Rubio on vote-counting chaos in Florida, nationalism debate

close

Video

Tucker: The left doesn't want you to believe your own eyes

The liberal media says caravan is all hype and your concern is unwarranted; reaction from former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 14, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." The imaginary Central American migrant Caravan, the one you've been told over and over doesn't exist, and if you don't believe it, you're immoral, well turns out it does exist. It's a physical reality. And, in fact, it's here. It's at the U.S. border.

A breakaway group from the Caravan has made its way to Tijuana. They didn't walk, as you were told they were doing. They were driven. And now, members are climbing over the border fence there.

The migrants were able to reach this country, thanks to the assistance of organizations whose explicit purpose is getting people into this country legally or not. Trace Gallagher has more details on what's going on tonight. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Tucker, right now, there are two primary Central American caravans in Mexico making their way north that include anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 people. The first of the major caravans is expected to arrive at the U.S. border sometime late next week.

But as you say, some 350 migrants have now arrived at the border in Tijuana. Dozens of them scaled the fence and taunted Border Patrol officers. Others stood at the fence or hung out on the beach. But they want their presence known to both the Border Patrol and the media.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING SPANISH).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING SPANISH).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yes. Catracho is slang for Honduran. There are reports these migrants broke from the main Caravan about four or five days ago and took buses north. Impossible to tell exactly how many are from the Caravan because the Border Patrol tells us Central American migrants sometimes arrive in droves every single day at the U.S. border.

We certainly know that many of these migrants are being coached by groups like Pueblo Sin Fronteras or People Without Borders, a Chicago-based immigration advocacy group. In fact, even Left-leaning news organizations like the L.A. Times and Washington Post have reported that members of Pueblo Sin Fronteras are embedded with the Caravan.

And our sources tell us these types of groups are guiding the migrants. For example, Mexico has offered most of these people both asylum and jobs. And yet, they continue heading north. Also, they could move toward the U.S. border in Texas.

But instead, they go the long way, hundreds of miles out of their way toward Tijuana. And that's because the goal is to get to California, take advantage of the State's sanctuary laws and the benefits that go along with that.

Of course, once thousands begin arriving in the next few weeks, sympathetic groups will be at the border to greet them. Tucker?

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thanks for that update. Appreciate it.

Well the images you just saw are embarrassing and awkward for the liars you've been watching on television for the past month, the ones who've been lecturing you that the Caravan doesn't exist and telling you that everything is just fine at the border.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIANNA MARIE KEILAR, CNN: The President, along with his favorite TV network, were beating the drum on the looming so-called Invasion as they put it--

SAM STEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: The programming on the Caravan was propaganda. It was political campaign motivated propaganda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the state-run--

BILL MAHER, REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER HOST: Trump is like a racist Paul Revere, you know. The migrants are coming! The migrants are coming!

He keeps calling it an invasion. Yes, an invasion of strollers.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: He made news by ratcheting up the Caravan scare talk and the troop numbers he believes are needed to meet this alleged threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The so-called invasion. So, people are streaming over the border illegally, what would you call it? I don't know. You're not allowed to call it anything, actually.

This is a recurring theme on the Left. Don't believe your own eyes. You're too dumb to trust your own senses. Listen to the smart kids. They know best. There's no crisis on the border even as hundreds of thousands of people stream into this country every year illegally, there's no illegal immigration crisis.

Yes, there are 22 million people living here illegally. It's not a crisis. It's not real. They'll tell you that on a loop endlessly until the day they retake power, at which point they'll say the crisis is real. In fact, it's so enormous we can only solve it by granting blanket amnesty to all the people here illegally.

There are 22 million, after all. What else can we do? This is a metaphor really for the Left's entire program, which is built entirely on denying reality. They deny the reality of illegal immigration. They deny the reality of terrorism. They deny the reality of biological gender.

And woe to the person who raises his hand and tries to insert reality into the conversation. They don't want that. When you have a program built entirely on denial and deception, it is not surprising you're also against free speech. You can't afford to have an honest conversation.

We'd like to have an honest conversation. That's why we're speaking tonight to Bryan Dean Wright. He's a Democrat and a former CIA Officer, and he joins us on set. So, I think there are arguments in favor of letting these people in, even illegally. That - that's a real position.

BRYAN DEAN WRIGHT, FORMER CIA OPS OFFICER: Sure.

CARLSON: And maybe you can make the case it's good for America, it's good for our economy, maybe you think it's bad for America and you want it anyway. I mean there are all kinds of arguments. But what's not an argument is telling me that I'm a racist for acknowledging the reality of what is happening and that's the position I'm seeing on television.

WRIGHT: You're correct. So, here's what we should be starting with this conversation, facts, which--

CARLSON: Right.

WRIGHT: --we typically don't, right? So, the facts tell us that first generation immigrants are a net drain on our economy, second and then (ph) eventually third generation become net contributors. That's the fact, right?

CARLSON: Right.

WRIGHT: Secondarily, we know that the folks who are coming across the border, 1,000 to 2,000 people each day, again, having kids then in a year or two years down the road, we're talking hundreds of thousands of people all told that those folks are - are initially, anyway, a burden to our economy.

Now, whether or not they contribute something many years down the road, that is an open question. We should be able to have this conversation irrespective--

CARLSON: Right.

WRIGHT: --of our party affiliation, and come to a conclusion where we say, "Look, we need to have a thoughtful, strong border, prevent some of these folks from coming across. And if we don't, shame on us, as a country."

CARLSON: Well, I agree with that. I mean I do think, as you just said, that this is in many ways an economic question. And I don't understand how you can look at the projections for what automation is about to do to our economy, eliminating a huge percentage of all low-skilled labor, all low- skilled labor in this country, and see what we need is more low-skilled labor. How can you make that argument?

WRIGHT: You can't. The top 10 jobs that we see immigrants take, both legal and illegal, make less than 20 bucks an hour, which, by the way, the Obama Administration said, jobs earning less than 20 bucks an hour are going to be automated into obsolescence.

So, the argument that we need an increasing number of poorly qualified, you know, folks who don't speak English, don't have the--

CARLSON: Right.

WRIGHT: --skillsets that really we need for, the common (ph) economy, well frankly, the one that's already here that's a - that's a silly argument. It just it doesn't hold water.

CARLSON: So, I always want to believe the best about people and that they have honorable motives. And I think most people do have honorable motives. But if you can't even marshal an economic argument in favor of your - of your immigration policy, I'm left believing maybe it's only about getting more votes for your party.

WRIGHT: How cynical?

CARLSON: I don't want to be cynical. I just don't - I just don't see--

WRIGHT: Well--

CARLSON: --any other rationale.

WRIGHT: Look - look, I - I appreciate the argument. I think you're - you may be correct. There are definitely some parts of the party, make no mistake about it, they want open borders.

I mean just the other day, I think, it was yesterday, in fact, Senator Gillibrand from New York was buddy-buddy with the guy, Sean McElwee who wants to remove the border between the United States and Mexico, all right?

So, there is an element within this country, not just the activist community but, in fact, within the - the Left of this nation, my own party, I - I hate to say, who want open borders.

And that, of course, then feeds into this issue well - well what, not only how do we take care of them but, ultimately, who are they going to vote for? And that that there is a - a play there that I think one could - could argue this is a political play. This is about vote. So, I think it's fair to have that - that concern and that fear.

CARLSON: If I hear one more moron on cable news cry racism when somebody tries to have an honest conversation about what this means, I swear I'm getting rid of my television. I mean that.

WRIGHT: I don't blame you.

CARLSON: I can't - can't handle it, no.

WRIGHT: Yes.

CARLSON: Bryan Dean Wright, thank you very much.

WRIGHT: Always a pleasure.

CARLSON: Great to see you.

Well the Florida recount continues tonight. Democrats are battling to change the results by any means necessary. That will not surprise you. The details might though, and we have them after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the recount continues tonight in this country's least competent vote-counting state. The upside of all of this Florida recount stuff by the way is a man named Craig Patrick. This is the third night in a row we've had him on, and we're always grateful to see him. Political Editor, Chief Investigator for WTVT Fox in Tampa Bay, he joins us with a recap.

Craig, what is happening?

CRAIG PATRICK, WTVT FOX TAMPA BAY POLITICAL EDITOR: We have more dueling gaffes, once again, focused on South Florida, predominantly Democrats.

I'll start with the good news for Senator Bill Nelson. We now know that the Democratic Party did, in fact, rally his supporters to make sure they get their mail-in ballots fixed if there are problems and finalized before the deadline.

The bad news for Bill Nelson is that they got the dates mixed up and they gave the wrong deadline telling people that you've got until Thursday, November 8th. The election was Tuesday, November 6th.

And the evidence for this is leading to the work of the Democratic Party of Florida, sending out these government forms writing in the wrong date, effectively confusing people and leaving, maybe, a lot of Democrats to say, "Oh Gilligan (ph)."

And this is something that seems to have affected voters specifically in Broward County and three other counties. So, stop and think about that for a moment.

You have the Democratic Party, apparently, one, sabotaging conceivably Bill Nelson, two, disenfranchising their own voters in this blunder, three, shooting themselves in the foot, four, trying to orchestrate this deadline rush not knowing what the deadline was and, five, conceivably breaking election law, all in one fell swoop.

This is something that the state has sent over to the feds to investigate. We'll see how that works out. One other blunder that stands out that has risen to the surface, you have continuing woes in Palm Beach County in Southeast Florida, where you have faulty voting machines.

Apparently, when they get stressed, they are old, they're aging to the point where they spit out erroneous results, which is causing the Election Managers there to recount votes that had already been recounted.

We're calling them the Monty Python machines because they - you feed them through, it's OK, one, two, five, no, no, three. And with this, you have Palm Beach County now racing the clock along with Broward County.

In other news, Governor Rick Scott, under pressure to recuse himself from certifying the results of the - of his own disputed race, has done that. He's moving on to - to Washington now.

And Mitch McConnell introduced him as the new Senator from Florida, which is premature. It is presumptuous. But it is also increasingly likely as well because while Bill Nelson has filed all of these legal challenges, time is running out.

And if you look at the math, even if Nelson prevails on every single one, which would seem to be a reach there just does not appear to be enough ballots to get him where he needs to be unless there is some kind of big machine malfunction, which based on the things we've seen is not inconceivable but we'll find out one way or the other about that, most likely by our deadline of the machine recount--

CARLSON: It's - it's unbelievable.

PATRICK: --tomorrow afternoon.

CARLSON: It's--

PATRICK: Yes.

CARLSON: --it's been 18 years. You'd think it would be running like a Swiss Canton by now, but it's Florida. Craig, thank you very much for that update. Appreciate it.

PATRICK: Thank you.

Rubio on vote-counting chaos in Florida, nationalism debate

As the deadline for Florida's machine recount looms, Republican Senator Marco Rubio weighs in on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

CARLSON: Rubio has been raising alarm over the State of Florida's election irregularities for quite some time, and he joins us tonight on set. Senator, thanks very much--

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA.: Thank you.

CARLSON: --for coming on.

RUBIO: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So, I - I know you're a Senator, represents the State of Florida--

RUBIO: Yes.

CARLSON: --and you're pro-Florida. But as objectively as you can, what is the core problem with elections in Florida as of now (ph)?

RUBIO: Well actually there isn't. I mean 65 of 67 counties did it right. You know, Miami-Dade County is right on the border of Broward, 60 percent voted for Democrats in the Senate race and the governor's race, they got all their votes in on time.

And then they did their recount on time. It is largely focused on two counties and one, in particular, Broward County, where you have an inept and incompetent Elections Director who's done this in the past.

CARLSON: Yes.

RUBIO: And so, when someone, you know, a perfect example is these provisional ballots, right, it's people that show up and vote. You don't show up in the system. They let you vote but they put your vote in an envelope, and then they make sure - they verify you.

She decided to take 205 of them and count them on her own without submitting them the right way to this provisional - to the Canvassing Board. When that was discovered, she said, "All right, I'll give it to the Canvassing Board."

But she had already separated the ballots from the envelopes. They found 20 of them to be invalid. But then there - there's no way to match the ballots to the envelope when you separate them. So then, she submitted 205 votes to the state out of that batch, 20 of them, at least 20 of them, are invalid votes.

Now she claims that they're not part of the count, which contradicts what her lawyer said a few days ago. So, when someone that incompetent is sitting on thousands of ballots, we don't know how many they are, she's not regularly reporting them, of course, we're going to be concerned about that and, of course, we're going to be concerned about the - the reporting.

And the second state of play is it's now lawyer time. Lawyers are arguing to the state that - to the judge, they're trying to get a federal judge to do two things. One, throw out state law when it comes to voter intent.

They're going to do a manual recount in the Senate race of all the ballots that either didn't vote in the Senate race or double-voted. And there's a very specific law for what voter intent is. You know, if you - if you circle Rick Scott or Bill Nelson, that's fine. But you have to have done it throughout the ballot.

CARLSON: Right.

RUBIO: The machine won't read it. They want to throw out that standard and just let it be, I don't know what.

CARLSON: Can you change the standard after the voters cast votes (ph)?

RUBIO: That's my concern. I mean, look, if you say there was a problem with the lawsuit (ph), the legislature is there for. But to have a judge come in and announce that Florida law, after the election we're going to change the rules in hopes of influencing the outcome, that, to me, is stealing the election.

And then, they also want to force them to count every mail ballot, even the ones in which the signature didn't match, the signature on file for the voter. These are the two fundamental arguments before--

CARLSON: But just to ask (ph)--

RUBIO: --federal court.

CARLSON: --is that the requirement that the signature has to match?

RUBIO: Of course, yes, I mean--

CARLSON: So, if that's the existing requirement, how can they argue it's no longer the requirement?

RUBIO: Because they're saying it's an arbitrary standard and who's making the decision--

CARLSON: But that was the standard on Election Day, right?

RUBIO: Correct. And I think that's what I'm hoping, a reasonable judge, no matter how activist it might be, would argue that's a good point. You should have raised it before the election, and that's something for the legislature to fix. But we're not going to change the rules of the election after the election to influence the outcome, because if you do it, it's stealing an election.

CARLSON: Amazing. So, I want to ask you about the question of nationalism. The President described himself as a nationalist recently. He was attacked by the leader of France for doing that. You recently published a Wall Street Journal op-ed defending the idea of nationalism.

RUBIO: Yes.

CARLSON: Why is nationalism a necessary concept in modern America?

RUBIO: Well, American nationalism.

CARLSON: Of course.

RUBIO: What is our identity? Our identity is not a common race, ethnicity.

CARLSON: Right.

RUBIO: In fact, America is a de facto rejection of that. It is fundamentally premised on this notion. We are all children of God. We are born with God - we're all created equal by our Creator. And we are given equal rights to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness.

That is our national identity. It is deeply rooted in morals and in values. It, in fact, explains everything this nation has done internationally and domestically. We should be proud of that identity. We should defend that national identity.

CARLSON: Yes.

RUBIO: Number two, I think most of the viewers watching this program would be shocked to think that my job is to represent Belgium or my job is to represent - I don't have nothing - I have nothing against Belgium. I always pick on Belgium or Luxembourg. They have their own system of government. That doesn't mean I need to be hostile towards them.

CARLSON: Right.

RUBIO: And it may be in our national interest to work with them. I think NATO was in our national interest and is. I think a lot of our alliances are built on that. And, in fact, our national - our national - our national identity as a nation that believes in the equality of all people is what has caused us to defend democracy and feed hungry--

CARLSON: Right.

RUBIO: --people all over the world. We should be proud of that. But, as a government leader, my fundamental obligation, first and foremost, is to work on behalf of the American people. And most of the time, if not all the time, we can do that without hurting other people around the world.

CARLSON: It's hard to know what the argument against what you just said might be. Why would people--

RUBIO: Well--

CARLSON: --object? No, I sincerely because--

RUBIO: Yes.

CARLSON: --it's important to understand what - what the objections are. What do you think they could be--

RUBIO: Well, there are two.

CARLSON: --willing to do (ph)?

RUBIO: One is they ascribe to nationalism, sort of the nationalism of the Nazis or somebody else. That's ethnic and racial nationalism. I'm not talking about ethnic nationalism.

CARLSON: Of course, not.

RUBIO: I'm talking about a national identity that actually is completely relevant to your ethnicity. In fact, you didn't (ph) have to be born here. If you come here legally, you can be a U.S. citizen. It's one of the great things about America. Some of the people who love America are the most are the people who are Americans by choice, they--

CARLSON: Yes.

RUBIO: --because they know what life is like in another country. Then there's another school of thought that "No, we are citizens of the international community, and we have obligations to the rest of the world," which I would agree within the confines of our national interest.

In fact, I've always argued that the best thing for the world is a strong and prosperous America because our values infuse our decision-making and - and - and so much of what we do. So, there are people that actually - I think that's what Macron was arguing.

And that is that France's obligations under him anyways are not just for the - to the French people, but to the sort of amorphous international community, which I'm not against. I've defended international organizations so long as they are in the national interest of the United States.

CARLSON: Because that's the country you represent.

RUBIO: Yes. I mean I swore an allegiance to the oath. I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. I work for the American people. And I believe I can do so while still being strong allies of Japan, strong allies of Great - Great Britain, strong allies of--

CARLSON: Of course.

RUBIO: --our countries around - all these countries around the world, especially when our interests intersect.

CARLSON: I think this is a vital conversation and I'm glad that we're having it and I'm glad you're--

RUBIO: Thank you.

CARLSON: --articulating it so clearly. Thank you, Senator.

RUBIO: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: Well there's a battle over free speech going on in Washington right now. Good. We're for free speech. The question is, are the people who claim they're defending free speech actually defenders of speech? #Basta (ph), whatever that means. We'll investigate the assault on free speech after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: In the past couple of days, you've heard a lot of huffing and puffing about free speech and freedom of the press, and how those freedoms are currently imperiled by the White House.

And to be clear, we are for free speech, unfettered, absolute free speech, the kind of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and ratified consistently by the Supreme Court. We've defended that kind of free speech almost every night here for the past two years.

Many others, mostly on the Left, have attacked speech. So, we know who's for free speech and who's against it. And we cannot help but notice that some of free speech's greatest enemies are now posing as its defenders, all of a sudden.

Take CNN, for example. It was CNN that almost single-handedly led the campaign to have broadcaster Alex Jones banished from the internet on the grounds that they didn't like what Jones had to say. Ultimately, CNN succeeded in doing that.

The network convinced every major tech platform to ban Jones and his outlet Infowars. You don't have to like Alex Jones to see that as a terrifying loss for free speech because it was exactly that. But CNN was not done trying to silence its critics.

Last year, the cable network threatened an anonymous Reddit user for creating an anti-CNN meme. CNN threatened to expose his identity and ruin his life if it ever was criticized by him again. Now, CNN is claiming to defend free speech only when it's their speech.

You'll notice by the way that CNN did not object when the government threatened to imprison employees of the cable channel RT, if they didn't register as foreign agents. Yes, RT is owned by a foreign government, so is the BBC.

Until last year, much of the New York Times was owned by a foreign national. This is true of other news organizations, none of which has ever registered as a foreign agent. But because RT is owned by Russia, which the Left believes got Donald Trump elected, it is fine with CNN if they are bullied and silenced.

So, call CNN what you will but don't pretend they are defenders of the First Amendment. They are not.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a close watcher of all this. He joins us tonight. So, I just want to be clear, we're always for free speech, especially speech that's offensive, even by obnoxious White House Correspondents.

But to see a channel that has lobbied against the right of others to say what they think is true to all of a sudden emerge as this defender of the First Amendment is nauseating.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION SENIOR FELLOW: Yes. I - I think when people saw the suit, they asked themselves was there anything in the past that Jim Acosta had said negatively that got him kicked out and the answer was no. Was there anybody MSNBC, did they get kicked out? The answer's no.

Do other CNN reporters get kicked out? No, they have passes. So, it was a particular type of behavior. And I mean if you're arguing a case before the Supreme Court, you can't go in there and take pictures or - or interrupt the justice, they'll kick you out. And if you do it another time they'll say we don't want you pleading the case before the Supreme Court.

He - Jim Acosta can't go in there barefooted, and say, I want to express myself. There are certain protocols and norms of behavior and he's violated them. That's one issue. And then, it's not - this is sort of a psychodrama, Tucker.

I mean we - remember that the prior Administration monitored 20 AP reporters and Fox's own James Rosen. Nobody filed a suit on behalf of James Rosen from CNN, and said, "My God, we only learned in 2013 that three years ago the man was being surveilled by the Attorney General. This is a violation of press freedom." We didn't hear that.

CARLSON: And - and you're not hearing CNN say anything about the voices being silenced now online by the big tech companies--

HANSON: No, you've not.

CARLSON: --because they have unfashionable views. Can you, as a philosophical matter, support free speech in some cases but not in others?

HANSON: I don't think you can. And then we get to another - we - if we want to talk about ethics and the protocols of the White House, see, CNN, 93 percent of their coverage according to Shorenstein is bias, and Trump had no problem with that.

He has no problem when the CNN host Kathy Griffin holds a decapitated facsimile of his head. They have no problem when Anderson Cooper uses obscenity or Rez - Reza Aslan says he's a piece of crap or people that are guests and panelists say that he's a Russian asset or agent or they invoke the Holocaust for comparison or people say that he's radicalized more people than ISIS, remember that?

And they have these stories they keep running, you know, that Scaramucci has involved with a Russian hedge fund, false, that Trump knew in advance of the Russian meeting, that Donald Trump Jr. had access to the WikiLeaks.

I remember when CNN was just explaining to us as a matter of fact that James Comey within a matter of hours was going to go into a Congressional testimony and swear that Donald Trump had mischaracterized their private meeting about whether he was subject to prosecution (ph)--

CARLSON: Well it does - doesn't make sense though (ph)--

HANSON: --it was all--

CARLSON: --because they--

HANSON: --it was all false.

CARLSON: --CNN has argued that others should lose their voice, should be silenced--

HANSON: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: --because they're "conspiracy theorists."

HANSON: Theorists.

CARLSON: But you're listing conspiracy theories that they have promulgated on their air.

HANSON: Yes. And they're also arguing that their type of behavior should not be subject to public scrutiny, but only Donald Trump's could (ph), protocol, manners, politeness.

And that's what Trump's argument is it's not the content, it's not the prejudice, it's not the unprofessionalism in the past, it's this particular time you went over the edge, and you disrupted. You were rude. You took over a - an optional press conference, nothing in the Constitution that says he has to have a press conference.

I can remember President Reagan saying, "I can't hear you." And when - when somebody yells to Donald Trump, he runs over and talks. So, it's not only hypocritical on their fact (ph) but it's a - it's a journalistic organization that has violated the ethos of reporting and journalism then calling the kettle black and saying you can't do this, this is against White House--

CARLSON: I know.

HANSON: --protocol.

CARLSON: It's a - it's a shame--

HANSON: Yes.

CARLSON: --to see a buffoon elevated to--

HANSON: It is.

CARLSON: --martyr status. But look, now that CNN's on the side of free speech, I'm sure they'll be advocating for the right--

HANSON: I wish they have.

CARLSON: --of all people to say what they need.

HANSON: They could have sued in 2013 on the behalf of Fox and--

CARLSON: Yes.

HANSON: --and the - and the AP.

CARLSON: Victor Davis Hanson, a man with a long memory.

HANSON: Yes.

CARLSON: And we appreciate that.

HANSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you.

Well there used to be dozens of pro-Second Amendment Democrats in the Congress. There aren't anymore. Now the party is increasingly calling for disarming the public. Does the public want that? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Liberal Democrats set their sights on gun control

Do Democrats want to disarm you? Tucker takes on gun control advocate Richard Goodstein, former Hillary Clinton adviser.

CARLSON: Anyway if (ph) Democrats is entering the Congress, of course, one of their top interests, they say, one of their top public policy priorities, disarming the population.

Just a decade ago, about a quarter of candidates backed by the NRA were, in fact, Democrats. Now, the number of NRA-backed House Democrats is three. Meanwhile, a new poll of Democrats in early primary states says their top issue after single-payer healthcare is repealing the Second Amendment in order to ban guns.

Richard Goodstein is a lawyer, a former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton and she - he joins us tonight. Richard, thanks for coming on.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Sure.

CARLSON: So, is this really the time, as the country's becoming more chaotic, to disarm the population?

GOODSTEIN: Yes. So, I can't really speak for these people who respond to this poll. I can tell you what Nancy Pelosi is talking about, what House Democrats are talking about, which is background checks, which 90-percent plus of the public supports, which got 54 votes in the Senate when it was Toomey and Manchin, putting a bill to require gun background--

CARLSON: OK. OK. You know what I mean (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: --checks.

CARLSON: --we've been through this a million times but--

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: --but if - if Democrats polled and it seems like a legitimate poll say their number two issue after socialized medicine is repealing the Second Amendment, preparatory to disarming the population. You know, there are going to be calls for that.

If the people, voters want it, you know, their - their representatives will call for it. Is this the time? And should it make us, the rest of us, a little nervous as America's getting crazier, obviously, to disarm normal people?

GOODSTEIN: Yes. Again, I just don't buy the notion that that was a legit poll that even a quarter of Democrats think repealing the Second Amendment. I--

CARLSON: What do you think of that?

GOODSTEIN: What - what I think the Democrats are saying is look, is what Justice Scalia said in the famous Heller decision, the one case that really went to the Supreme Court where he said, "A person has a right to a handgun to protect their home. Period." And that legitimate regulation of guns in terms of places that they can't be taken, schools, places that, you know, conditions on their sale--

CARLSON: But we have all those laws already. I mean--

GOODSTEIN: But I'm saying those are--

CARLSON: OK.

GOODSTEIN: --so, no one's talking about repealing that.

CARLSON: No, no. People are and let's be - I mean let's stop lying just for a second--

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: --you're not going to stop mass shootings really unless you take all the guns away. That's the truth. And everyone knows it. I mean, honestly.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: So, that's kind of the goal, and everyone really knows that. And I'm just wondering like what's the argument here? So, if you're arguing simultaneously that the police are racist, they can't be trusted, which Beto and lots of other candidates have argued, and also the population can't be trusted to defend itself or have firearms, what are you really saying?

GOODSTEIN: I think what Democrats are saying and, frankly, Republicans wish they had been saying it because the ones backed by the NRA, Barbara Comstock, Mike Coffman in Colorado lost to Democrats saying, "We want background check laws, and so forth."

And what they're saying is that things have gotten out of whack. The United States is unique in the world. It's not a mental health problem. There are mental health problems everywhere else in the world. But we have this horrible gun problem here. So--

CARLSON: No, but actually we don't because most Americans are not a threat to anybody. And this is what makes me nervous is a small percentage of people commit the overwhelming majority of shootings. But we're not thinking clearly about how to disarm them.

All these laws apply to me. I pose no threat to anyone, and I really want to be able to defend myself. I know you do too. So, why not leave me out of it and normal people out of it who pose no conceivable threat and focus on the potential threats? But no one's ever - no one's ever up for doing that.

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: We all have to be disarmed.

GOODSTEIN: Of course.

CARLSON: Why?

GOODSTEIN: Well again, no one's talking about disarming anybody.

CARLSON: No, they are no, no--

GOODSTEIN: What Nancy - well - well - what - what - what--

CARLSON: --no, we (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: --elected officials are saying is we should have background checks, so lunatics--

CARLSON: --no, but that's not all--

GOODSTEIN: --don't have the--

CARLSON: --no, but--

GOODSTEIN: --access to guns.

CARLSON: --but the - the most - the most recent shooting and many of these shootings have been committed by people who went through background checks. Stephen Paddock went through a background check. The latest shooter in, obviously, who we just saw in California went through a background check. The truth is it's not just background checks, which nobody really opposes. It's--

GOODSTEIN: No (ph).

CARLSON: --limiting the kind of firearms you can buy, limiting the size of the magazines you can use, limiting the kinds of ammunition you can purchase. These are laws, restrictions that affect normal people who should be able to--

GOODSTEIN: Yes (ph).

CARLSON: --defend themselves. Why is that?

GOODSTEIN: Look, when you say that nobody really opposes, when you get Republican leaders here please ask them--

CARLSON: No, it's irrelevant (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: --to affirm that that (ph)--

CARLSON: --we already have--

GOODSTEIN: --they don't - well it's relevant (ph) look--

CARLSON: --but hold on--

GOODSTEIN: --never we had (ph)--

CARLSON: --we even (ph) have background - I mean let's be serious.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: Background checks are - I buy guns, so I know.

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: They're in place. You go through them when you buy a gun. Why would a magazine restriction or an ammo restriction or a so-called assault rifle restriction apply to me? What isn't - why am I not trusted to buy any kind of gun I want? I'm confused, honestly.

GOODSTEIN: Well, again, the analogy I would use is to the ways we basically made cars safer. There used to be a lot more fatalities on the road, and we instituted things like seatbelts and - and airbags and other things, vehicles that could basically crush without crushing the passenger. And - and background checks is the first way to go--

CARLSON: No, no, but - but then - then why - no, sincere question though.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: The assault rifle ban, a gun that looks scary should be banned, OK? That's the position and a lot of candidates (ph) say they should be confiscated. Why should my right to buy that gun be abridged? Why can't I be--

GOODSTEIN: It's not being--

CARLSON: --no, it is though.

GOODSTEIN: Well no one's being - if you object to being--

CARLSON: --no (ph), but why shouldn't I be able to buy that gun? I'm an American citizen. I don't pose a threat to anybody. Why can't I have that gun?

GOODSTEIN: I - I think the concern is that people get their hands on assault weapons who commit these crimes. If you want to use your assault weapon on a range, guess what? Go to a range and keep your gun there and use it there.

CARLSON: Well maybe I want it in my house. And why - I - I don't understand. So, what--

GOODSTEIN: You want assault (ph) weapons--

CARLSON: --what you're saying is--

GOODSTEIN: --to defend your house.

CARLSON: --no, what you're saying is we don't trust the population of the country. We don't think you're autonomous. We don't think you ought to be able to make these decisions for yourself. We just don't trust you. And I'm saying, why would I ever vote for someone who wouldn't trust me to have an AR-15 at home, honestly?

GOODSTEIN: Well - well, again, it's like saying we didn't trust people to drive without seatbelts or airbags and so forth. But we instituted things that were going to make people safer. What we're saying is it'd be--

CARLSON: No. But you don't use a car to defend yourself and you do use a firearm to defend yourself, and why wouldn't you trust--

GOODSTEIN: Cars kill people.

CARLSON: --no, why wouldn't you trust? There are 330 million people in the country. Hundreds of millions of them pose no conceivable threat to anybody.

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: So, why can't we think of a law that spares them these regulations? Is anybody even trying to think of that?

GOODSTEIN: Of course, they are but the--

CARLSON: Oh, really? Who?

GOODSTEIN: --well, but again, we're - we're taking it step up step. We're taking it step by step.

CARLSON: Yes, we are.

GOODSTEIN: I mean a - ask any suburban mother, that's the problem politically is that these people that--

CARLSON: I don't care about the politics.

GOODSTEIN: --that you lost last time are going to be lost--

CARLSON: I'm just telling you--

GOODSTEIN: --because they don't want more guns in school.

CARLSON: --the Left is making this country chaotic and scary--

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: --and simultaneously trying to keep me from defending myself. And that's not--

GOODSTEIN: The voters just happen not to buy (ph) what--

CARLSON: --going to happen.

GOODSTEIN: --you just said.

CARLSON: I don't care.

GOODSTEIN: And - and that's why the Democrats won this time (ph).

CARLSON: I don't care.

GOODSTEIN: OK.

CARLSON: OK. We'll see.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: Richard, thank you.

GOODSTEIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Amazon is getting billions of taxpayer dollars to expand into two of America's richest cities. It's corporate welfare. The Democratic Party is all on board. And anyone who questions it could be investigated by an incoming Committee Chairman. What's going on? We'll get to that in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well Florida isn't the only state with a high-stakes recount in progress. Just to the north, in Georgia, Democrat Stacey Abrams (ph) has refused to concede in the Governor's race. Legal challenges are flying everywhere.

Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown says that if Abrams is not declared the winner, then almost by definition Republicans, quote, stole the race. Lisa Boothe of Independent Women's Voice has been following this for us.

LISA BOOTHE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE SENIOR FELLOW: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: She joins us now with an update. Hey, Lisa?

BOOTHE: Oh, and Hillary Clinton is also saying that if a - that it would not be - it's not a fair race if Stacey Abrams doesn't win that somehow this race is not fair. Mind you, Brian Kemp is up by 55,000 votes and Stacey Abrams would need 18,000 to force a runoff and 16,000 to force a recount.

There is only one county that has not certified the results of the election. That's Gwinnett County. A 158 out of the 159 counties have certified the results of the election. So, she is not going to find those numbers. She is not going to be Governor of Georgia.

Yet, she refuses to concede. And now, we have Democrats like Sherrod Brown and Hillary Clinton making up excuses and saying that somehow there's voter suppression or something is awry if Stacey Abrams does not win this election.

CARLSON: So, I mean, presumably, the goal is to infuriate Democrats in the state of Florida sufficient that they come out to vote in 2020. I mean there - I got to be thinking long-term, right?

BOOTHE: Yes. I think what's - well I think Stacey Abrams is actually looking ahead at 2020, a possible run - run against Senator Perdue. So, I think that's why she's trying to hang in there. But it's sort of ridiculous to have Hillary Clinton be saying this because you essentially have two losers being sore losers with Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams.

Of course, we know Hillary Clinton still refuses to accept the results of the 2016 election and that voters just weren't that into her, didn't want her, didn't elect her, and it's Russia's fault, and everyone else's fault. I mean she literally wrote a book blaming everything else, but herself, for her own election loss. So, it looks like the Democrats are the sore losers and refuse to accept the results of the election.

CARLSON: Amazing. I don't think there's a substantive case they're making, it doesn't sound like. Lisa Boothe, thank you for that update--

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --and all of them.

BOOTHE: Appreciate it.

CARLSON: Well elements of the Right and the Left have finally found something they can agree on, at least for the moment, opposing corporate welfare for Amazon. Jeff Bezos' colossus is getting billions in taxpayer subsidies to open new headquarters in New York and Northern Virginia, and that's not all.

As part of the deal for Amazon, the Commonwealth of Virginia is promising to warn the company about any Freedom of Information requests it receives about Amazon.

Kieran Lalor is the Republican in the New York Assembly. He sent a letter to the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo questioning the wisdom of this deal, and he joins us tonight.

So, this is a little bit confusing considering that New York City has a lot of infrastructure needs, for example. You'd think Amazon, run by the richest guy in the world would be bringing something to the table. But instead, the taxpayers of New York are paying him to come? How does this work?

KIERAN MICHAEL LALOR, NEW YORK ASSEMBLYMAN: You know, it - it's incredible. It's guaranteed to be a boondoggle. What - what we're seeing here is the most powerful, richest person in the world going to be subsidized by regular people. We know that Amazon in - in some cases, destroys other companies that can't compete--

CARLSON: Yes.

LALOR: --destroys jobs. It's one thing if that happens in our free enterprise system. But it's yet - it's another thing to subsidize that, and as some of the very people whose jobs and businesses are going to be destroyed to subsidize this monster, Amazon.

CARLSON: Well Amazon is a monopoly. So, by definition, I - I think it's the enemy of the - of the free market. Who cut this deal for the State of New York?

LALOR: You know, it's fascinating. Governor Cuomo is giving about $1.7 billion with a B in state dollars. De Blasio is giving another billion dollars in New York City money. And it's interesting because if this was a good deal, Governor Cuomo stood for election just eight days ago, why didn't he announce this or - or get word of this--

CARLSON: Yes.

LALOR: --out before the election? If this was a good deal, he certainly would have done that. He knows this is a bad deal. And you know what's interesting? You have Liberals like Cuomo and de Blasio, and what they're doing is they're introducing a bizarro form of supply-side economics.

They're saying lower taxes, lower business costs create jobs. But we're not going to do real supply-side economics where everybody gets a tax cut and everybody gets to compete. We're going to - we're going to pick one winner and let everybody else think while one big ship gets to rise.

CARLSON: Well it's such a good point. Is it weird to see self-described Liberals acting as the servants of the richest man in the world?

LALOR: Yes. It - it is. It is very strange. But I'll - I'll give them a little bit of credit. You know, we live in a divided time here in the United States. They have unified the Left and the Right. The New York Times is against this. The conservative New York Post editorial page is against this.

The - the darling of the Left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York City Liberal, is against it. Upstate conservatives like me are against it. Unions are against it. Business organizations are against it. The only ones who seem to be for it are Amazon, Cuomo, and De Blasio.

CARLSON: In the State of Virginia, as bad as everything you've just described is, in the State of Virginia, the Democratic State of Virginia, run by Liberals, they have agreed to warn Amazon if news organizations file Freedom of Information request trying to learn about Amazon. I don't think I've ever seen anything that corrupt. Is there a justification--

LALOR: You know, that reminds me--

CARLSON: --for that?

Interviewee: --that reminds me of the Gilded Age where - where some of the companies have become more powerful than the United States government. That's scary stuff--

CARLSON: Yes.

LALOR: --right there. But I'll give - I'll give Virginia one thing. They're getting the same number of promised jobs and they're paying one-third the price. We're paying over $1.5 billion for about 25,000 jobs from New York State.

Virginia's paying a half a billion, they're getting the same number of jobs. That was one of my top questions for Governor Cuomo in my letter today. I'd love to see the answer to that.

CARLSON: So, I mean how can you get the answer? And what can you do about it? I mean you're a lawmaker in the State. Cuomo's not King. Can you undo this deal?

LALOR: You know, we've had a long string of horrible economic development deals in New York State in the six years that I've been in the legislature, and it's very difficult to get job creation numbers.

You know, they can say, "Oh, we're going to create so this number jobs." But when you ask them, "Well, OK, how many have you created? What's the benchmark? Where are we, one year, two years, three years in?" you have to file a FOIA request, newspapers have to file a FOIA request, it's very difficult to get information now.

He's here to cut the ribbon. When this boondoggle fails, he'll be long gone and he'll be out of politics or running for something else, and he won't be here to pick up the pieces, but regular New Yorkers will.

CARLSON: You got to wonder too about the location of this deal. So, people who visit New York think it's a very rich place because New York City is the financial capital of the world. But Upstate New York, parts of it are, have a lot of poverty, real poverty. Americans suffering, no jobs, high drug abuse rate, I mean you're very aware--

LALOR: Yes. It's dying, it's dying, I should say (ph)--

CARLSON: --well, so it's dying. That's exactly right. It's a beautiful place with great people and it's dying. But Amazon did not choose to help revitalize that part of the state. But they moved to the richest part of the state. What does that tell you?

LALOR: You know, and - and, I don't want to say $25,000 or every (ph) drop in the bucket. But if it could be a drop in the bucket, New York City, the metropolis of New York City is a drop in the bucket. If you situated this facility in the middle of Central New York or--

CARLSON: Yes.

LALOR: --the northern part of the Hudson Valley, you would save an entire region. You would revitalize an entire region and save, you know, what was once a thriving part of our manufacturing base. But to put it here--

CARLSON: Yes.

LALOR: --in New York City. Here's a point, I also would like Governor Cuomo to answer. How do you know they weren't coming anyway? New York City is the media capital. It's the financial capital. It has one of the most educated dynamic workforces.

Wouldn't they be coming here anyway? I mean they're not going to go to Peoria, right? They're going to come to New York City. So, did we just get played?

And another thing. The - the headquarters was supposed to be one second headquarters. Then it got put to two second headquarters, one in Virginia, one in New York.

CARLSON: Yes.

LALOR: I'd like to know, did Cuomo reduce his - his bid when the headquarters got split in two?

CARLSON: I hope you find out.

LALOR: Governor Cuomo did you--

CARLSON: If you find out--

LALOR: I'm trying, I'm trying.

CARLSON: --the answer to that, come back Assemblyman because we want to know.

LALOR: I will. I will.

CARLSON: Thank you.

LALOR: All right.

CARLSON: New York should be proud to have you.

Well tonight's an anniversary for our show. We're sentimental. We mark all anniversaries. We'll tell you what it is, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well tonight marks the second anniversary of this show. Since we can't take the show out to dinner to celebrate, instead, we're going to show you a clip of what it first looked like when it launched at 7:00 Eastern two years ago tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That's it, the first episode of TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. We'll be back every weeknight. What's the show going to be about? You can judge for yourself. But here's the basic theme of it. People in power tend to lie, not because they want to but because they can't help themselves.

That's human nature. The more power people have, the bigger the temptation to misuse it. The press is supposed to be the watchdog against all of this and it worked fine for a couple of centuries. Then the press decided they had more in common with certain politicians than with readers or viewers, and that's when it fell apart.

We're going to get back to basics here. We're going to hold the powerful accountable, pierce pomposity, translate doublespeak, mock smugness and barbecue nonsense, every night, hope you'll watch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So they made me get a haircut before - before the first show. I totally forgot until I just saw it.

People in power tend to lie. That was the theme then. That's the theme tonight. That will always be the theme because that is always true whether the show's at 7 o'clock or 9 o'clock or now at 8 o'clock, we intend to stick to those promises and tell the truth, regardless.

Thank you, by the way, for making this show pretty successful more than we ever thought it would be. Your loyalty has meant everything and made all the difference. We appreciate it.

That's it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Good night from Washington.

Sean Hannity, live from New York City.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: All right. First, congratulations on two years.

CARLSON: Thank you.

HANNITY: You deserve all it - all of it. You're right. We - we don't have this job without those great audience. That is all true.

CARLSON: That's for sure. That is true.

HANNITY: All right, one thing I got to add, this is your second-year anniversary. When you get in your 23rd years, there's a little bit of this white stuff that's going to start sneaking in. I'm just warning you just (ph)--

CARLSON: Oh, no, no. Crease and (ph) formula--

HANNITY: Congratulations.

CARLSON: That's where I'm going.

HANNITY: All right, Tucker, thanks and--

CARLSON: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: --all the best, as always.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.