SEE YOU TOMORROW.
I'M SHANNON BREAM.
♪ ♪
Tucker: GOOD EVENING AND
WELCOME TO
"TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT."
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT WAS A YEAR B
AGO TODAY THAT BUZZFEED RELEASED
THE NOW INFAMOUS TRAUMA DOSSIER.
AA YEAR LATER, THEY ARE BEING
SUED FOR DEFAMATION BY THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.
VETERAN CHIEF BEN SMITH OF
BUZZFEED NEWS WILL JOIN US LATER
IN THE SHOW TO DEFEND HIS
DECISION TO PUBLISH THAT
DOSSIER.
FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
SUGGESTED,UM HE DID YESTERDAY,
THAT HE'S WILLING TO SIGN ANY
DEAL ON DACA THAT CONGRESS IS
ABLE TO HAMMER OUT.
AN ACTUAL DEAL DOES AT THIS
POINT SEEM A LONG WAY OFF BUT
MAY BE GETTING A LITTLE CLOSER
TODAY, HOUSE REPUBLICANS
OUTLINED A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW
WOULD ALLOW A DACA BENEFICIARY
IS TO REMAIN IN THE
UNITED STATES, CRITICALLY,
THOUGH, IT WOULD DENY THEM A
PATH CITIZENSHIP.
DEMOCRATS DON'T SEEM TO FAVOR,
BUT THEY KNOW THAT AMNESTY FOR
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IS CRUCIAL TO
THEIR OWN ELECTORAL STRATEGY OF
IMPORTING NEW VOTERS FROM
ABROAD.
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN FROM
TEXAS REPRESENTS THE BORDER CITY
OF EL PASO.
HE IS SEEKING THE DEMOCRATIC
NOMINATION TO CHALLENGE
SENATOR TED CRUZ THIS FALL.
HE SPONSORED LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD PROVIDE ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION WITH TAXPAYER-FUNDED
HEALTH CARE AND FREE LEGAL
ASSISTANCE TO FIGHT DEPORTATION.
HE JOINS US TONIGHT.
THANKS A LOT FOR COMING ON.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
WE WANT IF YOU ARE WATCHING AT
HOME, WATCHING THIS DEBATE,
YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICANS
CONCEDING THAT DACA RECIPIENTS
CAN STAY IN THE COUNTRY, THEY WON'T BE
DEPORTED AND YOU HAVE DEMOCRATS
RESPONDING BY SAYING, THAT'S NOT
ENOUGH, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THEY CAN VOTE AND BRING THEIR
RELATIVES OVER ALSO.
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SOME
PEOPLE WATCHING THAT MIGHT
CONCLUDE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE
SPENDING MORE TIME AND ENERGY
WORRYING ABOUT PEOPLE HERE
ILLEGALLY THAN ABOUT AMERICAN
CITIZENS?
I GUESS I DON'T MAKE THE
CONNECTION, TUCKER.
I THINK THAT MOST AMERICANS,
MOST TEXANS, THOSE THAT I HAVE
LISTENED TO ACROSS THE STATE
WANT TO MAKETE SURE THAT DREAMERS
CAN CONTINUE TO REMAIN AND
THRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE LIKE SOMEONE WHO
I JUST MET, APH STUDENT AT
MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY AT
TEXAS TECH.
SHE'S A DREAMER.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO DIED TRYING
TO RESCUE THEIR FELLOW TEXANS
DURING THE FLOODING AFTER
HARVEY.
HE WAS A DREAMER.
AS REPUBLICAN AS IT GETS IN
TEXAS, AND THE PEOPLE IN POKER
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DREAMERS
BECAUSE THEY HAD JUSTAM DEPORTED
ONE OF O THE HONOR ROLL STUDENTS
AT BOOKER HIGH SCHOOL.
Tucker: HOLD ON.
STOP YOUR SPEECH REAL QUICK.
THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD DREAMERS
FOR SURE AND THERE'S ALSO A LOT
OF BAD ONES.
MORE DREAMERS HAVE BEEN BUSTED
FOR GANG MEMBERSHIP THAT HAVE
JOINED THE MILITARY.
THAT'S NOT AN INDICTMENT OF ALL
PEOPLE HERE UNDER DACA, LET'S
JUST GET REAL.
THESE ARE NORMAL PEOPLE, SOME
GOOD, SOME BAD, THEY ARE NOT ALL
VALEDICTORIANS.
THE T QUESTION IS, THERE'S A LOT
OF GOOD AMERICAN CITIZENS, AS
WELL, AND CAN YOU SEE WHY, WHEN
DEMOCRATS SAY WE WANT FROM THE
GOVERNMENT UNLESS YOU LET THEM
VOTE AND BRING THEIR RELATIVES
WITH THEM, THAT MAYBE IT
SUGGESTS A PRIORITY THAT IS OUT
OF SYNC WITH MOST PEOPLE?
THAT IS MY ONLY QUESTION.
I GUESS I DON'T SEE THAT.
FOR MY PERSPECTIVE, IN EL PASO,
TEXAS, THE CITY AND REPRESENT, WHERE
I AM RAISING MY THREE
KIDS WHOXA ARE 11, NINE, AND
SEVEN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
OUR COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO
THRIVE.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE ONE OF
THE SAFEST CITIES IN AMERICA,
EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR THE LAST
20 YEARS, IS WE ARE A CITY OF
IMMIGRANTS, INCLUDING DREAMERS,
WHO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR SUCCESS
AND SAFETY.
THAT BENEFIT IS SPREAD OUT OVER
EVERYBODY IN MY COMMUNITY,
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS,
AND TO THIS COUNTRY.
SO IT'S VERY GOOD FOR AMERICA,
NOT JUST FOR DREAMERS, NOT JUST
FOR THEIR FAMILIES.
Tucker: HOLD ON.
I JUST CHECKED THE SCHOOL
NUMBERS AND EL PASO, THE CITY
YOU ARE BRAGGING ABOUT, AND
EL PASO IS A GREAT CITY BUT 39%,
ONLY 39%, OF GRADUATING SENIORS
FROM YOUR SCHOOL IS READY FOR
COLLEGE.
I THINK THAT IS A BIGGER CRISIS
THAN WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE CAN
BRING THEIR RELATIVES FROM.
ABROAD.
AGAIN, PRIORITIES.
I DON'T THINK WORKING ON
THESE THINGS AS MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE.
YOU'LL FIND NO ONE WHO HAS
WORKED HARDER OR HAVE DONE MORE
FOR VETERANS IN THIS COUNTRY
WHEN IT COMES TO MENTAL
HEALTH CARE ACCESS, A VERY
SACREDED PRIORITY OF MINE.
I'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE PROGRESS
WITH REPUBLICAN MEMBERS ON THIS
ISSUE.
AT THE SAME TIME, I CAN ADVOCATE
FOR S THE SUCCESS OF MY COMMUNITY
AND OUR COUNTRY AT LARGE BY
ENSURING THAT THE DREAMERS STAY
HERE BY ANYONE'S MEASURE, THERE IS
EXTRAORDINARY POSITIVE ECONOMIC
BENEFIT TO THOSE DREAMERS
STAYING HERE.
THE JOBS THAT ARE CREATED, THE
DOLLARS THAT ARE SPENT --
Tucker: I'M SORRY. O
YOU DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS ON
THAT.
YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT.
I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS
QUESTION.
YOU
DON'T, ACTUALLY, THIS HAS
BEEN LIKE THAT A LOT AND THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BRINGING
PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOWER THAN
AVERAGE EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
AS
THEY DO INTO THIS COUNTRY,
AND HIGH-TECH ECONOMY, MAKES THE
REST OF US RICHER.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
ECONOMISTS HAVE LOOKED AT
THIS AND IT IS MEASURED NOT IN
THE MILLIONS, BUT THE TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE
POSITIVE THAT DREAMERS
BRING TO
THE ECONOMY.
IT'S GOOD FOR ALL OF US.
Tucker: A LOT OF THESE ARE
MINORS.
THESE ARE EXTRAPOLATIONS AND
THEORETICAL, I HOPE YOU WILL
CONCEDE THIS.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
WHY IS IT GOOD FOR AMERICANS?
WHY SHOULD AMERICANS PAY FOR
LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR PEOPLE
HERE ILLEGALLY?
YOU SNEAK IN, TAXPAYERS PAY FOR
YOUR LAWYER, YOU SPONSORED
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW
THAT.
HOW DOES IT BENEFIT AMERICANS
EXACTLY?
I THINK IT IS KEEPING TRUE TO
WHO WERE WE ARE.
WHEN YOU HAVE ASYLUM-SEEKERS
FROM
THE MOST VIOLENT, BRUTAL
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD LIKE
EL SALVADOR, WHO ARENG YOUNG KIDS
OR YOUNG FAMILIES, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM
IN THIS COUNTRY, KNOWING THE
LAWS, HAVING AN ADVOCATE, AND
AREN'T RETURNED TO A COUNTRY
WHERE THEY FACE,HE IN SOME CASES,
CERTAIN DEATH.
Tucker: THESE ARE PEOPLE --
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THEY CAME HERE
ILLEGALLY.
THEY DIDN'T COME AS REFUGEES
THROUGH ONE OF THE MANY PROGRAMS
TO BRING REFUGEES.
VERY OFTEN THEY CAME AS
ASYLUM-SEEKERS WHO PRESENTED
THEMSELVES TO BORDER PATROL
AGENTS AT THE BORDER, TO CUSTOMS
OFFICERS AT THE PORTS OF ENTRY.
Tucker: SOr: TAXPAYERS ARE
PAYING FOR THEM TO FIGHT
AMERICAN LAW AND COURT?
NOT TO FIGHT AMERICAN LAW.
TO GET RIGHT WITH AMERICAN LAW,
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY SHOW UP
TO THEIR COURT HEARINGS, TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY FOLLOW OUR LAWS.
I THINK AGAIN, THAT IS IN
EVERYONE'S INTEREST.
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
SECURITY --
Tucker: FOR US TO PAY FOR
LAWYERS SO THEY CAN FIGHT
DEPORTATION, THAT IS SOMEHOW
GOOD FOR US?
WHY IS IT GOOD FOR US TO PAY FOR
THE HEALTH CARE BILLS WITH
PEOPLE WHO SNUCK IN HERE AGAINST
OUR LAW?
WHY DID YOU SPONSOR LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THAT,
TOO?
IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
IN OUR COUNTRY, WHO ARE
CONTRIBUTING TO THISNG COUNTRY
SUCCESS, TO BE SAFE, TOFE BE
HEALTHY, TO BE ABLE TO ABLE TO
CONTRIBUTE.
Tucker: DID THE LAW
SPECIFIED -- DID YOUR BILL
SPECIFY THAT IT ONLY APPLIED TO
PEOPLE WHO AREFI BENEFITING THE
COUNTRY?
I THINKDI IT WAS ANYONE HERE
ILLEGALLY WOULD GET FREE
HEALTH CARE AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
I AM SORRY.
WITH ALL RESPECT, I'M CONFUSED
BY WHY WE SHOULD PAY FOR THE
HEALTH CARE OF SOMEONE WHO BROKE
OUR LOT TO GET HERE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
YEAH, I DON'T THINK YOU ARE
READING THE BILL CORRECTLY.
I THINK YOU ARE LOSING SIGHT OF
THE BENEFIT THAT WE GAIN BY
THOSE WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO
OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR STATES, AND
OUR COUNTRY'S EXCESS.
Tucker: TO THAT LAW SPECIFY
THAT ONLY PEOPLE CONTRIBUTING TO
OUR COUNTRY WOULD GET FREE
HEALTH CARE?
THAT IT ALSO APPLY TO GANG
MEMBERS OR VAGRANTS?
I THINK THEY WERE COVERED TO
COME OVER AND THEY?
I THINK THERE IS AN INTEREST
IN MAKING SURE THAT IF SOMEONE
IS GOING TO BE SICK, IF SOMEONE
NEEDS HELP, THAT WE DELIVER IT
AT THE MOST EFFICIENT,
EFFECTIVE, COST EFFECTIVE WAY
POSSIBLE.
Tucker: COST-EFFECTIVE TO
PAYO FOR THE HEALTH CARE?
YOU CAN PAY FOR IT IN THE
EMERGENCY ROOM --
Tucker: HOW ABOUT NOT
PAYING FOR IT AT ALL?
YOU CAN WATCH PEOPLE DIE IN
YOUR COMMUNITY.
Tucker: OH, I'M A MEAN
PERSON FOR NOT BEING IN FAVOR.
CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US.
HOUSEUB REPUBLICANS LED BY BOB
GOODLATTE OF VIRGINIA HAVE
RELEASED AN OUTLINE FOR WHAT
THEY SAY DACA LIKE TO LOOK LIKE.
INCLUDES AUTOMATIC E-VERIFY,
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE WALL, AND
MORE.
CONGRESSMAN RAUL LABRADOR JOINS
US TONIGHT.CO
THANK YOU FOR COMING ON.
IT'S GREAT TO BE ON YOUR SHOW
YOUR SHOW.
Tucker: YOU'RE ON THE
INSIDE OF THE CONGRESS, I'M FAR
OUTSIDE BUT WE SPOKE TO SOMEONE
CLOSE TO LEADERSHIP TODAY WHO
SAID HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT
REPUBLICANS ARE AT THE NUMBER
THEY NEEDED
TO BE TO GET THIS
DONE.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S TRUE?
I THINK IT IS FASCINATING
THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
INTRODUCED TAX LEGISLATION
WITHOUT 218 VOTES.
HE INTRODUCED A HEALTH CARE BILL
WITHOUT 218 VOTES.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, HE IS
REQUIRING REPUBLICANS,
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS IN THE
HOUSE, TO HAVE 218 VOTES BEFORE
THEY INTRODUCE DACA AND BORDER
SECURITY LEGISLATION.
DO YOUHI THINK THAT'S FAIR?
Tucker: [LAUGHS]
NO, I THINK IT'S VERY TELLING,
ACTUALLY.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
WHY DO YOUWH THINK THAT IS?
BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE A
DIFFERENT AGENDA IN THE
LEADERSHIP AND I THINK WE ARE
TRYING TO SHOW THEM THAT OUR
REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE BILL IS
THE ONLY ONE THAT IS GOING TO
GET THE MAJORITY OF THE
CONFERENCE TOGETHER.
IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT AFTER WE
EDUCATE THE CONFERENCE, WE TALK
ABOUT THIS BILL, WE EXPLAINED TO
PEOPLE WHAT IS IN THIS BILL,
THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE OVER
218 REPUBLICANS APPROVE AND
SPONSOR THIS BILL.
I THINK WE CAN DO THIS.
BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD PUT THE
SAME EFFORT THAT THEY PUT INTO
HEALTH CARE AND THAT THEY PUT
INTO THE TAX BILL INTO MAKING
SURE THAT WE SECURE OUR BORDERS,
THAT WE END THE DIVERSITY VISA
PROGRAM, THAT WE END CHAIN
MIGRATION, JUST LIKE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TOLD
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SUPPORTED
PRESIDENT TRUMP BY THE MILLIONS
AND THE MILLIONS AND HE BECAME
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Tucker: WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE
THE ARGUMENT FROM WITHIN THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE OF CONGRESS
WOULD BE AGAINST THOSE MEASURES,
ENDING CHAIN MIGRATION, ENDING
THE DIVERSITY LOTTERY, E-VERIFY?
WHAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT
AGAINST IT?
SO THEY DON'T HAVE AN
ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT BILL.
THEY SAY IF IT GOES TO THE
SENATE, THE SENATE IS NOT GOING
TO PASS IT.
AND THAT SHOULDN'T BE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY AS MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE.HO
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, OUR JOB IS
TO PRESENT THE BEST SOLUTION TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE
MOST CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PRAY ABOUT
THIS THE SENATE HANDLE WHAT THEY
WILL DO IN THE SENATE.
WE CAN HANDLE WHAT WE WILL DO IN
THE HOUSE.
WE DO NOT NEED TO DO A DACA
BILL.
TO SOME PEOPLE IN OUR LEADERSHIP
BELIEVE THAT THAT ISME A PRIORITY OF
THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE.
IT SHOULDN'T BE.
THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE, THE
PRIORITY IS TO SECURE THE
BORDER, AND CHAIN MIGRATION, TO
DO ALL THE THINGS THAT WE TOLD
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WE WILL DO
OVER
THE LAST EIGHT YEARS WHEN
WE WERE ASKING FOR A MAJORITY IN
THE HOUSE AND A MAJORITY IN THE
SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT.
Tucker: DO YOU THINK --
YOU'VE MADE THIS POINT BY
IMPLICATION, BUT DO YOU THINK
YOURUT LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE
UNDERSTOOD THE LESSONS OF THE
LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
I'M NOT SURE THE LEADERSHIP
IN THE HOUSE EVER UNDERSTANDS
THE
LESSONS OF THE LAST ELECTION
EVER.
THEY ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD AS TO
HOW THEY CAN MANAGE THE NEXT
WEEK.
OR THE NEXT MONTH.
WHAT THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SENT A
REALLY CLEAR MESSAGE.
THEY GAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP THE
PRESIDENCY, BECAUSE THEY WANTED
HIM TO SECURE THE BORDERS.
THAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE,
AS YOU, KNOW, THAT HE TALKED
ABOUT THROUGHOUT HIS ELECTION.
HE DEFEATED 16 OTHER REPUBLICANS
REPUBLICANS, VERY, VERY
ARTICULATE, VERY, VERY STRONG
REPUBLICANS COME BECAUSE THAT
WASMB THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE THAT HE
CAMPAIGNED ON, THAT IS WHAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT, AND THAT
IS WHAT WE SHOULD DELIVER AS
REPUBLICANS.
Tucker: I THINK THAT'S A
PRETTY CLEAR RATIONALE.
CONGRESSMAN, THANKS A LOT, I
APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR.
IT'S GREAT TO BE ON THE SHOW.
Tucker: PRESIDENT TRUMP
LAWYER JUST SUED Buzzfeed.com
FOR RELEASING THE NOW INFAMOUS
TRUMP DOSSIER A YEAR AGO TODAY.
EDITOR IN CHIEF OF BLOOD FOR
BUZZFEED NEWS, BEN SMITH,
WELL-VERSED PROVIDE HIS
♪ ♪
Tucker: EXACTLY ONE YEAR
AGO TONIGHT, BUZZFEED RELEASED
THE TRUMP DOSSIER TO THE PUBLIC
EVEN THOUGH THEY COULDN'T VERIFY
ANY OF ITS CONTENTS,CO SOME OF
WHICH WERE SCANDALOUS AND
SALACIOUS.
WE BLASTED THEM AT THE TIME AND
NOW THEY ARE GETTING SUED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY HAS
SUED BOTH BUZZFEED ANDRE DOSSIER
CREATOR, FUSION GPS, SAYING THAT
IT DEFAMES THE PRESIDENT BY
BASELESSLY LINKING HIM TO
RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
BUZZFEED'S EDITOR BEN SMITH CAME
ON TO DEFEND THE RELEASE A YEAR
AGO AND HE'S GAVE ENOUGH TO COME
ON.
THANKS FOR COMING ON.
THANK YOU FOR COMING ON.
Tucker: YOU BEEN SUED BY
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.
WHAT'SER A RESPONSE?
IT'S VERY MUCH WHAT I SAID
LAST TIME.
IT'S A DOCUMENT OF OBVIOUS
CENTRAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.
AS THE SUBJECT OF MULTIPLE
INVESTIGATIONS BY INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY, BY CONGRESS.
THAT WAS CLEAR A YEAR AGO,
POTENTIALLY A LOT CLEARER NOW.
BEFORE WE PUBLISHED IT, AS WE
KNEW THEN, IMPORTANT ELECTED
OFFICIALS, INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
WERE INVESTIGATING THIS
DOCUMENT.
WHEN WE TALKED LAST TIME, THAT
WAS A SUBJECT OF SOME DISPUTE
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, I'M NOT
SURE IF YOU SAID THIS, BUT A LOT
OF PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT SAID THIS
IS IRRELEVANT NONSENSE DOCUMENT.
NOW WHAT I SEE ON FOX NEWS IN
PARTICULAR IS THAT THIS DOCUMENT
WAS CENTRAL, ARGUABLY, TO
CENTRAL, TO THE FBI
INVESTIGATION.
I THINK THAT IS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED NOW.
Tucker: YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT WAS CENTRAL.
THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT ITS ROLE IN THIS
INVESTIGATION BUT IT SURE SEEMS
LIKE THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT YOU BEEN DOING THIS FOR A
LONG TIME MIND YOU KNOW THAT ALL D
KINDS OF AN EFFECT DOSSIER IS
COME ACROSS THE DESKS OF
INVESTIGATORS AND INTEL AGENCIES
AND POLITICIANS AND PEOPLE WHO
COVER THEM AND THEY ARE NOT MADE
PUBLIC BECAUSE THEIR CONTENTS
ARE UNVERIFIED AND SOMETIMES
UNVERIFIABLE AND THEY ARE
DEFAMATORY.
YOU SEE A LOT OF STUFF THAT YOU
DON'T PASS ON BECAUSE YOU DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S TRUE.
THE WORDS HANG IN THE AIR.
YOU LIABLE SOMEONE IN EFFECT.
YOU DON'T RUN IT BUT YOU DID RUM
THIS BECAUSE IT WAS TRUMP.
YOU ARE DESKS AND MINE ARE
FULL OF ALL SORTS OF DOSSIERS
AND TIPS AND CLAIMS.
THEY ARE NOT FULL OF DOCUMENTS
THAT ARE BEING BRIEFED TO THE
PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
OF THE UNITED STATES, BEING
FOUGHT OVER AN INTENSE
TUG-OF-WAR BY INTELLIGENCE
OFFICIALS, FOR INSTANCE, IMAGINE
COVERING THE WEEKS THAT WE JUST
HAD, IMAGINE COVERING THE
SIMPSON'S TESTIMONY TO DATE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THEGE
BATTLE BETWEEN FEINSTEIN AND
GRASSLEY PRAYED IN A SITUATION
IN WHICH YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED --
AND WHAT YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE FIGHTING
ABOUT.
I JUST THINK THAT AMERICANS
WOULD HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING LAST YEAR AND
WITHOUT THIS DOCUMENT.
Tucker: OF COURSE BUT YOU
ARE MAKING A RETROACTIVE
ARGUMENT.
THIS WAS TRUE AT THE TIME.
THE DOSSIER WAS A PIECE OF DARK
MATTER THAT WAS PULLING THE FBI,
PULLING HE REREAD, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND.
Tucker: THAT'S THE POINT.
WE NOW HAVE A CONTEXT FOR IT.
WE DIDN'T THEN.
A LOT OF THIS WE KNEW THEN.
A LOT OF THE REALITY OF THIS
CASE WE KNEW.
Tucker: I DIDN'T READ IT ON
BUZZFEED, I DID NOT KNOW THIS
WAS PART OF THE HILLARY CLINTON
AWFUL OPERATION THAT SHE TOOK UP
FROM THE ANTI-TRUMP REPUBLICAN
DONOR OPERATION.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THE EXTENT TO
WHICH STEELE HAD GOTTEN THAT
INFORMATION FROM RUSSIANAN
INTELLIGENCE AND RUSSIAN
SOURCES.
THERE'S A LOT WE DID IT NOW.
THE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
STEELE SOURCES ARE IN THE
DOSSIER.
IT'S TRUE.
THERE'S BEEN A TON OF SUBSEQUENT
REPORTING.
Tucker: HERE'S THE POINT.
YOU'RE ARGUING THAT IS AT THE
CENTER OF THE NEWSNG AND SO WE
WERE RIGHT A YEAR AGO TO RUN IT.
I'M NOT ATTACKING YOU FOR
RUNNING IT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE PARTISANSHIP
THAT PLAYED A ROLE.
THAT. IS JUST NOT TRUE.
WE WERE IN THE EXACT SAME
SITUATION WITH A
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON.
WE WOULD HAVE RUN THE DOSSIER.
FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A DAYU.
LAST YEAR, IT WAS NOT THE
BIGGEST STORY OF THE DAY BECAUSE
IT WAS THE DAY OF THE
"ACCESS HOLLYWOOD" TAPE.
BUT ALSO ON THAT DAY, WE WERE
THE FIRST TO REPORT ON THE
SUBSTANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S
SPEECHES, OF HER SPEECHES.
I THINK THAT THEY'RE --
Tucker: HER SECRET SPEECHES
TO GOLDMAN?
THAT'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF
SALACIOUS.L
THEY WERE PRETTY INTERESTING.
Tucker: I WAS INTERESTED.
BUT THEY WEREN'T CLAIMING THAT
SHE WAS INTO SOME WEIRD SEX
PRACTICES.
THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF
FLOATING AROUND ABOUT OBAMA, HIS
PERSONAL LIFE, AND OF COURSE,
THE QUESTION OF WHERE HE WAS
BORN, THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WE
LAUGH ABOUT IT NOW BUT IT WAS A
BIG NEWS STORY AND PEOPLE WERE
MAKING ALLEGATIONS.
INCLUDING NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IF YOU CAME ACROSS A DOSSIER IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION THAT LAID OUT IN
SOME DETAIL BUT HE WAS BORN IN
KENYA, HAD A WEIRD PERSONAL
LIFE, HE WOULD NEVER RUN THAT.
IF IT WAS BEING BRIEFED TO
THE PRESIDENT, ABSOLUTELY.
Tucker: IF IT WAS A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT -- LOOK, IF
TRUMP OR PRESIDENT -- IS ALL
THEORETICAL --
DONALD TRUMP MADE THE
RIDICULOUS CLAIM ABOUT THE BIRTH
CERTIFICATE AND RECOVERED AT.
Tucker: IF THERE WAS A
DETAILED DOCUMENT ON THE SUBJECT
THAT HAD BEEN ASSEMBLED --
THE DOSSIER -- HE WAS FAR
ENOUGH TO PUT THAT IN A DOSSIER
THAT HE PUBLISHED AND SOLD IN M
HIS MEMOIR, AND OBAMA'S CASE.
Tucker: FLUX.
THE TRUTH IS THIS STEP WAS
UNVERIFIED A YEAR AGO, IT
REMAINS UNVERIFIED, I HOPE YOU
WILL AT LEAST --
SOME ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN
COOPERATED.
Tucker: THE BIG STEP HAS
NOT BEEN.
THE PAUL MANAFORT INDICTMENT
IS PRETTY BIG.
Tucker: WE ARE NO CLOSER TO
PROVING THAT HE COLLABORATED
WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OR
OOWITH AND HOTEL ROOM.
THAT IS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
AND IT STILL UNPROVEN.
THAT IS UNPROVEN.
THE BROAD OUTLINE OF THE RUSSIAN
CAMPAIGN TO PENETRATE AND
INFLUENCE THE AMERICAN ELECTION
HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
Tucker: THAT'S BEEN
GOING
ON FOR 100 YEARS.
BEN, THANK YOU.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TORE INTO
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN FOR
RELEASING THE BEHIND CLOSED DOOR
TESTIMONY OF GLEN SIMPSON
YESTERDAY.
THE PRESIDENT TWEETED THIS...
KIMBERLY STRASSEL IS A
"WALL STREET JOURNAL" EDITORIAL
BOARD MEMBER AND SHE JOINS US
TONIGHT.
THANKS FOR COMING ON.
HAPPY TO BE HERE, TUCKER.
Tucker: I MUST SAY, I AM
GRATEFUL TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN
FOR RELEASING THIS.
I THINK THE PUBLIC AS A RIGHT TO
KNOW.
I'M GLAD I READ IT.
IT WAS
INTERESTING STUFF IN
THERE.
DID YOU THINK THAT?
DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE
RELEASE OF THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT
YOU DIDN'T KNOW?
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK
TRANSPARENCY IS AN EXCELLENT
IDEA, AND I WOULD LOVE NOTHING
MORE R THAN FOUR CONGRESSIONAL
REPUBLICANS TO FOLLOW
SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S
LEAD, AND IN
AN ORGANIZED FASHION, AND A
CONSIDERED FASHION, RELEASE
EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE
DOSSIER, SO AMERICANS CAN FIND
WE MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS.
I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE WAY
THAT SENATOR FEINSTEIN DID DO
THIS.
THE REASON OF THE SENATE HAS
RULES, CONGRESS IN GENERAL, HAS
RULES, IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU
UNILATERALLY RELEASED TESTIMONY,
IT'S UNFAIR TO OTHER WITNESSES.
YOU BASICALLY HAVE ONE PERSON
GETTING TO MAKE THEIR CASE IN
PUBLIC, AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE
WHO MIGHT HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS,
THEY DON'T GET THEIR SAY.
Tucker: THAT'S A FAIR
POINT.
A SPEAKER THAT'S A PROBLEM.
ALSO, IT DISCOURAGES OTHER
WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD, LIKE
JARED KUSHNER.
IF THE DEMOCRATS TRULY ARE
INTERESTED IN GETTING TO THE
BOTTOM OF THIS QUESTION, HE IS
AN IMPORTANT WITNESS.
WHY WOULD HE EVERAN COME FORWARD
IN LIGHT OF THIS VOLUNTARILY?
AND BY THE WAY, WHY WOULD
SENATOR GRASSLEY EVER AGREE TO A
SUBPOENA FOR HIM KNOWING THAT
SENATOR FEINSTEIN CAN TURN
AROUND AND UNILATERALLY RELEASE
HIS TESTIMONY AS WELL, TOO?
Tucker: THAT'S A FAIR
POINT, THOUGH I DON'T THINK
JARED KUSHNER WOULD COME
VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE HE WOULD BE
FOOLISH TO DO THAT BECAUSE
EVERYTHING WOULD BE LEAKED.
IN READING THIS, I WAS REALLY
STRUCK BY SIMPSON'S CLAIM THAT
THE OBAMA FBI -- THE FBI UNDER
THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION --
TOLD STEELE, THE INVESTIGATOR
WORKING FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN
BY PROXY, DIRT ABOUT THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN, THAT THEY MAY HAVE
BEEN IN COLLUSION WITH THE
RUSSIANRN GOVERNMENT.
IS THAT ALLOWED?
THAT SEEMS TOTALLY OUT-OF-BOUNDS
FOR AN FBI AGENT TO DO THAT.
IT BRINGS UP A LOT OF
QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS, DID THE
FBI KNOW THAT STEELE WAS WORKING
FOR SIMPSON, WHO WAS WORKING FOR
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN?
IF THE FBI DIDN'TTH KNOW THIS, WHY
HADN'T IT DONE ITS DUE DILIGENCE
AND ASKED WHAT FEELS INTEREST IN
THIS WAS?
THEN, IF YOU FIND. OUT THAT THEY
ARE PASSING ALONG INFORMATION,
AND BY THE WAY, IT WOULD SEEM
LIKE THEY DID, SIMPSON
ORIGINALLY CLAIMED THAT HE HAD
INFORMATION THAT THE FBI HAD
HAD AN INSIDER SOURCE WITHIN THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
HE LATER HAD TO COME OUT AND
CLARIFY, W THAT WASN'T TRUE.
HE HAD ESSENTIALLY MISLED THE
COMMITTEE, AND HE WAS JUST
REFERRING TO ALL THIS OTHER NEWS
ABOUT AN AUSTRALIAN DIPLOMAT AND
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.
OKAY.
HOW DID HE FIND THAT OUT?
HOW DID HE KNOW THAT ALL THE WAY
THE BACK LAST YEAR?
IT SEEMS THE ONLY WAY HE GOT TO
THEM IS THAT THE FBI TOLD
STEELE,TE STEELE TOLD SIMPSON.
BY THE WAY, DID SIMPSON THEN
TELL THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN?
WAS THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN
POSSESSION OF CONFIDENTIAL FBI
INVESTIGATORY MATERIAL ABOUT
MR. TRUMP DURING THE ELECTION?
Tucker: I MEAN, I DON'T SEE
HOW
YOU COULDN'T REACH THAT
CONCLUSION.'T
HE WAS BEING PAID TO GATHER
INFORMATION FOR THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN.
BUT I HOPE THE REPUBLICANS TAKE
YOUR WISE ADVICE AND RELEASE
EVERYTHING THEY AND ALSO THE
REST OF US CAN KNOW.
KIM, THANKS A LOT FOR THAT.
GET IT ALL OUT THERE, ALL OF
IT.
Tucker: AMEN.
TECH GIANTS LIKE GOOGLE AND
FACEBOOK ARE OMNIPRESENT IN OUR
LIVES, AND INCREASINGLY
OMNIPOTENT, AS WELL.
WE'LL ASK SENATOR MIKE LEE IF
IT'S TIME FOR CONGRESS TO LOOK
AT THE HARM THEY COULD BE
CAUSING TO THIS COUNTRY.
STAY TUNED.
♪ ♪
Tucker: APPLE, GOOGLE,
FACE
Tucker: APPLE, GOOGLE,
FACEBOOK, TWITTER, THEY ALL HAVE
YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION.
THEY CAN CONTROL NOT JUST WHAT
YOU SEE ONLINE, BUT WHAT YOU ARE
ALLOWED TO SAY, AND MAYBE OVER
TIME, WHAT YOU'RE CAPABLE OF
THINKING AND BELIEVING.
IN MANY CASES, THEIR SERVICES
ARE ADDICTIVE AND HARMFUL AND
THEY KNOW THAT, BUT
INCREASINGLY, TECH GIANTS ARE
NOT JUST A THREAT TO PRIVACY,
THEY ARE A THREAT TO OUR BASIC
AMERICAN. FREEDOMS.
FOR MOST PEOPLE, THERE'S NOT
MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT EXCEPT
GET INCREASINGLY PARANOID.
CONGRESS, THOUGH, CAN DO A LOT,
IS CONGRESS AFTER ALL.
COOK I REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF
UTAH JOINS US TONIGHT.
IF ANYONEAN CAN TAKE ACTION
AGAINST TECH OLIGARCHS, IT'S
HIM.
THANKS FOR COMING ON.
THANKSS VERY MUCH.
Tucker: A LOT OF WAYS TO
COME OUT THIS STORY.
HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE FOR MY
PERSPECTIVE.
NO COMPANY HAS EVER BEEN AS
POWERFUL IN THE HISTORY OF THE
WORLD AS GOOGLE IS AND I WOULD
ADD TO THAT, APPLE AND FACEBOOK.
IT HAS NOW BECOME REALLY CLEAR
THAT THEY ARE MISUSING THAT
POWER.
BOTTOM LINE, THEY ARE TOO
POWERFUL IF THEY ARE HURTING
PEOPLE.N'
WHYO WOULDN'T CONGRESS STEP IN TO
PARE BACK THE POWER?
WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
ANTITRUST LAW, OFTEN CENTERING
ON THE CONCENTRATION OF MARKET
POWER, NOT JUST FROM A
CONCENTRATION OF WHAT'S TOO
MUCH, BUT FROM A STANDPOINT OF
WHAT IS INFLICTING CONSUMER
HARM.
SOMETHING YOU MENTIONED LAST
NIGHT THAT I FEEL A NEED TO
RESPOND TO ABOUT GOOGLE SUDDENLY
BEING MORE OF A THREAT TO
PEOPLE'S PRIVACY THEN THE
GOVERNMENT, I DISAGREE WITH
THAT..
THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT AT SOME
POINT A COMPANY T LIKE GOOGLE CODE
AND BECOME TOO POWERFUL AND
INFLICT CONSUMER HARM.
BUT IN NO WAY, AS IT IS MUCH OF
A THREAT OF AS A GOVERNMENT TO YOUR
PRIVACY.
GOOGLE DOESN'T HAVE GUNS.
IT CAN SHOOT YOU.
ITIT CAN'T TAX YOU.
IT CAN'T REGULATE YOU THE WAY
THE GOVERNMENT CAN.
MY MUCH BIGGER FOCUS IS ON THE
THREAT POSED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO YOUR PRIVACY.
BY THE WAY, GOOGLE HAS YOUR
EMAIL, ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS,
THEY GOT YOUR EMAIL.
THE GOVERNMENTT CAN GET YOUR
EMAIL, WHETHER IT IS CARRIED BY
GOOGLE OR AOL OR ANYWHERE ELSE
WITHOUT AH WARRANT.
THAT'S INCREDIBLY DISTURBING.
Tucker: I'M FEARFUL OF THAT
AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR WORK
AS A LIBERTARIAN INFUSED
CONSERVATIVE PUSHING BACK
AGAINST THAT, WHAT YOU HAVE
DONE, AND ALL MY LIFE AS A
CONSERVATIVE I'VE ALWAYS ASSUMED
AS A MATTER OF FATE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS THE MAIN THREAT
BUT I'VE COME TO BELIEVE THAT A
THREAT FROM THESE COMPANIES IS
MORE PROFOUND AND CERTAINLY MUCH
MORE INSIDIOUS AND THERE IS NO
RECOURSE.
I CAN'T VOTE OUT THE HEAD OF
GOOGLE IF I WANT.
IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY.
THAT'S TRUE.
YOU CAN USE A DIFFERENT SEARCH
ENGINE.
YOU HAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
YOU CAN'T AS A CITIZEN, YOU
CAN'T JUST LEAVE -- YOU CAN
LEAVE THE COUNTRY, MOST PEOPLE
CONSIDER THAT A VERY DIRE,
DRASTIC REMEDY.
BUT AS A CONSUMER, YOU CAN
CHOOSE TO USE A DIFFERENT SEARCH
ENGINE, USE SOMEBODY ELSE TOO
HANDLE YOUR EMAIL.
THERE ARE OTHER MARKET OPTIONS
AVAILABLE.
Tucker: HERE'S THE THING.
WE HAVE WITH THE GOVERNMENT --
I'M NOT JUST SAYING THE
GOVERNMENT AND ITS FREQUENT
OVERAGE, WHICH TERRIFIES ME COME
OF COURSE, I SPEND MOST SHOWS
TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT WE HAVE
FOR YOU, I CAN FIND OUT WHAT'S
GOING ON.
IN THE COURSE OF GOOGLE, WHICH D
IS THE PORTAL THROUGH PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND REALITY, GOOGLE HAS
TRIGGERED ITS SEARCH RESULTS TO
ELIMINATE CONCEPTS THAT IT IS
AGREES WITH COMMON POLITICAL
CONCEPTS, THIS IS NOT A FEVER
DREAM OF MINE.
THIS IS A FACT WHICH IS PROVEN.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, PLAY
WITH GOOGLE FOR HALF AN HOUR.
THEY HAVE CHANGED THE SEARCH
RESULTS TO DISAPPEAR IDEAS THEY
DON'T LIKE.
SO WHY IS THAT NOT TERRIFYING TO
THE PROSPECT OF RUNNING A
DEMOCRACY THAT REQUIRES THAT AN
INFORMED CITIZENRY?
I DON'TDO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S
NOT REALLY SCARY.
THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION.
LET'S MAKE ONE THING VERY CLEAR,
THOUGH.
NO ONE IS COMPELLING YOU TO USE
GOOGLE.
YOU HAVE OTHER OPTIONS.
IT IS DISTURBING, I DON'T LIKE
IT WHEN THEY DO THAT.
I HAVE RAISED THIS WITH GOOGLE
EXECUTIVES TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
I HAVE MADE INQUIRIES AS THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE ANTITRUST
SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE SENATE WITH
REGARDS TO GOOGLE.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, GOOGLE, OF
COURSE, IS NOT A GOVERNMENT
ENTITY.
GOOGLE IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY.
THEY ARE A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT
CORPORATION, ONE THAT CAN MAKE
DECISIONS AS THE CORPORATION
DEEMS FIT.
Tucker: HOLD ON.
GOOGLE CONTROLS THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF DIGITAL ADVERTISING,
ALONG WITH FACEBOOK, THEEL
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.
THAT MEANS THAT EVERY NEWS
ORGANIZATION THAT RELIES ON
DIGITAL ADVERTISING, WHICH ISWH
ALL OF THEM THAT AREN'T ONY
TELEVISION, THEY ARE ALL
DEPENDENT UPON TWO COMPANIES
THAT ARE WILDLY POLITICAL AND
WORKING AGAINST FREE SPEECH.
THAT IS NOT A CONCERN?
IT SEEMS A CONCERN TO ME.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A
CONCERN.
WHATAY I'M SAYING IS NOT EVERY
CONCERN RISES TO THE LEVEL OF
MARKET CONCENTRATION COUPLED
WITH CONSUMER HARM.
I'M ALSO SAYING THAT IN THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HAVE OPTIONS
THAT CONSUMERS HAVE ACCESS TO.
THEY CAN USE OTHER SEARCH
ENGINES, THEY CAN AVOID GOOGLE
IF THEY WANT TO, AND THAT DOES
MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE.
Tucker: ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US.
I USED TO BE A LIBERTARIAN UNTIL
GOOGLE.
[LAUGHS] U
THANK YOU FOR COMING ON PAGE
THANK YOU.
Tucker: 95 EUROS COMIC BOOK
LEGEND STAN LEE, THE MAN WHO
CREATED "SPIDER-MAN" IS THE
LATEST VICTIM OF HOLLYWOOD
SEXUAL HARASSMENT BACK GLASS.
HAS "ME TOO" BECOME A WAR OF
PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO BE
HURT BY IT?
INCLUDING STANLEY.
Tucker: WELL, THE BACKLASH
AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS
BROADE
Tucker: THE BACKLASH
AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS
BROADENING IN SCOPE FOR ABOUT
THE 15TH TIME NOW AND IS NOW
HITTING MARVEL COMICS LEGEND
STAN LEE.
HE IS 95 YEARS OLD AND HAS HAD
NURSES CARE FOR HIM AT HIS HOME
AND NOW SOME OF THOSE NURSES
HAVE ACCUSED HIM OF THEM AND
ASKING FOR SEXUAL
FAVORS.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS APPALLING,
OF COURSE, ON THE OTHER HAND,
THIS IS A MAN WHO WAS ALREADY 50
YEARS OLD WITH THE TERM SEXUAL
HARASSMENT WAS FIRST COINED.
A HELPLESS ELDERLY MAN DOES SEEM
LIKE PRAYING OF THE WEEK, NOT
PROTECTING THEM.
WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF THIS?
ACTUALLY PROUD AS A CONTRIBUTOR
TO "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT"
AND SHE JOINS US TONIGHT.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME, TUCKER.
Tucker: THIS T IS ONE OF
THOSE RARE CASES -- I DON'T KNOW
THE TRUTH AND I DON'T WANT TO
PRETEND THAT I DO -- IT WOULDN'T
SURPRISE ME IF IT WERE TRUE
BECAUSE THE ELDERLY, FOR A BUNCH
OF PHYSICAL REASONS, SOMETIMES
DO SAY INAPPROPRIATE THINGS
RELATED TO SEX, IT'S A
WELL-KNOWN PHENOMENON, AND I
THINK MOST OF NURSES WHO CARE
FOR THE ELDERLY ARE VERY AWARE
OF THIS.
GIVEN THAT, IT SEEMS A LITTLE
STRANGE TO HEAR CHARGES AGAINST
THE P GUY WHEN IT'S KIND OF
COMMON.
AT THE SAME TIME, THOUGH, WE
HAVE TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AND
REALIZE THAT WHEN THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE COMING OUT,
THERE NEEDS TO BE AN
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.
WE CAN'T JUST GO OUT THERE
DEFAMING PEOPLE.
I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE
BIGGEST ISSUES THAT I HAVE
CURRENTLY WITH THIS.
23 MOVEMENT.
IT'S DOING A LOT OF GREAT THINGS
BUT IT'S ALSO ALLOWING A
PLATFORM FORAT DEFAMATION TO
HAPPEN.
IN THIS CASE, IF THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE, IT SHOULD
BE BROUGHT IN A LEGAL SUIT AND
EXAMINED FOR WHAT THEYFO ARE.
IF HE WAS GROPING PEOPLE AND HE
WAS EXPOSING HIMSELF AND DOING
ALL OF THESE THINGS SO THEY ARE
ALLEGING, OF COURSE, THAT IS
DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR.
IF IT IS JUST JOKES AND WHATNOT,
WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT THOSE
ISSUES ARE THERE BUT I AM
SOMEONE WHO, I WORKED ON
CAMPAIGN WITH ALL MEN, MULTIPLE
TIMES.
I KNOW JOKES VERSUS
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR.
I THINK WE NEED TO TRUST WOMEN
IN THESE INSTANCES AND REALIZE
THAT WE KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT AND
WE KNOW WHAT IS WRONG.
BUT IN THE CASE OF DEFAMATION,
THAT IT IS AN ISSUE.
Tucker: WHAT IF THERE IS A
THIRD EXPLANATION -- AGAIN, I
DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH -- BUT
BEING A RUNNY ELDERLY, WHAT IF
THEY ARE TRUE BUT A SYMPTOM
OF THE ADVANCED AGE?
THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON. A
IS THERE AN AGE AT WHICH, MAYBE
95 WHERE WE SAY, YOU ARE NOT
FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAY
YOUNG ARE BEHAVING?
YOU DON'T REPRESENT ALL MEN,
MAYBE YOU ARE JUST 95 YEARS OLD
AND YOU DO THINGS HE WOULDN'T
HAVE DONE WHEN YOU ARE 75 OR 55.
WE CAN'T MAKE EXCUSES FOR
BEHAVIOR.
IF HE IS EXPOSING HIMSELF AND
ASKING FOR SEXUAL FAVORS, THAT'S
RIGHT THERE IS A PROBLEM.
IT IS LIKE WHEN THEY CAME OUT
WITH THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
GEORGE H.W. BUSH.
THAT BOTHERED ME BECAUSE THOSE
WERE JOKES BEING MADE IN FRONT
OF HIS WIFE.
YOU CAN OFFER AN ARGUMENT THAT
WHETHER HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
MAKING THEM BUT IT'S JUST JOKES.
INT THIS SITUATION, IF HE WAS
ACTUALLY EXPOSING HIMSELF AND
GROPING WOMEN WHO WERE TAKING
CARE OF HIM, THAT IS A PROBLEM
LIKE IT YOU CAN'T BLAME ON OLD
AGE.
IF HE IS MAKING --
Tucker: THAT'S THE THING!
YOU CAN BLAME IT ON OLD AGE!
THAT IS A BEHAVIORAL ISSUE
THAT WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE AS
WOMENER ARE AS MEN.
AND THAT IS MY PROBLEM.
Tucker: I AM TOTALLY
OPPOSED TO IT, EXCEPT -- I'M
SURE IT WILL BE KILLED FOR
SAYING THIS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS
REQUIRED TO LIE ALL THE TIME IN
AMERICA RIGHT NOW -- AGAIN, THAT
IS SOMETIMES A SYMPTOM OF AGE
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
I SHOULD THINK.
I SHOULD STOP TALKING, I GUESS.
ACTUALLY, THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US.
SCHOOLS ACROSS AMERICA ARE
TRYING TO BAN KIDS FROM HAVING
BEST FRIENDS BECAUSE THAT'S
EXCLUSIVE AND THEREFORE,
DANGEROUS.
DO WE REALLY NEED A BAN ON
BUSYBODIES?
SOCIAL ENGINEERS TAMPERING IN
THE LIVES OFPE YOUR CHILDREN.
WE'LL DISCUSS THAT NEXT. T
STAY TUNED.
cancer care is here.
♪ ♪
Tucker: A FOLLOW-UP TONIGHT
ON A SEGMENT WE DID LAST WEEK.
WE TALKED TO BARSTOOLS BOARDS
FOUNDER, KNOWN AS EL PRESIDENTE,
ABOUT HIS SUIT WITH THE NFL.
THE LEAGUE WAS INITIALLY
DISMISSIVE OF THIS SUIT FROM BAR
STOOL BUT SINCE HE CAME ON OUR
SHOW, THEY SEEMED TO HAVE CHANGE
COURSE.
HE TREATED THIS EVENING...
CONCORD MAY BE TOO STRONG A
WORD.
THE NFL IS STILL RECEIVING
BILLIONS IN TAX BREAKS TO SHOW
SPOILED BILLIONAIRES HATING
THEIR COUNTRY.
BUT A WIN IS A WIN AND YOU TAKE
WHAT YOU GET.S
CONGRATULATIONS TO BARSTOOL.
WELL, IT'S NATURAL AND HEALTHY
TO HAVE FRIENDS, OR IT WAS, JUST
AS IT'S NATURAL AND HEALTHY TO
HAVE A SINGLE FAVORITE FRIEND,
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT, BUT
SOMETHING BEING NATURAL AND
HEALTHY DOESN'T MEAN THAT
SOMEBODY WON'T FIND A WAY TO
PANIC.
IN A RECENT ARTICLE,
PSYCHOLOGIST BARBARA GREENBERG
ENDORSED EFFORTS BY SCHOOLS OF
THIS COUNTRY AND IN EUROPE TO
ABOLISH BEST FRIENDS.
YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP.
SHE SAYS THE EXISTENCE OF BEST
FRIENDS IS EXCLUSIONARY COUPLE
WHICH IS TRUE BY DEFINITION, AND
CAUSES EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
A PSYCHOTHERAPIST JOINS US
TONIGHT.
THANKS FOR COMING ON.
HI, THANKS FOR HAVING ME,
TUCKER.
Tucker: [LAUGHS]]
I WANT TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY
BECAUSE THE THINGS THAT YOU
LAUGH AT ARE THE THINGS THAT
BECOME FEDERAL LAW BEFORE YOU
KNOW IT.
BUT HAVING A BEST FRIEND IS BY
DEFINITION EXCLUSIONARY.
YOU ARE CHOOSING ONE AMONG MANY.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT BAD.
I MEAN, MARRIAGE IS ALSO
EXCLUSIONARY, UNLESS IT'S PLURAL
MARRIAGE, AND THAT IS NOT BAD,
EITHER.
SO EXCLUSIONARY ISN'T ALWAYS
BAD.
WHY IS HAVING A BEST FRIEND BAD?
WELL, I THINK WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN THE TREND ACROSS
AMERICA, BOTH IN PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND IN EUROPE
AND CANADA, IS THAT MANY SCHOOLS
ARE STARTING TO ADOPT, OR
MANDATE THAT CHILDREN HAVE
CERTAIN BEHAVIORS IN SCHOOL,IO
CERTAIN POLICIES, BEHAVIORAL
POLICIES, FOR LACK OF A BETTER
WORD.
IT'S MEANT TO TEACH KIDS TO BE
POLITE TO ONE ANOTHER, IT'S
MEANT TO TEACH MANNERS, IT'S
MEANT TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSITY AND
TOLERANCE.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THIS
BEST FRIEND POLICY ARE PEOPLE
WHO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT
TEACHING CHILDREN HOW TO DEAL
WITH NEGATIVE SOCIAL ANXIETY,
THE NEGATIVE FEELINGS THAT
CHILDREN WOULD FEEL IF THEY ARE
EXCLUDED.
I THINK THE MAGIC PLACE HERE IS
ACTUALLY SOMEPLACE IN THE
MIDDLE.
Tucker: WHY WOULDN'T THAT
MAGIC PLACE JUST BE STAY OUT OF
IT AND TEACH ENGLISH AND HISTORY
AND MATH?
I TOTALLY HEAR WHAT YOU ARE W
SAYING.
DONNIE SCHOOLS NOW HAVE A
NO-TOLERANCE TO BULLYING POLICY
ON THEIR BOOKS.
MORE, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SCHOOLS.
IT'S A C WAY TO ENCOURAGEGE CHILDREN
TO BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, IT'S A
WAY TO ENCOURAGE MANNERS FOR
LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
Tucker: I AM TOTALLY FOR
THAT.
I AM TOTALLY FOR TOLERANCE AND
GOODOD MANNERS.
ANYBODY WHO IS MORE
COMPASSION AND KINDNESS --
Tucker: SURE.
BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT IS A
FORM OF INSIDIOUS SOCIAL CONTROL
TO TRY AND TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHO
TO BE FRIENDS WITH.
I MEAN, WHO WOULD WANT TO TELL T
SOMEONE WHO TO BE FRIENDS WITH
IN THE FIRST PLACE?
DO YOU THINK IT'S A LITTLE
WEIRD?
I THINK WHAT IS HAPPENING --
I DON'T THINK THEY ARE TELLING
KIDS WHICH FRIENDS THEY CAN HAVE
IN WHICH THEY CAN.
THEY ARE ENCOURAGING FRIENDS
TO --
KIDS TO HAVE LARGER FRIEND
GROUPS.
THE PROBLEM WITH IT, THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUND A
STUDY, THEY FOUND THAT KIDS WHO
DID HAVE BEST FRIENDS GREW UP TO
HAVE HIGHER RATES OF MORE
POSITIVE MENTAL HEALTH AS ADULTS
AND THAT THEY ALSO HAD LESS
SOCIAL ANXIETY.
SO THAT IS THE ARGUMENT AGAINST
THIS SORT OF BEHAVIORAL POLICY
THAT A LOT OF SCHOOLS AREEE
MANDATING.
WE NEED TO TEACH CHILDREN TO
DEAL WITH NEGATIVE FEELINGS.
IF WE KNOW HIM THE DARK, WE ALSO
NUMBED THE LIGHT.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO TEACH
CHILDREN THAT EVERYONE BELONGS.
WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY CHILD
EVER FEEL UNWORTHY OR GIVE THEM
A SENSE OF BELONGING IN ANY KIND
OF COMMUNITY.
Tucker: I GUESS.
I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO MEANNESS
AND BULLYING, OBVIOUSLY, AND I
AM, IAT MEAN THAT.
BUT I ALSO THINK THESE ISSUES
ARE ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX, KIND OF
PEOPLE WHO TEACH SCHOOL PROBABLY
NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THESE
ISSUES BETTER THAN TO SAY THE
PARENTS OF THE CHILD.
I GUESS, AS A PARENT, I RESENT
THE IDEAA THAT SOMEONE I HIRED TO
TEACH MY KIDS FACTS IS INTO
REALLY PERSONAL QUESTIONS, LIKE
WE AREOU FRIENDS WITH HER HOW MANY
FRIENDS YOU HAVE.
WHY DON'T THEY STAY OUT OF THAT
STUFF?
I WISH THAT ALL KIDS DIDN'TAV
HAVE ANY BEHAVIORAL ISSUES IN
SCHOOL.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED IN THE
SCHOOL SYSTEM, KIDS DO.
OFTEN TIMES, TEACHERS ARE PUT IN
A POSITION OF HAVING TO HELP
CHILDREN LEARN HOW TO MODIFY AND
CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIOR, SO THEY
DO HAVE CERTAIN POLICIES OLD
BOOKS.
YOU CANLI JUST HAVE A BULLY
RUNNING RAMPANT IN YOUR
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
Tucker: HAVING A BEST
FRIEND -- LET'S NOT COMPLETE THE
TERMS.
IT'S NOT THE SAME, IF YOU REALLY
WANT TO SPEND YOUR TIME WITH ONE
PERSON, IT'S NOT THE SAME AS
BULLYING OTHER PEOPLE.
WHAT COULD BE THE REMEDY,
TELLING A KID THAT YOUF HAVE TO
HAVE MORE FRIENDS?
HOW DO YOU FIX SOMETHING LIKE
THIS?
I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO
AVOID CHILDREN HAVING CLICKS.
WHAT THEY DO AS THEY TRIED TO
GET CHILDREN TO PLAY WITH LARGER
GROUPS OF KIDS AND RUN IN LARGER
PACKS WITH EACH OTHER.
THE THING THAT IS REALLY
INTERESTING HERE IS THAT WE CAN
TEACH, WE COULD HAVE THIS IN
SCHOOL, AND THEN AT HOME WE CAN
ENCOURAGE KIDS, AND WE SHOULD
ENCOURAGE KIDS, TO HAVE REALLY
CLOSE INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH OTHER.
NOT ONLY IS IT GOOD FOR THEIR
HEALTH, AS YOU SAID, I THINK IT
MODELS A HEALTHY FAMILY UNIT
MOVING FORWARD AS WELL.
Tucker:r: LAST QUESTION,
REALLY QUICK.
IT USED TO BE, YOU
TAUGHT THE
KIDS IN THE CLASSROOM ANDE YOU
LET THEM GO OUTSIDE AND AS LONGTS
AS THERE WAS NO GUN FIRE, YOU
DIDN'T GET INVOLVED.
WHY WAS THAT ABOUT IDEA, THAT
MODEL?
I DON'T THINK IT WAS A BAD
IDEA BUT I THINK THAT TIMES HAVE
CHANGED AND THE REALITY IS THAT
I GREW UP -- I LIVE IN A
COMMUNITY THAT IS NOT SO FAR
FROM NEWTOWN.
UNFORTUNATELY, BAD THINGSEW HAPPEN
IN THE WORLD WHEN KIDS START TO
FEEL SOCIALLY EXCLUDED.
WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT AS
EDUCATORS.
Tucker: BAD THINGS DIDN'T
HAPPEN WHEN WE ARE TO COME A
MIDDLE AGED ADULTS DIDN'T GET
INVOLVED IN THE SOCIAL LIVES OF
KIDS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THEIR
CONNECTION.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
THINK, TUCKER.
IT'S A PLEASURE.
Tucker: THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION RECENTLY
ANNOUNCED THAT 200,000
SALVADORANS NEED TO RETURN HOME.
WE'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THAT STORY IS
REALLY ABOUT AN INTERESTING
DETAILS.
STAY TUNED.
THIS WEEK
Tucker: THIS WEEK THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED IT WILL
BE SUSPENDING THE TEMPORARY
PROTECTED STATUS LABEL FOR
IMMIGRANTS FROM EL SALVADOR,
BASICALLY NO JOURNALIST IN
AMERICA HAD HEARD OF THIS UNTIL
THIS WEEK BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN,
NOTHING THIS BAD HAS EVER
HAPPENED.
WE'VE READ THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN.
HERE'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
IT AFFECTS ABOUT 200,000
SALVADORANS WHO'VE BEEN ALLOWED
TO WORK IN HERE SINCE 2001, THE
YEAR AND EARTHQUAKE HIT THEIR
COUNTRY.
THE NAME OF THE PROGRAM,
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS,
ALLUDES TO WHATY ITS PURPOSE WAS
SUPPOSED TOED BE.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDES
SHORT-TERM
REFUGE FOR VISITORS
FROM OTHER COUNTRIES THAT WERE
IN SHORT-TERM DISORDER.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED, THAT'S
NEVER WHAT HAPPENS.
IN FACT, IT BECAME AND IT
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM JUST
LIKE DACA, EXCEPT IT TARGETED
PACIFIC COUNTRIES RATHER THAN
PEOPLE ON POST SPECIFIC AGE.
PEOPLE ARE GIVEN WORK PERMITS
EVEN IF THEY CAME TO THE U.S.
ILLEGALLY.
THE EXCUSE FOR THIS IS NOT
SURPRISINGLY PAPER-THIN.
THE EL SALVADOR EARTHQUAKE WAS
BAD FROM A VERY BAD, BUT THE
NOTION THEY CAN'T RETURN HOME 17
YEARS LATER, ABSURD.
THE SAME GOES FOR THE 57,000
HONDURANS WHO ARE STILL HERE
BECAUSE OF 1998'S HURRICANE
MITCH, 20 YEARS AGO, OR THE
51,000 PATIENTS THAT WERE
ALLOWED TO STAY HERE BECAUSE OF
THE 2010 EARTHQUAKE IN THAT COUNTRY.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING
SHORT-TERM REFUGE.
IT'S ELITES IN WASHINGTON USING
ILLEGAL LOOPHOLES TO LET
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PEOPLE
COME HERE PERMANENTLY WITHOUT
GOING THROUGH ANY OF THE
ORDINARY IMMIGRATION CHANNELS.
YOU CAN TELL THAT NO ONE
EXPECTED FOR THEM TO RETURN
HOME
BECAUSE THE SUGGESTION THAT THEY
DO RETURN HOME IS BEING TREATED
AS A MASSIVE CRISIS FOR SOME
REASON.
ON MONDAY, "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
COMMENTED ON "THE SENSE OF DREAD
DRIPPING EMPLOYERS IN
CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, AND
VIRGINIA."
IT'SIN OBVIOUS WHY THEY FEEL
DREAD.
GPS EFFECTIVELY LEGALIZED
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
LOW-WAGE WORKERS IN MOST PLACES AND THOSE PLAYERS WOULD
RATHER NOT HAVE TO PAY HIGHER
WAGES TO ACTUAL AMERICANS.
POLITICIANS, MEANWHILE, ARE
UPSET OF THE PROSPECT OF LOSING
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FUTURE
STATE VOTES.
THAT IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT,
ANYONE WHO TRIES TO SUGGEST
OTHERWISE IS LYING TO YOU OR
THEMSELVES.
THAT'S IT FOR US TONIGHT.
JOIN US TOMORROW NIGHT, FOR THE
SHOW THAT IS THE SWORN ENEMY OF