>> martha: so that is the story of wednesday, september 30th, 2020. this story continues, we've got 34 days to go until the national election, we will be here for you every night, see you back here tomorrow night, 7:00, have a good night. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." holy smokes. what did we learn last night at the debate? america deserves better emma that's the first and most obvious thing we learned, all kinds of people said that today and they were right. this is a great country, most decent people in the world live here, we ought to be proud of the fact that we are americans, part of our culture and part of our history. most of us wanted to continue, we want to the nation our grandchildren in harwich to be as stable and happy as the country we grew up in but last night's debate give us a little confidence that would happen. it was a painful, highly

depressing 90 minutes and at times things seemed out of control. you saw it, you know what it was like. as a political matter, the main thing we learned last night as it was a mistake to spend so much time focusing on joe biden's mental decline -- he is fading, we showed you dozens of examples of it for months now but on stage last night, biden did not seem senile. if you tuned in expecting him to forget his own name and we did expect that, you may have been surprised by how precise some of his answers were, not all of them, but enough of them. trump isn't going to win this race by calling joe biden senile, nor is joe biden going to win by calling him a racist, it didn't work four years ago, it won't work now, personal attacks rarely determine outcomes. what matters, always, to voters anyway is what you do, not what you say.

right now, many would like to see someone defend the country. america has never been under fiercer attack than it is now, virtually all of the attackers come from the domestic left. they are democrats, biden voters. "i am the democratic party" and joe biden reminded us last night -- it's true, it should be enough to keep trump in office. the democratic party has become more radical than any major party in the history of the country, the leaders plan to dismantle the system our founders started centuries ago. democrats want to do away with that, they want to abolish the electoral college, they are trying to end traditional election day voting. they intend to invalidate the filibuster, guarantee permanent control of the house and the senate by admitting d.c. and puerto rico into the union, we will have 52 states and democrats will be in charge forever. that is their plan, we aren't making it up, they have said it. scariest of all, they are planning to hijack the

supreme court by expanding the number of justices. leading democrats have endorsed this idea -- it's not a small change, it would end the third branch of government. the judiciary would cease dispensing justice, it would instead become an insurmountable partisan power politics wielded exclusively on behalf of one party. how would you like to live in a country like that? it's horrifying. joe biden was asked about this last night, here's how it went. >> are you willing to tell the american people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court? >> whatever position i take in that, that will become the issue -- the american people should speak, you should go out and vote. your boating now, vote and let your senators know how strong you will feel. vote no. now. i'm not good answer the question -- >> the radical left -- will you shut up, man?

>> tucker: nobody forced biden to answer the question, a key question, that was frustrating to watch. if it was also easy to interpret what he meant, of course joe biden plans to pack the supreme court, otherwise he would have denied it. court packing is not popular with the public, nearly 70% of americans oppose it, that includes more than half of all registered democrats but the extremists who now run the democratic party are demanding it and joe biden will follow their lead. that's what radicalism looks like, any thing that stands between you and the power you seek to destroy, even if it's the world's oldest constitutional court which our supreme court is. we should be afraid of people who are willing to do things like that but in joe biden's case we don't seem to be afraid and that leads to something else that we learned last night at the debate. tone is everything. biden all but admitted on stage that he plans to tear down our system, but he did it in a calm this is your captain speaking voice.

he seemed reassuring even as he hinted at revolution. donald trump by contrast defended our system, the system that most people in the country support. nothing trump said on stage was radical, virtually nothing he ever says is radical compared to public opinion polling on the issues. it's his tone that rattles people. trump could make a wine list sound menacing. so in the end, amazingly, tragically, many people watched last night concluded that joe biden is the stable, steady alternative. they concluded this even as joe biden suggested he plans to change their lives, their country, permanently and forever in ways they won't like. it's quite a trick. the illusion of reasonableness, barack obama was a master of this. biden learned well and so he continued last night. watch joe biden explained that actually, he's the america first candidate. >> it would create an additional $1 trillion in economic growth because it would be about buying american.

the federal government spends $600 billion here on everything from ships to steal the buildings and the like. under my proposal, we will make sure that every penny of that has to be made by a company -- >> tucker: we've got to buy american, buy american says the man who welcomed china into the wto and has been sucking up assiduously to its leaders ever since. fight the billionaires, says the man whose campaign is funded by oligarchs on wall street and silicon valley. joe biden stole donald trump's lines, it was remarkable. how was biden able to do that? of the trump campaign should ruminate on that question. trump's advisors and in-laws are telling him to brag about the number of people he has let out of prison, this at a time when our crime rate is exploding and people are dying as a result of it. joe biden's advisors plan to lift many more people out of prison but they aren't bragging about it on stage, they are hiding it.

they used to debate to talk up a buy america program they will never implement. what we've learned here is the biden people are very serious about politics. they know what to the public wants, even if they plan to ignore it if they are elected. of course they are willing to say anything, that helps. we learned that white supremacy is the single greatest threat to our country, how could that be you ask? it turns out that mobs of white supremacists just burned down minneapolis and kenosha, they shot cops and with all, they torched wendy's, they destroyed public monuments in atlanta and san francisco, they defaced war memorials in washington, they looted macy's in midtown chica chicago. also in the city of chicago, white supremacist murdered hundreds of african-americans in every where they went, these right wing bigots spray-painted racist graffiti and threaten the sleeping citizens in their homes. the white supremacist did this,

those proud boys. it wasn't just factually untrue, it was insane. crazier than any conspiracy that google has ever banned, yet they are now demanding that you believe it and if you don't believe it, they are going to punish you. why are they doing that? that's a good question, it's also an ominous sign. what did they plan to do next? victor davis hanson is a senior fellow and one of the rare figures in academia who is not deeply knowledgeable but wise, we are grateful to have him on to assess what we saw last night in the debate. >> thank you. i think there was two debates. there was the optics and the atmospherics, if you read the transcript later in what was said, it's quite different. it reminded me in the 60s of

kennedy-nixon. everyone thought kennedy looked calm and poised but what he actually said was trivial compared to nixon who looked angry and tired. trump interrupted and biden was calm her, he can't answer court packing because he's made this devil's bargain with the left and that constrains him. trump is not trying to delude anybody, what you see is what you get. fracking, great, law and order, absolutely, in the past, in the present, in the future. that hurt him that he tried to interrupt because he had the better message. the first 5 minutes was wonderful, he was calm but i think he got the idea he was going to rattle biden and he interrupted biden and he didn't understand that when biden is free to speak, that's when he

goes off the train of thought and he gets ridiculous. all of these newspaper and visual people in the media interrupt him to help him out. when he lost his train of thought, everybody thought trump interrupted him. but if he hadn't interrupted him, we would've been sure that he said nonsense. i would say if i could be more controversial, i don't like the format. this gotcha question. it's like getting on a horse and saying you have trickled minutes to buck and you're going to stop immediately. if you're going to incite a candidate, what do you expect? when you ask this question didn't you at charlottesville say this, when he didn't say it, and then he gets angry and you say 2 minutes stop and you've got to be absolutely symmetrical. if you're going to mention charlottesville, a very controversial topic and i think misrepresented, then you've got to go to biden and say what's the most recent controversial

racial -- what did you mean by you ain't black? or state you want to accept the election, what's going to be the counterpart? it's going to be something like that into her administration try to disrupt the transition and really cause almost a coup and not accept the 2016 election? there wasn't that symmetry and i think that marred the debate. what was the strategic analysis of it? i guess what happened is you are right about that, a lot of people who got a reassuring message from trump that he is the protector of prosperity and law and order were turned off by the interruption, and maybe he lost the swing vote. on the other hand, he rubbed up his base, there are deplorables, irredeemable's have not come out to vote that might get revved up and he might if we can do some of biden's base who said wait a minute, you're flopping and flipping all over, you made a bargain with us that you're supposed to get this radical agenda through. it's hard to tell.

it also depends on the polls. in 2016, the mainstream polls were wrong. "the wall street journal," nbc, you name it and they had trump losing by quite a lot. now they are saying the same thing and we don't know whether they are wrong again or if somehow they're going to be right and the outlier polls were right in 2016 and they are considered because trump is considered within a margin of error and things rasmussen and emerson and zogby. that means is trump either had a draw and he is ready for debate number 2 where presidents usually do better in the second debate or he was behind and he had to make this up and we are going to find out very quickly. i think there's going to be a sense in the biden campaign that i don't think they can get out of it but they are going to try to float balloons and say you know what? it was so much, so combative, do we really want to go through this again thinking that they

have their lead maintained. i don't think they increased it. i don't know if that suggest they don't want to go through this again or if they feel they squeaked by and they don't want to risk their success. >> tucker: i want to ask you in the minute we have left since you have studied political systems going back thousands of years to the classical era, the idea of changing the supreme court, the electoral college, the filibuster is a newer innovation but adding to the size of the union in order to pack the house and senate -- put this into some context for us, these are not moderate proposals. these seem like blows against the system itself. >> they are expected, that's what the french revolution was about. it wasn't about changing the government are making a constitutional republic out of a monarchy, it was changing even the dating system, even the days of the week and the months and destroying the church. the left does not have a message

people will embrace, contrary to human nature, they decide we're all going to share and everybody's going to be equal by result -- the democrats realize that message is not going to go anywhere. we aren't back to 40 hour workweek, disability, social security that people embrace. they are saying we have to change the demographics with open borders, after 150 years, we have to get rid of the nine person supreme court after 233 years, we have to get rid of the electoral college and get rid of the 190 year filibuster, 62 year tradition of 50 states because we can't win on a current agenda so we are going to change the rules. that's typical throughout history of the left. it doesn't require a majority and i think you're right about that. if it's done in a particular fashion and people don't speak out against it whether it was in france or in russia or during the 60s, passivity feels it and empowers it. people have to say we aren't

going to change the rules, you play within the field, you're not going to go outside the sideline. that's very important, that's one reason why joe biden would never answer that question and it was frustrating for trump. i just wish that he would've focused on that more but i could see what he was frustrated and i don't think the moderator really helped biden to account to answer those questions. that's what the debate was about an we'll and see what happens in the second debate but i've a feeling it didn't change for now whatever the polls have recorded before. you can argue about what they recorded but i think we will go into the second debate with a sense of desperation for both candidates. >> tucker: i strongly agree with you, at this moment, bravery is the vital virtue, clear thinking people telling the truth -- we won't survive without it. professor, thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: you heard mention of critical race theory during

the debate last night, joe biden didn't seem to understand what that is or maybe he doesn't want to admit he knows. we'll tell you what it is and what he got wrong after the break. c keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424.

♪ >> tucker: police say they found a man who ambushed two

l.a. sheriff's deputies in compton, california, a convicted felon, charged with attempted murder as he shot cops multiple times as they sat in a squad car. authorities already had him in custody for an unrelated shooting before they realized he also might be connected to that ambush on the police. the attack on the deputies was totally unprovoked, but it was not unforeseen. one police captain said his motive was he obviously hates policeman and wants them dead. what you think you got that idea? such as the usual poison from blm, it is the official message of the democratic party platfo platform. police should be hated, have you read the platform? if you do, you will learn police make it almost impossible for african-americans to go outside because they could be murdered by the police. that's not true, but that's the democratic party is saying. as of today, joe biden's running mate kamala harris has not

apologized. still come up for promoting the minnesota freedom fund, that's the group that bailed out a man accused of trying to kill police officers. and last night's debate, joe biden was never asked about his own staffers contributing to that fund. if the media continue to give them a pass, can they really act surprised the next time diamante murray shoots police officers -- by the way, there's a lot about kamala harris we are going to be taking a look at on the show. don't miss that. during last night's debate, joe biden when prompted described critical race theory as a totally innocuous, not a big deal, it's about a racial sensitivity, he said, who's against that? not us, not anyone. here's what he said. >> the fact is that there is racial insensitivity. people have to be made aware of what other people feel like.

what insults them, what is demeaning to them. it's important people know, many people don't want to hurt other people's feelings but it makes a big difference. >> tucker: this is the most polite country on the face of the earth. if you've traveled internationally, you know that. surely, it's the most polite western country in the world. no american wants to hurt anyone's feelings on purpose. critical race theory is not designed to solve hurt feelings, it's not about racial sensitivity -- no. it's a kind of racial supremacy. it teaches that some people are morally tainted because of the color of their skin, the way they were born. that's the definition of racism, it's poison, we should fight against it with everything we have. it's contrary, it's wrong, it's contrary to the christian message.

taxpayer-funded trainers told white male employees to write letters of apology to women and people of color, which women and people of color? all women and people of color. presumably, they sinned against all of them by who they are. grotesque. some agencies are teaching employees that punctuality and diligence are associated with whiteness and that meritocracy is morally wrong. what kind of damages is doing to our country? it's grotesque. the white house executive order this month ended these trainings in the federal government come a long overdue, probably won't be enough -- but it's worth considering what is really going on. peter occur, thank you so much r coming on tonight. when i heard the vice president say critical race theory is a form of racial sensitivity, that may be the most misleading thing up heard in a long time. >> it's clear the vice president has absolutely no idea what's going on in our schools, our

public agencies, our corporations, academia, everywhere. critical race theory has been infiltrating these institutions for the last three decades and it's reached a crescendo and that's with the president acted and he needed to act. you just described what's going on, i've seen critical race theory training, i've seen many corporations and many public agencies, the type of training you just described where whites are harangued for being white and are told they are inherently racist. they are explicitly told that. it's astonishing, a violation of title vi and title vii of the 1964 civil rights act, but it's going on a regular basis, also in our academic institutions. it's toxic, un-american, but what it does is along with its edge on the 6019 project is it undermines the foundation of america. it attacks the justification of

american institutions, it presumes every system, institution, organization was formulated and constructed to preserve whitehead gemini. with some of these trainings, it commands that employees forswear or abandon all of the traits you've mentioned with respect to discipline, punctuality, accuracy, linear thinking -- the adverse of that is blacks and people of color aren't that, it's one of the most racist things imaginable. it's so condescending. it's extraordinary to me that employees, white, black -- whatever, they don't want to lose their jobs but they take this toxic poison that is inherently racist and absurd on its face. the executive order that the president signed is fairly anodyne but it needed to be do

done. it prohibits federal agencies, federal contractors and federal grantees from having these types of toxic trainings. it's pretty clear, it's a statement of title vi, title vii and it requires these people to have that in their federal contracts. it's long overdue and what we are seeing in the streets over the last four months is the natural result of this kind of toxic training that began k-12, and watered down but has continued throughout upper academia but in the workplace. there are at least two studies that show these kinds of trainings actually have the reverse effect of what they are intended to do. it increases racial division. >> tucker: of course it does. we are doing that at high-volume, it's very sad to watch.

thank you. we didn't hear much about russia during last nights debate, the president obviously works for vladimir putin. whatever happened to the russian collusion story? actually, we had news yesterday about hillary clinton and how she came up with that story. we'll tell you what we learned today. the next chapter, up next.

>> tucker: for three years dummies like bill kristol and many others told you that russian agents -- that's donald trump, he's working for putin. he's sabotaging ukraine to help russia. but none of that came up in last nights debate, weirdly. joe biden didn't seem to want to talk about impeachment or the mueller report -- strange, those were history changing moments. the only person on state you talked about russia was donald trump -- watch. >> if you look at cricket

hillary clinton, look at all the different people, there i was no transition, they came after me from the day i won and even before i won, the day i came down with a escalator with our first lady, they were a disaster, a disgrace to our country and we caught them. we caught them all, we've got it all on tape, we caught them all. you gave the idea for the logan act against general flynn, you better take a look at that because we caught you in a sense and president obama was sitting in the office, so don't tell me about a free transition. >> tucker: i don't know if you could tell from the clip we just played you but hours before last night's debate, we learned from declassified documents that russian intelligence determined during last cycle in 2016 that it was hillary clinton who came up and was pushing the narrative of trump and russia to distract from her email scandal. this was so worrisome to american intelligence officials

that they forwarded an investigative referral about the plan to the fbi but to date jim comey testified he doesn't even remember that referral. how does that make sense? why did jim comey rely on the steele dossier that was based on claims from a sub source link to russian intelligence -- your head is throbbing. there's a reason for that, sean davis has gone through all the details for years, cofounder of "the federalist," we are happy to have him on to sort it out. what did we learn from comey today? >> it was a very big week as far as russia gate news. it wasn't the trump campaign that colluded with russian spies to interfere in the 2016 election, we learned it was actually hillary clinton's campaign. the russians knew what she was doing. the fbi knew that they knew, james comey was even told through that investigative referral what was going on, that a russian spy had infiltrated christopher steele's network and

exceeded his dossier with false information and comey today claimed that he didn't know a thing about it, which sure is curious given the guy was running this thing. >> tucker: whatever they are accusing you of doing, is precisely to the letter what they are doing themselves. irony doesn't describe it. >> you're exactly right. it's even bigger than that, this isn't just a scandal about democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was a coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and i can report here tonight that these declassifications that have come out come of those weren't easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get out. unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources are being blocked by cia director gina haspel who herself was the main link between washington and london, she was the london station chief from

john brennan's cia -- recall, it was london where christopher steele was doing all this work. i'm told that it was gina haspel personally who is blocking continued declassification of these documents that will show the american people the truth of what actually happened. >> tucker: why are we putting up with this? they are still holding documents from the kennedy assassination, the warren commission documents, we still don't know everything there 55 years later. they're blocking the release of so many documents, why doesn't somebody, anybody in power could do this stand up and say these are going public now? >> that's a great question. one reason is so many people blocking these documents are likely implicated by them. you have these career bureaucrats whose careers may be destroyed by the facts that are within them and i think at this point, we need the president donald trump to step in and to say no more obstruction, no more blocking. we need transparency and the american people need to hear the truth and that means to classifying everything, letting everyone see everything about

what happened. so we can decide for ourselves before we vote i in the selectin who we want in charge of these agencies. >> tucker: right. you can literally shoot a cop and get charged with assault, but if you're juli julian assan, they want to kill you. tells you a lot about their priorities. after nearly 100,000 voters in new york received miss mark absentee ballot packages, they plan to issue new absentee ballots but remember, you're a lunatic if you question any of this because, repeat after this, "male in balloting is totally secure." justin'justin haskins, thank yor

joining us. 100,000 mismarked ballots, everything is totally cool, shut up conspiracy monger. >> this is the tip of the iceberg. 100,000 ballots, we are supposed to ignore that there were 100,000 faulty ballots sent out and they were wide spread reports in brooklyn, people receiving ballots with the return envelope at the wrong name printed on it. if you have the wrong name printed -- the name on the absentee ballot, the signature doesn't line up with the name and the return envelope, they can throw the ballot out. it is entirely possible there are people who have already voted incorrectly and there ballots could potentially be thrown out and we are being told don't worry about it, absentee balloting is totally fine. this is just the tip of the iceberg -- it is going to get so much worse as we start to expand this out across the country and it's going to undermine

american's faith in this election and that is literally the last thing we need at this point in time with all the chaos that we've already had this year. >> tucker: this isn't the first epidemic we've had in this country, it's not the deadliest either. what did we do another plague years? did we just not vote? how to be handled that in 1918? >> america has a long tradition of people going and voting in person no matter what, but even if you were really concerned about it, there are ways to do in person balloting and have social distancing and have people wearing masks, why can't we have drive through where people stay in their cars and they drive through and vote and stay in their car? they would be perfectly safe because it really isn't about that, you know that. this is about one thing and one thing only, getting as much chaos as possible come as much doubt as possible into the selection, that's what the left is doing. that's what they've been doing

all year long, why should a change now? because there's an election. >> tucker: they aren't fighting voter suppression? >> i don't think that's what's going on. >> tucker: no matter what happens in the election, the faith, the reflexive faith that most of us grew up within our system has already been shaken and there's a huge cost of that. it's very sad. thanks so much. so we heard a lot last night from joe biden about the administration and donald trump specifically being responsible for the wuhan coronavirus. this time, he didn't explicitly claim that donald trump personally killed 200 million people, but he still made some pretty big claims. we'll explain what they were and we'll assess them, next. i need a smaller house that's close to my son,

but that's tough to do on a fixed income. i'd be hit with a tax penalty for moving to another county, so i'm voting 'yes' on prop 19. it limits property taxes

and lets seniors transfer their home's current tax base to another home that's closer to family or medical care. being closer to family is important to me. how about you? voting 'yes' on prop 19.

♪ >> tucker: last night if you saw the debate you may have noticed that joe biden blamed the sitting president for the

effects of the wuhan coronavirus on the united states. he didn't explain what he would have done differently, he just declared that it's scientific certainty that mr. donald j. trump because the damage. >> 200,000 dead, 7 million infected in the united states. we have 4% of the world's population, 20% of the deaths. 40,000 people a day are contracting covid. in addition to that come up between 750 and a thousand people a day are dying. when he was presented with that number, he said "it is what it is." while it is what it is because you are who you are. >> tucker: it is what it is because you are who you are. if the virus killed people because it donald trump is mean. this from the nominee of the party of science. so as a matter of data which is what we deal with here and cable news, is there any scientific truth to the claim that donald trump could have stopped the coronavirus by paying a

nicer person? dr. marc siegel is a fox news contributor, always glad to have him. >> this virus has humbled all of us and we don't need political posturing, we need to acknowledge that we've been learning as it goes along, cdc director redfield told me recently that it's the most transmissible, most dangerous virus he has seen in his lifetime, but at the very beginning, cdc was probably underestimating it, saying it could be contained to the state of washington. the president is only as good as if the information he gets. the president is a businessman and the president has geared up big time in terms of the public-private partnership, and terms of testing. we heard 150 million new tests of the type that will give us rapid answers on covid-19 and the vaccine. it's a disgrace how politicized that has become when it's the data safety monitoring board that's looking at that and if we get a vaccine before the end of the year, it will be a

miracle -- that is never occurred before. there is never anything but criticism here. >> tucker: the former vice president didn't explain what he would have done differently under the circumstances, do you have any idea what he was suggesting? >> i think we know what he would have done differently. during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, the president brought this up and i wrote a book about this -- the former vice president was fearmongering, he got the media a stir with that. then his own chief of staff said they want -- this could have been a big disaster and they were lucky to avoid it. we know he has a background in fearmongering and he also will lock down the entire country potentially and that will cost us dearly in terms of economic, mental, and physical suffering. >> tucker: talk to any college student, someone currently enrolled and you will see what it's doing to these kids.

>> we need a country open, thank you. >> tucker: one thing that was missing from last night's debate was analysis from the great mark steyn, we're going to provide that after the break. ♪

>> tucker: if you didn't catch last nights debate or don't have access to the internet we have some good news for you. we hired actors and staged a reenactment of what happened, condensing it to just a few seconds. >> you're crazy. >> i know you what are but one of my. >> i know you are but one of my. >> i know you are but what am i? >> tucker: what we aren't going to do is reenact any of the postdebate analysis on the networks because the thought of that is too horrible. the only analysis you need is from mark steyn who was not on tv last night, we wort promise s

worth it, what'd you think? >> like many people i found it terrible but i'm actually more concerned with the presidential debate commission is so horrified by it that they now want to change the rules to make it more like the traditional boringly stultifying way respectable debate. if i don't believe in the debate commission, i don't see why in the republic of 300 million people, jane harman, olympia snowe, and a couple of other people you vaguely remember from the day before yesterday should have a monopoly on presidential debates. if they do change the rules, i hope the president manages to smash through them the way he did through the over formatted format last night. >> tucker: they are not interested in ratings and i'm not quite sure what they're interested in. why do you think the presidential debate commission -- i know why i didn't like last night's debate but why are they trying to set

up a microphone killing mechanism or whatever they're doing to tamp it down next time? >> because they always want to over formatted it. traditionally these debates, usually they go will have 92nd opening statements after which the other party will have 45 seconds for rebuttal to the opening statement followed by a 32nd preremodeled to whatever the next question is in the whole thing is locked down in boredom. what more people tune in for is what happened last night. the two guys going at it directly. i look at it in showbiz terms. whatever you come out and do an act 1, you've got to do something different and act to . trump is brilliant at pit the responses, that's what people remember. "you'll be in jail."

"only rosie o'donnell." trump should give it some of those 152nd answers and then said -- nobody's boating on climate change, it's 37th on people's list of priorities, it wasn't on the list of original topics from debate which has to be issued three weeks in advance for some reason and he should've just said there's a pandemic, there's a lock down, there is looting and burning on the streets of american cities, nobody cares about climate change. i yield the balance of my time to joe biden and he can talk about federal subsidies for environmentally friendly window treatments which actually happened under obama and let joe exhaust himself. joe can't actually fill up the time. give him more time and let him exhaust himself. >> tucker: that's brilliant. your first point is especially smart. angry doesn't work, it's not effective. i try every night when i write my open, i don't always follow my own advice funny works

better. >> sometimes writers anger works. i don't believe being told that you're a -- you've got to condemn white supremacy is a good-faith question because it implies you somehow have been cozying up to it. it's like when did you stop beating your wife? if you ask that you should say that's a fair question, you should also put it to the guy across the stage who boasted about working with segregationist democrat senators, who said he would do well in south carolina because delaware is a state. you've got to have righteous anger but you've got to use it sparingly. >> tucker: very good advice. not surprisingly. mark steyn, great to see you tonight -- thank you so much. >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: quick note, kamala harris is running as joe biden's running mate, she could very well become our next president. she could certainly be in

charge, we don't actually know that much about kamala harris. starting tomorrow, we are to take a look at her record from people who know her, who she really is and tell you what we found, could be interesting. we'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the charlotte does the sworn enemy of line come pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. >> sean: executive order to eliminate guns and that she sponsored in the senate medicare for all of the new green deal. >> tucker: we are booking you for tomorrow! >> sean: good show as always, tucker, welcome to hannity. fox news alert, the president set to speak any moment at another massive rally tonight in minnesota. we will dip in throughout the hour, we must get a lot of other news in as well. with the president talks about last night, you will hear it. debate 1 is officially in the history books. if we are going to unpack this but in a way that the mop in the