Tucker: Jan. 6 was not a terrorist attack

close

Video

Tucker: Jan. 6 was not a terrorist attack

‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host discusses the media’s response to Jan. 6 on the eve of its one-year anniversary.

This is a rush transcript of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 5, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Oh, welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. Oh. Sorry. Pardon the good cheer, solemnity is called for.

Today is January 5th, or as it will henceforth be known to all civilized peoples around the world, January 6 Eve.

Tonight at midnight, just hours from now, we will begin the first of many annual remembrances of the horrifying atrocities that took place exactly one year ago at the United States Capitol.

So how do you commemorate something like this history-changing event that's horrible to think about, yet so significant in the life of the country? Well, body counts are the traditional measure. When the nation was wracked by unimaginable loss in years past. That's how we remembered it.

Forty thousand casualties at Gettysburg, 2,400 lost to Pearl Harbor, nearly 3,000 Americans dead on 9/11. But this is a new time, a different age. Those antiquated metrics won't work as we observe a moment of silence for the fallen of January 6th.

On January 6, there was -- let's see, actually there was just Ashli Babbitt. Ashli Babbitt was not a union soldier. She's not a deckhand on the Arizona. She is not even a heroic fireman rushing into a collapsing office tower. She was merely a Trump voter.

She was unarmed, she was shot to death without warning by a Capitol Hill police officer with a documented history of reckless behavior. In the end, Ashli Babbitt was the death toll on January 6th, but honestly, so what? It's not really about the numbers, is it? It's not about how many people were killed on January 6th.

In fact, the list of those who weren't killed on January 6th is quite long. It's impressively long. It includes all 535 Members of Congress, as well as their entire staff, and the Press Corps that covers them. None of them died. They're still around.

But again, who cares? It's not about body counts. It's about feelings. It's about how the survivors feel, especially the reporters who survived.

The feelings of reporters in Washington matter a great deal in America. They certainly matter a lot more than how you feel at the moment. How you feel, as you've probably noticed by this point is totally irrelevant to anyone. Nobody cares.

But the journalists of Capitol Hill, we do care, and they're very upset. In fact, many has still not recovered from what they saw that day, as they lie down to sleep at night, the horrible images replay in a loop on the back of their eyelids. The deafening thunder of cannon volleys, the smoke from the remorseless artillery fire blotting out the sun, the screams of the mortally wounded calling out for their loved ones echoing like some demonic soundtrack against the walls of the Speaker's Lobby. Hell in a very small place.

Unless you were there that day, you cannot possibly understand what it was like. Imagine the Tet Offensive plus Fallujah, plus the night before Thanksgiving at Whole Foods. On January 6, you couldn't tell who the enemy was, unless you looked down and saw they bought their shoes at Walmart, then you knew.

But otherwise, it was the fog of war, my friends.

Kasie Hunt was there that day. Hunt is now something called the chief national affairs analyst over at CNN. As a veteran of the siege of the Capitol, Hunt took to Twitter today to give hope to her fellow survivors. Quote: "Tomorrow is going to be a tough one for those of us who were there or had loved ones in the building. Thinking of all of you and finding strength knowing I'm not alone in this. #January6th."

That was just a tweet.

But someday, you've got to believe because this is a hopeful country that Hunt and her fellow survivors of the insurrection massacre of January 6th will come together in some more formal way. Annual reunions held in the shadow of Washington certain to be built January 6th Memorial, the one they're going to have to bulldoze the Washington Monument to construct.

Hunt and graying grizzled veterans of "The Washington Post" and Bloomberg News and POLITICO and "The Daily Beast" and "The Atlantic" Magazine will raise their white claws as one and remember how they cheated death that terrible day.

Okay, we'll stop. It's too embarrassing. We're feeling shame even making fun of it. And in fact, as a political matter, anyway, the anniversary of January 6 is not a joke at all. It's a serious thing, a very serious thing.

Pretending that a protest was actually a failed coup is the Democratic Party's entire strategy to win this year's midterm election. At this point, it's all they've got. Governing didn't work.

And that's why today, the Attorney General of the United States, one of the most political men in Washington, announced the Department of Justice will continue to harass and arrest people who voted for Donald Trump. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Everyone who was responsible. So the Department of Justice already had the largest manhunt in its history. John Dillinger is laughing from the pit of hell. January 6 trumped him, and it trumped the manhunt after 9/11. It trumps all man hunts.

So people who are just staying there taking pictures on their phone got picked up by the F.B.I., some got sent to jail, but it's not ending. There are still more to come.

And of course, Merrick Garland never speaks alone. The chorus always joins him because they always move as one.

Frank Figliuzzi, for example. He is a high F.B.I. official. He now works at quote, "NBC News" tweeted this prediction/observation, quote: "Attorney General references Watergate. Get it? Merrick Garland pledges pursuit of January 6 suspects at any level."

Oh, there's more, ladies and gentlemen, a former NBC executive called Mike Sington wrote this. "Don't give up hope. Trump could still be arrested."

Arrested for what? Because there wasn't room in the tweet to explain, but just arrested. Bad people should be arrested. That's the point.

What is interesting is that there are a lot of actual criminals who have got no space in the Garland speech today. Garland made no mention at all of the pipe bomber. Remember that -- oh, there's the pipe bomber right there. The pipe bomber of January 6, maybe it was January 5th actually.

We're observing the anniversary of the pipe bomber right now. That individual was caught, we would say, man, but you know, we don't want to get too specific in the current environment. That person was caught in surveillance tape.

The pipe bomber was on several phones, or one phone several times. That's all traceable. Where's that person? Merrick Garland didn't even mention it. Here's what he focused on instead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARLAND: We have received over 300,000 tips from ordinary citizens who have been our indispensable partners in this effort. The F.B.I.'s website continues to post photos of persons in connection with the events of January 6 and we continue to seek the public's assistance in identifying those individuals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, be sure to check the F.B.I. website. They are posting photos and not of people who actually work for them who were there that day. They're not only posting photos, they're taking them off the site, including the most wanted list. Remember Ray Epps?

He is on video several times encouraging crimes, riots, breaches of the Capitol on January 6th. He was on the F.B.I. website. Now, he's gone. He hasn't been charged with anything, apparently. Why is that? That's a real question.

No one in Congress seems to care, even supposedly conservative Republican senators. What are they busy doing? Well, they're busy repeating the talking points that Merrick Garland has written for them. Here is one example.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): We are approaching a solemn anniversary this week, and it is an anniversary of a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol where we saw the men and women of law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage, incredible bravery, risked their lives to defend the men and women who serve in this Capitol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Let's be honest, everyone who is conservative appreciates Ted Cruz. You may not like him, but you've got to appreciate him. He's legitimately smart. He's one of the more articulate people to serve in the Congress, maybe the most articulate. He doesn't use a single word by accident.

Every word Ted Cruz uses is used intentionally. He's a lawyer.

He described January 6th as a violent terrorist attack. Of all the things that January 6th was, it was definitely not a violent terrorist attack. It wasn't an insurrection. Was it a riot? Sure. It was not a violent terrorist attack. Sorry.

So why are you telling us that it was, Ted Cruz? And why are none of your Republican friends who are supposed to be representing us and all the people have been arrested during this purge saying anything? What the hell's going on here?

You're making us think maybe the Republican Party is as worthless as we suspected it was. That can't be true. Reassure us, please. Ted Cruz?

Well, for some perspective on all of this, we are about to speak to Charlie Hurt. He is a longtime reporter in Washington, one of the honest ones. He is now at "The Washington Times" and now he is in our studio childhood. Charlie Hurt, great to see you.

CHARLIE HURT, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CONTRIBUTOR: Great to see you, Tucker. So first of the media reaction. You've been a reporter, you're about my age, right around 30 years-ish. Worked at a bunch of newspapers, seen a lot.

Do you think January 6 is the most violent, terrifying event you've ever covered?

HURT: No, not by a longshot. But I think -- but I do think it's probably true that it is the scariest thing that a lot of these people have ever witnessed, which probably says a lot more about them and their life experiences than it does about that day. I don't know.

CARLSON: Yes. I think that's a really smart point. I mean maybe if you're Kasie Hunt and you're running around "I'm a journalist. I'm a hard news journalist" like that qualified as Fallujah to you.

HUNT: Yes, or if you think that earplugs are rubber bullets that have been shot at you, then you're probably in the wrong line of work. But there is a very important point here.

Also, I'm not belittling how traumatic it probably was for her and a lot of people and it was probably -- they probably do suffer from PTSD, and you know what that says to me, maybe they should find another line of work. Maybe this is not right for them.

You expect them -- you know, if have a prospective juror who you want to put on your jury, if they've witnessed a crime, if they've been a victim of a crime, they're usually stricken from being on the jury.

How are these reporters who survived this day allowed to go and cover congressional hearings every single day where half the people on the panel are people who want -- who they believe what could kill them? They how can they be balanced, even-handed, honest reporters? I couldn't do that.

CARLSON: That's such a smart point. It does feel like the main hiring criterion for every influential position in this country is narcissism. Like the more solipsistic you are, the more likely you were to get the job --

HUNT: Well, I mean, this is the perfect, you know -- they've sort of run through the entire gambit of Twitter and there were no more tweets to send out. So January 6 is sort of the perfect encapsulation of the Twitter media.

CARLSON: #January6. I'm getting that tattoo someday.

So let's talk about January 6, which was an actual event where crimes were committed.

HUNT: Right.

CARLSON: I believe that and from day one, we've been for prosecuting crimes, all crimes.

HUNT: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Including those. However, it's become something much more than that and this being Washington, of course, it's being used to political effect. How do you think Democrats believe January 6th will allow them to not lose in the midterms?

HUNT: I think that they -- I don't know how well they thought it through. First of all, you know, obviously, these are the most sheltered people on Earth. They don't get out much. If they did get out a little bit more, they would realize nobody is talking about this.

CARLSON: Is that true?

HUNT: Nobody but they, themselves and the media, and you know, a few people who are obsessed with NPR News every morning are talking about this.

CARLSON: Right.

HUNT: No normal people, and I'm talking about Democrats, mainly because if you're a senior Democrat voter and you live in Chicago, do you care more about that? Or do you care more about the BLM summer of hate, in which, you know, your neighborhood got torched.

CARLSON: Yes, and dozens of people died.

HUNT: Dozens of people died, government buildings were actually destroyed. You had cops killed. You know, is that more concerning to you? Or is this?

And I think it just reveals the utter disconnect and it's a real problem for Democrat politicians because of course, they've got nothing better to sort of counter all of the mayhem that they inspired especially in the summer 2018. They've got nothing better, so that's why they're talking about this.

But the weird thing about it is, not only does it reveal how totally disconnected they are, but the more they talk about it, the more disconnected they become from those voters and it's a real bad situation and I think that it's just proof they've given up on hoping to win.

CARLSON: I think that's right. I mean, the real threat to democracy is how out of touch the people who run everything are from the people they're supposed to be serving.

HUNT: Yes. Completely.

CARLSON: Charlie Hurt, it is so great to see you.

HUNT: Great to see you.

CARLSON: As it always is.

Well, speaking of January 6th, we had a query the other day from a reporter at Yahoo News called Jon Ward.

Jon Ward wanted to know if we thought "Patriot Purge," that was our documentary on that day encouraged violence. And we said, of course it didn't. In fact, the documentary explicitly opposes violence, as this show does. We've consistently denounced political violence of any kind, no matter who commits it, even in places like Yahoo News were giving a pass to the BLM rioters who killed dozens of Americans.

So why don't you watch the documentary and you'll find that out, we said. Well, I have watched, he replied, and he sent us this transcription from the documentary. You'll see it now on your screen.

This is a quote from the very end of "Patriot Purge," quote, "They're pushing you toward violence, and they're doing it on purpose ... Tell the truth, build the country. Love your family and each other. Be the light. That's how it gets better."

Now, I wrote that, that's my voiceover at the end of the documentary, but you'll notice in that transcription there's a series of dots between two of those sentences. These are called ellipses. They signify that something has been removed from the original quote.

So what was removed from this quote from our documentary, the phrase "Don't fall for it" was removed, as in, "They're pushing you to commit violence, but don't fall for it." That's what we said. We said it as clearly as we could. Remain peaceful. Don't commit violence. Love your fellow Americans, make the country better."

If you don't believe us, you can watch the video yourself, if you like, and you should. Yahoo News watched it. Then they edited the transcript to suggest we were promoting violence.

It's not often you see a clear example of media dishonesty. What can we learn for that?

Well, as it happens, I know Jon Ward very well. He used to work for me. He and his family have been to our house. He's a very nice person. He's a sincere family man. He's also weak, and in a moment like this, weak people get crushed by the forces above them.

Weak people conform. They do what it takes. If you want to draw a salary from a big media company right now, you do what you're told. You toe the line. If it comes down to it, you lie.

The whole thing is heartbreaking to watch. What an awful moment this is.

Lieutenant Colonel Stu Scheller was fired and jailed because he criticized the withdrawal from Afghanistan. To this day, he is the only one who has been punished for it.

We've wanted to talk to him since he got out of jail. In a moment, he joins us for his first interview.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Stu Scheller spent 17 years as a United States Marine Corps officer, five combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. To this day, Scheller remains the only person in the United States punished in any way for the debacle of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

He criticized it, they sent him to jail for it.

We sat down for his first interview since leaving jail and it was fascinating. Here is part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STUART SCHELLER, FORMER U.S. MARINE: So, this had been building up for a while. So, anyone that has been there and experienced it, it's very personal. And so in the age that we live that was watching the Afghanistan plan fall apart before eyes, social media real time, it was very frustrating.

And I was talking to my family, I was talking to my friends, I was having a real hard time with it. And then about a week previous to it, the Commandant of the Marine Corps released a white letter, it stated, you know, was your sacrifices worth it -- addressing all of us struggling with what we were struggling with. And he stated, if you are having trouble, you need to go seek therapy.

But he never pointed out that anyone, any senior leader might be culpable for wrongdoings. And I saw that as him placing his loyalty to the other General officers and not to the junior enlisted.

We could have all avoided the trip to the therapist had he admitted that senior leaders had fault. So I was angry about that. I was angry about how it was handled, and then a week later, the unit that got attacked was my first unit. When I was in Ramadi, my best friend got hit with an S-vest in 1-8. It came full circle to me.

I was the Regimental Operations Officer that put 1-8 out on deployment. I knew all the Company Commanders. I knew the Battalion XO. I knew the Ops of it. I intimately knew this unit. And since then, I had moved on because to become Battalion Commander, and all of this just got to a point where I knew for a fact that no senior leader is going to be held accountable. I knew that I was going to be held accountable.

But at a certain point, we need to publicly address our shortfalls or we are going to keep repeating the same mistakes. And so you know, even after I made that video, I made the video in my office, I didn't post it right away. I drove to my house and you know, you're outside your house, you've got your wife and your three kids inside the house.

And I'm pacing around the front of the house, like on my phone, like, you know, like the button away, knowing that that's going to change your life forever and I made the decision to put that out there.

CARLSON: But why? I mean, everything you said, I think everyone understands your frustrations, but you're clearly smart. So you sort that maybe, you could go to jail for it. But you knew, you know, but you did it anyway. But why did you do that?

SCHELLER: This has been my whole life. You know, my whole adult life has been dedicated to America, foreign diplomacy. I wrote a Master's thesis on how to make foreign diplomacy more effective.

There is no one more personally invested than me. You know, I've awards for valor. But all of that is irrelevant when you don't -- I'm watching the junior service member win every tactical engagement in the future that our General officers right now are talking about the shift of the force, the National Security strategy, it's all predicated on changes on the tactical level, how to ensure the force, distribute the operations. That's all tactical other stuff.

We've won every tactical level engagement. What we're losing at is the operational level where General McKenzie and the combatant commanders reside, and that link between the strategic level and the National Security Council, the Secretary of Defense and the President, those are the people that need to be addressed and be held accountable because these junior enlisted are going out there sacrificing everything.

I would submit sacrificing more than the General officers are and they're not getting the credit they deserve, and so you ask me like why I did it?

CARLSON: And those are the men you command.

SCHELLER: Yes, I was a Company Commander in multiple different commands. I've been a Company Commander at the School of Infantry. I was a Company Commander at 3-2, a Weapons Company Commander and a Headquarters Company Commander. I was a Company Commander at the basic school for a bunch of officers.

So cumulatively, I've been a Company Commander for five years. I had been selected a Battalion Commander. I was in my Battalion Command seat for about two months before I made that video. So, it was pretty short lived and they fired me before dinner the next night, you know.

So that was -- but I did it because not only was I personally invested. Following Vietnam, there was no General officers that were held accountable and the narrative that's told today is how the General officers had to basically clean up the draft generation and make good service members, but they never went back and held themselves accountable.

And the exact same thing is happening right now. They're taking, hey the G- what generation doesn't know how to fight China, we need to change it. It's the tactical problems and they're not focusing on the operational strategic problems, which are the same things that should have been addressed after Vietnam, and we're not.

And the reason that kind of got washed away is because we had a marginal success in Desert Storm in the 90s, and that just kind of threw us off in terms of the systemic changes that need to take place.

And so all of those reasons are why I felt like, you know, it's not my place to say it, and everyone pointed that out, but there is nobody else saying it. You know, there's just nobody else saying it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Stu Scheller, a really brave man and an honorable man, exactly the sort of person you want defending your country.

That whole conversation is available right now on FOX Nation. You can head over to tuckercarlson.com if you want to see it.

Well, a teacher who is currently battling cancer has announced, he will continue teaching in-person despite demands for the teachers union to go remote, which means to stop teaching over the not at all dreaded omicron variant.

That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: So we're learning more tonight about just how fake the most basic COVID numbers are. They're totally fake. They're made up, they are lies.

"The LA Times" just confirmed that a majority of the people listed as COVID patients in hospitals in LA are actually there for something else. They've merely tested positive for the virus.

And COVID hospitalization is not the only thing you've been lied to about. Biden just announced this past summer that long COVID is real. It's a disorder, and it's now a disability under Federal Disability Law. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm proud to announce a new effort. The first of its kind to help Americans grappling with long term effects of COVID-19 that doctors call Long COVID.

Many Americans who seemingly recover from the virus still face lingering challenges, like breathing problems, brain fog, chronic pain or fatigue. These conditions can sometimes -- can sometimes rise to the level of a disability.

So we're bringing agencies together to make sure Americans with Long COVID who have a disability have access to the rights and resources that are due under the Disability Law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Brain fog and fatigue. So, maybe that's a real syndrome, maybe it's just Thursday. It's not clear this is even real. At least one study shows that most people who told physicians they had long COVID never even had COVID at all. One German study revealed that these patients brain showed no changes.

So Alex Berenson has been following all of this stuff and a lot of stories that no one else is following. He is the author of the bestselling book "Pandemia." He joins us now to assess.

Alex Berenson, thanks so much for coming on. Look, I don't want to make fun of people suffering or their illnesses or their symptoms, which are, you know, probably real. But at some point, if this is going to qualify as a Federal disability, we have a right to know whether it's a thing or not, is it?

ALEX BERENSON, AUTHOR: All right, yes, it's a great question.

Before I talk on COVID, I have to say one thing to you, which is I seem to say it every time I come on, Tucker, but thank you. You know, we were on the week the book came out and it is really because of you and Laura that it's a bestseller, "Pandemia" did not get reviews anywhere. It essentially went under a media blackout.

But you, you know, you talked about it a little bit and it was a best seller everywhere, "The New York Times" which wouldn't, you know, allow it on the list. So thank you for that. I really mean it.

CARLSON: Your former employer, hilarious.

BERENSON: My former employer, right. They would not, you know, drop water on me if I were on fire at this point. But you know what, so be it. I'm telling the truth and whether they like it or not, that's the way it is.

Long COVID. Okay, Long COVID is a joke, unfortunately, medically, it is -- and you're right, at the same time, we have to be aware that these people are really suffering, okay?

CARLSON: Right.

BERENSON: It is -- it is a lot like fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome or these other sort of ill-defined disorders that have kind of taken over medicine or taking over parts of medicine in the last 30 years.

There are people that especially sort of middle-aged women, there's a certain kind of person who fits this profile who is suffering from insomnia, fatigue, pain, depression, and they work pretty hard to medicalize their conditions.

You know, men have their own ways of dealing with this. For men, it's often back pain, it can be alcohol abuse. A lot of Americans these days are under a lot of stress, okay, and COVID made that worse.

But that does not mean that this is a real medical condition. There is really no evidence that you know that a virus -- again, let me put it to you this way. If you are really sick with COVID, if you get stuck on a ventilator, if you get hospitalized, if you need oxygen support, you're going to have a recovery period and that recovery period can be significant.

But that's not what these people want to talk about. They want to talk about people who had very few or no symptoms, who are never hospitalized, and who in many cases never actually had a positive COVID diagnosis and to claim that some period of time later, they became sick with long COVID and they are entitled to essentially welfare for the rest of their lives.

And there's -- if we're going to do that, we need some evidence that this is an actual illness with an actual biological course and we do not have that at all. I write about this in "Pandemia." But actually more evidence has developed in just the last couple of months that suggests this really is not -- it's not a biological illness, which again, doesn't mean these folks aren't suffering with something.

CARLSON: I get it. So the plan has always been to just like send every American a check every month, because that's what they want to do. Wouldn't it just be more straightforward to do that? You know, guarantee basic income.

BERENSON: You know, I think it will. Yes, that's right. If that's what we want, then that's what we should do, but to make people pretend they're sick actually worsens their conditions a lot of the time, and I'll never forget in 2008 talking to a rheumatologist about fibromyalgia, and he was very sincerely worried about these people he was treating.

But he said, you know, they don't have an illness, and the more they hang around the medical system, the worse their problems become and that's the risk. It's not just that you're treating them with drugs they don't need, which can be very powerful. It's that they get to think of themselves as sick and then it becomes harder and harder for them to make the transition back to being healthy.

CARLSON: It's right and it's just so dishonest, like medical marijuana. If you want to legalize weed, do it, but don't pretend indica is chemotherapy. You know, it's so insulting.

BERENSON: That's right.

CARLSON: Alex Berenson, it is great to see you. Thank you.

BERENSON: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So Democrats keep telling us that in order to save democracy, they have to pass a bill called the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. How surprised will you be to discover the bill does exactly the opposite of what it's advertised to do? Well, we've got details straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: So the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is the number one priority of Democrats in the Congress. They're so desperate to pass it before they get creamed in the midterms, or in order that they won't get creamed in the midterms, they are threatening to abolish the filibuster, which would change Congress forever, make it very different from what it is now.

So if this bill becomes a law, the Federal government would have total veto power over voting in every State. It doesn't matter what the States do. The Federal government, the people in charge of it, would basically be able to rig any election, if they wanted.

States would have to go to the Congress for permission to do anything. This is a huge change. Probably unconstitutional. States have no authority to require voter identification, for example, or registration at the polls. Voting ID laws in many states would be suspended immediately. States would not even have the power to dictate where the polling places are located.

Under this bill, States would also lose control over redistricting within their own borders. It is a huge deal. It sounds kind of complex, Democrats are smart enough to if they control the way that elections are conducted. They control the outcome of the elections. They're not stupid -- like the other party.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the opposite of stupid. He joins us tonight to assess. Professor, thanks so much for coming on. Give us your evaluation of this bill, if you would.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well, first of all, remember this is in reaction to the declining popularity of Joe Biden and his agenda. Remember, after he was elected, we were told that we had a good system, it was resilient. We got rid of the Trump threat and everything was going, and then in August, his polls crashed.

So that is what is precipitating this need for it, and it is part of a larger landscape where we're going to pack the Court, we're going to get rid of the Electoral College, we're going to bring in two States, and we're going to get rid of the nine-person, 150-year-old Supreme Court because they have no confidence in the people.

When they say democracy is broken in 2022 or 2024, they mean it doesn't work for us, and they -- you know, it is broken because we're not in power maybe in two years. But I think it is an unconstitutional -- Section I of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, I should say, it says the States have the primary responsibility that the Federal government as it pleases, can intervene, 18-year-old vote, you know, women's suffrage.

But if the States did not have the primary responsibility to set rules, they wouldn't be in the Constitution, and the Courts have decided that. So, what they want to do is turn over Wyoming or Utah or Indiana's voting laws to some unelected people in the D.O.J. and we've seen what type of people have been confirmed lately, then they're going to come in and say, you can't have -- you can't stop third-party vote harvesting. We need more mail-in ballots -- all the things they felt were pretty good in the last election.

And they're going to -- their main focus and obsession is voter ID, you know, and that's -- and so it's a pseudo answer, and a pseudo solution in search of a pseudo problem because in 2012, Barack Obama remember had a higher margin of African-Americans turned out in greater numbers to vote for Barack Obama, primarily 96 percent.

And then white voters, 2020, more people voted than ever, so the idea that you're suppressing the vote is a manipulation of language, and when they mean suppressing the vote, they are meaning, well, before you couldn't have 800,000 illegal aliens vote in New York municipal elections, now you can.

As Nancy Pelosi and others have said, 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds should vote and ex-felons should vote. So that's what they're trying to do is enlarge the electorate because they feel that it doesn't serve their electoral needs, and they're going to need to get the filibuster eliminated or this thing won't pass, so as part of that larger package.

You know what, finally, Tucker, we're talking about January 6th, these guys are stone cold, revolutionaries. They are Jacobins. They know what they're doing. They are 10 times more dangerous than that clownish group that went into the Capitol on January 6th.

And they're even more dangerous than the 120-day riot of continuous rioters who burned and looted and killed 30 people and injured 2,000 cops that we don't talk about in the summer of 2020.

These are serious people that do not believe in the Constitution or the customs and traditions of the last century and they want to change the system to guarantee the results that otherwise they cannot achieve by the people.

CARLSON: So nicely put. I listen to your talk, and I think he must be reading that. But I know that you're not, so I'm doubly impressed. Thank you for that explanation.

Victor Davis Hanson, good to see you.

HANSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: So people who care about New York and everyone should care about New York. It is our biggest city or whatever economy comes from New York -- realize that it's kind of over at this point. Why? Because the new District Attorney in Manhattan, a man called Alvin Bragg was elected with of course, help from George Soros, has announced that his office will no longer seek prison sentences for very serious crimes.

Armed robbery, for example, will be downgraded to petty larceny, et cetera et cetera. What will the effect of this be? We've got someone who lives in New York, Seth Barron who is the Managing Editor of the "American Mind," author of "The Last Days of New York," sadly, prescient, he joins us now.

So thanks so much for coming on.

SETH BARRON, MANAGING EDITOR, "AMERICAN MIND": Oh, thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Tell us what this Soros-backed prosecutor plans to do?

BARRON: Well, I mean, you spelled it out. He wants to seek non-carceral solutions for almost any crime, except murder, rape, and then like, you know, corruption, white collar crimes.

But as far as gun crimes, assault -- like the kind of street assaults that we see, he doesn't think that those merits jail. He doesn't want to have bail imposed at all, except for, you know, homicide cases and rape and maybe some domestic violence.

So, you know, if you commit a crime, a serious crime, you could just walk. He's got a completely revolutionary radical view of how criminal justice should operate in New York, and it's very frightening.

But the thing is, people are, you know, up in arms about it now that he is in, but this was his campaign. This is what he ran on.

CARLSON: Good point.

BARRON: He made these promises. He said he didn't think that gun crimes should necessarily bring jail.

CARLSON: Wait a second. That's very strange, though, because he is, of course, a left-wing Democrat. He's a Soros puppet. But I thought left-wing Democrats were for taking people's guns away or is Kyle Rittenhouse the only gun criminal in America or, you know, farmers with shotguns in their closets? They are the problem. Like how can he be against prosecuting gun crime?

BARRON: It's a really interesting question. I think it depends on, you know, to who-whom type of question. You know, who's going to get arrested? Like he talks about how his dad had an illegal gun? And, you know, he had it for safety and protection. So it was okay.

You know, I guess other people who have guns, maybe it's not so good. You know, he doesn't think a gun should lead to a jail sentence unless it's used. Well, you know --

CARLSON: It is just what we are seeing. It is race based application of the law. I mean, that's -- let's just be honest, that's what it is. It is the equity agenda. It's what you look like matters most.

BARRON: Well, given the fact that like 98 percent of gun crime in New York City is committed by, you know, blacks and Latinos, it does sort of -- it does sort of shake out that way.

But, you know, I just want to say that everybody who was very excited about Eric Adams as the law and order mayor, back in July, Eric Adams came out openly and said that there's no difference between him and Alvin Bragg on criminal justice. So you know, we're kind of in a sticky situation.

CARLSON: We are. Some of us, speaking for myself was really hoping that Eric Adams would be better than the mayor he replaced. I still hope that, but signs aren't good. Seth Barron, great to see you. Thank you.

So after a lot of depressing stories, here is a genuinely inspiring one. A teacher who is currently battling cancer in Chicago has announced he will not go remote because of the non-deadly omicron variant. He wants to continue teaching his students even though the teachers union doesn't want him to.

Pretty great. We're going to hear from him, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: The teachers union in Chicago has voted to stop teaching students in person. The union is going on strike and Chicago canceled classes today. That's the bad news.

But one teacher, a teacher who is battling cancer has refused to stop teaching students in person. That teacher is called Joe Ocol, and we're honored to have him join us tonight. Mr. Ocol, thanks so much for joining us. Bless you for this. Tell us why you've made this decision.

JOE OCOL, CHICAGO TEACHER: Oh, hello.

CARLSON: Hello.

OCOL: Well, in the previous strikes, I already made that decision because I joined the Chicago Public Schools, as a teacher, first and foremost as a teacher. And my role -- now, I believe my role should be inside the classroom with my students, it should not be in the picket line. I did not join CPS to be a union member. First and foremost, to be a teacher.

And secondly, I believe that there are ways to fight City Hall. You don't dangle the plight of the kids in the middle of the fight just to secure demands. There are other ways. I believe, there are other ways.

I have nothing against the union, but I have something against people using the union as a tool for political gain and that's my stand. And that's why I feel that despite my battling cancer, I still have a role to play right now and I just want to make my life relevant.

Somehow the thought that I can still be of service to my students, and I can touch their lives and make a difference in their lives.

CARLSON: Well, first of all, you made me cry. So please stop -- but I mean, the fact that you literally have cancer right now and you're fighting it, and you're not afraid or you think that your duty to the students is higher than your own, that the risk that you're taking on is just so inspiring, I think to the rest of us.

Why do you think it's important if you could just explain to teach them in person, rather than over a Zoom app?

OCOL: I had done the remote learning for more than a year with the students, and I've seen the limitations and the challenges that a teacher faces with remote learning. It's not really effective, it's not as effective as doing in-person teaching.

And I feel that it's not also fair to the parents, or the parents need to be with the students when they should be earning a living. So, I think that the union should look at it not in a sweeping way.

They did a sweeping manner on their demands, but there are schools without COVID. I have my classroom, I have 82 students, and I'm not aware of anyone having COVID.

I'm not also aware of a teacher having COVID in my school. So, I think it's a measure of the administration coming up with ways to really ensure safety measures being observed.

So I think the union has to look at it on a school to school basis, it should not be in a sweeping way because that's not fair to the students. That is not fair to the parents.

CARLSON: Amazing. I'm so glad that you came on tonight. Thank you very much.

OCOL: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Did you hear what that man said? He is going in to teach in the middle of a COVID outbreak despite the fact he has cancer because he wants to help people, because he wants to be relevant. That's the point of life.

The point of life is not to be safe or to prevent yourself from dying. The point is to do something; as he put it, to be relevant. Meaning matters. Amazing.

That's it for us tonight. We have a brand new episode of "Tucker Carlson Today" featuring our interview with retired Lieutenant Colonel Stu Scheller -- speaking of heroes -- it's available right now. You can stream it on FOX Nation by going to tuckercarlson.com.

We will be back tomorrow. In the meantime, the Great Sean Hannity awaits for the 9:00 PM hour.

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.