thank you very much. that's "the story." ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." when you listen to nancy pelosi tell it, impeaching the president is really the last thing she ever wanted to do. in fact, she hadn't even considered it, really. until the day that the news of trump's norm-shattering phone call with the president of ukraine emerged in the public view. it was at that point impeachment became entirely inevitable. as a patriotic american and a person of deep and impassioned religious faith, nancy pelosi had no choice at that point, the die was cast. she had to remove the president from office immediately. that's nancy pelosi's story. we don't read minds on the show,

so we can't tell you if it's true or not. what we can say with absolute and provable certainty is that permanent washington has been thinking about impeaching donald trump for an awfully long time. in fact, before he was even elected president, if you can imagine that, they were thinking about impeaching him. considering the following clip, from a woman called evelyn farkas. an obama appointee at the justice department. she led, believe it or not, the ukraine policy. also an enthusiastic supporter of the hillary clinton 2016 campaign. two weeks before the last election, farkas appeared at a panel discussion which, thankfully for us, was videotaped. somebody asked farkas who she thought would win the election. here's what she said. >> we do have a strong system of checks and balances and actually if donald trump were elected, i think he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take

over governments. i'm not even joking. >> tucker: if trump were ever to get elected, not likely to happen, she said, he would be impeached. to be completely clear, we are not alleging that evelyn farkas was part of a conspiracy. conspiracy suggests secrecy, and what farkas and the national security state that was not secret, they all bragged about it. they all bragged about it from day one. yes, donald trump is vulgar, but that's nothing with why they hated him. they disagreed with trump profoundly, and disagreed with most american voters about the issues, particularly on the question of russia but on the question of middle eastern wars. more than anything, this is the key, they couldn't control what donald trump said or did. nobody can. and that was the unforgivable crime. so from day one, they plan to take him out. this ukraine nonsense is the latest pretext for doing that. there have been a lot of them. russia, stormy daniels, fill-in the blank blank. it's like mad libs. a story in "the new york times" reveals every bit as much that

this is just another pretext. it turns out that house intel committee chairman adam schiff knew about the whistle-blower complaint before it was even filed. in fact, he orchestrated the story in secret, long before you and i or anyone else in the country heard about it. the so-called whistle-blower contacted schiff's office, which recommended a lawyer for him or her. schiff later lied brazenly. claim his office never spoke to the cia employee directly. had to know that admitting that would undermine the story and impeachment for himself. tonight there are credible rumors that adam schiff himself planted today's bombshell "the new york times" story. he knew it would come out and he wanted the most of it pathetic possible coverage. that's the line. we can't confirm that. either way, the story this morning greatly damages the credibility of the claims schiff and others are making.

not that anyone in washington really cares. they have been waiting for this moment three years, no matter what the story was. john daniel davidson, political editor of "the federalist" joins us tonight. it does seem significant, shocking to me, in fact, that adam schiff knew about the complaint before it was compiled. what does that tell us about the story? >> it tells us that if there is collusion going on, it's collusion between the intelligence committee chair and the whistle-blower, and the democrats in congress who are pushing for impeachment. this is a really serious revelation that we found out today. not only did the whistle-blower likely violate federal law, but it really cast schiff's role in a whole new light. there were a lot of people who said from the get-go that it looked like the whistle-blower was not acting alone and now we know he wasn't. he was getting help and advice from the chair of the house of judiciary committee.

>> tucker: schiff was asked by a panel on the morning show, did you talk to the whistle-blower. he looked in the camera inside, he looked in the camera and said, no, my office is not spoke to the whistle-blower directly. if this story is correct, that was a lie. >> yeah, that was a lie. there's no way beyond that now. adam schiff light on camera on national television about this but what you will hear the media is, why are you so concerned about this lie from adam schiff when the real substance -- ignore the substance of the allegations against trump and the ukraine phone call. and the weird thing about it is there is no cover up here, there is no secret mueller probe or secret dossier that no one has seen. everyone can see the transcript of the phone call. everyone can see the complaint itself that the whistle-blower letter, the charges the whistle-blower brought forward. and you have democrats and their courtesans in the media trying to tell the american people, don't believe what you can read

with your own eyes, believe us that it's an impeachable offense, and it's not going to fly this time. not after two years with the mueller probe, not after everything else. people can read and see for themselves what's going on. >> tucker: we are being told by the morons on cable news that this is a sincere question. why would you if you wanted to file a whistle-blower complaint, why would you call adam schiff first? that suggests your motive is political. >> one of the things in "the new york times" story that came out today, the whistle-blower did not like the way his complaint was being handled by the caa, didn't like the way it was being handled internally. in order to sort of speed the process along and make it go the way he wanted it to go, he reached out to the house intelligence committee. but it says, and we had early indications of this, that the motive here is not entirely pure and is probably political, and

in fact, you know, this came out early on, the suspicion that the whistle-blower had a political bias in favor of one of trump's 2020 challengers. >> tucker: i think on this show we spent a full year taking it seriously and pretending to take it seriously out of a sense of dutiful obligation, because adults were yelling about it. before we said this is crap, this is purely political, they made it up, it's a hoax. how long should we wait in this case before doing that? >> i don't think we should wait at all. i think we should expose it as a political farce it is. democrats' behavior is broadcasting that it's a criminal hit job all over the place. nancy pelosi's weird press conference today, where she was saying that the trump white house should work with house democrats on legislation even as they move forward with their impeachment probe was just strange. adam schiff's threats and intimidation of state department

employees saying that they don't appear before his committee, it'll be taken as evidence that the accusations against trump are true. meanwhile, we have no formal vote for an impeachment inquiry. republicans in the house apparently have no role at all in the impeachment investigation. it's an entirely partisan affair. i do not think it's too soon to call this for what it is, that it's a political hit job. >> tucker: yes. republicans and conservatives have a way of being very literal and they play along for too long. let's stop tonight, actually. john, great to see you tonight. thanks. >> thanks. >> tucker: so, official impeachment proceedings, despite what they are telling you, have not begun yet. but already some democrats have reached the sentencing phase quoting, that impeachment is not good for trump. he needs to be imprisoned and placed in solitary confinement. imprisoned and left to die alone in a cell. maxine waters believes that's the penalty for disagreeing with her. probably won't be surprised to

learn that waters once cheered on a race riot. she's that kind of person. senator kamala harris doesn't think donald trump ought to be allowed to speak. in a formal letter written to twitter yesterday, the senator demanded that big tech silence the president's social media account. you would think that journalists who are the guardians of the first amendment, might see harris' attack for what it is, a move against free speech. but no, professional dumb person tara swisher at "the new york times" wrote a semiliterate column endorsing the idea, if you can believe it. a journalist endorsing shutting down speech. not surprised, though. to the modern left, winning elections is not really the point. they want to see their opponents crushed. they want to see them disarmed, censored, silenced, destroyed, removed by impeachment without an election. if that all sounds like fascism, keep in mind the left considers you a fascist. you are the fascist! because, as always, whatever they are guilty of, they

immediately accuse you of doing. that's always true. put that on your fridge and live by it. here's just one example. here are two msnbc guests, one of them is a "washington post" reporter, believe it or not. watch them claim that trump supporters would like to topple democracy by violence. watch. >> this has been interpreted as perhaps the president affirming or encouraging those who feel victimized and disrespected to rise up and act out and push back, even if violently, by any means necessary. >> i'm concerned, personally, that if the president continues his rhetoric, it might start drawing heavily-armed people to washington. highly possible of a scenario where president trump simply refuses to accept the will of the senate or the electorate in 2020 and begins to ask his supporters to calm rally to his

supporters to come rally to his side. >> tucker: i think that guy is a professor at southern methodist university. kind of a nice college in dallas. a lot of very rich people send their kids there and send money there. if you are sending money to southern methodist, smu, and you see that guy on tv with a backdrop with your school letters on it, making claims that are totally wild and reckless and dumb and not backed up at all with data and facts, right off the top of his head, claiming that trump is planning a violent coup against democracy. if they are using your school to do that, wouldn't you think to yourself, why am i sending so much money to southern methodist university? that's what i would think. let's assess what he said. he said trump would refuse to accept the will of the electorate. that's the claim from the very same people who have refused to accept the last election, and the same people who are currently working to short-circuit the next election. it should make you very nervous,

they are talking about heavily-armed partisans on the national mall. very nervous. robert schiff is a spokesman for turning point usa. he joins us next. is it ever not true that whatever it is they are doing, they are accusing you of doing? >> oh, absolutely. the left will tell you all the time that fascism is coming to america, fascism is already here because of the president. when the reality is that fascism is already here and they are the ones that are perpetrating it. in new york city, right where i'm talking to you from right now, you can be fined $250,000 for calling somebody an illegal alien. you can be fined up to $250,000 for "misgendering somebody." so the fascism is already here, and they're the ones who are always the culprits. >> tucker: it should make you nervous listening to someone because they are describing their own desires because they talk about what they believe you are doing. >> well, they are. and honestly, what i would like to push back on is this idea that everybody who voted for the president or everybody who

supports president donald trump is some sort of unhinged person that is going to take over the national mall and start a new civil war? if he's not reelected? it's completely absurd. i would challenge every single person that said that, from "the washington post" reported to the person from the university, to actually go to a real trump rally. to actually meet these people in real life. these are patriotic, law-abiding citizens of all colors, by the way, and to insinuate that they would bring a civil war to america because they don't like the results of the election is completely insane to me. what they have done over the past few years is they have demonized people who voted for the president. they have demonized people on the right. they have demonized conservatives to obfuscate the fact they have no new ideas and they are not doing anything for the american people. >> tucker: there's a huge swath of america whose life expectancy is declining. they are dying younger. it has never happened in the modern era.

those tend to be trump voters, and they are being attacked? in the normal world, rich people would be concerned about the people below them. in our world, they are telling them, shut up and go die. >> yes. basically what they are telling them is to shut up and go die and also in the case of kamala harris, they are literally trying to deplatform people. as a conservative with a pretty high social media following, i have been deplatformed, myself. i have been pushed aside via social media. i think there's a lot of things that people want to do the conservatives and the fact that somebody like "the new york times" is publishing something that is advocating for the leader of the free world to be deplatformed from twitter is pretty outrageous to me. the reason why they are so mad -- no, really. that's your words, not mine, tucker -- >> tucker: she can barely speak english and they gave her a column? >> they are handing out columns. >> tucker: i want one now! if tara swisher can have one... one of my kids should get one. >> the scary thing about that is

they want to deplatform the leader of the free world because he can use twitter better than they can. the right can meme better than the left, and we are better at social media than they are. >> tucker: good to see you. thank you. elizabeth warren's big bet for 2020 is americans want to help foreigners more than they can fix their own country. their idea? welfare for for everyone who crosses the border illegally. we'll be right back. ♪ (rock music)

- [announcer] your story doesn't have to end. as an organ donor, the good in you can live on. in fact, you could save up to eight lives through organ donation. sign up to give the gift of life after you're gone.

you'll be happy you did. just maybe, someone else will too. sign up online today as an organ, eye, and tissue donor, at organdonor.gov, it saves lives. ♪there's a me no one knows ♪waiting to be set free so, what's the empty suitcase for? the grand prize trophy ♪i was born to be somebody

♪ >> tucker: alexandria

ocasio-cortez spends an awful lot of time on social media, but somehow she finds extra time between taking pictures of herself drinking chai latte or whatever to think up new things to do to america. recently, she's proposed legislation to expand welfare benefits and provide them to everyone. that includes all illegal immigrants without any kind of restrictions. that's a far out idea, but it has at least one very powerful supporter. democratic presidential front-runner elizabeth warren in massachusetts. she tweeted that the plan was a "big structural change," a compliment on the left, "that would fix america's problems." she's now pledging to let anyone on earth who wants to immediately go to welfare, and immediately get free health care. an investigative reporter for "the washington examiner," and an excellent reporter. am i misstating any of this? >> no, that's exactly what it

says. it's not just welfare for illegal immigrants, it's also a whole host of other policies that are on these progressive wish lists, another one of them is rent control, nationalize rent control. >> tucker: nationalized rent control. applies to everybody, every town. >> it would apply to everywhere in the country. >> tucker: that's always been a local question. san francisco has it, new york has it. >> it's caused a lot of problems in san francisco. this is one issue that almost all economists agree on, which is that rent control is a problem because many of them believe that if down that it actually leads to higher rent prices by driving down the amount of housing that's available. that's something that could become a policy issue for elizabeth warren. >> tucker: so places with rent control tend to have high homeless populations. >> yes. exactly. there's not a lot of places for people to live -- >> tucker: well, that's a good idea! >> there's not a lot of housing available.

but another issue for warren from a policy perspective if she does get to the general election is this welfare for illegal immigrants. there was a cnn poll in july that found that 59% of americans oppose public health care for illegal immigrants. and that is something that is included in this aoc bill including unemployment benefits, and also food stamps. i think that is something that could become a problem if she has to defend that to the public during the general election. >> tucker: has any credible person done estimate on what would happen if you said to the rest of the world, we are not going to enforce our borders, we won't make you leave, once you get here you get free health care, free tuition, housing vouchers, food stamps -- >> exactly. and that's something that even bernie sanders, who people might say is slightly to the left of elizabeth warren, doesn't

support, because he said, if you support social welfare for everybody, which he does, you have to secure the border. you can't have one or the other because you wouldn't be able to pay for it. that actually differentiates him on this issue from elizabeth warren. >> tucker: he said, correctly by the way, i don't often agree with bernie sanders, he said that's a koch brothers thing, that's a corporate libertarian idea to lower the value of labor. >> i think another part of this too is it shows that aoc has become the main power broker in the democratic party at this point. there was a recent poll that found that 25% of democratic voters said that they highly value aoc's opinion when it comes to deciding who they will support in 2020. that is above hillary clinton. that is above nancy pelosi, that's above every democrat figure on the national stage

other than former presidents obama, clinton, and carter. >> tucker: the amazing thing is she has a lot of pluck, vim, and moxie, but she's a moron. you can tell a lot of a politician by what he prioritizes, house democrats would require i.c.e. to create a health record system for illegal immigrants within 90 days. okay. but as of right now, american soldiers and veterans don't have an electronic records system like that, and they won't have one for at least several more years. that disparity caught the attention of congressman mark walker. who represents north carolina. he joins us tonight. congressman, thanks for joining us. i hope i did not oversimplify that. >> not at all. i heard you and the guest talk about elizabeth warren's ideals and goals, this is actually happening within the house. last week during the adam schiff show, one of the things snuck under the carpet, if you will,

is this bill. the title is pretty catchy, but what it does, is it does force the dhs to create an electronic health register for illegals. >> tucker: what does that mean, electronic health record system for illegals? >> the trump administration has done a great job with a lot of processes, specifically when it comes to legislative of helping overall veterans care. you said in your intro, it takes several years to get veterans on the health record system, we will force the dhs to do it in 90 days. here's the drama that played out on the house floor that i'd like to share with you. from the house, there was a motion made. okay, keep your bill, keep the electronic health system for the illegals, but could we at least pass a motion that we would

put the veterans first? 212 democrats voted that down and now the bill will go forward. ludicrous. >> tucker: the request was could we please put american military veterans ahead in line of illegal aliens, foreign nationals breaking our laws, if there was no, we can't do that, that's racist. >> even though we know it'll take several years for veterans, i've been to the border myself. i've seen baby diapers being changed, formulas being mixed. we are going to take this money from the cbp, take it from fema. if you are in a natural disaster area and you are needing that federal funding, we are going to take that from you and redirect it and create a record system for people who are sneaking across the border. and that is why our appreciation for people like you, that even all this impeachment buzz, this is the kind of legislation being passed not by radicals but by the mainstream democrats that are serving in the united states house.

>> tucker: i agree completely. think of all the americans that are being crushed by health insurance bills, really crushed. >> exactly right. >> tucker: we are rushing to pay for medical care for people breaking our laws? we obviously hate ourselves if we are doing that. >> we touched on this a bit earlier. you may look at trump and say, hey, he's raw, he leads a scorched earth which washington, d.c., needed a little bit of it, but you look at the alternative of this type of crazy legislation being passed in the house as we speak. >> tucker: that's a really good point. thanks for being here tonight. bernie sanders was rushed to the hospital for heart surgery today. will he be able to stay in the campaign? if he has to leave, which of his rivals benefits most? sorry to be so blunt about it, but that's politics. plus joe biden has a radical new gun-control plan to compete with beto o'rourke. you shouldn't be allowed to

protect yourself, says joe biden and his bodyguard. that's straight ahead. ♪

new message. your social security number has been suspended. if you do not contact us, your account will be deactivated. scammers are aggressive when they contact a potential victim. social security administration employees will never threaten you for information or promise benefits in exchange for information. in those cases, the call is fraudulent, and you should just hang up. don't provide any personal or financial information to these thieves. call the social security fraud hotline at 1-800-269-0271

♪ >> tucker: well, alexandria ocasio-cortez may be the face of the new democratic party, but on the very top, where the lever of power power are, there are some older people. that fact is having a big affect effect there are questions about joe biden's fitness for office, saying weird things, now bernie sanders has suspended his campaign after he underwent emergency surgery for blocked arteries today. this is a major development in the race. how will it affect who becomes the democratic nominee? lisa boothe is a senior fellow voice, frequent guest here tonight. happy to have her here tonight. i want to say this with sincerity, we are of course hoping that senator sanders is okay. of course. and that he's back in the race. because we are.

but, if he doesn't get back in the race, what does this mean? >> well, exactly. we sincerely hope he's going to get better. he's a husband and father so we want him to be in good health. this does have a big impact on the race and depending on how big of an impact it has is dependent on how long he is out of the race. right? look, if you are off the campaign trail when you are facing a very contested in facing a very contested and crowded primary field that is clearly not good for your campaign, a particular time where you have been on the decline, look at elizabeth warren in iowa, she is up 7% since june. new hampshire, she's up 8%. the big date to keep an eye on is the october 15th debate because we've seen these debates really help shape the race, so if bernie sanders is out of that debate, particularly at a time where he's polling on 11% in an iowa caucus and 11% in new hampshire, that's not going to be good for him. >> tucker: no, it's not.

it's interesting that we haven't talked about this openly. all of us want to be polite, which i think is a good impulse, but he's not the only one who is of advanced age in this race, statistically speaking, it's tough to pull off a presidential campaign, much less running the most powerful country in the world at that age. i guess we are not allowed to say that. i'm 50 and i feel myself slowing down. are we going to have an honest conversation about this at some point, or continue to pretend that 78 is like 38? >> it does put his age in the forefront. especially when you have someone like elizabeth warren who is younger, more vibrant, who really shares a lot of the same policy positions, who has actually been smarter about not painting herself as a socialist, puts her in a better position at a general election and makes her look more electable in the eyes of democratic primary voters and you cannot underestimate the fact -- the iowa caucus and

new hampshire primary are so vital in any presidential election, whether it's republicans or democrats, and those states are really geared toward candidates like elizabeth warren and bernie sanders, white liberal states. any decline for bernie sanders helps elizabeth warren. we have seen in the most recent "the des moines register" poll, the caucus goers went forward bernie sanders in 2016, 32% are supporting elizabeth warren right now, versus 25% for bernie sanders. she has already been, even with bernie sanders in good health in the race, she's already been siphoning off his supporters in both iowa and new hampshire. >> tucker: i think it's -- again, not being mean. >> right, of course. >> tucker: it's over. lisa boothe, great to see you, thank you for joining us tonight. well, beto o'rourke is never going to be president of the united states. whatever problems, it's still a basically decent country. that doesn't mean he won't hang around and annoy normal people forever, he already has had an effect.

he's forced his party to go away left, way left, on firearms. joe biden has already promised to seize guns from law-abiding americans, basically. >> to gun owners out there who say, well, a biden administration means they are going to come to my guns -- >> bingo, you are right if you have an assault weapons. they should be illegal, period. >> tucker: now biden has released specifics of his gun-control plan. he said he would ban the so-called assault weapons, doesn't define exactly what that is, and force current owners of these firearms either to turn them over to the government or register them under the standard currently used for fully automatic weapons, machine guns. that is not biden's only idea. his plan also seeks to drive gun manufacturers out of business, making them liable when their guns are used in crimes, which is, of course, insane.

the knife makers are not viable when knives are used in crimes. which they are more frequently than rifles are. nine is a frequent guest of the show and we're happy to have him. ryan, assess this plan, joe biden's gun-control plan. >> do you have enough time, tucker? you mention specific details and he threw a dart at every possible rumor and gun-control proposal he possibly could. it's hard to keep track of them all. i'm starting to think that the, hey, let's ban guns, is the new, i'm going to rehab for scandal scandal-ridden public figures. weinstein did it, trudeau did it, now biden is doing it. there are tons of proposals, none of them are going to work and do anything to stop violent crime, and some of the three worst, you mentioned, they are going to make manufacturers liable? that's scary. they are may be going to bring back the assault weapons ban and register them on a national firearms list? and there is a third when we can

talk about. anyone who's guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime can lose their right to possess firearms forever. so manufacturer liability -- you know that's absurd. you aren't going to hold bic lighters liable for arson. doing that to the firearms industry will cripple the industry as we know it and i think that's the plan. >> tucker: anyone who is committed a misdemeanor hate crime -- i didn't know that's a category, but okay. loses his right to the second amendment, no longer covered by the second amendment. >> yeah. >> tucker: but he is still allowed to vote? you aren't allowed to go deer hunting, but you can choose my president. how does that work exactly? >> the people coming up with these rules want votes, that's one reason. but here's something scarier. i can talk about a potential slippery slope, we shouldn't do that about hate crime because who gets to decide what's a hate crime? we have a perfect example right now. if biden goes to new york city and calls someone an illegal alien, he could lose his rights

to guns forever under his own proposal. that's a hate crime now. it's a scary world. >> tucker: his federally-funded bodyguards would still be armed with high-capacity magazines. he's upset, that's the point. the people who make these rules literally have no intention of abiding by them at all. they would never give up their right to firearms because that would be scary. >> exactly right. they could never answer the hypocrisy of what's going on. we've talked about this before. when a politician tells you you don't need a gun, maybe that's time you actually need the gun. >> tucker: okay. you first. that's my gun control plan. you disarm first. let me ask you. is there anybody in the democratic party who is sticking with the old agreement on guns, which is what's basically the status quo, anybody resisting the radicalism of beto o'rourke and the democrats? >> i see tulsi gabbard has done it. she's still coming out against guns.

she's made popular on comments with me, at least, but she's not racing to bring every body to the left as they possibly can. >> tucker: last question. sincerely. do you think any of the proposals that biden outlines would reduce what they are calling gun crime, mass shooting for example? >> not a single one. the assault weapons ban that he champions did nothing to stop crime. we know violent crime was in its highest during the middle of the assault weapons ban and gotten better every day since. no, they are not. i think it's political rhetoric. i think he's making false equivalencies like you can't hunt ducks with three shotgun shells but somehow ducks are better protected than children? children can't be hunted? it's absolute absurdity. trying to distract from a scandal going with him. >> tucker: not the brightest politician in washington. great to see you tonight. >> thanks for having my back. >> tucker: virginia police

officer caught an illegal immigrant breaking the law so guess who got busted? the cop got busted for enforcing the law against the illegal alien. we are not making that up. details after the break. ♪ sometimes people with disabilities feel invisible...

would she like some coffee or tea? hi, i'll have tea, please. thank you. i think this is yours? but everyone should receive the same respect and consideration. can i get the door for you?

oh my! yes! thank you! happy to help! brought to you by the united spinal association to learn more, download our disability etiquette booklet at unitedspinal.org

♪ >> tucker: a police officer in the commonwealth of virginia has been suspended from his job. what did he do wrong? he helped the federal government enforce the law. fox news chief breaking news correspond trace gallagher has more for us. hey, trace. >> hey, tucker. a driver who was involved in an accident did not have a driver's license so the responding fairfax police officer followed standing operating procedure and ran him through the dmv database to look for things like criminal behavior.

turns out the driver failed to show up for a deportation hearing and immigrations and customs enforcement issued an immigration warrant. at this point, the suspect had committed at least two violations for the officer verify the warrant, notify the i.c.e. agent listed as a contact and held the man until the agent arrived. fairfax county police chief said the officer deprived the man of his freedom, quoting here, "we have trained on this issue a lot. this is the first time we've had a lapse in judgment and the officer is being punished." in fact, as you said, the officer was suspended. former acting i.c.e. director tom homan is baffled. watch him. >> this world is upside down. when those who illegally enter the country by violation of law all of a sudden they are the victims and the ones who enforce the laws are bad guys. >> but since 2007, fairfax county, virginia, has barred police officers from confirming anyone's immigration status.

those accused of crimes are booked into jails and then their immigration statuses are checked. but they still want to cooperate but they still won't cooperate with i.c.e. so the point is moot. by the way, the driver who was held was released a few hours later with an ankle monitor. tucker? >> tucker: remarkable story. trace gallagher, thank you for that. well, increasingly, this is a politically-divided country. if you live here, you know that. people don't simply disagree with one another on the basis of politics, they think people on the other side are evil. friendships are ending. family members disowning each other because they have different views. is there a way out of this? it's bad. everybody knows it's bad. she has a new book out titled "our broken in america: why both sides needs to stop ranting and start listening." turns out, she has also just entered the race in the state of georgia in the u.s. senate.

we recently talked to jackie christman. cushman. here's how it went. >> what's the answer to where we are now? >> we have to understand why we are here and a lot of research, we can talk about that as well, but the solution really is to live in communities. right now, 64% of democrats and 55% of republicans have few or no friends in the opposite party. few or no friends. so there is no interaction of people from opposite sides. >> tucker: that has really changed. >> that's a change. in addition, both sides have pulled apart from the -- there were some overlap, now there is no overlap. when you look at the maps on election night, it's all red or blue. that didn't come into effect from the bush-gore recount, when every night, we saw the same map over and over again. the map would change colors

between parties, different network would use different colors, but the bush-gore recount was every night, we saw a red and blue, right? it's a t now, by party. that's the really to solve it you have to get involved at the local level. you have to work on problems you care about with anyone from both sides, from both parties. >> tucker: it's interesting that you say that. why the local level, what do you mean by that? >> you cannot change national narrative at the national level. we are in washington in quite frankly, we can talk about the death of the news which i talk about in my book, there's a lot of death in news. >> tucker: our viewers are very familiar. >> just because you read it in "the new york times" does not mean it linda's news, we know so there's a lot of that that, right? happening. you have to push back and say, that's not news, that's not true. you cannot let untruth hang around. but i do believe, at the local level, you can get to know people, and i don't agree with you, but you are not terrible.

>> tucker: that's a deep point, no one says that. if you are living your political life and social media, twitter, facebook for example. if you are debating the supreme court nominations, high level and abstract -- >> you have nothing to do with that. you are in your bed at 3:00 a.m. texting about whatever. you need to go meet people, make friends from different parties, make a difference in your community. our nation was not built by one person controlling the national government. concept is god gives the right to people, people loaded to the government, the people have to do all the work. we are doing the work. we are sitting down on twitter yelling at people. it's ridiculous. >> tucker: so, the first step is get the hell out of your bedroom, get off twitter. >> it's one thing promoting on twitter -- but not ranting and raving. i use this analogy in my book, i have a little dog named bunny. bunny is a toy hound and bunny calls -- >> tucker: bunny is a dog. >> she barks at cars and shadows, right.

she loves to bark at shadows. i thought that's where we are right now, we are going around bunny-barking, and not making a difference in the world. >> tucker: i'm so glad you wrote this book. thank you. i'm glad you are thinking this. i hope people can hear you because i think everyone is concerned about this and i think we have reason to be. >> absolutely we do. >> tucker: thank you very much. >> thank you for having me around. on. >> tucker: you quit smoking, gave up cookies and mountain dew, but you still feel guilty. red meat is bad for you. everyone knows that. but is it actually bad for you? we will investigate that. marc siegel's emergency medical segment after the break. ♪

>> for years the usual health

schools have been barking eight you about red meat it may be delicious, they said, but it will kill you. it will give you heart disease, cancer, it's basically a ticket to an early death. our group of researchers have contested that.at they say that our views of red meat in the united states are built on child jollity evidence varied if red meat has a need negative health effect, it's a small one. doctor marc siegel is the man w go to for the truth on question like this. thank you so much for coming. what you make of this? does this overturn your views o meat? >> it changed my views and it made me wonder about all the democratic attack lately on our gaseous cattle friends that we actually rely on for red meat. what this study did, it looked at millions of participants, several studies, it was a very strong analysis with multiple

studies and it concluded that red meat itself, mainly unprocessed red meat did not correlate with life-threatening heart disease or cancer except in a very weak time. what does that mean for me? it means we have to relocate it's a good source of protein, some people it's our only sourc of protein. it's a sourcee of b vitamins, iron, it's got a lot of healthy ingredients in that. i've got to wonder if we're maybe throwing the baby out wit the bathwater. its more of a lifestyle thing. maybe we should eat our steak with a salad or brussels sprout the problem is and then they have a desert, and then they ge off the couch. if we can get people to exercis gd get more greens and more plants, maybe it's not red meat that is the problem. >> i agree completely. potatoes and donuts will get you ,wi but why would a species that began as hunter gatherers

have why would need to give the cancer? it just doesn't make any sense at all. >> i agree, tucker. it's probably that processed meat we need to worry about the bacon, the sausage, where you add chemicals like nitrates the can correlate with that. want people to know how poor this research is done you may not actually tell what you actually ate, so they can convince thousands of millions of people. what did you eat eat and then they observe the response. give somebody a great hamburger and ae salad somebody also grea hamburger into french fries, yo might find out is the franchise that other partner.t' in shame on you out there throwing out our great hamburgers and going to go have a stake after this. every day, moderation, i'm a physician so i don't want everybody out there to have three strakes today, but americans tend to have four or five servings a week and with the studies are showing is that

that is not as egregious as people have been saying. >> really clicked, a theme that has emerged from all the segments you've done on the show . is that there is a lot we don't know. in your one of the only people honest enough to admit that. >> i don't want people jumping to conclusions. pseudoscientists take one tiny bit of evidence and they may dilate it and they make their point. of force that's what politician do to. medicare for all, let's get rid of the employer-based healthcar system. wish this man well, i don't wan to say anything too negative, but politicians are waving thei arms, making grandiose statements very tonight i'm her to tell you go have a state, just don't have one every day. >> thank you for that. great to see you tonight. that visit for us tonight. we will be back at 8:00 p.m. tomorrow and every weeknight in the foreseeable future. we will always be this warm yet

cheerful enemy of lying, smugness, and especially groupthink. all of which is in overabundanc right now. good night from washington. gas he gaseous next, live from new york city. sean hannity. >> that was great show, tucker. >> sean: thank you for joining us. we begin tonight with a fox news alert. it's an incredibly busy breaking news night. now breaking moments ago, we have just obtained, i have it in my hand, a brand-new document from rudy giuliani detailing his interview with the prosecutor fired at the request of former vice president joe biden. member the shakedown with your taxpayer money? he's corrupt, he was warned, by "the new york times," his son was being investigated. just delivered these documents to congress, which revealed they were warned not to investigate the oil and an