lls ninew scholarships through this month. yes, hope is alive and well. see what scholarship you qualify for at phoenix.edu. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, senate confirmation hearings at 8:00 p.m. eastern are still cogoing on tonight for amy coney barrett. it's been a very big day. we got the takeaways from what has already happened. if anything else of note occurs, of course we will turn around for you immediately during this hour and the president kicking off another rally that started a short time ago in johnstown pennsylvania, a state the trump campaign believes is still in play. of course our producers are monitoring that is well and we will take you live for any key moments that emerge. but first good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." if someone had asked you a year ago what you thought of people who wear masks after halloween,

the chances are your reaction would havewe been negative. masks? what kind of person covers his face in public? let's see, armed robbers do that. so do klansmen. the rest of us don't do that. in fact until recently, wearing a mask in public was illegal in many places.e the assumption was if you're hiding what you are, you're up to something bad. it made people nervous. by our nature, we want to see each other, we need to see eacho other. looking at another person 'a space is the beginning of connection. a limiting 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 mask ordinances, just like the ones we have now. many americans accepted them but many others did not accepthe th. in california, citizens were bailed. in january of 1919, 5,000 members of the newly formed antimask league of san francisco gathered to call for the mayor's recognition if he didn't repeal

his mask order. five days later, the mayor complied. science vindicated that position in the end. a year later, a study found that compulsory mask use likely had no effect on curbing the spanisd flu. weo live in a very different time.. america's -- far less cohesive and american seem far more passive than theyas did. those who disagree with prevailing orthodoxy have less power than they've ever had. masked communications are now controlled by a tiny number of people, all of whom have identical agendas. there is no modern antimask league. there couldn't be a modern antimask league. facebook and google would shut it down the firstk day. the governors of michigan and new jersey would indict its leaders. the dissent must be a defining feature. now we have mandatory consensus. masks are good. anyone who questions the utter goodness of masks is bad. what they're really telling you is that masks are magic.

whatre appears to be a flimsy fe covering is in fact a holy amulet that protects us from disease more reliably than any modern medicine. listen to the director of the cdc, robert redfield, explained that actually 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 then when i take a covid vaccine. >> tucker: this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me from a vaccine. following?th more guaranteed. there are no degrees of guarantee. that's quite an endorsement from a leading man of science. so go long on masks, there's nothing more important, the cdc said so. but of course our politicians didn't need to hear that, they already believed it. earlier this month, california's governor gavin newsom sent out a tweet from his office with this command.ma ", going out to eat 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're eating with people you live with everyday, but be certain to shield their faces as you eat for safety. that tweet is still up, by the way. they weren't kidding. watch his fellow governor andrew cuomo demand -- the man who probably killed more apart from the chinese government, explain that you don't wear a mask, your murder murderer. >> i think it's disrespectful of people not to wear masks. i mean, think about it. do i think local government should be enforcing it and should there be sanctions? s. yes. because it is a public health emergency. i think there should be a penalty. you could literally kill someone, you could literally kill someone because you don't want to wear a mask. >> tucker: it you could literally kill someone. literally! he said it twice. you selfishly wanted to breathe

fresh air and conduct a human conversation. you are john wayne gacy. in nashville, one city councilwoman suggested citizens who don't wear masks could be charged with attempted murder. >> you know i work for an organization that if they have a virus, then they are tried for murder, or attempted murder if they are not toned. i think 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 than there is in other viruses that areen exposed. >> tucker: so you thought you were smiling at someone you love. in fact you were pulling the trigger. see you in jail, miscreant! harsh words.

but then science itself it's arch. science has no regard for sentiment of public opinion. science doesn't care about your feelings. science is about facts, data, truth, measurable outcomes. so what is the science on that? as it happens, we have the latest for you to make. and the science comes, interestingly, from the cdc, whose director told you that masksgl were magic. but the numbers from the cdc suggest otherwise. a new study conducted by 11 medical institutions analyzed people who tested positive for covid during the month of july. here's the interesting part, among those who were infected, more than 70% reported they had "always worn a mask was quote for the preceding 14 days. another 14.4% said they had "often" worn a mask. almost everyone, 85%, who got the coronavirus in july was wearing a mask and they were infected anyway. so clearly this doesn't work the

way they tell us it works. clearly someone has been lying to us, many people, actually. how did this happen? the short answer is we are not sure how someone people got the coronavirus while wearing masks but there are clues, clues that our leaders appear to be ignoring. here's one. according to a study published in april by researchers at several medical institutions including cleveland clinic, surgical masks are actually ineffective at stopping the inhalation of small urban particles. instead the researchers found that surgical masks, which all most everyone is using to protect themselves from the coronavirus and not murder othei people are actually only useful from protecting users from "large droplets and spray." that's not how the coronavirus spreads. according to a letter signed by several researchers earlier this month in "science" magazine, the biggest threat from the coronavirus "by far" is when it's contained in small particles that can easily bypass face masks and aerosol form. droplets quickly fall to the ground, but aerosol lingers. the researchers wrote that the

tiny particles can remain in thf air "for many seconds to hours, like smoke and be in." the particles are "highly concentrated" near an infected person but aerosols can also travel more than 6 feet and accumulate in ventilated indoor air leading to super spreading. so if you've been wearing a mask at the table in between bites, this might come as a surprise to you. it's not what they told you. you should also know the consensus changes. they never admit it, but it does. science changes as we learnoe 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 b are not effective at preventing the general public from catching the coronavirus." at one point we mocked him for saying that. because that seemed absurd to

us. if masks aren't effective, then why do surgeons wear them? it turns out maybe he was onto something. on march 8th anthony fauci told us once again masks are pointless. >> right now in the united states, people should not be walking around with masks. >> you're sure of it? because people are listening look closely tois this. >> there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. when you're 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 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 we didn't know, but to pretend that you are speaking god's word and rearrange our society on the basis of that never acknowledge that you are completely wrong, that your assumptions were

false, that's the definition of dishonesty and it's also the hallmark of the people who lead us. they know nothing. if alex berenson, by contrast, knows quite a lot about this. he's the author of "unreported truths about covid-19 unlocked on part two: updated examinations of lockdowns is a strategy." worth reading. he joins us now. thanks for coming on. so this study from the cdc does seem like big news to me. at the very least, my quick and dirty read is what we're doing isn't working. why is this not received any coverage? >> well, it hasn't received coverage because the media doesn't want to cover anything. i'm sure other people don't want to cover anything that says masks might not be god's gift to all, but iif will say that it's one study -- it's what's called a case control study, so what happened is they looked at the 160 people who had gotten a virus and a control group of 160

people who hadn't gotten the virus and essentially the mask wearing was exactly the same in both. so that suggests that masks provided no benefit. and if, for example, you look at the people who were close to people with a known case of the coronavirus, many more of those people in the arm of people who got the virus were close to somebody who had the virus, it was like 42% versus 14%, so that's what you would expect, right? you're close to somebody who has the virus, you're more likely to get the virus. in this case masks seem to provide no benefit, no difference. that's just one study, but it is telling. here's what i will say, there's a very big study, a randomized control out of denmark that was finished in june that was supposed to demonstrate whether or not masks worked for protecting the wearer from infection, so several thousand people were going to wear masks, several thousand people not wear masks, you compare the end who was confected, who wasn't. that study was supposed to be published in august, it has

disappeared. there has been no publication of the result. i don't know what the study says, but i think it's reasonable to speculate that if the study showed thatul masks work, every scientific journal in the world would want to print it and this is part of a much bigger problem, tucker. the problem is the science and scientists who are outside what the public health authorities and theea media want are being almost systematically shut down and this came up in the discussion about herd immunity, where very good scientist in the u.k. couldn't get a paper published suggesting that herd immunity -- couldn't get it published in a journal suggesting that we might reach herd immunity at much lower rates of infection than the 50-70% of people have speculated. and you're seeing this with the great barrington declaration too, which i know you talked about, the scientists published that who are very, very well-known, more at stanford and oxford and harvard with sterling credentials 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 then world, where if you have an opinion, a well-backs, well-researched opinion that's outside the consensus, you can't get it published in the major journal. >> tucker: that's just witchcraft, isn't it? at that point that's not science, right? >> science should be a discussion and you see this in yet another way, which is that people who published studies, who actually the authors of studies showing that masks are ineffective or written articles saying, you know there was this article in "the new england journal of medicine" at the beginning of april and it essentially said universal masking is ineffective probably, it is essentially a [indiscernible] to the public's fears. the people who wrote that article walked back that conclusion, which is extremelyly clear two months later, so what kind of pressure was put onn thm or what kind of pressure are they putting on themselves? science is not going to work if scientists are censoringsc themselves or censoring other

scientists. that seems to be where we are going right now. >> tucker: it's frightening. you're one of the very few standing in the face of that. good luck. good to see you tonight.ig >> tucker, thanks for having me. >> tucker: if you are around 30 years ago you remember that the internet was supposed to have the opposite effect, it was supposed to make society more rational and open. of course it hasn't done that, but therese are geniuses on the internet and occasionally you cross them and it makes her day. we want to bring in the following exchange that we found without comment. the other day a lawyer and symphysis growth us on twitter. "like once, public schools and libraries main closedd indefinitely in sentences go as they have been for seven months. those in charge here appeared to give no consideration to the interior lives of m young peopl, children's experience in the world doess not matter." in response to that, which is true, and anonymous twitter user made this observation. maybe a "meritocracy in which all power of troops to whatever

frigid childless careerist computer brain sociopaths wantsp it most was a bad idea." yeah. maybe it was a bad idea. too late now. the amy coney barrett confirmation hearing is ongoing. we monitoring it still. some democrats already used today's hearings to offer their own personal theories of everything. it's been quite a tv show and we have the highlights for you after the break. ♪ ♪

♪ >> i imagine you were surrounded by a team of folks that helped prepare you for this nomination hearing.at >> i have had -- >> let me finish, if you don't mind. >> i'm so sorry. >> tucker: senator kamala harris of california now running for vice president with her v signature style. every bit as unappealing as she was at last week a posthumous vice presidential debate. at the last commercial break, day two of the confirmation hearings officially wrapped up, so what happeneded today? today was the first opportunity to question thee nominee. amy coney barrett appears certain to replace ruth bader ginsburg on the port and we could go into detail about what happened, excruciating detail, you've probably seen a lot of theu coverage already but if you really want an overview, a way

to understand the essence of what happened, we found a single clip that sums it up. as you'd expect, it comes from hawaii senator mazie hirono. >> not once, but twice, you used the term "sexual preference" to describe those in the lgbtq community, and let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. it is used by anti-lgbtq activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. it is not. sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity. >> tucker: so follow the reasoning, if you will. according to mazie hirono, you can choose your gender y it will because there's an infinite number of genders to choose from, but you have absolutely no say in who you find attractive and suggesting other wise is just offensive. sexual preferences are fixed in stone, bigot, by the way, put on

your mask. this message brought to you by the party of science. by the way, but why is mazie hirono representing hawaii? in a fair world, why wouldn't tulsi gabbard just be the monarch of that state? that. mazie hirono didn't stop there. mazie hirono is something of a detectiveve as it turns out. to you amy coney barrett might seem like a normal, happy successful woman but for mazie hirono few words are as foreign as those words. so she did whatever great detective would do. she asked with no evidence whatsoever if amy coney barrett was actually secretly, and you would never have guessedwa this, predator. >> since he became a legal adult, have you ever mader unwanted requests for favors or committed any verbal or physicae harassment or assault of that nature? >> no, senator. >> have you ever face discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct? >> no, senator. >> tucker: so we now know on

the record that amy coney barrett is not a rapist, but she came close to getting her.. all this is to say that mazie hirono was really the star of the show, but of course she always is. she wasn't the only one though made everyone else in the room seem a little smarter. at one point dick durbin of illinois lectured amy coney barrett at length on the differences between a musket and rifle.n assault >> when that second amendment was written, and you did the analysis of it, we were talking about the likelihood that aas person could purchase a muzzleloading musket. we are not talking about virtual military weapons that can kill hundreds of innocent people. it is a much different circumstance. >> tucker: what are the chances that dick durbin knows what end of the rifle the bullet comes out of? right around zero,ul probably. and by the way, wasn't it just last week the media reminded us kthat mike pence was man's pointing to kamala harris? and get here is a politician

who's been in office since the 1970s, very few accomplishment, acting like amy coney barrett, who is a gun owner, by the way, doesn't know anything about firearms. it was that man's pointing? why don't we just retire that phrase forever. not that we would hear anything about that, or anything by sheldon whitehouse and his behavior today. he made the case that amy coney barrett is m the product of a shadowy right wing conspiracy. white house came prepared with graphs and charts to prove his point, but at the times the exhibit proved too unwieldy to manage. >> we have some very awkward 180s from colleagues, and i will tell you three of them right here. it's not just the platform over and over again, let's start about the affordable care act. go to roe v. wade. >> tucker: now, it might be clear to civilians n what exacta sheldon whitehouse's point was supposed to be, so we will tell

you, we decoded the revolt, griddle.wi he's on a crusade to end untraceable campaign contribution's. these are known as dark money. he didn't ask amy coney barrett single question in 30 minutes of speaking today, but he did make it very clear he's against dark money. >> and who wins when you allow unlimited dark money in politics? a very small group, the ones who have unlimited money to spend and a motive to spend it in politics. they would not, everybody else loses. >> tucker: hilarious. where's all the money this campaign cycle? where is the finance community and big tech putting all their money? on the right into donald trump's effort? no. all of it is going to theng lef. so sheldon whitehouse clearly does hate dark money. so much that this summer he was a featured speaker at an event hosted by the american constitution society. that's a dark money grew. and since 2015 sheldon whitehouse's largest owner has been another dark money group, the league of

conservation voters. not surprisingly, sheldon whitehouse admits all of this, it's not a secret. what's less clear is what democrats hope to gain from doingre all of this as they look ridiculous, amy coney barrett is still going to make it to the court. senator josh hawley is on the judiciarye committee and he was there and participated in the hearings and he joins us with his best guess as to what this was all about. fangs for coming on. what was the point do you think? >> the point is to try and discredit amy barrett by any means possible, but it's so outrageous, theib democrats areo condescending, to see them set there and lecture her -- 1.1 democrats that i don't think you've ever tried a case. you want to talk to dick durbin, 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 go speak to a christian organization in this country without being disqualified. they said they wouldn't attack her faith. if that lasted for not even 24 hours. today they are right there attacking her religious beliefs, attacking her catholic

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

doing it. n guess what? when you say to somebody you can't go speak to a christian group, that's disqualifying. when you say you can't be pro-life in your church's teachings, that's disqualifying, that's a religious test. >> tucker: i think by definition and i appreciate your pointing that out. great to see you tonight, thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: a lot of things have changed in the past six months as you know, one of the biggest changes has come from the national basketball association. ratings for the nba are tanking to historic lows. meanwhile, the league continues to sell out to china. but there be a connection between the league's groveling before the chinese government and the new lack of interest americans have in watching basketball? we will tell you. lest we are continuing to monitor the trump rally in johnstown pennsylvania at this hour, we will tell you if there's news emerging. >> you come up with a new computer, you come up with a new chip, three days later it's obsolete. i would not want to be in that. but there are two things. a wall and a a wheel. it 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 with the lowest ratings in a history of the nba. by comparison, 18.34 million people watched game 6 of last year's nba finals and 11.4 million people watched the regular-season nfl game on sunday night, so why is this happening? it is a collapse, it is 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 printed the words black lives matter and other courts. like all corporate activism's, it's fraudulent, people know that. nba owners will complain about police totality but will not bring themselves to condemn, say, the slavery underway right now in china. watch. >> when it comes to human

rights, i'm against all human rights violations around the world. >> including the ones in china? >> china is not the only country with human rights --. >> do you condemn the that's going on right now? >> i condemn all human rights violations. >> i can't be specific? >> the way proclamations work in this country, the minute you say them anywhere, you're going to use them as a headline. cuba says this, this, this. >> what's wrong with the headline? why with the nba take $500 million plus from a country that is engaging in ethnic cleansing? >> i would -- so basically you're saying that nobody should do business in china ever? they are a customer of ours, and guess what? i'm okay with doing business with china. w >> tucker: mark cuban condemns ethnic cleansing. who would want that headline?cl the p.r. people would go crazy. that was mark cuban, of course, who owns the dallas mavericks. and is also a moral coward, i guess we didn't know that. in a clip he sounded a little

bit like joe biden. can't say anything, could be the headline. our -- our viewers ever going to go back to the nba? jason whitlock has thought a lot about this. he writes for an -- jason, thanks for coming on. since you've covered this for decades, perspective on the numbers on the viewership. are these numbers as bad as thee seem? >> yeah, they're really bad, tucker. and there's no way to clean them up, because -- and i know they're competing against theai nfl, they're not playing during the normal time slot, but they have lebron james, who is allegedly the biggest star in all of sports. he's playing for the lakers, the biggest star in the nba and they couldn't draw a fly, this is a problem. >> tucker: so what's the cause of it? i mean,e it seems to me like there's a connection between the aggressive politics inon the league in defining viewershipp but i want to be fair and ask someone who follows it for a living. >> it's multifaceted. obviously covid had an issue,

but there's no denying that this hard lien into anti-american sentiment has turned off traditional sports fans. just think about the way sports have sold themselves for more than 100 years, or close. ever since jesse owens, 1936 olympics, american sports have been the ambassador for americana. they played the national anthem, it's a patriotic event. this is a total 180 in terms of branding in the way the nba has presented it. and a lot of people are just disconcerted by it. we used an analogy today in a very outstanding piece about what's going on with the nba, just think of disney world where they play these games. instead of mickey mouse as their brandon bassett or, cardi b was there ambassador. suppose woman dressed in hooters

outfits were strapping mom and i dad and kids into space mountain. that would be quite a brand change and would be off-putting to the traditional disney world customer base. that's what's going on here in the nba. >> tucker: it wouldn't shock me if disney went there. everybody knows mark cuban, he's not stupid. i didn't think he was too but until that megyn interview. i wouldn't just say of course on against ethnic cleansing in china? why is that 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 president trump's america-first agenda, this is what he'shi talking about. american company, the nba being hijacked by foreign influence, this is what's happening to our

country. i'm so glad it's being exposed inin the nba because it's an opportunity to educate the average american sports fan or whatever so you can finallyo understand what this foreign influence is doing to our country. they turned a patriotic cultural event into anti-american protest in the nba d and to some degree the nfl. we've got to put a stop to this. >> tucker: well, especially since, as you're describing it, they're doing it for the benefit of china, our chief rival in the world stage.e. i mean, that seems really sinister to me. >> 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 in america is racist.

meanwhile, they are 1,000 times more racist than americans. 1,000 times. >> tucker: exactly. >> this is a set issue for me, a major issue for me -- i played football at ball state, i'm a supporter of the school. we had a young man arrested, black young men, former football player arrested in china on some bogus charges, spent three years inside a chinese prison. cost me and others money to get him home. this whole thing up like hey, we can't say anything about china but we are going to blast america, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous, it's treasonous, and it needs to stop. >> tucker: i'm going to look up that ball state story.up i'd never heard that. i will look it up. jason whitlock, thanks so much for that. great to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: he often republicans explain to complain about silicon valley and big tech antitrust violation. what have they done about it? well, not much.

tonight, one republican leader has an actual plan to fix the problem that's distorting our country in dangerous ways. we will hear it straight ahead. the president by the way is wrapping up his rally w tonight. johnstown pennsylvania. ♪ we live with at&t and we are well past the honeymoon phase.

ocupado tom. at&t, what's this i hear about you advertising a 100% fiber network? only like a fraction of my customers can get that. that's it?!? you have such a glass half-empty attitude. the glass is more than half-empty! you need to relax tom. oh! tom, you need a little tom time. a little tt. stop living with at&t. xfinity delivers gig speeds to more homes than anyone.

♪ >> tucker: a lot of republicans in congress talk a big game on big tech. theyey are mad about the censorship, antitrust abuse of countries, companies like google, facebook and amazon, they hold hearings on the nothing happens. one lawmaker tonight ken buck, congressman, rather, is proposing a real solution. is proposing a solution that would make it easier for doj to challenge big tech mergers and give people more control over the data, their data, as transfers between platforms. it sounds like a small thing. it's not a small thing. they are taking it to you for free, they shouldn't be.

what are the chances this becomes law? ken buck joins us tonight. thanks so much, good to see you tonight. so if you summarize quickly, in case i misstated that, what this legislation would do. >> sure, well, let me back up if i can. the first thing that's important is 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 arer attempting to do now, and it's a bipartisan effort with the democrats is to one, make sure that the department of justice antitrust division and the federal trade commission have the resources they need to bring these bad actors to court and enforce the law, and the second thing is to make sure that we change the law in ways that are relevant to the new economy, to these high-tech firms and so right now there have been 750 mergers in the high-tech area in the last ten years. very few of those mergers were even challenged in court, and so

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 company has to prove that it did not acquire another company in anticompetitive way, so shifting that burden hopefully will slow down the growth of these giant tech companies.mp >> tucker: which are not american companies. they are owned in large part by foreign interests. so why have we sat back passively and allowed this to metastasize until this point? >> well, quite frankly, money talks in washington, d.c., in these huge companies have come into washington, d.c., and they have bought the conservative cause.ve if they have the liberal cause they throw their money around because they make huge amounts of money off of the american consumer and a cheat and steal to make that kind of money. >> tucker: so on the right they have certainly purchased a

lot of libertarians, unfortunately, who have been pretty effective and batting thp stuff down. who is opposed to this? what are the obstacles to getting this into law? l >> well, it's a good question. there are supposed some republicans opposed to it that believe thatt the market will take care of itself. i'm not one of those and nor are those that signed on to the report that i wrote, matt gaetz, andy biggs, doug collins, others. there are some that believe that, you know, if we attack high-tech, 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 search or amazon dominates its area. >> tucker: that is such a smart and clear point and i don't think we can make that enough. there is no other company like google or like facebook or like apple. i was in ken buck, great to see you tonight, thanks for doing

this. >> thank you. >> tucker: so democrats are very outraged today because 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 will tell you after the break. ♪

>> tucker: well, throughout today's confirmation hearings, democrats warned that one thing is absolutely certain. amy is going to overrule the ruling and once that happens the nation is going to collapse. >> it would actually be wrong in violation for me to do that as a sitting judge. if i have a view on a precedent one way or another it signals to people that i may tilt one way or another in a pending case.

>> on something that is a major cause with major effect on over half the population in this country it's distressing to not get a straight answer. i don't know if you are going to answer this either. you believe the decision that it can and should be overturned by the supreme court? >> i think the answer is the same. >> that makes it difficult for me. and i think for other women also on this committee. >> in the end everything according to the left is about abortion. why is it always about that? he went to harvard and he is a super bowl champion.n. is a pro-life advocate and we are happy to have him on tonight

>> it does seem even if you are for legal abortion it does seem a bit weird to spend so much energy on a topic. >> i think this somehow legitimizes it. you can be either pro-choice or pro- abortion. they are nervous that if this is overturned then somehow the whole moral framework would be changed. having that at the front center of your framework seems echo replaced to be. >> it does to me. obviously this is a confirmation hearing but the bigger conversation that should be happening is the question is is it right? i'm an advocate and have been for a very long time. nobody has ever asked me why am pro-life. is pretty self-explanatory.

if you are pro- one or the other that's where you need to do the explain. if you want to say that science is realou now science overwhelmingly states that life begins at conception. we get into these arguments were we talk about the legality of the. imposes a larger issue. we need to have some sort of moral compass. you are a public figure for many years. but you taken a position and one position that you are not allowed to take and you have taken it. people have treated me very well i don't really believe in the online mobs. it doesn't affect me. that's just how i'm wired.

over the past few years i've had thousands of people come up to me and encourage me and think me for my stance.ag i went to the white house after president obama was the first president to address this. have had people come up to me and think me for that. i try to do the same and nobody has confronted me about being pro-life. i think a lot of this is overblown and it's a fear factor to try to keep a silent. >> i think it's the way you present this. it's about the decency. i appreciate it. >> we are out of time. we are back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m.

in the meantime we have great news for you. in about five seconds he's going to be taken over. it's a big shock. i read a lot and so do you. i don't trust the media. i would say two 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 election don't let anybody talk you out of it because i sense there is some shenanigans. >> tucker: you think! nicely put. there are indeed some shenanigans, i would say. >> sean: great show as always thank you, welcome to "hannity." 's it's a go president wrapping up yet another huge rally, this