weno w their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. tucker is up next. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight."nd well, they have got him, finally. traps like john dillinger outside the biograph feeder by the g men. democrats now state that they have finally obtained proof, concrete and irrefutable proof that the president is, in fact, a secret russian agent. >> this president seems to be putting russia's interest ahead of our own. >> the evidence suggests indeed trump is, has been a pawn of the russians.

>> tucker: don has it nailed. as we told you last night we could have seen this coming. the fbi suspected it for some time. the bureau opened a criminal investigation into the president a year allege on the grounds that nol loyal american would fire a leader as impressive as fbi director jim comey. putin must have ordered it. "the washington post" concurred with this as one of that paper's columnist noted trump is also, quote: endorsed populism. that's right. populism. that is the stink of russia all over it. it smells like vodka and day-old herring. people in washington have had their suspicion for years now. but now we know for certain and we know because of the stunning "new york times" piece today. in it current and formerer administration officials speaking, of course, behind the protected vale of anonymity because honestlyf you don't know what the kgg or whatever it is called these days is capable of doing to people who tell the truth. they nevertheless divulge that on multiplee occasions over the last year the president has privately floated the idea of

pulling the united states out of nato. let that sink in. leaving nato. this is a huge story. or would have been a huge story in 1983 when the soviet union still existed and it was still clear what the point of nato was. nato was created to keep the o soviets from invading western europe and nato didd a very good job of that all the way until the very day the soviet union collapsed.t that was the summer of 1991. it was almost 28 years ago. vladimir putin runs russia now. he does not plan to invade western europe. he can't.er so why do we still have nato? well, nobody really knows. in washington, you are definitely not allowed to ask. and that's a shame because it would be an interesting conversation.as remaining in nato comes with significant obligations.co in the 1990s our leaders decided it would be a wise idea to promise countries like latvia and estonia that we would use nuclear weapons to protect them if they ever had a problem with russia. why did we do that?

who knows? point is we did that articlele 5 obligates the united states to protect any nato ally that is threatened. so how do we feel about that now? are you ready to launch a nuclear war over latvia? what do you think of sending your kids to defend the territorial integrity of estonia? a.our foreign policy establishment thinks it's well worth it in fact, under our current rules of membership in nato. we have no choice. you might not have known that. all of this might merit a national debate. at some point when we are ready 28 years in. no, the left isn't in toto national debates anymore. they are in to screaming and threats and criminal investigation and other forms of coercion. they like things the wayrc they are in this country. they are benefiting hugely from the status quo and they don't like being challenged. they consider asking difficult questions a criminal act. just this morning, in fact, the most famous former federal prosecutor in the country explained this view on twitter he said this, quote: if true, trump

should immediately and publicly state his apparent wish to withdraw from nato so he can be promptlypp impeached, convicted and removed from office. unquote. in other words, talking about leaving nato isn't l simply unwise, according to our leaders, it's an't impeachable offense. lot of famous and powerful people in washington think this. watch. >> withdrawing from nato, even discussing -- discussion about withdrawing from nato, i think, it would be disastrous for security. >> i think that act would be so destructive to our country, it would be a ground for some profound effort by our part, whether it's impeachment or the 25th amendment. he can't do that to this country and i don't believe that he can do it without senate ratification. >> tucker: did you catch that? the 25th amendment. in other words, according to saying member of congress, someone there right now.

rethinking membership in nato isn't treasonous, it isis prima facie evidence of insanity. you are not fit to govern if you say that you probably shouldn't drive a car in the interest of public safety. so whatever happened to the old democratic party? s when did the antiwar people d become neocons? when did it become the party of bill kristol max boot and every other discredited hack time to replicate the iraq disaster in nations around the world? who knows when that happened but that's exactly what the democratic party is today. just ask tulsi gabbard a democratic member of congress now running for president. on most questions she is a liberal represents hawaii after all of course she is. but on the question of syria she is skeptical. gabbard isn't eager to overthrow the assad government why? because she worries about what might come next. what might happen to the christians and other religious minorities who live there.. for saying that, for holding that position, she is being denounced today by the left

as a monster. just this morning the daily beast tried to link her to david duke, literally. the dumb people on tv are mad, too. watch them. >> she went in 2017, gloria, this is going to be another01 issue to visit with bashar al-assad in syria. and this trip has already come back to bite her. she did apologize for this. >> she did. how many apologies can you make for bad judgment. not only will she be criticized inside the democratic party, but i think it makes her less effective b candidate. i mean, you know, she can't position her sufficiently against trump about meeting with dictators when, in fact, she has done it herself. you know, i think she has some -- i think she is going to have some problems. >> tucker: that's a new standard in washington, just so you know. let's be crystal clear about this. you are not allowed to meet with foreign dictators. it's immoral. in fact, it might be treason.n. it could trigger the 25th amendment. unless it's, i don't know xi jinping of china.

yes the chinese government murders opponents and puts muslims in concentration camps and yes they are languishing in those camps right now. it's not a huge deal to meet y with the chinese. the former governor of california jerry brown met with xi he praised him as a leader in the global fight climate change even though china is by far the world's biggest polluter. whatever. he may be a dictator but he a progressive dictator.e the left is not against those.in it's definitely for those. in fact, they are role models in case you haven't figured it out. david tafuriaw a lawyer and former advisor to the obama administration and joins us tonight.pa old enough to remember what it was the party of peace and now the party of mandatory war. i'm just wondering why shouldn't we have a debate about article 5 in nato which obligates the united states and all members of nato to defend the interest of other states? so why would -- should would he be on the hook tort fair toler integrity of estonia and latvia. >> there is nothing wrong to have a debate i hope it will

be educational. e it's important to note that nato has been successful in the past. military and intelligence sharing alliance and also an alliance of like-minded countries. you admitted that in your opening that nato was successful. >> tucker: it is. i would celebrate it. >> now, nato is still needed. history repeats itself. putin's russia is knot the i same as the soviet union but it's trying to do some of the same things. it's trying to stamp out rule of law. it doesn't believe in freedom. it doesn't believe in free market. it's trying to spread a vision of kleptocracy that will enrich putin and enrich the other oligarchs.s they are trying to spread it to the rest of europe. >> tucker: how is that different than china only that it is less effective. i don't think russia has taken over africa or latin america yet or the caribbeann' china has. it's only fine to get rich f from sucking off the chinese oligarchs our whole rollinghe class does.

it's wrong not to defend latvia against putin because why? >> you are right. a >> tucker: i know i am. >> nato is an alliance aligned against china in many ways as well.l. >> tucker: no let's -- >> -- comparing russia to china doesn't make russia okay. r >> tucker: you are trying to explain why it's in america's vital interest too start a nuclear war to defend latvia. >> no, i did not say that. >> tucker: that's what we would be obligated to do. >> america's violate interest to defend other did you know tries around the world that have trying to become democracies that are trying to promote freedom and individual rights and trying to promote human rights and rule of law. that's what latvia at other baltic states are doing and we should encourage that by extending that security umbrella to them. which is what nato has done. >> tucker: so, in other words, our kids get to die for latvia because it somehow protects the rule of law for them to too that. i'm asking does the average american understand we are on the hook for this?

i think that's a real question which is trying to be ignored. they are trying to shut down the conversation. >> you have to look at history. if latvia and the other baltic states fall to an aggressive russia, ultimately other countries in europe and ultimatelyll it will come back o us anyway just like world war i world war ii. these are the same arguments people made in favor of not doing anything against germany in world war ii. the exact same thing. >> tucker: i'm not actually making that argument. >> yes, you are. >> tucker: nazis do not exist and neither does the soviet union. i'm making the argument in 2019 which we are right now. i'm interested since you brought it up what european countries you think at risk of being invaded by russia? >> certainly the countries that have recently joined nato. the baltic states are a threat. that's why you brought them up. other countries that are not yet part of nato. other countries not yet part of nato. >> western europe? >> ukraine is not passionate

of nato yet. wanted to be free. and now it isis free. >> tucker: lots of people want to be free. in western europe -- the poor countries of western europe. >> poland. >> tucker: poland is not a core country in western europe. >> you are willing to feed all of eastern europe, even the countries like poland that are our allies and part of nato and say we should only protect western europe? because once eastern europe goes, then western europe is threatened. >> tucker: we're almost done.ed you think there is a plausible threat within our lifetimes of, say, the u.k., germany, belgium, litten liechtenstein, switzerland, spain, portugal, being invaded by russia? >> i'm not saying that. what i'm saying is all of the other e countries in eastern europe, including the ones whoo joined nato fell, n of course te next frontier for russia expansionism would be western europe. that's obvious, iio think.

>> tucker: not obvious at all to me but keep trying. great to see you, david. >> thank you. >> tucker: christian whiton joins us tonight. when did bill kristol take over the democratic party?s did you notice when that happened? >> yeah.tpp it's amazing the turn when this group that used to bezi very reticent in committing the lives of americans, the blood the treasure of the united states to frankly other people's problems now seem to be more hawkish than the neocons were in the iraq war. >> tucker: do you think your average democratic voter is one board with that? do you think the average democrat and even in california liberal places up for having a war over the freedom yearning people of estonia? seriously? >> it's more than -- one thing about the baltics they still have fight this them and pledge almost of spending 2% of g.d.p. on defense. but, look at the expansion.dfe of nato more broadly. we puts montenegro in there recently. people want to put the nation of georgia on the complete other side of the

black sea in to which we are prohibited from putting any significant military -- any significant naval power. the expansion wants to go on. what we heard from your last guest is ape desperate search fr a new mission for an alliance that isth completely obsolete ad which frankly succeeded almost two decades ago. >> tucker: i would be happy for a new mission. i would just like to know what it is. i'm not against nato and not making argument for disbanding nato if we could do something useful with it that's great. i just think maybe we should we reorient from 1945. why do you think it is that the new democratic orthodoxy mandates that we keep troops in syria forever and anybodyt who disagrees with that as the daily beast pointed out today somehow aligned withha david duke? where did that idea come from? >> this comes from yellow t fever over russia. the idea that trump is aha sleeper agent for russia. that russia, as your last guest pointed out to you, isa. poised to you invade western europe out same way hitler

dated 1945. none of that is true. if you look at russia today it has gotten away with a a couple fast ones. large russian population. take in small parts of ukraine and georgia. putin is a bad guy. his economy is $1.7 trillion. europe which can afford to defend itself $17 trillion. ours is 21. russia does not pose a serious threat. it has nuclear weapons. it can do a lot of damage, but again, one thing that really cracked me up about your last guest, the idea that nato would have our back if we had to fight china, belgium, luxembourg, france, where approval of america is at 38%, or germany were only 30% of people have a favorable view of the united states. they are going to help us confront china? they are actually a huge distraction from deterring china. >> tucker: why do you think we never have these debates? it is supposed to be a democracy. don't the public have some a sense of what their obligations are under these treaties? i don't think they do. >> you see senators get up

and preen about their prerogatives. they haven't had serious debates about that and if you look at bothth democrats and republicans up there who go off the deep end when donald trump does simple things like say hey, maybe you're about to spend a little more, maybe it should meet the very modest obligation it has. it's really a foreign policy establishment in washington that's neither really republican or democrat. it's androgynous. all of these people agree, they love doing terrorism where they get to go up if you are up and waxed poetic about 1945 or 1989 but it's not a serious realignment or recognition that we have to makeen choices. we can't be everything tory everyone even with a giantn defense budget $717 billion. we need to decide hot real we need to decide who the real threats are. >> tucker: couldn't be less impressive group of people from what i have noticed i would say. christian, thank you very much for coming on. appreciate it. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: so we learned today that the president is for certain a russian agent of some kind. what proof is there of that? well, we will raise the curtain and unveil the evidence after the break.

♪ chicken?! chicken.

chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability.

then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ >> tucker: during his address to the country last tuesdayed te president noticed something interesting, a lot of richest people in our society have been lecturingca us about a wall acrs the mexican border, that's immoral, they are telling us. even if they are saying that they're building walls around their own homes. it's a good line. is it true? "the daily caller" decided to find out.

he's embarked on a walls across america tour to find the fortifications that surround the homes of our leaders. his first stop naturally was barack obama's house right here in washington.ba johnson couldn't get close to obama's home due to concrete barriers and police officers surrounding the entire area. apparently security in d.c. don't know that concrete barriers don't work.k. t people just bring taller ladders. johnson's next stop was george soros' mansion ins. south hampton, new york. soros has not heard how walls work either. he thinks they still do and that's why he surrounded his own place with a 10-foot high concrete wall with cameras on it. amazing. this investigation continues and, of course, we are deeply interested in what it finds.esou well the geniuses on cable news have spent years speculating that donald trump is a puppet of vladimir putin. and now they know for sure. the manchurian candidate is rea real. a russian spy occupies the oval office. >> the evidence suggests indeed trump is, has been a

pawn of the russians. of putin. >> fact that he said yesterday i have never worked for russia just made you think over and over again about our two previous presidents embroiled in potential impeachments. bill clinton, i never had relations with that woman and richard nixon, i am not a crook. turns out they were lying. maybe donald trump is too. >> where you start to see a pattern where he basically spouts putin's lies then you have to ask the unusual and frightening question about our president. >> why the president seems to be putting russia's interests ahead of our own. >> tucker: if you are watching at home you may be asking how did the people on tv get so dumb. you arehi driving to the studio to do it. your little tv hit and rethinking what i am going to say? and you come up with a line if you think it's kind of clever but you don't run it by anyone else and insteadad you just stadmitted on the air and therefore humiliate yourself. if that's what you just saw justse the evidence we

heardes was, let's see, trump denies he worked for russia, therefore he must have. meanwhile, former director of national intelligence, james clapper did everything he could to deplete the public confidence in the holders of that office. he's very confident though that trump is a spy, because he's not really sure why but he's very confident. watch this. >> it is amazing, it's explosive. but it's not really surprising. it just seems to me that the fbi taking its counterintelligence responsibility seriously would want to look into what's going on here. and it is their influence, whether witting or unwitting, by the russians, over president trump and, you know, in the intervening year and a half or so, his behavior hasn't done much, at least in my mind, to allay that concern. i think the fbi was justified. >> tucker: that's the man who lied to the congress

under oath but he wasn't spying on you but was in fact spying on you. buck sexton joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. a serious question, this seems legitimately irresponsible to me for people in authority to talk like this, to allege something like this, when they don't really have any evidence that it's true. what the long-term effects of talking like this on agencies these people say they are trying to protect? >> well, tucker, there are these very senior government officials that you would like to think going forward any president, not just this president, could rely on for some degree of professional ethics and discretion. ssi mean, when you have a sitting president, as we doav right now, who is being accused of treason, by former intelligence chief john brennan who is being accused of the most unethical wild behavior, being an agent off russia, and the long-term ramifications of that are just that people who are going

to hold that offense, the presidency, are going to say is every conversation i had with this intel chief -- i come from this community. they are supposed to be nonpartisan, objective professionals, kind of a journalist but that's another conversation. they are supposed to beup serving their country in a mission first and foremost and these are political actors that are going to change the relationship the presidency has with these organizations and also your point about the evidence, by the way, we've had now two years of a special counsel, give or take a few months, using the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus in the history of mankind. we are also told that donald trump is incompetent. doesn't know anything and doesn't understand anything. we have no hard everyday ofg him being a russian agent. this is a masked delusion now being perpetuated byis people who should know better.ng i believe a lot of them now don't. i think we have engaged in this public self immolation of their credibility because they've come to believe it. >> tucker: the message, if you take a few steps back, is that

the unelected bureaucracies, the agencies and the executive branch, are morebr powerful than the elected president. that's what i'm concluding. that's the opposite of democracy,y, isn't it? >> it absolutely is and when you saw this "new york times" story that broke the people said here we go once again, russia, trump, now we know the fbi -- the same fbi led by the way has had people fired for cause, by the way, from the top reaches. at least one former senior fbi agent may be facing criminal prosecution for lying about how he's conducting himself. so there's been bad behavior at the fbi but they are pointing to trump and saying because. i remember this is just a small group at the top of the organization. this is not the rank-and-file. >> tucker: right. >> they are saying trump was acting against out national security interest of the united states. so they needed to investigate him because of that. meanwhile, firing james comey is just good business , that's a good idea based on everything that we've seen and also, it's dangerous for

bureaucrats to think that they determine what's national security above the commander in chief. >> tucker: civilian control of the military of the federal agencies is like the cornerstone of democracy. voters get to make these decisions. they elect someone to act on their behalf. and when people haven't been elected make it unilaterallyeh that is not democracy. this is actually scary. buck sexton as always so incisive. thank you. >> great to see you. >> tucker: a federal just announced the government is not allowed to know how many citizens live in this country. you can't ask. an amazing story. one of many after the break. ♪ some say e-cigarettes aren't dangerous.

but science shows nicotine can harm teen's developing brains. no matter how they're exposed. let's do an experiment to find out. here's a teen who won't be using e-cigarettes. now we need one willing to risk their brain development. care to volunteer your kid?

>> tucker: here's a pretty amazing video. actually it looks fake but i don't think it is and it does tell you everything about the modern left. david webb is a radio host anna gfox news contributor, very god guy, by thee way. he recently hosted the cns analyst called irvin martin on his show and made an argument that she didn't agree with, so how does she respond? you know how she responded, she immediately attacked him for his skin color but it didn't go the way she expected. listen to this. >> that's a whole other long conversation about white privilege, if you have the privilege of doing that people of color don't have theha privilege of. >> how do i have the privilege of white privilege? >> five urchin del mcmurtry will being a white male you have

whitee privilege. the whole conversation i don'ton have time -- >> i hate to break it to you but you should have been better product, i'm black. >> tucker: it's just so great! but hopefully we can stop laughing long enough to pause and think a little bit and martin should think a little bit and realize that people should become a must be evaluated as individuals and not ass a member of a racial group. that is poison. it's a cul-de-sac, it destroys your soul and it destroys the country. we used to know that but given the current psychosis gripping the left we are not -- someday they will. a lot of things have suddenly been banned during the trump administration, questioning nato, securing the border and now how many american citizens with. not allowed. a federal judge ruled today the trump administration is not a lot to ask on the 2020 census whether respondents are american

citizens. that's one of many such loan or to court rulings in the past year restricting what the president was elected to do. the judges have also blocked the end of daca, the birth control mandate and of course the blocked too many migrant deportations to count on constitutional grounds with these decisions may? not really. basically political. an attorney joins us tonight to talk about heaven today. thanks a lot for coming on. i appreciate it. there are a lot of ways to approach this question of whether or notot the census can count people who are not here legally, were not citizens, but letrp me just remind you the purpose of the census in the constitution is to apportion congressional districts. so here's why this is a really important question, we think there were about 22 million people illegally in our country, 22 million. the average congressional district is about 700,000, 710,000 so that the equivalent of over 30 congressional seats,

okay? that makes a hugee difference whether or not you count -- it makes a difference potentially of who controls congress, whether youu count people who ae not citizens in the congressional district, so why wouldn't you need to know? >> three points on this. .1 is -- let's understand there's a statutory. guideline, there's a law in place that the commerce department has to make this request three years prior to the census and they missed thatat deadline. so stick, just on a statutory ground they missed the deadline. the court had to root so mike will against them. they have and ask this question the census since the 1950s. it has not been there ever sinc since. the grounds of the government used to justify it was a section two of the justification which in no way, shape, or form passes any muster because voting rights have been in place since 1965, the question has never, ever been asked.

sunil president, no census since 1955 felt the need to use it. clearly it's not what the voting rights says. and let's understand that when wthis question was asked it was used in the 1940s to round up japanese citizens end and turn in internment camps. lily does not know mike that does not meet the standard of 2019 american society. >> tucker: let me just go through these one by one very, very quickly. so using the voting rights act as an argument against it sounds dumb to me, i agree. there's no excuse for missing any kind of deadline, i think that's right. you are right. but it allies the actual debate, which is do we have a right to know who'sur in our country and democrats arguing we don't, as to what franklin roosevelt did to the japanese, that's terrible. democrats should be ashamed of that and i hope they are. the question, again, is do we as a country have a right to know

who's in our country? wouldn't even know how many illegal aliens we have, why shouldn't we know for the purposes of apportion congressional districts whether they are citizens or not? that the key question. and it's a sincere one to you. >> what you have to understand is there's another mechanism for exactlyen that. the annual census study sent to one and 30 households which determines the composition of the country. if not included in census questions, that's how we know there are 22 million illegal immigrants in the country right now. the reason that this is significant is we need to have an accurate count of individuals, of human beings, of live bodies in this country in every district because that's all schools are portion. that's all emergency funds, we have individuals who are afraid to come forward, afraid to participate. >> tucker: we don't know that. >> than they are not going to come forward. >> tucker: there's no evidence of that, that's just a talking point. we don'tke know. >> it's not a talking point. individual organizations have said that. >> tucker: no one has produced

those data, we don't know how many people here illegally so by definition we can't know how many were too afraid to announce their presence. so actually the question is should we try to know whether american citizens are being counted and congressional districts? and they are not. so why shouldn't we? >> what we need to be doing is understanding in the upcoming census we have a $12 million current budget to conduct at census. wilbur ross is already said they need to billion moreai dollars. any roadblocks that are put in place that make it more difficult to have people respond to those census questions, the more roadblocks that are put in place to scare peoplee away from participating in answering the government agent at your door asking about your family is just going to run up those costs. >> tucker: really quick, then why should we ask about race since the senses as you point out was used by the administration to imprison japanese people, why should we be asking about race? that scare people? >> i think that's an accurate

argument. i think that's an antiquated way of measuring people. we have so many people in this country who are biracial. we need to reevaluateee these things but we can't do it when we miss deadlines. >> tucker: i have definitely agree on the race question. great to talk with you, thank you. the list of democrats running for president got even longer today. notge much more impressive. added to the list was new york senator kirsten gillibrand and she's now having an appearance on the late show with stephen colbert. >> i'm just curious, do you have anything you would like totold announce? >> yes. >> and what would that be, madame? >> i'm filing and exploreg try committee for president of the united states tonight. >> tonight. >> tucker: what a suck up to power that guy is. tammy bruce, radio host and president of independent -- i'm a little confused because it was october 25th, less than three

months ago interest in children, said directly i'm serving out my term, not running for president but she was already planning to run then, right? >> you can plan to run for president and even run for president and no you're not going to be the nominee or president so then you know you're going to serve your term senate. >> tucker: that's one way to know. >> so i think she's being honest. i think she has many if not most of these people who have already announced or say that they are going to do it, even elizabeth warren as i mentioned on your show, does not expect to be the nominee. if they expect to be in a cabinet. these are people, remember, these were people who thought they were going to be in hillar hillary's cabinet. so now they're all discombobulated, thought they were going to be in the white house and now this is the next step in order to get there. so hillary's failure has really opened this door wide that nobody thought they would see for another generation. and so look, the democrats are going to be in aar civil war. they already are now. everyone is lining up.

this is like in addition for some other kind of position. this is theiree career. this is all. they've ever done r imagined doing and now the entire field is open so they're all going to go for it and i think they should. the issue becomes was going to be the queen or the kingmaker? is going to be barack obama who taps someone on the shoulder? is going to be hillary or is she going to be somebody you want to avoid?id is going to be alexandria ocasio-cortez? who knows these days but it will be fascinating to yours coming up. >> tucker: the 8:00 p.m. show on fox. our seal of approval is what democratic primary voters look for. great to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: new video shows an advocate telling children that abortion is "god's plan for them." we have that video after the break. ♪

smart choice, charlie. (charlie) no drain, no pain. just tear, eat... and go! try all of my tuna, salmon and chicken pouches.

♪ >> tucker: a new video circulating online shows an activist promoting abortion to young children, literally promoting it. a recent entry in the youtube series introduce children to a pro-abortion activist. in the video we've blurred the kids' faces out. she teaches that abortion is part of "god's plan." watch. >> why did you have an abortion? >> a few years ago i got pregnant and he really didn't want to have a baby. you go to the doctor and they put this little straw inside of your cervix and inside of your uterus and then it just sucks the pregnancy out. and it was like a dentist appointment or something. it's just like this is a body thing that's kind of

uncomfortable but then it was over and i felt really just grateful that i wasn't pregnant anymore. >> what you think god thinks about abortion? >> i think it's all part of god's plan. >> tucker: like virtually everyone on the left, she is an abortion enthusiast. she has the word abortion tattooed on the inside of her lower lip. founder and president of live action joins us tonight to assess this. by the way, has this been in any way tampered with by youtube? >> no. a million views on youtube. >> up and running. >> tucker: they haven't they monetized it. >> not to my knowledge. >> tucker: so what is this video for? >> this video is a piece of propaganda. you have people at the kids meet youtube channel, and there's also video about transgender and other videos that are basically trying to get eight euros, 9-year-old and 10-year-old to be comfortable with things that are harmful and this woman is overly

wounded person. she's trying to justify her abortion to 8-year-olds in trying to validate herself to 8-year-olds about the abortion that she had and there's really two paths you can take on abortion, either it's something that you would knowledge you take the life and you grieve that and heal from that and that's what we hope for for women and men all over the country, or you stuff the grief from you stuff the truth about what abortion related to that child and then you go around like her and to try to get more women to have abortions and you try to legitimize it even to children. >> tucker: it just seems like this is a change. so even people who support roe vs. wade i think historically would be very uncomfortable with something like that, someone promoting abortion, clearly killing, everybody knows what it is, promoting it as a positive act to kids. if you wouldn't have seen anything like that ten years ago. >> i think it's the desperation of the pro-abortion movement right now. they've lost. science shows us when life begins. life begins at the moment of

conception and the unique individual human life genetically distinct from the mother that needs time and nourishment to grow. they said was going to take care of these babies? you have thousands now of pregnancies and health centers pro bono providing care to mothers, young mothers, family and children in the pro-life movement. there's really no argument anymore, no justification anymore for why we need abortion in this country. >> tucker: is there anyone running for president and the democratic side who you think would publicly criticize that video? >> no. and that's the thing, the democratic party is lockstep with abortion extremists. lockstep. >> tucker: if the democratic party was the party of populist economics, working-class economics without cut down like that kind of insanity maybe they would have normal people voting. >> they are going to lose every time if they continue to keep with the extremists on this, shouting their abortion with the activists saying abortions are all nine months, late-term abortion is great, paid for by the taxpayer all nine months. the vast majority of americans poll after poll wants abortion

restriction. that's a fact. >> tucker: it's sad. it's really sad. best case it's really sad. thank you very much, great to see you. ♪ >> tucker: big tech already knows pretty much everything about you but that's not enough, they want to know as much as they can about your children too. a new report from the google transparency project first obtained by this program highlights google's aggressive campaign to have its products placed in america's classrooms. for years google has been recruiting teachers as partners urging them to use google apps in their class and promoting those apps to others. the teachers have received consulting contracts for thousands of dollars. as teachers are one over, their school districts become collaborators in google's marketing scheme and a new jersey public school, parents were told to let their kids "let me see what you did in google classroom today" instead of say what did you learn in school today. amazing this is happening. michelle malkin has been

following it and she joins us now. has there been any pushback? it's hard to think of a consumer product we would be okay with a company pushing on our children in schools but nobody seems to have noticed this. >> there is a building movement. what's most interesting and intriguing about it in the years that i've been covering it is that it does cross some partisan and ideological lines. on the left with groups like the google transparency project campaign for accountability and some of the more vocal anti-corporatization of the school-type groups, they have been flagging it and trying to track down contracts and get more transparency and disclosure. on the right side of the aisle you have a lot of grassroot education reformers were most concerned about family and parental autonomy. and so when there are nuggets like there are in this latest report that talk about how sergey brin, the google cofounder's mother was advising

people in these training sessions how to circumvent objections by the school district and by parents and creating gmail accounts, by ignoring the objection and having students create dummy accounts, it raises all sorts of privacy questions as we talked about last week with a data mining. but also public safety. and i've interviewed parents in missouri, moms were teachers who are alarmed at the fact that they can't turn off the tracking when it comes to you two browsing habits, when it comes to using google chrome books letter issued by the schools that then can gather information on servers within the home, collecting mad medical data. it's outrageous and you asked last week when we talked about this where is congress? a lot of congress members of course take a lot of google money so the plain fact is they are bought off. >> tucker: help bought off could they be when there is mounting evidence that technology like this harms children -- the suicide rate for

kids obviously as you know is way up and then ignore that because they're taking money? just seems completely irresponsible. >> it is. in a lot of cases i think some of these congressional members are completely insulated from a problem or they ignore the fact that it's happening to their own kids. there's a lot of hypocrisy as well. not only among a lot of these google and silicon valley officials who ban their own kids from using social media, as you mentioned, but also the disconnect i think between the beltway and the actual real harm that's occurring in the vulnerability that so many of the students face. >> tucker: you are overly great explainer of this problem. we appreciate it. thank you so much. >> i appreciate it. google should be d platform from a public schools. >> tucker: amen, that's for sure. the president has made a priority that many companies still tax american goods more than we taxpayers. hard to believe it still happens, it does. if one member of congress says he's got an idea for how to fix

that. he joins us after the break. ♪

.

♪ >> tucker: the one thing that nobody ever says aboutve china, but that everybody in asia knows very well, is that it is an ethnostate. it is chinese and the fascist central government plans to keep it that way byy force if necessary.

ethnic minorities in china are harassed and sometimes killed. at this moment, china is holding muslims in concentration camps. in china, diversity is not considered strength.en it could be the most racist country in the world but that doesn't mean china is above calling other countries racist t if they can get something from it they are angry at the canadian government for arresting the cfo of china's largest telecom company. they arrested several canadiansy in china and accused them of crime.le when canada protested this they knew how to respond. "it seems that to those people the laws of canada and other western countries are laws that must be observed, while china's laws are not and shouldn't be respected. the reason why some people are used to arrogantlyy adopting double standards is due to learn egotism and white supremacy." [laughs] that's say the chinese. it was a clevern move, though. western elites have no fear of being called stupid or weak or evil or dishonest. they know they are.

they don't care. they are getting rich anyway. they absolutely can't handle being called racist. the question is, how long until justin trudeau apologizes to the chinese for his privilege? we will tell you when he does. well, many countries place very tough tariffs on american goods but the u.s. does nothing in response. some members of congress would like to change that. first among them is congressman matt gaetz of florida and he joins us tonight.t. congressman, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker.ke >> tucker: what do you do about the trade imbalance? >> we have to have an old testament approach to trade, an eye for an eye. if a country, like china is going to have a 25% tariff on the audio industry, we should be able to impose the same tariff back onn train or any other country. india has a 100% tariff on motorcycles but we wouldn't do the same thing to them. to me, this won't lead to more tariffs it will lead to fewer tariffs countries know we will do to them what they do to us. i think then they will be less likely to punish american businesses. >> tucker: i don't understand the reasoning on the other side.

what could possibly be the justification for allowing that? >> of course, there are establishment folks in the leadership of both parties that believe free trade is the answer to everything in every circumstancece and it shouldn't matter what it does to the american workers if multinational corporations can offshore their jobs. and ultimately that has what has hollowed out the middle class in this country. if we give the president the authority to have fairness in trade, then i think other countries won't be so quick to punish american businesses and make it easier for multinationalti companies to offshore those jobs. >> tucker: i'm confused.jo you hear people say, i'm for free trade. i'm against what they are proposing from the administration. how is it free if the other side is keeping your goods out but selling his goods to you? >> well, most of the lobbying firms on k street aren't working for the american worker.t they are working for large businesses that want the opportunity to have the flexibility to move jobs where it's cheap. we think that we ought to put the american worker first. that's why even though we are in a shutdown, the president is working hard on the reciprocal trade act so that he will have the

opportunity to simply imposese the tariffs on other countries that they impose on us. i can't think of anythingng more fair than that. >> tucker: it's hard to see the argument against this. how many democrats will you pick up in support of this? >> that will be the key question. a lot of these key questions are working class districts that working class won.la they need to join us. this will be a real test for those democrats, do they hate president trump so much that they are willing to stand against the policies that will help middle class voters in their district? >> tucker: i want to be clear, we know what that is.>> is it that straightforward? >> of course. >> tucker: we impose the tariffs they impose on us?tf that simple? >> or simply we have the flexibility to impose them. if other countries knew that our president, at the snap of a finger, could impose the tariffs in those countries they impose on us, they would be less likely to do them. giving the president thatre flexibility is what we want to do.ra because trump is the president, we are concerned that democrats will line upom against this common sense, bipartisan proposal just because anything that could help trump advance the american worker is something that democrats don't want to give him the chance to do.

>> tucker: where are the t chamber of commerce on this? >> they are opposed. chamber of commerce, typical k street big business are not going to stand in anything that makes them more difficult to move jobs out of america to places where jobs are cheap. >> tucker: is that their argument? >> yes. >> tucker: interesting. of the democrats who are against it, their argument is what?ns >> well, you know, i think, just make anti-trump i arguments rather than arguments as to the policy of reciprocal trade. and we have yet to see really what the democratic strategy is on trade. trump has tried to make better deals. he wants the flexibility to make those deals. less of the globalist multi-national arrangements, more bilateral trade where we actually have enforcement powers. democrats have largely stood against that, even thoughte these are policies in the past democrats are supported because unions have supported them and workers have supported them. >> tucker: yeah, like, 20 minutes ago. it's interesting. matt gaetz, thank you very much. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: we have run out of time sadly we will be

back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m., the show that the is the show that is a sworn enemy of sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. tune in tomorrow to see what happens. it is now time we are going to go, we are 15 seconds, 13 now from sean hannity's show. >> sean: you have been so good. >> tucker: new year, man, i'm going to turn it to you with four seconds. >> sean: all right. tucker, thank you from the swamp inin d.c. welcome to "hannity." like a false prophet righteousness, james comey, former fbi director constantly pretending to be a courageous hero fighting for truth and justice. in reality, is he a hateful,ir vengeful, arrogant narcissist. we now know who abused power and fostered one of the most corrupt federal departments this country has ever seen. toni