Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo clash over JFK’s still-classified files, Epstein’s hidden ties to figures like Ehud Barak, and Musk’s anti-establishment stance, framing institutional secrecy as a crisis. Carlson argues Ukraine’s 2014 coup and U.S.-backed war are imperial overreach, while Cuomo counters with warnings about corporate influence and immigration’s economic role—though both agree DEI and open borders fracture America. From NYC’s crime surge to transgender debates, they expose media hypocrisy and governance failures, culminating in Carlson’s call for systemic dismantling versus Cuomo’s cautious reform, leaving democracy’s future in question. [Automatically generated summary]
But News Nation has been what I would call a blessing in my life.
I didn't know it at the time.
And, like, so my brother's running for mayor.
My bosses, and of course they had the benefit of going to school on what happened with me at CNN, but the embrace, the willingness and acceptance of, wow, this is great for your family.
This is great for your brother.
We're excited for you guys.
I thought it was like a test that if I seemed okay about that, they'd be like, aha, we knew we!
The difference, the change of one conversation of them saying, well, we're with you.
We support you.
And I said, well, I'm going to just tell the audience, though, I'm not going to cover the race, obviously, because I'd have a conflict.
And they were like, yeah, duh.
They know that.
If you feel like you have to say it, say it.
And I realized, wow, they really believe in what I'm doing here and supporting me.
Look, as we both know, in every business, and especially in ours, you do what you have to do to protect yourself.
If it's, you know, if it's me or you and I put myself in a position where I was vulnerable, then it's going to be me.
And that's what happened.
And I accept it.
I don't blame CNN. This was really about two people making decisions about my life.
Not the organization.
I miss the people.
I wish the place well.
That is all true.
But I have a connection with News Nation and these guys where I am anxious to bleed for them.
I am...
I'm excited about putting it all on the line every day, anywhere in the world.
Because of my upbringing and my disposition, when I know you're there for me when you don't need to be, there are a lot of big names that you could grab in the media right now.
For News Nation to give me the chance and to let me do it and to support me, and to support me when Andrew decides that he's got to be in public service, can't put a price on it.
It's funny, I don't want to spend two hours beating up on the media because everyone hates them already, but it's been almost two years for me since I haven't worked.
In the media.
And it's weird how you, when you do work there for your whole life, you just accept that, like, yeah, everyone lies all the time, and it's totally treacherous, and people who claim to be your friends actually hate you, and every dispute is settled with a lawyer.
It's like, oh, it's so disgusting, but you just accept that's, like, the way things work, but that's not how things work outside the media.
And I think on a reporting level, that's still safe ground.
I mean, what's popping on digital media isn't investigative reporting per se.
There are some, Taibbi, Schellenberger, stuff like that, but Barry Weiss at the Free Press.
But it's mostly hot takes.
But now that we're realizing in our society, and I'm very excited about it, power is shifting back to people.
And from institutions.
And that's really uncomfortable for some people.
I think the Democrats are in a weird place where they seem like, which is such anathema as Mario Cuomo's kid, he was so anti-establishment, but they seem pro-establishment defenders of the status quo.
And I think that's a really dangerous place to be right now because I think power is shifting towards being disruptive of institutions and of the elites in a very real way.
And digital media is much better positioned to be empowered by that than what they're now calling legacy media.
I don't buy into that as a pejorative, but I see it.
And I see that people are really open to getting...
Two things are happening at the same time.
Siloed?
Absolutely.
But also, people are realizing that they can reach out and get different versions of events and takes on things in a way that they couldn't before.
And I think that's really exciting, and the media doesn't know what to do with it.
And, you know, I think the most influential people in media, I think you'd have to put Rogan at the top of that, you know, kind of don't work for anybody.
Nope.
And it's just so interesting.
If you look at the ads on a Margaret Brennan show, it's like, you know, Nissan and Joe Rogan, it's like prostate health cures.
It's like the whole...
Guys like Rogan have become rich, famous, influential.
We are presently So there was that big wave of deals that you and I missed in the podcast space where people were just throwing money to have a footprint in it, right?
Rogan was the biggest of those deals, right?
But then it went away.
And when I got into it, I'm all self-financed because, well, I was damaged goods, but people weren't looking to just throw money at a podcast because no one was making money on those deals.
It was like relearning the Howard Stern lesson, that they paid him all that money at SiriusXM, and it's like, you know, what was the yield?
Now, different people are starting to buy up podcasts that are traditional media companies, and they are the seed capital.
Behind the private equity behind those organizations are starting to buy up these properties.
I mean, I think you should be allowed to arrive at whatever conclusion you sincerely arrive at, and you should be able to tell people that that's your job.
And if you work at a place where you know that you can't say something you believe is true, it's the wrong place for you.
But do you feel like there are things that you can't say?
Like, if you came to a conclusion now, I don't mean about, like, some individual sex life or, like, nasty personal attacks, but I mean, like, a policy position that you came to that you would be like, oh, I probably can't say that.
It is too many people in too small a space to have anything chaotic.
A little bit of a problem blows up really fast in that city.
One, two, three, four, five things happen in the subway.
It's like five thousand things happen in the subway.
The feel becomes magnified.
Having grown up, right?
I mean, I'm born and bred.
I remember life in the 70s.
And that's how people talk today.
I think I could make a case that statistically it ain't the 70s in a lot of different ways for the better.
But that's how they feel.
And I haven't heard this talk.
I haven't seen people on the subway as I do now, unless they're in their 20s and therefore unable to look up from their screen because they've been completely destroyed by these devices.
Everyone's looking around now on the subway.
When you're walking on the street, eyes are up.
You know, people have their hands out, just like it was when it was in the 70s.
I remember people were afraid.
When you say you're going to the city, people talk to you like you need to have a plan.
Yes, but here's the difference, and I know what you mean.
What I'm saying is this, and it's worth examining right now with what people are worried about with the Trump administration, is it's got to be bigger than you.
The problem with FASC is it's not about you, okay?
It's not about Trump.
It's not about who's the mayor of New York City.
There's a system.
There are institutions.
There is law and order.
And you've got to work within that and you've got to be zealous about wanting those things to work for the right people the right way.
My father hated that I went into the media, by the way.
I'm sure my therapist could have a whole field.
I don't even open that box of chocolates with my therapist because I know I'd be paying for the rest of my life about just explaining that.
But his problem with it was, why do you want to be part of a group that just criticizes people who are trying to get things done when you could actually be trying to get something done?
And that's why he believes in public service.
Andrew is the same thing.
He skips right past the price of entry, which I could never get past it.
I'd be like, no way I'm going to have a hundred Tucker Carlson's chewing on my ass like a dog toy every day.
Not going to happen.
I won't be able to handle it.
I want to fight them all the time.
And he goes right past that to all these ideas about what he could do in that capacity and what needs to be done.
And I'm like, yeah, but...
You have to go through this gauntlet to get to this place just to try to do this really hard thing.
I think that he's more of a symptom than he is a cause.
The election message was, you guys are focusing on things that don't matter to us the way you want them to.
And what does matter to us doesn't matter enough to you.
And what they saw in Trump were two main things.
One, the personification of this, that you are trying to destroy this guy on a basis that we are not really okay with.
And the second thing is that he wants to disrupt all the things that we believe need disruption.
Between the cancel culture and different cultural wars, as we call them, Donald Trump, for whatever you want to say about him negatively, approximated normal to the American voters more than the Democrats did.
I believe there should be rules of decorum in all places.
In media and politics.
But there aren't.
But there are there.
And they willfully and wantedly abuse them to make a point that they are against Trump.
And it was a bad look for the Democrats.
What is it an extension of?
We, as Democrats, they will tell you, we are resisting who he wants to abuse and what he wants to destroy.
Like what?
Trans are a unique minority in this country.
They are uniquely targeted.
They need protection.
We are going to protect them.
But this particular aspect of the issue, Guys my size who decide to become female and play against my daughter in high school, that is not what you need to protect them from or against.
That's something that doesn't make sense.
Nope.
We have to hold to the purity of the cause of protecting this minority group.
Yeah, but you're not protecting them.
You're protecting the people that are playing against them because they're 230 pounds.
Yeah, it almost never happens.
But if it happens once, it's something that never needed to happen.
The purity test, the absolutist nature of binary politics, that if you are for something, you have to be all in on it beyond any conception of reason.
What I think, but, you know, the right to self-defense is a part of natural law.
The idea that a man can become a woman by wishing it so is not only a violation of natural law, it's a violation of nature itself.
It's, like, inherently insane.
It's a denial of physical reality.
And so why, so if the argument is, you know, there are people with weird sexual impulses who we shouldn't, like, scapegoat and hurt, I mean, I'm totally in agreement with that.
In the interest of live and let live, which is a signature American freedom, or should be, you don't want these people to live the way they want to live.
You are infringing on their rights.
We will protect them.
Now, I understand the political philosophy behind that.
But once it entered a realm, Of where the people that you say you're trying to protect are now a problem for another group that need protection also, which are these kids.
And I'll tell you how we know that they're promoting it.
Because its incidence has risen dramatically.
Now, when I was a young man, there was a debate over what percentage of the population is gay.
I was never anti-gay, for the record, and I'm not now.
But it's an interesting question.
They would say, you're born that way.
You're born gay.
So you cannot criticize someone on the basis of his immutable characteristics.
Great.
I totally agree with that.
But then we saw the absolute incidence of self-reported homosexuality like triple.
So clearly, people aren't born that way.
You know, 30% of 8th graders were born gay?
No, that's not true.
And so there's been this dramatic rise that none of us are allowed to notice.
It's like, you can't notice that.
Well, why?
Okay.
Yes, I can.
And I'm sort of thunderstruck by it.
Like, what is that?
And it clearly is a manifestation of the deeper truth, which is maybe some people are born gay, but people can also be moved towards self-identifying as gay.
And that's exactly what's happened.
So why?
Anyway, so like...
I don't think that's good.
I don't think that's good.
And I also don't understand why the government should be taking my tax dollars to convince people that certain forms of sex are better than others, particularly non-procreative sex.
It's an easy legal and moral backstop that government should not be in the business of type.
Okay?
That's easy.
There's plenty of things that government...
I believe that is an extension to how people choose their own bodies and how they use them.
I believe in reproductive rights.
I think it is a right.
However, I see gay acceptance a little differently.
The difference of a generation from our kids to us is it's much safer to say that you're gay now than it was.
You used to get beat up.
You used to get ostracized.
You used to get excluded.
That happens less now.
It still happens, but it happens less.
Is there also a cultural formation that we see, like in America, everything goes in these big swings in different directions, always reaction formation.
Are we more gay-friendly in our culture, aggressively so, assertively so, than we were when we were growing up?
Yes.
Can that make it more attractive to young people who are struggling and trying to figure themselves out?
Maybe.
And that's why I remember when I was in college, there were a lot of people who were gay in college who weren't gay afterwards.
Now, a lot of them were gay in college and gay afterwards, but I think there's something to experimenting and certain people play out with identity.
You can have that it's easier to be accepted today.
I'm not saying that it's the same.
I'd still believe that when people are gay, it's like the main descriptor of them.
Whereas you and I don't identify, oh, Tucker Carlson, you know him, straight guy.
But when you're gay, you still get labeled that way.
But I think two things can be happening at the same time, that there is a culture of persuasion in, let's say, in a guided or misguided sense of acceptance.
And I think it is safer for people to come out now than it was a generation ago.
But I guess the point I'm making is it's really clear that the federal government, state governments, local governments, and NGOs are promoting homosexuality among kids.
Obviously true to me.
And transgenderism among kids.
And my point is, that is not acceptable.
And when I was a child, if an adult went up to a kid in a park and started talking to him about his sex life, he could shoot the guy.
Because that's not acceptable.
To talk to other people's children about sex.
Period.
And now, it's not only acceptable, it's the rule and it's paid for by my tax dollars.
And I'm just saying, like, that's really destructive.
It could be the FBI, it could be the CIA. Okay, so I've always thought that.
And then in January, you know, there was a scramble over who's going to get what jobs in the new administration.
And at one point, there was someone who was being discussed.
For a job in the intel world, and a member of the SSCI, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Intel Committee, went to the people making the decision and said, you cannot hire this person because this person will be certain to push for the release of the JFK files.
So this is in this effect.
So this is in 2025, less than two months ago, and you have a sitting member of the United States Senate whose main goal is to keep those files secret.
And by the way, the institution, no one can even tell you who the CIA director was.
Do you remember the name of the CIA director?
John McCone, I think, 1963.
But that person is like completely lost to history, except a specialist.
And the CIA has already been through 50 years ago, the church committee hearings, 1975, where we sort of know they're sassing people, dosing people with acid, all this stuff.
It's like, the CIA has already been discredited.
So if you're telling me that six weeks ago, a member of the United States Senate was trying to keep someone out of a job in order to keep these files secret that is to protect the CIA, I don't believe that for a second.
If you watch this, in my case, for the same as you, 35 years, watching this stuff carefully, and somebody, you know, gets in office, I'm going to do this, that, and the other thing, and then, like, five days later, they're like, well, actually, someone has called that person to say, there's something you didn't know, here are the consequences of doing that.
Someone has applied very serious pressure on this person, pressure so serious that that person is willing to humiliate himself.
So, what I brought to it was the knowledge that a member of the Senate Intel Committee, I'm not guessing, called over and said, you cannot appoint this person.
One of the worst things that ever happened to me, ever, is last year when I was interviewing Putin.
It was such a long interview, and it was being translated, and I couldn't always hear the translation very well.
And apparently in it, he says, you applied to work at CIA, which I did.
You know, I'm not hiding that.
I didn't get in.
And your father worked for the intel world and all that.
I didn't hear him say that.
I did not hear him say that.
I have been living with that ever since.
I have nothing to do with any of that, for whatever it's worth.
But the number of people who have texted me have been like, oh, you're working for the CIA. It's like, no, actually, nobody believes more strongly in radical reform at CIA than I do, with, I would say, some knowledge of the subject.
I'm concerned, not just because, you know, I am curious and I want to get to the bottom of mysteries, which is true, but I'm really concerned that the failure to disclose big things like details about the murder of a president in a democratic country, republic, that that will convince people that our system itself is fake.
And by the way, I just want to say one more time, you cannot convince me, I'm not some world expert in the CIA, but I've certainly watched it closely over the years.
It's not the CIA. The CIA. CIA's like a huge federal agency with all kinds of different components and warring tribes within and like, there's no CIA. Bill Burns.
It's not like calling Trump and being like, don't release the files.
So look, I mean, I think we're getting to the same answer if...
If there is a very obvious mystery that's publicly known, there's public pressure to solve the mystery, to divulge what you know, and you don't, then there's a real reason behind it.
Or where's your investigation into his death, which you promised Attorney General Barr that you're going to do, and you never did.
I guess what I'm saying is if you take three steps back, you're like, wait, this really is, this isn't just, you know, maybe some of the details are wrong, or certainly stories like this draw all the wackos like a bug light for sure, and they come up with these fantastical theories to explain it.
But just the knowable facts, the confirmed facts, suggest something really, really big.
The moment that I never thought much about the Epstein story until I realized that the two-time Republican Attorney General Barr lied about it.
And I don't know the answer, but that was the moment where I was like, whoa.
All of a sudden...
Bill Kristol's lawyer is involved in this, which he was.
You know, I don't know.
There's just a lot.
There's a lot there.
There's so much there that it starts to make you nervous and it makes you think, like, maybe it's not just that things are screwed up on the margins, but maybe at the core is something really dark.
When I look at the Trump administration, I'm not accusing anybody of anything treasonous.
I'm just saying there seems to be a lot of currency these days in destroying things.
And I've never seen a president in our lifetime.
Say that everything in government is bad.
Trump is the only president, even his speech, which I thought was well-written and well-delivered for what he wanted to try to achieve, which is, hey, I got a lot of balls in the air.
Forget about me promising what would happen day one.
Stuff's going to get worse before it gets better, kind of vibe, which I get why he wanted that speech given what's happening in the polls.
But justice doesn't work.
The elections don't work.
Wall Street is corrupt.
None of the institutions of government can do everything.
All the tax dollars are wasted.
It's like I keep getting the same message from them.
And Musk, to me, has been a huge disappointment.
I believe the man is a genius, okay?
He has done remarkable things.
He doesn't know that the federal judiciary is able to check the executive.
He doesn't know that Social Security, the trust fund, isn't part of our debt structure?
I can't believe a genius doesn't know these things.
So then why would he be messaging this way?
Unless he doesn't want people to like the justice system.
He doesn't want people to want Social Security.
He doesn't want them to believe that government can do anything.
And I don't understand that as a political message from a guy who's in charge of everything now.
And what is underlying it in terms of your real ambition?
I think Elon, you know, builds electric cars and rockets and tunneling equipment and telecom, you know, satellite-based telecom, etc., etc.
He's a builder of things.
He's a businessman.
He's an engineer.
You know, I'm not surprised he doesn't know the details of how Social Security is structured at all.
And I'm not surprised that as a naturalized American, he's not, you know, didn't grow up with Schoolhouse Rock and doesn't understand the three branches perfectly.
His job, from what I can tell, is to deal with the one thing that nobody has dealt with, which will be the end of the country, which is the country's bankruptcy.
So the debt is, what, 36.9, something like 37 trillion?
Revenues last year, 2024, total federal revenues were under $5 trillion.
So that doesn't work.
And at a certain point, the people who are floating in the country, the bond buyers, the foreign bond buyers, and everything will collapse.
And that's been known for a long time.
No one has dealt with it.
And from what I can tell, Elon's job is to try and get the spending down.
Well, get the spending down has to be in the budgeting process.
To me, it's a penny-wise, pound-foolish notion.
I'm okay with getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse.
You and I grew up listening to both parties argue when the other one was in power that there was all this waste, fraud, and abuse, and you had to curtail it.
And I know it's true.
It's always been true.
Nobody has ever looked for it and failed to find it.
I'm okay with them doing that.
But I'll tell you what.
If they had called up Carlson and Cuomo and said, Would you guys like to serve your country and see what you can find in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse?
And we said yes.
I'll tell you what we wouldn't do is keep going off half-cocked every day about what we were finding when we weren't sure.
The richest place in the United States is the one place that produces nothing but bureaucratic jobs, D.C. It's the richest place and it's the highest concentration of wealth in the United States.
The counties around D.C. are the richest.
They're like the majority of the top ten are in D.C. And all that money is federal money.
None of those people can ever be fired or are.
It's not even clear what they're doing.
A lot of their budgets are classified.
The Intel EIC, it's like you don't even know what they're spending.
They own businesses around the world.
This is a fact.
I mean, they'll admit it if you ask them.
And basically there's no democratic control over any of this.
The voters have no say in how this money is spent and the people spending it are beyond any kind of correction.
There's nothing you can do about it.
And so it's truly out of control in a way that makes democracy impossible.
And it's also they're acting in strong interest.
And then there's the debt overhang, which really threatens in an imminent way to make all these conversations just irrelevant.
If we're a poor country, they can't support a military and can't keep up with our So do you believe that the answer is to change the institutions?
So fast, so hard that you intimidate the shit out of everyone into silence long enough that you gain momentum to continue the process of paring back government.
But you really have to immediately occupy the moral high ground.
You can't get into debate with Benny Thompson over funding of this or that agency.
You really have to...
Get up here and look down at Benning Thompson and say, I can't believe that you're participating in this scam for decades that hurt this country, impoverished its citizens.
You did this.
And it's only from that posture that you have any power to negotiate the reforms necessary.
You sort of have to do what the trans lobby, the human rights campaign, did, which is you sort of come out of nowhere and rather than sort of make the case that, hey, don't beat up trans kids, which I'm for.
Don't beat up trans kids or anybody.
They come out and they're like, you're a transphobe!
We're going to pick at your house and kill you if you say anything!
And people are like, holy shit, they're so intimidated that they just kind of go along with your program.
I think a functional country doesn't operate that way, but this is not a functional country.
This is a country that is more dysfunctional than we will admit to ourselves, and that may be the only option for reform.
But one thing that I think no honest person can disagree with, we need reform, like, immediately, on every level.
Our military needs to be reformed.
The budgeting process needs to be reformed.
The way that our economy is structured clearly benefits just a tiny percentage of the population.
And I kept hearing, boy, you know, it's like they're kind of like us.
You know, they're fighting against this oppressor and trying to shut it off so they can be their own way and get away from the kleptocracy and everything else.
And then Trump has that bad phone call with Zelensky.
Leads to an impeachment that I thought was a complete waste of time.
You were never going to remove him.
And it's a political operation, so I didn't know why they did it.
But that's their choice.
They went their way.
Then Biden comes in.
Everybody's still doing what they were doing to try to help Ukraine.
Biden is slow walking it, not giving them what they needed.
The wrong kind of ambivalence.
Now Trump comes back and all of a sudden, all the people who are in favor of Ukraine on the right now say that it's a kleptocracy and Zelensky is a bad guy and Putin, you know, not so bad.
Russia, not so bad.
Their concerns about NATO, pretty justified.
It's really NATO in America that has done the wrong thing here and forced Russia's hand.
And Ukraine and Zelensky kind of did too, and they're really dirty, and they're stealing all our money and selling all our stuff.
I don't believe any of it, and I hear it all the time.
You are a big purveyor of this, and I want to understand it.
In general, with some exceptions, but not many, have no principles at all, and they do what's popular, what they think is popular, and they respond just to one stimulus, which is election.
That's it.
And if they think something will get them re-elected, they'll say it, and if they don't, they won't.
And so they're just, I mean, that's just what they are.
I don't think it's even worth being mad.
I mean, they're like animals whose behavior is really predictable, or machines.
You know, you can program to do a certain thing, and you know it's going to do that thing every time.
So the fact that, like, these guys are standing up and being like, oh, you know, Zelensky, who was my blood brother last week, is now a bad guy.
Like, of course they're saying that.
I've said the same thing, I think, since day one, which is this is not in our interest at all, and we've really hurt ourselves, and we've dislodged the dollar from its preeminence, and that has consequences people are not thinking through.
And Russia, of course, has an interest in what happens in Ukraine, and of course they don't want...
American missiles on their border?
Any more than we'd want Chinese missiles in Tijuana?
Of course that's a real thing.
And moreover, the thing that you want, if you're thinking big, and you should if you run America, the thing you fear most is the alignment of Russia with China.
Because then you unite the world's largest country, the largest nuclear arsenal, with the world's largest economy and the world's largest population.
And that becomes a block that many others gravitate to.
We're calling it the BRICS now.
And that becomes You know, something that you can't resist, that controls global trade routes, that controls global currency, and that reduces you, the United States, to the bitch position very fast.
No, Russia invaded Ukraine for one specific reason, despite all the lying from Ann Applebaum and the Atlantic Council and the professional liars and morons in Washington who got us into the Iraq War and Libya and Syria and every other disaster.
I've never apologized for them and penalized for it.
The truth is that Russia's concern was that Ukraine remain not part of NATO. They want to control Ukraine to some extent.
It's their neighbor.
In the same way that we want to control, I don't know, Canada or Mexico.
You don't have to, you know, run the municipal elections in the country, but you don't want, like, if you had a government in Canada that was, like, bent on destroying the United States, you would overthrow the Premier of Canada because you can't have that.
It's your neighbor.
You're a great power.
And that's how Russia sees itself.
Now, you could say, well, that's against international law or whatever, but that's the way nations behave.
And great nations have an expectation they're not going to have an enemy on their border if they can help it.
Well, he fled to Russia on the verge of getting killed.
But the bottom line is Russia wanted a friendly government in Ukraine.
Okay?
I get it.
The United States, which is nowhere near Russia or Ukraine, went across the Atlantic Ocean to install its president in Ukraine in a coup.
That's a fact, and they were caught on tape doing it.
Bob Kagan's wife was caught doing that.
You can listen to the tape.
Okay, I guess both are bad, but if you're being an adult about it, you understand that great powers have an interest in not having other people's nuclear weapons on their borders.
That's just a fact.
And you could say, well, it shouldn't be a fact, but it is a fact.
Those were Soviet nukes, and that was negotiated by the United States.
Right.
Okay.
All I'm saying is, if you're thinking about it from the perspective of what's good for the United States, you do not want Russia becoming in close military alliance and economic alliance with China.
You don't want that because that becomes a block that you can't defeat, from which you will soon be taking orders.
And every administration has understood this.
The Biden administration went to the Munich Security Conference in February of 2022 and had the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, say at a press conference, Tuzlensk, we want you in NATO. NATO did not want Ukraine.
There never was a referendum in Ukraine what the Ukrainians wanted.
We want you to be an American satellite with American weapons in your country.
She said that, knowing that was the red line.
Putin's like, look.
I just don't want Ukraine and NATO. You've had all these countries around my borders in NATO. I don't know why you're doing that.
I still don't know to this day why we're doing that.
That's an aggressive, offensive move.
But you cannot have Ukraine.
It's too big.
It's too important.
Our energy pipelines go through it.
No!
And they insisted on doing this, and Putin gave a speech immediately after.
In Russia, no Americans ever watched it.
You should.
It's really interesting saying, this NATO thing is too much.
We have to invade, and we're doing it.
Those are the facts, okay?
The question is, why would you do that?
Ukraine is not sovereign.
It never was.
You know that Ukraine cannot beat Russia in a conventional war.
Russia's got 100 million more people in much deeper industrial capacity.
There's a Russian military naval base there, as you know.
And what do you do with Donetsk and Lugansk in the eastern part of Ukraine?
They basically reached terms in Istanbul two months into the war.
All of a sudden, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Boris Johnson, shows up in Kiev and delivers a message from the Biden administration, no, no peace.
You are not allowed to negotiate a peace.
He's telling a, quote, sovereign country this.
Some unemployed, you know, indebted Brit is showing up on behalf of the United States to lecture the so-called president of Ukraine about what he can do with his own country.
It's not sovereign in any sense.
And they break off the peace talks.
This is all, like, I'm not making this up.
Look it up!
And a million more Ukrainians die.
The country's totally destroyed.
Forever.
And then Zelensky goes and changes the law in Ukraine to allow foreigners to buy farmland in Ukraine, to buy the soil of Ukraine.
So you wind up with a country whose population has just been killed, that no longer owns its land.
So big American companies, multinational companies can go in and just buy Ukraine.
That's the total destruction of a European nation.
And in the United States, we feel like, oh, no, we're fighting on behalf of Churchill.
No, we just destroyed Ukraine because we want to fight Russia.
And now that is the core, the desire of the American foreign policy established to have a war with Russia.
That does not make any sense to me.
I'm not a Putin lover.
I don't speak Russian.
I've got nothing to do with Russia.
I just don't understand why it's in America's national interest to be at war with Russia.
It's not.
And these are people with very deep emotional hatred of Russia.
I can't even speculate as to where that comes from.
But it's real.
I've certainly seen it a lot.
And it's not consistent with our interests as a nation.
It has not helped the United States at all.
It's hurt us.
We spent over $100 billion when we're bankrupt.
And all we've achieved is destroying this nation that didn't really do it.
His case is he wanted America and Europe to help them fight back Russia because Russia wants to reestablish the USSR. He wants to keep Ukraine sovereign.
Of course, he has cultural and geographic issues in the eastern part of his country.
And that has been an ongoing problem for them.
I was in Ukraine when the Russian separatists shot down that Malaysian Airlines plane, lied about it, wouldn't let the bodies be reclaimed.
It was a whole thing.
Putin installed a guy named Borosky, who was supposedly a prime minister of Donetsk.
It was all bullshit, because that's what Putin is.
So, they wanted help.
They want to stay sovereign.
America was helping them with that, and now all of a sudden, Zelensky's a thief.
They're stealing all our money.
They're selling all our weapons to Mexican cartels.
And his opponent was calling for that before he was just shut down by the Ukrainian intel services a week ago.
So there's no authority.
He doesn't have democratic authority over his country.
What he has is a lot of NATO weapons.
And to your second point, he has absolutely, as a matter of fact...
The Ukrainian military has sold those weapons on the black market around the world.
And these are facts.
They've run up in the hands of, among others, the Mexican drug cartels, the Taliban, Hamas.
Hamas in Gaza.
Fact.
And a lot of other groups.
And it's incredibly destabilizing, by the way.
The United States did this years ago in Afghanistan, as you know, and sent a bunch of Stinger missiles to the Mahajidine in 1979 and 80 to fight the Soviets.
And those missiles...
Caused huge problems for all of Southwest Asia for like 20 years.
And so this is a big deal, and I don't know why people feel like they have to lie about it now.
Do you believe the most corrupt country in Europe, which is so corrupt that NATO didn't want it as a member?
You believe it's outside the realm of possibility that facing defeat, the leaders of that military would not sell the weapons that they're getting from the West?
That Russia put out those pictures of were from like 2014 and they didn't even have javelins then.
So the idea that Ukraine could have been selling weapons that were taken from a different time as an obvious ploy by Russia to make them look bad is, to me, propaganda and not proof that they did it.
What I'm telling you is the Ukrainian military has sold huge amounts of American-supplied, NATO-supplied weapon systems around the world, and that they're purchasable now by governments and armed groups and are being purchased.
And we're about to have more of a footprint because the mineral deal will put American companies on the ground in those areas that are right now war zones.
You know, it's always some chick, that blonde chick.
I'm president of Estonia!
You know, a country of five million people that have vented the sauna.
By the way, I'm part Finnish.
I'm not against Estonia.
I'm sure it's great, but the idea that some woman who's never been in the armed service, like, setting military policy for the EU, you know, we're going to do this, we're going to...
You can't do anything.
You don't have an army.
Britain's army is smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps.
NATO, which is a coalition that includes, by the way, Turkey, it's like this huge coalition, couldn't beat Russia.
No, but I'm just saying, like, Russia actually, for a country at war...
You know, I think it's got deeper problems.
War is not good for any economy over time or any country over time.
But there's been such a massive infusion of Chinese investment into Russia in the past couple of years that people in, say, Moscow, city of 12 million, you know, they don't feel a privation that...
And they're able to do that because they don't know anything because they've never been anywhere and they don't actually, their leaders I'm talking about, don't kind of take the time to understand that they don't understand.
The more you know, the more you realize you really don't know.
Because do you speak Russian?
I don't think so.
So like how the hell do you know what's going on?
You don't know.
The best you can do is like be open-minded and let evidence guide your conclusions.
From an American perspective, what we've learned is the U.S. capacity for projecting strength through the military is a lot less than we thought it was.
Zelensky has done nothing but complain about us not giving them what they needed.
We gave them, like, high Mars.
Everything we're giving them, I mean, you know, because you've been studying the situation, I've been there twice during the conflict, and it's like World War I level warfare there.
Okay, we haven't heard anything about Ukraine for the past three years.
You were required, and I got fired over this, so I know, you were required to pretend that Zelensky, who I think is a complicated person for whom I feel sorry, actually, I feel like he's a pawn among bigger powers, okay, I feel bad for Zelensky.
But we're required to pretend that Vladimir Putin was Satan.
And my only point is, that's not true, actually.
It's way more complicated than that.
Both of them have good and bad qualities.
Moreover, it's not our fight.
Like, what are we doing there?
This whole thing is so nuts just because you're mad at Russia for some reason that you'll never say out loud.
That complaint that the wealthy and powerful are feeding off the rest of us, I think is the one untapped reservoir of populist sentiment in this country.
Well, we have a system where the corporations, right, get to do whatever they want with the money that they make.
And they get to work the system to pay as little as possible into the rest of us.
They still pay more.
Obviously, the taxes are paid more by the wealthy than by those who aren't wealthy, but we find ways around it.
And the government then subsidizes those same corporations even though they don't take care of their own workers.
And I think that how the powerful are able to leverage our government is the main fight that we need to have.
So you'll have, like, let's say Walmart is a great and egregious example.
They have more of their people on SNAP as a percentage, their workers, than any other corporation.
Yet, they're making a lot of money, and then what do we say?
Well, they're allowed to give it to their shareholders.
That's capitalism.
Oh, but we, Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo, have to subsidize your workers.
I think that that's the main fight.
Now, obviously, it's not Ukraine, but what I'm saying is rich people imposing their will on the U.S. government to do what they want for them is a real thing.
But I don't actually think, I don't think that that's the greatest threat to our democracy or our freedoms or our country.
I think, because look, Walmart, huge, world's biggest retailer, or was a powerful company, obviously.
It's got a board of directors.
It's got shareholders.
It's a publicly traded company.
You can buy Walmart.
There's some accountability inherent in that structure.
If you have someone like Ken Griffin, not to beat up on poor Ken Griffin, who, you know, I don't think Ken Griffin's evil, it's just silly, but I'll just name him again.
Ken Griffin is like this independent multi-billionaire who's got massive, and there are a lot of these guys, who have massive political influence because of the money that he has.
And there's no accountability at all.
There's no board of directors of Ken Griffin.
He's just a billionaire.
He is his own power center.
And he's what we would call, if he were Russian, an oligarch.
I can answer your question, and I don't think it's an unfair question at all.
Because I do think the world that produced Elon is a world you need to think about a little bit.
I think there are definitely some threats.
Elon specifically will always have my love because he did the most important thing, which is restore free speech to the United States through X. And he took...
Because, you know, free speech doesn't mean anything if you can't actually speak to an audience.
Like, I can, you know, lecture the mirror in my living room, but it doesn't mean anything.
I have to be able to talk to other people in order to convince them.
And there was no place to do that at scale.
All the social media apps were controlled, completely controlled.
And he has...
Given a real measure of free speech back to the United States, to its citizens, which is really the difference between slavery and freedom is being able to say what you think.
There's kind of like, a free man can say what he believes is true, and a slave can't.
It's that simple.
So if you want to remain free and not enslaved, then you have to have free speech.
And no one else seemed to agree with that, except this South African guy.
It is the biggest problem we have, and I'll tell you exactly why.
Because it creates chaos and disunity.
If you have a continental-sized country like we do, the main question you have always, every day, you're thinking about how do we hold together?
How do 50 states not become 50 countries?
I mean, that will naturally happen, right?
Because each governor sees himself as Caesar.
So how do you keep them cohesive?
And the only way to do that is, short of force, you could just, like, get nukes and tell everyone to obey, but short of that, short of becoming a totalitarian country...
It's by consent.
It's because everybody thinks we're in this together.
We're all Americans.
We have this in common.
And it used to be race and religion.
It no longer is.
Okay, so what is it?
Crickets.
What is it?
What is it that we all have in common?
And no one is even trying to answer that question.
And until you can answer that question...
You are going to move toward disunity.
The drug cartels will take over, you know, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and they'll be their own thing.
And, you know, New England will be its own thing.
And, you know, God knows what will happen, but it'll break apart.
Because that's just the nature of people, of human society.
So we need a period where we can think through what it is to be an American, what unites us, what's our civic religion.
It can't just be everyone's gay.
That's not enough.
Pride flag is not enough to hold a country together.
What is it?
And immigration makes it impossible because it's too much churn.
But even if you wanted to look at the people, even if you want to say there are 15 million people who aren't supposed to be here, they all came in illegally.
Okay.
One, you see how easier it is to say that than to do something about it, right?
Because he was going to come in and round them all up and now...
I see it as the greatest failure this country's ever presided over, which is the failure to encourage its own citizens to buy into the country sufficient to have kids.
You have to have an economy that allows young people who aren't rich, whose parents aren't rich, to get married and have kids.
And we haven't done that.
And the middle class is now the minority of the country.
It's super hard for people to get married and have kids.
And so rather than fix that problem, because it would, I don't know, make Larry Fink less rich, you have to import people because, oh, we need workers.
Well, what about, I mean, we both grew up in a world where people had kids, and they don't now.
You broke laws of my country to get here, and you expect me to like it, and me to kiss your ass, and me to give you...
Housing vouchers and food stamps and free education for your kids.
What?
I didn't sign up for that.
I was born here.
I actually like immigrants.
I was just trying to say.
Elon Musk, my best friend and business partner, a million immigrants I love, but inviting people in illegally, immediately putting them on welfare when they have no relevant skills to a tech economy, which they don't.
A lot of them can't read.
We don't know their real names.
How is that good for America?
In no sense is it.
It's the destruction of America.
And everyone knows that.
And everyone's so paralyzed by race guilt, they can't say it.
But it's not about race.
It's about a basic question that any country has to ask itself, which is, what do I have in common with my neighbors?
Why are we all in this together?
I've got nothing in common with my neighbors now.
We don't speak the same language.
So how is this a country?
Like, these are not questions that racists ask.
These are questions that any normal, logical person would ask.
Like, what is this?
That's why no one wants to fight for the country.
Because they're attacking people who were born here.
Our wars are fought by white men from the South and the Midwest.
I'm just telling you that if, you know, our entire media establishment, and not just our, like, the vibe, the law, diversity is designed to discriminate against those people.
So why do they fight your wars?
That's just true.
And then normal people, I put myself in this class, are like, I don't even know what it is that we're fighting for.
More trans people or whatever?
Like, what is this project about?
These are all answerable questions, by the way.
All is not lost.
I'm just saying, you need to just pause and think through the basics.
I think the country is the best country in the world, totally salvageable.
We can turn this around.
I'm not talking about the economy.
I mean the social fabric, which is much more important than the economy.
But we need to do it now and take it seriously and not just listen to AEI and measure everything in GDP. Those people are stupid.
So every institution in American life, almost without any exception at all, has abandoned that standard and now has something called DEI or diversity hiring.
That what it is to be an American is to participate in a system that judges you in the basis of what you do, who you are, where you came from, what your parents did, or what they look like.
And so every institution in American life to this day, the meaningful ones, the universities, the large corporations, the federal government, to this day, has abandoned that and moved aggressively in the other direction.
There are federal set-asides.
The ladders of success, the merit badges that we require to enter these institutions, mostly in education, totally determined by race and sex.
And that's the opposite of what you said.
So then, and that's been going on for 60 years, so, okay, so clearly it's not the land of opportunity.
What is it?
It's a giant piñata party where the most aggressive person gets the biggest pile, so Larry Fink is the richest guy because he elbowed people in the face the hardest?
I'm saying that I don't have a problem with standardized testing.
I don't have a problem with SATs and people having to use them to get into educational institutions.
I don't have any problem with it.
I'm saying that you also have to be open to the reality that the kids aren't going to do the same on the test when one has had a good education and one has not had a good education.
And the truth is darker and harder to deal with, okay?
Which is that intelligence is the product of environment to some extent, but it's mostly genetic.
And intelligence is a lot of factors in success, but intelligence is the single most important over time in big populations.
Smarter populations do better.
They make more money, they go to jail less often, they stay married.
Singapore is a more successful society than the United States for this reason, okay?
So that's the truth.
If you have a meritocratic society, the smartest people will have most of the money and most of the success.
And that doesn't seem fair to people, is the truth, actually.
And as we got better at sorting the smart people and sending them to Harvard and McKinsey and, you know, on to private equity, it became more obvious.
No, it's true, though.
It became obvious that the meritocracy was producing an incredibly lopsided society.
And that freaked people out, and it felt unfair to them.
And two people in the early 1990s wrote a book on it, Dick Hernstein and Murray, and it was called The Bell Curve.
And it had a chapter on race in it, which made a lot of people mad.
They could have taken that chapter out, and it would have been, I think, the transformative book ever, because it described what I just said, which is the meritocracy produces an outcome that you may not be ready for.
Actually, because it's rooted in nature and you can't change it.
And Head Start, which was designed to increase the IQ of poor kids, didn't work.
And no one even wants to talk about it anymore.
It's really hard to change people's intelligence.
And intelligence turns out to be the main predictor of economic success.
So these are super complicated questions.
But I know that a system that rewards people on the basis of race and punishes others on the basis of race creates hatred and division.
If I can't get into college, if two people apply to college, and they're different colors, and the one with the lower SAT score is admitted because of his race, that's penalizing.
You can say they did this with the UC system in California, which was once a great system when I grew up in that state, and it's now a joke, because of this.
But they basically found out that they were just like, we have too many Asians, we can't have too many Asians.
Right, so basically the way they shut down the conversation is by making everyone feel guilty about slavery, which no living person had anything to do with at all, and no living person I've ever met supports.
I couldn't be more opposed to it.
That's why I'm for free speech, because I'm against slavery.
But look, it's also, it's not a coincidence that people of color, specifically African American, are at a different socioeconomic level, given how they were introduced to the country, right?
There are cultural, there are ethnic pockets, right?
So Italians...
Have certain things that are more common because of that group of animals breeding with each other than you'll have with Irish people or with Polish people.
Well, because slavery, you know, evil though it is, it still exists, by the way, around the world, but it's evil and Christians got rid of it.
No other group did.
Christians got rid of that.
Because they thought it was evil, because they thought God created each person.
But even under most, certainly in the United States, even under slavery here, evil as it was, slaves were still considered human.
They didn't possess the same rights.
But AI and transhumanism, transhumanism specifically, seeks to redefine what a human being is.
When you merge people with machines, then you don't acknowledge the existence of a soul.
If you believe that each person has a distinct soul, that God cares about each person, like a speck of sand on the beach, each person is accounted for and watched over by God and cared for by God and has a destiny, how could you merge that person with a computer?
Because once you do that, then you don't have to acknowledge the soul.
Then you can treat that person like the object that you've made him into.
And, of course, we don't even discuss this, but whatever.
The point is, look, my only point is...
This is a super complicated topic as I think we're proving and there are always unintended consequences of any system that you set up.
But I know from just watching the world and watching the United States that the second you make race a key for appearance, whatever you want to call it, genetics, a key component in awarding or punishing.
Then you make everybody hate each other and you wind up like Rwanda.
But what I'm saying is, when you discover that women aren't given the opportunities because they're women, or blacks aren't given opportunities because they're black, in America, that's something that we see as corrective.
I mean, look, the Trump administration, which I think is a very interesting aspect about our conversation.
Think about it.
You and I have sat together, I don't know how long, if it goes past like that.
But we haven't even talked about anything in the news, really.
I mean, we're talking to Ukraine.
I have deeper questions for you, Chris.
And I love it, but I'm saying that's the beauty.
That's the beauty.
Right?
That's the beauty of the forum, of the freedom, of what we're able to do here, which you would never be able to do just by time, let alone by subject inclination.
We are very divided.
And we are divided in ways that I haven't experienced before.
And I think that a big part of it is that it works.
It's working for people who want power.
And to keep power.
Division sells these days.
And maybe it always has, and that's why we know what a demagogue is, but there's no positive opposite term that the Greeks gave us.
It's easy to play on people's outrage.
But when I see the Trump administration, he came in fomenting division.
And I thought it was a very tricky sell for him because if what I hear about him is true, which is he wanted to win again because of legacy mode and be remembered is great.
You can't be great as a divider.
There's no American figure in our history who was great because they were a divider.
So anybody who fements racial division is committing a graver sin than average.
And to see Trump get the support of a multiracial coalition, which he did...
Is the most hopeful thing ever.
And so if in the end it becomes Trump against the people who've wrecked our country in the permanent bureaucracies, I think that's a pretty good outcome.
Really, since Memorial Day 2020, when the George Floyd riots began, I've watched vandalism on a scale I never thought I would ever see in this country, not just physical vandalism, but vandalism of our cherished institutions, whether it's the Episcopal Church that I grew up in, the St. George's High School I went to, which I loved, totally destroyed by this.
So they, some, a guy who I really like, who was a member in our class there, called my wife, maybe my wife is hilarious, about five or six years ago, and is like, you know, we're raising money for this new tennis center, and she was captain of the tennis team.
I played tennis, mostly smoked cigarettes, but hacked around on the court.
And in the 80s, and like, we're trying to raise this money for tennis.
She's like, how much are you trying to raise?
He's like, It's $11 million or something like that.
My wife's like, you know, I feel for you.
I've been in this position raising money for a school.
You have to call these people.
I love the school.
I met my husband.
They were married there.
My dad was a headmaster.
You know, we love the school.
I'll just pay the whole thing.
I'll just, you don't have to call anybody else.
We'll cover the whole amount.
He's like, really?
And she goes, I just have one request that you name it the Tucker Carlson Tennis Center.
The guy's like, uh.
Uh, let me check it out.
He's like, oh, you're not going to do that?
And he's like, um, um.
He's such a nice guy.
Super uncomfortable.
He knew that if he went back to the school and said, we paid for the whole tennis center with one donation.
Yeah, no, they turned it down.
Not that we were going to give $11 million for a tennis.
I don't even have $11 million, but if I did, I wouldn't give it to a tennis center and a boarding school.
I think you should definitely be ashamed of what you've done wrong, and I am.
But I also think that you should know what you did wrong and be ashamed for the things that are wrong and not ashamed for the things that aren't wrong.
The only things, having spent a long time in Europe, I would say, one, I think it's unfair to blame.
It's like everyone blames the European populations.
Like, you know, you're Algerians or killing people with machetes on the street because you're a racist.
That's not fair.
It's their country.
They're the indigenous population.
This was imposed on them by their leaders.
Don't blame them.
A. B. Europe is just way smaller.
It's way smaller.
And so the United States is so big that I've spent my whole life here.
There are a lot of parts of the country.
I don't know what's going on there.
And I travel a lot in this country and I go to places and I'm like, what is this?
It bears no resemblance to what I thought was here.
Totally different.
Go to Portland, Maine.
It doesn't look anything like the Portland, Maine you remember.
And there's no evidence people are assimilating at all.
You go to Lewiston, Maine.
They imported all these Somalis there 30 years ago.
They've never assimilated at all.
At all.
In any way.
They've just kind of taken over downtown Lewiston.
It's a slum.
It's dangerous.
And there's no assimilation whatsoever.
No English is spoken.
And so, you know, I think the lessons of Europe, the United States, I think, did a really good job of assimilating immigrants, your grandparents, you know, when the great southern European wave of immigration came at the turn of the last century.
And they really, like, self-conscious, like, all public schools, like, taught civics and, like, this is what it is to be an American.
Well, I think they've identified some things that are really wrong and in the first six weeks have made way more progress than I ever would have thought at fighting those things.
So, but...
I mean, we have some very, very serious problems.
And are they equal to that?
If anyone is, they are.
They've amazed me in the first six weeks.
But, you know, there's a lot coming.
There could be an economic reset.
Probably likely will.
I mean, these are cyclical to some extent.
And then there's also the technology question.
There's the AI question.
And I just don't understand what you're going to do with 15 million new unskilled workers.
In a society that doesn't need workers.
And I'm really worried about that.
I don't know who thought of that.
Like on the cusp of the AI revolution, let's open the borders to Haiti.
Like what?
What are you doing?
That's like the greatest crime that's ever been committed against this country.
And say that, you know, those are the rights that our government exists to protect, right, wherever they emanate from.
And the first one is the freedom of speech.
And when you see the entire leadership class of the country opposing the first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, then, you know, the whole project is bullshit and the people running it don't believe in it.
And you set the stage for a revolution, which is really scary.
I am totally with you about having to tolerate the things that you don't like and you don't want to listen to in a democracy.
100%.
Marketplace of ideas.
100%.
And I would even argue that it is better to have more ideas that are offensive because it makes it easier for the better ideas to rise to the top.
I honestly believe that.
I'm very worried about any kind of concerted effort to limit speech.
100%.
Here's what I'm struggling with.
Our jurisprudence has moved in the opposite direction as our culture.
Our culture has been getting a little bit more finicky with what it likes people talking about, right?
That's cancel culture, censorious.
The law has been expanding, right?
When you look back at Chaplinsky in the 1920s, 1940s jurisprudence, they used to say at the Supreme Court level, you know, the First Amendment wasn't created for Tucker Carlson to figure out how to say the meanest shit he can to Chris Cuomo and be protected from it.
And then you had fighting words doctrine, which is, hey, Tucker Carlson can't walk up to Chris Cuomo and say something about his mom and expect not to get a punch in the nose.
And then they expanded it even more.
And then you say, well, you can't...
Say, fire in a crowded theater.
Yeah, you probably can under the Supreme Court law.
There's a new test of whether it's reasonably conceived to create violence.
So they kept expanding the rights.
So the First Amendment, jurisprudentially, from the Supreme Court, has been getting broader and broader.
And I wonder if it has come with a culture cost.
And I don't like to look at Mike Tyson as any kind of philosophical basis.
But he said once, Social media has made people forget that sometimes what comes out of your mouth is going to get you punched in the face.
And I do wonder these days, maybe it's the angry old man in me coming out, but do you think we've gone too far in allowing things to be okay to be said, not as political thought, but as invective, as insults, and how people are allowed to treat each other now?
And if I do anything about it, if you do anything about it...
But by the way, I think that as much as this is remarkable for people, I don't care about why people are interested in you and I talking to each other.
I know it's part of the solution.
And it doesn't matter.
People can listen to this and think everything that we both just said is completely a waste of the time that they spent watching it.
I'm okay with that.
I still know that it's part of it because, one, when we were working at two different places, we would have never been allowed to do this.
And part of being in those places would be adversarial with each other.
And you were much better at that than I was, by the way.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
On one level, that's not surprising.
That's what they do.
But on another level, it's shocking.
With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
And that is totally wrong.
It's immoral.
What can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
That's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe.
Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.