>> martha: that is a story on this thursday night, but as always the story continues -- we will be back with you tomorrow night at 7:00, have a great night everybody, tucker is up next. if ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," there's an awful lot of noise in the news right now, as you would expect -- there is an election coming three weeks away. everyone wants to get a blow in before it's too late but not everything you hear is untrue and not every story is complex. at the heart of the growing biden ukraine scandal is a very straightforward question -- did joe biden subvert foreign policy in order to enrich his own family wes mackey was the sitting president of the

united states, including in his portfolio ukraine. at that moment, vice president vice president joe biden had more influence over the ingredient government and the ukrainian economy than any other person on the globe outside of eastern europe. his son hunter knew that, he hoped to get rich from his father's influence. we know from "the new york post," it tells some of that story. tonight we would like to bring you some more detail, we have another batch of emails, some exclusive to this show, we believe they also came from hunter biden's laptop, we can't prove that they did, we have an exam at that computer but every detail that we could check including a hunter biden's personal email address at the time suggests they are authentic. as we told you last night, if these emails are fake, this is the most complex and sophisticated hoax in history. it almost seems beyond human capacity. the biden campaign believes these emails are real, they haven't said otherwise. we sent to the body of them to

hunter biden's attorney and haven't heard back. with that in mind, here's what we learned -- on november 2nd 2015, a burisma executive called vadym pozharskyi emailed hunter biden and his business partner devon archer. the purpose of this email was to be on the same page about the final goals including but not limited to a concrete course of action. what did burisma want exactly? good p.r. for starters, the executives wanted high-ranking u.s. officials to express their "positive opinion of burisma." and then he wanted the administration to act on burisma's behalf -- "the scope of work should also include a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and former u.s. policymakers to ukraine in november." the goal, the executive explained, was to close down any

cases and pursuit against the head of burisma in ukraine. that couldn't be clearer what they wanted to. burisma wanted hunter biden's father to get their company out of legal trouble with the ukrainian government and that's exactly what happened. one month later to the day, on december 2nd 2015, hunter biden received a notice from a washington p.r. firm called blue star strategies, they had apparently been hired to lobby the administration on it ukraine. at this show has obtained that email. "hello all, this morning the white house hosted a conference call regarding the vice president's upcoming trip to ukraine, attached is a memo from the blue star strategies team with the minutes of the call which outlined the trips agenda and addressed several questions regarding u.s. policy towards ukraine." here you have a p.r. firm involved in official weight house foreign policy call, how could that happen? good question. but it worked.

days later, joe biden flew to ukraine and did exactly what his son wanted, the vice president gave a speech slamming the very ukrainian law enforcement official who was tormenting burisma, the exact guy. if the ukrainian government doesn't fire its top prosecutor, a man called viktor shokin, the administration will withhold a billion dollars in american aid. ukraine is a poor country, they had no choice but to obey, biden's bullying worked. he bragged about it later. >> i had gotten a commitment that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. so walking of the press conference i said were not going to give you the billion dollars. they said you have no authority, you're not the president, the president said i said call him. i'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. i'm going to be leaving here and i think it was six hours -- i said i'm leaving at six hours,

if the prosecutor isn't fired, you're not getting the money. well son of a bitch that she got fired. >> tucker: he gave that speech before the council of foreign relations, we pretend this is normal and officially authorized, this is how things are done -- that's not true at all. if this is bizarre and the amazing thing about the video you just saw is that no one in that audience of harvard graduates ask the glaringly obvious question -- why was the vice president of the united states and threatening a tiny country like ukraine to fire its top prosecutor? that doesn't seem like a vice president's role. now we know why. viktor shokin has signed an affidavit affirming that he was in fact investigating burisma at the moment joe biden had him removed. he said before he was fired, administration officials pressured him into dropping the case against burisma, he would not do that so joe biden canned him.

that's how things really work in washington. your son has a lucrative consulting deal with a ukrainian energy company, you tailor american foreign policy to help make him rich. our foreign policy. even at the state department, possibly the most cynical agency in government, this seemed brazen. during the impeachment proceedings, a state department official called a george kent said it was widely known in washington that the bidens were up to something sleazy in ukraine. "i was on the call and i raised my concern that hunter biden was on the board of burisma. this could create a perception of a conflict of interest. "how did the vice presidents often respond to this concern? according to george kent was the message i recall hearing back was his son was dying of cancer and there's no further bandwidth to deal with family related issues at the time -- this was

america's foreign policy being tailored to joe biden's son. five years later, he still has not been forced to explain why he fired at ukraine's top prosecutor at precisely the moment his son was being paid to get him to fire ukraine's top prosecutor, nor has joe biden addressed whether or not he personally benefited from the burisma contract. there are hints. last night former mayor rudy giuliani published what he said is another email from hunter biden's laptop, it's a note to one of his children, it's sad and fraught and personal and we aren't going to quote it at length but at the end, there is this "don't worry, unlike your grandfather, i won't make you give me half your salary." what does that mean exactly? we don't know, there may be more detail but we don't have access to that. the question remains, how has joe biden lived in extravagance all these years on a government salary? no one has ever answered that question and the tech monopolies

are working hard to make certain no one ever does. this morning "the new york post" published another story, this one describes a business venture hunter biden was working on in china. the email reads this way "at the moment there is a provisional agreement the equity will be distributed as follows. ten held by hunter for the big guy." is the big guy joe biden? if so, how much did joe biden get and how much of that came from the communist chinese government? those are real questions, this man could be elected president in three weeks but twitter doesn't want you to wonder, it won't allow you to ask those questions. twitter restricted "the new york post" story as unsafe as though it was a lawn dart or a defective circular saw. it was enough for the biden campaign, it was enormously useful. all day they deflected questions about joe biden's subversion of our country's foreign policy by invoking twitter's ban on "the new york post" story. the tech monopolies censored

information to help their candidate and the candidate uses that censorship to dismiss the story -- one hand washes the other. >> i think twitter's response to the actual article itself makes it clear these reported allegations are false and they are not true. we are glad to see social media companies like twitter taking responsibilities to limit misinformation. >> tucker: you want to know what corruption looks like? you just saw what corruption looks like. my campaign donors control the media, they are shutting down the public's access to information that criticizes me -- the fact they are doing that gives me justification not to address your question about that information, that's what corruption looks like when billionaires shut down legitimate questions about a candidate three weeks before election day -- that's corruption. it's also almost perfectly circular reasoning and to illustrate that twitter and

facebook censored "the new york post" story before they had any reason to suspect it wasn't true. even now they aren't claiming it's a hoax because it's not a hoax. in minutes state shut down this country's centuries long tradition of a free press and they did it for partisan reasons -- they didn't pretend otherwise. it doesn't matter who you plan to vote for the first tuesday in november, you should be terrified. democracies cannot exist and never will be able to exist without the free flow of an information, that's a prerequisite. and without it, we are done but companies like facebook, google, and twitter do not care because they do not believe in democracy, they worship power. melania trump's private phone conversations, the president's tax returns they were happy to publish all of that -- they didn't have a problem with hacking, but if you criticize the democratic candidate, their candidate, you are banned -- that's the standard they have set. how do we come back from that? today you have elected

democrats, members of the party who just in the recent past claimant to revere free speech cheering on censorship. here is the moderate senator chris coons of delaware doing just that. >> facebook and twitter have policies not to spread things that are utterly unreliable, that have been debunked and where their origin is untrustworthy. they are practicing their own internal controls as i wish they had over the past four years. if they had been more selective about what they posted in 2016 -- don't take my word for it, listen to the head of the fbi. an active russian disinformation campaign in 2016 had an influence on that election, they are trying even harder in this election, i'm glad they are managing the content on their own website. >> tucker: that man is a liar. not one word of "this story has been debunked, not one word in those emails has been debunked and if it is debunked, we will be the first to report it's

because we are not liars but did you catch the phrase he wanted you to hear? russian disinformation. that's what they are claiming these emails are and it's all over the internet, conspiracy laden conjecture crazier than anything the q people thought of but lunatic lies about russia is ever censored by the tech monopolies. it helps joe biden, therefore you can read it. we are the real journalist now, we need them more than ever. if they're gone, cowering, afraid, they don't want to upset power. jake sherman of politico who claims to be a news reporter actually apologized on twitter for asking the biden campaign about hunter biden's emails. these people are craven, they have no standards or self-respect. it like their masters in silicon valley, they worship power alone. adam schiff of california knows that feeling well. when he sees censorship, it excites him and he calls for

more. >> the online ecosystem and unwitting audiences that the kremlin so ably exploited remain vulnerable to unscrupulous homegrown actors who conceive and spread falsehoods of their own. if left unchecked, there could be irreversible damage not only to our nation's discourse but the how we a as a society sort fact from fiction. they've not change the foundational features of their platforms that expose users and recommend to them often extreme, sensational or emotionally charged content. >> tucker: that guy is the chairman of the house intelligence committee and there he is affirming the censorship of his own campaign donors in silicon valley, the most powerful people in the world. if this doesn't rattle your cage then nothing will. ten years ago, no member of

congress would've said what adam schiff just said in public, it would've been considered an obvious threat to the constitution, to the first amendment bill of rights -- the aclu would've screamed, professional journalist associations would have joined them but today they are all silent, some are applauding and some are accelerating. watch this member of congress suggest the government ought to decide what news organizations are allowed to publish just like they do in china. >> do we need a new agency that essentially would be on behalf of the public making the rules, subject to legislative authority as opposed to having that delegated to the tech giants? >> tucker: a new agency with legislative authority to decide what you are allowed to read. sound familiar? we got a name for it ready to go -- the ministry of truth and it's coming. miranda devine writes for

"the new york post," she joins us again tonight. thanks so much for coming back, tell us for some of our viewers who rely on social media for their news may not know, what "the new york post" revealed today about this cache of emails. >> this is day 2 of hunter biden's abandoned laptop and the emails and documents and photographs on it which all point to a cash for influence drift of the biden family. today we published the china emails, documents that showed tens of millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to the biden family from chinese companies, chinese state owned companies that are linked to the chinese communist party. for instance, in one deal, hunter biden is getting $10 million a year for "introduction alone.

this is from a chinese energy company. in another case, he's on a one million-dollar retainer for legal services. in another case i think you mentioned there is a company, a lucrative new chinese company that split up six ways and allocated 20% here, 10% of there, hunter biden gets 20% but he also gets another 10% that he is holding for "the big guy" whoever that might be, you can use your imagination. what's significant about this is that these deals are happening after joe biden has stopped being vice president, this is around 2017. what is the chinese communist party doing? what are they paying for exactly when they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the family of the former vice president, future

presidential candidate who may be president of the united states as of november -- january? what exactly are they paying for and you have to remember also that joe biden introduced his son hunter in 2013 to the top officials of the chinese communist party when he flew him there on air force two for a meeting where he met president g and failed miserably to do any thing he was sent there to do including stopping china from militarizing islands in the south china sea. while america missed out, hunter biden got a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of a chinese bank. >> tucker: these are very serious charges and if there are so many threads to what you said, we can't possibly at this date know exactly where they all lead but we do know that this is

a story, this is news and it requires an explanation from the joe biden campaign, have you received one? >> no. yesterday joe biden went into hiding before 10:00 a.m., today he's just done virtual fund-raisers, he hasn't made himself available to journalists, he absent dunn questions her press conferences -- the interesting thing is his campaign is actually no hedging a bit. yesterday they said we searched joe biden's official campaign calendar from when he was vice president and found no evidence of a meeting with a number three in the ukrainian company burisma that was paying his son so much money. today at what they are saying is there might've been a meeting but it would've been informal, on the sidelines, very cursory. hedging their bets -- that's a

pretty bad sign. they have not pushed back and for all those democrats and other apologists who are saying that these are purported allegations that they've been debunked, discredited, et cetera -- none of that is true. this is brand-new evidence, never been seen before, emails that pointed to a link between joe biden and his family's drift in these shady foreign countries, these shady foreign companies and he hasn't answered it. maybe he will answer it tonight when he does a town hall -- i doubt whether he'll be asked to meet tough questions. >> tucker: some people aren't even aware of it because of the censorship, so we are proud to highlight "the new york post" reporting on this show and repeat that we will never submit submit, period, the censorship on this channel, ever. thanks so much for coming on. one editor on "the new york post" said a digital civil war is underway,

big tech isn't hiding its standards anymore, it's openly partisan, openly repressive, totalitarian in its instinct -- we'll talk to the editor who wrote that about where this is going because it's going somewhere. that's after the break.

♪ >> tucker: there have been hints that the big tech companies -- twitter, facebook, google had a sinister agenda, political agenda, also a social agenda, also an international agenda -- there have been hints of that for a long time, for years and for years we've been telling you about it. but within 24 hours, the last 24 hours, they bared their teeth simultaneously and made it obvious. the big tech companies, those monopolies shut down a legitimate news story in the middle of a presidential campaign, they made it impossible for many americans to read the facts about the news. that's never happened before in this country. it is a moment that historians will look back on as a turning point. the op-ed editor at "the new york post," he has a particularly insightful view of what this means and where it might be going, we want to talk to him about it tonight.

we are right in the middle of this but i think you agree this is different from what's come before, we've never seen this happen before in this country, what does it tell us and what does it portend? >> i think it should suggest a level of blatant nests that we haven't seen before, it began with facebook -- we talked a lot about twitter but it began with facebook and specifically facebook communications staff are named andy stone saying this story deserves to be fact-checked and in the meanwhile, facebook is going to reduce its circulation online. what was fascinating, disturbing, alarming about it is andy stone before he joined facebook was a staffer for senator barbara boxer, democrat of california and for the democratic congressional campaign committee. the fact they allowed him to go forward and say they are reducing circulation before there were any disputes about it and as you showed earlier, there

aren't any disputes about the underlying facts. he felt courageous enough, bold enough to say as a former democratic staffer who now has his hand over the levers of the internet of where free speech lives or dies on these platforms, i'm going to reduce circulation of this story. this is different from before and it's truly chilling and a sinister. >> tucker: where are the journalists in this? where are the guardians of the first amendment, the people who make their living by the first point in the bill of rights -- freedom of the press. just to be clear, the big tech companies control the overwhelming majority of american media directly or indirectly and yet journalists are not speaking up against censorship, why? >> i think this culture of groupthink where it feels like all these elements of the establishment have lined up -- you have big tech, you have hollywood, you have media and they are bought into a kind of

narrative where if the story is put forward including a story in which you've seen some of the emails that we've published the emails, it's so much more solidly sourced, it's a mountain of anti-trump stories that appear in left of center media you would think journalists would say let's dig into this -- but immediately it becomes an effort to shut him down and attack the source and not investigating the underlying fact of massive potential graft and corruption. the most chilling aspect was seeing jake sherman you mentioned earlier -- he had won the victory over himself to quote george orwell, he posted this long apology for having posted our story and raised some questions about it -- that's the chilling effect in this. going forward, if you publish stories that go against the narrative, that you will have to publicly confess and apologize.

talking about the story in the oldest continuously published newspaper in this country, founded by alexander hamilton, and you saw the story was deeply reported, this is shameful in terms of my fellow reporters and editors. >> tucker: it's one of the biggest circulation newspapers in this country, it's not a small thing. how can someone like jake sherman apologize for asking a question for forwarding a news story, how can someone like that continue to work in journalism, how can this go on? >> what we can do is continue to present our reporting, we have been extremely transparent about our sourcing, from the beginning of this story, much more so than the story about suborning perjury. it was immediately debunked by the mueller team itself, that's not true. it wasn't banned by facebook, was it reduced in circulation --

you can still post it. the hypocrisy is going, all we can do is get the word out and hopefully more americans can hear it. >> tucker: i get a lot of these people don't like trump -- we got an election in three weeks but don't destroy our country. don't destroy century old tradition including everything we have come up freedom of speech, thought, expression of conscience, that's what makes this country different and better end of their wrecking it because they don't like trump. >> i can't even -- i worry about international ramifications, what if there is an election in spain or poland with a populist party is unpopular with the establishment, how will our malign internet forces affect elections and democracy elsewhere in the developed world? >> tucker: we are going to have to live with the consequences of this poison long after trump is gone. thank you so much, great to see you.

a leading democrat was caught on a hot mic today, it can happen to anyone but it always happens at the most interesting people -- it was during amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing, we'll show you the tape when we come back. around the veterans. when i think of the veteran out there that needs to refi his home, he may want to purchase, we can help them and provide that financial solution for they and their families. it's a great rewarding feeling. everybody in the company, they have that deference and that respect and that love for the veteran that makes this company so unique.

>> tucker: we are people of faith, joe biden denied -- kamala harris said the other night at the debate -- that's not true, the democratic party is a secular party. a lot of democrats are highly, highly hostile to organized religion and a lot of them deeply resent amy coney barrett for her orthodox catholicism. they decide not to say anything about it because it's an election year, they are trying to keep it under wraps. a political calculation, obviously. what did they really think, privately democrats are fixated on amy coney barrett's religious beliefs. we know that in part because today, dianne feinstein, the senior senator from california didn't realize her mike was on

and she let the mask slip. >> tucker: it's deeply personal and it comes with her religion, the disease. we shouldn't be to surprised dianne feinstein said this in catholicism is one of the few religions are allowed to say this about. in 2017 she told amy coney barrett her religious faith was a concern. >> i think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma, the law is totally different. i think in your case professor, when you read your speeches the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.

and that is of concern. >> tucker: "the dogma lives loudly within you." in terms of sheer incoherence and stupidity, it's almost like a mazie hirono impression. the big secret in washington is that a lot of these people dripping with credentials like third world of generals and their metals aren't actually very bright -- what is amy coney barrett really like? she's been close friends with amy coney barrett since college and we've been happy to have her on tonight. it seems worse we've gone day after day of the hearing talking about her legal philosophy getting a sense of what she's like as a person -- we thought we would ask you. >> i thought -- first of all thanks for having me on, i thought she was superb the past

few days in the hearings. she demonstrated her high intellect, she was humble, it comes across very well to everyone. i sought some polling today saying that across party lines, support for her has grown in the country and she is a faithful catholic, but she shouldn't be attacked for that. there is no religious test in this country for public office and it shouldn't be an issue. >> tucker: even religious people live in general much happier, more productive lives -- in what world is that a bad thing? >> most of the people in this country are religious and live religious lives. i think there are a lot of people in this country on both sides of the coast for example who have gotten away from that but they miss what's happening in most of the country, even at

our own college, we have a group of alums come out and call her a theocratic bigot. they wanted the college to disavow her as an alum, one of our most prestigious alums of all time. if not the most. a few of us who know amy very well started an organization to get her some signatures to send to the senate judiciary committee on her behalf including justice scalia's grandson was a 2018 graduate and we are still taking signatures through her confirmation. we just wanted to show amy that we are behind her, it's a bipartisan letter and talks about how wonderful she is as a person but the achievements she is in life. if at rhodes, she was on the

honor council, we voted for her senior year and our senior year, she was voted campuswide to be the vice president. >> tucker: she's continued on that trajectory, thank you for that -- great to see you tonig tonight. when you vote, if you vote in person the first tuesday in november, you'll see a lot of names on the ballot, a lot of people running for president and actually one of them, not one of the trickle big ones kanye west and he has just released a new campaign add to. unlike most campaign ads, it's actually worth watching. suspend disbelief for a second and stick with us, we'll be right back. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late.

or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

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: kanye west is still running for president, he is qualified for the ballot in more than a dozen states that she's not going to win, most likely.

he's made a brand-new campaign and that we want to show you -- as you watch it, ask yourself why other politicians don't sound more like this. >> we the people will revive our nation's commitment to faith, faith can be restored. we the people are called to a greater purpose in ourselves, we are not only a beacon to the world but we should be servants to each other, to encourage each other, to help each other, to lift up each other. we will build a stronger country by building stronger families. families are the building blocks of society, of a nation. >> tucker: families are the foundation, the building blocks of a society -- yet he's crazy. his campaign is also selling shirts saying god save america, he's tweeted repeatedly on topics that most politicians won't get near -- why is he the

only one talking about this and why is everyone ignoring him? candace owens is a senior editor at town hall, we are happy to have her on tonight. without getting into the political effects and who he draws from, just the message of the kanye west campaign, it seems like most people would agree with that -- why is nobody paying attention to this and why is nobody copying it? >> i will say full disclosure, and personal friends with kanye west and when he first came out as a trump supporter a couple years ago, i was so disappointed in the reaction that we got from both the left and the right. if the left dismissed him as a race traitor which is typical and the right called him crazy. kanye west is neither. this is a man who is using his billion-dollar platform to talk about issues that are actually impacting all americans but especially black americans. what is it about these progressive platforms that always leads to progressive results for the black community?

abortion, the slaughtering of millions of black babies, this impacts black america. the progressive stand on black lives matter, when it arrives in a city, it destroys black communities. defund the police, that is a progressive movement, what as it led to? and increase of something like 200% in shootings in inner cities then happened at this time last year. it kanye west, he's stylistically different, not what we are used to in politics, trump is and what we are used to in politics but i will say this -- what has what we are used to actually bought us? if kanye west is crazy, what is the correct adjective for cory booker, for kamala harris, for joe biden. >> tucker: totally right! he's the only one who said the obvious witches they can say they love you but if they are putting abortion clinics in your neighborhood, maybe they aren't sincere. if they don't want you to have more children, maybe they don't love you -- that's not crazy,

it's the opposite of crazy. >> i'm seven months pregnant with my first child, it's unconscionable to me that the democratic platform stands on believing that at seven months i have the right to choose it's not a life -- i have trickle months to decide whether or not i want this child and these are important topics. we are talking about things that are scary, we never thought we would be discussing in america, they pushed this to nine month being able to abort a child out of its womb and they aren't shy about this. andrew cuomo lit up the city pink when they pass this policy in new york city. i think kanye west, the only word is brave, it's incredibly brave because he has risked his entire professional platform, his professional life to come out and say these things. >> tucker: i totally agree, he's saying things we should all be saying without apology or embarrassment but we are too afraid and we need people like that. congratulations on your baby. if you may have heard word of

something called the great barrington declaration that proposes an alternative to the coronavirus lockdown that are or public health experts are ignoring. we'll talk to one of the authors, next.

>> tucker: the science shows that the overwhelming majority of people who contract the wuhan coronavirus and when we say overwhelming we mean overwhelming. for people under 50 it's 19 and .9%. locked and come on the other hand, affect everyone regardles. rates of suicide and does dominate depression have soared in this country. drug abuse too. author of the document called "the great barrington declaration." you should read it, it is sensible, smart and moderate. it advocates for allowing healthy young people to live their lives remotely. let's not kill them. the theory is the people who

contract the virus and build up an immunity, which decreases the spread of the virus. public health experts have mocked the idea. tony found to come who they say is a genius, has called the idea total nonsense. doctors professor of medicine at stanford university, one of the authors of the declaration. thank you very much for coming on. if you summarize your position, i think the great barrington declaration has been characterized by partisan struggle so i would like to hear you describe what it is. >> i think the key idea of the declaration is there is a 1,000 fold difference in the risk of mortality for people who are older for him covid-19 is actually a deadly disease. 95% survived but still 5% die. over 70. whereas for younger people, it's much less deadly. for instance, for children there have been many more flu deaths this year than covid-19 deaths.

as you say, very, very high survival rates for people who are younger. when you combine that with the fact that the lockdowns have been absolutely deadly. deadly in the united states. as you say, for instance, the cdc found that 1 of 4 adults have seriously considered suicide, and astronomically high number. putting kids out of school is bad for kids' health, and of course for their education as well. people have skipped cancer appointments because they are more afraid of covid then cancer. it's bad for health all the way across, domestically. internationally, it's devastating. 130 million additional people, the u.n. estimates, will start this year as a consequence of the economic collapse caused by the lockdown. an additional 400,000 tuberculosis patients will die worldwide. it's mind-boggling, the cost of the lockdown. it hits the poor the hardest. the poor, the working class.

we designate a certain class of workers as vulnerable, or essential, yet if you are a 63 old bus driver we asked you to expose yourself to covid to earn a living. the argument for the declaration is we should take the money we are spending to address covid and protect the vulnerable, whoever you are, whether you are older, protect nursing homes, we are doing a better job of that but continue to do that, using the tests and standard declarations there. provide accommodation laws so if you are 63, you don't have to teach. you can teach on zoom but if you are younger you can teach in person. you have some other disability accommodation so you don't have to be exposed. >> tucker: what you said is sensible, i wish you had been in charge and i wish we had time. the great barrington declaration and i encourage all viewers to look it up.

thank you so much for coming on tonight. and time as well, i think it's worth it. thank you for your watching. we will be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. the great sean hannity. >> sean: thank you, "hannity." nbc fake news did their best to ambush president trump at tonight's town hall. he pretty much debated savannah guthrie and what we all witnessed was not journalism, it was a political debate with the morning host of "the today show" serving as joe biden surrogate and it didn't really work out well for her. questions, topics, tactics all reeking of nothing but pure, political bias. of course, in the first few minutes, the president was once again asked for the 400 millionth time to repeat what he has said over and over again, to condemn white supremacy. >> you are asked point blank to denounce white supremacy.