Advice from Israel: Build the wall

close

Video

Tucker: Trump insists GOP Congress should fund wall

Trump is demanding the border wall gets built, Democrats and media slam the wall as 'racist.'

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 12, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Here's a not-so-theoretical question. When is it OK to pay off female accusers? NBC News has had no problem doing it over the years on behalf of grabby TV anchors.

But now that Donald Trump is accused of doing it, NBC tells us that's a felony. How exactly does that work? We'll explain just ahead. But first, even by the high standards of 2018, it was a Bizarro Day here in Washington.

The President invited Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi into the Oval Office, turned on the cameras, and informed them he was ready to shut down the federal government in order to get a Border wall. Here's what happened next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY PELOSI, MINORITY LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA: --they have apprehension.

CHARLES ELLIS SCHUMER, SENATE MINORITY LEADER, SENIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, NEW YORK, DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBER: The one thing I think we can agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute. And you want to shut it down.

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I - no, no, no, no, no.

SCHUMER: You keep talking about it.

TRUMP: The last time, Chuck, you shut it down--

SCHUMER: No, no, no.

TRUMP: --and then you opened it up very quickly.

SCHUMER: 20 times.

TRUMP: And--

SCHUMER: 20 times.

TRUMP: --I don't want to do what you did. But, Chuck--

SCHUMER: 20 times you have called for, "I will shut down the government if I don't get my wall." None of us have said--

TRUMP: You want to know something?

SCHUMER: You've said it.

TRUMP: OK, you want to put that on my--

SCHUMER: You've said it.

TRUMP: I'll take it. OK?

SCHUMER: OK, good.

TRUMP: You know what I'll say? Yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government. Absolutely.

SCHUMER: OK. Fair enough. We disagree.

TRUMP: And I am proud - and I'll tell you what--

SCHUMER: We disagree.

TRUMP: --I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So, I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.

SCHUMER: Good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: If body language is any indication, Chuck Schumer has never hated anything in his whole life more than he hated that moment you just saw. Weirdly, in Washington, there's always a scramble to blame the other side for government shutdowns.

That's not what happened today. As you just heard, the President said he would be proud to take responsibility for the government shutting down because a wall is too important.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We need border security. The wall is a part of border security. You can't have very good border security without the wall, no.

PELOSI: That's simply (ph) not true.

TRUMP: Jessica (ph).

PELOSI: That is a political promise. Border security is a way to effectively honor our responsibilities.

SCHUMER: And the experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now, by this point in the exchange, not a single person watching at home was tempted to change the channel. It was just too compelling. The President himself appeared to be enjoying it. Pelosi was not enjoying it. She complained that the world was watching their argument in real time but the President would not relent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: We came in here in good faith. And - and - and we're entering into a - this kind of a - a discussion in the public view.

TRUMP: But it's not bad, Nancy.

PELOSI: Let - let us - no, but it's--

TRUMP: It's called transparency.

You know, Nancy is in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now, and I understand that. And I fully understand that. We're going to have a good discussion and we're going to see what happens.

PELOSI: Mr. President--

TRUMP: But we have to have border security.

PELOSI: Mr. President, please don't characterize the strength that I bring to this meeting as the Leader of the House Democrats who just won a big victory. But let me--

SCHUMER: Elections have consequences, Mr. President.

TRUMP: Yes, sure.

PELOSI: Let me just--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well it was an amazing moment. The President is at his best when he's fighting for the interests of the people who voted for him and for the principles that he ran on. But tweeting is not making policy and threatening to shutdown is not the same as shutting down the government or as getting a wall built.

The President has actually made that threat before in March. He signed a spending bill with no wall funding but said he would never sign a bill like that again.

And then, in July, he tweeted this. "I would be willing to shut down government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes a Wall."

But a September budget shutdown came and went with no shutdown and no wall. This, December 2018, is the President's final chance to get a Border wall, the wall that was central to his campaign in 2016. That will never happen while Democrats control the Chamber of Commerce. We'll see what happens.

In the meantime, Richard Goodstein joins us tonight. He's an attorney who advised both Bill and Hillary Clinton. And we're happy to have him.

So, I'm a little bit - just to get to the theatrics of it were amazing. We don't know whether Pelosi and Schumer knew there were going to be cameras. I mean all of that will become clear in the coming days. But what is clear is that Democrats adamantly oppose a wall but they're for a fence. So, what's the difference?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: Well, again, the signature promise was we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. We just had a NAFTA deal signed, which was his opportunity to get Mexico to pay, and he didn't.

So, can we at least suspend any belief that he's going to make good on that part of the promise?

CARLSON: Well then--

GOODSTEIN: Can we agree on that?

CARLSON: --I think the rest of us are interested not just in the rhetoric but, like, we have 22 million people here illegally. That's a disaster--

GOODSTEIN: I would agree (ph).

CARLSON: --everyone agree it. But the - the latest estimate is 22--

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: --but we have tens of millions people here illegally. And our borders are not secured. Democrats have said we're for a fence but we're against a wall because as Pelosi told us last week, a wall is immoral. Why - what is the difference between a fence and a wall? Why is a fence OK but a wall is not?

GOODSTEIN: Well, I think the Democrats view - and, again, I'll quote John Kelly in his confirmation hearing when he was up for Homeland Security. A physical barrier in and of itself does not do the job. We don't want to keep playing goal line defense against people trying to come in from another country.

So the and - and - and again, can we agree when the President says we're starting, we build a wall, that's nonsense? We have those prototypes still sitting in the desert for months and months and months--

CARLSON: Well but I--

GOODSTEIN: --and he was supposed to pick one and he hasn't.

CARLSON: --but I think now--

GOODSTEIN: Can we at least agree that he's--

CARLSON: --well we--

GOODSTEIN: --free to (ph)--

CARLSON: --we can agree with what I've said a million times on this show, which is he promised to build a wall, and we should build one now. And what he's asking for now, and it's late. I agree with you. But he's asking for the money to pay for the wall that he promised and that people want. People voted for him for that, 64 million people. So--

GOODSTEIN: Well, most people voted against him. But OK.

CARLSON: OK. But why are Democrats again, I just don't understand what the opposition is. So, it's wasteful? OK.

This is a party that supports Head Start after 55 years of failed results, so like waste is not a real issue. That's a lie. Why did they support a fence but not a wall? I'm honestly confuse - being a sort of simple person like explain it to me.

GOODSTEIN: So, again, when the - when there was a bill that passed the Senate back in 2013 with votes from Pinkos like Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio for comprehensive immigration reform, it included beefing up border security.

It didn't call for a wall because, as Chuck Schumer said, the experts believe that the wall, like Israel has, wouldn't be effective here for variety of reasons, or we could spend the whole time talking about it.

CARLSON: Has it been effective in Israel?

GOODSTEIN: Of course, it has.

CARLSON: Is it immoral?

GOODSTEIN: No, I think it's been--

CARLSON: But why is it immoral--

GOODSTEIN: --well, well--

CARLSON: --when we do it then?

GOODSTEIN: --because I think the - the people coming in to Israel there are blowing people up in a way that the immigrants here are helping pick our food. That's the difference.

CARLSON: No. I mean some are picking our food, some are committing crimes. But the point is Israel built its wall because it wanted to know who is coming over from the territories--

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: --because it's - it's - it's its country, right?

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: This is our country. So, it's not immoral when they do it but it is immoral when we do it. A fence is OK, but a wall is not OK. I mean I'm sincerely--

GOODSTEIN: Yes. I don't think Nancy--

CARLSON: --confused.

GOODSTEIN: --Pelosi said that the wall it's - what's immoral--

CARLSON: She said three times the wall is immoral--

GOODSTEIN: --what's - what's - what's immoral is spending money on something you know that's not going to work. And it's the experts - John--

CARLSON: Why are we funding--

GOODSTEIN: --John Kelly (ph)--

CARLSON: --has it ever (ph) worked?

GOODSTEIN: --John--

CARLSON: No, it hasn't. Not one year. So--

GOODSTEIN: --John Kelly was up for the Department of Homeland Security Secretary and he said the wall was really not going to be built from sea to shining sea--

CARLSON: No. But Trump said that's--

GOODSTEIN: --that the wall is not--

CARLSON: --look, here's the point. It doesn't - whatever we're doing does not work. And you know as well as I that the fear with the wall is that it will work, and that it'll prevent voters from coming over from Latin America--

GOODSTEIN: Yes, right.

CARLSON: --to bolster the fortunes of a party that actual Americans don't really like that much, which is the Democratic Party.

GOODSTEIN: That's - that's a caricature. I - I--

CARLSON: No, it's totally--

GOODSTEIN: --I'd like to think that you don't--

CARLSON: --then what's the real answer then?

GOODSTEIN: --well, well, it's not that.

CARLSON: What's the real answer?

GOODSTEIN: Because - because even the - even the bill that the Democrats passed that would have passed the House incidentally and had 15 Republican votes in the Senate called for a very protracted period of time before people who were already here would get citizenship--

CARLSON: OK. I just don't understand--

GOODSTEIN: --enabling them to vote.

CARLSON: --like normal people are like look, we don't have control of our borders. A wall is not the whole answer. It's part of the--

GOODSTEIN: Donald Trump bragged about the fact today--

CARLSON: --answer.

GOODSTEIN: --with Schumer and Pelosi about all these people being stopped. I mean he - he has to--

CARLSON: But I'm not--

GOODSTEIN: --get his records straight.

CARLSON: --look, look, I'm not--

GOODSTEIN: Have these - has it worked--

CARLSON: --I'm here to--

GOODSTEIN: --or has it not worked? He can't even--

CARLSON: --defend--

GOODSTEIN: --be consistent.

CARLSON: --I'm here to defend the country, not a politician.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: Illegal immigration is actually spiking right now. There are lots of reasons for that. But the fact remains that it's true and it's bad for our country. We've never tried a wall.

A lot of Republicans are against the wall because they're for illegal immigration because their donors are for it, because it's cheap labor. I get it. It's not a partisan question. I just want to know what the argument against a wall is.

All the things we spend money on like why not try the wall and like, "No, that's immoral." Why?

GOODSTEIN: Yes. Well, again, I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm saying it's impractical. And I'm not the expert, nor are you. But the people who are say it's impractical, well, that there are ways--

CARLSON: Really?

GOODSTEIN: --but well e-verification, getting employers not to hire people who are here illegal, right?

CARLSON: No, no, but--

GOODSTEIN: That would be effective.

CARLSON: --punish employ - but Democrats are opposed to universal E-Verify. To punish--

GOODSTEIN: That was in the bill that got every single Democratic (ph)--

CARLSON: --really?

GOODSTEIN: --vote in the Senate.

CARLSON: There's no universal Democrat support for that--

GOODSTEIN: Well, it was--

CARLSON: --because their donors make money from undercutting American wages with foreigners.

GOODSTEIN: --well I --

CARLSON: If they were - I mean come on, you know that's true.

GOODSTEIN: --well it was in the bill that passed with every Democratic vote in the Senate--

CARLSON: --come on (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: --in 2013 and would have passed the House had--

CARLSON: So, you think Pelosi is for universal E-Verify? We're going to punish employers if they hire illegals. She's for that? No, she's against it, actually.

GOODSTEIN: I don't think that's true. I think Nancy Pelosi--

CARLSON: I think it is true.

GOODSTEIN: --has said from the start back then if you bring up that bill that passed the Senate, we will get--

CARLSON: No. She's against it. They're all--

GOODSTEIN: --yes (ph).

CARLSON: --against it because it - but like can you see the frustration where we fund other countries' border walls--

GOODSTEIN: Of course.

CARLSON: --and call them virtuous. But (ph) Americans are like, "We want to protect our own country," "Shut up racist, you're immoral."

GOODSTEIN: No, no, no--

CARLSON: Do you see the problem?

GOODSTEIN: --yes, that would be a problem if it was true. What's - what's--

CARLSON: It's totally true.

GOODSTEIN: --what's true is that we - that Democrats want to beef up security along the borders. There's notion of it (ph) being open borders and Democrats want people to come in. That's a myth. That's - that's - I know that places the (ph) base. It happens just not to be true.

CARLSON: Then how did we get tens of millions of illegals here that the Democrats are protecting and telling us we can never deport, like how - how did that happen--

GOODSTEIN: Well--

CARLSON: --because they're for illegal immigration. Duh!

GOODSTEIN: --well we're not saying - actually, Obama was criticized by the Hispanic community for deporting so many people. So--

CARLSON: There's no - there's no community of people like I mean this Hispanic community, there are Hispanic people who voted for Trump, who've got--

GOODSTEIN: Of course.

CARLSON: --all kinds of different views.

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: Just because people are of one ethnicity doesn't mean they all have the same views. Do you know what I mean?

GOODSTEIN: Of course. And that's true on every issue.

CARLSON: Yes, it is. Amen.

GOODSTEIN: But I'm saying as Obama deported millions of people, so this notion that Democrats are unwilling to deport people - just happens not to square with the facts. As - as is--

CARLSON: When we sit (ph) with all these people here, and I - I see Nancy Pelosi telling me I'm immoral for wanting to fix it, and it's up to (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: Yes. I think that give her a chance just get a bill passed in the House most people (ph)--

CARLSON: Yes, we'll see coming up (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: --if Mitch McConnell takes it up.

CARLSON: --good. Well I hope you'll come back--

GOODSTEIN: I promise.

CARLSON: --and discuss this. Richard Goodstein, thank you.

GOODSTEIN: Of course.

CARLSON: Google's CEO came to Capitol Hill today. Congress asked him a lot of questions. Did he answer any of them? One of the Republicans who did the questioning joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's being built right now, big sections of wall. And we will continue that. And one way or the other, it's going to get built.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Thanks President Trump, a wall on our Southern border once again become the central debate in the Congress. Are Republicans ready to rally behind the President in their last weeks before yielding power to the Democrats?

Congressman Jim Jordan is a Republican, who represents the State of Ohio and he joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks very much for coming on. So, the President--

JAMES DANIEL JORDAN, OHIO CONGRESSMAN, REPUBLICAN PARTY MEMBER: You bet. Good to be with you.

CARLSON: --said he'd be willing to shut down the government, as you well know. Are Democrats on the Hill united behind him in this?

JORDAN: Well, Republicans think the President is doing exactly what he said, and that's what we should be focused on.

I - I think when the President said to Senator Schumer, "I'll gladly take that mantle," I think what he was saying is I'll gladly and proudly take the mantle of doing what we told the voters we were going to do, which is build a border security wall.

So, yes, the Freedom Caucus, in particular, we took a position last night, Tucker. We're going to support the President, the full $5 billion for the border security wall. And let's reform our Asylum laws while we're at it because that will address the problem.

CARLSON: So, for frustrated viewers watching in home wondering why the central promise of the campaign still remains unfulfilled, what - was it the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who prevented this from happening for the last two years?

JORDAN: I think it's - I think it's part our leadership not pushing hard enough, and - and Paul not pushing hard enough. And I think it also is Democrats just - Democrats are for open borders. Democrats want to abolish ICE.

CARLSON: Right.

JORDAN: Their - their - their party's champion in the last election. Secretary Clinton, what did she run on? A borderless hemisphere. So, I think that's it's all part of that. But the President today, I think, made it pretty darn clear.

He's going to stand firm and focus on doing what we were elected to do. And I always say, "We make this job too complicated." That's a pretty basic thing to focus on. Don't get too complicated. Just do what you were elected to do.

CARLSON: Right.

JORDAN: And we were certainly elected to build a border security wall.

CARLSON: I think that's exactly right.

So, the CEO of Google came to Capitol Hill today. And you asked, I thought, the most interesting question of the entire hearing about a leaked Google document that shows a Google employee bragging--

JORDAN: Yes.

CARLSON: --about turning the Latino vote out in 2016 to help Hillary Clinton win. So, you asked him about this. What did you think of his answer?

JORDAN: I don't think he gave an answer. I mean he - while - while in that email from the Head of their Multicultural Marketing Division, she actually says, Sundar - Mr. Pichai, gave us a shout out.

So, he complimented her, praised her work, and then he says, "I don't know anything about what she did." And there were two sentences that I think are key, Tucker.

Both sentences, she said, we were trying to get out the Latino vote. And the key words in both sentences were in key states. That makes it political. They were focused on the Latino vote in key states, which means we all know this, competitive states.

And he, frankly, wouldn't answer the question. So, I said, "Well, who's right? Who's wrong? Did she say it? Did you do it?" He never got around to answering that, which I think sort of underscores that this took place and they just don't want to talk about it.

CARLSON: So, here you have evidence of the most powerful company in the world working actively to subvert our democracy, to borrow a phrase you hear on Capitol Hill a lot, in the middle of a presidential election.

JORDAN: Yes.

CARLSON: Were Democrats upset about that?

JORDAN: Well, I mean, that's my concern. 3.5 billion searches a day done on - on - on these platforms. Most of those are done on Google. And if they are really having this kind of bias and their key people are focusing on helping one party at the expense of the other, that's a problem.

And never forget, we've seen this not just with Google. I know personally because this summer there were four Republican Members, four Conservatives, who were shadow-banned by Twitter, now think about it, and - and Congress.

There are 435 in the House, a 100 in the Senate, but only four. Gates, Meadows, Nunes and Jordan gets shadow-banned. And Twitter's response is, "Oh, it was just a glitch in our algorithm." Really? What did you put in the algorithm, the names, Gates, Meadows, Nunes, Jordan?

I mean, so, this is the kind of response we get from these folks with the power they have. 3.5 billion searches a day, all the people who are on Twitter every day and, yet, they have this kind of power. And they won't admit the bias that's plain in front of us when we see in an email that was leaked from Google itself.

So, that's a concern. That's why we had the hearing. That's why I pushed him. I wish we would've got a little more in the form of an answer from him.

CARLSON: So, these companies operate as, quote, platforms under an exemption given to them by the United States Congress under the Communications Decency Act.

JORDAN: Yes.

CARLSON: You're fully aware of this. Why not take that away tomorrow?

JORDAN: Yes. We should. There's a couple bills that we - that we should look at and think about actually taking that away. I know Congressman Gohmert has a bill, Congressman Brad has a bill.

And both - both of those bills was it - would in essence say, you are no longer this neutral platform. When you're making editorial decisions, when you're actually censoring and limiting--

CARLSON: Right.

JORDAN: --certain points of view, you are now a publisher. You're now in fit - in effect, a newspaper. And if that's the case, there's a different set of laws that govern - govern you and you are no longer immune from any type of liability.

So, we may have to move in that direction. We may have to look at breaking these companies up. I don't know. What we do know is there's a problem, at least, there appears to be a big problem and we need to highlight that. And then, look, what is the solution? And it may be just that.

CARLSON: Congressman, thank you very much. Great to see you tonight.

JORDAN: You bet. You bet, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: Well are you a bigot if you're concerned about immigration levels? Well, if so, the entire planet is bigoted. We have a new survey on global attitudes toward immigration, and it turns out you are not alone, not even close. It's unbelievable. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TEXT: AMERICA'S NEWS HQ.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Live from America's News Headquarters, I'm Trace Gallagher.

A massive manhunt is underway in France for the gunman who shot and killed four people and wounded several others near a world-famous Christmas market. It happened in the city of Strasbourg, which is the home to the European Parliament.

The shooting is being treated as an act of terror. It's not known if the market itself was targeted. Officials say the alleged gunman is known to police and has a criminal record.

Well, Time magazine names four journalists and a newspaper as its 2018 Person of the Year, one of which is slain Saudi Columnist, Jamal Khashoggi.

The choice marks the first time the magazine has featured journalists or recognized someone posthumously. Times Executive Editor says the choice was not meant to take a jab at its second runner-up, President Trump.

If news breaks out, we'll break in. I'm Trace Gallagher. Now back to Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Most Americans according to surveys don't want more immigration into this country. Most Americans are also pretty used to being denounced as racist for having those views.

But it turns out they are not alone, hardly. Skepticism of immigration is a trait they share with virtually everyone else on the planet. Pew Research surveyed people in 27 different countries on the question of immigration.

In not a single country, and that includes Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, in not a single country did they find a majority that wanted more immigration into their country. So, the question must be asked. Is the entire world racist?

Victor Davis Hanson is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joins us tonight. Professor Hanson, thanks very much for coming on. So, we've been told for, boy, many years--

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN CLASSICIST, MILITARY HISTORIAN, COLUMNIST, FARMER: Thank you.

CARLSON: --that our elites have an attitude about immigration. Open borders are great. The rest of the world shares this with - attitude with them because they're enlightened. And only dumb people in Ohio and Alabama disagree. These new numbers show that's not true at all.

HANSON: No, it's not. And it's - and the dissatisfaction comes because of the sheer numbers. I mean we have one-fourth of the world's - almost one- fourth of the world's immigrants right in the United States, somewhere between 45 and 60 million.

And people don't feel that the melting pot and integration assimilation is working, and, by intent. And then, they look at countries that send people all over the world, China, India, Mexico, Turkey, and they lecture people on their supposed civic duties.

And then they - those are the countries that are least likely to allow immigrants to come in to their own nation. And it kind of poses this question, if it's so unpopular and people didn't vote for this, why does it continue? And I think the answer is that whether in California or Nevada or Paris or London that the administrative, progressive elite feel that they can take the short-term on popularity because they're changing the demography.

And you mentioned that with prior grit - guests. They're creating a reason for larger government subsidies, entitlements, and fealty with newcomers who don't really process themselves into the assimilation process.

And then, I think they also virtue-signal that - that they're so moral people and their - their wealth or their influence or their positions insulate them from the ramifications of their own ideology, so they don't put their kids in schools with 50 percent non-English speakers in the case here in California.

They live in gated communities. They don't feel that they're going to experience the downside firsthand. Instead, they say racists, xenophobe, and that deters these people who don't really make their feelings known unless the Pew poll or a poll like them ask them.

CARLSON: But what I'm - wait--

HANSON: But, you know--

CARLSON: --but these are the very same people--

HANSON: --the exist--

CARLSON: --who - but they're always lecturing us about democracy. So, you'd think they'd care about what the majority wants because that's the - that's the central principle of democracy, but they don't care.

HANSON: Yes. They don't care though. They don't believe in democracy. They believe that people are ignorant and that they need an anointed elite to guide them.

And they don't really talk about the existential question, that is, why are 250 million people on this planet moving in different directions, and it's always from non-Western to Western or from non-Westernized to Westernized country?

And they don't - the Left that - that oversees this process never says to themselves, wow, if you have a constitutional government, if you promote rationalism, if you're tolerant, you have free-market economics, you have - you don't have gender apartheid, you don't have tribalism, people want to come.

CARLSON: Right.

HANSON: And so, if they would just advocate that menu outside of the West, we wouldn't have this problem. But they have this weird situation where they welcome people in. As soon as they get in, they trash the country that they want to live in and they romanticize the country they've abandoned.

CARLSON: Uh, it's--

HANSON: It's bizarre.

CARLSON: --it's actually - it's actually stunning. Victor Davis Hanson, no one puts it better than you. Thank you very much for that.

HANSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well Republicans in Congress seem to be about to pass a major bill to reduce criminal sentences and release prisoners. What's in it? And is this what the President's voters voted for? We'll tell you after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well a major Criminal Justice bill is being debated right now in the Congress, and could be on the brink of becoming law. The President is pressuring the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to hold a quick vote on this bill.

The bill would reduce penalties for many federal crimes and allow thousands of federal prisoners to win early release. Democrats have been pushing for this for many years. Suddenly, it's a top Republican priority right before they give up the House of Representatives.

Tom Cotton is a Senator, a Republican from Arkansas. He's been paying close attention since day one to this. He joins us tonight. Senator, thanks very much for coming on.

So, as far as I know, there have been no public hearings on this bill, at least recently. So, the rest of us are a little bit confused, people like me, who think there are parts of the system that should be reformed, don't know a lot about the details of this bill, open-minded but uninformed.

Inform us about what's in this bill.

THOMAS BRYANT COTTON, JUNIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, ARKANSAS, REPUBLICAN MEMBER: Tucker, we have a recidivism problem in this country. Prisoners should be given a helping hand in prison to get back on their feet once they pay their debt to society, so they won't be a menace to society.

CARLSON: Yes.

COTTON: The House passed a bill. That was a first step towards that. Unfortunately, in the Senate, it's become a early release and sentencing reduction bill.

As you mentioned, up to 2,500 serious drug traffickers are going to be released almost immediately, within weeks or months of this bill passing. And remember, Tucker, these are the 2,500 that were so dangerous, not even Barack Obama would commute their sentences.

It is an almost mathematical certainty that someone is going to commit a heinous crime if this bill passes.

CARLSON: So, I mean, but that wouldn't include Fentanyl dealers, right, because I mean Fentanyl is - is so widespread, it's - it's lowering life expectancy in this country. So, a trafficker of Fentanyl wouldn't be eligible for this, would he?

COTTON: Well - well, Tucker, whether or not they're eligible for early release under certain provisions of the bill, under other provisions of the bill, almost every drug trafficker, whether it's Fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine, would see their sentences reduced, sometimes by up to half. That's going forward.

There's still going to be a lot of serious offenders let out of prison within weeks or months of this bill passing as well. That's one reason why it's so dangerous to public safety.

CARLSON: So, I have a list of various crimes, for - people convicted of these would be eligible for early - early release under the terms of the bill from a couple of days ago, strangling a spouse, providing firearms to federal prisoners in prison, rioting in a Correctional Institution, assault with intent to rape, and a bunch of other pretty serious violent crimes.

Why would anybody include those crimes? I thought it was only non-violent offenders who were getting easier treatment here.

COTTON: Tucker - Tucker, that's a very good question. And that's just a short example. I could give you more like carjacker - carjackers or bank robbers. And for that matter, there are serious non-violent offenders as well. I'm surprised the--

CARLSON: Right.

COTTON: --Democrats are - I'm surprised the Democrats are prepared to vote for a bill that's going to cut Michael Cohen's sentence by up to a third. Even the President says they should lock him up and throw away the key.

Yet, the Democrats are about to support a bill that would cut Michael Cohen's sentence by up to a third. Little surprising, based on their rhetoric of late.

CARLSON: So, crime was out of control in the 70s and 80s. Big cities were uninhabitable, including parts of New York City. Crime dropped off a cliff starting in the early-to-mid 90s, and we're still enjoying the fruits of that. Do you think that this bill will help reverse the trend and make this country more dangerous?

COTTON: Unfortunately, Tucker, I think that's a real possibility. Again, you're releasing thousands of serious, repeat, in some cases, violent offenders within weeks or months of this bill being passed. It's almost certain that they're going to commit terrible crimes.

In the future, you're slashing sentences for drug dealers and other offenders by up to half. And you're sending a message that we are taking for granted the gains that we've made, as you cited, from the crime wave in the 70s and 80s when we finally got tough on crime, we extended prison sentences, we had truth in (ph) sentencing laws, we took away the discretion that liberal judges had.

I worry very much that this will mean dangerous streets for our communities and our families.

CARLSON: Isn't there a way to reform elements in the criminal justice system that need reforms, stop putting non-threatening people behind bars, help reduce recidivism, and not open the gates and let dangerous people out? I mean there's no way to get to something sensible?

COTTON: Of course, there is, Tucker. And I support those efforts.

So, for instance, in federal prisons, we can encourage GED programs or job and career technical training programs, mentoring and counseling, especially, faith-based programs, we don't have to, in return, slash sentences for drug dealers to do those things. We can offer them and encourage prisoners to take them.

CARLSON: Is this bill going to pass?

COTTON: We'll see what happens in the debate on the floor. I, for one, don't plan to vote for a bill that's going to let serious drug traffickers and carjackers and bank robbers out of prison early or slash their sentences in the future.

If another senator wants to do that, and answer his voters for the crime that results, that's his or her prerogative.

CARLSON: Senator, thank you very much, Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Good to see you.

COTTON: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well we still haven't found any evidence of collusion with Russia. But, apparently now, petty campaign finance violations are felonies. That's what they're telling us on the other channels. We've got details for you, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: If the professional hysterics on cable news, Don Lemon and the rest have seemed a little more florid and jumpy than usual recently, there's a reason for that. They have finally uncovered the President's crimes.

No, not Russia collusion. Despite years of searching, there is still no evidence that that happened. The horrifying new misty they've uncovered is, in fact, nothing to do with Vladimir Putin. Instead, it's about sex.

Here's how The New York Times describes it. "President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal that threatened his chances of winning the White House."

In other words, Trump paid off former girlfriends.

So, let's assume that happened. We don't know for certain that it did. We need videotape really to prove it. But for the sake of debate, let's say that it did happen. Why would sending money to women be considered a crime?

Well, because, federal prosecutors and their lackeys on television are telling us, Trump was running for president at the time. Therefore, these payments constitute a campaign finance violation, even though the money apparently didn't come from his campaign.

That's the argument they're making. There is no precedent for that argument, to put it mildly. Bill Clinton tried to keep his affair with Monica Lewinsky secret by giving her a government salary. Nobody suggested that was a campaign finance violation.

Even when presidents have admittedly violated campaign finance laws, impeachment and felony charges never entered the conversation.

Barack Obama, for example, in 2008, ran for president. His campaign was found guilty of campaign violations involving nearly $2 million. That's almost 10 times the payments Trump made. No one was prosecuted for that. The Obama campaign got off with a $375,000 fine to the FEC.

In 1998, Chuck Schumer was caught taking $1 million in "Excessive contributions." He also failed to properly disclose $6.4 million in expenses. The consequences of all this? Schumer paid a $138,000 fine. As you saw earlier today, Schumer is still in the Senate.

Senator John Edwards, meanwhile, funneled up to $1 million in donor money to his mistress in the middle of a presidential campaign. He never spent a day in jail for that. He was sleazy. He wasn't a criminal.

Now, for some reason, you haven't heard any of that background on NBC recently. The good people of NBC News are disgusted by what Donald Trump did. Paying off female accusers? That's just wrong. As Nancy Pelosi might say, it's immoral.

It's not something NBC would engage in or tolerate or countenance ever, except, possibly, under extreme circumstances on those occasions when hiding the sexual misbehavior of its high-paid anchors seemed important to quarterly earnings, maybe, or when accused rapist, Harvey Weinstein, called in a favor or other times too.

But those were entirely different circumstances because Donald Trump was not involved. You know, Trump is a very bad man, even though Trump once actually worked at NBC and made tens of millions of dollars for the company. But again, that was different. It's all very different from what's happening with Donald Trump.

Mark Penn has been in Washington a very long time, long enough to have perspective. He worked for Bill Clinton, among many others. He joins us tonight. So, what I was struck by in all of this was how very close this seems to what the Congress has been doing for an awful long time, paying off accusers.

MARK PENN, FORMER POLLSTER, POLITICAL STRATEGIST, AUTHOR: Well, ironically, in this return back to 1998 again, a little thing happened here that there are 268 settlements in Congress, many of them presumably done during the election period that if this was a true precedent, we'd have to lockup scores of Congressmen.

Lock them up now. Where are the felony convictions (ph)--

CARLSON: But I'm - I mean so - when you say--

PENN: --it's ridiculous.

CARLSON: --settlements, what do you mean? Paid to accusers, mostly women, I would assume. Whose money was that?

PENN: Well that actually was taxpayer money that - that they use for those settlements. But those settlements, if you follow the logic of this, would be campaign contributions, which is why the logic of this is broken that these are personal expenses that relate to people and what they did or didn't do.

In the Congressional case, a lot of wrongdoing here. Here in the Trump case, there's no allegations of wrongdoing in these consensual affairs, nor would they have changed the fate of the election. In fact, the - the contribution - the money paid to Stormy Daniels would never have been reported before the election was held in any event.

CARLSON: Wait. So, you're saying that people on Capitol Hill who took taxpayer money to pay off sex accusers in election years are now saying the President is a felon for doing the same thing with his own money?

PENN: Well, I think they're going to have a problem if they push impeachment. And there was a settlement in their office that could have affected one of their elections because they're going to be asked the question, "Did you or someone in your office cause a settlement to be entered into sometime in the year of your election? And are you a felon now if Donald Trump is a felon?"

CARLSON: Why isn't - I mean the very story is amazing to me. And I don't know any of the details. I don't know anyone does. But why are news organizations relentlessly trying to figure out whether more than 200 settlements took place and - and were they valid. And why were taxpayer dollars used for this?

PENN: Well, you saw there was a little bit of discussion of it. But I suppose it's just probably both sides. Congress decided to pretty much bury this issue because it probably would affect both parties. But - but it's going to come up unless what happens here with Trump really goes through the right course, which is that it was personal behavior and not a campaign violation.

CARLSON: Does - I mean you've been here for so long in Washington. Does hypocrisy get so profound that it destroys the people who engage? I mean can you say something that's so hypocritical that God just strikes you down in the middle of a TV appearance?

PENN: Well--

CARLSON: Can that happen?

PENN: --no you're - you're seeing (ph) it every day. That's why the position I've taken that I didn't like '98, and I don't like what's going on today, for the very same reason that you can't remove presidents for these reasons. You can't find crimes on them to get them out.

Let the people have their elections. Let democracy have its will. The American people have a way. If they do - do it right, they do it again. They made a mistake, they take it back.

CARLSON: You've always been a Democrat. You've probably been labeled an apostate just for appearing on this show and other reasons. But I'm wondering there have got to be Dem - but you must talk to Democrats still. Of course, you do.

And there have to be some in town who think, "Well, you know, we could have a lot of power pretty soon and these standards that we have set may be applied to us and maybe that's not a good thing." Is anyone thinking that through?

PENN: Most people are thinking, "Get Trump." I mean it's pretty clear that these prosecutors who got Cohen on tax evasion, and then had him plead on this, and then put it in the sentencing memo fingering the President, none of which they should have done, clearly, were out to get the President.

Democrats are happy with that. Republicans were happy with getting Clinton. I just like people to do elections. Hypocrisy reigns a 100 percent on this issue.

CARLSON: Last question, since you lived through a Special Counsel investigation when you worked for the Clintons. How dumb would you have to be to allow another Special Counsel investigation to unfold? And well - will any President ever in American history allow a Special Counsel investigation?

PENN: Well, the Clintons were always very upset that they agreed to that Special Counsel--

CARLSON: Yes.

PENN: --in the first place because of - because of what happened. Trump never agreed to it and got (ph) in the system. The i - the irony here is Congress left the statute lapse so there would never be another Independent Counsel.

And then Rosenstein created this creature that really didn't have even judicial supervision to go ahead and have free reign to go after the President.

CARLSON: So, a totally extra-constitutional office, really, not overseen by any elected official at all, which is unconstitutional, by definition, was allowed because one guy at DoJ wanted it?

PENN: Well, not only that, but because of the power that Mueller has, you would think that he would be the kind of official that should be approved by the Senate. And so, that's why there's been a question to the legitimacy because he appears to have vested (ph) a little bit of power greater than the U.S. attorneys who are approved by the Senate.

CARLSON: Yes. I wouldn't want him in my house. That's for sure. Mark Penn, thank you very much for that.

PENN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Great to see you.

Well NBC is extremely upset that the President may have paid off a former girlfriend. We should keep in mind though that NBC, the same people protected serial harasser, Harvey Weinstein, now accused of rape.

NBC also made its own payoffs to people who said they were victims of harassment. But again, they're still very upset over the President's response to what are, in effect, extortion threats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS HOST, MSNBC: They say Trump directed, that's the word, lawyer Michael Cohen to cover up a campaign contribution in the form of payments to two women with whom he had sexual relations.

MIKA EMILIE LEONIA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC'S MORNING JOE CO-HOST, FORMER CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Some top Republicans are dismissing the allegations that Donald Trump directed his former fixer, Michael Cohen, to make illegal hush-money payments to two women during the 2016 campaign.

It's incredible. To me, this is despicable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A simple private transaction in which a porn star was paid a $130,000 to keep silent in the final months--

STEPHANIE LEIGH RUHLE, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT, ANCHOR, MSNBC LIVE: You're right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --of a presidential campaign.

RUHLE: Nothing's simple about that.

Let's remember, these payoffs are about the President having affairs with women soon after his wife had a baby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Joe Concha writes about media at The Hill newspaper, and he joins us tonight.

Joe, I mean I just looking at the shock on Chris Matthews' face, somebody may have paid off an accuser, I mean I could tell that he was wounded, distressed, down (ph) that that happens in Washington. How did these, you know, these - these people are very gentle souls over at NBC, they've never see anything like this.

JOE CONCHA, THE HILL MEDIA REPORTER: Yes. And you've talked it with Mark Penn, Tucker, in the last segment about hypocrisy. And with Chris Matthews - Matthews, in his case, he had to pay off a woman who he had made sexually inappropriate comments to in front of other people. That number was $40,000. The network argues, no, no, it was - it was much less.

But the point is that a separation compensation was made, a transaction was made. And NBC, Tucker, has had its problems, clearly. We all know about Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, as we should not soon forget. He was not with NBC at the time, but he was let go from the network last year, usually on Morning Joe, Harold Ford Jr., Morning Joe, as well.

So, look, this is the same network that spiked the Harvey Weinstein story that Ronan Farrow only took to another publication and won a Pulitzer for. And here's some irony for you, by the way.

The person that was supposed to review Farrow's work, to see if it should go to air or print or not, had to pay off $1 million, NBCUniversal had to pay off, on his behalf, $1 million after he was accused of sexual harassment. That's per a September Daily Beast report.

So, look, I could go on and on. Remember the Access Hollywood tape? We talked about it on this show.

CARLSON: Very well.

CONCHA: That tape gets out to the Washington Post - yes, two days before a crucial presidential election. An investigation was never done and we never were told why that tape or how that tape got out. So, hypocrisy? Yes, it's pretty much on display here.

CARLSON: It's just striking to me. I mean I've been in this most of my life. I know all the people involved. They're the last group that should be judging other people's sex lives. Does nobody - and I'm not attacking anybody, I'm just - but let's - let's stop lying for a second.

This is, literally, the last group in America that ought to (ph) be judging other people's sex life. Does anybody on any of these sets of the other channels say, "You know what? Maybe we shouldn't say that. Maybe it's just too hypocritical for us. Maybe we should pull back just a little bit." No?

CONCHA: Report - right, Tucker, report it, but don't be so pious about it, right?

CARLSON: Uh!

CONCHA: So, if - if you see CBS doing a report well, clearly, you have Les Moonves there. And look, Fox had its problems as well, clearly.

CARLSON: Yes.

CONCHA: The difference I see though between, say, NBC and Fox was Fox took in an outside firm to do an investigation. And some of the most powerful people on that network, at your network, are no longer there, so that - that's I think the way it has to be done that when these things happen.

Investigations, in NBC's case, they did it themselves. So, of course, people in power aren't going to be going anywhere. You got to--

CARLSON: Wait, so NBC never - they--

CONCHA: --bring an outside firm if you really want transparency.

CARLSON: --they never did a real investigation? It was all a - a fake Potemkin investigation in-house (ph)? They never had anybody from outside look into any of these allegations?

CONCHA: Yes. Exactly. Exactly. And - and, look, as far as what we're seeing with the Russia investigation, that's what's called the Russia investigation, not the campaign finance investigation.

Mark Penn bought it up before, Monica Lewinsky, 1998. If you go after a President and say that it reaches the level of impeachment, to remove him from office, over trying to cover up an affair and, in Clinton's case, obviously, lying under oath, you know what happened post-impeachment, because Republicans did impeach him.

They just did (ph) remove him from office. They needed to (ph) have two- thirds--

CARLSON: Right.

CONCHA: --in the Senate. Clinton's approval rating in Gallup, post- impeachment, 73 percent.

CARLSON: I remember.

CONCHA: So, you better make this about collusion between Trump and Russia because if you go after it any other way and the media plays, again, I'm using the word, so pious about it, well you better remember 1998 because the boomerang effect was extraordinary as it pertained to Bill Clinton.

CARLSON: I really think NBC needs an Independent Counsel to get to the bottom of this of what's going on there. But we can talk about that--

CONCHA: Special Counsel, perhaps--

CARLSON: --in a future episode. Great to see you, Joe Concha, thank you very much.

CONCHA: Good to see you.

CARLSON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: That's it for us tonight. Here's Sean Hannity.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.