Tucker Carlson: Democrats are defending the indefensible

close

Video

Tucker Carlson: Democrats are defending the indefensible

Fox News host Tucker Carlson weighs in on affirmative action ahead of the upcoming Supreme Court decision on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

This is a rush transcript of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on November 1, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT.

The promise of a meritocratic society is that the most capable people will rise to the positions of the greatest authority. In a meritocracy, for example, you would hire heart surgeons because they're good at heart surgery, not because of how they look or who their parents are.

A meritocracy is the only fair way to run a society, and fairness matters to people, always everywhere. Plus, it works well. Fewer people die on the operating table when you do it that way.

For generations, this is how American society ran. If you were smart and you worked hard, you could compete on pretty much an equal footing against anyone else in America.

They tell you that was never true, but it was true. It was called the "American Dream." People moved here from all over the world to partake in that system. But there was a political problem with it. If you've got a meritocratic society, it's pretty hard to play race politics because race plays no role in advancement. Individual initiative is what matters. Group interests are irrelevant in a meritocracy.

Now, that may sound idyllic to you. It may sound like the kind of country you'd want to live in, but for the Democratic Party, it was a disaster. How do you get your voters to the polls if they're not racially aggrieved? It's hard.

So, at the tail end of the Civil Rights Movement, after all the legislation guaranteeing equality under the law had already been passed, Democrats introduced a new concept. They called it "affirmative action."

The idea was to punish or reward Americans based on the color of their skin. Ironically, this was precisely the evil practice that the Civil Rights Movement was designed to abolish. Racial discrimination was unequivocally wrong. That was the whole point of the skirmish on the Edmund Pettus Bridge and the march on Washington.

Oh, but no, said Democrats,. slyly repainting the slogans on the barn, actually, racial discrimination can be good. It all depends on who is being discriminated against. That was their argument.

That is still their argument more than 50 years later, but even now, after all of this time, most people, if you explain it clearly, don't really buy it. Wait, I can't have a job or get into college or get a Federal contract because I was born with the wrong skin color? That sounds wrong.

And of course, they're right. Affirmative action is wrong. It's totally immoral. It's completely unfair.

And now, for the first time in years, the Democratic Party is being forced to defend it in public.

The Supreme Court is now considering a case about affirmative action in college admissions at Harvard specifically. Because they understand that their power depends on maintaining the racial spoils system they created, Democrats are defending the indefensible with maximum ferocity. Unfortunately for them, it's not that easy to do.

Affirmative action is not only the very definition of racism. It's also highly embarrassing in its particulars. The closer you get to it, the more embarrassing it is. When you elevate people on the basis of their appearance, you tend not to get very impressive people. Why would you? Unless you're buying sunscreen, skin tone is a totally irrelevant criterion. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor unwittingly made that point today.

Sotomayor openly concedes that she got her job because of affirmative action. She was completely and demonstrably unqualified for the position. Obama chose her because of the way she looked. Now, that may sound deranged, but it actually happened. No one disputes it.

Today we saw the consequences of this. During oral arguments, Sotomayor made a mistake that no first-year law student would ever make. She repeatedly confused the terms "de facto" and "de jure." Now, if you're a lawyer, that is an inconceivable mistake. It's like your local service station confusing gasoline with diesel fuel. It doesn't happen because the terms have entirely different meanings.

"De facto" means something that's not in the law, but happens anyway. "De jure" means something that is happening that is sanctioned by the law. See the distinction? Of course, you do, and you're not even a Supreme Court Justice.

But Sonia Sotomayor doesn't see it. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, US SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: So, even if we have de jure discrimination now or segregation now, Congress can't look at that because we certainly have de jure segregation. The races are treated very differently in our society in terms of their access to opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: We have racial segregation under the law in America? That's what Justice Sonia Sotomayor just said. Why is this woman wearing a robe?

Even after Justice Alito corrected her, Sotomayor kept saying it, "There was de jure segregation." She said de jure segregation in 2022. Jim Crow is still on the books.

Okay. This is the society that affirmative action has created. Sonia Sotomayor doesn't know what "de jure" means. Ketanji Brown Jackson can't define what a woman is.

It's hard to imagine a more damning case against affirmative action than its results, and it's always going to be that way because the color of your skin is irrelevant. And if we don't believe that, then everything falls apart.

So as the arguments went on, the case against affirmative action somehow got stronger. Watch this exchange between Brett Kavanaugh and a State Solicitor General.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, US SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: How are applicants from Middle Eastern countries classified from Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the like?

RYAN PARK, NORTH CAROLINA SOLICITOR GENERAL: My understanding is that just like other situations where they might not fit within the particular boxes on the common application that we rely on self-reporting and we would ask - - you know, they can volunteer their particular country of origin.

KAVANAUGH: But if they honestly check one of the boxes, which one are they supposed to check?

PARK: I do not know the answer to that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, just to remind you, something you already know, but probably never think about, the US government collects data on people's races. Now, in a society where we're all equal as citizens under the law, why would they do that? That's what the Nazis did. So, we're against keeping track of people on the basis of race, aren't we?

And with so much at stake, how do we determine someone's race? How long before we're taking blood tests or measuring the shape of people's heads? It's been done before. It happens in other countries to this day. It's really dark and disgusting.

So, the question in that exchange was: "What box to the Middle Easterners check?" Oh, no idea, but of course, everyone knows the answer. If you want to get into a competitive school, the best bet for those Middle Easterners would be to identify as Black. The studies prove it.

According to a 2009 study by Princeton sociologist, Thomas Espenshade, selective schools currently boost Black applicants to the point that Whites are penalized 310 points on the SAT for being White. Asians are penalized 450 points for being Asian. Talk about systemic racism. How is that allowed in this country? Well, good question.

And if anything, this systemic racism -- and that's exactly what it is -- it is racism at the systemic level, has intensified over the past decade -- in case you haven't noticed.

In 2020, a Trial Court found that at Harvard, skin color was determinative in admissions for more than half of all admitted African-American applicants and roughly one-third of Hispanic applicants. How patronizing, by the way, to them.

Look at this chart. It shows the average SAT score for admitted students by race at Harvard from 2000 to 2017. It's almost unbelievable how different the standards are and this is happening, of course, not simply at Harvard, not simply other schools, but all over the entire society.

A few years ago, a senior fellow at AEI called Mark Perry found that Black and Hispanic students were heavily favored for admission into Medical Schools. Black students who had below average test scores were seven times more likely to be accepted into Medical School, compared to White students with similar below average scores and they were nine times more likely when compared to Asian students with similar scores. That's Medical School.

In the end, we will have bad doctors, not because African-American students make bad doctors, but because the process of picking people on the basis of irrelevant criteria like their skin tone is insane. It has nothing to do with Medicine at all.

In fact, the practice itself discredits the Medical Schools that engage in it because it's so anti-science.

This should make you uneasy, but wait, it gets worse.

Here is an exchange from today. Clarence Thomas asked the solicitor general what the educational benefits of affirmative action might be. Here's the response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PARK: So, the most concrete possible scenario is stock trading and there are studies that find that racially diverse groups of people making trading decisions perform at a higher level, make more efficient trading decisions and the mechanism there is that it reduces groupthink and people have longer and more sustained disagreement and that leads to a more efficient outcome.

CLARENCE THOMAS, US SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Well, I guess I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, racial quotas decrease groupthink and allow for a diversity of viewpoint? Really? You live in a society that is defined by racial quotas. Is there more or less groupthink than there was when you were a kid? Is there a greater or smaller diversity of views than there used to be? It's insane.

But the point is, to Clarence Thomas, it sounded very familiar. "I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too," said Thomas, who grew up under Jim Crow in Georgia. Not surprising, because all racist arguments sound the same, because fundamentally they are the same. Give me this because of how I was born.

It was wrong then. It's every bit as wrong now. The difference is we no longer acknowledge the victims of it, and most are too ashamed to say a word, but millions of them exist by definition.

There are people like Kaitlyn Younger, who's a middle-class White girl from Texas with no family connections or special advantages. All she had was hard work and intelligence. She scored a near perfect 1550 on the SAT. Apparently, she hoped the system was fair enough to acknowledge her achievement. She was told, "Work hard, do the right thing and you'll be rewarded."

But she wasn't and we know why. She was turned down from every selective college she applied to because of her skin color. How do you feel about that? How do liberals feel about that? Does anyone really want to live in a country like that?

Well, if you do, Kristen Clarke does. Clarke runs the so-called Civil Rights Division at DOJ. Clarke didn't get the job because she cares about Civil Rights. No, she was hired because she opposes Civil Rights and she has her entire public life.

In 2020, (she is also imbalanced), Clarke declared publicly that her political opponents should be killed. In response to a video of people chanting "Fire Fauci," here's what she wrote. We are quoting the Head of the Civil Rights Division:

"These people should be publicly identified and named, barred from treatment in any public hospital if and when they fall ill and denied coverage under their insurance."

Oh, just genocide them. Okay, that was her solution.

So, affirmative action allows lunatics with violent fantasies like Kristen Clarke to ascend to power and they can do that because as they become more powerful, they continue to claim that they are victims, but they're not victims.

Kristen Clarke went to private school before she went to college, of course. She's a product of privilege. What's interesting is that even as they tell you affirmative action is our single most important social policy, you're not allowed to single out any individual person who has benefited from it.

Oh, it's great, but you can't say you got your job because of it and of course, it's totally not allowed to point out that people like Kristen Clarke are unqualified for the jobs they hold. It's an insult to protected groups.

But how are those protected groups doing? Are they benefiting from generations of affirmative action? Oh, no, they're not. The kids of doctors are benefiting from affirmative action. We know that.

SAT results for Black high school students are still abysmal. No one's helping them. Twenty-five percent of Asian high schoolers in Michigan, for example, scored above a 1400 last year in the SAT. What percentage of Black kids did? Zero. How are they being helped? Well, they're not being helped.

Again, the children of nonprofit executives and doctors and network news anchors and Barack Obama, they're all benefiting, but the people who need it are getting no benefit whatsoever. In fact, they're being completely ignored.

This is nonsensical, it is immoral, and it's ridiculous and so, not surprisingly, the arguments we're hearing in favor of it today.

According to "Scientific American," for example, science compels a racial spoils system. This is real. "The Supreme Court could destroy affirmative action in higher education and STEM professional (science) must stand against the White supremacy and scientific racism that fuels arguments against it." So, you're a White supremacist if you're against racial discrimination.

Okay. Now, in a normal world, you would just dismiss that out of hand because it's deranged. It's the opposite of the truth. You are not a racist for arguing on behalf of a colorblind society. You are a good person arguing against bad people, in fact, arguing it is racist, but they've inverted that and successfully cowed people into silence.

So Joe Biden's Solicitor General, the former Miss Idaho he hired, argued today that affirmative action is somehow vital for our national security, too. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH PRELOGAR, IDAHO SOLICITOR GENERAL: Our Armed Forces know from hard experience that when we do not have a diverse officer corps that is broadly reflective of a diverse fighting force, our strength and cohesion and military readiness suffer.

So, it is a critical national security imperative to attain diversity within the officer corps and at present, it's not possible to achieve that diversity without race conscious admissions, including at the nation's service academies.

The military experience confirms what this Court recognized in Grutter, that in a society where race unfortunately still matters in countless ways, achieving diversity can sometimes require conscious acts by our leading educational institutions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Okay, so, does she know anything about the subject? Miss Idaho, do you? Do you? No, she doesn't.

The US military was the single most impressive institution in American life for generations, precisely because it was meritocratic, because people advanced on the basis of individual effort and not on the basis of group interest. It has been completely corrupted in the most recent generation, and that corruption has accelerated under Joe Biden.

The result of that? Well, the Army is now dramatically short of its recruitment goal because nobody, no normal person of any color, wants to join a rigged system. That's the truth.

They've wrecked the military with this mind poison, which is evil. It was evil when it was practiced in the South 60 years ago, and it's evil now.

Vivek Ramaswamy is an entrepreneur and author of "Nation of Victims." He is a graduate of Yale Law School and Harvard undergrad. He joins us tonight.

So Vivek, thank you so much for coming on.

Why is this -- and I noticed that no one on the right wants to touch this because they're afraid or whatever. I don't know why it's so hard to defend a colorblind meritocracy, since that's America -- but why do you think this is an important fight?

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Look, it's important for so many reasons, but the first of them, even from my own experiences at some of those elite institutions, Tucker, is that affirmative action simply does not work to even help the very people it is supposed to help.

CARLSON: Right. Exactly.

RAMASWAMY: Because if it did help those people, then you wouldn't need to apply it to the same groups to get into boarding school, who then need to be the exact same groups who benefit from it in getting into college, who then need to benefit from the exact same thing getting into graduate school, who are then the exact same groups who benefit from it in the professional workforce. If it was working, you wouldn't need it at every step of the cascade.

And here is the thing, Tucker, nobody makes a case for affirmative action in the NBA. Nobody makes a case for affirmative action in the NFL, because they know --

CARLSON: Why?

RAMASWAMY: That would ruin basketball, and it would ruin football, none of us would want to watch it.

Why do we think it's any different when it comes to science or engineering? And I will tell you from my experience in the classroom or otherwise, I think that that's exactly what's happening in our culture is we have an assault on meritocracy and an assault on excellence and I think that's an assault on the American soul.

We need to put the merit back in America. It's probably why most legal immigrants actually legally come to this country, it is why my parents came here and we are at risk of losing it unless we end affirmative action, which I think the Supreme Court has an opportunity to do right now.

CARLSON: Well, that's exactly right. People from around the world understood despite what the Academy tells us that it was a pretty fair system, fairest in the world anyway and they came here as a result.

I just don't understand if the NBA is too important to destroy with affirmative action, then why is it okay at Flight Schools or Medical Schools?

RAMASWAMY: It makes zero sense, Tucker. Now, let's take the best counter argument from the other side, especially in the Harvard context, right, because that's the case before the Supreme Court.

What opponents will say is that they allow legacy admissions. So how come you're just against affirmative action on the basis of race? You know what my response to that is? Great. Let's get rid of both of them. Let's go back to merit and if you want to get rid of legacy admissions, I'll take that trade. My kid doesn't need a leg up to get into Harvard just because I went there.

Leave it to the best playing field, may the best succeed, may the most academically successful succeed, may the most athletic succeed. That's America. That's what we need to revive and conservatives actually need to be more bold about making that claim. That's what I would say.

CARLSON: They certainly do, because it really is a foundational concept. If we're not all equal as citizens, then what's the point?

Vivek, I appreciate your coming on and for sure articulately defending that core American promise. Thank you.

RAMASWAMY: Thank you.

CARLSON: So Brazil just held its presidential election, the runoff is Sunday. According to official figures, the incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro was narrowly defeated by his far-left convicted criminal opponent, Lula da Silva, the margin of victory is less than two percent.

Now, there are a lot of questions about this election whether all the ballots were counted, for example, and Bolsonaro has not conceded. But questioning the election results in Brazil is no longer allowed there, or even here.

YouTube has just announced it will censor any posts that raise doubts about the vote total. In a statement, YouTube told us they have "Expanded our existing election integrity policy to prohibit content advancing false claims that widespread fraud errors or glitches occurred in the 2022 Brazil presidential election."

Well, wait a second, the election is still ongoing. The incumbent has not conceded. How do you know the claims are "false?" Well, of course you don't. You are taking sides and using censorship to cement the results in place.

This is propaganda. YouTube is interfering in a democratic election in a sovereign nation. How is that allowed?

Well, there are also reports tonight that several Bolsonaro supporters had been murdered in the streets. The footage is online. Obviously, all of this is a major threat to democracy. But as of now, the Biden administration has not said a word about any of it. Why is that exactly? And why can't we know? Why can't an American citizen watch whatever he or she wants to? And why is YouTube trying to affect the outcome of a presidential election of a supposed democracy? Someone should ask them.

Well, the Midterm Elections are well, let's see, a week from today. We thought we would talk to our favorite physician to assess the health of one of the candidates, John Fetterman, who is running for Senate in Pennsylvania. We'll talk to him next.

Also, Joe Biden has completely given up control of the United States' southern portions to the Mexican drug cartels. We just documented this for an upcoming episodes of "Tucker Carlson Originals," which premieres on Thursday. We'll show you some of it after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A middle-aged trustafarian who has never had a real job called John Fetterman, a perfect representative of his party is now running for Senate in Pennsylvania, and not doing a very good job.

In a recent debate, he was, as we told you, at the time, with some sadness, unable to speak coherently at all, and yet, his condition has not improved since then. Here's his appearance on CNN from earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Well, let's talk about inflation, because that's a big concern for voters. What do you think the biggest cause of inflation is? And should the Biden administration be doing more?

JOHN FETTERMAN (D), PENNSYLVANIA SENATE CANDIDATE: I just do -- I think that simply is also let's talk about the trillions in massive tax -- tax cuts to the corporate tax structure as well true. You know, trillions of dollars that have added to the deficit, and now they still want to support those as well true.

I think in terms of being very serious about addressing inflation is making sure that those rates are brought back into a line with what they should have been, where they're able to fight the deficit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: How can his wife allow that? The lust for power really is the original sin.

We're still not allowed to see John Fetterman medical records. You can kind of figure what's in there. But to assess his condition, we are joined by our top doctor, Dr. Marc Siegel.

Hey, Doctor, what do you make of this?

DR. MARC SIEGEL, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Tucker that appear to confused at best. I mean, he certainly doesn't have an indication there that he understands what the Trump tax cuts did four years ago, but I'm no economist.

I noticed another part of the interview, where he flat out said again, I'm not releasing my health records. You have transparent letters from doctors. Well, look, doctors are not that transparent in letters and that's very vague and I want to know the specifics of why he not only would have problems expressing himself at that debate with Dr. Oz, and not only have problems hearing, but he seemed to have problems with comprehension. He seemed to have problems juggling things at once, possibly impacting decision making.

So I want to see the MRI. I want to see what a neurologist wrote in the medical records.

We know he has a bad heart. He has actually said that his stroke came from a blood clot from an irregular heart rhythm. I want to see the cardiologist's record. I want to see the echo.

Look, he is showing great courage here by coming forward, but there is another issue here, which is what about the voters of Pennsylvania? What do they deserve? They deserve full disclosure. They deserve transparency. They deserve someone who is fit to serve, Tucker.

CARLSON: Yes, it is not all about John Fetterman's personal journey.

Dr. Marc Siegel, I appreciate you coming on tonight. Thank you.

SIEGEL: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So Fetterman has obvious cognitive problems, but that is just the beginning of his problems. He has a track record of precisely zero achievement. His only real job was running a town called Braddock, Pennsylvania, which is worse off now than it was when he ran it, but that has not prevented, because the Senate is at stake, the leaders of the Democratic Party from showing up in Pennsylvania and telling you no, no, he's great. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): I know this job. Well. John is prepared right now to be an effective senator, and I think with even more months of recovery, he's going to be back to where he was, but I think he did really well.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): It be great to have John Fetterman to move forward a positive agenda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the way, it isn't about whether we have a Republican senator or not. It's whether or not we have an adult, somebody who's responsible.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I thought he was really good. I thought he knew what he was doing. I thought he was strong.

Now look, Fetterman is Pennsylvania. I mean, Fetterman is everything that he appears to be. He knows where he stands, he has great courage. He has no reluctance to say what he thinks. He's my kind of guy and I think he's going to be fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: They'll say anything, literally anything.

Mehmet Oz is running against John Fetterman in Pennsylvania. He joins us tonight.

Dr. Oz, thank you so much for coming on.

So as a non-Pennsylvanian, I look at this race, here is the Lieutenant Governor -- sitting Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania versus you, who has never held elected office before at all and you're winning. So that suggests to me that Fetterman has done a uniquely bad job.

Why are these Democrats coming in and vouching for a guy who can't even win a race in a State that he's Lieutenant Governor of?

DR. MEHMET OZ (R), PENNSYLVANIA SENATE CANDIDATE: I think they just want the 51st vote in the Senate. They don't appreciate that John Fetterman has been unable to defend his radical views and that's the big issue in this campaign. He takes his extreme positions that he's held for years, they out of touch with Pennsylvania values. A good example, fracking. He calls it a stain on Pennsylvania. We are going to have a moratorium on it, and has said -- I'll quote him, this is from just a few years ago, "I don't support fracking at all, I never had," yet on the debate stage, and subsequently he keeps saying that he is strongly supportive of fracking, but he is unable to reconcile those.

And I think what Pennsylvanians are saying, which is what many Americans can say on their own is Washington is getting it wrong with radical positions. I stand for balance.

But here's the part, Tucker, that gets me. The night of the debate, Fetterman raised millions of dollars in order to advance his campaign. He has gotten much more from other Senate leaders right now that I could have ever imagined being given to a candidate who won't explain his radical views.

So, please help me fight back go to DoctorOz.com. This race is going to ultimately be defined by the ads playing on both sides. I want to be able to tell the truth about John Fetterman more than he lies about me.

CARLSON: It's a little unreal that he keeps attacking you for being rich, which you are, but you made your money. This guy lived off his parents until late middle age. He's never had a real job and he's got rich kid views.

He is against fracking. Like what do you think rural Pennsylvania has? Like, how could you be against fracking in a State that desperately needs energy revenue? I don't understand that.

OZ: Well, that's why he has been flip-flopping on it, but it goes beyond that. He is taking the strong stance to protect criminals over the desires of the innocent. He has wanted the release of one-third of all prisoners. He argues that if he could just wave a magic wand that he will get rid of life sentences for felony murder. He tried to push 25 murderers out of jail over the desires of other members of the Parole Board.

Businesses are leaving Philadelphia where I am right now because it's still dangerous. And the Fraternal Order of Police when they endorsed me, it was unanimous because they just want to do their jobs.

CARLSON: Yes, and they need to because that city really is on the brink. It's obvious when you go there.

I appreciate it. Dr. Oz, Godspeed next week.

OZ: Take care.

CARLSON: So right before a Midterm Election and someone breaks into Nancy Pelosi's house and assaults her 82-year-old husband with a hammer. That's awful. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of the details they're telling us about the attack don't make any sense at all, and we will tell you what doesn't make sense after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We tried last night to get to the bottom of the story around the attack on Paul Pelosi in San Francisco last Friday night. We couldn't and we still can't. It has not gotten any clearer in the past 24 hours.

Police in San Francisco for reasons that are not clear and not defensible, are still refusing to release the body camera footage, which would answer most questions. And now there are more questions about why the Pelosi home was supposedly unguarded that night.

According to CBS News, after January 6th, Nancy Pelosi moved hundreds of Capitol Hill police officers to field offices in Tampa and San Francisco. Did you know that? She has got her own police force now? The point was to protect Members of Congress presumably from Donald Trump's QAnon army.

So there was a field office of the Capitol Hill Police in San Francisco, according to this news account, and yet somehow there was no security at the Speaker of the House's home on Friday night? It doesn't make sense at all.

You know what doesn't make sense either? It is the supposed blog of the man accused, David DePape. Take a look at it. It reads like a left-wing activist idea of what a QAnon extremists would post.

So this guy was homeless, mentally ill, and addicted to drugs who paid to register the site. The first time the site appeared on archiving services was the day of the attack. What does that mean? Like how could you explain that? Maybe there's a good explanation.

We are not alleging anything, just asking questions, as they say, but those are fair questions to ask. But no one the media is going to ask those questions. Why?

Glenn Greenwald is an independent journalist. His work is on Substack. He joins us tonight to assess.

Glenn, thanks so much for coming on.

So everybody feels obviously pain thinking of an 82-year-old man being hit with a hammer. It's the worst thing imaginable. It's quite common now, but why should the rest of us sit here and accept obvious inconsistencies in a story that has public policy implications and not say anything?

GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: We obviously should and I think this is the most important point about all of this, which is how many millions of people have been conditioned to believe that it is immoral or even some kind of reflection of mental illness, like you're a conspiracy theorists if you don't immediately and unquestionably accept whatever story is told to you by institutions of authority.

And the amazing thing about that, Tucker is that this framework is being constructed by journalists, people whose primary purpose in life is supposed to be to question and challenge the claims of the powerful and instead, they are demonizing anybody who does so.

Skepticism itself can never be wrong. Skepticism says there is evidentiary holes, and there is faulty reasoning in what we are being told, even if evidence does emerge later on to prove it, the skepticism itself was not just valid, but necessary.

CARLSON: So Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, the Russians blew up their own pipeline, Julian Assange is a criminal. I mean, maybe we are in the habit of just accepting the most ludicrous possible claims and moving on to the next thing, that feels like where we are.

GREENWALD: I mean, I remember, you know, Victoria Nuland, who is the State Department official in charge of Ukraine went before Congress and said, we're really worried that the US and Ukraine have biological labs that are very dangerous and if they fall into the Russian hands, it can be a disaster. And anyone who said "Wait, what does she mean?" Was instantly branded a conspiracy theorist.

How many people are called conspiracy theorist --

CARLSON: Me.

GREENWALD: . because the question whether the vaccine works the way they were told to work or anything else.

CARLSON: Exactly.

GREENWALD: This is what they do, it is demonize questioning.

CARLSON: That was -- I think you were on that night. What? Biolabs in Ukraine? Shut up, Putin apologist. What?

Glenn Greenwald, always do like a palate cleanser, the fresh air of sanity coming into the studio. Thank you very much.

GREENWALD: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So crime in the United States is out of control. It is not an overstatement and Paul Pelosi's assault is sadly another example of it. But there are others.

New horrifying videos of crime emerging in social media. They don't want you to see these because they want you to think, "Oh, everything is fine" or "Accept the punishment you're due," but we're going to show them to you anyway, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Unfortunately, this country recorded an extraordinarily violent Halloween yesterday. Fourteen people were injured in a drive-by shooting in Chicago, including children. Multiple people were killed in shootings in Philadelphia and Brooklyn.

These crimes weren't just happening on the streets of big cities, they are happening in schools as well.

Yesterday at Proctor High School in Utica, New York, one student stabbed another in a hallway. The 18-year-old victim suffered multiple stab wounds to his back and hands. Here is footage of the attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's got a knife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the knife, bro. Drop the knife, bro. Drop the knife, bro.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop that. Drop that.

Are you out of your mind?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He just stabbed the [bleep] out of my hand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Across the country, Republicans running for office who acknowledge that this is happening are doing very well, and Adam Laxalt is one of them. He is running for the Senate from the State of Nevada. He joins us tonight.

Adam Laxalt, thanks so much for coming on. Is your opponent even willing to acknowledge that the country is being overturned by a surge in violent crime?

ADAM LAXALT (R), NEVADA SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, it's definitely not a topic she wants to focus on. In fact, she is closing the race with John Legend who is unknown defund the policer. That's about the best she could do on the surrogate tour.

And the bottom line is, she is running away from her record every single second of this race, which is why we pulled ahead, it is a tight race. And yes, they are spending almost $90 million and counting now to defeat me. But you know, this is the 51st seat. The Democrats want to try to save her.

But at the end of the day, we had Las Vegas Metro, and Statewide Police flip from her to me. Typically, they support Democrats, but they're fed up. I mean, they want a former AG that is going to stand with police through thick and thin like you did during the BLM riots, she was nowhere to be found. In fact, she threw in with them, and said that she supported BLM and cops are systemically racist.

Now, of course she is doing her election year turn around and trying to pretend that she supports the police. But I can tell you when you talk to cops in Nevada, they're not buying it for one second. They know that only one candidate is truly standing with the police and they know it's existential for them.

We have to stand with our police. We have to get our communities cleaned up. And this is why these races are swinging in our direction. I firmly believe, yes, it is economy of course as well. But law and order and border issues are a huge piece why people are fed up and they want something different.

CARLSON: Exactly. And she is literally spending her closing act with some creepy Hollywood defund the policer? Is anyone noticing this?

LAXALT: No, I mean nobody is covering it. Of course, we put out a press release, and the media, of course, ignored it. And they also won't cover the fact that Joe Biden came out west, skipped Nevada. You'd think that would be a big deal, right?

But he is at 37 percent and you know, he went on TV about a month ago and said, "What do you mean defund the police? We've always supported the police." But she wants nothing to do with him, even though she supported him every step of the way.

CARLSON: People laughed when you got into this race. There's no way he can win in the State of Nevada, which is a Democratic State, but you are winning. It's amazing. Amazing story.

Adam Laxalt, congratulations.

LAXALT: Thanks, AdamLaxalt.com. Thanks.

CARLSON: So the cities in the United States have collapsed, did it happen organically? Accidentally?

Well, the farther you get from the United States, the more obvious it becomes. No. It happened on purpose. That's the assessment of the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, the most popular elected leader in the world, that our cities are being destroyed on purpose by the people in charge of our country.

He told us that during a long and fascinating wide ranging interview on "Tucker Carlson Today," now on FOX Nation. Here is part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAYIB BUKELE, PRESIDENT OF EL SALVADOR: The demise of the US has to come from within. The enemies have to be inside, not really outside. No external enemy can cause so much damage as internal. It is an internal operation.

When you're watching internal operations here, you can see them -- you can see these in cities that were pristinely beautiful 30 years ago are wastelands right now.

You will see people -- I mean, I'm from El Salvador, a third-world country in Central America. And myself, I can see cities here and say, I don't want to -- I don't want to live here.

So that would be unthinkable three decades ago, totally unthinkable.

But a Salvadoran wouldn't want to live in the US city? Any US main city? I mean, Los Angeles --

CARLSON: New York, Chicago.

BUKELE: San Francisco.

CARLSON: Yes.

BUKELE: Philadelphia, Baltimore -- when you look how these cities are eroding so fast, this has to be by design.

I mean, who -- I mean, who would make so many stupid decisions, like, okay, we're going to give you money for drugs. Literally, they are doing that. In some cities, they're giving people drugs. I mean, they're literally giving people drugs in some US cities.

Or they say, okay, we're going to give you money if you don't work. Or we're going to -- they make all of these laws that make no sense or if they have a high crime, okay, I have a solution, let's defund the police. Right?

They make this analysis here, and you see all these campaigns of defund the police, you will see these campaigns of, you know, let's allow shoplifting up to this amount. They make these decisions openly. And it's not even a secret, they make it -- they made them -- they make them openly.

And we all know what would be the consequence of it.

Defunding of the police, allow for shoplifting, give drugs to drug addicts, you know, give money for people to stop work -- what will be the consequence of it? You will destroy -- you will destroy the society, you will destroy the city, you will destroy the economy. And it's not only a logical thing to think, it's already happening.

And when they see more problems, they say, oh, so we need more of the same solutions that caused these problems in the first place and they enact more of them, so they have more problems. And then they enact more of the same solutions that caused those problems, they have more problems.

So you would think these people -- they can't be so dumb, of course, they're not. They're smart. They're very smart people.

So why are they doing these things? Because it's by design. It has to be by design. There is no other logical explanation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So to this day, we have no real idea why the President of El Salvador decided to come on our show and say these things to us. It can't make his life any easier, but we are grateful that he did. Really, if you heard a more incisive assessment of where American society is right now.

It's an amazing conversation. The whole thing is on FOX Nation as we speak.

So apparently, Joe Biden has decided to speak a new language in public, not English. We're going to ask you if you can guess what it is, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Here is a FOX News Alert: Joe from Scranton started speaking Southern today --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: The Senator from Florida, going after Medicare and Social Security? I'll tell you what, I don't know where, as they say in Southern, "don't know where y'all have been. God damn boy."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, speaking of don't know where he has been.

Now, Sean Hannity is right now.

Here is Sean.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.