Tucker: Biden's Supreme Court nominee won't be properly vetted

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on March 22, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


As if this country's core institutions have not been degraded or diminished enough with pregnant flight suits and F.B.I. that behaves like Nancy Pelosi's Praetorian Guard, as if that weren't bad enough, Joe Biden announced in January his plan to choose the next Supreme Court Justice on the basis of appearance, the Supreme Court, you never thought that would happen.

Sociology Department maybe, your company perhaps, but the Supreme Court really matters. What does appearance have to do with ability or fealty to the Constitution? Joe Biden never explained. He did indicate, to be fair, that he would prefer a lawyer for the job, maybe even a clever one. But mostly he said he wanted a Black woman. Genetics being the single most important factor in what we used to call judicial temperament.

How does that work exactly? How do genes determine your ability as a Supreme Court Justice or a surgeon or an airline pilot or anything else? We'd love to hear Joe Biden explain that, but he didn't.

Instead, he embarked on a predictably short nationwide search for such a candidate and located in the end, a person called Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her confirmation hearings continue today for the second day.

Not surprisingly, given how she got this job, most of the talk in Washington was not about what she has done, how she thinks, what she is like as a person, but instead about how she looks. It's not shallow or anything. Here's the shallowest of all, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.


SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): I could not stop being just joyous that you were sitting in my office, and I couldn't stop bringing up to you the historical nature of this.

Forgive me, I grew up in a small Black church where I was taught to make a joyful noise unto the Lord and this is not a normal day for America. We have never had this moment before.


CARLSON: "I grew up in a small Black church." No, you didn't. Another lecture about the Black experience from a blue-eyed Yale graduate who in fact grew up in an all-white town, the son of IBM executives. Is there anyone on this planet phonier than Cory Booker?

Democratic Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't seem quite so fraudulent, that would be impossible, but she does -- and this is the key -- share a resume that is strikingly similar to Cory Booker's. Daughter of academics, graduate of Harvard College, and Harvard Law School, on the Board of the single wokest Day School in Washington, D.C. et cetera et cetera You know exactly how that story turns out.

Because in the end, when they tell you, you're getting a Black nominee, they're not talking about the son of a maid and a farm worker from Pin Point, Georgia. In fact, they already have a Supreme Court justice like that. His name is Clarence Thomas, he's a great man, even if no one in Washington will acknowledge that.

No, what they mean when they tell you you're getting a Black Supreme Court Justice is that you're getting yet another Democratic Party robot with the same rigid and totally predictable views as your average professional class White liberal, but who happens to be tanner than Joe Biden.

So identical? Identical to everyone else in power, just a different shade, and the shade to be fair, does make all the difference. That's the whole point of the exercise. Because of the way that she looks, Brown Jackson, who again, is just a garden variety White liberal in what she believes, but because the way she looks, this nominee will get nowhere near the vetting of a typical Supreme Court Justice and that, whatever your politics are, is a shame.

As Ruth Marcus of "The Washington Post," put it four years ago when Democrats were basically accusing Republican nominee of rape, quote, " ... when a Supreme Court seat is on the line, the Court and the country deserve the benefit of the doubt -- not the nominee."

All right, we are kind of on board with that, actually. But that was yesterday's standard. Today, not surprisingly, that same newspaper, Jeff Bezos' personal newspaper announced a new position. "The Post" put it this way in a headline: "How low will the G.O.P. go in taking on Ketanji Brown Jackson?" Pretty funny.

It's low to ask questions of a Supreme Court nominee, but we're not deterred. We believe in standards on the show. The Supreme Court is, of course, one of the most powerful institutions in the world. Joe Biden did not create the Supreme Court, previous generations did hundreds of years ago. He does not own it. He merely inherited it for a short time.

And so the rest of us have an interest in who sits on it and who interprets our Constitution. Joe Biden is sounding maybe a touch defensive has described Ketanji Brown Jackson as one of this country's great legal minds, and we certainly want to believe that, for real, given that she is probably going to be confirmed no matter what we think.

The question is, is it true? Is she really one of this country's great legal minds?

One way to know, one indication would be her LSAT scores. The LSAT is not a knowledge test. It measures logic and reasoning ability and no one doubts it is an accurate measure of those things which predict the legal skills and that's why top law schools have long used that test.

So how did it Ketanji Brown Jackson do on the LSAT? Sorry. You're not allowed to ask? Because asking is racism. Watch.


ERIN MORIARTY, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: After Judge Jackson's name was announced, Tucker Carlson on his Fox News program ignored her nearly nine years on the federal bench and instead wondered about her scores on the LSAT.

ELIE MYSTAL, "THE NATION'S" JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: You do not hear substantive legal arguments about her actual decision-making process coming from these people. All they've got is the racism. They want to know about the LSAT scores.

JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC HOST: I'm not going to curse because it's Sunday and I'd get fired, but can you talk about why what Tucker Carlson just said is so repugnant.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): They have implied you were solely nominated due to your race and not for other factors. Apparently, some have even claimed that you need to show your LSAT scores to determine whether you are a top legal mind. This is incredibly offensive and condescending.


CARLSON: "It's repugnant." "It's incredibly offensive." "She's a top legal mind." Shut up. We don't have to show you proof. You're not allowed to ask for proof.

It's hilarious. So, here you've got Mazie Hirono, the Senate's dumbest member. We don't need to ask for her test scores. We know what they are. She's infuriated that anyone would suggest that Judge Jackson was nominated because of a race and sex after Joe Biden bragged repeatedly that Judge Jackson was nominated for her race and sex. It's too funny.

They demand that you listen to them very carefully, but they become apoplectic if you dare to repeat what they say. What's the message here? Shut up. You're not allowed to talk. No more insulin, serf.

Sorry, not playing along. Thankfully, in the hearings today, a few senators did manage to ask relevant questions. Here's Josh Hawley:


SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): United States versus Hawkins: This was a child pornography case where the defendant distributed multiple images of child porn, possessed dozens more, including videos.

The Federal sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of 97 to 121 months in prison. Prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison.


CARLSON: Hmm. Well, that's pretty serious. Why did you do that, Judge Jackson? Well, here was the response.


KETANJI BROWN JACKSON (U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NOMINEE): The guideline was based originally on a statutory scheme and on directives, specific directives by Congress, at a time in which more serious child pornography offenders were identified based on the volume, based on the number of photographs that they received in the mail, and that made totally, total sense, before when we didn't have the internet, when we didn't have distribution.

But the way that the guideline is now structured, based on that set of circumstances is leading to extreme disparities in the system because it is so easy for people to get volumes of this kind of material now by computers.


CARLSON: Now, we'll just concede upfront, we are not world-renowned legal minds, okay, or even technically lawyers on this show, but we are going to try to understand what the Judge just said.

So, Congress has passed a law saying possessing a lot of kiddy porn is a very serious crime and then an invention, the internet, comes along and makes it easier to collect a lot more kiddy porn.

So, according to noted legal mind, Ketanji Brown Jackson, that somehow makes the act of possessing a lot of kiddy porn less bad. In other words, since the internet makes it simple, we're not going to punish you as much.

Maybe we're misinterpreting what she said. That seems to be what she said. Does that make sense?

If not, it helps to understand in the clip you just saw that Judge Brown was not articulating some legal principle related to the Constitution that we could generalize across our code. She was instead constructing a carve- out for a narrow and specific group of criminals, sex offenders, and it is not the first time, it is one of many such carve outs she has argued for during her career.

In 1996, for example, Ketanji Brown Jackson argued in the Harvard Law Review against sex offender registry laws. Here was her reasoning, quote: "If a community notification statute deprives the (sex) offender of his right to mobility or bodily integrity, and if it makes him the target of widespread community rejection, antipathy, and scorn" then according to Ketanji Brown Jackson, that would be unconstitutional.

Hmm. Why is it unconstitutional? She didn't explain. Is that a sound legal argument? And why is Judge Jackson so fixated on defending sexual predators? What does the F.B.I. think of that? Well, funny you asked about the F.B.I.

This show has just obtained an e-mail from the F.B.I.'s Los Angeles Women and Black Affairs Committee. That's some group within the F.B.I. You're seeing that on your screen right now.

This was sent out to every F.B.I. agent in the F.B.I.'s LA field office on March 11th, this month. It is an invitation to "A Nomination Party for Ketanji Brown Jackson." Join us for quote "lots of celebrating," the invitation reads.

Now, the party was set for March 23rd, that's tomorrow in an F.B.I. conference room.

Kristi Koons Johnson, the Assistant Director in charge of the LA field office, is the featured speaker. Huh? This is a nominee. This is someone who doesn't have the job, whose nomination is, by definition, a political question. The Senate votes on it, that's in the Constitution, by the way and the F.B.I. is weighing in with both feet on their choice, which is Ketanji Brown Jackson.

So, we should tell you the next day, the F.B.I.'s Diversity and Inclusion Office issued what it called an update, quote: "The F.B.I. must remain neutral in all political nomination and confirmation processes. Accordingly, a party for any nominee in F.B.I. space would be inappropriate. (We) apologize for any misunderstanding surrounding the publicity for this event."

Misunderstanding surrounding the publicity, not that we did it, but the use of how misunderstood the publicity -- no, there was no publicity. We just read the invitation.

The update included a new flyer for the same party that removed any mention of Brown Jackson. It's not a misunderstanding. They just said out loud what everyone already knows, the F.B.I. is a political force and it has decided they are on the side of Ketanji Brown Jackson.

So if you've got the White House and the Congress and the F.B.I., our three main power centers behind Ketanji Brown Jackson, she'll probably get the job. Sorry.

But we'd still like to see your LSAT score.

Clay Travis is the founder of "Outkick." He joins us tonight. Clay, thanks so much for coming on.

So why so touchy? I mean, the last guy who was nominated before the Court, they asked him forensic questions about his sex habits, his drinking. I mean, why is it so radical to ask what your test score was to get into Harvard Law School? How is that out of bounds?

CLAY TRAVIS, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, if it's fair to ask people about what their high school blurbs meant in their yearbooks, it would seem like it is fair to examine many different backgrounds, particularly as they relate to your professional career.

I mean, let's not understate how insanely absurd the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were, Tucker. They were going line by line through every word in the yearbook asking him like all these different -- now for anybody who has ever seen a high school yearbook before, they were asking him about all the inside jokes, what did this line mean? What did that line mean?

I mean, he pulled out -- it is unbelievable that he had a calendar as detailed as he did tracking everything that he did over the course of the summer and his life. But Tucker, I don't see how anyone can complain about any question relating to Ketanji Brown Jackson, based on the standard that they put in place for Brett Kavanaugh.

And in particular, I want to go to the Josh Hawley data that you cited there, the opinion that he was quizzing her on. This is when she was a Judge. Effectively what she argued in response to Senator Hawley is this, Tucker, child pornography laws are too strict for child pornographers. They deserve the benefit of technology so that they don't have to go to prison as long as everyone was suggesting that they should have in the 1980s and the 1990s. This is her reasoned legal judgment.

Are there any people out there right now who are parents, that are thinking to themselves: You know what? Now that it's way easier to disseminate child pornography on the Internet, I think the people who have massive amounts of child pornography should have more lenient treatment from sentencing from Judges. This makes no sense.

I'd also point out another part of that discussion, Tucker, that I believe deserves a lot of attention. She gave a lenient sentence to an 18-year-old in possession of child pornography. She said he was close in age to the children that were pictured in his child pornography collection.

The children pictured were eight years old, Tucker. Do you believe that an 18-year-old has very much in common with an eight-year-old in terms of their one being an adult, the other being in the third grade? These are not similar people?

And so I think these are very real questions that go to her reasonableness to sit on the Highest Court in the land and I think, we deserve a robust questioning of her and the argument that this is somehow out of bounds, is wildly outlandish given what we just saw in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings four years ago.

CARLSON: Right, it is a Greta Thunberg play. It's like, we're going to bring someone on you're not allowed to criticize. I have to say, her views really seemed like those of every affluent White liberal I've ever met.

If you want to Black candidate -- I'm serious, I think the country would get better representation from -- you know, she's just a carbon copy of everyone in the neighborhood I spent my life in, you know, anyway --

TRAVIS: This is what happens to her. They want cosmetic diversity, but everybody to have the exact same opinions, no diversity of thought, diversity of appearance, it's scary.

CARLSON: If you picked a rap star off the street, that person's views would more likely be closer to the views of the average American than the views of this woman, I would argue. I'd bet money on it actually.

TRAVIS: I was in the 160s by the way, since people probably want to know about my LSAT scores. There you go.

CARLSON: I tripped up in college. I am happy to admit it.

TRAVIS: I've disclosed them.

CARLSON: Never made it. Great to see you tonight. Thank you, Clay.

TRAVIS: I appreciate it. Thank you.

CARLSON: So this went essentially without mentioned in the media and that is a shame because a few weeks ago, a special counsel appointed by the legislature in Wisconsin released an interim report on the election of 2020 in Wisconsin, and that Special Counsel is called Michael Gableman.

He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin. He said he found -- and this report shows it in great detail that partisan actors, not government employees, people who are working for the owner of Facebook, had unprecedented control over the mechanics of the election in Wisconsin. It is a shocking story.

We spoke to Gableman for a brand new episode of "Tucker Carlson Today." Here's part of what he said.


CARLSON: So you get appointed to look into the election. What did you expect to find?

MICHAEL GABLEMAN, WISCONSIN SPECIAL COUNSEL: I expected to find a heavy influence of Zuckerberg money that came into Wisconsin and affected our elections, especially in our five biggest cities in the state -- Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha, and Racine.

I expected that there would be influence, but I've been shocked at how deeply and this is their word, "embedded" the private Zuckerberg agents or employees came in actually administering the elections in those cities to one degree or another.

In some cities -- in some cities, they took over the election. Green Bay as an example, Mayor Eric Genrich, rolled out the welcome mat and facilitated the takeover of a public election by private partisan interest groups, who were set in motion by Mark Zuckerberg and guided by the political goals of David Plouffe, one of the two top political advisers to Barack Obama, who wrote the book "Citizens Guide to Defeating Donald Trump" and David Plouffe wrote "The New York Times" a few days after Donald Trump won the presidency.

November 11, 2016, David Plouffe wrote a letter to "The New York Times" and he said the reason that Hillary Clinton lost is because she didn't spend enough time in states like Wisconsin, and she didn't do enough to turn out the African-American vote because the research shows us that African- Americans tend to vote about 86 percent Democrat.

Now, David Plouffe was a man on a mission and he wasn't about to let that mistake happen when it came to fulfilling his dream of beating Donald Trump, and he then was the midwife for $330 million of Mark Zuckerberg's money, and David Plouffe took that money, and he delivered it to this entity called CTCL, Center for Tech and Civic Life staffed with people who literally, within a few weeks of taking a hand in administering elections in Wisconsin, taking over the public task, the public role of administering public elections, the leader of this Center for Tech and Civic Life, had just finished her two-year Obama fellowship.

And she didn't have far to move, Tucker after she graduated from that program, because the headquarters for CTCL, those headquarters are right in downtown Chicago in the very office that was Barack Obama's campaign office.

And so --

CARLSON: Wait a second. I thought that the Zuckerberg effort more than a quarter billion dollars was designed to safeguard our elections from COVID.

GABLEMAN: And that's why I call it a bait and switch.


CARLSON: So you probably thought the government ran elections. You didn't imagine we would guess, that Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire would run our elections. That doesn't sound like democracy. It sounds like oligarchy. That's exactly what happened. It was an enormous amount of fraud. We haven't spent a lot of time on the 2020 election.

But the more you dig in to it, at least in Wisconsin, you will be shocked. We were shocked. We were legitimately shocked.

Watch that conversation with Michael Gableman. It is on FOX Nation.

Well, Joe Biden has sent thousands of American troops to Poland, which shares a border with Ukraine. What exactly are they're doing there? You may not have seen a lot on that. We have an exclusive report from the ground in Poland.

Also, "The New York Times" just accused Candace Owens of being an agent of Putin. Where did she get her ideas? Well, from "The New York Times." It's all too much. She joins us next.


CARLSON: So we've all been so mesmerized by the tragedies on our television screens unfolding within Ukraine that we haven't spent enough time taking a closer look what's happening right outside the borders of Ukraine, and one of the things that's happened is the White House has sent thousands and thousands of American troops to the border, to Poland.

Now Poland is a NATO ally. Of course, it shares a frontier with Ukraine and several weeks ago, Michael Tracey, one of the last honest journalists in this country decided to go there to find out exactly what's happening.

So when he arrived, a U.S. soldier at one base told Tracey there was, quote, "a media blackout on all American military activity in Poland." Really? Why can't we know? Is there a good reason? So we reached out to the Pentagon, they told us this, quote: "We provided media coverage of troops assigned to Europe. That said, we are not embedding journalists the way we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are not providing extended media access." In other words, "Buzz off, you have no right to know."

But Michael Tracey is there. And so we thought we would check in with him tonight. He of course, writes on "Substack." And we're happy to see him. So Michael Tracey, I should just say, you don't even need to respond, but to frame this, you've been coming on the show for at least five years to talk about Russia, you've kind of followed that story, all the way with a logical conclusion.

What are you seeing in Poland that we're not hearing about here?

MICHAEL TRACEY, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST: Well, think about what the Pentagon apparently just told you today. They're not even allowing handpicked reporters, the reporters who would be disposed to have a favorable impression of what the U.S. military is doing in Poland to come view what the government representatives, you know that what the taxpayers' representatives are doing in close proximity to a Hot War zone.

And what they're doing, ultimately, is directly fueling a proxy war against Russia. You know, on this very network a couple of days ago, Ben Sasse, who is this Republican senator that we are told is some sort of a moderate, because I think he objected to the phrasing of some Donald Trump tweets a couple of years ago, he was braying that the U.S. policy must be to facilitate the ability of Ukrainians to "kill Russians," quote-unquote, "kill Russians." And that's the essence of a proxy war, and that is what Poland is enabling the facilitation of by way of the massive number of U.S. troops now that have been deployed to this country.

And so if that's the nature of the commitment that Americans now have, in this major war, you'd expect some measure, perhaps, of transparency allowed, so we can understand as citizens what our government is doing, and instead, there's a shroud of secrecy around these operations, you know, that journalists are not allowed to take any kind of look at what the military is doing here.

There was a congressional delegation to Poland over the weekend by a bipartisan delegation, Members of the House of Representatives, and I inquired with both Republicans and Democrats on this trip, Members of Congress to just get basic information on what they were doing, an itinerary, a scheduled something.

And what I was told was that they couldn't provide those details to journalists because of quote-unquote "security reasons." But what are those security reasons? Is America at war? Is Poland at war? Not apparently. And yet, you know, there is such little insight that is allowed to be given as to what our government is doing here that that secrecy alone should trouble everyone, I would think, at least, if you're disinclined to favor the escalation of this conflict into some kind of Hot War involving the U.S. that could potentially eventuate a World War Three.

And, you know, before a couple of weeks ago, World War Three was not something that most people were willing to entertain and now, it is just kind of floated out there as something that could be inevitable.

CARLSON: I think in a democracy, you are allowed to know what your government is doing in your name, whether you support it or not, and as you point out, we don't know and I appreciate your reporting, Michael Tracey from Poland. Thank you.

TRACEY: Thanks.

CARLSON: So Candace Owens is completely unafraid of anyone, so she is often accused of things. "The New York Times," in its latest salvo is accusing her of working for Vladimir Putin.

A reporter just wrote to Candace Owens quote: "We know you have advanced the idea that Ukraine was a corrupt country, which match comments we've seen from Russian state media."

Calling Ukraine corrupt is Russian propaganda.

So here is what Candice Owens wrote in response: "I'm very confused by this e-mail. I learned about Ukraine's corruption from "The New York Times." That's just one example. Here's a piece from 'The New York Times' editorial board entitled 'Ukraine's Unyielding Corruption.'"

Greatest response ever. Founder of the charity, Blexit, Candace Owens joins us now.

That is just too great. How did they respond to you, Candace?

CANDACE OWENS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I also sent them even more links. I mean, that was just one link that I sent them, but there is ten to twenty links between "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" over the last three or four years telling us about how unyielding the corruption is and really spelling out to us how corrupt President Zelenskyy is, but they've magically changed their mind. So, I was confused.

Maybe Russian disinformation means now for "The New York Times" truth, given the Hunter Biden laptop scenario, which they called Russian disinformation and they now acknowledge is fully true.

Obviously, he responded and said, "Thank you for sending these links." And then completely move the goalpost and asked me whether or not I accepted the official government narrative regarding bio labs and whether they were just opened for research. And I said, this is completely nonsensical. What does this have to do with your initial question?

And then I sent him another link. And I said, is that the official government narrative regarding bio labs? Is it for research? Because you guys also told me in another article that they were funding these labs to shut down previous Soviet labs?

And then he just said, "Thank you for your time. No more questions." Because I don't think he's reading "The New York Times" and doesn't realize how many times they pivot the narrative.

And here is the thing. Nobody believes this Russian puppet stuff. I mean, it's just ridiculous. A Black woman in the United States have never even been to Russia. I mean, I can't think of a Russian food off the top of my head. I mean, it's so ridiculous. I refuse to give it any air.

But they say these things when you arrive at a truth that they don't want them looking at, that they don't want the public at large looking at. They say: Oh, look over here, never mind this person is a Russian puppet, exactly like they did with the Hunter Biden laptop until they were ready to acknowledge the truth.

So I really tried to reflect on what it was that I was hitting at that was bothering them, and really, it was me talking about Zelenskyy. You know, Zelenskyy right now, according to the mainstream narrative, the new mainstream narrative, I should say, is Batman, right? We're all supposed to just go: He's an amazing hero, and he's not corrupt.

And I've been talking about their previous covering of him in the Pandora Papers talking about his ties to, you know, Ukrainian billionaires that are -- that all have a controlling interest in Burisma. That might be a significant conversation for the press to have in a moment when we have Biden's administration egging us on, trying to get us more involved in this conflict in Ukraine and they don't want that conversation to be had.

So instead, they're going with a Black female from the United States is somehow on Putin's payroll, which is just pointedly ridiculous.

CARLSON: Oh, I know the feeling. Russian disinformation.

So the Biden family's patron is in trouble, the U.S. military has to save him, but mentioning that, not allowed.

Candace Owens, fearless, as always, I appreciate it. Thank you.

OWENS: Thank you.

CARLSON: Polls show what is happening in Ukraine, sad as it is, is not at the top of Americans' concerns. Top of their concerns is inflation effects. They are getting poor.

Thankfully, Bloomberg News has some tips to beat inflation. Take the bus.

Take the bus. Shut up, prole, take the bus.

How's that going to work in practice? We'll investigate that tip straight ahead.


CARLSON: Videos of tornadoes across this country, they've hit everywhere from Texas to the deeper south. We're getting amazing footage.

Bill Melugin is covering this for us tonight. Hey, Bill.

BILL MELUGIN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker. Well some truly wild images are coming out of the State of Texas following severe storms and tornadoes that hit the state yesterday including some clips that quite frankly look like they're straight out of the movie, "Twister."

Take a look at this video right here out of Elgin, Texas yesterday showing a red truck driving down the road getting smacked by that tornado tossed around like a rag doll. It gets spun around and gets flipped back up right. Then the driver just casually starts driving back down the road all over again.

That driver was 17 years old, by the way. He just cruises off as that tornado continues to destroy trees and power lines all along the road. A nearby storm chaser who witnessed that incident right there said he let the driver use his phone to call his parents and he only had a small cut on his arm.

He reportedly told that storm chaser, he didn't really see the tornado or think it was as strong as it was before he drove into it.

But that wasn't the only crazy video. There was one clip out of Round Rock, Texas where shoppers at a Walmart came to face-to-face with another tornado coming right at them. Take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [Bleep]. Get inside. Get inside. Run. Run. Run.


MELUGIN: Many of those people having to flee for cover inside of the store as debris flew all over the place. Thankfully, though, only minor injuries reported from that incident. But Tucker, overall, these Texas storms ended up leaving one person dead. She was a 73-year-old woman in Grayson County and also left more than a dozen others injured all across the state.

We'll send it back to you.

CARLSON: Wow. We don't do a lot of weather stories, but holy smokes. Time to get back inside a Walmart.

Bill, great to see you. Thank you.

MELUGIN: Thanks.

CARLSON: Well, from our Let Them Eat Cake file tonight, people worried about inflation, Michael Bloomberg's media empire has some advice for you, proles.

A few days ago, Bloomberg tweeted this quote: "From selling your car to foregoing chemotherapy for your dog, we have tips on how to beat inflation." So just let your dog die, and you'll save money.

Over the weekend, Bloomberg, had some more deep insights and we're quoting, we're not making this up.

"Inflation stings most if you earn less than $300,000.00 a year." Oh, thanks, Bloomberg. "Here is how to deal."

"Take the bus. Don't buy in bulk. Try to lentils instead of meat. Nobody said this would be fun."

So what's going on here exactly? Why are they telling us that?

Well, there are still geniuses in this country and some of them posted anonymously on Twitter. Here's what one said, quote: "You're watching a master level Ponzi scheme. 2020 crash gets laundered through COVID bailouts. COVID bailouts laundered through inflation. Inflation laundered through war in Ukraine. The war and its effects on the globe will be laundered through climate change. The perps walk."

Man, is that true?

Jason Rantz is a radio host in Seattle. He joins us tonight. Hey, Jason, what do you think of this?

Jason is speechless.


CARLSON: Oh, there you are. Okay.

RANTZ: There I am. My apologies.

I guess, I was thrown by the idea of becoming a bus riding vegetarian. So I thought I would focus a little bit on the gas prices since it has been hurting so many people and obviously, I'm going to guess that the Bloomberg editors nor Pete Buttigieg actually take public transportation.

So grab that reusable NPR tote bag to carry those organic lentils that you're going to buy at the Whole Foods and let us actually take a tour of the public transportation system in Seattle.

And just to set expectations from the start, you will never find a clean bus stop or a light rail station because the homeless have just completely taken over. They've set up tents. They smoke fentanyl. They shoot up heroin, and they sell stolen goods at pop up homeless bazaars. Sometimes, they -- frankly, they just pass out.

Now once you actually get on the bus or light rail, you're going to find that pretty much the same problems exist and it comes with a contact high last year. So nearly a 500 percent increase in complaints by bus drivers who say homeless addicts are openly smoking fentanyl and just passing out on the bus.

Now, I reported just a few days ago that a man believed to be homeless was found dead on a bus by a maintenance staffer after the driver had parked at the Metro base and ended his shift.

So this man rode for hours possibly slumped over dead for some or most of the ride of the homeless or passed out on a bus or light rail all the time. So it's kind of easy to figure out why passengers maybe didn't say anything if they saw this guy.

The whole situation, Tucker, has declined since Seattle politicians added fare enforcement to that list of things that they claim is actually racist. So since that point, the homeless have taken over. The situation has deteriorated.

CARLSON: It's just all so unbelievable. I'm against revolutions, by the way. But if you wanted to foment a revolution, if you want to encourage one, you would get the billionaire to tell you in his personal news outlets just forego food, let your dog die, and ride the bus with junkies. That might get you to a revolution if they kept talking that way. I wish they'd stop.

Jason Rantz, thank you.

RANTZ: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So we showed you a lot of tape from our interview with Kid Rock last night, but we could not resist one last clip from that interview on his farm in Tennessee.

The one "View" host he would share a drink with, we actually asked him that, because we're journalists. We will show you straight ahead.


CARLSON: So we went down to Nashville over the weekend to shoot a documentary on Kid Rock at his place, on his farm. We showed you a lot of it last night, just clips. That documentary is coming up this summer. We think it's been pretty good.

But we left out and this was not intentional, we just did it by accident, maybe the key portion of the entire interview where we ask, as journalists, what do you think of the ladies of "The View"? Here's what he said.


CARLSON: Joy Behar took a tumble on -- the pack on the set of "The View" the other day.

KID ROCK (Singer/songwriter): You're like, "There is a God."

(Clip of "The View" with Joy Behar falling.)

KID ROCK: I'm sure I'll tumble and I'm sure I have, but you know I'm still going to enjoy it. Of course, and just like a proper granola-krat, you know the first thing she says when she -- when they turn the camera is like, "Who do I sue?" It's like, God.

CARLSON: Have you met Joy Behar?

KID ROCK: No. But you know what, I'd hang out with her, have beer and sit down.


KID ROCK: We'd probably have a great conversation. You know, even if I tell somebody to go after themselves, or they sat me down, I'd still sit down with them and cut it up. I'm positive no matter -- somebody on this earth, there are very few people I couldn't sit down with and find more in common than we have more not in common.


CARLSON: Really? Even Joy Behar? He is a very open-minded man.

Season Two of "Tucker Carlson Originals" premieres in a few weeks. Kid Rock is one of our episodes.

Well, it was less than a year ago, you may remember that the Biden administration, humiliated and weakened the United States by arming the Taliban and getting out in the worst way possible from Afghanistan after 20 years.

Yet, the very same people who did that in both parties are agitating for a new war with nuclear armed Russia. In case you haven't seen any of it, here are some of what they're saying.


REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): The United States and NATO, we need to stop telling the Russians what we won't do. We need to be very clear that we are considering all options.

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): People talk about a no-fly zone when they can create their own if we give them the military equipment and weapons.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): There is a lot I think we can do to help Ukraine shoot down those Russian aircrafts, bring down those missiles.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Well, if they need more, we ought to give them more.

Look, this is a way to have a no-fly zone in effect to have these weapon systems, the ground to air weapon systems to give them a fighting chance.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If there's a chemical weapons attack by the Russian military against the Ukrainian people, we should impose a no-fly zone immediately.


CARLSON: Shouldn't you apologize for the last debacle that weakened our country and killed Americans? Nope, on to the next. Thanks, geniuses.

By the way, whatever Liz Cheney is for and Adam Schiff is for, obviously every elected Republican is going to want to jump on board and they have. Amazing.

Sohrab Ahmari has not missed this phenomenon. He is out with a new piece on it called "The Return of the Hawks." It's out in "Compact" Magazine. The magazine launched today at compactmag.com. Sohrab Ahmari is the publisher. He joins us this evening.

Sohrab Ahmari, thanks so much for coming on. There was never even a pause to apologize for the last thing they broke, and now they want to hurt our country even more. Why is no one saying, "Stop, Stop"?

SOHRAB AHMARI, PUBLISHER, COMPACT.COM: Yes, Tucker, I'm getting that weird 2003 deja vu feeling. I remember and you remember, when the whole nation and the whole West was being goaded into what turned out to be a really stupid war that killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and ultimately, the outcome was what? Utter waste.

Except this time the war that they're agitating for is not against this little Podunk, vicious Arab kleptocracy, like Saddam Hussein's, it's against a nuclear armed Eurasian civilization with one of the largest arsenals of strategic weapons on Earth.

So how is that? How is that happening? It's very puzzling and it is very disturbing. And I think Americans should have this sense that we've been down this road before, maybe we should press our elected leaders of both parties because it's really a uniparty for war to take a different path.

CARLSON: Well, and if we're going to have a war with Russia, which we effectively already do, shouldn't we get new people to run it? Why would you keep hiring the same -- why would Liz Cheney have another shot at this? Like she has never done anything that has helped our country? So why would she be in charge of the next iteration? I don't understand that.

AHMARI: Yes, so absolutely right. Liz Cheney is the kind of more visible face of it, but there are also people who are inside government who are less visible like current Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is the subject of my piece. Her career is proof that there is such a thing as a pro war uniparty.

Victoria Nuland started her career in the Clinton administration working under Strobe Talbott, then worked as an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney in the Iraq War years, then worked as Ambassador to NATO in the later Bush years, then went as into the State Department under Obama, where she was, in part, part of the Benghazi debacle, skipped the Trump administration, but now is back under Biden.

CARLSON: And she is totally anti-American. So like, let's not put anti- Americans in charge of America's foreign policy. That would be my request.

Sohrab Ahmari, congratulations on the launch of the magazine today. Great to see you.

AHMARI: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Hillary Clinton is still here. She's got big news to share. Of course, we will amplify it on her behalf, next.


CARLSON: Yes, we read Hillary Clinton's Twitter feed and she had some big news today in case you missed it, quote: "Well, I've tested positive for COVID. I've got some mild cold symptoms, but I'm feeling fine." Now can you guess what Hillary wrote next? Now, keep in mind, this is the most conventional person in human history, so she wrote the most conventional possible thing. It is the same exact trip that Barack Obama, Jen Psaki, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker -- all using in the name of COVID.

Here it is, quote: "I'm more grateful than ever for the protection the vaccine is providing against serious illness. Please get vaccinated and boosted if you haven't already."

I keep getting corona, but I am really glad for the vaccine.

Look, at this point, saying you have corona is like telling us you've got a UTI. Just keep it to yourself. We are not that interested.

We are interested in you though. We are grateful you watch. We will see you tomorrow night.

Best evening with the ones you love.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.