This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Januaray 15, 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." Well they have got him finally, trapped like John Dillinger outside the biograph theater by the G men. Democrats announced today that they have finally obtained proof concrete and irrefutable proof that the President is in fact a secret Russian agent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This President seems to be putting Russia's interests ahead of our own.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The evidence suggests indeed Trump is has been a pawn of the Russians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Don Lemon has it nailed. As we told you last night, you could've seen this coming. The FBI suspected for some time, the Bureau opened a criminal investigation to the President more than a year ago on the grounds that no loyal American would fire a leader as impressive as FBI director Jim Comey. Putin must have ordered it.
The Washington Post concurred with this is one of that paper's columnists noted. Trump has also "endorsed populism". That's right. Populism, that is the stink of Russia all over it. It smells like vodka and day-old herring. So, people in Washington have had their suspicions for years now. But now we know for certain and we know because of a stunning New York Times piece today.
In it, current and former administration officials speaking of course from behind the protective veil of anonymity, because honestly you don't know what the KGB or whoever is called these days is capable of doing to be able to tell the truth. But they nevertheless divulge that on multiple occasions over the last year the President has privately floated the idea of pulling United States out of NATO. Let that sink in, leaving NATO.
This is a huge story or would have been a huge story in 1983 when the Soviet Union still existed, and it was still clear what the point of NATO was. NATO, you'll remember was created to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe and NATO did a very good job of that all the way until the very day the Soviet Union collapsed. That was the Summer of 1991. It was almost 28 years ago.
Vladimir Putin runs Russia now. He does not plan to invade Western Europe. He can't. So, why do we still have NATO. Well, nobody really knows. In Washington, you're definitely not allowed to ask. And that's a shame because it would be an interesting conversation, remaining in NATO comes with significant obligations. In the 1990s, our leaders decided it would be a wise idea to promise countries like Latvia and Estonia that we would use nuclear weapons to protect them if they ever had a problem with Russia.
Why did we do that? Well who knows? The details are lost to history, but the point is we did that. Article 5 obligates United States to protect any NATO ally that is threatened. So, how do we feel about that now. Are you ready to launch a nuclear war over Latvia? What do you think of sending your kids to defend the territorial integrity of Estonia?
Our foreign policy establishment thinks it's well worth it. In fact, under our current rules of membership in NATO, we would have no choice. You might not have known that. All of this might merit a national debate of some sort. At some point, when we're ready 28 years in. But no, the left isn't into national debates anymore, they're into screaming and threats and criminal investigation and other forms of coercion. They like things the way they are in this country, they're benefiting hugely from the status quo and they don't like being challenged. They consider asking difficult questions a criminal act.
Just this morning in fact, Preet Bharara, he's the most famous former federal prosecutor in the country explained this view on Twitter. He said this, "if true, Trump should immediately and publicly state his apparent wish to withdraw from NATO, so he can be promptly impeached, convicted and removed from office".
In other words, talking about leaving NATO isn't simply unwise according to our leaders. It's an impeachable offense. Lots of famous and powerful people in Washington think this. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Withdrawing from NATO, even discussing discussion about withdrawing from NATO, I think is - it would be disastrous for the security.
JACKIE SPEIER, SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I think that act would be so destructive to our country. It would be a ground for some profound effort by our part, whether it's impeachment or the 25th Amendment. He can't do that to this country, and I don't believe that he can do it without Senate ratification.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Did you catch that? The 25th Amendment. In other words, according to a sitting member of Congress, someone who is there right now rethinking membership in NATO isn't just treasonous and criminal though obviously it is. It's also prima facie evidence of insanity. You're not fit to govern if you say that, you probably shouldn't drive a car just in the interest of public safety.
So, whatever happened to the old Democratic Party. When did the anti-war people become (floored neocons), when did it become the party of Bill Kristol and Max Boot and every other discredited hack still trying to replicate the Iraq disaster in nations around the world? Who knows when that happened, but that's exactly what the Democratic Party is today?
Just ask Tulsi Gabbard, Gabbard is a Democratic member of Congress. She's now running for President. On most question, she's a conventional liberal. She represents Hawaii after all. Of course, she is. But on the question of Syria, she's skeptical. Gabbard isn't eager to overthrow the Assad government. Why? Well, because she worries about what might come next. What might happen to the Christians, the many other religious minorities who live there.
For saying that, for holding that position, she's being denounced today by the left as a monster. Just this morning The Daily Beast tried to link her to David Duke literally, the dumb people on TV are mad to0. Watch them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She went in 2017 Gloria, this is going to be another issue to visit with Bashar al Assad in Syria and this trip has already come back to bite her. She did apologize for this.
GLORIA BORGER, CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: She did, but you know how many apologies can you make for bad judgment. Not only will she be criticized inside the Democratic Party, but I think it makes her a less effective candidate. I mean you know she can't position herself against Trump about meeting with dictators when in fact she's done it herself. So., I think she has some - I think she's going to have some problems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That's the new standard in Washington just so you know. Let's be crystal clear about this. You were not allowed to meet with foreign dictators. It's immoral in fact it might be treason. It could trigger the 25th Amendment unless it's - I don't know Xi Jinping of China. Yes, the Chinese government murders its political opponents. Yes, it has put Muslims in concentration camps. Yes, they're languishing in those camps right now. But it's not a huge deal to meet with the Chinese.
The former governor of California, Jerry Brown met with Xi just two years ago. He praised him as a leader in the fight against global climate change, even though China is of course by far the world's biggest polluter. But whatever. He may be a dictator, but he's a progressive dictator and the left is not against those is definitely for those in fact they're role models in case you haven't figured it out.
David Tafuri is a lawyer and former foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign, and he joins us tonight. Old enough to remember when it was the party of peace, now the party of mandatory war. So, I'm just wondering, why shouldn't we have a debate about Article 5 in NATO, which obligates the United States and all members of NATO to defend the interests of other states. So, why would - should we be on the hook for the territorial integrity of Estonia and Latvia? Seriously.
DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: There is nothing wrong with having a debate. We're going to have one right now. I hope it will be educational. It's important to note that NATO has been successful in the past as a military--
TAFURI: And intelligence sharing alliance and also as an alliance of like- minded countries. You admitted that in your opening that NATO was successful in leading--
CARLSON: I would celebrate it.
TAFURI: Soviet Union.
TAFURI: Now, NATO is still needed. History repeats itself. Putin's Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union, but it's trying to do some of the same things. It's trying to stamp out rule of law. It doesn't believe in freedom. It doesn't believe in free markets. It's trying to spread a vision of a kleptocracy that will enrich Putin and enrich the other oligarchs. That's what they have in Russia and they're trying to spread it to the rest of Europe.
CARLSON: But how is that different from China, only in that it's less effective. So, I don't think that Russia has taken over Africa or Latin America yet or the Caribbean, China has. But it's totally fine, it's totally fine to get rich from sucking up to Chinese oligarchs, our whole ruling class does. But it's wrong not to defend Latvia against Putin because why?
TAFURI: No, you're right. I mean--
CARLSON: Oh! Yes. I'm right. I know I am.
TAFURI: NATO is also an alliance that's aligned against China in many ways as well.
TAFURI: Comparing Russia to China doesn't somehow make what Russia is doing OK.
CARLSON: NO. What you're describing, you're trying to explain why it's in America's vital interest to start a nuclear war to defend Latvia.
TAFURI: No, I did not say that.
CARLSON: That's what we'd be obligated to.
TAFURI: It's America's vital interests to defend other countries that are around the world that are trying to become democracies, that are trying to promote freedom, that are trying to promote individual rights. They're trying to protect human rights and most importantly protect rule of law. That's what Latvia, the other Baltic states that have joined NATO successfully are doing and we should encourage that. We should by extending that security umbrella to them, which is what NATO--
CARLSON: In other words, our kids get to die for Latvia because it somehow protects the rule of law for them to do that. And I'm just asking, does the average American understand that we're on the hook for this. I think that's a real question, which is trying to be ignored. They're trying to shut down the conversation.
TAFURI: You have to look at history, if Latvia and the other Baltic states fall to an aggressive Russia ultimately other countries in the Europe like - and ultimately it will come back to us anyway just like World War II. These are same arguments people made against not doing in favor, of not doing anything against Germany and the Nazis in World War II. The exact same argument made. OK. Is what the homeland has.
CARLSON: I'm actually making that argument.
TAFURI: Yes, you are.
CARLSON: The Nazis don't exist and neither does the Soviet Union. I'm making an argument rooted in 2019, which is where we are right now. And I'm interested, very interested since you brought it up in what Western European countries do you think are at threat of being invaded by Russia?
TAFURI: Certainly, the countries that have recently joined NATO, the Baltic states are in a threat. That's why you brought them up, but other countries that are not yet part of NATO. The other countries that are not yet part of NATO--
CARLSON: But the core of Western Europe.
TAFURI: OK. Ukraine, Ukraine is not part of NATO yet. Right. But the reason--
CARLSON: Soviet Union when I get--
TAFURI: The reason, yes.
CARLSON: 20 minutes ago.
TAFURI: But it wanted to be free. And now it is free.
CARLSON: Lots of people want to be free. I'm just saying--
TAFURI: And it deserves to be free.
CARLSON: But in Western Europe, what countries - the core countries of Western Europe, NATO exist.
CARLSON: Poland is not the core country in Western Europe.
CARLSON: I'll bring you back to. And I like--
TAFURI: OK, so you're willing to cede all of Eastern Europe.
CARLSON: No one to cede anything.
TAFURI: Even the countries like Poland that are allies that are part of NATO and say, we could only protect Western Europe.
CARLSON: I'm asking you--
TAFURI: Because once Eastern Europe goes, then Western Europe is threatened.
CARLSON: OK. So, you think there is - we're almost done. You think there is a plausible threat within our lifetimes of say, the UK, Germany, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal being invaded by Russia.
TAFURI: I am not saying that.
CARLSON: I thought that's what you were saying.
TAFURI: All of the other countries in Eastern Europe including the ones that have joined NATO fell then of course the next frontier for Russia expansionism would be Western Europe.
CARLSON: So, first they came for Latvia.
TAFURI: That's obvious, I think.
CARLSON: Yes. Not obvious at all to me but keep trying. Great to see you.
TAFURI: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you. Christian Whiton was the State Department senior adviser for the George W. Bush and Trump administrations and he joins us tonight. When did Bill Kristol take over the Democratic Party? Did you notice when that happened?
CHRISTIAN WHITON, SENIOR ADVISOR, STATE DEPARTMENT: Yes, it's amazing that turn when this group that used to be very reticent in committing the lives of American Art, the blood, the treasurer of the United States to frankly other people's problems now seem to be more hawkish than the neocons were in the Iraq war.
CARLSON: Do you think your average Democratic voter is onboard with that? Do you think the average Democrat in even in California from a very liberal places is up for having a war over the freedom yearning people of Estonia, seriously?
WHITON: Well, it's more than - one thing about the Baltics, they still have some fight in them and at least they don't pledge almost of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. But look at the expansion of NATO more broadly. We've put Montenegro in there recently. People want to put Georgia, the nation of Georgia on the complete other side of the Black Sea, a sea into which we are prohibited from putting any significant military, any significant naval power. I mean the expansion wants to go on what we heard from your last guest is a desperate search for a new mission for an alliance that is completely obsolete, and which frankly succeeded almost two decades ago.
CARLSON: I'd be happy for a new mission, I would just like to know what it is. I'm not against NATO. I'm not making an argument for disbanding NATO. I mean if we can do something useful with it. That sounds great. But I just think maybe we should reorient from 1945. Why do you think it is that the new Democratic orthodoxy mandates that we keep troops in Syria forever and anybody who disagrees with that, is this the Daily Beast pointed out today somehow allied with David Duke? Where did that idea come from?
WHITON: This comes just from the yellow fever over Russia. The idea that Donald Trump is a sleeper agent for Russia. That Russia as your last guest pointed out seems poised to invade Western Europe the same way Hitler did in 1945. None of that is true. If you look at Russia today, it has gotten away with a couple of fast ones. It's focused on places where you have large Russian populations and taken small parts of Ukraine and Georgia. Putin's a bad guy. His economy is $1.7 trillion Europe's which can afford to defend itself, $17 trillion. Ours is 21.
Russia does not pose a serious nation state threat, it has nuclear weapons, it can do a lot of damage. But again, this is just - again, one thing that really cracked me up about your last guest, the idea that NATO would have our back if we had to fight China, Belgium, Luxembourg, France where approval of America is at 38 percent or Germany where only 30 percent of people have a favorable view of the United States, they're going to help us confront China. They're actually a huge distraction from deterring China.
CARLSON: Why do you think we never have these debates. I mean it's supposed to be a democracy. Shouldn't the public have some sense of what their obligations are under these treaties? I don't think people do.
WHITON: Right. And it's funny, you see senators get up and preen about their prerogatives. They have prerogatives to declare war. Why are they never consulted? But they haven't had serious debates about that. And if you look it's both Democrats and Republicans up there who go off the deep end when Donald Trump does simple things like say, hey, maybe Europe ought to spend a little more. Maybe it should meet the very modest obligation it has. So, it's really a foreign policy establishment of Washington, it's neither really Republican or Democrat. It's androgynous. All these people agree. All these people love doing Diplo tourism where they get to go over Europe and wax poetic about 1945 or 1989. But it's not a serious realignment or recognition that we have to make choices. We can't be everything to everyone even with the giant defense budget, $717 billion.
WHITON: We need to decide who the real threats are.
CARLSON: Couldn't be a less impressive group of people from what I've noticed, I would say. Christian, thank you very much for coming on. Appreciate it.
WHITON: Thanks Tucker.
CARLSON: So, we learned today that the Precedent is for certain a Russian agent of some kind. What proof is there of that? Well, we will raise the curtain and unveil the evidence after the break.
CARLSON: Well, during his address to the country last Tuesday, the President noted something interesting. He said a lot of the richest people in our society have been lecturing us recently about a wall across the Mexican border, that's immoral they're telling us.
Even as they're saying that, they're building walls around their own homes. That's what he said, it's a good line. Is it true? Well, Benny Johnson, The Daily Caller decided to find out. He's embarked on a wall across America tour to find the fortifications that surround the homes of our leaders. His first stop naturally was Barack Obama's house right here in Washington. Johnson couldn't get close to Obama's home due to concrete barriers and police officers shredding the entire area. Apparently, security in D.C. don't know that concrete barriers don't work. People just bring taller ladders.
Johnson's next stop was George Soros' mansion in South Hampton, New York. Soros has not heard about how walls don't work either. He thinks they still do and that's why he has surrounded his own place with a 10-foot-high concrete wall with cameras on it. Amazing. This investigation continues and of course, we're deeply interested in what it finds.
Well, the geniuses on cable news have spent years speculating that Donald Trump is a puppet of Vladimir Putin and now they know for sure The Manchurian Candidate is real. A Russian spy occupies the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The evidence suggests indeed Trump is, has been a pawn of the Russians. Of Putin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact that he said yesterday, I've never worked for Russia, just made you think over and over again about our two previous Presidents embroiled in potential impeachments, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon saying, Bill Clinton I never had sexual relations with that woman. Richard Nixon, I'm not a crook. They were lying. Maybe Donald Trump is too.
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HI: But when you start to see a pattern where he basically spouts Putin's lies, then we have to ask the most unusual and frightening question about our own President.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why this President seems to be putting Russia's interests ahead of our own.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So, if you're watching at home, you may be asking yourself, how did the people on TV get so dumb and the truth is this, you're driving to the studio to do a little TV hit and you're thinking what am I going to say. And you come up with a line and you think it's kind of clever, but you don't run it by anybody else instead you just admit it on the air and therefore humiliate yourself. That's what you just saw, because the evidence we just heard was let's see. Trump denies he worked for Russia. Therefore, he must have.
Meanwhile former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper did everything he could to deplete the public's confidence in the holders of that office. He is very confident though that Trump is a spy, because suddenly sure why. But he's very confident. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: It is amazing. It's explosive, but it's not really surprising. It just seems to me that the FBI taking its counterintelligence responsibilities seriously would want to look into what's going on here and is their influence whether witting or unwitting by the Russians over President Trump. And you know in the intervening year and a half or so, you know his behavior hasn't done much at least in my mind to allay that concern. And I think the FBI was justified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That's the man who lied to the Congress under oath, but he wasn't spying on you. But was in fact spying you. Buck Sexton is a former CIA Analyst. He's now at the hill. He joins us tonight. Buck thanks a lot for coming on. So, a serious question. This seems legitimately irresponsible to me for people in authority to talk like this to allege something like this when they don't really have any evidence that it's true. What's the long- term effect of talking like this on the agency, these people say they're trying to protect?
BUCK SEXTON, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Well, Tucker there are these very senior government officials that you'd like to think going forward, any President, not just this President could rely on for some degree of professional ethics and discretion. I mean when you have a sitting President as we do right now who is being accused of treason by former intelligence chief John Brennan, who is being accused of the most unethical wild behavior, being an agent of Russia and the long-term ramifications of that are just that people who are going to hold that office of the Presidency are going to say, well is every conversation I have with this intel chief. Who are - Tucker, I come from this community? They're supposed to be nonpartisan objective professionals. Kind of like journalist, but that's another conversation.
But they're supposed to be serving their country and the mission first and foremost and these are political actors in a way that are going to change the relationship the Presidency has with these organizations. And also, on your point about the evidence by the way, we have had now two years of a special counsel, give or take a few months using the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus in the history of mankind. We're also told that Donald Trump is incompetent, he doesn't know anything, he doesn't understand anything, and we have no hard evidence of him being a Russian agent. This is a mass delusion now that's being perpetuated by people who should know better.
But Tucker, I actually believe a lot of them now don't. I think that they have engaged in this public self-immolation of their credibility because they've come to believe it.
CARLSON: The message if you take a few steps back is that the unelected bureaucracies, the agencies in the executive branch are more powerful than the elected President. That's what I'm concluding. That's the opposite of democracy, isn't it?
SEXTON: It absolutely is. And when you saw this New York Times story that broke and people said, oh! here we go, once again Russia, Trump. Now we know that the FBI, yes, the same FBI that by the way has had people fired for cause by the way from the top reaches. At least one former senior FBI Agent McCabe may be facing criminal prosecution for lying about how he's conducting himself here. So there has been bad behavior at that FBI.
But Tucker they're pointing to Trump and saying, because and remember, this is just a small group at the top of the organization. This is not the rank and file.
SEXTON: They're saying that Trump was acting against the national security interests of the United States. So, they needed to investigate him because of that. Meanwhile, firing James Comey is just good business. That's a good idea based on everything that we've seen and also, it's dangerous for bureaucrats to think that they determine what's in our national security--
SEXTON: Interest above the Commander in Chief.
CARLSON: Civilian control of the military or the federal agencies is like the cornerstone of democracy. Voters get to make these decisions. They elect someone to act on their behalf. And when people haven't been elected make it unilaterally. That's not democracy. This is actually scary. Buck Sexton as always so incisive. Thank you.
SEXTON: Great to see you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, a federal judge has just announced that for some reason the government is not allowed to know how many citizens live in this country. You can't ask. An amazing story. One of many. After the break.
CARLSON: Well, here's a pretty amazing video, actually it looks fake, but I don't think it is and it does tell you everything about the modern Left. David Webb is a radio host and a Fox contributor, a very good guy by the way. He recently hosted a CNN analyst called Areva Martin on his show and made an argument that she didn't agree with. So how did she respond? Well you know how she responded. She merely attacked him for his skin color. But it didn't go the way she expected. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AREVA MARTIN, CNN ANALYST: That's a whole another long conversation about white privilege and things that you have the privilege of doing that of people of color that don't have the privilege of.
DAVID WEBB, HOST: How do I have the privilege of white privilege.
MARTIN: David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege. Whole long conversation. I don't have time to get--
WEBB: Areva. I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I'm black. It's just so great. But hopefully, we can stop laughing long enough to pause and think a little bit and Martin should think a little bit and realize that people should be must be evaluated as individuals and not as a member of a racial group that is poison. It's a cul de sac. It destroys your soul and it destroys the country. We used to know that, but given the current psychosis gripping the left are not optimistic people will realize, but someday they will.
Well, a lot of things have suddenly been banned during the Trump administration, questioning NATO, securing the border and now discovering how many American citizens live in America. Can't do that, not allowed.
A federal judge today ruled that the Trump administration is not allowed to ask on the 2020 census whether respondents are American citizens. That's one of many such lunatic court rulings in the past year restricting what the President was elected to do. Judges have also blocked the end of DACA for the continuation of Obamacare's birth control mandate. And of course, they blocked too many migrant deportations to count.
On constitutional grounds, these decisions made not really, they say it's political. Robert Patillo is an attorney. He joins us tonight to talk about what happened today. Robert, thanks a lot for coming on. I appreciate it. So, there are a lot of ways to approach this question of whether or not the census can count people who are not here legally, who are not citizens. But let me just remind you the purpose of the census in the Constitution is to apportion congressional districts. OK. So, here's why this is a really important question. We think there are about 22 million people illegally in our country illegally 22 million.
The average congressional district is about 700,000. 710,000. So that's the equivalent of over 30 congressional seats. OK. That makes a huge difference whether or not you count. I mean it makes a difference potentially of who controls Congress, whether you count people who are not citizens in the congressional district. So, why wouldn't you need to know.
ROBERT PATILLO, ATTORNEY: Well, Tucker three points on this. Point one is, point one, let's understand that the statutory guideline, there is a law in place that the Commerce Department has to make this request three years prior to the census and they miss that deadline. So just on a statutory ground, they missed the deadline.
PATILLO: So, of course the judge had to rule against them. Secondarily, they haven't asked this question on the census since the 1950s between 1820 and 1950, this question was on the census that has not been there ever since. And the grounds that the government used to justify it was a Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act justification which in no way shape or form passes any muster because something just the voting rights that has been in place since 1965. The question has never ever been asked.
PATILLO: So, no President, no census in 1965 felt the need to use it. Then clearly that's not dispositive of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Thirdly, let's understand that one, this question was asked, it was used in the 1940s to round up Japanese citizens and then turn them in internment camps. So, clearly that it does not meet the standards of 2019 American society.
PATILLO: So, of course the judge--
CARLSON: Let me just go through this one-by-one very, very quickly. So, using the Voting Rights Act as an argument against this, sounds dumb to me, I agree. And there is no excuse for missing any kind of deadline. That sounds flaky. So, I think that's right. You're right. But it aligns the actual debate which is, do we have a right to know who is in our country and Democrats are arguing we don't, we don't actually have right as to what Franklin Roosevelt did to the Japanese, it's terrible. I would never defend that. Democrats should be ashamed of that. And I hope they are.
The question again is do we as a country have a right to know who is in our country. We don't even know how many illegal aliens we have. Why shouldn't we know for the purposes of apportioning Congressional districts whether they're citizens or not. Like that's a key question and it's a sincere one to you.
PATILLO: Well, Tucker what you have to understand is there's another mechanism for exactly the ACSC, the annual census study sent to one in 30 households which determines the composition of the country. That's not included in the census questions. That's how we know that there are 22 million illegal immigrants in the country right now. The reason that this is significant is, we need to have an accurate count of individuals of human beings of life bodies in this country and households in every district because that's how schools are apportioned. That's how emergency funds, that's how offices are apportioned. We have individuals who are afraid to come forward, afraid to participate--
CARLSON: We don't know that.
PATILLO: Afraid to talk about those things then they're not going to come forward.
CARLSON: There is no evidence of that. That's just a talking point. I mean we don't know.
PATILLO: That's not a talking point.
CARLSON: There are no independent organization, no one has produced those data. That's not a knowable thing. We don't know how many people are here illegally. So, by definition, we can't know how many were too afraid to announce their presence. So actually, like the question only is should we try to know whether American citizens are being counted in congressional districts and they're not. So, why shouldn't we?
PATILLO: Well, what we need to be doing is understanding in the upcoming census. We have a $12-dollar current budget to conduct that sentence. Wilbur Ross has already said they need $2 billion more. Any roadblocks that are put in place that make it more difficult to have people respond to those census questions. The more roadblocks there are put in place to scare people away from actually participating and answering the government agent who is at your door asking you about your family. Is this going to run up those - increase the adversity of that census.
CARLSON: Then why should we ask about race since the census as you pointed out was used by the Roosevelt administration to imprison Japanese people, why should we be asking about race. Doesn't that scare people?
PATILLO: Yes, that's an absolute completely accurate argument. I think that's an antiquated way of measuring people. We have so many people in this country now who are bi-racial--
PATILLO: Who are from other countries. We need to re-evaluate these things.
PATILLO: But you can't do - we miss deadlines.
CARLSON: OK. Well, I agree with you on that and I definitely agree with the race question. Good for you, Robert, great to talk to you. Thank you.
Well, the list of Democrats running for President got even longer today though not much more impressive added to the list was New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She's running and she announced that during an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT: I'm just curious, do you have anything you would like to announce?
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.: Yes.
COLBERT: And what would that be madam?
GILLIBRAND: I'm filing an exploratory committee for President of The United States tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: What a suck up to power that guy is. Tammy Bruce, radio host and President Independent Women's Voice and joins us. So, Tammy I'm a little confused because it was October 25th less than three months ago when Kirsten Gillibrand who I thought was an honest person said directly I'm serving out my term, not running for President. But she was already planning to run then, right?
TAMMY BRUCE, RADIO HOST & PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE: Well yes. You can plan to run for President, even run for President. No, you're not going to be the nominee or President, so then you know you're going to serve your term in the Senate.
CARLSON: That's one way.
BRUCE: That's one way to know. So, I think she's being honest. I think she knows - look, many if not most of these people who have already announced or say that they're going to do it. Even Elizabeth Warren as I've mentioned on your show does not expect to be the nominee. They expect to be in a cabinet. These are people remember - these were people who thought that they were going to be in Hillary's cabinet. So, now they're all discombobulated. They thought they were going to be in the White House and now this is the next step in order to get there.
So, Hillary's failure has really kept open this door wide that nobody thought they'd see for another generation. And so, look I think that the Democrats, they're going to be in a civil war, they already are now. Everyone's lining up. This is like an audition for some other kind of position. This is their career. This is all they've ever done or imagined doing. And now the entire field is open, so they're all going to go for it. And I think they should. Now the issue becomes who is going to be the queen or the kingmaker. Is it going to be Barack Obama who tapped someone on the shoulder?
BRUCE: Is it going to be Hillary or is she going to be somebody you want to avoid. Is it going to be Alexandra Ocasio Cortez? I mean who knows these days, but it'll be a fascinating two years coming up, I'll tell you that.
CARLSON: I think it should be the 8 PM show on Fox, our seal of approval is what Democratic primary voters look for.
BRUCE: Indeed. You've got it.
CARLSON: Not going to happen. Tammy great to see you. Thank you.
BRUCE: Thank you. Thank you dear.
CARLSON: Well, new video shows an abortion advocate telling children that abortion is "God's plan for them". We have that video after the break.
CARLSON: Well, a new video circulated online shows an activist promoting abortion to young children, literally promoting it. A recent entry in the YouTube series kids meet introduce children to a pro-abortion activist called Amelia Bonow in the video, we've blurred the kids' faces out by the way. She teaches that abortion is part of "God's plan". Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why did you have an abortion?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A few years ago, I got pregnant and I really didn't want to have a baby. You go to the doctor and they put this little straw inside of your cervix and then inside of your uterus and then they just suck the pregnancy out and it was like a crappy dentist appointment or something. It was just like - this is like a body thing that's kind of uncomfortable but then it was over, and I felt really just grateful that I wasn't pregnant anymore.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you think God thinks about abortion?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's all part of God's plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well, virtually everyone on the left, Bonow is an abortion enthusiast and she means it. She is the word abortion tattooed on the inside of her lower lip.
Lila Rose is the Founder and President of Live Action and she joins us tonight to assess this. By the way, has this been in any way tampered with by YouTube? I know that--
LILA ROSE, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, LIVE ACTION: No.
ROSE: A million views on YouTube.
CARLSON: A million views.
ROSE: It's up and running.
CARLSON: And they haven't demonetized it.
ROSE: Not to my knowledge now.
CARLSON: So, what is this video? What's it for?
ROSE: This video is a piece of propaganda, Tucker. I mean you have people at the kids meet YouTube channel, hi-ho kids and they're trying - there is also a video about transgender. There is other videos that are basically trying to get eight-year old, nine-year-old, 10-year-old to be comfortable with things that are harmful. And this woman is a really wounded person. I mean she's trying to justify her abortion to eight-year old and trying to validate herself to eight-year-old about the abortion that she had. And there is really two paths you can take on abortion. Either it's something that you acknowledge it takes a life and you grieve that, and you heal from that. And that's what we hope for, for women and men all over the country or you stuff the grief, you stuff the truth about what abortion really did to that child. And then you go around like Amelia Bonow and you try to get more women to have abortions and you try to legitimize it even to children. That's what happening.
CARLSON: It just seems like this is a change. So, even people who support Roe. v. Wade. I think historically would be very uncomfortable with something like that, someone promoting abortion is that which is clearly killing, and everyone knows that it is.
CARLSON: Promoting it as a positive act to kids. I mean you wouldn't have seen anything like that 10 years ago.
ROSE: I think it's the desperation of the pro-abortion movement right now. They've lost, they've lost, Tucker. I mean science shows us when life begins. Life begins at the moment of conception. You've been unique individual human life genetically distinct from the mother just needs time and nourishment to grow. They said well who is going to take care of these babies. You have thousands now of pregnancy and health centers pro-bono providing care to mothers, young mothers, families and children in the pro- life movement.
So, there is really no argument anymore, no justification anymore for why we need abortion in this country.
CARLSON: Is there anybody running for President in the Democratic side who would you think publicly criticize that video?
ROSE: No. And that's the thing the Democratic Party is lockstep with abortion extremists.
CARLSON: It doesn't - I mean--
CARLSON: Look, if the Democratic Party was a party of populist economics, working class economics without that kind of insanity maybe it would have like normal people voting for.
ROSE: They're going to lose every time if they continue to keep with the extremists on this. With the Amelia Bonow shouting their abortion, with the activists saying, abortion they're all nine months, late-term abortion is great, paid for by the taxpayer.
ROSE: All nine months. The vast majority of Americans poll after poll wants abortion restrictions. That's the fact.
CARLSON: Well at least acknowledge, it's really sad.
ROSE: It's really sad.
CARLSON: I mean best case it's really sad. Lila Rose, thank you very much. Great to see you.
ROSE: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Big tech already knows pretty much everything about you, but that's not enough. They want to know as much as they can about your children too. A new report from the Google Transparency Project first obtained by this program highlights Google's aggressive campaign to have its products placed in America's classrooms.
For years, Google has been recruiting teachers as partners urging them to use Google Apps in their class and promoting those apps to others. Teachers have received consulting contracts worth thousands of dollars. As teachers have won over their school districts become collaborators in Google's marketing scheme, one slide showed in New Jersey public school parents were told to let their kids quote "let me see what you did in Google Classroom today, instead of say what did you learn in school today". Amazing. This is happening. Michelle Malkin has been following. She's syndicated columnist and author and she joins us now.
Has been - there has been any pushback? It's hard to think of a consumer product, we'd be OK with a company pushing on our children in schools, but nobody seems to have noticed this?
MICHELLE MALKIN, COLUMNIST & AUTHOR: Well, there is a building grassroots movement. And what's most interesting and intriguing about it in the years that I've been covering it Tucker is that it does cross some partisan and ideological lines. On the left with groups like the Google Transparency Project campaign for accountability and some of the more vocal anti- corporatization of the school type groups. They have been flagging it and trying to track down contracts and get more transparency and disclosure.
On the right side of the aisle, you have a lot of grassroots education reformers who are most concerned about family and parental autonomy. And so when there are nuggets like there are in this latest report that talk about how Sergey Brin, the Google co-founders mother was advising people in these training sessions how to circumvent objections by the school district and by parents and creating Gmail accounts by ignoring the objections and having students create dummy accounts, it raises all sorts of privacy questions as we've talked about last week with data mining, but also public safety. And I've interviewed parents in Missouri, moms who are teachers, who are alarmed at the fact that they can't turn off the tracking when it comes to YouTube browsing habits, when it comes to using Google Chromebooks that are issued by the schools that then can gather information on servers within the home, collect things like medical data. It's outrageous and you asked last week Tucker when we talked about this, where is Congress. A lot of Congress members of course take a lot of Google money. So, the plain fact is, they're bought off.
CARLSON: How bought off could they be when there is mounting evidence that technology like these harms children severely harms - the suicide rate for kids obviously as you know is way up and they ignore that because they're taking money. I mean that just seems completely irresponsible.
MALKIN: Yes, well it is and that's the Beltway swamp. In a lot of cases I think some of these congressional members are completely insulated from the problem or they ignore the fact that it's happening to their own kids. There is a lot of hypocrisy as well, not only among a lot of these Google and Silicon Valley officials who banned their own kids from using social media as you mentioned, but also the disconnect I think between the beltway and the actual real harm that's occurring and the vulnerability that so many of these student's face.
CARLSON: Boy, you are a really great explainer of this problem. We appreciate. Michelle Malkin, thank you very much.
MALKIN: I appreciate it. Google should be deplatform from the public schools.
CARLSON: Amen. That's for sure. Well, the President has made it priority but many countries still tax American goods more than we tax theirs. Hard to believe, it still happens it does. One member of Congress says he's got an idea for how to fix that. He joins us after the break.
CARLSON: The one thing that nobody ever says about China, but that everybody in Asia knows very well is that it's an ethnos state. The country is overwhelmingly Han Chinese and the fascist central government plans to keep it that way by force if necessary. I think minorities in China are harassed and sometimes killed at this very moment. China is holding many thousands of Uygur Muslims in concentration camps.
In China, diversity is not considered strength. It could be the most racist country in the world. But that doesn't mean China is above calling other countries racist if they can get something from it. Right now, China is angry at the Canadian government for arresting the CFO of China's largest telecom company.
In retaliation, China arrested several Canadian citizens in China and accused them of crimes. When Canada protested this, China knew exactly how to respond. China's ambassador to Canada said this, "It seems that to those people the laws of Canada or other Western countries are laws and must be observed. While China's laws are not and shouldn't be respected". The reason why some people are used to arrogantly adopting double standards is due to western egotism and white supremacy.
That's in the Chinese. It was a clever move though. Western elites have no fear of being called stupid or weak or evil or dishonest. They know they are, but they don't care, they're getting rich anyway, but they absolutely can't handle being called racist. So, the question is how long till Justin Trudeau apologizes to the Chinese for his privilege. We'll tell you when he does.
Well, many countries place very tough tariffs on American goods, but the U.S. does nothing in response. Some members of Congress would like to change that, first among them is Congressman Matt Gaetz to Florida and he joins us tonight. Congressman thanks for coming on.
REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Thanks for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: What do you do about the trade imbalance. They're hurting us more than we're hurting them.
GAETZ: Well, we've got to have an Old Testament approach to trade, an eye for an eye. If a country is going to have like China has a 25 percent tariff on our auto industry, our President needs the authority to be able to impose the same tariff back on China or any other country. India has got a 100 percent tariff on motorcycles, but we wouldn't dare to do the same to them. To me, this won't lead to more tariffs. It'll lead to fewer tariffs because if countries know that we'll do to us or to them what they do to us, I think then they'll be less likely to punish American businesses.
CARLSON: I don't even understand the reasoning on the other side. What could possibly be the justification for allowing that.
GAETZ: Of course, Tucker, there are establishment folks in the leadership of both parties that believe that free trade is the answer to everything in every circumstance and that it shouldn't matter what it does to the American workers if multinational corporations can offshore their jobs and ultimately that's what has hollowed out the middle class in this country. But if we give the President the authority to have fairness in trade then I think other countries won't be so quick to punish American businesses and make it easier for multinational companies to offshore.
CARLSON: But I'm confused. So, you often hear people say I'm for free trade. I'm against what they're proposing from the administration, but how is it free if the other side is keeping your goods out but selling his goods to you.
GAETZ: Well, most of the lobbying firms on K Street aren't working for the American worker. They're working for large businesses that want the opportunity to have the flexibility to move jobs where it's cheap. We think that we ought to put the American worker first. That's why even though we're in a shutdown, the President is working hard on the Reciprocal Trade Act so that he will have the authority to simply impose the tariffs on other countries that they impose on us. I can't think of anything more fair than that.
CARLSON: It's hard to see the arguments against it, so how many Democrats will you pick up in support of this?
GAETZ: Well, that will be the key question. A lot of these districts now are working class districts that Democrats won in the last election.
GAETZ: And they need to join us, and this will be a real test for those Democrats. Do they hate President Trump so much that they're willing to stand against the policies that will help middle class workers in their districts? It will be interesting to see.
CARLSON: Is it really that straightforward. I just want to be clear that we know what this is. Is it that straightforward?
GAETZ: Of course.
CARLSON: We impose the tariffs that they impose on us. That simple.
GAETZ: Or simply that we have the flexibility to impose them. If other countries knew that our President at the snap of a finger could impose the tariffs on those countries that they impose on us, they'd be less likely to do them. So, giving the President that flexibility is what we want to do, but because Trump is the President, we're concerned the Democrats will line up against this commonsense bipartisan proposal just because anything that could help Trump advance the American worker is something Democrats don't want to give him the chance.
CARLSON: Where's the Chamber of Commerce on this?
GAETZ: They are opposed. The Chamber of Commerce, your typical K Street big business entities are not going to stand in support of anything that makes it more difficult for them to move jobs out of America to places where jobs are cheap.
CARLSON: Is that their argument?
CARLSON: Interesting. And of the Democrats who are against it, their argument is what?
GAETZ: Well, they I think just make anti-Trump arguments rather than arguments as to the policy of reciprocal trade and we have yet to see really what the Democratic strategy is on trade. Trump has tried to make better deals. He wants the flexibility to make those deals, less of the globalist multinational arrangements, more bilateral trade where we actually have enforcement powers. Democrats have largely stood against that even though these are policies in the past, Democrats have supported because Unions have supported the American workers.
CARLSON: Well, yes. Like 20 minutes ago.
CARLSON: Interesting. It's interesting. Matt Gaetz thank you very much.
GAETZ: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: We've run out of time sadly. But we will be back tomorrow at 8 PM, to show the sworn enemy of lying pomposity smugness and group think and there is a lot of all of those things in Washington right now. So, you want to tune in tomorrow to see what happens.
It is now time, we're going to go. We're 15 seconds, 13 now from Sean Hannity Show. And the interest of Christian charity.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: You've been so good to me this year. Amazing.
CARLSON: You know what, it's a New Year man and I'm going to turn it over to you with--
HANNITY: All right, Tucker.
CARLSON: 4 seconds.
HANNITY: All right, Tucker.
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.