THEM THE MIGS, PROVIDE THEM THE
PLANES WHERE THEY CAN CREATE A
NO-FLY ZONE.
>> Tucker: SO THINGS ARE
CHANGING VERY FAST.
FOR WEEKS LEADERS IN WASHINGTON
TOLD US THAT AN AMERICAN-BACKED
NO-FLY ZONE IN UKRAINE WOULD BE
UNWISE BECAUSE IT WOULD AMOUNT
TO AN ACTIVE WAR AGAINST A
NUCLEAR ARMED RUSSIA.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE VIEWS HAVE
EVOLVED A LOT.
BUT IN FAIRNESS, CONGRESSWOMAN
MARIA SALAZAR GOT THERE FIRST.
SALAZAR IS A LONGTIME
NEWS ANCHOR FOR MIAMI WHO A
LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO WAS
ELECTED TO CONGRESS AS A
REPUBLICAN.
SHE NOW SITS ON THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
A WEEK AGO A REPORTER FROM THE
GRAY ZONE ASKED SALAZAR WHAT SHE
THOUGHT OF A NO-FLY ZONE.
HERE’S WHAT SHE SAID.
>> DO YOU SUPPORT A NO-FLY ZONE
IN UKRAINE?
>> I SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT HAS
TO DO WITH PUNISHING
VLADIMIR PUTIN HELPING THE
UKRAINIANS.
>> WOULDN’T THAT MEAN DIRECT
CONVENTIONAL WARFARE WITH
RUSSIA?
>> I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT WILL
MEAN BUT YOU KNOW, FREEDOM IS
NOT FREE.
>> YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A NO-FLY
ZONE WILL MEAN IF YOU HAVE TO
SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN PLANES?
>> OF COURSE!
>> Tucker: I DON’T KNOW WHAT
IT WILL MEAN, BUT YOU KNOW
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
WE MADE FUN OF THAT ANSWER LAST
WEEK WHEN WE FIRST SHOWED YOU
THAT CLIP, BUT NOW WHAT WE
MARKED IS THE CONSENSUS IN
WASHINGTON.
WE DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING TO
HAPPEN, WE GOT TO DO IT
IMMEDIATELY.
THAT’S THE ARGUMENT YOU’RE
HEARING.
AT THIS POINT, NO ONE WANTS TO
SAID OUT LOUD, BUT IT IS TRUE,
AT THIS POINT THE SHOOTING WAR
WITH RUSSIA SEEMS INEVITABLE.
HOW COULD A WAR WITH RUSSIA NOT
BE INEVITABLE?
VIRTUALLY EVERYONE IN POWER IS
FOR IT.
WE REMAIN AGAINST IT, WE THINK
JOINING THE WAR IN EASTERN
EUROPE WILL HURT THIS COUNTRY,
THOUGH TO BE CLEAR, WHEN AND IF
THAT WERE STARTS, WE WILL BE
PRAYING PASSIONATELY FOR
AMERICA’S TOTAL VICTORY.
AND LIKE SO MANY IN THE FOREIGN
POLICY ESTABLISHED WHEN, WITHOUT
THIS COUNTRY ABOVE ALL AND WE
MEAN IT.
IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE THE
UNITED STATES IS STILL
TECHNICALLY AT PEACE, WE THOUGHT
IT WOULD BE WORTH ASKING PEOPLE
WHO ARE CALLING FOR WORK IF THEY
HAVE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL WHAT A
WAR WOULD MEAN FOR THIS COUNTRY.
CONGRESS WOMAN MARIA SALAZAR WAS
GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ACCEPT OUR
INVITATION TO COME ON THE SHOW,
WE ARE GRATEFUL SHE DID AND SHE
JOINS US TONIGHT.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR COMING ON.
>> THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME.
>> Tucker: WELL YES.
SINCE YOU HAVE CALLED FOR WAR
WITH RUSSIA, HOW DO YOU THINK
THAT WAR, ONCE IT BEGINS, WOULD
PLAY OUT.
>> I THINK THAT’S A HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTION.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD
CONCENTRATE, TUCKER, ON WHAT
ZELENSKYY ASKED CONGRESS TODAY.
>> Tucker: I CAN’T -- I AM IN
NO WAY TRYING TO CUT YOU OFF,
BUT I CAN’T LET YOU OUT A LOT
OVER THAT.
YOU SAID WE SHOULD SHOOT DOWN
RUSSIAN PLANES, THAT IS OF
COURSE WAR.
CENTER CALLED FOR THAT --
>> I DIDN’T SAY THAT.
>> Tucker: YOU JUST SAID THAT
ON TAPE WITH PLAY.
>> THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
BECAUSE I SAID OF COURSE THAT I
KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
THAT INTERVIEW WAS NOT VERY WELL
CONDUCTED AND THAT’S WHY I’M
HERE, BECAUSE I WANT TO CLARIFY
MY POSITION.
>> Tucker: OKAY.
>> MY POSITION IS THAT WE SHOULD
NOT TAKE NO-FLY ZONE OFF THE
TABLE, BUT BEFORE THAT, THAT
TOO, WE NEED TO DO ONE AND ONE
IS TO GIVE ZELENSKYY EXACTLY
WHAT HE’S ASKING FOR.
NO TROOPS ON THE GROUND, LET’S
GIVE HIM THE MIGS AND THE F3
HUNDREDS, WHAT HE NEEDS TO
DEFEND HIS OWN AIRSPACE, SO HE
WILL CREATE HIS OWN NO-FLY ZONE,
AND THAT’S WHAT I THINK WE
SHOULD HAVE DONE MONTHS AGO.
IT’S EMBARRASSING THAT THIS GUY,
THIS PRESIDENT WHO IS UNDER THE
BULLETS HAS COME TO CONGRESS TO
BEG FOR US TO GIVE HIM SOMETHING
WE SHOULD HAVE DOWN A LONG TIME
AGO.
>> Tucker: LET ME BE CLEAR,
WHEN YOU SAY WE SHOULD GIVE
PRESIDENTS ONES GET WHAT HE’S
ASKING FOR, HE DEMANDED TODAY I
THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES
ENFORCE THE NO-FLY ZONE.
SO YOU ARE FOR DENYING HIM THAT.
>> WELL, BUT HE ALSO SAID AND
THEN WE CAN GIVE YOU
ALTERNATIVES.
SO SINCE WE KNOW THAT THAT
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN OFF THE
TABLE, AND I REPEAT IT, I DO
BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD GO TO
PLAN A, WHICH IS TO GIVE THEM
ALL THE MILITARY WEAPONS THAT
HE’S ASKING FOR.
>> Tucker: I THINK A LOT OF
PEOPLE SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT.
LET ME JUST SAY I THINK A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO SAW
PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY ’SPEECH END
TODAY AND SEEN THE ATROCITIES IN
UKRAINE FEEL DEEP SYMPATHY FOR
THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND WANT
THIS TO END.
I’M CERTAINLY AMONG THEM.
BUT I’M WONDERING --
>> I’M SURE YOU ARE.
SO I’M ASKING YOU, THEN WHAT
SHOULD WE DO?
OKAY?
WHAT SHOULD WE DO THEN?
>> Tucker: ALWAYS AND
EVERYWHERE, ESPECIALLY IF WE
HAVE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR ONE
OF ITS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CORE
INTEREST OF UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, IT’S REALLY SUPER
SIMPLE.
SO IF THE UNITED STATES IS
PROVIDING --
>> LET ME JUST TELL YOU NOW THAT
YOU’VE SAID THAT --
>> Tucker: HOLD ON.
IF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDING
WEAPONS WEAPONS TO ONE SIDE IN A
WAR, HOW IS THAT NOT
PARTICIPATING IN THE WAR?
>> LISTEN, LET ME JUST BACKTRACK
AND SAY THAT YOU SAY WE ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I REPRESENT DISTRICT NUMBER 27
WHERE YOU HAVE MILLIONS OF
CUBAN-AMERICANS, AND I’M
REPRESENTING WHAT WE THINK.
WE KNOW THAT WE ACQUIRE PEACE
THROUGH STRENGTH.
LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN 1960,
FIDEL CASTRO JFK.
>> Tucker: EMIGRANT -- I’M
SORRY, I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE
ANTI-COMMUNIST LECTURE FROM
ANYBODY BECAUSE OF COURSE I
AGREE WITH YOU.
>> NO, NO --
>> Tucker: I HOPE THEY ARE NOT
SPEAKING FOR CUBAN-AMERICANS BUT
FOR ALL AMERICANS BECAUSE IT’S
NOT A RACIAL QUESTION.
>> I’M REPRESENTING DISTRICT
NUMBER 27.
>> Tucker: I UNDERSTAND, AND
I’M AS AGAINST COMMUNISM I THINK
IS ANYBODY, BUT MY QUESTION IS
IF WE ARE PROVIDING WEAPONS TO
ONE SIDE IN A WAR, I THINK IT’S
FAIR TO ASK, MAYBE THE OTHER
SIDE WOULD SAY THAT’S AN ACT OF
WAR AGAINST US.
AND IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN WHAT
NEXT?
AND TO NOT THINK ABOUT THAT
SEEMS NEGLIGENT BUT SINCE YOU
ARE ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE I KNOW YOU HAVE BOUGHT
IT THROUGH.
SO TELL ME YOUR VIEWS AND WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN NEXT.
>> WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING
JAVELINS AND STINGERS AND
AMMUNITION THAT WE’RE PROVIDING
A LOT OF MILITARY ARMAMENT, SO
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THAT AND THE MIGS AND THE 300?
THE DIFFERENCE?
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE
ARE, UNFORTUNATELY THE
UNITED STATES HAS FALLEN TO
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S TRAP.
HE IS THE ONE DICTATING WHAT WE
ARE GOING TO DO AND WHAT WE ARE
NOT GOING TO DO.
HE SAID WE DO NOT WANT -- WE ARE
IMPOSING A NO-FLY ZONE OVER
UKRAINE, AND WE ARE ABIDING BY
IT.
>> Tucker: SO WE ARE LETTING
PUTIN CONTROLLER BEHAVIOR.
THAT SEEMS LIKE -- LET ME JUST
ASK YOU, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE --
WE DON’T NEED TO HAVE MORE
EVIDENCE THAT PUTIN HAS BAD
INTENT, THAT HE’S EVIL.
A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE HE’S
CRAZY, INCLUDING SOME INFORMED
PEOPLE, INCLUDING MANY RUSSIANS,
SO WE KNOW HE’S VOLATILE.
AND WE KNOW THAT HE’S UGLY --
HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BY THE
WAY, DOES RUSSIA HAVE?
DO YOU KNOW?
>> MANY.
>> Tucker: ABOUT 6,000.
THAT’S A FAIR ANSWER.
>> ONE IS ENOUGH, RIGHT?
>> Tucker: SO ARE WE CONCERNED
AT ALL THAT HE MIGHT USE A
NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST THE
UNITES STATES?
IS THAT A CONCERN?
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CONSIDER
AS YOU RECOMMEND THESE POLICIES?
>> OF COURSE WE ARE VERY
CONCERNED WHEN WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT HE MAY BE THROWING A
BIOLOGICAL WEAPON AGAINST THE
UKRAINIANS WITHIN THE NEXT FEW
HOURS BECAUSE HE CANNOT TAKE
KYIV AS HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING
TO.
SO OF COURSE THAT WE ARE
CONFRONTING A DICTATOR.
BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE
PUTTING THIS INTO CONTEXT AND I
THINK -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY.
>> Tucker: OF COURSE.
>> IF WE BELIEVE IN THE FREE
WORLD THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE
THE FIRST OF THE LAST
CONFRONTATION WITH A BAD ACTOR,
WE ARE IN FOR A VERY BIG
SURPRISE.
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONFRONT BAD
ACTORS WITH STRENGTH THAN WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE CHINA AND RUSSIA
AND IRAN AND VENEZUELA AND THEY
ARE WATCHING WHAT WE ARE DOING
BURIED
>> Tucker: BUT HOLD ON.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, I’VE MADE THAT
ARGUMENT, YOU KNOW, FOR 30 YEARS
ON TELEVISION.
THE QUESTION IS ARE WE DOING IT
WITH ALL AVAILABLE RISKS KNOWN
TO THE POPULATION IN WHOSE NAME
WE ARE DOING IT?
SO I’M ASKING YOU, WHAT YOU
THINK THE CHANCES ARE, NO SURE
YOU’VE GLEANED THIS OUT AS A
MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE THAT PUTIN USES A
NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST
UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE TO
THIS?
WHAT WOULD YOU COUNSELOR THE
CHANCES?
>> SURE THAT WE ARE TAKING THAT
INTO CONSIDERATION.
>> Tucker: BUT WHAT YOU THINK
ARE LIKELY -- OUR VIEWERS ARE
UNSURE SUPPORTING YOU.
I THINK MOST CONSERVATIVES ARE
ON YOUR SIDE, BUT I JUST THINK
THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE
INFORMED VIEW OF THE LIKELIHOOD
OF A RETALIATORY NUCLEAR STRIKE
FROM VLADIMIR PUTIN’S.
WHAT WOULD YOU ASSESS IT AS
BEING?
>> I REPEAT THAT’S A
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
>> Tucker: IS HARDLY
HYPOTHETICAL.
>> I BELIEVE HE WILL NOT TAKE
THAT STEP IF STARTING TODAY THE
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WILL SEND
THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE IN
CHARGE, THAT NATO IS READY TO
CONFRONT HIM AND SO ARE WE.
AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT I
BELIEVE -- I’M NOT SURE IF YOU SHARE MY VIEW, THAT YOU OBTAIN
SHARE MY VIEW, THAT YOU OBTAIN
PEACE, YOU OBTAIN -- YOU CAN --
THEY TAKE ALL THE POWER AWAY
FROM PUTIN IF YOU SHOW STRENGTH.
>> Tucker: SO DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT -- SO DO YOU BELIEVE THAT’S
TRUE?
SO PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY SAID
YESTERDAY THAT HE IS CONSIDERING
DECLARING THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT
JOIN NATO IN EXCHANGE FOR HAVING
RUSSIAN TROOPS WITHDRAW FROM HIS
COUNTRY.
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS -- THIS
IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY SPEAKING.
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT --
>> WHO AM I TO SAY WHAT’S
CORRECT AND WHAT’S INCORRECT
COMING FROM ZELENSKYY?
>> Tucker: I DON’T KNOW --
OKAY.
PLEASE DON’T DODGE THE QUESTION.
WOULD THAT BE AN ANSWER YOU BE
SATISFIED WITH?
IF ZELENSKYY MADE GOOD ON WHAT
HE JUST SUGGESTED, THAT WE
AGREED TO NEUTRALITY, WE WILL
WILL RELINQUISH CLAIMS TO CRIMEA
AND THE RUSSIANS LEAVE, WITH A P
OKAY WITH YOU, WOULD YOU
CONSIDER THAT AN HONORABLE EXIT
OR A DISPLAY OF WEAKNESS?
>> IF ZELENSKYY COMES TO THE
UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND HE
SAYS THAT THIS IS THE BEST PATH
FORWARD, WE ARE NO ONE TO SAY
SOMETHING TO THE CONTRARY.
BUT I DON’T THINK IS GOING TO
SAY THAT.
SO WE ARE CREATING SCENARIOS
HERE THAT ARE HYPOTHETICAL.
>> Tucker: NO WE ARE NOT.
YOU MAY NOT BE FOLLOWING THIS
CLOSELY, BUT HE HAS SAID THAT
MULTIPLE TIMES.
SO OF COURSE THAT --
>> I UNDERSTAND, AND I HAVE
HEARD IT, BUT THAT IS UP TO HIM.
>> Tucker: THAT WOULD SPARE
THE DEATHS, I KNOW YOU HAVE A
CONCERN FOR THE CIVILIAN
POPULATION OF UKRAINE.
>> OF COURSE, WE ALL DO.
>> Tucker: THAT WOULD PRESERVE
THE CAPITAL CITY FROM BEING
DESTROYED, SO WOULD THAT BE
BETTER THAN INCREASING THE LEVEL
OF ARMED CONFLICT IN UKRAINE?
WHICH WOULD BE A BETTER OUTCOME?
>> THAT’S WHERE THE
UKRAINIANS --
>> Tucker: WHAT YOU MEAN?
YOU ARE AN AMERICAN POLICYMAKER
IMPOSING YOUR VIEWS ON UKRAINE
AND I’M ASKING IS SIMPLY --
>> I’M NOT IMPOSING ANY VIEWS.
>> Tucker: OF COURSE YOU ARE,
YOU’RE SAYING WE NEED TO SEND
MATERIAL, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
COME ARMED THE MILITARY -- AND
I’M NOT CRITICIZING YOUR
POSITION, I’M JUST ASKING YOU,
HAS IT OCCURRED THAT MANY LIVES
MIGHT BE SAVED IF WE WERE TO
ENCOURAGE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION
THAT’S ARTY ON THE TABLE?
ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING IN THAT
DIRECTION?
>> IF THE UKRAINIANS WANT TO GO
THAT ROUTE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO AND WE ARE NO ONE TO SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY
ARE THE ONES DYING ON THE
STREETS AND THEY ARE THE ONES
UNDER SIEGE.
>> Tucker: THEY CERTAINLY ARE
DYING.
I DON’T NOTICE ANY MEMBER’S OF
CONGRESS OR DAVID LANE DOWN
THERE LIVES.
HAVE YOU SUGGESTED THAT?
>> TUCKER, I THINK THAT WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT THIS POINT ENOUGH,
I ALSO WANTED YOU TO COMMITTEE
OPPORTUNITY --
>> Tucker: WE HAVE?
[LAUGHS]
I WANT TO ASK YOU --
>> YOU SAID THAT I WAS IN FAVOR
FOR OPEN BORDERS, AND I WANTED
TO -- I TALKED TO YOUR PEOPLE --
>> Tucker: YOU JUST CALLED US
MONTH FOR THE AMNESTY OF TENS OF
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO CAME INTO
THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.
YOU DID, BECAUSE I READ THE
LEGISLATION TODAY.
>> NO I DID NOT.
>> Tucker: ACTUALLY 20 MINUTES
AGO I READ IT.
>> OKAY, I’M GLAD YOU DID, AND I
WILL INVITE YOU TO READ IT AGAIN
AGAIN, JUST GIVE ME 30 SECONDS
AND I PROMISE YOU I WILL GIVE IT
TO YOU AND SOUND BITES.
THE DIGNITY ACT, WHICH I
PRESENTED LAST MONTH IS AN
IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW, PROBABLY
THE FIRST ONE THE G.O.P. HAS
PRESENTED IN A LONG TIME.
IT HAS ONE OF THE STRONGEST
BORDER SECURITY MEASURES IN A
HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS.
>> Tucker: GOT IT.
BUT IT --
>> WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE,
AMNESTY IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW,
TUCKER.
AMNESTY IS WHEN YOU HAVE MORE
THAN 13 MILLION ILLEGALS --
LISTEN TO ME -- WITHOUT PAYING
FOR SCHOOLS, FOR ROADS, OR FOR
HOSPITALS.
I AM GIVING THEM DIGNITY SO THEY
CAN START PAYING AND TAKEN -- --
>> Tucker: THE TALKING POINTS
HERE.
>> WE ARE NOT GETTING DEEP.
>> Tucker: PEOPLE WHO CAME OVER OUR BORDER WITHOUT
OVER OUR BORDER WITHOUT
PERMISSION ARE NOT BEING -- VERY
DIFFERENT STANDARD TO UKRAINE.
I’M WONDERING IF RUSSIANS
FLEEING PUTIN -- DO YOU
BELIEVE -- SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
START NEW -- START NEW AND
BETTER LIVES IN UKRAINE?
TO BELIEVE IN UKRAINIAN
NATIONALISM BUT NOT AMERICAN?
>> I WANT TO BE RIGOROUS.
I AM TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE LIVED HERE FOR MORE THAN
FIVE YEARS THAT HAVE NOT
COMMITTED A CRIME, THAT HAVE
AMERICAN CHILDREN, AND WHO ARE
CONTRIBUTING TO OUR ECONOMY.
I WANT TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING
CALLED NICK DIGNITY.
I’M NOT TALK ABOUT PATH TO
CITIZENSHIP, NOT TALK BUT
AMNESTY -- LET ME -- NO I’M NOT.
I DON’T WANT YOU TO MISREPRESENT
WHAT WE DID AND WE WORKED FOR
ONE WHOLE YEAR SO WE CAN SOLVE
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T -- WAIT,
WAIT, THE FACT THAT YOU DON’T
AGREE --
>> Tucker: A VERY SIMPLE
QUESTION, YOU’RE PRESENTING
MIGS --
>> THE FACT THAT YOU AGREE WITH
ME DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO
MISREPRESENT WHAT’S ON THE BILL.
>> Tucker: LOOK, I THINK YOU
SAID IT YOURSELF, FOR PEOPLE WHO
CAME HERE ILLEGALLY, TENS OF
MILLIONS OF THEM, WOULD BE
ALLOWED TO STAY, THEY WOULD NOT
BE PUNISHED, THEY WOULD BE
REWARDED.
IF YOU THINK THAT’S ENHANCING
YOUR DIGNITY?
ARE NOT AGAINST THOSE PEOPLE, I
JUST CAN’T HELP NOTICE THE
CONTRAST BETWEEN YOUR DESIRE TO
SPEND MIGS TO UKRAINE TO
PRESERVE ITS BORDERS BUT NOT
HERE.
SHOULD WE SEND THE U.S. MILITARY
TO THE MEXICAN BORDER SINCE YOU
HAVE ADMITTED THE TENS OF
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE COME
HERE LEGALLY, THAT OUR BORDERS
ARE POROUS, THEY’RE NOT
DEFENDED, THEY ARE OPEN.
SHOULD WE SEND THE U.S. MILITARY
TO THE MEXICAN BORDER?
>> THAT IS WHY I HAVE CREATED A
WHOLE PLAN SO WE CAN REALLY SEAL
THE BORDER, BECAUSE YOU KNOW
WHAT?
MY COMMITTEE -- THAT I
REPRESENT -- LET ME FINISH.
THE ONES THAT I REPRESENT, LET
ME FINISH.
GIVE ME 15 SECONDS.
>> Tucker: I SHALL.
>> I HAVE -- THANK YOU.
I HAVE CREATED A SERIES OF
MEASURES SO WE CAN SECURE THE
BORDER BECAUSE WE, THE BROWNS,
THE HISPANICS, THE LATINOS IN
THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF
OPEN BORDERS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT NO ONE ASKED
US.
WE WANT TO LIVE IN THE PROMISED
LAND AND WE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT
IF WE DEPORT THOSE 11 OR
13 MILLION, WE MAY NOT HAVE FOOD
BY FRIDAY.
WHY?
BECAUSE THE SUPPLY CHAIN --
>> Tucker: I THINK EVERYONE
UNDERSTANDS THIS, THAT WE HAVE
OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES AND
BY THE WAY, I’M NOT ATTACKING
ANYBODY LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY
ILLEGALLY OR LEGALLY, I’M ASKING
ABOUT QUESTION ABOUT BORDERS.
ALL OF US ARE APPALLED BY THE
VIOLATION OF UKRAINE’S BORDERS.
YOU DON’T SEEM AS APPALLED BY
THE VIOLATION OF OUR BORDERS BY
TONS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLES, SO
LET ME ASK YOU FOR THE THIRD
TIME.
DO YOU SUPPORT MILITARY WOMEN --
WOULD YOU SUPPORT THE U.S.
MILITARY SECURING THE
UNITED STATES BORDER TONIGHT OR
ON THE SAME TIMETABLE AS SENDING
MIGS TO UKRAINE?
HOW ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT’S HYPOTHETICAL AGAIN.
>> Tucker: YOU ARE A LAWMAKER.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, JUST SAY IT!
YOU ARE NOT FOR IT AND YOU ARE
FOR UKRAINE NOT HERE.
>> IF YOU ARE GIVING ME BALL
SEGMENT, WHICH IS GREAT, AND I
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Tucker: I DON’T WANT TO
MISREPRESENT.
I’M ASKING -- YOU DON’T SUPPORT
SENDING THE U.S. MILITARY TO THE
BORDER, YOU DON’T.
>> I AM SUPPORTING --
>> Tucker: A FOREIGN COUNTRY
BUT NOT OUR OWN.
IT’S PRICKLY.
>> I AM FOR -- ALL THE
TECHNOLOGY WE COULD FIND SO WE
CAN SECURE THE BORDER.
ALL THE MILITARY, VETERANS, THE
POLICE FORCES THAT WE COULD HIRE
SO WE COULD SECURE AND SEAL THE
BORDER NOT ONLY FOR PEOPLE, BUT
FENTANYL AND CHILD
SEX TRAFFICKERS, SO AS I TOLD
YOU, THE BILL IS RIGHT THERE,
IT’S TECHNOLOGY, IT’S NOT SO
SIMPLE IS TO SAY ARE GOING TO
PUT THIS OR THAT, IT’S A SERIES
OF TECHNICALITIES OF TECHNOLOGY
THAT WE NEED TO USE.
>> Tucker: I AGREE WITH
YOUR -- IF YOU’RE SECURING THE
BORDER, TOTAL IN YOUR SIDE.
>> BUT LET ME ASK YOU --
>> Tucker: LET ME JUST ASK YOU
A QUESTION, CAN YOU SEE WHY
AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT THE
UKRAINIANS RIGHT TO SECURE THEIR
OWN BORDERS -- I CERTAINLY DO,
MOST PEOPLE DO, ALL AMERICANS
DO, CAN YOU SEE THE FRUSTRATION
THAT THEY MIGHT FEEL LISTENING
TO YOU, A LAWMAKER, SAY YEAH,
THERE’S A PROCESS, WHEN IT
HAPPENS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WE
HAVE TO SEND BILLIONS OF THE
U.S. MILITARY, YOUR SONS, BUT WE
CAN’T KIND OF DO THAT HERE
BECAUSE WHY?
CAN YOU SORT OF UNDERSTAND THE
FRUSTRATION LITTLE BIT?
>> BUT I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I
WANT TO SEND TROOPS, OUR BOYS,
TO FIGHT IN UKRAINE BECAUSE I
DON’T THINK THAT ZELENSKYY IS --
WE ARE SENDING AT THE SAME TIME
STINGERS AND JAVELINS AND
AMMUNITIONS WE ARE SENDING A LOT
OF THINGS.
>> Tucker: WHY DON’T WE
PROTECT OUR BORDER WITH THE SAME
SERIOUSNESS?
BUT YOU’RE NOT.
YOU’RE NOT TREATING OUR BORDER
CRISIS WITH ANY LEVEL OF THE
SAME SERIOUSNESS.
>> YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING --
IT’S NOT TRUE.
YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THIS
BILL THAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE
BEST BILLS THAT HAS BEEN
PRESENTED WHEN IT’S TALKED ABOUT
IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW.
I INVITE YOU TO READ IT AND
INVITE ME BACK SO WE CAN DISCUSS
IT.
>> Tucker: ALL RIGHT.
CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON’T AGREE
WITH YOU, BUT I CERTAINLY
APPRECIATE YOUR COMING ON, IT’S
HARD TO GET PEOPLE TO DO THAT
AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU DID.
THANKS.
>> THANKS, OF COURSE, INVITE ME
AGAIN SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO TALK
ABOUT IMMIGRATION, WHICH IS ONE
OF THE BIGGEST PROMS WE HAVE AND
IF THE G.O.P. DOESN’T REALIZE IT
WE WILL NEVER WIN ANOTHER
ELECTION AGAIN.
>> Tucker: YET.
ACTUALLY, I THINK HISPANIC
VOTERS ARE TRENDING REPUBLICAN
BECAUSE THEY ARE FOR BORDER
SECURITY, THE KIND THAT YOU ARE
NOT PROVIDING.
>> IT’S NOT TRUE, ONCE AGAIN YOU
ARE MISREPRESENTING!