thank you for joining us. i'll see you tomorrow morning on americans newsroom. each weekday morning live 9:00 to noon. tucker carlson is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" anybody who's ever been caught in its gears can tell you, the great american outrage machine is a remarkable thing. one day you're having dinner with your family, imagine everything is fine. next, your phone exploding with calls from reporters who read you snippets from a press release written by democratic party operatives that the man to know how you could possibly could have said something so awful and -- it's a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more than a decade old. if not what you can do to respond, it's pointless to try

to talk about word spoken in jest or taken out of context, or no resemblance to what you think or want for the country. none of that matters, none of that cares. you know the role you're required to play. you are a sinner that needs the forgiveness of twitter. so you show a statement of deep contrition, apologize for the profusely, promise to be a better person going forward with the guidance of your patrician consultant companies and money to whatever organization claims that represents the people you supposedly affected. you sit back and brace for a wave and stories about your apology, all of which simply pretext for attacking you again. in the end, you get fired, lose your job. nobody defends you. your neighbors opened their gates as you pull into the driveway. you are ruined. no matter how bad it gets, the matter how despised and humiliated you may be, there is one thing you could never do, one thing that is absolutely not allowed: you can never acknowledge the comic observer

the absurdity of the whole thing for you can never live in the face of the mob. you have to pretend the people yelling at you are somehow your moral superiors. you have to assume what they say they are mad about is what they are actually mad about. you have to take them at face value. you must pretend this is a debate about virtue and not about power. your critics are arguing from principal and not for partisanship. no matter what they take from you in the end, you must continue to pretend that these things are true. you are bad, they are good, the system is on the level. but what if we stop pretending for a minute? what if we acknowledge what's actually going on in? one side is deadly serious. they believe that politics is war. they are not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. they seek power and they claim to win it with whatever it takes. if that includes getting you fired or silencing you, threatening your family at home, throwing you in prison, okay. they know what their goal is.

if you are in way, they will crush you but what's interesting is how reliably the other side pretends that none of this is happening. republicans in washington do a fairly credible imitation of an opposition party. they still give speeches, they tweaked quite a bit, they make certain noises about how liberals are bad. on the deepest level, it's all a pose. in their minds, where it matters, republican leaders are controlled by the left. they know exactly what they are allowed to say and believe it or they know what the rules are. they may understand that those rules are written by the very people who seek their destruction, they ruthlessly enforce them anyway. republicans in washington police their own with a never ending enthusiasm. like trustees in a prison that dutifully report back to the ward and hoping for perks, nobody wants to be called names, nobody wants -- how many times have you seen it happen? some conservative leader will say something stupid or too far

outside the bounds of received wisdom's for the moral guardians of cable news? twitter goes bonkers by the mob demands response. the first people calling for the destruction of that people are the public end. you saw with the covington catholic high school kids, you saw it all the time. paul ryan did the same before him. a couple of years ago, the entire democratic party decided to deny the biological reality of sex differences, an idea that is insane and dangerous. republican leaders decided to not criticize them for it. this is a system built on on te seat and forced silence but hypocrisy is its hallmark. in washington, it's considered rude to ask how exactly it works but why are the people who considered bill clinton a hero lecturing me about sexism? how can the party demanding

racial quotas to meet other people as racist. beginning to think that may be their criticisms aren't sincere. may be the moral puffery is a costume. may be the whole conversation is an absurd joke. maybe we are falling for it. you hear modern progressive described as new per tens purity and spirit whatever there, puritans cared about the faith of the soul and progressive's too busy pushing late-term abortions and cross-dressing on fifth graders. these are the people writing movies and sitcoms, they are not shocked by naughty words. they pretend to be when it's useful. it's been very useful lately. the left's main goal, in case you haven't noticed, is controlling what to think of it in order to do that, they have to control the information you receive your google, facebook, twitter are fully on board with that. they are happy to ban unapproved thoughts and they don't apologize for it. they often do.

cable channels in every news outfit in this country, one of the only places left in the united states were independent thoughts are allowed is right here, the opinion hours on this network, a few hours on a sea of television programming, not much relatively speaking. for the left, it's unacceptable. it demands total conformity. since the day we went on the air they've been working hard to kill this show. they've said much about it in public, it's seeming to referential. but now it's obvious to everybody appeared no pretending it's not happening. it is happening to going forward, we'll be covering their effort to make us be quiet but for now, two points to leave you with. first, fox news is behind us as they have been since the very first day. toughness is a rare quality in a tv network and we are grateful for that. second, we've always apologize when we are wrong and will continue to do that or that's what these and people do pure they. but we will never bow to the mob. ever.

the matter what. tammy bruce is a radio host and president of women's -- i've never said this. i worked at fox for ten years. i've never said this on the air, but i thought it the whole time. you've got one channel that disagrees with all the other channels, and islands of dissent in the middle of the sea of sameness, and that's too much for them. i wonder if we've been lying to ourselves with the extent they like to shut this channel down. >> i don't think so. what you describe in your commentary is totalitarianism. it's part of the reason why i left the left, my first book is the new thought police, warning about this trajectory, the complaining about words, opinions, was beyond the conversations we normally have. it was being designed and the environment was being designed to be able to destroy people. i love coming on the show. i am honored to be part of

fox news what you discussed. i've never been told what to say, i've never been told what not to say, i've never been removed because of a presumption of what my opinion will be, you and i will disagree have disagreed on many issues. we'll disappoint each other on occasions. but what we embody here is that we care about each other, we will have those conversations, and we will be able to have them about other people and have that exchange. what's manifesting here is a desire to shut that down across the board and if the left things that is the monster they'll be able to control and just aim at us? they are going to be very surprised when the monster gets out and begins to move amongst all of them. this is what i think is a problem for society in general and for the larger effort about being able to have these conversations become a better

nation, become better people, and embrace ourselves. the first amendment especially when it's difficult. >> tucker: i don't really understand the mind-set that leads -- you see it on display in the other channels even now, to want to shut down people who disagree. i grew up in in a world where magazines are important, you have the national review, the american spectator, the nation, "mother jones," village voice, sure. never occurred to me to shut the other side down. why would they want to stop all dissent. what's the point of that? >> part of what i had a hand in and what i still work on making up for in these years is this design of individuals who we really couldn't argue the details or the issues. we couldn't really persuade people on the issues. and the way then -- of course, it's not just the american left, but the left of the world, the only way the left can survive is by shutting down dissent literally and eliminating the

individuals who might speak up, even with a different idea, the idea as you've noted on the issue of conformity. any voice or any individual that is a reminder that we can approach things differently and sometimes offend people and sometimes make mistakes in issues where they apologize, but the differences is that the left cannot stand an environment where there is any challenging because they rely on the collective or they don't rely on ideas. they rely on fear and division and controlling people in that framework. you see it unfolding still in venezuela, in cuba. it's the collapse of the soviet union. it's the antithesis to individual personal freedom which involves the need to have larger conversations, to be able to speak our minds without fear and without being bullied or threatened because we might deviate what the left deems to be a proper and impure thought.

>> tucker: almost out of time but i wonder if you think it's right that republicans in washington, people who should be standing up for the other side, the other view, seem terrified to stray outside the line that they've been set down for by our enemies? >> there's a lot of great stuff on social media, but there's a concentration of rage that very often is contrived. it's manipulated and managed politically. and on social media, it suddenly seems like it's organic but it's not. it frightens politicians who think that's a real reflection of real-life. look, people are generally involved and engaged in the things that matters in our lives. as a feminist, it matters to me how we are all pretrade. at the same time, we've got to have freedom of thought and freedom of expression. we have a role in the and so the politicians. they have to feel strong enough and free enough to speak their

minds and stand up for what's right. >> tucker: an old-fashioned liberal and i mean that as a kopelman >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: the government is working hard to make it powerful, so powerful that democracy is too risky. they'll need to control it no matter what. so to achieve that, they are making america run with people were not citizen. that is true. after the break. you.

all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. >> tucker: the 2016 election didn't go the way the left wanted or expected, obviously.

the 2018 midterms were better for democrats, but they still want the number of races, and others pretty close, intolerable for one civil reason, however the federal government a vast bureaucracy of people policing what you buy, what you say, what you see, increasingly what you think. for the left, it's not enough. they have big plans to take even more of our economy over, the health care sector, energy sector. that's what it's about, controlling our economy. they want nationalized eight day service of the government apparatus can take over parenting itself. the next thing the government will control as your own behavior. watch. >> it is a fact that we can change these behaviors without much change to our lifestyle and we can save the future generations of our country and

this world. >> tucker: there is nothing they can't do, really! you are going to change human nature next to her just like the soviets. good luck with that. the left is fighting for an all-powerful state, a state that is so powerful that you couldn't really responsibly give it over to your political opponent. democracy is a threat to their plans. they obviously prefer elections where there is only one possible outcome. winning over existing voters doesn't work. it hasn't. not even trying anymore. instead, add new voters and replace the old wonder that's the plan. they are singing out loud. they said it last week. they passed a bill saying they are protecting voting rights because voting rights are entered in threat, voter suppression! there is no number showing that's true but every number shows that's a lie. it's more propaganda jen ginned up by the on cable news and believed unfortunately by at of people.

there is no danger that voting is going away despite what they are telling you again and again. what democrats apparently want is the votes of noncitizen children and criminals. they say that. >> their focus needs to be on bringing more people to vote, not driving them away. not throwing them off the voter rolls. >> we want them when they come here to be fully part of our system. that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to america. >> young people should also have a say in whole what represents them. for your consideration, amendment number 127, which would lower the minimum voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16 years of age. >> restoring voting rights to felons who pay their debt to society. >> we must help more americans to purchase a paid in their democracy. we must work to remove barriers to voting. >> tucker: where to begin placement restoring the voting

rights to felons, but not gun rights. house republicans forced to vote on an amendment on hr one which we condemn letting illegal immigrants in election. all but six democrats voted against it. make no mistake, democrats believe that anybody in the entire world has the right to enter this country illegally or not and start casting votes in our election. it's odd because this very same party tells us that russian facebook trolls are a threat to our democracy. yet by the standards they themselves have laid down, they have no problem with, i don't know, a million russians walking across the mexican border and voting as long as they vote for beto o'rourke. as you saw congresswoman yana presley got dozens of democrats to back a bill that would hilariously lower the age to 16 nationwide. a lot of us think 16-year-olds are nice people, they can smoke, they can drink, they can't marry or undergo surgery without their

parents permission, why? their parents can be held liable for damages. what's the theme here? they are not adults. we don't treat them like adults because they are not. but soon democratic party consensus should be that they should vote. and only for one reason, by the way up and not because they are apt to make wise decisions, because they are apt not to and more likely to vote democratic as a result. they're likely democrats would give them two votes apiece, if they could. they want to felons voting for the exact same reason. no offense against society is enough to out favoring democrats in the ballot box. those are the stakes. they are running a legal and legislative push to change the electorate, so much they know longer have to worry about elections again. the current electorate has to allow that to happen. they are the only ones who can stop it from happening. professor, thanks very much for coming up. i want to start with the age question. i can't resist. you are a professor and youth teach young people. presumably they are all 18. you've been around kids.

i'm sure you love 16-year-olds as much as the rest of us do. are they capable of making wise voting positions they'll make decisions? >> there are a lot of people who are capable of making wise routing decisions. see that but we don't stop them from voting. the other thing is we allow 16-year-olds to drive, allow 17-year-olds from joining the military. we put them in positions where they could literally determine life and death for many of us, including themselves. so the idea that they can't vote, i think, you know, it's something we can at least question. >> tucker: okay. how about 13? i mean, 13 years old in some places can work. >> they can't drive, though. they can't join the military. >> tucker: neither can 16-year-olds. but what is the limit, would you say? >> again, i'm not necessarily endorsing 16, but i think it's a

conversation that we can have. that's a fair conversation. the fact that we get on the road, we all put our lives and our hands, and we allow a 16-year-old to make life and death decisions. as a 17-year-old, you're able to potentially join the military and certainly make life and death decisions while you are in the military. i think we can have that conversation. >> tucker: i'm for that conversation. i think it does a lot, though, because you want the wisest people you can find to vote. >> [chuckle] i think that's dangerous for us to see here and try to choose whose wisest and who is not, who is fit to vote and who is not. there is no man who is so wealthy and so great and so smart that he should determine the fate of his neighbor. >> tucker: that's what i'm not arguing. i'm marking that children are not adults. if you care about the system itself, you don't want to

encourage children of doing something they're not capable of doing, voting. why would you ever encourage people who were not citizens to vote? that destroys the whole idea of your country, right? what would happen if, you know, a million russian facebook trolls moved here, swept over the border and came in and voted? with that be okay? >> that would not be okay, and i don't think that people are saying undocumented or unauthorized immigrants should vote. at least in the state and federal elections. i think what people have talked about, elise entered into a conversation about, is very local elections. in college park, there was a regulation to allow undocumented people to vote. the reason being is because they pay property taxes, they own property, they should be able to determine whether a pothole gets fixed or something in their community. >> tucker: there is a requirement placement i didn't know we still required people to

own property to vote. i thought that was -- it's not a requirement >> is not a requirement that they own property. to be when they probably anything >> tucker: they probably don't own anything? >> they have a vested interest in their community. as far as state or federal elections, i've not heard anyone on the left to press undocumented people to cast votes in state or federal elections. >> tucker: super quick, how long would you guess it would be until someone, i'm just guessing, may be a former bartender from queens, said that? >> i don't think she's going to do that. she's idealistic, but i don't think she's going to make that decision. >> tucker: i will be monitoring twitter and have you back. >> all right, tucker. >> tucker: thank you very much much. in washington, everybody is steadfast denying that there is a crisis at the border and you're crazy if there is per the people watching the border spending a career trying to protect the border have a different view. they are preparing for a

record-setting wave of migrants coming in the spring. mark morgan was border patrol chief under president obama. thank you for coming on. this is not at all -- i keep hearing, even from guests on the shell, but on the other channels and they are never, ever challenged, that we are at record low of illegal immigration. >> is another false narrative among many. right now, we are facing skyrocketing numbers at the border. cpb estimating that numbers continue at this pace, we could reach 900,000 or a million apprehensions this year. really quickly cover the difference between the '90s and 2000s are the demographics. in the 2000, we had a million, but 90% of them were removed. this year, we could reach a million, the difference is because of family units or children, we will release 65% of that million. 6,500,000 will be released into the united states. that's a difference.

it's a crisis. >> to the extent that we know, so of that 65%, how many will ultimately be deported? >> if you look at the asylum laws and look at other judicial activism that has just been passed, right now after you have due process and you have your hearing, now the court just ruled you can appeal that hearing. that's basically a lower court creating amnesty. so basically, as a family unit or child seeking asylum, you are here indefinitely. >> tucker: so in other words, all that -- the propaganda we were hearing last year about child separations, you saw the people crying on television about it, trump's a nasty villain, all that stuff, that was all the pretext for setting up a system in which nobody could actually be deported? >> that's absolutely correct. and they knew that. they absolutely knew that, tucker. they knew that because they

pulled a number out of the air that you cannot detain kids more than 20 days, so now the kids are being used as pawns. kids are being traffic across and sent back to mexico and they come back across with another adult so they can all become entered in the united states. >> tucker: why isn't this being covered on other channels? not that they are in charge of the news coverage, but they should be a significant story. there should be some other news outlet other than this one that notices it? >> i think the men and women who risk their lives every day on the border, i think this is what so frustrating to them. because political ideology is so infused on this and they know the truth. law enforcement, we can only draw one, being drawn by one ideology in the best interest of the safety and security of this nation, as well as those illegally entering. kids are being abused and used

as pawns more and more every day because congress will do their job, tucker. >> tucker: really stunning. mark morgan, thank you very much for coming on tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: well, for two years, the left has fantasize about the day the mueller comes up or we'll just wait for the reported but what will they do if there's nothing in the report. if there is no russian collusion classmate will fantasize a bit after the break. called forebrain, from the experts at force factor. key ingredients help improve memory, focus, energy, and more. now available at gnc. you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more.

>> i'm going to bring you to the lincoln memorial and bring you to a place that you have not seen before. >> this is the most visited monument. the iconic place to be in washington. and across the world. >> you promised me a visit. can we go? we are really going in? >> we are really going in and we are going down the stairs. the whole of the lincoln memorial. it's so grand. the public should see it too. what we are going to do is go in the grand chamber and show you some fascinating parts, a time capsule back to 1914 and 1922.

>> tucker: robert mueller's special counsel investigation has gone on for what seems like several lifetimes. npr did and unintentionally hair hilarious piece for sad elderlys dying without a chance to read the mueller report as their final request. the takedown of the president is what they live for, literally according to npr, so what happens if the report doesn't have anything in it at the end. over at nbc, terry moran warned the possible effect of that scenario. watch. >> the central and most serious question in this investigation, the reason robert mueller started with, did the current president of the united states is just kremlin in an attack on our democracy. if mueller after two years comes back and says i don't have the evidence to support that charge, that's a reckoning for democrats who hoped that mueller what you

race the 2016 election, a reckoning for the media, if, in fact, after all this time there was no collusion. >> tucker: yeah, you think let's make it might be time for some people to apologize, not one of them ever well. you can bet your house on that. nancy pelosi seems concerned that it might not be approved by the report. she warred a push towards impeachment toward the president may not be worth it. but the party base row presented by maxine waters of california is not deterred. >> i believe we have everything we need to basically impeach him. i believe that. you're absolutely right. we are depending on mr. mueller. >> tucker: dan bongino is a former secret service officer and then he joins us. thank you for coming on. that is the bottom-line question. if the report comes out and

there are rumors in any case that it doesn't show the trump campaign colluded with the kremlin to subvert the election, what is the press going to say? >> nothing. first, let me say, tucker, i'm happy to be here with you tonight. and i sincerely mean that. >> tucker: [laughs] thank you, dan. i'm glad you are here. >> don't ever ever genuflect. you know it. before the rage mob. we can all be better. i know it's what you brought me on for, but don't ever take a knee in front of the rage mob. okay. moving on. >> tucker: you are cracking me up! >> what would happen with the media placement nothing will happen. how here is how the media handles

it started with watergate, ended with trump cabinet officials, they had some kind of -- they take a flight on a private plane. he had a go! they have to get rid of all these people! with democrat scandals, they'll cover the story. no one can deny they covered the clinton email stories, but, tucker, who has been punished for that? nobody x make a big fat zero! there were no demands from the media that anybody be punished, they cover for her constantly. listen. take this show and peg this to your youtube account. nothing will happen. they will move on. they will not be horrified or disgusted like normal rational people who make mistakes, like you and i would be. none of that will happen. >> tucker: so al capone's vault is finally open and there is nothing in it and they pretend it's full of gold? we would not have had this investigation or any of these investigations without the core claim that there was collusion. no collusion, no legitimacy.

there is nothing we can do about it. >> tucker, think about this. right? we have not heard a scintilla of evidence that trump colluded with forward russian actors to overthrow the election for not a scintilla of evidence. we do know as a matter of fact that the dossier, this fake thing, was used to spy on the trump campaign for this additional information, describe three different ways. jim comey described it as a mosaic of information. john brennan described it as the corpus of intelligence. and andy mccabe described it as articulable facts. articulable meaning is someone going to articulate what these facts are? all we have is a hoax dossier and we've heard about these for two years! is anyone going to articulate what the actual facts are? the answer is no, because there are no facts. you all got work to, but i'm sorry, you are a if you believe this collusion hoax. i'm really sorry to tell you this. you are really stupid, you

believe in and aesop's fable. there is no evidence. it did not happen! you believe in sasquatch -- no, there is more evidence of sasquatch! i mean, there are photos! it may be fixed, but there are photos! >> tucker: i think there is a hair sample, a pilot, i'm not sure. it's great to see you. your way on today. i love it. >> thanks, buddy. >> tucker: alexandria ocasio-cortez says you ought to be excited that the robots are coming for your jobs and your reasons to live for you don't have to be work anymore. wouldn't that be nice? that's next after the break. everyone's got to listen to mom.

when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet, coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org

>> tucker: there is something wrong, bad going on at the center of american society. combine deaths by suicide, alcohol, and drug overdose is the highest since record-keeping began fit many of those who are in a world without meaningful work, many people feel lost and miserable. work is central about how people feel about themselves be people need a purpose. automation is likely to make this crisis much worse. and pioneer alexandria ocasio-cortez says she's excited, though. we should be thrilled we are about to lose our jobs. within. >> we should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work, right? we should not feel nervous about, you know, the tollbooth collector not having to collect tolls anymore. we should be excited by that.

but the reason we are not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die. >> tucker: so this is coming. she's right to say that it's coming. she's honest enough to admit it's coming. but how odd to think it is in a crisis that it's coming. according to ocasio-cortez, the upside is will tax the robots. >> bill gates talking about taxing the robots at 90%. what he's talking about is taxing corporations at 90%. but it's easier to say tax the robots. >> tucker: nikki konst joins us, thank you for coming on. unlike a lot of people on the right, i don't dismiss alexandra because of cortez. i don't think everything she says is wrong. i admire the fact that she's brave enough to say what you think and i think she says

interesting things. i want to take this point seriously. she's right that automation could automate a lot of jobs. that seems to be a strategy. she dismisses it as no big deal. >> i wouldn't say she's insisting it's no big deal. she says it comes down to she's a democratic socialist, i'm a democratic socialist. what that means is more democracy is brought into our economic model. right now, we have a very few who's profiting off of illness, and few profiting off of automation which is putting people out of work. if we build an economic system that, you know, innovates -- innovation should not be at the expense of jobs. we need to innovate, otherwise we'd be in horse and buggies, of course. it doesn't mean at the expense of a labor force which ultimately hurts creativity peer when fewer people are able to innovate because they cannot -- they are working 3-4 jobs, that

hurts business through that hurts small businesses, that hurts our ability to innovate as a society, that hurt society as a whole. we need to make sure that when we are innovating, we are also protecting workers. making sure people have benefits. making sure people can pay off their debts. when you have an economic system, the late stage capitalism we have now, where very few making an extraordinary amount of money off of exporting workers or keeping people unemployed or in death. >> tucker: when i actually agree with the majority of what you said. i'm not -- i'm concerned about a system where a smaller number of people get a larger percentage of shares, and makes for society unstable. it is unstable as a result. i don't understand her point about automation. if all of a sudden, mckinsey and a lot of forecasters predict that in 30 years, a huge percentage of our jobs will be gone, with nothing to do, and andrew yang makes this point, and revolution. >> i think the revolution is

happening right now. the rise of democratic socialization, the majority of young people burdened by debt who can't find stable employment, or if they do, they have multiple jobs to pay their rent or living at home with their parents. >> tucker: i get it. >> that is a revolution. it's a political revolution. it's what bernie sanders bill and it's what alexandra causer cortez -- be one i get it completely. there is a lot of economic insecurity and that's why they are socialist. the i've been seeing it for two years. the answer is not we are going to pay you a thousand bucks a month to go out and smoke weed. people need purpose in their lives. i'm serious. people get meaning from their jobs. if robots take their job, what's the meaning? >> if you look at these transitions, whether it's the transition from horse and buggy to car or other forms of technological innovations, radio, television, there's

always a concern of jobs being lost, and there is always work. we need to make sure that work is protected. i think what she's referring to is, i do not want to speak on the behalf of alexandria ocasio-cortez, what she's speaking to if innovation is going to happen, we need to make sure the companies making money off the innovation are being taxed appropriately. right now, they are not. when you look at the companies that don't want to pay their workers a $15 minimum wage and they choose to automate, they are not paying enough taxes if any in exchange. >> tucker: i get it. i just think -- vehicle >> tucker: may be it's they are not jobs. >> listen, there are always going to be jobs. we have to essentially innovate with new job creation. there are going to be architects, scientists, going to be lawyers. the more educated society gets -- of course, millennials are a very overeducated

generation. they do not have the jobs to match their education. >> tucker: we've disagreed more than we've ever ever agreed ever. >> you're a democratic socialist now, tucker! >> tucker: there's going to be more lawyers. i'm out. that's the one thing for >> i'm not for more lawyers either. welcome to the dsa. >> tucker: well, ocasio-cortez not worried about losing jobs because more jobs will be made by the green you deal thank you very much for coming on. you are one of the founders of one of the most environmental don't make them as environment organizations in the world and you think the green new deal sounds terrifying. tell us why? >> because it would be basically the end of civilization if 85% of the world and also 85% of the u.s.'s energy is in the form of coal, oil, natural gas were

phased out over the next few years. like ten years. we did not have anything to replace them with. yes, if we went into a crash course of building nuclear reactors, we could replace them for producing electricity. but that isn't going to happen because the greens are against nuclear and they are even against hydroelectric dams which at least is renewable. but they don't support that either. so basically they are opposed to approximately 98.5% of all the electricity that we are using and nearly 100% of all of the vehicle and transportation and ships and planes that we are using. so i just -- when i tweeted the other day and had a huge response, over 3 million impressions on twitter, when i said you don't have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels. or get the food into the cities

where it's needed for that needs comic requires large trucks per there's not going to be electric trucks anytime soon hauling 40 tons of foods in the supermarkets where people in the city probably thinks it originates in the supermarket, but it does not. it's coming from farms out in the country where a few million people are growing the food for all the rest of the population. and if we ban fossil fuels, first agricultural production would collapse in a very short period of time. there are these things called tractors and they use fuel. and all the other implements on the farm. and then there is the transportation. so when you have no fuel, how do you get the food to the center of new york, to manhattan, where aoc is from? you don't. then the people there will begin to starve. and that will spread out as a rock from the center of the metropolises all across the country and half the population will die in a very short period of time. as i also pointed out, there wouldn't be a tree left on this planet.

say this was a worldwide thing. the united states isn't going to ban fossil fuels if no one else does. but say the paris agreement came into effect fully all around the world and everybody ban fossil fuels. there wouldn't be a tree left on this planet because that would be all there was for fuel for heating and cooking as they did in the old days when there was hardly anybody on the planet compared to what there is today. so just that one point -- never mind the insanity of banding aircraft and fossil fuels using vehicles. >> tucker: you just completely blew my mind. i knew some of that. but the way you put it was really stirring for patrick moore, i hope you come back on the show. >> anytime, tucker. >> tucker: thank you. welcome missy and then was just hit with a massive lawsuit for its coverage of the covington c. will the press ever pay a price for rushing to judgment?

that story is next. 6 vital functions... ...and one healthy you. that's the power of one a day.

woi felt completely helpless. trashed online, my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705.

>> tucker: jussie smollett did what his agent didn't do, he tried to boost his career. unfortunately he tried to do it by defaming half the country. the press raced to believe smollett after his initial allegations. we're quoting robin roberts when

we say, "beautiful, jussie." now they could be paying the price for that. a new lawsuit brought against cnn seeks $250 million in damages for the channel's absurd and misleading coverage of the covington incident. we have the author of the new book "panic attack young radicals in the age of trump." robby is one of the world's experts on hoaxes of this kind. so the suit against cnn for prematurely tarring these kids for the sin, i guess, of standing there, does it have a shot? >> that's a very complicated question. i think some of the things alleged in the suit are perhaps opinion, perhaps wrongful opinion. things the media claimed were not correct. you have to show it was a fact, a demonstrated fact. some of it -- you could make an

argument when the native american man claimed he couldn't get out of the situation because his way was blocked. that seems more like a fact you could maybe prove. let's keep in mind the post and cnn are actually the second sort of source purveyors of the misinformation here. the primary purveyor is this native american man. smollett is facing 16 counts of charges for the lies he allegedly told where as this guy, he hasn't -- he's not being sued, which i find kind of interesting. >> tucker: before you defend the guy. i watched it. i know he's" a tribal elder and a vietnam veteran." that's what cnn told me about him. you're not going to say that about a tribal elder and vietnam veteran, are you? >> i guess not. the broader point, though,

obviously we do need to hold the media accountable for the mistakes it makes. i would rather do that in the court of public opinion. i'm a free speech person. >> tucker: i am, too. >> they got suckered and going to pay big. maybe it shouldn't be through the lawsuit. the broader loss of trust in the media, the erosion of trust in the media when they get things like smollett and covington so congre wrong, it's bad for the country. they shouldn't trust everything they hear. we politicize the concept of fake news, but it's true that the media gets things wrong and there are real consequences, i think, to the integrity of our democracy when they do that. >> tucker: and to the lives of individual people who are defamed. there was an actual fraternity at uva accused of rape, serial rape. and they didn't commit it.

jussie smollett seems like an imbalanced character. what about all the figures that carried his water and never really apologized? i'm not saying they should be fired or anything, but shouldn't someone admit, we went along with the hoax? >> and maybe they could hold back a little bit on social media in particular. i think that -- especially in the smollett case more than their reporting. that was where too many journalists, writers, pundits blurred the line between objective reporting and sort of advocacy. that's where you see the media in the activist corner. obviously the things they're tweeting aren't being approved by editors. they're not as cautious and calculating as their stories. i think social media has maybe allowed too many a journalist let the map flip and reveal they have these deep seeded biases that often go unchallenged and has contributed to a loss of

faith in them. >> tucker: do you think next time someone makes a outlandish claim like this, the "washington post" will pause before lying to us again? >> i would hope so. unfortunately, i see hopes as day in and day out, not all of them are this sent rational. the media and people allow them to be deceived. i hope that's not the case. i would like to have faith in them. hopefully they'll do better next time. >> tucker: you're a hopeful man, rob robby. great to see you. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: we are out of time. we're grateful for the hour that we had. we will be back 8:00 p.m. tomorrow night and every weeknight. the show that is the sworn and sincere enemy of lying, pompocity smugness, and group think. we are going to do the best job we possibly can for you for as long as we possibly can for you. with that in mind, stay tuned.

live from new york, right now, standing by, 9:00 p.m., we have a surprise for you. >> sean: it's not a surprise. it's every night at 9:00. >> tucker: like a dog, i'm always surprised. >> sean: you had a powerful open. there's something -- there is a mob that wants to destroy only fox. you know, meanwhile, you know, when we stand up for free speech, in my case joy reed. don't fire joy. give her another chance. >> tucker: exactly. >> sean: it's a mob. very powerful opening. so many of us love you. >> tucker: thank you, sean. i appreciate that. >> sean: thanks tucker. welcome to "hannity." a big weekend celebration for the radical socialist far left democrats in this country. there she is. congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez suggesting this great country of ours is garbage, ronald reagan and