This is a rush transcript from “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” October 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
Finally, some good news from Washington. That doesn’t happen very often. Over the weekend, the administration announced plans to withdraw the remaining American troops that are still stationed in Northern Syria.
Of countless decisions Donald Trump has announced via Twitter, you’d think this would be the least controversial of all. There’s no reason for Americans to remain in Syria. ISIS no longer controls the cities there.
We have no plans to overthrow the Assad government either.
So there’s no longer a mission, and yet Syria remains a dangerous place.
Five Americans have been killed there just this year, and that’s especially poignant given how pointless it is. So whatever you think of Donald Trump, he is admitting this — the obvious — and trying to fix it.
For once, Americans are coming home from a Middle Eastern tar pit, rather than staying forever, and we ought to be celebrating that. Across the country people are. But in Washington, people are apoplectic. They’re telling us we’re not allowed to leave Syria. It’s immoral, they say. It’s a betrayal. Not a betrayal of Americans – that wouldn’t be a problem here in Washington. It happens here every day.
No, it’s much worse than that. It’s a betrayal of an ethnic group in the mountainous parts of Southwest Asia called the Kurds. Now, what exactly do the people on TV know about Kurds? Well, nothing really. And in fact, it would be shocking if anyone at MSNBC had ever met a Kurd. And yet, suddenly, today, everyone in Washington seems thoroughly outraged on their behalf.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, amen. It’s psychotic. It makes no sense.
Essentially, you can go to the slaughter at the hands of Turkey. I’m washing my hands off it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is the message to abandon these Syrian Kurds who have fought so valiantly for the U.S.?
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And now it seems as if the U.S. is hanging them out to dry.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yet again, the Kurds are being betrayed by those who helped them.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: I just wonder, where is U.S. credibility in the region with both its friends and its adversaries after abandoning the Kurds again?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: We’d love to tell you that it was just the lefty hacks on CNN demanding that we stay in Syria forever. But unfortunately, it was not.
Not even close. A ton of Republicans on Capitol Hill made exactly the same point.
Mitt Romney did, so did Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, even Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader — all of them seemed far angrier about the prospect of leaving Syria than they ever do about illegal immigration or Americans dying of fentanyl OD’s.
Some of the angry senators cited Vladimir Putin as if it were somehow 1982 again and Russia was the preeminent threat to American interests. The professional neocons not surprisingly — and there are a lot of them here – – went completely bonkers. Wilder even then they usually are.
Former Bush speech writer, David Frum suggested that President Trump must be paying off Turkey for covering up Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Whoa. Frum provided no evidence that this was true, but no one in Washington asked for any evidence. They were too busy nodding along in agreement. Oh, yes.
Watch Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for example, get so worked up by the idea of Americans leaving a foreign war zone, the one thing that is never allowed that he forgets to make any sense at all.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If I didn’t see Donald Trump’s name on the tweet, I thought it was — it would be Obama’s rationale for getting out of Iraq.
So here’s what’s going to happen. This is going to lead to ISIS reemergence, nothing better for ISIS than to create a conflict between the Kurds and Turkey.
The Kurds will now align with Assad because they have nobody to count on because we abandoned them. So this is a big win for Iran and Assad, a big win for ISIS.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: Whenever politicians in Washington tell you they know exactly what’s going to happen, be sure not to bet on it. But more deeply, think about it for a second. Assad and ISIS and Iran, for that matter are on different sides of the conflict. So how can an American withdrawal be a win for both sides? That actually doesn’t make any sense at all. Graham didn’t explain how that might work. He turned down our offer to come on tonight, so we can only guess.
Nikki Haley meanwhile strongly agrees with Graham. After resigning as UN Ambassador, Haley took a job on the Board of Directors of Boeing, the airplane manufacturer. Three months ago Turkey suggested, it may back out of a $10 billion deal with Boeing to buy jets for Turkish Airlines.
Today, perhaps not coincidentally, Haley tweeted this quote, “We must always have the backs of our allies if we expect them to have our back.
The Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria.
Leaving them to die is a big mistake. #TurkeyIsNotOurFriend.” End quote.
Turkey is not our friend? That’s a surprise to those of us who’ve been paying attention because it was barely a year ago that official Washington — I mean, everybody — was outraged. They were savaging the President for the crime of undermining NATO.
“The Atlantic,” in one example ran this headline, “Trump’s Biggest Gift to Putin is Questioning NATO.” Just questioning NATO was totally forbidden.
It was a sin. And people like Nikki Haley strongly agreed with that. But here’s the weird thing. The Kurds aren’t part of NATO because there is no Kurdistan. Turkey is part of NATO. They’re one of our fabled NATO allies.
That means we’re bound by treaty to defend the Turks if they are attacked.
Indeed, at this very moment, you may not know this, Turkey is hosting about 50 American nuclear weapons. So does that make Turkey our friend or our enemy? Washington can’t decide.
The only point that everyone here can agree on is that the interests of foreigners are far more important than our own interests. It is immoral, they are telling us to look at for own people, but it is virtuous to suffer for others, particularly for those who hate us.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans die from drugs manufactured by our enemies abroad — Mexico and China. How do our leaders respond? They shrug. They couldn’t care less. They do nothing.
And then Turkey threatens to invade Northern Syria, a place that one in a thousand Americans could find on a map. And guess what that is? It’s a historic crisis. And Lindsey Graham won’t stand for it.
What you’re looking at is a set of priorities so mindless, so perverse and distorted that there’s in fact no fixing them.
In the end, the only solution maybe the obvious one, relocate the Kurds to Youngstown, Ohio. Only then will Washington finally care.
Doug Macgregor is retired a U.S. Army Colonel, author of the book, “Margin of Victory” and maybe the wisest voice on foreign policy that we know and on nights like this, we’re always grateful to have him. Colonel, what do you make of the response to that President’s announcement?
COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR (RET), U.S. ARMY: Well, the swamp is clearly very disturbed because the President has done something that I have not witnessed in the last 30 years. He is actually injecting strategy back into American foreign and defense policy.
Let me explain. He has turned to Mr. Erdogan who has been trying to carve out a portion of Syria now for a very long time. Remember, Mr. Erdogan is also partially responsible for standing up ISIS, then ISIS turned out to be a Frankenstein’s monster, and he decided that it needed to be brought under control.
Now, he wants to resettle Sunni Arab refugees in Northwestern Syria, and create a kind of security zone for Turkish interests. But he has also simultaneously told Mr. Erdogan, you can do this, but now you are responsible for dealing with ISIS if ISIS rears its head. If it comes back, it’s your problem.
This is a very important point. The President has shifted the burden of responsibility for something that is clearly regional, clearly goes back to Turkey to Mr. Erdogan.
At the same time, Russia has promised to maintain the territorial integrity of Syria come what may. How is Russia going to deal with Mr. Erdogan who has decided to carve out a piece of Syria for his own purposes?
And then we have Iran. Iran wants to maintain its connectivity to Lebanon and its Shiites allies in that country, but with the Turks dominating Northern Syria, Iran now is going to be unable or at least we’ll find it far, far more difficult to connect with Lebanon.
The point is the President has checkmated all of the key players in the region in Syria. Now they must confront each other for a change.
CARLSON: But wait a second here, you’re leaving at a key point and the one that I’ve been hearing all day long on a loop on television, which is really our only allies in the world, the Kurds of Syria, what about them?
Everybody on television basically spent 12 hours today, in a kind of tribute to the Syrian Kurds.
MACGREGOR: Before we arrived, the Maoist communist Kurds in Northern Syria who have a long history and a close relationship with Moscow as a result were always interested in aligning themselves with anyone that would further their cause when their cause involves independence for themselves in Syria, and also attacks against the Turks whom they regard as enemies.
In our absence, the Kurds now have to make a decision. Do we make a peace with Damascus, which is what the Russians have told them to do, which is what we have privately told them to do, which is what the Syrian government would like them to do, or did the Kurds decide to take on the Turks independently?
I rather think that the Syrian Kurds will decide that it’s probably in their interest to side with Damascus. So once we pull out, I think we’ll see that happen.
But here’s something else. Israel benefits from this because Iran is now at loggerheads with Turkey. Iran is interested in connecting to Hezbollah.
The Russians have no interest in turning Syria into a platform for attack against Israel. So the Russians and the Iranians who are checked mated by the Turks, now the Turks and all three of these people have to deal with the reality that Israel and the United States are benefiting from our withdrawal.
CARLSON: You know, that’s not at all what Nikki Haley said in her tweet, but I think you make a persuasive case. And I think I believe you.
Colonel, great to see you tonight.
MACGREGOR: Great to see you.
CARLSON: Thank you very much. David Tafuri is an attorney and a former State Department official and has spent a lot of time in the region. He joins us tonight. So David, I know that you’re a big believer in multinational organizations, particularly in NATO. You’ve defended it on this program, in fact.
Now Turkey is one of our NATO allies, our sacred NATO allies, whose defense we are now obligated to provide if necessary, but you’re telling us that we need to take the side of Turkey’s enemy. How does that work?
DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, just because Turkey is a member of NATO, it doesn’t mean it’s always doing the things that we want, the U.S. wants or that NATO wants.
In this case, it’s doing exactly the opposite of what NATO wants. In fact, it’s been doing that for a long time. Now, if you watch what’s happening with Turkey, for instance, it’s now accepting S-300 rockets from Russia.
This is something the U.S. did not want, and also NATO did not want and it compromises NATO’s security.
CARLSON: But wait a second. So you’re saying that our job is to arm with weapons of wars — the Democrats described them — the opponent, the mortal opponent of our NATO ally. And yet if Turkey is attacked, we are obligated under the Treaty to defend Turkey.
TAFURI: But Turkey is not being attacked and the ally you’re talking about —
CARLSON: But Turkey is not being attacked.
TAFURI: They are not being —
CARLSON: Turkey is absolutely in a state of conflict with the Kurds.
TAFURI: Not with the SDF. The SDF is a force of moderate Kurds and moderate Arabs in Syria, formed in part with the help of the U.S. that U.S. Special Forces are fighting alongside with against ISIS.
We would not have defeated ISIS in Syria without the help of the SDF and any U.S. soldier who has served in Syria will tell you that. That’s why the Department of Defense —
CARLSON: Wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. But I’m asking you a broader question about Turkey. I mean, I think a lot of what you’re saying is open to debate — for sure. But what’s not open to debate is that our NATO ally, Turkey, and we’re supposed to revere our NATO allies from Estonia on down, very much, including Turkey, thinks that the Kurds that we are arming are its opponent.
So like, how does this NATO thing work? Because remember, Trump is evil, because he questioned NATO.
TAFURI: But just because —
CARLSON: But now you’re undermining the very rational for NATO.
TAFURI: You’re rationalizing false logic here. Just because —
CARLSON: It’s not false logic.
TAFURI: Just because they are part of an alliance we are a part of that’s an important alliance doesn’t mean we agree with everything they do. They do lots of things that we don’t agree with.
CARLSON: So if the Kurds attacked Istanbul, we have to defend Istanbul against the Kurds, correct?
TAFURI: If — the Kurds are not going to attack Istanbul. That’s not going to happen.
CARLSON: Well, what do you mean? There have been all kinds of terror attacks.
TAFURI: Let’s talk in the area of reality.
CARLSON: Hold on. There have been a lot of terror attacks within Turkey committed by Kurds, including some of the Kurds that we have armed. So why aren’t we bound to take Turkey’s side in that? I mean, honestly —
TAFURI: We have — when Kurds engage in terrorism, we do take their side.
So in these instances where the PKK —
CARLSON: The Kurds’ side, I don’t know —
TAFURI: Where it is demonstrated that the PKK, which is a Kurdish separatists group in Eastern Turkey has engaged in terrorism, we have sided with Turkey; in fact, we’ve labeled the PKK a terrorist organization, but the SDF is not a terrorist organization. They’re fighting right alongside our Special Forces and any Special Forces — U.S. Special Forces soldier who has been in the trenches with them will tell you that. And you need to talk to them.
And this is why the Department of Defense —
CARLSON: No, they don’t get to make — they actually don’t get to make — I’m sorry, they don’t get to make our policy. We have civilian control the military, thank God, and know that the Democrats that would be happy to undo that for the time being. But it’d be wrong.
The President gets to set our foreign policy. He has got the support of the public behind this, and I want it acknowledged that most Americans don’t see any vital interest in Syria because there isn’t one.
TAFURI: Well, here’s the point. The President made this sudden decision yesterday right after a call with President Erdogan. He made no attempt to hide it —
CARLSON: He has been talking about this for three years.
TAFURI: He made no attempt —
CARLSON: And the neocon wackos like you have successfully —
TAFURI: Let me finish. He made no attempt to hide the fact that he was directly influenced by Erdogan, right after the by call. He made this decision.
CARLSON: By our NATO ally. By our NATO ally, okay.
TAFURI: Against the advice of every single senior U.S. military official.
CARLSON: The ones you’ve kept us. Fox News has been reporting about this in Afghanistan —
TAFURI: How shocked our DoD officials are by this decision —
CARLSON: They are shocked.
TAFURI: So who do you trust? Erdogan or U.S. military generals?
CARLSON: I will tell you who I don’t trust, the people who have kept us in Afghanistan for 18 years. They should be ashamed. Some should be in jail.
I mean that. David, great to see you.
TAFURI: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Just before the weekend began, news emerged of a second anonymous whistleblower making allegations about the President’s phone call with Ukraine. To sort out exactly what this is, Fox Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herridge joins us now. Hey, Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Tucker. Tonight, Fox News can confirm that on July 26th, one day after the President’s phone call with Ukrainian leader, the first whistleblower wrote a two-page single spaced memo to themselves, documenting secondhand information from a White House official quote, “The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.”
Using dramatic language and tone which is worth contrasting with the publicly released transcript from the White House, the whistleblower writes, quote, “The official described the July 25th call as crazy, frightening and completely lacking in substance related to national security.”
And there’s a key section about this transcript of the call. Some critics initially called it a summary or notes. But in the memo, the first whistleblower suggests it is a complete record that the standard practice is for, quote, “The White House Situation Room to produce a word for word transcript that memorializes the call.”
After questions were raised last week about the first whistleblower’s contact with staff for Democratic Chairman, Adam Schiff before the complaint was officially filed, the whistleblower’s lawyer said over the weekend to confirm, ” … second whistleblower does possess firsthand knowledge of certain information. There is no legal requirement for any whistleblower to have such knowledge. Law only requires a reasonable belief.”
Fox News asked the legal team for comment on the first whistleblower’s memo, though they have not responded to our recent questions about their client’s democratic political connections — Tucker.
CARLSON: I hope they do.
HERRIDGE: Me, too. I’ll bring it to you.
CARLSON: I know that you will. You’re the best. Catherine, thank you so much.
HERRIDGE: Thank you.
CARLSON: Well, Washington is panicking over the President’s latest effort to create a rational foreign policy, but the Ukraine impeachment effort charges forward.
You’ve heard endlessly on cable news, it is unprecedented that the President would seek political gain from a conversation with a foreign leader.
Well, turns out it’s happened before. Back in 2000, we can report, President Bill Clinton had a conversation with Tony Blair of the U.K. and asked him directly to intercede in a dispute between British Airways and two American carriers.
The President at the time, was much more direct than President Trump was in his conversation with the Ukrainian leader. This is Bill Clinton back then. I’m quoting. “In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it,” he asked. Tony Blair responded that he would. Now, was this a big deal? Not really. Is it nakedly political? Is it an effort to use a foreign country to influence the outcome of an election in a presidential year? Well, yes, it is. Obviously.
Incidentally, it didn’t take long for us to find that transcript. We only had to dig through old Clinton transcripts, about 15 minutes. They’re all caps. They’re all online by the way. There are probably a lot more examples, and if we find them, we will bring them to you.
But the point is, anyone commenting on this, anyone staring at the screen, and there are countless people who fit this description and telling you, this has never happened before. It’s outrageous. None of them took the time to check. Because whenever they’re telling you that something is without precedent, you can be certain it happens every day here.
Well, Washington is of course totally addicted to impeachment over the Ukraine scandal. On MSNBC, a contributor spun a wild fantasy where in fact, in the end, Nancy Pelosi could become President. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JILL WINE-BANKS, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: You could impeach Pence first. The problem is that Donald Trump then has to name his replacement.
But I think that maybe a deal could be struck where he was told if you don’t make a replacement, that Nancy Pelosi does become President.
And so you are going to be impeached and convicted. You need to make this replacement so that the proper party contains — remains in power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Who are these people? I mean, look, just a plea to TV bookers, before you put someone on the air and people are watching this, you know, people on treadmills across the country are listening and saying, what is that person saying?
Try to make sure that the person you have on the screen knows what he or she is talking about, is kind of credible and then sane. How about that as a baseline requirement?
This is fantasy as you know. It’s out running reality. In fact, the entire Ukraine saga is starting to resemble another fake scandal from a year ago, the character assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Peter Van Buren is a former State Department official and a whistleblower.
He joins us tonight. So, Peter, we’ve been at this for a little over two weeks now, I think, the Ukraine story. I don’t think of you as especially partisan. What’s your assessment? Do we know more now than we did two weeks ago and enough to justify impeachment? Are you starting to think this is a real story or no?
PETER VAN BUREN, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND A WHISTLEBLOWER:
No, it’s not. I mean, essentially, the first complaint surfaced the phone call, the full transcript is available online. Anyone can read it and it’s clearly not crazy or frightening. It clearly doesn’t represent any kind of demand for political quid pro quo or anything along those lines.
What we’ve seen, however, is some very clever teeing up of information and kind of a three-way pitch and toss between the Democrats, the media, and what’s going on with this so-called whistleblower.
Now there’s a second whistleblower that were led to believe somehow is adding to the narrative. But I think what is emerging is that the second whistleblower is actually the source for the first whistleblower, which means it’s all the same thing.
Now, this is different than in the Kavanaugh case where they sent Michael Avenatti out to find additional victims wherever he could.
In this case, there’s other lawyers who have taken time off from chasing ambulances to get on Twitter and play up their second whistleblower, but in fact, he is simply the source for the first whistleblower, the C.I.A. — this is an old trick. It’s called a feedback loop.
And essentially, what you do is you set up one of your sources to back up another source and you make it appear that your initial source is more credible by feeding information into the loop. That’s what seems to be going on here. They’re repurposing a witness as a second whistleblower.
CARLSON: Right. It does — it does have the hallmark of that. Thank you for pointing — I was trying to think as I’m watching this, since we have the transcript of course, so all of this is kind of superfluous.
VAN BUREN: It’s all moot, yes.
CARLSON: Right. Exactly. But I’m watching something and what does this remind me of? And that’s exactly right. It is a feedback loop.
VAN BUREN: Yes, we saw that. Thank you.
CARLSON: Peter, thanks so much. Exactly. Well, Elizabeth Warren spent years lying about her ethnicity in order to scam the affirmative action system. Now another lie about her early life has been exposed, reminiscent of the first. Our Lisa Boothe investigates after the break.
Plus Mark Steyn is here tonight. It’s a particularly good Mark Steyn that we think. We will be right back.
CARLSON: Well for decades, Elizabeth Warren pretended to be an American Indian in order to game our affirmative action system, kind of a stolen valor situation. But it turns out it might be something of a trend.
Warren has repeatedly claimed that she was fired from her first job for getting pregnant, another level on which she claims she was a victim. But new evidence suggests that that was a lie, too. She’s actually as entitled as she seems.
Lisa Boothe is a Senior Fellow at Independent Women’s Voice and she joins us tonight with an update on this story. Hey, Lisa. What is this?
LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Tucker. Right. So at the heart of Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech is this story about gender discrimination when she was a young Special Needs teacher at Riverdale Elementary School, she was fired because she was visibly pregnant by her male principal.
Listen to what she has been saying on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATEL: I was visibly pregnant and the principal did what principals did in those days. Wish me luck, and hired someone else for the job.
I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days. Wished me luck, and hired someone else for the job.
I was visibly pregnant. Wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
I was visibly pregnant. Wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
I was visibly pregnant. He wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOOTHE: So obviously a terrible story, if true. But the problem is there’s been video that has surfaced from 2007, where she told a different story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: I worked –0 it was in a public school system, but I worked with the children with disabilities. And I did that for a year.
And then that summer, I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an emergency certificate, it was called and I went back to Graduate School and took a couple of courses in education and said, I don’t think this is going to work out for me.
And I was pregnant with my first baby. So I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years and I was really casting about thinking what am I going to do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOOTHE: So in addition to this video that clearly contradicts the story she has been telling on the campaign trail, “The Washington Free Beacon” reported that the Riverdale Board of Education actually voted to extend a second year contract to her and that they were disappointed when she resigned and said that they accepted it with regret.
CARLSON: Well, that’s shocking. So, what you —
BOOTHE: Is it so?
CARLSON: Well, it is. It is. But what you have here is a pattern of someone who has been successful. And by the way, you know, she has been successful, she is a U.S. Senator.
But rather than say I’ve been successful, she has claimed repeatedly to be the victim of discrimination. She clearly has a need to see herself as a victim and to lie about it.
BOOTHE: Well, absolutely. And this comes at a time where she is clearly surging, where she has emerged as the front runner in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.
And what’s interesting is FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver was saying today that the story is not being picked up by the mainstream media, which is actually to the detriment of Democratic voters, because she is going to head in potentially to a general election, where she has not really been pressed by the media, where she has not been have to ask these tough questions.
And the times where she has, she released a video after being called Pocahontas telling Americans that she is actually less Native American than the average white person, or in interviews where she’s been even remotely oppressed. She’s completely floundered and being able to answer why she lied to us for so many years about being Native American, and she has not been pressed on this.
CARLSON: And how her parents were, you know, not allowed to get married because one of them was in Indian.
CARLSON: I mean, I think I much more Native American than she is and I don’t —
BOOTHE: I probably am, too.
CARLSON: I think you are. Lisa Boothe. Great to see you tonight.
BOOTHE: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, Hillary Clinton has not as you know, gone gently into that good night and since, she has spent the past three years on a worldwide excuses tour. Now, she stepped up her game.
Hillary isn’t just telling you that her 2016 defeat wasn’t her fault, the fault of racist and sexist. Now, she is saying she didn’t actually lose it all. Donald Trump is an illegitimate President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In the 2016 election, Trump basically said Russia, if you’re listening, you will be richly rewarded if you can find Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. And of course we know the Russians hacked the D.N.C., hacked my campaign, et cetera. Trump knows he’s an illegitimate President who got illegitimate foreign help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Author and columnist, Mark Steyn joins us tonight. So Trump isn’t really the President. I think that’s what she is saying.
MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Yes, yes. And there is a logic to this then that if he is an illegitimate President, the only way we can correct this is by Hillary jumping in the race and claiming what is already rightfully hers in 2020.
And I don’t know about you, but Elizabeth Warren looks heavily pregnant to me — visibly pregnant — and it’s time for her to step aside and give the job to Hillary. That’s the logic.
That is the logic of what Hillary is saying. Now, if only she had fought the election campaign as tenaciously and obstinately as she fought the three years since the election campaign, she would be President. There would be — no one has ever seen —
CARLSON: That is true. That is deep and true.
STEYN: Yes, and I mean, this is what is so spectacular and impressive about it. If only she had been that way on — I think we need to tie up all the big stories on the show tonight.
You know, she was blaming as you know, she blamed the Macedonian content farmers for delivering the United States election to President Trump.
We’ve taken Lindsey Graham’s boots off the ground in Syria and he and Mitt and all the rest of the gang are mad about it.
I think we need boots on the ground and I need — I think these Macedonian content farmers could use a little bit of shock and aw, that’s where the boots on the ground should be.
CARLSON: I totally agree. In 10 seconds. Is she getting in the race or not, do you think?
STEYN: I think she wants to be invited. She feels she is already President and she wants them to — she lost time because she thought it was a coronation. And they want — and she wants them to hand her the crown again.
CARLSON: That’s so — I totally agree with you, as I always do. Mark Steyn. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.
STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, the NBA is proud to push far left politics in this country, and they often do, but at the same time, they allow no criticism of China’s fascist government. That tells you everything you need to know about the real beliefs of woke capital. That’s next.
CARLSON: We live in the age of woke capital and that means, it’s no longer enough for a company to sell you a product you want to buy, they sell you a worldview whether you want it or not.
So Google lectures about diversity. Starbucks tells you you’re a racist, and the NBA is no exception to this rule. The league moved the 2016 All- Star Game out of North Carolina for example, because of the state’s policy on transgender bathrooms, a policy that the voters of North Carolina ratified. It doesn’t matter.
NBA players regularly make left wing political statements as you know, and the league approves of that. But it turns out there’s a limit to freedom of speech over there in Basketball World.
Over the weekend, Houston Rockets General Manager, Daryl Morey tweeted support for the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Now that implied criticism of China’s fascist government, and that was too much for the NBA.
Morey’s tweet was deleted and the NBA immediately groveled to China’s authoritarian American hating leaders. The league issued an apology, making it clear that Morey did not represent the NBA. He may support freedom and democracy, but the NBA certainly does not.
J.D. Vance is the author of “Hillbilly Elegy” and one of the clearest thinkers on modern politics. He joins us tonight. J.D. what does this tell us about the NBA and woke capital more generally?
J.D. VANCE, AUTHOR: Well, you know, Tucker, some of the examples you highlighted: Starbucks picking side within American politics, Target picking side within American politics — you know, these companies positions might be stupid, but they can at least say that they’re choosing the side of an American political interest.
In the case of China, whether it’s Apple helping the Chinese security state, whether it’s Hollywood bowing down before China, or in this case, the NBA bowing down before China. You know, these companies can’t even claim that they’re defending an American value or an American interest.
And I think one of the things that tells us is that American business interests, if they see the almighty dollar in the hands of a foreign rival, they’ll go and chase it, even if it’s not in the best interest of their own country.
CARLSON: Not in the best interest. I mean, this is our preeminent rival – – enemy — actually, I think, from their perspective on the world stage, a country that’s about to overtake us, economically and militarily, I mean, siding with them seems like a profound betrayal.
VANCE: Yes, it’s a profound betrayal in a couple of different ways, Tucker. The first is what you mentioned. I mean, I think we’re in a geopolitical struggle with China unlike anything we’ve seen since at least the early 1930s. With Germany, we’re not yet at physical war, and hopefully, of course, we don’t ever go to war with China.
But we’re in a struggle really for global preeminence with this country, and they have ambitions to be a global superpower that is necessarily going to take them in competition with us.
The other way that this is a really significant betrayal of American values is that China actively does so many of the things that the left says that it hates about our own country.
You want to talk about Islamic persecution, the Chinese are running actual concentration camps for some of its Islamic population in China. You want to talk about treating gender minorities fairly, which is the favorite topic of the left these days.
Go try to find a transgender bathroom in China, go try to find a two-gender bathroom and in the State of China. They’re actively doing things that people in this country say that they hate and violate their political beliefs.
Of course, you know, when Republicans do it, it’s the target of criticism.
But when the Chinese do it, people seem to be okay with a violation of core values.
And of course, Tucker, as you probably know, the most egregious hypocrisy on this front is climate change. If you actually buy the argument that CO2 emissions are causing global climate change, the worst offender, by far today and in the future is China.
There is a reason that climate change activists go after Americans and American consumers, but they don’t go after China. And it makes it pretty clear that it has nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with frankly, taking the side of a really vile regime over the interest of our own country.
CARLSON: Right. And they know that we’re so self-hating that they can control us. They can bully us into submission, but the Chinese don’t hate themselves, do they?
VANCE: No, they don’t Tucker. And that’s one of the craziest things about China is whether it’s Chinese nationals who are living overseas in America or Western Europe, whether it’s folks who maybe go on a student visa, and then come back; what’s pretty clear, is that China is very good at ensuring that its own citizens actually love the country.
And I don’t think there’s a whole lot that’s especially lovable about the Chinese nation these days. But they’re very good at making their own citizens patriotic. And unfortunately, we have a country that has a lot to be — you know, we have a lot to be proud of in America.
VANCE: But unfortunately, a lot of folks don’t think that this country is something to be proud of. When you have — when you’re in a global geopolitical struggle, where one nation is afraid of its own shadow, and the other nation is proud of itself, it’s not too difficult to imagine which nation is going to win.
And I think I think because of this Tucker, just one really important point in all of this, is that we have to be willing to push back against this stuff using political power.
You know, I’m a Republican, but one of the things I don’t like about the Republican Party these days is that we’re afraid of actually using political power.
There are things that we could do to push back against these companies that are taking the side of China over America.
CARLSON: That’s exactly right.
VANCE: In the case of the NBA, we could go after their stadium subsidies.
But what happened last time we had significant political power? The very same companies that are taking the side of China over Americans and American consumers, got a big tax break. We can’t keep doing this. We can’t keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
CARLSON: It’s masochism, and it’s terrible for the country. I couldn’t agree more. J.D. Vance. It’s always great to hear from you. Thank you very much.
CARLSON: So that is the world we live in. It’s a rivalry between the United States and China, flat out, there is no denying that.
And yet for years against that backdrop, Joe Biden has downplayed the threat that China poses to the United States. Only in the last few months as he tries to become President has Biden at least pretended to care about China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is going to eat our lunch.
Come on, man. They’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not a competition for us.
While Trump is tweeting, China is making massive investments in new technologies in artificial intelligence. You bet I’m worried about China.
When it comes to taking on China first, let’s invest in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Does anyone really believe that though? China recently walked out of trade negotiations with the President and one possible reason, they’re expecting a better deal from the next guy, maybe President Biden.
Gordon Chang is the author of “The Coming Collapse of China” and he joins us tonight. So Gordon, if you’re China, you’re looking at a pretty clear choice. Here you have — for whatever his flaws — Donald Trump is the only President in recent American history who has challenged Chinese, called China out on a bunch of different issues, and then you’ve got everybody else. So aren’t you rooting for everybody else?
GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR: Well, they certainly are Tucker, you’d have to go back to Eisenhower to find an American President who had as robust a policy as President Trump does.
And you know, the Chinese look at Trump and they don’t like him for two reasons. First of all, is because he is hammering them day in day out.
CHANG: Also, because he is unpredictable. They can’t figure out what he is going to do next. They like the sort of the establishment view in the U.S. where we try to engage the Chinese, they can figure out what we’re trying to do. Trump says, I’m not doing that.
CARLSON: So why wouldn’t they — being the Chinese and of course looking after our own interest is the first concern, the only concern and being unscrupulous. Why wouldn’t they work to defeat him in this coming election?
CHANG: Well, I think they are. You know, they looked at the Impeachment Inquiry right now and they have coming in — because they’re going to come into Washington on Thursday for the 13th round of talks.
CHANG: They have signaled in the last couple of days, they’re just not going to talk about the core issues that U.S. negotiators demand that we discuss.
So I think it’s because they look at Trump and they say, well, he might not be here.
We saw a really good glimpse of this in March, Tucker, when the Special Counsel Robert Mueller hinted that there was going to be no charges of collusion, that there was nothing there.
Well, the Chinese and their trade talks with us immediately became conciliatory, because then they said, oh, President Trump might actually be here after 2020. So they’re very — they’re looking very closely at what’s going on in the U.S. and this Impeachment Inquiry is affecting, I think their negotiating position, making them much tougher than they ordinarily would be.
CARLSON: It is Fascinating, but not surprising, if you think about it.
Gordon Chang, thank you so much for that.
CHANG: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Politics is supposed to be the one place in academia that is politics free because, you know, numbers don’t have political opinions.
But now that’s changing. Some public schools are working to make certain that math is woke. Our investigation into that, next.
CARLSON: Radical ideology and dumbness has infused our education system from top to bottom — English, Reading, Social Studies — all of them are almost worthless thanks to the political agenda that has distorted them.
But Mathematics stands alone as a clean discipline. It’s abstract. It’s rational. It can’t be political by definition. Oh, yes, it can.
Seattle’s public school district has produced a tentative ethnic studies framework for studying Mathematics. This won’t teach kids long division, nobody learns anything in the middle of the revolution as you may have noticed, if you have kids, they’re not learning anything.
Instead, kids will learn in Math class that Math itself is subjective, and has historically been used by the West — by you — to oppress the poor and racial minorities.
Jason Rantz is a radio show host in Seattle, and he joins us tonight, I hope to soothe our concerns and tell us the story is not real, is it?
JASON RANTZ, RADIO SHOW HOST, SEATTLE: I wish, I could. No, it’s absolutely real. So the state legislature basically said you have to come up with this committee to look at frameworks to teach Ethnic Studies at public schools.
And they went around the state. They spoke to folks about how they teach Math. They’ve decided for some reason to look at Math as an avenue to explore Ethnic Studies.
They met for the first time last week. They put out this document with all of the ideas and questions that they wanted to pose again, coming from actual educators right now within the state.
And the document which I have, it is legitimately troubling and insane.
Because at one point they go trying to look at the power structure and who is using this to oppress, which I’m assuming Math is being used to oppress by white cisgendered Christian heterosexual males.
They say, who gets to say if an answer is right? Well, it’s Math. We know that, for example, two plus two equals four, not five. And if someone says five, and you call them out, apparently, according to these guidelines, you might be oppressing that individual’s opinion. That’s insane.
CARLSON: So why are people — I mean, this is French Revolution assault on reality type stuff. Presumably — not presumably, I know for a fact because I spend a lot of time there. There are a lot of normal people in Washington State — good people, not right wingers, but just like normal people who believe in reality, why are they putting up with this crap?
Like, why isn’t there just like a full scale protest the demands? Anyone who supports this, leave immediately, seriously?
RANTZ: Yes, no. No. And I’m asking myself that same question, because the people who have seen this document who are progressive, and they are they’re openly progressive, they’re embarrassed by it. So the question is, well, why aren’t they actually doing something about it? Maybe this is going to push them in that direction.
But the problem is, when you call out anything having to do with social justice or woke culture in Seattle, you get called out immediately and you’re shamed and bullied into submission. And unfortunately, that happens way too often here.
CARLSON: There are very few brave people and liberals can’t say no. I mean, they can’t — you know, people defecate on the sidewalk in front of their house and they can’t even say — you know, it’s like well, I don’t know. I can’t do it. It’s like —
CARLSON: Do you know what I mean? That’s why liberal places are dirty and disorganized, despite you know, the best intentions, always. I mean, I hope that you save your state.
RANTZ: So many people call this out.
RANTZ: We’re trying to save our state. You’ve got to in Seattle first and that’s been historically a problem for progressives and for obviously, conservatives.
CARLSON: Good luck. Such a beautiful place.
RANTZ: Thank you.
CARLSON: Jason. Thank you. Good to see you.
CARLSON: Well, for weeks, Ilhan Omar has faced allegations that she had an extramarital affair. We aren’t going to take a side. What do we know?
But we can tell you Omar is now getting a divorce from her husband. Trace Gallagher will explain, next.
CARLSON: Well, there’s an awful lot of evidence that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar married her own brother illegally as a kind of immigration fraud. But that’s not the only drama in her personal life. Now Omar has filed for divorce from her next husband. This comes after allegations of an affair with a political consultant.
Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher has more in the story.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey Tucker, she filed for divorce on Friday, her 37th birthday and court documents obtained by our corporate cousin, “New York Post” says she is seeking joint custody of their children, appropriate child support and to split the marital assets — pretty basic stuff.
Court papers also say Representative Omar says the marriage had a quote, “irretrievable breakdown.” Unclear of that breakdown involved a D.C. consultant named Tim Mynette whom she was allegedly having an affair.
But just a few weeks ago, Mynette filed court papers denying the affair which is curious considering his estranged wife Dr. Beth Mynette says her husband fully admitted it and Mrs. Mynette was furious saying her husband put their 13-year-old son in danger by publicly introducing the boy to Omar who quote, ” … at the time had garnered a plethora of media attention along with death threats, one rising to the level of arresting the known would-be assassin that same week.”
That, Mynette says the affair began while her husband was working for Ilhan Omar’s campaign, and now conservative watchdog groups have filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission because Omar’s campaign reportedly paid Tim Mynette and his firm $230,000.00 for things like fundraising, travel expenses.
Question now is whether those funds were used to pursue the affair? Ilhan Omar married Ahmed Hirsi in a religious ceremony back in 2002. They separated in 2008 then legally married last year.
Omar, as you said also accused of marrying her biological brother so he could obtain American citizenship — Tucker.
CARLSON: Amazing. Thanks, Trace. Good to see you. We’re back tomorrow, 8 p.m. Sean Hannity right now.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.