of us. that's for me. navy federal credit union our members, are the mission. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" ." barstool sports has taken a countercultural position that men ought to be allowed to be masculine if they want to end that people ought to be allowed toto enjoy sports rather than sitting back and absorbing a lot of political propaganda as they watch. that's their position.at for taking a position, the left would like barstool sports canceled. thee head of barstool sports joins us in just a few minutes to explain how he's responding. but first we hope you had a happy weekend. if you did, old onto those memories, it might be the last relaxing moment you have for a while. we are about to wreck your peace of mind. it turns out that all is not

well on this blue planet of ours, far from it. indeed it appears that the earth itself is facing what we are going to call tonight and existential threat from climate change. what does the term "existential threat" actually mean, you ask? honestly, we don't know. butt it sounds absolutely terrifying, so watch carefully. >> that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planets. >> nato it's about the common defense, the biggest existential threat is climate. >> this is climate change. it really is the existential threat. >> wee are going to have to address the most existential threat to our nation in the world, climate change. >> on climate change, the greatestha existential threat tt we face. >> that we are facing a climate crisis, it represents an existential threat to who we are as human beings. >> tucker: threat to who we are as humans.

theres are a number of questios here. let's see if we can unpack them. the first one, is climate change real? that's an easy one. of course it's real. the climate always changes. if you're in the united states for y example, the ground that you're standing on right now was, not so long ago really, coauthored with glacial ice a mile thick. now it's not covered in glacial ice a mile thick, so what happened? what happened is climate change. that's been happening since the earth cooled. it is human activity climate change? and we reverse or slow climate change? despite what they tell you, no one really knows. but the real question here has nothing to do with climate science, it has to do with people who understand climate science. do those people actually believe what they are saying? let's see. he was kamala harris recently talking about how red meat contributes to the absolutely existential threat of climate change. >> as a nation, we actually have

two have a real priority at the highest level of government around what we eat and in terms of healthy eating, because we have a problem in b america. >> what would you support changing the dietary guidelines? >> yes. >> the food pyramid. because yes. >> reduce red meat specifically? >> yes, i would. >> tucker: got that? kamala harris is a good person and because she's a good person, a much better person than you are, she cares about the existential threat of climatee change so much that she is willing to forgo red meat. that's what she told cnn viewers recently. but when she's on the port producing statewe of iowa thoug, it's a very different story. just this past weekend harris attended the annual democratic party state fry. she took her turn at working the grill, posing forr the cameras. by the way, so that all the other democratic candidates. elizabeth warren was there, beto o'rourke, even cory booker, who says he's a vegan. organizers growth more than 10,000 10,000 stakes over the weekend.

tape of the event that shows plumes of ozone-destroying meat smoke rising heavenward. the candidates standing amidst all this seem wholly unconcerned. are you surprised? don't be surprised. this is what climate activism has become, a performative stunt mixed with hypocrisy. these are the people who promised to crack down on our cheeseburgers while flying across the country private. no one says a word about it. last week millions of concerned progressives took part in the so-called climate strike. in their wake they left mounds of litter. just today in washington, climate activists demanded change by blocking roads, causing gridlock, and throwing confetti on the ground. [cheers and applause] >> tucker: well, if you're under 40, you might be surprised to learn that people didn't use to express concern about the

environment by littering. that used to seem weird, but then the appointive environmentalism is to be about nature and preserving and protecting it. the point now is very different. the pointli now is political power. diffusion of a crisis you demand the population submits to your will or else. and as you do that of course you don't need to fight fair or acknowledge democracy or even make a rational case for your position, you do whatever it takes. you'll even use children if it helps. just today, for example, a 16-year-old swedish girl addressed the united nations at the behest of climate activists. here's part of what she said. >> this is all wrong. up here.'t be i should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. yet you all come to us young people for hope. how dare you! you have stolen my dreams, my

childhood, with your empty words. we are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. how dare you! if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil and that i refuse to believe. >> tucker: you stole my childhood. do what i want you to do or else your w evil. how do you respond to statements like that? the truth is, you can't respond and of course that's r the poin. when you use children to demand power, they become a kind of human shield you can hide safely behind them. no one can criticize you. but who would do something that unscrupulous? anyone who would do that if someone who would literally do anything to seize control. and that's exactly what they're doing. president of the copenhagen consensus center of the author

of the book "the skeptical environmentalist" and we are happy to have him tonight. thanks very much for coming on. >> good to be here. >> tucker: so when you hear, as you just did, the testimony, before the u.n., these were the words of a child, but they could have been the words of many adults in this movement. if you disagree with me, you are evil. is that a scientific debate we are listening to? >> of course it's not, but in reality i think we should answer them on their questions and on their claims. look, they are telling us this is an existential crisis, that this is potentially the end of the world, but look, the u.n. climate panel actually tells us if we do nothing about global warming, in 50 years the impact will be equal to reduction in the average income of person on planet earth by about 0.2-2% of our income. that's a problem. that's not the end of the world. so let's get our priorities right. this is a problem a and what we

have course need to do is to tackle it smartly, but if we end up spending five or ten or 16% of gdp to avoid this tiny problem, then we are really screwed. >> tucker: is there any -- is there a scientific consensus that we know exactly how to arrest climate change? that we know the precise formula that we are actually in control of the climate? >> look, there is a tendency for us to tell everything that you see is due to climate change, and that's obviously wrong, but there are some very clear indicators that we are causing higher temperatures, causing more heat waves, that we are causing sea level rise and to a certain extent it actually makes sense to cut back, some of the easy emissions to cut, but we should also recognize, and that's what that swedish girl that you showed before -- she doesn't -- and she probably hasn't heard that fossil fuels and the availability of easily accessible energy makes people much better off.

and it's listed over the last 25 years more than a billion people out of poverty, so it's not just evil, it's not just a problem, it's also fantastic good that we are a actually able to give a lt of people a lot of access to energy. that's how we can talk together just now, but of course it's also what cools us, heats us, gives us communication, transport, food, everything else that actually is worth having if our civilization. >> tucker: so why -- you make an obvious point, that there is course another side to this always is. why do we never hear that? i mean, someone committed science would of course -- would raise up all the known facts about whatever issue it is, but they don't. why do youou think? >> i think this is because it's become so politicized and also if you raise the point of saying like all other things, there's both sides, there's a problem with global warming, but cuttine emissions also have costs. we need to find a place where we

minimize both of these, that is we maximize the benefits and minimize the cost trying to do that. we don't have that conversation. all the democrats want and most politicians around the world, simply want to say we are going to promise to do everything but of course remember they don't actually do that because doing that would be fantastically expensive. new zealand? they just promised to go carbon neutral in 2,050. they actually had the audacity to ask the official economic institute how much is this going to cost us and the answer was 16% of their gdp. that is more than the entire government spending right now in new zealand of everything we do. of course they're never going to actually do that, because they will have a revolt before that. >> tucker: yeah. it's just striking that every political solution i'm aware of would increase the power of the politician suggesting it, which is a tip-off this is not about science, it's a n power grab and it's terrifying, in my view.

thanks for your measured assessment. appreciate it.ec >> thank you. >> tucker: pretty obvious the left stopped caring about the environment a long time ago. that's why their cities are filthy. but the evidence that proves it is that everything all of a sudden is an environmental issue. on msnbc this week and al sharpton claimed that actually climate change has become a civil rights issue. >> i'm proud to say these young people of color are connecting the dots between climate change and its effects on back communities, their futures. when the young people went out there y yesterday, it made me so proud, i was in kansas city when i heard iny several cities some of the people from networks say this is a civil rights issue. >> tucker: got that? global warming isn't really about the environment, it's really about racism, more specifically it's about how you'rere a racist if you don't agree with our solution to the

suppose it environmental problem. you don't want to surrender the entire economy over to people like alexandria ocasio-cortez, other dumb people, give the free green card to every person from a tropical latitude, of course you're a racist. environmental'r racism. tried with mark is a new york-based journalist who's been watching all of this with jaw agape and he joins us tonight. chat with mark, what is environmental racism exactly? >> environment all racism is a way for the democrat partyty to get a group of people on board who really ultimately do not care about climate change inin these n issues. you don't have urban black communities, urban hispanic communities who are bothered about cow parts, but i think you nailed it when is that these protests are not about cleaning up the environment or making the world a better place, they are about statism. they are basically rallies advocating for advancing state power. these people believe that the united states government, the same entity that runs your dmv or your post office, is going to legislate the salvation of

mankind. meanwhile, the democrat party can't even be bothered to clean up mountains of festering effluvium is in cities that they run with one party control. and for people who actually do care about the environment, they would be advised to think twice before they empower a party so strongly. look at china. china is one party rule and they are the world's biggest polluters by far. >> tucker: so i was -- we haven't had time to do this, but just spend a day with the camera at alexandria ocasio-cortez's congressional district. is it a green thriving clean place? no. it's a filthy place. so when you preside over that, how dare you lecture me about the environment. >> exactly. and look at the hypocrisies --t? we can't even necessarily call it hypocrisy becausely president obama may have spent $15 million on a seaside mansion that apparently every burger you

eat means it's closer to being engulfed by the atlantic ocean. all of the biggest names in this group jet around the country on private airplanes. they are now having a meat cookoff in iowa to try to get the message out to those witless he then pleads in the hinterlands we just don't know what's good for them, but they know what's good for you. more state control, more state power, more legislation.. look at also what happened this week and supposedly millions of people were gathering in thesero protests. no one planted a single tree, did they? they certainly used plenty of dead trees for their protest signs, further sticks, but in downtown los angeles, you had a group of conservatives and trump supporter's who spent a sunny afternoon dressed in hazmat suits volunteering to clean up amount of waste that reportedly took awayat 50 tons of garbage. where is the media on that? that's actual environmentalism, that's actually helping out your neighbors and making sure your

community and world are a better place. >> tucker: if they were planting trees, i would probably spend the money. >> i would too. >> tucker: tried with mark, great to see you tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: congressional ewmocrats thought they found a new excuse to push for impeachment. this time over president trump's conversation with the president ofof ukraine. now that scandal could, it turns out, with around like a boomerang and engulfed their own presidential front-runner joe biden. catherine herridge is of course our chief intelligence correspondent here at fox news entry joins us us to explain this story. >> thanks, good evening. a person familiar with the situation tells fox news thess whistle-blower did not have "first-hand knowledge of the conversation between president trump and the ukrainian president "adding the complaint makes clear the whistle-blower did not have direct knowledge of the july phone call. that matters because typically multiple u.s. officials are on these calls with the president, indicating the whistle-blower was not one of them. it's unclear how the individual obtained a transcript, heard about the call, or learned about it another way.

after consulting with the justice department, the top lawyer for the acting director of nationalin intelligence, joe maguire, said the complaint was nonstandard, did not meet the statutory definition of urgent, and congressional notification was not required. "the information within the present complaint however is differentt in kind from that involved in any past cases. because the complaint involves confidential and potentially privileged communications by persons outside of the intelligence community, the dni lacks unilateral authority to transmit such materials. speaking to reporters at the u.n. today, president trump went on the offensive. >> did you tell the ukrainian leader that they would havel te aid only if the investigator joe biden and his family? >> no ide didn't. no i didn't. i didn't do it. but joe biden said it about his son. joe biden was very dishonest, what he did. >> on the whistle-blower lacking direct knowledge of the call, a separate source told fox news that weakens the complaint, but does not necessarily undercut all allegations. democrats want his testimony on thursday, tucker.

>> tucker: catherine herridge, quite a story, thanks for that. >> you're welcome. >> tucker: well, the ukraine story appears to be falling apart, at least at the edges, but of course the same people who jump to wild and unfounded conclusionsd over russia are doing the same thing here. some of them have gone even farther. for example, former massachusetts governoror bill w bill weld, republican turned libertarian, he's challenging the president in the 2020 primaries, is calling trump a trader who deserves to be executed. t watch. >> talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control u.s. election, it couldn't be clearer, that's not just just undermining democratic institutions. that is treason. it's treason, pure and simple, and the penalty for treason under the u.s. code is death. that's the only penalty. >> tucker: death. charlie hurt is opinion editor over "the washington times" and author of the fantastic book "still winning."

he joins us tonight. treason, charlie. death is the penalty for treaso treason. >> you know, you can't make it up, but if you think about it, for the past three years, we've been hearing about this russia collusion, russia collusion and prompted this and trump rigged the election and all this kind of stuff and it turns out of course trump didn't do any of that, but actually the democrats did and hillary clinton did. there comes a point where their own voters -- democrats own voters, they are starting to realize they are being lied to. and i swear, i think democrats are getting together right now and they're saying okay, guys, we got to come up with g another lie and it has to be even more fantastical and more ridiculous than the last one. just so we can stop talking about the fact that we've been lying to our people for the past asree years. so they come up with this ukrainian thing about trump strong-arming the ukrainian government for some favors or something and then it turns out,

what? oh, it turns out he didn't do it, joe biden did it. and it's kind of funny. i think that when they did that, they were thinking that theyha d this gossip witness, this hearsay witness who didn't even -- wasn't even privy to any of the conversations, just said something he heard like at the table. and he went to the ig and reported all that and i think that what they were thinking is that the ig -- he would take this information, handle it the way he should handle it, send the guy back to his cubicle and tell him to shut up and then of course never tell congress about it. then it would leak and all anybody would know is that the intelligence community is investigating this improper phone call between trump and the ukrainian leader and that would sound so terrible. but what happens? trump hears about it and he lays it all out there. he completely calls their bluff and as you said, it turns into a boomerang that they throw and it hits them in the back of the head.

they've become the party of projection in that moment when a patient begins projecting everything on people around them, that's when they -- and that's when they are starting to lose the lastar marble. >> tucker: that is definitely the case and on the most basic level -- you are often here trump described as deranged and is certainly eccentric, but deranged? >> unusual. >> tucker: here you have bill weld calling for the guy's extrication. if there's something about trump that is likee a bug light for wackos. it does seem that way. >> it really is. and it's absolutely astonishing. and it's like the stuff -- they accused trump of being racist all the time and my goodness, i look around and i'm like, i'm sorry, who was obsessed with race? all of these people that are accusing trump of being a racist, they are the ones who are obsessed with o race. >> tucker: who was attacking other people for their skin color? is it trump? no. so quickly, will you assess just on the scale of 0-10, the

potential importance of the biden ukraine story? >> i think there are a lot of very serious questions about all of it. it's very strange. and they are his own words. that's the other thing. but the real tell for me is the way all of these so-called mainstream media outlets are trying to pooh-pooh the story and say we just don't know here. going on move right along, we don't know. >> tucker: unbelievable, charlie hurt, great to see you tonight, thank you. >> great to see you, thanks. >> tucker: a career and aar great website out of upsetting the easily offended. now he's under attack for supporting traditional sports. andsu the men who watch traditional sports. he joins us 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

♪ go where my baby lives areb[ growl ]olle♪s ever. good boy. hey. hey. you must be steven's phone. know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

♪ >> tucker: at one of the most remarkable and troubling moments in the years-long russia saga occurred, you may remember, when the former deputy fbi director andy mccabe claimed the deputy ag rod rosenstein had offered to wear a wire to spy on the president. at the time, he denied it. today though, judicial watch announced it obtained a two page memo from may of 2017 in which mccabe records rosenstein making that offer. according to the memo, rosenstein thought he could sneak a's wire in because he was not searched when visiting the white house. matthew whitaker was acting attorney general under president trump and he joins us now. thanks very much for coming on. what do you make of this report? >> well, the memo in and of itself is extraordinary because

it captures a moment in time between the firing of jim comey and the appointment of thein special counsel and it really, to some extent, lays out the entire conversations that andy mccabe as acting deputy -- as acting fbi director had with deputy attorney general rosenstein and others and i just extraordinary that they were having a discussion whether or not it was a joke, as i've heard i rosenstein allege,f wearing a wire into the white house, into the oval office and recording the president. it is -- i can't imagine under what circumstance that conversation would have come up and would have been had between those two people. >> tucker: so you've worked at this level of government at a long time. assess the likelihood that it was a l joke. >> so at the time, i was the chief of staff, when rosenstein issued that extraordinary statement and then another statement on top of that when the first one wasn't received

well in the story was covered by many and it was obviously the only explanation that he could have stayed in that role if it had been a serious consideration of wearing a wire in the oval office and obvious that the president couldn't have the trust and confidence, so he had to explain it as being a joke and saying that it's a facetious matter. i don't know, i know there were others in that same meeting that also took copious notes. i would expect that since they do such a good job, that we will see those notes as well because i think we are far from over, but the prosecutor in me wants to corroborate the story and andy mccabe at the time had a lot of reasons to write down historically inaccurate accounts, because he was about -- he had just put the president into the investigation as ade target. >> tucker: so i guess the obvious question is do you think -- and you know him, rod rosenstein is capable of h that? >> i worked side-by-side with

rod as deputy attorney general when i was acting attorney general and it also worked with him when i was chief of staff. i would be surprised if he had honestly said thatly he would wr a wire, but at the same time, if you read that memo, is very clear that andy mccabe didn't think he d was joking and i woud like to see what others in the room thought because i was not in the room at the time and i think it would be -- it is something that i just think of so extraordinary to even be talking about, wearing a wire, whether you're joking or not, that i think we need a few more witnesses to to the conversatio actually know whether he was joking or not. but it's just extraordinary. >> tucker: i think so too. matthew whitaker, thanks so much for that. >> thank you. >> tucker: just about everything else in the world, sports is being consumed by woke ideology. athletesin protesting anthem, is temperature social justice, biological males annihilate girls records in sports. barstool sports is just a sports site with a sense of humor. that's the most offensive part to many.

they are funny, and for that they come under constant attack. most recently, an nbc news piece called the website for being "ag bastion of traditional masculinity." dave portnoy founded barstool sports and he joins usma tonigh. dave, nbc has gone after you for being masculine. what's your response? >> not only masculine, for liking sports. they have a problem with sports -- literally, a direct quote, there are so many had scratches in this article i don't even know where to start. but that's some of them. they say we are overwhelminglyy conservative. not really true. we are apolitical. i filter that, but it literally says they are a bastion of conservative ideology because they watch sports. guess what? we likech sports. we are not apologizing for it. guess what? women like sports too. it's almost like making the nfl -- the nfl must be conservative because guys like football. it makes no sense. none. zero.

>> tucker: it doesn't, and by i the way, i said this before, i would be shocked if there are a lot of right-wingers on your staff. you're just doing what you've always done but all of a sudden the, moment has changed so much they are calling it political. so the piece contains -- this is my favorite part. it contains a quote from the following. lisa neck more, described as a professor at ann arbor, "who studies the intersection of digital media, race, gender and sexuality." >> that's my school. that hurts. i'm a michigan guy. we are going downhill every week. we get killed by wisconsin would get embarrassed by this lady. it is actually one of the more serious threats. if you look ator some of these articles, they are all professorsar and all of these schools, it's like what are you teaching these kids? and by the way, we reach out to these people. if you have any address in defending anything you say? none of them. theyey don't call us, they don't talk to us, they just make up stuff. >> tucker: they are cowards, they won't come on the show either. have you ever had anybody

respond and say i'd like to defend the proposition that it's wrong for a sports site to cover sports, they just ignore you? >> they say how are you going to defend it. a lot of this article says we are going back in time as the #metoo movement and women are getting more power in different places, we are rejecting that notion. our ceo is a female -- by the way, in its own right is insulting to have to bring it up. she's a ceo because she's hilliant. i didn't hire her because she's female. she'swe awesome and the results speak for themselves, but what are you going tofout do? c our cmo, our cfo is a female. if you look around like what you're talking about? you're just making stuff a up. that's what they don't answer i it. nbc, hey, i've offered to go on that show. you know what they do? they cancel because they have no answers. everyone's like you only go on fox, you will need a trucker. you'reke the only one who lets s speak. i will speak to anybody anytime, anyplace, but if they are afraid to have these questions asked, what am i i supposed to do? you let us get our story out. >> tucker: i worked there for

four years at nbc and so i know how many pigs worked there for real. but i wonder my given their deep commitment to feminism, what percentage of the profits from the olympics do you thinkts they are getting to women's organizations? >> i don't know the answer to that. i know this, i know they killed the harvey weinstein story. >> tucker: exactly! exactly! >> look in the mirror! just look in thehe mirror. i will gladly go on your show. you know you don't have -- i present you with facts, you're going to turtle, you're going to rollover.on they just make stuff up and then if you can't dispute it and you won't debate it, what are you supposed to do? by the way, they may have actually -- if they think it's a problem to watch sports, that means they are conservative, what? conservatives have the rest of timer the because people like sports. >> tucker: so anti-lac and no oppenheimer over at nbc, as you just pointed out, kill the harvey weinstein story and now accuse youn of sexism. i wonder what either one of

those ever do an interview with you? >> do you think? the facts are so heavily weighted on our side. we read that article, there were sentences in that article i read them 100 times. i think i'm a fairly smart person. i still didn't know what sma thy were driving at. the dean of communications school at penn state. if you listen to y what she sai, i would never let my kids into her class. what world is she in saying "sportscenter" going back in time, it is insanity and again, i'm happy to debate it. i will go to your class. i will let you have the moderator. i will let you put your people in and i will put you in a mental pretzel because you have no facts! >> tucker: don't send your kids to college, that really is the lesson. >> it is. >> tucker: i don't want to send my fourth. i mean that. great to see you tonight, god bless. >> thank you. >> tucker: jeff bezos is the richest man in the world but being number one isn't quite enough so no whole foods is cutting health care for a bunch

of its employees. again, the world's richest man is cutting health care benefits for his employees. by the way, he's a liberal. how does that work? we will tell you, next. ♪

♪ >> tucker: even after his divorce, jeff bezos remains the richest man on planet earth. he's got a net worth of more than $100 billion. how rich is jeff bezos? well, as a factual matter, he could give $100,000 to every single one of his employees, all 647,000 of them, and still have almost 50 billion last over to my to left over. yet with all that wealth and power you might hope the press might be skeptical of jeff bezos, that's the point of having a free press, a right?

to afflict the comfortable? no purity to suck up to the powerful, which they do assiduously. they love jeff bezos. over at msnbc, the morning anchor called him basals mary. >> as a source close to him told me last night, do not poke this basals bear. >> tucker: is a bare! you know how it is. he has a lot, but he only wants more. he's a greedy little bear. so this week, whole foods, which he owns, just like "the washington post," announced a change to its employee benefit policy. previously whole foods workers could receive health benefits if they worked at least 20 hours a week. now the cutoff is 30 hours a week. as a result, and this is not an accident, if the whole point, almost 2,000 whole foods employees will lose health care coverage. was going to take up the slack? of course you will as a taxpayer. in a statement, whole foods noted the move would make a

company "more efficient," better meet the needs of our business. those needs, of course, are making jeff bezos another few dollars, money he doesn't need. meanwhile, earlier this month aaa opened its first outlet in canada. a mob of progressive activists were there to protest because of its social policies or the opinions of its owners. probably won't see her protester at a whole foods anytime soon. at the left doesn't care about workers at all. it cares about being woke. maybe some workers will still have health care if the left cared. if impairment is a california radio host and he joins us tonight. so ethan, where are the protests? i noticed that the left socks up to jeff bezos, as it does to people into power generally, but you would think somewhere there would be at least one honest progressive left would say jeff bezos, why don't you pay for the health care your employees? >> well, you're speaking to one of them, who did speak up. i'm not afraid to poke the bear. and i think it's totally wrong for roughly a million dollars a

month, he's throwing 2,000 part-time workers out to the wind. it's terrible, it's tragic, it's beyond ridiculous, and i hate, as much as maybe you do and maybe more, when people want to tell uss what to do and then thy don't do it themselves. jeff bezos is not leading by example. he's leading leading with his words. >> tucker: so it's a pretty clever deal he's figured out. he buys "the washington post" and turns it into a complete garbagean publication, just a pe political operation, but it's every fashionable note in the progressive sympathy. symphony. there's not one left-wing idea that they are not 100% behind and by doing that, he indemnifies himself against any criticism for his business practices from the left. you are the exception. but you get what's going on here? >> i do. and oddly, to be in agreement with you tonight. i'm uncomfortable with that as well. i'm allowed proponent for

speaking to power regardless of whetherro or not they are on my side or not. and we must do this. i believe that we have an issue that's happening in our country from both sides, for that matter, where we need to be speaking out. when we see something that's about who supposedly leads on our side is not doing the right thing, we need to be able to call people out. we need to be able to talk about the issues that are happening and in this case, in my mind, this is where i will probably disagree with you, i think some of the democratic candidates like joe biden and beto o'rourke have the right idea where we need to make sure that we have coverage for all americans because under president trump we have 2 million more americans who don't have health insurance for the first time in over a decade as "the wall street journal" pointed out. >> tucker: aware that obamacare didn't fix that, i thought it was going to. super quick, this is something that infuriates me and no one ever mentions it but jeff bezos on his dividends, on the income he makes from his investments, which is a lot, pays half the tax of someone who works for him

for a salary. that's our system, it's grotesque -- it's disgusting, actually. it t makes the rich richer and e poor poorer but the left and never says a word about it, why is that? >> again, i can't speak for others. i've been very loud about this issue for a number of years. we need to close those pupils, people need to pay their apportionment. why should i or a secretary pay less inec taxes like warren buffett has pointed out that he himself? we need to fix that and democrats really should address it. absolutely. >> tucker: because we tax capital at half the rate of labor, so we penalize work. so you're an idiot if you work for a living and those of us -- >> that's right. >> tucker: whatever. i don't know many people -- >> the hedge fund loophole. >> tucker: i couldn't agree more. couldn't agree more. you don't have to be a liberal to think that. y han, thank you. good to see you. >> thanks. >> tucker: every year artificial intelligence is getting more sophisticated. that has implications for tens of millions of american workers.

what does it mean for them, what does it mean for our society? we will investigate those questions next. ♪ ♪[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: year by year, day by day, artificial intelligence is becoming more powerful and much more sophisticated. the latest example, mcdonald's is now working on automating its drive-through windows. google and other tech titans will soon produce cars that can drive themselves. it millions of americans from drivers to factory workers to retail clerks, people who work in jobs that could soon be automated. automated away. so what does that mean for this country? one of the few people -- a senior fellow at the manhattan institute and author of the book "the once and future worker."

joins us tonight, thanks a lot for coming on. >> great to see you. >> tucker: to the extent that people are paying any attention at all to automation, most of our leaders i think are ignoring it, but to the extent that they address it, you hear some of them say this is actually a problem that will solve itself. we will think of some new thing for these people to do. are you hopeful that will happe happen? >> i think it should happen. i think the question we have to be asking is why isn't it happening to always automated away old jobs since the days of horse carriages, but the economy and business leaders used to spend their time finding new better ways for people to work and that's what's missing from the equation. we are not creating those new opportunities anymore. >> tucker: interesting. so you would describe part of the problem as a failure of wil will? >> i think that's right. you look at -- what do our business leaders invest in? what are our biggest, richest businesses doing? in a lot of cases, it's trying

to find ways to do things with as few workers as possible, or its speculating in bonds and making money without doing anything in the real economy or when we do need people, you are the business leaders either wanting to use people in another country or insisting they need to bring new people into this country.op whereas back in the day it was all about using american workers well and giving them opportunities to be more productive. >> tucker: why do we not hear politicians push back against that? this mcdonald's idea, for example. my gut reaction is, really, it's too much for you to pay some kid to stand at the window? but i can't imagine even a republican senator saying something like that to mcdonald's. why? >> you know, i'm not sure if the concern should be as about the mcdonald's get at the window.w. i think what we talk about what we con out, our economy to become a is not where saint darn it, why do we have more jobs that mcdonald's windows. if mcdonald's could find a way

to bring more automation into its stores, the people who were working there would probably be more productive, they could earn more. if we could more mcdonald'sldar restaurants in more smaller towns and that would create more jobs. so i think the question doesn't have to be how do we protect the mcdonald's worker in the drivees through. the question has to be aware of new exciting businesses that are using people in new and exciting ways? and whether that's in the mcdonald's,he whether that's an entire new type of business, that's what i would love to head people talking about, but again, we don't hear much talk about that either. instead we just hear talk about we will let -- we will let people get rich whatever kind of business they run and then we will tax them and send the money over to the people who don't have good jobs anymore. and a lot of our politicians seem to think that's a winning formula. i think that's what we have to fight back against.

>> tucker: so small group of people in finance subsidize the welfare for everybody else. that sounds depressing. >> you have the same thing from silicon valley with things like universal basic income, which is thishi idea that maybe a few people will learn all i the mon, but we are going to be rich enough that we can send everybody a check and that's not what people want. they want a job. >> tucker: that's exactly right. and if free money made you happy, that inherited many people would be happy and generally they are not buried great to see you. >> good to see you too. >> tucker: progressives have a brand-new idea for education, ban private schools. a suggestion from one of the biggest political parties in great britain. don't laugh though, it will be here soon enough. we will investigate after the break. ♪

. .

>> tucker: here's a story that's happening abroad, but we think it's relevant to you, so we are going to tell you about it. w in the u.k., the labour party is

making a promise about what they are going to do if they win the country's next election.and the. they say that they are going to abolish private schools.among ts from too many students seize their assets, redistribute them to the more worthy, as defined by them, levy new taxes. their stated goal is to fight grotesque inequality. in other words, britans private schools do better than public schools.that is putting it mild. that's true in this country too. instead of fixing the broken schools, the left has decided to destroy the remaining successful ones.got that? rather than allowing some people to have something good, they want to make certain that nobody can have it at all. it's not just about forced mediocrity.it is about, and it s about, power. if people can send their kids to schools that aren't controlled by the state, they might be able

to get around the left's relentless indoctrination. to the left, that is intolerable. so again, why are we telling you this? simple. we are telling you this, because this could very well be our future in this country. in new york now, under bill de blasio, the city mayelid talented students. moving very close to that. in california, meanwhile, public schools have been banned from disrupting. kamala harris has promised to bring back public busing. they will drive parents back into private schools, add a great cost to themselves.lovingo sacrifice their kids to crummy schools, period. you are going to see much more private school enrollment. but the left will react, as in britain, they would rather destroy a successful school than allow it to operate independently. so, it could be five years, it could be ten years. you will see an effort to ban

private schools and home schooling in this country. you heard it here first. we are out of time this evening unfortunately. but the good news is, we'll bee back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. the sworn enemy of lying smugness, and groupthink. sean hannity is buckled up in new york city.he spoke to the vt today. >> sean: thank you. great show as always. tonight we have to start with something you are rarely ever going to see on this program. we need to thank the mainstream media mob in their latest rage filled psychotic effort to smear president trump. they accidentally did his campaign and frankly the country at huge favor.in fact,, the mea unintentionally stumbled upon our serious credible claims of corruption surrounding the president's 2020 opponent. that would be sleepy creepy crazy uncle joe. we are going to go chapter and verse very