Rep. Buck: If we aren't targeting gang members, we aren't serious about gun violence

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 17, 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.” It was just three days ago that "New York Times" reporters Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin were the toast of the left. Boy, things move fast.

Their new book appeared to finish the job that the national media started a year ago and take out Brett Kavanaugh for good. The authors accused Kavanaugh of committing a kind of sexual assault as a college student more than 30 years ago at Yale. Details were sparse, but it was enough to launch a tsunami of rage from the left.

Shouters on the other cable channels immediately denounced Kavanaugh as a gang rapist. Virtually all of the leading Democrats running for President demanded that Kavanaugh be impeached and removed from office.

And then almost immediately, the story fell apart. Sunday night, the newspaper was forced to make a devastating correction to the piece. In fact, the woman that Kavanaugh supposedly attacked, didn't remember anything about the event.

And just like so many previous stories about Brett Kavanaugh, the whole thing turned out to be a crock.

So last night, Kelly and Pogrebin sought refuge on MSNBC. In fact, on a show highly familiar with botched stories. Their explanation, "Don't blame us, blame our editors."


LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: What happened with that omission that "The Times" later felt belonged in the piece?

KATE KELLY, REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, first of all, Lawrence, there was zero intent to mislead anybody about the details of the incident?

O'DONNELL: In your draft of the article, did it include those words that have since been added to the article?

POGREBIN: It did. It did.

O'DONNELL: It did, so somewhere in the editing process, those words were trimmed.

ROBIN POGREBIN, REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I mean, I think what happened actually was that, you know, we had her name, and you know, "The Times" doesn't usually include the name of the victim.

And so I think in this case, the editors felt like maybe it was probably better to remove it. And in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn't remember.

O'DONNELL: Okay, and so in their removal of the name, they ended up removing what follows it.

POGREBIN: The whole sentence, yes, and so I think it was just sort of an editing, you know, done in the haste in the editing process, as you know.


CARLSON: Well, actually, that story could be true. "The New York Times" is not what it used to be, it's perfectly believable that some half asleep politically inflamed editor at the paper would blow one of the most important stories of the year. It's not a very impressive news outlet anymore.

But a missing line is not the only problem with this story. Watch the treatment, the two authors received of all places on, "The View."


MEGHAN MCCAIN, ABC HOST: I understand that the woman didn't want her name out publicly. If not, why is her name in the book?

KELLY: Her name is in the book because we think it is relevant information. We think it's accurate. And we know that her name was provided to members of the Senate and the F.B.I. by a witness named Max Stier, who is a good governance activist in Washington, who is a respected figure, and he had provided this name, the name is in documents like in a letter.

MCCAIN: He then --

KELLY: He did at one point, I understand that he worked Williams and Connolly.

ABBY HUNTSMAN, ABC HOST: Why wasn't that in the piece, because that is -- if we're talking about credibility.

KELLY: Right, I understand, it is relevant background in this case, it was a very short mention, and we only talked in brief terms about what he is doing right now. So we didn't see all of that context to be necessary. But I understand why you're bringing it up, and I think it's fair.


CARLSON: Just a short mention. Of course, it's the critical claim in the story/book. We looked at some context. Well, it turns out some people think it's relevant when a character destroying smear comes from political activists, rather than from, say, ordinary citizens.

You ought to be able to know that when you're reading the piece, "The Time" disagrees, though. They don't think you have a right to that context. Of course, these are also the people who took the Trump dossier seriously and buried the context in that.

And you know, in some ways, it's a shame that Kelly and Pogrebin bungled their story so badly because the book actually has some interesting revelations in it -- assuming they're true. For example, they were the first reporters to get an on the record statement from Leland Keyser, that's the friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who supposedly could corroborate her story of being assaulted, but in the end did not corroborate it.

Why didn't she? Well, Keyser told the authors that she had quote, "no confidence in Blasey Ford's story." That's not something the left wants you to hear. So of course, the authors downplayed that and buried it at the very end of the book. Really? It seems like the lead. But no, they downplayed it.

They also downplayed another telling fact pattern, which is just how far the left is willing to go to destroy Kavanaugh last year. Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino also wrote a book on the subject. It's called "Justice on Trial," and they reported that Leland Keyser face sustained pressure from the left to change her story, to lie and support Blasey Ford's account

Kelly and Pogrebin found out what exactly that pressure was. They got text messages in which Blasey Ford's allies discussed defaming Leland Keyser, who is a suburban mom outside D.C. as a drug addict.

Keyser confirmed that this happened and she told the two reporters quote, "I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn't comply."

Now that's interesting story from a relevant -- it's not some unsupported gossip from a decades' old dorm party, it just happened last year. The problem with it, though, is that the story -- the truth of it -- makes the activists left look like ruthless fascists. Why? Because they kind of are.

So "The New York Times" suppressed that. They want you to know, but you should know that.

Brit Hume is Fox's Senior Political Analyst, and he joins us tonight. So Brit, as a piece of journalism, how do you assess the story?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: This is a story that should never have gotten anywhere near print. I mean this -- remember now, we're talking here about a second hand account from a witness that the authors did not speak to and who is not speaking.

And he has said by friends to be saying this happen, right? So it isn't even a first-hand account. So right there, you've got a huge strike against you if you're trying to get the story independently in the old "New York Times" right?

And then on top of that, you have the fact that the woman herself is not talking -- the alleged victim is not talking and has told -- and she has told friends that she didn't remember this.

So I mean, I can only imagine what would have happened back in my newspaper days, if I went to an editor and say, "This is what I've got." But I can just see him picking up the copy and throwing it across the room. I mean, you couldn't get anywhere near -- this is nowhere near publishable. It's not even remotely close.

CARLSON: So there -- they kind of gamely defend themselves by saying, "Well, the editor did this." Now, you've -- and a lot of writers, I'm one of them, you've had a book excerpted in print.

HUME: Right.

CARLSON: They take your book, and they and they make a newspaper piece out of it.

HUME: Right.

CARLSON: You watch pretty carefully, don't you?

HUME: Of course, you do. On top of that, remember this, they say and have been saying in television interviews in recent days, that they believe that these accusers, Deborah Ramirez, you remember her and this woman who is an alleged victim in this case that he did abuse them. Right?

But they also go on to say that they believe he basically has led an exemplary life, Kavanaugh led an exemplary life since then, and that they think, you know, basically, he is a good guy. And he has been, you know, he has been a reputable judge and a man with no history of this sort of stuff.

Well, you know, after all we heard about him during those hearings, you would not think that necessarily about him. And you would think that that might be the subject of the article that there would be a book excerpt.


HUME: What did they choose, however, to excerpt, right? They chose to excerpt this second-hand uncorroborated account --

CARLSON: The flimsiest thing they had is what they went with.

HUME: Exactly, right, because it was the most damaging and therefore likely to achieve the most cachet among the audience that they're clearly trying to appeal to, and which I would submit they're probably a part of.

CARLSON: Leaving out critically relevant facts, like the fact that this supposed victim didn't remember the assault is a kind of dishonesty, and it devalues the currency of the paper, which is accuracy. So whatever you think of "The Times," it's obviously liberal, but the idea was, well, they get the facts right. What happens if they don't get the facts right?

HUME: Well, then I think the reputation begins to decline. I remember when Abe Rosenthal was the legendary curmudgeonly editor of "The Times' for many, many long years, I went to see him once about a job. This was years ago, back in the 70s, and he is an eccentric guy, no doubt about it. But he was a very strong editor.

And he said to me, "When I'm gone," he said, "I want to be said of me, quote, 'he kept the paper straight.'" That actually is on his gravestone. And I remember thinking at the time, "The New York Times" was the straightest newspaper anywhere. It was the Bible. It was the reliable source.

When I was covering Reaganomics in the early 80s in Congress, "The Washington Post" was writing all kinds of editorialized stuff on their news pages about it. "The New York Times" didn't do that. They played it very straight. They were very fair. Always were, right?

Well, now I understand what Abe Rosenthal was worried about. The floodgates have been opened, and you get crap like this in the newspaper.

CARLSON: The default position journalists, you got pushed back pretty hard. Brit Hume, great to see you. Thank you for that perspective.

HUME: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Laura Ingraham, of course, hosts "The Ingraham Angle" every night, two hours after this show, something that I never miss. And she joins us, so we're happy to have her join us tonight.

So one of the things you learn from this book is just how ruthless Kavanaugh's opponents who are willing to threaten Leland Keyser, even I didn't think that they would do that.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: They mean business.


INGRAHAM: This is for everything. This is not just about a Supreme Court seat. This is not just about one nomination. This is presaging what will happen in the next 15 months or so, leading all the way up to 2020.

This is, you know, this is it. This is beyond a street fight. This is all out revolution against our constitutional precepts, against basic principles of fairness, against just goodwill toward someone who as you said, has led an incredible life on the bench.

I mean, this is a Bush nominee basically.


INGRAHAM: I mean, I've known Brett, you know, full disclosure for almost 25 years. A long time. He is a terrific person. He is not the person who people thought is the most conservative jurist to put on the court, but the Trump administration picked him. I think they're glad they did. But imagine what they do to someone who was more conservative judicially or not a Bush nominee originally.

So a lot of us are saying, look, this next nomination if you have another nomination, you know, don't play around here, like, go for the best, most judicially reliable conservative originalist that you can find to put on the court because it doesn't matter who you nominate.

CARLSON: It doesn't matter.

INGRAHAM: They're going to, you know -- they're going to run you over then back up and run you over again.

CARLSON: Do you think Republicans on Capitol Hill understand that?

INGRAHAM: Not entirely. I think, you see this in some of the oversight hearings over the last several years, there have been some, you know, good back and forth and Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy. But you don't see the type of relentless focus at times that I think the Democrats frankly have when it comes to their ultimate goal.

I mean, we are playing parlor games, and they're -- you know, they're playing deadly serious to win it all. So people have to understand, this is beyond legal niceties. It's beyond regular politics. They despise Donald Trump.

Anyone who supported him, they're going to brand as a white supremacist racist. The deplorables -- that's going to seem quaint calling the people deplorables by the time this gets finished, so Kavanaugh is just carnage in all of that.

CARLSON: What kind of person would you have to be to threaten a single mom?

INGRAHAM: Yes, who has had some tough times.

CARLSON: For sure, chronic back problems apparently and all this stuff? What would it take for you to threaten her just because she is in the way with personal destruction?

INGRAHAM: Same types of people who would threaten Kathleen Willey and initially Monica Lewinsky. And you know, what they tried to do to Linda Tripp. I mean, just going back to that type of ruthlessness, that's kind of carried forward.

I mean, from Bork to how they treated, you know, multiple recent Courts of Appeals nominees, the stuff that doesn't get a lot of attention, deeply anti-Catholic bias in some of the ways they've attacked some of Trump's nominees. They will stop at nothing.

For them, this is a whole shooting match. The Supreme Court and this next election will define the next generation. They know it. And so they're going to be prepared this time.

So Republicans, conservatives, you better be prepared as well.

CARLSON: It's telling. I mean, really quickly, if you believed in democracy, wouldn't you take all of this energy and money --

INGRAHAM: A democracy that promote -- that ends up with Trump as the victor. That's not what they believe in. No, no --

CARLSON: They don't believe it. Can you extend your time trying to convince the population of your cause? The human rights?

INGRAHAM: It's a sign of their utter desperation. Buybacks and gun bans and all. It is not getting them anywhere. Beto is at zero percent in the new NBC poll, so none of that is getting any traction.

Elizabeth Warren has some bigger crowds, but this peace and prosperity versus you know carnage and calamity, I mean, they have nothing. So they - - it is a divide and they hope conquer strategy.

CARLSON: Laura Ingraham, thank you for that.

INGRAHAM: Isn't that a positive optimistic view? I mean, you've got Hume for the really serious. I'm going to just give you the -- that's the way it is.

CARLSON: You are right unfortunately.

INGRAHAM: It's great to see you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you. God hates Republicans. He loves the Democratic Party. That's what we're learning from theologian, St. Pete Buttigieg. Why are they so certain about God's will? When did the religious left get so powerful? We will examine that next.

Plus there are new developments in the case of the man who supposedly took down corn pop. It's all ahead.


CARLSON: Well, Pete Buttigieg is an Episcopalian. That's a small, increasingly esoteric sect of Protestant Christianity. And yet, all of a sudden he is the holy man somehow of the 2019 campaign trail.

Buttigieg has made it clear again and again that his opponents aren't simply wrong, they're immoral.


PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is by no means true that Christian faith or any faith requires you to be Republican, especially in these times.

There's a lot about the stewardship and hope of creation. That is an inscription that I don't see being honored by the administration right now.

It's also important that we stop seeing religion used as a kind of cudgel as if God belonged to a political party, and if he did, I can't imagine it would be the one that sent the current President in the White House.


CARLSON: "It's important that we don't use religion as a cudgel," says the man using religion as a cudgel.

For all his faithful fervor though, Buttigieg is not very interested in certain categories of sin. For example, just last week, authorities raided the home of an Illinois abortion doctor called Ulrich Klopfer and there they found thousands of preserved aborted fetal remains.

Klopfer had plied his trade it turns out South Bend, Indiana, the city that St. Pete is the mayor of, but weirdly so far, Buttigieg has not commented on the incident in any way. Why is that?

Phil Wegmann is the White House correspondent over at RealClearPolitics. He has been reporting on this story and he joins us tonight. Phil, thanks so much for coming on.

So, just to be clear, this is a story that some of our viewers may be kind of familiar with, but describe what we know about this abortion doctor and his relationship to Buttigieg.

PHIL WEGMANN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REALCLEARPOLITICS: What we know is that Ulrich Klopfer was the most prolific abortionist in Indiana for decades and regardless of your politics or whether you're pro-life or pro- choice, or what God you pray to, your heart has to go out to these women, because we've discovered that more than 2,000 fetal remains are in this guy's basement right now in Illinois.

And so your heart has to go to these women because women who have had abortions, they're terrified that their terminated pregnancy became this man's trophy. They want answers. They want a Federal investigation, and they said so publicly because the details are too gruesome to ignore unless you're Pete Buttigieg.

He has not commented publicly on what was going on in his backyard, and he has offered no guidance to these women who are grieving.

CARLSON: How interesting. I mean, and do you think the reason could be because if he comments on this, it suggests that we maybe there's a moral edge or moral problem to abortion.

WEGMANN: So I've reached out to his campaign over the weekend repeatedly, and I didn't hear back from them at all about Klopfer for who again, had been operating for decades in his backyard.

And I reached out to his Municipal Office and the municipal employee who answered the phone, referred me back to Buttigieg's presidential campaign, and again, radio silence.

So Buttigieg, he is more than happy to make these statements about being pro-choice, about opposing regulation on abortion clinics. And in fact, he has trumpeted his own defense of an abortion clinic in South Bend that is currently operating without a license.

But what he hasn't done is comment on the specifics of this case. It's been complete radio silence.

CARLSON: Interesting. So he stood up on behalf of an abortion clinic operating without a license to be clear.

WEGMANN: He did. To be clear, it's a different one and Klopfer was operating that. But the thing is, this story is not going to go away. Because if you remember, in 2016, President Trump made his pro-life position a promise to evangelicals. He went after Hillary Clinton for her defense of abortion and late term abortions.


WEGMANN: So if Pete Buttigieg finds his way on stage against President Trump, or if he finds his way on to the stage against Vice President Pence competing for the Vice Presidency, he is going to have to answer about why he has been quiet for so long.

CARLSON: Yes. He doesn't want to upset his donors, I would guess. Phil, thanks so much for that update. I appreciate it.

WEGMANN: Thank you, sir.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

CARLSON: Mayor Buttigieg may be the most self-promoting holy man in the modern Democratic Party, but he is not the only one using religion as a political weapon, a cudgel as he would say.

At a forum just last week, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar declared that voters have a religious obligation to support the Democratic Party. Watch this.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: Make sure you're voting. Make sure you understand why you're voting. God expects us to do the righteous work, and so God does not expect you to vote for people who will ultimately hurt you and other humans around you.


CARLSON: There's Ilhan Omar telling you what God expects you to do. Get a notepad, you would want to write that down.

Meanwhile, Congressman Jerry Nadler once called it -- and I'm quoting, "morally outrageous" if you oppose late-term abortion, that's his position.

At the same time, though, he is very confident in his knowledge of Scripture, and who is falling short in obeying God's word.


REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: We should also bear in mind that the most often repeated commandment in the Bible, "Thou shalt not oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," the most often repeated commandment, and we are now with the Trump administration, systematically violating and making a mockery of the Biblical commandment.


CARLSON: Jonathan Morris is an ethicist. He's a Fox News Religion Contributor, and we're happy to have him tonight. Mr. Morris, thank you very much for coming on.

So if you thought that Jimmy Swaggart and the old fashioned religious right was unbearable, and I kind of did, to be honest, is there anything more unbearable than the religious left lecturing us about what God wants? Does this have a place in in politics, do you think?

JONATHAN MORRIS, RELIGION CONTRIBUTOR: I love the fact that there are politicians actually talking about moral principles as it relates to public policy. I am all in favor of that.

But when you start saying, therefore, God wants you to only be a part of this political party -- what are you talking about? Like, God existed way before the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and I don't think He is telling anybody that this is the puritanical, perfect party because we know neither of them are.

CARLSON: I guess what's -- and I agree with you a hundred percent. And I think you should begin all conversations about faith with deep humility, knowing that you know nothing really.


CARLSON: I think that's a good place to start. But it's particularly galling coming from such an aggressively anti-religious party that really has kind of tormented conventional traditional Christians for so long. I mean, how dare they, I guess would be my reaction.

MORRIS: Yes. Well, we'll the whole point of Mayor Pete here not saying anything about these 2,100 fetal remains, which is just a scientific term for baby humans being found -- dead baby humans -- because they've been killed and being put in his basement. How could he not talk about it?


MORRIS: Let me tell you why he can't talk about it. Because you cannot get elected President of the United States of America if you are a Democrat, unless you never say anything except abortion on demand. It's very simple.

He cannot talk about it because of the unbelievable lobby of Planned Parenthood, and so he prefer just to be quiet. And that is, I think, outrageous.

CARLSON: Well, I mean, but it would be one thing to just say, "Look, I'm a bought and paid for robot servant of the abortion lobby." Okay, I get it, and I know that you are, but for that same person to lecture me, using scripture from the New Testament is really like a new level of infuriating of hutzpah.

MORRIS: Yes, take Old Testament New Testament, we saw Nadler who used Old Testament, New Testament -- anytime you take one passage of the Bible, and I think all Christians would say this, and Muslims and Jews would say, you take one scripture passage and say, "Therefore, my public policy, whether it's on immigration, whether it's an abortion, whether -- is the right one," that's just outrageous, and it's not helpful to our civil society.

CARLSON: No, that's right. It's too cynical, I would say. Jonathan Morris, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.

MORRIS: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: George Soros spent more than a million bucks to get this man elected the District Attorney in Philadelphia. He didn't get a lot of attention, but should have. We're going to tell you how that's working for the people who actually live in Philadelphia, we went to the city to find out. Fascinating story. Next.


JERVAZZ BALLARD, FATHER OF VICTIM: He is not protecting us at all. Not at all. Because he is sending a message out there saying that it's okay to do murder. Don't worry about it. We're going to give your due.



CARLSON: One of the left's big causes in the past several years has been so-called Criminal Justice Reform. What does that mean exactly? It sounds like something you'd be for.

Over the past few years, left-wing billionaire George Soros has spent about $13.4 million on District Attorney races across the country in 17 states. He spent that money because it's an effective use of money.

Without passing a single law, without the democratic process really working itself out, a single DA can completely remake or unmake a city's Criminal Justice System. It's happened across the country.

One of the Soro's biggest wins in recent years was the election of Larry Krasner as the District Attorney in Philadelphia. So we went to Philadelphia to investigate the effect of crashers win on the city and this is what we found.


CARLSON (voice over): This is the scene outside of the Philadelphia Cycle Center last winter. In broad daylight, 10 kids congregate outside of the store, and they climb up the back wall, smash the windows, dive into the building and come out with a $10,000.00 dirt bike.


QUESTION: And how much time do they get for that?



CARLSON (voice over): The victim, Vince Sanginiti lost thousands of dollars in stolen merchandise and even more in damage to his store. The burglar who rode off with the dirt bike was arrested, but Sanginiti didn't get justice.

Prosecutors went soft on the burglar. He didn't go to prison.


SANGINITI: Big burglaries are usually sad to say more common than not any more. Big burglaries are running about twice a month.


CARLSON (voice over): That's life in Philadelphia under the city's new prosecutor, Larry Krasner. Krasner is a left-wing activist who uses his position to undermine the existing legal system.


BILL MCSWAIN, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR EASTERN DISTRICT PHILADELPHIA: He views the system as corrupt and racist. And so his revenge on the system is that he is going to excuse lawlessness of all types.


CARLSON (voice over): Soon after taking office, Krasner issued a memo to his staff urging them not to enforce certain drug or prostitution laws and to defer gun cases. Even petty theft has almost been decriminalized.

The consequences of all of these, well, see for yourself. This footage of Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood shows an open air heroin market filled with drug dealers and addicts shooting up in public. The sidewalks are covered in trash.

This photo shows a pile of us syringes just blocks from a city school. Krasner refused to comment on any of these policies. He rejected our offer for an interview. But publicly, he suggests that his approach allows his office to devote its limited resources to the most serious crimes such as rape and murder.


MCSWAIN: The only thing he is prioritizing is lawlessness at all levels.


CARLSON (voice over): In fact, crime is surging in Philadelphia. In Krasner's first year as prosecutor, the homicide rate in the city rose 12 percent and reach levels not seen in more than a decade.

Jervazz Ballard is one of those victims.


BALLARD: To see your son laying on a table not moving at all. It was all very emotional. And then to go to the funeral home to see your son laying in the casket, it was the worst. It was the worst thing that ever happened.


CARLSON (voice over): It was an easy case for prosecutors. The murder was caught on surveillance tape and the killer confessed.


BALLARD: The shooter stuck the gun in the car and shot my son once in the back of his head. If you can't tell me that's not premeditated, I don't know what -- you know, I don't know what else to say about that. That was whole blood chilling. They set my son up on video.


CARLSON (voice over): Despite having a confession, Krasner downgraded his sins to third degree murder. That's a charge usually reserved only for unintentional killings.

Instead of getting locked life in prison, his son's murderer faces a minimum of just 17 years behind bars.


BALLARD: The suspect, now, he is sitting back relaxing because he doesn't have a life sentence. He has an expiration date. You know, he is going to get out soon, you know, or, you know, 10 years from now or 12 or 13 years from now, you know, and we've got a walk around -- he can walk around and relax while my son lay in the cemetery. That's not justice at all. That's not.


CARLSON: We're sad to tell you that the story you just heard, Jervazz Ballard's story is not unique at all. District Attorney Krasner has introduced charges for several other murder cases since taking office.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have been pushing hard for a National Red Flag Law that would allow police to seize firearms from individuals who have not even been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.

It's not a good idea. But if you're going to pass a law like that, you might want to apply it to say, gang members who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun murders in this country. But they don't want that.

Congressman Ken Buck is a Republican from Colorado. He introduced an amendment that would apply a Red Flag to those gang members on databases, but the Democrats voted it down. Interesting. Congressman Buck joins us.

Hey, Congressman, thanks so much for coming on. So first, tell us why you introduced this. Why would you want a Red Flag Law, if we pass one, to apply to gang members?

REP. KEN BUCK, R-COLO.: First, I don't want to pass one. But second --

CARLSON: Right, exactly.

BUCK: But if it passes, it should apply to the most dangerous people in America, the most dangerous people with guns in America. Over 80 percent of the murders in America with guns are committed by gang members. Over 90 percent of the crime in America is committed by gang members.

If we aren't targeting gang members, we aren't serious about gun violence in America.

CARLSON: So you make such -- that's why I'm so grateful you came on tonight. It's such a compelling and obvious point that you're making. How could anybody possibly be for a Red Flag Law that doesn't apply to gang members?

BUCK: Well, for one thing, I think the Democrats are trying to disarm rural America and the second thing, I think that they aren't serious about gun violence. If they were serious, they would target these particular individuals. And third, they don't trust law enforcement to create a gang database that is fair, and their really hatred for law enforcement is evident in voting down this amendment.

CARLSON: But they trust law enforcement to go to the homes of law-abiding citizens and seize their firearms.

BUCK: Absolutely. And in fact, we haven't heard anything about no knock warrants. We have never heard anything about the process that law enforcement can use to take law-abiding citizens weapons away from them. But that's exactly what the Democrats want to do. And they will be pitting honest citizens against law enforcement and law enforcement in many instances, in my home county, they don't want to enforce these laws.

CARLSON: But they've really got their hackles up when you suggested this would apply to gang members. It's almost as if they see gang members as a critical constituency.

BUCK: You know, I have to tell you, they certainly see urban America as a critical constituency, and there is much sympathy in urban America for some gang members.

When you're a victim of crime, you don't have much sympathy for gang members, but these politicians do.

CARLSON: I think that's right. And I think there are a lot of people living in cities who probably need to have firearms at home to protect themselves.

BUCK: Absolutely.

CARLSON: They have little sympathy for them. Congressman, thank you for coming on, and thank you for raising that point because it just illustrated where they're coming from.

BUCK: Thank you.

CARLSON: Fifty years ago, Joe Biden had only to worry about fighting corn pop. He won, in case you're wondering what happened. Now, he is under attack from the President's reelection campaign. We will show you the video they're putting out about corn pop's chief nemesis, after the break.


CARLSON: The hallmark of an honest news organization is the willingness to admit when you've made a mistake. And so in that spirit, we're going to.

Last night, we are embarrassed to say we made an error of fact in our coverage of the Joe Biden corn pop saga. We thought we had footage of Biden's showdown with the gangster, corn pop. But in the end it turned out to be footage from "West Side Story," the movie.

Tonight, we're ready to atone. We believe we actually do have video of Joe Biden versus corn pop. Here it is.


CARLSON: You know, it's getting embarrassing. Apparently, the corn pop archives appear to be mislabeled. Someone on our producing staff will pay for that. Obviously, that was an old kung-fu movie.

But there is news out today about corn pop's nemesis, Joe Biden as we get back to our archives. In the meantime, we're going to hand you off to Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher who's got the details on the actual story -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: At least there was a chain in that video clip, Tucker, but even if you believe Joe Biden's recent claim that when he was 17, he used a six-foot chain and a bit of diplomacy to get a razor-carrying gang member to back off, the man who tamed corn pop is now 76 and those in his own party are openly and frequently asking if Biden's flurry of gaffes and memory lapses might be more than just slip ups. Watch.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's a lot of people who are concerned about Joe Biden's ability to carry the ball all the way across the end line without fumbling.


GALLAGHER: And the Trump's reelection campaign also takes a hard swipe at Biden's fitness for office with this new web video. Look here.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think there are some concerns and they've been expressed by Democrats themselves.

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Over whether Joe Biden is equipped to withstand a very grueling campaign.

BIDEN: We choose truth over facts.


GALLAGHER: Now, Biden maintains his flubs would not impact his ability to make presidential decisions, but the Trump campaign with this web video is hoping to exploit a weak spot. Watch again.


BIDEN: Play the radio, make sure that television -- excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night.


BIDEN: For his part, Joe Biden says he will release the results of his next physical exam -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher. A writer called George Packer just wrote a remarkable piece for "The Atlantic" magazine about his experience sending two children to New York City's public schools.

Over the course of a decade, Packer writes that he watched as his children school shifted their agenda from education to the full time pursuit of a radical woke ideology.

Now, Packer is not conservative. In fact, he is a lifelong liberal. He despises Donald Trump, but he is also an observant person and he is honest.

In his piece, he admits something that could be professionally dangerous. The modern left scares him.

For Packer, an early Red Flag Warning was bathroom policy. One day without warning or any discussion at all, the school that his children went to made every single bathroom gender neutral. Students were horrified, quote, "Girls told their parents mortifying stories of having a boy kick open their stall door. Boys described being afraid to use the urinals. Our son reported that his classmates without any collective decision had simply gone back to the old system, regardless of the new signage. Boys were using the former boys' rooms; girls, the former girls' rooms. It was a quiet plea to be left alone." End quote.

But of course, they weren't left alone. They never are. Later, Packer noticed that instead of learning reading and writing, his kids were learning a little more than to be advocates for far left politics. Quote, "Our son learned about the genocide of Native Americans and slavery. But he was never taught about the founding of the Republic. He didn't learn that conflicting values and practical compromises are the lifeblood of self-government. He was given no context for the meaning of freedom of expression. He got his civics from Hamilton." End quote.

In fifth grade, students at the school presented yearend projects that were nothing but political props, quote, "The fifth graders presented dioramas on all the hard issues of the moment -- sexual harassment, LGBTQ rights, gun violence. Compared with previous years, the writing was minimal and the students when questioned, had little to say. They hadn't been encouraged to research their topics, make intellectual discoveries, answer potential counter arguments. The diorama is consisted of cardboard, clay and slogans." End quote.

Mr. Packard's son moved on middle school, the signs grew even more ominous. At one Middle School, a large poster in the hallway warned students that they were tainted with privilege if they were white, or male or Christian or a citizen.

Anyone who questioned this direction was presumed a reactionary and attacked. Teachers and school administrators warned that parents who didn't get on board were racist or bigots, or worse than that.

Packer, though liberal, grew weary. But eventually it was his son who got fed up. He asked his father quote, "Isn't school for learning Math and Science and Reading, not for teachers to tell us what they think about society?" Well, that sounds like a rhetorical question, and if you have kids, you may have heard them ask it.

But it's not a rhetorical question. For the woke-left, school really is about having teachers tell students what to believe. Packer had enough. He transferred his second child, a daughter to a private school to make sure she gets a proper education.

In Bill de Blasio's New York, he won't be the last parent to do that because when it really matters, when it's about their kids, even sincere liberals will not sacrifice their own children to the church of wokeness. And by the way, they shouldn't have to; none of us should have to.

It's not just happening in New York, though, it does seem particularly dire in the nation's biggest school system. Thanks, of course, to the Mayor of that city, Bill de Blasio, who by the way could soon end the city's best schools.

The Mayor is currently considering a proposal that would abolish all gifted programs citywide, in the name of achieving classroom diversity.

Nicole Malliotakis is a New York State Assemblywoman who ran against Mayor de Blasio for Mayor and she joins us tonight. Nicole, thanks so much for coming on.

So I don't think it's an overstatement to say that there are a few number of schools that really are the crown jewel, not just of the New York system, but really of the country. Some of the best high schools in the world are public schools in New York. And with one signature, your Mayor is threatening to eliminate them.

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, R-NY STATE ASSEMBLY: Well, these are specialized schools that have produced Nobel Prize winners and the hypocrisy of it all is even his son, Dante graduated from one of these specialized schools.

So not only is he trying to reduce the standards at these schools, he wants to completely eliminate our gifted and talented program, which is in such high demand. Seventy eight percent of the kids that qualify for these programs aren't even getting in because there's not seats and parents and teachers want more seats added.

Meanwhile, a Mayor wants to get rid of it for some social justice experiment that he is trying to accomplish. And the bottom line here is that when every student can qualify for these gifted and talented schools, that's when we have achieved true social justice because we are preparing them for the real world.

CARLSON: The weirdest part of this story, and the most telling part is, he is justifying this desecration of the one good thing left in New York City on the grounds of diversity. But these schools are not majority white. I mean, they're actually I think, pretty, overwhelmingly non-white immigrant. That's who is going to pay the price.

MALLIOTAKIS: Many are Asian children who are first generation. They come from poor families. They've worked hard to get into these programs. And the Mayor wants to basically end this program.

Instead of actually lifting up the children in other schools who are not able to qualify these programs, that's the whole key here. This Mayor has spent three quarters of a billion dollars to hire high-price consultants, some of them even $1,400.00 a day, instead of actually putting that money into helping lift the children from all across our city that actually need the help, whether it be through test prep, whether it be through adding teachers assistants.

And that's one of the reasons why I'm running for Congress, because this is Federal money that is trickling down to the city level and it's not getting where it needs to go and our Mayor is looking to conduct this social experiment and again, he should be looking to lift every child in New York City not be spending all this millions and millions and billions of dollars on all of these consultants and vendors instead.

CARLSON: To destroy things. It's really easy to destroy things. I've noticed. Assemblywoman, thanks so much for joining us. I appreciate it.

MALLIOTAKIS: Thank you. Thank you for sharing it.

CARLSON: Of course. The U.S. Navy just made a remarkable admission about UFOs. For real. We'll tell you what they said, next.

TEXT: The truth is out there.


CARLSON: The U.S. Navy just made a stunning admission. Naval officials yesterday confirmed that three separate UFO videos released by The "New York Times" in 2017 and previewed on the show are actually genuine. They do in fact show aerial phenomenon the Navy cannot explain, and in fact, our understanding of Physics cannot explain.

The Navy also recently sent a letter to Congressman Mark Walker saying that it takes UFO sightings very seriously and is working to investigate them.

Nick Pope is a British journalist. He once investigated UFOs for the U.K. Ministry of Defense. He joins us tonight to explain the significance of this.

So Nick, this does seem like a change in the way the Pentagon describes this phenomenon, is it?

NICK POPE, FORMER U.K. OFFICIAL: Yes, it is. Up until this point, the Navy has set very little. And in fact, they've left the door open sometimes and almost implied, look, we might be dealing with commercial drones or even balloons.

But now what they've done is turned around and said, number one, this is real. And number two, this is unidentified aerial phenomena. That's the phrase that they've used.

Previously, they've said "advanced unknown aircraft." Now they're saying unidentified aerial phenomena. And that is it's a term borrowed from the British government. We used it in the Ministry of Defense, and we meant UFOs.

CARLSON: So, the U.S. government is admitting that they have no idea what these things are and that they're probably not some Russian super plane and nobody is paying attention to this.

I mean, this seems like a watershed moment. I mean, we have all this tape of objects defying the known laws of Physics right next to U.S. military installations. The military admits it. Why is this not Page 1 news everywhere?

POPE: Well, it should be. Absolutely. These aircraft carriers that many of these UFOs have been interacting with, obviously, these are billion dollar assets. And if the official position of the most powerful Navy in the world is frankly a little more than, "We don't know what this is." I don't think that's good enough.

And I think clearly people like Mark Walker, don't think so either. And I would urge him to get the classified briefing that other senators have said they've received and maybe within the bounds of not wanting to divulge classified information, but maybe some of these senators could then step forward and at least give us a clue of what we're dealing with here.

CARLSON: So it turns out, it wasn't a weather balloon. I mean, they've been telling us that for 50 years, "It is a weather balloon." It is not a weather balloon, is it?

POPE: No, absolutely not. Somebody in the Pentagon must have. They say we don't want to hypothesize about this. That's fine. But there must be in the Pentagon a best assessment. And there must be a view of what they're rolling out. We should be told.

CARLSON: There's obviously some reason they're not telling us. In 15 seconds, hypothesize to us what that reason might be?

POPE: Well, some secret too terrible to be told. But I think we should be told or at least we should be hinted at.

CARLSON: Yes. Or maybe not. I don't know. They've been lying about it for 50 years. Maybe there's a reason they have, but I don't know, Nick. This is starting to worry me.

I'm grateful, though that you have come on so frequently to put it in context for us. Good to see you tonight. Thank you.

POPE: Thank you.

CARLSON: We are out of time, unfortunately. But the good news is we will be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m. The show that is and will remain the sworn enemy of line pomposity, smugness, and especially groupthink. Corn pop, we're doing this show for you. Sean Hannity is next.

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.