♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." believe it or not, it was a year ago this week that a constellation of left wing activist groups cooked up a series of outlandish lies designed to keep brett kavanaugh off the supreme court. the national news media as you remember, joined the smear campaign. they repeated and magnified the slurs. but in the end, it was to no effect. kavanaugh was confirmed any way. why? because not a single allegation against him turned out to be true, not one. and so they their only lasting effect was to traumatize brett kavanaugh's wife and children. yet, the left never to this day apologized for their

dishonesty or their profound cruelty nor did they accept defeat. they never do accept defeat. why? because when politics is your religion, acknowledging reality looks like sin and so it continues. over the weekend the "new york times" revived the attacks on brett kavanaugh. the newspaper ran a story excerpt from a book written by two of its reporters that claimed that while in college more than 30 years ago, kavanaugh exposed himself in effect to another student while drunk at a party. it was the flimsiest kind of charge. where did it come from? it came second hand from a single classmate of kavanaugh's, a man who worked as a left wing activist, later worked for the clintons, in fact. 20 years ago, no credible news organization would have run a story like that on the basis of that sourcing. the "times" didn't hesitate and it was picked up everywhere. of course instantly and nbc's cable channel for example they immediately denounced brett kavanaugh as a gang rapist. >> i have never heard of a guy who is a one time rapist.

i've never heard of a guy one time sexual assaulters. i grew up with guys like this. he is the fifth guy in the gang rape. he comes in everyone else encourages. he has been covered his entire life. it's amazed me we have an administration out of the millions of people who are qualified in this country of all races and genders they consistently find men who beat, abuse, and sexually assault women. >> tucker: imagine saying something like that about somebody when there is no evidence that it's true and a lot of evidence that it's not. they didn't hesitate. democratic presidential candidates meanwhile demanded that kavanaugh be removed by force immediately from the supreme court. watch this. >> what's become clear is that he should be impeached. the house absolutely has the ability to impeach him. >> and do you believe then that he is essentially a sexual predator or that he was at some point? >> yeah. i believe -- i believe that he engaged in the conduct that was described. >> and given the fact that it appears as though brett kavanaugh lied under oath

which is a crime, i think that he has disqualified himself for service on the supreme court and he should step down or he should be impeached. >> tucker: a sexual predator who must be impeached. okay. but, wait, here's a late breaking edition to this story. it turns out that the woman that this supposedly happened to, the alleged victim back at yale more than 30 years ago, it turns out that person has no memory whatsoever of the incident. huh. now, the paper knew that but somehow neglected to include it in their account. probably because it strongly suggests their story is once again a total crock. yet another lie. they should have told you that and they didn't. it's dishonest, of course. you would think it would spur the democratic candidates the ones who called for kavanaugh's impeachment to rethink their positions. new evidence? maybe that would shape their view. but, no. not at all. they sound exactly as they did a year ago. remember this?

>> this there is no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you. >> we have a constitutional duty to get to the bottom of these allegations. judge brett kavanaugh has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them. >> kavanaugh, who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the supreme court and who i think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations, rather than dr. ford and ms. ramirez. >> to those who i hear say over and over this isn't fair to judge kavanaugh. he is entitled to due process. what about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? he is not entitled to those because we are not actually seeking to convict him. >> tucker: we're not trying to convict him. we are trying to destroy him and his family. no due process or presumption of innocence, fairness, irrelevant. whatever they tell you, don't let them tell that you justice has any role in this, of course. this is a pure power grab. the left feels entitled to run the country truly entitled to it and they feel entitled to control the

supreme court. they don't, and it drives them crazy. kavanaugh frustrates their political hopes so any smear against him is acceptable no matter what it is. but don't kid yourself. it's not just about destroying brett kavanaugh. he is ancillary. it's about destroying the entire legitimacy of our third branch of government the judiciary. plenty on the left are using the kavanugh saga packing the court, adding more justices to make it reliably left wing or to change the rules so they can remove any judge the left doesn't approve of. this is the opposite of what the third branch was meant to do or be. the judiciary was meant to change slowly, the courts change over decades rather in response to a single election cycle. that's the way it was designed and for a reason and for more than 200 years it's worked. but to the modern left, it's totally intolerable. they are committed to remaking this country completely right now.

america needs a new system, they tell us, one with open borders and far fewer pesky individual rights. rights like the freedom to speak clearly out loud. the freedom of expression. the right to bear arms. the freedom of religion. no. to create this new utopia of obedient happy serfs, they have to destroy all of that two centuries of precedent and tradition. maybe even destroy the country itself. whatever. they are happy to do it. as noted when you make omelets, you break eggs. ryan lovelace joins us tonight. ryan, thank you for coming on. you spent a year thinking about this, reporting on it. were you, nevertheless, surprised by the shoddiness of the story the "times" printed? >> i was surprised by the shoddiness of it. but i was also in some ways warning this was part of a larger pattern. a pattern of not disclosing what actually is going on here. it's not simply enough that the "new york times" had to run a correction, a correction that explained precisely what actually went on here. a correction that said that the woman who is alleged to have been the victim has been telling folks that she

wasn't a victim. that she hasn't been able to confirm this story for these "new york times" reporters for more than a year. it's also about their failure to disclose their own personal relationship with the story. this is personal for these two women that have covered this story. robin, one of the reporters, is a classmate of brett kavanaugh's. i think that's hugely important because that's something that wasn't disclosed in this excerpt from their book, yet it's the whole reason. >> tucker: she was a classmate of yale of brett kavanaugh's and yet the story that we are talking about didn't disclose that? >> correct. that's really interesting because she was undergraduate there at the same time and that's her whole authority for writing this book with the "new york times." you know, she is not a legal reporter. she is a culture reporter. the way she is approaching this is because of her personal relationships with those in the yale community at the same time kavanaugh was there. >> tucker: remarkable. the story itself sounds a lot like the three or four other different allegations that we heard at great length a year ago in that

there is no evidence whatsoever that it's true. none. >> right one of the important parts trading up the chain just the way allegations did last year. looking back to last july, christine blasey ford, the first primary accuser came forward and when she first tried to get the attention of "the washington post" by an encrypted app, they didn't pay attention to her. then she threatened to go to the times. immediately it spread online it spread through a blog the intercept, an allegation alleging an incident. then senator feinstein came through and said yes i have heard of that and now referred it on. after that point reporters like me in the national press didn't bother looking into the truth or the falsity of the matter. they simply decided well, is this going to help him? is it going to hurt him? how is it going to effect him? they never ever bothered looking into the truth of matter. >> tucker: repeated by people paid to look deeply into stories and assess whether they're true or not. they didn't do that. >> that's correct. really one of the new phenomenon that supreme

court justice nominations are going to experience for years going forward. think back to judge bork and justice thomas this didn't exist before. so much else of this didn't exist before either. in reporting out search and destroy, i expected the advice and consent process to unfold as it had with merrick garland, president obama's pick, that the senate rejected and with justice senate confirmed was president trump's pick. what i found was a search and destroy that began before judge kavanaugh was selected. >> what does that mean? >> the left had said from the very beginning we are going to oppose whoever, whoever trump picks and demand justice, a new organized dark money group on the left pledged to spend $5 million opposing whoever the pick was around that group is run by brian fallon, a hillary clinton campaign flack. and he said at the time it wasn't so much about cancelling which ever nominee was picked, it was about building the muscle memory to organize around the corps look forward to 2020.

>> tucker: what a loathsome extremist he is. ryan, congratulations on the book. >> thank you. >> tucker: lisa boothe joins us tonight. >> hi, tucker. >> tucker: nice to see you. how quickly this story emerged on sunday that the candidates and the press responded immediately to it. there seemed to be no pause. >> well, there wasn't, and we also haven't heard them take back these calls for impeachment either there really is no alleged victim here because the alleged victim told her friend that she doesn't even remember that this incident ever happening. there is actually no story here, yet they haven't taken back those calls for impeachment. does it surprise you? you saw how democrats weaponized these baseless allegations. senator feinstein sat on that information for six weeks and democrats weaponized it at the 11th hour despite multiple times where they could have come forward with this information whether it was brett kavanaugh testifying closed door. 1300 questions that were submitted to brett kavanaugh

that could have been in that or even in these meetings sitting down with brett kavanaugh as well. senator feinstein could have done it then. >> tucker: part of this is a little confusing because we know he is not going to be impeached. this is a lifetime appointment. probably nothing you can do about it unless we learn something very dramatic. on the basis of what we just learned, of course he is not going to be impeached. what's the point of this exactly do you think? >> i think there is really two things going on here for the left. one, it's about abortion. we heard debra katz who is one of christine ford's attorneys, say as much. ford wanted to put an asterisk above brett kavanaugh's name when he takes the scalpel against roe v. wade, abortion. people like kirsten gillibrand saying women were going to die as a result of brett kavanaugh if he gets confirmed. we knew this is about abortion, and then it's also about intimidation as well what democrats want to do is send a message to brett kavanaugh that, you know,

don't take any action against issues like abortion or else. we also saw that with senator whitehouse when he filed that amicus brief talking about, you know, look, the court better heal itself or there is going to be a restructuring. >> tucker: you can sort of see that this has an effect. you watch the career of the chief justice who has moved left in really the most mindless conceivable way i would argue. and what is that a product of? maybe his judicial philosophy has changed or maybe it's just really hard to live here in washington if you don't kind of toe the line. >> that would be a good question for him. i think another thing that's important with all of this that doesn't that doesn't get discussed as much is how thoroughly vetted brett kavanaugh was, right? he went through seven background checks. he went through a vetting process with that because of his access to sensitive information. when he was confirmed to be district court of appeals, he also went through a vetting process and confirmation process. the senate judiciary committee investigated,

looked at 45 different witnesses, 25 witness statements. produced a 414-page report looking at all of this. it's absolutely ridiculous. this guy has been vetted. you have justice ginsburg singing his praises. take a listen to what she has had to say about him as well. >> our new justice, justice kavanaugh, whose entire staff, all women, all of his law clerks are women. it's the first time in the history of the united states there have been more women clerking at the court than men. [applause] >> so you have there talking about how he has actually been a supporter of women with the amount of law clerks that he has taken on. that are all female. there's been character witnesses stepped forward knowing him from his time in high school he is the salt of the earth. this is not something he would do. one thing i would like to

ask is i wonder why the mainstream media haven't looked further into his accuser. why are they not concerned that leland keyser doubts christine ford's story. the eyewitness, someone who is supposed to be one of her best friends that told the fbi she was being pressured by christine ford's friend to change her story. reported that christine ford's dad congratulated brett kavanaugh's dad on confirmation. if you don't have your own dad behind you, that certainly raises questions. >> tucker: it does raise some questions. lisa, good to see you tonight. >> i could go on. >> tucker: me too. good to see you. richard goodstein joins us tonight. good to see you tonight. lisa raises an important question. the story comes out over the weekend and the media jump on it. the candidates jump on it.

it comes to this conclusion that we need to impeach brett kavanaugh and then the newspaper itself admits in effect that the story is a crock, actually. that the supposed victim doesn't remember it. says she is not a victim. isn't it time then to say oh, wow, now i have new information? i guess we can't impeach him. why isn't anyone saying that. >> let's talk about the facts. the victim hasn't spoken to anybody. the people she should have spoken to were the fbi. the witness who senator coons tipped off basically the fbi about because he had witnessed this and he told and senator coons told the head of the fbi directly please talk to him, and the fbi as we know had a list of dozens of people between debra ramirez and this matt stier who they did not speak to or christine blasey ford. why did they not speak to christine blasey ford or kavanaugh? that must be the first investigation the fbi never talked to the accuser or the accused. >> tucker: i can't answer

that. i think in the case of christine blasey ford, she didn't want to talk to them. she was clearly -- >> that wasn't a choice of hers. >> tucker: i agree with you. i am certainly not here to defend the fbi on many levels. my point is that the newspaper itself has conceded in a note amended to the piece that the piece is a crock. the newspaper tells us that she can't remember. so, like -- >> the newspaper friends of a, quote, friends of hers who were unnamed. she hasn't talked. we don't know what she said. >> tucker: the newspaper is telling us as far as they know, she doesn't think she was a victim. so, on the basis of that shouldn't beto o'rourke and the rest of these morons say wait a second, i guess we shouldn't impeach until we know more? how reckless can you be? >> the reason the democrats are talking about doing something, i agree that impeachment is absurd, is to basically show here is what the fbi did and here is what it didn't do and here is what next time it should do. i just think, look, there was a rush to judgment here.

the fbi's hands were tied. that has shameful. there were dozens of people who witnessed things regarding any number of these witnesses who never got contacted. >> tucker: hold on. there is no -- i follow this as closely as anybody. we did 16 shows in a row on it. there is no evidence at all, actual evidence whatsoever that brett kavanaugh, whom i have never met in my life. i'm not here to carry water for the guy. there is no evidence he committed sexual assault against anybody. >> well, using the term sexual assault, right? >> that he did anything. >> well, the evidence is that fellow max stier who clerked for two republican appointed judges and worked for a republican congressman this is the clinton toadie. >> tucker: he is a lefty. the point is the woman does apparently according to the "new york times" doesn't remember it. >> that's exactly the democrats are saying let's have the

itself. >> tucker: if the woman is a victim, she should come forward. she is an adult. in this country if you are a victim and an adult you can say so. if you don't say so, i'm sorry we are not going to punish the perpetrator. >> christine blasey ford has had to move four times. death threats. couldn't go back to her job. she had to hire security to protect herself. >> tucker: i know a lot about that, as someone who lives that life. i'm saying if you are the victim of a crime and you are an adult, these are are not children. then you have an obligation for the sake of the rest of to us stand up and say this is what happened. i'm sorry, that's the system. these are not kids. but whatever. richard, thank you. >> of course. >> speaking of not kids, joe biden, not a kid once was a kid though and he says that when he was, when he was young, he stood across from and then defeated a tough hardened gang leader called corn pop. possibly the greatest story in american politics in the last 10 years.

biden vs. corn pop. after the break. >> corn pop was a bad dude. and he ran a bunch of bad boys. i said, when i tell to you get off the board, you get off the board and i will kick you out again.

♪ >> tucker: joe biden was a united states senator for 40 years and vice president of the united states for 8 years. after that, surrounded by armed security the entire time. yet the amazing thing is joe biden has had more close calls with his life with physical danger than your

average cinematic action hero. he is one tough hombre. we know that because he talks about it a lot. tape has recently surfaced from two years ago of biden bragging about a standoff he once had with a gangster called corn pop. it's pretty dramatic. there's chains and a straight razor. some skeptics out there are wondering whether it's actually real. trace gallagher has been investigating this story for us. he joins us now with the results of his investigation. hey, trace. >> hi, tucker. joe biden says to better understand black america in 1962 he became the only white lifeguard at a predominantly black pool in delaware and that's where a "bad dude named corn pop" violated pool rules. watch. >> to use pomade in your hair you had to wear a bathing cap.

i said hey you, off the board or i will come up and drag you off. he came off and he said i will meet you outside. >>ng tucker: esther meaning the swimmer esther williams biden says when he got to his car, corn pop and three other guys were waiting with straight razors. biden went to his buddy. listen again. >> he cut off a six foot length of chain and said you walk out with that chain and you walk to the car and sayay you may cut me, man, but i'm going to wrap this chain around your head.eut i said you are kidding me? said no, if you don't, don't come back and he was right. so i walked out with the chain and i walked up to my car. >> biden said he then used diplomacy to get corn pop to stand down, offering a half apology. >> i shouldn't have called you esther williams. i apology for that. i apologize. but i don't know if that apology was going to work. he said you apologize to me? i said i apologize not for throwing you out, but i apologize for what i said.

he said okay. he closed theig straight razor d my heart began to beat again. >> turns out after a thorough investigation, there was a corn pop living in delaware at the time and a former naacp president says it's true biden stood his ground. as you might imagine plenty of others very skeptical of that story. tucker. >> tucker: trace gallagher. thanks for the latest on that. appreciate it. because of the skepticism that hovers over the story, we dispatched our crack reporting team to the are archives crisis. and came up with what we think is authentic video footage of that showdown in 1962 between joe biden and corn pop here it is. ♪

>> tucker: so my producers are telling me that actually that is footage from the rumble from "west side story." easy mistake to make, but we assume the encounter with corn pop did look something like t that. mark steyn is an author and columnist and he joins us tonight. so, mark, if we don't have the foot. -- footage. we believe that the standoff between joe biden and corn pop at the public pool looks something like that. do you think it did? >> yes. as i understand this, joe biden faced down a gang leader who was threatening to cut him with razor because biden had called him esther williams. in all of america's epidemic of gang violence, this has never happened before. you said ite was the greatest political antidote of the last 10 years. it'she the greatest political antidote ever. it should be in the smithsonian. dick morris and james carville

should be teaching this in political campaigning master class.d it's brilliant. i did a impromptu parody of a joe biden anecdote on your show last week. this is a parody of my parody. for the benefit of your younger viewers, by which i mean bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, esther williams was the star, as you know, of-million-dollar mermaid, dangerous when wet and my personal favorite "scouts ahoy." we all know if you are surrounded by ms-13 members that they absolutely -- they don't mind. they let it go

if you call them esther williams you better be prepared to have a six foot metal chain with you.oo kamala harris says she smoked weed listening to tupac and snoop dogg. he has gone. biden has gone full esther williams on that lousy pop culture pandering and literally blown her out of the water.r. c you can't get what he is smoking when he is doing his esther williams on you. >> tucker: you can't even buy it. it's not even legal in colorado, is it? >> no, no, no. >> tucker: i imagine in the background on ath record player was the sound track probably of "west side story" as this was happening? >> yeah. i think that's the problem. cornrn pop. it must. be terribly annoying to face down a guy who is trying to cut you with a razor. and you want to tell your friends about it. and the only fly in the ointment is that he is corn pop who was, as you correctly pointed out, the third shark on the left in

the last summer stock revival i saw of "west side story." i mean, it just doesn't work as a bad hombre name. a basic problem there. essentially, it's like barry manilow. from copa cabana know. his name was corn pop he c had a razor. second chorus. >> tucker: for those of us who grew up in this countryse corn pops are actually one of the sugariest brands of cereal. >> right, it's not a good name for a gang member. it's the attention to detail he said, for example, thele razor rusty is to put it in a rain barrel. you've got indoor plumbing. you think you can run it under the facet.

in fact, you have to have an actual rain barrel. the details ofth this antidote are brilliant. they shouldth be teaching it. >> tucker: rain barrel. now you are making me like him.. mark steyn, great to see you. thank you. >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: some in the democratic party are upset that voters are beginning to suspect that democrats want to confiscate guns. where did voters get that idea? we have the answer after the break. ♪[upbeat music]

♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ new transitions™ gen 8™ lenses are now faster than ever. and learn more at transitions.com

>> tucker: when it comes down to it almost nobody likes beto o'rourke. he's been stuck below 5% for months. tells you something about america. in a desperate last chance for relevance, he decided to drop the pretense for guns. he is for sending cops to your house to seize your firearms. >> are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work? >> i am, if it's a weapon that was designed to kill

people on a battlefield. hell, yes, we are going to take your ar-15, your ak-47. >> well, people were shocked but within a year or two, mark our words, beto's position will be mandatory for every democrat running for office. right now though, senator chris coons of delaware is worried that statements like that could hurt the democrats going forward. >> i frankly think that clip willwa be played for years at second amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying democrats are coming for your guns. >> tucker: imagine that. scaring people by showing them t what democrats have promised to do. jason nichols is a professor for african-american studies at the university of maryland. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: i wonder -- it's not by the way just beto a bunch of other candidates have said they are for, this for

mandatory buy backs, gun seizures, what would that look like? and i'm thinking about. this i'm thinking there are a lot of guns in poor neighborhoods, both bad people but primarily good people, law abiding people who use them to protect themselves. and a lot of those guns would be banned under the beto scheme or the elizabeth warren scheme or the kamala harris scheme. that would mean armed agents are going to be going to the west side of chicago or east side of detroit going in african-american neighborhoods in baltimore door to door and taking people's guns. how is that going to work. >> first of all, i do have respect for beto. i think beto was a man who he didn't spin in the spin room. which i respect. he is somebody who said what he is going to do. >> tucker: i agree with. >> i disagree with whath he intends to do. i think, number one,ds when we look at it in particular with gun violence and deaths that are related to gun violence, most it comes from handguns, not from ar 15s, actually 64% of fatalities that come from have gun violence come from handguns, not from your ar-15 or your ak-47.

>> tucker: you are absolutely right and thank you for pointing it out. you know the numbers. most people don't. however, the gun ban that he has endorsed and a lot of other candidates have endorsed would e also include 's an awful lot of handguns. any handgun with a magazine over 10 rounds would be confiscated. >> right. well, i'm for, you know, limiting the capacity of a magazine. i think there are lots of gun reforms that we can have. you can be pro-gun and pro gun control. i don't think those things. >> tucker: in the end if you are saying, here the distinction that i think is new. clinton banned the sale of so-called assault rifles for 10 years, but nobody has proposed going into people's homes and grabbing them. what you are going to have is law enforcement that everyone on the left is calling racist going into black neighborhoods and taking people's guns away like, so tell me, i mean, what does that look like to you? >> that's obviously something i'm not for.

one of the things we need to work on if you want to work on something that's going to benefit america. i would say get rid of voter id. get rid of ways keeping people from having rights. >> what does it make you think about beto or elizabeth warren or kamala harris if they are endorsing a plan that would disproportionately mean taking federal agents in black neighborhoods and taking people's guns away? what the hell? >> again, i think beto is somebody who right now is emotionally hurt, to be honest, by what occurred in his city. and i understand that and i think he is reacting off of emotion. i think chris coons -- >> wait, he is an adult man though, running for president so like he has thought this through, i would assume, or do you think he is just like emotionally incontinent? >> no, i don't think he is emotionally incontinent. i think he was emotionally affected. like many americans have been emotionallyy affected by the mass shootings. he should look at the

numbers and see what's going on and think this through a little more than he has. [laughter] i think chris coons is right that, you know, if we want to win states that we k can win, like texas and georgia and florida and pennsylvania, we can't talk about -- >> tucker: you can't tell voters what you really think, i totally agree. don't be honest. thanks a lot. someone finally asked ilhan omar why her take away was somebody did something. asked her that directly. see what she said. president trump will be speaking in new mexico. we will be airing that speech right here on fox. some of the s been omitted to avoid

spoiling this is us for the few who haven't seen it. season 4 of this is us is almost here. to catch every past episode, just say "this is us" into your xfinity voice remote. like the one where i... [ buzzer ] or the one where we show... [ buzzer ] when he was a... [ buzzer ] plus you can watch this is us anywhere with xfinity stream app. especially the... [ buzzer ] episode. awww, that one's my favorite. catch every episode of this is us with xfinity.

>> tucker: congresswoman ilhan omar of minnesota famously summarized the 9/11 attacks this way: "some people did something."

in washington, even a high school yearbook is fair game for debate, but omar, amazingly, hasn't had to explain her remarks. no one asked her. that is until the 9/11 commemoration last week. a man who lost his mother rebuked omar by wearing a t-shirt saying "some people did something." finally this weekend on cbs' "face the nation," omar was asked to explain what she said, if she is sorry at all. did she see why her remarks may have hurt some people. here is how she responded. >> 9/11 was an attack on all americans. w it was an attack on all of us. and i certainly could not understand the weight of the pain the victims of the families of 9/11 must feel. but i think it is really important for us to make sure that we are not forgetting, right, the aftermath of what happened after 9/11. many americans foundr themselves now having their civil rightsnd

stripped from them. as a muslim, not only was i suffering as an american who was attacked on that day, but the next day i woke up as my fellow americans were now treating me as suspect. >> tucker: oh, okay. so, in other words, omar is not sorry. 9/11 wasn't the specific murder of 3,000 americans by islamic extremists. no, it was simply the attack on all americans but most important it was an attackmo on omar herself. she suffered more than you did. in other words, not only is ilhan omar ungrateful, anti-american, she is also not surprisingly, a narcissist. last week on this show, we spoke with jim crydler, an attorney representing the families of 9/11 victims. they have been suing saudi arabia. those families are hoping the fbi would declassify documents related to saudi's role in the attacks. following the interview, the fbi gave t the families a victory but only a small one.

the fbi gave the name of a man who may have ordered two saudi officials to assist the hijackers but won't let him share that name with any of the 9/11 families. they said it's state secrets in refusing to declassify. the affair report contains ties to saudi hijackers. did this on the grounds of an active investigation and said it would hurt relations with a foreign ally. kridler called the accusation ridiculous and said they want to keep it secret. he's vowing to get that declassified. we will keep you updated on that.t so americans are not allowed rito know the extent of saudi's involvement with 9/11. many people think it's america's obligation though to fight wars on behalf of the saudi kingdom. you are seeing that all over today. once again, tensions are rising in the persian gulf after an alleged iranian attack on a saudi oil facility that shut down about half that country's refining capacity.

this under normal circumstances would be a flat out disaster for the united states and, yet, fracking has meant that the united states is energy independent. we have buffer. we don't need to fight middle eastern wars over oil anymore. we don't as ofof today. that is until we shut down our own energy sector to implement a green new deal which many are proposing on the left. daniel turner, executive director of power of the future. daniel, thanks so much for coming on. so, for decades, literally you heard politicians, most of them democrats say something correct. we are dependent on foreign oil, as a result we have to intervene in these wars where americans die and our treasure gets drained. thanks to fracking, we are not as dependent. you think we would be celebrating that. >> this is a huge win for america and you would think, yeah, this is something that everyone running for president would applaud, right? but, yet, we have dozens of people running forth president

who want to make fossil fuels illegal by 2030.e they want to ban the practice. elizabeth warren said on her first day she will make fracking illegal. as did bernie sanders on their very first day. that's millions of jobs without a doubt ruining small towns across america. but most importantly, what would it do to our energy supply? what would it do to oil prices? and what we see with these attacks that happened in saudi arabia, we're going to feel the price at the pump. there is no doubt about it because it's a global commodity. if you were a minister in europe where they get a huge percentage of their oil and gas from the persian gulf, i would be nervous if i were them. >> tucker: i know we are all supposed to love the saudis now. everyone in washington loves the saudis.hi but i think 17 of 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia. they hate us, actually. so being dependent on the saudis for energy is crazy. >> yeah. >> tucker: why are people pushing this? >> i don't understand that remember, the whole phrase no blood for oil. >> tucker: yes.heheil >> i was in high school when

the first gulf war broke out. no blood for oil. during the last gulf war, iraq, afghanistan. we said no blood for oil. i have three nephews, jack, peter, and aden are going to vote in their very first presidential election coming up. their entire lives, all they have known is america at war. yet we have a for the first time at our finger tips for the chance we are liberated from all overseas engagement. shameful what has happened there. middle east turmoil is not going to be solved in our lifetime. it's sad for the citizens trapped there. but isn't it great that america can stand back, support our allies and at the same time employ millions of people with really good jobs that don't require expensive college degrees in rural america. again, these people running for president with the goal of making all of that illegal by 2030. >> tucker: the most vibrant sector of the american economy. critical do our national security. if you have sworn to destroy it, you are attempting to undermine the united states, in a profound way. >> absolutely. p and if they are pledging an oath to defend the constitution and the people

of this country. i don'tt know how do you that and what other issuedo has garnered this level of media attention? rival networks gave it seven hours of climate change coverage.. another network is going to give it two full days of coverage just on climate changet opioids didn't get that. veteran suicide didn't get that. homelessness didn't get it. it's amazing this issue that runs our entire economy is being attacked and these are noble men and women. thank god they are in oil fields, because if the democratsk hadil their way they would be overseas in battle fields. >> tucker: yeah. dependent on the saudis. disgusting. daniel, thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: netflix just released a documentary. has america's top streaming service become a propaganda outlet?. seems that way. we will talk to one of the best filme critics in america who makes that case. plus, president trump about to speak in new mexico. you can see it here live on fox. stay tuned for that.

. . .

>> tucker: the president is about to start a rally in of course, we'll go there as soon as he begins. look for that live tonight on fox. meanwhile, for decades, at the american left offered the sharpest critiques of big business in thise country, now n the age of capital, they are deeply alive, in fact, intertwined with big business. google protects users from ideas the left doesn't like. credit card companies decide whether americans actually have the right to buy guns. and then most notably, there is the alliance between the obamas and netflix. netflix just released an obama-produced documentary called "american factory" that profiles the chinese takeover of the former general motors plant in ohio. we have armond white, a film critic of many years who published an essay in "the new york post" calling netflix "a obama propaganda machine." thank you for joining us and for coming on. >> i'm happy to talk to you again, tucker.

>> tucker: thank you. what is the problem that you have with the obamas reaching this producing deal with netflix? why is that bad? >> i suppose they have the right to do it, of course. the thing that bothers me is the lack of disclosure, the lack of transparency about it. netflix promotes it as a great thing, as a great advance for the obamas and a message from them to the american people, but they are not honest about it being propaganda, and that's the problem i have with it as a film viewer and a film critic. >> tucker: so you believe that there is a political cast to it that they are putting their thumb on this film, that there is a political message to the content. >> oh, sure, there certainlyhe . in fact, there was an article about this film in "the washington journal" that talks about how the film itself the part that obama played in factories in ohio, but the film deals with it itself. that's one part of the lack of disclosure about this.

but the part that really bothered me, that i focus on in the article, is the way the film media, cultural media decided to cheer the obama's connection with netflix. it's a kind of illusion -- i'm sorry, a kind of collusion that americans should be very worried about and concerned about especially the lack of disclosure. >> tucker: well, sure. why would it ever be a good idea for a politician to be involved in the content business and making entertainment or news for that matter? >> never, never. and it's worrisome when you think about a politician leaving becoming asuddenly mogul in the film industry, not to simply give entertainment to people, but to give political ideology, and that is very worrisome, as well. the fact that obama is becoming a movie mogul, to me, it is just a continuation of that too cozy relationship he has had with the media, the corporate media, and

that has got to be a concern to everyone. >> tucker: really quick, do we know how much he is making from this, he and his wife, and do we know why netflix is doing it? >> we don't know the amount. netflix has not disclosed the amount, the way the publishing industry disclosed the $65 million that was given -- gifted to the obamas, but clearly netflix is a part of hollywood. hollywood has always been leftist, primarily leftist, and especially the documentary genre. people need to know these things, it wasn't just michael moore who ruined the documentary genre, but in hollywood, documentaries have always been a forum for political ideology.not for info. that's the difference between hollywood docs and true journalism. >> tucker: that's a really good point that i think most consumers don't understand. armondruli white, one of the few critics to think for himself for that reason, we're happy to have you on. thank you never much. >> thank you, tucker.my pleasur.

77 >> tucker: that's it for us. we'll be back tomorrow night and every week night at 8:00 p.m. they show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity smugness, andd groupthink.presio speak any moment now in mexico. until they were, we turn things over to our friend sean hannity standing back to new york. >> hannity: tucker, great show. welcome to "hannity." tonight, the president only moments away from speaking at a massive rally in new mexico. weg will take you there live wn the president takes to the stage. first, we do have two big breaking news stories we covering tonight including the latest media mob attack again on justice kavanaugh that blew up almost immediately in the facesi of "the new york times." that is coming up. but we begin tonight i with serious news, breaking news out of the middle east. we can now report that the hostile regime of iran is now the likely culprit of that drone attack against major saudi oil facilities. all told, the attack caused my cause 5% of the world's crude