How Big Tech bias could shift 15 million votes in 2020 election

close

Video

How Big Tech bias could shift 15 million votes in 2020 election

Psychologist Robert Epstein tells 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' how social media giants are interfering in the US election

Oct. 30, 2020 – This is a rush transcript from “Tucker Carlson Tonight” October 30, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. The President in the final days of this race in nonstop rally mode. He has crisscrossed the country all day. He is doing it again tonight, of course, if news happens, we'll go there.

Well, for five years, we have watched the news media treat Donald Trump in a way that no American President has ever been treated. Richard Nixon himself disgraced, impeached, forced from office in the end got a pass by comparison to Donald Trump.

Reporters hate Trump with an all-consuming mania. They hit him so intensely that at times it's been amusing to watch. If Donald Trump announced a cure for cancer at tonight's rally in Minnesota, CNN would denounce him for fixing drug prices. That's true.

If you're a fair-minded person, it has been infuriating to watch this. It's too dishonest. It's also patronizing because it's almost unbelievably stupid.

Trump spied for Russia. Trump works for Putin. Trump is a racist because he likes borders and doesn't want to live in Haiti.

Yes, okay.

Clearly all the smart kids went in to finance. America's websites and TV stations got the rest. Unfortunately, we've got to live with the consequences of that. But we should also say, if we are being entirely honest, that as grating as all of this is, unremitting hostility to the President of the United States is far from the greatest threat America faces.

Reporters are supposed to be tough on people with power. That's why we have

journalism: to keep a close eye on those who have outsized influence over our lives. The people we should watch carefully would include business moguls, the Intel agencies, prominent academics, cultural figures, military leaders, and most obviously, our politicians.

The rest of us can't really know what these people, the people in charge are doing at all times. A reporter's job is to find out and tell us. So in the end, the real threat to America isn't too many nasty questions from reporters. It's the opposite of that. The real threat is collusion.

When journalists strike secret alliances with the very people they are supposed to be holding accountable, we are in deep trouble. Lies go unchallenged. Democracy cannot function. And that's what we are watching right now.

Yesterday -- and this may be the starkest example of all -- we learned that the F.B.I. is conducting an active investigation into Joe Biden's son for business deals that apparently included his father, the former Vice President.

Now that is not speculation, it is confirmed. Former Biden business partner, Tony Bobulinski sat for a five-hour interview with six F.B.I.

agents just the other day -- a week ago. They asked him about his business dealings in China with the Biden family.

Now, we don't know if this investigation will result in indictments, obviously. We know that it could. And that is significant because Joe Biden, as you may have heard is running for President. The election is on Tuesday.

So by any possible measure, this is a blockbuster, stop the presses news story. It's not some naughty picture from somebody's laptop. This is a criminal investigation into business deals that we know for a fact Joe Biden was party to.

So why haven't you heard more about this? If you don't watch this, you've likely heard nothing at all, not a word. And you know why? Because the media are collaborating. They are collaborating with the Democratic Party.

They are collaborating with the Intelligence Agencies that spy on Americans with impunity.

They are collaborating with the tech monopolies that have choked off the average person's access to legitimate information. We're not overstating any of that we wish we were. Watch the people you're supposed to be able to trust, dismiss a completely legitimate verified news story as quote, "a Russian plot."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Holding super spread super spreader events and giving Russian disinformation, spreading Russian disinformation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Disinformation that he knows to be fabricated and supplied by a foreign Intelligence Service, and despite the warning, he is still doing it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have said this entire thing is so obviously a Russian plot.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's sort of a crazy quilt at this point, which has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That said, it wasn't for lack of trying.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rudy basically functioning as a Russian asset by pushing Russian disinformation.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: CNN reported on Friday, the U.S. authorities are seeing if those e-mails we just talked about are connected to an ongoing Russian disinformation effort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: I've got to tell you, Keith, it has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. These people wouldn't know Russian disinformation, if it got into the shower with them. They know nothing.

Every word of what they just said was a lie. Russia didn't forge these e- mails. Vladimir Putin didn't invent the two separate meetings that Tony Bobulinski had with Joe Biden to discuss business in China, the business the F.B.I. is now investigating and an active criminal investigation.

That's all entirely real.

It happened. It is happening now, and the people you just watched on the screen know that it did. Yet, they are you it is all fake, a concoction of a hostile foreign power.

So you have to ask yourself at some point, why would they tell you that?

They know it's not true, they are saying it any way. They are expecting you to believe it. Why are they doing that?

Well, because these people are not your allies. They are not trying to help you or inform you, just the opposite. These people are your enemies. They are misleading you so that you will obey and maybe it will work, honestly.

Maybe they will get Joe Biden elected President next week without even asking the most basic questions of the candidate, the most basic questions or vetting him in any way. That can work. That's the gambit.

But what then? Many of these people you just saw on the screen will then go to work for Biden, officially. We'd expect that because without Donald Trump to hyperventilate over, the business models at many news outlets will collapse, and these people will need jobs.

But Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can't hire everyone at NBC. Some of these people have to continue to be quote "journalists." And the question is, can they really do that? Can they keep pretending on your screen live every night after everything we have just witnessed?

"The New York Post's" Miranda Devine joins us tonight for the latest on what is again, a real story. Miranda, it is good to see you tonight. Tell us what we know.

MIRANDA DEVINE, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK POST": You, too. Well, look, we have continually, every single day, we have the liberal media colluding with Big Tech and the Intelligence Agencies to cover up a story about Joe Biden, which shows that he is corrupt or has been corrupt, and the evidence has piled up.

You've reported. You did the interview with Tony Bobulinski. We reported at "The New York Post" on the material that was on Hunter Biden's laptop. It all points to Joe Biden's involvement in his family's influence peddling scheme in China and Ukraine and other countries.

Now, this is a legitimate story. We've heard nothing from Joe Biden because of course, he doesn't have to answer these allegations. He doesn't answer any questions because he is not being asked.

And because the rest of the media is running interference for him, they are accusing us, "The New York Post" and you as well, I guess and Tony Bobulinski of being agents of Russia and peddling Russian disinformation.

And I just think this is not journalism, and any journalist who is complicit in this cover up, this corrupt cover up just ought to resign.

CARLSON: I saw an anchor at CNN on social media call for "The New York Post" to erase its stories off social media. Called for "The New York Post"

to become complicit in its own censorship.

I never thought I would live to the age where a news anchor, a journalist, a reporter would say something like that. What do you make of it?

DEVINE: Well, that's Jake Tapper. So "The New York Post," we were locked out for two weeks by Twitter. Only tonight has Twitter been kind enough to let us have our account back.

But for two weeks, we were held hostage by Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter, who said that we could only get our account back if we deleted the tweets pointing to our stories about Hunter Biden's laptop. There was nothing inaccurate in those tweets.

There was nothing inaccurate in the stories. The stories were not hacked material as everyone now admits.

Initially, we were locked out because Twitter said we had violated their hacked material rules. They then accepted we hadn't. But they wouldn't unlock us until we deleted those completely blameless tweets. And so we refused to do that because we have integrity and honor, and Jake Tapper, obviously has other ideas.

He said that we could have just made it all go away and we could have had our account back if we just deleted the tweets and then did what Twitter wanted, and then we could retweet something else afterwards, which is so pathetic. You know that that tells you that the rest of the media is not aware of the danger of censorship from these old powerful organizations that control this of information that we all use.

And you know, the proof of that is that now, more than half of Americans think that the Hunter Biden laptop story is Russian disinformation. So it has worked and this is right before an election campaign, real evidence of corruption that points to Joe Biden being involved in this influence peddling scheme, making millions of dollars with his family out of selling out this country to China in particular, and to Ukraine, and yet that's been covered up by the media and censored by Big Tech, and other journalists think that's okay.

CARLSON: Yes, just lie. Just betray your conscience. Just go along with what they want you to do, mouth the words and we will give you your social media account back. It's really -- it's Orwellian.

Miranda Devine, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much.

DEVINE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Where is everyone's dignity by the way? Gone.

The partisan media outlets are not the only institutions in the United States working hard to rig the election and its outcome. Our next guest believes the tech monopolies -- and he studied this more closely than anybody in the country -- have the power to sway millions of votes in one direction. He has got the research on this. We will talk to him after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We first heard someone suggest years ago that the Big Tech companies, now the monopolies might intervene on behalf of a candidate in an American election. It seemed far-fetched. Now, it is obvious that is happening. There's no question about it.

So far, the tech monopolies have censored reporting on the Biden's family business practices. They've silenced politicians they don't like. They've deplatformed any user who deviates from a narrowly prescribed set of approved ideas, and they also have other less obvious ways to influence the election.

Google can offer bias search suggestions and does. YouTube gets to pick the next video that you watch. What's the effect of all of this? Much more profound than anything any foreign country is doing to us.

Dr. Robert Epstein has been studying tech and its effect on politics for years. He has expressed concern about the power of tech monopolies on this show. He did it two years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROBERT L. EPSTEIN, RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST AND AUTHOR: And I can tell you that we should be paranoid because what Google and Facebook can do is really mind boggling. If for example, if Mark Zuckerberg on election day last year, if he had chosen to press the enter key early morning, and just sent out a message to Hillary Clinton supporters only saying go out and vote go out -- a go out and vote reminder that would have sent her an additional 450,000 voters that day with no one knowing that this had occurred.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So when you control all of the information, you control what people know and what they believe. You control people's minds. What's the practical effect of that control four days out from a presidential election? And is there anything we can do about it?

Dr. Robert Epstein joins us right and we are happy that he is. Doctor, thanks so much for coming on.

So first to the practical effects. What do you think Big Tech's interference will do to the election results?

EPSTEIN: Well, based on the data that we are collecting, I would say that if what we're seeing is present nationwide, they are probably shifting this year in this election about 15 million votes without anyone's awareness, and except for what I'm doing without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.

CARLSON: How are they doing that?

EPSTEIN: They are doing it with bias in search results, which basically, no one can see, it'll be very tough to see. We've been measuring that now with about 600 field agents in the swing states, and just based on the 150,000 searches that we've looked at, that's about 1.5 million search results and over a million web pages, we are finding very substantial, pro-liberal bias in all 10, or at least nine out of 10 search results on the first page of Google Search Results, strong liberal bias. Not on Bing or Yahoo, though.

And we're seeing that bias in every single demographic group. In fact, in one report we generated recently, we saw more liberal bias in Google content going to conservatives than going to liberals.

CARLSON: Interesting. So that is the definition of propaganda. They are tailoring information to change the views of people in a very targeted way.

Now, that's obviously immoral. It's election interference.

Is it legal? I mean, we have campaign finance laws, don't we?

EPSTEIN: Well, you know, there are no specific laws or regulations in place, stopping a company like Google from doing something like this. In fact, the courts have basically, over and over again said they can exercise their free speech rights and show people anything they want to show people.

But yes, indeed, you could look at this as an extreme violation of campaign finance laws. In effect, they are making huge in-kind donations -- huge -- to one party or one candidate.

CARLSON: Yes.

EPSTEIN: Now it doesn't cost them a dime, but that's not the issue. The issue is, what would it cost you to do it? Or what would it cost me to do it? And we're talking tens of millions of dollars, at least.

CARLSON: One of the reasons this is so corrosive is because it is so difficult to measure and it makes everybody paranoid and distrustful and it undermines confidence in the system, because you can't see it as you said.

How do we measure this? How do we prevent a replay of this? Not just to stop helping Democrats, not for partisan reasons, but for the sake of our collective confidence in our system.

EPSTEIN: I think there's only one way to do it. I don't think laws and regulations can keep up with tech. I've been in touch with a lot of Members of Congress, a lot of A.G.s. They're all very frustrated.

I think we do it with monitoring systems, with large scale Nielsen-type monitoring systems. As I say, we have more than 600 field agents this year in the swing states. We will probably have 700 or 800 by the Election Day, and what happens in that case is with their permission, we are using software to look over their shoulders and see what these tech companies:

Google, Bing, Yahoo, Facebook, and more -- see what these tech companies are showing them.

Real people -- they have to be real people: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and we aggregate that data and we look for shenanigans. We look for targeted messages.

We look for bias, and we are doing it on a massive scale and we are preserving that information. I think that's how you defend democracy.

CARLSON: Yes, I agree with that completely. They must hate you and that's a badge of honor.

EPSTEIN: I'm sure.

CARLSON: Robert Epstein, thank you for coming on tonight. Appreciate it.

EPSTEIN: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well, there are new concerns tonight about the dangers -- the very real dangers, the health effects, for example of locking down schools for the coronavirus.

FOX News senior correspondent, Rick Leventhal has the latest on that story.

Hey, Rick.

RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Hey Tucker, several studies both here and abroad reaching virtually the same conclusion. In person schooling is better for kids than homeschooling in pretty much every way.

Most importantly, putting kids in class does not impact the spread of the coronavirus. One study by Yale University of 57,000 childcare providers found there were no differences in the percentage of them who got COVID with their facilities open and those whose facilities closed.

In other words, no heightened risk from working with kids.

And a Spanish study found no increase in infections in teachers or kids who went back to school and those who didn't. One researcher said, "What we found is that the school being opened makes absolutely no difference in the number of cases." Another researcher in a similar study of schools in 191 countries discovered the same thing.

What the data suggests is that opening schools does not inevitably lead to increased case numbers.

Here in the States, pediatricians say they are seeing far more negative impacts from keeping kids out of class, suffering mental health problems, hunger, obesity due to inactivity, missing routine medical care and a greater risk of abuse. But the reasons for going to school include meals, physical activity, healthcare and a far improved education.

Consistent findings of no spike for students or teachers and more harmful effects for those who stayed home; and by the way, Tucker, seven states, D.C. and Puerto Rico still have full or partial closures in effect -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Lunacy. Rick Leventhal, thank you so much.

LEVENTHAL: Sure.

CARLSON: So if Biden is elected, he has promised to continue in some way the shutdown. Changes -- profound changes to American life in response to this virus. What would that look like exactly?

We can only speculate, but a New Hollywood thriller gives us some sense of what it might be like. Dr. Marc Siegel joins us to discuss.

Plus, international television star and man of mystery, Don Lemon says he cannot be friends with people who disagree with him because they are like crack cocaine addicts -- crack cocaine addicts. Don Lemon is against that.

Adam Carolla is standing by to assess straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Dr. Anthony Fauci of Washington, D.C. may be old, but he is busy.

He has plans for you -- detailed plans. He wants you to wear a mask. He wants you to stop shaking hands with one another after 3,000 years.

He wants to cancel Thanksgiving and probably the rest of the Holiday Season, too. Bye, Christmas.

But get used to it because Dr. Anthony Fauci believes it may be years before we get back to normal, if ever. So what would that look like exactly? This new Fauci designed society we're going to live in.

Well, a new movie called "Songbird" by director Michael Bay speculates about that. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Curfew now in effect. All unauthorized citizens must stay indoors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tensions rise as we head to the 213th week of lockdown.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Grim new reality emerges.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: COVID-23 has mutated.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Beginning thermal scan. Thermal scan normal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Horrifying new development --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: New data confirms the virus attacks the brain tissue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Dr. Marc Siegel is a FOX News medical contributor, the author of the new book "COVID: The Politics of Fear and the Power of Science," and an expert now on social control having watched a lot of it. Doctor, great to see you tonight. What do you think of this vision of our future?

DR. MARC SIEGEL, FOX NEWS MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: It's scary Tucker. Listen, fear corrodes, and we've got enough fear now as I write in my book without having made up fear forced on us, thrust on us. And that's why, by the way, I'm working on a novel about bioengineered virus, but I put it on the shelf, because I don't want to inflict any more fear.

And the biggest fear monger of them all, Alfred Hitchcock was asked, "How dare you scare everybody with the birds, with psycho, people with blood pressures going up?" And you know what he said? He said, you get to turn the camera off and go home after the movie.

Well, you don't get to go home here, and Michael Bay should listen to that before he dumps -- before he jumps into deep water. He should stick with "Transformers," Tucker. He is talking about a major mutation occurring to

COVID-19 and it becomes COVID-23 and the world is wiped out.

Well, I talked to the head of the N.I.H. last week who said this virus is not mutating in that direction. It is not becoming more severe.

But meanwhile, in Michael Bay's movie, you have a virtual reality where the couples meet KJ Apa and Sofia Carson meet virtually. They have a virtual relationship.

Well, we talked about this, Tucker. Zoom meetings with masks on. There's one person in particular I want to say, he should have worn an entire face mask if you know what I mean, Tucker?

And then of course, other people are suggesting that people wear masks during sex. Well, it's even worse in the Michael Bay movie because you have a virtual marriage going on. And I'm wondering, Tucker, I have a question for you. Virtual marriage? How do you make a virtual baby? And by the way, what would a virtual baby look like -- Tucker.

CARLSON: I don't know. But I'm pretty sure, it is sexist if you to doubt that it's possible. But that's just me. Dr. Siegel, great to see you. Thank you.

SIEGEL: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: No one says the truth, which is that a secular society cannot handle a pandemic like this, because a secular society denies that death is real. And when it's in your face, people melt down. That's part of what's going on.

Well, the President issued an Executive Order last week making it easier to fire government workers. It's no secret that many people in the Federal bureaucracy are partisan operatives. You're more likely to die in a Federal job than you are to be fired.

A new documentary called "The Plot against the President" details how national security officials worked to oust their boss behind the scenes.

Here's a clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN SOLOMON, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CONTRIBUTOR: There is an illusion being created using the most awesome tools and the greatest tricks that the American Intelligence Community had learned to use against our enemies.

Now, it is being dispensed against the American people and our President.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The thing that they were investigating the Trump campaign for is what they themselves were doing, not just the Democratic Party and their operatives, but also the F.B.I.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The entire time this was going on, they thought this was going to be what sunk the Donald Trump presidency, and they were just looking for the golden goose, and they still haven't found it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You don't have to support Trump to be terrified by what's happening. Amanda Milius saw it firsthand. She is a former State Department official in the Trump administration. She is one of the people behind this documentary and we're happy to have her on tonight.

Amanda, thanks so much for coming on.

AMANDA MILIUS, FILMMAKER: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So, you worked there, you saw this. This is the definition of undermining democracy. You made this documentary, I presume, because you saw it, correct?

MILIUS: Yes, it is. Yes. Yes. I mean, for two reasons. I saw it on a smaller level and observed it through people that I knew in the administration on a larger level, and the other reason was because Russiagate is something that I think the people who pulled it off on us wish us to forget.

It seems like the whole country in a sense had to be put in this trance where they believe something that wasn't real, and it needs to be, you know, stop, hold on a second. This didn't actually happen and we need to acknowledge that.

But yes, on the Executive Order. It's really one of the best things that the President could do to counteract this culture of subversion that is very, very prevalent in the Federal government.

CARLSON: It's always the big crimes that go unpunished. So after spending all the time that you did making this film, were you more convinced or less convinced that Russiagate, the hoax about Russian interference hurt the country? Like, what effect did it have on the country do you think?

MILIUS: Well, it has major national security implications, and this is what I did see, personally and up close when I was working at the State Department and around other bureaucracies is, it's not that they just convinced a very large part of the American public that the President was a Russian asset. They convinced a great deal of government employees that that was the case, too.

I mean, these people were going home at night and listening to CNN every day. So, when they come in to work, they feel -- they have sort of a false imperative to do their own thing and to disregard the instructions from the Commander-in-Chief and the Chain of Command, and there's nothing really more dangerous than convincing the entire Federal government that the President is a foreign asset.

I mean, I don't think people have really dealt with the National Security implications of that.

CARLSON: And convincing that Russia is the greatest threat we face, which it is demonstrably not, of course, and do you think -- very quickly, do you think they really believe that? I mean, it wasn't fake. They believed it.

MILIUS: I don't know what these people believe. All I know is that they've got just as much information as Devin Nunes did, who was willing to go out and say that there is no Russian collusion and there is no evidence of that.

And even on your show, I remember watching it when Adam Schiff would come out of those briefings and sit here and say he had evidence of Russian collusion.

All I know is what they say on the media and I know that they were lying, and I think that it's time the whole country knew about it.

CARLSON: And to hold some people accountable for the big crimes.

MILIUS: Yes.

CARLSON: And this is one of the biggest crimes. Amanda Milius, I'm glad you came on tonight and congratulations on this great film. Thank you.

MILIUS: Thank you.

CARLSON: We've got a FOX News alert for you. Two police officers abused in New Orleans. Breaking now, FOX's Rick Leventhal is on it for us -- Rick.

LEVENTHAL: They were ambushed, Tucker, on routine patrol in the French Quarter when they were fired on by a passenger in a pedicab. This gunman shot at both officers who were in their vehicle, hit both of them. One officer was shot in the left cheek, the bullet is now lodged in his skull according to the Police Chief down there. He is in serious, but stable condition that officer is. The second received minor abrasions to his arm.

The suspect again, firing a weapon from a pedicab. He was apprehended near the intersection of St. Peter and Decatur Street. Witnesses in the area, according to the Associated Press were able to identify and point out the suspect for responding officers.

A witness at a nearby shop said they heard several loud popping noises. So people heard the gunfire. Some people saw the gunman apparently and pointed him out to responding officers, but again, we have two police officers ambushed in the French Quarter by a passenger in a pedicab. He opened fire on those two officers. One of them shot in the cheek in stable condition; the other with wounds to his arm -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Horrifying. Rick Leventhal. Thank you.

LEVENTHAL: Sure.

CARLSON: Of course, the word was ambushed, not abused, missed the H.

What do crack addicts and Trump supporters have in common? Well, quite a bit according to CNN, the international man of mystery, Don Lemon explains it. Adam Carolla responds to his explanation, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: International television sensation, Mr. Don Lemon isn't simply a widely beloved cable news anchor. He is not simply this generations Mr.

Rourke from this generations "Fantasy Island." He is also a spiritual leader and he has some advice for this country. It is time to overlook our differences and unite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: People have to stop being so judgmental and become curious about other people's lives. Pick up the phone on the weekend and say what are you doing? You want to meet? You want to have wings? You want to go for a run? You want to go out in the boat? You want to you want to go fishing? You want to go -- you know, ChaCha and I want to come over, right, ChaCha and I want to come over.

The real difference comes with relationships, and not just lip service.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: I think that is so beautifully said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So beautifully said. He is a life coach, really. And he is giving you a message of love and unity. But even love and unity messages have limits and in the case of Mr. Lemon, that limit is people who might vote for someone he is not voting for, because they are like crackheads.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: There are a lot of friends who I had to really get rid of, because they are so nonsensical when it comes to this issue. They have the whole -- every single talking point that they hear on state TV, and that they hear from this President, they repeat it and they are blinded by it.

I think that they have to hit rock bottom like an addict. Right? And they have to want to get help and I got to let them go and if they are willing to come back and if they are willing to live in, in reality, then I welcome them with open arms, but I can't do it and I can't do it anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Adam Carolla is the author of this sensational book, "I'm Your Emotional Support Animal," which he is. He joins us tonight.

Adam, thanks so much for coming on. I was planning on mocking this and making fun of it, but I just listened to it again, and it's kind of disturbing.

Here you have Don Lemon on television saying, and I'm quoting now, "I had some friends I had to get rid of." Does this make you feel like we should -

- I don't know, call authorities. Where are these friends now? What does it mean, get rid of them?

ADAM CAROLLA, COMEDIAN AND AUTHOR: Yes, they're in a bay somewhere. All right, I had some thoughts. One is, you know how everyone on the left is constantly accusing Republicans of being scared of people who look different than we do, which is insane.

I think people on the left are scared of people who think different than they do.

CARLSON: That's for sure. Why do you think that is? I mean, confident people aren't afraid to engage with others who disagree.

CAROLLA: Obviously, it's insecurity. And obviously, it is projection, but think about this. So Republicans are racist and homophobic. Don Lemon is black and gay. And they want to be friends with Don Lemon? Doesn't that sort of shoot a hole in his point of calling all Trump supporters racist and homophobic when they want to be friends with the black gay man, and the black gay man is cutting them loose?

CARLSON: That's a really good point.

CAROLLA: Because they think differently?

CARLSON: But would it even occur to you to do this? I mean, you've got political views, I'm not exactly sure what they are. I've got political views. It doesn't occur to me to end friendships over those views, not because they are not real views. They are, but because friendship and loyalty are the most important things.

CAROLLA: Yes, but what have you spent the last four years building a case for all those people being hit leery in and homophobic and misogynistic, then you would have to just by law -- I mean, by personal decree, you would have to get rid of those people because they are bad people.

They are not people who think differently than you. They are bad people.

And thus, you can cut them loose. It's essentially, you're playing chess with someone who can beat you at chess, but you label him a racist and then you win the game.

CARLSON: But if you really thought someone was so evil that you couldn't be friends with them, why wouldn't you hurt that person? Seriously?

CAROLLA: Mostly because these people are soft pacifists who couldn't hurt anybody.

CARLSON: I guess in the end, that's our one protection. They are too beta to threaten us.

CAROLLA: Yes.

CARLSON: No, it's such a good point and a reassuring point. Adam Carolla, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

So one unexpected twist in this race full of unexpected twist is that Donald Trump is getting praise from some of the world's most famous rappers. Kanye West, Lil Wayne 50 Cent, even Zuby in the U.K. All have expressed some degree of support for the President. Not everyone is happy about that. Why? And what does it mean exactly?

Jason Whitlock after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZUBY, FAMOUS RAPPER FROM THE U.K.: I have always looked at the fact that black Americans vote around 90 percent for the Democratic Party.

CARLSON: Yes.

ZUBY: Which is weird. I mean, any demographic group voting that much in favor of one party sort of raises questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That's one of our favorite rap stars, a man called, Zuby, huge in the U.K., not well known in this country kind of like the Beatles in 1962.

On this show, a year ago tonight, he came and he expressed his concerns about the changing political atmosphere.

He is one of a handful of rappers who have faced backlash for thinking for themselves and defying Democratic Party orthodoxy.

Another example is rapper, Lil Wayne, who visited the White House yesterday after tweeting out his support for Donald Trump. That did not go over well on the internet. He was attacked on social media pretty aggressively as some kind of sellout as many others have been before him.

Things didn't go better for rap star 50 Cent. He endorsed the President because of his tax policy and said he didn't want to become 20 Cent. Here's an example of the reaction he got.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHELSEA HANDLER, COMEDIAN: You heard about my ex-boyfriend, right, 50 Cent and his support of Donald Trump.

JIMMY FALLON, TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, what's going on between you? I saw your tweets and I go wait, what's happening?

HANDLER: So he doesn't want to pay 62 percent of taxes because he doesn't want to go from being 50 Cent to 20 Cent. And I had to remind him that he was a black person, so he can't vote for Donald Trump and that he shouldn't be influencing an entire swath of people who may listen to him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Dumb is one thing, arrogance and other but to be dumb and arrogant together is pretty unappealing, I would say.

Jason Whitlock is neither one of those things. He's a partner at Outkick.com. We're happy to have him tonight,

Jason, why just the kind of mania about trying to force certain people to stay in their prescribed lane? Why not just kind of ignore it. Let it go.

Like, you know, some rapper wants to vote for Trump. Okay, who cares? But they do care. Why?

JASON WHITLOCK, OUTKICK.COM: Oh, because white liberals just being very honest, like Chelsea Handler, think it's their job to control, maintain, and limit the amount of freedom that black people enjoy here in America. We are supposed to be beholden and dependent upon them and it threatens them when people like Lil Wayne, Ice Cube, 50 Cent and any of these guys stray from their prescription or course of action that they want us to take. It threatens them.

And it is her job as basically a modern day overseer to whip us back in line, and it really is that simple.

CARLSON: So she is disempowered by this because Lil Wayne, who she imagined she has some kind of authority over, him disobeying her means that she is less powerful?

WHITLOCK: It means that he is more powerful. And I honestly believe that not all, but there are a lot of white liberals who are threatened by the independence and the self-determination of black people. They want us dependent upon them.

There is a superiority complex. There is a "You guys can't do it without us" complex. And there is a "We want your vote and we want you in line with our feminist agenda. We want to meld the two off of the back of oppression that black people have faced. We want to advance all these other things that have nothing to do with black people."

CARLSON: The feminist agenda. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but I have the feeling it is very close to the heart of this. Can you explain that a little bit?

WHITLOCK: Well, look, the greatest beneficiaries of the Civil Rights movement and a lot of people's view and certainly in mine has been white women. And I'll go a step further, women have advanced off of oppression of black people, white women in particular.

And Tucker, I'm just going to go all the way there. I think we are now seeing the LGBTQ community latch on to black oppression and try to use it to advance their call, and anybody that strays from those agendas and that support any person, black person that puts their advancement and their priorities ahead of the feminist movement and the LGBT movement is going to face stiff repercussion over social media in particular.

And there's going to be celebrities, white and black, that are used like attack dogs to make sure that certain black men and others stay in line with the movement that the elite liberals want us to stick to and that's the matriarchy, the empowerment of women, and the empowerment of the LGBT community.

CARLSON: Boy, you are not allowed to say any of that, which makes me think, you know, I wanted to hear more about it. But it almost sounds like some of the people who are jumping up and down and making the most noise about how deeply they care about black people may not actually care quite as much as they say they do.

WHITLOCK: Well, one of the biggest mistakes we, as black people made is we mistake affinity, affection for respect and freedom. And affinity is not a substitute for respect. Affinity, a lot of times, and affection has almost everything to do with the giver.

When you understand affection that pleasures the giver as much if not more than the receiver. Respect pleasures the receiver and reveals the character of the giver. And so I just think one of the biggest mistake that we, as black people make with, oh my god, they like us. That doesn't mean they respect us. That doesn't mean they have their best interest -- our best interest in heart.

What it means is they like the pleasure they receive from the show of affection.

CARLSON: Yes, it's a very, very deep point. And by the way, I think a lot of us make that mistake.

Jason Whitlock. I'm glad you came tonight. Thank you for that.

WHITLOCK: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Not just a sports guy. Sunday night edition, 8:00 p.m. See you then.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.