that is "the story" for ♪ >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the 2020 presidential race is effectively underway and has been since the midterms in november.ac the most formidable candidates have not officially announced yet. they want to be fashionably late to the party. it's obvious who they are.y their shadow campaigns are busy lining of donors, getting publicity and generally trying to be impressive. the biggest contender in the group is beto o'rourke. he nearly beat ted cruz in a senate race this fall. democrats love him for that.

affluent progressives on the coast love him best.de he is one of them. in the betting markets, o'rourke is the favorite to win the democratic nomination. two years from now he plausibly could be in the oval office. so it's work taking beto o'rourke seriously. what kind of president would he be? at this point we can only guess. we know like most people in his social class he is totally against border walls. >> we will fought when necessary against a president focused on building walls. >> no wall is going to solve legitimate security concerns. then perhaps you can be forgiven thinking that a wall will solve the problem. >> we in el paso are ashamed of this now. but this is one of those moments where the folks in germany look back on the berlin wall or the united states looks back on the project to intern japanese americans in world war ii. >> tucker: did you hear that? berlin wall, bad. border wall, also bad. indeed, bad, very much like

and turning the japanese world war ii was bad. another racist attack on the asians from the f.d.r. administration. or something like that. whatever.. walls are bad. okay? so far that has been the sum total of what we know about beto o'rourke's policy views. that and he went to the dentist recently. we know because he put it on instagram. thankfully now we know even more. o'rourke just did a two-hour long interview with a reporter from jeff bezos' washington newspaper, "washington post," which like o'rourke himself is a full-time mouthpiece foron guilty rich people. o'rourke knew he was speaking to his own community so he relaxed long enough to explain what he really thinks about things, including border walls. walls are bad, o'rourkee explained. not just because they intern perfectly decent japanese people but because theyex literally commit murder. rather we commit murder when we build walls. as o'rourke put it, if you construct a barrier along the southern border, "you will

ensure death. you and i as americans have caused the deaths of others through these walls." let that settle. whoa! we killed people. we didn't even know it. that is pretty heavy. how many people did we kill? should we turn ourselves in to the authorities or prepare for life on the lam? do we need passports? cosmetic surgery? does paraguay have extradition treaty? so many questions. but the real question is what the hell is beto o'rourke talking about? to be fair, it's not like he's pretending to know. he makes it perfectly clear that he has no idea what he saying, and that's okay. he's not embarrassed aboutut it. when the "washington post" asked o'rourke what he would do about illegal aliens oversaying their visas, a huge part of the immigration crisis he answered this way. "i don't know." thank you, mr. specoli, please take your seat. he is not in details. he's in to ideas. big ideas. ideas of the future.

sweeping panoramic truths about being, personhood and new modes of authentic express. the kind of stuff that would spell your bong water and blow your mind. he has not a micro guy, he's bigger than that. he's a transformer and when he wants to transfer next after failing to transform texas is nothing less than the united states of america, starting with the beliefs this country was founded on. that is what he told jeff bezos' newspaper. does this still work, he asked? "this" being america. w he wasn't so sure. so he asked a question that future his historians will recognize as a pivot point in the life of this country. can america "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?" that is not a small question. the principles he refers toue would include "bill of rights" freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and right to self-defense and fair trial. does any of that still matter?

or are all of those old ideas, stumbling blocks preventing people like beto, good and brilliant people who went to columbia and have beautiful weekend homes from getting the power they need to turn the w place to a truly awesome country? a country where the skateboards outnumberco s.u.v.s, and everyone is thin and has quality child care. a nation that values hot yoga above football. place where insensitive thoughts are banned and punished appropriately. beto doesn't know the answer to those questions right now but he's thinking about it. make learners thinking about it too. he is founder of website promoting beto presidentialpr run and kind enough to join us tonight. unlike so many people on the democratic side you have come and i really appreciate that. so let me ask.at straightforward question. when beto o'rourke says we need to rethink the principles on which the country was founded, would that include the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the second amendment? what does it mean?

>> on the surface and taken out of context that sounds bad. what he is talking about is and very common approach to constitutional law. constitutional scholars for centuries debated if the constitution should be taken literally and at word if it's a living, breathing document ng should interpret as things change? and guess what? the country changed and the world has changed quite a bit in the last 200-plus years.nt what he is saying is perhaps we need to revisit part of the constitution as a result. that is a common discussion. >> tucker: look. i'm open-minded.mo by the way, there are things in the constitution, i think we should always have t conversations about everything. >> exactly. >> tucker: that we disagree with.bo but what specifically is he talking about? i think it's also fair to ask what principles need to be revised? >> i'm not a spokesperson forbe beto or his campaign. but you know i do understand what he is saying as far as needing to revisit parts of the constitution. i think the electoral college is a good example. where you are empowering some c voters more so than others and giving them more than a voice than others and that is unfair.ha not what our democracy is

about. that is something right there. >> tucker: what does it mean? we are very fairness. there is a lot of unfairness.ha i agree with that for sure. we should work as hard as we can to rectify it. give me an example of a principle that might be changed under beto o'rourkee presidency? >> i don't speak for him or his campaign. i can't do that. >> tucker: fair enough. so he was asked about the border wall and he said -- i'm paraphrasing but pretty close -- we are killing people when we build border walls. what does -- how are we killing people? how have we killed people by doing that? >> in the context of what he was talking about he was making two points. one, when we militarize our border with mexico, you are increasing the risk thate people will get hurt or killed when they cross the border in their encounters with our security forces and their side. also when you build a massive wall, at the point of entry where people are most likely to illegally cross the border they will seek out other points and those points tend to be more dangerous. so if you force people find different and new ways to come

in the country, a lot of those tend to be more dangerous and you are increasing the likelihood of killing people.e so he is saying find a more civil and humane way to treat people coming in the country. he doesn't mean no border security. he's not for open borders. democrats are in for that despite what is often said. they are for treating people like humans. >> tucker: okay. but look, mexico had over 31,000 murders last year. that is about twice the number we had in the country as a population less than half after ours so it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world.n it's fair to be concerned about the violence moving north. >> also fair to consider people might flee the violence for their families. >> tucker: that is true. but the rights of the interest of americans come first from r the perspective of the government. >> 100%. absolutely. >> tucker: so explain to me, speak slowly if you want how we are forcing people to come across the border illegally? how are we forcing people to come across? i don't understand that. >> we are not forcing people.

it's that we should treat them in a humane and a civil way because they are humans. despite the way they have been described by donald trump and republicans, you know, they are not, they are notmp criminals. they are not rapists. they are not all drug dealers. many are coming here to seek better lives. >> tucker: i totally -- butuc i have never doubted that. some are bad people. most are just economic migrants who want to move to a richer country. >> exactly.no >> tucker: i get it.t i said many times i would>> leave honduras, too, and i would come here illegally if i could. i mean it. i'm not joking. j i get it.et but i'm not from honduras. i'm from america and i don't want people driving down wages in the country. so don't we have a right to say no, you can't come in unless we want you to come? >> we absolutely have a right to do that. however, as americans we also have a duty to treat them a certain way. to respect their humanity and as individuals and not simply cast them aside. when you look at border security there is a certain way you should treat people and it's not forcing them to,

it's not putting them them at a massive risk and potentially killing them. >> tucker: if we erect a wall and say you can't cross, that's the same as killing them? >> putting up a wall puts them in danger because it forces them to find different point of entry. s the wall is a massive, it doesn't accomplish anything orem solve the problem of immigration, longer visas, people overstaying the visas. >> tucker: i'm glad you put that out there. that is totally fair. that is a talking point but it's real so i'm glad you mentioned it. mr. o'rourke was asked it, too, by jeff bezos' newspaper. his quote was i don't know.uo how can you not know? he represents texas. he has been asked about immigration for years and he hasn't thought of the visa overstays as you point out is a driver of the crisis. how can he not have an answer to that? >> out of context that sounds bad, but what he said after that was that he would work with the people affected by, work with policymakers, work with experts, work with people on the ground

we deal with this every day to find a solution. and actually i think it's very refreshing to see a politician is willing to say i don't know. if you look where the t immigration reform has gone in 20 years, nowhere, a lot of politicians don't know. they have no idea what a solution is. we haven't found one. we need a debate and talk it over. >> tucker: i'm totally foror that. i actually do agree with you. >> sounds like you support him there.ne >> tucker: i support being honest about not knowing. >> be honest. >> tucker: try harder. let me asking something i don't know the answer to. i'm not being mean. i'm sincere. in the last election you had irish catholic guy with hispanic nickname running against actual hispanic guy with an angloh name. does that seem weird, audacious? >> ted cruz tried to make the point as well and texans got every it quickly. >> tucker: it's a real point. >> it's not a real point. the point is moot. it's something to joke aboutea for a minute. >> tucker: okay. >> the nickname growing up. people call ted cruz "ted." and it's not, not something people care about. people care about real issues. >> tucker: i asked about

real issues and i ended it with as you point out joking about it for a second. i appreciate you coming on. >> of course. anytime.e. >> tucker: well, from "the view" to the dumb people on television, what you are hearing this week and it's a talking point of the week isou that everybody who is not ag democrat is by nature a bigot. that is what they are telling you. victor davis hanson responds to that after the break. ♪

♪ >> tucker: if you watched tv this week you heard the talking point. republicans and the people who vote for them are bigots.re

every one of them. the geniuses over at "the view," the daytime tv show suggested that almost half the country is just flat out immoral and should be shunned on the ground. watch. >> will the republicans now step up to the plate with donald trump? because he has been using, i think, the border wall as sort of the dog whistle for racism.m. the government is still shut down and i think it's all about let's not let all the brown people in. >> there is 42% of the country that support the wall. are they all racists? >> that is a good question. >> i'm asking you that.s i don't think so. i don't think so. i think a lot of people that believe in security. >> is donald trump racist? >> duh. >> do you think 42% of r americans are racist? >> i just said i don't know. >> tucker: yeah, it's "the view" you can write it off like what do they know. not just "the view." nicole wallace had a real job at one point. white house communications

director briefly i think under the last republican administration. here is her view. >> this does not have a parallel on the left. it doesn't. there isn't. there isn't a strain of racism on the left. so i think that this gets brushed under the rug. people tolerate. it's normalized. like you said, they don't have anywhere else to go. so they attach to the republican party. >> tucker: no racists on the left. it literally not one says nicoln wallace. over on espn, one of the hosts suggested it was racist -- notes surprisingly -- if the president to serve clemson football team fast food at the white house. fast food is the food of bigots, of course. >> when i saw him giving the football players predominantly black sport and fast food, my thought went different place. >> i think the president likes fast food. >> a bunch of jocks, i mean c'mon. >> tucker: so the consensus is the racism is on the right, only conservatives can be

racists. so that raises a few questions. what exactly is racism? what does it look like? how do you know if you are racist? we have a handy checklist for you. get a pen and follow along to see if you can answer the questions. racist, they would support treating people differently based purely on their skin color. they would hand out jobs and contracts and college admissions letters based on your d.n.a. rather than anything that you had done. they would also say that some people opinions don't matterpe because of their skin color. that would be a racist statement, wouldn'tth it? they would ridicule people regularly on the basis of the skin color. racism? yeah. they would believe in race-based retribution, most ominously. thatat means people of one race paying the price today for actions decades or centuries ago by people they may not have any relationship to at all other than a similar appearance.

if what would that be like? the definition of racism, right? people like this might even cancel activists marches if too many people of the wrong color showed up. what is that if not racism? they might write on-ed to say they don't want their own children to be friends with people of the other race. they might say a friendship like that would be impossible. that is what they would do. does that sound like what republicans are doing? we will let you decide. victor davis hanson is a fellow with the hoover institution if he joins uson tonight. you what i noticed professor hanson? maybe i'm making this up in my head but people have a tendency to accuse others of doing the exact thing they areut doing. have you noticed that? >> i think it's dangerous throughout history when you have a group that sets themselves up as the arbiters of the morality. we saw it with a catholic church and the abuse problems and we saw it in the #metoo and the hollywood liberals like harvey weinstein, kevin spacey. they feel they are not subject to the same standards they

demand of others. what is going on, representative king confused western civilization with the whiteness. they are not synonymous in the global world. japan can be more western than russia but the point is you have to find out what the rules are, tucker, because we are condemning him and we have hank johnson another member of congress who recently compared jews in israel to termites. and then we've got the editor, person on the editorial board of the "new york times" who said literally i hate white people and compare them to dogs urinating on hydrants. the "new york times" was not upset. then we have the trope of rap music, major marquee rappers, ice cube, jay-z, scarface. just rampant anti-semitism. we saw lebron james, our national icon retweeting

antisemitic tweet of a rapper with no consequences. so the american people say wow, what are the rules? and when you look at trump supporters, not just derided as stupid or ignorant, but this new left-wing mode is to say that they s stink. we saw that with peter strzok. i think mr. cavuto from politico said that they don't have any teeth. that is echoed by rick wilson. he called them garbage people, s-blank, f.b.i. remark. jim carey of all, the actor, compared the trump supporters to apes. that is along the metaphor that has a bad pedigree. what i'm saying is anytime that somebody says we're progressive and enlightened and not racist, that sends human nature to be what it is, to give them a blank check to be racist which is your point.s

remember 2008, tucker, when joe biden said and what he said about barack obama? he was the first black candidate who was clean. clean.ca was articulate. harry reid echoed that and said he didn't have a dialect and he was light-skinned and then bill clinton said he would have been serving us coffee and even al sharpton tried to contextualize that. because the idea, again, was these are good progressives, they're good people. they couldn't be guilty of racism.d it's not a window in their soul. it is with republicans but with the democrats, progressives and leftists it's inadvertent or allowed. it's dangerous to do that. >> tucker: tools to win power. we should remember that. professor, thank you verywe much. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: if they meant it, then the southern poverty law center wouldn't be on a lot of this. you heard of the splc, phony anti-hate group that exists tony crush people they don't like. to tar conservative organizations as fellow travel

travelers with the kkk or whatever. we have a director of immigration studies and his group just sued s.p.l.c. for designating them for a hate group. someone finally fighting back against this. what is the basis of lawsuit, mark? >> our attorneys decided thehe way to go is to file rego lawsuit under the reck tier influencer -- racketeer influence and corruptt organizations act. which is used in the criminal part against the mafia or whatever by thewh government but there are civil parts where private individuals can file suit in the basis of the claim is they are committing wire fraud by falsely describing us as a hate group in order to do harm to my organization. >> tucker: has it done harm? >> it has done some. we have a body, we have a body hof work that makes it hard to possibly call us a hate group and we have testified before

congress more than a hundred times and cited supreme court decision i and publish the workf professors from adjutant universities. nonetheless, it has, in fact, had an effect.t. one example we mention in then suit amazon has this program where you can designate a non-profit group to get small amount of revenue every time you buy something. we were removed from the program. the person who communicated that to us made the mistake of actually saying what the reason was. in print he said we just get our lists from the splc. >> tucker: that is what is remarkable to me. splc is the prierian guard of the party. fighting for the status quo and seeking to stand anyone in the way of power. but they still seem to be taken seriously by media outlets and by companies like amazon. why? >> good question. i'm not sure why. this is something you see in the tech industry where they assume progressive political views are just the normal political views. anybody who doesn't hold them somehow is weird.

and to be shunned. i think that's part of what it is. you see the same thing with journalism. where media cite the splc hate group designation as a fact. the person is this old and wearing a blue suit and he hasti been designated as a hate group by the splc. that is starting to change because they really have overreached. they have gotten slapped down a couple of times.th there was a muslim reformer, liberal muslim anti-extremist. they labeled him extremist. he sued. they settled because they knew they would lose for $3 million plus. i don't expect them to go that easily in this case but i think we have a pretty strong case. >> tucker: you have a very vstrong case. i looked at the accusations they leveled against you because you are a guest on the show and i was interested. there is no basis saying it t about you. shocking. i think it's libel. we are rooting for you, of course.sh >> thank you. >> tucker: new report exposes google for blacklisting certain video searches on youtube. you can probably guess who

they targeted. we have details after the break. ♪ (woman) candace, two minutes. too late for lunch. starkist saves the day. sweet and spicy tuna in a pouch! smart choice, charlie. (charlie) no drain, no pain. just tear, eat... and go! try all of my tuna, salmon and chicken pouches.

>> tucker: big tech companies try to control what you see online, of course. but they also try to control what you don't see. a new report, shockingo one from breitbart exposeses existence of a google blacklist for, "controversial youtube queries." questions that you ask on youtube. trying to find videos.

the flagrant abuse not surprisingly concerns abortion. after receiving a complaint from a politicalor activist posing as a reporter at slate.com, a lot of those, google intervened to bury pro-life videos on youtube's and replace them into the search with pro-abortion videos. for example, by anthony letevuno were buried and de placed by the pro-abortion content from buzz feed and cnn. in a statement, they denied doing anything wrong and said any shift was due to algorithms, which are of course controlled by people. robert epstein has spent a lot of time looking into this question, senior research psychologist at the behavioral research and technology andit he joins us tonight. thank you very much for coming on. you were the first person i thought of when i read the story because you have done i think the cutting edge research in the effect of search, google search, and other digital platforms on human behavior.

political behavior. what kind of effect could this sort of distortion have on an election? >> it would have a devastating effect. as you know, i am not a conservative. >> tucker: i do. >> i love america, i love democracy and i think we should all be rising above our politics here and recognize the extreme danger that we are facing when a company like google can basically censor anything wants to censor. this new set of leaks is extraordinary because it confirms things that i and others have been saying in writing for years. it confirms number one thatrs individual employees at google have the power to manually removeve material, remove contet that we see and they do so often

with political ends. number two, this tells us that the google c.e.o. committed perjury when he testified before congress a few weeks ago. because he said quite specifically that google never does this. >> tucker: so i mean, my frustration levels are so high i don't want to take it on you but the first thought is why isn't he being recalled back to congress to explain himself or face charges? because you are not allowed commit perjury. but my question is, in any of us trust that the next election mon't be swayed dramatically in one direction by interference from the tech companies? >> i guarantee you that this past election was affected. i'll be releasing some data on this i hope in early march. that will make the point beyond any doubt. i also just published a piece in which i showed that just one manipulation on google's part on

election day, there "go vote" reminder, that one reminder shifted between 800,004.6 million votes to democratic candidates on election day in 2018. >> tucker: so why isn't this the hacking of our democracy? how can you have a democracy under these circumstances? >> well, democracy is an illusion at this point. we have let the companies, google more than any other go completely wild. there are no rules, no regulations, no laws that restrict anything they do. again, the more one looks at what it is they are actually doing, and these new leaks help a lot, in my opinion, the closer one looks at what they are doing, the more outraged one should become and i want to emphasize, we should all be outraged, not just conservatives.

>> tucker: i b agree. i hope that what you just said pings around the internet unimpeded and winds up in the inbox of every member of congress on both sides. thank you very much. >> my pleasure, always. >> tucker: why is nobody covering this? it's a great question. this question as well.th google's manipulation,n, the one we just told you about, why isn't that a violation of campaign finance law? the company's youtube blacklist for example allegedly suppressed negative videos about maxine waters. why is not an in-kind contribution to maxine waters? and attorney joins us now. you just saw a guy plead to a felony because he paid off his client's girlfriend with private funds in the middle of a campaign. that was considered a campaign finance violation. here you have the most powerful company in the world putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of candidates but that's not a campaign contribution?

how? >> it's a campaign finance violation. if anybody thinks this is some sort of aberration, google has been doing this and bragging about it internally. even in the last election. i think your show has previously covered the fact that google made what i think,ha one internal person at google, the manager at google a silent campaign contribution by turning out the vote in contributing turn out the vote efforts in several states that were swing statesnt were hillary clinton and specifically targeting latino voters. i think people should be encouraged to do democratic activities like this on both sides and help with elections. when a corporation does it, the corporate assets it needs to be disclosed as a campaignt, finance violation and declared and disclosed on the other side, campaign.y the or you have the one example of maxine waters. but let's just out. we have 20 plus democrats running for the democratic nomination.g if google decides to bump up the search engine results in a positive way for beto o'rourke in response for example to the democratic candidates for

president 2020, and then bump down gabbert or others for example that is a contribution. a net contribution, in my opinion, to those candidates who benefit from it. and a very valuable one. if it isn't disclosed as such, that is a fraud on our democracy. you can imagine what they are doing, vis-avis trump. they are doing it with the republican for search engine and republican women and the california republican party and various other republicans. so i think this is, we think every story is important when it comes to google and what they do online but this is a particularly shocking and alarming story that we really need to see our members of congress, senators, and the white house wakeue up about this issue, because otherwise we are going to be talking about a democracy in the next two election cycles, we will be talking about what it used to look like before we let big tech take over and control the

outcome. >> tucker: i don't see how under the circumstances all things being equal, donald trump could get reelected. i don't. under the circumstances, they won't have that. i wonder why the white house, they do control the executive branch of government. why they wouldn't have been awakened to that. >> we have seen donald trump tweet about this issue in september of 2018, frank of the subject matter of today's story from breitbart and people called him a conspiracy theorist, that it isn't true and now we see the evidence that actually they are doing this manipulation and that they lie to congress about it. but these companies skillfully spread the money around, not just to members of congress, but alsoho people working in the administration were looking for their exit and thinking maybe i will work on the other side of tech policy and make a bunch of money advising google on how to speak conservative. >> tucker: it's scary. vladimir putin is a much smaller threat to united states than google.

>> absolutely. >> tucker: thank you veryo much harmeet. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: the country is p racing at high speeds to full legalization of marijuana. why is that exactly? what are the effects and what do we know about marijuana? it's uncool to ask. obviously. but being middle age we are going to anyway after the break. ♪

>> tucker: a well-known >> tucker: a well-known author in france, has written a number of books about that country's middle and working w classes. heew recently gave a long interview to a website called spiked about the yellow vest demonstrations there that have convulsed french society and terrified the french government. our media hasn't said much about the yellow vests and that shouldn't surprise you. ostensibly the protest are reaction to global warming and speed cameras.

but he explains that you are actually watching revoltas against r a deeply selfish and tstupid establishment and it vey much includes the media. listen to his analysis here and ask yourself if it sounds at all familiar. "15 years ago, i noticed that the majority of working class people actually live very far away from the major globalized cities. far from paris, leon and and far from london and new york. technically our globalized economic model performs well. it produces a lot of wealth. but it doesn't need the majority of the population to function. it has no real need for the manual workers, laborers or small business owners outside the big cities. e paris creates enough wealth for the whole of france and london does the same in britain. but you cannot build a society around us. what the yellow vest protesters have in common is they live in the areas where there is hardly any work left. they know that even if they have a job today, they could lose it

tomorrow and they won't find anything else. they are also culturally misunderstood by the elite. one illustration of this cultural divide is that most modern progressive social i movements and protests are quickly endorsed by celebrities, actors and the media and intellectuals. but none of them approve of the yellow vests. the emergence has caused a psychological shock to the cultural establishment. it is exactly the same shock that the british elites experienced with the brexit vote. and that they are still experiencing now three years later. many voters wanted to remind the political class that they exist. that is what french people arere using the yellow vests for. to say we exist. we are seeing the same phenomenon in populist revolts across the world. all the growth and dynamism is in the major cities but people cannot just move there. the cities are inaccessible. particularly thanks to mounting housing costs. the cities have become very unequal, too. the parisian economy needs executives and qualified

professionals. it also needs workers, predominantly immigrants, for the construction industry and catering,et et cetera. business relies on this very specific demographic mix. the problem is that the people outside the cities still exist. the nonurban population actually encompasses the majority of french people. we have a new area but because they are progressive it creates there is an impression that there is no class conflict anymore. it is really difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and about minorities.y but actually, they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. not only do they benefit enormously from the globalized economy but they have produced a dominant cultural discourse which ostracizes working class people. think of the deplorables evoked by hillary clinton. there is a similar work of the there is a similar view of the working class in france and britain. they are looked upon as they are some sort of amazonian tribe. the problem for the elites is this is a very big tribe.

the reaction to the yellow vest has been telling in france. immediately w protesters were denounced as xenophobes and they present themselves as the antifascist and anti-races but and antiracist but this is a way to defend the class interest. it is the only argument they can muster to defend their status but it's not working anymore. now the elites are afraid. a lot has been made of the fact that the yellow vest demand vary a great deal. but above all it's demand for democracy. fundamentally they want to be taken seriously and integrated in the economic order.he we need cultural revolution, particularly in the universities and the media. they need to stop insulting the working class, to stop thinking of them as imbeciles. cultural respect is fundamental. there will be no economic or political integration until there is cultural integration. then of course we need to think differently about the economy. that means dispensing of neoliberal dogma. we need to think beyondnk paris, london, and new york."

if you found yourself as you heard that thinking he was h talking about your country not france. there is a reason. in many ways he was. imagine what it would look like if the republican leaders understood what you just heard. they might start winning elections. ♪ >> tucker: well, every election cycle you probably notice more states legalize marijuana. it could be legal nationwide and likely will be. with drug abuse of all kinds soaring and the american youth falling apart is legalization a good idea? what do we know about marijuana? we have the author of "how to smoke pot properly" and co-host of the podcast "great moments in weed history." thank you for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: the first thing i notice is there an interesting piece by malcolm gladwell in the "new yorker" and he is agnostic about the question of marijuana but he made the question we don't know that much of the health effects of the marijuana.he most of the claims made by the

proponents are unproven. but the c.d.c. does say there is a relationship between marijuana use and the rising schizophrenia rates and violence.. why should we legalizeg something we know causes schizophrenia? >> well, i mean the first thing we need to understand is cannabis is objectively safer than many substances that are legal. alcohol, tobacco, many pharmaceutical drugs. to get to your point -- >> tucker: wait. can we pause for a second. how do we know that it's saferec than alcohol and tobacco? i don't think we know much about it. we have been studying nicotines for hundreds of years and alcohol for thousands. we don't know that much about them.. why do we say we know thatsa when we don't really know that? >> we can compare the number of people who die from each substance every year. hundreds of thousands of people from alcohol and tobacco and zero people from cannabis.lc >> tucker: really? >> shorthand -- >> tucker: no. that is not actually true.>>

>> there has never been a death attributed to cannabis. >> tucker: there have been many deaths. >> saying something that is not true. >> tucker: i'm going to. if it is true, as the c.d.c. says cannabis use looks like it pauses and spurs -- >> what is a legal dose of cannabis?s what is a lethal dose? how much do you have to consume? answer my question. >> tucker:ki no, i'm saying you're looking at it wrong. if weed smoking causes schizophrenia and there is a suggestion that it does, schizophrenia kills lots of people and so does suicide and violence.pe if marijuana use hikes rates of violence and it seems there is a lot of evidence it does,vi then it kills people. the question ispl not due they e from lung cancer, the question is do they die from suicide or violence? those are the real questions. you don't know the answer to them. why are you saying it's totally safe if you don't know it's true? >> i did not say it's totally safe.r that is a ridiculous standard. strenuous exercise can lead to

a heart attack that is fatal. drinking too much water can be fatal. you need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. >> tucker: i do understand. >> apparently you don't. [laughs] >> tucker: no, i do. what i understand most of all is the basic precip of science we don't know something until we prove it. almost nothing about marijuana is proven. why are you acting like we know when we don't? >> this is what is proven to be harmful, tucker. arresting 600,000 americans every year for making the choice to use a substance that objectively is safer than alcohol. and doing it in a way that targets the poor and minorities disproportionately is devastating to those communities. >> tucker: but i'm not arguing -- you are missing. i'm not arguing in favor of that. you are making a parallel argument -- >> you don't want to arrest anybody for cannabis? m

>> tucker: i'm always for unfair application of the law. i'm always for hassling people for things that are not really bothering others but that's not the question. i've never been for rousting people from their homes were smoking weed. i'm totally againstro that. but that is very different from legalizing it everywhere which will increase the rate of kids smokingg weed. if it's causingng schizophrenia, then i should be afraid of that, no? >> youth use is down in states that legalized first of all. second of all, it's not going to be legalized -- answer me this, was going to grow and sell this cannabis? where is it going to magicallyl appear from if not through a regulated, taxed industry? if my aunt in kansas comes down with cancer, where am i going to send her to buy a safe, lab tested medical cannabis product to save her life in your system? grows and sells the cannabis? >> tucker: i thought it was the u.s. government grew it in mississippi for years as you know. >> for seven people, tucker. for seven people. >> i get it.

but it's not impossible --en hold on. >> who is going to grow and sell it in your system? >> tucker: again, you areeou throwing another red herring in the argument and evading the question. >> that is not a red herring. >> tucker: we use opioids legally, they are prescribed by physicians.ds it doesn't mean the average person can buy opium. so you can have controlled marijuana growing for the medicinal properties which i'm willing to believe exist. i'm justel saying you are talkig about legalizing it, which means many more kids will smoke it and if it causes schizophrenia, it should scare the hell out of us. but it doesn't bother you because what, you take money from them?he why doesn't it bother you?u? >> you are the one on here repeating old lies, and distortion and debunked claim. the author of the book you had on last week, everything he said has been debunked. >> tucker: really? >> i don't know if you read my article. i assume that is why you have me on. >> tucker: no. y >> many of the people in the studies that he cited havef gone on twitter to say you

grossly misrepresented our findings. the national academy of medicine?ca >> tucker: are not expert in this. >> you are not an expert but you are supposed to do your job, supposed to learnd about -- did you read my article where i debunked all of this? >> tucker: let me ask a question. this is my real concern is schizophrenia, because it's a terrible disease and we can't cure it. a lot of people die from it and it's horrible, as you know. is it untrue, do you think, that marijuana use looks like it could increase the rate of schizophrenia? is that a fake statistic? that is a sincere question for you. >> we need to know more and we s should know more. but having you and authors come on and just confuse causation and correlation does no one a good service. >> tucker: i'm asking you a sincere question. >> this is my sincere answer. we have had society where the rates of cannabis use gone up and rates of schizophrenia

have not gone up at all. so to me that would put a lot of cold water on your idea that there is an epidemic of violence -- >> tucker: and i thought you were lecturing me about correlation and causation? but then, isn't that what you're doing -- look, i have zero anything, ibanning just think that we don't know that much. >> why did you have me on if you have zero interest in debating me? >> tucker: i was debating you. we are out of time. david, thank you. i appreciate you coming on. >> sure. a c >> tucker: earlier today we told you what many are staying in washington that fast food is racist. have a salad instead, too bad. salads are sexist now. it's 2019. we'll have details on that after the break. ♪ 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. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today.

> president trump: do we give you quick salad that the first lady will make with the second lady, they will make salads. i said you guys aren't intoou salads. or do i go out lindsey graham, kim scott, send out for 1,000 hamburgers. big mac. >> that is appalling.. it seems like the president will not be happy until there is not one single femalee republican voteer in the country. it -- voter in the country.it it's sexist. we are not here to make salads for men. >> how do you think that is not sexist?

the assumption his wife will make salads for the players? like she is the cook? >> joan walsh, on cnn melting down because the president joked about salads. salads are sexist and the fast foods are racist. what are you allowed to eat? we have a podcast host that is joining us to sort it out. thank you for coming on. h >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: sexist salads. >> she was upset. the first reaction she had was not to roll her eyes, but she said it was appalling. you wonder what goes on in joan's mind. in the middle of the night does she toss and turn thinking to the ways to be offended?e >> why wouldn't the rest of the country take life advice from someone whose own life that is a disaster. and who is unhappy. >> exactly. >> maybe this is why her life is a disaster. she is hunting for something to hurt her feelings and she found it in salad. i want to say that melania

probably does make salads so this probably had nothing to do with her sexbl whatsoever. she looks like someone who makes a good salad. >> she looks like a salad a eater. i say that as someone who should eat them and is not. not a slur. i wonder in the end if the best way to get people to see your way of thinking and bring them to the side is scream at them for telling jokes. >> probably not. but i don't think they are interested in that. [laughter] not with conservatives and certainly not with presidentonnl trump. they repeat this over and over again. it's racist, sexist, whatever it is. whatever they find in today the poor victim was salad. >> tucker: how long before people say i don't care what you call me anymore? >> that has already happened. don't you think trump has already done that. i do. >> tucker: i don't know about trump but i reached that point.no r great to see you. >> you as well. >> tucker: you improved the tenor of the city. we're out of time. sadly, tomorrow at 8:00 we'll be back, the show of the sworn enemy of pomposity, smugness and o group think. d.v.r. if you figure it out. i can't.

good night from washington. tonight with 18 seconds to go we are going to give a a delayed christmas present to our pal sean hannity in new york. >> sean: you made up for all of last year. >> tucker: use the time wisely. >> sean: you can host the show one day. hitting the post. i will tell you all about it. all right. tucker, great show as always. welcome to "hannity." busy news night. we will start with a fox news alert. a suspected terrorist just been arrested after the f.b.i. uncovered a plot to attack the white house and several other buildings in washington, d.c. we will deep -- keep you updated throughout the hour as we learn details about the scary foiled act of terror. we have ground to cover including a preview of the radical field the democrats that want to be your next president. show you unwelcoming reception that the angel moms got when they went to speaker pelosi's office and chuck schumer's office. and fox news