your service. from all of us and good night. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." happy wednesday. on november 22, 1963, a man called lee harvey oswald murdered the president of the united states. there were a lot of questions about what happened but there was never any question about who lee harvey oswald was. he was a passionate and committed communist. in 1959, he gave up his american passport and defected to the soviet union where he married a russian woman and lived in minesk. then he returned to this country and began to attend rallies for fidel castro. then he traveled to mexico city and met with the k.g.b.

agents there. a few months before in dallas he tried to murder general edwin walker because walker had given speeches attacking communism. so oswald never hid his politics. not for a moment. he talked incessantly about communism to anyone who would listen. but many americans never really understood what lee harvey oswald believed and they didn't understand it because the news outlets didn't tell them. almost immediately, the media began spinning a different story. president kennedy, they suggested, had been murdered by conservatives, possibly by conservatism itself, by hate, as they often put it. the explanation was never precise but the idea was the same. right wingers killed kennedy. the soviet union naturally a suspect in this crime happy to agree with the assessment. as a soev yacht spokesman -- soviet spokeman put it the moral responsibility lay with "barry goldwater and other extremists on the right."

in the end, coordinated lying paid off. a year later goldwater lost to the incumbent democrat lyndon johnson in lopsided election. by that time many americans associated goldwater with murder. as the decades passed, the media kept repeating the lie. by the 50th anniversary of the kennedy as is nation, the "new yorker" magazine still blaming anticommunism for the fact that an avowed communist murdered the president. just because it's absurd, doesn't mean they wasn't say it with a straight face and they do. by now it's likely that most americans believe that is what happened. why wouldn't they believe it? that is what they have been told. that point is worth ruminating on and remembering. history is a political tool. history is not simply a record of what happened. history is a way to shape the future. history is used to hurt some people and help other people gain power. history is never neutral. we are watching our own history being written before

us. right now. consider this clip. it's from msnbc last night. in this clip, famous his attorney beschloss compares what happened at the capitol on january 6 to what happened to america on september 11. >> this was a president of the united states inciting an insurrection, a terrorist attack on congress. we observed 9/11. we remember the fact that there were attacks that landed, one almost landed in an effort to fly an airplane in the capitol, kill a lot of member of congress. that almost happened. here is a terrorist attack that did happen. >> tucker: so we observe 9/11 he says and going forward we must observe january 6. maybe we need a memorial on the mall. as has been said repeatedly in the last 24 hours and poignantly "we must never forget." it's true it's easy to make fun of beschloss. he is a historian in the sense

that 7-eleven is a restaurant. like a convenience store, he is everywhere. it could be 3:00 in the morning on a cold december night and you could pick up a pint of beschloss if you needed one. but don't consume too much it's not nutritious. a lot of people eat this stuff. that is the point. he sell what is the called "popular history." the kind of history that sticks. that is just the history assembled in print and on cable news, at this point -- be honest about it -- are the media of choice for those of us who lived in the world before internet. media for older people. for those under 30, history is written on social media. that is where the real demagogues live. tech platforms are the remain of people for who factual reality is not a consideration. it's a completely different way of thinking. once you decide that biology itself is not real you are free from conventional constraints of reality. at that point what happened in a given place at a given time is totally and completely

irrelevant. ideology is all that matters. sandy cortez is a master of the media, of course. watch her description of the events of january 6, broadcast to kids across the country on instagram. >> i jump in to my bathroom. and i close the door. i just keep hearing bang, bang, bang! i open the door. when all of a sudden i hear that whoever was trying to get inside got in my office. and you just hear "where is she? where is she?" and this was the moment where i thought everything was over. >> tucker: so we played claims like that for you before and we always made fun of them. there she is again. defender of the common man, yammering on about the only subject she cares about. herself. wallowing around in lake me

like it's interesting to anybody but her. the perfect symbol of a culture dying from self-involvement. we said it before and laughed as we did. but actually it's not funny. people will believe this crap. some already do. and anyone who was physically present at the capitol that day knows it's ridiculous. there were no no. rioters in alexandria ocasio-cortez's hallway. a lot of them were angrier than at mitch mcconnell an any democrat. what you saw was a intra-party struggle. not all of it but some of it. born of the long-simmering frustration. those who run the republican party don't care about the people who elect them. that has long been true. republican voters finally figured it out. it's one of the main things they learned in the trump years. on january 6, they exploded. lindsey graham was likely in greater danger than sandy

cortez or omar. it's not a defense of anyone's behavior, much less a defense of rioting that we do not support and never support. it's not ideological point. it's just true. that is what happened. but at this point the truth doesn't matter. what matters is who gets to write the history of what happened. who gets to define what the truth is. there are the ones who will control the future. that is why they are doing it. there is a reason that within hours democrats began describing the riot as a racial attack. it was confusing to hear that at first if you watched it and knew what happened. we were completely confused. awful as it was, there was nothing racial about what happened that day. claiming otherwise is absurd. a fantasy. it's a lie. but no one pushed back against that lie so they kept repeating it. now weeks later, it's the accepted version of what happened. powerful lawmakers just say it

from the house floor like it's fact. like it's proven in some objective inquiry and everyone knows it's true. >> america has been through a civil war, world wars, a great depression, pandemic, mccarr thyism and now a -- mccarthyism and white nationalists insurrection. >> tucker: white nationalist insurrection. again, it was awful, but it was not that. so you have to ask why are they claiming it was that? you know the answer. everyone knows the answer. but most everyone is cowardly to stay it out loud. they are saying that despite the fact they know it isn't true so they can lump you in with the people who broke in to the capitol and punish you for crimes you did not commit and never supported. if what happened on january of was a riot and it was, we can arrest the rioters and punish them. and we should. if what happened on january 6 was insurrection, however, if it was a failed revolution,

and attempted coup, then it's something else entirely. if it's that, then we need a military response. we need a new war against our own population. not surprisingly, that is exactly what they are calling for. >> everyone at the height of the crisis immediately after 9/11, there really weren't that many members of al-qaeda in afghanistan. the thrust of the campaign there was yes to hunt down al-qaeda. but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to flourish. that meant fighting the taliban. i think that is the heart of what we need to deal with here. hunting down people who are criminals. >> tucker: hunt them down like al-qaeda. to be completely clear, we are not over stating this, we are not hysterical. we are just close listeners. by "them" he means americans who were nowhere near the

capitol on january 6. had no role in what happened that day. and didn't support it. that is the assessment from the former c.i.a. official who spent years hunting al-qaeda in the middle east. no one in washington appears to think this talk is alarming in a formerly peaceful republic like ours. just today, senator mitch mcconnell the leader sent out a tweet blasting vladimir putin for some misdeed or other. in the u.s. senate, russia is still the real threat. not quite as upset about china somehow. but what mcconnell didn't mention and almost never does are his own voters the ones now re-classified as the al-qaeda terrorists and treated accordingly. on monday the "washington examiner" that claims to be a right of center publication, whatever that means at this point, ran a piece by a former c.i.a. officer kevin carroll. according to kevin carroll, "we saw five dead in the january 6 attempted coup d'etat." he did not explain who the five people were or how

exactly they died. it would be nice to know that. but the facts were not the point. the point was that this was an attempted coup d'etat. and the government needs to act accordingly. we are quoting. "we defeated al-qaeda and can do the same thing to the fascist thugs who attacked our democracy last month. but only if we take similar hard measures against the enemy within." treating americans like al-qaeda. the enemy within. that is the new conservative position on the riots of january 6. why wouldn't it be the position of everyone in this country, because that is the history they are writing. we are letting them. but we should be prepared for the consequences of that history. victor davis hanson is an actual historian so we thought it would be interesting to get his view of all of this. he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. you are watching this history get written. >> thank you. >> tucker: what is your view

of it? >> my psychodrama. he didn't get a quantification. it's a tragedy, five people died in two-hour riot and that is comparable to the 3,000 3,000incinerated in new york? or 700 policemen injured and oh dead, and $4 or $5 billion in damage? historian has to quantify things or give the evidence, where is the quotation that trump uttered that is a cause and effect that causes that? he doesn't do any of that. these are the crises not supposed to go to waste. i'm quoting directly from the rahm emmanuel or gavin newsom or hillary clinton. they use deep or words to prove that bush is a racist

and has to go. smalll, the duke lacrosse, the virginia fraternity so-called rape, the covington kids. this shows that there is the systemic racism, misogyny and the homophobia. sometimes a tragedy is mike brown or george floyd or the capitol riot but they warp the details to turn a tragedy that all policemen are racist so you must do the following. but that leads us to why do they do it? they don't have the confidence that the progressive agenda appeals to 50% of the people. but under the terms and the times and the errors of hysteria, and the fright and terror it does. they push through this. they have the executive orders. we haven't discussed them. we are talking about the decision and the civil war and biden is rewriting the constitution and last four years through the executive order. the other thing they play offense. like a teenage abusive

relationship of a teenager with the parent. you did this. you did this. you did this. finally the parent says okay, what do i have to do? that is when we have to impeach the president and vote for impeachment or buy in the russian collusion. will that satisfy you? of course it won't satisfy you. there is nothing there. it's an abusive, calibrated act. they interpret, unfortunately, you know, balance and the outreach as not as magna minty to be reciprocated but a weakness to be exploited. call me a racist, homophobe or protectionist but i won't be bullied. out of orwell if you control the path, you create a future. that is what they are doing. >> tucker: the rest of us are allowing it if we haven't seen it before. >> we are. >> tucker: of course we do. this is not about the next

election. they raise the stakes. i appreciate you putting that in the context for us. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> victor davis hanson. if this moment couldn't getmore or wellian than it is, the "new york times" has a plan for a new ministry of truth. for real. reality czar in charge of the reality? mark steyn is here to tell us what it might mean. a man who spent time fighting for his freedom to speak plainly and honestly. we'll be right back.

>> tucker: you got to wonder why people go in to journalism. it doesn't pay well. nobody likes you. it's a slog. it's dying. but people do it anyway. why is that? the answer is obvious. for power. you get influence. you can tell people what to do. the creepy kids at cnn. losers. always trying to boot them off the internet, makes them feel big. that is the point. at "new york times" decided they need more power, in fact a ministry of truth to be in charge of. they sent a journalist to control ideas and control what we say and think. they came up with this. "several experts recommend the biden administration put together a cross-agency task

force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism led by something like a reality czar." a reality czar! so the "new york times" and the biden administration are now in charge of reality. this sounds a little distopia. but what is the reality that the reality czar will promote? they will promote their reality. tu reality that police officers commute genocide. most women would prefer to work for investment bank instead of raising kids and abortion is liberation. it's fulfilling to live alone in apartments with your cats. hedge funds are the real drivers of the economy.

those are the reality. now they're yours. and not just yours but the rest of the world. the policy of the state department, the u.s. government that anytime another media outlet in another country expresses a reality they don't like we are in favor of shutting it down. this morning the state department endorsed the state censorship of media organizations, that anger the permanent political class here. the u.s. embassy in kiev ukraine celebrated the ukrainian crackdown of censorship of the domestic television networks they don't like. oppose the state. got rid of them. our position. the government. the they support the counter the maligned influence and we must work together to prevent disinformation as a weapon as info war against sovereign states. oh, wow. so we support shut doing the opposition tv stations if they

don't tow the government line? i thought we were spreading freedom around the world. no. no longer. the new export is preventing disinformation. if that sounds familiar to you it's the same justification that the governor of illinois j.b. pritzker used to deploy soldiers to washington, d.c. indefinitely. the television government that banned were the ukrainian television station. the crime opposed the pro western political class in ukraine. our leaders applauded the censorship without thinking twice about it. i'm sure we will be attacked for calling this to question. if they can promote it there it's happening here. it's happening in canada part of the anglo theory. the legislation would be based on canadian supreme court decision that held this. we want to quote it for you.

not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. oh! so you thought truth was a defense. oh, no. just because what you say is accurate, defensible on the merits, on the facts, doesn't mean you are allowed to say it. if it hurts the people in power. so the mask is off. they are admitting what this is really about. not empowering you or an oppressed group but keeping the airways free from criticism of them. censorship always hurts the weak and always helps the strong. that never changed. it's accelerated. mark steyn has been on to this for quite some time. he was personally involved in a free speech fight in canada. he is a best selling author, of course. got a global perspective on what we are watching tonight and we are happy to have him. what do you think is going on here? >> well, you mentioned my own experience in canada. that is a decade ago. with the help of a dogged back

bencher, because the so-called conservative government up there was rather scared of this matter, so a back bencher and i managed to get the law repealed. hate speech law repealed. i don't think we could do it today. i testified in the house of commons in ottawa last year i believe it was about the bill that they are anxious to bring in today. today the difference is the general climate of free speech in canada, united states, u.k. us, australia, europe, everywhere throughout the western world is worse than a decade ago. between the malign alliance, merger in washington, between big tech and the state, we are moving in to a literally or wellian world where phrases out of or well "1984" he uses the phrase "reality control." as you just said, the "new york times" now is in favor of establishing a federal agency

of reality control under so-called reality czar. these people are so unself-aware and so illiterate they don't realize these are tired ideas they are lifting from a 770-year-old indictment of the totalitarian state. >> tucker: is that book read anymore or allowed? how long till or well himself is banned to your question? >> i don't think there is any doubt about that. to go back when i got a canadian law repealed, one thing that changed since then is today free speech is openly mocked as some kind of the right wing fetish. on the other side, they regard ever-expanding range of topics as a correct view. once that view has been established, there is no need for the further discussion on

it. so whether it's climate change or islam or the same-same marriage or transgender participation in sports. there is a settled view and once we have settled it we no longer need to debate. the problem is there are ever-expanding range of issues add todd the list. to the -- added to the list. and in united states, where disagreeing with the official state position on example a new coronavirus that nobody heard of a year ago and nobody knows anything about. but disagreeing with officialdom now is forbidden. that is why the weasel phrase "disinformation." what is the information you are dissing? it's official information. ministry of information information. the idea that now the official version cannot be contradicted is widely accepted even by

contemptible media figures like the "new york times" and the steltar guy on cnn. openly on the censorship side. >> tucker: openly. of course, doing the bidding of the powerful as all sensors are. mark steyn, it's great to see you tonight. thank you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: as one of the first acts as president, as the president of science, representative of party of science, joe biden rejected officially the idea of biological sex. this isn't just a boutique issue. it has real world implications. one of them is on women sports. we'll talk to one athlete who has had enough of the competing against biological men. it's hurt her. she joins us straight ahead. a

>> tucker: the first act of president, joe biden signed an executive order to make it the

official policy of the united states government, biological sex is not real. we are starting to see the effects of the order. there will be many. trace gallagher has the beginning of the story tonight. hey. >> hi. in the 2019 connecticut indoor track and field championship, selena to place in top two to move to the finals and she placed third. the athletes first and second are transgender. born males who now identify asmeals. so now selena and two other athletes filed a lawsuit to allege it's unfair to compete against those who have advantages or allowing the boys to compete in the girl sports. we shouldn't force the young women to be spectators in their own sport. but the transgender athletes say this. watch. >> we run checks where we feel

most comfortable in the sport. we are female but we wouldn't run on any other team like the female team. >> are we not human like anybody else? i'm it or my lay doesn't matter? how do you think we feel? we go through this every day. >> but many believe the bravery runs two day, those questioning if the biological males should compete against the females are ridiculed and the bullies like navaratilona found out and that it will get intense now that biden signed executive order to allow transgender athlete to participate in the sport of the gender identity. tucker? >> tucker: trace, bravery runs both ways. wise point. i appreciate it. as you heard about the track athlete in connecticut forced to compete against the biological male.

thank you for joining us. selena, first to you. a lot of attention given to the transgender athlete and the heroic behavior. i wonder about your side of this. why do you think it's unfair to compete against the biological males on the track? >> thank you for having me on again, tucker. there are great biological differences between a man body and female body. that is why sports have been segregated. that is why it should be segregated to protect women and give them a fair chance in sports. >> tucker: that would seem like probably a pretty widely held position. the position in all recorded history. what reaction have you received? >> i got support. for me the feedback i get doesn't matter because i know what i am fighting for is

right. fight it for as long as i have to. >> what does the fight look like? is there any chance in the wake of the executive order that the rules can be overturned and we return to reality? >> there is a chance. this violates federal law and it will be challenged. the women and the girls are hurt the most when the law doesn't recognize the reality, the biological differences. >> so why aren't people standing up in the face of this as their daughters are suffering as a result of this? >> i think trace highlighted that they are being bullied. it's retaliation. the death threat and name calling that occurring. this is about whether the feelings and the medical claims can trump the reality. this is about sports and benefit of sports to women but it's more than that. we are seeing the women and

girls with the ideology but there are million of students, faculty members and healthcare providers are bullied to silence for the decision. >> tucker: that is right. there are a lot of implications. you a female athlete and accomplished one, the person we used to celebrate female athletics empowered to women and girls and that is why we have title ix. why do you think more people are not taking your side in this? >> i think most people are afraid of the backlash and the retaliation that comes with speaking out about a controversial issue like this. >> tucker: yeah. yeah. do you wish more people would speak up on your behalf? behalf of the other female athletes? >> i do. the more voices we have fighting this the better chance we have to a solution we enjoy. >> tucker: yeah. of course. you mean i think they convince common sense and reality are

hated or they are embarrassed to say truth out loud. you are not. i appreciate that. thank you, both. >> thank you for having me. >> so john kerry is the new climate czar. still flying around on private planes. you are not allowed to do that. the question is why? why is john kerry getting to fly around private plane to submit more cor bonn than entire villages in africa as he complains about your carbon emissions? there is a reason. he explained himself. we have the footage. it's been buried more than a year. we'll show it to you on a channel where free speech lives. fox news. we'll be right back.

>> tucker: former senator john kerry is your new climate czar. joe biden hired him the other day. a lot of czars all of a sudden. we want to keep them separate. climate czar is different from a reality czar, which we are also getting. the climate czar is not worried about reality or science for that matter. he fights climate change. if the facts or the common sense get in the way of that, the climate czar will fight those, too. this is the perfect role for

john kerry. he spent his life taking on the global warming contributing as much to global warming as he can. in the past year to name one of many examples his private jet, yes, he has one, spent 20 hours in the air. emitting in the process more than 100 metric tons of the carpet emissions. much -- carbon emissions. more than you will because you don't have a jet. he leads by the negative example. in 2013 they recognized his sacrifice and the enduring commitment doing precisely what he wants wile preventing you from doing the same. john kerry was given recognition of this the arctic circle award that recognizes his effort to "tackle the environmental matters." naturally john kerry flew to iceland 3,000 miles away on his private jet to accept this honor. in the acceptance speech he made it clear people like john kerry make him angry. to fight climate change, john kerry said, we need to do

exactly the opposite of what john kerry himself is doing at the moment. >> people are dying around thworld because of climate change. i see it in my country. floods in the mid-part of the country that wiped out farms. fires even now in california. mudslides that swallowed up homes and people. i get angry when i look at what public responsibility is supposed to be and i don't see people doing that. >> tucker: there are mudslides and floods and fires so therefore i must have more power. if you don't give it to me, i will be angry. to prove that point, john kerry will certainly cause as many mudslide and floods and fires as it takes to wake you up to this problem. that is the cross he is willing to bear. any questions? at the time no one had questions, actually. they never do. nobody thought it was weird in any way. in 2013, journalist in iceland

not yet brainwashed asked a question. he asked why did john kerry fly all the way to iceland on a private plane? isn't that hypocritical? no one covered his response. it was buried but we have it now. this is john kerry's response. >> it's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle. i believe the time it takes me to get somewhere. i can't sail across the ocean. i have to fly to meet with people and get things done. >> tucker: it's the only choice for someone like me. it's the only choice for someone like me. why do you have a 12,000 square foot house on the water in nantucket? it's the only choice for someone like me. it's not a choice you are allowed to have. none of the rules apply to the people in charge. obviously. the people in charge are important. you are insignificant. that is why the corporations, amazon, microsoft, apple, are seeing record profits now as your life falls apart, even if

you run a small business you get arrested for trying to make a living. this is just standard in the climate movement. they don't have any problem with it at all. john kerry's answer any of this behavior. for this, this is not about the environment. none of these people, none of the people, the ones yelling about there is no planet "b"! know anything about nature. they don't go outside. they couldn't name three bird species. they are cutoff from nature, they hate nature, they are at war with it. but there is one exception. one principled voice in the environmental movement. we reached out today to get her reaction to john kerry's speech in iceland. again, no one reported on this. here exclusively, if you can handle it, is greta thornburg response to john kerry. >> come to us young people for hope. how dare you. you have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty

words. >> tucker: yeah. you go, greta! you tell that john kerry. he is wrecking your childhood. you hear the term "systemic racism" every 20 minutes at this point. activists against the television in the h.r. department, they are teaching your kids in elementary school and they are pushing what at the core is an absurd lie that america is inherently racist place. don't tell people moving here from africa. they don't know yet. it's easy to forget that constitution -- forget institutional racism exists. it flourishes in the universities. they have the race blinded a mission for alums and those who donate money, or people with famous actresses and people with the last name of cuomo get in.

but in the name of the equity, the others are sorted by skin color. that's not racist or anything. of course it is. it's the definition of it. last year they focused on the yale decision to adopt a racial cast system in the admission. looking at all the data d.o.j. found "for the great majority of the applicant of the asian american and white perspective students have 1/10 to 1/4 likelihood of admission as the african-american applicants with the comparable credentials." according to the department of justice yale rejects the score of the applicants based on their race. if you are against racism you have to be against that. it's wrong. but today, biden administration dropped the lawsuit. yale, of course, was gratified one of the biden kids went to yale lawsuit. probably on his merits.

and yale is happy to continue to discriminate against students but this won't end with yale. joe biden nominated a woman to head the civil rights division kristen clark. kristen clark is way out of the main stream on the questions in a dark place, actually. kristen clark has written that black people could be genetically superior to other races. if it doesn't make the hair on your arm stand up -- any race claiming any other race superior to other should make you nervous. we are against that for the record. if clark is confirmed institutional racism is notting hill something d.o.j. ignores in court. i will be something they dictate. no one will stop them. the same justice department is prosecuting a journalist mocking the democratic party on twitter and he faces ten years in jail for offending them. mccarthy joins us next for a sober assessment of the cates against this man. we'll be right back.

>> tucker: department of justice is now prosecuting a journalist called doug mackey for making means on the internet. prosecutors tell us that mackey should go to jail because his memes spread disinformation about the 2016 election. as a pretext, the doj is using a law -- this case matters for the whole country. is a precedent. they all are. andy mccarthy is the one to do that. we are happy to have them on tonight to assess. andy, thanks for coming on. what do you make of the argument the doj is making much of the rest of us be worried about it? >> well, i would like to just say it is a ridiculous case, tucker, but it actually turned out to be a dangerous one, in the end. basically you have a guy who is putting out memes with the misinformation, and they would like to be able to charge him with fraud, but they can't, because it is not a federal fraud, so what they have done is trivialize something that is a very serious problem, which is voters who get threatened with physical harm to prevent them

from voting. >> tucker: yes. >> obviously, that doesn't apply to the situation at all, so it is really a toe in the water for the fbi, in the end, to manage communications in election campaigns. i think we have seen the last few years how well the fbi's involvement in our elections and our politics has worked out. >> tucker: well, it is a disaster. you just point out some really legitimately scary implications of this. there are a lot of sober, smart, patriotic people of the fbi. and doj, for that matter, i have to believe. why would they take a case like this? why would they do this? >> you know, i think, tucker, that it is part of what you are going to see. as a general theme that is running through all the things the biden administration is doing. i think you are going to see a lot of it from their justice department to release our progressive narratives, basically what they want you to believe is there trumped twitter trolls and white supremacists were out there, undermining

american life at every turn and corrupting our election process, and this is just another piece of it. >> tucker: it does seem like the kind of thing that we should push back on, as hard as we possibly can. because once this precedent is set, how is this america in the way that we have experienced it? >> you're right, you know, it's a very short step from saying the fbi should monitor information about how you can vote, to what you can say in an election campaign, and again, i just think the government monitoring of stuff ought to alarm everyone. >> tucker: yeah. that's the word from andy mccarthy. unlike us, not a hothead. a sober assessor of the law, and we're glad you came on tonight. andy mccarthy, thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: we are hearing something's not clear if they are true, but we are hearing them, about the future of the dwarf can come the leader at cnn, and that may be uncertain at this hour.

hmm. that i could have big invocations for the american news business, obviously. we will find out more, you will be the first to know. we will be back tomorrow, so that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink you have a good night. here is sean hannity. >> sean: all right, that is like a conspiracy theory. who is the king? who is this guy? i've no idea who you're talking about. >> tucker: the dwarf king! from layer, a top cnn leader sends his minions out to crush free speech. >> sean: i got to figure out a code. i will get there. tucker, thank you, good show. welcome to "hannity." tonight, finance climate czar john kerry says he has no choice, at all, but the jet set all over the world in his private jet, and leaving in its wake his massive carbon footprint, and meanwhile, the always shifty adam schiff is eyeing a promotion that should scare the hell out of you. america's number one conspiracy theorist. and the democrats unconstitutional impeachment charade is