This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 11, 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." No matter what you may have heard or no matter what you might be hoping, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is not a fringe proposal anymore.
More than 70 Democrats in the House have come out in support of it, 12 members of the U.S. Senate, four Democrats currently running for President. They all support the plan.
So depending upon what happens in this coming election, parts of this proposal could easily become law. The question is, what is in it?
On Friday, we interviewed one of Ocasio-Cortez's advisers, he was Cornell Law Professor, Robert Hockett, and we asked about a fact sheet we had read from Ocasio-Cortez's office and it called for sending tax dollars to people who are quote, "unwilling to work."
So we asked Hockett about it. He said that line never appeared. It wasn't real. It was a right-wing hoax. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The "unwilling to work" thing was in her backgrounder, that has been absolutely confirmed.
ROBERT HOCKETT, PROFESSOR, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL: No, no. Definitely not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well, the clip you just saw went viral over the weekend, "Huff Po" wrote a story about how the show had been duped and then spanked by someone delivering the facts. Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez herself agreed on Twitter.
It turns out, they were all lying. Ocasio-Cortez especially, she knew and we can prove it. More on that in just a minute.
But first, President Trump will make the case for a border wall and rally at El Paso, Texas tonight. In Washington, talks to avert a second government shutdown have fallen apart tonight over immigration. The administration wants to increase ICE's capacity to hold illegal immigrants. Democrats want to place keep a cap on how many ICE can detain so that more illegal immigrants without criminal records can be released into the United States.
Mark Morgan knows a lot about this subject. He ran Customs and Border Patrol under the previous President, President Obama and he joins us now. Mr. Morgan, thank you very much for coming on. So Democrats are demanding that ICE cap bed space in the interior of the country, not the borders, in the center of the country to 16,500 a year. If that were to happen, what would it mean?
MARK MORGAN, FORMER CHIEF OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL: So what that is that is a significant step towards really abolishing ICE via the checkbook. And there's actually two elements to their plan. They want to actually reduce overall bed space for ICE and then the cap interior enforcement.
So basically, we already know that if you're a child, or a family unit, you're going to be allowed in this country. That's catch release 1.0. This will virtually mean catch and release 2.0. Commonsense, right? As bed space goes down, illegal immigration goes up. Border Patrol turns everybody we apprehend over to ICE. As the bed space goes down that means, they're going to have to release more individuals into the interior of the United States. That is catch and release 2.0.
The other thing real quick what that does is, from a common sense standpoint, that means that people here, that are here illegally, and have committed an additional crime and/or charge of an additional crime, ICE will be forced to release them.
CARLSON: So the argument you hear from Democrats is these people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. The overwhelming majority of people arrested by ICE have done nothing wrong other than adding to our economy and that it is bigoted to arrest them. What do the numbers tell us about it?
MORGAN: Completely false, and that's the question. So right now, ICE alone, last year, arrested, I think the number is well in excess of 120,000 individuals that are here illegally for an additional crime. Right now, the 45,000 that ICE has detained right now, 70% to 80% of them, almost, I think about 85% of them have been convicted and/or charged with another crime besides entering illegally, so that's a complete false narrative.
CARLSON: I think the numbers are 88%. So that would mean, just to be completely clear, it's a math question, if you capped bed space at the threshold they're calling for, by definition, you'd be releasing criminals into the population.
MORGAN: That's correct. Right now, if you do the math, immediately if this bill pass, they would have to probably release about 8,000 individuals -- criminal aliens -- and it's not the crime of illegally entering, this is crimes in addition to that.
CARLSON: So what percentage of those show back up for their hearings would you say?
CARLSON: The number is 3%. We checked and I think those people wandered in by accident, so basically, you're suspending the rule of law for a large group of people who have been charged with or convicted of crimes?
MORGAN: That's right. You're reducing the bed space. Illegal immigration is increased, and numbers will show that and so more people are going to be released into the interior of the United States and they are telling ICE they can't enforce that and actually go and get them. What we have created here is a sanctuary country, that's where we're headed.
CARLSON: So is there any sheriff's organization, Border Patrol organization, law enforcement organization that supports this idea?
MORGAN: I don't know of one.
CARLSON: So where did this come from? And what's the point of it? I mean, what would be the goal of this?
MORGAN: The goal, and this has been tough for me to get to, and I don't say this with ease, but this is pure identity politics. I can draw no other conclusion from this last-minute stunt. That it is -- it's insane, Tucker, so it has got to be driven by identity politics and I really think the ultimate goal is open borders.
CARLSON: It seems that way. Mr. Morgan, thank you very much for that.
MORGAN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So here is a question, if it is wise to cap the number of illegal immigration our government can detain, why not cap the number of American citizens we can detain as well? There are over two million of them now in prison. Univision anchor, Enrique Acevedo supports this plan and he joins us to explain.
Enrique, thanks very much for coming on. So let me just start with that question, which seems like the obvious one, if we are saying that it's somehow immoral to hold more than a certain number of illegal aliens, why is it not immoral to hold more than a certain number of American citizens?
ENRIQUE ACEVEDO, ANCHOR, UNIVISION: Well, Tucker everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. I just heard your last guest say that illegal immigration is on the rise here in the U.S. which is completely wrong, and not according to my opinion. To the own administration's numbers, if you look at CBP and what it has reported since 2000 and we have a dramatic decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants coming into the U.S., so yes --
CARLSON: How many illegal aliens are in the country now? Do you know?
ACEVEDO: Let's just have -- there are different estimates. You say to me --
CARLSON: Right, so anywhere between 12 million and 22 million.
ACEVEDO: I say, 11 million to 12 million which is the number we have had - - we were working for the last 50 years.
CARLSON: But hold on, before we even progress into the details, just them thematically, why, if it's a good idea to cap the number of illegals we can hold, and 88% as you just heard DHS number have been charged with a different crime, okay, not the entering, why shouldn't we do the same for American citizens? Why are we letting the illegals live by a more lenient standard?
ACEVEDO: I didn't say it was a good idea. This is what I think though about those who are proposing this idea. I think it's important to realize what ICE does and what it doesn't. It is not Border Patrol. It is not in charge of border enforcement. ICE's mission is to fight dangerous criminal in the U.S. like gangs -- MS-13 and many other gangs. Their job is not to go to court houses, for example, like they have been going to in New York, a 1,700%increase since 2016 to prosecute and basically go after families that are trying to legalize their stay here in the U.S. through the courts through a legal system, so that's what ICE --
CARLSON: I'm sorry. I don't think -- you started by saying that nobody is entitled to his own facts. Hold on. I asked you two questions, you didn't answer either one, but I want to press you on this fact which is that 88% of the illegal aliens that ICE is currently holding have been charged with or convicted of a separate criminal act, not entering the country illegally but a crime.
ACEVEDO: Like DUIs for example, the vast majority of them or driving without a license because most of the states in the U.S. don't give ...
CARLSON: I don't know -- by the way, I don't know if that's true. But -- is that okay?
AVECEDO: ... driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. That's a fact.
CARLSON: So DUI, so we're not going to punish people for DUI now because it's racist? I mean, what are you saying this.
ACEVEDO: It's not a violent offense, it's more of a traffic sanction.
CARLSON: Okay, but hold on. I think all of us would agree that -- are you arguing that DUI is not a serious offense? People die from DUI all the time.
ACEVEDO: No, no. I said, driving without a license.
CARLSON: No, not driving without a license.
ACEVEDO: But that's that majority of those crimes.
CARLSON: You just said it was overwhelming -- no, no ...
ACEVEDO: You can look at the statistics.
CARLSON: Hold on, that's not true. Hold on, it's not true. Address the fact that the overwhelming majority of people held by ICE right now have been convicted of or charged with an actual crime as you would say.
ACEVEDO: But is it a violent crime?
CARLSON: Why would we let them out?
ACEVEDO: Would you characterize those as violent and dangerous crimes or a threat or menace to our society?
CARLSON: I would characterize DUI as -- hold on, yes. I would characterize DUI as a very serious crime. It is very common as you know for people here illegally to be arrested for it, but you're saying, we shouldn't hold them, we hold Americans, but we shouldn't hold illegals because why? It's a simple question.
ACEVEDO: I'm not saying we should not hold illegals like you're saying, Tucker. What I am saying is, ICE should go back and focus on its original mission, go after dangerous criminals, not going after families, after immigrants like I said that are going to a court and are going through a process which is trying to legalize their stay in this country. You've asked people to do it the right and when they show up at court, you have ICE agents dressed as civilians going after them. That is increasing in New York.
CARLSON: Okay, well, I am sure that ICE has done things you don't like, but you're ignoring -- hold on, you're ignoring that if this were to become the law, if the bed space were interior ICE detainees were captured 16,500 -- that we would, over time, release thousands of people, convicted of or charged with real crimes. Why would we want that?
ACEVEDO: Your guest said that the vast majority of them never show up to their court dates. Do you ever actual number?
CARLSON: Yes, I have the number actually, I'm glad you asked. Ninety seven percent do not show up for their court date, 97%.
ACEVEDO: That's not true. Just last week, ICE was making ...
CARLSON: Not true, according to what?
ACEVEDO: ... in San Francisco, there were line outside of court houses of people who had a court date and they came in and they said, "I am showing for my court," and there was no appointment, no record of that.
CARLSON: I'm giving you the freshest number we have, which is 97% according to the interior and because there are illegals, it's like, it's immoral to be upset about it. But I am an American, and I am upset about it and I think that's fair. Enrique, thank you.
ACEVEDO: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, the Democrats who are writing the Green New Deal don't seem to know what's in it. We pointed out what they said is in it and they called us liars. But who was lying? We'll have the tape after the break.
CARLSON: A couple of days ago, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the most basic mistake you can make in Washington, she said what she really thinks. In a fact sheet describing her proposed Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez's office wrote that her plan would send Federal money to people who were quote, "unwilling to work."
Now that line drew some notice and some criticism, though in fact, it's not entirely shocking, sending tax dollars to people who don't feel like working has been a central tenet of the Democratic program for a long time. But there's a difference between supporting something and stating it clearly out loud and that was Ocasio-Cortez's sin. She said it out loud. "Shhh" said her superiors in the party, and Democrats immediately began pretending that in never happened.
Fast forward to last Friday. We interviewed a man called Robert Hockett. He has been advising Ocasio-Cortez on the Green New Deal. Now, Hockett is a professor who occupies an endowed chair at Cornell Law School. Even if you're not overly impressed by credentials, and we're definitely not, it seemed like a reasonable job description. He would be a legitimate person. He is an Ivy League Law Professor. He must be sort of serious. Not the kind of guy who would tell obvious lies on live television. That was our thinking anyway.
So we asked him, why is the U.S. government thinking about or why members of Congress are pushing taxpayers to send money to people who don't want to work and here is his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOCKETT: We never would, right, and AOC has never said anything like that, right? I think you're referring to some sort of a document that some -- I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating.
No, no. I am not embarrassed, it's just not us.
CARLSON: That was in the document --
HOCKETT: It's not embarrassing, no, Tucker. No, no, we're not embarrassed by the what's not ours.
CARLSON: ... paying people who are unwilling to work? There's nothing out there saying that?
HOCKETT: No, Tucker. We are not embarrassed by what's not ours, okay. We want to clarify that it is not ours.
CARLSON: Well, we are going to get to the bottom of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: And we did get to the bottom of it. So in case that exchange confused you, the Professor's position was simple. Ocasio-Cortez never suggested the government ought to pay people who won't work. That's just absurd. Another right-wing lie.
Well, various progressive news organization with air quotes picked up that interview, "See what they said? Fox News got fact checked." Even Ocasio- Cortez herself suggested as much on Twitter. The only problem, Professor Hockett was lying, so was Ocasio-Cortez. She has indeed called for subsidies to those quote, "unwilling to work." We did not make that up. We didn't make any of it up, including the part about banning fossil fuels in 12 years.
Ocasio-Cortez said that, too. Let's go back to another exchange we had with the Professor. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOCKETT: There is nothing about getting rid of anything.
CARLSON: Well, I have --
HOCKETT: It is about expanding many options, right, I mean, there are many, many things we want to be able to do in addition to what we already do, so where is the airplane disappearance coming from? I am not really clear on where that originated.
CARLSON: So what you're saying is we're not getting rid of fossil fuels actually, even though you just said we were because --
HOCKETT: Yes, no, no, we're rendering them obsolete for most purposes that they're used for now, right.
CARLSON: But air travel is a huge source, it's a huge source.
HOCKETT: Hence the word "most."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well, Ocasio-Cortez's staff has since removed the fact sheet entirely from her office website and they are telling the rest of us to read the actual resolution. It's like a scavenger hunt. Okay, so we did that. We read the actual resolution. And it turns out, there's no substantive difference between the two.
Ocasio-Cortez's resolution, the official one, which is right here, guarantees economic security to quote, "all the people of the United States," end quote, whether they want to work or not. It also calls for free education, and rebuilding quote, "all existing buildings in the country," and a lot of other things.
Now, under normal circumstances, sober people would laugh at a proposal like this. It doesn't even make sense. They would also, by the way, question Ocasio-Cortez's fitness for moral judgment of any kind. Keep in mind that she won her primary in New York with an openly racist campaign, openly racist. She attacked her opponent for the color of his skin. That's the definition of a racist campaign. But whatever.
Ocasio-Cortez has three million Twitter followers now. Democrats have to take her seriously. Watch poor Chris Murphy, the Senator from Connecticut over the weekend pretend these ideas make imminent sense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS MURPHY, U.S. SENATOR, CONNECTICUT, DEMOCRAT: I think it's absolutely realistic and I frankly think we need to set our sights high. I think there are a lot of people who said that it wasn't realistic for the United States to get a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s when President Kennedy initially outlined that goal, but we did it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Realistic. Is that really the word? Rashad Richey is a liberal radio host and former political director for the Democratic Party in the State of Georgie and he joins us tonight.
Mr. Richey, thanks very much for coming on.
RASHAD RICHEY, FORMER POLITICAL DIRECTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: So why - so it's pretty clear, it's not pretty clear, it's absolutely clear that Ocasio-Cortez's office said this that the Green New Deal out to provide for people, whether or not they are willing to work. Why do they lie about it? Why not just say, this is what we believe?
RICHEY: I think a mistake happened here, Tucker, and you're not telling the full story. The full story, according to reports from her office and others is that this was a published document. The Professor was wrong. It was not a fraudulent document. But it was a published document that should have never been out there and they retracted the document immediately.
Also, major presidential candidates, they have not endorsed that provision in the document. They've said, basically, "Hey, we didn't know about that part. We're not endorsing that part."
RICHEY: And this is the Green New Deal, not the Green New Build. This is not a policy. This is more so of a conversation starter, not a build or a law proposal.
CARLSON: Okay, well, I mean, part of what you said, I think it's absolutely right. It is a conversation starter, which, by the way, I appreciate. I mean, I like conversations, even if they're far out. I don't know why they're trying to run from the conversation, which is what they're doing. So here's what the new version that her office has referred us to and said, you've got to pay attention to this.
It says, "That it will provide all the people of the United States with high quality healthcare, adequate housing, economic security, clean water ..." I mean, there's no -- there's no caveat in there that you would have to work for what you get. People who are unwilling to work will get the same. So they're endorsing the same idea. So I'm missing it here. What we said was right.
RICHEY: Yes, I don't see that, Tucker. Yes, first of all, I would tell them or challenge them to define economic security. I don't take the terminology economic security to mean that if you don't work, you still get paid the same salary of somebody who does work.
I would say, first off, let's define what economic security actually means because you may have a different standard definition than I would have.
CARLSON: Well, sure.
RICHEY: So that term needs to be explored.
CARLSON: That's fair. Okay, but it's money from the government. You're getting money from the government even if we don't feel like working and I think even for example, under the original New Deal, FDR who no one thought was a right-winger, you didn't get anything for nothing. The Civilian Conservation Corps, people worked for the money they got. WPA -- same thing.
I mean, FDR believed that there ought to be a direct relationship between work and reward and that was decadent and destructive to give people stuff for nothing. But Ocasio-Cortez does not think that.
RICHEY: Yes, this is a small provision or a small part of this proposal. I personally, believe if you don't work you don't eat. Now, we're talking about folks that are able, folks that have the ability, the folks that have the means to do so. So I agree with you on that point. So I concede to that.
But at the same time, Tucker, the terminology economic security must be defined before we could probably debate it.
CARLSON: Okay. So let me ask you this. They're touchy on the question of eliminating fossil fuels, because that is radical, and obviously the energy sector is the strongest part of our economy. It is 10 million jobs at least. And if you got rid of that overnight, it would be really disruptive. It would make the country poor actually. So here's is Ocasio- Cortez, quote, "There's no debate as to whether we should continue producing fossil fuels." There's no debate we should not, she said. That's pretty clear. She said that in October. Why are they running from that?
RICHEY: They shouldn't run from it. I think it's a good conversation to have. Here's the bottom line, Tucker. Fossil fuels burned creates carbon. Carbon is bad. Carbon is bad for the atmosphere. It is bad for the water and it's bad for our breathing. Every single scientists on this planet would agree.
So any conversation that suggests an implementation to lower actual carbon emissions is a good conversation to have. There is no mistaking that she - - Congresswoman Cortez -- represents a more progressive wing of the Democratic Movement, but it is a legitimate conversation when we're discussing environment.
CARLSON: Well, let me just say, I am sorry at the last word, but I don't think it's progressive to tell me I can't have cars and airplanes. It sounds like medieval actually.
RICHEY: I don't think that's what -- that's not what's being said here, Tucker, that you can't have cars and airplanes.
CARLSON: I think that's what it means.
RICHEY: Understand, it is a conversation starter.
CARLSON: All right. Thank you. Rashad, I appreciate it.
RICHEY: Thank you.
CARLSON: So what exactly is in the Green New Deal? Or do we have to pass it to find out. Mark Steyn has been paying close attention to this. He joins us tonight. Mark, what do you make -- what do you make of the Green New Deal?
MARK STEYN, BESTSELLING AUTHOR: Well, actually, just to pick up on Rashad's point, if you accept that carbon is bad, and I don't particularly -- there's a contradiction between the Green New Deal and open borders, which the Democrats are also committed to because the average person in the Western world has a carbon footprint 30 times the size of everyone of somebody in, say, Somalia.
So instead of moving everyone from Somalia to Minnesota, we would be better off actually moving everyone in Minnesota to Somalia, and I certainly hope that is in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's next draft of her Green New Deal.
CARLSON: I just want to point out to our viewers what you're watching on the screen, or if you can see it, Mark, is the President arriving in El Paso, Texas for an event scheduled I think at the bottom of this hour. So -- but that's -- I mean, you just point out Mark Steyn, a really, I think important contradiction in this whole world view which is, you're not going to have a cleaner country with open borders, not because immigrants are inherently dirty, I'm not saying that, but because overcrowded countries are dirty countries. Period. Always.
STEYN: Well and they don't think about the way these things piece together. Now, the disappointment for me in what happened with your guest on Friday night for example, is that I disagree with Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, but she's 29 years old and I thought she was sincere and idealistic and honest.
She's been in Washington for two weeks. I think she took her seat just a couple of weeks ago and she's already become one of these sleazy operators whose mind is finding, you know, a fanning out and denying reality and saying that she didn't misspoke, it's just she deplores this campaign spreading false started -- she's becoming in effect the Governor of Virginia withdrawing things he's actually has said and done.
CARLSON: That's totally true.
STEYN: The fact is, this draft sat on her website for two days, I believe until I think it was NPO who were first report it. Obviously, it's a first draft when she says she's in favor of remaking every building in America. That's the first draft. The second draft says that while every building in America is being remodeled, we are all going to be moved into tent cities in Californian towns to live in while she's remodeling all our homes.
I'm disappointed that she's not sufficiently idealistic to stand by the plain utopian nonsense of her original proposal.
CARLSON: I think it's a really fair point, and I would agree -- I would respect that, she should be more direct. That's right. People give them credit for that. No, that's totally fair.
STEYN: Right, right. Absolutely.
CARLSON: Mark Steyn, thank you very much.
STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.
CARLSON: Journalists are lining up to protect Jeff Bezos -- Bezos Bear -- as some have called them, founder of Amazon.com, owner of "The Washington Post." He is being defended by the fourth estate, fascinating. Why? We will tell you after the break.
Plus the President speaks in El Paso, Texas any moment. We're monitoring the rally. Obviously, we'll go to it when he begins.
CARLSON: The Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam is fighting to save his political career after that famous Klan photo and blackface were discovered on his med school yearbook page. The Governor is saying that he will atone for what he has done by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates essays and doing network television interviews. Fox News' Trace Gallagher has been following the story since the beginning -- Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker, because Governor Northam has refused to resign, he is now trying to save his political career by embarking on an apology tour, but now the tour itself is generating controversy because on CBS, this morning with Gayle King, Northam said this. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RALPH NORTHAM, GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, DEMOCRAT: What has been a difficult weekend and you know, if you look at Virginia's history, we're now at the 400-year anniversary, just 90 miles from here in 1619, the first indentured servants from Africa landed on our shores in Old Point Comfort, what we call now Fort Monroe and while --
GAYLE KING, HOST, CBS: Also known as slavery.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Yes, the Virginia Republican Party quickly criticized the Governor's comments quote, "Is the Governor so tone deaf on racism that he can't even use the word slave? He has no moral authority to lead any healing process." Social media was also quick to pounce quote, "Words like indentured servant is how people try to erase the pain and horrors of slavery. It is how they think it is harmless to wear blackface. Ralph Northam is done."
But others defended the Governor, quote, "Folks, learn your damn history. Northam is correct. First black Africans brought to Virginia in 1619 were indentured servants. Gayle King is wrong."
And while historians debate the degree of accuracy, most agree that Northam's statement wasn't totally wrong or offensive. Governor Northam is also acknowledged on CBS that he thought about resigning, but now believes he can take his state to the next level. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NORTHAM: Right now, Virginia need someone that can heal. There's no better person to do that than a doctor. Virginia also need someone who is strong, who has empathy, who has courage and who has a moral compass. And that's why I'm not going anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: But Northam said if the sexual assault allegations against his lieutenant governor Justin Fairfax are true, Fairfax would have no option but to resign -- Tucker.
CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, appreciate it. Thank you. So imagine you're successful public figure. At the age of 55, you hit a severe midlife crisis, so severe that you suddenly decide to leave your wife and four kids for another woman. Then you get so carried away with your new mistress that you text her pictures of your genitals, and then those pictures wind up in the hands of a tabloid. Whoa, nightmare.
What happens next? Do the media attack you as a pathetic old creep? Maybe even a harasser? Do they #MeToo you? Or do journalists instead rally to your defense? Well, that all depends on how rich you are. Luckily for him, Jeff Bezos is very rich, the richest man in the world in fact, and when you're as rich as Jeff Bezos is, there is no such thing as bad press coverage. There is only slobbering.
Bob Woodward sucked up first. Woodward is the most famous journalist in America. He once took down a President with the unsparing toughness of his reporting. According to "Axios," here's what Bob Woodward wrote to Jeff Bezos after Bezos' crotch shots became public quote, "Jeff, proud of you for stepping forward. It's such a difficult situation. Very gutsy and definitely right. This period reminds me of 1972 to 1974, perhaps, Watergate Redux. So many assaults on constitutional government common sense and privacy. Let's hope we all get it right -- aggressive, but careful and fair. Cheers and best, Bob Woodward."
So that's the new Woodward standard. If you criticize Jeff Bezos you're like Richard Nixon during Watergate, an assaulter of constitutional government, you're un-American, in fact.
Max Boot agrees with that. Boot is another of Bezos' employees at the "Washington Post" and of course a florid toady. Boot wrote a column defending Bezos' nude selfies. The headline was, "Jeff Bezos stands his ground." Stands his ground like Joshua Chamberlain at the Battle of Little Round Top. May our grandchildren revere his memory and speak his name.
But for pure anxiousness, no one went further than "New York Times" technology columnist, Kara Swisher. Swisher has been sucking up to billionaires since before the guys who run Uber were even born. If flattering the powerful was an Olympic event, Kara Swisher would be Mark Spitz.
According to Swisher, Bezos' behavior since he left his wife and kids for his mistress has been quote, "admirable" a quote, "heroic moment" from quote, "the most important tech visionary since Steve Jobs." It goes on like this pornographically for an entire column.
At one point -- this is the best -- Swisher frets that Jeff Bezos' privacy has been violated by the "National Enquirer" which by the way is true, but tellingly, she didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether America's privacy has been violated by Jeff Bezos. And that seemed like a worthwhile question to ask.
Glenn Greenwald has been thinking about it a lot recently, and he joins us tonight. So that was the first thing -- I'm going to say clearly, I totally disapprove of what the "National Enquirer" did to Jeff Bezos. I do. But it does raise the question, what is Amazon doing to the rest of us?
GLENN GREENWALD, CO-FOUNDING EDITOR, THE INTERCEPT: Yes, I wish we were a society that left consensual adult sex to the people engaged in them and had no interest in them and let that be between them and their spouses or whoever is in their personal lives. But that's all the reason why we should value privacy.
I spent a lot of years as a journalist defending that value. And one of the companies that poses the greatest threat to it is Amazon. It's a major source of Jeff Bezos' wealth and power. And, you know, we think of Amazon through their branding that it's a place we buy our books from, or download or Kindle from, in fact, their main business is working with the security state agencies to build huge apparatuses of the surveillance state that invade our privacy in ways far more severe than what the "National Enquirer" just did to Jeff Bezos. And that's a part of the story that's so ironic beyond the fact that Amazon is notorious for abusing its workers something that all the people that you just named wouldn't ordinarily find quite upsetting.
CARLSON: That's so intro -- I don't know enough about this, so will you quickly summarize -- a big part of their business is not selling toothpaste, which is what I use it for, but helping the national security state gather information on citizens.
GREENWALD: Right, before he bought the "Washington Post," Amazon had a $500 million contract with the CIA to provide Cloud services. They are now using artificial intelligence to build a product called Recognition that's designed to use facial recognition software to identify by the thousands. So wherever you go, you can be identified by a software that the government is using, that Amazon is building.
They're using security systems around people's perimeters of their houses, and then making it available to huge numbers of people so they can see who is coming and leaving your house, who is inside of your house. The list goes on and on of the products that Amazon is building and profiting from way more than books that are direct threats to our privacy, that are critical components of the surveillance state.
CARLSON: Really quick, why do I never read that story?
GREENWALD: It's because Silicon Valley is more powerful in Washington than Wall Street is. It's because Silicon Valley now controls huge parts of the media and the last thing people in the media want to do is cover Silicon Valley critically so the power of Google and Facebook and Amazon is probably one of the most important stories in the world and also one of the most under covered because of how powerful they are in the media world.
CARLSON: Glenn Greenwald, thank you for that. Appreciate it. Well, the Democratic presidential candidate accused of abusing her staff, a Hollywood actor caught on camera berating his personal driver -- all people cringe compassion barking at those beneath them. What's that about? We will explain.
CARLSON: Minnesota Senator, Amy Klobuchar announced her candidacy for President at a rally over the weekend. The media gushed over the prospect of that of course. One group that seemed a little less excited about a Klobuchar presidency is her former staff. They describe Amy Klobuchar as a cruel and terrible boss.
Former staffers told reporters that Klobuchar publicly berates employees in group e-mails and uses epithets to describe them. Some former staffer said Klobuchar forced them to perform bizarre personal duties like washing her dishes or picking up or dry cleaning. That's not in the job description.
Klobuchar's reputation from mistreating staff is so widespread that at least three perspective campaign managers refuse to work for her. When ABC News confronted Klobuchar with these allegations, she essentially admitted it. She said quote, "I am tough. I push people. That's true."
So let's see. Here, you have a person who routinely claims to care far more than you do about other people, and yet the people she's actually in charge of, she mistreats. Sound like anyone you know? It does. Just about every progressive activist you've ever met. They're all that way. They love humanity, but they despise human beings.
Robert De Niro is like that. Just last week, he was caught berating his driver outside a courthouse in Manhattan. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DE NIRO, AMERICAN ACTOR: Where are you? Where the [bleep] are you man? You're supposed to be right in front where you dropped us. I don't care if they chased you away, you don't [bleep]. What's the matter with you? Where are you? You're not in front. You're not where you dropped us off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: I mean, everybody has a bad day, but let's be honest, that's pretty strange behavior for someone whose entire political philosophy is built on the idea that he's a decent person and you're not.
But also as we know, it is very common, if not universal on the activist left. Progressives volunteer less, they give less money to charity. They leave smaller tips and as we've seen, they tend to yell at the people who work for them. Maybe that's why they're constantly lecturing you about your moral deficiencies. It's projection.
I've got a news alert for you. At the Capitol Hill tonight, the shutdown negotiator say they have an agreement on Capitol Hill that will avoid shutting down the Federal government once more.
Senator Shelby -- I'm just getting this right in my ear -- as I'm speaking, Senator Shelby of Alabama has said they have an agreement he believes the President will sign. That's all we know at this hour, 8:46 p.m. But of course, we will report the news the second it reaches us.
President delivering a speech tonight at the border in El Paso. That's the backdrop in front of which these negotiations are unfolding. We bring you the latest when we we come back.
CARLSON: This is a Fox News alert. You're looking at live pictures from El Paso, Texas running the board. The President will take the stage there at any moment. Immigration expected to be major focus of his speech tonight.
In the State of the Union last week, the President suggested there ought to be more legal immigration to this country. That's a shift from his campaign speeches. He said after, we need more workers and immigration is a way to get them. Oren Cass studies this question. He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, author of the book "The Once and Future Worker," and a very smart man. He joins us tonight. Does the United States need more guest workers?
OREN CASS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: No, I don't think we do.
CARLSON: Everyone in Washington thinks we do.
CASS: Well the Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists for corporations think we do because it benefits them if they don't have to find a way to make do with the workers we already have here.
CARLSON: So what are the net -- we know -- we hear a lot about the positive effects of guest workers. What are the negative effects on this country?
CASS: Well, the negative effect is that it relieves pressure on the labor market and on employers to figure out a way to build businesses that actually make do with the workers we have here. And it says, you know, if you have an idea for a business, and it's one that you'd rather just bring someone else in for, it doesn't have to be a citizen, we'll bring someone in, you use them and you send them away. And we're not going to worry about what happens to the workers who actually live here.
CARLSON: So companies used to care about the quality of American schools, because that's where their labor force was educated. People care much less about public schools. You think that's one of the reasons?
CASS: It could be. There's a famous saying from a guy named Max Frisch who studied this in Germany. He said, you know, "We wanted workers, but we've got people."
CASS: And it's just this idea of, we're not going to actually think about our economy as being about the people who live here and need to support themselves here. We're just going to think about it as a way to make more stuff cheaper. And that can work out well in the short term. But it can be a real mistake in the long run.
CARLSON: Has it ever worked in a country you're aware of long term well for the country?
CASS: There have been times when it's worked. You know, we had a big program in the 50s and 60s that we tried to bring a lot of Mexican farmworkers. A lot of folks actually trace that back to, in a sense, the start of the legal immigration problem, because we brought folks here. We assumed they would all leave and guess what? Some of them thought they'd rather stay here.
CARLSON: Yes, and the work they did has since been automated.
CASS: Some of it has, and there's this idea that, you know, it is work that Americans won't do, but in fact, almost every category of work, farmworkers, included most of the people who are doing that work are Americans. So I think we actually need to pull a bit more pressure on employers to say, "You know what? Why don't you find a way to make this work with people we have here and invest in in making Americans more productive so it's good for business and good for workers?"
CARLSON: Yes, what you said qualifies as radical in Washington. But it seems so non-radical and so obvious to me. Oren Cass, one of the few people saying that. Thank you very much.
CASS: Thank you.
CARLSON: The President will take the stage in El Paso, Texas as we said, any minute now, so it's really just a few blocks to the U.S.-Mexico border. Michael Anton served in the White House. He is the author of the book, "After the Flight 93 Election," and he joins us here on the set. Michael Anton, thank you very much for joining us.
MICHAEL ANTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL: Great.
CARLSON: I have to ask you about this book that I have right here. "After the Flight ..." now, you wrote the famous essay framing the last election, the 2016 election ...
CARLSON: ... in these kind of broad and powerful terms. It changed people's minds. What's your conclusion on this book?
ANTON: My conclusion in this book is people will criticize me and said, "Okay, maybe you made a good case for why doom was coming, but you never gave us your positive case for the future. What is America supposed to look like? What do you actually want to see?" So I said, "I have that." I just -- you know, in a short essay in the middle of a campaign. I didn't put everything I know in it. So I was asked to republish the "Flight 93 Election," and I said I'd be happy to do that. But I want to add some new material at the beginning to say this is what we should be fighting for. This is the America that we're at risk of losing that we need to be fighting for and why it's good. Why the older American principles are sound, and we need to return to them as part of going forward toward a better future for our people.
Some of that also means we need to go back to a better way of understanding politics, common citizenship, an elite that cares about the people that you've criticized, and I completely agree with your criticism that they're mercenaries. They don't really care about what's happening to the people in the country nearly as much as they should, if at all, we need to go back to that.
So some -- in some ways, the way forward is a way back and I tried to sketch that in the new material.
CARLSON: But in 2019, anything back is immoral, right? So that's -- why do they tell -- why do the people in charge tell us constantly that anything that happened before is wrong and we shouldn't learn from it or know about it? All we should do is be ashamed of it. Why do you think they say that?
ANTON: Because they don't want to change course at all, because they're benefiting from the current system. They like it. They know that a lot of people are unhappy with it. That's what the 2016 election was all about. And they want to just tamp down that justified -- some of it is anger, some of its uneasiness, whatever you want to call it, there's a lot of justified discontent and they want to tamp that down and say, illegitimate. If you disagree with or if you don't like any aspect of the current system, it just means you're bad and racist and evil, and you want to go back to, you know, segregation and so on.
And so, the only way we can do it is to keep doing exactly what we're doing now. And if you disagree, you're bad.
CARLSON: How long do you think they think they can do -- I mean, you can yell at your kids and boss them around, but then they turn 18 and they can do whatever they want. And then they hate you. Do our leaders understand that or they think this can go on forever?
ANTON: I think they think it can go on forever. I don't believe it can go on forever because one of the points that I make in the book is I believe there is nature. Nature poses limits to human beings into what we can accomplish. And what we're seeing now is this project is bumping up against natural limits, and they're starting to find that they can't do everything that they want to do.
I mean, a great example which you've talked about a lot in the last couple days is the Green New Deal program. Leave aside everything else you want to say about the Green New Deal program. I just don't think it's within the realm of possibility and the laws of physics that they can find some way to get rid of all fossil fuels and not make the country dramatically --
CARLSON: You know, how do you know that someone's a bigot in 2019? When he appeals to this physics thing.
ANTON: It's just -- nature is just going to say no. We don't know how to do this.
CARLSON: Gravity, photosynthesis -- I don't believe in any of that spooky stuff. Michael Anton. Great to see you.
ANTON: Thank you.
CARLSON: And congrats on the book.
ANTON: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you. So the Congress -- Democrats in Congress, they would like to cap the number of illegal immigrants the government can detain. Is that a good idea? We're going to ask Richard Goodstein who served, as you know, as an advisor to Bill Clinton. He joins us tonight. So Richard, I tried to get the answer this from Enrique Acevedo, he wasn't honest enough to even acknowledge my question. But if we're going to say that the government can only hold a certain number of illegal aliens, why don't we make the same allowance, the same liberal allowance for American citizens.
RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL CLINTON: Yes, I really can't address that. You know, the news is that there is an agreement in principle.
CARLSON: That's right.
GOODSTEIN: So somehow, other Republicans and Democrats have had a meeting of the minds on this issue, right, even since you've been on the air and I would say that the news is that the sign behind Donald Trump, "Finish the wall." He's a fabulist. Every expert will tell you there is no wall to finish. But there are barriers and we should reinforce them and Democrats are for beds to basically house people who are true national security threats, okay, but not moms and dads who have been in the community for 30 years, go to church, pay taxes, have kids who are Americans, those people shouldn't be in those beds.
CARLSON: And well, I guess it depends on whether they commit crimes or not, right? So if 88%, I mean moms and dads commit crimes, lots of American moms and dads are languishing in jail. They're separated from their kids, but nobody cares because they're just Americans, they can just shut up and die, but why shouldn't we arrest and detain anyone who commits a crime?
CARLSON: You do that with Americans?
GOODSTEIN: So first of all, as to the percentage of people that ICE has detained who have committed crimes, I'm looking at "Reason," the libertarian magazine. October of 2018 says 58% have not been convicted -- have not basically been convicted of a crime at all, right?
CARLSON: Right. The 88% according to the DHS. DHS numbers out today, 88% have been either convicted of or charged with and typically you detain especially if it's a non-citizen who is a flight risk, you detain people until you either convict or acquit them, right? So 88% of crimes not related to their immigration status, that's a lot.
GOODSTEIN: Yes, but I think what the Democrats are trying to do and we'll see what comes out of this negotiation, was basically say, "Let's go after national security threats," okay. The mom who basically engaged in some speeding violation is not that and shouldn't be taking up a bed for somebody who's -- look, if we have another shutdown, border agents aren't being paid, DEA agents. The FBI who is prosecuting MS-13. They are not getting paid.
CARLSON: I'm not arguing for a shutdown. I just want the country to be safe. It looks like we're at a time. We're going to go to this rally. Richard Goodstein.
GOODSTEIN: Thank you so much.
CARLSON: You're being preempted by the President. That's it for us. We'll be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m. The show that is sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think. Obviously, DVR it, if you can figure that out.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.