Tucker Carlson breaks down Kyle Rittenhouse testimony: he already won

close

Video

Tucker Carlson breaks down Kyle Rittenhouse testimony: he already won

‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host reacts to the ‘intentional perversion of justice’ from the prosecution.

This is a rush transcript of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on November 10, 2021. 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.

We're going to bring you in this evening on live pictures coming to us from Washington. This is your new boss. It is China's biggest retailer. It is the man who will soon be in charge of you, your family, and your future. It is Mr. Jeff Bezos speaking for some reason from the National Cathedral in Washington.

Before long, pictures like this will be mandatory of our dear leader. We're doing this, we should tell you tonight voluntarily in preparation for the coming future. For the years, we'll spend toiling cheerfully in the sugar caves.

But we also wanted to point out a striking resemblance that may give you a taste of what's to come.

So that is Jeff Bezos, again your new boss. We want to put a picture on the screen there. That's Professor X from the "X-Men." You'll notice a striking similarity. Accidental or an ominous foreshadowing? We'll continue to report on this story.

In the meantime, tonight, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial continued today in Wisconsin.

In a move that surprised lawyers everywhere, Rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense that is unusual in criminal cases and it's especially unusual in murder trials and the reason is simple, the stakes are too high. One wrong answer in a cross-examination and you could wind up spending life in prison.

But this case was different. By the time he testified today, Kyle Rittenhouse had already won the case. At this point, there was no remaining doubt that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense during the riots last summer in Kenosha. Every shot Rittenhouse fired was captured on videotape and from multiple angles. Every single witness who testified this week at the trial confirmed exactly what happened, and here are the facts of it.

A convicted child rapist called Joseph Rosenbaum was released from a mental hospital and then went directly to join the mob that was burning downtown Kenosha. Once he got to the riot, Rosenbaum saw Kyle Rittenhouse and immediately threatened to kill him. Rosenbaum then chased Rittenhouse and tried to pull the gun from his hands, when he did that Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.

So Joseph Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor.

At this point, Rittenhouse ran to find police. A mob then chased him down the street howling for his death. A rioter jumped on Rittenhouse and knocked him to the ground, another smashed him in the face with a skateboard. Yet, another drew a loaded gun and pointed it in his face. Kyle Rittenhouse shot the second two men, one of them fatally.

So those are the facts and there is no way to interpret them except for what they are, the exercise of self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse shot people so he would not be killed.

But if you take a step back from the Rittenhouse story, you see something else entirely. You see violent insanity, completely out of control in the middle of an American city, and the question is how did that happen in our country? And why did nobody stop it? And it wasn't just happening in Kenosha, of course. Violent mobs at the same moment overwhelmed New York and Minneapolis and Portland and many other cities. They killed at least a dozen people, they caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

They burned businesses, they torched police stations, they bombed courthouses, they invaded suburban neighborhoods in the middle of the night purely to intimidate people because of their race. Democrats applauded all of this as it happened. Most republicans just ignored it, and of course, the media lied about it.'

In Kenosha, the police barely even showed up. Officers and armored cruisers sat and watched as rioters torched a car lot with more than a hundred vehicles in it and they did nothing to stop the chaos. The question then is, how exactly are we surprised when a 17-year-old lifeguard from Illinois decides to step in? They hate it when you say that, but it's an entirely fair question.

When legitimate authority refuses to do its duty, it's sworn duty, others will fill the vacuum. That is always true. It's a physics principle. But rather than acknowledge that obvious truth and accept the responsibility they bear, the people who made these riots possible in the first place decided instead to crush Kyle Rittenhouse.

Joe Biden publicly called him a white supremacist, something for which someday we very much hope he is sued, because it's totally outrageous and false. Members of Congress called him a domestic terrorist.

Today, Kyle Rittenhouse spoke for himself. See what you think.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYLE RITTENHOUSE, DEFENDANT: Once I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr. Rosenbaum -- Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side and I was cornered from in front of me with Mr. Ziminski and there were -- there were people right there --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, after a 10-minute break to compose himself, Kyle Rittenhouse returned to the courtroom and proceeded to blow up the prosecution's claim that he had racked his rifle in a threatening manner. It turns out he didn't rack his rifle at all and video proved that.

And then Rittenhouse explained why he turned himself in to police after the shootings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RITTENHOUSE: People were saying, "Cranium him," and "Get him." "Kill him."

People were screaming and I just was trying to get to the police running down Sheridan Road.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you say, "I'm trying to get to the police. Why were you trying to get to the police?"

RITTENHOUSE: Because I didn't do anything wrong, I defended myself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you feel as though there was safety where the police were?

RITTENHOUSE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So they didn't really have a response to that since it's all on videotape. It's provably true. So instead, the lead prosecutor in the case, in today's case, who is essentially an NPR pledge drive donor called Thomas Binger took a very different attack.

He went on to imply that Kyle Rittenhouse must be guilty because he had exercised his constitutional right to remain silent after he was arrested. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS BINGER, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Since August 25th, 2020, this is the first time that you have told your story.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection.

JUDGE BRUCE E. SCHROEDER, KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: Sustained.

BINGER: Since August 25th, 2020 you've had the benefit of watching countless videos of your actions that night, correct?

You've also had the opportunity to listen to the testimony of all thirty- some witnesses that have testified in this trial so far, correct?

RITTENHOUSE: Yes.

BINGER: And after all of that now, you are telling us your side of the story, correct?

RITTENHOUSE: Correct.

BINGER: I am making the point that after hearing everything in the case, now, he is tailoring his story to what has already been introduced.

JUDGE BRUCE E. SCHROEDER, KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: The problem is, this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant's silence and that is -- and you're right -- you're right on the -- you're right on the borderline and you may -- you may be over, but it better stop.

BINGER: Understood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, this is day one of law school stuff, but just to be clear, exercising your constitutional rights is not an indication that you are guilty. It is a sign that you are American. It is your birthright.

The government's own lawyer does not understand that, which you think might get the attention of Merrick Garland's Justice Department, which after all is in charge of justice in this country. But no, Merrick Garland is not interested, just as he has ignored the thugs videotaping jurors outside the courthouse.

The Judge in this case seems pretty well fed up with all of it. Today, he ruled that prosecutors could not mention statements about shoplifters that Kyle Rittenhouse apparently made weeks before the shootings. Prosecutors asked Rittenhouse about them anyway, and once again the Judge was forced to shut down the trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHROEDER: I indicated a bias towards denial is what I did, held it open with a bias towards denial. Why would you think that that made it okay for you without any advance notice to bring this matter before the jury? You are already -- you were -- I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence. That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years.

I have no idea why you would do something like that and it gives -- well, I'll leave it at that. So, I don't know what you're up to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You could watch televised trials for the next 10 years and never hear a Judge talk like that. That's how completely out of control the prosecution in this case is. At this point, it's not even clear it's going to make it to a jury.

The defense has asked the Judge to dismiss the case without the possibility of retrial and the Judge indicated he might very well grant that request. So again, what you are watching is willful prosecutorial misconduct. It's an intentional perversion of justice and the Judge very well knows that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHROEDER: I had heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings so why --

BINGER: ... testimony, Your Honor.

SCHROEDER: Pardon me?

BINGER: That was before the testimony.

SCHROEDER: Don't get brazen with me. You knew very well -- you know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the Judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so, so don't give me that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, don't give me that, exactly. Good for the Judge.

We should tell you, we're so used to evaluating everything through a partisan lens that it is worth knowing the Judge in this case, that guy, was appointed by a Democrat. The point is, however, he still believes in the Constitution. That's always the point. Kyle Rittenhouse should be very grateful he is the judge in this case.

Yesterday, the prosecutor tried to bully a freelance photographer called Nathan DeBruin. In return, that turned out to be a mistake. DeBruin ratted them out on live television. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES KRAUS, PROSECUTOR: Mr. DeBruin, you said there was a lot of tension in the room when you met with me and Mr. Binger and Miss Beasy?

NATHAN DEBRUIN, FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHER: Yes.

KRAUS: Is it fair to say that you were very nervous?

DEBRUIN: Yes, absolutely.

KRAUS: And we did have you read over your statement, right?

DEBRUIN: Correct.

KRAUS: And we asked if you knew anything beyond that statement.

DEBRUIN: Correct.

KRAUS: We didn't ask you to change it.

DEBRUIN: Yes, you did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "Yes, you did." So, pressuring a witness to change a statement. Right. That's exactly the kind of justice that Kyle Rittenhouse has received from the government so far. No one who has been paying attention is surprised by any of this. Ghouls like Joe Biden politicized this case day one.

What's terrifying and very unnerving to anyone who lives in this country is the number of institutions that joined the Democratic Party in trying to prevent Kyle Rittenhouse from getting a fair trial which again is your birthright as an American.

Here is one example. In Virginia, a Police Lieutenant called William Kelly was fired from his job for daring to donate to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense. Kelly was a 20-year veteran of the Norfolk Police Department. He had three children and a wife with cancer.

For disagreeing with Joe Biden's view of the Rittenhouse case, the Department dismissed him without a pension. That actually happened.

In Salt Lake City, a local news station decided to terrorize a paramedic called Craig Shepherd, his sin giving $10.00 to Rittenhouse's legal defense. So reporters called Shepherd's employer, another reporter showed up at Shepherd's house with the camera crew and then bragged about it, quote: "ABC 4 News investigator Jason Nguyen went to Shepherd's home to get his side of things, but those inside the home didn't want to talk."

Yes, wonder why? It is shameful and authoritarian. Hurting the weak to appease the strong. That's the American media 2021.

Having watched the trial, no honest person could fail to admit the obvious. The media were completely wrong about Kyle Rittenhouse. They slandered an innocent kid, but they're not admitting it.

There is at least one exception though, and we want to highlight that person tonight. Her name is Ana Kasparian. She is a lefty. She's on a show called "The Young Turks." She hates this show, and most of the time, we disagree with her.

But on the question of this trial, Ana Kasparian was bravely honest and good for her. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANA KASPARIAN, "THE YOUNG TURKS": Look, these details matter because if you're going to make an argument that you acted in self-defense, there needs to be some proof that there was an imminent threat.

Now what really mattered to me was how all of this unfolded. What was the thing that sparked it? What started all of it? And initially, I was under the assumption that Rittenhouse was the person who was chasing after Joseph Rosenbaum, that that's how it had started.

But I was wrong about that, okay, so I want to correct the record. I was in fact wrong about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Wow. You don't see that too often, but it's not hard by the way, tell the truth, let reality be your guide. It feels good. That's what decent people do.

There are too few of them.

Judge Jeanine Pirro is joining us in just a moment to respond, but first tonight, an honest man assesses what he has seen. J.D. Vance, he is running for Senate in Ohio. He joins us now.

J.D. Vance, thanks so much for coming on. So you've watched this whole thing in a nearby Midwestern state. What's your assessment of it?

J.D. VANCE (R), OHIO SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, look, Tucker, I think that it's not a trial, it is child abuse masquerading as justice in this country.

This entire trial, this entire farce is an indictment on every institution in our society. It's an indictment of the adults that didn't protect Kenosha, which made Kyle Rittenhouse get out there and protect his community. It's an indictment of our disgusting President who called him a white supremacist even though he shot other white people. It's an indictment of our media which slandered and bullied a 17-year-old boy.

I haven't seen anything that disgusts me with the leaders of this country like this ridiculous farce of a trial.

CARLSON: I mean, it's scary actually because a year -- more than a year ago in August of 2020, the tape was available publicly available. We put it on our air, and it was really clear that this guy thought he was going to be killed and he had very good reason to think that.

So you had to really ignore the videotape evidence to make the case that he was the aggressor, but they did it anyway. What does that tell you?

VANCE: Well, I think it suggests that justice in this country is no longer about equal justice under law, it's all political. I mean think about this. Think about four years ago them attacking Donald Trump for the fake Russia collusion hoax at the Federal level, the F.B.I. investigating the President of the United States for something that was totally fake and was obvious at the time.

And now at the state level, we have a State Prosecutor who knew that this kid acted in self-defense and he is trying to destroy his life anyway. The message to every normal American in this country, certainly, the message that I take from it is that if you have the wrong politics, if you have unacceptable politics according to our elites, the justice system will come after you and it will come after you hard.

That's not the American Constitution, that's not the American way of life. That's a bunch of power hungry leftists who have decided they are going to use our criminal justice system as a weapon against the people.

CARLSON: I think it's exactly right, and if you were to pick the weakest in our society, the least privileged, I think you might pick Kyle Rittenhouse.

J.D. Vance, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Good to see you. Thank you.

VANCE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Judge Jeanine Pirro is the host, of course, of "Justice with Judge Jeanine." She joins us tonight with her reaction to the trial.

Judge, thanks a lot for coming on. What do you make of this?

JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST, JUSTICE WITH JUDGE JEANINE: Well, I think that along with your last guest, J.D. Vance, what we're seeing here is the politicization of the criminal justice system.

This is a case where clearly self-defense is something that will exonerate Kyle Rittenhouse and whether this case goes to the jury or whether the Judge dismisses some of the charges on his own or whether the Judge grants a mistrial, this young man will be acquitted and exonerated.

What has happened here is there was a rush to judgment in this case. This kid who was, you know a fire cadet, a lifeguard, and a police explorer, he was a kid who went there to clean graffiti. They have video of it.

He went there to help people. He was a medic. He was CPR trained, and he finds himself in this situation. He's got a gun, and in every circumstance he is -- and it is corroborated by what the witnesses say. The prosecution's star witness, the one who isn't dead, basically said, yes, I was lunging at him and I had a loaded gun and I was aiming at him.

I mean, they established the case right there. As a Judge, I would say, hey, come up to the sidebar here. What are we doing here guys?

But what you had was a rush to judgment in August of 2020. We are in the post-George Floyd world, Jacob Blake had just been shot. Everybody wanted to make sure that you know, that everyone was prosecuted.

This kid was prosecuted when the evidence was clear that he was defending himself.

Now, once the burden of proof has shifted, once he claimed self-defense, the prosecution has to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why the prosecution is desperate right now. They are on the ropes. The reason they're on the ropes is they cannot disprove beyond a reasonable doubt based on the drone, the video, the testimony of the prosecution's star witness, and the incredibly focused testimony of this young man.

He may only be 18, but I'll tell you, in all the years I prosecuted myself and tried cases as a Judge, this kid in every point never lost his cool. Sure he cried, he never got angry. He said, all I wanted to do was stop the threat. I wasn't interested in in killing people, it was not my intent.

He knew what he was doing. He knew how to handle a gun, and the whole course of -- the whole force of the justice system from the President on down to the mainstream media calling him a vigilante, a white supremacist, a militia man. I mean, this is what happens in our society when police are told to stand down, when no one is there to protect businesses.

Police were nowhere around there. This guy, Rosenbaum, you had his number, Tucker. He was someone who was looking for trouble. He was -- they were yelling "Cranium him," which means, shoot him in the head. They were chasing him. They were trying to kill him with a skateboard.

And the prosecution is saying, oh kill you with a skateboard. That deserves the lethal force. It sure does, when you hold it like a baseball bat and you hit me in the head with it. I mean, come on.

Why this case went forward? Why there wasn't a plea bargain of some sort? But this will end up, I think a good thing for Kyle Rittenhouse.

CARLSON: I hope so. Yes, the convicted child monster who is out of the mental hospital. That's who they're defending.

Judge Jeanine, great to see you tonight. Thank you very much.

PIRRO: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So there's a lot going on tonight between Russia and Ukraine. Most Americans may not be aware of that, but some Members of Congress believe U.S. troops should be dispatched to the region.

I'll speak to one of them after the break.

Plus, you can get access to our Originals documentaries free for 90 days and it includes "Patriot Purge." Go to tuckercarlson.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: So there is a tense and escalating situation tonight on the fringes of Europe. American officials say the Russian military -- and it appears to be true -- is massing forces on the Ukrainian border. Now in response to this, a group of 15 Republican Congressmen has written a letter to Joe Biden. The letter demands the administration send troops to Ukraine.

Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio is one of the signatories of that letter and he joins us tonight.

Congressman, thanks so much for coming on so.

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Tucker, thank you so much for bringing attention to this issue.

This is one that the mainstream media is not going to be reporting and it's incredibly important for people to understand what Russia is doing and really the threat to the United States and the threat to the United States allies.

CARLSON: Well, that's kind of the force of my question. My first one is, I mean, there a lot of military families that watch this show. You've called for sending American troops to Ukraine, to the region as you put it.

I wonder if you could explain to them why it is in America's interest as their kids risk their lives in Ukraine?

TURNER: Sure. Yes, well there's a couple things which I'm certain you're aware of, Tucker, that the United States signed with Russia and Ukraine a treaty in Budapest guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for them during the dismantling of the Soviet Union of giving up nuclear weapons of not being a nuclear weapon state.

And in Bucharest NATO Summit, we also agreed with our NATO allies that Ukraine, which is an ally to NATO would receive a pathway to NATO.

Russia sees Ukraine as importantly strategic because it's also the pipelines to give gas to Europe that they're trying to bypass with respect to building Nord Stream 2. As you know, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and taken Crimea, which they've militarized and there are likely very advanced nuclear weapons there.

We already have troops in Ukraine. The issue of our letter is to raise the importance so that people understand that we're about ready to see debacle number two of the Biden administration. You know, we all think of Afghanistan and that's really coming out of this. China and Russia are going to be more adventuresome as a result of the failures of the administration.

But when you think of Afghanistan, you think of those planes leaving and people running toward those planes, people falling to their death, and as you know, Tucker, if those planes were Russian, no one would -- Russian -- no one would be running toward them. This is the idea of America, of democracy, of freedom. We pride of our democracy.

CARLSON: But may I just ask really quick, so --

TURNER: And it is certainly one that is an ally of ours.

CARLSON: So the lesson of 20 years in Afghanistan and the tragic and cowardly and counterproductive exit from Afghanistan is that we need more troops in Ukraine? I don't -- so why should the average American care about the territorial integrity of Ukraine, sincerely?

TURNER: Okay, so Ukraine is of strategic import of the Black Sea. Most of the reports that you've been -- we're seeing of Russia being aggressive with our ships, aggressive with our planes, are in the area of the Black Sea which is an important area for us and our NATO allies.

Four countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey all border it, of which we have reciprocal defense agreements. Now, we've not asked anybody to go to war with Russia or to send troops to Russia for Ukraine for the purposes of going to war with Russia, but it is incredibly important that they be providing lethal weapons, that they be providing Intelligence so that Ukraine has an ability to defend itself.

CARLSON: But why is it incredibly important to Americans? I mean, I know from Ukrainian perspective, it's incredibly important, but why is it important enough to risk American lives to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine, when by the way our own territorial integrity has been flagrantly violated by a million foreign nationals coming in over the past 10 months?

TURNER: Sure.

CARLSON: I wonder why the emphasis on Ukraine's borders and not ours.

TURNER: Well, I think everyone has emphasis on our borders, Tucker, but certainly, I think you would understand --

CARLSON: Have you called for American troops to our borders?

TURNER: That the important -- everyone has called for American troops.

CARLSON: Reallly?

TURNER: That is on our side, Tucker, but I think what you're missing here is ...

CARLSON: I haven't heard anybody say that.

TURNER: ... the fact that because the President has failed in Afghanistan, both Russia and China are looking at threatening their neighbors including Taiwan, including Ukraine, countries that are important to both our allies and to the strategic importance of the areas in which they are.

What we've asked for is don't be Obama. You have to recall, Tucker that when Ukraine was invaded and Crimea fell, Obama sent blankets to President Poroshenko in Ukraine. He came to the House floor joint session of Congress and he begged for lethal weapons to be able to defend his own country against Russia.

He said, I can't defend my country with blankets. That's what we've said is, make certain that we give them what they need. Give them Intelligence, give them lethal weapons. Give them assistance. Give them guidance because it's important.

CARLSON: But why would we -- why but why would we take Ukraine -- but hold on, why would we take Ukraine's side and not Russia's side? A sincere question. If you're looking for the American perspective --

TURNER: We are already on Ukraine's side.

CARLSON: No, but why? I mean, who's got the energy reserves? Who is the major player in world affairs? Who is the potential counterbalance against China which is the actual threat? Why would we take Ukraine's side? Why wouldn't we have Russia's side?

I don't -- I'm totally confused.

TURNER: Well, clearly, maybe if you get out a map and you look to see where the Black Sea is and Bulgaria and Romania -- Romania where we have our missile defense system.

CARLSON: Right.

TURNER: Greece and Turkey, the entrance to the Black Sea and then from there, you look at what the conflicts have already been in Russia's areas there. Ukraine is a democracy, Russia is an authoritarian regime that is seeking to impose its will upon a validly elected democracy in Ukraine and we're on the side of democracy, that's why people were chasing those planes in Afghanistan and wouldn't be chasing Russian ones.

We are for democracy, we're for liberty. We're not for authoritarian regimes coming in and changing borders by tanks. Russia isn't showing up on the border with ballot boxes. They are showing up on the border with tanks, and that's why we need to make certain we're on the side of democracy and give the aid that's necessary so we don't have another Obama sending blankets to a country that's being invaded.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I -- yes, I am for democracy in other countries, I guess, but I'm really for America.

TURNER: Sure you are.

CARLSON: And I just think that our interest is in counter-balancing the actual threat, which is China and the only other country with any throw weight that might help us do that is Russia and our continuation of the Cold War has pushed Russia toward China and that does not serve our interest in any way, does it? Or maybe it does in the way that I kind of see it.

TURNER: Okay, so you have to understand this is not a Cold War. This is a Hot War. Russia has already invaded Ukraine and has taken Crimea and annexed it and militarized it. It's not like we have somehow resolved that.

CARLSON: But how did that affect -- wait hold on. So, I'm glad you pointed that out.

TURNER: They have militarized it.

CARLSON: Like so how did that hurt America exactly? So, they came into Crimea. I guess, I'm against that.

TURNER: You are and they militarized it.

CARLSON: But I didn't notice a detectable decline in American living standards.

TURNER: And brought in advanced weaponry systems.

CARLSON: Okay, but why do I care again?

TURNER: The issue -- you care because what Russia is doing is they are rebuilding their area access of denial with Kaliningrad, Crimea, and Syria to fortify what they had when they had the Warsaw Pact countries which many of which now are in NATO and are headed towards NATO, so that we can make certain that liberty and democracy is strengthened.

You should be against, as I'm sure you are, Tucker, any country using tanks to invade another and putting their will on that country and changing that country's border, that's what they have done and that's what they are doing.

CARLSON: Yes, academically I am, but I mean, you know there are a lot of priorities on the map here.

Last question, so you sent this letter to President Biden asking for the commitment of American troops to a foreign country.

TURNER: We did not. And you've misread the letter because what it says it actually tells specifically we're not saying send troops into Ukraine. We said make certain that there is a military presence in the area so we can provide aid to Ukraine in two important areas, Intelligence. If we have troops in the air, we can watch, we know what happens, we know what Russia is doing.

The second is lethal weapons so that Ukraine can defend itself. No one is suggesting --

CARLSON: I got it. Send lawyers, guns and money. I totally got it.

TURNER: And none of the Members of Congress suggest that anybody should go to war in Ukraine with Russia. No one, and the letter does not say that either.

CARLSON: Well, I'll let our -- our viewers can pull up the letter on the internet and reach their own conclusions. That's not the conclusion I reached, but have you --

TURNER: They can go to my website. I'll put it up. I'll put it up, Tucker. They can read it there.

CARLSON: Absolutely, but final question, our democracy is undermined when people come from other countries and that devalues the vote of the people who already live here, so that's an attack on our democracy. A democracy has to have defendable borders.

TURNER: Tucker, I am not --

CARLSON: So where is the American military presence?

TURNER: The Biden administration --

CARLSON: Where are -- but where are the Republicans demanding that we send the 101st or whatever it takes to close the border? I've never heard anybody say that. They're all whipped up about Crimea.

TURNER: Hey, Tucker unlike your anti-Trump friend, J.D. Vance, I supported Donald Trump in closing the border including defending him in his impeachment trial, which you yourself reported and that border was being closed on the policies that we had under Donald Trump, which I supported when I supported Donald Trump.

CARLSON: Actually, actually, you wrote a letter to Trump --

TURNER: So, I don't know why you're talking to me on the border --

CARLSON: No, no. Whoa, whoa.

TURNER: I'm with you on this, Tucker.

CARLSON: Now, we're getting factual here, and I don't want to be mean, but you wrote a letter to Trump in which you said yes, protect the border, but make certain that we don't in any way take troops or materiel from our foreign commitments and bring them to the border. You said that in your letter and so, I just thought that's just a different perspective.

TURNER: Donald Trump sent lethal weapons and Intelligence. I said, I'm a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

CARLSON: Yes.

TURNER: What I've asked for in that letter, Donald Trump did.

CARLSON: Oh yes, No, I'm aware. I thought it was stupid then. I think it's stupid now.

TURNER: The Obama administration did not and we believe that this administration is likely not to and what I love about the fact that you brought attention to this is because the mainstream media is going to let Russia invade Ukraine without anybody knowing. They're not going to know --

CARLSON: Right.

TURNER: That the Biden administration had options on the table, things they could have done and they could have done right now which are not sending troops to Ukraine and fight for --

CARLSON: Right, but that's not quite as pressing as Hondurans invading Texas.

TURNER: And the Biden administration, this is going to be another --

CARLSON: Which is maybe a little more imminent for most of us. That's my only point. We have an invasion going on right now, a million people bigger than the population of Boston or Denver or Washington, D.C., and we're all like, oh no, no big deal. That's a big deal in my view.

TURNER: Tucker, I don't know who you're arguing with here because I'm on your side on all of those issues except apparently you need a little education on Ukraine. I'd be glad to send you some stuff on it.

CARLSON: Well, I appreciate it, Congressman. Thank you.

TURNER: Donald Trump thought it was important and I supported Donald Trump's policies there.

CARLSON: Amen. Congressman, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Thank you very much.

TURNER: Thank you.

CARLSON: So really, kind of the last point in the Bill of Rights, the last constitutional right they haven't messed with yet is the Second Amendment. Now we learn the administration is cracking down on tens of millions of gun owners across the country by secretly amassing a database of their names.

How is this legal? We'll speak to someone who knows details, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, here's the story for you. The Biden administration apparently has secretly amassed a database of more than 50 million gun owners in this country, they are not supposed to be doing that. "The Washington Free Beacon" obtained A.T.F. documents that show they are collecting and storing records on private gun transactions, it looks like to build a database of gun owners.

That is the nightmare scenario. Again, they're not supposed to be doing that.

Antonia Okafor is a spokesman for Gun Owners of America. Antonia joins us now. Thanks so much for coming on. So this is again, exactly what they're not supposed to be doing. It's a threat to our constitutional right. Tell us what we know about it.

ANTONIA OKAFOR, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: Yes, well, Gun Owners of America has obtained information from an inside source from the A.T.F. actually, and shown that the A.T.F. has actually been holding on to these records, like you said 49 million records from people who have been part of out of business gun stores who essentially have been able to buy the guns and then also have information that has to do with the guns itself.

And so unfortunately, if A.T.F. has had this opportunity to, of course get these firearms through or firearm information through the law of the last few years, they have 20 years to do so because of the law they have right now.

But what the Biden administration is trying to do right now is to extend that where 100 percent of these gun owners are going to be able to be obtained for their records and collected so they can use that to essentially continue a gun registration. And of course, gun registration goes on to gun confiscation, of course.

CARLSON: Of course it does, inevitably, that's the entire point of it. So in other words, people who obeyed the law went for the background check with the assurance that their names would not be entered into a database, their private information would not be kept by creepy politicians who wanted to end the Bill of Rights. Those people have been betrayed.

OKAFOR: Absolutely, and like you said before, this is unconstitutional. I mean, it's not very hard for most people to know that the A.T.F. putting any type of infringement obviously shall not be infringed is in our Second Amendment is unconstitutional and shows -- this is just showing that the Biden administration has worked very hard to make sure that law abiding citizens, gun owners who are just trying to do the right thing, who are trying to protect themselves and their family, that they're considered the criminals here and they're doing everything in their power to make it harder for us to access firearms and do it the legal way.

CARLSON: Even as they drop cases against people who use guns illegally, which is the most amazing part of it.

OKAFOR: Right. Absolutely.

CARLSON: Antonia Okafor, Gun Owners of America. Thanks for coming on tonight.

OKAFOR: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: We told before the show, there was so much that happened today in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. It's hard to process at all, it really told you a lot about the society and the justice system and where we're going.

Our friend, Laura Ingraham was glued to it. She is an attorney among many other things. She joins us next to make sense of what we saw.

By the way, you can get official merchandise -- official -- tuckercarlson.com, whatever that is. Click "shop" during the break if you like. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We saw an amazing trial today as we told you at the open. When Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand, he described the moment that a convicted pedophile, a child rapist -- no exaggeration, you can read it online -- Joseph Rosenbaum was his name. Rosenbaum threatened to kill him. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RITTENHOUSE: Mr. Rosenbaum was walking with a steel chain and he had a blue mask around his face, and he was just mad about something. I mean, me and Mr. Balch were asking people if they needed medical help. And then he screamed -- sorry for my language. He screamed, "If I catch any of you [bleep] alone, I'm going to [bleep] kill you."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It's a nightmare scenario. Rosenbaum then chased Kyle Rittenhouse, grabbed him, tried to pull his gun away. Amazing.

So how do we assess this? Well, Laura Ingraham is a white collar criminal defense attorney, and so we thought she'd be the perfect person to turn to She joins us now. Hey, Laura.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Hey, Tucker, former, but you know I'm a recovering lawyer. But this was wild. I mean, this entire case from the beginning, you knew it, I knew -- anyone with a pair of eyes knew what happened.

Rittenhouse was under threat of imminent bodily harm. He was obviously totally justified in using lethal force to defend himself, but apparently in the new world we live in, if you're a counter protester or an observer at a left-wing mob or riot, you actually have to allow yourself to be shot if you are threatened, even if you're threatened with severe imminent bodily harm.

Apparently, that's the situation that the left prefers this scenario to play out as. But in the real world, we actually do have judges and juries that can see the facts dispassionately for themselves and it looks like this case is certainly going against this prosecutor.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, it looks like Rosenbaum tried to touch the wrong minor, in this case. So, this video has been out for more than a year. I know that you assessed it. There was never -- if we're being honest, there was never really a question about what happened, was there?

INGRAHAM: No, there was never a question about what happened from the beginning, but there seems to be a pattern here, Tucker. With every major institution, whether it's public health, the F.B.I., our universities, everything that the left burrows into, becomes political. Even the U.S. military leadership, which you have documented on your show in so many ways.

Everything is political, like facts don't matter. COVID, political. Facts don't matter. Natural immunity, doesn't matter. The goal is always an ideological one.

CARLSON: That's right.

INGRAHAM: And the media is ideological, so, they drive that narrative. And then at some point, later on, you learn the truth. Remember, Nick Sandmann, same deal. You learned the truth ultimately about him, and what he did not do to that Native American gentleman he was standing and just looking at. That that was his offense, looking at someone.

CARLSON: It's making me less ideological. I mean, you've got to care about the physical reality. If it's degrading around you, you have to try and fix it.

And speaking of that, California, our biggest state is degrading and you have done a new special for FOX Nation, on it called "California on the Edge." I'm grateful that you did. What did you find?

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, there's a lot to be in despair about in California. I know you've documented some of this. So, we went into from north to south and went into some of the most distressed neighborhoods, but talk beyond just the current crime to the small business owners who are trying to still make a living there, they haven't abandoned it yet. Their stories are shocking, enlightening.

And yet there's moments of hope, too, Tucker, with police officers who are still sticking it out, trying to do the right thing. And I feature a couple of these incredible people doing community safety partnerships, and actually forging relationships with African-American women who are like matriarchs of entire neighborhoods.

Miss Greene is someone everyone would like to learn more about in "California on the Edge," her story is amazing and we feature that as well.

CARLSON: Where any of these people at the Getty Wedding in San Francisco last weekend? Or was that just the Governor?

INGRAHAM: That was just the Governor and other people who prefer to go maskless when the cameras -- they think the cameras aren't rolling.

CARLSON: It's beyond belief. I'm going to watch this. What happens in California, which is the prettiest place on Planet Earth, that's just true, it really matters, I think to the rest of us. So thank you for doing this. Laura Ingraham, thanks.

INGRAHAM: Great to see you, Tucker.

CARLSON: You can watch Laura's new special "California on the Edge" right now on FOX Nation. As we've told you, you can get 90 days free of FOX Nation. Just go to tuckercarlson.com.

A lot going on tonight. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Remember Jacob Chansley, the Chewbacca guy, the QAnon Shaman, the guy who wandered in the psilocybin haze peacefully through the Capitol in January. Well, he's been in jail for 10 months. His crime, walking around the Senate on January 6th.

The Biden administration has made a major decision in that case. FOX's Kevin Corke is bringing us that story.

Hey, Kevin.

KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Tucker. Fifty one months, that's has just over four years behind bars and that is what prosecutors have called for Jacob Chansley, the so-called QAnon Shaman for being part of the riot at the Capitol back on January the 6th.

Now, if the Judge does grant that term, it would be the longest sentence yet handed down to any individual ensnared by the fallout.

Notably, I should point this out, Tucker, the government doesn't allege any assault or an attack on any individual or even property, just his prominence as the main reason for asking for such a severe sanction. Quote, "The severity of his actions and the respect for the laws of this country must be impressed upon him." The government went on to say this, "The government cannot overstate the seriousness of the defendant's conduct as one of the most prominent figures of the historic riot on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021."

Now, in addition to unlawfully entering the building, the government accuses him of using social media to incite the mob and marching around the Capitol with a spear. Chansley's lawyers note his remorse. They say it's been sincere, and they also note his history of mental illness in solitary confinement, which has been in there for quite a while, they're asking for leniency -- Tucker

CARLSON: Kevin Corke, thank you so much.

CORKE: You bet.

CARLSON: Completely insane. Completely insane. A guy shoots up a school in Fort Worth, gets out in one day. Okay.

That's it for us tonight. Kevin Corke, thank you.

We will be back tomorrow 8:00 p.m. In the meantime, the Great Sean Hannity takes over now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 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.