Head of Iran's Quds Force killed in an airstrike

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 2, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Last weekend, as you saw Grafton Thomas carry out a horrifying stabbing attack at a Hanukkah party in Monsey, New York.  Listen to the daughter of one victim described the aftermath of that.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  He has a fractured skull.  He has been sliced, like through his neck.  He has a shattered arm.  The doctors do not have high hopes for him.  He may never be -- I mean, if he wakes up, he may never be able to walk, talk or even process speech again.


CARLSON:  Awful.  So far the coverage of the attack in Monsey has focused on the rising number of violent anti-Jewish incidents in New York and across the country, as well as on Thomas's own psychiatric issues which were significant.

But we must be honest and tell you there was another factor at play and that was ideology.  Thomas was only on the street in the first place because politicians long ago decided to side with criminals over normal people in New York.

By the time he began stabbing strangers in the synagogue, Thomas had already been arrested seven times, in some cases for violent offenses like assault, resisting arrest and killing a police animal.

Now, despite all of that, the only jail time Thomas ever received was in 2013 on a drug offense, somehow he was able to kill a police animal and never go to jail.

In other words, Grafton Thomas gave us plenty of warning.  The people in charge of protecting us just decided to ignore those warnings.

Bernard Kerik was once the New York City Police Commissioner and he joins us tonight.  Bernie, thanks so much for coming on.  How did this happen?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER:  Well listen, I've been, you know, talking about this for the last year where I think the city, the State of New York is irresponsible in creating these laws where they're not holding people accountable.

On January 1st, just two days ago, you know, we signed into law and it's gone into effect where people that burglarize, that Rape 3 -- Rape third class, and a number of different crimes, violent crimes are now being considered not violent.  And people aren't held when they get locked up.

They're just turning them around right through a turnstile.  I think it's -
- this is a demonstration of how the city is going to implode if they don't fix it and fix it fast because you're going to continue to have people like this out on the streets.

CARLSON:  Most of what you're saying is intuitive.  It's obvious.  Normal people, I think, know it instinctively.  So why the change?  Was there a groundswell of support for letting people out of prison or not putting them in prison for killing police animals, for example, or rape?  I mean, how did we get here?

KERIK:  Well, I think it's this left wing liberal socialist push, where we villainize the police.  We embolden the criminals.  We let people out.  You know, there was the criminal justice reform push.

You know, here's the bottom line.  There should be criminal justice reform.  
Bbad people that do bad things belong in prison.

We put Rod Blagojevich, the Governor of Illinois in prison for 14 years for talking about politics on the phone.

CARLSON:  I agree.

KERIK:  But you have people committing getting violent acts, violent acts against others, and they turn around and let them out to go out and do it again the next day, and the next day after.

You've had -- you had a woman who committed three acts of violence in three days, and she's been let out every day after.

CARLSON:  So you started on the New York City force, at the Police Department when New York was dangerous.  You took over running the department when it had become safer, it was still safer after you left and now you're seeing it move in the opposite direction.  It almost seems like we know what to do to make the city safe, but we're not doing it on purpose.

KERIK:  You know what, Tucker?  Nobody knows how to fix the city and how to reduce crime better than I did, and I do because I was there when the Renaissance occurred, but it looks like this Mayor and this Governor, they're trying to diminish and destroy all the programs that were put in place that reduced crime by 65 -- violent crime by 65 to 70 percent, homicide by 70 to 75 percent.

And what they did in this -- with these new laws where they're letting people back out on the street, it's going to diminish quality of life and it's going to enhance violence.

CARLSON:  It just shows you what political leaders can do the damage they can wreak.  I mean, all of our attention is on the national stage.  But here you have just a Mayor, just as Mayor of a city, causing remarkable damage to people.

KERIK:  Well, listen, all you have to do is look what's happened in the last week, in the last 24 hours.  This thing should be reversed.  The Mayor should be screaming out of his mind to get it reversed.

He's not out there.  He's not doing it.  It endangers the public.  It's irresponsible.  It's dangerous to the police officers to put their lives on the line on a daily basis to go out and arrest people.  It's a shame.

CARLSON:  It's depressing.  Bernie Kerik, thanks so much for that.

As you just heard, New York City appears to be doing everything that it can to create more Grafton Thomas's.  A New Year's Day new bail laws went into effect in New York State.  Those aren't going to help.

Pretrial detention and cash bail have now been eliminated for almost all misdemeanor and nonviolent felony cases, even some violent felonies are included.  What does it mean?  It means the crimes like burglary, stalking, petty assault, many drug offenses, even some types of arson and robbery are no longer bail crimes.

In the words of Governor Andrew Cuomo himself, the guy behind this, 90 percent of criminal defendants will now be back on the street right after being arrested.

Habitual offenders will find it even easier than ever to commit more crimes immediately after getting caught.  With no bail constraining them, there is no incentive to show up for court, so of course, many will simply disappear and reoffend.

Who benefits from this?  It's hard to see who benefits from it, except the people getting out of jail.

Last week, New York resident Tiffany Harris allegedly assaulted three Orthodox Jewish women in Brooklyn.  Harris was arrested, charged and released.  On Sunday she was arrested and charged with another assault and she was released again.

On New Year's Eve, guess what she did?  She got arrested for a third time.  
This time she is finally being kept in custody.  That's New York.

But Democratic presidential candidates have made it clear that if they take power in Washington this fall, they will make the rest of the country every bit as inviting for criminals.  Watch this.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.:  I have been a leader in the United States Senate on saying we need to get rid of the cash bail system.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  They're in jail because they are too poor to afford cash bail.  You understand what I'm saying?  We're going to end cash bail.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.:  We should get rid of cash bail entirely.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  How about we stop making poverty a crime?  No more cash bail.  This is crazy.


CARLSON:  Is this what the country wants or needs?  Is this a peaceful place where law-abiding citizens feel safe and protected and ought to be, increasingly it's not.

For about half a decade, criminal justice reform has been one of the chief obsessions of our ruling class.  Eliminating bail is just one prong of the offensive that they are waging.  They're also demanding shorter prison sentences, fewer cops in quote, "over policed neighborhoods," whatever that is, voting rights for violent criminals in prison and more.

Now, often these policies enjoy support from guilt-ridden Republicans who have forgotten who they represent.  The year 2019 just ended and so now, we can bring some data to this conversation and fully assess the human toll of these policies.

We have the numbers.  Here's what they are.  In Philadelphia, a city we've taken a close look at in the show under the direction of Soros funded DA, Larry Krasner, the city recorded 359 murders for the year.  That's the most in more than a decade.

In other words, people died as a result of these policies, more than a hundred and it's not just in Philadelphia.  Baltimore had 348 murders last year.  That's the most since 1993 and at a per capita level, it's the deadliest year on record in Baltimore.

In 2014, Dallas had only 116 homicides this year after the far left, John Creuzot promise not to prosecute thefts valued at less than 750 bucks.  The murder rate went up to over 200.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, 57 homicides recorded last year -- 57.  This year, Charlotte reached that number before the end of June and then just kept going.  The city finished with 108 murders on the year.  That's the most since the early 1990s.

How about Washington, the nation's capital?  Well in 2012, D.C. had just 88 murders.  Even two years ago, there were only 116, but this year, 2019, 166 murders.  See a trend?  You should because it's everywhere.

We could spend half the show resetting the stats for city after city -- St. Louis, Raleigh, Seattle, Louisville, Cincinnati -- we could go on and on.

The point is across the country, in city after city, murder rates have surged dramatically compared with just five years ago.  This is happening.  
These are not fake statistics.  They're the most real.

And even in cities where violent crime hasn't surged, locals are dealing instead with property crimes and quality of life offenses, which are significant, in some places, severe.

San Francisco, for example, facing an epidemic of shoplifting and car robberies, it has made life unbearable for many taxpayers.  We've got a series on that running next week, which you won't want to miss.

The bottom line is, normal people don't want criminal justice reform.  They want criminal justice enforcement.  They've always wanted that.  So why aren't they getting it?

Heather Mac Donald has thought a lot about this question.  She is the author of the book, "The Diversity Delusion," a frequent guest on the show, and she joins us tonight.  Heather, thanks so much for coming on.


CARLSON:  So I don't think there is any topic on which there is a greater divide between what the majority of citizens of all parties, all colors say they want and what they get from the people in charge.  Why is this complicated for our leaders?

MAC DONALD:  Because they're in the grips of a false narrative, which says that the criminal justice system is racist.  This massive wave of de- incarceration, decriminalization that is going on across the country as you point out, Tucker, is being done in the name of racial justice.

Well, guess who those homicide victims are overwhelmingly?  Black.

CARLSON:  Exactly.

MAC DONALD:  Law-abiding blacks.  The criminal justice system, Tucker, is not racist.  The incidence of people in prison is because of crime, not their skin color.

Prison today remains a Lifetime Achievement Award for persistence in criminal offending.  You have to work very hard to get yourself sentenced to prison, and yet, the elites are convinced and they're trying to persuade the rest of the world that America's endemic racism is willy-nilly throwing black people in prison and throwing away the keys.  That is simply not the case.

CARLSON:  I can't resist pointing out that at the very moment when we're literally letting arsonists go free, Roger Stone is facing life in prison for what?  It's not even clear.

So the political penalties have gotten stiffer, but the penalties for violence and mayhem have almost disappeared in a lot of cases.  But again, there's no constituency for this outside of like small pockets of affluence on the coast, like normal people are not for this.  They never have been for it.  So how do our leaders get away with it?

MAC DONALD:  Well, the activists are for it, the academia is for it.  Again, the universities are the source of this narrative that says that everything about America today is defined and created by racism.  And I guess, the public does not have a voice.

But we if we get a rise in crime, like we did in the 90s, it is going to swing back again.  Right now, we are living off of the law enforcement reforms that said policing matters, that incarceration matters, and we've gotten lazy, and the elites are back in the saddle, you know, and it's going to take a lot of thousands of more black lives lost to criminals who should be in jail before this gets turned around.

CARLSON:  Let me ask a quick question.  So when Bernie Sanders or someone like him stands up and says, the only reason these people are in jail is because they're poor, just like demonstrably false.

I've never heard a Republican candidate or any Republican officeholders say, you know, that's just a flat out lie actually.  We have the numbers, you're wrong.  Why do they never stand up for simple law and order?

MAC DONALD:  They're scared.  I mean, they're absolutely terrified of the racism charge.  I was at a House Judiciary Committee hearing that talked about the criminal justice system.  I was very disappointed in the Republicans.  They just spouted bromides about our men and women in blue without actually combating the lie that the criminal justice system is racist.

As for this idea that cash bail affects the poor.  Listen, in New York City, only seven percent of misdemeanor arrestees have any kind of bail set for them.  And that's because they have long felony arrest records and only
0.6 percent of misdemeanor arrests, these are actually in jail.

In fact, most people are put on the streets anyway.  And so this bail reform law is a solution in search of a non-problem that is only going to create more crime.

CARLSON:  Well, exactly.  There you go with your statistics and those spooky numbers.  We appreciate it though.  Heather Mac Donald, thank you so much.

MAC DONALD:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Another Democrat dropped out of the presidential race, and once again, the press is distressed by this.  They are calling Democratic primary voters bigots for not supporting him, are they?

Plus, Joe Biden says putting coal miners out of work is no big deal.  They should just learn to code.  Can they?  That's next.  Amazing.


CARLSON:  There's an awful lot of news tonight, but we want to pause and acknowledge something that's happened in the Democratic presidential race.  Julian Castro is out.

In other words, until this morning, he was still running for President.  You'd be forgiven if you assume that he dropped out months ago.  That's how effective his candidacy was.

The only time he got any attention was at the first Democratic debate, you might remember.  It was back in June, where he addressed the pressing problem, one of the biggest problems this country faces, how do biological men get abortions?  He had an answer.


JULIAN CASTRO, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I don't believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice.  You know, what that means is that just because a woman or let's also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female who is poor doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose.


CARLSON:  So there was that and he won a vote or two with that unusual argument.  His other argument was that voters should vote for him based on his identity.  The video announcing the end of his candidacy opened and closed with a line in Spanish, which basically said it all, vote for me because of my background and because I speak Spanish.

The irony, though, is that Julian Castro actually can't speak Spanish.  He is just totally fraudulent.  Now, there's nothing wrong with not being able to speak Spanish.  Actually, that's not a crime.

In fact, if anything, Castro could have celebrated that is proof that immigrants assimilate into American study as they have for hundreds of years.  That's a good thing.  We used to be for that.

But the vision of actual assimilation has no currency in the modern Democratic Party, where people are constantly divided up by skin color, nationality, gender and language.

So instead, he had to play up his views on immigration, which honestly, were kind of extreme.  Watch.


CASTRO:  Instead of building a wall or closing the border, we should choose compassion instead of cruelty.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR:  The feeling from this administration is that we are in a full-blown crisis and that they are overwhelmed by it.  How do you think?

CASTRO:  You know, I don't believe their narrative.  I don't believe the BS.

We should decriminalize people who are coming here, crossing the border.

We need to increase the number of refugees that we take into this country.

And if we're not careful, if we don't get this right, in 20 or 30 years, this nation is going to be begging for immigrants to come to this country.


CARLSON:  Begging -- and if you're not, you're not grateful.  You're a bad person.

Well, as we said, he is out of the race and over on MSNBC, they're taking it hard.  Some of the anchors pointed to Castro's departure.  It's just the latest evidence that the Democratic primary electorate is racist.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Julian Castro, the only thing Latino running ends his campaign today leaving the Democrats even less diverse.  Following the earlier departure, of course of Senator Kamala Harris.

As of now, there are going to be five white candidates on this next debate stage.  Is that sustainable for the Democratic Party?


CARLSON:  David Perino is the first person we go to, to figure out what's going on in this race.  She hosts "The Daily Briefing," of course with Dana Perino.  We're always grateful to have her.

So Dana, you keep hearing from Democrats, this grave disappointment in their own primary electorate suggesting that they're bigots for supporting, I guess, Biden and Bernie, what do you make of that?

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS HOST:  And then I wonder if the media organizations are going to send out a bunch of reporters all across the nation to find out what actually is happening in this country as they did after the 2016 election results.

And the thing about Julio Castro is that he gave the D.N.C. Convention speech back in 2012 and he became the candidate of tomorrow, but he was a candidate of tomorrow for so long that it became yesterday.

He never was able to get a foothold.  And the two things that you point out, the two major policy positions on abortion and on immigration, he never got enough support that those policies were actually scrutinized.

If you think of someone like Elizabeth Warren and Medicare-for-All, that got the full treatment, but Julian Castro, ever since 2012 thought that he was going to be on that stage, maybe the nominee?  I think that he will, though, be on the VP shortlist, even if he really doesn't deserve to be, but his name will be on the list.

But I don't know if they'll actually choose him because there's many other people that show that they were able to get some base of support.

CARLSON:  You make such a smart point.  I mean, if I get up and said, you know, if a biological man gets pregnant, I promise I'll pay for his abortion.  I'd be laughed at and I'd probably lose my job, right?

But he was so ignored that he could say that and people were like, oh, yeah, okay.  You know, whatever.  I just want to ask you --

PERINO:  That's when you know you're in real trouble.  If you say something like that and like -- it's like if a tree falls in a forest, like if you say something like that on a debate stage and everyone goes, yes, well, it's just like helium.  Okay.

CARLSON:  Yes, you could just be floridly and say that and nobody cares.  
So this happened in New Hampshire on Monday.  Joe Biden explained how coal miners should adapt to having their jobs regulated out of existence.  They should just learn a completely different profession from scratch.  Watch.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I come from a family -- we're in an area where there is coal mining in Scranton.  Anybody who could go down 300 to 3,000 feet in the mine sure in hell can learn how to program as well.


CARLSON:  So this just -- this struck me as so very similar to a line that we heard not very long ago, basically dismissing the concerns of people whose industries, particularly the coal business has been regulated out of existence.  Is that a wise thing even for a Democrats to say right now?

PERINO:  So you're saying I think you're talking about the Hillary Clinton comment in the 2016 campaign.

CARLSON:  I am.  That's right.

PERINO:  In which basically she was like celebrating the fact that they were going to try to put coal out of business, and then she had the deplorables line and she never really came back from that.

I think the thing about Joe Biden is that a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt and they will think, well, Joe means well.  Okay, like, he doesn't really -- he doesn't want us to be without jobs.  He cares about us -- like, he has that.

But there is an elitist attitude about coal that it belies the entire Democratic Party.  The truth is, if he wants to win, he is going to have to try to win back some of those workers ion the rust belt, including coal workers.

CARLSON:  Right.

PERINO:  And I think that what he could have done, since apparently America is in a mood to wildly spend on government programs, why not try to ratchet it up and I would -- he could have said something like, I'm going to commit
$15 billion for this community, specifically to help them, make sure that they're taken care of et cetera.

Now, one thing that happened last week, the taxpayers are going to bail out a lot of the coal pensions because they were mismanaged by the executives, not the workers, but by the executives and guess then who gets on the hook for that?  The taxpayers.

And Joe Biden doesn't do any of that.  He bypasses it and says something they could learn to code, which I think will come back to haunt him.

CARLSON:  So I just wonder quickly, I mean, that kind of tells you a lot about how that community is viewed in the Democratic Party.  I mean, is it that hard if you're promising, you know, everybody a chunk of cash, just to say that, you know, Kentucky, Southwest Virginia and West Virginia, here's some -- but they can't because they don't like those people.

PERINO:  I think that it's showing that you have some -- I mean, think about Bill Clinton, right?  I feel your pain.  He didn't really, right?


PERINO:  But people thought that he meant it when he said that.  Joe Biden has the capability to be that kind of guy as well.  But what he said the other night was much more in line with sort of the fundraising circuit for Democrats, not the people circuit.

CARLSON:  Yes.  Mistake.  Dana Perino, great to see you tonight.  Thank you.

PERINO:  Okay.  Happy New Year.

CARLSON:  Happy New Year.  So you were celebrating this past week with your family, but permanent Washington was plotting yet another war in the Middle East.

Tonight, there seems to have been another big step toward that war.  We will be asking a question nobody seems to be raising.  Is it a good idea?  
An update and what's happening tonight after the break.


CARLSON:  We have an unexpected Fox News alert for you, something that has just happened in Iraq.  The situation there, heating up very quickly without any debate here in Washington.

Iraqi television has just confirmed that Qasem Soleimani, a former general in Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the Commander of the Quds Force has been killed in a rocket attack apparently initiated by the United States near the Baghdad airport, along with the top official in the Iraqi Shiite militia.  Now, what were they doing in Iraq?  Unclear.

But his death comes several days after tensions kind of came out into the open in that country.  Last week, if you've been following this, you know, an American civilian contractor was killed by militants in Iraq.  The U.S. 
government blamed that attack on Iran and it retaliated with strikes.

In response, protesters blockaded the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.  It's basically where we were when the show started tonight.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned that the United States is prepared to launch additional preemptive military strikes against Iranian interests in the region, which apparently are what we are seeing right now.

Now, again, there's been virtually no debate or even discussion about this, but America appears to be lumbering toward a new Middle East war.  And we have to say it's one that official Washington has wanted for decades.

For example, disgraced National Security adviser, John Bolton has made it his life's mission to start a war with Iran and tonight, Bolton may be finally getting his wish.  Should you be happy about that?  That's the question.

Well, the last time we took John Bolton's advice in the region, Iran became far more powerful than it was before, before we took John Bolton's advice.  
Why?  Because things were never quite as simple as they claim they are in Washington.

In this case, the very people demanding action against Iran tonight, the ones telling you the Persian menace is the greatest threat we face are the very same ones demanding that you ignore the invasion of America now in progress from the south.  The millions, the tens of millions of foreign nationals living among us illegally; the torrent, more significantly of Mexican narcotics that has killed and disabled entire generations of Americans -- nobody cares, in case you haven't noticed.

Pay no attention to all of that, these very same people tell us.  The real threat is Iran.  Well, they're liars.  And they don't care about you.  They don't care about your kids.  They are reckless and incompetent.  And you should keep all of that in mind, as war with Iran looms closer tonight.

Curt Mills is a senior writer at the "American Conservative."  He joins us now.  So Curt, this is unfolding, even as we speak.  Where could it go from here?

CURT MILLS, SENIOR WRITER, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE:  Well, like you said, if you liked the Iraq War, Tucker, we're back with a sequel, the Iran War.

I would say the deep concern is, look, a general in the Iranian forces being assassinated is not necessarily something to mourn or begrudge the U.S. getting involved in.

CARLSON:  That's right.  I agree.

MILLS:  The question is, though, is this a Franz Ferdinand moment?  Is this a situation where a great power gets involved with the middle tier power and gets the world into a world war?

Iran, I think is a problem for the U.S. and its allies in the region.  But it is not an existential threat, like China or Russia.  China or Russia, particularly China would love to see another decade or two of Americans my age, dying in the sand for no particular purpose.

CARLSON:  Well, that's exactly it.  It's not that anyone I think in the United States has particular affection for Iran or trust in its government, much, much less the Revolutionary Guard or the Kurds forces.  Of course not.

But it's the intemperance with which the foreign policy establishment in Washington describes the threat that I think makes sensible people nervous, that Iran is the greatest threat we face.  I mean, it's so prima facie absurd that it makes you wonder what their actual agenda is.

MILLS:  It's a joke.  It's a joke.  I mean, I think the real question is, why do we still have troops there?  So you see the Baghdad embassy protests.  And to be clear, this is not just an embassy.  This is a fortress.  It's been a fortress since we took out Saddam in 2003 and American troops there, if we're not going to re-annex, the country are effectively hostages.

They're just -- they're sent there.  So the question the President, who I think rightfully ran in 2016, against the Bush legacy.  The question is, does he want to re-invade Iraq?

I understand there are people in his Cabinet that are selling him that Iran is not Iraq?  But the fact of the matter, Iran is quite similar to Iraq.  
We're talking about Iraq, 16 years later, it's still Iraq.

In order to counter Iran, I think the choice is clear.  The President should contain Iranian influence in the region.  We should avoid a hot war, which we are barreling towards at all costs.

CARLSON:  So my sense of it is, the President doesn't seek war and he is wary of it, particularly in an election year, but I think he was elected on the promise that he would avoid wars except when absolutely necessary.

But there are a lot of people around him and certainly in the city of Washington who have been preparing for this, agitating for it, Bolton is one of many for an awfully long time and you wonder if it's possible that he might be outmaneuvered by them and that we might find ourselves moving toward war despite what the President wants.

MILLS:  Right.  So I think the President of the United States' convictions on this matter are sincere, but I think it's relevant, particularly extremely relevant matters of war and peace and life and death, who he staffs his administration with.

I know, Bolton is a bugbear for you.  But in some ways, Bolton because he is so flamboyant, and so infamous and notorious.  He actually was a bit of a problem for the Iran Hawk Crusade, more middleweight, more circumspect managers like Robert C. O'Brien, Bolton's successor might actually be more effective at Trojan horsing, what I think would be a tragedy in the Middle East.

Iran is not Iraq, it's twice as big.  It'd be twice as bad.  We're weaker than we were 16 years ago.  If President George W. Bush struggled to win reelection in 2004, if Trump does, he is cooked.

CARLSON:  I think that's right.  Curt Mills.  Great to see you tonight.  Thank you for that.

MILLS:  Thanks.  So you hear a lot from the left about how concerned about the environment they are.  But you've noticed that those concerns have always conveniently dovetailed with acquiring more political power and crushing their political enemies.

California saw major wildfires this year and according to the "Nation" magazine, there's a clear culprit -- private homeownership is the problem.  
And we're quoting now, "The idealization of individual homeownership created the scorching landscapes we face today.  Individual homeownership should be seriously questioned."

Banning private homeownership?  Will that stop wildfires?  It would fix the environment.  How about building fewer shopping malls?  No one ever thinks of that.  No, it won't.  It will make the government more powerful.  It'll make regular people less happy and less free.  And of course, that is the point.

Victor Davis Hanson is a lifelong Californian.  He is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and we're happy to have him tonight.  Professor, thanks a lot for coming on.  Do you think that wildfires besetting your state mean that people should not be allowed to own their own homes?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION:  Well, it's a characteristic of the left that they envision natural and man-made disasters as opportunities to ram down agendas that we otherwise wouldn't vote for, and that's what Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste.

I think it was AOC's Chief of Staff who said the New Green Deal was really not about climate change, but changing the American economy along socialist lines.  This had nothing to do with climate change or our fires, Tucker.

We've only gone up about one degree in a century in California.  That's mostly because of asphalt and cement and our cities, and precipitation hasn't changed.  What it is about is that we have a hundred million trees and underbrush that grew out -- that died out of the 2014 to 2016 drought.

We never harvested them for green reasons and the underbrush took over and then, PG&E which was at one time as you remember as a Californian, the best utility in the United States.  It's ossified.  It's calcified.  It's over regulated.  It's got all these green mandates.  It's got to use expensive energy production.

It doesn't have a capital to update its transmission lines, and when I was a kid, the wind didn't have much of effect it does now.

And then finally, I think this is really important that California zoning laws have made a lot of places that were really habitable not open to urbanization or suburbanization in the Bay Area, or LA.  So people move out to areas that they didn't used to live in to find cheap places to live because everything is so expensive in California.

And when you have infrastructure -- infrastructure that is rated about the worst in the nation, our highways and bridges, and it's hard to get to these places.  The freeways are packed.  We haven't built a major reservoir since New Melones Dam in 1983.  So it's a kind of a perfect storm.

And you know, Tucker when state and local officials can't solve existential problems, they blame other reasons and when they can't deal with homelessness and then you banned plastic bottles at San Francisco Airport.  
We can't deal with utility or wildfire damage, then you say climate change did it and we've got to become socialists.

CARLSON:  Well, I mean, it's dysfunctional because it's crowded, and it's crowded because of their immigration policy and they won't admit that.  
They did this, as you know.  Professor, thank you so much.

HANSON:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  So attacking homeowners is just one facet of the broader assault on normal people in this country.  In the City of San Francisco, progressives are working constantly to create their ideal vision of an American city.

But the opposite has been the effect.  It is now unsafe, unhealthy, unaffordable, and for many, unlivable.  It's a dystopia in a lot of ways.  
The most beautiful city in our country.

We sent a team of producers to San Francisco for an in-depth exclusive investigation into what is happening there.  And the effect it is having on the dwindling pool of middle class residents.

Our special series debuts next Monday, and it continues all week.  Here's a short preview of what we found.


CARLSON:  Oh, it's -- even the trailer is all too much.  It's shocking what we found.

Well, up next, free speech may be dying in parts of America, but Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager are ensuring the First Amendment would at least go down fighting.

Their documentary is back in theaters and they join us next to talk about it.  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Freedom of speech is America's most distinctive, right.  It's a free country.  Remember they used to say that back when it was.  But it's also the most embattled of all of our rights.

In the name of safety and sensitivity, a coalition of big tech monopolists, universities and political activists are fighting to limit what you're allowed to say, and punish those who stray outside the accepted boundaries.

But last year, comedian Adam Carolla who is a genius, and radio host, Dennis Prager, also kind of genius, teamed up to release "No Safe Spaces," 
kind of a brilliant documentary about the American Anti-Speech Movement.  
Here's part of it.


DENNIS PRAGER, FOUNDER, PRAGER U:  Israel sent me into the Soviet Union when I was 21 years old, because I knew Russian and Hebrew, and I was sent in to smuggle out the names of Jews that I would find in the Soviet Union and to smuggle in religious items and so on.

And I really experienced what most people in the West have never ever experienced -- life under a totalitarian regime.


CARLSON:  It's a great movie.  And if you want to see it in theaters, you still have a chance to do that.  The film is having a limited release this weekend, thanks to strong support from grateful viewers.

Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager, join us tonight.  Gentlemen, thanks both for coming out.  I haven't talked to you since the film came out.  Just to start with you, Adam.  What was the risk?  Did anyone tell you that you're not allowed to say the things you said in the film?  Did the irony loop come complete?

ADAM CAROLLA, COMEDIAN:  It is interesting when people are talking about free speech, but it's free speech that they want to vet and make sure it's okay for them to hear before you can say it.

I did notice the clip was all Dennis Prager, by the way, so I'm going to get my publicist on this.

PRAGER:  Yes.  This resentment is a very big problem.

CARLSON:  Well, I think he may be close to one of my producers.

PRAGER:  The problem is -- it's a big problem.  We enjoy each other too much.  We're looking for problems.

CAROLLA:  Yes.  We're still kind of in the newly wed phase of our relationship.

CARLSON:  So what are -- but even newlyweds, they may sublimate it, but there's usually tension.  If you could identify one thing that divides you bitterly, what would it be?

CAROLLA:  He likes gefilte fish, and I wouldn't feed that stuff to my cat.

PRAGER:  No, you said you did feed it.

CAROLLA:  Yes, I did.  Feed it to my cat.

PRAGER:  Your cat liked it.  I asked you specifically how it went over in the Corolla home.  You said the cat loved it.

CAROLLA:  Yes, he gave me a jar of gefilte fish.

PRAGER:  Yes, I did.

CAROLLA:  By the way fish isn't supposed to be in jars.  Just for your information.  It should be on platters or it's supposed to be above a fireplace in a hunting lodge.  Your aquarium.  That's right.

CARLSON:  Exactly.

PRAGER:  By the way, this was the danger working with him.

CARLSON:  So has the problem gotten better?


CAROLLA:  The gefilte fish is as bad as it has ever been.

CARLSON:  No, that's -- I mean, I think that's there's not any room for improvement there at all.  But the question of speech, do you think the country has become freer or less free in the last year?

PRAGER:  No, it's -- it is less free.  There's no question.  And you could -- there's an interesting proof.  Read the reviewers in the mainstream media, not to mention left wing media, on how they have contempt for the film.

When the film features liberal after liberal, including President Obama, speaking about what's going on, on campuses, but they can't even acknowledge that this is going on when they see the film, which is about the suppression of speech.

CAROLLA:  I have a slightly different feeling on it.  Yes, well, here's what I think.  I feel like the pendulum is starting to swing back the other direction.

I mean, the comedic community and I feel a lot of my cohorts in the comedy world are starting to push back against it because they're at their saturation level.  And I feel like the group that started this thing is starting to double down on it, starting to really work it harder.'

It's sort of the same subject is racism.  As racism fades from our society, a certain group is tripling down their efforts to make sure it's alive and well, or at least we think it's alive and well.

PRAGER:  I think he is right about the comedic community.  That's correct.  Outside of that, I don't think it's true.  San Francisco 49'er color announcer -- and I'm not sure you could use that term any longer -- simply said in describing the Baltimore Ravens quarterback who is a terrific quarterback and who is black and he said, you know, there might be the slight half second advantage in a handoff because the ball is black and the uniform is black and he is black.  So the offensive line doesn't see it quite as quickly.

And the guy was said, you're a racist.  And unless he apologized profusely as in Mao's China in the Cultural Revolution, he would have lost his job.

CAROLLA:  Defensive line, but we know what you're talking about.

CARLSON:  So I wonder if we are at the point though where --

PRAGER:  That's right, defensive line.  You are right and that was a boo- boo.

CARLSON:  I wonder if it's counterproductive -- okay, but the point remains, is it -- I mean, what about the people who are facing this problem and there are a lot of them, not just famous people, but normal people who are under attack by the HR department down the hall.  What's the right response for them?  Should they go through the Mao's China routine where they apologize and beg forgiveness?  Or do they stand on principle?

PRAGER:  Well, I won't -- I don't know what Adam's position is on this.  But I think -- first of all, apologizing means that you think you were wrong.  I don't know how people live with themselves when they are right, and they publicly announced that they were wrong.

It's so humiliating that I personally couldn't do it.

CAROLLA:  Well, I think we're going to have to do it this way because I do my own podcast.  I have my own pirate ship.  I have autonomy.  I can say what I want.  I don't have to apologize.  And thus, I'm not asked to apologize because I never apologize.

But for guys who do announcers for the 49'ers, what are they to do?

PRAGER:  No, I know.  It's a horrible, horrible dilemma.

CAROLLA:  What we have to do is all stop apologizing at the same time.  I mean, if there's one guy with a gun, we just have pool cues and we all need to charge them at once.  If we do it one by one, we'll be taken out one by one.

PRAGER:  By the way, just let me remind people, because it's a great film.  
nosafespaces.com and they can find out where it's playing.

CARLSON:  And I think they will.  Adam and Dennis.  Good to see both tonight.  Thank you.

PRAGER:  Thank you.

CAROLLA:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  So months after Jeffrey Epstein's death, however, that occurred, his alleged fixer is still free.  Where is she?  New reports tonight about where and who is protecting her?  Remarkable story.  Trace Gallagher fills us in after the break.


CARLSON:  Well, according to multiple sources Ghislaine Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein's fixer, the person who facilitated his abuse of teenage girls.  
But since Epstein's death, Maxwell has rarely appeared in public and has not been charged with any crime.

Now, according to a new report, that is not an accident.  Apparently she is being protected.  Chief breaking news correspondent, Trace Gallagher has more this story.  Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Hey, Tucker.  The question has long lingered about whether his ex-girlfriend and confidant, Ghislaine Maxwell would face charges for allegedly recruiting and grooming these young girls for underage sex.

But our corporate cousin, "The New York Post" says, for now Maxwell is untouchable with the source saying, quote, "Ghislaine is protected.  She and Jeffrey were assets of sorts for multiple foreign governments.  They would trade information about the powerful people caught in his net -- caught at Epstein's house."

Adding, quoting here, "She is not in the U.S.  She moves around.  She is sometimes in the U.K., but most often in other countries such as Israel, where her powerful contacts have provided her with safe houses and protection."

And separately, we should note, a friend of Ghislaine Maxwell tells "The Sun" newspaper that she has enough dirt on those powerful contacts that she expects to avoid any prosecution at all -- Tucker.

CARLSON:  A little test to whether justice is real.  Trace Gallagher, thanks for much for that tonight.  Good to see you.

Well, that's it for us.  We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that's a sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.  Good night.

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