thank you to the groups who stepped up to do something so special. most-watched, most trusted, most grateful he spent the evening with us. good night from washington. i am shannon bream. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and 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. oswald was a passionate and committed communist. in 1959, he gave up his american passport and defected to the soviet union. there, he married a russian woman and lived in minsk. three years later, he returned to this country and immediately began to attend rallies for fidel castro, the communist leader of cuba. in the fall of 1963, oswald 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 lee harvey oswald never hid his politics. not for a moment. he talked incessantly about communism to anyone who would listen. and yet many americans never really understood what lee harvey oswald believed and they didn't understand it because news outlets didn't tell them. instead, 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 very precise but the idea was the always same. right wingers killed kennedy. the soviet union, naturally a suspect in this crime, was happy to agree with the assessment. as a soviet spokesman put it, moral responsibility for the kennedy assassination lay squarely with "barry goldwater and other extremists on the right." in the end, the coordinated lying paid off.

a year later, senator barry goldwater lost to the incumbent democrat lyndon johnson in a historically lopsided presidential election. by that point, many americans associated goldwater with murder. as the decades passed, the media kept repeating this lie. by the 50th anniversary of the kennedy assassination, the "new yorker" magazine was still blaming "anticommunism" for the fact that an avowed communist had 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's exactly 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 to 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 historian michael 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 into 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 pretty easy to make fun of michael 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 michael beschloss if you needed one. but don't consume too much it's not nutritious. still, a lot of people eat this stuff. that is the point. he sells what is the called "popular history." it's the kind of history that sticks. that is just the history being assembled in print and on cable news, at this point -- let's be honest about it -- are the media of choice for those of us who lived in the world before internet. they're media for older people. for americans under 30, history is written on social media. that is where the real demagogues live. tech platforms are the domain of people for whom 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 into 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 clips 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.

narcissism on parade. 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. anyone who was physically present at the capitol that day knows it's ridiculous. there were no rioters in sandy cortez's hallway. a lot of them were angrier at mitch mcconnell than any democrat. what you saw was a intra-party struggle. not all of it but some of it. 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 graver danger than sandy cortez or ilhan omar.

they were calling mike pence's name. they were furious with him. 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. they're 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. it's 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 been proven in some objective inquiry and everyone knows it's true. >> america has been through a civil war, world wars, a great depression, pandemic, mccarthyism and now a -- white nationalist 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? think about it. you know the answer. everyone knows the answer. almost 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 6 was a riot and it was, we can arrest the rioters and punish them. and we should. if what happened on january 6 was an insurrection, however, if it was a failed revolution,

an 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. >> even 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 overstating 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" which 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 facts were not the point. the point was that this was an attempted coup d'etat. and the u.s. government needs to act accordingly. again, 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. apparently 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. and 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. professor, thank you for coming on. you are watching this history get written. >> thank you. >> tucker: what is your view of it?

>> it's mythography or psychodrama. beschloss didn't get a quantification. it's a tragedy, five people died in two-hour riot and that is comparable to the 3,000 incinerated in new york? or 100 days of torching a federal courthouse. historian has to quantify things or give the evidence, where is the quotation that donald trump uttered that is a cause and effect that causes that? he doesn't do any of that. these are crises not supposed to go to waste. i'm quoting directly from the rahm emmanuel or gavin newsom or hillary clinton. the left sees katrina, a tragedy, as an indictment. they use root causes or words to prove that bush is a racist and has to go.

jesse small, the duke lacrosse, the virginia fraternity so-called rape, the covington kids. these shows that there is the systemic racism, misogyny and homophobia. sometimes a tragedy is mike brown or george floyd or the capitol riot but they warp the details and turn a tragedy that all policemen are racist so you must do the following. which 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 terms and times and eras 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 sedition and the civil war and biden is rewriting the constitution and last four years through the executive order. the other final 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 into 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 magniminity to be reciprocated but a weakness to be exploited. call me a racist, homophobe or protectionist but i won't be bullied. you made a good point. out of orwell, if you control the past, you create a future. you control the past in the present. 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 raised the stakes. i appreciate you putting that in the context for us. victor davis hanson, appreciate it. >> thank you. >> if this moment couldn't more peak orwellian than it is, the "new york times" has a plan for a new ministry of truth. 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.

- hi, friends, michael youssef here. have you ever been rejected by someone you love? a parent, a child or loved one? it hurts doesn't it? but to all who become god's sons and daughters, he has promised i will never leave you, nor forsake you. will you come to jesus today and surrender your life to him? - [announcer] come find one who will never leave you feeling rejected or alone. visit findingtruepeace.com to find out more.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: you got to wonder why people go in to journalism. it doesn't pay well. nobody likes you. it's kind of 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. those creepy kids at cnn. ooh, losers. always trying to boot people off the internet, makes them feel big. that is the point. at "new york times" they decided they need more power, in fact a ministry of truth to be in charge of. they sent a journalist to silicon valley to ruffle up 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." [laughs] a reality czar! so the "new york times" and the biden administration are now in charge of reality. the paper concedes this sounds this sounds a little dystopian. but what is the reality that the reality czar will promote? you know exactly. they will promote their reality. the ones we are hearing about. the reality that 8-year-old boy should take puberty blockers. most women would prefer to work for an investment big incentive raising their own kids. that abortion is liberation foods deeply fulfilling to live alone with your cats. hedge funds are the real drivers

of the economy. those are their realities. 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 state censorship of media organizations, ones 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. they oppose the state. they got rid of them. that's our position. the u.s. government. u.s. support the counter the maligned influence and we must work together to prevent disinformation deployed as a weapon as info war against sovereign states. oh, wow. so we support shutting down opposition tv stations if they

don't tow the government line? i thought we were spreading freedom around the world. no. no longer. our new export is preventing disinformation. if that sounds familiar to you it's the very same justification that the governor of illinois j.b. pritzker used to deploy soldiers to washington, d.c. indefinitely. the stations the ukrainian government banned were the ukrainian television stations. their 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, why can't they do it here? it's happening in canada the legislation would be based on a 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 has 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. he's got a global perspective on what we are watching tonight and we are happy to have him. mark, what do you think is going on here? >> well, you mentioned my own experience in canada. that is about 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. a 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, the united states, u.k., australia, europe, everywhere throughout the western world is worse than a decade ago. between the malign alliance, a merger in washington, between big tech and the state, we are moving in to a literally orwellian world where phrases out of orwelln's "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 a 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 70-year-old indictment of the totalitarian state. >> tucker: is that book read anymore or if it's allowed? how long before orwell himself is banned. >> 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 that today free speech is openly mocked as some kind of right wing fetish. on the other side, they regard an ever-expanding range of topics as their being a correct view. once that view has been established, there is no need for further discussion on it. so whether it's climate change

or islam or same-same marriage or transgender participation in sports. there is a settled view and once we have settled it we no longer need debate it. the problem is there are ever-expanding range of issues 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 just disagreeing with officialdom now is forbidden. that is why the weasel phrase "disinformation." what is the information you are dissing? it's official information. it's 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

that steltzer guy on cnn. openly on censorship's side. >> tucker: openly. of course, doing the bidding of the powerful, as all censors 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 the 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.

type 2 diabetes can have a big impact on your life. but how can it be prevented? well, the first step is knowing if you something called prediabetes. take the 1-minute risk test today at doihaveprediabetes.org >> tucker: the first act of >> tucker: as a first act of president, joe biden signed an executive order to make it the official policy of the united

states government that 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. >> hi. in the 2019 connecticut indoor track and field championship, selena soule needed 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 as females. so now selena and two other female athletes filed a lawsuit to allege it's unfair to compete against athletes who have advantages or allowing the boys to compete in the girl sports. it reverses 50 years of advances for women. we shouldn't force the young women to be spectators in their own sport. but the transgender athletes say this. watch.

>> we run shot, where we feel most comfortable in the sport. we are female but we wouldn't run on any other team but female team. >> are we not human like anybody else? i'm an it? or my life doesn't matter? how do you think we feel? we go through this every day. >> but many believe the bravery runs two ways, those questioning if the biological males should compete against the females are ridiculed and bullied like martina navratilova 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, selina soule is a track athlete in connecticut forced to compete against the biological males. thank you for joining us.

selena, first to you. a lot of attention given to the transgender athlete and their 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's body and a 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. it's been the position in all recorded history. you've said this. what reaction have you received? >> i have gotten a lot of support. for me, the feedback i get doesn't matter because i know what i am fighting for is

right. i will 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. it's an abuse of power that 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, 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 threats and name calling that occurring. this this is about whether the feelings and the claims can trump the reality. this is about sports and benefit of sports to women but it's more than that. we are seeing women and

girls suffer as a result of the ideology but there are million of students, faculty members and healthcare providers are bullied to silence for the issue. >> tucker: that is right. there are a lot of implications. you are a female athlete and an accomplished one, the person we used to celebrate. female athletics empowering 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? on behalf of the other female athletes? >> i do. the more voices we have fighting this, the better chance we have to a solution that we'll enjoy. >> tucker: yeah. of course. [laughs]

i think people are convinced 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. he's 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 in a private plane to emitting more carbon than entire villages in africa as he complains about your carbon emissions? there is a reason. he explained it 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 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 carbon emissions. more than you will because you don't have a jet. john kerry leads by the negative example. in 2013 they recognized his sacrifice and the enduring commitment doing precisely what he wants while 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 the world 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 personally cause as many mudslides 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 asked questions or thought it was weird in any way.

in 2013, a 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? to our knowledge, no one covered john kerry's 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? oh, 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 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 them it's 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 don't know deciduous from conifer. 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 tunberg's 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 are on 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 an inherently racist place. don't tell people moving here from africa. they don't know yet. whatever one its line, it's easy to forget that institutional racism does exist, however. as you'd expect it exists in our institutions, particularly in our most prestigious universities. that's really where it flourishes. as all bad things do. these schools have race blind admissions for alums, for rich people who donate a lot of money, especially famous actresses, people with the last

name cuomo. they get in. in the name of equity all other students are sorted by skin color because that's not racist or anything. of course it's racist. if the definition of it. last year that justice department focusing on yale's decision to adopt explicit racial caste system and its admissions. after looking at all the data, doj found "for the great majority of applicants of asian-american and white prospective students have a 1/10 to 1/4 likelihood of admission as african-american applicants with comparable productions." 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. it's racist. but today, biden's administration dropped the lawsuit. yale, of course, was gratified one of the biden kids went to

yale law school. and yale is happy to continue to discriminate against students but this won't end with yale. joe biden has 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 claim that any other race is superior to other should make you nervous. we are against that for the record. if clark is confirmed institutional racism is not 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 for mocking the democratic party on twitter and he faces ten years in jail for offending them. andy mccarthy joins us next for a sober assessment of the cates -- case against this man. we'll be right back.

>> tucker: the department of justice is prosecuting a generalist for making meme ins on the internet. being sent to the jail because is meme spread miss information about the 2015 election. we liked a sober assessment of this case because it matters for the whole nation. he's a former u.s. attorney, happy to have them on tonighthto assess. what do you make of the argument the doj is making inch of the rest of us be worried about it? >> i like to say it's a ridiculous case, tucker, but it turned out to be a red down a dangerous one in the end.in a guy putting out some memes with information in it. they'd like to charge him with fraud but they can because is not criminal fraud so what they've done is trivialize something that's a very serious problem which is voters to get threatened with physical harm to

prevent their right in voting. this is in applied to the situation at all so it's like in the fbi in the end to manage communications in election campaigns. i think we've seen the last few years how well the fbi's involvement in our elections and politics has worked out. >> tucker: is a disaster. you just pointed out some really pleasantly scary implications. there are sober smart people at the and fbi.wh why would they take the case like this, why would they do it? >> i think it's what you are going to see, a general theme that's running through all of the things that the bidenhi administration is doing. i think you'll see a lot of it from their justice department. these are progressive narratives. basically what they want you to believe is there are a trump twitter trollsut and white assis

out they are life at every turn and corrupting our election process. this is just another piece of it. >> tucker: it does seem like the kind of thing we should push back on as hard as we possibly can. once this precedent is set, how is this america in the way we've experienced it? >> you are right. 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. again, i just think the monitoring should alarm everyone. >> tucker: that's the word from ada mccartney. not like us, not a hothead. a sober assessor of the lopp could come onu tonight. thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: we are hearing some things, not clear if they are true, but we are hearing them about the future -- the leader over at cnn, that may be

uncertain at this hour. that could have big implications for the american news business, obviously. we'll find out more and you'll be the first to know. we'll be back tomorrow. 8:00 p.m. the show that's a sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, groupthink. >> sean:n: that's a conspiracy theory. who is the king? >> tucker: the dwarf king! the man at the top of cnn center who sends his minions down to crush free speech. >> sean: i've got to figure out a code. i will get there. thank you. good show. biden's climates are john kerry says he has no choice at all but the jet set all over o the world in his private jet and leave his massive carbon footprint.. meanwhile the always shifty adam schiff come up eyeing a promotion that should scare the uthell out of you, america's number