This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 11, 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.” The government shutdown is now entering its fourth week and neither side has moved much.
The President has been arguing for the past three years that the United States needs a wall on its Southern border. Agree with his positions or not, Trump has explained why he believes that repeatedly, and in great detail, most recently, in a live address to the country.
Democrats, meanwhile, have argued the opposite. America should not have a Border wall, they've said again and again. But the difference is they really haven't explained why.
At various times, Democratic leaders have told us that, "Walls don't work. Walls are racist. Walls are wasteful. Walls are insufficient. Walls are excessive. And walls are too old-fashioned. Walls are either medieval or ancient," depending upon who's reading the talking point at the time.
Some of these arguments are semi-real. Others are transparently fake. Still others flatly contradict one another. Rhetorically, the Democratic case against walls has been a mess from the beginning.
At one point, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to bring order to the chaos by flatly declaring that walls are immoral. She recently - she said that repeatedly with the force of a religious edict, which, in effect, it was. But in the end, the theology of it all was just too complex, it seemed to confuse people.
How can walls be immoral if a lot of those who oppose walls have walls around their own homes? That was a tough case to make even for a persistent faith leader like Nancy Pelosi. Finally, Pelosi just gave up.
Yesterday, she accepted the inevitability of a Border wall. But here's the catch, the hidden trapdoor in the space-time continuum that Pelosi is famous for in Washington. Yes, Democrats now support a Border wall. But no, it's not the kind of wall you had in mind, the kind of wall you can touch or the kind of wall that might keep unwanted people out of your country.
It is instead a digital wall. It's a massive invisible edifice constructed entirely of virtual ones and zeros that reside in some Amazon server farms somewhere in suburban Virginia. It is the wall of the future, in other words, a wall that Google might build and probably will.
Pelosi calls it a technological wall.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry, strengthen that, the ports of entry.
Spend the money. It's hundreds of millions of dollars, but accessible to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through for drugs, contraband of - of - of any kind, weapons even. Repair the roads that facilitate immigration and trade in those regions.
The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Of course, a technological wall. Why didn't we think of that? But wait, you'd say, aren't all walls technological walls? The only difference, of course, is in the kind of technology they employ. Well, yes.
But before you get hung up on some semantic point, just be grateful that Pelosi is using the W word at all. There was a time not so long ago when she was telling us that a fleet of lawn mowers would be enough to secure the border.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: Let's talk about where the more serious structure might be necessary, where fencing will do or mowing the grass so that people can't be smuggled through the grass.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well at a certain point, you begin to wonder if Democrats are really as serious as they say they are about wanting to secure our border. Maybe you've asked yourself that question.
Well wonder no more. They are not interested, officially. Democrats support our immigration crisis, which they will be quick to remind you isn't actually a crisis at all, but part of the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty.
Democrats' main interest is in continuing the status quo. And they want to do that by making certain that no effective barrier is ever built along our Southern border. To achieve that, Democrats and their faithful lackeys in the press will say anything, literally anything.
Yesterday, to name but one among many examples, Democrat Katie Hill of California, Member of Congress, accused the President of engaging in a form of terrorism for disagreeing with her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KATHERINE LAUREN HILL, D-CALIF.: It gets more and more frustrating every single day to see how irrational he is. And it's - it's we can't accept this anymore.
To me, this is political terrorism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Terrorism! Maybe that's next week's talking point. Check the Sunday shows to see if it makes an appearance there.
This week, the phrase was vanity project. The wall, they're telling you, is somehow the President's vanity project like a remodeled basement rec room or the Clinton Presidential Library.
Some consultant thought up that line, and emailed it to Pelosi and Schumer, who made certain that every Democrat in Washington included it in virtually every publicly-uttered sentence for a period of at least 24 hours which, of course, they were happy to do being robots.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A construction brigade for the President's vanity project
SEN. CHRISTOPHER ANDREW COONS, D-DEL.: Doesn't necessarily require our building a vanity project concrete wall.
SEN. MAZIE KEIKO HIRONO, D-HI: For one thing, this is a vanity wall.
SEN. KAMALA DEVI HARRIS, D-CALIF.: The President is holding it up because of his vanity project.
The President of the United States has a vanity project that he doesn't want to give up.
Be spent on the issues that impact them every day, not on the President's vanity project.
This issue is about a vanity project for this President.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Vanity! Well that's a new concern in Washington. As it turns out, vanity is actually the main reason the Left loves mass immigration in the first place. They let millions of poor people into your country at your expense, but they get to feel like heroes for doing it.
It's really the equivalent of forcing a stranger to dump his wallet into the collection plate at gunpoint, and then taking the tax deduction for it. It's a pretty great deal if you're the one holding the gun. In fact, you might call it the ultimate vanity project.
Victor Avila is a retired Special ICE Agent, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Avila, thank you very much for coming on.
VICTOR AVILA, RETIRED ICE SPECIAL AGENT: Thank you, Tucker, for having me on.
CARLSON: So - so, what do you - what do you make of this, the technological wall, the vanity project? You've spent your life policing our borders. Do we need a - a physical wall, an actual wall?
AVILA: Well, Tucker, I have to say, this is personal. I've - I've worked in Mexico. I've worked on the border. I'm born and raised there. I was attacked, and Jaime Zapata lost his life, Agent Zapata, right next to me, while we were in assignment in Mexico.
So, I know that this is real, and the crisis is real, and the Border wall is very much needed. This is the physical barrier that's going to help our Border Agents down there, help them just like that the other technology would help them, the - the drones, the - the sensors, all the other technology that comes along the border.
The Border wall is just another tool that's going to help them do that, and it's much needed so they could then focus on those areas where that traffic is going to be infiltrated through.
CARLSON: So, in the shooting that you referred to, you were hit three times. You were shot three times by a member of a Mexican drug cartel. How do you--
CARLSON: --as someone who went through that, what's your response when you hear Members of Congress, Congressional leaders say that there's no crisis at all, and that we're imagining it and, in fact, it's racist to say there's a crisis at the border? How do you respond to that?
AVILA: The crisis is real. I've lived it. I've worked it. The - especially the - the racist comments is just unreal. Mexico now is looking unto starting to control their own Southern border--
AVILA: --by sending their own federal troops down to the Guatemala and Belize border because now they're feeling the impact of these immigrants coming through their country.
And so, are they going to be racist as well? And so, it's just absurd to - to think that it - it - it makes it a racist statement because you want or makes you a racist because you want a wall. But let me tell you what's really immoral. What's immoral is the exploitation of our Asylum laws.
AVILA: Congress needs to shut down and - and re - redo that - all those Asylum laws and legislation. I'll give you example, Tucker.
If - if an adult person comes into the - the country with a minor child, and presents themselves to the Border Patrol and turns himself in, seeking asylum, if that adult person has a criminal history, and - and is known to have a criminal history, Border Patrol is going to have to still admit that person in with the child.
Even though that person is now inadmissible to come into this country, we'll have to allow him to come in and with the child to seek, wait for their asylum hearing, two to three years from now, and we'll never hear from that person. And maybe that adult person is or not the - the parent of that child, and we'll never know what happens--
AVILA: --to the child as well. So, there's a real crisis at the border happening on right now.
CARLSON: Have you spoken to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi or to Democratic leaders, as they - as they formulated their position in this debate over the Border wall, has anyone talked to you?
AVILA: No, but I would love to. There is a - a major disconnect between Washington and - and Congress, and what's going down in real life in the border.
It would be so effective to have them just at least go down there and not just for the photo-op or just for, you know, for a 10-minute walk where there's actual wall that actually works, thanks to Jim Acosta, but to actually learn what the real crisis is down there.
Not - not today, Tucker. This has been going on for decades. It's just now the influx. And I talked to Border Patrol agents, and they tell me that they want this response to go forward with the wall.
They're so afraid that if - if this doesn't go through, they can't imagine the influx of illegal immigrants trying to come through because you're going to be sending the wrong message.
CARLSON: Yes. I - I - I can't imagine how you feel. I mean if I - if I was shot three times by a drug cartel, and watch my partner murdered, and then someone called me a racist because I wanted a wall, I - I don't know how you remain so calm. But I'm certainly impressed that you do.
Mr. Avila, thank you very much for joining us, and for what you had to say.
AVILA: Thank you, Tucker, for having me.
Well, as you've deduced by now, Democrats using every rhetorical weapon they can to stop the Border wall. Washington Democrat, Pramila Jayapal, suggested that the President's ultimate goal in all of this is ethnic cleansing. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTOPHER LOFFREDO HAYES, ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES HOST, MSNBC: There is a cluster of people in the Republican Party who catapulted Trump to his win in the primaries, who hate and/or fear immigrants.
And not only that, these are people who define their political life by stemming and stopping the invasion of people who do not look like them.
What they want is not policy. What they want is an ethnically-pure America.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, D-WASH.: You just said it so beautifully, Chris. This has never been about a wall.
His ultimate goal is, as you've said, to make America pure in the sense of not having immigrants, not having folks of color here, and shutting down every form of legal immigration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Chris Hahn is a radio host, a former staffer for Senator Chuck Schumer, and he joins us tonight. Chris, thanks a lot for coming on. I don't know if you saw the interview that we just did--
CHRISTOPHER HAHN, CONTRIBUTOR: Anytime.
CARLSON: --preceding this one with a former ICE Agent called Victor Avila, who took three bullets, watched his partner murdered by a Mexican drug cartel, and is in favor of a physical wall.
He's being dismissed, and others like him are being dismissed, as racist because they disagree with the Democratic ortho - orthodoxy on this. Isn't it time to sort of pull back and assess this as a policy question and stop accusing anyone who disagrees of bigotry?
HAHN: Now, look, I don't think that he's a racist. I don't think people who want--
CARLSON: That's generous.
HAHN: --increased border security, are necessarily racist. Some people might be in some cases, but not all. I think we need to have a real conversation about what real border security is. And we've talked about it. I believe that we should be using technology at the border. In some places, the physical barrier is needed.
CARLSON: But - but - OK but - but - but hold on--
HAHN: But in most places the 1,000 miles--
CARLSON: --I appreciate what you're saying.
HAHN: --the President wants to build seems irrational.
CARLSON: OK, that - that - that's a fair conversation. But how can we have a rational conversation about anything when you have cable news anchors and Members of Congress saying that wanting this barrier is equivalent to ethnic cleansing?
I mean that shuts down any possibility of a rational converse - I got so mad watching that clip, I can barely talk, because it's so unfair. What - shouldn't we ask people--
CARLSON: --like that to be responsible and stop talking like that, so we can solve the problem?
HAHN: I - I think that there is a certain school of thought that this talk of the wall is to stoke a part of the base and keep a part of the base with the President, who believes in this xenophobic idea of these people invading this country, which they are not doing.
I think that that - that language doesn't help, but I think, really, if they want to have a rational conversation about border security--
CARLSON: Well but--
HAHN: --the President should re-open the government with a deal he made in December, before he pulled it back--
CARLSON: OK but - no but what you--
HAHN: --and then bring everybody to the table and we'd talk about--
CARLSON: --what you - what you're describing is a hostage situation.
HAHN: --all options.
CARLSON: We're going to call you Hitler and accuse anyone who believes this thing of being racist, the one thing you're not allowed to be in America until you cede (ph) to our demands. How about - wouldn't it - if you really believe that we need to decelerate the rhetoric, then why not just start?
Why not - why not just say, you know, we're not going to accuse people with no evidence of White supremacy or whatever the crime is? We're going to talk about what will secure the border. I mean why not - let's just start there, can't we?
HAHN: Look, I - I - I think that - I don't hear Leader Schumer or Speaker Pelosi calling the President, and his supporters, racist. I hear them saying "Open the government, Mr. President--
CARLSON: Nancy Pelosi, who's the--
HAHN: --and then we'll talk."
CARLSON: Really? Because Nancy Pelosi described the wall as immoral. I mean that's what she's saying.
HAHN: You're hung up on that.
CARLSON: I mean what - what - that's insane. But - but - and now she's for a wall, so--
HAHN: You're hung up on that. We had this--
CARLSON: --so what - I'm not hung up on it. I just--
HAHN: --we had this conversation last week.
CARLSON: --I've never heard anybody talk that way in American--
HAHN: It - it--
CARLSON: --politics. You disagree with me and--
HAHN: I - I--
CARLSON: --God's mad at you now? Would - even Jerry Falwell--
HAHN: --no, I don't think--
CARLSON: --didn't talk that way. It's insane.
HAHN: Again, I--
HAHN: --don't think she meant it as - as immoral in a religious sense. I think--
CARLSON: Then she doesn't have command over her faculties, which I'm--
HAHN: --she meant it I mean (ph) colossally stupid use of money sense.
CARLSON: --beginning to suspect. So, let me ask you this.
HAHN: No, I think she - I think she has excellent command over her faculties.
CARLSON: OK. Well she - you can't have it - you can't have it both--
HAHN: And she's a better leader than we've seen in a long time in this--
CARLSON: --you can't have it both ways.
CARLSON: Either she knows what she's saying or she doesn't. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But if she knows what she's saying, she should be ashamed because you shouldn't inject that kind of language into a political conversation, in my opinion.
Let me ask you about the technological wall that she's calling for.
CARLSON: It would include drones.
HAHN: I - I've been calling for it.
CARLSON: OK. So, that would include drone--
HAHN: Yes, I've been - I've been saying that.
CARLSON: --drone surveillance. OK, so we already have, as you may or may be you don't know, we already have a species of that in giant dirigibles over the Mexican border--
CARLSON: --in Texas, OK? And it - it doesn't work. But what would that look like exactly? So, a drone hovering over illegal aliens trying to sneak into the country sees they're coming in, and then what happens, that's better than a wall?
HAHN: You deploy the Border Patrol. And if you're not wasting $25 billion on a wall, you have more money to hire more agents like the guy you had on before who are brave and are doing their job.
CARLSON: Really? Then if--
HAHN: Instead, he wants to waste this money on a wall and we won't have the manpower--
CARLSON: But - but - but--
HAHN: --to - to staff it. And, by the way, Tucker--
CARLSON: Wait, wait, hold on, wait, wait, wait, wait, Chris, Chris, what you're saying--
HAHN: --if he calls this an emergency (ph)--
CARLSON: --what you're saying doesn't make any sense. You're saying that we won't have--
HAHN: Makes perfect sense.
CARLSON: --the manpower - hold on, you just said and, by the way, the agent, the brave one that you just complimented is calling for a wall.
CARLSON: But I guess his opinion doesn't matter because he's a - he's--
HAHN: All right, well, you know, he's not a policymaker.
CARLSON: --yet another Spanish-speaking racist, right, OK. But let me just ask you, you're just saying - it's because I'm a literal (ph) person, you're saying that it would--
CARLSON: --it would require more manpower to, quote, staff a wall, than it would--
CARLSON: --to protect the border with no wall, how does that - walk me through the math on that, if you would?
HAHN: As I've said to you before, you probably would need to have a - a guard every 100 - 150 feet on a wall to make sure it wasn't impenetrable.
That's why when these guys use these examples of people's homes and other places that have walls, like prisons, they are out of their mind because we're talking about thousands of miles of wall.
It did not work for the Chinese. It will not work for us.
HAHN: The Great Wall of Trump is not needed and it's a colossal--
CARLSON: Right. Another - I'm sure we'll hear (ph)--
HAHN: --waste of money.
CARLSON: --and last - last question, do you see--
CARLSON: --would you be willing to predict that the technological wall that the Speaker is promising us, instead of an actual wall, would prevent a - a substantial number of illegal aliens from entering our country?
So, we've gotten, I don't know - we don't know how many, but let's say 400,000 made it across last year. That seems to be the number of people we're throwing around. What would that number be if these drones were deployed, do you think, or do you care?
HAHN: I think that a technological wall would be as effective as a physical barrier. In fact, I think that'd be (ph)--
CARLSON: So, what would be the number be? And would it keep them out?
HAHN: --more effective.
CARLSON: OK. Right, but what - like let's be specific if you would.
HAHN: I don't know. I - 75 percent of that number--
HAHN: --let's call it that.
CARLSON: OK. 75. I'll--
HAHN: How's that?
CARLSON: --I'll get the calculator.
HAHN: And I think a wall, you know--
CARLSON: All right.
HAHN: --eventually, people, remember, Tucker--
CARLSON: Yes. Right, OK.
HAHN: --most people who come here illegally come through ports of entry.
CARLSON: Right, yes, OK.
HAHN: Most drugs come through ports of entry--
HAHN: --and we need to work on - on - on securing those things--
CARLSON: Yes, I'm sure we're going to work real hard. We're going to work real hard.
HAHN: --and what the President is doing right now--
CARLSON: This is all a charade and you--
CARLSON: --know that it is. All right, we're out of time. Good to see you, Chris Hahn, good - thanks.
HAHN: Nice to see you.
CARLSON: CNN told us yesterday that walls don't work. They sent, whatever that guy's name is, down there to prove it. They tried to get a reporter on to parrot their line. But when he wouldn't, they didn't want him. Kind of an amazing story, we have details on what CNN did, after the break.
CARLSON: Well local - local news station in San Diego is accusing CNN, the Cable News Network, of rejecting a report by them because it didn't reach a pre-approved conclusion about the effectiveness of a Border wall.
Trace Gallagher has been following this story and joins us tonight. Hey, Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Hey, Tucker.
KUSI News Director, Steve Cohen, says he was notified during yesterday's morning meeting that CNN wanted to use one of their reporters for a live hit about the Border wall during the Don Lemon Show. Cohen said, "Fine," and offered them Reporter, Dan Plante.
Look, I'm from San Diego. I've seen Dan many times. He's very solid. But Steve Cohen told his Executive Producer to make sure CNN realizes they won't deliver their narrative that the wall is controversial in San Diego, because it's not.
In fact, KUSI Owner, Mike McKinnon, a very well-known supporter of Conservative causes later noted, "We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the U.S., and the numbers prove it."
CNN later decided not to use a KUSI reporter. But then the News Director saw CNN Correspondent, Jim Acosta, at the border saying there's no need for a wall. And Steve Cohen decided to have his anchors present the KUSI perspective.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNA LAUREL, ANCHOR, KUSI: CNN declined to have us on their programs, which often present the wall as not required in other places like the stretch of the Texas border the President visited earlier today. They didn't like what they heard from us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: CNN calls it a non-story saying, "We called several local stations to book someone for a show. We didn't end up booking any of them. That happens many times every single day."
KUSI says it's possible CNN didn't need a reporter. But given the scenario, it believes the Cable Network is being disingenuous, Tucker.
CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, great to see you. Thank you.
CARLSON: When we saw the show (ph), we thought who better to talk to than Chris Plante, syndicated radio host with - with Westwood One, widely acknowledged genius, also, the brother of the San Diego journalist you just heard about, and a longtime veteran of CNN, so he joins us tonight. We're happy to have him. Hey, Chris.
CHRIS PLANTE, THE CHRIS PLANTE SHOW HOST: Hey, how are you? Yes, all of those things sounds pretty impressive.
CARLSON: So what - I mean, you really are the perfect person. What are the- -
CARLSON: --what are the lessons of this story? What does this tell us?
PLANTE: That CNN lies a lot that I mean really that's sort of the bottom line. Obviously, they were looking for a local reporter who was going to toe the line and say what CNN wanted to hear.
And some person at CNN, probably a very young person, called KUSI, asked for a reporter, and then they heard, well, they're going to say that the - that the Border Patrol people, tell them that the wall really has a positive effect, the barriers, the - the fences, whatever you'd like to call it.
And - and then they said, "No, thank you." You know, I mean if this were a dating situation, speed-date, I think everybody would recognize that CNN dropped them because they weren't going to offer what CNN wanted to hear. And we know what CNN wants to hear because we hear it every minute of every hour of every show, and it's very consistent.
And this would that if someone came on and said, "Well what we're hearing here in San Diego," and my brother, Daniel, has been covering San Diego and the border for years and years and years, many great stories available on Al Gore's amazing internet that you can see, and - and they just - they - they wanted a different perspective than what my brother.
As a news reporter, just a straight news reporter, my brother is not an ideologue. He's a news guy. But he wasn't going to spout the Democrat Party line. And CNN took a pass, "No, thanks."
And they say there is no evidence. There is no evidence. Now the Associated Press is in and CNN's saying there's no evidence that CNN spiked the story for that reason. There was no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh put Quaaludes in the punch bowl and gang-raped girls in high school, but CNN reported that several hundred thousand times--
CARLSON: Yes, I noticed.
PLANTE: --if I remember correctly.
CARLSON: But they also - and I thought of you yesterday, CNN undercut its own storyline unintentionally by--
CARLSON: --sending their most brilliant Correspondent down to McAllen, Texas, who did this--
CARLSON: --now-famous stand-up explaining that the wall doesn't work because it creates too peaceful a scene. Back at headquarters, in New York, what do you think the editors thought when they saw this? Who told--
CARLSON: --Jim Acosta he just heard his own propaganda.
PLANTE: I - honestly, I think that they were probably thinking that it was great they put it on the air. This wasn't live. He sent it in. And - and they aired it because they thought this was going to prove their point for them when - and really, it speaks to their - the - the bubble that they live in.
And the fact that they're just complain - what - once Twitter exploded and mocked him, then I think in New York and they were saying, "Ah, wait, wait a minute. Maybe we should have looked at this with a slightly different angle."
So, you know, then they sent him to another place where there - along the Rio Grande, where there is no fence, and - and he said, "People are playing shuffleboard," as though this were proof of his original point. It's sad, really, it's - it's tragic. It's - it's horrible.
CNN - you used to work at CNN for--
CARLSON: I did. I still have friends there.
PLANTE: --a period of time also.
PLANTE: Yes, but they won't admit that you're friends and you shouldn't name them here because it would be fatal--
CARLSON: I'm not going to.
PLANTE: --fatal to their careers. And we all know this, right, that if you say, "Oh, my good friend, you know, Steve at - at CNN," if I said that on my radio show, I know that I would be jeopardizing Steve's future at CNN.
PLANTE: I know this. I mean it's that bit. It was a news organization. It's simply not anymore. It's just a cable television station that parrots the Democrat Party line. And - and it's sad. It's tragic. I feel kind of badly for the - the few good people that still work there.
CARLSON: So - so, really quick, what do you think - I agree with your analysis. In one sentence, what happened, what changed?
PLANTE: To CNN?
PLANTE: Boy, Jon Klein, who's the President there but it started--
PLANTE: --it started before him.
PLANTE: I mean, honestly, it started when the - CNN was a pretty good news organization. They started bringing in ABC people. Rick Kaplan, you remember when Rick Kaplan came in and--
PLANTE: --you know, you got to change the subject every 15 seconds, and Short Attention Span Theater, and we can't focus on anything for too long, and that--
CARLSON: I remember. I remember.
PLANTE: --they're very corporeity (ph). I mean, you know--
CARLSON: I'll never forget. Yes.
PLANTE: --the anti-corporate argument, when it comes to CNN and Time Warner that the Left makes is true. It actually applies at CNN that they've become too greedy and too corporeity (ph) and too bottom line, and - and it's about revenues and not journalism. And - and it's just become a TV station, a cable station.
CARLSON: Depressing. Chris Plante, great to see you tonight.
CARLSON: Thank you for that.
CARLSON: A new wave of Democratic lawmakers taking office this month, and they have ambitious plans to do a lot of things, including take your guns away. They're not hiding it this time. Dan Bongino joins us to weigh in on that next.
CARLSON: Bring you back with a Fox News Alert tonight. The Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, has been suspended from his post for incompetence by the new Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis.
Other than school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, himself, Israel may deserve most of the blame for the death of those 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High School last year. A report by the state found that Israel's deputies were poorly trained, had malfunctioning radios, and took cover rather than trying to confront Cruz and save lives.
Israel has vowed to fight his suspension in the courts, and by demanding a trial, before the Florida State Senate. We'll continue, obviously, to monitor the story as it unfolds.
Well the Parkland shooting last year was seized by the Left, which would like to seek even stricter gun laws, and now they are doing that.
In the State of Oregon, a proposed bill would ban gun owners from buying more than 20 rounds of ammunition per month, would also ban magazines that hold more than five rounds with no grandfather clause. That means that anybody who fails to turn in a high-capacity magazine, high-capacity meaning six rounds or above would be a criminal under this new law.
Dan Bongino was a former NYPD officer, Author of the great book, Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, and he joins us tonight.
So, Dan, laws like this really are a departure because the first effect of them would be to turn law-abiding citizens, who've never committed violence, under no suspicion that they might commit violence, have done nothing wrong, would turn them, by definition, into criminals. What is the point of that?
DANIEL JOHN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Yes. You're - you're right. And - and the irony of it also, Tucker, is criminals don't care about gun laws.
BONGINO: That's what makes them criminals. I spent two decades in law enforcement. And, you know, I'll never forget this, Tucker. One night I was working the cells. You're the guy who watches the prisoners they take into the precinct. We hold them before they go to Central Booking.
And, you know, it's a long shift. I was walking around, talking to some of the people who've been arrested. Couple of people arrested for gun law - for gun crimes, I asked them.
I - it's a true story. I say, "You know - you know, carrying guns is illegal in New York without a license, criminal possession of a weapon." And I remember, they'd look at me and like, "Hey man (ph), are you crazy? Do you think we care about the gun laws," like they would look at you with this look like--
CARLSON: Well, exactly.
BONGINO: --what planet are you from? Criminals don't care.
Wait, one more thing, Tucker. You know what they do? They love gun laws because they stop law-abiding people from getting guns, so the criminals can prey upon you like the sheep you've become when the government disarms you.
CARLSON: So, but this law, particularly, is so provocative, it's such an open act of aggression and hostility toward law-abiding Americans. What's the effect of this going to be? There are many, many thousands of people who own firearms. Any gun with a magazine almost certainly has more than a five-round capacity. So, that means all of them--
CARLSON: --are now felons? What--
CARLSON: --would be the effect of passing a law like that, seriously?
BONGINO: And keep in mind, Tucker, this criminalizes standard capacity magazines. The Democrats--
CARLSON: Right. That's exactly right.
BONGINO: --always love focus-group tested talking points. They say, "Oh, high-capacity mag." These are not high-capacity magazines they're criminalizing. These are standard run-of-the-mill magazines that have been in circulation in the United States for decades upon decades.
This effectively criminalizes law-abiding parents looking to secure their homes. And in some cases, we saw with - with a ridiculous proposal in New York, excuse me, in New Jersey, even potentially off-duty police officers who accidentally have their duty magazines with them off-duty before they had a look into this debacle.
Tucker, this is a disaster. This will do nothing. Criminals - this will create a lucrative black market for criminals to traffic in - in ammunition. There's one new law. You're not allowed to buy more than a certain amount of rounds in a few days.
You think the criminals care about this? You're enriching street criminals who create a black market out of it. They don't care about your gun laws. Full stop.
BONGINO: They don't care. They're just going to criminalize the law- abiding.
CARLSON: This is a really reckless thing, even to propose, I would say. Dan Bongino, thank you very much for that perspective.
BONGINO: Yes, sir.
CARLSON: Well the U.S. Senate, as an institution, the body itself, has just been denounced by The Atlantic magazine. The piece was written by a Liberal, so you already know what the conclusion was.
The Senate is racist. Why? Well because smaller states have proportionally more White people in them. The article argues that the Senate signature feature, which is equal representation for all states, that's why the Senate exists, should be abolished.
Even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids this, the piece argues it can, in fact, be done without a constitutional amendment.
Leslie Marshall is a radio show host, and she joins us tonight. Leslie, thanks a lot for coming on. So, how exactly is the U.S. Senate, just by its structure, racist?
LESLIE MARSHALL, LIBERAL RADIO SHOW HOST: Well if you look at the composite of the United States, and you could say, sexist as well, if you want to go on the theory of this article, the Senate doesn't properly represent the United States because, as you had mentioned, the small states have two Senators as every state does of our 50.
And the small states actually have, if you break it down statistically, larger representation, and what you have then is you have White men representing a less White nation, as we go forward.
We don't see the Hispanic, the African-American or, certainly, the female population represented in the diversity that we've seen most recently elected into the House in the midterms, as an example. We don't have that in the Senate.
CARLSON: OK. But the Senate - we've made it 250 years with the Senate organized this way. It was organized this way by design. I don't think the framers imagined a country where the small states would have White majorities and the big states wouldn't.
And it's not really a racial question, is it? Why make it one?
MARSHALL: I think actually the racial component is - is fair to look at and to ask. But I think it goes beyond that.
I think we need to look at, did the framers, because you mentioned, did the framers know or have any idea, certainly not, not only how large we would become, what our numbers would be as a nation, but what our diversity would be?
And I think that goes hand-in-hand. We - we've made changes to the Constitution in the past. Look, you - you can actually abide by the Constitution, Tucker, keeping--
MARSHALL: --two Senators per state, and then adding to that, based on population, which, you know, the framers at one time considered as well before they--
CARLSON: So, I mean--
MARSHALL: --wrote the final - the final piece.
CARLSON: --you know as well as I, this is just a - obviously, it's just a power grab by the Left, and I don't think it will ever happen. But I wonder if we're going to take these principles seriously, what do you make of Gavin Newsom?
So, the argument is that people can't be represented unless their representatives look like them, have the same DNA as they do, have same race.
But a non-White State, California, non-White majority just elected a White guy, as you would say, Governor. Why should he be allowed to be Governor of a state that's not majority White? I'm serious.
MARSHALL: No, I'm being serious as well. I don't - I don't accept the argument that you're putting forth because I don't believe that only a woman can represent me as a woman--
CARLSON: Oh, I thought that's what you were saying.
MARSHALL: --only a White woman can represent me. As a White woman--
CARLSON: Well, I agree with you, of course. I - I don't agree with that either. And I would--
MARSHALL: --no, that's not what I'm - no, no, no, no--
CARLSON: --never argue it. But--
MARSHALL: --no, no--
MARSHALL: --no, no, what I'm saying - what I'm saying is to properly represent all Americans, if you look at the Constitution, it also gives us political equality, individuals, citizens, not States political equality, individuals--
MARSHALL: --and citizens. We don't feel our vote counts. Why? Each and every individual in this nation - because not each and every individual in this nation feels that they're represented whether it's in numbers in the Senate, for example--
CARLSON: But - but - but hold on, you're dodging, no but - no but you're--
MARSHALL: --or in the diversity.
CARLSON: --you're making the same argument you did the first time. So, I got it right, I think that diversity whatever that means is like a critical factor in political fairness.
And you guys in California just elected Gavin Newsom, who does not, by any standard, represent the State. It's not majority White. It's not majority male. You just elected a White male. So like, again, why should he be allowed to be Governor? Why is that not like a racist act electing Gavin Newsom?
CARLSON: I'm - I'm serious.
MARSHALL: --because - because that's--
CARLSON: Because he's a Liberal?
MARSHALL: --that's what I said. No, well it doesn't have to do with just your skin color. It also has to do with what--
MARSHALL: --legislation do you want to put forth that will be in the best interest of the people in the State of California. And he, obviously, mirrors and echoes the sentiments of the ideology of the majority of the people that voted for the Governor in the gubernatorial election, in the last--
CARLSON: But why does no one ever complain about this? I mean I just--
MARSHALL: --election in the State of California.
CARLSON: --noticed we're all very, you know, like we need to look like the people we represent but like Bill de Blasio represents the city that looks nothing like him. But we're OK with that because he's Liberal like why is that?
Why does no one ever accuse Bill de Blasio - why shouldn't Bill de Blasio step down today in the name of diversity and, I don't know, let his wife run the city? I'm not joking.
MARSHALL: Well if you look at Bill de Blasio's family, I think his family is the new American diversity. His wife is African-American.
MARSHALL: His children are biracial. So, I think, actually, that was a - a good example to put forth that--
CARLSON: Oh, but the patriarchy is still in charge--
MARSHALL: --and making (ph) my point fur - further.
CARLSON: --no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. His wife is not Mayor of New York City, neither are his kids--
MARSHALL: No, no, no, but you're mixing--
CARLSON: --he is - the White guy is the Mayor of New York City.
MARSHALL: --you're - you're mixing up color and number. You're mixing up--
CARLSON: Oh? No, no, no, I never introduced--
MARSHALL: --you're - you're mixing up - you're mixing up--
CARLSON: --color into these conversations. The Left does.
MARSHALL: --color and number.
CARLSON: No, no, no. You know, well--
MARSHALL: When you - when you--
CARLSON: --I wish we had more time. But I - now, I'm actually - I've talked myself into being very concerned about this, so maybe you'll come back and we can explain--
MARSHALL: No, because - because you're not - because - because - because the reason the Left--
CARLSON: --why it's OK for him to be Mayor.
MARSHALL: --brings it up - the reason the Left brings it up is because of the numbers, which you and I have talked about--
CARLSON: Oh, no, they - they - they bring it up as a political cajole to beat the other side into--
MARSHALL: --before which is the reason I support getting rid of the Electoral College.
CARLSON: --submission. OK. Leslie Marshall, great to see you.
MARSHALL: Oh, beat into submission. You too.
CARLSON: Well the Left has a brand new solution for fighting crime, just change the laws and make it legal. Well, it's for the new trend of accepting so-called Survival Crimes, probably a phrase you haven't heard. We're going to introduce you to it, after the break. Buckle your seatbelt.
CARLSON: This is a Fox News Alert. The New York Times is reporting that in 2017, the FBI opened an investigation into whether President Trump was secretly a Russian agent. Trace Gallagher is following this report for us tonight. Trace?
GALLAGHER: Yes, it just came out, Tucker.
The Times is now reporting that in the days President Trump fired James Comey, the days after, as FBI Director, law enforcement officials became so concerned about the President's behavior, they began investigating whether he'd been working on behalf of Russia, in other words, whether the President's actions constituted a threat to national security, and whether Trump unwittingly had falled (ph) under Moscow's influence.
Now, the reasons given, the first was a letter Mr. Trump wanted to send Mr. Comey about his firing, but never did, in which he mentioned the Russia investigation in the letter, and the second reason being that troubled investigators was in NBC News interview two days after Comey's firing in which - which Mr. Trump appeared to say he had dismissed Mr. Comey because of the Russian inquiry.
The investigation also reportedly looked into the public allegations of whether firing Comey amounted to obstruction of justice. We all know that. The report says FBI agents had grown suspicious of Trump's ties to Russia during that 2016 campaign, but held off, opening an investigation because of the sensitivity of the situation.
Of course, days later, Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, took over the inquiry, and now it's apparently part of Mueller's broader assessment. Of course, no evidence has come out publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact or took direction from the Russian government in any way, and there is no word of any sourcing on the story.
We should note that Rudy Giuliani has also issued a statement saying, quote, the fact that it goes back a year and a half and nothing came of it that showed a breach of national security means they found nothing.
And Giuliani said that a short time ago regarding the story. We'll get breaking news as it comes in more on this from The New York Times, Tucker.
CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thanks for that.
So, if you're keeping track at home, and get a pen and paper, because this is worth remembering, this is why you should never criticize the FBI. You think it's your birthright as an American. You can do it. I wouldn't try it though.
They might open an investigation into you without your knowledge into something appalling, maybe it's beating your wife, maybe it's dealing Fentanyl to kids, maybe it's betraying your country in some alliance with Vladimir Putin, you don't need to have done it.
But once they investigate you, they can always leak, I don't know, two years later that they were investigating you for this crime that you didn't commit or at least they found no evidence that you committed, at least, they never charged you for it, in which (ph) our system is supposed to work, but it doesn't matter because you're instantly discredited.
Don't criticize the FBI, very unwise.
Well if you live in a major American city like San Francisco or Washington, you may have noticed that things aren't quite as nice as they used to be. There's a lot more trash in the streets. There may be tents on street corners those are homeless camps. Some of them are permanent. Petty crime is much more of a threat.
This is a big change. It's not an accident. It's by design. There's a new concept on the academic Left called Survival Crimes. These are crimes supposedly committed by the poor in their struggle to survive in this country.
And, in response, to the existence of these Survival Crimes, the Left is now not calling them crimes. They're decriminalizing some of these behaviors entirely.
Christopher Rufo is the Executive Director of the Documentary Foundation, and he joins us tonight. Christopher, thanks very much for coming on. So, I've never heard this phrase before, Survival Crimes. Have I characterized it correctly? And what are its implications for the rest of us?
CHRISTOPHER RUFO, DOCUMENTARY FOUNDATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: You have.
A survival crime theory is basically the idea that vulnerable populations such as the homeless should be exempt from laws against public camping, public drug consumption, and theft because, in effect, society has forced them to commit these crimes to ensure their basic survival.
And this idea has been percolating in obscure academic journals since the late 1980s. But what's happening now is that it's actually become public policy in major American cities.
Here in Seattle, some of the members of the social activists class have now basically created a policy regime in accordance with Survival Crime theory, and the results have been catastrophic.
We now have in King County, more than 6,000 people sleeping on the streets. And my contacts in law enforcement tell me there is the explicit and implicit directive to basically let this happen.
And, at this point, the City of Seattle, it's property crime rate is 250 percent higher than Los Angeles, and an eye-popping 400 percent higher than New York City.
CARLSON: So what this really is, is a guilt transfer, isn't it? I mean--
CARLSON: --so it used to be when someone made your life worse, made your neighborhood ugly or stole from you, it was that person's fault. But this new definition transfers the responsibility to you, the law-abiding homeowner.
And, all of a sudden, it's your fault because it's society's fault, so therefore you can't do anything about it. Correct?
RUFO: Yes. This is, I think, what the biggest danger for this kind of social justice policing is, is that slowly in cities like Seattle, we're creating parallel justice systems.
There's one kind of traditional justice system for taxpaying middle-class citizens, and a totally separate system for politically-favored identity groups. And I think that this is really - has the potential to undermine the core principle of equal protection under the law.
CARLSON: I mean, at a certain point, are people going to start to say, you know, I don't want to live around people who victimize ordinary Americans, the homeless encampment, and I don't want to live around the politicians who make the homeless encampment possible? Aren't normal people going to leave? I mean I wouldn't live near that on a dare. Would you?
RUFO: Yes. You know, I mean Seattle is a great city. But there is this growing frustration with this problem where everywhere you go, there are homeless encampments.
Even in my neighborhood, within a block of a public elementary school, there's been a homeless encampment with up to 50 people that are doing drugs, committing crimes, and causing chaos, a block away from a public elementary school since last summer, and there's been no response from the city government, despite hundreds of complaints over months and months and months.
And I think we're reaching a point where normal, everyday taxpaying citizens are fed up, and this kind of government by ideology, that's totally blind to the impact that it's having on real citizens, is hopefully going to start to - to face some consequences as we move forward with the municipal elections later this year.
CARLSON: Yes. I don't even think it's blind. I mean this is an act of aggression. When people treat you this way, what they're saying is, "We hate you. We hate you." I mean I don't know the other message.
Christopher, thank you. That was so interesting and sad at the same time, but good to know. I appreciate it.
RUFO: Thanks for having me. Happy Friday.
CARLSON: Happy Friday.
Well robots pose a threat to tens of millions of American jobs. Washington doesn't care. So, what can you do to protect your own well-being? That's next.
CARLSON: Last night on this show, we discussed the threat that artificial intelligence poses to American jobs. It's profound. Our leaders are ignoring that threat. They want to important more and more low-skilled labor.
So, Washington is not going to help you. That's for sure. They're making it worse. You're on your own on this one. So, what can individuals do to survive an economy that is devaluing labor and, in a lot of cases, making it obsolete?
Isaac Morehouse has thought a lot about this. He's the Founder and CEO of Praxis, and he joins us tonight, one of our favorite guests. Isaac, thanks a lot for coming on.
ISAAC MOREHOUSE, FOUNDER AND CEO, PRAXIS: Hey, thanks for having me.
CARLSON: So, you've seen, obviously these forecasts that come from a lot of different places, 60 Minutes, this coming weekend, is going to have a pretty scary one, but that some huge percentage of American jobs are going away. Let's say you're 22, entering the job market, what's your defense against this?
MOREHOUSE: Yes. So, the first thing is, what you kind of lead with, is to bring it back to what you have control over. So, rather than letting yourself kind of getting consumed by fear of what will or won't happen--
MOREHOUSE: --in a macro-economy, say OK, OK, what can I do personally? What do I have control over? And the first thing is, robots, machines, what are they really good at? Following rules. So, anything--
MOREHOUSE: --that involves a lot of rule-following, I wouldn't be investing resources, energy, time in learning and building those kind of skills. I would be focusing--
MOREHOUSE: --more on rule-breaking, on innovation, on entrepreneurship. And that is one of the challenges most of us, the - the sort of school system, that kind of innovation, the entrepreneurship, it almost gets schooled out of us because it's all about rule-following and, you know--
CARLSON: That's for sure.
MOREHOUSE: --learning to do exactly what's on the test. And entrepreneurship in the school context is called cheating, you know, creative problem-solving.
So, I think breaking out of that mindset and - and not looking at it like, "OK, I need to go and study, and get certified, and do what I'm told, and then I will be able to have a career," but rather, "Hey, if I want to do something," if I want to be the next Tucker Carlson, go start a podcast, go start a YouTube channel, get your hands dirty, try and fail, experiment and tinker, I think that's the biggest thing.
CARLSON: Well, it's such a wise point. Clearly, there's a - I mean I'm all for following rules. But there's also a downside. And our school seems to be getting more rigid, less open to creativity--
CARLSON: --less open to unorthodox thinking. So, I mean that's a bad trend- -
MOREHOUSE: It is. And it's the nature and the structure of, you know, a math system that's trying to push everybody through and same age group cohorts and, you know, it--
MOREHOUSE: --you - you have to think beyond that kind of traditional rule- following idea. And you've got to just look at the opportunity that's out there.
At Praxis, we work with young people all the time. And we focus on trying to help them develop skills that are ultimately transferable and in demand, no matter what, because the jobs that are around today, nobody knew these were going to be here 20 years ago, and the same thing is true of the future.
We don't know exactly what opportunities are there. So, having skills that are very transferable and adaptable, you know, being creative, and imaginative, communication skills, you know, the ability to work in teams to - to cast a vision and to recruit people behind that vision, these sound like kind of fluffy soft skills--
MOREHOUSE: --but honestly, those are the things that are the most uniquely human, and the things that are hardest for machines to replace, and I think where you get the most return on your investment
CARLSON: Interesting. So, you sound a little less worried.
MOREHOUSE: I am. I mean I'm optimistic by nature. But I see the opportunity there and I see that the young people--
MOREHOUSE: --we work with, you know, they're able to seize this. And I like Investor Mike Maples said once that, you know, I don't want a future where everybody's worried about robots taking their jobs. I want a future where everybody has their own personal Ironman suit, and that's the vision that I can get behind and I think--
CARLSON: I hope you'll - I hope you'll create one. I can probably--
MOREHOUSE: --I think looking at the opportunity--
CARLSON: --use one. Isaac - Isaac, we're out of time. It's great to see you. Thank you for that. That was a nice way to end the week.
MOREHOUSE: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: One last thought though on low-skilled workers. They are being replaced, they're getting poorer. But America's wealthy are getting richer by the year. We want to put that in some context.
You may have heard that Amazon CEO and the overlord of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, is getting divorced. We're not going to get into the personal drama, obviously, but we will tell you this.
The Bezos family fortune is $137 billion. Our GDP of the country is $19.39 trillion. That means one American divorce court overseeing one divorce has 0.7 percent of the country's entire GDP in the balance, one divorce, almost a full percentage point of GDP. Unbelievable! Tells you a lot.
That's it for us tonight. We'll be back Monday, 8:00 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.
Most important, have a great weekend. Everybody's earned it after a week like this. Next week is going to be unbelievable. See you then.
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.