Skip to main content

tv   Tucker Carlson Tonight  FOX News  May 2, 2022 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT

5:00 pm
look at that turkey crossing state lines, thinking. >> on the run. >> will: thanks for that report. >> you bet. >> will: thank you for watching jesse watters prime time, i'm cain. don't forget to catch the podcast new episodes every monday, wednesday coming friday. that's all for tonight. "tucker carlson tonight" is up next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." here's a happy memory. by breakfast, really even brunch on election day, 2016, virtually nobody in washington, d.c., thought donald trump and win. and they didn't think that because the entire press corps had been telling them for months that trump had, as they are was put it, literally no chance, not even as an abstract, theoretical matter. this wasn't actually a race. come november 8th, you'll remember this, donald trump is going to be drowned by of
5:01 pm
towering blue synonymy and swept away forever along with the rest of the republican party, the collaborators anyway. polling numbers seemed to confirm that this was back to happen and so, by the way, to the private betting markets. at least one of those markets had set the spread it 80/20 for hillary clinton. in the end they were not only wrong, they were hilariously wrong, by midnight he had won and a lot of highly educated, extremely well credentialed people looked at ridicules. hillary clinton herself was so shocked by the result that night that she refused to give a concession speech. she went to bed hoping it was just a dream. you probably remember all of that very well. but it was what happened next in the days between the election and thanksgiving that it turns out in a lot of ways was much more important. what happened during that period set the course for where we are right now, and where we are right now is speeding towards one of the great disasters in our history. the leaders of the democratic party couldn't, in effect, handle the outcome of the 2016 election. they snapped under the strain of it, under the crushed
5:02 pm
expectations. but rather than look inward and assess their own role in the disaster, what did we do wrong? whited voters reject us, and other questions that emotionally mature mature adults might've asked. democratic lawmakers instead set out to blame some deals for the results and soon they settled on russia. vladimir putin got donald trump elected, they told us. hillary clinton said that repeatedly. now, at first it was hard to take any of it very seriously. we tried, but there was no evidence it was true at all. and so a rational person can go to the obvious. this was a childish like a logical defense mechanism, not a factual claim. and yet they kept saying it. in the face of no evidence. and over time they began acting on it like it was true and even over more time they paralyzed the entire federal government for years, fruitlessly trying to prove the core claims of russiagate but they couldn't because those two coins weren't true and get critically they clung to those claims. they never stop repeating the
5:03 pm
talking points. the russian government "hacked" our election. that was jen psaki not long ago saying it out loud like it were true. here's the context. as she said that, she was trying to explain why the biden administration is in effect working to overthrow the russian government right now. and for once, she was telling the truth, that is why. democrats have convinced themselves that russia stole the presidency which rightfully belonged to hillary clinton, and they mean it when they said, and that's why they are taking us to war with russia. there are a lot of things going on here, a lot of threads, as in any big story, but on some level, the core motivation is just that simple. here's what we know it's not. we know the war in ukraine is not about saving democracy. please. we know it's not about protecting the sacred borders of a sovereign country. we know the biden administration doesn't care about those principles because they run our country and we see how they act. and when offered at certain -- and this comes as sad news to a lot of americans were compassionate -- but we know now
5:04 pm
that the war is not about helping the ukraine people, those poor people. many more ukrainian civilians will die, certainly, thanks to the biden administration's policies. if you want to save ukraine, its people, its infrastructure, its nation, you would push for a settlement now. you would have done it two months ago, but they are not doing that. that's not their goal, saving ukraine, saving human lives. no, that's not their goal. instead, the war in ukraine is designed to cause regime change in moscow. they want to topple the russian government. that would be payback for the 2016 election. so this is the logical, may be the inevitable end stage of russia-gate. of we should have seen it coming because they said it out loud. years ago. here's adam schiff from two years ago predicting it, saying it. watch this. >> is one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the united states aids ukraine and her people so that we can fight russia over there and we don't have to fight russia here.
5:05 pm
>> tucker: so we arm ukraine so we can fight russia. how many americans, whatever you think of putin -- probably not much, justifiably -- probably don't have a lot of interest in moving to russia, but how many americans then or now want to "fight russia"? a very small group. but adam schiff said it out loud at the time in the house of a percentage. we don't arm ukraine so we can help ukrainians, they are merely unfortunate ponds and all of this. we arm ukraine so that we can punish russia. why? for stealing hillary clinton's coronation. if only we had taken adam schiff seriously as he said it again and again and again, but now we can't help but take adam schiff seriously because he's one of the prime movers of this war. adam schiff spent this weekend in eastern europe checking on the progress of the war he has done so much to bring about. he traveled there with nancy pelosi and a number of other of the most conspiracy-minded democrats in congress. these are the russiagate true
5:06 pm
believers seeing their theory come to fruition. that's what this is. here's the group pelosi, adam schiff, and the rest, meeting with the president in ukraine. >> nice to meet you, thank you for coming. >> governor of massachusetts. nice to meet you. >> [indiscernible]. >> adam schiff, california. honored to meet you. >> tucker: so how did adam schiff and nancy pelosi wind up in charge of america's foreign policy as we stand on the cusp of a third world war? and why are republicans supporting them, and what happens when you put people with a demonstrated lack of boundaries or self-control or wisdom in charge of something as important as the fate of nations? well, here's what happens. watch as one after the other democrats you just saw on tape
5:07 pm
announced that this regime change is not nearly over, in fact this war has just begun. watch. >> one thing is really clear, that this delegation wanted to -- be very clear with his most recent aid package request. it is a historic request that we are going to push hard in the united states congress to help pass and it sends a very simple message. we are not interested in stalemates. we are not interested in going back to the status quo. the united states of america is in this to win it and we will stand with ukraine until victory is won. >> tucker: that was congress when jason crow, a confirmed buffoon, telling us that we are not in it to achieve a stalemate. we? really? some of us were under the impression based on their's public statements that we were defending the sovereignty of another country, ukraine. but it's not up to us, it's up to the voters in ukraine, because ukraine is a democracy.
5:08 pm
here is the congressman telling us we are not going to accept a "stalemate." we are in it to win it. we're going to win, we are here until we get victory. that raises the obvious question, what is winning? what is victory? how do we know when we won? he didn't tell us. and neither, by the way, did nancy pelosi. she just that we are going to keep sending weapons to ukraine "until the fight is done." >> to say thank you for your fight of freedom, and that your fight is a fight for everyone. and so our commitment is to be there for you until the fight is done. >> tucker: how did we get here exactly? you feel betrayed? if you're one of the millions of good-hearted americans who put a ukrainian flag pin on your lapel or put one in front of her house expressing solidarity with the poor, oppressed people of ukraine, you probably didn't think you are signing up for this. nancy pelosi telling us we are in a war with a nuclear armed
5:09 pm
power with no clear end game. seen that movie before? we just finished one after 20 years in afghanistan. will it look like that? this is an open-ended conflict, said nancy pelosi, just like the war on terror, and just in case you missed it, they all repeated that line. here's her nightmare again, adam schiff in charge of the war against russia. watch. >> the whole freedom loving world has an interest in the outcome of this war and ensuring that ukraine is victorious, and we are determined to do everything in our power to make it so. we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with ukraine, and we will. >> tucker: these people are playing dress-up. they have no idea what they're talking about, and they don't care. they get to pretend to be statesman for a day. but when adam schiff and nancy pelosi -- again, people with a demonstrated, years long record of being willing to say anything for personal power,
5:10 pm
anything to improve the fortunes of the local party -- when they are standing up with a foreign head of state saying there's an open check, you fill in the number, you've got to wonder where this is going. we know where it could go. this is the most reckless foreign policy in our lifetimes, in american history. you are watching a group of decadent and some cases senile leaders casually dismiss the consequences of going to war with a nuclear armed nation. dismiss the consequences of nuclear war like it's not even worth thinking about. but it is worth thinking about. they tell us daily vladimir putin is evil and insane, and that may well be true, but this same man has threatened to use nuclear weapons against the united states and western europe if this continues, and why don't we believe him? you may have missed this, "the new york times" didn't seem to have time to cover it. but here's russia's foreign minister just last week underscoring the point. >> russian foreign minister with a chilling warning, the risk of nuclear war is a real one.
5:11 pm
speaking to state run media, he said "the danger was serious, israel, it cannot be under estimated." he added that he did not want to see the risk to nuclear war "artificially inflated." >> tucker: he does not see it as an artificially inflated. so what they are saying is we will use nuclear weapons against you and your allies if you don't back off. if, for example, this seems existential, like you're trying trying to overthrow our government. it's hardly in defense of russia to say that's a possibility, and has been for quite some time. so it was two years ago that vladimir putin revised russia's nuclear deterrent policy. the new policy allows russia to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike. that means some sort of nonnuclear provocation. in march, russia's former president dmitry medvedev, who sits on russia's security council, reminded our country of this policy. he warned joe biden that russia
5:12 pm
would indeed use nuclear weapons against the west in response to any "act of aggression" that is committed against russia and its allies. what would that look like? would include helping to shoot down a russian transport plane carrying hundreds of russian troops? the pentagon has admitted doing that. you don't have to be for russia to see that as a pretty reckless act and not just doing it but then bragging about it to nbc news. where does that get us? we should find out. we do know that putin has placed russia's nuclear forces on high alert, and again, russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and again, why wouldn't he use those weapons? they tell us daily he is evil and insane and he may well be. a risk? yeah. but no one in washington seems worried in the slightest. in fact, congressman adam kinzinger, with clearly something to look for at this point, is not going to a blank check i'm an open-ended conflict in ukraine using the same legal justification that got us into iraq for nearly 20 years.
5:13 pm
he wants an authorization to use military force. watch. >> senator kaine was with us and he said it is too soon to begin talking about potential use of force in ukraine. do you think is right? >> no. i don't. i don't think we need to be using force in ukraine right now. i just introduced an authorization for the use of military force giving the president basically congressional leverage or permission to use it if wmds, nuclear biological or chemical or use in ukraine. does it compel the president to do it? it just says if it is used he has that leverage. they may be a point where we have to recognize, look, this is -- prior to world war ii there were moments nobody ever wanted to get involved and eventually came to realize they had to. i hope we don't get to that point here, but we should be ready if we do. >> tucker: prior to world war ii, says adam kinzinger. so last year, adam kinzinger was a guy who had been redistricted out of his own district and was trolling for some kind of cable news contributor-ship.
5:14 pm
future looked grim for adam kinzinger. now adam kinzinger is on the sunday shows every week and doing his winston churchill limitation. you can see the built-in incentive for mediocre and intellectually limited numbers of congress to play the war hawk. but you have to ask yourself, why all of a sudden is everybody talking about chemical and biological weapons? just a couple weeks ago joe biden, the president of united states, promised to respond "in-kind" to potential use of chemical weapons by russia. in other words, the united states would use its chemical weapons against the russians if they used there is against ukraine, and then, because you are not supposed to admit that you have chemical weapons, the national security advisor for joe biden, whose memory still works, walked back and said the president misspoke just like he did when he told us this was a regime change war. we would never use chemical weapons. but for some reason, a lot of people in washington in both parties are still talking a lot about the u.s. using chemical weapons in russia. here's one of the most limited members of congress,
5:15 pm
michael mccaul, republican from texas, widely regarded as a health piece for the intel agencies, listen to what he says. >> what would happen if a chemical weapon was dropped in ukraine and/or a short range tactical nuke? the question there is what the world idol he sit back and watch that happen without doing anything? >> it will be what should we do. >> i just find it hard to believe, and when i talked to the secretary general of nato, their job is really to defend nato, not trigger article five, but in my judgment, that's beyond the pale. that crosses a redline, and i think if that happens, we would have to respond in kind. >> tucker: so stories like this give people like him a chance to give you a moral lecture on television, which is the whole appeal, but again, all of a sudden you have sitting numbers of congress with access to high-level intelligence talking casually about using chemical weapons or nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed
5:16 pm
state. so it's not a defense of russia, you don't have to believe russia was justified in invading ukraine -- they weren't. it's not a defense of putin to think to yourself "hold on a second tier, how did we get here talking about nuclear war in the sunday shows? should we be? are we ready for that? was goat it's clear no one in the biden administration care or is worried about it at all. the escalation continues at a remarkable pace, and you know that if you watch the money. we are continuing to shovel cash to the government of ukraine, which just last year democrats described as one of the most corrupt in the world, but whatever. and we are sending money to ukraine at levels that are astounding. joe biden signed off on the funding package in march for $13.6 billion in aid for ukraine. then he sent an additional 1.3 billion in april. then he sent 350 million in february. he also sent 800 million in march. in addition to all of that he has requested another $33 billion for ukraine, and that request includes funding
5:17 pm
for "longer-range artillery of a heavier caliber." in other words, we are sending artillery to ukraine that could easily strike russian territory we are sending $33 billion to do it. how much is 33 billion? in a moment when congress is writing checks for trillions. to put into context, $33 billion is more than double what the by demonstration spends protecting our national borders, and that's just one check to ukraine. but it's double the annual budget to protect our borders. the by demonstration just requested 15 billion for the entire budget for u.s. customs and border protection. and just 8 billion for the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. so we are spending twice on their borders what we spend on our own and one request, in one week. how much is 33 billion? while, it's more than we spend on veterans affairs every month. taking care of our own veterans. and the saddest point of all of
5:18 pm
this is it hasn't caused the russians to withdraw from ukraine, and no one is claiming that it will. it hasn't bankrupted putin, it hasn't crippled the russian economy, it certainly ruined our economy. what's going on here? the daily mail is reporting that a russian oligarch with close to ties to bottom recruit and she's on the bad guy list, right? no. because he met with the president's son in moscow devil times to discuss investment deals. so that oligarch, strangely, is being sanctioned by the u.k., but not by the by demonstration. the by demonstration for all of its bellicose talk about russia, has decided not to sanction the one oligarch who is friends with the president's so. this has nothing to do with ukraine. the war in ukraine does not have anything to do with ukraine, the long-term fortitude of the country or the health and safety of its people. has to do with a lot of other things. the by demonstration's request for ukraine aid, didn't see this
5:19 pm
coming, includes a pathway to citizenship for afghan refugees, their spouses, and children. "the secretary of homeland security and the secretary's distraction may adjust the status of an afghan national to that of an individual lawfully permitted for permanent residence." oh. so in an package meant to defend the borders of another sovereign nation, we continue to degrade our own. but you didn't think defending ukrainian democracy meant admitting ten thousands of more foreign nationals into this country overnight. of if you want to know why our leaders are determined to escalate this conflict, there's your answer. it means more power for them. it means revenge for the 2016 election, and if that means triggering a nuclear conflict between our nation and there's, so be it. brian dean wright is a former cia officer who has watched this from the beginning and joins estimate to assess. thanks so much for coming on. this is one of those stories there is so much going on and out of the corner of your eye you think what is happening in
5:20 pm
ukraine, and for ukraine people, i'm offended that russia invaded, but i mean, we are getting right up to the brink of something horrible here. why is nobody saying anything about it? >> well, i think that you've outlined many of the motivations. i think one of the things that some of my colleagues who have wide eyes on this are also worried about is the fact that we are sending not only billions of dollars, but it's weaponry that, once it gets into ukraine, we are not controlling. so it includes something called the stinger missiles, and does of course contact on commercial airliners, so we are bringing those into poland, we are turning them over to the ukrainians, and then they disappear. so we are pushing up against this conflict not just with russia for all the reasons that you just outlined, but we are also potentially introducing things in the black market, things that could get into the wrong hands, and now we have a disaster. so i think that what you are really facing at this point is a collective group of people in washington, d.c., that don't understand sacrifice. nancy pelosi is not going to send her children to ukraine. joe biden is not sending hunter
5:21 pm
to ukraine. and so they are not going to have to pay the price, but the kids of all the folks watching this tonight, they are going to pay the price. so i think fundamentally there is a disconnect between the people who pay with their blood and treasure the people who are making the decisions to send us off to war. >> tucker: i don't understand how you can simultaneously argue that putin is nuclear armed, crazy, bloodthirsty, demented, on predicable, ruthless, and then at the same time poke him in the face with a stick and hope for the best. i mean, which of these is true? >> it's a lot of chuckle. of course it's illogical. something i talk a lot about my podcast, you talk a lot about on your show. we are losing logic because of logical and reasonable people not part of the conversations. there's ulterior motives here. and i think fundamentally we have to stop and ask ourselves, can we afford this. because when we talk about 13 billion or $33 billion, that's money that we don't have, that's deficit spending, so we're just printing money and then we are issuing debt, which
5:22 pm
means interest rates on top of that. so it's more than 13 billion or 33 billion. and i think you highlighted something apart and with the border. it's not just the border itself. joe biden asked congress for 3.9 billion to address the opiate issue. my goodness, that's even less than his 13 billion, so he's prioritizing the ukrainians, you know, beyond 100,000 people in this country who have died from the opiate and fentanyl attacks and drug war, right? so we just have a fundamental disconnect between what the people in washington, d.c., think is important and what they are signing us up for and what the rest of us are going to have to pay for buried >> tucker: and if you look at it in relative terms as you just did, it really is so deeply revealing. great to see you tonight, thank you. >> you bet. >> tucker: there are a lot of people who voted democrat all their lives because they thought they were on the side of the poor, the little guy, the man against the machine, and a lot of them are bewildered by what they are seeing now. one of those lifelong democrats is called: right. he came up with a cartoon to
5:23 pm
illustrate what is going on now. elon musk just shared it on twitter, he joins us next to six-point what it means. thus we are learning a lot more about joe biden's minister of truth, hilarious. we've got details straight ahead. ♪ ♪
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
♪ ♪
5:28 pm
>> tucker: so suddenly the same kind of nihilism you're seeing in our foreign policy, we don't care what happens, you're seeing apply to our domestic policy and even to questions of science. so the people in charge of telling of the biological sex isn't real and if you disagree, you're a racist. for a lot of lifelong democrats this is bewildering. they didn't sign up for this. colin wright has been a democrat all his life, didn't sign up for this. so a year ago he came up with a cartoon to illustrate what he thought was going on. he hasn't changed but the people who were present him in the democratic party have become very unreasonable. elon musk agrees, he just shared this cartoon on twitter. in a "wall street journal" op-ed he asked point he made the cartoon to kind of sort out how he feels is a lifelong democrat. colin wright is an evolutionary biologist and we are happy to have him join us tonight. thanks so much for coming on. you can describe this better than i can paraphrase. why did you draw this cartoon at what does it mean? >> yeah, so i drew this cartoon in bed one night in my pajamas because i had this increasing feeling of alienation from, you
5:29 pm
know, the political left, on a lot of core values that i felt were central to who i was as a voter, so on issues such as free speech, for instance, that i think the left held as being sacrosanct for much of its history, you know, it's been -- these values of free speech were generally held to be these core values in order to uphold free speech, to speak truth to power and it's being increasingly viewed as sort of -- >> tucker: is on acceptable. people are being called racist for wanting free speech. you keep hearing that. is that -- when you signed up as a liberal or democrat or you thought the democratic party were presented you, even five years ago, would have been plausible that somebody at msnbc would say you're racist if you want free speech? >> well, no, it's being increasingly viewed as hostile to the government, it's being
5:30 pm
hostile to -- you know, these ideas that we have of free speech, and on issues such as racism, for instance, where the previous values that we had of judging people by the content of their character, for instance, rather than by, you know, the color of their skin. this has been replaced by these sort of identity politics and equity initiatives that are really valuing group identity over individual rights, and then on the issues of women's rights, for instance, we see -- you know, right has not always been the best are consistent on these issues, but at least the right knows what a woman is. you know, an adult human female. and i would say that as a biologist, so i say that with certainty. the left, on the other hand, they can't even tell you what a woman is, so they can even really pretend to understand or to protect women's rights. this is kind of my growing feeling of being disaffected from the left on these many issues and i think a lot of americans and people abroad feel the same way. >> tucker: i agree.
5:31 pm
people abroad, it's not just this country. the world takes its cues from us, the west does. if you like the conversation, we had a long conversation with colin for an episode of "tucker carlson today," you can check it out on fox nation. if you feel like buried so nina janco it's is in charge of regulating disinformation for the government. and our dhs secretary, who should be really ashamed that he's hired her and that she's now now a law enforcement officer, tells you with a straight face that she's perfect for the job. watch this. >> republicans are criticizing your decision, the administration's decision to choose nina janco it's to lead this disinformation board, they say she is not some but he was neutral your response? >> a renowned expert in the field of -- >> and neutral? >> absolutely so. >> tucker: republicans are upset. no. all normal people who believe in enlightened values are terrified by the idea the biden
5:32 pm
administration is trying to control what you say and think, because they are not allowed to do that, those rights are given to you by god. freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, period. if it's not just about nina janco it's, who is a total idiot, obviously, but you'd never know that from watching television. watch the administration's allies in the media. >> there's been an uproar in recent days about the department of homeland security setting up what they call it disinformation governance board. this is been mostly a fox world story. come up earlier on state of the union but i don't think people know what it is and what it isn't, and has just been a lot of right wing uproar without knowing what it is. >> being a stronger advocate to tech companies and engaging the public and academia, that's really what they're after. >> that sounds like common sense. but when i googled us all i see is joe biden's ministry of truth, and they are going to -- you know, there's this incredible backlash to something that sounds like basic government bureaucracy. >> tucker: it sounds like common sense. the government gets to decide what you're allowed to think about news stories. your not allowed to take the
5:33 pm
facts in and reach her own decisions because you are not an adult, you're a serf in a country where the people who are in charge decide what you believe. so if that doesn't bother you, maybe you deserve a show at cnn. they are not just looking into the person running all of this, nina, so we are. throughout the covert pandemic, far from fighting disinformation, ponied up to the government of china and she assured you that no, the virus didn't originate in a lab in wuhan. no. in fact, she criticized the intel community for looking into that possibility. she said to give credence to "conspiracy theorists." of course it turned out to be almost certainly true. then this nina jankowicz, this world-renowned expert, went on the record to support government control over what you're allowed to say. watch. >> i shudder to think about it free speech that's balloonist -- absolutists were -- what that would look at for the marginalized communities all them on the world which are already shouldering so much of
5:34 pm
this abuse. disproportionate amount of this abuse, and re-traumatizing themselves if they try to protect themselves from it. you know, reporting, blocking, et cetera. we need the platforms to do more and we frankly need law enforcement and our legislatures to do more as well, and in other countries, they are looking at this. the u.k. has an online safety bill that's being considered right now where they are trying to make it illegal this currently "awful but lawful" content that exists online where people are being harassed. >> tucker: so here we have another entitled white lady telling you that you're racist if you disagree with her. of course it has nothing to do with race. if it did she would be deeply worried help people in baltimore a living, but none of them care. what they really care about is making sure you can never criticize the people they work for and you should know that. you should have clear resume. ceo of "the federalist" joins us tonight. thanks so much for coming on. you wonder, if we allow divide and demonstration to cross this line, are there any lines left
5:35 pm
to cross? >> i don't think so, especially when you look at what happened in 2020 because i think what they're actually setting up at dhs here is the full run of their control of information. in 2020, they did a test run with the hunter biden laptop and all these former corrupt spooks came out and said it's russian disinformation, which is alive, and then they peddled that to the tech companies and companies and end up tech companies dutifully banned anybody who talked about the laptop from being on the internet. and what this new office does is just give them the ability to launder that fake news, except do it anonymously. these idiots don't have to go and sign a letter with their names on it anymore. they just get to whisper over to scarry poppins, the government propaganda nanny and she will take care of it for them. >> tucker: i've been brooding on this all we can. she is so self-evidently ridiculous and self discrediting. you think they made a huge mistake, they are so dumb they put this woman in charge, but maybe they did that so you
5:36 pm
wouldn't realize this is a law enforcement official who works in the biggest enforcement agency in the country which stockpiles ammo to the tune of millions of rounds a year controlling what you say pure it's a maybe because she is so absurd you won't be afraid? >> i mean, she's almost a caricature of a looney tunes left-winger who knows everything and yet nothing at the same time. but i mean, look at what doj did last year. they sent out a memo calling a bunch of parents who were concerned about a nut job school board terrorists. so you look at that, you combined it with what dhs is doing. we all know what they're doing. we all know what they're doing and we can all see it. >> tucker: they arrested a guy for putting memes on twitter they didn't like and no one defended him because he had creepy views about things, but it doesn't matter if you got creepy views. if you're an american you have a right to say what you think, period. i thought. really quick, do you think you have the right to say what you think? >> yes, and to say otherwise is un-american. >> tucker: got it.
5:37 pm
thank you. we told you all about how a couple of prosecutors -- several actually -- have decided not to enforce the law in the communities where they are charged with enforcing the law. and what happens when they do that? well, thieves show up at retail stores and just steal everything. and that's happening not just in the cities you expect, but in places you wouldn't expect, and we got the video next. ♪ ♪ out here, you're a landowner, a gardener, a landscaper and a hunter. that's why you need versatile, durable kubota equipment. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? once-weekly ozempic® can help. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ♪ oh, oh, oh ♪ ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it.
5:38 pm
and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. during world war two, most of
5:39 pm
the world turned a blind eye to the holocaust and hitler's atrocities. christians were slow to act and did not speak up until it was too late and 6 million jews were murdered. right now, thousands of ukrainian jewish families are fleeing the russian army for the freedom of israel. imagine fleeing with a baby in one hand and a toddler holding the other with all of your earthly possessions in a sack over your shoulder, leaving your husband behind to defend your country. these courageous families need our help. the time for action is now. we do not know when the borders will be closed. silence in the face of evil is evil. god will not hold us guiltless. take action today. donate at jhm.org/help or call 1-855-694-9654. god bless you and
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
>> tucker: turns out when you stop prosecuting crimes, people commit a lot more of them, and that has consequences. for example, retail stores are closing all of the country. while gains famously closed a bunch of stores in san francisco in the last year. now they may have to close another store outside the city. trace gallagher has footage of what happened. hey, trace. >> hey, tucker, this happened at a walgreens just outside of san francisco. that's the city whose mayor said a few weeks ago that shoplifting
5:43 pm
is not a problem. she called it right wing noise. so listen for yourself to what that make-believe noise sounds like. >> taking all of the nicotine. >> get a job. [bleep]. >> noticed they only take high ticket items that are easy to resell and don't forget these phony right-wing stories have already prompted walgreens to shut down several bay area stores with the company saying retail theft across san francisco's five times higher a walgreens than in other cities. the "l.a. times" also cast out on walgreens saying there are only reports of a few shoplifting's a month and guess what? the sheriff just confirmed they did not report the one you just saw either. and why would you when there are no consequences? tucker. >> tucker: unbelievable, trace gallagher, thanks so much.
5:44 pm
it's not just about stealing laundry detergent or lipstick or moisturizer from cbs. it's an attack on civilization. of course on order, on decency on private property and commerce among everything carried on everything really. and it's happening for a reason. in 2020 are leaders encouraged riots and violence in the name of equity. most journalists just ignored it, they didn't cover it. julio rosas was really young at the time, he went to like 12 riots. he saw the destruction caused by blm and nt foot and just wrote a new book about what he saw. we just talked to him for a brand-new episode of "tucker carlson today." here's part of it. >> tucker: you're covering all these rights, it's the biggest thing that's happened in our country. we haven't had riots like this in over 50 years, the summer -- bring up '68 when king was killed. we haven't seen this in generations. it's happening. did you see like 20 "new york times" reports covering it? where were all the mainstream
5:45 pm
reporters? >> they weren't where i was. that's for sure. i understand why there is a hesitancy to cover these things. like i said, you're going to be in scary moments. but i do know that "the new york times" reported that was in kenosha on the night of the rittenhouse shooting, she left prior to things happening that night because -- >> tucker: she left? >> she left. i think "the federalist" reported on that. i think she said the sheriff of kenosha county folder it's going to be really dangerous and so she left. >> tucker: "new york times" reporter was too much of a coward to cover the story? >> i mean, yeah. and that's how it is. i understand if you're not going to cover it, then you should probably send someone else to. >> tucker: "the new york times," to its credit, has a room full of pulitzers they won during wartime. a lot of reporters have risked their lives, they been killed, they can't cover kenosha, really? >> exactly. so they have the ability to do
5:46 pm
it and they have a lot more resource in town hall than myself had. they have entire bureaus to help support them, that's why it was very -- i was proud to do the work. i understood that it was very necessary to do it, but it's also kind of weird that it all has to fall onto a 24-year-old with no college degree. >> tucker: not only did he cover those rights, like a dozen of them, he did a fantastic job. brave and smart, interesting. our entire conversation with him will be available tomorrow morning on fox nation. "tucker carlson today" now begins at 7:00 a.m. so there is a primary in the state of ohio tomorrow at one of the candidates who is in the lead tonight we have followed from the very beginning. this race could determine what the u.s. congress looks like. j.d. vance is with us next. ♪ ♪
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now, there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating, and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's g-o-l-o.com.
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
♪ ♪ >> tucker: we don't endorse a lot of candidates on the show or get even too close to politicians because honestly most of them are really disappointing, they say they are
5:52 pm
going to the one thing but to another. but occasionally we run into somebody who could actually change things and you know that person can change things because all the right people are hysterical, literally hysterical, about the idea of him advancing to the united state senate. that would be j.d. vance, and he's running for senate from ohio. the primary is tomorrow we thought it would be nice to talk to him on the eve of that. thanks a lot for coming on tonight. congrats on the poll numbers showing you ahead, but i still thought it would be worth hearing you explain why you want to be in the senate, what would you do if you get there? >> well, simply i would fight for normal people because i think for so long there were republican party, which sent people that represented the donors are the other special interests in our countries, corporate class for example forcing pharmaceutical companies to give hormonal therapies to children. those people have a voice in washington, d.c., but normal people don't. and if i could say, tucker, i think the mistake in this election, this primary in particular is what kind of a republican party will we have.
5:53 pm
will we have the older republican party that started stupid foreign wars, that shipped american manufacturing bases to china, and i didn't actually defend america's cultural values? or are we going to have a republican party that fights for our own voters, protects the jobs of the american manufacturers and manufacturing sector and that fight back against these stupid foreign business ventures? that's really what's on the table, i feel confident ohio voters are going to choose because of the end of the day they don't want to go backwards, they want a republican party that actually stands for americans first. >> tucker: i don't even need to hear word of your pitch to know you're the guy, because i know for a fact there are a lot of republican senators in washington were terrified by the idea of you getting there. are you aware of that? >> i'm certainly aware of it. in fact, if you live in ohio you've seen $20 million, close to that, of negative advertising, almost all of it focused against me. interestingly enough, the same organizations that are trying to
5:54 pm
take me down in 2022 are the same groups that tried to take trump down in 2016. it's actually the exact same pro-china, anti-american organizations. so i'm certainly aware of it but these are the fights that are worth having. the people who have profited from the managed decline of this country, they are knuckling to give up their power and their money easily but these are the fights that are ultimately worth having. the fact that they are coming after me let me know i'm doing something right and hopefully the people of ohio see that i'm doing something right as well. >> tucker: they can tell you're sincere and are very upset. this is an exciting race. good luck tomorrow, thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: we will be back in just a moment. ♪ ♪
5:55 pm
(girls giggling) ♪ (fun music) ♪ the comfortmat from weathertech offers support where you need it. mom's gonna love this! grandma's gonna love it! (girls giggling) comfortmat provides anti-fatigue cushioning while you're standing. and won't slip against your floors or under your feet. perfect throughout the home, or on the job. the weathertech comfortmat comes in three colors and finishes. (girls giggling) mmmm... it's so good! order your american made comfortmat at weathertech.com.
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
>> tucker: tony fauci said he wasn't going to white house correspondents' dinner for the weekend because it's personal covid risk was too high, he only had 11 vaccines and that's not enough. but he didn't stay home. instead he enjoyed a mask last night at a preparty fourth celebration for cnn's don lemon,
6:00 pm
his constituency. the pictures all over the internet, you will notice the servants of color in the background had to remain asked. if cover your face, sir. it's just science. that's it for us tonight. we will be back tomorrow and every weeknight, hope to see you then. ♪ ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity." we begin with news just breaking right now at this minute, and we start with a fox news alert. according to a breaking new report from politico, the u.s. supreme court has in fact voted to overturn roe vs. wade. if this report turns out to be true, abortion will not be regulated at the state level, meaning it is not going to be illegal probably in most states in the united states, there will be varied restrictions. one of the biggest issues involving this case has to do with whether or not

146 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on