>> trey: very, very bluntly stated advice. very concise. thank you, karl. i hope you've enjoyed tonight's conversations. for more, check out my podcast at foxnewspodcast.com. thank you for watching. i'm trey gowdy. i >> tucker: welcome to tucker carlson. we have an admission. for more than four years we've been telling you, almost every week, is the basic threat to your freedoms in america is not the federal government. we've thought that for a long time. it can be infuriating, stupid and dangerously but theoretically you have some control over its behavior since it's a democracy in. this moment right now the bigger threat to your family turns out to be huge publicly held corporations, particularly the tech monopolies. why? because you have zero control over their behavior.

they truly aren't interested in what they think, yet they have enormous control over your life. you should be worried about it. you probably are worried about it. we were wrong. rest easy, america. we've got happy news for you tonight. good tidings from our friends in the academic research community. on monday a pair of researchers from new york university in new york city released what they described as a study of social media and censorship and they didn't hide area conclusions in the footnote. they got to it in the title. this new paper is called false accusation, the unfounded claim that social media companies censor conservatives. quite a literal study. it turns out what we've been telling you for years isn't true. it's merely an unfounded claim. no truth to it. it's all there in the paper. we read it. on page 16 we learned, yes, "conservatives frequently point to twitter's practice of suspending or permanently banning account holders as evidence of bias against the

right." that's true. they never stop winding. happily the study concludes, however, facts don't support this claim. conservatives get banned for violating twitter's rules for such things as hateful conduct or in trump's case glorifying violence but this is the good news, liberals are excluded in this fashion as well. so it happens to everyone, and that should reassure you. can we get some numbers on that, nyu? actually, we can't. in the words of the "study," pinning down precise proportions on censorship is impossible because twitter doesn't release sufficient data. are you following the reasoning? their conclusion, twitter is not biased and we can be certain it's not biased because twitter refuses to release data on who it bans. case closed. but wait a second. you might object. what about all of those people i see on this show all the time talking about how twitter shuts them down for having

unauthorized political opinions? we should tell you the authors did a fact study. they came to the conclusion, all of those people who are banned, every one of them, victims of a mistake. as they net on page 17 of the study, "twitter sometimes makes mistakes." if that sounds familiar that's also twitter's explanation for censorship almost every single time. to supporters of the joe biden administration -- do they get band by the same mistake, we can't tell you that because twitter won't give up the numbers. what we do know from the staff of nyu is shutting down the "new york post's" entire twitter account right before the election because the newspaper printed stories unflattering to the biden family was not censorship. no. according to nyu shutting down a newspaper's account for its political views during a presidential election is not censorship. it is instead, and we're quoting, "reasonable." why is it reasonable?

because presumably unlike the pentagon papers or any scoop the "new york times" has published "the new york post" used information that was not publicly available in its stories about biden and that's wrong. it's not censorship, it's common sense. reasonable. we don't know any of this but we're not professional researchers at nyu. no one else in the media seems skeptical about it. they seem grateful for the study. the "washington post" promoted its findings on monday. the headlines of "new york daily news," we should tell you, is a direct competitor of the "post," gives you a flavor of the reaction from the guardians of first amendment. here's the red line. big tech doesn't censor conservatives. a careful review of evidence shows that's fake news. of course it's fake news. twitter was eager to make sure you saw how fake it was. we just got an email from a twitter spokesman saying this. study attached, of course, "i wanted to be sure you saw a report out today from the nyu

stern center for business and human rights, it found there is no evidence to support claims of anti-conservative censorship on social media and these claims are a form of disinformation." whoa. talk about upping the ante. are you following this? there is no censorship from the tech monopolies. none. if and nyu has proven that but if you persist in complaining about this censorship which does not exist you may be spreading disinformation and keep in mind that just the other day the governor of illinois, j. pritzker announced he was sending troops to washington to fight disinformation. armed soldiers. fighting disinformation. want to be part of that? don't think so. be careful. that's what the study concludes. be careful. it almost reads like a press release from silicon valley. why is that? because it is. this so-called academic study was, in fact, paid for by bic tech. how shocked are you?

funded by a man called craig n you've mark. he's one of the many silicon billionaires who paid for the joe biden presidential campaign. now he's paying for. this one of the authors of the so-called academic study is a man called ball barrett. he's his patron. in september barrett released another study on why we should be nice to bic tech as well as deeply respectful and always obedient that study was also funded by craig newwashing as well as george soros. is it becoming clear? in 2021 billionaires funds their own studies and in return for that investment they get the conclusions they have paid for and the rest of us get to obey those conclusions. that's called science, ladies and gentlemen. and suddenly it's everywhere. billionaires are in charge. ask yourself just for an example and you can pick a lot of them. here's one. who has more influence over our national covid policy? physicians who treat covid patients in hospitals every day? scientists who work to find an effective treatment for the

virus? or bill gates, who is not a physician or a researcher, but is worth more than a hundred billion dollars? who is nor influential? come on, now, bill gates leads the way. he funds the most studies. those are the rules now. that's why billionaire hedge-fund manager george soros now gets to decide how our laws are enforced. it's why tom steyer gets to determine america's response to climate change. it's why bezos, who sells brightly covered garments, they have to listen to bezos. it's only a matter of time before they try to control democracy itself. so they are trying. in the last election 36-year-old billionaire mark zuckerburg spent at least $350 million to influence who in america would vote and whose votes would be

counted. at the same time, facebook, his company, decided who can share certain political opinions on-line. we all watched this happen. in the end, of course, those efforts had a great effect. you saw the effect. facebook was pleased by that effect. facebook has now decided to get more deeply involved in our elections beginning with a vigorous defense of its close ally newsom of california. voters in california are very unhappy with gavin newsom. read the polls. there is a reason. after centuries of affluence the state of california is collapsing and many in california are fleeing. they have no choice. going to nevada, texas, leaving. facebook isn't bothered by that. they just want to keep gavin newsom in charge of the state. why wouldn't they? he's their friend so the company recently announced it's banning ads for the effort to recall gavin newsom from office. voters may not like gavin newsom but facebook likes gavin newsom and that's what matters. you can see why they like gavin

newsom. no governor in the country is more pro billionaire than gavin newsom. no one is even close and it's lifelong, this affection. he grew up a protege of the gavin family. they even paid for his first wedding reception. get some self-respect, but. no now that newsom is in trouble the richest people in the country are fighting to keep him in office. watch this astounding clip from a comedy show the other night. >> we're about to have a recall. don't do it. don't do it. i have my frustrations with california k. i'm certainly am not shy about voicing them on the show. newsom is a smart guy. i would lover to talk to him in a room and convince him of a few things. >> it's q-anonconspiracy to take over the stake.

>> tucker: that was jones, he's a populist. he cares about the little guy, people but when the people of california decide they want different leadership and want to do democratic means, get a referendum, oh, no, it's q-anon. we must put it down in the name of democracy. that's our so-called creative class defending entrenched power on behalf of billionaires. now, you would think someone somewhere would push back against this. it's everywhere it's so obvious but no one in the democratic party dares to do that. the last one who tried, just being honest here, was bernie sanders and look what happened to him. whatever you think of sanders, we never thought much of him but for the time of criticizing billionaires sanders wound up being denounced by cnn as a sexist russian operative. now just the other day sanders has been dismissed in the pages of what you would think would be a friendly news outlet by the chronicle of san francisco, no. he's someone whether or not

"manifests privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege." yes, a bigot. take that billionaire criticizer bernie sanders. honestly it's hard to feel so sorry for sanders. he knew what was happening. he did know this if nothing else. sanders knew the real divide in this country isn't race. it's not sex. the real divide is class. and bernie sanders used to say that out loud but in the end he was too much of a coward to criticize identity politics. he wanted to ride the wave so he played along. big mistake. now, inevitably he's been denounced as privileged. of course, that was going to happen. what's so interesting, and here's what you should meditate on. who is not being denounced as privileged? who has white privilege and who doesn't? we know that beef cops who risk their lives have white privilege, a ton of it? firemen have it? guys who hang drywall, anyone

who doesn't take nancy pelosi seriously has white privilege. what about bill gates? does he have white privilege? when is the last time he had white privilege or jeff bezos or sorrows or any active political billionaire? never. it's possible that billionaires have paid for studies proving they don't have white privilege. maybe nyu will release one of those studies soon. in the meantime treat yourself. watch hillary clinton approach the delegate question of privilege in the flesh. here she is several years ago meeting with george soros. sorrows is the man who made billions of dollars in the now infamous practice of short selling. that's been in the news recently. he was one of the pioneers of it. you have a billionaire hedge-fund manager who shorts national currencies. it's hard to imagine more privilege than that. but as you will notice in the tape we're about to show hillary clinton does not scold george soros for his white fragility. she never mentions the effects of whites and the pate

tritriarrestcan i. >> for those who say i cannot sit idly by and watch this happen to the governor i love is george soros. >> at this moment in time our country needs us. and we need people like george soros who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. so please join me in welcoming george soros. [applause] >> tucker: whoa. did you see that? did you watch the whole tape? they are meeting, the meeting between george soros and hillary clinton ends with a kiss. not with a lecture about privilege and a kiss. that's perfect. george soros isn't the problem. you're the problem. "we need people like george soros and studies prove it." mike davis runs the internet accountability project.

he fights censorship for a living. he's also been the victim of censorship. he joins us to assess nyu's latest scholarship. mike, i appreciate you coming on the show tonight. you were banned by twitter recently. it was a mistake, complete mistake for criticizing twitter they banned you, but it was a mistake. i was struck by the study. it's utterly fraudulent, a joke, embarrassing, but it was also funded by a tech ologarch. how often does this happen? >> it happens a lot when we see corporations trying to protect their interest. we have craigslist founder, a billionaire, funding this study, and then the study relies upon facebook, google and twitter employees to find out if there is conservative censorship and the people they are not asking about censorship are

conservatives. they didn't find any censorship just like the tobacco industry didn't find any problems with tobacco and kids. it was a pretty amazing study. >> tucker: its even dark than that. the participants should be disgraced, nyu is disgraced putting their name on this but then that fake study is quoted by jeff bezos' newspaper as real, which dares anybody to criticize it on pain of being accused of committing disinformation and punishment. i mean, this actually becomes an orreal, does it not? >> you're supposed to just fall in line and if you don't what does twitter do? what does facebook do? what does google do with their youtube platform? they will silence people who disagree with it. >> tucker: how many institutions

in washington's think tanks aren't funded directly or indirected by the tech oligarchs, would you say? >> it seems like many of them are, most of them are, on the left and right. this is not just a problem with democrats in washington, d.c. there are many republicans in d.c. who are bought off by big tech, by google, by amazon, by facebook, by apple, by twitter. this is a bipartisan problem in d.c. in the swamp. i think that conservatives across america need to put pressure on their republican members in congress. to go on the side of every day americans instead of the big tech oligarchs. >> tucker: he was jumping up and down today -- has he defended

voters from google recently? >> like i said big tech has a hold of both parties in washington, d.c., and it is a bipartisan problem. every day americans need to speak up and tell their elected members of congress to stop siding with big tech over everyday americans. >> tucker: mike, i appreciate you coming on. good luck. you're fighting a lonely battle but a worthy one. thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: voters in california want to throw off the yoke of a failed governor, truly incompetent. look at the state but leaders tell us, oh, no, they can't because that's a q-anonicon-- q-anonspurcy. >> they claim to have 1.3 of the

1.5 million voters signature needed to force a statewide special election in the fall. even more troubling for governor newsom is that 36% of voters now support recalling him. 45% are still against it but support is dwindling. he attended a large dinner gathering at an up front large scale restaurant and shutting down indoor designing despite the fact there was no science to back it's up. and with still a significant infection rate newsom abruptly dropped his stay at home order and allowed restaurants to reopen outdoor dining. the governor says the decision had nothing to do with the current recall movement. watch. yes. it's just complete, utter nonsense. so let's just dispense with that fundamental thought. >> disapproval rating, the

highest in california in 50 years. today his approval has plummeted to 46% and if schools remain closed and the california vaccine rollout continues at a snail's pace his numbers will get worse. tucker? >> tucker: chris gallagher for us. if you're out of the country for a week or so, you came back to a nation under siege. a collective defensive crouch. not from china or covid but from a single freshman member of congress from the state of georgia. who is our greatest threat, our greatest enemy, who may indeed be weeks away from developing her own nuclear weapon. how did this happen? how did she get so dangerous? how did the rest of us get so afraid of her? >> also, this is a surprise, brett favre joins us in a little bit for an unexpected reason. we'll be right back.

it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute?

but what have you been doing for the last two hours? delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today. >> tucker: donald trump is gone, as you know. you know what that means. you're now donald trump. we need a new trotsky to hate, a new existential threat and we have one. if you don't feel safe anymore it's not because the murder rate is skyrocketing or the rioting,

according to cincinnati, it's q anon, and its leader is a freshman congressman from georgia. >> it's always someone else's fault. how about we have a problem in our party, and if we don't fix the margin taylor greens, the insurrectionists, the conspiracy theorys, people will paint with us a broad brush and rightfully so, because what does that mean? that means in some we're condoning their behavior. >> tucker: a little advice for the republican party from mr. don lamond, ladies and gentlemen. listen carefully. it's not just la mond. all of a sudden they are telling us the greatest threat to our country is someone who just arrived in congress like 20 minutes ago, who has barely even voted. why are they saying that? maybe there is a reason maybe you should think about what that

reason is. brit hume is our senior political an fox. he's watched this stuff for many years. brit, thanks for coming on. i'm a little confused by this. this freshman member of congress is now kind of the touch stone for the nation. maybe inflating her importance beyond what's warranted. i'm just guessing. >> yes, i'll say. there is not the slightest evidence that she has any influence of any kind within the republican caucus. indeed, to the extent that we know anything about what they all think of her. they are embarrassed by her because she said all guns are really looney stuff. contrast that, for example, with the rantings we've heard from, you know, aoc, and omar and others on the democratic side of the house of representatives. aoc most recently decided that ted cruz had attempted to murder her. that's pretty far out there although i noticed on twitter there are some people who

believe it's true. who knows, but the fact is, if you're in the republican party, and you got somebody who is way out there in your midst, you're going to hear a lot about that person and you're going to be asked to account for it and have her name and face thrown at you again and again by the media. that's the way the game is played in washington. >> tucker: it's so obviously, because it's such a familiar tactic, it's a tactic. a ploy, right? and yet they always fall for it. liz cheney, well-meaning but maybe not super sophisticated members of congress rising to the bait. do they think this congresswoman is going to be the last person who gets singled out for group hate? do they think it's not coming for them at some point? what do you think? brit: this particular congresswoman, tucker, is uniquely vulnerable to being accused to being loony. i guess it's understandable that

members of congress would not want to associate themselves with her or be associated with her. that's a function, i think, more than anything, though, of the media climate in washington. you know, in the country, really, when you consider what the dominant media outlets do like that silly piece you showed from the guy over on cnn. so republicans get asked about this stuff all the time and you can't simply say i have no comment forever so you respond by saying, you don't want anything to do with her and everybody says republicans distance herself from looney member, whatever. that's how the game is played. look, the truth is, this has been true for as long as i can remember. republicans operate in a media climate that's hostile to them and you have a choice. you can rail against it which many do and sometimes, you know, we in the media do. in one part of the media, or you can try to adjust to it. republicans usually do a little of both. but sooner or later you have to deal with it. and this is just one of the things you have to deal with. i think, you know, i don't think

adam or liz cheney have been much embroiled in the margin taylor green case, but, you know, i think you're talking about republicans who seem at times to side with the democrats. that's another matter. >> tucker: yes. i just think that every republican lawmaker who wants to protect his voter should write on the card three words, buzz off, shill. that's what they are, shills. just my view. brit: the thing about that, tucker, that might be fun to watch, as a sound bite on tv but i'm not sure it would be very effective trying to deal with the problem. it's a problem we've noted for decades. to some extent it's a problem that we as a news organization have stood against. >> tucker: yes. i have never been elected to anything, never had to deal with that. fairpoint. good to see you. brit: thanks, tucker. >> tucker: this is a very sad story. it's part of a much bigger story that we haven't talked a lot

about on the show because it's too sad. a -- committed suicide. now a teenager's mother is getting death threats because she thinks the lockdowns on the basis of a lot of evidence played a role in his suicide. she's literally got it on voicemail. we'll play one for you after the break.

>> tucker: we don't talk about it a lot because it's too depressing but we're going to tonight. children are suffering under these lockdowns. in some cases they are dying because of them. we brought you previous examples. here's another. in october, lisa's son trevor, committed suicide in the state of illinois. his mother is suing the state over her son's death. she says the lockdowns played a role in his suicide. because she was standing up to the people who imposed those lockdowns, lisa's attorney is now getting death threats. this is one of those messages. it's awful but we're just playing it for you because we

want you to know it's real. >> this trevor mother -- [ bleep ] she can't stay at home for a year and -- [laughter] >> tucker: so we have mixed feelings about playing that, obviously, but we did because it's real. laura is a lawyer representing lisa and other parents. she joins us tonight. laura, thanks so much for coming on. that's awful, obviously. we hope that man doesn't represent many other people but there are a lot of people, decent people, who aren't taking the effects of this lockdowns in our view seriously enough. tell us what you think the effects have been? >> well, you know, since we

filed this case, you know, remember america is a small nonprofit foundation in illinois, and, you know, we really wanted to file a number of lawsuits this year and we have filed some of them. we've wanted to file much more because the outpouring of people calling us and begging us for help, and parents calling us and asking someone to help them, and the stories of these parents and their kids, some kids, not just trevor till, but at least 10 other cases in illinois that i'm aware of, of kids committing suicide, and eating disorders and hospitalizations over depression, and thousands and thousands of kids from low income and diverse and rural communities, not able to go to college because they are not going to be eligible for scholarships because they didn't get scouted their junior year. so we're getting all of these stories, and we just had to act and that's why america action did this because no one else was

doing it. and we don't have a lot of resources but we felt that we had to stand up for them because they were begging us for help and no one was helping them and the crisis is out of control and no one wants to talk about it. >> tucker: amazon, which has benefited from these lockdowns more than any other company can, hasn't sent you a grant to help? . >> i wish they would. we would have filed hundreds of lawsuits all over the country this year had we had the resources to do it. we didn't have it and we did what we could. even in the small case, this is a small, very easy equal protection case in illinois, with these high school students. governor pritzker, you know, does not have restrictions on college and pro sports because they are rich and powerful. but all these kids have been smashed to bits by these restrictions, the cancellation of high school sports in illinois, and based on illinois law, we should win, and we are winning, even though it's a david and goliath battle but

this should have been filed months ago. because what he's doing is just ridiculous. on its face if you look at the law he has no rational basis for discriminating against all of these kids and they have been smashed to bits in the mental health crisis. we don't even know how bad it is. >> tucker: god, it's sad. i'm glad you're doing this. god bless you, laura, thanks. >> thank you very much. >> tucker: andy is one of the few journalists brave enough to report on antifa right there and describes how it's destroying cities in the country. has a new book out called unmasked. an -- their plan to shut down democracy. in response, he's had to flee the city because of death threats. a couple of years ago he suffered a brain injury they beat him in the streets. thanks so much for coming on.

i appreciate it. i'm glad -- >> thank you, tucker. >> tell us what you concluded after the reporting that you've done and the writing of this? >> -- this isn't new. america has a history of far left terrorism, in the 19 sits and 1970s there was the underground and black liberation. we had the communist organization. today, we have antifa. >> tucker: what is the goal of a group like this? like what's the n game for antifa and groups like it? >> so for the first time, i'm publishing in the book some documents from somebody who went through the membership process for antifa, which is the cell based in portland and you'll see based on the curriculum in addition to weapons training and

training how to fight, there is actually a very intense radicalization process that takes a new recruit through certain incremental steps. eventually reaching them to a point where they are brainwashed, until, not just killing for their cause, but also having a desire to be martyred. you can think of it as essentially a religious death cult which is why when they kill people and they launch attacks and they bring explosives and knives and guns to the riots they revel and celebrate in that destruction. >> tucker: it's horrifying. no one has chronicled it, i don't think, as carefully as you have. at some cost to yourself. congratulations on the book. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: so for years they told you, don't ease cheese. the experts, the people in charge of our nutritional recommendations. they were wrong. it turns out eating cheese is one of the best things you can do for your health.

who do we go to, to affirm this scientific truth? a renowned cheese person, brett favre. he joins us to explain why you should eat more cheese. straight ahead.

>> tucker: we're learning more every year about how little our health authorities actually knew when they told us what to eat and drink. here's another example. new research from iowa state university recommends daily consumption of red wine, weekly consumption of lamb. but here's the headline. the research shows that cheese is "by far the most protective food against age-related cognitive problems even late into life." it's a prophylactic against alzheimer's, so cheese doesn't just age well. it also helps you to age well. as a public service announcement we've crafted a new advertisement about cheese. >> are you fed up with stringent diets that don't give you parmesan. don't be blue w. you're not

provolone. >> america's favorite food is, in fact, nutritious. >> new studies show a steady doze of cheese will leave you shredded and reduce cognitive decline. these people aren't crazy. they are healthy. don't swiss out. >> tucker: okay. i haven't seen that pretty funny. who to talk to about cheese? world renowned cheese head and nfl legend, joins us. we're so grateful you're on the show to talk about cheese. did this surprise you? >> nothing in today's world surprises me anymore. >> good answer. i feel the same way. >> tucker: so you're obviously famously fit. i think we're almost exactly the same age. you're in a lot better shape than i am. how much more cheese do you eat than the average person, i would estimate? >> oh, i'm going to say i eat

under the average. i love cream cheese and pepper jelly. i love goat cheese and i love pepper jack. but i don't know if i eat as much as the average joe. i may be wrong, but that's just my observation. i love it, though. >> tucker: looking back on your life, would you count among your regrets not eating enough cheese now that you know the truth about cheese? >> after today's report, of course. i would be mentally a lot sharper at this point at 51 had i eaten more cheese. >> tucker: i feel exactly the same way. i'm really trying. for my health. so if you -- and you're always asked to categorize things and predict things as we move towards the super bowl. so i'm going to ask you, if you had to weight the cheeses in order of importance, what would bit? >> for me, cream cheese -- it's so versatile, as number one.

>> tucker: yes. >> pepper jack would be two, and then goat cheese, which i kind of lump in with cream cheese, but i'm certainly a cream cheese type of guy. >> tucker: i notice a theme here if i can just sort of put an overlay on for the viewers, all the cheeses that you mentioned are on the softer end. you're -- parmesan wasn't even on the list. is there a reason why you like the softer cheeses? >> i kind of like the texture. the goat cheese and cream cheese have a different texture. >> tucker: yes, they do. little did we know they are life saving and enhancing. great to have you on the show. >> whatever i can do, tucker, just let me know. >> tucker: see you. governor ron desantis of florida stands alone for a lot of different reasons but here's one of the more important. he's one of the only elected

officials in the republican party who is serious about taking on big tech on the question of censorship. desantis has propose add new law that makes de platforming people for thought crimes a crime. that's straight ahead. when did you see the sign? when i needed to create a better visitor experience. improve our workflow. attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics yeah, and now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com

>> tucker: ron desantis is the governor of florida, the free state, and he's doing what no elected republican is doing that we're done. he's proposing a new law to fine bic tech companies for censoring political candidates. companies that remove a candidate from office would face a hundred thousand dollars in fines every day until the candidate's access to the tech platform is restored. additionally the law would require that big tech companies give advance notice before they ban users. governor redesantis joins us tonight to explain this. thanks for coming on. did we characterize that correctly what this law would do? >> yes. it's more than that. we're going to do three different things.

one is protect floridians data privacy from big tech which is a huge issue. as you said protect big tech from interfering in an election, and that may mean you de platform a candidate you don't like. two guesses as the which type of candidate big tech wouldn't light but it also means doing the algorithms in a way that will suppress stories or accelerate them to benefit a candidate. that's effectively an in kind contribution, and then the general protections for de plat forming users and what we're allowing people to do is bring civil suits under the florida deceptive and unfair trade practices statute and anti-fraught statute and slug the attorney general to do it as well. we think this is something that floridians want protection from and i think it will end up being a really good first step. there has always been the question what do you do about this? a lot of us have thought there was something wrong for a wrong

time but to sit back and hope it gets better that clearly wasn't going to work, so we're leading and i think it will be good. >> tucker: no one has done anything. this is the first example of this that we've seen in this country. in eastern europe has been tried. who is opposed to this? we would love to know their names. >> well, stay tuned, tucker. there will be a big fight in the legislative session. hopefully we can get a lot of support. most folks do want protections for their privacy and data. most folks want protections from being deplatformed. it's not just being banned from twitter. these companies can collude. they can deny you, if you're a small business, a payment processing, the ability to use email and text. so you go to a rally that they don't like or you engage in wrong think and all of a sudden your flower business is decapitated for a month because they take action. i think we've gone down a dangerous path on this. this provides protections for

individual floridians and i think it will be very positively received, but we're buckled up, tucker. we know there are always fights over these things so stay tuned. >> tucker: this really does set the standard for the rest of the country. it will be fascinating to see who comes out of the woodwork to oppose it. very quickly. if florida, if you get this through the legislature in florida will it have implications for the rest of the country? >> i think it will because what we found, tucker, is when florida leads, then other states start following. so i think you will see other legislatures follow suit. but i also think it's just a situation where we're a very mobile society. florida laws may actually have an effect on folks who are visiting here all the time. so i think hit have an effect one way or the other beyond our borders. >> tucker: maybe there is a reason why people are moving to florida. governor desantis, appreciate you coming on. thank you. >> thanks, tucker.

>> tucker: pretty amazing. finally someone is doing something. we'll be back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m., show that's the sworn enemy of smugness and group think. we'll join you tomorrow but in the meantime sean hannity takes over the reins from new york. **. >> sean: disguised as yet another senate impeachment trial is set to proceed early next week. one big problem for the democrats, media mob, we already know the outcome. the former president will be acquitted. 45 senators already on record saying the whole thing is unconstitutional and it is. it doesn't seem to matter to this new radical extreme democratic party, and mr. unity is not weighing in. they will never miss an opportunity to try to politically