Catherine Herridge: Being Fired From CBS, the Trump v. Biden Debate, and Hunter’s Laptop
2024-07-11 01:30:55
The Tucker Carlson Show is your beacon of free speech and honest reporting in a media landscape dominated by misinformation. The only solution to ending the propaganda spiral is by telling the truth. That's our job. Every day. No matter what.
Welcome to the Tucker Carlson Show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know, and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at tuckercarlson.com.
Here's the episode. I'm so glad you're back here. I'm so glad to see you. You are not far away.
We're together. We live near each other. It's all, in many places. Amazing. How are you enjoying your new life?
Pretty well. It's good. It's.
been an adjustment. I've had an energetic few months. I knew you would. I knew you would.
Okay. So I just have to ask you, because you're, I was in television a long time also, but you were in the news side of television, preparing interviews and packages, and every day for decades. And given your extensive knowledge of that, I'm just a little bit confused by how the media, people in our business, former business, could look at the last debate with Biden and Trump and say, I just can't believe that there's something wrong with him, that he's neurologically compromised or ill or senile or whatever, that he's not operating the way that he used to. How could this be news to people who've interviewed him before?
Well, I think this is a real opportunity to gather more data and to take an investigative lens and look at this issue of President Biden and his decision to seek reelection. We've got some data points already. We have the debate that you've just referenced, that people were so surprised at his demeanor. And we now have this ABC interview and the full transcript. I think it's a moment where other media organizations who've done interviews with the president over the last couple of years could release the full transcripts from those interviews.
I think it makes sense, because we'd have broader data points to assess, was this a one-off, as the White House says, or were there indications of decline earlier on? Were they obvious and apparent, or were they subtle and missed? And if they were obvious, why was it that they seemed to end up on the cutting room floor? I think that having this broader data set for an independent review would really inform the public discussion about the president's decision to stay in the race. There's a lot of.
data to look at. I mean, I've known Biden, watched Biden, been around Biden a lot for over 30 years. And I remember my reaction in 2019, when he decided to run once again for president for the fourth time, I think. I thought, that's not the guy I know. I mean, he's just completely different.
And then his sister told a friend of mine, actually, we're very upset because he's in cognitive decline. He's got some neurological illness and we don't want him to run for president. So I immediately said that on Fox News. So you reported that at the time? Absolutely.
Yeah. And then I showed the tape, like, look at this guy, and was attacked, of course, and ignored. So that was five years ago. I wasn't shocked by his performance in the debate, especially. But then other journalists were, they seemed to be, were they pretending?
I don't understand how someone who did an interview with him like two years ago wouldn't have been aware that there was something wrong.
Well, I think it's an opportunity to provide this broader data set so there can be this independent review by the public. What would that data look like? Well, let's look at what the transcripts show. Do they show someone who is very consistent, very focused, very deliberate in their answering of questions? Or does it show someone who's maybe struggling to stay on track or is lacking?
Do we have the transcripts? Well, media outlets who've conducted interviews with the president should have those transcripts. I mean, it's not standard to release video outtakes from an interview, but you could release the transcript. And I say that as someone who released a transcript of my interview with President Trump back in 2020.. Releasing a transcript, I think, is about transparency, so you can have a broad overview of the interview.
I think it makes sense because there are other headlines in the interview that maybe your news organization is not going to look at, per se. You know, just sort of separately, I think you have a tremendous responsibility when you sit down with the President of the United States, probably the ultimate newsmaker, to ask questions that are of interest to your news organization, but also to others, right? And then, finally, I think a transcript allows you to stand behind the edit that you either post online or that you broadcast, right? Because then the public can see the sections of the interview that you, you know,
condensed or you made edits for clarification. Right. So I know that in... I haven't thought about this enough, but I know that in 2015 or 2016,, the New York Times editorial board sat down with Trump and they released a full, apparently unedited transcript, which was chaotic. His speaking style tends to be a little discursive.
That's a great word, discursive. Yeah, it is non-linear.
But, you know, that's well known. I think he's much better on camera than he is, you know, in transcripts, but whatever you think of it, they put that out there. I don't remember in the last four years, any news organization interviewed Biden, and there have been some releasing a transcript of the interview. Do you?
You know, I don't, I can't recall, but I don't really, I haven't gone back and looked at all.
of them. But so, like, what would be the... So I guess what bothers me is that everyone acts like this is a shock. It was not a shock to me. I have no special knowledge.
I'm quite some special knowledge, but I, which I revealed immediately, but it was like super obvious every time I saw there's something wrong with that guy. How could the journalist be shocked? Well, why don't they?
just release immediately? Well, they could. That's what I think makes a lot of sense right now. to do that. That's ultimately up to them.
But I think it just goes to transparency. I think it goes to informing the public discussion right now about the president's fitness for office and to seek reelection. And I think it's also about standing behind your work, right? Like you decided, to make edits in the process for clarity, for time, whatever the issue is. And so you can really.
stand behind that. I think that's important. But, Sue, again, you were in this business for so long, and me too, and at a time, pre-internet, pre-streaming, where you have a very small chunk of time, three, five, six minutes for the long ones, and then you just can't use the rest. But now news organizations should just put the whole thing. I mean, that's what we do.
This interview is not edited in any way. And we'll just let viewers decide what they think of Katherine Harrods or me, or whatever, right?
So what would be the excuse that, say NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox or anybody would have to not put the full thing online now? I mean, I can't speak to what their.
rationale would be. I just don't, in my case, I felt it was important to release a transcript, to allow people to see the work. And to also, I mean, it's hard to look at your own transcript because you look at it and you say, oh, that question could have been more focused, or I should have followed up more, or I missed that little piece of news. I should have drilled down a little further, or I interrupted there when I really shouldn't have. I mean, it's really kind of warts and all process that you're looking at, but it's about sort of the raw integrity of the interview.
When you make edits in an interview, you do it for clarity. Sometimes you do it because you have to condense things, because you only have a certain amount of time on a broadcast, but it's a real fine line and a balancing act. And you don't want seeking clarity and brevity or condensing it to cross the line into a cleanup on aisle seven.
Well, that's what it feels like, though. It does feel like, and I don't want to be too judgy. I was telling you at breakfast this morning, I edited something out of an interview once with somebody. I can't remember ever doing that, before or since, and I would not do that now. But several years ago, someone said something so bizarre in an interview that I didn't want to follow up on it, because I don't want to, what the hell are you even talking about?
And so I asked the editors to take that out just because I didn't think it was relevant to the conversation. It was weird.
So, whatever, I did that. I'll say that I did that. But if you're interviewing someone and he seems like bizarre through the whole interview and you find yourself trying to cover that up, then maybe you're a liar. Do you think?
Well, I think the instinct when you sit down with the president of the United States is, this is your president, you want them to look their best. I mean, I understand that. But if there were indicators, and I don't know there were, but if there were indicators that he was in decline or he was really struggling to answer a series of questions, I mean, that's news.
Right? I mean, that's a news headline. Well, and the opposite of news is, of course, you know, censorship and deception. So if you're hiding that, then you're committing, well, a moral crime, but you're also committing an offense against the profession that you chose, whose purpose is to inform the public of what reality is, right? And you're hiding things rather than exposing them.
And I mean, that's pretty clear violation, isn't it?
Yeah. Again, I think it's an opportunity to build the data set, to better understand what's happened over the last couple of years and, you know, really apply that investigative lens. You know, I find it so hard to take off my like investigative reporter hat, but that's sort of how I see it right now. I'm curious. I'm genuinely curious to see what those transcripts.
may reflect. Well, in 2016,, you know, NBC went and back into its archives and found an outtake of Donald Trump saying something vulgar to Billy Bush, the host, about women and grabbing them and all this stuff. And then they leaked it to David Fahrenthold. I think I'm remembering this.
correctly. I can't remember that exactly, but it came out publicly. If I've gotten that wrong,
pardon me. But they leaked it to Washington Post reporter who had been a college friend of an NBC executive. And then it became this huge thing that, you know, almost derailed Trump's campaign. And that's why they did it, of course. So there's precedent for showing us the outtakes.
Do they have any excuse not to show it to the Biden outtakes? I mean, I can't really speak for.
them. I'm sorry to sort of be a little evasive about that. I just would advocate for it. I think that it's an issue of such import to the country, and it really informs the discussion and the discourse surrounding this issue. And it goes to accountability with the White House.
Was it really a bad night, or was there a broader trend that had been developing? Yeah. I mean, I feel totally.
qualified to pass judgment on that question. Over to you. Well, I knew the guy. That's not Biden. That's not the guy I remember.
And I mean this. I never agreed with him, but I'm a shallow person. So is he. So I always kind of liked him, because he's throw, you know, Irish guy, throw his arm around you. How you doing, buddy?
You know, rub your chest. Maybe he sniffed me. I don't care. I like sniffing. And that's just not the guy on TV at all, like at all.
I mean, if I was a conspiracy nut, I would think he was a body double, because it's that different. So.
anyway. In your long and varied career working in a bunch of different big media, the biggest media outlets in the country, did you see people's political or social?
agendas shape news coverage a lot?
The short answer is yes. I think it's difficult for people to step back and do what I like to say I do, which is balls and strikes. People have their own personal lens through which they see stories. But I think you have to really park that at the front door when you go to work, because I think that's when you have the most transparent, credible,
authentic journalism. I agree with that. Do you feel like the composition of newsrooms has changed from when you started in the business? It feels like there was a greater, like, actual diversity.
of life experience back then, 30 years ago? Hard to say. I started my career at ABC in London. Yeah. And that was an extremely rarefied atmosphere.
Yes, that's right. These were very experienced people. A lot of the correspondents came out of Vietnam. Yes. You know, very, very deep experience.
And I was very fortunate to learn in that environment. This is when Jennings was still a force there. Jennings had just left London by the time I had arrived. And I wanted to be a foreign correspondent. You know, when you're that young, you have ideas.
It looks so exciting to me. Totally. And some of the correspondents in the office really took me under their wing and taught me how to write a story by looking at the interviews, the strongest elements of the interview, the sound bites. And then they trained me to really sit down and look at the video and identify the strongest video. And then the natural sound, which really can be such an important technique.
That sound. That's right. When you're editing a piece together, because it's really like this mosaic, the strongest sound, the best video, and the natural sound. So this was a really rarefied environment. Have I been in a newsroom like that?
since? I don't think so. What was the difference? Was it smarter, more serious? I just felt with that cohort of reporters, they're just, it was all about accountability journalism.
I mean, to me, if that's part of my DNA, it's.
. What does that mean, accountability journalism? Accountability journalism is when you're curious and you seek the facts, and then you try and figure out where the buck stops, right? And it's not a question of, well, it's this party or that party. It's whatever entity is responsible.
And accountability journalism is, like they say, speaking truth to power on both sides of the aisle. To power is the key, though. I mean,
accountability doesn't necessarily mean hassling poor, rural whites with diabetes, the weakest, most despised people in our society. It means like asking questions about BlackRock and the National Security Council and the people who actually have all the power. It felt to me 30 years ago like that was implied, like everyone sort of thought, that your job was to hold the powerful accountable, not the weakest. I still feel that way. I do too.
Yeah.
I do too. We have that in common.
Did you see that change?
Boy, I used to say to people that technology was supposed to really improve our ability to do journalism, but I sometimes felt that the technology has never been better, but the reporting has never been worse. And I don't know why that is, except-.
Is there a connection? I've never thought of that.
I think sometimes what we're missing is that boots on the ground, person to person contact in reporting. Years ago, when I did a journalism degree at Columbia, I had this professor, Dick Blood, that was his name. Dick Blood. Dick Blood. And he was sort of a legend in New York City newsrooms.
And he used to always say to detail matters. in good reporting. If you go to a crime scene, you want to count how many bullet holes there are in the windshield. So I think there's that kind of on the ground, real traditional investigative feel. sometimes that's missing in that person to person contact.
Yes. Well, I agree with that. I remember going to a murder scene and looking down, there was blood all over my shoes. I didn't put that in the story, but I remember thinking, wow, that actually is shoe leather reporting? You get a real sense of things when you can smell them.
You know, when you think back to major events, I was in New York on 9-11, and
we were down near the World Trade Center in the days right afterwards. And I saw someone who was collecting ash off the top of the cars. And at that point, we'd realized that all of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belonged to people who had been killed in the towers. And I stopped this woman, and I asked her what she was doing. And she said, my sister wasn't the windows on the world at the top of the World Trade Center.
She didn't survive. And I want to have something to bury for my family. So the ash is what I'm collecting. And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really people and the buildings. And that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays with them.
And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that is much harder now than it used to be.
Now, I think that's really smart. And technology gives you the illusion that all the information is on Google or a text away, when actually talking to people makes all the difference.
Huh. So one phenomenon that I noticed, well, that I actually didn't notice until I was in middle age, but you're in middle age, that's what they claim. Okay. Actually, I'm way past middle age. I'm not going to live to, I'm not good at math, 110..
So I guess I'm in late life now.
But there are beat reporters, people who've, you know, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources, you know, not in a literal sense or not held in the basement and chains, but there, I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover. Like. I really noticed that I'm thinking of one specific person, I'm not going to name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington who, and I would watch these, you know, stories come out and be like, well, that's a lie. You know, it's a lie. And you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies.
Have you seen a lot of that? I think that the danger is that people become sort of so friendly with the press offices that work in these big agencies that they find it hard over time to.
really challenge them. That was never a problem for you, I noticed. I should say, we work together. For people who don't know Gathering Heritage, one thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that, but I did notice that a lot of the flacks didn't like you.
So I always thought that was a good sign. You want to have the ability to really operate outside the ring. I used to say that one of the advantages to doing reporting, as long as I've done it, is that you start to build a network of contacts so that that's really where your stories are coming from. And that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you, right? That's where you're trying to get some response.
And I really believe in giving these offices ample time to respond. I did a story recently where we engaged with the Department of the Army and the National Guard for two weeks. I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case. But sometimes the danger is that people become too close. That's why I think it makes sense, in some cases, to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your contact sort of outside of that circle.
That's exactly. Or you become a tool of lies, which some Pentagon reporters have become, I would say, one in particular. But what's the mechanism for pulling that person back and putting that person on another beat, or for fixing that? Listen, I've never been a manager, but it just.
seems to me, when I worked overseas, I saw this with some of the British news organizations, that they would rotate people into the United States for a few years and then they would take them back to Britain. So they would be there through an election cycle that say, they'd be there long enough to build contacts and then they would go back overseas and someone else would come in. So you'd have a fresh set of eyes and ears. And I think that that makes a lot of sense. It can be a little frustrating for a reporter because on some beats, it takes you a decade or more to really start to build the contacts and the reputation with individuals.
But I do think that you have to check yourself. You have to ask yourself, am I really checking it out to the degree that I need to be? As Professor Blood would say, just because your mother says she loves you doesn't mean you should not check it out. That's right. That's right.
I learned that.
firsthand. Yeah. That's a different conversation. I'm totally kidding. That's so dark, but it's funny.
So, if you're paying any attention at all to what's going on in the world, you've probably asked yourself, what would I do, not just for myself, but for the people who love me and I'm responsible for my family? What would I do if things really went south, either for a short period or a longer period? If there was an emergency, how would I respond? Well, of course, you need food and water. You need security, some way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
You probably have taken care of all of that. But one problem you may not have addressed is what do you do about medicine? There's a medical problem when there's not readily available medical care. What do you do for your family? And that's a tough question to answer, actually.
But now there is an answer, and it comes from Jace Medical. It is a personalized emergency supply of medicines. you might need, antibiotics, other life-saving medicines, to treat a long list of problems. You could have bacterial illnesses, respiratory infections, skin infections, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, things that could come up and happen when you can't just drive over to the doctor. This is preparation, and, for its cost, probably well worth it.
But find out for yourself. Go to jacemedical.com to get emergency stock of common medicines for yourself and your family. It'll all be reviewed by a board-certified physician and dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost, not crackpot stuff. It's essential. I have it.
You should, too. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for an extra discount, but don't wait until you need it. It's worth doing now, jacemedical.com. Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news. Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person. These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to moms4america.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever coast-to-coast tour. Not only will you be supporting Moms4America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a free show, cocktail reception, and individual meet-and-greet and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson. Visit moms4america.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets. See you on the tour!
Hey guys, Josh Hammer, here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network. Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the, this, the, that. There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election. We do all of that every single day, right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes.
wherever you get your podcasts. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
I wonder, since you spent, you know, you're at ABC, Fox News, CBS, you just left CBS pretty recently, the spring, maybe? February. February, okay.
You spent your whole life, and I have too, at these huge news organizations. And toward the end, you know, independent journalism, digital journalism, is on the rise. Like. what was the view of that from inside the big news organization? Well, I think within big.
corporate media, there was still a sense that they were sort of the final word on things. Really? Yeah. Or, you know, sort of, maybe it's not the best phrase, gatekeepers for information. But after I lost my job in February, I took a couple of months to really educate myself about the marketplace.
And I was surprised at how much the media landscape had.
really changed. Isn't that crazy that you wouldn't know that? I didn't know it either. I mean, I'm not criticizing you. I mean, but isn't it weird that you work, I'm in the news business, but you really don't know what the news business is?
I think you're very focused on what you're.
doing day to day, and you're not sort of looking at the bigger picture. But I took some time to try and understand how the landscape had really shifted. And I was surprised at how much it had really evolved in the four and a half years that I was at CBS News. And I say this as someone who spent my entire career working with big corporations. And I was grateful for those jobs.
I don't want to minimize that. But what I see now is that those entities are really shrinking and contracting, and the audiences are getting older. And the real explosive growth is with smaller independent operations and smaller independent newsrooms.
Why do you think that is, though? I mean, if you're someone like Matt Taibbi, who also worked for Rolling Stone, worked for a big company, and then went out completely on his sub-stack, and then he creates his own news organization, but it's just one guy. And if you look at his growth and revenue, it's so much higher than people with the backing of these huge corporations. How could Matt Taibbi get a bigger audience than Norah O'Donnell or whoever's hosting these shows? I don't even know who's hosting them anymore.
But how did that?
happen? I think the public is really hungry for credible, reliable information. I don't think it's more complicated than that. And I'm not here to sort of take shots at my old employers,
but that's what I came away from. But what's so interesting is if you're General Motors and you have a sort of monopoly on your area, and all of a sudden some guy starts building cars in his garage and they're more popular than you, it's kind of an indictment of you, isn't it?
I think the speed at which things have evolved has really surprised people. I mean, when you start to look at the numbers, I think we're at an inflection point. You start to look at the numbers. For example, you did some interviews that related to the Biden investigation, and these were 90 million views, or sometimes higher, but these are big numbers. And when you compare that to what an evening news broadcast is, 4 million, 7 million, 6 million, I mean, you're just reaching a broader, larger, global audience.
And I would argue, and I don't have the benefit of all the data, but it's also a younger audience. And it may be an audience that's really engaged in gathering information, because if they're on these platforms, they're checking multiple times a day for headlines, for new video, for new content. So these are real, voracious consumers of information.
I think that's all absolutely true, but it leaves an answer to the question, how did this happen? How did penniless upstarts beat the entrenched monopolies? And I just know, in my own life, the only moments of growth that have ever occurred for me, the pivot points in my life, have all been those moments where I'm like, wow, I really suck. Like I really made bad decisions. No, for real.
I drink too much, or I got caught lying, or I'm just kind of a rotten person. I have to change. And I got fired once for basically, I was just lazy and not taking my job seriously. I stopped being lazy. I started taking my job seriously.
You know, it is really important to realize how much you suck.
Well, there's a forcing function.
Yes. Do you see, long-winded question, do you see that process playing out in corporate media?
I can speak for myself right now. I lost my job in February.
You just lost it? Like you forgot where you put it?
No, I didn't actually lose my job.
I had a few drinks and lost my job, along with my car keys and my cell phone.
Looking around for it. You know, my job was terminated. That was a very public thing.
I was fired too.
I lost my company health insurance. That was a very big deal for us because we have a son who's a transplant patient. He's got chronic medical condition. And then I had my record seized by my employer, which was a red line I thought should never have been crossed. And then I was held in contempt of court.
So February was a very, very big month for me. But I made a decision once I'd educated myself about the marketplace, which I would never have done if hadn't been that forcing function, that for now I was going to go independent. I'd had some opportunities from generous opportunities to sort of go back to a large corporate media outlet. But I decided that I would go independent and I would tell the stories that I couldn't tell before, because I was at a point in my career where I had built up a network of contacts. And I felt now is the time.
If it's not now, then when?
Amen. I couldn't agree more. So, since you brought up, and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make fun. I know it is traumatic to have your life turned upside down in a day. I just think you're going to be so much happier.
But let's talk about that. So you get hired, you were at Fox News where we worked together, and I really enjoyed that. Thank you.
I enjoyed it too.
I thought you were really-.
You're very well behaved.
Honest.
I felt like I was a good moderating influence when we sat down together.
I loved it. But then you left and went to CBS News, which is a huge channel with a storied past in decline. This is my assessment. because they weren't doing what they're supposed to do, which is like tell you interesting stuff that you didn't know, and be honest and brave. You are honest and brave and you specialize in interesting stories.
So I thought, wow, this is great. I mean, CBS is a little smarter than I thought they were. And you did break a the one doing the fiercest journalism. This is, again, my assessment. And then they have cutbacks because their business is failing and they fire you.
I'm like, wait, what? Did you see that coming?
I didn't see it coming.
Yeah, I bet you didn't.
It wasn't a performance issue. I'm so proud of the work that we did there, especially the work with veterans. I mean, we really helped be a catalyst for legislation that impacted a million veterans and civilians for the better. I mean, I feel very proud of that.
But that's their choice, whether I work there or not. It's not my company. But the seizing of the records was a terrible red line that was crossed.
If you don't mind, I know this has been written about, but I just want to get a record on video of what exactly happened. So how did this unfold? What kind of warning did you have and what happened?
Well, I testified to Congress about this as well. I was laid off on a Zoom call. I was told my job was terminated.
Could you explain why?
No, not beyond saying that they were making cuts. And I was locked out of my email and locked out of the office. And a couple of days later, a courier came to the house with just a couple of boxes of clothing and some books and a few awards. And I said, where are all my investigative files and my research and my reporting notes? And she said, you're just going to have to talk to Human Resources about that.
And I got the union involved, SAG, AFTRA. I'm not going to go into all the details, but there was a very vigorous back and forth about returning the records.
What were the records, like interview notes?
You know, what I would say is that there were interview notes, research, reporter notes, contact information. And when I had left other major organizations, ABC and Fox, it was completely different. There was an understanding that you would go through your materials, you would take with you what was essentially your reporting materials, and you would leave what belonged to the company. And I knew from people at CBS that what was happening to me was not standard. One person in particular said that when their office was cleaned out, they put in dirty coffee cups and Post-it notes.
I mean, everything came back to them. I think if the union hadn't gotten involved and there hadn't been a public outcry, I would never have seen those records again. The union really stood up for journalism. And I testified that when the network of Walter Cronkite sees this, your reporting information, including confidential source information, it's an attack on investigative journalism. And I heard from contacts that I've worked with over the years, who helped me to expose government wrongdoing and corruption, that they were very concerned that they would be identified.
So you, I mean, again, I doubt you will.
agree with this. I don't know what you really think, but from my perspective, super obvious, they're taking him out before the election because you're reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. And that was, that's my take on it. I was shocked that they fired you. And when I reflected for a moment, I was not shocked at all.
You know, they took out the drudge report before the 2020 election. They, you know, whatever, lots of people who are in the way have been taken out before elections. So what, you know, do you think there were, do you think your notes were, did they go through your notes during the time they had them? I really can't answer that.
Because you don't know, or? I just don't want to really answer that right now, if that's okay.
No, of course. I think people can draw their own conclusions. Tell us about the reporting you did.
You know, publicly they said they haven't, but anyway, I'll leave it at that.
Yeah. It will be kind of tempting to go through your interview notes. I'd like to.
I mean, why would they seize your personal reporting product, you know?
It was a very sad episode for me, just professionally and personally, because I thought that we had done some really tremendous work on not only the laptop, but also the IRS whistleblowers. I mean, this was a major story for CBS News. I did an interview along with one of my colleagues, and I think that really changed the public discussion of the Hunter Biden investigation and this question of whether there was a double.
standard applied in that case. For those of us who missed the CBS report, tell us what the tax investigation into Hunter Biden. So Hunter Biden, in the end, got convicted of a completely ridiculous gun charge. This is my personal editorializing, but a ridiculous gun charge. Like, who cares, actually?
But there are other potential crimes.
Tell us about the tax situation. I would think about the Hunter Biden case as having two buckets. The first was the gun charges, and then the second is this tax case. I've always felt the tax case is a much more serious case and has the greatest legal jeopardy for himself and members of his family. I'd encourage people just to look at the indictment, which is in California.
My memory is that it's on the first page or the second page. They refer to him as a lobbyist. And that, to me, is an indicator that the special counsel is exploring whether there were violations of, which is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And that, in simple terms, means that if you're working on behalf of the interests of a foreign government, you need to be clear with the U.S. government.
You have to register. That's right. And seated throughout that document is information about his businesses with Ukraine, with China, with others. So to me, it leaves the door open to a superseding indictment. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it certainly, to me, was an indicator or a flag that that was possible.
So, but the tax charges specifically, what do they amount to?
These are felony tax charges. They're pretty significant. And a tax case, the challenge for any defendant is that these are paper-driven cases. They're not really witness-driven cases. What did you attest to when you signed the forms?
What did your accountant attest to? And I think one of the important elements in the case is how much of this happened after he was sober, right? Because there's a whole window with the taxes where he's really a heavy user and drug addict. But as he told the Delaware court last year, when the plea deal fell apart, there was a period of time where he became clean. So how many of these alleged bad acts happened during that period versus when he was an addict?
And that's relevant, because sober people have no excuse?
Well, it just goes to your state of mind, right? I think, I think a jury... Yeah. I think any jury wants to understand someone who's come through addiction. They want to understand that.
They're sympathetic to that because that's like a daily challenge for individuals. And I think that knowing when they were able to get themselves clean, I think, helps inform their view on the evidence and what actions...
I think that's right. So what's the status of those charges?
Last.
. I haven't been following it as closely, but in the fall, I think that goes to trial.
It was just kind of.
. I mean, this is relevant now, and I don't think it's often referred to in daily reporting on what Joe Biden is going through right now. So, 10 days ago-ish, there was the debate. People were shocked. Democratic donors appear shocked.
I talked to one of them who really was shocked, didn't know that Biden was impaired. And there was a push, pretty sizable push from members of Congress for Biden to step aside. And he's now issued this letter, which seems to me was written by his son, Hunter, saying, I'm staying in. And Hunter, it's been reported widely, is in the White House. He's his father's chief advisor on this.
And you're sort of wondering, what is this? And you're saying, well, Hunter, Biden is facing this trial. Yeah. It's probably better to have your dad be president when you're in a good trial than not. I really can't.
Right. No, but I'm just saying, you don't have to connect those dots. Um, but that's not an irrelevant fact that he's facing these charges.
No, it's not. It's not. It's not an irrelevant fact. And I, I, I, I guess. what has my attention is that over the last couple of years, there has been such an effort by the White House to distance the president from his son, especially in terms of business affairs.
Yes. Right. But now they're, they're really sort of joined, joined at the hip, apparently. I don't know that independently, but, you know, the very, I just, um, did their relationship really suddenly change in that moment or not? Or maybe it's always been like that.
I don't know the answer to that.
Most of us, well, actually, all of us go through our daily lives using all sorts of, quote, free technology without paying attention to why it's, quote, free. Who's paying for this and how? Think about it for a minute. Think about your free email account, the free messenger system used to chat with your friends, the free weather app or game app you open up and never think about. It's all free.
But is it? No, it's not free. These companies aren't developing expensive products and just giving them to you because they love you. They're doing it because their programs take all your information. They hoover up your data, private, personal data, and sell it to data brokers and the government.
And all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal, political, and financial decisions. It's scary as hell. And it's happening out in the open without anybody saying anything about it. This is a huge problem. And we've been talking about this problem to our friend, Eric Prince, for years.
Someone needs to fix this. And he and his partners have, and now we're partners with them, and their company is called Unplugged. It's not a software company. It's a hardware company. They actually make a phone.
The phone is called Unplugged. And it's more than that. The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen, your data stolen. It's designed from a privacy-first perspective. It's got an operating system that they made.
It's called Messenger and other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent it from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use it to manipulate you. Unplugged's commitment is to its customers. They will promise you, and they mean it, that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone. From basics, like its custom Libertas operating system, which they wrote, which is designed from the very first day to keep your personal data on your device. It also has, believe it or not, a true on-off switch that shuts off the power.
It actually disconnects your battery and ensures that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be. So they're not spying on you in, say, your bedroom, which your iPhone is. That's a fact. So it is a great way, one of the few ways, to actually protect yourself from big tech and big government, to reclaim your personal privacy. Without privacy, there is no freedom.
The Unplugged phone, you can get a $25 discount when you use the code TUCKER at the checkout. So go to Unplugged.com slash Tucker to get yours today. Highly recommend it.
Well, my impression, knowing Hunter Biden pretty well, as I did, I think he was always close to.
his dad. He revered his father. I know that. And there's a difference to being close, and.
then being in business with somebody. Of course there is. I revere my dad, not in business with him. But I do think it's – I know for a fact that he was always close to his dad, always loved his dad. That's one of the things I liked about him, actually.
But, you know, it's all – these are very different circumstances from when I knew him. And so he's facing – and, you know, these are charges that carry potentially jail time,
correct? Yes. The gun and the taxes.
The gun and – right.
Interesting. So why do you think there's been – that seems like kind of a big deal. It doesn't seem like there's been – you reported on it, but there hasn't been a ton of reporting on that.
I guess what I would say is that I felt very proud at CBS News of the investigative journalism that we did, whether it was with the whistleblowers or whether it was with the laptop. And I went to a lot of effort to get data from that laptop, which had a very clean chain of custody,
that I learned through my reporting was mirrored what was given to the FBI. And I felt that was important to understand the integrity of the data.
Given that that laptop had been described by a bunch of retired intel officials as Russian.
fake. Right. And we went to a lot of effort to have it forensically analyzed by a very reputable group and a group that was sort of no political attachments, that was outside the Beltway, a group out west, and really a stand-up group, great group. They did a terrific forensic scrub of it. And they concluded that nothing had been altered or changed of the copy of the data that we had.
Other journalists got their data through third parties. And I think that that probably contaminated the data in some way, but I felt extremely confident about our data.
We did that story in late 2022. And my reputation is for moving quickly and efficiently through complex investigations. The idea that it took me two years to authenticate that data is just.
not believable. What does that mean? I think that, and I want to be respectful of my former employer, I think that there was an opportunity to lead earlier on that story. I guess I would.
leave it at that. Well, I authenticated it day one because there was emails from me on there and no one knew I knew Hunter Biden. So I knew it was real, because no one would ever do, you know, no one would ever fake it. Had all your typos. Well, so like I had lived near Hunter Biden, that's how I knew him.
And so just live in Washington, as you did. So it's not that weird. if you live in Washington, it's like a small city, everyone knows everybody else. But I knew that nobody knew that I knew Hunter Biden. So like if you're assembling a fake laptop, you wouldn't put emails from like the Fox News host on there, because that's too weird.
So I instantly knew it was real.
And I'm just a little bit surprised.
that it took you that long. So you're saying it didn't actually take you that long. There.
were roadblocks. I just think my reputation is for moving quickly and efficiently through complex.
investigation. Yeah. So, but it took two years for that story to make air. And I'm glad it did. Yeah.
Because I think it really changed the conversation. For sure.
Interesting. Did you feel, could you feel it at the company that, like people, didn't want you to do this?
You know, I've always tried to be respectful of my former employers and I testified to Congress that, I mean, there was tension over the Biden reporting. Yeah. Especially when I sort of turned.
my lens onto President Biden. Oh, I didn't like that, huh?
I'm sorry. I'll say it. You don't need to. I'm not even speaking of CBS specifically, but it's so corrupt. I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous, because it's not a reporter's job to cover for a politician, right?
I'm just checking.
Well, you know, I like to think that I call balls and strikes. People like to talk about the Hunter Biden reporting at CBS, but I was also the reporter who obtained the audio tape of President Trump apparently bragging about these Iran documents at Mar-a-Lago. Right. But they don't talk about that. Well, you should, I mean.
You should, but I'm just saying, you know, I'm kind of equal opportunity when it comes to the accountability. Were there any, well, I know that, which is,
what I'm saying is that your supervisors, whoever they were, and you're being very polite, I would say, but they should have the same fair-minded attitude. and, you know, allow reporters to tell the truth, period, no matter who it's about, I think, don't you? Yeah, I think that's what the public's looking for. And because they're not delivering that, Matt Taibbi is more influential than CBS News. That's all I'm saying.
Like, it finds its own level. People need credible information. They need to.
There's such a hunger for it. Yes. That's, that's, we just did our first investigation on X, and we looked at the Defense Department, specifically the Army and the National Guard's failure to look after a soldier who had a debilitating heart condition that they blamed on the COVID vaccine. This was someone who had no heart issues before they entered the military, and we did an independent review of their medical records, and the symptoms appeared almost immediately after being vaccinated, and they're really amplified after they had that, that second.
dose. And can you fill out some of the details? Like, how old is this? She's 24 years old. Her.
name is Carolina Stancic. She was a soldier in the Army National Guard, and she was on active duty orders when she was diagnosed with this debilitating heart condition called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. And what it means is that there's kind of a disconnect between the way your heart is working and your blood pressure. People can have blackouts, puts a lot of stress on your heart. And she's had multiple heart attacks.
She's had a mini stroke. At 24? And we sat down with her just days before she got a pacemaker at 24.. And this story appealed to me for months because she had paperwork. we learned from the Army,
or rather there was Army paperwork that showed that they conceded over time, that her heart condition was in the line of duty. And it was especially important. And when we launched that investigation, I felt, along with the team, that X was probably the only platform that we could have such an authentic and candid and open conversation about the failure of the U.S. military.
to take care of its people. But I just find that crazy. I mean, I have a 24-year-old daughter, so it makes me emotional thinking about it. But a 25-year-old child, this girl, has a pacemaker? Because she followed orders.
That's what she says, and that's certainly a credible claim, given that's happened to a lot of people, and everyone knows that. So why would X, which was not designed as really a news platform, why are they the last outlet that would run?
something like that? That's crazy to me. I didn't really fully appreciate this until I started working independently, but we felt that X was the platform where we could really have an open, candid conversation, and we could put out the records so people could analyze them, in fact, check them for themselves to understand the issue and make up their own minds as to whether the Army and the National Guard had really let this soldier down. We just put it all out there for scrutiny. And I say this because what I heard anecdotally from colleagues is that other platforms, that story, even though it was a story about a failure to take care of soldiers, could be deamplified on other platforms or labeled something that it was not.
But why is NBC News leading? with that? I mean, I thought we...
I can't really answer for those outlets, but.
Yeah, but we both know they would never run that.
I don't know if they would never run it, but I just felt that it was a completely legitimate. It was a story about accountability, a failure of the government to look out for its own people. And then, in her particular case, it took her 19 months to get the acknowledgement that this heart condition was in the line of duty. And what that means is that she's eligible for different benefits and medical care. But because there was such a delay to get medical care, because there was such a delay to get mental health care, she told us at one point she considered suicide.
24.
. And anyway, we heard from other people who believe that they have similar circumstances. And I say this with some humility, that's what good journalism does.
Well, obviously, there's no other point to it. Like, what's the point? I mean, either you're carrying water for people who are paying you to do that, which is just the definition of dishonesty, or you're doing what you're supposed to do. The reason we have First Amendment protections in the first place, which is tell the public what their government is doing, what the powerful people who control their lives are doing.
And to the credit of the Army and the National Guard, we engaged with them over two weeks. I felt it was very important to give them a lot of time to respond to the charges, because they were such serious charges. And they engaged with us, which I thought was a very positive thing, because I'm now working independently, right? I'm not working for a big corporation. And it said to me that they understood sort of the power and the impact of what we were doing.
You know, three million people watched that video or touched that video. It's a lot of people, and global and young people, and probably a lot of service members as well. So I want to give them credit for that. They engaged, they tried to answer our questions. Folks who are watching this can decide whether their answers, you know, pass the sniff test, but that's part of what you're doing.
You've got a very generous spirit, and you're trying to give people credit where it's due. I will say, I've always thought, just watching you from a distance, that one of your main kind of advantages over everybody else is you cared less about, you know, what the prevailing view of the group was, and it didn't bother you to go in a direction that you felt was the right direction, or, to tell the truth, even when it was unpopular.
Why does it feel to you like a lot of journalists are, you know, it's a big deal to them what their colleagues think back in the newsroom? Do you know what I'm saying?
I guess it doesn't matter to me as much. I can tell!
I don't really have any other sort of explanation for it. I would say, without getting sort of too personal, because I'd like to keep the conversation professional.
Well, it's just interesting. It's like, why you?
If there's anything I hate more, it's injustice. I hate injustice when I see it, and I just think. throughout my career, I've taken on a lot of stories which are about the little guy.
Well, they should be.
Fighting the big bureaucracy, or the person who says, wait a minute, it's not, you know, it's not adding up. And so that's really what drives me in the end, is that sense of there's injustice and there's an opportunity. In the case of this 24-year-old, I think that we've seen some incremental improvements to her situation. I hope that her records issue with the military is resolved quickly, because at 24, she's really given up everything. I mean, she's given up her health to serve this country.
Well, she and a lot of other people. I mean, I know someone who died from the vax, dead.
But it's not, the story was not a moratorium on the vaccine or the mandate. The story was always about the alleged failure of the military to take care of its people, because that's the sacred pledge, that you leave no one behind. Well, I agree, but I would say that pledge.
applies to the entire country. The government exists only to serve us. That's its only job. We pay for it. We own it.
This is a democracy. And so if they're hurting people and don't care, then that's the gravest crime they could commit. That's my personal opinion. I thought that was everybody's opinion, but apparently it's not. Apparently not.
Yeah, apparently not. Right. I'm not in the military and I'm never going to be in the military, but an American citizen. And if my government hurts me, I think it's just obvious that they should apologize and try to make it better. But they don't.
So you're saying, well, we've had such a similar experience. You're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world and you're shocked, but then you thank God for it, because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight. And then you look around and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having a huge effect.
And you didn't even know that. It's amazing.
And I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is
it's pretty hard to take down a big news organization because they have a well-staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with lawfare.
I mean, right?
This is a concern. Yeah. One of the things I'd like to talk about is the PRESS Act. The PRESS Act is a piece of legislation that's in the Senate right now. It passed unanimously in the House.
And the PRESS Act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources. And there are just very few exceptions, what I would call common sense exceptions, for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure. And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on. Because if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty.
I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And you know, and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose. Who asked you to disclose it? It's part of a Privacy Act lawsuit.
I'm a witness in the case. So this is a private entity? There's a plaintiff. They're suing government agencies, including the FBI. And they want to understand the source of sources for my reporting, a series of stories, national security stories in 2017..
This is all public, so just remind me, who's suing? A Chinese-American scientist. And she's suing the FBI, the Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe, Homeland Security as well. They're like four or five different agencies. And the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information about her and her...
So you're not being sued? No, I'm not. I'm just a witness.
It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also they're trying to violate the protection that we all assumed was real.
that confidential sources had.
I want to be very careful, because I don't want to litigate the case here. But the issue is the forced disclosure of confidential source.
information. So that means you, as a reporter, talk to people, they tell you stuff. on the condition of anonymity. I'm not going to tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know. Correct?
Right. And this is something that journalists deal with constantly.
If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality as an investigative journalist,
you really have very little to offer. Yeah, I've done it like three times today already. Wow. No, but that's your life. You're talking to people constantly about stuff, but everyone knows.
you're not going to rat them out, right? The question, it's in the appellate court right now in Washington, and the question is when the need for that information overrides the First Amendment and the reporter's privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources, but that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case. Tell us about the burden. Well, it's so much bigger than just my individual case.
It's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding, whatever they decide is going to impact every working journalist in the United States. Well, and the public.
Yeah, and the public, and for the next generation. And that's why the Press Act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets, and they can't withstand the legal and financial pressure.
Tell us about the financial pressures. What does that look like?
Well, right now, I'm facing fines of $800 a day for refusing to disclose. That has been put on hold, and I'm grateful for that, pending the appeal in the court in Washington. But then there's the cost of litigating a case like this. This is not an inexpensive thing to do. I've been fortunate to have Fox News, which has mounted a very vigorous defense, an excellent legal team.
Because you worked at Fox at the time.
That's correct. I worked at Fox at the time. But not every outlet can afford to do that. And so having the Press Act would prevent them from being legally strangled in the future and losing that pledge of confidentiality. And if you believe, as I do, that an informed electorate and an engaged reporting corps is fundamental to democracy, you're going to want to see this opportunity seized and really realized.
If you think the public has a right to know what its government is doing, which is kind of the bottom line as far as I'm concerned, and I think the public does, the public has no idea what the no clue. They should know. And then you need to make sure the mechanisms exist for them to get that information. Correct?
Yes. I testified to Congress about this earlier in the year, and
I just feel like we're at an inflection point. There's just this incredible shift in the media landscape. There's this sort of exciting, diverse group of new voices doing some really tremendous journalism. So this is the moment to me where you want to offer these kinds of protections for confidential source protection at the federal level, so that it's consistent with what exists in almost every state in this country. And I think it's an acknowledgement of the role that journalism should play and can play in the democratic process.
Yeah, it can't. If you make it too expensive to tell the truth, nobody will.
Mm-hmm.
And that's kind of where we are. I mean, you can take people out with lawsuits if you're some well-funded political group, particularly on the left. They've been doing this at scale. You just, you shut people up by bankrupting them.
Well, one of our kids, as we were really wrestling with the subpoena and how that was all going to unfold, and there's a certain amount of,
you know, you can't keep your kids off their phones, right? So they're seeing sort of some of this play out. And one of our sons asked me, Mom, are you going to go to jail? Are we going to lose the house? Are we going to lose everything that you've worked for?
And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value, I get a little choked up when I think about it, but in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible. But I couldn't offer him that assurance. And the best part of the story is how he ended it. He said, Mom, do what it takes. I've got your back.
And I thought, if a teenager understands the importance of this pledge of confidentiality and understands the importance that journalism plays in a democracy, then certainly Congress can get this legislation passed. Right now it's in the Senate. Chuck Schumer has said he would like to get it to the president's desk this year, and I hope there'll.
be movement before the August recess. Social media are great. They're important. They're the main way we communicate with each other. They're where politics happen in this country.
But one of the problems with social media is that the rules change. The people in charge don't want you to say something. They don't tell you that. And the next thing you know, you're without a platform. Well, now you have an option.
Parler, it's back. The original free speech app taken off the internet by the censors has come back in full force. Parler was the first big app to be pulled off, because it was the first big app to make free speech a top priority. Now, other platforms may be relaxing their policies and they change a lot, but Parler will not change. Its distinct approach is here to stay.
By paving the way for other apps to protect users' free speech, Parler has set the standard in the industry. It is now launched on a hyperscale private cloud called Parler Cloud, and that means your data are secure. Your words cannot be controlled by third-party companies. It's uncancelable. Again, Parler has been canceled.
They don't plan to be canceled again, and they've taken extensive and very expensive steps to make sure it's not going to happen. Parler is not at the mercy of other companies that don't believe in free speech. And here's the best part. It's ad-free. You are not the product on Parler.
Parler is committed to providing a space where you can share and engage without interference of ads or invasive targeting. So it's more than just a platform. It is effectively a movement, and its goal is to keep the free flow of information open globally, where everybody can talk without fear of suppression. So it's upholding the values this country was founded on, free expression, open dialogue, also innovation, by the way. We're on Parler, at Tucker Carlson, and you can go there and find us and stay informed about what's happening in the world.
So join a place that embraces your right to say what you actually think and that fosters connections between people. Without free speech, you can't connect with other people. We're all just lying to each other. But Parler offers you that, a seamless social media experience tailored to your needs. You can get Parler from the App Store, Google Play, or visit parler.com.
At Parler, you are valued, you can say what you think, and you're awarded for doing so.
Who's against it?
Oof. You know, I think there are some Republican members who have hesitations about it. What I would say is that... Because they hate the media. I can't speak to their...
Well, I hate the media.
Because they're liars. So you want to protect the truth tellers. I guess that would be my view of.
it. I mean, I think the important thing to understand is that this is legislation that would do so much to protect these smaller independent outlets where you have this diversity of voices, period, on both sides of the aisle, left and on the right. And it's a moment when we can codify those protections. And it's a moment when we can say, you know, we talk about the importance of the First Amendment, we talk about the importance of press freedom, and now we can actually really do something concrete to protect it. Yeah, I think you're right.
And I do think.
the one thing that we can do is just not obey. I mean, I was told to give up my text messages. I never should have done that. I knew I shouldn't have done it. I should have just said, oh, they're gonna throw you in jail.
Go ahead. Come to my house, try it. And I never should have done that. And in a weak moment, I did it. I mean, clearly, you're facing this right now.
I caved. You haven't. Bless you. But, I mean, what are you gonna do if they command you to do it?
I mean, I just have to cross that bridge when we get to that. In the meantime, I've been so encouraged by how many media outlets have really filed briefs in support of our position, that they understand that it's a case that's gonna impact everyone who's working today.
And that's encouraging. Does it ever strike you how small our world has become? I mean, so you work for 30 years or whatever, more to become. It is more. I'm not, I actually know how long it is, but I'm not gonna.
A long time. And you become, you know, the most arguably famous investigative journalist in the United States. I don't know about that. Well, I would say that's.
I mean, well, you are, okay. But you'd think that every news organization would be like, oh my gosh, Katherine Harris is free. Let's hire her. But you're independent on X. Like, what does that say about the landscape?
It's just, it's amazing. Well, it was a personal choice. I know that. Yeah. But really, I mean, NBC in a normal world would be like, hey, we don't pay you $3 million a year to do what you do.
But they didn't. So like,
is that a little strange? I think it's an indicator of how the marketplace has really shifted. Yeah. I think that's the biggest indicator to me. I didn't really understand how much sort of the earth had moved beneath me in the last four and a half years.
And when you start to look at the numbers, you see that these big corporate outlets are not essentially the gatekeepers on the Yeah. That it's much larger on these platforms. And I really believe in my heart that there is a place for investigative journalism on platforms like X and other platforms. People are just hungry for it. And that's the investigation we did.
It's like, as I said, about 3 million people. I mean, that's a good, healthy number. You don't seem angry, though. No, I don't. I don't.
I don't feel angry.
Really? There's not a smoldering ball of rage inside towards your old employers?
No. Look, if they don't want me to work there, they don't want me to work there. I know the work was... It was not a performance issue. I heard from many of my colleagues who were very,
very sad that they made a decision. I heard from them too.
Yeah. But that's not my call in the end. But the seizing of the records was a completely different thing. That was something that I was going to go to the mat because I felt so strongly.
about it. Did you ever explain why they?
stole your stuff? Well, in a letter to Congress, they argued that they had not seized the materials. I think the language they used was that they had tried to secure and protect them, which left me a little speechless because it was diminishing reporter materials to work product. And to say that what had happened was an effort to seize or protect my materials was... I mean, it just showed that some executives had a very difficult.
relationship with the facts. That's kind of a problem for news executives.
though, right? I don't think it's a good place to be sitting.
That's a very restrained way to put it. I am restrained.
But if you have liars in charge of the truth-telling business, that's a problem.
Well, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that... Oh, I am saying that. Okay. All right.
I'm saying that. I mean, that's just a... I don't know. There are certain businesses. you sort of expect that timeshare sales or whatever, used cars.
But if your job is to tell the truth and the people in charge are just like lie for fun.
It was very.
. I said this before. It was very sad, very, very disappointing to see that happen. And I heard from people I used to work with and they were really saddened by it as well.
Did any of them say, I got to get the hell out of here. I can't work for these people anymore.
I don't want to go into the conversations.
But do you feel like people who remain in corporate media jobs are desperate to get out? Is that your sense in general?
I think there's a lot of anxiety. Yeah. I think people are starting to feel the sort of the earth move beneath them. You just have to look at the ratings and the numbers to understand sort of the, for lack of a better term, the old order has kind of disappeared.
That's for sure. How long can they keep going, do you think?
I don't know. I think this election cycle will be pivotal. If these town halls go ahead on X, I think it's the partnership with News Nation. I think that the numbers on those town halls are going to be just mind-blowing in the true sense of the word. And it's going to be global.
And I forget, I think Elon Musk or Linda Iaccarino posted on X what the numbers were with the presidential debate. And I mean, when you looked at how many people watched it on traditional outlets versus the kind of volume and engagement on that platform, I mean, it was many, multiple times larger.
Well, the entire political conversation in the United States plays out on X, period. I mean, I can't speak, for, you know, sports, entertainment, culture. I mean, there are many different verticals in any civilization, but the political conversation takes place on X, period. Does not take place on any TV channel or in any newspaper. Do you think that's fair?
I do. And I think it's exciting too, actually, to see it a little bit unleashed. It's not always pleasant. It's not always easy, but it's sort of unleashed and evolving and engaging, and it's bringing in different points of view. And I think that's what civil discourse is about.
Did you read it before?
I did. But when I was, when I worked at Fox, I was not on what was Twitter at that time. And then, when I went to CBS, I joined because I thought it would be a good way for people to find me.
What role do you think X is playing in the media landscape right now?
Wow. You're asking me, that's a big question.
Yeah. I don't know that. I know the answer, by the way.
From my own experience, when I had an investigation that I thought was a sensitive topic, I felt very confident that I could put it on X and there could be a really engaging, candid, authentic discussion about it. And I thought that was important because it seemed to be an undercover issue. This is the soldier story. And I was really grateful for that. And I would commend Elon Musk.
in that way. I kind of understood it. And then, when I actually went to do it, I had a different and sort of larger appreciation for it, that people could have that conversation. And the comments that we received were, you know, this happened to me, or can you look into this? And I mean, it was a very organic thing.
And I think that you can't look into every case, you can't follow up on everything. But I think there's something very positive about people sharing their experiences and not feeling so isolated on a subject that's so sensitive. And I think that's really commendable.
Well, yeah. And there's no... Someone who thinks she's sincerely believed she's been injured because she followed an order has nothing to be ashamed of. And she does have a right to tell her story in public. I mean, the whole thing is so nuts that anyone would prevent a 24-year-old girl who thinks she's been injured by following an order from talking in public is just like, you're not on the right side if you're preventing that.
Don't you think?
I think it was the right thing to do. I first heard about her story last October, and it's always been in the back of my mind as a story that should be done. And so when I decided to launch the first investigation, it just seemed like a natural to me.
So when I.
. Thinking back, when I got into this business, well, when I left college in 1991, you've been in it for, I think, a couple years, maybe before... No, not long, but... Yeah, no, 87.. 87?
87?
. So in 1987, you worked for ABC News in London.
In the very.
. The starter job of all starter jobs.
That's crazy. Yeah, it's hard to convey now to younger people the prestige that attached to that job. And you had all the credentials necessary to get that. And you went to Harvard and Columbia.
Well, the joke with my father was, did you really go to Harvard to make coffee and fax documents and photocopy? I said, absolutely.
Yeah, 100%.
And I do the best job, photocopying and faxing of anyone I know.
Faxing.
But it's about pride in your work.
Of course. But it was such a different world. That was a really rich company then. I mean, they had catering, and executives flew first class. You could go wherever you wanted.
And I mean, do you ever look back on that and think, boy, that was just such a different time?
I was in touch recently with.
. There was a little core group of us that were starting out at that time between the news desk and what they called the production control room. And there were maybe 12 of us, between maybe 22,, 23, and 27.. And we look back on that period as kind of like a golden window in television news. The quality of the correspondence, many had come out of Vietnam or had come out of Washington and then got a foreign assignment.
The crews were incredibly experienced. If you had a cameraman, take your stand up, he probably had been in Beirut during the barracks bombing. Oh, for sure. And the editors were so experienced. I mean, you learned so much from all of them.
Oh, I grew up around that stuff. Yeah, those guys were impressive.
I mean, this was an incredible opportunity for me and very formative.
Yeah. And now, yeah, it's just... I remember filling out my tax return in 1991, my first job. I worked at a gas station, at a factory, but I never had a real job. And I remember, you know, occupation, journalist.
I was like, I'm a journalist. Now it's like, I mean, I don't even know what I would put on there. I don't know, armed robber would be less embarrassing. But it was, you know, it seemed like a pretty honorable profession. I guess that's what I'm saying.
I, you know, I hear what you're saying and you're going to accuse me of being so sort of deferential, but I just have always tried to stay focused on my own work. Like I have to answer to myself.
That's not deferential. That's the opposite of deferential and ass kissy. That's like, that's integrity.
I just, I just am like, is this the story? I should, you know, there's stories in front of me, which is the one that I should really be doing. Where can I make the most impact? What's the story that hasn't been told that I can actually-.
Okay, so that's it right there. I agree with you a hundred percent. It's like, it's not that hard to tell the truth. I don't think it's pretty easy. Actually, it's easier than lying.
What's hard is figuring out what you should be focused on. And I think you're really good at that. What are the stories that should be told that aren't being covered?
Our next project is going to look at the issue of immigration and the borders, and I don't want to give it all away, but we've got a lot of good data about how a homeland security is in violation of federal law and regulations on a daily basis, and creating, I think, a significant security risk for many American citizens. And I think that that really deserves a deep dive.
Yeah.
And it's a story that I can really tell now that might've been hard to tell before.
So I can't even get, and I have tried, like a clear number on how many people have come into this country illegally over the last four years. I mean, it ranges from 5 million to 30 million, and I can't, and those are all kind of credible estimates, and I have no idea which one is correct, but why can't we get even a real number on that?
I think the simple answer may be, and I don't know, but my assessment would be that it's just the volume that we're talking about. I think it's the volume.
So-.
But there's not, but to your point, I don't think there's great transparency on this issue. I hope to bring a little bit more transparency to it.
So, in your judgment, that's a big deal story.
Oh, 100%. Yeah. And it's not just, I'm looking at what the polling shows about the top issues for American voters in this election cycle. I'm asking myself, I have information. I think there are violations of federal law and federal regulations every day at the border.
I need to find out if that's really true, and if it is true, why is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is the country less safe as a result or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet, but that's a very legitimate story to pursue.
Also, how does a bankrupt country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't, yeah. There are many questions. I totally agree, but so you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws?
Federal employee use, yes.
And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer?
I think, based on our reporting so far, that it really tips that way. It does appear that way. So my question is, who's been disciplined? Who's been suspended? Who's been fired?
Who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone, except the people who blew the whistle on.
it. Really?
Don't make me give the story away. I want to stop you right now.
Here I'm like so shocked. I mean, you know.
But I think, but that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you want to be doing, right? I just think it's, the thing that has always encouraged me about the consumers of news in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They want to see it. They expect it. They demand it.
And when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to, you know, to kind of shine a light. It sounds like so old-fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage.
How do you, I've had many people ask me this over the years, but, you know, one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. You know, it's a story of limited, obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. How do these, like, who decides that?
How does, you know, where does that come from? I mean, I mean, this comes from the executives or.
the show producers. But have you noticed that, you know, I don't know how many news organizations are in the United States, in a country of 350 million people. They're a lot. They all, do, you know, in a given week, they do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Themes, you know, variations on a theme, perhaps, but I mean, why?
I really, I wish I could answer that question.
But you've noticed this, right? I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say, for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20??
For sure, but the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination,
um, but I, I do think it's a, I don't know what it is. It's, I think it's a conspiracy of like-minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people. I just, I don't know.
Huh. But you'll concede, there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not.
Yeah. I think so. That's, that's the appeal of being independent. is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before. Is it weird not to have a boss?
Uh, yeah. It's a big change after nearly four decades of working, um, for major media outlets. It's a, it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last four months, five months,
a lot. Do you miss being scolded?
I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure. Um, and, uh, you know, structure that, you know, has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand that. Oh, I've been there.
Yeah, you've been there, right? Um, but I, I really like working with a small team and as a group, deciding what is it that we're going to pursue next, and how can we structure this story, that it has an impact, and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing, and at what point do we engage with government agencies, and how do we keep moving the story forward after, after we do it? I, I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at, all. at the same time, and in a marketplace that's really just exploding, where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules, right? You're saying, okay, I've got almost four decades of experience.
This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm going to execute it. These are my standards. These are my expectations, and I'm going to be true to those. I'm, I'm going to follow it through.
That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm so grateful for. People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think. Do you feel that? People are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime working as a journalist.
Huh. So maybe what you're saying.
is that, as a business, journalism is like more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked, but individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are.
. I don't know. I don't know if I,
I don't know if I would go that far. I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole, you know, profession that way.
I just sort of come back to my, you know, I come back to my own, you know, my, my own work. I, I wrote something recently for the Free Press, which is really an amazing operation. It's, Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing. You know, it's like, it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on, on the Press Act and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on.
And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention, because all of our, our futures, our careers, rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet, which is really has a lot of.
impact and made a difference. How, of the people that you worked with 30 years ago,
were any still around in the business? Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired. now. I went to a reunion, an ABC London reunion.
I want to say it was maybe seven years ago, seven, six or seven. It was before I, just before I went to CBS, and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had passed. Five of them were already gone. Is that weird?
Yeah, it's sad, but I learned so much from them. And I think that not to sound too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skillset that you, that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists. How long are you going to do it?
Oh, you know, we, I talk about this with our kids. How long am I going to do this? And when will I retire? And you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like you need to keep working as long as you can work. Because you really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy.
And you love, I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel, maybe you feel the same way. Of course. And I can't sort of believe, I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today.
And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if, if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away, is that, you know, I came out of February. So it was a tough time. There's no question about it, but I had a lot of clarity, and sometimes crisis gives you clarity. And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North star.
They really became the driving force.
of what I'm going to do in this next chapter. Yeah. I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question?
No, I, I wouldn't have anticipated the situation.
that I'm in now. That's, that's for sure. Well, we're rooting for you. Fervently. Thank you.
Katherine Harwich, thank you very much. It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me. Great to.
see you.
Thanks for listening to the Tucker Carlson Show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made the complete library, tuckercarlson.com.
v1.0.0.240919-5_os