Obama's Border Patrol chief: Democrats' misinformed talk of a 'manufactured' border crisis misleads the American public

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 9, 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.” In a televised address to the country last night, as you know, the President made his case for why America needs a wall on our Southern border, and why that wall is so important and that's worth shutting down the federal government to get it.

Democrats remained unmoved by the address. Leaders in Congress on the Democratic side, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, delivered their party's initial response. Their words were then echoed with mechanical precision by Democrats up and down the chain, from sitting members of Congress all the way down to the Left-wing lady muttering in your local dog park.

Talking points doesn't really do justice to the rhetorical discipline here. It was really like watching a 3D printer at work, churning out carbon copies of stilted propaganda one after the other after the other, a miracle of replication. You might even call the Democratic response manufactured.


REP. RAUL MANUEL GRIJALVA, D-ARIZ.: I'll state that this is a manufactured crisis, and a crisis that manufactured by the Trump Administration.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: How he manufactures crises like immigrants seeking legal refuge.

SEN. TIMOTHY MICHAEL KAINE, D-VA.: What the President is doing is manufacturing a crisis.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: This President just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis.


CARLSON: So, they've brought back manufacturing. What about the press? Well, one thing to know about our national media, if Democratic leaders are saying it, reporters are saying it too, no matter what it is.

You often hear Conservatives complain that our media are liberal. Well that's giving them far too much credit. What they really are is obedient like Shih-Tzus begging for a snack.

If Nancy Pelosi called for invading Canada tomorrow, all the news anchors would be telling you how Ottawa is the real threat. They're flunkies, humorless little functionaries doing their sad little jobs. Watch them at work.


CHARLES DAVID TODD, HOST OF MTP DAILY ON MSNBC: Folks, the President has manufactured one heck of a political crisis for himself.

AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Donald Trump is manufacturing a national security crisis.

Than blow your message.

JENNIFER RENE PSAKI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: You will hear them say is that this is a manufactured crisis. It's not a national security crisis.

JASON ADAM JOHNSON, THEROOT.COM POLITICS EDITOR: From Nancy Pelosi down to Debbie Wasserman Schultz or anybody else who will give him a dime for this project--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because it's manufactured.

JOHNSON: --so there's nothing he can do.

JOE LOCKHART, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's a manufactured crisis for the President to get a political win.

STEPHEN EDWARD SCHMIDT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS STRATEGIST: We have a president who will go on TV tonight and lie and lie and lie some more. This is a manufactured crisis.


CARLSON: They're so dumb. They have no self-respect.

OK, so we showed you the mindless lies they're telling you. What are Democrats actually proposing as an alternative to the Border wall? We can answer that question with some authority because last week on January 3rd, House Democrats passed their own proposal, they say, would secure our Southern border.

What's in it? What would it do? Well nothing that is not being done already. The Democratic bill provides the same funding for partial fencing, border security technology, hiring more customs officers, and so forth that we already have.

In other words, the Democratic border security plan is the status quo. Democrats' argument is that things work just fine right now. Instead of spending another dollar to secure our border, Democrats in Congress have, for example, just proposed spending another $12 million to investigate reparations for slavery, just to give you some proportion and a sense of their priorities.

To Democrats, everything is more important than border security. And that would be fine if our current security was working. It's not. In fact, it's likely that more than 20 million people already live illegally in our country right now. That's more than 2.5 times the entire population of New York City.

And the actual number may be bigger than that. We don't really know. And that's the point. It's totally out of control.

The problem isn't the Border Patrol doesn't have the right technology to do the job. The problem is that politicians don't care to fix it. And if they did, they could solve the problem in an afternoon. Borders are not that complex, not like we're trying to cure pancreatic cancer here. Our best minds are stumped. Hardly!

What worked for Hadrian will work for us. It works for Israel right now, and a lot of other places. Walls work. That's why people still build them. Everybody knows that. This is all a charade. And we should at least admit what's happening.

What you saw last night was not two parties bickering over the best way to solve a shared problem. No. In this case, one side's problem is the other side's solution. For Democrats, a porous border is a good thing, unalloyed, good thing.

It means more low-wage workers for their donors. That's deeply appreciated. It means more compliant voters for them to replace the millions of actual Americans they have alienated. And then, there's the emotional payoff of the whole thing.

Democrats feel good about letting in poor people from around the world. These are people who don't make a lot of complicated demands about healthcare or dental or unfunded pensions or what their kids should be doing for a living.

They're not whiny, like Americans. They're not living reminders of how politicians have failed to fulfill their promises. No, they're just grateful to be here. They're immigrants. Democrats love people like that. In fact, they've come to love them much more than they love you.

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez said that out loud just last night.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: The women and children on that border that are trying to seek refuge and seek opportunity in the United States of America with nothing but the shirt on their backs are acting more American than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be.


CARLSON: So, people who show up here and ignore our laws are more American than you are. That's how Democrats feel. Keep that in mind as you watch this debate.

Joining us tonight is Mark Morgan. He's the former Head of the Border Patrol under Barack Obama. He was then replaced by the Trump Administration, and we're glad to talk to him again for the second time this week.

Mr. Morgan, thanks a lot for coming back. When you hear the term, "Manufactured crisis," from politicians and their lackeys in the press, what's your response?

MARK MORGAN, FORMER BORDER PATROL CHIEF, FORMER FBI AGENT: My response is that those people that are saying that, anybody that says that, Tucker, is misinformed, and they're misleading their American people. So before I was even Chief of the Border Patrol, I served in the FBI for two decades.

One of my assignments is I led the El Paso office. From my office, right on the border, I could see Juarez, every single day, Tucker. We worked with the DEA and all components of DHS, and we worked human trafficking cases, we worked drug cases, and we worked - and gang cases, all impacting the Southern border.

And then as Chief, every single day, Tucker, I was briefed, every single day about the men and women who are risking their lives every day, and they're apprehending murderers, rapists, pedophiles, other violent offenders, and gang members. That's not manufactured. That is real. And that's a fact and it's still happening today.

And I would also say one last point is a 127 Border Patrol agents have died. They didn't die playing Monopoly. They died defending, being the frontline defenders of our borders, trying to apprehend that 17,000 people, that bad people that Secretary Nielsen mentioned. I wonder if you ask their families if this is a manufactured crisis.

CARLSON: I - I do wonder that. I do wonder what people serving on the border of all backgrounds and political beliefs think when they hear these self-appointed experts on television refer to this as a manufactured crisis.

MORGAN: And I think that's the point, self-appointed experts. I - go to the experts that are really working that. I'll - I'll say the President has done that.

The President is talking to the leadership of CBP and the Board Patrol and the rank-and-file, and those are the experts. And they're saying the wall works. It doesn't work everywhere. It's not the end all to be all.


MORGAN: But it works.

CARLSON: So, I want to run a couple of facts by you that I watched journalists tell me last night in their fact-check segments. The first is that drugs don't really come across our border, they come through our ports. Is that true?

MORGAN: Again, a complete disingenuous statement. So, you want to say because more drugs enter the points of entry, therefore, it's not a problem in between the port - ports. That's just fictitious. It is correct that more drugs enter through the points of entry.

But, Tucker, millions and millions of pounds of drugs still enter through the points of entry.

CARLSON: OK. I also heard people say last night, basically, no one comes illegally over an unsecured border. They're just people who overstayed their visas. Do illegals come over the border unapprehended?

MORGAN: Yes, absolutely. I - again, it's incredulous. I - I can't believe that someone could actually state that. Again, there's factual historical data that just say that's absolutely absurd. That's false.

CARLSON: Now, I saw a lot of people who had the air of authority about them, who really seemed to know what they were talking about last night claim that every study has shown that illegal immigrants in this country commit crime at a lower rate than native-born Americans.

We do this topic a lot, and we're pretty conversant with the social science on it. I've never seen that study. Where are those numbers from, do you know?

MORGAN: I've never seen the study either. And - and I pose that to somebody to show me that stat and show me how they can come up with that, because I can show you the opposite.

The Sheriff in Yuma, Arizona just published an article today where he talked about in 2005, when they started putting the fence, the wall up in his area, violent crime, all crime drastically reduced in his area.

CARLSON: So, you're saying, I don't want to blow any of these - anyone's mind here, but the people telling us that they were fact-checking the speech may not have really known what they were talking about?

MORGAN: That's absolutely what I'm saying.

CARLSON: I appreciate, Mark Morgan, your coming on tonight. Thank you very much.

MORGAN: Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: We're joined now by our Senior Political Analyst, here at Fox, Brit Hume. Brit, thanks a lot for coming on. I won - first just want to ask you about the spectacle not simply of the speech and the rebuttals by the Democratic leaders last night, but by the analysis that followed.

You saw a lot of fact-checks by journalists who, really, we do count on on questions of policy, because policy should be non-partisan really, to be honest, and some of them seemed like they were just repeating Democratic talking points. Is that unfair, do you think?

BRIT HUME, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well what could be a more legitimate form of journalism than checking the facts of what politicians say. It's - it's totally proper and it's necessary, vital even. The problem is though, in this current atmosphere, is that fact-checking has become a branch of opinion journalism.

For example, in the speech last night, the President spoke of a crisis at the border. A number of the fact - fact-checks that were critical of the speech disputed the fact that there was a crisis at the border.

Let's start with this, Tucker, whether there's a crisis at the border or not is not a matter of fact. It is a matter of opinion.

CARLSON: Exactly.

HUME: One man's crisis is another men's problem, so when you - when you - when you start out trying to fact-check opinion, you're obviously off on the wrong foot. And in some instances, people - I saw facts checked as being a - a problem that were in - that were true.

For example, there was a statistic, 266,000 people arrested who had come across the border, and the Washington Post announced that - that that was a true statistic, but it was misleading.

Well, there again we are. Mis - what's something - whether something is misleading or not is not a simple matter of fact. It is a matter of opinion. But the - the - the impassion, the ambition of journalists today to get in on the opinion game is so strong that they're coming in through all the doors, including the fact-check door. And--

CARLSON: But I'm just--

HUME: --I've all I've - go ahead.

CARLSON: I - I'm just worried that they're going to devalue their own currency.

So, if you see someone who's supposed to be a straight news reporter come on, just for example, and say, the President claims that people coming over the border illegally are committing a lot of crime, looking right in the camera saying, we have statistics that show they commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans, when they don't have those statistics because they don't exist.

I - I know they don't exist--

HUME: Well, the problem is, Tucker, even - even--

CARLSON: --so, that's a lie.

HUME: --even if the - well even if the - the statistics did exist, it doesn't this - they don't refute the fact that people coming across the border commit a lot of crimes. The President wasn't actually saying that they commit more crimes than anybody else. He's saying they commit a lot of crimes, and they do.

And I guess the first one in many instances is the mere - the fact that they arrived here illegally, so that - I mean that - that - that doesn't seem to me to be an effective fact-check, no matter how you look at it.

And - and what's striking about this is when you hear this repeated over and over again, the whole - that whole montage you did that people saying, manufactured crisis, echoed by their friends in the media.

The Washington Post itself, which is leading the fact-check charge, I think, it's fair to say, had a story the other day at some length by a couple of these reporters who went down to the border, and came back and reported that there was yes, a crisis at the border.

And it explained that numbers that say that the number of border crossings or whatever are down, doesn't get at the point because it's about the composition of the people who are coming now--


HUME: --that have - that because of the nature of our laws, because what we're getting is families and small children, and it used to be we got just, you know, single men, mostly.

Now we - now we're getting a different - different type of - of group coming that that, and because of the nature of our laws, it's overwhelmed our officials at the border. And that's created a crisis, which I think it's - I think it's fair to say it's a crisis. But I would note, Tucker, that's my opinion.

CARLSON: You're honest enough to admit that. You always are. Honest man, Brit Hume, thanks for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.

HUME: You bet.

CARLSON: Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi teamed up for the Democratic response last night, and the internet went bonkers, kind of amusing, after the break.


CARLSON: Well yesterday was not one of those moments that the handlers tasked with making politicians look good are going to put on their highlight reel. The President's address to the country was marred by some loud breathing.

That shouldn't have been hard for Democrats to top. But they - they certainly did. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi appeared together. It was a bizarre tableau and their awkward appearance immediately sparked ridicule. Even MSNBC wasn't impressed. Watch.




WILLIAMS: This Chuck and Nancy visual tonight launched a 1,000 memes--


WILLIAMS: --while they were still talking.


WILLIAMS: There was an American Gothic meme. There was a--


WILLIAMS: --"your mother and I are very upset you - you stayed out so late" meme.

CARVILLE: Yes. I don't think they wanted to do it. I don't think they should have done it. And I guarantee you at the staff meeting tomorrow morning, somebody is going to get, you know, chewed out pretty good about this whole thing.


CARLSON: James Carville, ladies and gentlemen. Lisa Boothe, Senior Fellow at Independent Women's Voice, she joins us tonight covering meme beat (ph)- -


CARLSON: --for us. So what I mean--

BOOTHE: Amazing. It's just amazing.

CARLSON: --this is one of those things where the message kind of got lost in - in the visuals maybe.

BOOTHE: Well, exactly, Tucker. And - and, you know, when MSNBC is laughing at Democrats, you have a problem here. And look, when you're giving a big policy speech like this, you want people to be listening to the words you're saying, the message you're trying to deliver.

You don't want people to be watching and saying, "My God, alert the authorities. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are being held hostage," which was the thought of a lot of Americans watching it because they looked like hostage victims, giving the speech.

And so, as you mentioned, there were a lot of hilarious takes on this on Twitter. You've got one from Neontaster right there, as you see, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer's faces superimposed on the American Gothic painting, hilarious there, and that's also what Brian Williams was referencing as well.

So, another one, this is from George P. Bush saying "We are not mad, we are just disappointed." This looks like, Tucker, your parents, you're in high school where you come home late past curfew, they're mad at you.

Greg Gutfeld right there, "Chuck and Nancy look like they're selling me a reverse mortgage," also hilarious. And - and this is actually my favorite from Melissa Francis, "Blink, Nancy. Blink. Please," which is the rest of America--

CARLSON: Yes, she's--

BOOTHE: --watching this.

CARLSON: --she said it, I didn't.

BOOTHE: Well and, Tucker, you know, it's like (ph)--

CARLSON: I - I love Melissa Francis.

BOOTHE: Oh, I do too.

CARLSON: That's good.

BOOTHE: I thought that was absolutely hilarious. And what the craziest thing about all this is Democrats literally voted for fencing on January 3rd. So, clearly, they have no problem against a physical structure along the Southern border.

So, we have a shutdown over something that both parties agree to, which is putting up a physical barrier along the Southern border. So, this is literally the dumbest debate of all the time, this government shutdown.

And Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer delivered us one of the most epic responses there, and also fodder for a lot of online put - fun, so Twitter fun.

CARLSON: Lisa Boothe, I'm about to steal your point going in to the next guest--


CARLSON: --talk about a seamless--

BOOTHE: Are you?

CARLSON: --yes, I am.

BOOTHE: You're - you can. It's OK.

CARLSON: And in rare form, I'm giving you credit for that. Lisa Boothe, thank you very much.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker. Have a great night.

CARLSON: Jonathan Harris joins us right now. He's a Democratic Political Commentator. Mr. Harris, thank you very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So, I'm going to, again, crave it (ph) right from Lisa Boothe--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --Democrats last week voted for a physical barrier on our border.


CARLSON: What are we arguing about exactly?

HARRIS: Because there's a difference between a physical barrier. It's like the Secure Fence - Fence Act in 2006, there's a difference between a physical barrier, which most of which is already in place and a concrete wall, which is what Trump wants. He's--

CARLSON: What's the difference?

HARRIS: There's fencing, which Trump had criticized. He criticized the existing fencing that's there right now.

CARLSON: Right. No, but I mean leaving Trump out of it, I mean--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --just as an American, what is - what is the difference?

HARRIS: Well I don't know how to leave Trump out of it. This is all about him and--

CARLSON: OK. But, no, but he's not--

HARRIS: --all about his wall.

CARLSON: --he's not here. I'm just wondering--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --so Democrats voted for a physical barrier--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --and now they're shutting down the government because Trump wants a different kind of physical barrier. What's the difference between the physical barriers? What about his physical barrier is more offensive than their physical barrier?

HARRIS: Well I would say - I would - I would change it a little bit to say that Trump is shutting down the government.

CARLSON: OK. Whatever the debate - the debate--

HARRIS: Right. Yes, but there's - but there's--

CARLSON: --that's fine. I'll give you that. I don't even care.

HARRIS: --right, right. Trump said it was--

CARLSON: I just want to know (ph) what is the difference between what they have voted for and what he's proposing?

HARRIS: I - I think it hinges less upon what is there and more about the $5 billion that he wants to build something else. They've already voted in support of fencing there.

Trump actually criticized it. They're not necessarily talking about the wall itself as much as they're saying, we're not giving you $5 billion to do something, I think it was a CBS report that said--


HARRIS: --a wall would take care of a third of illegal immigration--


HARRIS: --because that's not where it comes from. It's a waste of money. That's not what--

CARLSON: So, it's a waste of money.

HARRIS: --right.

CARLSON: So, Democrats are Budget Hawks now. And the waste--

HARRIS: Last time, we had a balanced budget was under Clinton--

CARLSON: --and the waste - the waste - right.

HARRIS: Yes (ph)? I mean kind of--

CARLSON: I think we can thank--

HARRIS: --they just don't talk about it.

CARLSON: --the tech boom and the Republican Congress that whatever. Republicans are profligate spenders.

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: I'm not here to defend--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --their fiscal continents (ph). I'm merely saying the idea that Democrats are upset, willing to shut down the government over $5 billion of spending is so stupid that I can't actually take it--

HARRIS: But there that - right--

CARLSON: --seriously.

HARRIS: The problem with that--

CARLSON: That's not really what is happening (ph).

HARRIS: --the problem with that being they're not the ones that shut down the government. Trump said--

CARLSON: OK. OK. But I'm just saying--

HARRIS: --I would be proud to shut down the government--

CARLSON: --OK. But going in, you just concede (ph)--

HARRIS: --over the Border wall.

CARLSON: --as a rational matter--

HARRIS: This is his shutdown.

CARLSON: OK, whatever.

HARRIS: To be clear.

CARLSON: Who's - whoever shutdown it is--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --Democrats are saying, "His proposal is immoral. Their proposal is moral." What's the difference between a moral and an immoral physical barrier on our border?

HARRIS: Because one doesn't cost $5 billion. That's--

CARLSON: So, it's the cost that's immoral?

HARRIS: --one doesn't cost $5 billion.

CARLSON: So any time that we spend $5 billion needlessly, we're committing an immoral act.

HARRIS: It's not about committing an immoral act. Again, this--

CARLSON: Well that's what - no, that's what the Speaker of the House--

HARRIS: --no.

CARLSON: --said.

HARRIS: Right. That's not--

CARLSON: That it's immoral.

HARRIS: --that's not - this is about spending $5 billion to build a wall that is ineffective to address illegal immigration--


HARRIS: --which does not come from our Southern border predominantly--

CARLSON: --so. OK, but so - so--

HARRIS: --but comes from legal ports of entry--

CARLSON: --so in a federal budget of over a trillion dollars--

HARRIS: --and from people flying into the country.

CARLSON: --if I could find another example of $5 billion we spent on something that didn't substantially help the country--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --would you be willing to shut down the government--

HARRIS: I think that would be problematic.

CARLSON: --over it?

HARRIS: But again, this is--

CARLSON: No, how problematic? Would it be--

HARRIS: --that would be problematic. I'm not--

CARLSON: --would it be immoral?

HARRIS: --I'm not President. Trump is President and he's shut down the--

CARLSON: OK. What I guess - what I'm saying is--

HARRIS: --government. We have to stay focused on that.

CARLSON: --I'm trying - I'm trying to - to--

HARRIS: Trump shut down the government.

CARLSON: --in slow motion--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --dig through the sea of manure--

HARRIS: Of course. Of course.

CARLSON: --to the - to the kernel of truth at the bottom--

HARRIS: Of course.

CARLSON: --to the - the sewer of filth, OK?

HARRIS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: So, the cost, the nature of the barrier--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --those are not relevant to anything, right?

HARRIS: Again, I think--

CARLSON: What we're talking about is the fear that what Trump is proposing might actually work.

HARRIS: It's not--

CARLSON: That's the actual problem.

HARRIS: --there's - there's no reason to believe that it's going to work. That is--

CARLSON: So, what - what - what is--

HARRIS: --the problem.

CARLSON: --the Democratic plan that will work?

HARRIS: Again, they laid this out in the - in the address that everybody's kind of making memes out of, which was actually kind of funny, they laid this out. They talked about surveillance. They've talked about rebuilding the existing fencing. Those are--

CARLSON: What they funded is--

HARRIS: --there was this (ph)--

CARLSON: --what's already in place. So what - so, are they saying that what we have is working?

HARRIS: They offered him $1.3 billion currently.


HARRIS: They are offering--

CARLSON: But that - that's what we already have.

HARRIS: --him $1.3 billion.

CARLSON: They - they've offered what we already have.

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: So, is - I'm just trying to figure out the argument, are they saying that--


CARLSON: --there's - it's not a problem that needs to be addressed.

HARRIS: Right--

CARLSON: Is that what they're saying?

HARRIS: No. They're clear - they clearly said last night. It needs to be addressed.


HARRIS: And the problem is the wall isn't effective.

CARLSON: But they're addressing it--

HARRIS: That's why they don't want to spend the money on it.

CARLSON: --by not spending more money than we're currently spending.

HARRIS: They are offering him $1.3 billion--

CARLSON: Yes, but that one's already--

HARRIS: --but they are not going to--

CARLSON: --that's already in play. I mean that's already--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --the plan.


CARLSON: So, they're saying simultaneously it's a problem we need to fix--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --but we're not going to give you more money to fix it.

HARRIS: But I think - I think Trump and if - if I'm being my most generous here, I think Trump has a misunderstanding of our illegal immigration issue. It is not at our Southern border. That is not where this--

CARLSON: OK. So - so, what you're saying is this isn't actually--

HARRIS: --is happening. So, who wants to put--

CARLSON: --a problem we need to fix.

HARRIS: No, I'm - I can - I'll say it this way. It is a problem. Part of it is at our Southern border.


HARRIS: But the predominant issues that he's talking about are not from people at our Southern border.


HARRIS: 9/11 was not caused by people coming in through Mexico.

CARLSON: I'm not saying it was.

HARRIS: It was coming - it was--

CARLSON: OK. So - so but - but really quick so--

HARRIS: --people flying in. And that's where the problem is.

CARLSON: --there is - I'm just trying to get to the truth. So, there is a--

HARRIS: Maybe people could go (ph)--

CARLSON: --problem at our Southern border.


CARLSON: But we're not going to spend more money to fix it. We don't have any new ideas for how to fix it. But there is a problem.

HARRIS: It's like saying--

CARLSON: That's what we're saying.

HARRIS: --it's like saying you have a cracked window and then you're asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix a cracked window. That's not how you fix a cracked window. The problem that that's a (ph)--

CARLSON: So then you just don't fix it at all.

HARRIS: --the - no, you fix it with $1.3 billion that the Democrats--

CARLSON: No with what - what's already in place. We're--

HARRIS: --are already offering.

CARLSON: --doing--

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: --exactly the same things we've been doing. That's going to fix it. But it's not going to fix it. But it is a problem but not a problem we're fixing.

HARRIS: That's not what I said at all. I said that the Border wall is $5 billion that would be wasted because it would stop a third of illegal immigration.

CARLSON: Right. I get - I get that.

HARRIS: Right.

CARLSON: But like I just don't understand. All right--

HARRIS: I don't know what other way to say it. I don't know what other way to say it.

CARLSON: I'm as confuse--

HARRIS: It's a waste of money because it's ineffective. And I don't think--

CARLSON: --I'm as confused as Trump was (ph)--

HARRIS: I don't think Trump understands our illegal immigration issue. And that's why he wants $5 billion for a wall--


HARRIS: --that won't work.

CARLSON: --oh I think that maybe the one thing he does under - maybe some things Trump doesn't understand, I think he does understand that.

HARRIS: One thing for him would be nice (ph).

CARLSON: All right, Mr. Harris, thank you very much.

HARRIS: Thank you.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

HARRIS: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Well America grew very wealthy, thanks to our economy, and that's been great. But what happens when the country's biggest companies stopped caring about the country itself? That's not great, and we're going to get to that after the break.


CARLSON: Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia and various other related and unrelated topics feels like it's been going on for about a generation now, maybe multiple generations. But at some point, it will end, all things end.

Obviously, we don't know what Mueller's findings will be. We do know there are an awful lot of people from the Democratic Congress to the entire news media who will use the Russia report, whatever it says, to try to force the President from office. That's inevitable.

Donald Trump has an awful lot of enemies. He also has a lot of supporters. 63 million Americans voted for this President. Pretty soon, he will need every one of those people to stand up for him, and not just him, personally, but for democracy itself, the principle that we choose and remove our leaders by voting, not through bureaucratic coups.

That moment is coming. Will the President get the support he needs to stay in office? Well, so far, Trump's voters have been remarkably loyal to him. But loyalty is a two-way street. It must be requited. You stick by the people who stick by you.

Has the President stuck by his supporters? Well, in some ways, he has.

But if you voted for Trump, take a step back. How's your life two years later? Are you freer now to say what you think than you were on Election Day 2016? Are you bolder and more confident in your beliefs? Or are you more afraid?

It's a question James Damore might ask. The company that Damore once worked for, Google, often boasts about its commitment to the free exchange of ideas. So, Damore dared to exchange his ideas with others.

He never threatened or demeaned anyone. Google just didn't like what he said. So, they fired him and they trashed his reputation so thoroughly he couldn't find a job.

Something very like that happened to the tech entrepreneur, Palmer Luckey. Luckey was thrown off the board of Facebook solely because he supported Donald Trump for President.

And then, how about Alex Jones? You may not like Jones. You may despise him. But you should know that he was systematically crushed by the big tech companies just for saying things they disliked. He can't even use PayPal anymore, and he's not the only one, hardly.

Others have been punished not for what they say but simply for refusing to read from pre-approved scripts.

Virginia public school teacher, Peter Vlaming lost his job because he resisted using pronouns he believed to be inaccurate. Vlaming didn't criticize or mis-gender anyone.

He simply avoided using pronouns entirely and addressed a student by name, instead. That wasn't good enough. Vlaming was fired for the crime of having an opinion that most of the country shares.

Those things happen, and they're just a few of the best-known examples. Imagine all those that don't make the news. How many Americans have been fired or denied work because of their political beliefs over the last two years? Who's protecting these people?

In the business world, virtually every major company seems to have lurched Left since Trump's election. Our corporate leaders are now openly determined to award this country's spoils on the basis of skin color rather than merit. They say that out loud.

This is unfair and it's deeply divisive. It makes Americans hate each other. It's also, as a factual matter, illegal. Corporations are not allowed to practice racial discrimination, neither are universities.

There's an entire division of the Justice Department that exists to enforce our laws against racism. Have they noticed what's happening? Of course, they have. They just don't care. Maybe they should find other jobs.

There are still lawyers in this country who care about civil rights, and the Administration should hire them and set them to work. And while they're at it, they ought to defend our constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedoms as well.

Traditional Christian beliefs are not a crime. Discriminating against them is. Corporate America ought to be reminded of that. Beliefs that were considered conventionally conservative just five years ago are now routinely described as terrorism.

Meanwhile, actual terror, committed by the Left, seems to go unpunished. In 2017, to name just one example, a Left-wing college professor called Eric Clanton smashed strangers in the head with a bike lock.

Why? Because he believed they disagreed with his politics. Clanton was charged with a felony. But then the charges were dropped. He spent no time in jail. How did that happen?

That same year, a Left-wing mob in North Carolina destroyed a public statue they didn't like, purely because they felt like it. The whole thing was caught on video. Somehow, nobody was punished.

At Evergreen College in Washington State, a Left-wing mob ordered Professor Bret Weinstein to leave campus for having the wrong skin color. When he refused, the mob rioted. Weinstein was forced to hold classes in a public park.

Police told him he wasn't safe on campus. Eventually, Weinstein resigned from his job. He felt he had no choice. The people who threatened Weinstein were never punished. In other words, they won, violence won.

This is all happening right now. Imagine how Barack Obama would have responded if it had happened to his voters while he was President. Let's say it's 2010. Obamacare has just passed, and public sentiment against the Administration is intense, people are angry.

Suddenly it has become, in effect, a crime to support Barack Obama in public. You can be fired for admitting you voted for him. You can be punched in the face for wearing a hat with Obama's name on it.

You think Obama would have done something about that? Hell, yes. These are his voters. He's the President of the United States. His job is to protect them, and all Americans who want to speak freely.

You would never get away with threatening an Obama voter for supporting Obama. There is no chance, not for a second. The FBI would be in your living room before you got home, and good for the FBI.

If our government exists to do anything, it's to preserve the free society that is our birthright. That society is crumbling. This country is becoming less free. The Administration should fight back against that. They have the power.

Laws on the books already protects an individual's right to support any political candidate he chooses. Enforce those laws.

Should Americans need the approval of some tech billionaire in order to exercise their freedom of speech online? We won't know for sure until the Administration pushes back against digital censorship.

Facebook and Google and Twitter likely would respond with legal challenges. Let them. Fighting for speech is always the right fight. It's also good politics. The President is up for re-election in two years, and he'll be judged on what he has accomplished in office.

Will he get a Border wall or an infrastructure plan? Who knows? The Congress doesn't seem anxious to cooperate on anything. One thing the President can do is exercise his Executive powers to defend the Bill of Rights, and the dignity of all Americans, no matter what they think.

Let's say the wall is never built. On the other hand, in November of 2020, the President can sincerely say to the country that he has fought as hard as he could to make certain that everyone in America is treated equally under the law, regardless of sex or skin color or political beliefs.

No, he'll say, you didn't get new roads or airports, you didn't live to see Planned Parenthood defunded. Congress blocked all that.

But the good news is you're no longer afraid. You don't have to whisper anymore when you say what you really think. You don't live in fear that some Corporate Sensitivity Officer will destroy your career for thinking the wrong thing.

You can say what you really believe in public. You're an American citizen. That is your right. If Donald Trump can credibly say all that two years from now, it's still possible he won't win. But he'll be a genuinely great president.

Well, for decades, the Republican Party has been proud to call itself the party of free markets, and good for them. There's nothing wrong with markets, of course. We're for them.

But there is something much more important than any economic system, and that is the health of people. When corporate interests, and the interests of American families conflict, you've got to side with American families. It seems like an obvious one. We made it last week. We'll continue to make it.

One person who's been saying this for a long time is J. D. Vance. He's the Author of Hillbilly Elegy, and he joins us tonight. J. D. Vance, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So, the point is not to make some kind of argument against market capitalism or any country - company, in particular. The - the point is only--


CARLSON: --that maybe Conservatives, as they think about what's important, ought to put individual Americans, particularly the family unit, the nuclear family, above all other considerations. Do you think that that's a crazy way to see the world?

VANCE: No, I don't at all. The way that I would frame it, Tucker, is we treat market capitalism as an end or we treat market capitalism as a tool, a tool to create prosperity--

CARLSON: Exactly.

VANCE: --a tool to create a lot of wealth, a tool to create a healthy society.

And I think what a lot of folks in the past 10, 15, 20 years on the Right have forgotten is that it is a powerful tool, but it is not the end. It is not, as I said in a piece, a platonic deity that enforces healthy families that enforces a prosperous society.

And to your point about corporate interests, sometimes the corporate interests who are responding to market incentives, who are acting just as you might expect a company to act, is actively going to harm the American social fabric. They do that sometimes because it's in their business interests.

But, for example, if a company is pushing opioids into a community in a way that's destroying families, whose side are we going to take? Are we going to take the side of the corporate interest--

CARLSON: Exactly.

VANCE: --or are we going to take the side of American families? I just think it's an obvious way to think about it, it's obvious what we should do.

CARLSON: So, the Sackler family getting rich from selling OxyContin is not more important than like the health of an entire Kentucky County. Why has that been hard for Conservatives who, I think, really do care about families, are sincerely interested in families, to preserving them, why is it hard for them to say that, do you think?

VANCE: Well, I think there are a couple things going on. I mean, first, so many of the battles in the 1980s and the 1990s were about the Republicans being the party of markets and Democrats being the party--


VANCE: --against markets. And I think what happened is that we lost a little bit of our muscle memory, a little bit of a recognition that libertarianism and conservatism aren't the same thing, and that sometimes--

CARLSON: That's right.

VANCE: --the interests of families do conflict with some of these corporate interests. I - I really don't think there's anything bizarre or anti- conservative about this.

The patron saint of American capitalism recognized that sometimes the interests of corporate - corporations would not be the same as the interests of the nation, the interests of families, the interests of communities.

And in that situation, it was natural for the state, for the society to take the side of families. That's - that's really all this is ultimately about.

Do we remember who we're fighting for? Are we for healthy communities, healthy families or are we just going to constantly defer to corporate interests every time those two - those two sides collide?

CARLSON: I'm worried that if we don't articulate this, really clearly, and act on it that the reaction against our current form of capitalism will be so intensive, we're going to wind up with something really destructive, socialism, or some awful economic system. Do you share that worry?

VANCE: I definitely share that worry. And, Tucker, if you look through history, if you look at the Bolshevik Revolution in the early 20th Century- -


VANCE: --if you look at what was going on in the world as the American or, excuse me, the world economy transferred from an agrarian society to the industrial economy, there was a lot of war. There was fascism. There was Nazism.


VANCE: There was communism. And the United States avoided it because people like Teddy Roosevelt actually stood up for American workers, and said, "I'm not always going to defer to the interests of the corporate world."

I think what's going on right now in our economy is actually a similar level of transformation. We're seeing a lot of people move--

CARLSON: I agree.

VANCE: --from an industrial-based economy to an information-based economy.

And the question is what do we do to protect the promise of the free market to ensure that it continues to be a tool to create prosperity, so that we can have a healthy community, have a healthy society, or do we continue to ignore the fact that a lot of people in America are hurting right now?

And when people hurt, they eventually go to the ballot box, and eventually, sometimes, people do things even worse than voting for politicians and policies that you don't like. That's the lesson of history.

And the question is do we heed the lesson of history? Do we build a modern conservative coalition that supports working and middle-class families? It's really, to me, the only way out of this.

It's not just about avoiding the worst consequences of history. It's also about building a society, I think, that's better even than the one we inherited, which is what our entire goal should be, as people who care about public policy and just about the - the nation.

CARLSON: You're - you're certainly one of the leaders to that effort and we support you vehemently. Thank you, J. D. Vance, really nicely put. Appreciate it.

VANCE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, New York is giving away free healthcare to illegal immigrants. That's a substitute for a thriving middle-class. Is it a wise idea? We'll get a little deeper into that question, after the break.



BERNARD WHITMAN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICAL POLLSTER: If you're here, and you don't have money, whether you're undocumented or documented immigrant, or you happen to be a citizen that doesn't have money, you deserve healthcare.

Healthcare is a basic human right and we ought to start trying to figure out how to do it there (ph).

CARLSON: Who's paying for this?

WHITMAN: I think this - I think this should be a--

CARLSON: It's a basic human right to provide it--

WHITMAN: --pilot program. We--

CARLSON: --to people from other countries. So, we have an--

WHITMAN: I think--

CARLSON: --an obligation to provide free healthcare to--

WHITMAN: --any person should deserve healthcare.

CARLSON: --anybody in the world, I mean--


CARLSON: Well that was Democratic Pollster, Bernard Whitman, who came on this show yesterday reciting the new catechism of the Democratic Party. Anyone on Planet Earth has a moral right to come here for any reason at any time and have you pay for their healthcare. Period.

New York Mayor, Bill de Blasio is nodding along with that sermon, and he's trying to implement that vision right now in New York City. Watch.


MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: We also have a way to provide direct healthcare to a lot of our neighbors who happen to be undocumented. They're still part of our community. They need healthcare. Their families need healthcare.

This is one universal way to reach all those folks right now who are not covered.


CARLSON: Kieran Lalor is an Assemblyman in New York, and he joins us tonight. Kieran, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.


CARLSON: Am I misrepresenting what the Mayor of New York is saying that anybody in the world has a right to come here illegally, and once in New York, has a moral right to have everyone else pay for his healthcare?

LALOR: I don't think that's a misrepresentation at all. And he's saying that 600,000 people are going to get coverage, among them, 300,000 illegals in New York City.

But he's not going to calculate in the influx of people, probably six people, if you're going to offer free healthcare to anybody, whether they're a citizen or illegal that are going to come in, and I haven't heard de Blasio's plan to create more doctors, more nurses, more beds, more space.

I don't know how you add 600,000 people to an already overburdened healthcare system in New York City, and not have delays, not have major problems.

CARLSON: I - I think de Blasio's kind of a moron. I think he's a marijuana smoker, seems like one, I'm serious. But there are other people in New York who are very smart, a lot of smart people in New York.

A lot of smart people work for Bill de Blasio, I know some of them. What do they think of this? Did nobody say, "Hey, Mr. Mayor," like, "this actually is crazy?" I mean how--

LALOR: I - I think the Left is moving so quickly to the Left. If you recall 10 years ago, President Obama thought it was so important in the State of the Union to say, "Don't worry, illegals aren't going to get Obamacare." And remember, a Congressman yelled, "You lie."

Well now we have 10 years later, the Left is using it as a selling point.

CARLSON: Good point.

LALOR: It used to be something you hide. Now it's a selling point. Guess what? Free healthcare for illegals. And you know what? I get calls to my office--

CARLSON: Yes (ph).

LALOR: --every day saying, "Hey, my husband's 55 years old. He's been working since he's 14. He paid into the system. He never took anything out. He had a stroke the other day. I'm trying to get him in a--


LALOR: --assisted-living facility." And you know what Medicaid says? They say, "Oh, spend all your assets, every dollar you saved, sell your house. Once you spent all that on the assisted-living, we'll cover Medicaid."

What Bill de Blasio is saying is, somebody can sneak across the border and they're going to get what this American citizen can't get, after putting in, you know, 40 years of work into the system.

CARLSON: Good. That is - now, you've actually made me mad. That is infuriating to think about that. And I'm so grateful that you--

LALOR: Happens every day, Tucker.

CARLSON: --remember. I think it was Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina. I'm getting old. And--


CARLSON: --my memory's going. We need to have him on this show just so he can do--

LALOR: Sure.

CARLSON: --a little victory lap--

LALOR: Sure.

CARLSON: --for being right. And everyone scolded him. Of course--

LALOR: And, you know, 41 percent of residents of New York City are already on Medicaid. They're already getting government healthcare. So, it's a huge burden on the taxpayer of New York City and, ultimately, New York State. I don't know why we're going to add to that burden.

CARLSON: Yes, it's so crazy. Kieran, thank you very much, great to see you.

LALOR: My pleasure.





CARLSON: Well a huge number of Silicon Valley corporate managers, the people who are making all the money from the tech boom, strictly restrict their children's phone time, and send them to screen-free private schools. Why do they do that? Because they know that their own devices hurt children.

But at the same time, the tech industry has no problem foisting those devices on everybody else's kids.

According to Google, half of all the country's K through 12 students use Google Apps to learn. Google has donated a 100 million in devices to schools, which, of course, has the welcome side effect of acclimating and addicting children to Apple products when they are most impressionable.

Did Phil Morris pass out Marlboros to kids? I don't know. We'll check.

Microsoft has, similarly, donated more than a billion dollars in discounted Windows products to schools. No one's really noticed this.

Michelle Malkin has though. She's a syndicated columnist, author, and blogger, and she joins us tonight. So, Michelle, this does seem like taking the most vulnerable and impressionable slice of our - of America and pushing products on them that they're going to be addicted to for life. Is it something else?

MICHELLE MALKIN, CONTRIBUTOR: It certainly is that. It's not merely the idea of addicting them and getting them used to the brands from pre-school age. But it's also about data mining. And I've been investigating--


MALKIN: --and reporting on this issue of infiltration of education and technology in the public schools, in particular, for the last decade.

And - and, Tucker, the - the problem is that the bulwark, the wall, if you will, on protecting family, the student data, was greatly undermined and sabotaged by the Obama Administration's Education Department.

And, the same way that through promulgating rules that were never scrutinized in Congress led to all of the terrible outcomes that we saw with Title IX, that same approach was used to undermine the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which used to require parental consent before personally identifiable information.

In other words, your students' personal data was basically allowed and thrown open for access to third-party contractors.


MALKIN: And boy, are they cashing in?

CARLSON: That is so - I mean I - I never even - I guess I'm not diabolical enough. I never even thought of that. So, this is not simply a way to get people using the products - kids to get using the products young, it's also a way to sell their information. And do you think that's actually--


CARLSON: --happening?

MALKIN: It is. And, in fact, Google was forced to admit that they were secretly data mining student emails in 2014. The problem is that there have been few consequences for it.

And until there is a presumptive and pre-emptive right to know, N-O, as well as K-N-O-W, and FERPA is fixed, so that these loopholes that Obama created are - are closed, and until there's an idea, for example, that you cannot require students to log in to Google in order to be able to access their homework, their class schedules, and their grades, this is going to go on.

And what - what the Silicon Valley corporate giants will say is, "Oh, the - the teachers and parents that are complaining about this are just stupid. They don't know that they - they can just merely log off," when, in fact, it's been proven.

And there are teachers and parents, particularly in Missouri, which is really where the rebellion has - has caught on about this, are showing that plain text passwords are being stored without parental and student consent.

And the thing is that - that kids, as you mentioned, Tucker, are captive. They are held hostage because--

CARLSON: It's unbelievable.

MALKIN: --they cannot do their schoolwork without becoming IV-hooked on to these products.

CARLSON: Is there a reason we have a Congress if they're not protecting us from this? Hold that thought. If you find a reason for Congress to exist if they're not protecting us from this, I hope you'll come back and tell.

MALKIN: Ha-ha.

CARLSON: Michelle Malkin, great to see you. Thank you.

MALKIN: You bet, take care.

CARLSON: A top Democratic donor used misleading webpages to suppress Republican turnout in the midterms. Bet you didn't read that in The New York Times. We'll investigate after the break.


CARLSON: Well here's an interesting story. Left-wing activists appear to have used fake Conservative websites to suppress Conservative turnout in the last elections, the 2018 midterms.

Trace Gallagher has been on this, and he joins us with details. Hey, Trace.


After reviewing Facebook archives, the Conservative publication, Daily Caller News Foundation, discovered that not only did Democratic operatives, funded by technology billionaire, Reid Hoffman, used misleading Facebook pages in the run-up to the 2018 midterms, but also tried to give the impression the pages were operated by frustrated Conservatives.

For example, American Engagement Technologies or AET, founded by former Obama Administration official, Mikey Dickerson, bought ads for two Facebook pages, The Daily Real and Today's Nation, both encouraging Republican voters to stay home because the election was inconsequential, posting ads like this, "Everyone else hearing more recent stories that the Blue Wave is a myth, and the Republicans are going to win and upset mainstream pollsters once again," or this ad, quoting again, "We told Conservatives that we would defend their values and they believed us!"

And still another ad saying, quote, "Some Trump supporters see midterm losses for Congressional Republicans as a wake-up call to get serious on the wall."

Now, for context, billionaire, Reid Hoffman, was an early investor in Facebook and acknowledged that he founded AET, after that group came under fire for allegedly running misinformation ads in the 2017 Alabama Special Election, intended to falsely link GOP Senatorial Candidate, Roy Moore, to Russian influence operations.

Reid Hoffman, Mikey Dickerson, have yet to comment.


CARLSON: Trace Gallagher for us. Appreciate that, Trace. Good to see you.

Unfortunately, we are out of time. We'd go on forever. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, with deep sincerity, by the way.

Good night from Washington. Sean Hannity, right now.

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.