"fox news primetime." i'm lawrence jones. i will be right back here tomorrow. tucker carlson is up next. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." happy thursday. eminent epidemiologist chelsea clinton has called on social media giant facebook to ban this show.deok why? because we ask obvious questions about the coronavirus vaccine. questions that were vindicated about three hours ago, you can't make it up, and we are not. s got details for you in just a moment. but first, tonight, things are changing fast, in case you haven't noticed. much too fast, actually, people can't metabolize change on this case. it is not fox news viewers or

elderly republican men, it is all species. human beings are not designed for abrupt changes to the way they think or live. most of human history, they do not have to deal with those. societies evolved slowly. fourth century france was very much like 14th century france. 4,000 years, most people in france spent their lives following domesticated animals around the field and living in huts. then the 1700s, someone perfected the steam engine, and nothing was ever the same. life for average people began to change faster and faster, and then exponentially faster. and this continued on. it continues now to the present day, in which nearly every morning, you awake to a brand-new world. if you are over 40, you may hav, trouble recognizing your own country. it is just too unfamiliar. now, the self-righteous children on social media don't care to notice this, and when they do, they dismiss it.e many complaints about change, as bigotry. but it is not bigotry. it is human nature.

abrupt change causes social chaos, always. human beings developedng customs and habits and generational expectations for a reason. it's not random. continuity is comforting to people. if you eliminate familiar things overnight, societies fracture, populations tend to explode. we have seen that happen. the last industrial revolution, in the end, provoked armed revolution. hundreds of millions of people died. germany got hitler, eastern europe got stalinism, yes we did wind up with antibiotics in the end, you can think technology for that and we do, butot we alo got genocide and atomic bombs. the lesson: if you're going to change things, go slowly. choose the incremental over the immediate, explain yourself, reassure people, acknowledge the reality of evolutionary biology. it is real. human beings are not born to be the machine components. you cannot just bang out improved versions of citizens on a 3d printer.

people in real life are complicated and stubborn and hard to control. even the most open-minded ones get jumpy when suddenly everything is different. obviously. and he would think it would be obvious. wise leaders would know that intuitively. if you are going to have relentless technological change, and apparently we are, you cannot inflict relentless social change and expect your society to survive. things will fall apart if you do that, that is guaranteed. yet that is exactly what our leaders are currently doing. they are changing everything, whether we like it or not. a new language, new values, new biology, new curricula, new social mores and hiring standards and body types. a brand-new national population. and because that is still not enough change, a whole new system of government. all of that in three months. n what will the consequences of that change, that revolution be? in your bones, you know the c answer, and it is terrifying, and it does not have to happen. what america needs now more than anything is a pause, a moment to

catch our national breath, take stock, assess what just happened -- a lot happens -- and calmly consider the best way forward. you want unity for the country? we all do, and that might bring us unity, but no, the kaleidoscopic barrage of unending change continues. yesterday, they informed us,ha they plan to dismantle the last trusted branchon of our government, the supreme court. here's a congressman from new york explaining why they are doing it. his name is mondaire jones. he is 33 years old. he went to stanford and harvard law school, meaning that in his short life, he has produced essentially nothing. so none of it is real to him, so he is happy to blow it up. watch. >> our democracy is in crisis. the insurrection on january 6th made that clear. this crisis didn't arrive overnight or by accident. the supreme court helped bring us here. in fact, the court has been actively dismantling our

democracy for years. it gutted the protections of the voting rights act. and paved the way for a new era of racist voter suppression. it helped install donald trump in the white house, and he returned the favor by appointing more justices who are hostile to our democracy. we, the people, can break the far right and undemocratic grip on our democracy. we can expand the supreme court. and together, we can finally restore government by the people, instead of government by the powerful. >> tucker: so, the supreme court did the insurrection of january 6th, the qanon court, if you will. bet you didn't knowec that. mondaire jones didn't know it, either, he was just reading what they wrote for him on the card. who is the "they," by the way? that is a slick video. did not maketh it in a basement. who paid for it?

was it funded by big corporations who finish telling us jim crow racism? we called around to find out and ask the ceo of coca-cola, longtime head of amazon jeff bezos, other ceos, all of those business titans have been happy to weigh in with full force. it is their business. it's up to them now. we wondered what their view was of turning our highest court into a legislative body. of making our last officially nonpartisan institution into something that is openly partisan, and therefore trusted by no one. we can only guess what they think about that because they did not get back to us. apparently they are no longer so worried about democracy. whatever biden wants, just don't take our money. and they know where joe bidenid stands because a few days ago the whitee house formed somethg called the presidential commission on the supreme court of the united states. the job of that commission flaws, and we are quoting now, "principal arguments in a

contemporary debate for and against supreme court reform." it is the last phrase that matters, "supreme court reform." it is not court packing, it is not what fdr did, it is supreme court reform. and the white house just wants to study the subject, objectively., right. the purpose, obviously, is to signal that court packing now has the endorsement of the biden white house. at a press conference this afternoon, one of the most powerful, and democrats in the congress made it very clear they had received that message. >> some people say we are packing the court. we are not packing it, we're unpacking it. senator mcconnell and republicans pack the court over the years, and senator markey outlined. this is a reaction to that. >> tucker: "some people might say we are packing the t court, no, we're unpacking it." woo, props to be 23-year-old communication aide who came up with that. he was not there alone this afternoon.

you remember hank johnson? the congressman/amateur geologists -- that guam might capsize due to overpopulation. that is hank johnson. andul hank johnson today offered his assessment of how big the supreme court would be. >> but this natural expansion stopped after the civil war, leaving us today with the historical oddity of 13 circuit courts of appeal and only nine justices. i believe it is time to go back to this tradition and have at least 13 justices. >> tucker: oh, at least. we've got to go back to before the civil war, says hank johnson.>> it is time to "go back to tradition." really?? you wonder what other antebellum traditions hank johnson wants to bring back to the united states. sadly, he did not tell us. until now, hank johnson's party

had us completely convinced that all earlier american traditions wereal white supremacist. somehow, the one that isn't just 13 members on the supreme court. that is what hank johnson just told us. now these people are genuinely radical. the good news is there also stupid.. ed markey, who served in congress for like 40 years stood up and repeated the same line, only by packing the supreme court full of partisan democrats can we -- [laughs] it's hard to read this. can we restore the legitimacy of the supreme court. >> and i am disappointed to say that too many americans question the court's legitimacy. the consequence is that the rights of all americans, but especially of people of color, women, and our immigrant communities are at risk. we have a stilted, illegitimate, 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has caused this crisis ofn confidence in our country.

>> tucker: now, first of all, it iss kind of hard to take ed markey, who is pushing like 100 years old, seriously, when he is talking about how we need to empower women and people of color when he is occupying a senate seat in an overwhelmingly democratic state. hey, ed markey, why don't you resign this afternoon and give ov that seat to a female person of color? oh, you will do that? because you are a liar. the best part is people don't think the court is legitimate and that is why we need to pack it with democrats, standing in front of a sign that said "expand the court." it wasn't that long ago that he was telling us we need nine. that meant nine justices. do you remember that? they don't want you to remember that. that is not the only thing they don't want you to remember. when ruth bader ginsburg died,ou ed markey was one of so many democrats who urged republicans to respect her dying wish. "mitchli mcconnell has steamrolled through a confirmation hearing, going against precedent and against justice ginsburg's dying wish." that is what ed markey told us.

so even from the grave, supreme court justices get to determine who replaces them. but now, ruth bader ginsburg, rest in peace, is no longer useful to people like ed markey, so they want you to forget whatt she herself said about court packing about a year before she died. >> i have heard that there are some people on the democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. if anything, it would make the court i appear partisan. it would be that one side thing. when we are in power, we will enlarge the number. >> tucker: now, at the time, it was, i think a federal law, that all democrats had to agree with ruth bader ginsburg, so joe biden did. >> i would not get into court packing. we add three justices, next time around, we lose control, they add three justices, we begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.

>> tucker: we can go on and on. we've got a lot of tape. these are all sound bites we can play you of democrats telling you "no, no, no, we need nine justices." but we are not going to. brazen hypocrisy is starting to bore us. they are liars with no principles, will say anything for power, got it. in real life, the bill we are talking about may not pass, but the sad thing it does not matter whether or not it does because the damage has already been done. we just watched people who are paid to care about the country prove that they don't. they'd wrecked the place as long as they have control of it. that is not a reassuring message. t t a lot of americans are highly anxious right now. they are distrustful, some are paranoid. they don't thinkou anything, noe of their institutionsom is on te level. but instead of reassuring them that everything is going to be okay, leaving democrats to showe them they have every reason to feel the way they do. jonathan turley is a famed constitutional law professor,ea and he joins us to assess this effort. professor, thank you so much for coming on. what would happen if you pack

the court, reformo the court, brought it up to 13 members, what with the effect be? >> well, first of all, the question about the size of a court has been debated for years.he many of us have talked about a larger court, but this is not reforming, this is packing. when you say you are going to dump four new members onto the court, which just happens to give liberals a working and stable majority, that is called packing. it is not subtle. it is treating the supreme court like it is a glorified fcc with life tenure, that you are just adding members, essentially because of their alliance with your agenda. and the damage to the court, obviously, would be extreme. it is no accident that the supreme court is the one institution that routinely gets favorable views in polls. people respect the supreme court. just last year, while over a

majority of americans had favorable views of the court. but that is not what is driving this. the justices, like ginsberg and justice breyer, both very liberal, both spoke out against this. the public is overwhelmingly opposed to this. what is driving this is the most extreme voices in our politics. and when justice breyer recently said "don't do this," that this will really damage the court, he was attacked. billboards called on his retirement, told him his legacy was in danger, because those voices of reason no longer resonate in our age of rage. you know, you have to be a berserker today. you've got to be someone who is willing to lay waste to any institution or tradition in the way to final victory. and that is what we are talking about here. it is not likely this bill will survive, but what was really tragic today was the absence of voices coming from the

democratic party, saying enough. that this is wrong. this isar packing. and the most conspicuous voice that was absent is president biden. this is when a president shows that he has not just a politician, but you step forward and you say "look, we can talk about reforms, but what you are talking about, that will not happen."an >> tucker: i wish i had said that in the open, such a smart point. thank you for saying it. jonathan turley, great to see you. for real, he should have said that.o >> thank you.u. >> tucker: so, as you remember, as we covered on this show, big tech companies band "the new york post" right before the election because they dared to report accurately on influencing -- influence peddling among members of the biden family. now, facebookk is banning "the new york post" again. what is the story facebook doesn't want you to be allowed to read? t we will tell you what it is, because they don't control us.

we will be right back. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: we are sad to report tonight that the venerable "new york post" newspaper crossed the line this week. they wrote a story revealing that one of the founders of the

sacred blm movement has in fact spent millions of dollars on four high-end homes just in the united states, and that is not allowed. embarrassing the leader of blm just for being greedy? please, stop, "new york post." that was facebook'sed position. facebook is now blocking "the new york post" reporting. tried to chair it on facebook and got a message, "you can't share this because it goes against community standards," including slacking for every left-wing organization in america. "violating privacy of personal information policies."" [laughs] by the way, pictures of the blmt house were everywhere. real estate blogs were allowed. facebook said they could help identify the blm founder's residence.ho we can assure you they do not extend that to others in the public eye. facebook is also censored the founder of project veritas, james o'keefe, and a frequent guest on this program, shockingly, jason whitlock. the censorship is just intensifying. is anyone noticing this or doing anything abouttl it? ned ryun noticed, the ceo of

america majority.ng he joins us tonight. ned, so, they silenced trump when he was still president. trump is not allowed to talk, still, but they did not stop there. turns out they silenced everyone, not just who voted for trump, but anyone who in any way goes against the regime. when does this end, if ever? >> when republicans and conservatives get righteous on this issue. a lot are conflicted. when republican house leadership taking maxed-out contributions from google and members of the house freedomrs caucus taking maxed-out contributions from google, conservatives in d.c. taking money from tech giants, to promote and run the party lines. until we change, until we say no more -- it really is -- do you renounce satan and all of his evil works? do you renounce big tech atou al of their evil works, their censorship, their w meddling in the free flow of information, quite frankly, they're meddling

in free and fair elections with zuckerberg -- until conservatives get in their heads that monopolies do not protect free-market capitalism, break monopolies, republican tradition, and stop mistaking corporatism for capitalism. when you have these big corporations that work hand in glove with big government, that is not capitalism, that is corporatism, and it is working on behalf of big government, quite frankly, democrats and establishment republicans love this, tucker, and you know why? they don't haveli to shred the bill of rights and a full frontal assault on ouron basic human rights. they can step out of the way and let the local corporations do their dirty work for them, as libertarians and others are going "we can't touch them because they are private corporations," absurd andhe ridiculous. >> tucker: so everyone in the country is watching this, and this is just crediting market capitalism, it is not, it is monopolies --s >> that's right.

>> tucker: when we get socialism in a couple years, which will totally wreck the country, will anyone acknowledge this is why? >> this is the problem. this is why republicans and conservatives need to understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism. people conflate them and will look at this behavior and say this is capitalism. the right approach is going to take place at the state level when 26 other republican governors do the exact same thing that ron desantis is doing and taking a strong stance on big tech. we will see reform at the state level first, before anything in d.c. >> tucker: crush these people immediately. >> that's right. >> tucker: ned, thank you so much. chelsea clintonth loves faceboo. seems to have a lot of influence over there. she said facebook should ban the show, because we ask a science-based question about vaccine. a simple question that no one has answered. we will give you the whole story after the break. ♪ ♪ ent plan with voya keeps me moving forward. they guide me with achievable steps that give me confidence.

this is my granddaughter...she's cute like her grandpa. voya doesn't just help me get to retirement... ...they're with me all the way through it. voya. be confident to and through retirement.

>> tucker: internationally renowned h >> tucker: internationally renowned humanitarian and intellectual chelsea clinton has had about enough of this show, so she called today for facebook to shut us down. "in december, facebook banned claims about covid-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts, and yet," she put into our monologue vaccines on tuesday, she said our shows continued presence on facebook, "especially public," given republican men are most likely to say they are not interested in being vaccinated. which is funny on so many different levels, first of all, completely not true.ed if you look at populations that are most vaccine hesitant,e. its not republican men -- by the way, we don't judge. our body, our choice, everyone has a choice to make a decision about their own health care, period, there is that. this show has been adamantly pro-vaccine from the first day and i stayed that way, we support for science and vaccines and have faith in america. we would like really simple questions answered. for example, why do people with

high levels of antibodies, people who have been naturally infected, why are they being encouraged to takee the vaccin? is that safe forfe them? we do not do that with other vaccines. why are we doing it now? most of the point, why are people who have been vaccinated being treated as if they have not been vaccinated?d? what is that about? since your question. today, congressman jim jordan asked dr. fauci when life in america might return to normal. now, fauci is an expert on everything, but he did not have an answer to that question. >> in your written statement, you say now is not the time tobu pull back on masking, physical distance income and avoiding congregate settings. when do americanski get their freedom back? and you put your microphone on, please. >> when we get the level of infection in his country low enough that it is not a really high -- >> what isnt low enough? give me a number. what measures, what standard, what objective, what outcome do we have to reach before americans get their liberties and freedoms back? >> you know, you are indicating

liberty and freedom. i look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital. >> you do not think americans liberties have been thrust into last year, dr. fauci? they have been assaulted. >> tucker: well, then another member of congress asked fauci about this shows criticism of fauci's rules, either way, a lot of people have asked the obvious question, if you get the vaccine and you think it works -- they have told you it works -- but then they say you have to socially distance, stay indoors, can't go to restaurants, and have to wear a mask. s what is that about? what is the answer? fauci again did not answer, so we have no choice. >> last night, mr. carlson responded to you, saying it is not a conspiracy theory. he said, referring to vaccines, "if this stuff works, why can't you live likes, it works? why are you wearing a mask?" well, what is the answer, dr. fauci? >> what we don't know right now but we will know as we gather more information, that you can

get infected even though you have been vaccinated, and because you are vaccinated, have no symptoms. and therefore, you could have virus in your nasopharynx, and you could then transmit it inadvertently to somebody else. >> tucker:ra okay. so, fauci says you can still get the virus, even after you havee been vaccinated and not know it and pass it to other people. a couplete questions. one, why don't we know for sure? don't we have a lot of people working on this? seems like that would be a very obvious question we would have answered months ago. second, why haven't they told ul this before? the opposite of what they told us. why are they being straightforward? we don't know the answer. we do know cdc director rochelle walensky said something certainly different. watch this. >> our data from the cdc today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and it is not just in the clinical trials, but it is also in real-world data.

>> tucker: so dr. chelsea clinton is mad that we asked super obvious questions that everyone in the country should be asking, but no one seems particularly angry to will learn the people running this cooperation are total buffoons who cannot even coordinate their own talking points and can't answer the most basic questions. so does the vaccine, and there are a couple of them, but do they work or don't they work? it is okay, you can tell us. well, the ceo o of pfizer came t and seemed to suggest today that actually, the dose that pfizer is administering doesn't work. the ceo of pfizer now said two doses probably aren't enough. he said it is "likely p that people will need a third dose" of his company's coronavirus vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated. i guess it is nice to know that now. we didn't know that yesterday. and chelsea clinton was trying to pull us off the air for asking questions that he partlyy answered. thank you, ceo of pfizer, glad to know. the ceo of pfizer added it is possible people need to get vaccinated against coronavirus

every year. well, that is good to know, too. glenn beck is the host of "the glenn beck radio program," and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on here but nobody here is anti-vaccine, but why can't we get answers to the most basic of all questions? >> because, tucker, it appears to me they are either wildly incompetent or this is not about covid. this is about something else, and i don't know what that is, but as you'vels talked about, ld out a really good case during the whole show today, everything is changing. everything is changing. they are changing the supreme court. they are changing the way we talk to each other. they are changing the way we teach our students, our children. they are changing the way we look at race. everything is changing. so, what changes are being made with covid? i don't buy their answers. i too am not anti-vaccine. i had covid. my wife had covid.

everybody in myd. family had it. i'm not going to get a a vaccination because i've already had it. and i don't understand why this one, this time, it's different than every other thing we've ever encountered in human history. >> tucker: well, especially since there are indications that it is potentially unhealthy to give someone with high levels of antibodies the covid vaccine. what do ii know? i am hardly a man of science. i am interested in the way scientists think, the way we all should be.f but why -- so tens of millions, maybe more than 100 million people have had the covid infection already. the biden administration is saying all of them should get the vaccine, but no one has bothered to askd why. what is that? sincere. >> they are out of their -- >> tucker: [laughs] >> asking us, they are saying, why aren't we vaccinated? wait a minute, hang on just a second. you are not giving me complete information here.

i have already had it. why do i need to be vaccinated again? and they are treating this like it is the bubonic plague, and it is not the bubonic plague. something else is wrong, and i don't understand why we have to listen to these experts, who are anything but experts. these experts are the same experts that told us that there was a great conspiracy going on with donald trump and russia. wrong. all these experts told us thatoi the crash and the financial market would never happen. wrong. the experts told us there would never be a caliphate. wrong.pe why are we listening to these experts? thomas jefferson said at one point, trust the american people. they may get it right -- they may get it wrong from time to time, but eventually, they will figure it out. i would rather be judged by a group of farmers then all of these elites in the academic institutions. that iss jefferson. and he's right. the experts don't run our lives.

they don't run our country. although, they are seemingly starting to run everything in our life and in our country. people are supposed to be running it. and when you make a good case, then we will follow. makeou the case. but you can't question. and my -- my feeling has been my kids i've taught this forever, anyone tells you not to read something, you probably should read it. that doesn't mean you buy into it, but if they can't tell you why you shouldn't read it, why this is wrong, what you should read instead, read those things, but also read the other. when somebody says "you can't say that, you can't think that, you can't ask thaty question," that's because, usually, they are afraid. they have another agenda, justth like the church did with galileo. galileo was the guy who gave us

the system of science and honest questioning. he spent his whole life up in a tower because he refused to give in. i'm sorry, but when we go back to a system of actual science, where men and women are free to ask honest questions, then i will be fine. we can proceed from there. until then, i am not going to do anything because you tell me, and it is mom and dad just said so, so do it. >> tucker: yeah. if you want us to trust the experts, get competent experts. otherwise, no. i agree. i love the galileo example. glenn beck, the great glenn beck. thank you for that. >> thank you very much. god bless. >> tucker: god bless. the border is out of control, of course, the purpose of it is to change thehe political balance f the country. what no one is saying is this is

taking massive toll on the physical environment, remember the environment, the stuff god made? it's being destroyed. taking the biden administration, partly over that, god bless them. ♪ ♪ we need to reduce plastic waste in the environment. that's why at america's beverage companies, our bottles are made to be re-made. not all plastic is the same. we're carefully designing our bottles to be one hundred percent recyclable, including the caps. they're collected and separated from other plastics, so they can be turned back into material that we use to

make new bottles. that completes the circle, and reduces plastic waste. please help us get every bottle back.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: the interior department does not get a lot ♪ ♪ >> tucker: the interior department does not get a lot of publicity but has a huge portfolio. the interior departmentbl overss the majority of all federal land in this country and our natural

resources. yet no one really knows what they do over there at the department of interior, so we decided to check in because we had some free time, and we found it a recent video of senior officials at the department of interior introducing themselves on a forum on oil and gas. now before you watch this video, keep in mind, this is not a drum circle at oberlin. this is your federal government. >> my name is laura daniel davis. and i recognize that i live and work within the ancestral lands of the anacostians, and the anacostia and potomac river watershed. i acknowledge the knowledge of these peoples, and i am grateful for their ancestral stewardship of this land. my pronouns are she/her. >> my phonons are so she/her, and i recognize i live and learn on the ancestral lands of the cheyenne people. >> my pronouns are she/her. and i am the director of the bureau of ocean energy management. i recognize that i live and work within the ancestral lands.

and mohican people. >> tucker: that is a lot of she and hers, so much for diversity in the government. what is amazing -- i'm sure they are all nice people and probably have real skills, but here they are, before they do anything, apologizing to the ancient p tribes whose lands they are now overseeing. and what is so interesting is if you got to ask follow-up questions, and no one is ever allowed to do that, by the way, you would ask, what do you know about anacostians, who apparently were in charge of washington? having spent 35 years in washington, can confirm, nobody in washington knows anything about the anacostians, so you are not really honoring people if you don't know anything about them, and you are not honoring our country if you let the actual environment degrade completely, which they are doing in favor of silly little chats about what you're pronouns are. who cares what your pronouns are? shh. save the land. that is the last thing they are doing. that'sat progress. well, illegal immigration takes

a massive toll on our environment and is out of control. to give just one example, this march, authorities in arizona encountered more than five times that they encounterr the year before. environmental do not want to talk about it because it is not about climate, but if you care about nature and the actual physical environment, andd this is a disaster. unregulated waves of people coming in destroy the land and contribute to massive amounts of pollution. again, no one ever says this because no one in charge of our environmental movement cares anything about the environment, like, nothing, and they know nothing about it, either. for one person does care, the arizona, whoral of is suing the biden administration over its immigration policy and saying among other things, thosesegr policies do not comply with the environmental policy act. mr. attorney general, thank you so much for coming on. bless you for doing this and for pointing it out. what effect does unrestrained migration have on the t environment of arizona? >> well, tucker, we know it is estimated about 2 million people

will cross our border in this country. think about that, that is about the entire state of nebraska crossing over.hi the average person crossing leaves about 58 pounds of trash, so we are talking about a million pounds of trash, just in one month, and you think about the entire course of a year, so the thing about the environmental movement it is really not about saving the environment, and i think this lawsuit pointed out because they have a poster --av i've always said the basic premise of environmentalism, my basic premise has always been, if the soviet union collapsed, communism did not end, they just ended up in the environment. it is about centralizing power, in this case, washington, d.c. >> tucker: right, the ideology that gave us chernobyl is lecturing us. thanks, i appreciate that. why would you ever allow people who ignore your laws and pollute your environment to come live in your country? since yourrsi question, regardls of how great they might be otherwise. >> excellent question, tucker,

and that is part of the thing we point out in our lawsuit. historically, the left has stopped all sorts o of development, to stop freeways, destroy the logging industry because of spotted owls, all sorts of examples, and yet, when you literally have millions of people crossing our border, routingg migration trails, and then they come here, and of course, they are people, migrants are people, too, they are going to do houses, food, transportation. all of that has a huge carbon footprint on places like arizona and everywhere else in the country,ce so i think -- look, i look at this lawsuit as a no lose situation because either we win and the biden administration is forced to continue constructing -- reinstate the remain in mexico policy, or if we lose, the ninth circuit overturned this, even though they cared about the environment in the past, we will have t case law that basically says the federal government doesn't need to comply with federal regulations, and maybe that will deter the environmentalists from filing lawsuits in the future.

>> tucker: well, we have to think of a a new name for them because they are not environmentalists. you think of all of the good-hearted people who really love the mountains, for example, the sierras, the most beautiful mountains we have, and there is a sierra club to protect them, but the sierra club does not do anything to protect them. did they join your suit? have they filed agreement with it? >> you know, they have been critical of it, like so many of the other so-called environmental groups, and i think once again, that points out the true nature of their position. they don't care, per se, about the environment, let's say. what they do care about is raising money and demonizing republicans that oppose their view that they get to control your property and your livelihood and their desire to centralize power. because once you control someone's property and you can call livelihood, then you control them politically. >> tucker: i totally agree. environmental policyol can be vy complicated. you know what is not complicated? littering.g. anyone who is for litteringy is. against the environment, period. no littering. you are not allowed to litter

here. that is my view. mr. attorney general, i appreciate you coming out tonight. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: so, a lot of people going rogue over on cnn. you saw an anchor the other day trashing our network as sexist. mr. don lemon rose to the defense of his own network and in the process did a little toxic mansplaining. [laughs] so great! also check out our new show, "tucker carlson today," we interviewed alex berenson. tomorrow, adam carolla. streaming on demand, watch anytime you want on foxnation.com.ie next, don lemon mansplaining. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

let's get back to talking smack with a side of mac and cheese. before we can safely come together, we need the facts on covid-19 vaccines. to get the facts, visit getvaccineanswers.org so you can make an informed decision when vaccines are available to you.

>> tucker: wil >> tucker: will try and keep up with is going on at cnn. a few nights ago we told you about brooke baldwin on her way out. but on her way out she accused cnn of being sexist and we gavea the advice to jeff zucker, just transition the amount of women at cnn. but he ignored our advice. instead they are doubling down on women hating, watch this. >> a couple of things i know >> a couple of things i know everybody else's salary so i can't say that it is -- and it is a boys club. i just got there. >> you don't think it is a boys club. you are having lunch with zucker and i'm guessing she is not. >> i called him up and said would you like to have lunch? she can do the same thing.

>> tucker: if i were mr. rourke from "love boat." anyways, he was asked about ther claims and he said, i just got here. he has only been there 15 years. time moves quickly when you wore at a cable patriarchy, once you get past mr. lemon, he was mansplaining if you can imagine, like saving needs open on the subway, lecturing brooke baldwin on how to get into the borough lunch with zucker, and we know he might be the poster child for toxic masculinity, sexism is what it was. he is checking himself in his male privilege, stop the man-explaining, mr. rourke. that's it for us this evening. apologies. we will be back tomorrowex night and every weeknight to show that ieis the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink all of which are growing in intensity. have the best evening with the

ones you love, the great sean hannity takes over from a state north of here. >> sean: one that is too highly taxed with too much bureaucracy. thank you. welcome to "hannity," we begin with this fox news alert, the city of chicago is on edge bracing for a night of potential unrest, none so far thankfully. hours ago new footage showing the officer involved in the shooting death of 13-year-old adam toledo, a teenager, tonight as always we are not going to rush to judgment, but we have learned an awful lot from the body cam footage and reports. these are the facts from the case so far, this incident took place around 2:30 a.m. in the morning on monday march 29th, at the time 13-year-old teenager adam was hanging out with at 21-year-old individual named ruben roman, and he was on probation because of a gun