Democratic lawmaker harasses protesters outside Planned Parenthood

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” A democratic lawmaker in the city of Philadelphia berates and threatens teenage girls for praying outside of an abortion clinic. It's a remarkable story, you might not believe it actually happened had it not been caught on tape, but it was.

We want to begin tonight with Trace Gallagher who has details on exactly what happened -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: And Tucker the entire video of Pennsylvania Democratic lawmaker Brian Sims verbally harassing a woman protesting outside of Planned Parenthood was live streamed on Periscope for eight minutes. We're going to show you the theme of the full eight minutes which is Representative Sims maintaining that protesters or quote "racist, classless bigots who need and deserve our righteous opposition."

When the woman he is taping tells him to stop, he threatens to dox her, you know, publish her private information. Watch.


REP. BRIAN SIMS, D-PENN: Hi, everyone, Representative Brian Sims here and I'm once again out in front of Planned Parenthood of southeastern Pennsylvania. Today's protester now, she is an old white lady who is going to try to avoid showing you her face; an old white like telling people what's right to do with their bodies. Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame on you.

You know who this woman is, you can give me her address. We will protest out in front of her home. Let's go protest out in front of her house.

This is a racist act of judgment and you have no business being out here.

Everyone, this is what they deserve. This is what they need.


GALLAGHER: And when the pro-life organization Live Action posted the video and messaged Periscope saying the broadcast violates the company's rules of behavior, Sims responded saying quote, "Bring it on Bible Bullies," and "Planned Parenthood protesters are scum." Later, when Sims got blasted by state and national Republicans. He issued a half-hearted apology quoting again, "I know that two wrongs don't make a right especially when I'm on the frontlines of this Civil Rights battle. I can do better and I will do better for the women of Pennsylvania."

But it's not two wrongs not making a right, it's three. Sims also verbally abused protesters last month. Watch.


SIMS: Hi everyone, Representative Brian Sims here and I am outside the Planned Parenthood. A bunch of pseudo-Christian protesters who've been out here shaming young girls for being here.


SIMS: And so here's the deal. I've got $100.00 to anybody who identify any of these three.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So we're actually here just playing for babies.

SIMS: I'm going to donate to Planned Parenthood, so look --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we believe that women deserves more.

SIMS: A bunch of white people standing up in front of a Planned Parenthood just shaming people. There's nothing Christian about what you're doing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm really sorry.


GALLAGHER: Some Pennsylvania lawmakers are calling for a criminal investigation of Sims' behavior -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Amazing. Trace Gallagher, thanks very much for that. Ashley Garecht is the mother you just saw in that video and she joins us tonight from Philadelphia. Ashley, thanks very much for coming on. What -- you were there in the video with three girls, I think two of them are yours. How old are they?

ASHLEY GARECHT, CONFRONTED BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE IN VIDEO: So my daughters are 15 and 13 and my daughter's friend who is with us is also 15.

CARLSON: Fifteen and thirteen. What do they think of this?

GARECHT: It was -- it was a shocking experience. What is not seen in that video was our first interaction with Mr. Sims. He approached us about 20 minutes before that, came in, I would say, he came in hot. He came in yelling at us and really was yelling very directly at the girls, very specifically at the girls.

So I moved myself in between him and the girls and asked him, you know, "Please talk to me. Let's have a conversation, the two of us as two adults." But he continued to yell at the girls and then eventually he left, and about 10 minutes later is when he came back videotaping us.

So after our first altercation with him, I went and talked to my girls and told them, you know, "I'm really sorry this happened. I'm really proud of you guys for being here." It was Holy Thursday. This was something we wanted to do as a prayerful active service as we prepared for the Easter tritium, which was going to begin that night with Holy Thursday mass.

And I told him, I was -- you know, it's sometimes it's hard to do the right thing, but I was really proud of them. But sadly, ironically, the two older girls looked at me and said, "Mom, that was nothing compared to what people were screaming at us at the March for Life in January." They went to the March for Life with their high school.

So I guess I was grateful that they had had some experience before. They were prepared for it. And because they were able to kind of stay calm that helped my younger daughter stay calm. And, you know, we prayed for him then. I said, we'll continue to pray for him and just try to do the right thing.

And so then he came back again, videotaping us. It was -- we weren't as shocked because we just had the interaction with him about 10 minutes prior. So yes, but it was -- my adrenaline was up as a mom, my adrenaline was running.

CARLSON: Well in it -- I mean, he seems to threaten you. He offers money for your identities.

GARECHT: Yes, yes, he did.

CARLSON: Did you feel threatened?

GARECHT: I was -- I was concerned for my girls. You can see me speaking in that video. I was genuinely trying to enter into just a dialogue with him to try to bring the situation, calm it down a little bit and say to him on film, "We're really here just praying for these women and babies. We're not looking for an altercation." I never come to clinics looking for a fight. It's always just with peaceful prayerful intent.

And so yes, I was concerned that he said multiple times that he wanted the identities of my daughters. We were at that point already done. We'd finished our prayers we were leaving. And so when I realized he was not going to enter into any kind of productive dialogue, I thought, we'll just continue our exit and we'll just leave.

CARLSON: It's probably a good call.

GARECHT: It's never thought -- yes, nothing -- I didn't ever think more would really come of it.

CARLSON: So he attacks you in that video and attacks others in the video we showed before for their skin color.


CARLSON: What was that about? Was there -- were we missing part of that? Is that out of nowhere? What does that mean?

GARECHT: I have no idea what it means, you would have to ask him. We -- I mean, my daughter and I are Caucasian. But we -- we're there to pray for all women, we certainly don't look at the color of their skin as they come or go. My daughter's friend is not Caucasian. That's very evident in her video and in the pictures. And she said several times to him over the course of our interactions, "I'm not white, sir." I know it's in the video at least once.

So fortunately, we kind of got a laugh out of that, because what he was saying literally just didn't make sense. It didn't make sense.

CARLSON: And it's a racist attack. It's bizarre. Has the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania or Philadelphia apologize to you or has NARAL said anything? Has anybody --

GARECHT: I have not been contacted.

CARLSON: By anybody?

GARECHT: No. I haven't been contacted by anyone in the Democratic Party about this situation at all.

CARLSON: He called you racist, but as I understand it, you're arguing for fewer abortions among African-American women. He is arguing for more, but you're the racist?


CARLSON: Does it make sense?

GARECHT: I mean, you would have -- no, it doesn't make sense to me. You'd have to ask Mr. Sims what his logic is behind that because I think more babies --

CARLSON: We tried. We tried, but he won't come on tonight, but you were gracious enough to come.


CARLSON: And we're glad that you did. Thanks very much.

GARECHT: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, at this point we should remind you that despite what you just saw, and despite all appearances, Brian Sims is not a mentally-ill panhandler or a vagrant with a drug problem screaming at strangers, it looks like it. But he is not. He is an elected lawmaker. He represents central Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He is a star by the way, in the Democratic Party.

He has hung out with Pete Buttigieg. He has got a robust social media following. You can check. In 2014, NARAL, that's the abortion clinic lobby gave him a top award. Here's a picture of him with NARAL President, Ilyse Hogue.

The American Bar Association also gave Sims an award for something or other. In 2013, when she became ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy asked him to deliver the keynote at her swearing in. In other words, in the modern Democratic Party, Brian Sims is a totally and completely mainstream figure. He is also as you just saw a frothing extremist, who is willing to threaten teenagers and attack them for their skin color, simply because they disagree with him.

Sims calls other people racist because they want fewer black women to abort their children. The whole thing is totally deranged. But it's entirely okay with Democrats.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party has not even commented on what Brian Sims did. Nobody at CNN is denouncing him. In fact, CNN's website doesn't even have a story about this as of this hour. Why would it? He is their kind of politician, so it's not news. In fact, it never even happened. Remember that the next time they call you immoral? It won't be long.

Dave Rubin host "The Rubin Report" on YouTube and he joins us now. So Dave, almost gets sick of these double standard stories where people in the left are allowed to do things that people on the right would be indicted for doing, but this is so over the top that you have to kind of wonder is there a limit really?

DAVE RUBIN, HOST, THE RUBIN REPORT: Tucker, I truly wish at this point that there was almost anything that could shock me coming out of the progressive movement, but the answer is no.

I mean, look there was a bigot and a racist and a bully in those videos, but it was the guy that was holding the camera. This is an elected official who is trying to offer money to docs -- that means release personal information about people that potentially I assume live in his district. I mean, it's beyond just what this guy is doing, the bullying that he is doing in the name of being so self-righteous.

It's also the fact that, as you noted, he used Periscope, which is a Twitter video app to broadcast that video. Now, you're not allowed to docs people, according to the Twitter Terms of Service. So it's not just that the Democrats won't say anything, and it's not just that CNN is not going to run the story. It's also that the tech companies, and this goes to so much of what we've been talking about over the last few months, it's that the tech companies aren't going to ban him.

Meanwhile, they'll ban conservatives. Just this afternoon, David Horowitz -- David Horowitz, who is a "New York Times" bestselling author who has been on my show, and probably on your show, and is a good decent guy, he was banned just this afternoon or he was suspended just this afternoon, I should say.

But the point is the double standards that we're dealing with, not only when it comes to how the media deals with these people, but also the tech companies. This is really, really becoming the issue of 2019, and I think there's almost there's almost no low enough for these guys, because they never get called out on it except on some places on YouTube, like on my show, and in some places on cable news like yours.

CARLSON: But screaming at teenage girls? Attacking them for their skin color?

RUBIN: And thinking he is the good guy.

CARLSON: Like -- and then calling other people racist? Like the whole thing is so demented that it's just hard to believe it is real.

RUBIN: Well, Tucker, try to imagine let's just flip the script for a second. Let's pretend he was a conservative or a Republican or anyone that remotely leaned right or with anything other than a full on leftist progressive and he was doing the exact same thing. The media would be having a field day.

I mean, the 20 Democratic candidates would be claiming this is proof that America is an evil white race, it is a patriarchal country.

CARLSON: Exactly. Exactly.

RUBIN: I mean, we've played -- where all the people who were blaming all the Covington kids? Where is where is the outrage when it is right in your face and it is done by an elected official, but they -- unfortunately, they know they will not be called out in any mainstream outlet. And the disconnect here, I mean, this is this is my real fear is that all of us are going to start living in these little siphoned places where we're just going to figure out what our reality is, and it won't have a bearing on what real reality is.

But this is where, man, where are the good Democrats? Where are the real liberals who will just step up and say, YOU know what, we will not tolerate this. That was absolutely wrong." And just say, "We're not going to do this anymore," but they won't do it because for whatever reason, and I have some theories on this. They're consistently led by their worst actors, because they think it gives them the moral high ground and that's a really depressing race to the bottom.

CARLSON: But it's a very deep point that you just made. They're led by their worst actors. They're not all bad, but they're too afraid to stand up to the people who are and that power does really gets you to where we are today. Dave Rubin. Thank you, very smart, as always.

RUBIN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, for two years, President Trump was ridiculed for pointing out that maybe the Obama administration spied on him. Well, it turns out the Obama administration did spy on him. That's not speculation, its fact. Are the people who has claimed it was a lie ready to apologize? That's next.

And breaking news involving Trump's tax returns. The story has just broken seconds ago, we'll have more of what we know and what it means, straight ahead.


CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you. "The New York Times" has released new information on 10 years of the President's tax returns 1985 to 1994. These aren't the actual returns. They are Xerox copies of tax information. They say they got it legally. It's not clear where they got it. Some speculation that it came from the President's personal attorney, Michael Cohn, we don't know that.

Apparently, this information shows that the President was reporting millions of dollars of losses some years in the 80s and 90s and that he may have taken those losses to avoid paying much in taxes. "The Times" is not suggesting that crimes were committed here, which is interesting, because the implication was the tax returns would reveal some kind of felony. If they do "The Times" is not reporting that.

By the way, there was clearly some kind of collusion between "The New York Times" and CNN, which broke this story just moments ago, the second "The Times" released, we will have much more on it as we digest the facts as they are.

But first, early in his presidency, Donald Trump made this surprising claim that the Obama administration spied on him during the 2016 race. That produced an immediate backlash, but the President did not back off. Instead, he repeated that allegation. In fact, to us, including to us right here on the show.


CARLSON: On March 4th, 6:35 in the morning, you're down in Florida and you tweet, the former administration wiretapped me, surveilled me at Trump Tower during the last election. How did you find out? You said, I just found out. How did you learn that?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Well, I've been reading about things. I read in -- I think, it was January 20th, a "New York Times" article where they were talking about wiretapping. There was an article I think they use that exact term.

If you take a look at some of the things written about wiretapping and eavesdropping -- and don't forget, when I say wiretap, those words, were in quotes. That really covers because wiretapping is pretty old fashioned stuff. But that really covers surveillance and many other things.


CARLSON: "Surveillance and many other things." Well, the next day, the political director over at CNN, David Chalian, like more of a political activist, but mocked the President for saying this and called him a liar. Watch this.


DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: He can no longer justify not retracting those tweets, apologizing for accusing Barack Obama of a crime without any evidence whatsoever. I just think the White House is in such a pickle on this. They've been twisting themselves in a pretzel. The President looked like a third grader in that interview yesterday trying to squirm out a lie.

It's just not okay for the President of the United States to make this kind of completely unsubstantiated claim.


CARLSON: "It's just not okay for them to criticize Barack Obama," says David Chalian, CNN political director. He wasn't the only one by the way. The Senate Intel Committee released a statement suggesting Trump was lying, too. Keep in mind, the Chairman is a Republican from North Carolina. And then every bland, clueless person in Washington in consensus-ville here in DC lined up to denounce the big orange liar. Watch.


LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: President Trump has a new favorite word and every time he uses it, he is lying. And that is the word "spy."

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: His baseless claims of spies.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the President of the United States telling people don't believe what this Federal government is doing. And that has very, very dangerous consequences.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: The notion that somehow the FBI implanted/planted someone inside the campaign to spy on the campaign is just not true.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There is absolutely no evidence there was a spy.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: He wants you to believe that his campaign was spied on and it's one of the worst things that we've ever seen from government.


CARLSON: "One of the worst things we've ever seen," not the spying, people talking about the spine. Okay. Once again, it turned out the Trump was absolutely right and the people reflexively calling him a liar were totally wrong and dumb about it and self-righteous as they always are.

The FBI did spy in Trump's campaign, they sent an undercover operative to speak with George Papadopoulos under false pretenses in order to secretly gather information. That is called spying.

Can we expect an apology from these people soon? Or even would lose his job for pushing bogus information as fact? No. Instead, they're just going to redefine what spying means. They've already redefined what sex means -- what it means to be a man and a woman. So like, not a big deal to redefine something as simple as spying or surveillance or monitoring or whatever. Very frustrating to watch. But what happens next is the question.

Well, for that, we go to Kevin Brock, he is a former Assistant Director of Intelligence with the FBI. He predicts that Jim Comey could be in trouble for the way he handled the 2016 Trump investigation. Mr. Brock joins us tonight. Thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So when you say that the former FBI Director could face consequences for this, what do you mean?

BROCK: Well, I think we get kind of hung up on this term of spying and that the FBI spy. My concern is, did the FBI break rules under James Comey and Andrew McCabe as they were leading in a counterintelligence investigation out of the seventh floor of the Director's Office of the FBI headquarters? Unprecedented. These investigations are normally carried out by veteran counterintelligence agents out in the field.


BROCK: But here, they've created a bubble or a cadre of investigators to investigate whether or not there's some collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. And they started running sources, confidential human sources against members of the campaign and we know now that they approached the FISA Court and got an electronic surveillance warrant to surveil Carter Page.

Electronic surveillance is much more powerful than using a euphemism like spying.

CARLSON: Of course.

BROCK: I refer it as the nuclear option of intelligence collection. It is highly invasive. It is more than wiretapping somebody or listening to their phone conversations. The court orders you to monitor everything about that person to plant microphones, cameras, whatever it takes to capture conversations.

CARLSON: So why wouldn't -- here is the part I've never understood and no one has ever explained. If they really worried that people connected to the campaign were colluding with Russia, why wouldn't they have told Donald Trump, the candidate about it?

BROCK: And that is a key, key question because veteran counterintelligence agents are puzzled about this as well. There's no doubt that the FBI should and could investigate Russian activities in this country targeting our citizens and targeting our government. But normally, when Russia intersects with a U.S. person or U.S. citizen, the FBI goes to that person and asks and warns them about what Russia is up to and asks for their cooperation so that we can obtain more intelligence about what the Russians are up to.


BROCK: So it's -- why they decided from the outset to make members of the Trump campaign a target of a counterintelligence investigation is still a puzzle because the predication to do so is literally not there, according to the Mueller report.

CARLSON: So just very quickly, having done this your whole life, you think that's very odd, just to be totally clear about it.

BROCK: It's extremely odd, it's unusual. It's not the normal way a counterintelligence investigation is pursued. And so that that then begs the question that I think William Barr is getting at and that is, let's go back to the beginning and find out how this all got started.

CARLSON: Nicely put. Kevin Brock, thank you very much for that.

BROCK: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Really interesting. There may be even more spying we don't know about yet. This morning, George Papadopoulos tweeted that he may have been monitored as early as the end of 2015. Papadopoulos has a new book about his experience. It is titled "Deep State Target." George Papadopoulos joins us tonight. George, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So you suggested morning that you believe that you were being monitored even before you connected formally with the Trump campaign. Is that right?

PAPADOPOULOS Absolutely. So I, in November of 2015, upon -- it was same month that I was joining the Ben Carson campaign because people forget that I was on Carson's campaign before I joined Trump's campaign. I was living in London and I had been approached by high level State Department officials and even the CIA in London, and they invited me to the U.S. Embassy to meet with me and to basically probe me and to get to know why I'm joining the Ben Carson campaign, and what the Ben Carson campaign was really all about.

And the man who invited me was David Kovatch, who still works at the U.S. Embassy in London, and I think he's directing the Energy Department over there, so clearly by November 2015 -- I don't think that Trump's campaign was the only one that was under surveillance, quite frankly. I think many of the Republican candidates probably had some sort of illicit surveillance upon their own campaigns, because it wasn't just Donald Trump, who was running for the presidency against Clinton and vying to overthrow --

CARLSON: So I know there's a long story, okay, but as succinctly as you can, why in the world would our Intelligence Agencies have an interest in which campaign you were joining?

PAPADOPOULOS: You know what I think Bob Mueller might have dropped a really important piece of information that many reporters overlooked, and that was that they stated that there were wiretaps and surveillance warrants issued on me for my ties to the Israeli government.

Now, for everybody watching this program, Israel is America's top ally in the world, and Bob Mueller stated in his reports that there were wiretaps and likely possibly I've been told a FISA warrant issued on me for my connections -- legitimate connections to the Israeli government.

So I think that what this whole story about myself and others, of course has nothing to do with Russia. It probably has something to do with my ties to other governments and they basically threw me in the middle of this Russia conspiracy to cover that up. There's no other explanation for how I got involved in this.

CARLSON: And by other governments, just to be clear, you mean Israel?

PAPADOPOULOS: I mean, Israel, and I'm just quoting Bob Mueller himself. And it was very strange that he admitted that. I even tweeted it just today and the language is all there. So when I was being approached by these assets, U.S. Intelligence, British Intelligence, and Australian Intelligence from 2015 through 2016, they were always asking me two disparate questions.

One, who are your personal contacts? And two, what Trump is up to with Russia? So there was clearly monitoring and I think that's what William Barr is going to get to the bottom why these assets were targeting me and others.

CARLSON: It's a looking glass world, and you're right in the middle of it, George Papadopoulos. Thank you for that. Good to talk to you.

PAPADOPOULOS: It's incredible.

CARLSON: It is incredible.

PAPADOPOULOS: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Facebook is one of the world's most powerful companies. Now, it is using its power to police what you and I, and the rest of us say online. How should we respond to that? That's next. Also, we have new information tonight about nearly a decade of Donald Trump's tax transcripts, we're assessing that and we'll have more for you after the break.


CARLSON: This is a Fox News Alert. As we just told you "The New York Times" released tonight new information on the decade of the President's taxes. Trace Gallagher has been taking a close look at what they put out there and joins us with an update on it -- Trace.

GALLAGHER: Hi, Tucker. We're scanning the article. It's important to note off the top, the tax records do not include information or the tax years at the center of the President's escalating battle with Congress. There are no allegations of crimes or financial misdeeds. Instead, the records go back to the late 80s, early 90s -- years the President has already admitted we're at the very least tumultuous.

For example, "The Times" is reporting that by the time Donald Trump's "Art of the Deal" book hit shelves in 1987, he was already in deep financial distress, meaning tens of millions in debt and during the decade from 1985 to 1994, "The Time" says Trump's losses totaled just over $1.1 billion. Remember, this is investors and loan money primarily.

A few points there: During that time Mr. Trump bought Eastern Airlines Shuttle for $365 million, it never turned a profit and he was spending upwards of $7 million a month to keep it up and flying and his Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino, it opened in 1990, with more than $800 million in debt and to keep the Taj floating, Trump's businesses pulled money from other casinos, placing them in the red as well.

Now, "The Times" is reporting because of all the losses that Trump paid, no Federal taxes in eight of the 10 years. Charles J. Harder who is the lawyer for the President told "The Times" on Saturday that the information was demonstrably false, and the statements about the tax returns 30 years ago are highly inaccurate saying and I'm quoting here, "IRS transcripts, particularly before the days of electronic filing are notoriously inaccurate and would not be able to provide a reasonable picture of any taxpayer's returns."

We should also point out "The Times" did not obtain the actual tax returns. They got the information from someone who was unidentified who had access to the tax information. We're still scanning, Tucker. If we come up with more stuff, we will bring it to you.

CARLSON: Okay, wait until they get yours and mine. Trace Gallagher, good to see you. Thanks.

We put an awful lot of trust -- we put complete trust really into the tech companies. There's very evidence that they deserve that trust. Just today, a tech company founder told the Senate that Silicon Valley is deceiving Americans and cannot possibly protect their data. Fox News Headlines 24/7 anchor Brett Larson joins us tonight with more on that story -- Brett.

BRETT LARSON, HEADLINES 24/7 ANCHOR: Hey, Tucker. Yes, it does seem like every day, we're getting a little gems of information about what exactly technology companies know about us. But for the most part, we continue to be in the dark about what we know about them when it comes to our privacy. We're not quite ready to wave the white flag, but in a Senate Banking Committee hearing today, you might be tempted.

Pinboard founder, Maciej Cegowski started with an analogy to the implications of another big scientific breakthrough.


MACIEJ CEGOWSKI, FOUNDER, PINBOARD: I worry that we're in the same position as the nuclear industry was in the early 50s. We have an amazing new technology with real potential. But we are not being honest about the risks and our incapacity to store a wasteful and harmful byproduct.


LARSON: In this case, though, it's not radioactive waste coming out of the south end of Silicon Valley, it's your personal data and a lot of it.


CEG?OWSKI: The pattern that I've seen in my industry is one of deceit. We're not honest about what we collect.


LARSON: And worse, Cegowski notes, there aren't any rules for all of this. And those end-user license agreements we all mindlessly click through, well, they do that for a reason, because they're complicated on purpose, as noted by Louisiana Senator Kennedy.


SEN. JOHN NEELY KENNEDY, R-LA: Problem number one, it seems to me is the User Agreement. Why don't we just require social media companies to write User Agreements in plain English? Would that help with the problem?

CEGOWSKI: I think that that User Agreement would just say, we are taking all your data, yes or no.


LARSON: And Tucker, this is always the pivot point when we have these discussions about our data, it's in the User Agreement, what we do. We've explained this in our FAQ. Listen, we get it. We're the products when we use these free services, but why not do what other companies do when there's a free level of service? Tell users what you're tracking to provide the service. Don't like it, upgrade to their next tier and pay the money to be not tracked.

CARLSON: I don't think that's an option yet.


CARLSON: Hopefully it will be.

LARSON; You still have an option. You still have an option. You still can log on to Facebook and say, "Stop tracking me."

CARLSON: Yes, that may change. Brett Larson, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

LARSON: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, we've wound up in a place where the biggest tech companies in this country have virtually unlimited power to silence or amplify what is said online and now led by Facebook, they're using that power to control the political conversation.

Facebook isn't simply banning individuals and groups that it says are dangerous. They're also prohibiting users from holding certain opinions. Facebook says you can share for example, InfoWars videos, but only if you condemn them. If you hold a different opinion, they will censor you.

Nadine Strossen is the former president of the ACLU. One of the -- really, the champions of civil liberties left on the left and so we're glad to have her on tonight. Nadine, thank you very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So you and I who are old grew up in a world where we really believe the government was the preeminent threat to speech and also we wake up in a world where big companies seem to have more power than the Federal government, and they really are in control of the public conversation. What's your reaction to this?

STROSSEN: This is a very concerning problem, Tucker, because the social media companies as the Supreme Court itself said in a unanimous decision, have more power to control public discussion, not only conversations among our friends in a personal sense, but conversations about public policy issues, conversations with political candidates, and we, the people, who have sovereign power under our Constitution, can't responsibly exercise it, if we are subject to arbitrary and discriminatory censorship by the powerful social media companies.

Now the so-called standard of dangerous speech is so inherently subjective. There is essentially unfettered discretion on the part of these companies to pick and choose which ideas they agree with and think are not dangerous, versus the ones they disagree with and think are dangerous regardless of your ideological views, you should be very alarmed about that much power residing in these private companies.

Now, Tucker as a civil libertarian, I tend to be skeptical about government power, but at least the government has some accountability to we, the people.

CARLSON: Exactly.

STROSSEN: Whereas these private sector companies are interested in and legally they have a responsibility to their shareholders, to their business interests, their corporate bottom line. So it's like the worst of both worlds. They have all the power that traditionally belonged only to governments, and yet they're not subject to the limits that are on governments, including the Constitution itself.

Many people do not understand that the First Amendment free speech guarantee only applies to the government. We literally have no constitutional free speech rights with respect to Facebook or other powerful social media companies.

CARLSON: I don't think anybody could have put it as crisply and well as they just did.

STROSSEN: Thank you.

CARLSON: And I hope that you are heard by people you agree with, by the way, on the left, as well as people I agree with on the right, because it's important.

STROSSEN: And we have to point that out, you know that today's company might consider people on the far right to be dangerous, but the next company might come along and think that Planned Parenthood or the ACLU is dangerous.

CARLSON: Yes, exactly. And on this show, I'm not bragging, we will defend their right to say things we disagree with because we mean it. Nadine, thank you.

STROSSEN: As I have defended your rights. Thank you so much, Tucker.

CARLSON: And I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

STROSSEN: Me, too. Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, for a few moments, Mayor Buttigieg tried to be a moderate Democrat. Now as his profile rises, it doesn't seem so moderate anymore. What happened to old Buttigieg, we will tell you after the break.


CARLSON: Well, for weeks, the media have been promoting a new religious movement, the cult of the Buttigieg. He is a different kind of Democrat, they've told us. He is nicer, moderate, more open to compromise, even a little traditional. He is religious, though not in a way anyone can explain or that actually means anything. He is perfect.

Unfortunately, being likable is no longer an asset in the Democratic Party, certainly not in the primary. Two years from now, a nice candidate will be remembered as a nice loser that I top that at 10 percent. Buttigieg doesn't want that, he wants to win. So now, St. Pete of South Bend, is turning to the dark side.

It all began when he denounced the Vice President for the crime of once saying nice things about him. Buttigieg said that Pence needed to reevaluate his relationship with God, because he is a theologian now.

Now this morning in the "Today Show," Buttigieg explained that God is definitely against his political enemies.


PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND.,  MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's also important that we stop seeing religion used as a kind of cudgel as if God belonged to a political party. And if He did, I can't imagine it would be the one that sent the current President into the White House.


CARLSON: So religion should not be used as a political cudgel. And by the way, God hates Republicans. He told me that. Unbelievable. How about America? Well, America is not even much better Buttigieg says. He says the country that gave him limitless opportunities and made him a Rhodes Scholar was never actually a great place.


BUTTIGIEG: Communities like the one where I grew up, which is an industrial Midwestern city that is exactly the kind of place that our current President targeted with a message saying that we could find greatness by just stopping the clock and turning it back and making America great again. When that passed, that he is promising to return us to, it was never as great as advertised.


CARLSON: He's got the McKinsey consultant tie on. It's all pretty dark really. So is the press reconsidering its love affair with Buttigieg now that he's no longer a sunny optimist? No, not at all. They love him more than ever.

Over on MSNBC, a guy called Donny Deutsch somehow got his own show on the weekends. This Saturday, he used the first episode of his show to suck up to St. Pete in a way that's frankly almost pornographic. As you watch this, yourself how little self-respect you'd have to have to grovel like this before a politician. Watch.


DONNY DEUTSCH, MSNBC HOST: Your resume -- and a resume is not a brand, its attributes -- but a Harvard grad, a vet, traditional in a nontraditional way, religious, Rhodes scholar, you bring out hope in the better angels and all of us. Actually, when I read about you, I'm like I'm not doing so good in my life, I can do better.


CARLSON: When I look at you, I hate myself. We could go on, but it feels too dirty. Instead we're joined by New York journalist Chadwick Moore who can assess this a little more coolly than we can. Can you imagine? I mean, I don't care who it is. Can you imagine looking at a politician and sucking up like that? Wouldn't you hate yourself?

CHADWICK MOORE, JOURNALIST: You have -- you must hate yourself, you have to.


MOORE: You know, they have to really cover for the fact that if there were no identity politics involved, no one that would know who this guy is nor should they know who this guy is. All you have to do -- you know, suppose that during his time in South Bend, he had really made an effort to fix the massive poverty problem, the huge crime epidemic, and the plummeting housing costs, especially in the west side of town, which is traditionally the black neighborhood. It's a horrible place.

If he had fixed those things that would have been remarkable, of course, that would have made him a Democrat, because that's not how Democrats run cities. But that would be something to talk about. So they have to run with this. They're trying to create all of these things out of nowhere.

I seem to recall another aloof intellectual, young Midwestern Democrat politician describing a magic wand and things of that nature. I believe he was President for a while and things didn't go so well.

Mayor Pete would be is -- you know, for him -- he is 37 years old. He came over an age after NAFTA. He came in age after free trade and NAFTA, carpet bombed the region he is from, even South Bend. Bayer Pharmaceuticals, for example had been around South Bend since I believe the 1800s by various names, just finally close their final factory there. They've been hammering jobs, thousands of jobs since NAFTA, since 1994.

This is what people mean when they say Make America Great Again. It's mainly an economic argument, but these elites, these out of touch liberals and journalists want to pretend that's some kind of a race cry when it couldn't be further from the truth.

CARLSON: So smart. You're absolutely right. It is, in fact, an argument primarily about economics -- about trade, and immigration, the effect of immigration on wages, and they immediately turn into the dumbest shallowest kind of like skin color question, why?

MOORE: What else do they have? They have nothing else because the people who chant Make America Great Again are the people whose lives they ruined, whose communities they ruined. That's the Democrats and the Republicans, the establishment. They went all in for NAFTA. The media, they went all in for NAFTA. These are the people -- these are Pete's constituents, these are Pete's neighbors. These are people from the area where Pete is from. And he's been protected his whole life being a wealthy privileged son of a communist professor, that he doesn't understand this. That's very surprising.

And they have no other argument because otherwise they would have to acknowledge the fact of how they completely ruined so many communities in this country.

CARLSON: That is so smart. And when you say it that clearly, it becomes really obvious. Chadwick Moore, thank you for that.

MOORE: Thanks. Always a pleasure.

CARLSON: Censorship is not simply a problem online, it's everywhere. Now an art gallery is censoring part of its collection following complaints from visitors. That's next.


CARLSON: You know the drill when a controversial speaker shows up on campus, students riot. When the left turns against historical figures, their statues are covered up or torn down. Classic books are edited or removed from schools completely if they have words that offend someone. Why should visual art be spared from the mob? Well, it's not.

In the U.K., an art gallery was displaying a work that mixes an image of a naked woman with the Islamic declaration of faith. Visitors complained. Now the gallery has covered that work with a sheet.

Andrew Doyle created Titania McGrath Twitter account, wrote the book "Woke," probably the best book of the last decade and he joins us tonight we are proud to say. Mr. Doyle, thank you very much for coming on tonight.

ANDREW DOYLE, AUTHOR: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: When you see this happening in an art museum and factor out why it happened, but the idea of a museum covering up a work of art. What's your reaction?

DOYLE: I find it very depressing. I think anyone who is in the creative industry will find that a depressing thing. Of course, the art gallery, the Saatchi Gallery, are claiming they're not censoring. This is not censorship, they're just covering it up so no one can see it, which strikes me as not much of a difference to be honest.

CARLSON: Are they really saying that?

DOYLE: We should say that -- they are, yes. And actually, this came about because the artist himself made the claim that this would be a respectful solution to the complaints, use the actual phrase, a respectful solution. But there is no problem here, you know, people are going to get offended by all sorts of things. And it's really about we shouldn't be capitulating to people when they're offended.

I think it's perfectly possible that this artist has actually done this as a kind of publicity stunt, and if so, well, then well done, because we're talking about it, right? But the very fact that he can do that would suggest that we are living in this culture, where people know that if they complain about something, if they take that moral high ground, people will appease them, and they will censor things and they'll shut people down, and that's the problem is that we've got this sort of culture of offense now. We've got to deal with that.

I don't think any belief whether it is political, religious, whatever should be ring fenced from ridicule or criticism or anything like that. I mean, no one likes to be offended. No one likes to get upset or to be mocked. But that's the price you pay for living in a free society.

CARLSON: Well, and that's in fact, the price you pay for art and science and any kind of advancement in the human condition. Very quickly. Where are the artists? Why aren't artists raising their voices against this moment of censorship?

DOYLE: Yes, this is a real issue actually. The big problem with artists and art generally is not censorship as such, as in it's not the galleries or the states who are censoring their work. It's self-censorship.

So there's something about the climate that we've created, which means that artists are now worrying and second guessing everything they do, everything they produce. They're starting to think, "Will this damage my career? Will this cause protest?" Particularly in the age of social media, "Will it be a Twitter mob on my front step?" You know, that's the issue now.

So this is really damaging for art generally, because no great advancements have been made in the artistic world without risk taking and artists and comedians and performers and musicians whatever, have to be free to feel that they can take risks, even to get it wrong because otherwise, nothing good will come of that. Nothing good will be created.

CARLSON: And that's what you're seeing now. This is a dark age and you are one of the few bright spots, I would say in this dark age. Andrew Doyle, thank you very much.

DOYLE: Thanks a lot.

CARLSON: Good to see you tonight. Will be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. DVR if you know how that works. Meantime, good night from Washington. Taking up the baton from New York City, ladies and gentlemen, Sean Hannity.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.