effect on the presidential election. Has anything changed? An update tonight from a reporter who was attacked during the riots in Philadelphia. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Philadelphia is a major city on the eastern seaboard, one of the oldest in the country, our former capital. It's in the State of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania could be a swing state next week. All of that explains why the media are ignoring the rioting and the violence that have gone on in Philadelphia all week.

The police there were ordered to stand down is more than a thousand BLM activists -- Joe Biden voters and anarchists -- looted and destroyed businesses. A lot of people were shot, most of them are the looters.

Authorities only started to take action after they found a van full of explosives in the city. But Antifa and BLM did not stop attacking businesses. They also attacked the handful of reporters who tried to cover what was happening there.

As we showed you last night, they did it on camera.

[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]

CARLSON: Elijah Schaffer is the reporter you just saw being attacked on camera. He is with "The Blaze." He is reporting on the riots. He joins us tonight.

Elijah, thanks so much for coming on. I mean, what the hell? What country is -- where was that, by the way? Was that at a 7-Eleven?

ELIJAH SCHAFFER, THE BLAZE: No, that was actually a Five Below, so a discount store that sells $5.00 and under items.

CARLSON: Tell us the context for that.

SCHAFFER: Yes, so the police, I guarantee you they were told to stand down.

They lost control of several city blocks. The law enforcement failed to not only stop a first round, but a second, a third round of looting across four or five different entire shopping centers.

These were not just little strip malls from the middle of America. This was a Walmart Super Center strip mall. This is something massive that you would think they would have Security Police that would make this a priority. But no, the police just stood by as people went into store after store after store.

And what's crazy is, as they cleared one store, then the rioters and looters would jump to the next and they just couldn't keep up with them.

CARLSON: So you're a reporter, you're doing your job, you're committing journalism in the middle of a riot. You got assaulted for doing it. Did all the journalist groups that committed to protect journalists, did they rush to your defense? Pay your medical bills? Demand justice?

SCHAFFER: Yes, no actually that's quite the opposite. I think if you saw the video down and according to a police officer I spoke to from the Philadelphia Department. You know one of the looters there had a gun and he pulled it out on me. You can see him briefly as you do a play by play.

So they came at me with a firearm. They came at me with a mob. They started attacking me. They immediately punched me in the face.

And what was interesting was, they were specifically targeting white journalists as there were other great journalists that were there that were people of color, but they were leaving them alone. And you see the racial divide in this country where, you know, it's not only not safe to be a reporter telling the truth, but also the racial tensions have made things very difficult in this country with the narratives that are being played.

I mean, the man had a gun, and I'll say this, I was lucky enough, I owe it to God and I give praise to Jesus for saving my life in that moment, because just right outside a few hundred yards away, or a hundred yards or so, a 15-year-old girl was shot, multiple guns were fired.

And so they had guns, they were using guns. But luckily for me, all I received was about a dozen or so blows to the head and the body.

CARLSON: This is happening because people are allowing it to happen, people in charge, and they should be ashamed, deeply ashamed of themselves. So nobody came to your defense. There wasn't an editorial in "The New York Times" that a racist mob attacked you, threatened you with a firearm, beat you up in the middle of a major American city?

SCHAFFER: That's a good question. I know "The New York Times" talked about people that they call the rightwing glorifying or exaggerating or hyper focusing on violence, and I have to say to someone at "The New York Times"

who is sitting in their office that is, you know, writing in the comfortability of their flat.

You, writing and judging and characterizing, people look at my face. I mean, this is good. I'm a young man, I'm married. My wife is at home, and I'm just there capturing the news while they are not.

And they look at someone like myself and many other brave people who are putting their lives on the line, and they tell me, my face being beaten, a gun being pointed at my head, this is a second time, in just a few weeks that I have had a gun pulled out on me for reporting on these riots. You're telling me this is an exaggeration?

Well, you know, I'm taking blows for America and you're sitting there in your fancy desk and your nice salary telling us, real reporters, why we're wrong. And that's why I have a whole tell-all, you know, I have a show called "Slightly Offensive" that covers all of this. It is a Blaze TV show.

And tomorrow on YouTube, I'm going in the step by step because journalism is dead in this country and it's dangerous. And I know why the journalists don't go out there and do this. It's because it actually takes a risk. It requires sacrifice. And that's been lost today in our country, and it breaks my heart to realize that people are not getting truth. They are just getting opinion.

And the truth that's being set free out there by many brave and amazing independent and right-wing journalists, and even some independent and left- wing journalists, is being shut down by the corporate media companies, because they refuse to show to America what is really happening, and I think Americans deserve better this election season.

CARLSON: Yes, well, there are going to be consequences, too, because at some point, you know, people are going to take the law into their own hands. I don't want that. I don't think anyone does. But that's inevitable if they allow this kind of disorder to continue.

People are sick of it, and they have every reason to be. Elijah, I'm glad you're OK. Thanks for joining us.

SCHAFFER: Thank you.

CARLSON: So Twitter bans people for wrong think. How long before the Federal government does the same? Well, it is already happening in the U.K.

New hate crimes laws and this is real legislation. It could allow police to arrest citizens for having quote, "dangerous views in their own homes."

That's real. You should pay attention. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Andrew Cuomo is the Governor of New York. He is the son of Mario Cuomo, the brother of a CNN anchor. Like all of the Cuomos, his personal life and his public life often intersect. That just happened. FOX's Rick Leventhal has the details on that story for us right now. Hey, Rick.

RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: We're on the same page, Tucker, because New York's governor often talks about his love life, but when it comes to his daughter, it's apparently a hands off policy. "The New York Post" reports that a State Trooper assigned to the Governor's Security Detail got hot and heavy with 25-year-old Cara Kennedy Cuomo.

Trooper Dane Pfeiffer met the First Daughter while acting as bodyguard for her dad and the two began dating about seven months ago after she moved to the Governor's Mansion in Albany because of the coronavirus pandemic.

But "The New York Post" reports, Trooper Pfeiffer was soon transferred to a remote outpost near the Canadian border that was soon after the Governor found out about it. A law enforcement source told "The Post" that the transfer was due to quote, "the protocol of dignitary protection." But "The Post" also quotes the source saying the real reason is the governor didn't like whatever they were doing. And that is also an actual quote.

Apparently, there was no finding of misconduct Tucker, and the Trooper's record has not been tarnished. And here's the kicker, the Trooper bought a home near Albany and now has to commute 160 miles each way to work, something the cops call Highway Therapy, but whatever the Governor did or didn't do, didn't work because according to "The Post," the two are still dating -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Good. Thank you, Rick. For the record, we are rooting for the lovebirds. This show stands for love.

LEVENTHAL: Well, any father can understand maybe perhaps the Governor's actions or inactions.

CARLSON: If only we all had the power of choice, we go with you. That's pretty good. Great to see you, Rick. Thank you.

LEVENTHAL: You, too. Thanks.

CARLSON: Now, a more ominous story and it comes from the U.K., from Scotland, where a lot of trends that we wind up living with do begin.

In Scotland, an ominously called Hate Crime and Public Order Bill now under consideration would allow the authorities to arrest people for things they say in their own homes at the dinner table. So why is a public order bill focused on what people do in private? That's a good question. And what exactly is hate speech? Since everyone is against it, does hate speech including praising a border wall?

Well, according to legislation, it would. Under this legislation, you would not be allowed to, quote, "Stir up hatred of any kind." You could be arrested, if you did. In other words, disagreeing with people would be a crime if those people had power.

So how long before we face laws like this in the United States? It is possible. Pedro Gonzalez is an Assistant Editor at "American Greatness."

We're happy to have him on tonight. Peter, thanks for coming on.

So first, let's just define the terms because I think it's helpful to know what we're talking about, what is hate speech?

PEDRO GONZALEZ, ASSISTANT EDITOR, "AMERICAN GREATNESS": Hate speech is whatever the people prosecuting you for hate speech, say it is, and that sounds a little bit reductionist, but that's really what it comes down to.

It is an entirely subjective standard that these people think society ought to be organized around, and if you disagree, well, you're going to prison.

CARLSON: So if you allow the people in charge to define hate speech unchallenged, and we're allowing that here in this country, then what you're doing is handing them power over your mind, and crushing all dissent. Right?

GONZALEZ: Yes, that's exactly right. This is very dystopian. This is right out of Minority Report. It's basically pre-crime. We need to know what you're saying in the privacy of your home, so that those words cannot become actions. And, you know, we have to basically throw you in prison before you can act against some victim group.

Now, this stuff only goes one way. Of course, it's only ever directed at victim groups and it seems to always work against white people, whether it's in Europe or the United States. It has the exact opposite effect in my view. It is profoundly divisive because you're creating resentment in society for basically every group that's excluded from the protections of -

- because let's say, supposedly, the hate speech ideal is sincere. We want to protect everyone from hate speech.

CARLSON: Right?

GONZALEZ: It would be still wrong, but at least somewhat understandable.

But it's not like that. Only some groups deserve protections from speech, others do not. And I think it inches us closer towards a kind of war of all against all by inculcating this kind of resentment in people if it doesn't just crush them outright.

CARLSON: That is such a smart and subtle point. So what you're saying is, a law purportedly designed to suppress extremism causes it?

GONZALEZ: Yes, absolutely. When you tell people that because of their immutable characteristics, being born white, for example, or something like that that you need to be treated as a potential terrorist, and that we need to know what you're saying in the privacy of your home when you're talking to your friends and family. I mean that either that's either going to psychologically break you and make you kind of just a docile little automaton, which is, I think what these people would love on the one hand, or it's going to drive you towards extremism, which I think they would also love.

Because every time someone acts out like this, when they've been just driven mad, it feeds their narrative, like, see, here's proof, here's a justification for what we're doing, and now, we're going to ratchet it up a little bit more.

CARLSON: Well, why not just treat everyone the same and use the same standard for everyone? I mean, isn't that -- I thought that was the goal?

GONZALEZ: Right, well, that's what good people think, and that would make too much sense and it would be -- I think it would be too easy or we are not as contrived, I should say.

I think it's hard for decent people, for good people to look at this and see it for what it really is. Because again, on the surface, it's -- we're doing this to protect certain people -- but that's not really what it's about. It's really about power.

I think even calling it a double standard is mistaken. This is about enforcing a kind of hierarchy with the people that are enforcing and creating these laws, ostensibly to protect others, they are the ones obviously at the top of this. They are the ones that we need to give all the power to, so they can keep the rest of us safe.

CARLSON: That is a very, very smart and too rarely noted point. And I appreciate it. This causes extremism and it's really about power. That is exactly right.

Pedro Gonzalez, thanks for coming on tonight.

GONZALEZ: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: We're out of time tonight. We'll be back at 8:00 p.m., tomorrow as always, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.

We have great news for you. Up next from New York, our friend, Sean Hannity takes over our 9:00 p.m.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

URL

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/customs-and-border-protection-head-censored-by-twitter-over-wall-post