'Tucker Carlson Tonight' on revolution against 'woke universe'

This is a rush transcript of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on June 15, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

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

TONIGHT. 

This weekend, police in Columbus, Georgia arrested the 39-year-old man 

called Justin Tyran Roberts. Over the course of a single day, Roberts shot 

five separate people in two different states. We know this happened because 

Roberts has admitted he did it. He also said why he did it. 

In his confession, police say Roberts quote, " ... explained that 

throughout his life, specifically white males had taken from him, so he 

decided to kill them." In one case, Roberts walked up behind a white man, a 

total stranger as he was getting out of his car and shot him in the back. 

By any definition these were crimes of viciousness motivated by race hate. 

They are not unique in this country, not by a longshot. If we wanted to, 

and we don't want to, we could do a whole show on crimes like these -- nor 

are they especially surprising, really, when you think about it. 

If you really believed what the Democratic Party and BLM were telling you 

that white males are intentionally destroying the world, you might be 

motivated to hurt someone. Why wouldn't you? What's striking is how little 

attention Justin Tyran Roberts's shooting spree has received. Imagine if 

the colors were reversed here. Roberts will be leading every newscast 

tonight. 

Needless to say, he is not. In fact, this may be the last time you hear his 

name on television. And on one level honestly, that is fine with us. 

Picking at the wound -- America's wound -- is unwise. We've always thought 

that. We think it more now than ever. 

A multiracial country can only survive if it self-consciously de-emphasizes 

race, if it treats every person as an individual and not a member of some 

larger group that's guilty or innocent. So, that shouldn't be the goal, 

that's our history and we ought to get back to it as soon as we can. 

But that is exactly the opposite of what our leaders are doing. They are 

working hard to divide us into warring camps and they're using lies to do 

it. They're telling us a story that is completely and very much 

intentionally disconnected from reality. 

They are claiming that something called white supremacy -- and that's a 

term they never defined -- is the single greatest threat we face, a greater 

threat than al Qaeda or ISIS. 

Here's our thoroughly craven Attorney General telling us that very lie 

today. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL:  In the F.B.I.'s view, the top 

domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically 

motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate it for the 

superiority of the white race. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  All right, that's the Attorney General of the United States 

making a statement of fact, backed up by the F.B.I., so, it's fair to ask 

obvious questions. Who exactly are these violent white supremacists? What 

are their names? What crimes under the U.S. Code have they committed? We 

still don't know. Merrick Garland didn't tell us today. 

Instead, he spent most of his time talking about the riot at the Capitol on 

January 6th, an event that had nothing whatsoever to do with race. Nothing. 

But Merrick Garland lied about that. He, like most people you see on 

television, wants you to believe and wants history to record that January 

6th was an attempted insurrection by white supremacists revolutionaries 

bent on taking over this country. 

"We came this close," Merrick Garland said and that's why, quote, "We must 

adopt a broader societal response to tackle the problem's deeper roots." 

So, because of January 6th says the chief law enforcement officer in the 

United States of America and many other members of Joe Biden's Cabinet, we 

must now use law enforcement and military force to arrest, imprison, and 

otherwise crush anyone who leads opposition to Joe Biden's government. 

That's their position. They say that out loud, they did today. 

So, what is this exactly? Well, it's a big change in the way the United 

States government assesses and then treats its own citizens. We are living 

through the transformation of a formerly Democratic Republic into something 

else. We're looking at growing authoritarianism. That's not an 

overstatement. 

Vladimir Putin knows authoritarian systems very well, and he sees clearly 

what is happening in this country. Watch this. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

QUESTION:  Did you order Alexei Navalny's assassination? 

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator):  Of course not. We 

don't have this kind of habit of assassinating anybody. That's one. Number 

two is, I want to ask you, did you order the assassination of the woman who 

walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman? 

Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering the Congress 

and they didn't go there to steal a laptop? They came with political 

demands. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Okay, so yes, we just played tape of Vladimir Putin. Under normal 

circumstances, we would never play tape of a foreign adversary criticizing 

our government. But honestly, those are fair questions. Who did shoot Ashli 

Babbitt? And why don't we know? 

Are anonymous Federal agents now allowed to kill unarmed women who protest 

the regime? That's okay now? No, it's not okay. It'll never be okay. 

And why are all those January 6th protesters still in prison on trespassing 

charges as so many Biden voters who torched Federal buildings walking free? 

What's the answer to that question? If all of that was going on in Russia, 

we would rightly call it scary. We would call Putin a dictator. In fact, we 

do call him a dictator. 

And speaking of January 6th, why are there still so many things, basic 

factual matters that we don't understand about that day. Why is the Biden 

administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration still 

hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol on 

January 6th? What could possibly be the reason for that? Even as they call 

for more openness, we need to get to the bottom of it. They could release 

those tapes today, but they're not. 

Why? 

We ought to be asking those questions urgently because as the Attorney 

General reminded us today, a lot depends on the answers. 

At least one news organization is asking that, "Revolver News." It's a new 

site. It turned out to be one of the last honest outlets on the internet. A 

new piece on revolver.news suggests an answer to some of these questions. 

We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement 

officers who were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one 

who killed Ashli Babbitt. 

According to the government's own court filings, those law enforcement 

officers participated in the riot, sometimes in violent ways. We know that 

because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who 

were present in the Capitol on January 6th. There was a nationwide dragnet 

to find them, and many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight. 

But strangely, some of the key people who participated on January 6th have 

not been charged. Look at the document. The government calls those people 

unindicted co-conspirators. What does that mean? Well, it means that in 

potentially every single case, they were F.B.I. operatives. Really in the 

Capitol on January 6th? 

For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government 

documents identify only as Person 2. According to those documents, Person 2 

stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell, an 

insurrectionist. A man alleged to be a member of the group, the Oath 

Keepers. 

Person 2 also quote, "stormed" the barricades at the Capitol on January 6th 

alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government's indictments further indicate 

the Caldwell, who by the way is a 65-year-old man is a dangerous 

insurrectionist, was led to believe there would be a quote, "quick reaction 

force" also participating on January 6th. 

That quick reaction force Caldwell was told would be led by someone called 

Person 3 who had a hotel room and an accomplice with him. But wait, here's 

the interesting thing. Person 2 and Person 3 were organizers of the riot. 

The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. 

Why is that? 

You know why. They were almost certainly working for the F.B.I. So, F.B.I. 

operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th 

according to government documents, and those two are not alone. In all, 

"Revolver News" reported there are, quote, "upwards of 20 unindicted co-

conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in 

the conspiracy who have not been charged for virtually the exact same 

activities, and in some cases, much, much more severe activities as those 

named alongside them in the indictments." 

Huh? So it turns out that this white supremacist insurrection was, again by 

the government's own admission in these documents organized, at least in 

part by government agents. Are you shocked? We are shocked, we shouldn't be 

shocked. Because in March, the F.B.I. Director admitted that the Bureau was 

infiltrating as many dissident groups that opposed the regime as it 

possibly can. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN):  There must be moments where you think if we 

would have known, if we could have infiltrated this group or found out what 

they were doing and that -- do you have those moments? 

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, F.B.I. DIRECTOR:  So anytime there's an attack, 

especially one that's this horrific that strikes right at the heart of our 

system of government, right at the time a transfer of power is being 

discussed, you can be darn tooting that we are focused very, very hard on 

how can we get better sources, better information, better analysis, so that 

we can make sure that something like what happened on January 6th never 

happens again. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Oh, wait a second. There's a huge difference between using an 

informant to find out what a group you find threatening might do and paying 

people to help organize a violent action, which is what happened apparently 

according to government documents on January 6th. That's a line and the 

F.B.I. has crossed it and it's not the first time they crossed that line. 

In Michigan, remember that plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer? We 

heard a lot about that. And Whitmer was able to cover some of her own 

incompetence, though not all, by pointing to the fact that she is now a 

victim. 

Now, when the F.B.I. is telling if that plot, a whole team of 

insurrectionists was going to drive a van up to Gretchen Whitmer's vacation 

house and throw her in the back and drive away. The mastermind of this 

plot, according to the F.B.I. was a man called Adam Fox. Who is Adam Fox? 

Adam Fox turned out to be a homeless guy who was living in the basement of 

a vacuum repair shop, quite a gorilla. 

The whole story was a farce. It was insulting, really, once you got to the 

details, which outlets like the AP didn't bother with in the first read. 

But if you read the government's charging documents carefully, and you 

should, you will see that it gets even more ridiculous. 

It turns out that one of the five people in the plan of Gretchen Whitmer 

kidnap van was an F.B.I. agent in the van. Another was an F.B.I. informant. 

And the Feds admitted in these documents that an informant or undercover 

agent was quote, "usually present in the group's meetings." In other words, 

using simple math, which we can do even on cable news, nearly half the gang 

of kidnappers were working for the F.B.I. 

Remember, the guy who suggested using a bomb to blow up a bridge as part of 

that plot? That got a lot of coverage. That guy was an undercover F.B.I. 

agent. Oh, okay. 

So, if you're wondering why they are always comparing January 6th to 9/11, 

there's your answer. They're using the same tactics, and a lot of us miss 

this the first time around and you are due an apology and we're proffering 

on television right now. 

We didn't see the obvious. If you empower the government to violate civil 

liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization, and there are 

foreign terror organizations, it's just a matter of time before ambitious 

politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent, and 

that's what we're seeing now. 

We should have seen it earlier. Trevor Aaronson wrote a book on this called 

"The Terror Factory," and it analyzed every terror prosecution from 2001 to 

2013. Aaronson found that at least 50 defendants were on trial because of 

behavior that the F.B.I. had not only encouraged, but enabled. F.B.I. 

agents were essentially the plotters in these crimes, they made the crimes, 

crimes. 

In 2012, a writer for "The Nation" called Petra Bartosiewicz found that 

F.B.I. agents had, quote, "Crossed the line for merely observing potential 

criminal behavior," which, by the way, is allowed and good to -- and we're 

quoting, " ... encouraging people and assisting people to participate in 

plots that are largely scripted by the F.B.I. itself," end quote. 

And we checked, we looked carefully and that's not an exaggeration. I wish 

it were. 

One of those plots was an Islamic terror attack in 2015 in Garland, Texas. 

It turns out that an F.B.I. employee played an active role in that 

shooting. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR (voice over):  The F.B.I. was much closer to 

the Garland attack than anyone realized. 

COOPER (on camera): After the trial, you've discovered that the government 

knew a lot more about the Garland attack than they had led on. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. Yes, after the trial, we found out that 

they had had an undercover agent who had been texting with Simpson less 

than three weeks before the attack to tear up Texas, which to me was an 

encouragement to Simpson. 

COOPER (voice over): The man he is talking about was a special agent of 

the F.B.I., working undercover posing as an Islamic radical. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Man, so they're doing that to Islamic radicals. What are they 

doing to American citizens? That should really worry you? 

In a moment of uncharacteristic honesty, a former F.B.I. Assistant Director 

called Frank Figliuzzi explained the other day on MSNBC, the goal is to 

round up people who dissent against the regime and throw them into solitary 

and that's including Members of Congress. Watch this. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER F.B.I. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR:  What have we learned 

from our experience with international terrorism? In order to address that 

problem of arresting low level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a 

roadblock, in order to really tackle terrorism in this time domestically, 

you've got to attack and dismantle the command and control element of a 

terrorist group. That may mean people sitting in Congress right now. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Round up sitting members, duly democratically elected Members of 

Congress because they oppose the regime? Even Vladimir Putin is not doing 

that. And there's a former assistant director the F.B.I. calling for it on 

television and no one noticed. 

So, we're rounding people up. How about rounding up the F.B.I. operatives 

that rioted on January 6th? Why not identify the guy who shot Ashli Babbitt 

to death? This is crazy, and we should resist it. 

Darren Beattie heads up "Revolver News." We're glad to see him tonight. 

Darren, thanks so much for coming on. It sounds like according to this, I 

have to say remarkable piece that you've just put up late last night. Read 

it in bed at midnight -- that the F.B.I. was organizing the riots of 

January 6th. 

DARREN BEATTIE, "REVOLVER NEWS":  Well, yes, it certainly suggests that 

possibility, and I'm hearing from people that this is the most important 

and the darkest investigative piece they've seen in years. 

But the American people deserve the truth about 01/06, not just for the 

sake of Ashli Babbitt, not just for the sake of the hundreds of people held 

in prison, unjustly as a violation of human rights, but for the sake of the 

70 plus million people who are Trump supporters, or just against the 

corrupt ruling class, who have effectively been labeled de facto domestic 

extremists by our own government. 

And I believe the key that unlocks the truth to 01/06 is the following 

question: to what extent were the main militia groups imputed to the 01/06 

so-called Capitol siege, to what extent was there infiltration of those 

groups by undercover agents or informants? And to what extent when we see 

the unindicted co-conspirators who occupy senior positions in those groups 

-- to what extent are those people being spared prosecution on account of a 

prior relationship with the Federal government? 

Those two questions create a thread. And when we pull that thread, the ugly 

truth of that event, and perhaps even the country we live in, will be 

exposed. 

CARLSON:  I've got to ask because it may answer one of the great mysteries 

is this -- I think, there are 14,000 hours of unreleased video footage from 

that day the administration is hiding from us. Do you think this is why? 

BEATTIE:  I think that's certainly a possibility. It's extremely suspicious 

even going back to this so-called pipe bomber video. Remember the pipe 

bomber? The Capitol pipe bomber? The F.B.I. has been extremely suspicious 

in withholding evidence -- video evidence -- that could help and identify 

this bomber, which presumably they want to do. 

But if you may, I'd like to make a general point, and it really -- after 

seeing all this, you have to ask yourself, does the national security 

apparatus do anything but conspire against the American people? I'm led to 

conclude that we cannot have a democracy, everything in our politics will 

be fake and performative until we bring the national security state 

including the F.B.I. to heel. It's not a left issue. It's not a right 

issue. 

Every politician who cares about our country should demand a Church 

Committee 2.0. 

CARLSON: Immediately and people of good faith on the left should join it, 

immediately. 

Darren Beattie, I appreciate your coming on tonight and the work you do at revolver.news. Thank you. 

BEATTIE:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  We warned about the crime wave that's threatening to destroy 

Buckhead in Atlanta. It was once a very nice place to live. Just the other 

day, a person was shot for jogging in an unprovoked attack. The wife of 

that man joins us next to explain what happened. We'll be right back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  Equity is not equality, equity is replacing equality. The City of 

Seattle is so excited about this, it has established something called the 

Equitable Development Division. We're now learning that the person in 

charge of that division is a lunatic. FOX's Trace Gallagher has that story 

for us tonight. Hey, Trace. 

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT:  Hi Tucker, Ubax Gardheere 

is a Somali immigrant and social justice advocate who, as you say, now 

works for the City of Seattle and is running as a progressive candidate for 

the King County Council. 

But 11 years ago, Gardheere, who was then a young mother of two, threatened 

to blow up a school bus filled with kids. Court documents viewed by FOX 

News along with audio recording show that in January 2010, Gardheere was 

riding on a school bus and told the driver quoting, "A national security 

incident was going on." When the driver told her to get off the bus, she 

started screaming at the kids about America's relationship with Somalia and 

told them quote, "You need to calm yourself down because I could have a 

bomb. Look how loose my clothes are." When the kids panicked and started 

fleeing through the exits. She called them "cowards." 

Now, she blames it all on mental health issues, but police reports, court 

documents, even her own statements at the time contradict that. She didn't 

want mental healthcare, she wanted to go to jail. And yet we should note 

several state and county politicians are now endorsing her candidacy. One 

state Democrat said quote, "She would follow Ubax anywhere." -- Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Trace Gallagher for us tonight. Thanks so much. 

GALLAGHER: Yes. 

CARLSON:  Blow up a school bus full of children. That's equity -- in a 

phrase. 

Well, last night we told you about the tragic collapse of a neighborhood 

called Buckhead in Northwestern Atlanta, a really nice place with really 

nice people. There are now constant shootings in Buckhead, thanks to the 

mayor of Atlanta. 

The mall, Lenox Square Mall is now off limits for people who want to remain 

uninjured. In fact, while our show was on the air last night talking about 

the Lenox Mall, a security guard was shot during a robbery at the Lenox 

Mall. You can look up the video online. It's horrifying. 

But criminals aren't simply terrorizing stores, they are also hurting 

residents, apparently at random. 

On June 5th, one man pulled alongside a resident called Andrew Worrell who 

was out for a jog. We played the 911 call yesterday, it's too upsetting to 

play again, especially in light of the fact that Andrew Worrell's wife, 

Anne, is joining us right now and we're happy that she is. 

Anne, thanks so much for coming on. We played that tape of your husband 

last night and we're going to play it again, but it's just -- it is awful, 

and I can't imagine how it makes you feel. Just sum up, if you would, for 

us what happened? 

ANNE WORRELL, WIFE OF ANDREW WORRELL, A JOGGER SHOT IN ATLANTA:  Well, he 

went out for, you know, his normal three--mile route, and he was about 

halfway through and he felt a car coming up alongside of him. And as the 

window came down, he saw a gun, and the guy just shot immediately. 

And he was stunned, and he shot him again. And Andrew took off and ran up a 

little hill behind a tree, and the guy took off and Andrew called 911. 

CARLSON:  It's such a bad -- it is a horrible thing, but it's also baffling 

because he apparently didn't know the guy. Had he seen the man before? 

WORRELL:  No complete stranger. 

CARLSON:  Is there any indication why the guy did it? 

WORRELL:  From what we understand, the suspect in custody does suffer from 

multiple mental health issues and he has been off of his medication. And 

people he knows have been trying to get him help, but he had a firearm and 

he should not have. 

CARLSON:  How's your husband doing? 

WORRELL:  He's okay. He is in a lot of pain still, getting around with a 

walker and started physical therapy yesterday, but he is -- you know, it's 

going to take a while and, you know, both physically and mentally. 

CARLSON:  So, you know, terrible things happen. The reason that we 

highlighted the tragedy that befell your husband yesterday was because 

they're happening a lot more in Buckhead, which is a really nice place with 

really nice people. Does this feel like part of a pattern to you? As 

someone who lives there? 

WORRELL:  It does. We've been saying for the past year, 18 months, that it 

just feels like it's creeping in closer and closer to the neighborhoods. I 

mean, it's been in Buckhead, but it just felt like it was getting closer 

and closer and I never imagined it would really be knocking on our door 

like this. 

But I think this is one reason why the citizens of Buckhead are so 

disturbed by this because we all feel violated. 

CARLSON:  Well, it's the most basic violation. It's your neighborhood, 

you're going for a run and some guy pulls up, doesn't like the way you look 

and shoots you. Are you encouraged to speak up about crime or do you feel 

social pressure to kind of stay silent? 

WORRELL:  No, I do feel like you know, since it's happened to us, then we 

need to be the next voice and you know, maybe this can be the catalyst for 

some change and some action in Atlanta and specifically Buckhead. 

CARLSON:  I sure hope you're right. I'm sure a lot of your neighbors are 

just getting up and moving to Florida. But you know, I don't live there, 

but my feeling is you should stay and make it what it was, which is a nice 

place, all kinds of people live in there, but in peace without crime. 

WORRELL: Exactly. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. Anne Worrell, I appreciate your coming on tonight, you 

may be criticized for it, but we're grateful that you did. 

WORRELL:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  So, it's been interesting and sad to watch the effect of the 

stifling conformity on artists, on people choose to create for living. All 

of a sudden, they can't create, they can only repeat robotically the same 

stupid partisan lines. We're speaking about you, Stephen Colbert. 

We have a tape that you've got to see, because it's amazing. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  Well, just the other day practically, you got kicked off the 

internet for suggesting the coronavirus may have come from a lab a few 

hundred feet away that was manipulating coronaviruses. All of a sudden, 

it's conventional wisdom. How conventional wisdom? Well, the most 

conventional man in American politics now believes it. 

Steven Colbert hosted Jon Stewart the other night. What's interesting is 

not what Stewart said, but how Stephen Colbert reacts to what he said. 

Watch this. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

STEPHEN COLBERT, TALK SHOW HOST:  There's a chance that this is created in 

a lab, there's investigation 

JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: A chance? 

COLBERT:  I think there is evidence, I'd love to hear it. I don't know. 

STEWART:  There is a novel respiratory Coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China. 

What do we do? Oh you know who we could ask the, Wuhan novel respiratory 

coronavirus lab. The disease is the same name as the lab. 

How did this happen and they're like? A pangolin kissed a turtle. 

[LAUGHTER] 

STEWART:  The only coronavirus we have is in Wuhan where they have a lab 

called -- what's the lab called again, Stephen? 

COLBERT:  The Wuhan novel coronavirus lab. 

STEWART:  I believe that's the case. 

COLBERT:  And how long have you worked for Senator Ron Johnson? 

[LAUGHTER] 

STEWART:  Let me tell you something -- 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  "How long have you worked for Senator Ron Johnson?" Ooh, what a 

brilliant retort. The sad thing is Stephen Colbert was talented, very 

talented at one point, but his brain has been so degraded and rotted by 

political orthodoxy. But that's all he can say. 

Thousands of his fans are in the same predicament. "Jon Stewart is a 

racist," one Twitter user wrote. Another complained that Jon Stewart, 

quote, "Using your time on to bad Colbert to badmouth science was a wasted 

opportunity." 

Badmouth science. Oh, Mr. Science is offended. The good news is that what 

Stewart said is probably true and it's good for people to hear that. It's 

good for people to watch HBO on Friday, I can't believe we're saying that 

as well. Watch this. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

BILL MAHER, TALK SHOW HOST:  California, we're back baby. June 15th. Yes. 

Maybe -- maybe we can stop this silly distancing and masking [bleep]. 

[LAUGHTER] 

MAHER:  Tuesday, California lifts its restrictions. Yes. 

[CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] 

MAHER:  I see not everyone applauding because that's true. A lot of people 

out here, a lot of people everywhere. I don't understand these people. They 

say they're going to continue to wear masks even after they sound the old 

clear. 

You're never going to have a 100 percent COVID-free atmosphere. Viruses 

always stay. There's a very -- yes, there's always variants. I can't 

guarantee everything, we just have to live again. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  What's interesting is that these comedians are following, not 

leading. Their job is to tell the truth before anyone else dares to. But 

now they're saying things that have been so obvious for the last year that 

they're finally safe to say them, so I guess we should be happy that people 

can sort of tell the truth once in a while on TV. 

Also, a little disappointed in their cowardice for waiting this long. 

Clay Travis has taken over for Rush Limbaugh on his spot. He and Buck 

Sexton, they host "The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show" and we're happy to 

have him on tonight. Clay, great to see you. So, it does seem like we're 

finally allowed a little bit of air to note a couple of obvious things. 

Progress? 

CLAY TRAVIS, HOST, "THE CLAY TRAVIS AND BUCK SEXTON SHOW":  Tucker, first, 

thanks for having me. Second, these guys, I think before long, Bill Maher 

and Jon Stewart, somebody slipped them a red pill, Tucker, and the next 

thing you know, you know, they're going to start getting accused of being 

FOX News viewers because they sound like somebody who has been hearing the 

truth for the past year as opposed to marinating in the absurdity that was 

the consensus opinion, Tucker. 

And here's what I would like to take as a glimmer of hope. Comedy is 

supposed to be about rebellion, it isn't supposed to be about enforcing the 

dogma of the political party that is empowered and finally, we're starting 

to see a little bit of rebellion from Bill Maher and from Jon Stewart, two 

smart guys that looked at all of the facts and finally are saying, you know 

what, the wool has been pulled over our eyes, it's time to stand up and 

start to puncture the reality of the majority party that is ruling with a 

lot of absurdity. 

This is the Emperor wears no clothes moment. To me, they definitely feel 

red pilled, and I love it. 

CARLSON:  So, you make such a good point that comedy, art more broadly, is 

supposed to be about rebellion. It is raising a middle finger in the face 

of the powerful and saying, I'm sorry, I have a special exemption to say 

what is absolutely true and everybody knows, and you can't do anything. 

I mean, how shameful is it that we wait a year and a half for someone to 

finally do that? I mean, I've been timing it this whole time. 

TRAVIS:  I've been waiting for it, Tucker. And I'm cautiously optimistic 

here that what is starting to happen is we are seeing a revolution against 

the woke universe and that is going to be led, I really believe this, by 

creative people, by artists who are going to say, wait a minute, you are 

constraining my ability to comment on the larger culture when you look at 

every one of my jokes and try to dissect it to see whether or not the 

Amherst faculty is happy with the joke that I have told, right? 

When all of this constraint occurs, what typically is going to be the 

response is a robust, or you know, just absolute embrace of creativity, and 

you can't be creative while being stifled within the bounds of what the 

left wing culture is creating. And I think what you're starting to see from 

Jon Stewart and from Bill Maher, Kevin Hart, I don't know if you saw the 

quotes that he had out there about how we can't do comedy in this current 

world -- Jerry Seinfeld. 

These are not people, these comedians, who are known to be you know 

particularly right-wing in nature, but what they embrace is freedom, and I 

think Tucker what we're starting to create here is a world where you're 

either for freedom and free thought, or you're against it, and comedians by 

their nature have to rebel against anyone who is opposed to free thought. 

CARLSON:  Man, I hope you're right, Clay Travis, and we spent the last year 

with not one thing -- not one thing has been created in this country. Not 

one thing, only destroyed. 

TRAVIS:  I know/ 

CARLSON:  And so the minute the creativity starts, I am for it. 

TRAVIS:  Hey, your show and FOX News in general -- your show and FOX News 

in general, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, giving these guys 

the space to make the arguments that they are making now, even if they 

consider FOX News viewers to be a pejorative insult, the reason why they 

can do that -- let me repeat this, too, Tucker because I think it's 

significant. All those people laughing in the Stephen Colbert audience, 

they would have been calling anybody who made the comments that Jon Stewart 

did over the past year, a conspiracy theorist, a right-wing zealot, an 

imbecile, and now they're enjoying the humor of the absurdity upon which 

they believed. 

CARLSON:  You make a good point. That's a better way to think of it, I 

think. Clay Travis, great to see you. 

TRAVIS:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  So "The Babylon Bee" started out as pretty funny and then evolved 

into the single best satire site on the entire internet. It's also by the 

way, a much more trustworthy news source than say "The New York Times" they 

didn't start a war in Iraq under false pretenses. "The New York Times" is 

actually admitting that finally in writing. We will show you the documents, 

next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  "The Babylon Bee" is a satire site. It started off pretty funny. 

Then, it got genuinely hilarious and incisive because it persisted in 

telling the truth. So, of course "The New York Times" hated that. 

"The New York Times" recently denounced "The Babylon Bee" as quote, "a far 

right misinformation site" that quote, "sometimes traffics in 

misinformation under the guise of satire." No humor allowed. "The Babylon 

Bee, to its everlasting credit did not take that sitting down. They 

threatened to sue "The New York Times" for saying it. 

"The Times's" lawyers wrote back admitting that actually "The New York 

Times" can be a source of disinformation, which it certainly is, and then 

this quote, "We've removed the reference to 'The Babylon Bee' from the 

article and appended a correction." 

Wow. Seth Dillon is the man who made that happen, who backed down "The New 

York Times" and is the CEO of "The Babylon Bee" and we are honored to have 

him join us tonight. Seth, thanks so much for coming on. 

I don't know what happened to your site, how it got so great. It was good. 

But then it got like amazing. But I didn't realize the huevos to go after 

"The New York Times" like good for you. Why did you do this? 

SETH DILLON, CEO, "THE BABYLON BEE":  Well, first, thank you for having me 

on your show and giving me a platform from which to misinform your millions 

of viewers, harmfully and maliciously. I really appreciate it -- sincerely. 

CARLSON:  Anytime. That's what we do. 

DILLON:  You know, we can't take this stuff laying down. We actually -- as 

satirists, we want to joke about this stuff. We want to just poke fun at 

"The New York Times." The problem is, like it or not, "The New York Times" 

is considered a reliable source. 

So you know, when the social networks are looking to decide who is satire, 

who is misinformation, who is fake news? 

CARLSON: Right. 

DILLON:  You know, they look to "The New York Times." The look to "Snopes." 

They look to CNN. And so when they're making these mischaracterizations 

about us, we have to take it seriously and we've got to come on and do it, 

even though we don't want to, we want to keep things light, we've got to 

send demand letters. We've got to threaten to sue because otherwise, we're 

going to get mischaracterized and we're going to get the boot from social 

media. 

CARLSON:  Oh, so it's not just a question of honor. This is not just a duel 

because they insulted you. This is a direct threat to your existence, to 

your business model, is what you're saying? 

DILLON:  Yes, absolutely. Yes. I mean, we -- so we depend on the social 

networks for traffic to our site. If we lose the social networks, we lose 

our business. So, it's really a self-preservation thing. Absolutely. It's 

about survival. 

CARLSON:  How interesting. I misread this completely. So, this is even more 

sinister. So, "The New York Times" by calling you a disinformation site is 

in effect threatening to shut you down? 

DILLON:  Yes, and I think that's a deliberate strategy. I mean, look, fake 

news has been a concern for social networks for the last several years. 

They've been trying to find ways to fact check, de-platform, and de-

monetize and de-boost people who are spreading fake news on their 

platforms. 

And so you know, the legacy media, leftist media is taking advantage of 

that. You know, in that last segment, you're talking about comedy and how 

comedians need to be leading the way. We're one of the few comedians who 

are leading the way. We're not trailing this. We're out ahead of it. 

CARLSON:  No. 

DILLON:  We're making fun of the things that need to be made fun of. We're 

ridiculing bad ideas. They have it -- you know, "The New York Times" has 

incredible disdain for us, I would guess by the way they are treating us 

and the way they're handling this because they know better. 

On the one hand, it is extremely ironic that they are using misinformation 

to smear us as being a source of it. But beyond that, it's comically 

ironic. But beyond that, it's malicious because they know better. 

CARLSON:  So really quick, did you guys ever start a war in say, Iraq, 

under false pretenses over at "The Babylon Bee"? 

DILLON:  Did we start what under a war in Iraq under false pretense? 

CARLSON:  Yes. Oh, sorry. That was "The New York Times." 

DILLON:  Like "The New York Times" did? 

CARLSON:  Yes, yes. Okay. I just want to check. So when you guys do that, 

then I guess, we'll criticize you. In the meantime, congratulations on 

running the funniest site in the internet. It's amazing. 

DILLON:  Thank you. Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Seth Dillon, thank you. 

DILLON:  I appreciate that. 

CARLSON:  So, Sandy Cortez has chosen who she would like to be the next 

mayor of New York and that person we checked is a big fan of defunding the 

police because if there is one thing New York City needs, it's more violent 

crime. 

But what's amazing is -- and we've got new photographic evidence to prove 

it -- Sandy Cortez's candidate is in fact a hypocrite. We've got all the 

details for you, just ahead. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  Maya Wiley wants to be the next mayor of New York City, replacing 

Bill de Blasio. In fact, she has been endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

So, you can imagine that Maya Wiley believes very strongly in defunding the 

police. In fact, at a recent debate, Maya Wiley suggested she might disarm 

the New York City Police Department. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

QUESTION:  Attorney General Tish James is proposing legislation to limit 

cops from firing their weapons, use of force as a last resort. Now, some 

might ask why not go all the way and take away the guns altogether? 

MAYA WILEY (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE:  Look, you know, one of 

the things we have to do is acknowledge that the Mayor's job is safety. 

QUESTION:  Will you take the guns away from them. 

WILEY:  And that does mean that we want smart policing. I think we know 

that we have a problem with illegal guns coming into this city. 

QUESTION:  But will you take the guns away from the NYPD? 

WILEY:  I am not prepared to make that decision in a debate. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Well, you'll be surprised by two things. One, she is being funded 

by George Soros. She is another Soros shill just like Bill Kristol and all 

the rest of the people who say things that clearly aren't good for America. 

Why? Because Soros. 

The second thing you might not be shocked to learn, we learn this from "The 

Daily Mail" is that Maya Wiley doesn't really believe in defunding the 

police. How do we know this? Because she and her neighbors pay thousands of 

dollars every year for their own private police to protect their 

neighborhood including Wiley's $2.75 million home. 

Karol Markowicz is a columnist at "The New York Post." She joins us tonight 

to assess. Karol, thanks so much for coming on. It's kind of amazing that 

someone with a straight face would say defund the police, take away their 

guns and then pay for her own private police -- or should we not be 

shocked? 

KAROL MARKOWICZ, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK POST":  That's right. You know, I was 

on your show last summer and I said the only people who want to defund the 

police are rich people. And here we go, Maya Wiley here to prove it. 

A rich person who wants to strip poor people of services, who wants to take 

away their police department, who wants to take away their gifted education 

for their kids while her kids go to gifted education. 

Now obviously, she is against school vouchers, even though her kids go to 

private school. So, she is one of the typical hypocrites that we have 

running in New York City, but Maya Wiley's candidacy is for people who like 

the incompetence of the Bill de Blasio administration, but just don't think 

he is quite Marxist enough. 

CARLSON:  What's so interesting, and honestly infuriating is that Maya 

Wiley is a rich person, that's okay. I am, too. She sends her kids to 

private schools. She has private security and all the rest, but she poses 

as a victim. 

How does she get away with that? 

MARKOWICZ:  That's right. Well, you know, a friendly media always helps. 

But I think that the real thing is that a lot of New York liberals are just 

like her. They are also wealthy. They also want to defund the police. And I 

guess they have in their minds that they could always hire private 

security, just like Maya Wiley. 

You know, I saw Bill de Blasio -- Mayor Bill de Blasio walking around Park 

Slope yesterday. I mean, it was middle of the day, and he wasn't at work, 

but he didn't have security with him. So, she is really to his left where 

she really is do as I say, not as I do. 

CARLSON:  Shouldn't there be -- and really quick -- some kind of law that 

requires the people who make our laws to live with the consequences of the 

laws they make? 

MARKOWICZ:  Well, that would be nice, Tucker. I'm not going to count on 

Maya Wiley to pass any laws like that, because I think they would be most 

harmful to her. 

CARLSON:  You know, if you're into equity and diversity and inclusion, you 

should not be allowed to go to Aspen or Martha's Vineyard -- ever. You 

should be living next to Section 8 -- and I'm dead serious. 

Karol Markowicz, great person. Good to see you tonight. Thank you. 

MARKOWICZ:  Thank you so much. Thank you. 

CARLSON:  That's it for us tonight. We will be back 8:00 p.m. every week 

night, the show that is the sworn and sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, 

smugness and groupthink. 

Guess who is next? We have a surprise for you this evening. Sean Hannity is 

going to take over the hour from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern, the whole 

thing. Here he is, ladies and gentlemen. 

Copy: 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.