tomorrow night as "the story" continues. have a great night, everybody appeared we will see you back tomorrow night at 7. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, senate confirmation hearings at 8:00 p.m. easter and are still on tonight for amy ton amy coney barrett. we have the takeaways from what has already happened. of course, a turnaround for you immediately this hour. and the president, kicking off another rally, that started up short time ago in johnstown pennsylvania. the trump campaign believes it is still in play. of course, our producers are managing that as well. we will take you live. but first, good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." if someone had asked you a year ago what you thought of people

who wore masks after halloween, the chances are your reaction would have been negative. masks? what kind of person covers his face in public? let's see. armed robbers do that. so do klansmen and radicals. the rest of us don't do that. in fact, until recently, wearing a mask in public was illegal in many places. the assumption was if you are hiding who you are, you are up to something bad. it made people nervous. by our nature, we want to see each other. we need to see each other. looking at another person's face is the beginning of connection. eliminating that connection dehumanizes us. that used to be obvious. a century ago during the spanish flu pandemic, authorities in many cities in this country past mandatory masks ordinances, just like the ones we have now. many americans accepted them. but many others did not accept them. in california, citizens rebelled. in january of 1919, 5,000 members of the newly-formed antimasks in san francisco gathered to call for the mayor's

resignation if he didn't repeal. five days later, the mayor replied. science vindicated that decision in the end. a year later found that compulsory mask wearers had no effect on the spanish flu. we live in a very different ti time. america is far less cohesive than it was years ago an american seemed far more passive than they did. those who disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy have less power than they have ever had. mask medications are now controlled by a tiny number of people, all of whom have identical agendas. there is no modern anti-mass elite. there couldn't be a modern mask elite. passboofacebook and google woult it down in a day. used to be a defining feature of american life, but no more. now we have a mandatory consensus. masks are good. anyone who questions the goodness of masks are bad. what they are really telling you

is that masks are magic. what appears to be a flimsy cotton face covering is in fact a holy amulet that protects us from disease more reliably than any modern medicine dominic medicine. he explains that actual masks are better than vaccines. >> i might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against covid van when i take the covid vaccine. >> tucker: this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me from a vaccine. following? more guaranteed. there are now degrees of guarantee apparently peer that is quite an endorsement from a leading man of science. there is nothing more important. but of course, our politicians didn't need to hear that. they already believe that. earlier this month, california's governor sent a tweet from his office with this command. "going out to you with members of your household this weekend,

don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites. do your part to keep those around you healthy. understand? you are eating with people you live with every day but be sure to shield your faces as you eat for safety." that tweet is still up, by the way. the man who probably killed more americans from the coronavirus the end anyone apart from the chinese government explained that if you don't wear a mask, you are a murderer. >> i think it's disrespectful of people not to wear masks. i mean, think about it. do i think local governments should be forcing it question much of the re-sanctions? yes. yes. because it is a public health emergency. i think there should be a penalty. you could literally kill someo someone. you could literally be killing someone because you did not want to wear a mask. >> tucker: he could literally kill someone. literally paired he said it

twice. you selfishly wanted to breathe fresh air and conduct a human conversation. one city councilwoman suggested that citizens who don't wear masks could be charged with attempted murder. >> you know, i work for an organization that if they passed the virus, then they are tried for murder or attempted murder. there needs to be stronger legislation to say that if you do not wear a mask and you subject exposure of this virus to someone else, then there will be some stronger penalty. >> tucker: so, you thought you were smiling at someone you loved. in fact, you were pulling the trigger. see you in jail.

harsh words. but then science itself is harsh. science has no regard for sentiment or public opinion. science doesn't care about your feelings. science is about facts, data, truth, measurable outcomes. so, what is the science on masks? welcome as it happens, we have the latest for you tonight. and the science comes interestingly from the cdc whose directors told you that masks were magic, more effective than vaccines. but my numbers suggest otherwise. a new study conducted by 11 medical institutions analyze people who tested positive for covid during the month of july. here is the interesting part. among those who were infected, more than 70% quota that they had always won the mask for 17 7 days. another 1 14.4 said they had always won the mask. in other words, almost everyone who got the coronavirus in july was wearing a mask and they were infected anyway.

so, clearly it doesn't work the way they tell us that works. clearly, someone has been lying to us, many people actually. how did this happen? well, the short answer is, we are not sure how so many people got the coronavirus for wearing masks. but there are clues, clues that the leaders appear to be ignoring. here is one. according to a study published in april, surgical masks are actually ineffective at stopping airborne particles. in fact they found that surgical masks, which everyone is using to protect themselves from the coronavirus and not murder other people is actually only useful from large droplets. that is not how the coronavirus spreads. according to a letter signed by several researchers this month in "science" magazine, the biggest threat by far is one it is contained in small particles which can easily bypass face masks in aerosol form. droplets can quickly found to fl

to the ground, but aerosol lingers. for many seconds two hours, smoke can be inhaled. the particles are highly concentrated near and infected person. but aerosol's containing infectious virus can also travel more than 6 feet and lead to super spreading events. so, if you have been wearing a mask at the table in between bites, this might come as a surprise to you. now they told you. you should also know, the consensus changes. they never admit it, but it do does. science changes, as we learn more. it was only a few weeks ago that the same people yelling at you now for not wearing a mask or scolding you for considering buying a mask. february 29th, the u.s. surgeon general tweeted this, "seriously, people, stop buying masks. they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching the coronavirus." now, at one point, we mocked him

for saying that because it seemed absurd to us. if masks aren't effective, then why do surgeons wear them? but it turns out he was onto something. on march 8th, anthony fauci told us that masks are pointless. >> right now in the united states, people should not be walking around with masks. >> you are sure of it. people are listening really closely to this. >> i think right now, there is no reason to be walking around with a mask. when you are in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. >> tucker: these people are so awful. all of us are learning about this on the fly. it was a new disease. there are a lot of things that we didn't know. but to pretend that you are speaking god's word and rearrange our society on the basis of that and never acknowledge that you were completely wrong, that your

assumptions were false, that's the definition of dishonesty. that is the hallmark for the people who lead us. they know nothing. he, by contrast knows a lot. he is the author of "unreported truths about covid-19 unlocked on number two." worth reading. he joins us tonight. thanks so much for coming on. so, the study from the cdc does seem like big news to me, at the very least, my quick and dirty read is that what we are doing isn't working. why is this not receiving any coverage? >> well, it hasn't received coverage because the media doesn't want to cover anything aside from you and a few other people, but don't want to cover anything that says masks may not be god's gift to all of us. but i will say this. it's one study, it's what's called a case control study. so, what happened is they looked at 160 people who had gotten the virus and compared them to essentially a controlled group

of 160 people who hadn't gotten the virus. essentially, the mask wearing was exactly the same in both. that suggests that masks provided no benefit. for example, you look at the people who were close to people with a known case of the coronavirus. many more of those people were close to somebody who had the virus. it was like 42% versus 14%. so, that's what you would expect, right? you are close to someone who has the virus, you are more likely to get the virus. in this case, they seemed to provide no benefit, the masks. here is what i will say. there is a very big study, a randomized controlled study out of denmark i was finished in june, that was supposed to demonstrate whether or not masks worked for protecting against infection. several thousand people were going to wear masks. several thousand not. you compare at the end who was infected, who wasn't. that study was finished in june. it was supposed to be published

in august. it has disappeared. there has been the publication of the results. i don't know what the study says but i think it's reasonable to speculate that if the studies show that masks work, every journal in the world would want to print it. this is part of a much bigger problem, talker. the problem is that science and scientists who are outside with the public health authorities and the media want are being almost systematically shut down. and this came up in the discussion about immunity, where a very good scientist in the u.k. clinic at to clinic at eit paper published. you are seeing this with the great barrington declaration, which i know you have talked about and you know about, that the scientists who publish that were very well known, who were at and oxford and harvard. they are being tarred and

feathered by other scientists. i don't understand what has happened to scientific debate, not just in this country, but around the world, where if you have an opinion, a well backed, well-researched consensus that is not, you can't get it published in a major journal. i mean, science should be a discussion. you see this in yet another way, tucker, which is that people who publish studies, who are actually the authors of studies show that masks are ineffective and have written articles, there is an article and essentially said that universal masking is oineffective. the people who wrote that article walked back to that conclusion, which is extremely clear two months later. so, what kind of pressure was put on them or what kind of pressure are they putting on themselves? science is not going to work of scientists are censoring

themselves or censoring other scientists. that seems to be where we are going right now. >> tucker: you are one of the very few standing in the face of that. good luck. to see you tonight. >> tucker, thanks for having me. >> tucker: if you were around 30 years ago, you know that the internet is supposed to have an opposite effect than the one it is happening. it supposed to make us more rational and open. of course, it hasn't done it. but there are geniuses on the internet and occasionally you run across them. the other day, a lawyer in san francisco wrote this on twitter. "playgrounds, public schools, and libraries remain closed indefinitely in san francisco as they have been for 7 months. they appear to give no consideration to the interior lives of young people. that is that the world does not matter." an anonymous twitter made this observation. maybe a "meritocracy in which a

sociopath wants it most was a bad idea." yeah, maybe it was a bad idea. too late now. well, amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing is going on still. it has been quite a tv show. we have the highlights for you after the break. ♪ is dr. harold katz.

he used to worry about how to fix the world's oral health problems. - i think i've got it. - [narrator] then he invented therabreath formulas. - you want fresh breath? i'll give you a fresh breath. - [narrator] for fresh breath, healthy gums, dry mouth, and healthy smiles. - whoa, that's fresh. - [narrator] now, the world's mouths have never been healthier. (sighs contentedly) - works for 24 hours, i guarantee it. therabreath, it's a better mouthwash.

- [narrator] available at walmart, target and other fine stores. ♪ speaker you are surrounded by a team of folks that help prepare you for this nomination. let me finish, if you don't mi mind. >> tucker: [laughs] senator, kamala harris, now running for vice president with her signature style. every bit as unappealing as she was at last week's vice presidential debate. day two of amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing has officially wrapped up. what happened today? well, today was the first opportunity to question the nominee. amy coney barrett seems determined to get the job and replace ruth bader ginsburg. you have probably seen a lot of the coverage already. but if you really want an

overview, and i want to say in essence of what happened, we found a single clip that sums it up. as you would expect, he comes from hawaii senator. >> not once, but twice, you use the term sexual preference to describe those in the lgbtq community. let me be clear, process is an offensive and outdated term. it is used by anti-lgbtq activists to suggest that orientation is a choice. it is not. orientation is a key part of a person's identity. >> tucker: sell, follow the reasoning if you will. according to her, you can choose your gender at will because there is an infinite number of genders to choose from. but you have absolutely no say in who you find attractive. to suggest the otherwise is offensive. sexual preferences are fixed in stone. by the way, put on your mask.

this message has been brought to you by the academy of science. by the way, why does she represent hawaii? in a fair world, why wouldn't tulsi gabbard be the monarch of that state? of course, she did not stop there. she is somewhat of a detective, it turns out. to you, amy coney barrett may seem like a happy, successful woman. but to her, few words are as foreign. she did what every detective would do. she asked with no evidence whatsoever if amy coney barrett was actually secretly, and you would never have guessed this, a predator. >> since he became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a nature? >> no, senator. >> have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct? >> no, senator. >> so, we now know on the record

that amy coney barrett is not a rapist. but she came close to getting her. she wasn't the only one, though, who made everyone else in the room seem a little smarter. at one point, he lectured amy at length on the differences between a musket and a modern assault rifle. >> when that second amendment was written and you did the analysis of it, we were talking about the likelihood that a person could purchase a muzzle-loaded musket. we are now talking about virtual military weapons that can kill hundreds of innocent people. it is a much different circumstance. >> tucker: what are the chances that he knows one end of the rifle the bullet comes out of? zero, probably peer by the way, wasn't it just last week that the media reminded us that mike pence was man' mansplainino

kamala harris? he was acting like amy coney barrett, who is a gun owner, by the way, doesn't know anything about firearms. sheldon white house and his behavior today. he made the case that amy coney barrett is a product of a shadowy right-wing conspiracy. he came with graphs and charts to prove his point. it came too unwieldy to manage. watch. >> i will tell you three of them right here. it's not just the platform peered over and over again, let's start by talking about the affordable care act. so, let's go to roe v. wade. same thing. >> tucker: now, it might not be clear to civilians what exactly sheldon white house's point was supposed to be, so we

will tell you. we've decoded the riddle. he is on a crusade to end campaign contributions. these are known as dark money. he is very clear that he is against dark money. >> and who wins when you allow unlimited dark money in politics? a very small group. the ones who have money to spend and to spend in politics. they win. everyone else loses. >> tucker: hilarious. where is all the money in this campaign cycle? where is the find next communi community, big tech putting their money? on the right into donald trump's effort? no. it's going to the left. he clearly does hate it so much that this summer, he was a featured speaker at an event hosted -- his largest donor is another

dark money group. not surprisingly, sheldon whitehouse admits all of this. it's not a secret. what is less clear is what democrats hope to gain through all of this. they look ridiculous. amy coney barrett is still going to make it to the court. he joins us with his best guess as to what this was all about. what was this all about you think? >> the point is to try to discredit amy coney barrett by any means possible. but it's so outrageous, tucker. the democrats are so condescending. to see them sit there and lecture her. at one point, one democrat said, i don't think you've ever tried a case. you've got to talk to derman. he was a good prosecutor. if the democrats had their way, you wouldn't be able to go to a church in this country. you wouldn't be able to speak to a christian organization without being disqualified. they said they wanted attacker faith. that lasted for not only 24 hours. they are right there attacking

her religious beliefs, saying that she spoke to a christian group. she signed a pro-life statement at church. that is disqualifying. it is unbelievable, tucker and it's not going to work. >> tucker: so, the idea is that anyone with christian beliefs cannot serve in high office. is that standard operable for any of the other great faiths, i'm wondering? >> not that i've heard. i think with the real standard is that all religious beliefs must be cleared with the senate democrats. so, you are welcome to submit your beliefs for scrutiny and if they sign off on it and they give you the blue slip, so to speak, you are fine. but if you don't sign off on it, you are a bigot. this is exactly what the constitution prohibits. article six of the constitution says no religious test for office. here are all of these democrats trying to impose a religious test and say, we are not doing

it. we are not doing it. when you say you can't speak to a christian group, that's disqualifying. when you say that you can't be pro-life in accordance with your belief, that's disqualifying. >> tucker: that's a good definition. i appreciate you pointing it out. thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: a lot of things have changed in the past 6 months. one of the biggest changes has come from the national basketball association. radiance for the nba are tanking to historic lows. meanwhile, they continue to sell out to china. could there be a connection between them groveling before the chinese government? we will tell you. plus, we will continue to monitor the trump rally. it's underway at this hour. we will tell you if news emerges. >> you come with a new computer. you come up with the new chip. three days later, it's obsolete. i would not want to be in that business. but there are two things. a wall and a wheel. ♪

>> tucker: so, the l.a. lakers beat the miami heat to win the nba title on sunday night. very few people saw this. only about five and a half million. those are the lowest ratings in the history of the nba. by comparison, 18.34 million people watched game 6 of last year's nba finals. why is this happening? it is a collapse. it's a disaster. why? well, the nba, more than any other sports league, has completely embraced politics. people who dislike this country and the chinese communist party. the league even pitched the word black lives matter on all of their courts. like all corporate activism is fraudulent, people know that. they complain about police brutality, but they cannot bring themselves to condemn, say, the slavery underway right now in china. watch.

>> i'm against all human rights violations around the world. china is not the only country with human rights violation. >> do think that's a that is going on right now in china? because i condemn all human rights violations. >> why can't you be specific? >> because the way proclamations work, you are going to use that as a headline. >> what is wrong with that headline? cuba condemns ethnic cleansing? why would the nba take $500 million plus from a country that is engaging in ethnic cleansing? >> basically, you are saying that nobody should do business with china ever. they are a customer of ours. guess what, megan, i'm okay doing business with china. >> tucker: yeah, mark cuban condemns doing ethnic cleansing. people would go crazy with that headline. that is mark cuban, of course, who owns the dallas mavericks. in that clip, he sounded a

little bit like joe biden. can't say anything. it could be the headline. our viewers ever going to go back to the nba? jason thought a lot about this. he writes for out kick.com. we are happy to have him on tonight. perspective on the numbers, on the viewership. are these numbers as bad as they seem? >> yeah, they are really bad, tucker. there is no way to clean them up, and i know they are competing against the nfl. they are not playing during their normal time slot. but they have lebron james, who is allegedly the biggest star in all of sports. he played for the lakers, the biggest star in the nba. this is a problem. >> tucker: so, what is the cause of it? i mean, it seems to me like there is a connection between the aggressive politics in the league and viewershi declining , but i want to be fair and ask someone who follows it for a

living. >> obviously, covid had an issue. but there is no denying that there is a har hard, hard lien o anti-american sentiment has turned off sports fans. just think away how sports have sold themselves for more than 100 years or close ever since jesse owens, american sports have been the ambassador for americana. we have played the national anthem. it's a patriotic event. this is a total 180 in terms of branding and the way the nba has presented itself. and a lot of people are disconcerted by, we use the analogy today in a very outstanding piece about what is going on with the nba. just think about disney world where they played these games. instead of making mark as their brand ambassador, cardi b was there ambassador.

a woman dressed in hooters outfits. that would be quite a brand change that would be off-putting to the traditional disney world customer base. that is what is going on here in the nba. >> tucker: it wouldn't shock me if disney went there. so, you were listening to mark cuban. i've had on mark cuban. he's not stupid. i didn't think it was stupid until that mega megyn kelly interview. why was not it so hard >> because china is their number one market that the nba is interested in. america is not the nba's priority. china is. and that's why, tucker, i'm not very political at all. i'm just not. but with president trump's america first agenda, this is what he's talking about. american companies. the nba being hijacked by foreign influence. this is what is happening to our

country. i'm so glad it's being exposed in the nba. because it's an opportunity to educate the average american sports fan or whatever you can finally understand what this foreign influence is doing to our country. they have turned a patriotic cultural event into anti-american protests in the nba and to some degree, the nfl. we've got to put a stop to this. >> tucker: welcome especially since as you are describing it, they are doing it for the benefit of china, our chief rival on the world stage. i mean, that seems really sinister to me. >> it's, look, china has 1.4 billion citizens. china is spending a lot of money trying to undermine america and american culture. this is what communist-run countries do. they smear the west and america as racist.

meanwhile, they are 1,000 times more racist than america. 1,000 times. >> tucker: exactly. >> this is an issue for me, a major issue for me. i played football. i am a supporter of the school. we had a young man arrested, black young man, former football player arrested in china on some bogus charges. spent three years inside a chinese prison. it took me and other's money to get him home. this whole thing about we are going to blast america. it's hypocritical. it's dangerous. it's treasonous. and it needs to stop. >> i am going to look up that story. i will look it up. jason woodlock, thanks so much for that. great to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: you often hear republicans complain about silicon valley and big tech's antitrust violation. what have they done about it? well, not much.

tonight, one republican leader has an actual plan to fix the problem. we will hear it straight ahead. the president, by the way, is wrapping up his rally tonight. ♪ prop 19 provides tax savings for family homes.

so i'm voting 'yes'. nineteen allows seniors and all homeowners 55 and older to transfer their home's low tax base to another home. it also protects the right to pass my family home to my son. we've all worked hard for our house and we should be allowed to give it to our kids without a tax penalty. it's time to limit taxes. vote 'yes' on 19.

♪ >> tucker: welcome a lot of republicans in congress talking to big tech. they are mad about the censorship. they hold hearings and then nothing happens. well tonight, one lawmaker called out a businessman, congressman rather, he is proposing a real solution. it would make it easier for the doj to challenge big tech's mergers and give people more control over the data, their data as it transfers between platforms. sounds like a small thing. it's not a small thing. they are taking it for you for

free. they should it be. what are the chances this becomes law? thanks so much. good to see you tonight. so, if you would summarize quickly an in case i misstated, with this legislation may do. >> let me back up, if i can. the first thing that's important is that these five companies, google, amazon, facebook, twitter, apple, have acted as monopolies and they are controlling the marketplace. they are cheating and stealing. and so, what we are attempting to do now, and it's a bipartisan effort with the democrats. it's 21, make sure that the department of justice and the federal trade commission have the resources they need to bring these bad actors to court and enforce the law. the second is to make sure that we change the law i for these high-tech firms. there have been 250 mergers in the high-tech area in the last few years.

very few of those mergers were even challenged in court. we want to make sure that a company that has over 60-70% of a dominant position in the marketplace, the burden shifts to that company to make sure that that company has to prove that it did not acquire another company in an anticompetitive way. and so, shifting that burden, hopefully will slow down the growth of these giant tech companies. >> tucker: yet, which are not american companies. they are owned in large part by foreign interests. so, why have we set back passively and allowed this to metastasize up to this point? >> well, quite frankly, money talks in washington, d.c., and these huge companies have come into washington, d.c., and they have bought the conservative cause. they have bought the liberal cause and they throw their money around because they make huge amounts of money. off the american consumer. they cheat and steal to make that kind of money. we want so, on the right, they

have certainly purchased a lot of libertarians, unfortunately, who have been pretty effective at batting this stuff down. who is opposed to this? one of the obstacles of getting this into law? >> welcome is a good question. there are, i suppose some republicans opposed to it that the doll might believe the market will take care of itself. i'm not one of those, nor are those who signed onto the report that i wrote, doug collins, others. there are some that believe that if we attack high-tech, or perhaps it will spill over into other parts of the economy. there is no other part of the economy that is dominated by a particular company the way that google dominates or amazon dominates. >> tucker: that's such a smart and clear point peered i don't think we can make that enough. there is no other company like google, or like facebook, or like apple. congressman, great to see you tonight. thank you for doing this. >> thank you.

>> tucker: so, democrats are very outraged that amy coney barrett doesn't seem quite as enthusiastic about abortion as they are. why this issue? why the single-minded focus on it? what does it tell you about them? we'll tell you after the break. ♪

>> tucker: well, throughout today's confirmation hearings, democrats warned that one thing is absolutely certain. amy coney barrett will overrule roe vs. wade and once that happens, the nation will collapse. >> do agree with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided? >> it would be particular -- it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. so if i express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether i say i love it or i hate it, it signals to litigants that i might tell one way or another in attending case.

>> so on something that is really a major cause with major effect on over half of the population in this country who are women, after all, it's distressing not to get a straight answer. if i don't know if you will answer this one either. do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe can and should be overturned by the supreme court? >> well, i think my answer is the same. >> well, that makes it difficult for me, and i think for other women also on this committee. >> tucker: so in the end, everything, according to the left, is about abortion. why is that? why is it always about that? matt burke has thought a lot about this, he played professional football for a long time for the vikings and the ravens. went to harvard, super bowl champion, has eight children and he's a pro-life advocate. happy to have them on tonight. thanks so much for joining us.

>> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: it does seem -- even if you're for legal abortion, it does seem a little bit weird to spend as much energy on a topic that dark. what do you think that's about? >> i think that abortion being legal in this country somehow legitimizes it to be pro-choice or pro-abortion crowd. antiabortion -- if roe vs. wade is overturned, then somehow their whole moral framework will be rattled. >> tucker: having abortion at the center of your moral framework seems like kind of weird place to be, doesn't it? >> it does to me. you know, i think -- obviously this is a confirmation hearing for supreme court justice, but the conversation we should be having is is abortion right? it's well-known that i'm a pro-life advocate, have been for a long time. nobody has ever come up and ask me why am i pro-life. it's pretty self-explanatory.

if you're pro-choice or pro-abortion, that's where you have to do the explaining and that's really where any argument falls apart, right? if you believe in god, then by definition, god is the originator and creator of all life, so abortion is wrong and if you want to say that science is real, well now, science overwhelmingly states that life begins at conception and so you get into these more petty arguments or you talk about the legality of it as opposed to the bigger issue, is this right? we have to have some kind of moral compass in this country. >> tucker: i've always been fascinated by your position on this, you were a public figure for many years, played in the super bowl, you went to harvard of all places. but you've taken a position -- the one position you're not allowed to take in your world is the one that you've taken. how if people treated you because of that? >> well, people have treated me very well. i don't really believe in the online mob, it really doesn't affect me. that's just kind of how i'm

wired and over the years i've had literally thousands of people come up to me and encourage me and thanked me for taking a stand. i didn't go to the white house in 2013 after then-president obama became the first sitting president to address plan parented and he said god (heard it on if it's only people, to me and thanked me and encourage me for that and i tried to do the same. nobody has ever confronted me about being pro-life, and so i think a lot of that is overblown and it's the fear factor that the other side wants to use to try to keep us silent. >> tucker: i also think it's the way you present, witches with sincerity and decency, and i think that's really disarming. i appreciated. thanks. thanks for coming on to me. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: we are out of time, sadly. it will be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. there's an awful lot going on in the world. can't promise what we will be

covering tomorrow but we can promise it will matter because suddenly everything does. in the meantime, we have great news for you. something without precedent, you may not have seen it before but at 9:00 p.m. tonight in about five seconds, sean hannity will be taking over for the hour. >> sean: that's a big shot. the whole world is shocked, i can't believe it. tucker, one thing i wanted to say. i read a lot, you read a lot, you know, i don't trust the media, i don't trust polls. i would say to everybody that there's a lot of lying and manipulating going on and if you want to do your part, if you want to have a say in the selection, don't let anybody talk you out of it, i sense there's some shenanigans, what do you think? >> tucker: you think! nicely put. there are indeed some shenanigans, i would say. >> sean: great show as always, thank you, welcome to "hannity." it's a go president wrapping up yet another huge rally, this time in