tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News January 29, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
9:00 pm
>> ♪ staying alive almost in a live ♪ >> shannon: turns out it actually works. driving on arizona highway, he remembered the lessons from the office, he saved her life. we will see you tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson e tonight." one of the great secrets of washington, something we don't tell anyone outsidehi the city s that the only people who really benefit the presidential primaries are the political consultants who work in them. the candidates themselves almost always finish the experience sadder, poorer and humiliated. the public hates the whole thing. they get to spend half your tormented by the white noise of 32nd attack ads. only the consultants really seemed to enjoy themselves. why wouldn't they? they walk away rich. for them is a great deal. they've got every incentive to recruit new suckers to the game.
9:01 pm
their latest mark is a billionaire called howard schultz. the former ceo of starbucks.f a pair of slick consultants somehow convinced howard schultz that he could be president. so over the weekend he announced he may get in the race. here's the twist, schultz, who is an entirely conventional affluent liberal said that he is not planning to run aslu a democrat, but instead as an independent. democrats were horrified by this. boycott starbucks started trending on twitter. michael bloomberg denounced schultz. some on the left were so angry they screamed at howard schultz when he went in public. watch what happened at a book event lastoo night. >> don't help elect trump you egotistical billionaire [bleep]! go back to getting on twitter. go back with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world!
9:02 pm
that's not what democracy needs! >> tucker: in fairness, the heckler dides make some solid points. the last thing we need is another egomaniacal moron running the country into the ground. if you sincerely thought barack obama did a great job as president he probably would be perfectly happy with howard schultz at the home. the problem is, that nobody really thinks that obama did a great job as president. ohey just all feel obligated to pretend he did. nobody wants to be rude about it. i get schultz's problems aren't really related to what he believes. his political positions. his views are really indistinguishable from nancy pelosi's views. schultz's sin is running thirdrd party. that's a threat to the one thing the democrats actually care about and no, it's not fighting climate change or preserving a woman's right to choose or even protecting those noble undocumented migrants they are always lecturing you about. in the end, democrats are pretty flexible on all that stuff, they are just talking points, transactional bargaining chips
9:03 pm
keep their coalition together, whatever. what democrats really want, whah they are not kidding about, at all, is political power. the right to run things. the right to be in charge, power. if they wanted so bad they can taste it. poor hapless howard schultz and his overfunded midlife crisis just got in their way. so they have to question. at least one democrat was honest enough to admit this. >> i have a concern that if he did run that essentially it would provide donald trump with his best hope of getting reelected. i would suggest to mr. schultz to truly think about the negative impact that that might make. >> tucker: the t media were watching and taking notes. evenak now you still hear people hefer to the press corps is liberal, but of course they're not liberal in any recognizable sense of thehe word. genuine liberals would welcome
9:04 pm
howard schultz into the race. more candidates, more opinions, more diversity of thought, may the best ideas we met. that's what an actual liberal at say. that's not what the media are saying. they are not liberals, they were loyalists, they are party people, diligent worker bees toiling for the benefit of the democratic party masters. so off course they parroted the line precisely. michelle goldberg of "the new york times" called his run "reckless idiocy." she didn't even mention his views about anything, she doesn'tt care, it's irrelevant. if "the daily beast" all but accused him of racism, because that often works as a line of attack. "the starbucks music store -- and of course the dummies on tv news read their talking points d faithfully. watch. >> he may run for president as an i independent. democrats fearing he could help
9:05 pm
president trump win reelection. >> democrats are uneasy. >> he could take awayy votes tht would go to the democratic nominee. >> democrats warned he could cost themos the white house. >> democrats. that could be disastrous for whoever's the --re >> democrats in the left are freaking out about if he were to split the anti-trump vote that's a conceivable path up the middle for donald trump. >> tucker: trump might benefit. another way to look at the democratic hysteria over howard schultz getting into the race and mark cuban of all people summed it up pretty well today. "if 21 months before an election you don't believe your candidate's platform is strong enough to win an election with independent candidates, you might want to rethink who you support." yeah, you might want to do that. maybe get some ideas that appeal to actual voters, something like that. the irony is that the very v people who are the most upset about howard schultz entering the presidential race are the very same ones who have been yelling at you about how vital democracy is and how they are
9:06 pm
the defenders of democracy. and yet somehow three candidates on a single ballot is just way too many for them. if you get the strong feeling they would get the chance to see one on the ballot, that way voters couldn't screw it up with their dumb opinions. it we've s seen all this before many times. ralph nader went through it when he dared to run third party in 2000. joel stein experienced it on the green party ticket in 2016. they called her an agent of russia for daring to do that. they never charged her for that crime though, so she's free to join us tonight, and she is, dr. joel stein with us tonight. thanks very much for coming on. you would think that the party of diversity would be far more diverse views, why is that? >> i'm not sure it's actually the part of diversity. we got two parties and they are both for corporate masters in the fossil fuel giants and the big banks and wall street and war machine, so that's not my opinion that the democrats are
9:07 pm
the party of diversity, but let me say, voters deserve more choices and in the last election we saw over 100 million voters, the largest block of voters is not voting because they are not being represented by the system. so we really do need more choices. we need noncorporate choices and people powered choices and we can have those choices without fear of splitting the vote. there is a win-win solution here called ranked choice voting. the state of maine just passed it. it's used by millions of voters around the country. it really makes obsolete this whole issue of the struggle between can we have choices or p we have to force people into two pigeonholes that the majority of voters, almost 60% of voterss are saying that we need a new independent political party because they are tired ofr being thrown under the bus by the other two, whether we have democrats or republicans, it's not working out so well for
9:08 pm
everyday working people. health care, they are locked into debt and so t on. we need more choices and we can ehave it. so let's not keep that a secret. we should require these elected to actually pass a simple reform, the state of maine just did it. it's available to us right now. we can have it before the 2020 election. >> tucker: i follow that pretty closely because i'm interestedck in man mcmahon. i'm not sure i understand ranked choice, but i wonder -- 's because they think they do. >> tucker: maybe they do and maybe i will if i study harder. >> i think i could explain it to you. >> tucker: you could not,di trust me. i've tried. here's the broader question, why do the media cooperate with this effort to shut down anybody who offers an actual choice to what weer have? why wouldn't they be open-minded enough to let the candidate speak their piece, let voters decide and the system worked the way it's supposed to?
9:09 pm
why do they have to crush people, accuse them of being they have ats if different view? >> if they were doing their job, their job is to educate voters, not tos tell voters or to pigeonhole voters or to vilify voters for expressing their discontent with two parties that have thrown them under the bus. in the last election we had two candidates for the most disliked and untrusted in modern history and 75% of voters were screaming for open debates, they wanted to hear from the libertarian and the green, they wanted to hear a debate about, for example, our war machine, which is going full speed ahead right now. the last tax day the average taxpayer gave over $3500 practically to the war machine and $40 to the epa to give us clean air and water. how was that working out for a schematic not soso well. this needs to be debated.
9:10 pm
>> tucker: i think everything needs to be debated. that's a place where we agree vehemently. are you going to run again in 2020 do you think? >> i do not have any plans to n run at this point. there's plenty else to do and i feel like i've done my duty this time around and it's time for someone else to carryry that banner but i'm certainly fighting for the cause of more voices and more choices in our political system. >> tucker: eyewear without 100% and you are not a russian agent if you think that. dr. jill stein, thank you very much. democratic poster works with bill clinton and the founder of whitman insight strategies. thanks very much for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: i don't understand, or maybe i do understand and that's why i'm offended, the reaction against howard schultz, who for the record i think is a dilettante and a buffoon and not what we need, i'm not endorsing howard schultz but the idea that anybody who might threaten the party needs to be destroyed strikes me as kind of a stalinist reaction, doesn't it?
9:11 pm
>> howard schultz has no experience, noch platform, no n constituency and no reason for running other than if your stomach pure vanity plate. if we take them at his word is really democrat, he could toss his hat in the democratic primary process that it would welcome him and welcome the debate. ethink everyone else would as well. but let's explore why he's not doing that. because there's another guy in there named michael bloomberg was far more experience, a demonstrated record of actually creating constituencies and moving agendas forward who has devoted years and years and years of blood, sweat, and tears and money to progressive causes like climate change, likend uncontrolled who was the mayor of 12 years of the largest and most diverse city in the united states and he has a lot more money than howard schultz. howard schultz is scared that michael bloomberg would get into the democratic primary and leave no room for him. >> tucker: just the wrong billionaire? let me just say -- >> he's the one candidate. >> tucker: i don't think is any doubt about howard schultz's commitment. he turned his own stores into
9:12 pm
homeless shelters. that's one of the most authentic things you can do i think. to prove your bona fides. you just don't like it because him getting in might hurt thehe party. i wonder voters think who cares about your dumb party? what are your ideas you are promoting? to see what i'm saying? >> let me explain. i wish the american political system were different, but it's not. right now there i is no viable room for a third-party candidate to run. if i studied this extensively in 2012. mike bloomberg studied thisn extensively m in 2016. ironically the nation is so divided right now that at this point in time with president trumpiv in office, a vote against president trump needs to go tosi a candidate tht actually has a chance of winning. there is no foreseeable place for someone in the middlele rigt now between the two parties. if we are so divided that there's actually ironically no room left. get in the process, put your hat in the rain, tough and honest debate. the reason why this is so important and democrats are so upset about it is the future of the country is at stake, the future of the climate, the future of the country, the future of the environment, the
9:13 pm
economy. >> tucker: that's all bogus. >> it's not. >> tucker: so you just said democrats are upset that schultz is trying to buy the office, right? >> he's going to be a spoiler. >> tucker: you've heard people attack and was a billionaire buk it would be totally cool if michael bloomberg was in the officeon. >> i don't mind that he's a building or at all. i think running on a record of business success is perfectly fine but run in a system that we have.e don't try to spoil the system on a vanity plate. >> tucker: how is the system working? people said that about -- just to play devil's advocate here, and maybe you're right. i don't think you can won, i agree with you there but no one thought from good win. unexpected things can happen. >> anyone who's actually paying attention, once you have a chance of winning the republican primary he has a 50/50 shot at being president. let's do the math, just listen to me for one second, let's do the math. let's say he runs, schultz runs as an independent. at least 100 electoral votes that wouldle definitely go from liberal states like california,
9:14 pm
like new york for the democrats. there were at least 175, 180 electoral votes that would go from hard-core southern states, right wing states in the west and the south, that's over 280 -- there's no room left. it would mean no one's got a majority, no one was able to get a majority in the electoral college and that would be passed the house of representatives. does anyone really think that the democratic-controlled house of representatives is going to vote to elect howard schultz? there's no math that allows howard schultz. >> tucker: i do have one last math question. super quick. if the two consultants, one republican and one democrat who convinced for howard schultz to live out his midlife crisis by running for president, how much do you think they're going to walk away with, conservative estimate? >> you know what, i'm all for business, i hope they walk away with as much money as they can possibly make and the only real winners are going to be schmidt and bill burton. i'm sure they are - great guys. and more success to them. >> tucker: they are rich guys, for sure. thank you very much, great to see you.
9:15 pm
9:18 pm
what's a gig of data? well, it's a whole day's worth of love songs. [ baby crying ] or 300 minutes of baby videos. a gig goes a long way. that's why xfinity mobile lets you ...pay for data one gig at a time. and with millions of wifi hotspots included, you'll pay even less for data. or if you need a lot, we have unlimited, too. you could save hundreds of dollars when you switch to xfinity mobile. it's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today. ♪ >> tucker: kamala harris, the senator from california, seems like about 20 minutes ago, already she's running for president, the cycle gets shorter every year and she's fighting hard to stake a claim as the party's top left candidate. on health care, harris is
9:19 pm
backing medicare for all, for example. >> i actually feel very strongly about this, we need to have medicare for all. that's just the bottom line. access to health care it should not be thought of as a privilege, it should be understood to be a right. >> tucker: all right, okay. that's the case you could make. but here's the interesting part, harris also opposes a border wall and has denounced ice, the border enforcement agents, government workers, as the modern-day kkk, watch. >> the plan was what we would call today at domestic terrorist group. >> like you mike why would we call them a domestic terrorist group? >> because they try to use fear and forced to change the political environment. >> what was the motivation for the use of fear and force? >> is based on race and ethnicity. >> right, are you aware of the perception of many about how the
9:20 pm
power and the expression at ice is being used to enforce the law?fo and do you see any parallels? >> tucker: so senator harris does not want to vigorously enforce american immigration law. so how does that work? think about it for just one second. harris argues, and many democrats agree with her, the free medical care for everyone who lives here is a human right, it's mandatory. if the government has to provide it. lut if you don't control immigration into the country, why wouldn't have the planet move to the united states to get free mris, et cetera? why is it the middle class 'has the united states to finance a welfare state for the rest of the planet? jonathan harris is a political commentary, joins us tonight. thanks very much for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: this seems to me the fundamental tension in the position of the left is taking basically universally right now that we need to radically expand the welfare state, or a lot of support for that. medicaid for all, medicare for
9:21 pm
all, and universal prekindergarten, et cetera, a lot of republican supported. how can you pay for those programs if you don't close the borders? >> there's various ways you can pay for it. you can increase taxes, alexandria keiser cortez wants a 70% tax over 10 million, when you make over 10 million, everything after that, not your entire income. you can raise taxes, you can cut spending out of places but i think when you have -- our military budget is 716 billion, almost a trillion dollars, if you can allot that much money to center military all over the world but you can't to take care of the health of her citizens it says something about your annuities. >> tucker: sure, and that the case you could make but what you can't argue is that a program that generous can be applied to, say, 50 million or 100 million new people, poor people, coming in. so if you say the rest of the world we are giving away free medical care to anybody who's within our borders right now and
9:22 pm
we are not enforcing our borders, which is basically where we are right now. >> i think that's a problem i would have without argument. there's nothing to say that we are not enforcing our borders. being against the wall, which would only take care of a third of our illegal immigration does not mean you don't want to support our borders. >> tucker: 20 million people living here now illegally so if you end -- got here a bunch of different ways, some overstayed visas, some came across the border. >> majority of them are people overstaying their visas. >> tucker:em 20 million of them. pretty easily to get into the country illegally by whatever means and democrats don't want to make it harder -- >> that the issue, they absolutely want to make it harder. >> tucker: by doing what? they don't. >> they have absolutely. just saying youou don't want to spend $6 billion on the wall doesn't mean you don't want to -- they talked about increasing -- >> tucker: right now that has the democratic bill in a house in the senate. we covered it last week, has no new funding or ideas for restricting immigration into the country. how does the math work? >> to say that it has no new
9:23 pm
funding is different than saying it doesn't have any funding. it has billions of dollars of llnding and democrats have talked about ways of doing surveillance and things like that to actually take care of our illegal immigration problem. >> tucker: will you just acknowledge that this is a problem? if you're saying -- we have the internet now so the rest of the world sort of knows what yourur policies are. and if you're saying to the rest of the world we welcome you, which is what democrats have dsaid explicitly, we welcome y, the statue of liberty commands us to welcome you. >> reagan gave them amnesty, it wasn't just democrats. i can't rememberoc democrats giving out amnesty. >> tucker: and as long as you are here, legal or not, we will give you free health care, which is what y gavin newsom and bill de blasio, biggest state, biggest city just announced thi this. >> in california what they're doing is giving health care to illegal immigrants up to 26. tt just blanket -- >> tucker: to see the incentive you're creating? the answer is it's freaking insane. >> i would just say that to say are the only industrialized nation in the world that does
9:24 pm
not offer universalal health ca. >> tucker: i get it. i'm c not arguing -- not on a scale that we do. i'm not aware of any industrialized country that has over 20 million people within its borders illegally and is asking for more. >> are we just uniquely incapable of providing health care? >> tucker: to the world? >> not to the world. if kamala harris is advocating for the health care for americans. >> tucker: no she's not. that's not true. she said it should apply to people here illegally. >> medicare for all is health care for m americans. that's what she's asking her to >> tucker: that is absolutely not true. >> a trillion dollars on the military, we can do c it. >> tucker: maybe you can win me over but it's not. thank you very much, good to see you. tammy bruce is theta president f the independent women's voice and she joins us tonight. i don't think anyone has explored this basic tension. two ideas on a collision course with each other. open borders, welfare state. if you can have one, you cane have the other, you cannot have them both. >> and we've already seen, and when we think about what the democrats are planning to do,
9:25 pm
we'ven seen this in california with governor gavin newsom announcing that they already had obamacare open for illegal aliens and then f he announced that would apply to everyone in the state, regardless of whether you were there legally or not and then of course the mayor of new york doing the same thing, making the same proposal. that one would stretch out, apply effectively to 2021 and apply to everyone of course conveniently just after the 2020 election. so they are campaigning on this. it's a big campaign dynamic but it's california and new york saying exactly the same thing, that there should be universal health care and it could apply to whoever is in our borders. that is impossible. andib you can look at -- we can usewe historically, not just venezuela, but you can look at it even has controlled socialist framework like this destroy civilization. it destroys cultures, it destroys countries and it does so because it's unsustainable and at the left has nothing else
9:26 pm
to offer so what they do if they promised free things, the print more money,on you've got like i, venezuela i think the inflation rate at this point is 80000% and it's unsustainable. so when kamala harris says this and she said it in that clip that it's a human right -- when you are saying that, this then presumes that the supply havely it, the presenting of health care, if it's a human right, then it means if you choose to not give people that health care as a doctor, as an individual, you then are violating those people's human rights.. so it comes down into quite a totalitarian framework about what the government is going to tell people to do and what it says they deserve. >> tucker: so quickly, if you're a democratic candidate, why wouldn't you just say i want to be as generous as we can with our people, with american citizens, they come first and i've got all kinds of pie of pie-in-the-sky crazy socialist
9:27 pm
ideas but i'm going to focus just on americans, why wouldn't they do s that? >> well, because part of it of course is d this notion of alrey who is here. if they imagine individuals eventually voting. they want to encourage the influx in. e part of that is because of course it's political. you cut the number of people who are in the house of representatives are based on the population of the state. so the more people that move in, whether they be citizens or not equates to may be more members of the house of representatives. so it hast a number of fronts to it but it appeals to the far left heart of the base. so it's about the politics, abandoning any kind of normal f sensibilities for the american people but most of all what i don't like the most is that they are lying i to people about whas possible. >> tucker: that's exactly right. >> and what the end result will be and that is what all of us should >> reject. >> tucker: you're exactly right, great to see you. democratic donors and lawmakers suddenly talking a lot about
9:32 pm
>> tucker: if you've been paying any attention recently another something of a religious revival underway in the democratic party. policies theynd oppose are no longer simply unworkable or unwise orr too expensive or stupid, no, they are now immoral and god himself agrees. he's endorsed the democratic platform. this is especially true of walls. walls are wrong, democrats tell us. every brick is wicked, every drop of mortar is diffused with evil. building a wall is like robbing a widower beating a child, it's a mortal sin. >> a wall is in immorality, it's not who we are as a nation. it's an old way of thinking. >> i hate the wall, i think it's immoral, i think it's wasteful. >> are we are country that putsa wall between ourselves and an allied nation? a wall is an immoral symbol for our country. >> tucker: that couldn't be clear, but there's a caveat,
9:33 pm
there always is, some walls are not evil at all, some walls area necessary and good so for those of you keeping track of this theology at home we offer you know a brief tour of walls the democratic party has deemed perfectly moral. walls that are perceived in indulgence. for the in tunisia and georgia. democrats voted to pay for those walls. israel has walls everywhere basically protecting its borders with egypt and gaza and the west bank and democrats won't criticize those walls. meanwhile, pakistan has a massive fence, a wall, really, on its border with afghanistan, designed to combat smuggling, terrorism and illegal immigration. yet pakistan still gets plenty of american aid to so that wall is finals also. even peaceful denmark is a wall that turns out, it's 43 miles long, w it's on the german bord, it's meant toor keep pigs out so it passes the morality test. here in the u.s. it turns out we have plenty of moral walls too. just this sunday kamala harris announced her campaign for president. for security, huge swaths of the street of oakland, california,
9:34 pm
were blocked, walled off, you might say, with their own security at stake senator harris had no problem with this, they were moral walls and there are many more. "the daily caller" sent out across america to find more of them. as you might have guessed, a huge number of the most moral walls we have protect the homes of democratic donors. here's a selection of them. >> this wall belongs to jimmy kimmel. this is magnificent. and it belongs to one of my favorite anti-trim comedians, chelsea handler. we have a barbed wire wall behind us. lebron chooses to protect his castle like a king with a big old wall. george soros' own personal great wall. >> tucker: that's quite a list and there are more, but it's not surprising. the more you think about it there really is only one immoral while on earth. it's not in china, the
9:35 pm
chinese -- the immortal wall is the proposed wall in our southern border, the one that might keep future democratic voters out and for that reason alone it'sha immoral. since that one big wall is so immoral democrats badly want to impeach trump for the sin of wanting to build a beautiful billionaire activist tom steyer held a special town hall where he stoped his accolades to seek impeachment. >> this never struck most people growing up in this country that thisiggest threat to countryy would be at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, but it is. this is a dangerous, reckless, and lawless man. we need to start impeachment today and we need to tell the congress they need to start impeachment today. >> tucker: another woke billionaire. it wanted rich people get so radical? i love it, it's hilarious. meanwhile, maxine waters says she has no actual proof but she knows in her gut that the
9:36 pm
president's campaign was run by russia all along. >> i believe and i don't have the proof, but i believe that manafort was sent to the campaign to be there and ensure that they get trump elected in every way they possibly could. >> tucker: a former communications director for senator harry reid of nevada and he joins us tonight. i've got d to say, i'm being honest, i'm kind of for impeachmentt now. it's preferable to this, nobody rates anybody else's house, there are no guns involved, nole wild unprovable charges. straightforward process, we can watch it on television and voters can assess whether they agree or not. why wouldn't we do impeachment yat this point? >> it's not the priority. we don't have the evidence that we need to have. so what we need is for mueller to complete his investigation, let's get that evidence in and then make an informed decision. impeachment shouldn't be done on the basis of politics and it shouldn't not be done on the basis of politics. it should be based on the evidence that what's best for the country.
9:37 pm
>> tucker: you assume i'm'mng being half facetious, but only half. i watched nancy pelosi yesterday say that she knowsel that russia has something on donald trump. he is the pawn of a hostile foreign power. if that's not a high crime or misdemeanor i'm not sure what i is. i just watched maxine waters, where believes turns the house committee saying trump is a tool of food, so why wouldn't you impeach on the basis of that? >> because you need evidence. if you are to compared. >> tucker: if the speaker the house doesn't have evidence, why is she saying it? >> i didn't say we should be going out there propping up conspiracy theories and that sort of thing. i think that doesn't add a whole lot to the discourse, the maxine waters clip isn't one of my favorite clips at all. we need evidence. we don't needd conspiracy theories or gut feelings, need evidence.de and then, if that evidence exists, take that to the house and then start that impeachment process. >> tucker: wait a second, maxine waters is a bit of a
9:38 pm
ringer, even though she is a committee chair she is obviously an outlier and nobody takes her seriously in washington but nancy pelosi is third in line to thee presidency, she is the of the house of representatives, the most powerful democrat in the world and she is accusing trump of being a russian agent, shouldn't other democrats say wait a second, that's irresponsible, you don't have evidence, why does nobody correct or? >> i think we just need to wait for the evidence to come out from the mueller investigation. >> tucker: are you afraid to criticize nancy pelosi? i know everyone is terrified of nancy pelosi. >> shannon: talk about it doesn't do a lot of good to prop up conspiracy theories. if she's got more information than that would be great to have. but i don't know that she has that. so let's actually see what comes out of the mueller investigation. >> tucker: this ises why in the end time for impeachment. everybody gets to stop posturing and we can watch on television. >> absolutely no posturing during impeachment proceedings. >> tucker: you have to prove it in the end. >> i think you might be for impeachment because he saw whatb it did to the republicans in a '90s, it hurt them very badly. >> tucker: h and then the '90s
9:39 pm
the democrats that in the end this is really about a guy's sex life and in the end they were right. this russia thing is insane. it's a conspiracy and that's true in history will show that. impeachment will hasten the process of making that clear appearing >> i hope history shows there was no collusion, i really do hope that. >> tucker: thank you very much for joining us, great to seeke you. a little news for you, after more than he or the fbi has closed its investigation into the horrifying shooting in las vegas in 2017, the deadliest killing spree in the history of this country. the findings have nothing really new. the fbi says the shooter acted alone. no ties to anct extremist group and no clear motive except for a vague desire for infamy. the vaguest police meanwhile wrapped up their investigation a long time ago and at this point it looks like we may never know why he did what he did but the fbi has given up and you can't really blame them. they had much more important things to do like writing the homes of unarmed perjury defendants in the mueller pro. if they know where the real threats are.
9:40 pm
tom brokaw being destroyed today by the left for calling on people in this country to speak english. why does he say that? that's after the break. ♪ ing. -jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ]
9:44 pm
>> tucker: tom brokaw was long one of the most respected men in america, he anchored the nbc nightly news for 22 years. he 78 years old, he ought to be enjoying a happy retirement, fly fishing every morning, instead he just made a terrible mistake, he expressed an unauthorized opinion in public. you can't do that. during a live television show he said that assimilation is good and that immigrants should try to learn s english. >> i also happen to believe that the hispanics should work harder at assimilation. that's one of the things i've been saying for a longti time. they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all of their kids are learning tomm speak english and that they feel comfortable in the communities. >> tucker: not so long ago those words would have passed pretty much unnoticed. democrats like bill clinton and barbara jordan said it all the time and if you don't believe it, go to google right now and look up barbara jordan on immigration. wow. and they set it for a pretty civil reason, english unites the
9:45 pm
country, obviously and now around the world it is also the language of business and science and culture. it is clearly a good thing for everyone in america. immigrant or not, to learn english as quickly as possible, but, no, you are not allowed to have that opinion anymore even if you're tom brokaw. the activist group latino victory, whatever that is, accused him of promoting "white supremacist ideology." an nyu journalist professor called carolina remain moreno d actually it's america's job to "try harder to assimilate into global society" and then some kid at vox called dylan matthew suggested that he was in pathetic to "pure racial animus." even after he apologized profusely, the cowards on his old show overrun nbc denounced hom for his thought crime. watch this. >> a former longtime anchor of this broadcast is in the news tonight for comments he made sundays on "meet the press" ."
9:46 pm
the criticism was widespread and almost immediate. >> nbc news spokesman tells me "tom's comments were inaccurate and inappropriate and we are glad he apologized." >> tucker:r: hope they get paid a lot at an easy of it say stuf like that. john davidson joins us tonight. john, look, my bottom-line hope is that you could live int. a country where you could have a conversation about assimilation and english and whether or not they are important. the response toan tom brokaw mas it absolutely impossible for anp decent person to have any opinion on this at all and it makes it impossible to solve our problems if we can't have a conversation about it. >> exactly. it's like you say, it used to be an unremarkable thing to talk about the melting pot as an american ideal, the idea that from many we are one and we come together from all different countries, all different backgrounds and we become americans. and of course language is one of
9:47 pm
the things that binds us together as americans but there are other things that bind us together as americans too and that's not tohe say that because we have a melting pot that you have to abandon all aspects of your own culture, those cultural aspects feed into the american life and the american culture that we have and make it richer and makeke it better and that shouldn't be controversial. and it shouldn't be scandalous to suggest that learning english is part ofof assimilating and is part of what immigrants should strive for. there's nothing controversial about that and there should beth nothing controversial about what tom brokaw said. >> tucker: of course not and you would think, brokaw, who is a liberal, would be given the benefit of the doubt but he was ceremonially displayed instead. but i wonder if the people pushing this -- by the way, nobody is pushing for anyone to give up their own culture.iv their identity, that's insane. only to participate in a common identity, which is not a racial category, it's a culture that
9:48 pm
binds us together as americans from different backgrounds and races and religion, but what we have in common is the question. why is there such an organist caucus against having anything in common? what is that? >> for the left, the whole idea of assimilationef cuts against e idea of identity politics. identity politics necessitates that everybody kind of stay in their lane and keep their racial or ethnic identity is the number one most important thing about them and to the extent that you view assimilation as a positive thing, is a good thing, as that helps immigrant communities get ahead economically or achieve more in education, it's to be viewed as a negative thing. they want to hold on to discrete identities and not assimilate and this is the opposite, for example, of what we see in europe where you have massive numbers of on assimilated
9:49 pm
immigrant communities, especially muslim communities that have fared very poorly in european countries, partly because they don't adopt the cultural norms, they don't adopt languages, they don't achieveuc highly in education and in business in europe and they stay in these sort of segregated enclaves. that is the opposite of what we want for this country but that seems to be what the left would like in terms of what their identity politics dictates for us. >> tucker: may be keeping people poor and helpless and atomized helps them grow more efficiently, just a thought. just kind of throwing that out there. we are out of time, it's great to see you. i'm o sorry to cut you short. thank you. one of the heroes to this show, just kicked out of the super bowl media day -- expelled, threatened. there he is right there. he will join us after the break to tell us why.
9:53 pm
♪ >> tucker: the past couple of weeks have been pretty awful foc american journalists, hundreds of reporters and editors in places like "huffington post" and buzzfeed lost their jobs, victims of systemic changes to their industry. no matter what you think of those sites, sad, knowing that it is very tough. those journalists have many
9:54 pm
things in common with otherto americans, factory workers, loggers, coal miners, all of them, and many more have seen their way of life disappear, thanks to technology or outsourcing or private equity. this kind of thing has been going on a long time. now in previous cycles of what we used to call creative destruction, they had new advice for blue-collar workers, just learn to code, coding is the future. reop whining and embrace it. here's a selection of headlines that you might remember on the subject. this is from npr, "from coal to code, a new path for layoff workers." from wired, the tech evangelist magazine, "can you teach a coal miner to code?" from "cbs news," out of work coal miners finding new work in computer industry.er and at this from bloomberg, "appalachian miners are learning to code." and from the venerable
9:55 pm
"new york times," "the coders of kentucky." you see? it is that simple. let's say that you spent 30 years making a solid middle-class living at a paper mill in northern new hampshire, then one day the mill shut down, sold for scrap to china, it happens a lot. by no problem, just learn too code.di everybody in brooklyn is doing it. coding was never a real solution to any of this, obviously. but it had the effect of making journalists feel even more self-satisfied. and of course that was the point, it is always that point. actually. fast forward to this month. someone on twitter came up with a pretty brilliant piece ofre advice for all of those laid off journalists trying to figure out what to do with their lives. learn to code. perfect. suddenly "learn to code" was everywhere on twitter. but journalists did not see the humor in this at all, a former "new yorker" employee called the phrase "far right hate," people went to wesleyan should not have to learn to code. so that they complained to the censorship of authority is at twitter who immediately concluded that asking someone tm learn to code might be "targeted harassment." but only when it is directed at people who used to work at buzzfeed. for the paper mill guy in
9:56 pm
new hampshire, coding is still a future. well, barstool sports is probably the best site on the internet, dave portnoy runsly i, and he has become a scourge p of the modern nfl, the nfl does not appreciate that. they banned barstool from all n nfl events for years and that includes the super bowl's media day. last night, portnoy snuck in any way. but he was spotted and kicked out, and charged with criminal trespassing. dave portnoy, fresh from prison, apparently, joining us now. to tell us what it was like. how did you wind up charged with criminal trespassing? i thought that you were a legitimate website operator? >> yes, we are, but when you challenge authority and roger goodell, it ends up with a lecture, sometimes behind bars, sometimes with police officers. in this case, we had ten guys that looked like they work for
9:57 pm
the fbi with little nfl lapel pins thinking they were the toughest guys in the universe trying to rough me up. >> tucker: [laughs] i will ask your two questions, first, why do they hate you so much? >> they hate me because of deflategate, i support tom brady, and i challenge roger goodell's power. it is absolute. if you disagree with roger caddell, it's like the old gestapo, you end up in the bottom of a wall somewhere. that's how he operates. we continue to challenge him and he continues to try to shut us down. >> tucker: so you are disobedient, that is your crime. that was my first question. the second question, how dumb is rogern, goodell? so if you're going to arrest somebody, hassle somebody, you probably should not make that person the head of barstool sports, it is not smart p.r., is it?ul >> he is one of the dumbest humans that ever lived. he has a rock, he has no brain. it is like an atari game bouncing back and forth. there is no win for when you hassle us. there is no win.
9:58 pm
if you put cuffs on us, we go to jail, it is a national media story. they knew that. once they escorted us out, they were like, what are we going to do with this guy? u he probably wants to go to jail because he will be on every newspaper in the cover, the police officers that are down theree and the s.w.a.t. teams, when they hear why i'm being detained, they cannot believe it. they are talking to the nfl, you are really wasting our time with this guy and the nfl and all of the suits are saying that they have to prosecute them. so roger goodell, if he just said, here are the credentials, it is a nonstory. but he is so stupid. he is just the stupidest leader that we have ever encountered. it is really embarrassing. >> tucker: so roger goodell is a mouth breather, you made a compelling case for that. and this is a serious economic question, how much does he make? >> $40 million a year. >> tucker: so how can an economy support, how can and can't be be so vibrant to that a dumbo person makes $40 milliona year? how does that work, dave
9:59 pm
portnoy? >> the owners, all of the owners, he was brought up through the system, his father and he was in the nfl system forever, so he got this cushy job that probably 50% of americans can do. he has the least skills for the highest paying job of anybl humn who ever lived. but the owners do not want to screw up the money train. the money is coming in despite this guy, because we love football. but he -- all he does is cause controversy. an ant could do his job, literally. >> tucker: not only president of barstool sports, but now a freedom fighter. i am so glad that you are breathing fresh air tonight. dave portnoy, good to see you. >> someone has to fight for the little people, tucker. >> tucker: that is the spirit. [laughs] so good. what a fun hour that was, we will be back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m., unchanged, the mandate. the sworn enemy of flying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. if you don't watch it live, at
10:00 pm
an inconvenient hour, we dare you to figure out your dvr. good luck with that. we have some good news, one small piece of breaking good news at the end of the show. sean hannity's standing by live in g new york. >> sean: a love that interview. that was great. very entertaining. good job. thank you, great show, welcome to "hannity," we begin with "hannity watch" and the rise of socialism right here in the united states of america. and what is a new radical and extreme, and frankly, dangerous socialist democratic party that is pretty much declaring war on the american dream and freedom. they are vilifying wealth and success, and penalizing innovation, stomping all over the principles that made this the greatest place on earth, the envy of the free world. the goals are simple, they want the government to control your property, your businesses, your health care, your money, your self-defense, scary. don't be fooled by broad, lofty promises of secur
329 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on