Print
Close
New bill: Social media check to get gun license
Published December 05, 2018
This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 5, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” The Mueller investigation appears to be moving in directions that nobody could have anticipated, none of them obviously connected to Russian meddling in the past presidential election.
So, what is the point of all of this? And when and where does it end, if ever? Ken Starr and Joe diGenova join us in a moment on that.
But first tonight, freedom of speech. Lot of people voted for Donald Trump in the hope that they would have more of it. But two years in, the opposite has happened. A ruling class has clamped down, as never before, on personal expression.
Gone is the free exchange of ideas we were promised. As Americans, it was supposed to be our birthright, remember? But in its place now, mandatory soul-deadening conformity, an entire population forced to repeat the same mindless platitudes, or else.
An axis of left-wing corporate power, academia, the media and lawmakers have all aligned to curb your right to speak freely, which is to say your right to think for yourself. When they control your words, they control your mind.
The Left used to deny that that was their goal. They're not pretending anymore. They're baring their teeth and snarling. Get in line or we'll hurt you.
In a speech on Monday night, CEO Tim Cook pledged that Apple, one of the biggest and most powerful companies in the history of the world, will do whatever it takes to silence dissenting opinion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIMOTHY DONALD COOK, APPLE CEO: Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That's why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence, you have no place on our platforms.
(CROWD CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Hate, it's a real thing. There's a lot of it out there right now. But hate is also the word they use for views they don't like or questions they can't answer.
Cook's real message is simple. We are holy. You are fallen. Shut up and obey. CEOs didn't used to talk like this. They were in the business of selling products, not preaching sermons.
Then, over time, conventional religion receded from public life, and people like Tim Cook and his fellow CEOs stepped forward to fill that void. It was not an upgrade. Apple has a lot more power than the Episcopal Church ever had, and much less humility, and much less restraint.
Leaders a 100 years ago could tolerate dissent. They thought God would sort it out in the end. They didn't have to. Members of our modern ruling class consider themselves God. They render their own judgment. They view disagreement as equivalent to apostasy, an attack on the one true faith.
In New York, to name but one example, among many, a new bill in the state legislature would ban anyone who says something politicians don't like from buying a firearm.
Prospective gun owners will be required to give up their passwords and to show their social media accounts to regulators who would inspect them for unapproved thoughts. Sound like something that Chinese military thought up? Yes, it does.
But Democrats are not apologizing for it. Listen to one of the sponsors of the bill explain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. KEVIN PARKER, NY-D: If we make this law and you have to, you know, allow the - you know, the state government to, in fact, look at your social media posts, you can decide on whether you want a pistol license or not. You don't have to have a pistol license.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That's true. You don't. You don't have to vote either or go to church of your choice or be tried by a jury of your peers. What other constitutional rights will soon be contingent on saying the right things?
To find out, we've invited Kevin Parker on the show tonight. He is the New York State Senator from Brooklyn, you just saw on that tape. Senator Parker, welcome. Thanks for coming on tonight.
PARKER: Thanks for having me on, Tucker.
CARLSON: So, I should just say at the outset what I'm sure of you (ph) as already know, which is it's already against federal law to sell firearms to the mentally ill, thank heaven, and I think all of us support that restriction. So, it's already against the law.
But what other constitutional rights that we, as Americans, possess should be contingent on how we behave on social media?
PARKER: Well, let's be clear. I take an oath that supports the amendments and - and the whole Constitution, both the U.S. and the--
CARLSON: Right.
PARKER: --the state government Constitution. And so, this is really not about impinging on constitutional rights. This is really about safety. This is really about how do we, in fact, make the State of New York as safe as possible.
CARLSON: Right.
PARKER: Now, we've already been very safe. We're one of the - the top three safest states in the entire country, particularly when you look at, you know, - you know, mass shootings, thank God.
But we can always be safer, and we can always make sure that what happened in Pittsburgh, what we saw in Parkland, what we saw in Orlando doesn't happen here.
And so, this - this law simply says let's look at, you know, what people are putting out on social media as a, you know, the - you know, part of a - a set of criteria that we're using to determine who gets handguns--
CARLSON: OK.
PARKER: --because what we've--
CARLSON: Well but then - but - but - but hold on, but - but--
PARKER: --what we've--
CARLSON: --and, by the way, I agree with your desire to make your state and - and every state as safe as - as we possibly can. But why restrict it to gun owners?
I mean you are an elected official. You are a State Senator. You wield a lot of power. You control people's lives. Why shouldn't I have the password to your social media accounts, so we can assess whether you should be wielding the power that you do?
PARKER: Well somebody (ph) should put that law and maybe we can - we could do that. My, first of all, my social--
CARLSON: Well no, no, no, but no, but it's a--
PARKER: --my social media--
CARLSON: --sincere question. Would you send me - would you send me your password?
PARKER: Tucker - Tucker, my social media is open right now. You can go on it and look at it, anybody can look at it. It's public information.
CARLSON: I don't know. Why don't you--
PARKER: So, people can look at--
CARLSON: --why don't you send but - but hold on--
PARKER: --at my social media.
CARLSON: --why don't you send me your passwords, and I'll find out how open it really is.
PARKER: Well, again - again--
CARLSON: You're - you're requiring gun owners to give you their passwords. Why shouldn't they turn around and ask you for the same? That's--
PARKER: Well, look--
CARLSON: --a sincere question.
PARKER: --look, what we should be talking about is how do we make the state of New York safe? And I'm simply saying, right now, we're not as safe as we can be, because people are saying things on social media, and we're not using that--
CARLSON: Right.
PARKER: --and looking at that as we, in fact, give out a weapon that can that - that is used to kill people.
CARLSON: OK. But I--
PARKER: Period (ph).
CARLSON: --I - I - I get what you're saying. I guess I'm just wondering why we're restricting. I mean as long as, and you've said that privacy is not a concern, and if you have concerns about privacy, you know, don't - don't carry a gun, don't buy a gun.
OK. But you're saying that that's the only category to which this applies. Why don't we apply it to voting?
PARKER: Again--
CARLSON: Before you vote and choose who runs the state, who controls your life, why shouldn't you have your social media checked? I'm not sure--
PARKER: Because--
CARLSON: --I understand.
PARKER: --because voting doesn't necessarily lead to people killing each other. This is really about access to guns--
CARLSON: Well, of course, it does.
PARKER: --no, this is about access to guns.
CARLSON: Well no--
PARKER: And we know that there's a direct correlation with the number of guns that are available in - in - in states, and the - the - the prevalence of mass shootings. We also know--
CARLSON: Well we don't - we - we don't know--
PARKER: --we know that - we know that - we know that in the - internationally (ph) as well--
CARLSON: --I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Just to let you know (ph)--
PARKER: --we know that internationally (ph) as well.
CARLSON: --that's actually that's - that's not true. I think Wyoming has the highest per capita gun ownership in the country. I don't think--
PARKER: Yes. Yes, with the five people--
CARLSON: --there were any mass shootings--
PARKER: --with the five people who live in Wyoming--
CARLSON: --in Wyoming (ph), right, OK--
PARKER: --and the guns that they have.
CARLSON: No. It - OK, but let me just (ph) say--
PARKER: But when you look at - when you look at--
CARLSON: --there is not a correlation--
PARKER: --when you look at--
CARLSON: --between those two things just in--
PARKER: --there's absolute - there's absolutely--
CARLSON: --just in point of fact (ph).
PARKER: --there's--
CARLSON: No, there's not, actually.
PARKER: --absolutely - there's - Tucker--
CARLSON: OK.
PARKER: --there absolutely is. And--
CARLSON: I mean look at social science center (ph)--
PARKER: --we look at places like Japan--
CARLSON: --whatever, OK.
PARKER: --when we look at places like Japan and we look at--
CARLSON: But - but this is--
PARKER: --places like Australia, they have much lower gun violence--
CARLSON: Right. OK. So, but - but - but--
PARKER: --and - and especially mass shootings--
CARLSON: --but the question - the - the question here is--
PARKER: --exactly because they limit the number of--
CARLSON: --who decides--
PARKER: --guns that people have.
CARLSON: --who decides - no, but you're not calling for limiting the number of guns in this bill. You're calling for people to turn over their social media passwords, so you can decide whether they've said things that are naughty. And if they have, they don't get to own a gun.
And so, my question is what other constitutional rights are dependent on your approval? Is the right to abortion? Should we before allowing women to have abortions check their social media accounts? Sincere question. And if - if not, why not?
PARKER: Tucker, I'm really focusing on the issue of gun violence. There's too much gun violence in our communities--
CARLSON: OK. But you're--
PARKER: --too much gun violence in--
CARLSON: --I'm sorry. I can't - I--
PARKER: --in - across the country.
CARLSON: --look, I agree. I'm against gun violence --
PARKER: And it's really important that we--
CARLSON: --OK but--
PARKER: --that we get it down.
CARLSON: --but - but hold on, who's going to make this? I mean you're obviously not--
PARKER: The state - New York State Police.
CARLSON: --engaged in--
PARKER: --The--
CARLSON: --the New York State Police.
PARKER: --New York State - the New York State Police.
CARLSON: But - but they'll just decide? Typically before we determine someone is mentally ill, we adjudicate that person mentally ill. That's the--
PARKER: This is - this is - this is not about mental illness.
CARLSON: --term we use.
PARKER: This is an addition to--
CARLSON: What is it about?
PARKER: --the other - in addition--
CARLSON: What is it about?
PARKER: --in addition to the other criteria that the New York State Police will use and they already use to determine who should be eligible to get a gun permit, in addition to that, what I'm saying is, we should also have the State Police review the social media accounts of the people who--
CARLSON: OK. And take the passwords--
PARKER: --are making the requests.
CARLSON: --right. And so, on but what - what would cause this? So, the State Police, independent of a judge, just get to decide whether you can have a gun or not based on whether or not they like what you've said on Facebook.
PARKER: Well the state - the state - the state--
CARLSON: And they--
PARKER: --legislature has the ability with - with the signature of the - of the Governor to, in fact, make law. And so, we make it the law, we then can, in fact, subscribe--
CARLSON: So then you turn over to the--
PARKER: --the power to the state--
CARLSON: --police--
PARKER: --to the state police to make a--
CARLSON: --you know, it's just - it's just--
PARKER: --determination--
CARLSON: --interesting, so you--
PARKER: --which they do all the time--
CARLSON: --wait (ph)--
PARKER: --by the way.
CARLSON: --oh, of course, they do like, yes, the police get to unilaterally decide whether we can exercise our constitutional rights. You're comfortable giving the--
PARKER: No, they're not--
CARLSON: --police that power.
PARKER: --unilaterally deciding.
CARLSON: I don't think you would--
PARKER: The state - the state legislature's--
CARLSON: No.
PARKER: --actually deciding it--
CARLSON: The state legislature is handing over--
PARKER: --which the states are allowed (ph) the state--
CARLSON: --to them the power--
PARKER: --no, that's - that's, in fact--
CARLSON: --to their side (ph).
PARKER: --not done - exactly.
CARLSON: So, in every - oh? No, it's--
PARKER: What we - what we do (ph)--
CARLSON: --happening (ph), right.
PARKER: --but they already have that power right now.
CARLSON: Right. OK. So--
PARKER: At this very moment, the State Police decide who gets a gun--
CARLSON: --OK. Let me just (ph) ask you a human--
PARKER: --and who doesn't get a gun.
CARLSON: --question. Do you think it's a little intrusive that the government would be forcing citizens to turn over their social media passwords to the police before doing something that Constitution guarantees them the right to? That doesn't bother you in any way? That doesn't seem a little bit, say, totalitarian or something--
PARKER: Tucker.
CARLSON: --that maybe China would - would do.
PARKER: Tucker, we make legislation through a process. All the things that you have objected to, there are lots of people who object to it. There's conversations that are going on. Maybe all the--
CARLSON: OK. But you're - you - I'm sorry. I can't--
PARKER: --but - I got it but may (ph)--
CARLSON: --let you third - skirt the third question in a row.
PARKER: I'm not - I'm not - I'm not skirting it. I'm saying--
CARLSON: Do you think it's a little bit--
PARKER: --what I'm saying to you that--
CARLSON: --no, it's a process. I'm--
PARKER: --there's an (ph) opportunity for--
CARLSON: --I'm aware of how (ph) our government works.
PARKER: --and I - so there's a--
CARLSON: But I--
PARKER: --it's opportunity for us to work together to, in fact, look at this. Maybe the passwords--
CARLSON: You're - you've written--
PARKER: --won't play in this (ph).
CARLSON: --this bill.
PARKER: Yes.
CARLSON: And these are your proposals.
PARKER: Absolutely.
CARLSON: So, this is essentially (ph) something that you came up with. And I'm just asking you, as you sat at your laptop and typed out, you will be required to hand over your passwords to the State Police. And if they don't like what you say, you don't get to exercise your rights.
PARKER: Right now--
CARLSON: So, part of you think, boy, that sounds--
PARKER: --you know, right (ph)--
CARLSON: --really Orwellian to me--
PARKER: --right now - right now - right now--
CARLSON: --like "Really? We're going to do that?"
PARKER: --you're - you're focusing on a part that's actually quite not the whole bill, right? So, the big thing is to review social media--
CARLSON: Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
PARKER: --right?
CARLSON: I mean--
PARKER: Exactly.
CARLSON: --it's not the whole bill.
PARKER: It's not the--
CARLSON: Exactly.
PARKER: --it's not the whole bill.
CARLSON: Exactly. But it--
PARKER: It's not the whole bill--
CARLSON: --but it is--
PARKER: --but it's - it's - it's part of it.
CARLSON: --right. It's part of it. And you don't see that as fascist in anyway?
PARKER: And--
CARLSON: Are there any other decisions that I mean should the State Police have to sign off on your marriage, do you think, or how many kids you can have? Would that be - I mean because, obviously, some people shouldn't be getting married.
PARKER: Right. But what we'll talk (ph)--
CARLSON: Would that be all right?
PARKER: --what - what we're, again, concerned about is the safety of the people in the State of New York. And we're concerned that that people are--
CARLSON: Yes. I'm not going to--
PARKER: --getting - are getting shot down.
CARLSON: --movie shooting your (ph) point.
PARKER: It's - it's--
CARLSON: I'm not going to--
PARKER: --it's too important (ph).
CARLSON: --guess it's that (ph) obviously.
PARKER: No, well - no, what I - what I'm doing - what I'm doing is - is talking about the values. And this and I get that some people--
CARLSON: What you're doing is scaring me.
PARKER: --believe that having a gun is more important and then protecting the lives of strangers--
CARLSON: No. I think being able to say (ph)--
PARKER: --but in my job as a state legislator to (ph) in fact to do--
CARLSON: --controversial things online (ph)--
PARKER: --both.
CARLSON: --it - last question.
PARKER: Yes.
CARLSON: Do you think that people have a right to say outrageous things, maybe even things you disagree with, in public, do you think--
PARKER: They - they certainly--
CARLSON: --that that be good (ph)?
PARKER: --they certainly can say whatever they want to say. But we also have the right--
CARLSON: Oh, but then you punish them--
PARKER: --we also have--
CARLSON: --for saying that.
PARKER: --but we also have a right to deny them a gun permit if, in fact, we believe that the things that they're saying may lead to them endangering the people of the State of New York.
CARLSON: It may or may not.
PARKER: And frankly - and - and frankly--
CARLSON: I mean they are (ph)--
PARKER: --the Supreme Court has already said that that--
CARLSON: That if you say something naughty--
PARKER: --some features (ph)--
CARLSON: --then--
PARKER: --for - for instance - for instance, we - we - we limit, you know, speech all the time like pornography, particularly, child pornography, right?
CARLSON: Well - well child--
PARKER: We limit - we limit--
CARLSON: --pornography has not been ruled to be speech.
PARKER: --but - but among (ph)--
CARLSON: And actually, I'd refer you to--
PARKER: --actually it is (ph)--
CARLSON: --Brandenburg versus Ohio 1967, which is the final word on speech from the Supreme Court, since you're interested, and it allows all speech except speech that calls for imminent violence--
PARKER: Ah, like getting a--
CARLSON: --all speech. They're not exactly (ph)--
PARKER: --like getting a gun and running into a synagogue. Right, that - I will--
CARLSON: Please.
PARKER: --that imminent violence, right? So--
CARLSON: That's not speech--
PARKER: --we effect these (ph)--
CARLSON: --that's violence.
PARKER: --well, again--
CARLSON: Please.
PARKER: --so then we have--
CARLSON: You know what?
PARKER: --so we have to (ph)--
CARLSON: Now you're really scaring me--
PARKER: --so we have to limit--
CARLSON: --whatever of course (ph)--
PARKER: --so we have to limit violence. And I'm saying you limit violence--
CARLSON: Right. By limiting the--
PARKER: --by limiting the kind of--
CARLSON: --speech.
PARKER: --limits the violence (ph)--
CARLSON: And eliminating privacy, OK--
PARKER: No. Come on--
CARLSON: --all right. Come on, give me your password. All right, I'm going to send you my text. And you text me your Facebook password. I'm going to assess--
PARKER: OK. Good (ph)--
CARLSON: --what I think of it and we could talk about it tomorrow.
PARKER: Great. Let's do that--
CARLSON: Senator, thank you very much.
PARKER: --next time.
CARLSON: I will send it (ph).
PARKER: Thank you for having me on.
CARLSON: Good to see you.
Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports lives in a world where you're not allowed to say what you think. And yet, he says whatever he thinks and thrives. So, he's just the man to talk to about the battle against free speech that a lot of us are waging.
Up next, the press says the Mueller investigation has exposed literally something called treason by General Mike Flynn. We ask once again, is there treason? If so, how did he commit it? Details ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well last night we got some details from Mueller's prosecutors about General Michael Flynn's cooperation with the investigation. Mueller recommended no jail time for Flynn. Most of the report is still redacted.
So, we really don't know what most of this is about. But some people on television are very confident that Mike Flynn committed treason.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID EVAN MCMULLIN, FORMER CIA OPERATIONS OFFICER: What the Russians did to us was an intelligence operation. It was an intelligence attack on the core of our democracy. And that's why - what Flynn did in supporting a candidate who the Russians were helping through this operation so egregious.
LT. COLONEL RALPH PETERS, RET. ARMY: As a former officer, I'd send him to jail for life. He betrayed his country.
You wind up being torn about it. You know, on a personal level, his life is already ruined.
He may be pardonable. But he's - but it's unforgivable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: It's almost like the dumber you are, the more time you spend on television. There's got to be a formula.
Joe diGenova is not dumb. He's a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and he joins us tonight to assess what's actually happening here. Is there any evidence in the filing last night that General Flynn committed treason?
JOSEPH DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: No. Actually, those two people you just saw are idiots, and they--
CARLSON: Yes.
DIGENOVA: --don't know what they're talking about. General Flynn actually did nothing wrong. The agent said he didn't lie. But Mueller decided he was going to charge him with lying, anyway.
Everything that General Flynn did was legal. The - the transition team communicating with the Russians and other foreign diplomats, perfectly legal. This was a - this was a designed plot to frame General Flynn so that they could figure out a way to go after President Trump.
It's all part of the same theme. This is anybody with a brain can figure out that Sally Yates had already decided that they were going to frame General Flynn. And, you know what? They succeeded. They did. They framed him.
CARLSON: So, the - the report we got last night from Mueller's team suggests that Flynn was cooperating in various other ancillary investigations.
DIGENOVA: Yes.
CARLSON: What might those be?
DIGENOVA: You know, I saw that little - it's a very short pleading. It was only like--
CARLSON: Yes.
DIGENOVA: --six or seven pages. And it had a page that was all dark with all these ominous things, which allegedly went to the content and the context of the--
CARLSON: Is there anything else (ph)--
DIGENOVA: --communications that the--
CARLSON: there (ph)--
DIGENOVA: --transition team had. Well, there's no evidence that anything else that he has cooperated on has anything to do with Russian collusion, the basic premise for this idiotic investigation that Mueller helped set up.
And so, the answer is, I have no idea what he's cooperating on, and it can't be anything of significance. Otherwise, they would have mentioned it somewhere in their pleadings.
CARLSON: So, just to, like take two steps back, I think you know General Flynn. I know General Flynn.
DIGENOVA: Yes, I do.
CARLSON: And here you have a guy who ran a Federal Intelligence Agency, who was a General in the Armed Services who committed perjury, says Robert Mueller, and whose life has been completely destroyed. Is that an overstatement?
DIGENOVA: It's not an overstatement. And, in fact, that was their goal.
Their goal was to make it impossible for him not to have his life destroyed so that it - they could have a skin, so that they could show that somebody did something wrong, who was communicating with a Russian, even though those communications with the Russian Ambassador and other Russians and other foreign officials were perfectly legal.
Sally Yates made up this Logan Act nonsense, which he was not charged with, nobody's been charged in a 100 years with violating the Logan Act. Perhaps, they should look at John Kerry.
The bottom line is this was a frame-up of General Flynn to get Donald Trump. And, you know what? It almost worked, except there was no collusion. Mueller knew it when he was appointed. Rod Rosenstein knew there was collusion when he appointed him.
CARLSON: The lesson is never plead, fight.
DIGENOVA: Always fight.
CARLSON: Always fight.
DIGENOVA: Never give in.
CARLSON: And don't talk voluntarily, my God.
DIGENOVA: Take the Fifth.
CARLSON: Take the--
DIGENOVA: That's why God made it.
CARLSON: Ha-ha. Jim - the Jimmy Hoffa rule. And I, by the way, I'm for that. Joe diGenova, thank you very much.
DIGENOVA: Thank you.
CARLSON: Ken Starr was the Independent Counsel, of course, during the Clinton Administration, and recently wrote the book, Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation. He joins us tonight.
Mr. Starr, thank you very much for coming on. So--
KENNETH STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND CIRCUIT JUDGE: My pleasure, Tucker. Thank you.
CARLSON: --to - to Joe diGenova's point, which I - I think sounds right that nothing we have seen on earth by the Mueller investigation so far, at least, pertaining to American citizens, relates to Russian collusion. Does it bother you that the investigation seems to have gone off on a tangent?
STARR: I don't think it's a tangent. And I've got a different perspective, not on the collusion point. I completely agree with Joe. There's nothing about this that smacks of or even suggests collusion with the Russians.
But just taking the documents that were filed at face value, and Joe may call them into question, but just taking them for what they say, they say that General Flynn lied multiple times to different agencies, different folks in the Justice Department, including about Turkey, his representation of Turkey, his representation in terms of why did he write an op-ed piece.
And you can say, ‘Who cares about this?’ Well I will say this, ‘Don't lie to the investigators.’ From what I've seen--
CARLSON: I agree with that.
STARR: --from what I've seen, there was no perjury trap. He was able to tell the truth, but for some reason, about issues that he had every reason to be involved with the Russian Ambassador, issues with respect to sanctions, the - going forward, what's the relationship going to be with Russia.
This is a completely appropriate contact that he had. And so, why he fell into this pattern, and it's a pattern, apparently. Just, again, I'm taking what the document says that Mr. Mueller--
CARLSON: No. Wait, but may--
STARR: --filed.
CARLSON: --I stop you there and ask, my understanding is that the conversation in question with FBI agents that forms the basis of these charges was a voluntary one at which he did not have a--
STARR: Correct.
CARLSON: --lawyer present. Is that correct (ph)? Took place in the White House and he didn't - I mean, if he understood it was an interview, he would have had an attorney, correct? But he didn't. So, what does that--
STARR: Oh, yes it, yes have (ph)--
CARLSON: --tell you?
STARR: --it - it tells you that for whatever reason, if he made a mistake, if it's an honest mistake, but that's not what he's pled to.
CARLSON: Right.
STARR: He's pled to lying. So, whether it's poor judgment on his part, and it - and it is. It's an American tragedy. His 33 years of service, five years combat, Defense Intelligence Agency, so this is someone who's had this exemplary career.
And I quite agree this is a hugely tragic. But I don't think it works to simply say, ‘Hey he didn't tell the truth. Who cares?’ And no one said that. But I think that's the thrust of some of the--
CARLSON: Right.
STARR: --critique that we are hearing that--
CARLSON: Well I think the - but the--
STARR: --it's OK be--
CARLSON: --the broader question and I think this--
STARR: --yes.
CARLSON: --this arose during the investigation--
STARR: Sure.
CARLSON: --that you presided over is at what cost to the country. I mean OK. But I mean--
STARR: Absolutely.
CARLSON: --if you, so you empower this guy who basically in real life has no oversight. Let's not pretend. He doesn't have any oversight. And you empower him in order to uncover the Russian plot. And then he winds up threatening people with prison for things that have nothing to do with the Russian plot, so like how do we benefit from that exactly?
STARR: And that's a very fair question. The whole Special Counsel apparatus, the Independent Counsel apparatus, those are fair questions. Let's talk about those kinds of questions.
Now, the check that was on me, as Independent Counsel, was, I didn't simply say, ‘Let's go investigate Monica Lewinsky.’ The Attorney General of the United States made that determination. And I think--
CARLSON: Right.
STARR: --that's lost on the American people. And so too here--
CARLSON: I think that's probably true.
STARR: --yes. And so too here, there are checks you may say, ‘Well how much of a check has it been?’ But right now, the person who is in charge of this investigation, not day-to-day, is Matt Whitaker, the acting Attorney General, under the regulations.
CARLSON: Yes.
STARR: So, let's see. Let's - let's see what unfolds in the coming days.
CARLSON: I - I don't think he'll be (ph). Very quickly, Mr. Starr, you knew President George H.W. Bush for an - an awful long time, 50 years.
STARR: Oh, yes.
CARLSON: What was your - what was your feeling about the service today?
STARR: Oh, it was an absolutely gorgeous outpouring. I loved, among other things, Senator Alan Simpson talking about the road in Washington D.C. of humility. It's not very crowded. But that's the road that George Herbert Walker Bush walked on.
I was overruled by him, by the way, as President of the United States, when I was serving as Solicitor General. And, you know what? He was very wise and overruling me. He was right. I wasn't. He was a great man.
CARLSON: Wow, a footnote to history. Ken Starr, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
STARR: Hey, thank you, Tucker. My pleasure.
CARLSON: The State of California was once the richest state. Today, it's the poorest state, by far. Why is that? There is a reason. And we've got it for you, after the break.
Plus, one of the best sights and sounds from today's funeral for the 41st President of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNA BUSH HAGER, GRANDDAUGHTER OF FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: A reading from Revelation--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well, for more than a century, California represented everything that was great about America. In 1849, thousands rode wagons across the entire continent to participate in the Gold Rush. In the early 1900s, film directors came by the dozens from the East Coast and made Los Angeles the center of global film production.
During the Dust Bowl, thousands of Midwestern farmers found refuge in the Central Valley. And, of course, for decades, California has been home to the world's greatest technological innovation.
It's no accident that California became the country's richest state. It was a land of limitless opportunity. Even if you never made millions there, you could live in what was, in effect, a middle-class paradise.
That's not true anymore. According to the census, almost a fifth of Californians now live in poverty. That's the highest percentage in the country. California's middle-class is fleeing to Phoenix and Reno and Boise. Soon, the state will be comprised almost entirely of rich and poor.
How did this happen? That question is rarely asked. The answer is pretty simple. Low-skilled immigration overwhelmed California. More than a quarter of the state's entire population, as of today, is foreign-born. Again, the highest rate in the country.
Some of these immigrants are building successful new companies in Silicon Valley, good for them. But most of them are not. In fact, the overwhelming majority of these immigrants are on welfare.
Fully 72 percent of non-citizen households in the State of California now receive aid. That compares to just 35 percent of native-born households, more than double the rate. Now, a 100 years ago, immigrants came to California for opportunity. And now, they come for the benefits. Who can blame them?
Democrats long ago discovered that welfare is a handy vote-buying scheme. Free stuff equals political power. So, they give more even as native-born Californians are forced to flee an increasingly unaffordable state. Democratic lawmakers, even now, are considering a new bill that would give state-funded health insurance to adult illegal immigrants.
That means that literally anybody from anywhere on the globe could hop the border in Tijuana and get healthcare paid for by California taxpayers. Pretty generous. If only California cared about its own people this much, it would still be the Golden State.
Well, President George H.W. Bush was honored today in a state funeral at the Washington National Cathedral. It was a moving tribute to the country's 41st President. Here's some of the highlights from it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: He was born with just two settings, full throttle, then sleep.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: He taught us what it means to be a wonderful father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He was firm in his principles and supportive as we began to seek our own ways. He encouraged and comforted, but never steered. We tested his patience. I know I did.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: But he always responded with the great gift of unconditional love.
Last Friday, when I was told he had minutes to live, I called him. The guy answered the phone said he – ‘I think he can hear you, but he hadn't said anything for most of the day.’ I said, ‘Dad, I love you, and you've been a wonderful father.’ And the last words he would ever say on earth were, ‘I love you, too.’
We're going to miss you. Your decency, sincerity, and kind soul will stay with us forever. So, through our tears, let us know the blessings of knowing and loving you, a great and noble man, the best father a son or daughter could have.
And in our grief, let us smile knowing that Dad is hugging Robin and holding Mom's hand again.
(CROWD APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Wow.
Tomorrow, a funeral service for President Bush would be held in Houston, Texas. Bush 41 will then be laid to rest at his Presidential Library on the campus of the University - Texas A&M University. Stay with Fox News throughout the day tomorrow for coverage of that.
So, riots are taking place in Paris and throughout France. They're about climate change, and they tell you a lot about the attitudes of the people in charge. We'll investigate that after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well, for decades now, elites have told the rest of us that they are deeply, deeply concerned about climate change, much more concerned than we are, because they're deeper and more thoughtful and compassionate people.
Bernie Sanders, for example, deeply concerned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS, D-VT: Donald Trump spoke last night. But somehow, he forgot to mention the words, ‘Climate Change.’ What an outrage?
Climate change is causing devastating problems in our country and the world.
Climate change is the great global environmental crisis that we face.
In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.
Yes, Mr. Trump, climate change is real.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: It's real. And he feels it deeply.
Over at NBC, by the way, one of their anchors recently wondered if climate change is so serious that it might render our lives without meaning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATHARINE BEAR TUR, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Fires, flood, storms, famine, the effects of climate change are all around us. And according to a new essay penned by Bill McKibben, it is shrink - it is shrinking our world. Not livably - not literally, excuse me, but livably.
I read that New Yorker article today and I thought ‘Gosh, how pointless is my life, and how pointless is the - are the decisions that I'm making on a day-to-day basis when we are not focused on climate change every day, when it's not leading every one of our newscasts?’
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes. In other words, if it's not about climate change it doesn't really matter. So, let's take this seriously just for a second. Why not? They're always telling us. Let's take what they say at face value.
They care deeply about climate change. But if they care as deeply as they say they do, if they believe the destruction of the planet is as imminent as they say it is, why are they living the way that they do?
You just saw the tape of Bernie Sanders. He cares a lot. And yet a (ph) news story came out today that said he spent $300,000 in a single month flying on a private plane. Huh?
How could he do that? How could any of them own second homes, if they really believe climate change is real? How are they using a car service when they could use mass transit? Why aren't they all vegans? Why aren't they living what they say they believe? They're not.
The solutions they suggest, and this is not unrelated, are almost always going to be paid for by other people. The most regressive kinds of taxes, energy taxes, imposed on the masses. Well, as the riots in Paris show, the masses aren't into this. And why would they be?
Nomiki Konst is a candidate for New York City Public Advocate, and she joins us tonight. Nomiki, thanks a lot for coming on. So--
NOMIKI KONST, CANDIDATE FOR NYC PUBLIC ADVOCATE: Hi, Tucker. How you're doing?
CARLSON: I'm great. So, most - but I'm a little bit confused. So, mostly, debates about climate change or one person saying it's real and the other one's like--
KONST: Right.
CARLSON: --ah, we don't really have all the evidence. Granted, I grant everything you say about climate change. I'm just - just for the sake of this conversation.
KONST: Well thank you, that's a start.
CARLSON: You know, OK--
KONST: You admit it (ph).
CARLSON: --but if you really believe what you're saying, and if Bernie Sanders really believes what he's saying, then why is he flying on private planes? I mean I'm - this is sincere question.
KONST: So, let's not get distracted from the real issue here, what--
CARLSON: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no--
KONST: --the real issue--
CARLSON: --I'm not going to - stop, stop, stop. I'm not going to let you off that easily.
KONST: Yes.
CARLSON: Why is it not a real issue? If climate change, as Katy Tur just told us, is really the only--
KONST: Sure.
CARLSON: --issue that matters, then why aren't we living like it's the only issue that matters?
KONST: Because it really comes down--
CARLSON: I don't understand.
KONST: --to the industry. If the industry wants to make planes that exist off of renewable energy rather than - than oil and gas, then we will all be able to live on this planet. It starts at the industry level, not the consumer. You know, it's not fair--
CARLSON: OK. So - so the individual--
KONST: --to put the tax--
CARLSON: --oh it - it's not--
KONST: --on the individual.
CARLSON: --it's not fair--
KONST: Yes.
CARLSON: --for someone who's telling us the planet's being destroyed to live in a way that suggests that he actually believes the planet's being destroyed. So, I don't - I don't - I honestly I really don't get it.
So, if you're Al Gore and you say, ‘Nothing is more important than climate change. I'm a better person than you are because I care more than you. By the way, I have one of the largest houses in Nashville and I fly private, and I take a suburban to the private Airport, to the FBO,’ why should I be OK?
I mean, I'm - sincerely, why don't--
KONST: Because that is not going to solve--
CARLSON: --why is that OK?
KONST: --individual choices are not going to solve the disaster that we are facing. We already have a migration issue.
CARLSON: Why?
KONST: We already have flooding. We already have hurricanes like--
CARLSON: Why aren't--
KONST: --that have hit Puerto Rico, have hit - have hit New Orleans, have hit Florida, and have displaced--
CARLSON: OK. But--
KONST: --so many working people. This is an industry change. We have to cap emissions globally.
CARLSON: But - but hold on. But hold on, then why are we--
KONST: And if we don't cap emissions--
CARLSON: --then why are--
KONST: --with big industries and policy--
CARLSON: OK.
KONST: --then those individual choices mean nothing.
CARLSON: OK. Well first of all--
KONST: You have to change the standards.
CARLSON: --first of all, hold on, first of all, individual choices always mean something.
KONST: In a libertarian's--
CARLSON: Only it sees (ph)--
KONST: --fantasy world, sure.
CARLSON: Not - I'm not - I'm not a libertarian. And I'm not living in a fantasy world. In real life, individual choices matter or else what's the point of any of this, OK? So, it does start - well Liberals used to say it starts with one person.
I guess they don't anymore because they don't want to be held to their own standards. But the solutions are always like ordinary working people ought to pay higher gas taxes--
KONST: It's not the solution at all.
CARLSON: --but I get--
KONST: And, actually, we are against that. Progressives versus the neoliberals and neocons, progressives understand that this needs to be a huge policy change. With the place where we are right now, if we increase the temperature one degree, you and I won't be living in D.C., in New York anymore.
CARLSON: OK. But - but hold on - hold on--
KONST: We will be displaced.
CARLSON: --but no, no, I want to talk about the--
KONST: And industries will lose money.
CARLSON: --public policy. OK--
KONST: Yes, public policy.
CARLSON: --I want to talk about the public policy--
KONST: Yes.
CARLSON: --solutions that will flow from the predictions that you're making. Is there any solution you've ever heard of that doesn't increase the price of energy?
KONST: Absolutely (ph)--
CARLSON: I've never heard of one.
KONST: Well, OK. So, if you're going to be focused on the price of energy, we're not going to have a plan--
CARLSON: Well because--
KONST: --in 10 years.
CARLSON: --well hold on--
KONST: We have to talk about changing--
CARLSON: --wait, wait, hold on, wait, wait, wait, wait hold on--
KONST: --but let me finish--
CARLSON: --I thought you cared--
KONST: --Tucker.
CARLSON: --I thought you cared about working people. And with--
KONST: We're going down a rabbit hole. I want to talk about the solutions.
CARLSON: We're not.
KONST: The solution would be a Green New Deal, moving to 100 percent renewable energy, forcing the companies that are jacking up the prices on working people--
CARLSON: OK.
KONST: --to actually reduce their emissions, so that working people aren't displaced, so working people--
CARLSON: But can I ask you a question?
KONST: --don't have to pay the cost of hurricane damage--
CARLSON: Can I ask you a question?
KONST: --and have clean water--
CARLSON: OK. But--
KONST: --and the water's not being privatized.
CARLSON: --OK. Volume is not the same as an argument, OK? So, just really simple question, would your solution--
PARKER: You don't like opinion of women, do you?
CARLSON: --I live with four of them.
KONST: Volume.
CARLSON: You're not going to go, ‘You're a sexist now’--
KONST: You're pretty loud. My ear piece is--
CARLSON: --OK. OK.
KONST: --blaring right now.
CARLSON: Let me - let me just ask you a really simple question. Would the solutions that you're espousing now--
KONST: Yes.
CARLSON: --would they raise the price of gasoline for wage earners, the ones--
KONST: Not with the Green New Deal.
CARLSON: --you claim to care about.
KONST: I'm actually against--
CARLSON: It wouldn't. Gas would be the same price.
KONST: --I am against raising consumer prices. That is a neoliberal design. I am a Democratic Socialist. I think we should pass policies and actually make rich people, millionaires and billionaires, and corporations, pay taxes. That's the problem.
CARLSON: OK.
KONST: No one at the top is paying taxes and the--
CARLSON: But - but you would allow--
KONST: --burden is going to the consumer.
CARLSON: --but you would allow private planes to fly, I guess, right? That wouldn't--
KONST: I think private planes have an obligation--
CARLSON: --be a problem for you at all.
KONST: --to change their standards. That is what policy is all about. If we didn't regulate water--
CARLSON: So we get solar private planes.
KONST: --solar private plane - I mean I don't know how that would function. But I think that there are other efficient--
CARLSON: I don't either.
KONST: --of energy--
CARLSON: Name one--
KONST: --energy use.
CARLSON: --name - really quick, just for fun, name a renewable energy source that could power--
KONST: I mean there's--
CARLSON: --an airplane.
KONST: --well there's - there's - I mean we see it with cars. We have--
CARLSON: Hemp? No, I'm - seriously--
KONST: --you could charge--
CARLSON: --is there one?
KONST: --I mean there are - do you - do you know what a Prius is and a Tesla is? You could do that--
CARLSON: I know (ph) they could power an airplane--
KONST: --at the level of private planes as such (ph).
CARLSON: --an electric airplane, a big electric airplane.
KONST: Absolutely.
CARLSON: OK.
KONST: I mean I am no engineer but I have heard of electric cars--
CARLSON: I don't think--
KONST: --and airplanes and other forms of electric solutions.
CARLSON: OK. Cool.
KONST: I mean there's also solar generated so that the electricity that you're charging with--
CARLSON: Yes. It's solar plant (ph)--
KONST: --is solar energy--
CARLSON: We're back to the solar plant, good I'm--
KONST: --generated or wind generated.
CARLSON: --look, I'm - I'd be excited (ph). Text me a picture, if you find one on the internet. Nomiki, thank you very much.
KONST: We have to solve this problem.
CARLSON: Great to see you.
KONST: You can't live in - in another planet.
CARLSON: Good to see you.
Columbia students can't take a joke, it turns out. They're the most impressive people our society produces but they have no sense of humor that has kicked a comedian off their campus for telling a very tepid joke.
Barstool Sports' Dave Portnoy tells real jokes and has lived to tell the tale. How does he do it? He joins us next with his answer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well, Nimesh Patel works for Saturday Night Live. He is the, in case you're keeping track, the first Indian-American cast member on that show. You'd think that would make him a hero to the pro-diversity crowd. But instead, Patel is a villain tonight. Why? Well he recently made the mistake of going to Columbia University, where all the impressive kids go, and did a comedy set briefly before he was booted off stage.
He told a joke that began roughly this way. "Being gay can't be a choice," he said, because, "No one looks in the mirror and thinks, this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it."
Now, is that a funny joke? I don't know. Your call. But it's not really attacking anybody. It hardly seems vicious. But you can't say that in 2018. So, the question is, what exactly can you say?
Well Dave Portnoy seems to say exactly whatever he wants to say all the time. He's the Founder of Barstool Sports. For some reason, it's working for him, if nobody else. He joins us tonight to tell us how he does that.
Dave, thanks a lot for joining us. So, am I missing--
DAVID PORTNOY, BARSTOOL SPORTS FOUNDER: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: --something. That - that didn't - I didn't think it was a particularly hilarious joke or maybe there was more to it. He got yelled offstage before he could finish. But that didn't seem to me to cross any kind of obvious line, or am I missing the lines, I guess?
PORTNOY: No. I thought that was a pretty good joke. The name of the event, by the way, I think, was culture shock: Reclaim. I mean if you go into a comedy club and you have shock in there and that offends you, you probably shouldn't be in the comedy club.
Very, very odd set of circumstances, to actually being paid, or whatever, to go to this event and be offended by any sort of joke. And like you said, that was - that was a nothing joke. I mean I think it's well-written. But he had to be the most surprised guy in the room.
CARLSON: I mean what's amazing to me is--
PORTNOY: I mean, really, it's like--
CARLSON: --this is Columbia, like these are supposed to be the smartest, most sophisticated young people in America, certainly ones with the highest SAT scores. What does it tell you that they have literally no sense of humor?
PORTNOY: Well, I mean that actually doesn't even (ph) surprise me about the Ivy Leagues. I don't know where you went, Tucker. You seem like you'd be an Ivy League guy with a bowtie and all that. But it's a--
CARLSON: No.
PORTNOY: --but Ivy League guys, I mean the stuff, you know, sense of humor that's kind of the stereotype. But then you have the other side of it. I mean they're certainly like the Harvard Lampoon. They're certainly famous for pushing boundaries and things like that. I don't know what this club was.
The - it was Asian Allegiance of something. Again, you can't name the event culture shock, and then, when somebody says a pretty vanilla joke in the schema (ph) jokes, get upset--
CARLSON: Yes.
PORTNOY: --very odd, very - he - he just had to be shocked like, ‘Whoa, what did I say?’ He probably didn't even know.
CARLSON: So, I've asked you this before but I can't get enough of it because I think it's so interesting.
You run a site, it's one of the most popular and, I would say, also, one of the best on the internet, where you seem to say pretty much exactly what you feel like saying, and all your writers, Francis Ellis, one of my favorites, on your site have the same attitude, and you continue to do it without being forced to stop.
How do you do that? How do you carve out that freedom in a world where there isn't any freedom?
PORTNOY: Yes. We built that. Again, we're not a slave to our advertisers. That's a huge thing. So, we don't get caught in the winds of public opinion and things like that, and it works for us.
And to be honest, we've come to now accept in this environment where people get mad about jokes like that, we're just going to stay true to what we do, and there is a big market for it.
And there's always going to be haters. And a lot of times the haters don't even know what we do. Tucker, I've been called like anti-Semitic, a million times. I'm Jewish. So, you know, people just don't know what they're--
CARLSON: What do you--
PORTNOY: --talking about--
CARLSON: --wait, hold on, wait, what do you say--
PORTNOY: --but I get that like once a week--
CARLSON: --when someone says, ‘Dave Portnoy, you anti-Semite,’ what - how do you respond to that?
PORTNOY: It depends what type of mood. Sometime, I'll be like, ‘Yes, you're right. You nailed it. I'm like a Nazi or something.’ But it's just - and, again, I'm playing. And people are so crazy, they even (ph) take that out of context.
So, you know, we are a comedy site. We're comfortable in what we do. But if people don't like something, they feel like they're right. They don't want to hear the other side of the coin. But they'll go out of their way.
There were pictures of me, Tucker, on this show, and somebody tried to say somehow that made me like anti-Semite. And it's like, ‘Dude, I'm Jewish, so what are you talking about?’
People just don't really want to look into the context or what's going on. And we've embraced it. And there is a big market for it. And - and I think that makes us more popular in this day and age when people are afraid to say, "You know, that joke that that guy got booted off stage for, that's ridiculous."
Steve Carell, The Office, my personal favorite comedy, he was on record, I think, a couple weeks ago, he says, The Office couldn't exist now. Two people will get mad.
CARLSON: Exactly.
PORTNOY: I mean that's a shame.
CARLSON: That's true.
PORTNOY: That's a true shame.
CARLSON: But you tell the truth and you're winning anyway. That's why you're an inspiration to the rest of us. Dave Portnoy, El Presidente, great to see you.
PORTNOY: Appreciate it.
CARLSON: One Democratic lawmaker says she has cracked the code that explains why Democrats aren't winning more seats in the Congress. We'll tell you what she's discovered, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well Democrats retook the House in November's elections. But they lost seats in the Senate. And the Blue Wave wasn't quite as big as they hoped it would be. Why did that happen?
Well, Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii says she knows why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MAZIE KEIKO HIRONO, D-HI: One of the things that we, Democrats, have a really hard time is connecting to people's hearts instead of here.
We have a really hard time doing that. And one of the reasons that - that was told to me at one of our retreats was that we, Democrats, know so much. That is true. And we have to kind of tell everybody how smart we are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: We're just too smart. We care too much. We're too erudite. We believe in science, except biology and ultrasounds. We're just too good. America doesn't deserve us.
This is the person who said she knew Kavanaugh was guilty of rape because he was a man. Just too smart. Amazing! What a world?
That's the end of our hour. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.
Good night from Washington. Sean Hannity, live from New York.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-bill-social-media-check-to-get-gun-license