Dhillon: Google not disclosing altering of search results is a fraud on our democracy

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 16, 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.” The 2020 presidential race is effectively underway, and has been since the midterms in November. The most formidable candidates have not officially announced yet. They want to be fashionably late to the party. But it's obvious who they are.

Their shadow campaigns are busy lining up donors, ginning up publicity, and trying, in general, to seem impressive. The most vigorous contender in this group is Robert Beto O'Rourke of Texas. O'Rourke nearly beat Ted Cruz in the Senate race this fall, you'll remember.

Democrats love him for that. Affluent progressives on the coasts love him best. He's one of them. In the betting markets, O'Rourke is now the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. Two years from now, he plausibly could be sitting in the Oval Office.

So, it's worth taking Beto O'Rourke seriously. What kind of president would he be? Well at this point, we can only guess. We do know that, like most people in his social class, he is totally against Border walls.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O'ROURKE, D-TX, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE: Will fight when necessary against a President who's focused on building walls.

No wall is going to solve legitimate security concerns.

Then perhaps you can be forgiven for thinking that a wall is going to solve the problem.

We in El Paso are ashamed of this now. But this is going to be one of those moments where the folks in Germany look back on the Berlin Wall or the United States looks back on its project to intern Japanese Americans during World War II.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Did you hear that? So Berlin Wall, bad. Border wall also bad, indeed, bad very much like interning the Japanese during World War II was bad. It was another racist attack on the Asians from the FDR Administration or something like that. Whatever!

Walls are bad, OK? So far, that's been about the sum total of what we know about Beto O'Rourke's policy views. That and he also went to the dentist recently. We know because he put it on Instagram.

But thankfully, now, we know even more. O'Rourke just did a two-hour long interview with a reporter from Jeff Bezos' Washington newspaper, the Washington Post, which like O'Rourke himself is a full-time mouthpiece for guilty rich people.

O'Rourke knew he was speaking to his own community, so he relaxed long enough to explain what he really thinks about things, including Border walls. Walls are bad, O'Rourke explained, not just because they intern perfectly decent Japanese people but because they literally commit murder, or rather, we commit murder when we build walls.

As O'Rourke put it, if you construct a barrier along our Southern border, "You will ensure death. You and I, as Americans, have caused the deaths of others through these walls."

Let that settle. Whoa! We killed people, and we didn't even know it. That's pretty heavy. How many people did we kill? Should we turn ourselves in to the authorities or prepare for life on the lam? Do we need new passports, cosmetic surgery? Does Paraguay have an extradition treaty? So many questions.

The real question though is what the hell is Beto O'Rourke talking about? To be fair, it's not like he's pretending to know. O'Rourke makes it perfectly clear that he has no idea what he's saying, and that's OK. He's not embarrassed about it.

When the Washington Post asked O'Rourke what he would do about illegal aliens overstaying their visas, which is a huge part of our immigration crisis, he answered this way, "I don't know." Thank you, Mr. Spicoli (ph). Please take your seat.

Beto's not into details. Beto's into ideas, big ideas, ideas of the future, sweeping panoramic truths about being in personhood and new modes of authentic expression, the kind of stuff that would spill your bong water and blow your mind.

Beto's not a micro guy. He's bigger than that. He's a transformer. And what Beto wants to transform next, after failing to transform Texas, is nothing less than the United States of America starting with the beliefs this country was founded on. That's what he told Jeff Bezos' newspaper.

Does this still work, he asked, this being America, and Beto wasn't so sure. And so, he asked the question that future historians will recognize as a pivot point in the life of this country. Can America, quote, still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?

And that's not a small question. The principles, Beto refers to, would include the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and assembly, the right to self-defense, and a fair trial.

Does any of that still matter, or those all just old ideas, stumbling blocks that are preventing people like Beto, good and brilliant people, who went to Columbia and have beautiful weekend homes, from getting the power they need to turn this place into a truly awesome country?

A country where skateboards outnumber SUVs and everyone is thin, and has quality childcare, a nation that values hot yoga above football, a place where insensitive thoughts are banned and punished appropriately. Beto doesn't know the answer to those questions right now, but he's thinking about it.

Nate Lerner is thinking about it too. He's co-Founder of DraftBeto.org. It's a website promoting O'Rourke's presidential run, and he is kind enough to join us tonight. Unlike so many people on the Democratic side, you have come, and I really appreciate that.

So let me just ask a very straightforward question. When Beto O'Rourke says that we need to re-think some of the principles upon which the country was founded, would that include the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the Second Amendment? What - what does that mean?

NATE LERNER, CO-FOUNDER, DRAFTBETO.ORG: Right. Right, so on the - on the surface and taken out of context, that certainly sounds bad. But what he's actually talking about is a--

CARLSON: Well, different.

LERNER: --is a very common approach to Constitutional law. Constitutional scholars for centuries have debated if the Constitution should be taken literally and at word or if it's a living breathing document that we--

CARLSON: Right.

LERNER: --should interpret as things change.

And guess what? Our country has changed and the world has changed quite a bit in the last 200-plus years. And what Beto was saying is that perhaps we need to re-visit parts of the Constitution as a result. That's - that's a very common discussion that--

CARLSON: OK. Look--

LERNER: --that scholars would have.

CARLSON: --and I'm open-minded. And, by the way, there are things in the Constitution, you know, I - I think we should always have conversations about everything--

LERNER: Exactly.

CARLSON: --that we disagree with. But what specifically is he talking about? I think it's also fair to ask, what principles need to be revised.

LERNER: You know, I - I'm not a spokesperson for Beto or for his campaign. But, you know, I do understand what he's saying as far as needing to re- visit parts of the Constitution. I think the Electoral College is a really good example where you are empowering some voters more so than others, and giving them more of a voice than others.

And that's - that's really unfair and not what our democracy's about. That's a very good example right there.

CARLSON: So, but what - what does that mean? Look, obviously, we're for fairness. There's a lot of unfairness. I agree with that, for sure, and we should work as hard as we can to rectify it. But just give me one example of the principles that might be changed under a Beto O'Rourke presidency?

LERNER: I - I do not speak for Beto or - or for his campaign. So I can't--

CARLSON: OK.

LERNER: --I can't do that.

CARLSON: OK. That's totally fair enough. So, he was asked about the Border wall and he said, and I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close, "We are killing people when we build Border walls." What is that - how are we - how are we killing people? How have we killed people by doing that?

LERNER: So, in the context of what he was talking about, he was making two points. One, if we - if when we militarize our border with Mexico, you're increasing the risk that people are going to get hurt or killed when they cross the border in their encounters with our - with our security forces and their side.

And also, when you build a massive wall during the - in - in - at the points where people - of entry where people are most likely to illegally cross the border, they will seek out other points, and those points tend to be more dangerous.

And so, if you force people to find different and new ways to come into the - come into the country, a lot of those tend to be more dangerous and you're more - you're increasing the likelihood of killing people.

So, he's saying, we need to find a more civil and humane way of treating those who come into our country. And, you know, that doesn't mean, no border security. He's not for open borders. Democrats aren't for that despite what's often said here.

CARLSON: Of course, they are.

LERNER: They're not.

CARLSON: But - but then - but hold on let's--

LERNER: They're for - they're for (ph) treating people like humans and treating--

CARLSON: --OK. Look, I--

LERNER: --them is the seaming (ph) way.

CARLSON: --OK. So but, Mexico had over 31,000 murders last year. That's about twice the number we had in the country as a population less than half of ours. So, it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world. And so, it's fair to be concerned about that violence moving north. Any normal country--

LERNER: Well but it's also fair--

CARLSON: --would be concerned.

LERNER: --to understand that people might want to be fleeing that violence that have, you know, for their families' sake--

CARLSON: OK. Because that's - that - that's true.

LERNER: --and to build up life (ph) here.

CARLSON: But I mean the - the rights and the interests of Americans come first from the perspective of the U.S. government. That's why we have the government to protect--

LERNER: 100 percent, absolutely.

CARLSON: --our rights (ph). So, explain to me, and you can speak slowly if you want, how we are forcing people to come across our border illegally. How are we forcing people to come across? I - I don't understand that.

LERNER: We're not - we're not forcing people. It's just that we should be treating them in a humane and civil way because they are humans. And despite the way they have been described by Donald Trump and Republicans, you know, they're - they're not - they're not criminals. They're not rapists. They're not all drug dealers.

CARLSON: Of course, they are (ph).

LERNER: Many of them are just coming here to seek better lives.

CARLSON: Well I've - I've always--

LERNER: And we need to respect and--

CARLSON: --wait, but, but I--

LERNER: --appreciate that.

CARLSON: --I totally - but I've never doubted that. And some are bad people. Most are just economic migrants who want to move to a richer country.

LERNER: Exactly.

CARLSON: I get it. I would, as I said many times on this show, I would leave Honduras too, and I would come here illegally if I could. And I mean it. I'm not joking. So, I get it. But I'm not from Honduras. I'm from America. And I don't want people driving - driving down wages in this country.

So, don't we have a right to say, "No, you can't come in unless we want you to come in?"

LERNER: We absolutely have a right to - to do that. However, as Americans, we also have a duty to treat them a certain way and to respect their humanity and respect them as individuals, and not simply cast them aside.

And so, when you're - when you're looking at border security, there is a certain way that you should be treating people, and it's not forcing them to, you know, it's not - it's not putting them at a - a massive risk and potentially killing them--

CARLSON: But how are we putting--

LERNER: --instead of responding (ph).

CARLSON: --wait but how - how are - if - if we erect a wall and say, you can't cross, that's the same as killing them?

LERNER: Putting up a wall does put them in greater danger because it forces them to find different points of entry. And a wall is just a massive - it's just - it's not - it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't solve the main problem of immigration, which is--

CARLSON: OK.

LERNER: --longer visa, which is we--

CARLSON: Oh, OK, so, so, so I'm--

LERNER: --people are overstaying their visas. If people can (ph) just throw a--

CARLSON: --I'm glad - I'm glad you're putting that. No, no--

LERNER: --rope over a wall, there's tunnels that they can use.

CARLSON: --that's totally fair. That's - that's a talking point, but it's also real, so I'm glad you mentioned it.

LERNER: Yes.

CARLSON: And, in fact, Mr. O'Rourke was - was asked it too by Jeff Bezos' newspaper, and his quote was, "I don't know." Now, how could he not know? He represents Texas. He's been asked of immigration for years, and he hasn't thought through visa overstays, which, as you point out, are a driver of our crisis. How could you not have an answer to that?

LERNER: So, again, I - I - so, again, out of context, that sounds bad. But what he said after that was that he would work with the people who it's affected by, work with policymakers, work with experts, work with people on the ground who deal with this every day to find a solution.

And actually, I think it's very refreshing that a politician was willing to say, "I don't know," because if you look at--

CARLSON: Well, that's sure.

LERNER: --where immigration reform has gone in the last 20 years, which is nowhere, I think a lot of politicians actually don't know. They have no idea what a solution is because we haven't found one. And so, what he's saying is we need to have a debate. We need to talk it over.

CARLSON: Well, look, I'm totally for that.

LERNER: Find a solution.

CARLSON: And I - and actually do agree with you.

LERNER: Right. So, sounds like you support him there.

CARLSON: I - I support being honest about not knowing. I just think--

LERNER: He's - he's just (ph) being honest.

CARLSON: --he should like try a little harder. But let me ask you something that I don't know the answer to and I'm not being mean. I'm being sincere.

LERNER: Yes.

CARLSON: Here you had in the last election an Irish Catholic guy with a Hispanic nickname running against an actual Hispanic guy with an Anglo name. Would that seem a little weird to you, a little audacious maybe?

LERNER: You know, Ted Cruz tried to make that point as well, and Texans got over it pretty quickly.

CARLSON: It's a real point.

LERNER: It's not - it's not a real point. It's - it's - the point is moot. You know, it's - it's something that - it's something to joke about for a minute. It was his - his nickname.

CARLSON: OK.

LERNER: It's his nickname growing up. It's I guess people call Ted, you know, Ted Cruz, Ted, his higher enough (ph) as well. And it's - it's not - it's not something people care about. People care about real issues.

CARLSON: Yes, I know. Well, I asked about real issues and I ended it with, as you pointed out, joking about it for a second, which I didn't have (ph).

LERNER: Very fair.

CARLSON: I appreciate your coming on Nate. Thank you very much.

LERNER: Of course, anytime.

CARLSON: Well from The View to all the dumb people on television, what you're hearing this week, and it really is a talking point of the week, is that everybody who's not a Democrat is by nature a bigot. It's what they're telling you.

Victor Davis Hanson responds to that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well if you've watched TV this week, you have heard this week's talking point. Republicans and the people who vote for them are bigots, every one of them. The geniuses over at The View, the daytime TV show, suggested that almost half the country's just flat-out immoral, and should be shunned on those grounds. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUNNY HOSTIN, THE VIEW CO- HOST, ABC: But will Republicans now step up to the plate with Donald Trump because he has been using, I think, the Border wall as sort of this dog whistle for racism. The government is still shut down, and I think it's all about, "Let's not let all these Brown people in."

ABIGAIL HAIGHT HUNTSMAN, THE VIEW CO-HOST, ABC: There's 42 percent of this country that support the wall. Are they all racist?

HOSTIN: That's a good question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know. That's--

HOSTIN: That - that--

HUNTSMAN: I'm - I'm asking you that. I don't - I don't think so.

HOSTIN: --that's a good question.

HUNTSMAN: I don't think so. I think there are a lot of people that believe- -

HOSTIN: Is Donald - is - is-- I don't know--

HUNTSMAN: --in security.

HOSTIN: --is Donald Trump racist?

(CROWD APPLAUDING)

JOY BEHAR, THE VIEW CO-HOST, ABC: Duh.

MEGHAN MARGUERITE MCCAIN, THE VIEW CO-HOST: Do you think 42 percent of Americans are racist?

HOSTIN: I just said I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes. It's The View. You can write it off like what do they know. But it wasn't just The View. Nicole Wallace had a real job at one point. She was White House Communications Director briefly, I think, under last Republican Administration. Here's her view.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLLE WALLACE, CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST FOR MSNBC AND NBC NEWS: This does not have a parallel on the Left. They're just - they're just - it - it doesn't. There isn't. There isn't a strain of racism on the Left.

I don't so - so, I think that - that this gets brushed under the rug. People sort of tolerate - it's been normalized. Like you just said, they don't have anywhere else to go, so they attach to the Republican Party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes. No racists on the Left, literally not one, says Nicole Wallace.

Over in ESPN, one of their hosts suggested it was racist, not surprisingly, for the President to serve the Clemson Football Team fast food at the White House. Fast food is the food of bigots. Of course.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOLLY QERIM ROSE, MODERATOR, ESPN'S FIRST TAKE: When I saw him giving the football players, it's - it's a predominantly Black sport, and fast food, my thought went - went a very different place. Also a - a bunch of--

MAX KELLERMAN, CO-HOST OF ESPN'S FIRST TAKE: I think the - I think the President likes fast food.

ROSE: --a bunch of--

STEPHEN ANTHONY SMITH, ESPN FIRST TAKE COMMENTATOR: Yes.

ROSE: --Macs (ph). I mean come on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes. OK. So, the consensus is the racism is on the Right. Only Conservatives can be racist. So that raises a few questions.

What exactly is racism? What does it look like? How'd if - you know if you are racist. And so, we have a handily checklist for you. Get a pen and follow along. See if you can answer these questions.

A racist - what would a racist do? A racist would support treating people differently based purely on their skin color. They'd hand out jobs and contracts and college admissions letters based on your DNA, rather than anything that you had done.

They'd also say that some people's opinions don't matter because of their skin color. That would be a racist statement. Wouldn't it? They would ridicule people regularly on the basis of their skin color. Racism? Yes.

They would also believe in race-based retribution most ominously. That means people of one race paying the price today for actions decades or centuries ago by people they may not have any relationship to at all, other than a similar appearance. What would that be? Well that would be the definition of racism, right?

People like this might even cancel activist marches if too many people of the wrong color showed up. What is that if not racism? They might also write op-eds saying they don't want their own children to be friends with people of another race. They might say a friendship like that would be impossible. That's what they would do.

Does that sound like what Republicans are doing? I don't know. We'll let you decide.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and he joins us tonight.

You know what I noticed, Professor Hanson, and maybe I'm just making this up in my head, but it seems like people have a tendency to accuse others of doing the exact thing that they are doing. Have you noticed that?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION SENIOR FELLOW: Yes. I think it's really dangerous throughout history when you have a group that sets themselves up as the arbiters of morality.

We saw that with the Catholic Church and the abuse problems. We saw that in the #MeToo and the Hollywood liberals like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey.

They feel that they're not subject to the same standards they demand of others. And what's going on here is that if I think that Representative King confused Western civilization with White and - Whiteness, and they're not synonymous, especially in the global world.

Japan can be more Western than - than Russia. But the point is--

CARLSON: But it's just interesting that if you--

HANSON: --we got to find out what the rules are, Tucker because while--

CARLSON: Well that's what I mean--

HANSON: --we're condemning him, we have Hank Johnson, another Member of the Congress, who recently said, compared Jews in Israel to termites.

And then we've got the Editor Board - a person on the Editorial Board in the New York Times, Sarah Jeong, who said, literally (ph), I hate White people, and compared them to dogs urinating on hydrants. The New York Times was not upset.

Then we've got this whole trope now in - in rap music, all the major marquee rappers, Ice Cube, Jay-Z, Scarface, it's just rampant anti- Semitism. And we saw LeBron James, our national icon, re-tweeting an anti- Semitic tweet and with no - of a rapper with no consequences.

So, the American people are saying to themselves, "Wow! What are the rules?" And when you look at Trump supporters are not just derided as stupid or ignorant. But if you'd - this new Left-wing mode is to say that they stink. We saw that with Peter Strzok.

I think Mr. Caputo from Politico said remember that they don't have any teeth. That was echoed by Rick Wilson. He call - also called them garbage people, a piece of S-H blank, an FBI agent remarked.

And so, there's this, Jim Carrey, of all, the actor, compared Trump supporters to apes that has a long - that simian synonym and metaphor has a really bad pedigree.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that anytime somebody says we're progressive, and we're enlightened, and we're not racist, that tends human nature of being what it is to give them a blank check to - to be racist, which is your point.

Remember 2008, Tucker, when Joe Biden said, do you remember that he said about Barack Obama that he was the first Black candidate who was clean, clean and was articulate. And then Harry Reid sort of echoed that and said, he didn't have a Negro dialect and he was light-skinned.

And then, Bill Clinton said, well he would have been serving his coffee. Even - even Al Sharpton tried to contextualize that because the idea, again, was these are good--

CARLSON: Right.

HANSON: --Progressives. They're good people. They couldn't be--

CARLSON: It's awful.

HANSON: --guilty of racism.

CARLSON: Right.

HANSON: That's not a window into their soul. It is with Republicans. But with Democrats and Progressives and Left is they're just inadvertent or it's allowed (ph).

CARLSON: Well, these are just tools they use--

HANSON: It's very dangerous to do that.

CARLSON: --to win power. And we should remember that. Professor, thank you very much.

HANSON: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: By the way, if they meant it, then the Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn't have been on a lot of this stuff. You've heard of the SPLC. It's a phony anti-hate group that exists to crush people they don't like, to tar Conservatives organizations as fellow travelers with the KKK or whatever.

Mark Krikorian is Executive Director at the Center for Immigration Studies. His group just sued the SPLC for designating them as a hate group. Finally, someone is fighting back against this. What is the basis of this lawsuit, Mark?

MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Our attorneys decided the way to go was to file a RICO lawsuit, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is used in the criminal part by, you know, against the Mafia or whatever, by the government.

But there are civil parts where private individuals can file suit. And the basis of the claim is they are committing wire fraud, by falsely describing us as a hate group in order to do harm to my organization.

CARLSON: Has it done harm to your organization being designated (ph)?

KRIKORIAN: It's done some. I mean, you know, we've - we have a - a body - a reputation and a body of work that makes it hard to plausibly call us a hate group. And we've testified before Congress more than a 100 times. We've been cited in Supreme Court decision.

CARLSON: Right.

KRIKORIAN: We published real professors, the work of - of professors from legitimate universities. Nonetheless, it has, in fact, had an effect. One example that we mentioned in the suit, Amazon has this program where you can designate a non-profit group to get a small amount of revenue every time you buy something.

We were removed from that program. And the person who communicated that to us made the mistake of actually saying what the reason was. In print, he said, we just get our list from the SPLC.

CARLSON: So, it's just - that's what's remarkable to me. So, the SPLC is just the Praetorian Guard of the Democratic Party, obviously, fighting for the status quo, seeking to crush anyone who stands in the way of power. But they still seem to be taken seriously by media outlets, and by companies like Amazon. Why?

KRIKORIAN: It's good question. I'm not sure why. I mean I think there, you know, this is some - a kind of thing you see a lot in the tech industry, for instance, where they just assume that Progressive political views are just the normal political views, and anybody who doesn't hold them, somehow, is weird is, and to be shunned.

And I think that's part of what it is. You see the same thing with journalism where a lot of media simply cite the SPLC's hate group designation as just sort of a fact. You know, this person is this old. He's wearing, you know, a blue suit, and he's been designated as a, you know, hate group by the SPLC.

That's starting to change because they really have overreached, and they've gotten slapped down a couple of times. There was a Muslim reformer, a liberal Muslim--

CARLSON: Yes.

KRIKORIAN: --anti-extremist--

CARLSON: Well, of course.

KRIKORIAN: --they labeled him as an extremist. And he sued. They settled because they knew they were going to lose for as (ph) $3 million-plus. I don't expect them to go quite that easily in this case. But I think we have a pretty strong case.

CARLSON: You have a very strong case. And I looked at the accusations they leveled against you, because you're a guest on this show and I was interested, and they have - there's no basis for saying that about you. It was shocking. It was, I think, it's libel. But we're rooting for you, of course.

KRIKORIAN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Mark, thank you.

KRIKORIAN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well a new report exposes Google for blacklisting certain video searches on YouTube. You can probably guess who they targeted. We've got the details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: TECH TYRANNY.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Big tech companies try to control what you see online, of course. But they also try to control what you don't see.

A new report, a shocking one, from Breitbart exposes the existence of a Google blacklist for, quote, controversial YouTube queries, questions you ask on YouTube, trying to find videos.

The most flagrant abuse, not surprisingly, concerns abortion. After receiving a complaint from a political activist posing as a reporter at Slate.com, there are a lot of those, Google intervened to bury pro-life videos on YouTube, and replace them in search with pro-abortion videos.

For example, videos by abortionist turned pro-life activist Andy Letivino (ph) were buried, displaced by pro-abortion content from BuzzFeed and CNN. Well, in a statement, YouTube denied doing anything wrong and said any shifts were purely due to their algorithms which, of course, are controlled by people.

Robert Epstein has spent a lot of time looking into this question. He's a Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, and he joins us tonight. Thank you very much for coming on.

You were the first person I thought of when I read this story because you have done, I think, the cutting-edge research into the effect of search - Google search, and other digital platforms on human behavior and political behavior.

So, what kind of effect could this sort of distortion have on an election?

ROBERT EPSTEIN, SENIOR RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY: Well, Tucker, it would have a devastating effect. And, you know, as you know, I am not a Conservative.

CARLSON: I do.

EPSTEIN: I - I - I love America. I love democracy. And I think we should all be rising above our politics here and recognize the extreme danger that we're facing when a company like Google can basically censor anything it wants to censor.

Now, this new set of leaks is extraordinary because it confirms things that I and others have been saying and writing for years. It confirms, number one that individual employees at Google have the power to manually remove material, remove content that we see. And they do so often with political ends.

And number two, this tells us that Sundar Pichai, Google CEO, committed perjury when he testified before Congress a few weeks ago, because he said quite specifically that Google never does this.

CARLSON: So, I mean I - my frustration levels are so high, I don't want to take it out on you. But the first thought is well, why isn't he being recalled back to Congress to explain himself or face charges because you're not allowed to commit perjury.

But my question is can any of us trust that the next election won't be swayed dramatically in one direction by interference from the tech companies?

EPSTEIN: I guarantee you that this past election was affected. I'll be releasing some - some data on this, I hope, in early March that'll make the point beyond any doubt.

I also just published a piece in which I showed that just one manipulation on Google's part, on Election Day, their Go Vote reminder, that one reminder, that Go Vote reminder shifted between 800,000 and 4.6 million votes to Democratic candidates on Election Day in 2018.

CARLSON: So, why - why isn't this the hacking of our democracy? I mean how can you have a democracy under these circumstances?

EPSTEIN: Well, democracy is a kind of illusion at this point because we have let these companies, Google more than any other, go completely wild. There are no rules, no regulations, no laws that restrict anything they do.

And again, the more one looks at what it is they're actually doing, and these new leaks help a lot, in my opinion, the closer one looks at what they're doing, the more outraged one should become.

And I want to emphasize, we should all be outraged, not just Conservatives.

CARLSON: Yes. I - I agree. I hope that what you just said pings around the internet unimpeded and winds up in the inbox of every Member of Congress on both sides. Robert, thank you very much.

EPSTEIN: My pleasure, always.

CARLSON: Why is nobody covering this? It's a great question. And this question as well. Google's manipulation, the one we just told you about, why isn't that a violation of campaign finance law? The companies YouTube blacklist, for example, allegedly suppress negative videos about Maxine Waters. Why is that not an in-kind contribution to Maxine Waters?

Harmeet Dhillon, unlike us, is an attorney, and she joins us tonight. So, Harmeet, you just saw a guy plead to a felony because he paid off his client's girlfriend with private funds in the middle of a campaign. That was considered a campaign finance violation.

Here you have the most powerful company in the world, putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of candidates, but that's not a campaign contribution? How?

HARMEET DHILLON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well it is a campaign finance violation. And - and if anybody thinks that this is some sort of aberration, Google has been doing this and bragging about it internally, even in the last election.

Tucker, I think, your show has previously covered the fact that Google made what, I think, one internal person at Google, a Manager at Google called silent campaign contribution by turning out the vote and contributing turnout the vote efforts in several states that were swing states for Hillary Clinton, and specifically targeting Latino voters.

I think people should be encouraged to do Democratic activities like this on both sides and help with elections.

But when a corporation does it with its corporate assets, it needs to be dis - disclosed as a campaign finance violation, declared and disclosed on the other side as a campaign finance receipt by the campaign.

Here, you have the one example of Maxine Waters. But let's just play - let's just play this out. Now, we have about 20-plus Democrats running for - for the Democratic nomination.

If Google decides to bump up the search engine results in a positive way for Beto O'Rourke in response, for example, to Democratic candidates for President 2020, and then bump down Tulsi Gabbard or some others, for example, that's going to be a contribution, and that contribution, in - in my opinion, to those candidates who benefit from it, and a very valuable one.

And if it isn't being disclosed as such, then that is a fraud on our democracy. And you can then imagine what they're doing vis-a-vis Donald Trump.

They're already doing it to Republicans as we - you have previously reported with regard to search engine results for Republican Women, for California Republican Party, for various other Republicans. So, I think this is, you know - you know, we all think every story is important when it comes to Google and what they do online.

But this is a particularly shocking and alarming story that we really need to see our Members of Congress, Senators and the White House wake up about this issue because otherwise we aren't going to be talking about a democracy in the next two election cycles.

We'll be talking about what it used to look like before we let Big Tech takeover and control the outcome.

CARLSON: I - I don't see how under these circumstances, all things being equal, Donald Trump could get re-elected. I don't. And look, I mean I think we should have a free and fair election where people's votes really matter.

But under these circumstances, we're not going to have that. I wonder why the White House wouldn't - I mean they do control the Executive Branch of government. Why they wouldn't have been awakened to that but.

DHILLON: We have seen Donald Trump actually tweet about this issue in September 2018. He tweeted about, frankly, the subject matter of today's story from Breitbart and, you know, people called him a - a conspiracy theorist that it isn't true.

And, you know, now we see the evidence that actually they are doing this manipulation, and that Sundar Pichai lied to Congress about it.

CARLSON: Yes.

DHILLON: But - but these companies skillfully spread the money around, not just to Members of Congress, but also people working in an Administration, who are looking for their exit and thinking--

CARLSON: Exactly.

DHILLON: --"Well maybe I'll work on the other side of tech policy and make a bunch of money advising Google on how to speak Conservative--

CARLSON: Scary. Scary.

DHILLON: --to Conservatives."

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

DHILLON: That's how it happens.

CARLSON: Vladimir Putin is a much smaller threat to the United States than Google, I would say.

DHILLON: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Harmeet Dhillon, thank you very much.

DHILLON: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well the country is racing at high speed toward full legalization of marijuana. Why is that exactly? And what are the effects? And what do we know about marijuana? It's uncool to ask, obviously. But being middle-aged, we're going to anyway, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Christophe Guilluy is a well-known author in France. He's written a number of books about that country's middle and working classes. He recently gave a long interview to a website called Spiked about the Yellow Vest demonstrations there that have convulsed French society, and terrified the French government.

Our media haven't said very much about the Yellow Vests, and that should not surprise you. Ostensibly, their protests are a reaction to global warming taxes and speed cameras.

But as Guilluy explains, what you're actually watching is a revolt against a deeply selfish and stupid establishment, and that very much includes the media. Listen to his analysis here, and ask yourself if it sounds at all familiar.

"Fifteen years ago, I noticed that the majority of working-class people actually live very far away from the major globalized cities, far from Paris, Lyon and Toulouse, and also very far from London and New York.

Technically, our globalized economic model performs well. It produces a lot of wealth. But it doesn't need the majority of the population to function. It has no real need for the manual workers, laborers and even small- business owners outside of the big cities.

Paris creates enough wealth for the whole of France, and London does the same in Britain. But you cannot build a society around this.

What the Yellow Vest protestors have in common is they live in areas where there is hardly any work left. They know that even if they have a job today, they could lose it tomorrow, and they won't find anything else.

They are also culturally misunderstood by the elite. One illustration of this cultural divide is that most modern, progressive social movements and protests are quickly endorsed by celebrities, actors, and the media and the intellectuals. But none of them approve of the Yellow Vests.

Their emergence has caused a kind of psychological shock to the cultural establishment. It is exactly the same shock that the British elites experienced with the Brexit vote and that they are still experiencing now, three years later.

Many voters wanted to remind the political class that they exist. That's what French people are using the Yellow Vests for, to say "We exist." We are seeing the same phenomenon in populist revolts across the world.

All the growth and dynamism is in the major cities, but people cannot just move there. The cities are inaccessible, particularly thanks to mounting housing costs. The cities have become very unequal, too.

The Parisian economy needs executives and qualified professionals. It also needs workers, predominantly immigrants, for the construction industry and catering etcetera. Business relies on this very specific demographic mix.

The problem is that the people outside the cities still exist. The non- urban population actually encompasses the majority of French people.

We have a new bourgeoisie, but because they are very cool and progressive, it creates the impression that there is no class conflict anymore. It is really difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and about minorities.

But actually, they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. Not only do they benefit enormously from the globalized economy, but they have also produced a dominant cultural discourse, which ostracizes working-class people.

Think of the "deplorables" evoked by Hillary Clinton. There is a similar view of the working class in France and Britain. They are looked upon as if they are some kind of Amazonian tribe. The problem for the elites is that this is a very big tribe.

The reaction to the Yellow Vests has been telling in France. Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist.

But this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it's not working anymore. Now the elites are afraid.

A lot has been made of the fact that the Yellow Vests' demands vary a great deal. But above all, it's a demand for democracy. Fundamentally, they want to be taken seriously and they want to be integrated into the economic order.

We need a cultural revolution, particularly in the universities and in the media. They need to stop insulting the working class, to stop thinking of them as imbeciles.

Cultural respect is fundamental. There will be no economic or political integration until there is cultural integration. Then, of course, we need to think differently about the economy. That means dispensing with neoliberal dogma. We need to think beyond Paris, London and New York."

Well if you found yourself, as you heard that, thinking that Guilluy was talking about your country, not France, there's a reason. In many ways, he was. Imagine what it would look like if our Republican leaders understood what you just heard. They might start winning elections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: DRUGGED.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well every election cycle, you probably noticed, more states legalize marijuana. It could soon be legal nationwide, likely will be. But with drug abuse of all kinds soaring and American youth falling apart, is legalization a good idea? What exactly do we know about marijuana?

David Bienenstock is the Author of How To Smoke Pot Properly and co-host of the podcast, Great Moments in Weed History. David, thank you very much for coming on. So, I guess--

DAVID BIENENSTOCK, HOW TO SMOKE POT AUTHOR: Thanks.

CARLSON: --the first thing I noticed, there was a really interesting piece last - this week by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker. I'm sure you read it. And it asked, and he's kind of agnostic, I think, about the question of marijuana. But he made the point that we really don't know that much about the health effects of marijuana.

Most of the claims made by its proponents are unproven. But the CDC does say that there is a relationship between marijuana use and rising schizophrenia rates and violence. So, why should we legalize something that we know causes schizophrenia?

BIENENSTOCK: Well I mean the first thing we need to understand is cannabis is objectively safer than many substances that are legal, alcohol, tobacco- -

CARLSON: Right.

BIENENSTOCK: --many pharmaceutical drugs. To get to your point about the book you have--

CARLSON: Wait, wait. I mean I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We - we - could we pause for a second? How do we know that it's safer than - than alcohol and tobacco, since I don't really think we know very much about it? I mean most drugs like we've been studying--

BIENENSTOCK: OK. Well here's the-

CARLSON: --nicotine for a hundreds of years and alcohol for thousands, we don't really know that much about them. So, how do - why do we say we know that when we don't really know that?

BIENENSTOCK: We can compare the number of people who died from each substance every year, hundreds of thousands of people from alcohol and tobacco, and zero people from cannabis. So, you know, just as a shorthand--

CARLSON: Really? Well, no that's not--

BIENENSTOCK: --there has never been a death--

CARLSON: --that's not actually true.

BIENENSTOCK: --attributed to cannabis. Absolutely, it's true.

CARLSON: Really? There have been many deaths attributed--

BIENENSTOCK: Saying something that's not true--

CARLSON: --well I'm - I'm going to. If - if it is true, as the CDC says that cannabis use looks like it causes or spurs--

BIENENSTOCK: What is the lethal dose of cannabis, Tucker?

CARLSON: --schizophrenia - hold on, hold on.

BIENENSTOCK: What is the lethal dose?

CARLSON: If it causes schizophrenia--

BIENENSTOCK: How much do you have (ph) to consume?

CARLSON: --hold on. What percentage of people with schizophrenia--

BIENENSTOCK: Just answer my question.

CARLSON: --right.

No, I'm saying you're looking at it wrong. If weed smoking causes schizophrenia and there's a suggestion that it does, schizophrenia kills lots of people, and so does suicide, and so does violence. And if marijuana use hikes rates of violence and it seems like there's a lot of evidence that it does, then that kills people.

So, the question is not, do they die from lung cancer. The question is do they die from suicide or violence. And those are real questions, and you don't know the answers to them. So, why are you saying it's totally safe when you - you don't know that that's true?

BIENENSTOCK: I - I did not say it's totally safe. That's a ridiculous--

CARLSON: Oh.

BIENENSTOCK: --standard. Strenuous exercise can lead to a heart attack that's fatal.

CARLSON: Right.

BIENENSTOCK: Drinking too much water can be fatal. I - I think you need to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

CARLSON: I - I do understand--

BIENENSTOCK: The author of the book--

CARLSON: --the difference.

BIENENSTOCK: --apparently, you don't.

CARLSON: No, wait, I do. And what I understand most of all is the - is the basic precept of science, which is we don't know something until we prove it. And almost nothing about marijuana--

BIENENSTOCK: I'll tell you what I--

CARLSON: --has been proven. So, why are you acting like we know when we don't?

BIENENSTOCK: This is what's proven to be harmful, Tucker.

Arresting 600,000 Americans every year for making the choice to use a substance that's objectively safer than alcohol that - and doing it in a way that targets the poor and minorities disproportionately is devastating to those communities.

CARLSON: But you're making it - but I'm not arguing but - but you're--

BIENENSTOCK: It creates a police state.

CARLSON: --missing. I'm - I'm not arguing in favor of that. Well you're making a parallel argument and evading the question that I--

BIENENSTOCK: So, you don't want to arrest anybody for--

CARLSON: --that they get evading (ph) - look, I'm--

BIENENSTOCK: --you don't want to arrest anybody for cannabis?

CARLSON: --always for unfair application of the law. I'm always for hassling people for things that aren't really bothering others. But that's not really the question. So, I've never been for like rousting people from their homes for smoking weed. I'm totally against that.

But that's very different from legalizing it everywhere, which increases the rate of kids smoking weed. And if it really does cause schizophrenia, I should be really afraid of that. No?

BIENENSTOCK: Well youth use is down in the states that have legalized, first of all. And, second of all, if it's not going to be legalized - answer me this. Who's going to grow and sell this cannabis?

Where is it going to magically appear from if not through a regulated taxed industry? If my aunt in Kansas comes down with cancer, where am I going to send her to buy a safe, lab-tested, medical cannabis product to save her life in your system?

CARLSON: Well, I think - I think - I--

BIENENSTOCK: Who grows and sells the cannabis?

CARLSON: --I thought it was the U.S. government grew it in Mississippi for years, as you know. I mean it's look--

BIENENSTOCK: For seven people, Tucker.

CARLSON: --it's not - OK, OK, look, I know, OK--

BIENENSTOCK: For seven people.

CARLSON: --I get it. But it's not impossible to a man--

BIENENSTOCK: So, who's going to--

CARLSON: --hold on. If there - if there are - hold on, let me finish it. If the, look, again--

BIENENSTOCK: --who's going to grow and sell it in your system?

CARLSON: --you're throwing another red herring into the argument and evading the question.

BIENENSTOCK: That's not a red herring.

CARLSON: Look, if - if - no, it's, look, if we use opioids legally that are prescribed by physicians, it doesn't mean the average person can buy opium.

So, you could have controlled marijuana growing for its medicinal properties, which I'm willing to believe exists. I'm just saying you're talking about legalizing it, which means many more kids will smoke it.

And if it causes schizophrenia, it should scare the hell out of us, but it doesn't seem to bother you, because, I don't know, what, you're taking money from them or something? Why doesn't that bother you?

BIENENSTOCK: Tucker, you know, you're the one on here repeating old lies, old distortions, debunked claims, the Author of the book that you had on last week, everything he said has been completely debunked. I don't know if you've read my article on--

CARLSON: Really?

BIENENSTOCK: --Leafly. I assume that's why you had me on. But--

CARLSON: No. I--

BIENENSTOCK: --many of the people in the studies that he cited have gone on Twitter to say, "You grossly misrepresented our findings."

CARLSON: OK. Well let me just ask you - look, I'm not an expert on this.

BIENENSTOCK: The National Academy of Medicine report the Author said you misrepresent--

CARLSON: I'm happy to--

BIENENSTOCK: --you're not an expert. But you're supposed to do your job.

CARLSON: No, no, no, I'm not - my - my job - wait hold on, wait, wait, wait a second--

BIENENSTOCK: You're supposed to learn about these things. Did you read my article where I debunked all of this?

CARLSON: --let me ask you one - let me just end on one question. Is it - this is my real concern is schizophrenia because I think it's such a terrible disease, and we can't cure it, and a lot of people die from it. It's horrible, as you know.

Is it untrue, do you think that marijuana use looks like it could increase the rate of schizophrenia? Is that a fake statistic? It's a sincere question to you.

BIENENSTOCK: I'd say, you know, we need to know more, and we should know more. But having you and authors come on and just--

CARLSON: I mean--

BIENENSTOCK: --confuse causation and correlation--

CARLSON: No, I'm - I'm not confuse - I'm asking--

BIENENSTOCK: --does no one a good service.

CARLSON: --you a sincere question. And you don't seem to be--

BIENENSTOCK: I will say that. Here's my sincere answer.

CARLSON: --interested in answering it.

BIENENSTOCK: We've had societies where the rates of cannabis use has gone way up, and the rates of schizophrenia have not gone up at all. So, to me, that would put a lot of cold water on your idea that there is an epidemic of violence and--

CARLSON: Well I thought you were just lecturing me about causation--

BIENENSTOCK: --schizophrenia caused by cannabis.

CARLSON: --and correlation. But then aren't - isn't that what you're doing? OK, look, I just - look, it's an open - I - I have zero interest in banning anything. I just think that we don't know that much. I don't think you really--

BIENENSTOCK: Well, why did you have me on if you have zero--

CARLSON: --know anything (ph) and you're pretending that you do--

BIENENSTOCK: --interest in debating me?

CARLSON: Yes. I - I was debating you. We're out of time. David, thank you. I appreciate your coming on.

BIENENSTOCK: Sure.

CARLSON: Well earlier today, we told you what many are saying in Washington that fast food is racist. Maybe have a salad instead. Too bad, salads are sexist now. It's 2019. And we'll have details on that, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP: Do we give you some little quick salads that the First Lady will make, along with, along with the Second Lady. They'll make some salads. And I said, "You guys aren't into salads."

(CROWD LAUGHING)

TRUMP: Or do I go out, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, do I go out and send out for about 1,000 hamburgers?

(CROWD LAUGHING)

TRUMP: Big Macs?

JOAN MAUREEN WALSH, NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NATION: That's appalling. It seems to me like the President will not be happy until there is not one single female Republican voter in the country. It's incredibly sexist.

We aren't all here to make salads for men. It's--

ERIN ISABELLE BURNETT, ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT ANCHOR, CNN: Yes. I mean--

WALSH: --it's disgusting.

BURNETT: How in the world do you not perceive that as sexist, to say the assumption that his wife's going to go make salads for the bunch of football players? What is she, like--

SCOTT JENNINGS, FORMER POLITICAL APPOINTEE IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: I--

BURNETT: --the cook?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Joan Walsh, ladies and gentlemen, the single most unhappy person in the world, on CNN today, melting down because the President joked about salads. Salads are now sexist. Fast food is racist. What are you allowed to eat?

Allie Beth Stuckey, a brilliant unraveller of riddles and a podcast host, joins us tonight to sort it out. Thank you for coming on.

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY, RELATABLE PODCAST HOST: Yes, thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Sexist salads.

STUCKEY: Yes, apparently. So, I mean she was really upset over this. The first reaction she had was not to roll her eyes but to say that this was appalling.

I mean you just have to wonder what goes on in someone like Jo's - Joan's mind. In the middle of the night, is she tossing and turning, thinking about all of the ways that she can be offended.

CARLSON: But also, why wouldn't the rest of the country take life advice from someone whose own life has clearly been a disaster and--

STUCKEY: I mean well, maybe - maybe - but maybe--

CARLSON: --who is so deeply unhappy.

STUCKEY: --yes, exactly. Maybe this is why her life is such a disaster because she is hunting for something to hurt her feelings. And she's found it. She's found it in salad.

But also, I want to say that Melania probably does make salad, so this probably had nothing to do with her sex, whatsoever. She looks like someone who makes a good salad. So, that probably was all the comment at best (ph).

CARLSON: She looks like a salad eater.

STUCKEY: She does.

CARLSON: And I say that as someone who should be eating salads--

STUCKEY: Exactly.

CARLSON: --but is not. Right, that's not a--

STUCKEY: Exactly. Details (ph).

CARLSON: --it's not a slur. I wonder though, in the end if the best way to get people to see your way of thinking, to bring them to your side, is to scream at them for telling jokes.

STUCKEY: Probably not. But I don't think they're interested in that, not with Conservatives, and certainly not with President Trump. They just kind of repeat this thing over and over again. It's racist, sexist, whatever it is, whatever they can find in today, the poor victim was salad.

CARLSON: How long before people say, "You know what? I - I don't really care what you call me anymore."

STUCKEY: Oh, I think that's already happening.

CARLSON: It's already happened?

STUCKEY: Don't you think Trump has already done that? I do.

CARLSON: I don't know about Trump. I've definitely reached that point and this is all fake.

STUCKEY: That's good (ph).

CARLSON: Allie, it's great to see you. Welcome to Washington.

STUCKEY: It's great to see you as well. Thank you.

CARLSON: You've improved the tenor of the city by your presence.

All right, we're out of time sadly. Tomorrow night, 8:00 P.M., we'll be back, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Needless to say, DVR it if you can figure that out. I can't, but you're probably smarter.

Good night from Washington. And tonight, with looks like about 18 seconds to go, we're going to give a delayed Christmas present to our pal, Sean Hannity--

SEAN HANNITY- HOST: I--

CARLSON: --in New York.

HANNITY: --I think you made up for all of last year, you know.

CARLSON: Use the time wisely, Sean. It's yours.

HANNITY: We're going to - we're going to give you the radio show. You can host my show one day. And it's going to be hitting the post. I'll teach - I'll - we'll tell you about it.

CARLSON: No way, I'm in (ph).

HANNITY: All right, Tucker, great show as always.

CARLSON: Thanks, Sean.

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.