♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." it was just three days ago that "new york times" reporters kelly and robin were the toast of the left. by things move fast. their new book appeared to finish the job that the national media started a year ago and take out brett kavanaugh for good. the authors accuse kavanaugh of committing a kind of sexual assault as a college student more than 30 years ago at yale. details were sparse but was enough to launch a tsunami of rage from the left. shouters on the other cable channels key nounsed kavanaugh as a gang rapist. all the leading democrats running for president demanded that kavanaugh be impeached and removed from

office. and then almost immediately the story fell apart. sunday night the newspaper was forced to make a devastating correction to the piece. in fact, the woman that kavanaugh supposedly attacked didn't remember anything about the event. and just like so many previous stories about brett kavanaugh, the whole thing turned out to be a crock. so last night kelly and pogevin on a show highly familiar with botched stories. the explanation don't blame us, blame our editors. >> what happened with that omission that the "times" later felt belonged in the piece? >> well, first of all, lawrence, there was zero intent to mislead anybody about the details of the incident. >> in your draft of the article, did it include those words that have since been added to the article? >> it did. it did. >> it did. so somewhere in the editing process those words were -- >> yeah, i think what happened actually was that, you know we had her name and the

"times" doesn't usually include the name of the victim. so i think in this case the editors felt like it was better to remove it. and in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn't remember it. >> okay. so, in their removal of the name, they ended up removing the whole. >> i think it was editing done in the haste in the editing process as you know. >> bret: well, actually, that story could be true. the "new york times" is not what it used to be. it's perfectly believable that some half asleep politically inflamed editor of the paper would blow one of the most important stories of the year. not a very impressive news outlet anymore. but a missing line is not the only problem with this story. watch the treatment the two authors received of all places on "the view." >> i heard that the woman didn't want her name out publicly. if not, why is her name in the book? >> her name is in the book because we think it's relevant information. we think it's accurate and we know her name was provided to members of the senate and the fbi by a witness named matt stier who is a good governance

activist in washington who is a respected figure and had provided this name. >> he did at one point, i understand, do work for williams and connolly. >> if we are talking about credibility. >> right. i understand it's relevant background. in this case it was very short mention and we only talked in brief terms about what he is doing right now. so we didn't see all of that context to be necessary. but, i understand why you are bringing it up and i think it's fair. >> tucker: um-huh. just a short mention. of course it's the critical claim in the story/book. we left out some context. turns out some people think it's relevant when a character destroying smear comes from political activists rather than from, say, ordinary citizens. you ought to be able to know that when you are reading the piece. the "times" disagrees though. they don't think you don't have a right to that context. of course these are also the people who took the trump dossier seriously and buried the context in that. you know in some ways it's a

shame that kelly and pogevin buried the book the book has revelations in it if true. for example they were the first reporters to get the on the record statement who could supposedly cooperate her story being assaulted, but in the end did not cooperate it. why didn't she? keyser told the authors that she had, quote, no confidence in blasey ford's story. that's not something the left wants you to hear so, of course, the authors down played that and buried it at the very end of the book. really? seems like the lead but, no, they down played it. they also down played another fact pattern which is how far the left was willing to go to destroy kavanaugh last year. mollie hemmingway and carrie severino also wrote a book on the subject, justice on trial they report that leland keyser faced sustained pressure on the left to change her story, to lie and support blasey ford's account. kelly found out what that message was.

they got text messages in which they discuss defaming leland keyser a suburban mom outside of d.c. as a drug addict. keyser confirmed this happened as she told the two reporters, quote: i was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if i didn't comply. now that's an interesting story. former relevant unsupported gossip from a decades old dorm party. it just happened last year. the problem with it though is that the story, the truth of it makes the activist left look like ruthless fascists, why? because they kind of are. the "new york times" suppressed that they didn't want you to know. you should know that. brit hume is fox news senior political analyst and he joins us tonight. so, brit, as a piece of journalism, how do you assess this story? >> this is a story that should never have gotten anywhere near print. i mean, talking about a second-hand account from the

witness did not speak to and is not speaking and he is said by friends this happened, right? it isn't even a firsthand account. right there you have a huge strike against you if you are trying to get the story into print in the old "new york times," right? and then on top of that, you have the fact that the woman herself is not talking, the alleged victim is not talking and has told -- and she has told friends that she didn't remember this. so, i can only imagine what would have happened back in my newspaper days if i went to an editor and said this is what i have got. i can just see him picking up the copy and throwing it across the room and you couldn't get anywhere near -- this is nowhere near publishable. it's not even remotely close. >> tucker: they kind of gamely defend themselves by saying the editor did. this now, a lot of writers, i'm one of them. you had a book excerpted in print, right? they take your book and make a newspaper piece out of it. >> right. >> you watch pretty carefully, don't you. >> of course.

they say in interviews in recent days that they believe these accusers debra ramirez, you remember her. >> tucker: of course. >> and the woman who was the alleged victim in this case, that he did abuse them. right? but they also go on to say that they believe he basically has led an exemplary life. kavanaugh has led an exemplary life since then and they think basically he is a good guy and has been a reputable judge and a man with no history of this sort of stuff. well, you know, after all we heard about him during those hearings, you would not think that necessarily about him. and you would think that that might be the subject of the article that based -- that would be a book excerpt. what did they choose, however, to excerpt, right? they chose to use -- to excerpt this second hand uncorroborated account. >> tucker: the flimsiest thing they had. >> right. exactly because it was the most damaging and, therefore, likely to achieve the most cachet among the audience that they are

clearly trying to appeal to which i would submit they are probably a part of. >> tucker: leaving out critically relevant facts like the fact that the supposed victim didn't remember the assault is a kind of dishonesty and it devalues the currency of the paper. whatever you think of the times it's obviously liberal they get the facts right. what happens if they don't get the facts right. >> the representation declines. when he was the curmudgeonly editor for many years. i went to see him about a job years ago back in the 1970s. he was eccentric guy but he was a very strong editor. he said to me when i'm gone, he said, i want it to be said of me, quote: he kept the paper straight. that actually is on his grave stone. and i remember thinking at the time the "new york times" was the straightest newspaper anywhere. it was the bible. it was the reliable source. when i was covering

reaganomics in the early 80's agencies the "new york times" played it very straight very fair always were. now i understand what abe rosenthal was worried about. the flood gates have been opened and you get crap like this in the newspaper. >> tucker: default position journalist, you got to push back pretty hard. brit hume, great to see you. thank you for that perspective. >> yes, sir. >> tucker: laura ingraham hosts the angle every night two hours after this show. we are happy to have her join us tonight. laura, one of the things you learn from this book is just how ruthless kavanaugh's opponents were, willing to threaten leland keyser. even i didn't think they would do this. >> they mean business. this is for everything. this is not just about a supreme court seat. this is not just about one nomination. this is pressing what will happen in the next 15 months or so leading all the way up to 2020. this is, you know, this is it. this is beyond the street

fight. this is all out revolution against our constitutional precepts, against basic principles of fairness. against just goodwill towards someone who, as you said, has led an incredible life on the bench. i mean, this is a bush nominee, basically. >> tucker: right. >> i have known bret, full disclosure for almost 25 years. a long time. he is a terrific person. he is not the person who people thought as the most conservative jurist to put on the court but the trump administration picked him. i think they are glad they did. but imagine what they would do to someone who was more conservative judicially or not a bush nominee originally. so a lot of us are saying look, this next nomination, if you have another nomination, you know, don't play around here. i think go for the best, most judicially reliable conservative, original list that you can find to put on the court because it doesn't

matter. >> tucker: it doesn't matter. >> they are going to run you over and back up and run you over again. >> tucker: do you think republicans on capitol hill understand that? >> not entirely. i think you see this in some of the oversight hearings over the last several years. there have been some, you know, good back and forth in devin nunes and trey gowdy. you don't see the type of relentless focus at times that i think the democrats, frankly, have when it comes to their ultimate goal. we are playing parlor games. and they, you know, they are playing deadly serious to win it all. so people have to understand this is beyond legal niceties. it's beyond regular politics. they despise donald trump. anyone who has supported him they are going to brand as a white supremacist, racist. the deplorables, that's going to seem quaint calling people deplorables by the time this gets finished. kavanaugh is just carnage in all of that. >> tucker: what kind of person would you have to be to threaten a single mom. >> laura: yeah, who has had tough times by the way. >> tucker: chronic back problems and all this stuff.

what would it take for you to threaten her because she is in the way with personal destruction. >> the same kind of people threaten kathleen willie and monica lewenski and what they tried to do with linda tripp. going back to that type of ruthlessness. that has carried forward. bourque to how they treated recent multiple court nominees. deeply anti-catholic bias. so ways they have attacked some of trump's nominees. they will stop at nothing. for them, this is a whole shooten match. the supreme court in this next election will define the next generation. they know it. and so they are going to be prepared this time. so republicans, conservatives, you better be prepared as well. >> tucker: telling. really quickly, if you believed in democracy, wouldn't you take all of this energy and money. >> a democracy that ends up with trump as the victor, that's not what they believe in.

>> tucker: you spend your time trying to convince the population of your cause that you were right? >> it's a sign of their beto is 0% in the new nbc poll. none of that is getting any traction. elizabeth warren has bigger crowds. peace and prosperity versus, you know, carnage and calamity. i mean, they have nothing. so this is -- it's a divide and they hope conquer strategy. >> tucker: laura ingraham, thank you. >> is not a positive view? you got hume for the serious and i am for the this is the way it is. >> tucker: god hates republicans and loves the democratic party. that's what we are learning from theologian saint pete buttigieg. why are they so certain about god's will. when did the religious left get so powerful? plus new developments in the case of the man who supposedly took down corn pop. it's all ahead. ♪ okay, paint a picture for me.

uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪

♪ >> tucker: pete buttigieg's is an episcopalian and yet all the sudden he is the holy man somehow in the 2019 campaign trail. he has made it clear again and again that his opponents are not simply wrong, they are immoral. >> it is by no means true that christian faith or any faith requires you to be a republican, especially in these times. [cheers] >> there is a lot about the stewardship of creation that is in scripture that i don't see being honored by the administration right now.

>> it's also important that we stop seeing religion used as a kind of cudgel as if god belonged to a political party and if he did i can't imagine it would be the one that sent the current president into the white house. >> tucker: um-huh. it's important that we don't use religion as a cudgel pete buttigieg is not interested in certain categories of sin. authorities raided the home of an illinois abortion doctor and there they found thousands of preserved aborted fetal remains. he had applied his trade it turns out south bend, indiana. the city that saint pete is the mayor of. but weirdly so far buttigieg has not commented on the incident in any way. why is that? i look like men is the white house correspondent over it real, clear politics. thank you for coming on. so, just to be clear, this is a story that some of our viewers may be kind of familiar with.

but describe what we know about this abortion doctor and his relationship to buttigieg. >> well, we know that kloepfer was the most prolific abortion doctor for decades whether your politics or pro-choice or what god you pray to your heart has to go out to these women we have discovered more than 2,000 fetal remains are in this guy's basement right now in illinois. so your heart has to go out to these women because women who have had abortions they are terrified that their terminated pregnancy became this man's trophy. they want answers. they want a federal investigation. they said so publicly because the details are too gruesome to ignore unless you are pete buttigieg. he has not commented publicly on what was going on in his backyard and he has offered no guidance to these women who are grieving. >> tucker: how interesting. and do you think the reason could be because if he comments on this it suggests that maybe there is a moral

edge, a moral problem to abortion? >> so i reached out to his campaign over the weekend repeatedly. and i didn't hear back from them at all about kloepfer who been operating for decades in his backyard. i reached out to his municipal office. municipal employee who answered the phone referred me back to buttigieg's presidential campaign. radio silent. buttigieg more than happy to make statements about pro-choice and imposing regulations on abortion clinics. in fact he has trumpeted his own defense of an abortion clinic in south bend currently operating without a license. what he hasn't done is comment on the specifics of this case. it's been complete radio silence. >> tucker: interesting. so he stood up on behalf of an abortion clinic operating without a license to be clear. >> he did to be clear. a different one than kloepfer was operating at.

if you remember in 2016 president trump made his pro-life position a promise to evangelicals. he went after hillary clinton for her defense of abortion and late-term abortions. so, if pete buttigieg finds his way on stage against president trump or if he finds his way on to the stage against vice president pence competing for the vice presidency, he is going to have to answer about why he has been quiet for so long. >> tucker: yeah. he doesn't want to upset his donors i would guess. philip, thank you so much for that update. >> thank you, sir. >> tucker: mayor buttigieg may be the self-promoting holy man in the democratic party. he is not the only one using religion as a political weapon, ilhan omar declared that a cudgel as he would say. voters have a religious obligation to support the democratic party. watch this. >> make sure you are voting. make sure you understand why you are voting. god expects us to do the righteous work and so god

does not expect you to vote for people who will ultimately hurt you and other humans around you. >> tucker: um-huh. there is ilhan omar telling you what god expects you to do. get a note pad you are going to want to write that down. jerry nadler once called it and i'm quoting morally outrageous if you oppose late-term abortion. that's his position. at the same time though he it is very confident and his knowledge of scripture and who is falling short in obeying god word. >> also bear in mind that the most off the repeat commandment in the bible thou shall not oppress the stranger for you were strangers in the land of egypt the most often repeated commandment. now in the trump administration violating and making a mockery of the biblical commandment. >> tucker: jonathan morris it is an ethicist and a fox news contributor. we are happy to have him tonight. thank you for coming on. if you thought that jimmy swigert and the religious right was unbearable and i kind of did to be honest is

there anything more unbearable than the religious left lecturing us about what god wants? does this have a place in politics, do you think? >> i love the fact that there are politicians actually talking about moral principles as it relates to public policy. i am all in favor of that. but, when you start saying therefore god wants you to only be a part of this political party, what are you talking about? like god existed way before the democratic party or the republican party and i don't think he is telling anybody that this is the puritanical perfect party because neither of them are. >> tucker: i agree with you 100 percent and you should begin all conversations about faith with deep humility meaning that you know nothing really. >> yes. >> tucker: that's a good place to start. particularly gulling coming from such aggressively antireligious party that has tormented conventional traditional christians for so long.

i mean, how dare they, i guess would be my reaction? >> yeah. well, the whole point of mayor pete not saying anything about these 2100 fetal remains, which is just a scientific term for baby humans, dead baby humans because they have been killed and being put in his basement, how could he not talk about it? let me tell you why he can't talk about it, because you cannot get elected president of united states of america if you are a democrat unless you never say anything except abortion on demand. it's very simple. he cannot talk about it because of the unbelievable lobby of planned parenthood. and he would prefer just to be quiet. and that is, i think, outrageous.

>> tucker: it would be one thing to say look i'm a bought and paid for robot servant of the abortion lobby okay i get it and i know that you are. but for that same person to lecture me using scripture from the new testament is really like a new level of infuriating of hutzpah. >> yeah. take old testament. new testament. we saw nadler using the old testament. new testament. any time you take one passage of the bible and i think all christians would say this and muslims and jews would say you take one scripture passage and say therefore my public policy, whether it's on immigration, whether it's on abortion, whether it's -- is the right one, that's just outrageous and it's not helpful to our civil society. >> tucker: that's right. it's too cynical i would say. jonathan morris, thank you so much for joining us tonight. i appreciate it? >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: george soros spent more than a million bucks to get this man elected the district attorney in philadelphia. it didn't get a lot of attention that should have. we will tell you how that is working out for the people who live in philadelphia.

we went to the city to find out. fascinating story next. >> he is not protecting us at all. not at all. because he is sending a message out there saying that it's okay to do murder. don't worry about it. we are going to give you a deal. ♪ ♪[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: one of the left's big causes in the past. several years has been so-called criminal justice reform what does that mean. sounds like something you would be for. last few years left wing billionaire george soros has spent $13.4 billion on district attorney races across the country in 17 states. he spent that money because as an effective use of money. without passing a single law, without the democratic process really working itself out, a single da can completely remake or unmake a city's criminal justice system. it's happened across the country. one of soros' biggest win in recent years the election of

larry causener as district attorney in philadelphia. we went to philadelphia to investigate the effect of causener's win on the city and this is what we found. >> this is a scene outside the philadelphia cycle center last winter in broad daylight 10 kids congregate outside the store, climb up the back wall and smash the windows, dive into the building and come out with a $10,000 dirt bike. >> how much time do they get for that. >> nothing. the victim lost thousands of dollars in stolen merchandise and even more in damage to his store. the burglar who rode off with the dirt bike was arrested buy he didn't get justice. prosecutors went soft on the burglar. he didn't go to prison. >> big burglaries are usually sad to say more common than not anymore. big burglaries are running about twice a month. >> tucker: that's life in philadelphia under the city's new prosecutor larry krazner. a left wings activist who uses his position to

undermine the existing legal system. >> he views the system as corrupt and racist so his revenge on the system is that he is going to excuse lawlessness of all types. >> tucker: soon after taking office he issued a memo to his staff urging them not to enforce certain drug or prostitution laws and to defer gun case even petty theft has almost been decriminalized. the consequences of all of this? see for yourself this footage of philadelphia's kensington neighborhood shows open air heroin shooting up in public. this photo shows a pile of used syringes just blocks from city school. he refused to comment on these policies. he rejected our offer for interview. publicly he suggests that his approach allows his office to devote limited resources to serious crimes such as rape and murder. >> only thing he is prioritizing is lawlessness at all levels. >> in fact, crime is surging

in philadelphia. in krazner's first year the homicide rate rose 12%. levels not seen and more than a decade. he is one of those victims. >> you see your son laying on a table not moving at all. it was very emotional. and then to go to the funeral home to see your son laying in the casket. it was the worst. it was the worst thing to ever happen. >> tucker: it was easy case for prosecutors. the murder was caught on surveillance tape and the killer confessed. >> the shooter stuck the gun in the car and shot my son one time in the left of his -- the back of his head. if you can't tell me that's not premeditated i don't know what -- i don't know what else to say about that. that was cold blood killing. they set my son up on video. >> tucker: despite having a confession he downgraded his sentence to third degree murder. a charge usually reserved for unintentional killings. instead of getting life in

prison his son's murderer just faces 17 years behind bars. the suspect now is sitting back and relaxing because he don't have a life sentence. he has an expiration date. he is going to get out soon. 12 or 13 years from now. we have to walk around -- he can walk around and relax while my son lays in a cemetery. that's not justice at all. that's not. >> tucker: sad to tell you that story is not unique at all. he reduced charges for several other murder charges since taking office. meanwhile democrats in congress have been pushing hard for national red flag law allow police to seize firearms from individuals who have not each been charged with a crime much less convicted of one. it's not a good idea. if you are going to pass a law like that, you might want to apply it to say gang members who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun murders in this country. but they don't want that.

congressman ken buck is a republican from colorado. he introduced an amendment that would apply a red flag to those gang members on databases but the democrats voted it down. congressman buck joins us. congressman, thanks so much for coming on. so, first, tell us why you introduced. why would you want a red flag law, if we pass one, to apply to gang members? >> first, i don't want to pass one. >> tucker: right, exactly. >> if it passes it should apply to the most dangerous people in america. the most dangerous people with guns in america. over 80% of the murders in america with guns are committed by gang members. over 90% of the crime in america is committed by gang members. if we are aren't targeting gang members we aren't serious about gun violence in america. >> tucker: you make such -- that's why i'm so grateful you came on tonight. it's such a compelling and obvious point you are making. how could anybody possibly be for a red flag law that doesn't apply to gang members? >> well, for one thing, i think the democrats are trying to disarm rural america. second thing they aren't

serious about gun violence. if they were serious they would target these particular individuals and, third, they don't trust law enforcement to create a gang data base that is fair. and they are really hatred for law enforcement is evident in voting down this amendment. >> tucker: but they trust law enforcement to go to the homes of law-abiding citizen and seize their firearms. >> absolutely. and, in fact, we haven't heard anything about no knock warrants. we haven't heard anything about the process that law enforcement can use to take law-abiding citizen' weapons away from them. but that's exactly what the democrats want to do. he this will be pitting honest citizens against law enforcement and law enforcement, in many instances, my home county, they don't want to enforce these laws. >> tucker: but they really got their hackels up when you suggested this would apply to gang members. it's almost as if they see gang members as a political constituency. >> you know, i have to tell you.

they certainly see urban america as a critical. there is much sympathy in urban america for some gang members. when you are a victim of crime he don't have much sympathy. >> tucker: i think that's right. there are a lot of people living in cities who probably need to have firearms in their home to protect themselves. >> absolutely. >> tucker: no sympathy for them. congressman thank you for coming on and thank you for raising that point. just illustrated where they are coming from. >> thank you. >> tucker: 50 years ago joe biden had only to worry about fighting corn pop. he won in case you are w is under attack from. the president's re-election campaign. we will show you the video they are putting out about corn pop's chief nemesis after the break. ♪ was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed. i wish that i had gone to aspen dental on day one

and not waited three years. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to flexible hours and payment options. yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. call now at 1-800-aspendental.

hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be, only with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

>> tucker: the hallmark of

an honest news organization is to be honest whether you have made a mistake. that's where we are going. to say last night we are embarrassed to say we made an error of fact in our coverage of the joe biden corn pop saga. we thought we had footage of biden's showdown of the gangster corn pop, but it ended up to be footage from west side story. tonight we are ready to atone. we actually do have video of joe biden versus corn pop. here it is. ♪ [grunting] ♪ >> tucker: he know it's getting embarrassing apparently the corn pop archives apparently to be mislabeled. someone on producing staff will pay for that obviously that is kung fu movie.

there is news out today about joe biden's nemesis, who handed off to trace gallagher who has the details on the actual story. >> at least there was a chain in that video clip, tucker. even if you believe joe biden's claim when he was 17 he used a six foot chain and a bit of diplomacy to get razor carrying gang member to back off. the man who tamed corn pop is now 76 and those in his own party are openly and frequently asking if his flurry of gaffes and memory lapses might be more than just slip-ups. watch. >> there is a lot of people who are concerned about joe biden's ability to carry the ball all the way across the end line without fumbling. >> and the trump's re-election campaign also takes a hard swipe at biden's fitness for office with this new web video. look here. >> i think there are some concerns and they have been mainly expressed by democrats themselves. >> poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

>> whether joe biden is equipped to withstand the very grueling campaign. >> we choose truth over facts. >> now, biden maintains his flubs would not impact his ability to make presidential decisions, but this campaign video is hoping to exploit a weak spot. watch again. >> play the radio. make sure the television -- excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the phone. >> for his part, joe biden says he will release the results of his next physical exam. tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher. a writer called george packer just wrote a remarkable piece for the "atlantic" magazine about has experience sending two children to the new york city public school. over the course of a decade, packer writes that he watched as his children's school shifted their agenda from education to the full-time pursuit of a radical woke ideology.

now, packer is not a conservative. in fact, he is a lifelong liberal. he despises donald trump. but he is also an observant person and he is honest. in his piece he admits something that could be professionally dangerous. the modern left scares him. for packer an early red flag warning was bathroom policy. one day without warning or any discussion at all. the school that his children went to made every single bathroom gender neutral. students were horrified, quote: girls told their parents mortifying stories about boys kicking open their stall doors. they had come back to the old system regardless of a new signage. boys using the former boys rooms and girls using the former girls rooms. it was a quiet plea to be left alone end quote. but, of course, they weren't

left alone. they never are. later packer noticed that instead of learning reading and writing, his kids were learning little more to be advocates for far left politics. quote: our son learned about the genocide of native americans and slavery. but he was never taught about the founding of the republic. he didn't learn that conflicting values and practical compromises are the lifeblood of self-government. he was given no context for the meaning of freedom of expression. he got his civics from hamilton, end quote. in fifth grade students at the school presented year-end projects that were nothing but political props, quote: the fifth graders presented diaramas of the hard issues in the moment, sexual harassment. lgbtq rights and gun violence. students when questioned had little to say. they hadn't been encouraged to research their subjects. make intellectual discoveries and answer potential counter arguments. dioramas consisted of cardboard, clay and slogans.

as his son moved on to middle school, the science proved more ominous. one large poster in the hallway warned students they were tainted with privilege if they were white or male or christian or a citizen. anyone who questioned this direction was presumed a reactionary and attacked. teachers and school administrators warned that parents who didn't get on board were racist. they were bigots or worse than that, packer, though a liberal, grew weary. eventually it was son who got fed up. he asked his father, isn't school for learning math and science and learning and not for teachers to tell us what they think about society? that sounds like a rhetorical question and if you have kids you may have heard them ask if but it's not a rhetorical question. for the woke left school really is about having teachers tell students what to believe. packer had enough. he transferred his second child, a daughter to a private school to make sure she gets the proper education. in bill de blasio's new york, he won't be the last person to

do that. when it really matters, when it's about their kids, even sincere liberals won't sacrifice their children to the churches of woke. and by the way they shouldn't have. to say none of us should have to. not just happening in new york though it does seem particularly dyer in the nation's biggest school system thanks, of course, to the mayor of that city de blasio who by the way could soon end the city's best schools. the mayor is considering a proposal that would abolish all gifted programs citywide in the name of achieving classroom diversity. a new york state assembly woman who ran against mayor de blasio for mayor. nicole, thanks so much for coming on. i don't think it's an overstatement to say there are a few number of schools that really are the crowned jewel not just of the new york system but of the country. some of the best high schools in the world are public schools in new york and with one signature your mayor is threatening to eliminate them? >> well, these are specialized schools that have produced nobel prize

winners and hypocrisy of it all is even his son daunte graduated from one of these specialized schools. not only is he trying to reduce the standard at these schools he wants to completely eliminate our gifted and talented program which is in such high demand. 78% of the kids that qualify for these programs do not get in because there is not seats and parents and teachers want more seats added and meanwhile the mayor wants to get rid of it for some a social justice experiment that he is trying to accomplish. the bottom line here is when every student can qualify for gifted and talented schools we will achieve true justice because we will be preparing them for the real world. >> tucker: the weirdest part of this story and the most telling part is that he is justifying this desecration of the one good thing left in new york city on the grounds of diversity. but these schools are not majority white. they are actually i think pretty overwhelmingly nonwhite immigrant. that's who is going to pay the price. >> many are asian children who

are first-generation. they come from poor families and they worked hard to and the mayor wants to get into this program. basically end this program instead of lifting up the children at other schools who are not able to qualify for these programs. that's the whole key here. this mayor has spent three quarters of a billion dollars to hire high priced consultants some of them even $1,400 a day instead of actually putting that money into helping lift the children from all across our city that actually need the help whether it be through test prep. whether it be through adding teacher's assistant. that's one of the reasons i'm running for congress. this is federal money trickling down to the city level and it's not getting where it needs to go. now the mayor is looking to conduct this social experiment and again he should be looking to lift every child in new york city. not be spending all this millions and millions and billions of dollars on all these consultants and vendors. >> tucker: to destroy thing. really easy to destroy things. nicole, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you and thank you for sharing it. >> tucker: of course. u.s. navy just made a remarkable admission about

ufos for real. we will tell you what they said next. ♪ ♪[upbeat music] ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma♪ ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™

♪ >> tucker: the u.s. navy made a stunning admission. naval officers confirmed that three separate ufo videos released by "the new york times" in 2017 were actually genuine. they do show a real phenomenon may be cannot explain and, in fact, our understanding of physics that cannot be explained. and also a letter to congressman walker and ufo sightings they take seriously, and is working to investigate them. the british journalist, he joins us tonight to explain the significance of this. nick, this does seem like a change in the way that the pentagon always describes this

phenomenon. is it? >> yes, it is. up until this point, the navy has said very little. in fact, they have left the door open, sometimes. almost implied that we might be dealing with commercial drones or even balloons, but now what they have done, they have turned around and said, number one, this is real. number two, this is unidentified aerial phenomena. that is the phrase they have used. previously, they have said "advanced, unknown aircraft." now they are saying unidentified aerial phenomenon. that is a term borrowed from the british government. we used it for the ministry defense, and we meant ufos. >> tucker: the u.s. government admitting they have no idea what these things are and they are not some russian super plane, and nobody's paying attention to this. i mean, this seems like a watershed moment. we have all this tape of objects

defying the known laws of physics right next to u.s. military installations. in the military admits it. why is this not page one news everywhere? >> well, it should be, absolutely. these aircraft carriers that many of these ufos have been interacting with, obviously, these are billion-dollar assets. and it is the official position of the most powerful navy in the world is, frankly, little more than we don't know what this is. i don't think that is good enough. i think clearly people like mark walker don't think so either. i would urge him to get the classified briefing that other senators have received and within the bounds of not wanting to divulge classified information, but maybe some of these senators could step forward and at least give us a clue with what we are dealing with here. >> tucker: so it turns out it wasn't a weather balloon. i mean, they have been telling

us that for 50 years, it is a weather balloon. it's not a weather balloon, is it? >> no, absolutely not. someone in the pentagon must have -- they say we don't want to hypothesize about this. that is fine, but there must be in the pentagon a best assessment. and there must be a view of what they are rolling out. we should be told. >> tucker: there is obviously some reason they are not telling us, in 15 seconds, hypothesize what that reason might be. >> some secret too terrible to be told, but i think we should be told, or at least we should be hinted at. >> tucker: yeah, or maybe not, i don't know. they have been lying about it for 50 years. may be there is a reason they have been, i don't know, nick. it is starting to worry me. i'm grateful you come on and put it into context, good to see you tonight, thank you. we are out of time unfortunately but the good news we move back

tomorrow 8:00 p.m. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. corn pop? we are doing the show for you. sean hannity is next, live from new york city, and he takes it away. come 9:00. >> sean: keep reminding me all the taxes i pay. i love my accountant says once a year, whatever you do, sean, don't die in new york. i'm like, i will try. i promise, i will try. >> tucker: you want to be on the plane to florida. >> sean: 16% from another bite of the apple, tucker, a great show, thank you. welcome to "hannity," and we are tracking multiple big breaking news stories. coming up tonight, we will cover the ongoing, latest fake news saga at "the new york times", almost a daily occurrence. now, the paper's long-term credibility crisis has never been worse. president trump, by the way, also, in other news, is locked and loaded.