but i feel more sorry for the family that you had on, that lost one of their loved once by the hands of an illegal . >> we'll be right back tomorrow, actually. that's all for tonight. we'll see you tomorrow. tucker carlson. >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" the president made his cation for why america needs a wall on his southern boarder and why that wall is so personality that he's shutting down the federal government to get t. democrats remain removed by the address. and democrats, chuck shouper and nancy pelosi, their words were echoed with mechanical precision up and down the chain, granting a members of congress, and down to the lady muttering in the dog park.

it's like watching a 3d printer at work, turning out carbon copies of propagand a one after the other, after the other. a miracle of replication. you might even call the democratic response manufactur manufactured. >> this is a manufactured crisis and a crisis that is manufactured by the trump administration. >> this is a manufactured crisis, bill. >> how he manufactures crises like immigrants, seeking legal refuge. >> what the president is doing, is manufacturing a crisis. >> president trump must stop holding americans hostage and stop manufacturing a crisis. >> this president just used the backdrop of the oval office to manufacture a crisis. >> so they brought back manufacturing. what about the press? democratic leaders saying t reporters are saying it, too. no matter what it is, you often complain that your conservatives are liberal, that's giving them

far too much credit away. they really are, are obed iant. if nancy pelosi called for invading canada tomorrow, all the news anchors would be telling you how ottawa is the real 38. they're flunkies, human flunkies, doing their job at work. >> folks, the president has manufactured one heck of a political crisis for himself. >> donald trump has manufacture aid crisis. >> this is a manufactured crisis. it's not a national security crisis. >> from nancy pelosi, down to debbie watson shutter. anyone who will give him a dime for this project. >> it's a manufactured crisis for the president to get a political end. >> we have a president who will go on tv tonight and lie and lie and lie some more, this is a manufactured crisis. >> they're so dumb. they have no self-respect. so we showed you the minds of the lies they are telling. a what are democrats proposing

as an alternative to the border wall. last week on january 3, house democrats passed their own proposal, they say will secure our southern border. what's what's in it? what would it do? nothing that's not being done already. democratic bill provide it is the same funding for partial fencing, hiring more customs office, so forth, that we already v. a democratic border security plan is the status quo. democrat's argument is things were just -- work just fine right now. instead of spending another dollar to secure the border, democrats and congress have proposed spending another $12 million to investigate reparations for slavery, just to give you proportion in the sense of their priorities. so democrats, everything is more important than border security. that will be fine if our current security was working. it's not. in fact, it's likely that more than 20 million people already live illegally in our country right now. that's more than two and a half times the entire population of

new york city and the actual number maying bigger than that. we don't really know and that's the point. it's totally out of control. the problem is border patrol doesn't have the right technology to do the job, the problem is politicians don't care to fix it and if they did, they could solve the problem in an afternoon. borders are not that complex. it's not like we're trying to cure pan creatic cancer here. our best minds are stumped. hardly. it works for israel right now and a lot of other places. walls work. that's why people still built them. everybody knows that. this is all a charade and we should at least admit what's happening q. what you saw last night were not two parties bickering over the best way to solve a shared problem. no, in this characters one side's problem is the other side's solution. for democrats, a porous board serai good thing. good thing. means low wage whoa for their

donors that's correct deeply appreciated, more compliant the voters for them to, replace the millions of actual americans they have alienated. then there's the emotional payoff of the whole thing. democrats feel good about let in poor people from around the world. these are people who don't make a lot complicated demands about healthcare or unfunded dental -- they are not whiney like americans. they are not living reminders of how politicians failed to fulfill their promises they were just grateful to be here . they're immigrants. democrats love people like that. they have come to love them much more than they love you. congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez said that out loud last night. >> the women and children on that board that are trying to seek refuge, and seek opportunity in the united states of america, with nothing but the shirt on their backs, are acting more american than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be. >> so people who show up here

and ignore our laws are more american than you are. that's how democrats feel. keep that in mind, as you watch this debate. >> former head of the border patrol under barack obama was then replaced by the trump administration and we're glad to talk to him the second time this week thanks so much for coming back. when you hear the term "manufactured crisis" from politicians and their lack use in the press, what is your sponse. >> my sponse s anybody that says that, tucker is misinformed and they're misleading the american people. so before i was even chief of board patrol, i served on the f.b.i. for two decades. one of my assignments was the el paso office. i could see juarez. we worked the d.e.a. and all components and worked human trafficking cases, drug cases and we worked drug and gang cases, all impacting the

southern border every single day, tucker, i was briefed. men and women are risking their lives every day and apprehending rapists, murderers, rapists, gang members. that is not manufactured, that's real, it's a fact and still happening today. one last point is 127 border patrol agents have died. they didn't die playing monopole. they died, defending, being the frontline defenders of our borders, trying to apprehend 17,000 people, the bad people, that secretary neil sen mentioned. i wondered if he asked their families if this was a manufactured crisis. >> tucker: i do ask that. and wonder what people serving on the backgrounds of all political beliefs think when, they hear to this as a manufactured crisis. >> and i think that's the point. self-appointed exports. go to the experts that are really look in that. i'll say, the president has done that. the president is talk border

patrol, and rank in & file, and leaders of cbp and those are experts and staying does work. it doesn't work everyone. it's not the end all to be all, but it works. >> tucker: so i want to run a couple of facts by you that i can watch journalists tell me last night in the fact check segments. the first is drugs don't really come across our border. they come through our ports is that true. >> again ah, complete disingenerous statement. so do you want say, because more drugs enter the points of entry, therefore another not a problem in between the ports. that's just fictitious. it is correct, more drugs, enter throughout point of entry. tucker, millions and millions of pounds of drug, still enter through the ports of entry. >> tucker: okay. i also heard people say last night, basically, no one comes illegally under an unsecured border. there are just people that over stay their visas. do illegals come over the

border, unapprehended? >> i can't believe someone could actually state that. again, there's factual, historical data and that is absolutely absurd. that's false. >> tucker: now, i saw a lot people who have the authority about them, and really seemed to know what they were talk b. last night, claimed every study has shown that illegal immigrants of this country, commit crime as at a lower rate than native-born americans. i've never seen that study. where are those numbers from. >> i've never seen study either and i can posed that to somebody to show me that stat and show me how they can come up with that. because can i show you the opposite. the sheriff in arizona just published an article today, where he talked about in 2005 when, they started putting the fence, the wallop in his area, violent crime, all crime drastically reduced in his area. >> tucker: so you're saying -- i don't want to blow anyone's mind here, but the people that were telling us they were fact checking, speech, didn't know

what they were talking about. >> that's absolutely what i'm saying. >> tucker: i appreciate you, mark morgan, coming on tonight. we're joined with our senior analyst. thanks so much for coming o. i want to ask you about the spectacle not so much of the speech and rebuttals by the democratic leaders last night, buff the until sis that followed. you saw a lot of fact checks by journalists. we do pound on questions of policy, policy should be nonpartisan, really, it should be honest and some of them seemed like they were repeating democratic talking points. is that unfair, do you think? >> what could be a more legitimate form of journalism, than checking the facts of what politicians say? it's necessary and vital even. the problem though in this current atmosphere, fact checking has become a branch of opinion journalism. for example, in the speech last night, the president spoke of a crisis at the border. a number of the fact checks that

were critical to the speech disputed the fact that there was a crisis at the border. let's start with this, tucker. whether there's a crisis at the border or not s not a matter of fact. it is a matter of opinion. one man's crisis is another man's problem. so when you start out trying to fact check opinion, you're obviously off on the wrong foot. in some instances, i saw a facts checked as being a problem that were true. for example, there was a statistic 266,000 people arrested who had come across the border and the "washington post" announced that that was a true statistic. but it was misleading. >> tucker: well, there again we are. >> whether something is misleading or not s not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. butt impassion, the ambition of journalists today that, get in on the opinion game is so strong, that they're coming in through all the doers, including the fact check door.

>> tucker: if you see someone who's a straight news reporter come on and for example, say, the president claims people coming over the border illegally, are committing a lot of crime. looking right in the camera and saying, we have statistic that is show, they can commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born americans when they don't have those statistics because they don't exist. that's a lie. >> well, even if the statistics did exist, doesn't, they don't refute the fact that, people coming across the border commit a lot crimes. the president wasn't saying they commit more crimes than anybody else, they commit crimes and they do and one of the instances is the fact they arrive here illegally. that doesn't seem to be an expensive fact check no matter how you look at development hear this repeated over and over again, the whole montage of people saying manufacturing crisis, echoed by their friends

in the media, the "washington post" itself, which is leading the fact check charge, i think it is fair to say, had a story the other day, at some length, by a couple of reporters that went down to the boarder and came back and represented that there was, yes, a crisis at the border and it explained the numbers that say the number of border crossings or whatever down, doesn't get at the point because it's about the composition of the people who are coming now, that because of the nature of our laws, because what we're getting is families and small children and it used to be, we got just single men, mostly, now, we're getting a different type of group coming. and because of the nature of our laws, it's overwhelmed, our officials at the border and has created a crisis, which i think it's fair to say it's a crisis. but i don't know, tucker. that's my opinion. >> tucker: you always are. brit hume, thanks for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> you bet. >> chuck schumer, nancy pelosi

teamed up for the democratic sponse last night, and net went born finisher ears. after the break, we'll tell you what happened coricidin hbp is the #1 brand that gives powerful cold symptom relief without raising your blood pressure. coricidin hbp.

i am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> tucker: one of these moment that is handlers pass was making politicians look good are going to put on their highlight reel. the president's address to the country was marked by loud breathing. that shouldn't be hard for democrats to top, but they certainly did. chuck schumer and nancy pelosi appeared together. it was a business improvement

ar, and their partners immediately sparked ridicule. even msnbc wasn't impressed. >> tell me why responses are so bad. tonight, this chuck and nancy visual tonight, launched a thousand peoples while they were still talking. there was an american gothic people, there was a, your mother and i are upset because you stayed out so late. >> i don't think they wanted to do it and i don't think they should have done it. and at the staff meeting tomorrow morning, someone's going to get chewed out pretty good. >> >> hi, tucker. it's amaze snag one of the things where the message got lost in the visuals, maybe. >> exactly, tucker and msnbc is laughing at democrats you know you you have a problem here. when you're giving a big policy speech, you want people to be listening to the words you're scathe message you're trying to deliver.

you don't want people saying, my god, alert the authorities, chuck schumer and then pell are being held hostage. they look like hostage victims giving speech. so as you mentioned, there were a lot of hill airuous takes on this, on twitter. have you one right there, as you see nancy pelosi, chuck schumer's face is super impose on the american gothic painting and that's what brian williams was referencing as well. so another one, this is from george p. bush saying we're not mad. we're just disappointed. this looks like you're in high school, and you come home late past your curfew few and they're mad you. chuck and nancy look like they're selling me a reverse mortgage. and this is actually my favorite from melissa frances. blink, nancy, blink. please. i thought that was absolutely hilarious. with the crazy thing about all

this, democrats literally voted for fencing on january 3. clearly, they have no problem against a physical structure along the southern border. so we have a shutdown over something that both parties agreed to, which is putting on a physical barrier along the southern border. so this is literally, the dumbest debate, this government shutdown and nancy pelosi chuck schumer delivered one of the most epic sponses there. and fader twitter fund. >> tucker: i'm about to steal your pointing going into the next guest. >> tucker: so from lisa booth, democrats voted for a physical barrier on our border. what are we arguing about exactly. >> there's a difference between a barrier, a physical barrier,

all right in place and a concrete wall. >> what's the difference. >> there's fencing which trump criticized. he criticized the existing fiance. >> what is the difference. >> i don't know how to leave trump out television. this is all about him. >> he's not here. so democrats voted for a physical barrier. >> right. >> and now they can shutting down the government because trump want ace different kind of physical barrier. what about his physical barrier is more offensive than their. >> i would change it say, trump is shut down government. >> right. okay. i don't even care. what is the difference between what they have voted for and what he's proposing. >> i think it hinges less upon what is there and more about the $5 billion he wants to build something else. they have already voted in support of fencing there. trump actually criticize t. they're not necessarily talking about wall itself, as much as saying we're not giving you $5 billion -- >> why. >> for a wall that would take

care of a third of illegal immigration. it's wasted money. >> so democrats are budget hogs now, and the way, the way -- >> i mean, they gist don't talk about it. >> the tech boom and the republican congress. but whatever, i'm not hire to defend their fiscal continence. but they're upset is so stupid. that's not really what it's about. >> they're not the ones who are shut down government. trump is shutting down the government over the border wall. his his shutdown. >> whoever's shutdown it is. democrats are saying, his proposal is immoral. their proposal is moral. what's the difference between immoral and a moral physical barrier on our board m one doesn't cost $5 billion. >> so it's the cost is immoral. so any time we spend $5 billion

needlessly, it's committing an immoral act. >> it's not an immoral act. this is about spending $5 billion to build a wall, that is ineffective to address the illegal immigration that does not come from our southern border but ports of entry. >> so if i could find another example of $5 billion we spent on something that would not help the country, would you be willing to shut it down. >> that would be problematic. i'm not president. trump is president. >> , i guess what i'm saying -- >> leave to stay focused on that. trump shut down the government. >> in slow motion, dig throughout sea of manure, to the kernel truth of the body, to the sewer filth. >> absolutely. >> so the cost, the nature of the barrier, those are not relevant to going. >> again -- >> what we're talking about is the fear na what trump is proposing, might actually work. that's the actual problem. >> there's no actual reason that it's going to work. >> what will work. >> they lay this out in the

address that everyone was making peoples about. which was funny. they talked about surveillance, rebuilding the existing fences -- >> they find the majority in place. so are they saying what we have is working? >> they offered him $1.3 billion currently. they are offering him $1.3 billion. >> they have offered what bee already have. so i'm just trying to figure out the argument. they're saying it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. >> no, they said it needs to be addressed and the problem s the wall is ineffective. >> tucker: but they're addressing it by not spending more money than we're currently spend ming they offered him $1.3 billion. >> tucker: that's already the plan. so they're saying simultaneously, it's a problem we need to fix. but we're not going to give you more money to fix it? >> if i'm being my most generous here, i think trump has a misunderstanding of our illegal immigration issue. it is not at our southern border. that is not where this is happening. >>

>> tucker: so it is actually a problem we need to fix. >> i'll say it this way. it is a problem. part television at our southern border but the predominant issues he's talking about. is not at our southern border. 9/11 was not caused at our southern border. >> tucker: i'm just trying to get to the problem. there is a problem at our southern border but we don't have any new ideas how to fix t. but there is a problem. >> it's like saying you have a cracked window and you're asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix a cracked window. that's not how you fix t. you fix it with $1.3 billion being offered. >> tucker: we're doing the exact same things we've been doing is going to fix t. but it's not going to fix t. but it is a problem. >> that's not what i said at all. i said the border wall is $5 billion that would be wasted because it would stop a third of illegal immigration. >> tucker: i get that. but i don't understand ask -- >> i don't know what happened way to say t. it's a waste of money because it's ineffective. i don't think trump understand

being our illegal immigration issue and that's why he want $5 billion for a wall. >> tucker: some things he doesn't understand. some things he does understand. thank you very much. see you. l a very wealthy thanks to our economy, and that's been great. but what happens when the country's biggest companies stop caring about the country itself? that's not great and we're going to get to that after the break.

>> robert muller's investigation into russia. and various other related and unrelated topics, feels like it's been going on for a generation now, maybe multiple generations but at should point, it will end. all things end. obviously, we don't know what muller's findings will be. we do know, there are an awful a lot of people from the democratic congress to the entire news media, who use the russia. report to try and force the president from office. that's inevitable. donald trump has an awful a lot enemies. he also has a lot supporters. 63 million americans voted for this president. pretty soon, he will need every one of those people to stand up for him and not just him personally, but for democracy itself, the principle that we chose and remove arileds by voting, not through bureaucratic coups. that moment is coming. will the president get the support he needs to stay in office? so f trump's voters of course remarkably loyal to him. but loyalty is a two-way street.

it must be requited. you stick by the people who stick by you. has the president stuck by bye his certs in some ways, he has b. if you voted for trump m take a step back. how is your life two years later? are you freer now to say what you think than you were on election day 2016? are you bolder and more confident in your beliefs? or are you more afraid? it's a question daymore might ask. the company he work forward, google, often boasted into the free exchange of ideas. so daymore dared to exchange his ideas with others. he never threatened or meant to demean anyone. google didn't like what he said, they fired him trashed his representation so thoroughly, he couldn't find a job. tech entry never, palmer lucky was thrown off of facebook solely because he settlement donald trump for president. how about alex jones.

you may not like him, but he was systematically crushed by the big tech companies just for saying things he disliked. he can't even use pay pal anymore. and he's not the only one. others have been punished not for what they say, but simply for refusing to read from preapproved scripts. peter blaming public school teacher didn't criticize or misgender anyone. he simply avoided using pronouns entirely and addressed students by name instead. that wasn't good enough. he was fired, the crime of having an opinion that most of the country shares. those things happen and they are just a few of the best known examples. imagine all those that don't make the news. how many americans of course fired or denied work because of their political beliefs over the last two years? who's protecting these people? in the business world, virtually, every major company seems to have lurked left.

our corporate herds are openly -- based on skin color than merit at the same time say that out loud. this is unfair and it's deply devicive, it makes americans hate each other. it's also, as a factual matter, illegal. corporations are not a loud practice racial discrimination. there's an entire division of the justice department that exists to enforce our laws against racism. have they noticed what's happen something of course they have. they just don't care. maybe they should find other jobs. there are still lawyers in this country, who care about civil rights, and administration should hire them and set them to worth while they're at t. they ought to defend our constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms as well. christian beliefs are not a crime. discriminating against them is. corporate america out to be reminded of that. what was conventionally conservative, 5 years ago is

viewedad terrorism. meanwhile, actual terrorism by the left goes unpunished. in 2017 ah, left wing college professor, called erik clanton, smashed strangers in the head with a bike lock. why? because he believed they disagreed with his politics. clanton was charged with a felony, but then the charges were dropped and he spent no time in jail. how did that happen? that same year ah, left wing mob in north carolina destroyed a public statue they didn't like. because they felt like t. the whole thing was caught on video. somehow, nobody punished. evergreen college in wash state, a left wing mob, ordered professor wineto leave campus for having the wrong skin color. when he refused, the mob rioted, and he was forced to hold classes in public park. and he resigned and felt he had no choice. the people who threatened winestein were never punished. in other words, they won. violence won. this is all happening right now.

imagine how barack obama would have responded if it had happened to his voters while he was president let's say it's 2010. obama care has just passed and public sentiment against the administration is intense. people are angry. suddenly, it's become inaffect ah, crime to support barack obama in public. you can be fired if you voted for him. you could be punched in in the pace for wearing hat with obama's name on t. do you think obama would have done something about that? hell yes. these are his voters. he's the president of the united states. his job is to protect them and all-americans who want to speak freely. you would never get away with threatening an obama voter for supporting obama. there's no chance. not for a second. the f.b.i. would be in your living room before you got home and good for the f.b.i. if our government exists to do any other it's to preserve the free society that is our birth right.

that society is crumbling. this country is become less free. the administration should fight back against that want they have the power. laws on the book already protect an individual's right to support any political candidates he chooses. enforce those laws. should americans need the approval of some tech billionaire, in order to exercise their freedom of speech on line? we want won't know for sure in the administration pushes back against digital censorship. facebook and twitter, and google would likely respond with legal challenges. let them. fighting for speech is always the right fight. it's also good politics. president is up for re-election in two years and he'll be judged for what he is accomplished in office. will he get a border wall or infrastructure plan? 81s. congress doesn't seem to cooperate on going. one thing the president can do is exercise his executive power to defend the bill of rights, and the dignity of all-american, no matter what they think. let's say the wall is never

built. on the other hand, in november of 2020, the president can sincere say to the country, that he has fought as hard as he could to make certain that everyone in america is treated equally, under the law, regardless of sex or skin color or political beliefs. no, he'll say, you didn't get new roads or airports. you didn't live to see planned parenthood defunded. congress blocked all that. but the good news s you're no longer afraid. you don't have to with us per anymore. you don't live in fear that some corporate sensitivity officer will destroy your career for thinking the wrong thing. can you say what you really believe in public. you're an american citizen. that is your right. if donald trump can crediblely say all that two years from it's still possible he won't win, but he will be a genuinely great president. >> l for decades, the republican party has been proud to calls itself the party of free markets. nothing wrong with markets but there is something much more important than any economic

system and that is the health of people. corporate interest, and interest of american families conflict, you've got to side with american families. seems like an obvious one, we made it last week. we'll continue to make t. one person has been saying this for a long time. j.d. ban, thanks so much for coming on. so the point is not to make an argument against market capitalism sore any company in particular. the point is maybe conservatives, as they think about what's important, ought to put individual americans, particularly, the nuclear family, above all other considerationings. do you think that's a crazy way to seat world? >> no, i don't at all. the way i would frame t tucker, is we treat market capitalism as an end, or we treatise a tool, a tool to create prosperity, a tool to create a lot wealth and a healthy society. i think what a lot of folks in

the past 10, 15, 20 year on the right have forgotten, is, it is a powerful tool, but it is not the end. it is not a platonic deity that, enforces healthy families, that enforces a prosper society, to your point about corporate interest, sometimes the corporate interest who are responding to the market incentives and acting as you would expect a company took is actively going to harm the american social fabric at the same time do that because it's sometimes in their business b. but for example, if a company is pushing opiods into a community in a way that's destroying families, whose side are we going to take? the side of the corporate interest or the side of the american families in i think it's an obvious way tong about t. it's obvious what we should do. >> tucker: so the sachler family getting rich from selling oxycontin s not more important than the health of an entire kentucky county. why has that been hard for conservatives when, really do care about families, are sincere

in preserving families. why do you think it's hard for them to say that, do you think? >> l i think flower a couple things going on. first, so many of the battles in the 1980's and 1990s were about the republicans being the party of markets and other democrats being the party against markets. i think what happened, is we lost a little bit of our mystery memory, a little bit of recognition that libertarianism and conservativism isn't the same thing and sometimes the interest of families do conflict with some of these corporate interests. i really don't think there's going bizarreo anti-conservative about this. the patron saint of american capitalism, recognize this is sometimes. the interest of corporations would not be the same as the interest of the nation, the interest of families, the interest of communities, and in that situation, it was natural for the state, for the society to take the side of families. that's really all this is ultimately about. do we remember who we're fighting for, are we for healthy

communities, healthy families or are we just going to constantly defer to corporate interest, every time those two sides collide? >> i'm worried if we don't articulate this really clearly and act on t that the reaction against our current form of capitalism, will be so intense, we're going to wind up with something really destructive. socialism or some other economic system. do you share that worry? >> i definitely share that worry. if you look at the bowl sec revolution, and what was going on in the world, as the world economy transferred from an egrayian society to the industrial economy, there was a lot war, there was fairism, naziism, communism, and united states avoided it because people like teddy roosevelt actually stood up for american whoa and said, i'm not always going to defer to the interest of the corporate world. i think that's category going on right now in our economy is a

similar level of transformation, we're seeing a lot of people move from an industrial-based economy to an informational-based economy. the question is what do we do to protect the promise of the free market to ensure it continues to be a tool to create prosperity so we can have a healthy community and society, or continue to ignore the fact that a lot people in america are hurting right now, and when people hurt, they eventually go to the ballot box and eventually, some people do things worse than vote for politicians and policies, that you don't like. that's the lesson of history, and question is, do we heed the lesson of history? do we build a modern conservative coalition that supports working in middle class families in it's really to me, the only way out of this it's not just about avoiding the worse consequences of history. it's also about building a society. i think it's better even than the one we inherited, alcohols what our entire goal should be, as people who care about public

policy, and just nation. >> tucker: you're certainly one of the leaders that have effort and we support you. thank you, j.d. vance. really nicely put. appreciate t. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: new york is giving away free healthcare to illegal immigrants. is it a wise idea? we'll get a little deeper into that question after the break.

>> if you're here and don't have money, when undocument order documented immigrant and you don't have money, you deserve healthcare. it's a basic human right. and we have to figure out. >> tucker: it's a human right to provide it to people from other countries so we have an

obligation to provide free healthcare to anyone in the world? i mean -- >> tucker: well, that was paul witman who came on the show yesterday, we're setting a new cat citizen um on the democrat party. anyone on planet earth has a moral right to come here for any reason, at any time and have you pay for their healthcare. period. new york mayer debelsio, is trying to vision that in new york city. watch. >> we have a way to provide direct healthcare to a lot our neighbors who happen to be undocumented, they're still part of our community, they need healthcare. their families need healthcare. this is one universal way to reach all of those folks right now who are not covered. >> tucker: am i misrepresenting what the governor of new york is saying. anyone in the world has a right to come here and has a moral

right to have anyone else pay for healthcare. >> i don't think what he's saying at all. he's not going to calculate in, the influx of people, probably six people, if you can offer free headache to anyone, whether a citizen or an illegal, that have come in and i haven't heard debelsio's plan to, create more doctors, nurses, bed space. i don't know how you not have delays and major problems. >> tucker: i think debelsio say moron, i think he's a marijuana smoker. a lot smart people in new york and a lot smart people work for debelsio. what do they say. like, hey, mr. mayor, this is actually crazy. >> i think the left is moving so quickly to the l. if you recall 10 years ago. president obama thought it was so important in the state of the union strike don't worry. illegals aren't going to get

obama care and a congressman yeted yet you lie" it used to be something you hide, now, it's a selling point. guess what, free healthcare for illegals. i get calls saying my husband is 55 years old, working since he was 14, paid into the system. he had a stroke the other day, i'm trying to get him in an ah, sifted living facility. they say, spend all your assets. sell your house. once you've spent all that on the assisted living, we'll cover medicaid. debelsio is saying, someone is going to snack in the border and get what someone who has put into the system and worked 40 years is get isn't getting. >> tucker: we need to have them on the she want to do a little victory lap for being right. >> and you know, 41% of residents of new york city are

already on medicaid they were already getting government healthcare. it's a huge burden on the taxpayer. i don't know why we're going to add to that burden. >> tucker: so. i see. thank you very much kieran. >> tech booms send their children to -- they know their own devices for children, but at same time, the tech city industry has no problem hoisting those devices on everyone else's kid. according to google. half the country's k through 12 uses google apps to learn. google has donated and acla mating and addicted children to apple product when is they are impressionable. microsoft is similarly, donated

more than a billion dollars in discounted windows products to school. no one's really noticed t. syndicated column nest, joins us. so michelle, this does seem like taking the most vulnerable and impressionable slice of america and pushing products that they're going to be addicted to for life. is it something else. >> it certainly is that. it's not merely the idea of addicting them and is getting them used to the brands from preschool age broadcasters also about data mining. i've been investigating and reporting on this issue of infiltration of education and technology in the public school in particular, for the last decade and tucker, the problem is that the wall, if you will, on protecting family's student date office greatly undermined and sabotaged by the a obama

administration's education part and same through, promulgating rules that were never scrutinized in congress, led do all the terrible outcome that is we saw with title ix, that same approach was used turned mine the federal educational rights and privacy act, which used to require parental consent before personally identifiable information. in other words, your students' personal data was basically, allowed and thrown open for access to third-party contractors. and bicycles are they cashing in. >> tucker: that is so, i mean, i guess i'm not diabolical enough. i never thought of that. this is not simply a way to get kids using the products young. it's also a way to sell their information and do you think that's actually happening? >> it is. and in fact, google was forced to admit that they were secretly data mining student e-mails in

2014. the problem is, there of course few consequences for t. until there is a presumptive and preemptive right ton, n-o, as well as k-n-o-w. and until the loophole that is obama created are closed, until there's an idea, for example, you cannot require students to log into google in order to be able to access their homework, their class schedules and their grades, this is going to go on. oh. the teachers and parents that are complaining about this are just stupid. they don't know they can just merely log off. when in fact, it's been proven and there are teachers, and parents, particularly in missouri, which is really where the rebellion has caught on about this are showing that flame text passwords are being forward without parental and student consent and the thing circumstance the kids, as you

mention, tucker, are captive and held hostage, they cannot do their schoolwork without becoming i.v. hooked onto these products. >> tucker: is there a reason we have a congress that they're not protecting us from this? hold that thought. if you find a reason for congress to exist, they're not protecting us, i hope you'll come back and its. michelle, nice to to see you. a top democratic donor, to suppress republican turn out in the midterms. we'll investigate after the break

>> here's an interesting story. left wing activists, refused to -- -- trace gallagher joins us with detail. >> after reviews facebook archives, the consumer publication, news foundation discovered that not only did democratic operatives funded by technology billionaire reed hoffman, use misleading facebook pages in the run up to the 2018 mid terps but also tried to give the impression the page were operated by frustrated conservatives. for example, american engagement technologies or a.e.t. founded by former obamastration official, mikey dickerson, bout ads for two facebook pages, the daily reel and today's nation,

both encouraging republican vote torse stay home because the election was inconsequential. posting ads like this. everyone else hearing more recent story that is blue wave is a myth? and the republicans are going to win and upset mainstream pollsters once again? or this ad, we told conservatives we would defend their values and they believed us. >> argue congressional republicans facing the consequence of depraying real conservatives? now, for context, billionaire reed hoffman was a billionaire investigator in facebook and acknowledged, he found a.e.t. after that group came under fire for allegedly rung misinformation ads in the 2017 alabama special election, intendd to falsely link g.o.p. sen tore ial candidate, roger more to russian candidates. they have yet to comment.

>> appreciate that, trace. good to see you. fortunately, we are out of time, week go on tomorrow. we'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the sworn enemy of pom possity, smugness and group thing. with deep sincerity. good night from washington. sean hannity watchity,. >> we begin our "hannity watch" on huge, massive political hip ocincrease tonight. now, democrats, you watch them closely, people on the left, they claim to have a monopoly of compassion. conservatives are cold hearted, they're even selfish and greedy because they want low taxes and les government bureaucracy. they say we're mean spirited, wanting to curtail entight el wants. not true. i don't know republican that is want to get rid of social security or medicare. that's one of those campaign lies. or if you don't. >> what comes is a real life or death crisis, at