Tucker: Big Tech attempting to censor COVID-19 vaccine dissent

close

Video

Tucker: Big Tech attempting to censor COVID-19 vaccine dissent

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host slams media coverage of coronavirus vaccine as 'totally disingenuous'

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" February 9, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON
TONIGHT.

You've probably been glued to the tube all day, Donald Trump's second
impeachment proceedings started. We didn't watch any of it. We did hear
from a number of people that Trump's head lawyer didn't do a very good job.

On a slow day that might be a mildly interesting fact. But at this point,
honestly, who cares? Impeachment? The whole thing is ridiculous. They are
literally impeaching a President who isn't even the President anymore.
They're yelling at someone who's already left the room. It's a farce,
insulting and absurd.

Anyone who tells you the details of today's Potemkin impeachment are
important is probably trying to distract you from something that actually
is important. There are a lot of those things right now, more than ever.

One of them is our ongoing COVID pandemic, after months of hearing that
life could never return to normal until we get a vaccine, we got a vaccine
-- two vaccines actually, but life did not return to normal. Life got
worse.

We were instructed to take the new vaccine as soon as possible, and then to
put on more masks. One mask was no longer enough. Anyone who complained
about that was punished.

Most people obeyed the orders, they had no choice. But the whole thing made
them nervous. How could it not? Why exactly did the rules change all of a
sudden, they wondered? Was there a good reason for that?

When are we finally going to repeal corona law? And what about this
vaccine? Why are Americans being discouraged from asking simple,
straightforward questions about it? Questions like how effective are these
drugs? Are they safe?

What's the miscarriage risk for pregnant women, for example? Is there a
study on that? May we see it? And by the way, how much are the drug
companies making off this stuff?

Well, there's nothing QAnon about questions like that, they're not
conspiracy theories. They're the most basic questions.

In a democracy, every citizen has a right to know the answer. But instead,
we got fluff and propaganda. The media rollout for the vaccine came off
like a Diet Pepsi commercial at the Super Bowl, tons of celebrity
endorsements, not a lot of science. It was totally disingenuous, and
naturally, it had the opposite of the intended effect.

Most Americans already supported vaccines. They didn't need to be
browbeaten in order to be convinced, they were grateful their kids no
longer get tetanus and polio and chickenpox. They weren't anti-vaxxers.

And yet, from the very first day, the way the authorities handled the COVID
vaccine did not inspire confidence. If the vaccine was so great, why were
all these people lying about it? Honest question, and they were lying.
Clearly, they were lying. You know that for certain because from the moment
the COVID vaccine arrived, the most powerful people in America worked to
make certain that no one could criticize it.

Here's Bill Gates' wife on CNN back in December.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Do the social media companies -- Facebook,
YouTube, Twitter, on and on -- have a responsibility to do more right now,
Melinda in terms of getting this misinformation, this disinformation off
their platforms?

MELINDA GATES, COFOUNDER, BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION: They
absolutely have a responsibility. The internet and the rise of social media
has happened so quickly, that really the regulations and the good
policymaking hasn't stayed out in front of it, and quite frankly, it needs
to catch up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Quite frankly, she says, we need to censor people's views on the
COVID vaccine. Now, remember, Melinda Gates is not a scientist. She did not
develop this vaccine. She has no background in epidemiology or any relevant
discipline.

She worked in the marketing department at Microsoft. But she is the wife of
a billionaire. That's why she is on television. It's why she is allowed to
control what you're allowed to say about the drug she is demanding you
inject in your body.

Is this really science? Not even close. It's oligarchy. And all the
billionaires are participating in it.

The tech companies announced early they would not allow anyone to criticize
this vaccine and anyone who did would be kicked off their platforms right
away. And then corporate media took it upon themselves to enforce this
rule.

Just yesterday, CNN ran a story with this headline, quote, "Facebook vowed
to crackdown on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, but misleading posts
remain easy to find." That's not a news story. That's an open call for
censorship, and it worked.

CNN identified a group on Facebook called COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Stories
and the group was exactly what it sounds like, people talking about their
experiences with the vaccine. Last week, that group was in the top 20
groups on all of Facebook. Today, after the CNN piece came out, we searched
for that group, we couldn't find it. Even when we search specifically for
its name, effectively COVID-19 Vaccine Injury stories no longer exists. CNN
shut them down, erased them.

Instead search for the word vaccine on Facebook and you will find a lot of
material -- exclusive material -- that matches precisely the storyline
approved by Melinda Gates and her fellow non-scientist billionaires. And
the line is clear, you've heard it a million times, the COVID vaccine is
morally good. Period. Don't dare say anything else.

So if your neighbor drops dead after getting the shot, keep it to yourself.
Facts like that are not allowed on Facebook nor on Twitter. They've got the
same policy. Quote, "I posted that there were multiple reports of adverse
reactions to the vaccine," wrote one Twitter user, " ... and that the
vaccines were still not fully trialed on pregnant women and kids. Twitter
banned me until I deleted it for false information."

Is it false information? That's irrelevant. According to another user,
quote, "Twitter suspended me for saying that vaccines have known side
effects," end quote, which of course they do. Physicians who develop
vaccines concede that, but at the moment, you are not allowed to say it.

Facebook has long led the way in this kind of censorship. Last year, the
company prohibited users from buying any advertisement that might
discourage people from taking the vaccine or that might portray the new
vaccines as quote, "unsafe or ineffective."

Now in the months since, tens of millions of Americans have been vaccinated
and most of them seem fine. On the other hand, scientists are now conceding
on the record, that the vaccine may trigger a fatal blood disorder in a
small number of people. "The New York Times" wrote about it the other day.
It's one of those stories you should save as a period piece for when the
current darkness finally lifts, and we can think and speak clearly again.

Two of the people at "The New York Times" interviewed wouldn't even give
their names. One said she had been badly injured by the drug, but she
feared she would be punished if she criticized the vaccine in public. In
the picture "The New York Times" ran, she covered her face like she was a
fugitive.

Science can't live in an environment like this without relentless
skepticism, science dies. That's what science is -- relentless skepticism,
and when it leaves, inevitably, it's replaced by witchcraft and
superstition.

Are we there yet? You decide.

The liberal website, VOX recently ran a piece complaining that Facebook
users were still being allowed to, quote, "Make fun of COVID-19
vaccination," and this offended them. Mockery is always the gravest threat
to false religions. VOX demanded that Facebook remove the offending content
immediately.

As an example, VOX highlighted this image which they noted with alarm had
already been shared more than 100,000 times on Facebook, and this
infuriated them. Damn those smirking Americans. Make them stop laughing.

And in a way, it is amusing. Even with total blanket censorship, it is
pretty hard to crush the average person's sense of humor. But you've got to
wonder, if they can force you to stop laughing about vaccines, what can't
they make you do?

Glenn Greenwald is a truly independent journalist whose work appears on
"Substack" and that we hope you'll support, he joins us tonight.

Glenn, thanks for coming on. I don't think you have to have a position on
vaccines -- for whatever it is worth, I'm for them -- to think that it's
very troubling news organizations or the government or billionaires or
anybody would try and censor open conversation about their effects.

GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: Well, we've obviously talked a lot, Tucker,
about the practice of censoring for political opinion, declaring things
hate speech or offensive and the dangers of censoring for that.

I actually think this -- this pretense that they're able, this conceit that
they are able to decree right and wrong, truth and falsity to the point
where they can ban things that they declared to be false is even more
pernicious than opinion-based censorship.

The irony -- think about this -- if this Facebook policy had existed back
in March less than a year ago, that says that if you dissent from the
consensus of the World Health Organization and scientific experts, you will
be banned from their platform.

That would have meant that if you were somebody who in March went onto
Facebook and said, I believe that you should wear masks, I believe that
masks are effective against respiratory diseases of the kind that SARS and
COVID-19 represent, you would have been banned because the science back
then said that you shouldn't wear masks.

Dr. Fauci was saying don't wear masks, they were saying not only are mask
unnecessary, they could actually be dangerous. That's the whole point of
science.

Everything they do, these liberal guardians of orthodoxy and piety is about
trying to make you think that they have a monopoly on objective truth by
calling it science.

Science is a human study which means it's fallible and exactly as you said,
it is extremely dangerous to say that any kind of human knowledge is so
unchallengeable to being discussed that it's off limits from even being
questioned.

CARLSON: I'm worried that maybe paradoxically, their demand that you
believe what they say will result in millions of Americans not believing
what anybody says. This will have an effect on people's faith in knowable
truth. It'll have an effect on their mental health, it will make people
crazy. That's my concern.

GREENWALD: Well, no, and I think that's valid. You know, I agree -- I have
the same view as you do, which is, when the vaccine is available where I
live, I'm going to get it. My family is going to take it as well. Because
the reason I'm convinced not that it's clearly true, but probably the best
course for me and my family is because I informed myself.

I use the free and open Internet to look at what experts were saying. I
sought out dissenting opinion. And I was convinced that the consensus was
probably right, that taking the vaccine was the best thing to do.

But if the internet were a place where no dissent were allowed, I would
have way less confidence in that ability because that would mean this is a
profession that isn't confident enough to allow dissent, and if they're not
confident enough to allow dissent, I think that they earn much less trust
and faith in their pronouncements.

CARLSON: Yes, I think it's a really wise observation. So I have to ask you,
and I'm not sure the answer myself, why are they doing it? If it has the
opposite of the intended effect, and that seems like it makes sense that it
would, why are they continuing to do this, do you think?

GREENWALD: I think it's so important to recognize that Silicon Valley
companies are not the ones who want to do this. They are they -- they would
rather stay as far away from censoring and arbitrating and intervening and
kicking people off their platforms, not because they're noble and nice, but
because it's in their business self-interest not to do it.

They're being pressured to do it, Tucker. This is what's so amazing by CNN,
and NBC and "New York Times" who are saying, every time you allow
information over your platform that we think is wrong, we're going to shame
you, we're going to disgrace you.

And they have their partners who are the Democratic Party who control the
entire government now who are right along with them saying, we demand that
you censor more. They are being pressured, led by journalists, who are now
the leading activists to destroy free discourse and free thought in the
United States. That's the dynamic that we have to understand.

CARLSON: I think you're exactly right. I don't think we can say that
enough. Glenn Greenwald, thank you for that wise assessment. Appreciate it.

GREENWALD: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So last week, we told you, we reported on this show that Bank of
America which used to be a bank has become instead of kind of Intelligence
Agency, combing through its customers private financial records and turning
them over to Federal investigators without the knowledge of their
customers, doing it in secret. We caught them. We've got an update on that
story. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Los Angeles is the second largest city in the United States so
what happens there matters. And right now, the City of Los Angeles is
teetering on the edge of collapse and many are dying. Why? Because of bad
decisions by its leaders, destructive decisions.

South Los Angeles so 59 shooting victims for example in the first two weeks
of this year. Last year, at the same time before the city defunded the
police, there were seven murders. That's a massive increase. Dead people
because of bad decisions.

Meanwhile, the new District Attorney of Los Angeles, George Gascon has
refused to enforce laws including against violent crime. That may shock
you, it doesn't shock George Soros who paid for his campaign. That's what
he wanted.

But tonight, a Judge has stepped into all of this, FOX LA's Bill Melugin
has more on that story for us tonight. Hey, Bill.

BILL MELUGIN, REPORTER, FOX LOS ANGELES: Hey, Tucker, good evening to you.
That's exactly right. Our new progressive District Attorney here in LA
George Gascon suffered a pretty major setback in court yesterday. That's
when a Judge ruled that some of his new progressive reforms are not only
illegal, they are also unethical.

So if we can pull up some video right now, I'll explain starting with his
policy on California's three strikes law. California's three strikes law
was voted in overwhelmingly by California voters back in the 1990s and the
strikes law essentially allows prosecutors to seek harsher sentences for
repeat criminal offenders.

And on day one in office, George Gascon issued a directive to all of his
prosecutors saying we are not going to enforce the three strikes law
because it's my opinion that it is racist and it is unconstitutional. He
then started forcing his prosecutors to read a statement in court,
essentially agreeing with his legal opinion, and the Prosecutor Union had a
big problem with that, so they sued him. They essentially sued their own
boss.

And yesterday a Judge ruled against George Gascon and sided with the
Union's writing in part quote, from James Chalfant, the Judge, "The
District Attorney's disregard of the three strikes law plead and prove
requirement is unlawful as is requiring Deputy DAs to seek dismissal of
pending sentencing enhancements without a lawful basis. The special
directive statement that prosecutors are required to read in court is
legally inaccurate and incomplete, and reading this statement in court
without correction is unethical."

So a big loss for Gascon on that. The Judge went on to issue an order
restricting George Gascon from not following the three strikes law. He says
just because it's your opinion that you don't want to enforce it doesn't
mean you can't not enforce it so Gascon must now start enforcing it.

I talked to the Vice President of the DA Union out here, they said they
were relieved by this ruling from the Judge. They feel vindicated. And they
say George Gascon's directives were causing a big problem for them. Take a
listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it kind of put us in this impossible position, do we
follow his directives or do we follow the law? And the court clearly said,
well, you need to follow the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELUGIN: And George Gascon released a statement yesterday in response to
all of this saying he knew he was going to have a tough job trying to
change what he says is an outdated racist system here in Los Angeles of
mass incarceration. He says he plans to appeal this decision to a higher
court -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Bill, thanks for that report. One of the great reporters in the
state that badly needs more of them.

Well, last week, we told you that one of the largest and oldest banks in
the country, Bank of America founded by A. P. Giannini is no longer really
a bank, it is now kind of an Intelligence Agency spying on its customers
without telling them, turning information over to the Feds.

We obtained proof that Bank of America scanned through its customers'
private financial records back in January and turned the information over
to Federal investigators, once again, without telling its customers.

The bank was looking for people who did among other things, rented hotel
rooms in Washington in January, people who made purchases in January in
Washington, D.C., and people who bought plane tickets. What's the point of
this?

Well, Bank of America when we asked them said they wouldn't comment on
communications with law enforcement -- that was not reassuring -- and told
us the bank has quote, "Responsibilities under Federal law to comply with
police inquiries." That's not technically true. In fact, what they did may
be illegal.

But here's the interesting part. Since our story aired last week, Bank of
America has not provided any further explanation for the spying we know
they did on their own customers for political reasons. And as far as we
know, despite the fact this is a big story, no politician in either party
has bothered to ask Bank of America.

So it is okay that one of America's largest financial institutions is now
spying on people. And by the way, Bank of America may not be the only one.
They're the only one we've caught so far.

Should you be concerned about any of this? Victor Davis Hanson is a fellow
at the Hoover Institution. He has thought about this subject fairly deeply
and joins us tonight.

Professor, thanks a lot for coming on. Should we be worried about this?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Thank you.

CARLSON: That Bank of America is spying on its customers?

HANSON: Yes, because it suggests that the quietude might reflect that there
are other people doing it more than we were aware of. And it's sort of also
disturbing because we always thought that the corporation, the financial
institution was wary of the left, and that wanted to be bipartisan in its
consumer base.

But when it starts to help an investigation of a particular ideological or
perceived ideology, then it's kind of scary.

Remember, Tim Cook at Apple during the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, the
deceased shooter who killed 14 Americans, radical Islamic terrorist, the
F.B.I. went to court to ask Apple to unlock his data on his iPhone for the
investigations, and they refused. They said, we can't do that because we
have to reassure our consumer base that their iPhone data is sacrosanct.

And so this is -- it's not consistent. That's what's also worrisome. Do
they pick some groups to spy on or surveil or turn over their private data,
knock groups, we need it -- we need to know that.

And I think people -- it's kind of scary Tucker, because in this huge
octopus that we're facing now of Silicon Valley, traditional media, social
media, professional sports, entertainment, Hollywood, we always thought the
corporation and the financial institution was wary of surveillance or the
left because it was afraid of, you know, the impairment of free market
capitalism.

But when you start to have the corporate boardroom or the financial
institution giving the impression that it might have an ideological basis
for some of its investigations, that's pretty scary and it shows you that
wokeness is -- if that's the right term -- is everywhere now.

CARLSON: I mean this --

HANSON: In every institution of power and influence in American society.

CARLSON: This investigation is transparently political, of course, they
didn't conduct anything like this when Antifa and Black Lives Matter burned
a dozen cities this summer, nothing like this.

HANSON: Yes.

CARLSON: If Apple were participating in this kind of surveillance, of
course, you would have no privacy at all. That would be truly horrifying
and truly invasive.

Why are no politicians demanding that Tim Cook explain whether or not Apple
is cooperating with the Department of Justice to spy on Americans?

HANSON: I don't know that answer, but I think the politicians of both
parties because these five or six companies -- Google, Apple, Twitter,
Facebook -- they have about $6 trillion in market capitalization. We've
never seen such money aggregated in a 50-mile radius, and they've used it
quite promiscuously.

Remember, Mark Zuckerberg, $350 million. So it's not just that they're
going to give the one politician or one candidate, they have the means to
alter an election by getting out the vote or giving money to government
officials in a particular precinct.

I think people are having an ad campaign or spending -- helping to spend
$100 million in Georgia. I think people are frightened of them, and they
also maybe -- to give Tim Cook the benefit of the doubt, he is on record
that Apple would never do that because he resisted the demands of his own
government that was investigating a mass murder and a radical Islamist
ideology.

And would he be what -- tough on the F.B.I. that was investigating mass
murder and not so tough on people who, you know, went into the Capitol,
although there were five people killed, so I don't know the answer. But I'm
very worried because I think that the average citizen looks around at this
panopticon and every -- get -- use Facebook, do Twitter, turn on the NBA,
you know, look at your investments. Look at your bank, and it's all now
coalesced.

Remember this "Time" Magazine's recent issue, the history of the shadow
campaign where they boasted about the power of this collusionary effort.
It's really -- I think people have got to wake up. It's dangerous.

CARLSON: It is dangerous. Victor Davis Hanson, I appreciate it. Thank you.

HANSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: The one member the United States Senate, by the way, who might be
pressing the Big Tech companies on these questions and the banks is Josh
Hawley of Missouri. Nobody has been attacked more aggressively in the last
six weeks than Josh Hawley.

Is it possible they tried to take Josh Holley offline because they knew he
is the one guy to ask those questions? I don't know.

This is the moment of no questions though to add to the list of no
questions, the World Health Organization is demanding that you stop asking
questions about China.

We're going to keep doing it though. Questions like: why does Joe Biden's
pick to lead the C.I.A. have close ties with the Communist Party of China?
That might be worth asking. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A man called William Burns is Joe Biden's nominee to lead the
C.I.A., and we're now learning just like the Biden family itself that Burns
has ties to China and its communist government. The nominee to run the
C.I.A.

FOX's Trace Gallagher has details in that story tonight. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker, William Burns
is a former Deputy Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to Russia.

In 2014, he left government to lead the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, a very influential U.S. think tank that has close ties
to China. In fact, one of Carnegie's global centers is based in Beijing.

And during his time as President of Carnegie, William burns brought in
Chinese businessman Zhang Yi Chen to join the Board of Trustees. Zhang is a
wealthy Chinese investor and member of two organizations linked to the
Chinese Communist Party.

According to "The Daily Caller" News Foundation, between July of 2017 and
the end of 2020, Zhang donated between $750,000.00 to $1.5 million to
Carnegie. The think tank says the donations do not support research
projects in the U.S., but some say it's not the money, it is the influence
because while Burns was at Carnegie, it also received donations from the
China United States Exchange Foundation or CUSEF, which is a Hong Kong
based think tank.

But a global research firm led by former Intel officials from the U.S. says
that CUSEF's lobbying activities in the U.S. quoting here, " ... allows it
to play a valuable role in Beijing's efforts to sway public opinion and
build influence in America." And all of this is why Republicans have
repeatedly questioned whether Joe Biden will confront China for its human
rights abuses and unfair trade practices, or allow China to keep cheating -
- Tucker.

CARLSON: Unbelievable. Trace Gallagher. Thanks so much.

GALLAGHER: Yes.

CARLSON: Again, we're not talking about the nominee to run the Department
of the Interior, we're talking about the C.I.A. Director, ties to China.
Insanity. But not the only insane thing going on.

The World Health Organization for a long time has been useful, mostly for
repeating exactly what the government of China would like it to say.

When this pandemic began last year, for example, you'll remember that China
told us the virus could not spread person to person.

Doctors in Wuhan doubted that, but not the World Health Organization. They
were busy praising the government of China on Twitter.

Now, the World Health Organization wants you to know that the coronavirus
had absolutely nothing, not one thing to do with that government virology
lab in Wuhan, so shut up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER BEN EMBAREK, FOOD SAFETY SCIENTIST WITH W.H.O. AND THE INTERNATIONAL
MISSION LEAD: The findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis
is extremely unlikely to explain the introduction of the virus into the
human population.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, it's extremely unlikely. So we're just going to shut that
investigation down. But the W.H.O., like China, itself, is now saying that
really the virus may have come from frozen food shipments from other
countries.

Armenia seemed fine with this. Last night, in fact, Tom Friedman, probably
the most famous columnist at "The New York Times" suggested that China is a
much better country than this, and we should learn from them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": What are they doing in
China today? You know, Chris, do you know that it takes four hours and 18
minutes to take the bullet train from Beijing to Shanghai, and it takes 21
hours to take the train from New York to Chicago, and both about the same
distance.

I can't -- I'll tell you something they weren't thinking about in China
this week. They weren't thinking about some knucklehead. They weren't
spending the week thinking about a knucklehead who claimed 9/11 didn't
happen.

They weren't thinking about some guy who is a QAnon Shaman. I don't know.
They were probably thinking about some bad stuff, with the Uighurs and all
of that. Oh, for sure.

But I guarantee you, they weren't wasting their time on this nonsense. And
how do we do this week after week, month after month, and think we are a
serious country. We are so deeply unserious as a country right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, he's right. There are some deeply unserious people in this
country, particularly on the op-ed page of "The New York Times" people who
worry about some bad stuff with the Uighurs like genocide, whatever. They
have fast trains.

Miranda Devine is a columnist with "The New York Post," a much more serious
person. She joins us tonight to connect some dots and assess what we're
watching. Miranda, I appreciate your coming on tonight.

So the W.H.O. says stop asking questions about where the virus came from.
It probably came from frozen food from like India. And no one in our media
pauses and says, wait a second, is that true? Why does no one pause and ask
that?

MIRANDA DEVINE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Tucker. It's just
this sort of Kafkaesque situation where we know that the World Health
Organization is in bed with China, it's already made this pandemic much
worse than it needed to be because it was lying for China, as you said back
in January about human to human transmission.

It's now orchestrated this completely fraudulent investigation in Wuhan
into the source of the virus with a handpicked team of investigators and
the American representative on that team is a man called Peter Daszak who
is so deeply conflicted. There wouldn't be anyone else in America as
conflicted unless you talked about Anthony Fauci who funded a lot of his
research.

Peter Daszak was actually working with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on
that very dangerous Gain of Function Research into bat coronavirus as he
funded it, and he also co-authored papers with them.

So to have someone like him who has been so vociferously denying the idea
that it could possibly have leaked from the lab is just putting, you know,
the fox in charge of the henhouse.

And of course, it's so predictable that they've come out now, they've been
there a month, they've spent three hours in the Wuhan lab, and they have
declared that the lab is not the culprit.

Well, why are we surprised? And of course, the reason for all of this is to
whitewash China's role, and that's suitable for everybody. That just makes
us in America able to become friends with China again, which is of course,
what Tom Friedman and, you know, all of Joe Biden's appointees to national
security roles, they all want that.

They just want to normalize what China has been doing and forget about the
Uighurs, that's just some pesky little detail if you have a concentration
camp where you're organizing gang rape of your own citizens, who cares?

CARLSON: I think you make a smart point. China is acting in its own
interest in whatever amoral diabolical way. It is people in the West who
are betting it that we should be offended by. I think that's -- I think
you're absolutely right.

Miranda Devine, I appreciate it. Thank you.

DEVINE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So just the other day, Joe Biden invalidated Federal enforcement
of immigration laws in this country. We've got the memos that prove that.
The former Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I.C.E. walks us
through those documents next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Joe Biden tried to end all deportation of illegal aliens from this
country. That moratorium has been blocked by a Federal Judge. Today, the
Judge extended the injunction through the end of this month. But despite
the Judge's order, the Biden administration has still managed to end
virtually all enforcement of Federal immigration law.

Last night, we shared with you the details, internal memos from I.C.E. The
documents say authorities should not attempt to arrest most criminals. The
only exceptions are terrorists, migrants who crossed the border after
November 1st and illegal aliens who have been convicted of felonies like
murder.

But the White House has made it clear that most other felony, serious
felonies are not our problem. For example, the White House has quote
"postponed to play an I.C.E. operation to target sex offenders," sex
offenders. They're telling us that drunk driving isn't really a problem
either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: There's a new
reporting that I.C.E. is going to get some new guidance to no longer focus
on deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of DUI, simple
assault, solicitation, drug-based crimes, among other things, and I'm
curious how that is in the interest of public safety?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Priority for the enforcement of
immigration laws will be on those who are posing a national security
threat, of course, a public safety threat, and on recent arrivals.

Nobody is saying that DUIs or assaults are acceptable behavior and those
arrested for such activity should be tried and sentenced as appropriate by
a local law enforcement.

But we're talking about the prioritization of who is going to be deported
from the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, and you thought DUI was a big deal, you believed MAD when they
told you that, you're a fool, apparently.

The show has also confirmed that I.C.E. officers are now required to obtain
approval from the head of the agency, whenever they want to make an arrest
in the field. We are told that most of those requests have been denied.
That's the point, of course.

Jonathan Fahey is the former Director of I.C.E. He joins us tonight to tell
us what exactly is going on. Mr. Fahey, thanks so much for coming on. I
mean, what do you make of this? It must be shocking to you.

JONATHAN FAHEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF I.C.E.: Thank you for having me, Tucker.
First of all, it is alarming, but it certainly is not shocking or
surprising.

If anyone watched the campaign or have watched the Democratic sanctuary
cities over the last few years, this shouldn't be the least bit surprising.
But it's still alarming, and it's still putting our public safety at risk
because essentially, I.C.E. has been told not to deport criminals anymore.

We've gone to another level on this immigration debate. It used to be if
people were here working hard, not committing crimes, the argument was,
they should be allowed to stay.

Now, the argument has evolved into even when they're here committing
crimes, committing aggravated felonies, they should be allowed to stay and
enjoy every right, privilege or benefit that American citizens enjoy. It's
truly remarkable.

One of the things that's most amazing about this is they do not even want
to deport gang members without proof of gang membership. But they consider
gang tattoos not to be sufficient proof of gang membership.

So this idea that somebody would get an MS-13 tattoo and not be affiliated
with a gang, I guess is what they're thinking. But this is the thinking
behind these memos and behind these policies, which are going to lead to
higher crime rates, and it's unquestionably true in an era when crime is
skyrocketing thanks to the anti-police policies, and other things. This is
just going to add to that.

It's going to reduce deterrents to committing crime for illegal aliens that
are in this country, because now they know they can commit crimes and still
stay. It used to be a deterrent factor that they would be deported.

This will harm public safety, undermine the respect for the law, lead to
further flooding of our borders, so we are going down the road of open
borders and amnesty and that's what this is all about.

CARLSON: All these people's presence is a crime. None of them has a right
to be here in the first place, okay, so that -- I mean, that's sort of the
more basic crime, I would say.

Really quick, why would you suspend an operation designed to catch sex
offenders?

FAHEY: Well, if you read on -- my understanding of the second memo is the
only people under this public safety prong are the people that were in
custody at the time the memo was written. So these people that are
fugitives and sex offenders don't even fall within this public safety
exception.

So they cannot go out and arrest him, if my understanding of the memo is
correct. So why would they do that? I have no idea. It defies any logic or
reason. It puts our communities at risk.

But again, it is all about open borders, amnesty, keeping as many people in
the country as possible. And this is, I think this is just the tip of the
iceberg, Tucker.

We're going to see more of this and we're going to have some crime victims
that are going to be, you know, we know it could have been prevented now
and there are going to be crime victims and what's the explanation going to
be to them?

CARLSON: It's all beyond belief. Jonathan Fahey, I appreciate your coming
on. Thank you.

FAHEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: So Planned Parenthood makes a ton of money from abortion. Now,
they have a new plan. They're getting involved in transitioning people's
genders. Planned Parenthood, the very center of that debate, Abigail Shrier
is here to explain their role, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Planned Parenthood is America's number one provider of abortions,
but pregnancy rates are declining dramatically. So now, Planned Parenthood
has another revenue stream: kids who identify as transgender.

One Planned Parenthood employee put it this way very bluntly, quote, "Trans
identifying kids are cash cows, and they're kept on the hook in terms of
follow-up appointments, blood work, meetings, et cetera. Whereas abortions
hopefully, are a one and done situation."

You probably might want to know about this. Abigail Shrier knows a lot
about it. She is the author of "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze
Seducing Our Daughters." She's a brave voice. She joins us tonight.

Abigail, thanks for coming on.

ABIGAIL SHRIER, AUTHOR, "IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE": Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Planned Parenthood is involved -- outline this for us, if you
would.

SHRIER: Sure. In the last decades, you know, as you said, the rates of
abortion have plummeted in America. It's the lowest they've been since 1973
when Roe v. Wade was decided.

So Planned Parenthood, which has, you know, a large infrastructure to
support has found a second revenue stream that is incredibly lucrative. As
you said, these young girls become lifetime patients once you medically
transition, you become a lifetime patient and the drugs are extremely
expensive.

CARLSON: So Planned Parenthood takes a huge amount of Federal money. Does
any of that money wind up as part of this revenue stream?

SHRIER: I don't know. But I can tell you that, you know, this is something
that has gone from, you know, 26 clinics were providing testosterone at
Planned Parenthood clinics were providing testosterone only five years ago;
now 210 Planned Parenthood clinics provide testosterone. So it is clearly a
very big business for them.

And they claim on their website to be the second largest provider of
hormone treatments for trans-identified people.

CARLSON: So we spend a lot of time talking about the trans question. We're
lectured a lot about it, I think most people, including me have very little
idea of what it means medically. You said that this is a long term
commitment between the patient and the healthcare provider. What do you
mean by that exactly?

SHRIER: Well, to maintain the effects of something like testosterone, you
need to stay on it. Otherwise, you will end up in this in-between looking
state. For a woman to maintain the effects, the secondary sex
characteristics of a man, she needs to stay on massive, massive doses.

Now, that doesn't mean that some of the effects aren't permanent, many of
them are, but she still has to maintain that appearance and she has to keep
coming in for checkups to look at her blood levels.

Now that said very often these teenagers who come in at 18, and yes, far
below 18, depending on the state to a Planned Parenthood clinic, very often
they never see a doctor.

CARLSON: I mean, I think we know that there are long term health effects of
flooding your body with hormones that you don't naturally produce. Do we
know what the long term effects of this might be?

SHRIER: Well, some of them include infertility, vaginal and uterine
atrophy. They're at risk of cardiac events, you know, and of course, the
great unknown which is that we've never done this to biological women for
decades, and that's what we're doing now.

So we really don't know all of the long term effects.

CARLSON: Man, this is a conversation I think the country really needs to
have, and I'm grateful that you're forcing it in some way, at great expense
to yourself. So thank you for doing that. Thanks for coming on tonight.

SHRIER: Thank you.

CARLSON: So it's been a pretty heavy show. Sorry about that. We tried to
lighten it up at some point, it is a little relentless. Tonight, it
certainly was. So we're going to end with this.

Rod Ponton is county attorney in Presidio County, Texas, and today, he had
a little difficulty during a virtual hearing before a Texas District Court
Judge. Here's what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE ROY FERGUSON, PRESIDIO COUNTY, TEXAS: Mr. Ponton, I believe you have
a filter turned on in the video settings. You might want to find out.

ROD PONTON, COUNTY ATTORNEY, PRESIDIO COUNTY, TEXAS: Can you hear me,
Judge?

FERGUSON: I can hear you. I think it's a filter it and --

PONTON: It is and I don't know how to remove it. I've got my assistant
here, she is trying to, but I'm prepared to go forward with it. I'm here
live. It's not that -- I'm not a cat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "I am not a cat." Probably the best line ever from a lawyer in
American history, "I am not a cat." He took it well in the end.

The lawyer told reporters quote: "If I can make the country chuckle for a
moment in these difficult times they're going through, I'm happy to let
them do that at my expense." In other words, the American spirit is not
dead. It's just slightly more feline than normal. We appreciate that.

Thanks for joining us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow and every night at
8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying pomposity, smugness and
groupthink.

Buckle up, it's going to get better.

In the meantime, Sean Hannity takes over 9:00 p.m. right now.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: The cat is a star. That's all there is
to it.

CARLSON: It was good.

HANNITY: All right, Tucker, thank you.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may
not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the content.