we will see you tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." one of the most bewildering facts of our current moment is how quickly everything moves. for example, to remember the latest "new york times" hit piece on brett kavanaugh? the one where they've found a brand-new accusation of misconduct but then had to later admit it was alls a sham. when did that happen? it feels like about a year ago but actually no, it was just last week. that's the trump era news cycle for you, scandals that used to go on for months now seem to end in hours. nothing illustrates that better thann this bizarre ukraine story that we are all living through. a week agoea no one had even hea of it. last night we are on the brink

of impeachment because of it. and now, it seems to be over already. just to bring you back and remind you what just happened, the same angry news anchors who brought you stormy daniels and the russia hoax now wanted you to know that big orange's days in the white house were finally over. why? because trump, they said, threaten to withhold military aid to ukraine and it's essential that we said military aid to ukraine. trump was going to withhold it unless they did something bad to joe biden and his family. basically it was an extortion plot against ukraine and that's a crime, the news anchor shattered. a crime! trump was finished! this morning, they turned out to be wrong. actual evidence emerged but it contradicted what they told usl yesterday. give administration released a w transcript of the president's phone call of the ukrainian head of state and it showed none of the things the news anchors claimed it would show.

it read it for yourself, don't trust us, it's right online. try to find the extortion in there. there isn't any. trump never even mentions military aid. well yes, they are saying now, but he asked a foreign government to investigate an american citizen and that's immoral! okay. was it immoral when three democratic senators put a letter to ukraine just last year demanding investigations into trump? no answers on my question, we will tell you if we hear back. instead now they are telling us the transcript of the phone call can't be real. it must be doctored. watch chuck schumer andn adam schiff spend their conspiracy fairly last night. >> do trust the white house enough to take that transcript and believe that that is an actual representation of what transpired? >> well i think sadly if the case, as you described, that we cannot trust the administration with respect to anything that it produces. >> simply to release the transcript is not going to come

close to ending the need of the american public and the congress to see what actually happened. >> tucker: so again, that was last night before the transcript was publicly available. now that it is publicly available, poor adam schiff's conspiracy addled brain lurched to a different direction. now he's telling us that the transcript, the one he's already denounced as fake, is in fact real, but it doesn't show what it should show, which is to say it doesn't show the president doing any of the things supposedly justify impeachment. why? well, adam schiff explains, because the president, like a navajo code talker, is speaking in secret code. >> this is how a mafia boss talks. what have you done for us? we've done so much for you, bute there's not much reciprocity. i have a favor i want to ask you. what is that favor? of course the favor is to investigate his political rival, a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.

>> tucker: you know, we are not psychiatrists here, but honestly adam schiff is a nutcase. it's true. it's hard to believe he is in congress. if the poor people of anaheim or wherever he's from, southern california, the valley somewhere. it's hard to believe he is actually in congress. he's actually a committee chairman, to buy the 25th amendment doesn't apply to members of congress. to be fair, most democrats are not anywhere near as crazy as adam schiff,f, not a menacing ballpark, they are just very cynical, extremely cynical. more cynical than you've ever thought of being. for example, watch congressman al green, who is not stupid or crazy, explain what's actually driving impeachment, watch this. >> are you concerned that impeachment talk may actually help the president's reelection? >> i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president he will get reelected. >> tucker: i'm concerned if we don't impeach, he will get reelected. i'm concerned that democracy could happen. we've got to stop that! it's about power.

you knew that, that's what it's always about. power. nobody pushing for impeachment actually cares about secret deals with foreign leaders. please. it much less justice or the truth. again, this of the most cynical people in the united states of america. what they care about, and you knew this already, was winning the 2020 presidential election. that's all they care about. getting their mitts on the levers of power and exercising power. for its own sake. if that's what drives them, that's why they get up in the morning. democratic leaders have decided that impeaching trump is essential if they're going to win next year. so they are staking everything on this bizarre flimsy scandal that the rest of us can barely even understand. will it work? probably not. if personal attacks on trump or effective, if calling him a racist or a traitor actually worked,ec and hillary clinton would be running for reelection right about now.

it's not going to work, it never works. if you want to beat trump, make your case on the issues. he won on the issues, make a counter case. the geniuses can't figure that out. in the end really the loser here in this impeachment nonsense is likely to be joe biden. biden, you will recall, is the front runner supposedly. he supposed to be the safe choice, the guy that's going to energize the obama coalition and win back the white house and yet now democrats have in effect demanded that we spend the next six months talking about biden and his son's alleged corruption, because that's at the core of this ukraine story. if we are talking about ukraine and impeachment, we are talking about joe biden's corruption, alleged corruption. that can't help his campaign for president. it's likely to tank it. it looks like sabotage, really. they must know, is it sabotage? honestly, we don't know. we are not in the room. maybeem it is. or maybe democrats have just

become so obsessed with destroying donald trump that they are destroying themselves accidentally. kim strassel is of course a member of "the wall street journal" editorial board, one of the smartest people at that newspaper, she joins us tonight. so kim, this is not really central but i just can't help butel ask you, joe biden would seem to be the big loser here. how does this help joe biden? >> yeah, well you've just put your finger on the question that those of us who study politics have been really mystified by this week. we watched the democrats for almost three years now run through a complete litany of things they wanted to try to impeach donald trump on. everything, russiaus hoax, obstruction of justice, stormy daniels, taxes, financials. none of it has stock, but at least in each of those they can keep it focused or claim to keep it focused on trump's behavior. instead they have not pulled the trigger on the one issue out there that implicates the leader -- a front runner of their own nomination process and

is likely to do the most damage to their moderate democrats because the flimsiness of these charges. >> tucker: yeah. i think that's exactly right. and by the way, i think impeachment really ought to be reserved for extreme violations of the law, because your short-circuiting democracy, but i would support impeachment of this or any other president if one of those violations came to light. i would. i think most people would, but this is so far from that, it's so weird and there's nothing to it. so -- i'm not a conspiracy not, but you've got to think that may be hurting biden is the point. do you think it could be? >> well, i don't necessarily think if that.me i think it's mostly driven by extreme hatred for this president and also timing. look, the pressure has been building up for nancy pelosi to ask. they had what they thought might be a good scandal on their hands, so they pulled the trigger. i think they moved too soon,

it's embarrassing now given that the transcripts have come out, but i think you also make a good point that there are plenty ofra democrats, especially the radical left, and those of the ones who most dislike this president, who would be perfectly fine if this took joe biden out of the race and clear the field for a more progressive nominee. he's got the support of certain quarters of the party, but those are not the part of the party that has got most of the power and the attention at the moment. >> tucker: if you're looking for a scandal, trump campaigned against the carey interest alloophole. if some of the richest liberals in america paying half the taxes you and i are paying. that's still in place. why doesn't someone try to impeach over that? do know what iha mean? why doesn't someone find a reall scandal? >> well, look, i think the reality is here is what we are seeing -- democrats are casting about and this is what the

problem is, you just put your finger on with impeachment. americans expect impeachment to be used in a serious and sober fashion. let's be honest, congress has the right, they could impeach the president for laughing the wrong way. they can impeach for anything they want. but the american people expect more of that and i think what we are seeing now as they roll through these litany of things and from one to the other to the other and nothing, they are looking for a crime, right? they want something and people then begin to think that this is not -- this is not about accountability or the constitution that we've heard so much about. this is about redoing the last election, and that is not something most americans agree with. >> tucker: and no, it's -- i'm not saying this as some kind of blind trump artisan, i think that's a threat to our system, our constitutional system and i think that's bad. i know you agree with that, great to see her tonight, thank you for explaining all of that. nancy pelosi and jerry nadler are in charge of impeachment

this week, but they had pretty different opinions onec the subject just not that long ago, a few decades ago, one currently in congress is about to tell us wh he disagrees with impeachment today, but first trace gallagher has a look back at pelosi and nadler's view on this suddenly very relevant topic. hey, trace. >> hey, tucker. what makes this so rich as house speaker nancy pelosi says that no one is above the law. most legal analysts even on liberal media outlets acknowledge it would beer very difficult to makee a case that president trump broke the law. but 1 back in 1998, president clinton actually did violate the law and when house republicans voted to impeach, pelosi said it was based solely on hatred. watch. >> today the republican majority is not judging the president with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance. in the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which americans hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks

and balances have been seriously violated and why? because we are here -- we are here today because the republicans in the house are paralyzed with hatred of president clinton and until the republicans freees themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer. >> also back in 1998, pelosi went on to say that president clinton was not impeached for one single thing, but for all of the g.o.p. grievances against him. and speaking of selective political memory, in '98, new york congressman jerry nadler said impeachment was "bad for the country." watch. >> and impeachment of a president is in undoing of a national election. in one of the reasons we all feel so angry about what they t are doing is that they are ripping from us, they ares ripping our votes. they are telling us that our votes don't count. >> so for the record, in 1998, nadler said impeachment was that

for the country. in 2019, he says it vindicates the constitution. tucker. >> tucker: amazing. that just made my night. trace gallagher, thank you for that. until just the other day democrats appeared to be divided on the question of impeaching the president. this week they appear to be nearly unanimous, but a u few holdouts are warning that impeachment push is a mistake. bad for the country and possibly counterproductiveon politically. one of them is a congressman who represents new jersey, he's one of the holdouts, thanks so much for coming on. >> it's my pleasure to be with you. >> tucker: so you're a democrat, i will say a conservative democrat, but you're a democrat. and the easy thing would be to go along with your party's leadership on this question, but you're not,y? why? >> i've never been good at that to begin with, just very briefly, people will say your job is to be aoo good democrat r a goodr republican and i keep emphasizing the responsibility in the job is to be a good american. soy i go what i believe in my

heart is right and in my brain and it seems to me at this point in time we really do want to accomplish some goals, infrastructure needs to be dealt with.sc i'll scare needs to be dealt with, prescription drugs need to be dealt with. election -- elections need to be dealt with as far as making sure they are secure. i could give you a whole long list, tucker, the point is i really believe the more that we delve into this, the more time we spendn on it, especially at a macro level, the more we are not going to be able to spend time on his other issues that are important and it's not because we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, because somebody brought that up. we can walk and chew gum at the same time. the problem is one where this divided, when we are this split, two political parties, and this is all going on, people aren't going to work together, so the president is not going to be signing bills, n the senate bils are going to be going to the house, the house bills aren't going to be going through the senate and at the end of the day, i'm afraid that all we are going to have is a failed

impeachment because folks need to understand -- maybe there are those that want to punish theer president or make a point, and i understand that, but the bottom line is still going to be the president of the united states and the bottom line is he is still going to be a candidate for the republican party. so whyhy don't we let the people do the impeachment by voting in the electoral process way that we usually do? >> tucker: you mean democracy? >> absolutely. >> tucker: it not a popular concept in washington. i guess the political question --ve i agree with everything you said and i commend you for caring about those issues,ip because i think they are bipartisan fundamentally. but everything you said is pretty obvious. no offense to either one of us, but anyone could figure it out, including the smart people who run your party, so they know they are not going to get a conviction. this isn't going to work, there'ss no chance of it workin, so why are they doing it? >> i'm not sure i can answer that. i think part of it is they believe the president should be held accountable for some things that he's done and by all

accounts, nobody ever pretended that he's perfect or there aren't some issues, but i always use the example even during the clinton administration, when that impeachment -- by the way, i was also not for that and we saw that it didn't really bear any fruit, wasted a lot of time and money, but he had some serious issues there. and he even lost his ability to practice law. he was disbarred. but with all that happening, it still wasn't nearly enough for impeachment to go through. here's what folks have to understand. impeachment is a very, very serious, serious move to take by any political party or political entity. you know, we have to realize that when you impeach somebody, it has to be for really strong reasons, because you are also removing the power of the people, your disenfranchising their vote. whether we like it or not, what i would like a won or not, your disenfranchising their vote and it has to be serious to do that.

so my worries are getting stuff done. i really want to do good things and i want to do it in a bipartisan way. i really want to see the country move forward. i really know that tasha brought i think that people could look at this and think that our country is disorganized in turmoil, that we are split apart, and i think it will split people in society apart. i think folks literally in the united states of america are even going to get angrier at each other. e i don't believe it's going to bring people together, and that's what we need to do. then we have the election. and the other issue, by the way comedies of the midterm elections that are going to be going on now and then we are rolling right into the fall elections for president and congress, et cetera. i don't know that we need to have all this going on at the time. >> tucker: i agree with that. and again, as you just pointed out, voters get to render ahe judgment a little over a year. >> they sure do. >> tucker: thanks so much for joining us, i really appreciate it. >> it was going to be here, thank you.

>> tucker: is asking a foreign leader to investigate corruption a crime? some of our angriest, most partisan news anchors are claiming of course, if trump did it, it must be a crime, but in legal world, the experts are divided. there's been a debate about it right here on this channel. we will sort through it after the break. ♪ here, it all starts with a simple...

hello! -hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy!

glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. ♪ >> tucker: and so this ukraine story seemed to come out of nowhere and they're still willing of consensus on what major parts of it o mean. for example, legal experts appear to be split, even tonight, about one of the president's phone with the w

ukrainian president was illegal, so we wanted to get to the bottom of that, obviously. so last night we watched -- former u.s. attorney and we put that question to him. he said there's no evidence it's illegal at all. that statement and some accompanying statements caused quite a firestorm and so we've asked joe to come back tonight for an update. thanks so much for coming on today. i want for our viewers who are not familiar with what exactly happened, to know, so here's a quick update. so yesterday judge andrew napolitano, who is a legal analyst atudge fox and a very nice guy, i will say, i've always liked him, went on one of our daytime shows and declared that the president's phone call with the head of ukraine was a crime. said. what he >> it is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government. >> so that would be -- that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime. >> yes. >> tucker: so that definitely got our attention, of course.

it's a crime. and so i asked do you you, because you prosecuted a lot of crimes and for our viewers who didn't see it, w here's what you said. >> i think judge napolitano is a fool and i think what he said today is foolish. no, it is not a crime. it let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he sat on that call constitutes a crime and even if he had said you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime. >> tucker: well apparently our daytime host, who hosted the judge was watching last night and was outraged by what you said and, quite ironically, called you partisan. here's what he said. >> a partisan guest who supports president trump was asked about judge napolitano's legal assessment. and when he was asked, he said, unchallenged, judge napolitano is a fool. attacking our colleague who is here to offer legal assessment

on our air in our work home is repugnant. >> tucker: repugnant! not clear if that was you or me, but someone is repugnant and here's what finally -- last sound bite, here's how judge napolitano responded. >> a lot of legal authority and i join it on the other side and the other side basically says anything that helps the campaign, whether it's cash, or emails, or smearing your opponent is a thing of value. >> and therefore requesting it is a crime. >> yes. >> tucker: i'm like maybe some day site hosts not very partisan rnd it was a sincere question. is it a crime or not? so given everything that's happened in the last 24 hours, i just want to throw it to you again, was it a crime or not? >> absolutely not. let me educate judge napolitano. the president of theat united states is the executive branch under article two. he is the chief law enforcement officer of the united states.

he can ask anyone, a citizen, a foreign leader, a question. he can my suggestion about an investigation because he runs them. and by the way, in the latest set with the whistle-blower, the office of legal counsel has said that requesting information from a foreign government is not a thing of value. if it is not a foreign contribution. i really -- i must say this,y i've been a u.s. attorney, an independent counsel, and investigative council on capitol hill in the house and the senate. judge napolitano has never been a u.s. attorney, is never been a federalas prosecutor coming he s never conducted a federal grand jury. i have done all of those things. if he wantsts to have an opinio, that's's fine. i am not a paid fox contributor. i am a guest of fox network. i come on when they ask me, and i am told, please, whatever you do, tell the truth. don't make things up, don't

cover -- so what i say i believe -- as a matter of law i know what i'm talking about in the law, i try to be truthful. i was very truthful last night. >> tucker:uc so that's kind of the crux of it for me. i'm not a lawyer at all. i'm as far from a scholar as you can be, and that's why i solicited your opinion. but i also know that some things are subjective and people of goodwill have differing views. so that's why it doesn't seem honest to me when a host, and a host on any channel, including this one, pretends that the answer is obvious, there's an ironclad consensus about what the answer is when they're in fact it isn't. when it's a subjective question. that's not news, is it? >> no. it isn't at all and you were asking me my legal opinion and i gave it. if judge napolitano gave his legal opinion, and he's entitled to it, but i can tell you as a former united states attorney, i'm right. >> tucker: that's so interesting.

why do we find ourselves in a situation where people aren't willing to admit that their passions are guiding their news coverage. wouldn't it be better -- if we just set out loud, this is what i think. for example, you will never hear me criticize rachel maddow. don't agree with anything she says but she's very straightforward. it's her opinion. why wouldn't it be better if we were all that transparent about owhat is driving us? >> i couldn't agree with you more, and that's why when i come on fox, i say what i believe and what i i know. i never make things up, i never try to cover up for people. i am blatantly obvious about the fact that i support the president of the united states. i believe he has been framed, i believe he is an innocent man. i will defend him to the death and judge napolitano just doesn't like the president of the united states. that's fine. he's entitled to that. he's entitled to feel that way.

he's a disappointed office seeker, he didn't get that seat on the supreme court he desperately wanted and he's been mad about it ever since and he shouted yesterday and he showed it so many times over the last year, it's pretty embarrassing actually for me, but i love the guy, god bless him. >> tucker: i do too, we invited him on sunday. i will say i agree with you, it makes people cynical. when you dress up news coverage, when you dress up, rather partisanship as news coverage and pretend that your angry political opinions are news, people tune out. >> they do. >> tucker: they know dishonesty when they see it. great to see you tonight, thank you sonk much. >> thank you. >> tucker: good to see you. pretty amazing. democratic lawmakers claim the white house could easily, easily fabricate the transcripts of calls with foreign leaders. it is not true? an expert in the process of presidential phone calls -- there is such a person, and we know her number she joins us after the break, we will investigate. ♪

♪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

if i could go back arand change it all...er. i would. i think i'm going to miss you the most. i'm sorry. i'm so sorry. [car horn] but maybe it's just the little moments. if it could go back and change it all... i would. but i can't.

>> well, the ongoing >> tucker: the ongoing meltdown over ukraine is shining a light on a practice that's pretty common in washington, but almost never discussed. presidential phonene calls. how many people are listening to these calls, authorized and unauthorized?? and howard transcripts assembled? who puts them together? was allowed to read them? gillian turner actually knows the answer to this question, she has direct experience, she served on the national security counsel, both j are chubby bush and barack obama administration's and she joins us tonight.y, hey. >> hello, tucker. as someone whoro read and edited probably literally hundreds of thesees types of transcripts at the white house during the bush and obama administrations, i can tell you this is as close to a verbatim readout of this call as exists. critics of the president are slamming the transcripts the white houseth released, they are calling it incomplete and fake, even brenda get on twitter as #notatranscript but sources who actually know how presidential phone calls work

and save this document reflects a very standard procedure. it's how every administration for decades now has documented calls with foreigngn leaders. they also tell fox news they are confident it's accurate, so it's essentially a compilation of what to situation roomom offices wrote down while listening in on the call in real-time. this is what they are trained to do. the document you're looking at now, it was declassified tuesday by the president. as you can see there, it's marked. it also indicates this call it self took place july 25th. one source familiar with the white house situation room staff today claims the two transcribers who listened in on this call are likely cia employees detailed too the white house from the agency on an assignment. after the watergate scandal, the white house kind of stopped doing audio recordings of the president's calls, so this document is as close to the ground truth is you e or i or er really going to get. >> tucker: that's interesting. so in other words, it would take -- it would take a pretty

vast conspiracy to subvert this document. to put out a o false one. >> yeah. it goes through multiple layers of proof and, of editing, several people review it to ensure the classification is correct, so it's not like one person could tamper with it and then put it out. >> tucker: right. it's not like corey lewandowski bangs it out on his ipad. >> one important point, it takes a whole of people thatt aren't even political appointees in this administration. it would take career people doing this, doctoring it on behalf of the president, which doesn't make any sense. >> tucker: it's really hard to imagine that. gillian turner, so nice to have you explain that to us and to do so from direct personal experience, thanks a lot. >> great to see you. >> tucker: good to see you. congressman devin nunes were present the state of california, the pride of central valley. he is ranking member, former chairman of the house intelligence committee and hemm. joins us tonight. thanks so much for coming on.

i don't want to put you in an awkward situation, but you serve on this committee with adam schiff and so again, if this is awkward for you i hope you will say so. >> i'mn used to being on your show, it's always awkward with you. >> tucker: [laughs] let me make it worse. adam schiff has set a couple of things in the last 24 hours that gift, i think, sober people pause and raise concerns about his mental fitness. he suggested that the president was, for example, doctoring this transcript and then subsequently suggested that he was speaking in some sort of secret code. what do you make of that? >> well, like many things that adam schiff and the democrats have been saying over the last three years, it's been nearly three years of this russia hoax, now it's transformed into the ukrainian hoax. they say a lot of things that always have one thing in common. they end up being false. and they are very clever because they use the things -- you can see the doors right there. it says restricted, so they will come out of those doors and thel

will say, we've seen some really secret stuff, we can't tell you about it, but just trust us, this is really going to be the time that we are going to catch president trump with his hand in the cookie jar. >> tucker: that's lying, isn't it? >> well, one person's life is another man's just trying to get to the truth, is what they would always say. look, we are going to see more of it tomorrow. tomorrow we have the director of national intelligence, the acting director coming in tohi testify, 9:00 a.m., everybody's going to be watching, there's going to be hundreds of media people there, every station is going to be covering it live, and look, this is not with the intelligence committee should be doing. if we want to take a whistle-blower seriously, we should be doing it behind closed doors so we actually can talk classifiedla information to tryo determine whether or not there's actual real -- if there's really something to this complaint or

not. >> tucker: have you spoken -- i mean, you've been in the house for a while and you are committee chairman, you know everybody. our democrats fully on board? off the record of a same tou, y, we are going to impeach this guy and get a conviction in the senate, do they believe this is going to work? >> that'ser a very good questio. the way i would say it is it's about like this. you've got 30 or 40 or so, maybe a few more that have been around a while that know what they are doing is wrong, but they're being challenged by the left. what you also have is you have people who have lied so much -- it's the old saying, if you tell a lie enough, eventually it becomes the truth. if you have so many that have done that, it's like every day there pouring gasoline on o themselves, their point gasoline the american people, they continue to light these fires a out there, why? one, for donors. they are igniting their base to have donors give them money, and that's how they've gotten themselveshi into this impeachmt trap, which is totally irresponsible.

>> tucker: yeah, they really don't like it when you take power away from them. thanks soo much. for coming. >> they really don't. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: a young man in iowa raised aio million dollars to hp sick children. in response to this, phony journalists decided to destroy his life over tweets he sent in high school. it's a nauseating story and we've got the detailsav on it next. ♪

♪ >> tucker: football fans heartwarming charitable gesture could soon become something even more important, and we are praying for this. it could become a turning point in the 2019 cancel culture plague. it is wrecking our country. that's not an overstatement, by

the way. it all started on saturday when i was state cyclone span appeared in the background of espn's college game day show. he held up a sign with a joke, he asked for donations to fund his bush lightpp supply. the moment when file dominant viral online and soon he was receiving thousands of actual dollars in actual donations, pretty cool, but rather than take the money for himself, he did something awesome, actually. king announced that he would hedonate the money to a local children's hospital, and he did. eventually he raised more a million bucks. anheuser-busch watched and then announced it would be making a matching donation, pretty neat. king became a minor celebrity and even appeared right here on fox & friends. >> you raised how much total money? >> so right now with matched contributions we are over $822,000. they came in from people watching college game day, we shared some social media posts with my intentions, which were to donateyt everything but the cost to cover one case of bush light to theit university of io,

the family children's hospital. people caught wind of that, they started donating, then bush and venable caught wind of it. if they will match whatever contributions we make. children's hospital do talk so much for everybody when the country. anything you can do to help the kids you have to do. >> tucker: pretty great story, bute maybe he shouldn't have goe on fox news, because that clearly caught the attention of the journalistic community. a reporter at "the des moines register" decided to basically wreck this kid's life. and so he did. he went digging for an excuse to destroy king. "the des moines register" found that excuse into coat with that king made seven years ago, tweeted seven years ago when he was 16 years old and high school. the tweets contain racially offensive humor, the kind that edgy teenagers traffic the world over. at not defending it, but that's all they talk sometimes. but it didn't matter, "the des moines register" decided that this kid had to be destroyed, so they dispatched a

reporter called aaron calvin and he published a profile of king that highlighted the two ancient tweets. then he went to anheuser-busch to tattle on king. immediately the beer company announced that it would drop all association with carson king. by the way, the offensive tweets were simply jokes taken from the television show tosh.0 which airs on comedy central. here's the irony, anheuser-busch is a major advertiser on comedy central, so in other words, this huge company is happy to crush you for quoting products they fund the creation of. if that doesn't make your head spin, then nothing will. in a bizarre statement posted to twitter, meanwhile, "the des moines register"'s executive editor said the paper's behavior was part of, and we are quoting, "a routine background check." is this some guy raising money for children's hospital in a viral video needed a background check from a failing stupid newspaper staff by failinghe

losers, some of the people who work there, by the way. this is common now. reporters trolling a person's entire life history for excuses to destroyth him. that is standard practice. the paper said it had debated extensively whether to publish the tweets. right. they also decided they had no choice but to do it because journalism. they destroyed an ordinary person for doing a good deed. it wasn't journalism, it was an act of cruelty and casual malice. one of many, by the way, but we figured we would highlight this one, completely over the top. by the way, irony of ironies, the very reporter who tried to destroy carson king's life turns out to have his own offensive tweeting history. now he's under investigation by his own paper, which never conducted a background check. the whole thing, richly deserved irony, mutually assured cancellation, but really this shouldn't be happening at all. a

we don't root for anybody's cancellation, for hurting someone because of something he said in high school. nobody should have his reputation racked for dumb jokes made a decade or whatever ago. cancel culture is a national plague and the only people it helps bullies who use powerful platforms to defame and crush those they dislike, often with the help of major multinational corporations. thankfully, some people are starting to realize that. more than 100,000 have signed a petition calling for toe des moines register" apologize to carson king and hopefully they will immediately. you should drop your subscription to that paper immediately if they don't, for real. hopefully it will be the last time we need this. daviss is editor at large at red state, we're happy to have her tonight. thanks a lot for coming on. >> high matt, thanks for having me. >> tucker: so i've been in journalism for 28 years or something at this point, i'm not proud to say that. i don't see how checking this kid's tweets from high school and then running them in a

profile is journalism, but maybe i'm missing something, you tell me. because no, it's pure insanity. i never would have -- that never would have made it to publication if it had been one of my writers. i've been doing this job for almost a decade. think about how many stories of "the des moines register" does every day on people. are we to believe that they do thorough background checks into the tweets of every person they report on? every single day? what a bizarre and pathetic excuse. i honestly think carol hunter should be fired. i don't think she should work in this industry again. they should be utterly ashamed of what they've done. there's nothing journalistic about this, nothing. >> tucker: what it really is -->> it's not even political most of the time, it's an exercise in power. it's an abuse of power.us these are people who work in a failing industry for low wages and they have no respect because everyone hates them, justifiably. so the one way they can feel powerful is by hurting other

people, so they do. >> but i do think it must have something to do with politics, because obviously -- i mean aaron calvin, that reporter, had his own terrible tweets in his time on, but nobody went investigating those until he turned up as a hypocrite and a bunch of people on the right went and dug into his timeline, so i disagree, i do think that it's got to be politically motivated in some way, because it seems like people who identify as liberal left don't ever get to be the victims of this, or people who identify as liberal and are doing this cancel culture stuff don't even seem to think that it matters what's in their timelines, which tells me they are exercising a type of privilege, liberal privilege. >> tucker: i think you're right. i think when politics becomes a religion, there are no limits. t by the way, to all those without would have a better country when christianity died, this is the country we got, thanks. great to see you tonight, thank you. >> thanks, tucker.

>> tucker: the press went all in on the latest impeachment story and got embarrassed once again, why did they keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again? we willxp investigate that question, not for the first time, after the break. ♪ ♪[upbeat music] ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma . .

>> tucker: the press rally to support democrats after they launch yesterday's impeachment push, sort of impeachment push whatever they are doing. pretending to impeach. the press hardly backed down today when the transcription of the entire scandal was fake. the press couldn't really agree on what it said.watch. >> this is worse than i think people expected. >> this kind of conversation to -- when a godfather would say i want you to do something. >> we don't know if we can trust any document produced by the white house, frankly. it's terrible to say that but

true.e >> tucker: the media are very confident that wanting corruption investigated is a high crime worthy of impeachment. but they are even more confident about something else. they are confident there was absolutely nothing wrong, nothing at all wrong with joe biden's ne'er-do-well son getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a ukrainian energy company to sit on a board he wasn't qualified to sit on. that's totally fine. >> let's just be clear. there is no evidence of joe biden doing anything wrong. >> this is something that's been looked into and they haven't found anything to look into. american media, we have looked into it. "the new york times" has looked into it. if what hunter biden did was wrong, then there are a lot of people with the last name of trump that have some answering to do about their foreign work. >> tucker: chuck todd wants you to know that what hunterto biden did was totally fine and you should just shut up. just shut up.

by the way, "the new york times" looked into it and they can be trusted. they got a pulitzer for covering the russian collusion, theor spying that trump did for vladimir putin.howie carr remem. he joined us tonight.ut he has a book. chuck todd does not want you to show any concern about what hunter biden did for the ukrainian energy company, y just so you know, howie carr. >> chuck todd who used to work for a guy who lied about his combat record in vietnam. jake tapper, he's also very concerned about doctored documents. he worked for chelsea clinton's mother-in-law who is marriedt to a guy who went to prison for bank fraud which is also known as doctoring documents. this is ridiculous.they're tell- they told us it was a u smoking. we have to read between the lines.etright? so they're telling us basically what the transcript says, don't

worry about that. trump meant something he didn't say but on the other hand, you have the videotape of biden saying something but he really didn't mean it. if you notice, tucker, they are always saying the same thing. first you have adam schiff saying it's a mob shakedown. then you have blumenthal tweeting that it's a gangster shakedown and then hillary clinton's favorite journalist andrea mitchell saying it reminds me of the godfather. is there an echo in here? how about stephanopoulos? regeorge stephanopoulos breaks n on the press conference ands says to an unrepentant president. maybe because he didn't do anything. then he says, and he's also somewhat untruthful. talk about a guy who should know something about untruthful presidents. bill clinton, he worked for lost his law license, was impeached, lied under oath. this is really ridiculous. and how about ilhan omar and hillary clinton telling us no

one is above the law? >> tucker: [laughs] >> i thought their whole career proved they were above the law. >> tucker: we are out of time. we could go on. great to see it.thank you.ck back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. sean hannity right now. >> sean: great show. howie is a great radio host.kno, boston, the kennedys. great guest. welcome to "hannity."buckle up. once again, m the democratic party, media mob wants to impeach your duly elected president of the united states over what is a big, huge pile of nothing. this is even 1,001 times weaker than the russia witch hunt, the ukrainian witch hunt. after days and days and days of nonstop psychotic hysteria, a phone call between president trump and the president of ukraine, a call that nobody knew the contents of. even without knowing the contents, the raging democrats announced impeachment anyway with no knowledge. stop and think about this for a second.