Daniel Turner on Joe Biden's climate plan

close

Video

Daniel Turner on Joe Biden's climate plan

Power the Future executive director Daniel Turner weighs in on Biden's plan for net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," June 4, 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.” A forklift driver made the mistake of making fun of one of America's most powerful people online. And for that thought crime, the press and Facebook teamed up to destroy him. In a moment, the terrifying alliance between elite media and woke capital, it ought to make you very concerned.

But first tonight, officially, the Democratic Party is led by people old enough to remember the Korean War -- Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. But in reality, power has shifted. The real leaders of the party today are young pioneers, radicals like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They're the ones who determine the agenda in the party.

For example, six months ago, nobody had ever heard of the Green New Deal. And now Joe Biden feels obligated to mimic it. Today, Biden revealed his own climate plan. Like the Green New Deal, it would put the entire American economy in the hands of the Democratic Party. It would cost Biden says, about $6.7 trillion. How much is that? Well, it's equal to two full years of the entire Federal budget.

Biden says we must give Democrats this power immediately, or else the entire planet will become uninhabitable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.

So today, I'm announcing my plan for Clean Energy Revolution. It outlines what we have to do to meet this challenge head on and how we're going to get there.

We're going to invest $1.7 trillion in security in our future so that by 2050, the United States will be 100 percent clean energy economy with net zero emissions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "Just 12 years to act or the planet becomes uninhabitable." Who thinks of these lines? Actually, we think we know. It sounds familiar. Maybe it's because Biden took that line directly from the young pioneer herself, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change. Like this is the war -- this is our World War II.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "Like, this is our World War II." Actually Biden borrowed more than just that line, "The Daily Caller" News Foundation discovered at least five instances in which Joe Biden's climate plan quotes left wing organizations either verbatim or very closely, none of them are cited, no quotation marks. And that's another benefit of climate alarmism.

Not only do you get to seize absolute power over the country and its economy, you also get to ignore Federal copyright laws. There isn't time. For more on what's inside Joe Biden's climate plan, we are joined tonight by Power the Future Executive Director, Daniel Turner. Mr. Turner, thanks very much for coming on.

DANIEL TURNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POWER THE FUTURE: Thanks for having me on.

CARLSON: So in the clip you just saw and in the plan released to the press today, Joe Biden pledges to eliminate net carbon dioxide emissions in 30 years, by 2050. As a scientific matter, is that a plausible --

TURNER: it's amazing to think that as President, he will eliminate carbon dioxide, right? It is such a nonsensical. This is the party that always says we're the party of science and we believe in science. To say we will have zero emissions by 2050 is just a stupid comment. It's a dumb comment.

CARLSON: Why?

TURNER: Because --

CARLSON: What you're doing is pooh-pooing a dream here, Mr. Turner.

TURNER: Yes, I know.

CARLSON: So tell me why that dream is not achievable?

TURNER: I mean, just to think to create green energy technology, to create windmills, you need to forge an awful lot of steel. To make steel, you need an awful lot of coal. That's an emission.

To get the rare earths that go into solar panels, you need to do an awful lot of mining and excavation, and that's emissions.

You cannot create green technology using green technology. So it is a circular reasoning to think that somehow, they will create a system that is self-sustaining.

We need oil, we need gas, we need coal, and to say we will eliminate it by 2050, it's just a dumb statement.

CARLSON: So I think the idea is that technologies that are as they say, in the pipeline, that are being developed currently will reach a point by 2050 where that's possible. Are we on that trajectory, honestly?

TURNER: By 2050 -- I'm an optimist, maybe, but we're definitely not there yet. We haven't cured cancer yet either. Right? But I don't live my life, assuming we're going to start curing it. So let me live -- let me live to smoke another cigarette.

CARLSON: Yes, have another cigarette.

TURNER: Exactly. Right. We haven't cured it yet. So is the technology going to be there in the future? Potentially. It's not there yet. But you know what annoys me about this deal when it comes to Biden, he is the foreign policy expert.

Last time we had tensions like this with Iran. Oil was at $150.00 a barrel. Why is it not right now with all the tension going on there? It is because we have men and women working in oil, working in gas. We are energy independent for the first time in decades.

And instead of celebrating that and saying, "That is awesome, that is what it means to be American."

CARLSON: Yes.

TURNER: He wants to destroy all those jobs. I'm tired of these politicians who destroy and denigrate the men and women who work in the energy industry that make it possible to have the quality of life that we do.

CARLSON: But Biden is one of the many politicians who told us that one of the problems geopolitically for the United States was that we weren't energy independent. We were funding extremism, remember? In the Gulf?

TURNER: Yes.

CARLSON: But now we're not. But now we have to give up our own domestic oil production?

TURNER: Now, we have to give up our domestic oil production. Look, whatever happened to -- remember, he was blue-collar Joe. He started his campaign in Pennsylvania, he launched it in Pennsylvania, saying, "I'm a blue collar guy, just like the rest of you. I'm middle class, Joe." Right?

Pennsylvania has 300,000 people that work in oil and gas. Does he expect them to vote for him? Right? When he is threatening their jobs? It's the third largest coal state in the nation. Are they going to vote for him? Ask Hillary how it went last time a politician went to energy states and told them, "You know what, I'm going to put you out of a job."

CARLSON: So this is a nonpartisan questions, a sincere question, Biden -- none of these people -- Dr. Ocasio-Cortez, they are not scientists, they are politicians. I mean, that's what they do. Is it an accident that all of their solutions increase their power? Or put another way, have you seen any solutions to global warming that would not make the Democratic Party more powerful?

TURNER: No, and I haven't seen one that also doesn't enrich a certain industry. If he is going to spend $1.7 trillion, it's going to go to somewhere.

It is going to go to people like Tom Steyer who own green energy companies, it's going to go to people who are giving to his campaign that run green energy companies. That money has to be spent by somebody.

So every proposal that involves climate change, usually enriches their donors and their donor base, or it takes away individual rights and individual liberty.

CARLSON: What's so interesting is that they're not even allowing for a policy conversation because this is a moral question.

TURNER: Exactly.

CARLSON: They're telling our children right now, that if you don't agree with their program, you're a climate denier, which is like being a Holocaust denier. It's an immoral category.

TURNER: It is, yes.

CARLSON: And there's no disagreement allowed.

TURNER: Yes, and you remember, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said that it is better to be morally correct than factually right. And this is an example of that.

CARLSON: It's believable. Daniel Turner, thanks very much for joining us.

TURNER: Thank you.

CARLSON: Pete Buttigieg is only 37 years old. But according to his many, many fans on cable television, he has already gained a remarkable amount of decency and wisdom, much more than you will ever have.

The question is, how did Saint Pete get so darn good? It wasn't just his time at Harvard and McKinsey, was also his service in the U.S. Military, maybe especially his service in the U.S. Military. He thinks that.

Buttigieg has explained that he quote, "put his life on the line to defend America's rights," your rights and my rights. He said that people wouldn't oppose the National Anthem protest at NFL games if they had served in the military, which they didn't, but which he did.

Buttigieg has also trashed the current President for faking a disability to avoid serving in Vietnam. He has called Trump's bone spurs diagnosis, quote, "an assault on the honor of this country," end quote, because only bad people avoided the Vietnam draft. That's the Democratic position now, amazingly.

Don't tell Joe Biden. He got the same deferments that Trump did. Don't tell Bernie Sanders, he applied for conscientious objector status until he aged out of the draft.

But there's a larger question here, as Peter Van Buren recently pointed out in the "American Conservative," if Trump's military record is fair game, well then so is Pete Buttigieg's, and here's the truth about Buttigieg's deployment to Afghanistan, quote, "Buttigieg did all of six months in 2014 as a reservist deep inside Bagram Airfield, mostly as a personal driver for his boss, locked and loaded inside a Toyota Land Cruiser. It is unlikely he ever ate a cold meal in Afghanistan. Mayor Pete is milking his service for all it is worth politically stretching a short tour into civics lessons he suggests can't be learned any other way."

Peter Van Buren joins us tonight. Mr. Van Buren, thanks very much for coming on.

PETER VAN BUREN, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So what you're saying -- I the quote from your piece is representative is that Pete Buttigieg is basically inflating his experience abroad and using it as a moral cudgel to crush his political opponents?

VAN BUREN: Absolutely. He is getting an awful lot of juice at a very, very weak squeeze. If Pete Buttigieg wants to talk about military service, he may want to start with his Democratic rivals. Seth Moulton, one of the Democratic candidates did four combat tours in Iraq, including leading Marines into Baghdad in 2003.

Tulsi Gabbard did two military tours -- one in Kuwait, another in combat in Iraq -- and Buttigieg doesn't seem to equate any moral civics lessons to their service the way he does to his own relatively few months in Afghanistan.

Look, no one decries his service, his work was honorable, and we applaud his standing up and taking the oath, but at the same time, to try to attribute some complex knowledge, some wisdom based on a relatively short time in a non-substantive position in Afghanistan is pushing things just a little too far, especially when he turns that cudgel against Donald Trump, while ignoring the fact that Joe Biden after multiple deferments, the same number of student deferments that Dick Cheney got, that Joe Biden was found 1-Y did not go to Vietnam, simply because of his teenage asthma.

Now, if teenage asthma and bone spurs don't share a nudge inside of the medical dictionary, then I'm not quite sure where they do belong together.

CARLSON: I mean, there's so many questions, but I guess the first is I thought, not serving in Vietnam, which the left for my whole life has told us was, you know, in an illegitimate war that we couldn't win. Since when did not serving in Vietnam, like Bill Clinton or Joe Biden become disqualifying? When did it change?

VAN BUREN: It's very interesting, because as you point out, Bill Clinton made extensive efforts to avoid serving in Vietnam, up to and including possibly trying to renounce his American citizenship at the U.S. Embassy in London.

Bill Clinton refused to talk about those things and he was elected to the White House, and in 1992, when he was running for President, "The New York Times" ran an editorial talking about the dishonorable war in Vietnam and how choosing not to serve in that war was almost a marker of morality as opposed to something negative.

Unfortunately, when it comes time to criticize Donald Trump, Pete Buttigieg is quick to pull those things out from the history books and talk about actions completely out of context 50 years ago, while ignoring the fact that Joe Biden got the same deferments, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Dan Quayle, Mitt Romney, and Bernie Sanders, all deferred out of Vietnam.

And at the same time, refusing to ask questions of his current generation, including AOC, about why they didn't serve when the opportunity to volunteer was in front of them.

CARLSON: That's a great -- it's a great point. There is kind of a theme with Buttigieg though, there's a lot of judgment going on, a lot of moral outrage. And you wonder, like, how much of it exactly is justified?

I mean, the idea that you're not allowed to be offended by some overpaid NFL star desecrating the National Anthem, because you didn't serve at Bagram Air Base with Pete Buttigieg, who talks like that?

VAN BUREN: Well, people who served at Bagram Air Force Base and who are not willing to place that service in proper context, they had great fresh bread.

A veteran friend of mine who served in three different wars tells me that the fresh bread at Bagram was worth the trip, all by itself, so I'm sure we could ask Pete about that.

This is symbolic of the group that he belongs to, the AOCs, who find ways to judge others completely out of context, pulling out old yearbooks, looking at photos in the pure light of 2019. When in fact, the context speaks of something very, very different.

I'd like to ask Pete, if I had the chance, why not turn that spotlight that he seems to aim very hypocritically, at only Donald Trump turn that on some of his peers, the post generation candidates who had the opportunity to volunteer, but instead, chose college or career?

This idea of someone going in your place did not end in 1973 when the Vietnam War draft ended. When Barack Obama didn't serve, when Cory Booker didn't serve, Kamala Harris, AOC and any of the others chose not to volunteer, though they did it in a system that was very different than the Vietnam War, someone else did go in their place.

CARLSON: Right.

VAN BUREN: And I'd like to hear Pete ask that question.

CARLSON: Yes, I'd like to hear him justify his time at McKinsey speaking moral crumbs. Peter, thank you very much for coming on. Fascinating.

VAN BUREN: My pleasure. Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, a guy you never heard of who apparently supports Trump allegedly made a video making fun of Nancy Pelosi. You can't do that. Don't do that. That would be our advice because Facebook decided to destroy him, and then did. We will tell you what happened after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We're going to have to make some lexicon changes on this show pretty soon. The creepy porn lawyer might be known as the creepy former attorney now not allowed to practice law. CPL, as you know has been accused of stealing more than a million dollars from his former clients that would include Stormy Daniels. He is also accused of how -- much time do you have? Tax fraud, extorting Nike by threatening a lawsuit if they didn't give him a fake job, et cetera.

It's all too much even for the State Bar of California -- talk about a low bar. This week the California Bar started a process to take his law license away that would force the creepy porn layer into another trade after he leaves prison. Presumably, you could possibly be the creepy porn Uber driver, the creepy porn Arby's server or the creepy porn bathroom attendant. The possibilities are endless.

An attorney connected to the disbarment effort will be joining us tomorrow night for an update and of course, you're going to want to put that on your calendar.

Well, a couple of weeks ago, a mildly amusing video made the rounds online. It was a clip of Nancy Pelosi speaking, it had been altered in a way that made Pelosi look drunk. It was one of those things you might have devoted 30 seconds of your day to watching and thinking about and then forgotten it. It wouldn't have changed your vote.

Within a few days, most normal people didn't remember it had ever existed. But one group of people did not forget, couldn't forget, refused to forget -- the press.

They weren't just angry, they were outraged. Somebody had created an edited video, and it wasn't like that time NBC edited the 911 call to make George Zimmerman sound like a racist murderer, not like that at all.

It wasn't like when every news outlet in America practically used short, out of context clips to make high school students from Kentucky look like they were attacking an elderly American-Indian man. That kind of editing is totally fine. That's journalism.

But the Pelosi video, whoa, by contrast, that mocked a prominent Democrat. That's unforgivable. And so the press rapidly reached a consensus, the person responsible for this abomination must be destroyed.

They dispatched a political activist called Kevin Poulsen who works at "The Daily Beast" to do just that. And he did, Poulsen released the identity of the man he says is behind the Pelosi video. He didn't just name the guy, he ridiculed his employment history. He called him quote, "an itinerant forklift operator" and described his various moves across the country trying to find work.

He is total prowl, get it, a prowl. Poulsen also describes his criminal record, which I think Poulsen himself has, but whatever, it has nothing to do with the story. Poulsen just wanted to humiliate him, which he did.

For his part, the man denied making the video about Pelosi. He also begged not to be outed. He is African-American and being identified as a black conservative in New York could upend his life. But Poulsen didn't care. He wanted to upend his life. He wanted to crush him, and so he did.

Amazingly, Facebook was happy to help Poulsen. Poulsen says an unnamed employed at Facebook helped him confirm the identity of his target.

Now a few weeks ago, Facebook stepped up its efforts to suppress political dissent by banning Alex Jones, InfoWars and other various dissident voices, all of which we're not supposed to talk about.

Well, now they're going further. If you hold the wrong views, Facebook doesn't just block you. They'll team up with "The Daily Beast" to destroy you. And that's the standard of the American left now. If you disagree with the ruling class, you're fair game. Fair game for harassment, ridicule, boycotts, you can't have dinner in a public restaurant.

This is why Brett Kavanaugh and the boys from Covington were targeted for personal destruction. It's why the left is trying to shut down everything from Hobby Lobby to Chick-fil-A to some obscure cake shop and family pizza parlor.

It's why Sarah Sanders and her family were booted out of a restaurant in Virginia. It's why Ted Cruz and Kirstjen Nielsen were screamed at while they were with their -- trying to have dinner here in Washington.

It's why a "Boston Globe" columnist encouraged his readers to poison conservatives they feed food to. Its why last week, just last week here in D.C., Roger Stone says he was physically attacked while having dinner at an Italian restaurant in Massachusetts Avenue. He was called a traitor.

For two years, the media have complained about being called enemies of the people, and yet these same journalists have been happy to target ordinary Americans as public enemies and destroy their lives. The difference is, they think you deserve that.

Dave Rubin joins us tonight. He hosts "The Rubin Report" and is a stalwart defender of speech and a keen observer of the passing scene. Dave Rubin, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.

So what's your response to the fact apparently that Facebook book abetted the doxxing of this guy?

DAVE RUBIN, HOST, THE RUBIN REPORT: Yes, well, first off, I'm really glad that you called the journalist for "The Daily Beast" an activist and not a journalist.

CARLSON: That's right.

RUBIN: Because this person is not someone doing journalism. "The Daily Beast" is not a place of journalism, they have a clear political agenda. They've done this sort of thing with me, by the way, this sort of hit piece style journalism, they've never doxxed me fortunately.

But we need to be very clear about this, that this -- the idea of meme making and funny GIFs and silly videos and slowing down video and putting hats on people and cigars in their mouth and all of the silly things that go on, on the underbelly of the internet that is what Twitter is all about, and the rest of it.

This is basically happening across the board, happening every which way on the internet. And the idea that one video went out about Nancy Pelosi that they don't like so that they are going to team up with Facebook to expose somebody who happens to be an African-American.

You know, it's like, what is it that you guys are really doing here? You're not you're not doing the public a service, which is what journalists are supposed to be doing. You're not uncovering -- you're not fighting the power, you're actually fighting the people who are fighting the power. That's actually what they are doing.

CARLSON: They are foot soldiers for the ruling class. Of course, they're defending the power. It's like you can't criticize Nancy, poor powerless Nancy Pelosi.

RUBIN: Well, that's the irony.

CARLSON: I mean --

RUBIN: Well, also, the danger here is and I don't know that we have the full information on exactly what the Facebook policies are on releasing this kind of information, or was this a rogue employee or the rest of it. I suspect some of that will come out. But that also goes to the amount of information and power that big tech has over us.

But really think about -- just you or me specifically -- think about literally the thousands of images and selectively edited videos and all the things that are out there against the two of us. Imagine if every time that happened, we grabbed a lawyer and tried to expose people and dox people in the rest of it.

I mean, if that's the route that they want to go down, man, we are going take down everybody, which seems to be a theme. I mean, every time I come on your show, it's for a story that's sort of within this vein, and the theme really is that if these guys don't take their foot off the gas, they're going to end up in a place where they're going to all be exposed as the ones that are doing all of these terrible things.

CARLSON: But I mean, isn't there some level of at least implied trust and probably contractual legal trust between users of Facebook and the company Facebook, where you, you know, you give them your pictures and all your personal information, and the idea that some creepy political activists from the world's creepiest website could call up and say, "You know, this guy was rude to Leader Pelosi, let's crush him," and then they rat you out?

I mean, if they're going to behave like that, first of all, do we have recourse? And second, I mean, how terrifying is that?

RUBIN: Right. Well, I suspect there's just going to be an endless amount of lawsuits about this very thing. But look, I mean, think about it. It's like how many videos and memes and the rest of it are there about Trump?

Do you think Facebook would have assisted if "Daily Beast" wanted to expose someone who was doing something anti-Trump? Not that not "The Daily Beast" would ever do that, right? Because those are the memes and images and videos that they like.

So you know, I think -- look, most of us don't have an attorney sitting next to us when we sign up for all of these websites, and you sign away basically your life and your images, and your information and the rest of it, and that's what they own over us.

And we really, all of us, in 2019, we have to grapple with what is our relationship to these platforms, and what is the platform's relationship to places of again, quote, unquote, "journalism," and then the government as well.

We are allowed to make fun of Nancy Pelosi. You know what, I would say, if people want to make some funny memes of Nancy Pelosi and tweet them, I mean, I'll retweet them because satire is what makes us free, it makes -- we are allowed to joke and make fun of the people in power.

And you can do it, you can do it on people on the left, you can do it on people on the right. We actually need that, because in societies that have that, the alternative is violence.

CARLSON: But when you criticize Nancy Pelosi, you're criticizing all women, right? I mean, that's sexist?

RUBIN: Well, this is unfortunately the game at the intersection the leftists are playing that if you make fun of a woman, only if she is on the left, though, then you don't like women. If you don't make fun of a gay person, but only if they're on the left, then you don't like gay people.

If you make fun of a black person, but only if they're on the left, then you don't like black people. Of course, this is ironically the essence of bigotry, because you're viewing these people only through the prism that they can be themselves if they only agree with you. And that's the sad, depressing part of this.

But we really -- all of us need to think about how do we want to relate to these platforms? Do we want to be on platforms that are just waiting to release our private information to places of journalism that would be more than happy to dox us and take us down?

And I would say anyone watching this needs to realize, it's not that they're just trying to scare this guy. They're trying to scare you, too, and that's why, Tucker, I say this to you all the time. That's why they go after you. That's why they go after me because there's only a few people who are willing to stand up and we need more people to stand up. "Daily Beast" is not the good guys in this situation and we really need to understand that.

CARLSON: No, or in any situation. Really the lowest. Dave, thank you. Great to see you tonight.

RUBIN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: We want to bring you an update to a story. It is more than a year old, the Parkland murders at Parker High School in Florida. You may remember the cop, the cowardly cop who ran away as the students he was charged with protecting were killed. That man is finally facing criminal charges tonight and we're going to have details on what they are after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, it's been more than a year since 17 students and staff were murdered at the Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Now authorities have arrested the school police officer who hid rather than confronting the shooter and saving lives. Trace Gallagher has more on exactly what happened tonight. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker former Broward County Deputy Scott Peterson is facing 11 charges, but they all come down to one thing. Instead of taking action, he took cover.

Remember most of the students and faculty killed and injured were on the first and third floors of building 1200 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Scott Peterson is not facing any charges for what happened on the first floor because experts say there wasn't time for anyone to intervene.

But Peterson is facing charges for what happened on the third floor where many believe he could have saved lives, including Lori Alhadeff, whose daughter Alyssa was among those killed. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LORI ALHADEFF, MOTHER OF VICTIM IN PARKLAND HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING: He needs to go to jail and he needs to serve a lifetime in prison for not going in that day and taking down the threat and that led to the death of our loved ones.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: In his defense, the 56-year-old Peterson claims that when the early reports came in, he took cover outside the school because he didn't know where their shots were coming from. But the radio calls he made contradict that. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Be advised we have possible, could be firecrackers. I think we have shots fired, possible shots fired. 1200 building.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: In the next 54 seconds, Peterson made two more calls where he again identified shots coming from the 1200 building, yet he stayed put.

The investigation into the shooting found not only did Peterson retreat during the gunfire, he also warned other law enforcement to remain 500 feet away from building 1200.

Peterson has now officially been fired from the Sheriff's Office and if he is convicted, faces up to 97 years in prison -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Remarkable. Trace Gallagher, thank you. Francey Hakes is a long-time Department of Justice official and she joins us tonight. Francey, thanks very much for coming on. So clearly, Peterson shirked his duty as an American, as a man, as a law enforcement official. I'm shocked and happy to see that he is facing criminal charges. But is there a precedent for this? On what grounds is he being prosecuted?

FRANCEY HAKES, FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL: Yes, Tucker. This is a tough question. I mean, I think emotionally, we all like to see him charged criminally. And certainly as a child protection advocate, like I've been my whole career, I don't like the fact, I think it's appalling that he didn't go in and rescue or at least try to save lives of those children.

But it is unprecedented. It really is. The Supreme Court has held that law enforcement officers have no individual duty of care to any particular person.

So here in Florida, what they're trying to do is say that he was in the role of a caregiver, which is a very specific statutory definition. And in that role as a caregiver, he was negligent to such a degree that he had like basically a depraved indifference to human life through his inaction.

CARLSON: Well, wouldn't that be true, though? I mean, so, here's a guy who carries a firearm, who has been trained in its use, who we, as society, have given the power of really of life and death. And he is in the exact situation that he has been training for his entire life, a school shooting, that's all the reason he's there. And he doesn't do anything? Look, how could that not be grotesque dereliction?

HAKES: Well, I think you're right, Tucker, I think it is grotesque dereliction of duty. But what we're doing here in this case, or what they're attempting to do, is to basically criminalize cowardice.

CARLSON: Yes.

HAKES: And maybe we want to, especially when it comes to our police officers, but that's exactly what they're doing. There is no precedent for it. I do think he'll be convicted by any jury in Florida. But I suspect on appeal, cooler heads will prevail. And they will say that if the legislature wants police officers to be criminally liable for inaction or cowardice, they've got to put that in the law specifically.

CARLSON: Huh, and it's not. So I guess that's the other -- quickly, the other question is, there are some indication that he was acting, I guess, he worked for Scott Israel, the Sheriff there who is a lunatic politicized -- a wildly politicized sheriff there.

I mean, where were his superiors? Why would this even be a question? Why wouldn't his training just compel him immediately to run inside? Like, was there a policy that kept him outside?

HAKES: Well, that's a great question, Tucker. I suspect we're going to get the answer to that. But since Columbine, police officers and agents around the world have been training on the principle that you've got to go in, you've got to go into fast and you've got to go in deadly in order to protect kids. He definitely did not do that.

I don't know if it was a failure of his own, you know, moral character, his own cowardice that compelled him to inaction or whether it was a policy. I think we'll probably find that out in the coming months.

CARLSON: Yes, there are an awful lot of cowards right now in this country. It is good to see at least one of them get punished, I think. Francey Hakes, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that perspective.

HAKES: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, protests in Europe against the American President who is in Great Britain tonight are turning violent. The press is eating it up. They love it. Laura Ingraham is on the scene. She is there. And she joins us right after the break to tell us what's is happening. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Our President has been in London for the past couple of days striding through the smoking ruins of their faded Empire. He has faced a lot of protests, a lot of angry Brits. You would be, too. The press here has loved every minute of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This morning the cross London, large protests expected against the President who is deeply unpopular here. That Trump baby balloon ready for launch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are not against America. They are against the President and the official visit here to the U.K. They're against the man the policies, the words, the deeds.

PAULA REID, CBS NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Even when visiting one of our closest allies, the President still manages to find adversaries. One of the groups is employing a large balloon depicting President Trump as a giant orange baby in a diaper clutching an iPhone.

The organizer says the balloon is meant to send a message to President Trump that he is not welcome here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's Paula Reid in London for us. Paula, thank you. Who could forget the balloon? I think they had it last year as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Laura Ingraham hosts "The Ingraham Angle," of course, 10:00 Eastern here on Fox and she is in London right now where it's about one in the morning. She has ventured into those protests. She took this footage yourself. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hope that out of this, people will realize in America that he is a misogynist.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think somebody who is so much of a racist and a misogynist should be given so much power.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that Trump is horrible and really a big threat to the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wages are up, you know. Unemployment is down to a historic low and the economy is the envy of the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wouldn't entirely agree with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Sad people in a sad country. One non-sad person though in London is Laura Ingraham who joins us live from there tonight. Laura, what's it like?

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Well, the protests were kind of a letdown. I mean, I'm glad you started, Tucker with the Trump baby balloon because that's about all they really have. They kind of had a Trump on the toilet, saying things like well, you know, "Where's my cell phone," and "Fake news." But that was just kind of funny.

But the crowd weren't what they were last year when Trump was here, where it was just massive. Maybe it was -- maybe I mean, we're guessing maybe 10,000 people, maybe 5,000 people.

But the strange thing about it is that there was not really a substantive criticism so much of Trump. And they just say, you know, racist, misogynist. He's a bad person kind of criticism. It was -- it's more like a -- it's like an orthodoxy and the ideology of the left to reflexively be against him and after a while, it just became rather comical to tell you the truth.

CARLSON: Now, Sadiq Khan, who's the grotesque Mayor of London has been in the kind of almost direct spat with the President for the last couple of days. What has he been saying?

INGRAHAM: Well, his whole point is that, Trump's values are London's values. And we talked to some actual, you know, Brits today, people who were born here, grew up here 25 miles outside of the city, and said, well, the funny thing is about London today it's like a lot of Brits will say there's not as many Brits in London.

London is a mecca. Obviously, it's very culturally diverse. A lot of immigrants in London. Thriving city, in many ways. A bustling city. But Sadiq Khan kind of represents in many ways the more cosmopolitan, thinking of U.S. cities.

So if you think about does LA represent all of America? Well, no, of course not. LA represents LA. And that's -- you know, that's fine. They don't like Trump in LA, or they don't like Trump in New York City or in Boston, but you get a little bit outside London and things change.

People are like, "Well, gosh, the economy in the United States is really strong." And, "We kind of need more independence. And we don't want to answer to Brussels."

But today and Sadiq Khan represents us; today, it's all you know, Trump bad, he's a bad person. If you support him, you're a bad person, too. That's essentially their argument.

CARLSON: So it was three years ago, almost exactly three years ago that Britons voted to leave the European Union in the most basic act of democracy. And they're still in. Has anybody noted to you that maybe their democracy is fake? Is anybody upset about that?

INGRAHAM: Yes, I think a lot of people are upset about it and that's why the political turmoil now leading to Theresa May's leaving on Friday. She nominally remains in office until a Conservative Party leader is selected to replace her.

But unless this thing really happens on October 31st, and Brexit happens, we will see another general election here in the U.K. and then, who knows, we might have Nigel Farage standing for the general election as the Brexit Party because the Conservative Party at that point will be over, which is sad, because a lot of us grew up remembering Margaret Thatcher and obviously, the long history of the Conservative Party long before her in Britain. But it's over for the Conservative Party if they can't deliver on this, Tucker.

CARLSON: So one last question. So obviously, our country was once a colony of the country in which you're standing right now. So you can't help when you visit there to think of like maybe applicable lessons. Is there anything that you've seen that informs the way you feel about our country? Lessons that we should be learning?

INGRAHAM: Yes, as much as we complain, Tucker, about our representative democracy, and the will of the people is too hard to enact and we're too distant from Washington. Well, that's true.

But compared to the Parliamentary system, where it moves at a glacial pace, and it's really difficult to break through, as Farage frankly did with this Brexit Party. Be glad that you're in the United States where every four years, you actually have a meaningful choice. And every two years, you can choose your representatives locally, because they're having a heck of a time here actually enacting the will of the people on a fundamental issue of independence and sovereignty.

CARLSON: I don't think anybody even understands the parliamentary system. I certainly don't.

INGRAHAM: I'm off to Normandy. I am off to Normandy, Tucker tomorrow to meet the President.

CARLSON: I do understand that. And that's -- it's wonderful you're going and I'll watch. Thank you, Laura Ingraham.

INGRAHAM: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: In the U.K. Laura will be interviewing the President from Normandy, France. You can see her interview Thursday, 10:00 p.m. on "The Ingraham Angle."

While the left says you deserve destruction if you make a viral video mocking Nancy Pelosi, but what if you actually worked for Donald Trump? Whoa. Then you deserve solitary confinement in prison, and one former campaign staffer is getting that tonight. We'll tell you who after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, "The Daily Beast" and CNN and other arbiters of virtue have decided what the biggest threat this country faces -- this is pretty clear -- ordinary people expressing their political opinions.

And that's why random video creators from the Bronx have to be found, humiliated and destroyed. All of these outlets also consistently tell us that racism is America's biggest problem.

They're always hunting for secret racist who need to be destroyed for a single wayward word or phrase or thought from decades ago. Your yearbook page from 1973, some tweet you sent while drunk 10 years ago. They'll find it. They'll destroy you.

Of course, in reality, America is not a racist country. It's a really nice country, and the press doesn't care about people who actually are racist, there are a few. And when they emerge, they're resolutely ignored as long as they're on the left. Who are we talking about? We could pick many.

Here is one, former Democratic congressional candidate Saira Rao, just days ago, Rao tweeted this, quote, "White people have done everything to make my life miserable. Yet, I'm not supposed to hate white people?" That would be a rhetorical question. She obviously does.

She also said the American flag -- our flag -- makes her quote "sick." Now, how honest do you want to be? If Rao was tweeting about the Mexican flag or hating immigrants or if she were some obscure Trump supporter making videos, she'd be a national celebrity and not in a good way.

But she's not. She is just a racist who hates white people and the press doesn't care about that at all. You know what they do care about? Paul Manafort, a very dangerous man. Seventy years old.

Now, whatever his crimes may or may not have been, he is obviously not a threat to anyone. He is in poor health. Right now though, Manafort is facing additional criminal charges in the state of New York, so prosecutors have decided to hold him in solitary confinement at Rikers Island, one of the worst detention facilities in the world.

They don't need to do that. They're doing it because they can, because they want to hurt him and torture him.

Prosecutors say Manafort will be there for his own safety, which if you think about it is a pretty amazing admission. They're telling us that they've riled people up so much that people may try to murder a 70-year-old man because they believe the propaganda that he is an agent of Russia.

Of course, the real motivation is not a mystery. It's just cruelty. The left's standard is that if you support politicians they don't like, you deserve to be destroyed.

Sending Manafort to prison is not enough. He is to suffer as much as possible.

Michael Caputo knows a lot about suffering for political views. He is a former adviser to the Trump campaign and he joins us tonight. Michael, thanks very much for coming on.

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER ADVISER TO TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So a 70-year-old man to Rikers Island, what's the message of this?

CAPUTO: The message is that you better not do anything against the left. You, me, anybody watching. You know, I understand that there are real crimes alleged here and that there will be a trial in New York, but we have no idea when that trial date will be.

And to transfer Paul Manafort there now is only for torture -- mental, physical, whatever -- to torture him, because you don't transfer Federal prisoners to states until just before their trial. I've actually never heard of it done before.

So to transfer him there now and put him into solitary confinement in the deepest darkest hole the United States has on the mainland, to me is just mental torture.

CARLSON: Just for some perspective, Manafort is not charged with national security crimes of any kind, with betraying the country in any way. He is charged with, as far as I remember not registering under FARA, which is almost universally here in D.C., well, tax evasion, which sounds like he committed to me and with making false statements to banks.

He is not charged with bank robbery or stealing money from banks, but lying in loan applications to banks.

CAPUTO: Right.

CARLSON: Have you ever heard of anybody charged with those pretty prosaic crimes, getting solitary confinement in Rikers and spending the rest of his life in prison?

CAPUTO: No, you haven't, of course, but it's also a very unique spot -- New York. In New York, politics is a crime scene from the very beginning. We have the most corrupt state government in the United States.

Our attorney, our New York Attorney General, Letitia James is going after Donald Trump. The New York City prosecutor Cy Vance is after Paul Manafort. The New York State Legislature passed what we're calling the Manafort Law just 10 days ago, making double jeopardy legal in New York State. And they did it so they could go after Paul Manafort.

The way it's written, it's almost you have --

CARLSON: Wait, wait, double jeopardy I thought was prohibited by the Constitution.

CAPUTO: Absolutely. Fifth Amendment. But at the same time, you know, there are states that pretend that they can prosecute someone who has been prosecuted on a Federal law, under the same crime in the state law.

They appear to be the same crimes that they're charging Paul Manafort with. They're only doing it because just in case the President pardons him which he should, or at least commute his sentence, they want to be able to still put them in jail because New York State, our politics, it's a crime scene.

And it doesn't matter if it's about Donald Trump, they will break the law, and they'll change the law, so that they don't have to break it in order to go double jeopardy on Paul Manafort.

CARLSON: So if Manafort hadn't served just for a couple of months, as I remember, several months as Trump's campaign manager, where would he be? Would he be in Rikers in solitary, do you think?

CAPUTO: The information we have and I have yet to see it disproven is that he was investigated by the FBI for his work in Ukraine, and they dropped the case until he became Trump's campaign chairman, then they reopened it.

You know, Paul Manafort may have committed some financial crimes, by putting a bit of money overseas. But in reality, the vast majority of the money he made, he paid taxes on, the vast majority of it. You know, you can't commit crimes, you can't commit financial crimes. But of course, if you did, and you hadn't worked for Donald Trump, you'd be sitting at home comfortably waiting for your trial date, because you're not a dangerous criminal.

CARLSON: So really quickly clarify, the Mueller investigation gave us a long litany of how much he paid for various articles of clothing. Is it a crime to overpay for a suit?

CAPUTO: If it's made him ostrich, perhaps, I don't know. But at the same time, you have to understand that this is what they're going to do to all of us. They're in this to destroy Donald Trump, destroy his family, destroy his businesses, destroy all of his friends, so that no billionaire wakes up in 10 years and says he should run for President because his wife will tell them, "Are you nuts?" Or her husband will tell her, "Are you crazy?"

Here's the thing. In my mind, I'm getting a bit wistful about this after having gone through this with my family for two years. Now, looking back on this whole thing and understanding that these people will do anything to get to Donald Trump.

CARLSON: They will do --

CAPUTO: Everything. We need to be very, very afraid.

CARLSON: Well, Trump should just -- should really protect the rest of us from them, I would say.

CAPUTO: If he doesn't do it, who will? It's going to take --

CARLSON: That's another conversation. We're out of time. I wish we had more time. Michael Caputo, it's always great to see you. Thanks.

CAPUTO: Great to see you.

CARLSON: Back tomorrow, 8 p.m. The show that's the sworn enemy -- sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Good night from Washington.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.