Jan. 31, 2024 - The Tucker Carlson Show
05:48
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Just in case you were a little confused about how the justice system works and who the laws apply to, last year, Hunter Biden blew off a congressional subpoena. | ||
| Hunter Biden, the president's son, he decided he didn't want to testify before Congress and he didn't have to. | ||
| Then this year, January 2024, he showed up at a congressional hearing, but then a member of Congress appeared to speak and Hunter Biden, as an expression of contempt for that member and for Congress itself, just walked out. | ||
| What happened to Hunter Biden? | ||
| Well, he's still selling his childish artwork for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece to Democratic donors who are reaping the benefits of that, you can be certain. | ||
| That'll donation to the Hunter Biden Lifestyle Fund. | ||
| So that's Hunter Biden's experience of our justice system. | ||
| Now, Peter Navarro, who was a college professor for years and not especially political, wound up in the Trump administration as a trade official, trying to narrow the trade gap between the United States and China. | ||
| He got caught up for reasons that were never clear in the January 6th committee, the fake partisan committee run effectively by Dick Cheney's daughter that we now know did nothing to bring the truth to light about January 6th, but abetted a cover-up of what actually happened that day. | ||
| And yes, it was a setup. | ||
| And that's not a conspiracy theory. | ||
| That's an obvious conclusion based on the now emerged facts. | ||
| So Peter Navarro did not testify before that, quote, committee. | ||
| What happened to him? | ||
| Well, Peter Navarro was just sentenced to four months in prison for that dastardly act, defying a congressional subpoena by the fake committee. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So you would think in a functioning country where people had a commitment not just to party but to principle and in living together peacefully, maybe for the next hundred years or so, people would be standing up for Peter Navarro. | ||
| No! | ||
| Here's one of the dumbest people ever to serve the United States Senate, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, celebrating that sentence on MSNBC. Watch. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, you know, as a person, I wish it was four years instead of four months. | |
| But it is always heartening to see the system work and to see someone who has worn a suit and tie to work forever and has been in the halls of power be held accountable for refusing. | ||
| You know, I wish more people had been charged with contempt of Congress. | ||
| I understand why they weren't, but Congress has to work on oversight. | ||
| He should do four years in prison, four years until he's dead! | ||
| Remember when they told us that female leaders are going to be more compassionate and empathetic and kinder? | ||
| A lot of them turned out to be bloodthirsty and punitive. | ||
| Maybe we should reassess that assumption. | ||
| But in any case, Peter Navarro is, all things being equal, headed to prison very soon for the crime of not obeying Dick Cheney's daughter. | ||
| We thought we would talk to him before that happens. | ||
| He joins us now. | ||
| Peter Navarro, thank you so much for coming on. | ||
| Tucker, so much appreciate this time. | ||
| The best way folks out there in Tucker's America can help me right now is to go to my legal defense fund, GiveSendGo.com forward slash Navarro. | ||
| That's GiveSendGo.com forward slash Navarro. | ||
| I've already had to lay out over half a million dollars in legal fees for the lower court that found me guilty of this charge. | ||
| Tucker, the good news here is that this is just going to be, in my hope and judgment, a landmark constitutional case on the constitutional separation of powers and the use of executive privilege as a tool of sound presidential decision-making. | ||
| The remarkable thing... | ||
| Wait, wait, wait, wait. | ||
| Peter, for one second. | ||
| First of all, I could not support you more vehemently. | ||
| I think you're being railroaded for political reasons. | ||
| I think it's very obvious to any reasonable person watching this, whether that person voted for Trump or not, or likes you or not. | ||
| But I don't think we're at the stage of regime collapse where constitutional precedence Maybe are the operative question. | ||
| I think it's about force, and they're trying to put you in prison because they don't like you, and they want to send a message to others that if Trump gets elected, don't serve that administration, you'll wind up like Peter Navarro, spending your 70s in jail. | ||
| So my question to you is, and this has got to be obvious to you, if they, I think it's 57 or so days from now, they can put you in prison no matter what you say, whether it's appealed or not. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| If ordered to go to prison, why would you comply with that? | ||
| Like, at a certain point, do you just say to yourself, this is all fake? | ||
| It's not our system you're upholding, it's our system you're destroying, and I'm not going to participate in it. | ||
| No, look, I obeyed the law. | ||
| I obeyed the law when I failed to respond to congressional subpoena because the law, Tucker, for more than 50 years across Democrat and Republican presidencies... | ||
| Has been that senior White House officials like me, alter egos of the president, shall not and cannot and legally cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. | ||
| They put me in leg irons. | ||
| Leg irons. | ||
| Of course they did. | ||
| As they did to Roger Stone and a lot of other people that you worked with. | ||
| And that's kind of my question. | ||
| The whole world that you occupied in, say, 2019, which wasn't that long ago. | ||
| Everybody's been either indicted, sent to jail, did some kind of plea, has been unable to find a job, has been bankrupted by civil suits. | ||
| Everybody's been destroyed. | ||
| And no one on the left has been destroyed at all. | ||
| They've all thrived. |
Export Selection