This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 18, 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."
All of Washington is girding for next Monday, six days from now. That's when Palo Alto's Psychology Professor Christine Blasey Ford has been invited to testify on Capitol Hill about the assault that she says she suffered at the hands of Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh sometime around 1982.
Now, both Republicans and Democrats say they want Ford to testify on the Hill, although no one has explained exactly what the rest of us could possibly learn from that.
Ford says she has already recounted all that she can remember. The details at this point are thin including when and where that assault allegedly took place. Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, has denied that any of it ever happened. And so is his high school friend Mark Judge whom Ford claims was also there that night.
So that's where we are. That's the sum total of what we know. And it's still a matter of "She said. They said."
Without a lot more evidence it is hard to see anybody proving anything regardless of how many hearings are held. But that does not stop leading Democrats from reaching a firm conclusion in this case. How do they know for certain what happened 36 years ago?
Well because Brett Kavanaugh is a man, therefore, he is guilty. All men are guilty. It's the Y chromosome. Watch as Hawaii Senator, and noted geneticist, Mazie Hirono explains it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MAZIE KEIKO HIRONO, D-HAWAII: Not only do women, like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Did you catch that? It's not just Brett Kavanaugh who's guilty. It's "The men of this country." Every single one of them because they're men. Christine Ford, meanwhile, is telling the truth because she's a woman. She's female. You must believe her.
That's a command from the United States Senator. It's not optional. It's mandatory. So repeat after Mazie Hirono, men always lie, women never do. One sex is evil. The other is holy. That's the catechism of the Church of Late-Stage Feminism.
Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? Of course, not, because it's ridiculous. It's also divisive and crazy. Virtue is not restricted to a single gender or for that matter to a single race. And for a time, it seemed like we had moved past ideas like those. They're corrosive. But now they're back, in force. They're the inevitable terminus of identity politics.
So because the Left has already decided conclusively what happened in 1982, further evidence is irrelevant. As several Democrats explained today, there is nothing Brett Kavanaugh could do to prove his innocence.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, was asked how exactly Kavanaugh might clear his name. The senator's reply "That's kind of very hypothetical."
Very hypothetical? Well it's not very hypothetical to Brett Kavanaugh and his wife and their daughters.
Imagine you were accused of a sex crime and then informed by a lawmaker that there was really no way you could beat the charge. No matter what evidence you presented you could never be declared innocent except in some "very hypothetical way" how would you respond to that?
You probably wonder what country you were living in. Definitely, not America. These are the Democratic Party's new standards. And it goes without saying they are highly subjective. They're not applied to everyone. It depends entirely on how useful you are.
Senator Ted Kennedy drove his Oldsmobile off a bridge with a young woman inside. He fled the scene and left her but he never summoned help. He didn't want the DUI arrest. The young woman, Kennedy abandoned, slowly asphyxiated over a period of hours.
Yet just 10 years after doing that Kennedy ran for president as a Democrat. He died a liberal hero. The Democratic Party needed Ted Kennedy so they excused virtually everything he did.
You're watching something similar unfold with the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison. Last month, Ellison was credibly accused of physically abusing an ex-girlfriend named Karen Monahan.
Apparently, Mazie Hirono never heard about it because nobody in the Democratic Party seems to believe Monahan despite the fact that she is a woman. As Monahan put it "I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party," all for the sake of the allegations she made, for daring to speak in public.
Well we asked the DNC today about the Ellison case and they did not have much of a response. "We take allegations of sexual abuse seriously and we're working with the state party to review the allegations."
Right. We're confident it'll be a thorough investigation.
On the other hand, why would it be? Because let's be honest. None of us ought to be in the investigations business in the first place. Political parties, college administrators, cable news yappers, all of us, we're not people you want determining anybody's guilt or innocence. We're not qualified for that.
We've got a legal mechanism for doing that. It's not flawless. But for almost 250 years, our justice system has functioned pretty well, in fact, better than any other country in the world.
It's pretty straightforward. If you believe a crime has been committed against you, you report it. That would include theft, embezzlement, and yes, sexual assault. Go to the police. It's not always easy, obviously, but it's still your obligation as a citizen, not at least to protect the rest of us from whomever you believe did it.
The police investigate. A judge or jury renders a verdict. That's due process. It's the cornerstone of our system. It's one of the main reasons people move to this country from other places because it works. It's certainly fair than trial by CNN or a summary judgment from self-appointed gender judge, Mazie Hirono. So, let's not give up on it. It's one of the best things that we have.
Robin Biro is a former Obama Regional Campaign Director and he joins us tonight. So, thanks a lot Robin for coming on tonight. I want to hit you with some--
ROBIN BIRO, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL: Of course.
CARLSON: --fairly recent news off of Capitol Hill. Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California, who is the person to whom we owe this story, she's the one who brought it to public attention, said today--
BIRO: Yes, she did.
CARLSON: --and I'm quoting now. "I can't say everything is truthful about what Christine Blasey Ford has said. I can't say everything is truthful." How do you respond to that?
BIRO: We do know that back in August she took a polygraph test and - and was determined that what she said was truthful according to that test. Now, those are subjective. They're not admissible in court, for example. But, you know, that there is that. So, you know--
CARLSON: No, no, no, you don't understand. I - I'm not doubting that she's saying what she believes. In fact, last night on this show, I said I - I think it seems like she believes everything she's saying. I'm quoting--
CARLSON: --Dianne Feinstein, the person who brought us this story saying and I'm quoting again, I can't say everything is truthful, no but she may be lying. This is the person who brought us the story, who suspended the nomination process because of the story now saying she could be lying. I mean I don't know what to make of that.
BIRO: Because we need more information--
CARLSON: What do you make of that?
BIRO: --I make of that that she wants - she wants this to be investigated. They're calling for the FBI to investigate that. President Trump said today that he does not want the FBI to investigate that that Brett Kavanaugh has been through enough already, and that's just his personal opinion. But I think the American people deserve to know exactly the character of who the next nominee is for the Supreme Court.
CARLSON: OK. Well just I'm sorry to pause. I'm getting news in my ear that we have breaking news right now that the new demand apparently through Ford's lawyer is that she will not testify. She's been invited to testify next Monday, as we said in the open, and now she is saying she will not until the FBI completes its investigation.
It's hard to - to even processes this. How could you investigate an event that apparently took place between three people, 36 years ago, two of whom deny it ever happened--
CARLSON: --one of whom says it does but is muddy on the details like what year it happened, where it happened, who else was there, how many people were present. How could the FBI possibly "investigate"--
CARLSON: --something like that, seriously?
BIRO: Because there was supposedly an eyewitness in the room who's already now said that he will not testify - testify before Congress, Mr. Ford, so that was concerning. But we just have to see how all of this plays out. This - this really could go in any direction--
CARLSON: But - but - wait, I - I get it but - but how - but hold on, how could it play out?
I mean so we don't know the - the accuser. And by the way, I - I just want to say a third time, seems like she believes what she's saying to me but what do I know, but she seems sincere. But she doesn't know the address of the house it took place. She doesn't know the year it took place or any of the circumstances--
BIRO: She still have therapy notes--
CARLSON: OK. But--
BIRO: She has therapy notes--
CARLSON: But the therapy notes--
BIRO: --there's - there's plenty of documentation that she--
BIRO: --went through a trauma.
CARLSON: OK. But I don't know that.
BIRO: --that seems so.
CARLSON: I'm -- I'm saying that she spoke to a therapist six years ago about it but those notes contradict what she's saying now. So, I'm just saying is --
CARLSON: -- look, this isn't really about getting to the bottom of the story. It's about delaying a Supreme Court nomination. I mean can we -- let's be honest about it.
BIRO: I hope not. Well, I hope not, Tucker. And let me be honest here.
As a Democratic strategist, I honestly believe as much as I really don't want him to be the - the next Supreme Court Justice, I think that it's in our best interest for the Democratic Party for us to fill this vacancy because we really can't afford to have an open seat headed to the mid-terms because it's going to drive out evangelical voters who may not like some of the things that Donald Trump himself has been accused of, sexual indiscretions--
CARLSON: Well that may already be happening with this insanity--
BIRO: --because they'll hold their nose and vote for him.
CARLSON: --so let me just ask you really quickly--
BIRO: I too .
CARLSON: --and I - -- and I should have prefaced this whole conversation with this. You are a man, and according to Senator Mazie Hirono--
CARLSON: --a Democrat in good standing, you're a liar by definition. Men lie. Women tell the truth. Men always lie, the men of this country she put it, and women always tell the truth, they must always be believed. Do you buy that? Or is that insane?
BIRO: No, I certainly don't prescribe to that --
BIRO: --that - that just doesn't even pass the - the common sense test, Tucker. Let's be honest.
CARLSON: OK. Well thank for being honest--
BIRO: But, you know, I just hope that the Democratic--
CARLSON: Well maybe you're lying. You're a man--
BIRO: Yes, I - I just hope that the Democratic Party--
CARLSON: --how can I know?
BIRO: --good one. But no, this is just, you know, my honest common sense opinion here that - that no, there are - there are victims of both genders too when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault, so that just doesn't pass the common sense test. Let's be honest.
CARLSON: No, it doesn't. Robin Biro, thanks very much for coming on tonight. I appreciate it.
BIRO: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: All of a sudden there are all kinds of allegations of misconduct from long ago. Brett Kavanaugh is not the only one. In other campaign trail in an ad that targets the current holder of the Ohio Senate seat, Sherrod Brown, there were allegations of abuse made by his ex-wife.
Trace Gallagher has been following this story and has the latest for us. Trace?
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Hi, Tucker. By all accounts, Sherrod Brown's 1986 divorce was ugly including allegations by his then wife, Larke Recchie that he was physically abusive. And this isn't the first time these accusations have been dredged up by Brown's political opponents. But it is the first time they've been raised in the age of MeToo. In fact, the website running this 60-second ad is called MeToo Ohio. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --issue a restraining order. Later, she said Brown violated the court order pushing, shoving, and bullying her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: MeToo Ohio is a super PAC but it's also connected to GOP political firm that has done extensive work for the Senate campaign of Congressman Jim Renacci, Sherrod Brown's Republican opponent for Senate.
Renacci denies having anything to do with the video but appeared to amplify it quoting here "Violence against women in any form is not acceptable and has no place in our society. Sherrod Brown's well-documented history of domestic violence is deeply troubling."
In turn, Senator Brown's office released a statement from Brown's ex-wife saying "Disparaging my family for political gain is disgusting, and Congressman Renacci should know better."
Larke Recchie added that she's addressed this matter before saying her previous accusations were because of hurt and sorrow on both sides. Tucker?
CARLSON: Amazing. Trace Gallagher, thank you.
So that's Ohio. We're in Washington right now. I've been here all my life. And I can say I've never seen this city crazier or more paranoid or more tense or more dumb. Here's an example. Three years ago, Brett Kavanaugh made what was obviously a joke about his time in high school. Here it is:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: But fortunately we had a - we had a good saying that we've - we've held firm to - to this day as the Dean was reminding me before - before the talk, which is what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us, I think.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes. So, he's obviously admitting a felony sex crime now. No, it was a joke. And it's clearly irrelevant to what we're talking about today but don't tell the more literal-minded humorless Members of the Senate.
How about Elizabeth Warren? She tweeted this. "I can't imagine any parent accepting this view. Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?" If you can even imagine texting something like that or putting it on Twitter, mindless.
Ann Coulter is a writer, author of Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump- Hating Left Has Lost Its Collective Mind as if she needed another example of it, she joins us tonight.
So, what do you make of the fact? I was trying to get a straight answer from my last guest. I'm not sure what I even think of it. What do you make of the fact that Dianne Feinstein is saying "I'm not sure I believe Christine Ford now."
ANN HART COULTER, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Dianne Feinstein has always been one of my favorite senators, a Republican or a Democrat, I was sort of surprised. She was the one who held on to this letter.
I don't - I don't think the big issue is that it's the 11th hour. I think the big issue is last week we start - started getting polls showing the Democrats have a shot at taking the Senate.
COULTER: They really want to stop this nomination. It's been kind of hilarious listening to the Democrats, oh and the New York Times editorial page, and Schumer and Blumenthal, we need a major FBI investigation. As you point out, there's nothing to investigate.
They want to appoint a blue-ribbon commission and maybe, you know, they'll wrap up their work sometime next February. It really is just purely for delay--
CARLSON: So - so can I ask this - so I mean why not an independent counsel and he can take maybe four or five years to get to the bottom of it . Why would the Republic - look, this I - I am giving everybody every benefit of every doubt? I'm not attacking Ford who, again, as I said last night, Ford is a nice person.
But this is a political tactic designed to prevent the President from putting his nominee on the court. Why are Republicans in the Congress playing along with this?
COULTER: I think some of them and this is - this is the only thing that I think makes it dangerous for Republicans, for Kavanaugh, and for the republic because there are certain Republicans in the Senate who so hate Trump--
COULTER: --they would put their egos above the good of the country. And - and what so many Republicans said about voting and, every four years, say about voting for any Republican, we have to do it for the Supreme Court nominees.
No, maybe not for Ben Sasse, maybe not for - for Senator Bob Corker, they just so hate Trump, that could end up hurting - hurting Kavanaugh. But I - I think your points that if they get away with this there's then you have CNN running the country.
It's not even just the Democrats running the country. It's the media running the country because this allegation could be made against anyone at any time absolutely un - non-disprovable.
The - the New York Times, I - I - I wanted to mention here since you've cited, Teddy Kennedy. One of the great things in the New York Times editorial on this case was to say that things were totally different in the 1980s.
That's why this woman, Dr. Ford, didn't report it at the time because you remember the 1980s, Tucker. You used to be - there was sexual assault like mad every place.
Their proof of this that women weren't taken seriously in the 1980s was to link to an article in The Washington Post citing the New York Times treatment of the accuser of William Kennedy Smith. So yes, the Kennedys, they've always had free rein to rape, murder--
COULTER: --and the New York Times would go after the accusers. But that's really what the division is here. This isn't a new thing. As long as you are a - a presumed white male Republican, whether it's the Duke Lacrosse case or oh, that dastardly Haven Monahan in the Rolling Stone story about the frat boys gang-raping the gal--
COULTER: --the whole thing turned out to be fake. There is no Haven Monahan. Or now, a lot of this - the statements about Brett Kavanaugh, like from Krugman, "Oh, he's smirking" and a lot on Twitter and elsewhere, "Oh, he's a White male, his White privilege," if you fit the narrative, you are guilty and there is no coming back from that.
And it's not just Democrats and the media running the country, it's any White male can be accused with an evidence reacting --
CARLSON: Well you shouldn't judge people--
COULTER: --they shouldn't like this .
CARLSON: --on the basis of their immutable characteristics. Period. So, I don't know why the Leftists all say that. Ann Coulter, thank you. It's great to see you tonight.
COULTER: Thank you.
CARLSON: Well the President is pushing for more transparency on the Russia investigation. So naturally, the Left is now denouncing transparency and demanding that your government keep more things secret from you. That's next.
CARLSON: Well a year ago, the Washington Post spoke for pretty much the entire press corps, including us, by the way, when it adopted a new slogan "Democracy dies in darkness." And it does.
Well apparently, the President who doesn't like the Washington Post agrees with the slogan. So yesterday, he called for the declassification of documents related to the Russia investigation that would include the Carter Page FISA warrant application. President Trump said this about it today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I want total transparency. This is a witch hunt. Republicans are seeing it. The Democrats know it's a witch hunt, too, but they don't want to admit it because that's not good politics for them.
The things that have been found over the last couple of weeks about text messages back and forth are a disgrace to our nation.
We should open it up for people to see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So, if Obama had said that or George W. Bush, for that matter, pretty much everyone would nod in agreement. Of course, sunlight is the disinfectant that we all want.
But things have changed and the new organizing principle of the Left is that everything Trump does is bad, so the press are now racing to condemn transparency as a threat to the Republic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS: This President shatters so many norms that it's sometimes hard for people to understand when he does something that's truly damaging. This is one of those times.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President declassifying material despite the fact that he was bagged by the intelligence community not to do that. Any Commander-in-Chief who did care would listen to all of his Intel agents.
STEPHANIE LEIGH RUHLE, NBC NEWS: Can anyone stop President Trump from doing this? I mean he is arbitrarily releasing part of a FISA warrant. You can't say that this isn't politically motivated because it doesn't make sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Journalists staying up late making sure you don't get more information about what your government is doing. Never thought I'd live to see that.
And then, former CIA Director, John Brennan went even further. He's now a cable news yapper, by the way. He said that democracy is actually defined by FBI agents refusing to obey the elected president for whom they work. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN OWEN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: If Mr. Trump and the White House does not relent, well then I think they have some decisions to make, whether or not they're going to just not follow that direction and be fired, or to resign.
But if they really believe that this is going to have serious impact on a national security, law enforcement, and judicial process, they have an obligation, since they took an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to Mr. Trump, to uphold their responsibilities and their agency and departments' authorities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Those of us who laugh to the deep state of reconsidering, Jon Summers is a former Communications Director for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and he joins us tonight. Thanks a lot, Jon, for coming.
JON SUMMERS, FORMER SENATOR HARRY REID COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: You bet.
CARLSON: So, the only real argument, I think, against this is that details will be released that will jeopardize intelligence gathering and the lives of the agents who gathered it.
If this information is released, and it looks like it will be, and we find that nothing that is unredacted, threatens the secrecy or the methods of the agencies, will the people who complained about it today do the right thing and resign from their jobs in disgrace and shame?
And I mean look, I'm just a political hack carrying water for the Democratic Party.
SUMMERS: Well I think well for all the talk about transparency that's not what we're seeing here. We've got the President who's cherry-picking the information that would then be released. So, this isn't transparency.
This is the President getting involve - involved in this investigation and basically trying to change the news cycle. You know, I don't think it's a coincidence that the next business day after his former campaign chair pleads guilty, all of a sudden he's out there trying to do something--
CARLSON: Yes. I - I thought that. I mean I - that would--
SUMMERS: --that changed the news cycle.
CARLSON: --suffice true --
SUMMERS: But if he was truly wanting transparency then - then we would be seeing more than just these--
CARLSON: Well wait a second - wait a second, I mean--
SUMMERS: --cherry-picked documents that he wants to get out there.
CARLSON: --I would say two things. One, I have no idea why the timing came as it did but White House's always do that, so that would not surprise me one bit.
But I don't understand why I, as a citizen, not a cable news anchor, but just like a guy who votes and pays taxes, why I shouldn't know why the U.S. government was spying on American citizens? That's a big deal. And I still don't know why they did it. What was the justification? Why shouldn't I know that?
SUMMERS: Well you - that - what we're talking about here is the releasing the declassification of documents that contain sensitive information--
CARLSON: Do they?
SUMMERS: --about not only individuals but also about the tactics that are used for going after spies and going after terrorists.
CARLSON: Do we think that?
SUMMERS: So, you've got a President who is worried about--
CARLSON: Hold on.
SUMMERS: --saving his own butt and the way he wants to do that--
CARLSON: But - but I'm not talking about the President. I'm talking about me and the other 325 million people who live here.
We know that our governments spied on American citizens, one Administration spied on a rival presidential campaign. Maybe they had good reason to do that. But shouldn't they assure us that they did that it wasn't political? Why can't--
SUMMERS: Actually you're - you're incorrect that surveillance. There was no surveillance of the Trump campaign. Yes, there--
CARLSON: With surveillance --
SUMMERS: There was not surveillance of the Trump campaign because--
CARLSON: Really? There was surveillance of--
SUMMERS: --Carter Page--
CARLSON: --Carter Page.
SUMMERS: --Carter Page had already left the campaign--
CARLSON: But he was--
SUMMERS: --by the time--
CARLSON: But - but hold on he--
CARLSON: --OK. He was involved with the campaign. That's the whole pretext for this Russia investigation is Carter Page was a Russian agent working for Trump. But what--
SUMMERS: But he left the campaign--
CARLSON: OK. OK.
SUMMERS: --by the time the surveillance started and the surveillance was directly related--
CARLSON: But he was in contact with - with--
SUMMERS: --to him, not the campaign.
CARLSON: They were spying on people he was in contact with including people on the campaign. But the point is they were spying on Americans. And why shouldn't the rest of us be assured that they had good reason to do that? Or else, why would we have any faith at all in our Intel agencies or the DOJ or our government?
SUMMERS: Because when you're talking about releasing select documents just cherry-pick documents that--
CARLSON: Well how about the President --
SUMMERS: --the President wants you to see--
CARLSON: --no, no--
SUMMERS: --if you're not able to see them in totality though--
CARLSON: --no, no, no, but - but that is that's so right --
SUMMERS: --you don't get the full picture. So, you're not getting what you're saying you want.
CARLSON: --wait, wait, hold on, no, no, no, no, no, the FISA application is the totality. It's what went to the judges in order to get permission to spy on Americans. What else - I mean what would they be leaving out?
SUMMERS: And it went to four GOP - well four different applications and before --
CARLSON: I'm sure they're all Republicans. I don't care.
SUMMERS: --the GOP well--
CARLSON: I know it's not a partisan thing. I just want to know why my government's spying on Americans. And I want to know why the Left isn't mad about it because it's terrifying.
SUMMERS: Because we're talking - we're talking about a guy who had been courted by the Russians as early as 2013--
CARLSON: OK. Well let's see then. What are you afraid of? Why - why shouldn't we know more?
SUMMERS: I'm not afraid of anything.
CARLSON: Oh, good then let's find out.
SUMMERS: Actually that my biggest concern is that, you know, that--
CARLSON: All right .
SUMMERS: --in this changing of the precedent by the President to save his own butt, he's actually putting our country at risk because lifting up --
CARLSON: How's it - OK. So, we're going to get these documents--
SUMMERS: --he's lifting up the curtain--
CARLSON: --all right, we're going to --
SUMMERS: --he's lifting up the curtain for--
CARLSON: Yes, he is .
SUMMERS: --for terrorists and spies to see how we actually go out and identify --
CARLSON: It's like OK, we'll find out what's in there. And we'll see. And if ISIS cheers then I will stand corrected. Jon, thank you very much.
SUMMERS: You bet, thank you.
CARLSON: Speaking of Carter Page, he joins us later in the hour to respond to this. This is all about Carter Page, an apparently innocent man whose life has been destroyed. And we'll ask what he thinks.
Another FBI official, by the way, is writing a political memoir right after leaving the FBI, the second guy at the top of the FBI in a row to do that. Why would we have faith in the FBI after this? What is going on with our government? That is next.
CARLSON: So we have some breaking news for you.
The details are coming in and we want to get this right. Chris - Christine Blasey Ford, who was scheduled, we thought, as of an hour ago, to testify to the Senate this Monday about her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, obviously, who has been nominated by the President to serve the Supreme Court, apparently has just indicated that she is not going to testify on Monday next but will instead await the final results of an FBI investigation that apparently she and her lawyer and some Democrats are calling for into the charges.
What does this mean? Does the FBI have jurisdiction here? What might they find? We have switched topics midstream on Joe diGenova, a frequent guest because he is also a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and knows a lot about how DoJ works. So Joe, does this make sense to you? Is this something the FBI has jurisdiction over and could they conceivably come up with meaningful information in a case 36 years old?
JOSEPH DIGENOVA, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: No, this is non - utter nonsense. This is another delaying tactic. She - she really doesn't want to testify because--
DIGENOVA: --when she does, she's going to look like the loon that she is. She may very well believe everything she's saying and that is one of the signs of lunacy, believing something that isn't real. But her lawyer is even loonier.
The FBI is not going to investigate a non-federal matter of an alleged assault which is unconfirmed by even the witness herself. She's not sure when it happened, where it happened, who else was present. She never reported it to anybody.
DIGENOVA: This is nothing.
CARLSON: OK. So, I - I just want to say I've no idea of her mental state at all. She does is - just having listened to her account, she seems sincere. But I wonder if the FBI could knowing what we has been publicly revealed and she said she said everything she knows about this.
CARLSON: Like how could they possibly follow - as a practical matter, how could they possibly follow up on that?
DIGENOVA: They cannot because she does not know when it happened, where it happened, and who else was there. Just - Judge - Judge Kavanaugh has already categorically denied it. There's no useful evidence to be served by interviewing him. It cannot be investigated because there is nothing to investigate.
CARLSON: So then why would Republicans go along with something like that in the Senate--
DIGENOVA: What they should --
CARLSON: --that demand .
DIGENOVA: --you know, I have no idea about why the Republicans are doing what they're doing. They wanted to give a chance for a hearing.
DIGENOVA: She has now denied them a chance for a hearing.
CARLSON: Interesting. So what - I mean if you were advising Republicans in the Senate, what would be your advice right now?
DIGENOVA: Have a vote on Thursday like you promised you would.
CARLSON: Do you think they will?
DIGENOVA: Oh God, no. They're - they're scared of their own shadow practically right now. But Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed now because this is clearly a desire to delay the proceedings even further. The FBI is not going to investigate this, and they have said that they will not.
CARLSON: Yes, that makes - that makes sense to me completely. Joe diGenova, thank you for that. Needed some perspective. Appreciate it.
DIGENOVA: You bet.
CARLSON: Well Google, of course, tells you a lot about how they resist Trump because they're against authoritarian leaders. But weirdly they've allied themselves with China's fascist dictatorship. Huh? How does that work? We have details.
Also, former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, at the center of the declassification fight right now, joins us tonight.
CARLSON: Well this show has launched an ongoing investigation into ties between the government and military of China and leading figures here in the city of Washington. We're finding all kinds of interesting things. Here's one thing that we have found.
Four Democratic Members of Congress supported efforts by what appears to be a Chinese government front group, the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation, that was led by a top Communist official, recruited American students for a two- week study trip to China where they would have been propagandized to support the Chinese regime.
And guess who went along? These Members of Congress, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Jim Clyburn, G.K. Butterfield, and Barbara Lee, they lent their names to that effort.
Michael Pillsbury is Director at the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and the author of the single best book on the Chinese question that's called The Hundred-Year Marathon. He joins us tonight.
Dr. Pillsbury, should Members of Congress be lending their name and reputation to this kind of effort?
MICHAEL PILLSBURY, DIRECTOR, CENTER ON CHINESE STRATEGY, HUDSON INSTITUTE: No, they should not. Members of Congress have automatic security clearances. And frankly, they have funds to visit China whenever they want. The U.S. embassy will escort them around, arrange visits, and give them classified briefings about what's going on in China.
So, if a Member of Congress supports this kind of informal activity and - and takes funds to do it to pay for the travel and that the Chinese make the arrangements, they miss out on getting the truth about China from our own government. I think it's a mistake to do this.
CARLSON: It is a mistake. And it's unfortunately kind of common here.
Google is in the middle of what seems to be a real controversy over the search engine that it has been secretly developing on behalf of the - of the Government of China.
The Intercept reported today that they built a prototype that would link users of the search engine to their own cellphone numbers, which would allow, of course, the Chinese government to identify people based on what they searched for.
We contacted Google and they declined any comment about this. What's your view of it?
PILLSBURY: Well, I think Google is highly embarrassed. They hold themselves out as an organization of 88,000 employees who believe deeply in human rights and progressive causes, in privacy.
And now, they're essentially caught by this one scientist who has resigned in protest and told a lot about the project. It goes - apparently went by the name Operation Dragonfly.
And Dragonfly was known only to a small team, fewer than a 100 people inside Google. So, the others didn't know. And apparently, the previous CEO, Sergey Brin, took a stand on this in 2010. Wouldn't let it happen. Wouldn't help censorship in China. Got credited in the Wall Street Journal for doing it.
But now, fast forward eight years, and Google has reversed itself but done so secretly. This seems to be the problem. I think they didn't show up at a Senate hearing they were invited to. It's a growing, I hate to say scandal, we - we use that word too much, perhaps in Washington, but it's a growing problem for Google.
CARLSON: But since the rest of us are so wholly dependent upon Google's judgment--
CARLSON: --to get our information about everything in the world, how should we feel about this company helping the authoritarian government of our main rival keep its subjects under its thumb?
PILLSBURY: Well I think the Congress needs to invite them back and make sure they come. Obviously, subpoena power may be what's required. The trick here is that the technology of doing this, being able to track somebody's searches for our words like human rights or dictatorship back to their phone number and then share that with the Chinese authorities, the Chinese themselves can't do that.
They had to turn to Google to do this. And Google, apparently, according to the gentleman, the hero, I think, who's quit in protest, Google is going to use this as the lever to make up for 10 lost years of revenue and sales that they haven't had in China because the previous founder, Sergey Brin, refused to do this eight years ago.
CARLSON: Well good for him. I mean they certainly have a lot of money. It might be worth just being decent, you know.
PILLSBURY: It shows a growing influence of China and the Chinese market.
CARLSON: It's terrifying. And you've been on it before anybody. Dr. Michael Pillsbury, thank you very much, as always.
PILLSBURY: Thank you.
CARLSON: What does Washington's top news veteran think of this week's political chaos? We are speaking, needless to say, of Brit Hume and he joins us next to talk Kavanaugh and the FISA declassification. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: This is a Fox News Alert. Just not long ago within the hour, Christine Blasey Ford has said she will not testify in front of Congress unless the FBI investigates her claims against Brett Kavanaugh.
Well just minutes ago this show spoke exclusively with a high-level U.S. official who says the FBI will not do that. It will not investigate because what she's alleging is not a federal crime. That source says the FBI will only investigate if the White House demands it.
Fox Political Analyst, the Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume joins us tonight. So, Brit, what do you make of this? It's all happening so fast.
BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, FOX NEWS: It's pretty transparent there and it all points in one direction. Delay. Delay. Delay. So, at first, now we know based on what we've been told at least that Christine Blasey Ford was reluctant to come forward and was induced somehow to do so.
You know, Chuck Schumer was saying the other day that she should be able to come forward and whenever it is on her timetable to do so. But looks to me like the Democrats managed to accelerate the timetable perhaps not in her best interest.
She's - this is a sensitive matter with her. She's - she - it's caused her she - as far as we know some pain and difficulty.
CARLSON: Yes, I believe that.
HUME: And it - and one, it has the appearance that she's been pushed. And now, she may be pushing back or she doesn't want to testify understandably. She never apparently did want to testify. And now, of course, they're finding a way to use that to say we need an FBI investigation because the whole idea of this is to postpone the vote as long as possible.
HUME: Obviously, I think the Democrats had some hope that perhaps this, what they thought were explosive allegations, would sink the nomination. That pretty clearly isn't going to happen, at least, at this stage.
So then - then the second best thing that happened was to stall it as long as possible. And that is unmistakably, in my judgment, what this is all about.
CARLSON: So the vote was scheduled for this Thursday?
HUME: Day after tomorrow--
CARLSON: It is delayed because we are waiting--
HUME: --on no --
CARLSON: --for her to testify on Monday.
HUME: On Monday, correct.
CARLSON: Now, she's saying we need to delay till the FBI investigates. So she's not testifying and the FBI is not investigating then will the vote be Thursday?
HUME: Well I - I have reason to doubt that because the committee is going to want to bend over backwards to make it clear that they really want to hear from her that her story must be told and she must be heard.
And so, I suspect they'll keep that date open for a couple more days. That's just a guess on my part but that's what I would think because what was happening here is we're - we're - we're living in an atmosphere in which if a woman comes forward and makes an allegation, the - the burden of proof is on the defendant - of the - of the accuse - is on the accused.
And that is - nobody's saying that exactly outright, but that's the subtext of all these comments. I mean Richard Blumenthal, for example, is saying - is saying that he can't identify circumstances under which, and others have said , they can't understand - identify circumstances under which the nominee could clear his name.
You heard Tim Kaine say, you know, that's a - that's a big hypothetical as if his - if his innocence is a hypothetical. That is where we are in that and - and - and--
CARLSON: It's Orwellian--
HUME: --but it's - but believe me, and make no mistake about the political power of the MeToo movement is real. It - it motivates people. And the Republicans, you can see, they're all bending over backwards to say she - she ought to have her story told. The White House hasn't done --
CARLSON: But what about the - I - I get it. And we have not attacked her. I sincerely feel sorry for her. But there's a whole other country there are, you know, hundreds of millions of the rest of us, and there's a process to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
And why should this story delay it if she's not willing to come to Washington and testify? I don't understand why this can't go forward.
HUME: Well I think from what you hear from Lindsey Graham and others, Senator Lindsey Graham of Republican South Carolina and others is that they're prepared to go forward. They just have to leave this door open for a little while. That's what it looks like to me. I think they're going to go forward.
Now, remember, this isn't up really to the majority of Americans or the majority of - of senators--
HUME: --other Republican majority. This is up to a tiny handful of senators. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, who's on the committee and could by his single no-vote keep the nomination from coming out of committee, so - so a tiny handful of - of members on the Republican side are driving this. And the Republican leadership is working hard to keep them in the fold. And this hearing date is one manifestation of that.
CARLSON: Jeff Flake has a lot of power tonight.
HUME: Tonight, he does. He may not have it much longer because he's retiring, But - but he, at the moment, he's - he's - he's got some say.
CARLSON: Brit Hume, thank you very much.
HUME: You bet , Tucker.
CARLSON: President Trump's declassification order means that Carter Page will finally learn the details of why he was spied upon by the last Administration. He joins us next on that.
CARLSON: So, how would you like to meet Carter Page? The former Trump campaign adviser was spied on by the Obama Administration. People in the media, a lot of them, have repeatedly suggested he's a Russian spy. They were egged on on that by politically motivated leaks from our own government, from the DoJ.
Despite all of that, Page has never been charged with a single crime. No crime. And there's no indication he ever will be. Now, thanks to this declassification order we've been telling you about, he will finally get to see why the Obama Administration spied on him.
Carter Page joins us tonight. I always have the same thought every time I see you which is if I were you, I'd be very bitter. I can't imagine the money you've spent. Your reputation has been sullied, to put it mildly. All these people calling you a Russian spy but you're not bitter, why is that?
CARTER PAGE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE: Well, things could have turned out so much worse if President Trump had listened to this fake Intel report from Comey, Clapper, Brennan in January 6, 2017. Imagine the potential wars and conflicts that it could have led to.
CARLSON: Well sure.
PAGE: It's a massive --
CARLSON: And you could be in jail as a Russian spy.
PAGE: --retaliation --
CARLSON: So, what do you expect to learn from these declassified documents?
PAGE: I think it's - it's just going to be a complete laughingstock. You know, this is - every premise, anything that I was ever asked by Members of Congress, the FBI, various other government institutions, it was all just preposterous from the very beginning, so--
CARLSON: They accused you - I mean you graduated from a military academy. You were naval officer. And they've accused you, Members of Congress, people in the media, two whole TV channels every day accusing you of betraying your country, how does that - honestly, how does that feel?
PAGE: Well again, I thank - thankfully, we have President Trump's leadership, you know, working through in terms of, you know, the - the impact it's had on him and his Administration compare, you know, this is a minute - minuscule problems that I've had to deal with so this is--
CARLSON: Well you either have deep religious faith or you're on Xanax or something because I can't, you - you know, even this of your temperament is - is amazing to me. If there's one question in 30 seconds you want answered that these documents may answer what would it be?
PAGE: Well, who's responsible for all this? There's obviously a lot of people that had some culpability. But let's see, you know, who did what to whom and file --
CARLSON: I can't wait to find that out.
PAGE: It's going to be hilarious.
CARLSON: If I had a dollar for every time someone who sat on this set and accused you of betraying America on behalf of Vladimir Putin, I would retire. It's - it's really, I don't even know you. Just for the record, we've - outside the studio, we've never even met.
CARLSON: But I'm just unprincipled. I'm offended by what's happened to you.
PAGE: Well, I get that .
CARLSON: Carter Page, Godspeed.
PAGE: Thank you, Tucker--
CARLSON: Thank you.
PAGE: --for everything.
CARLSON: That's about it for us tonight. Tune in every night, including tomorrow, and the next night, and the night after that to the show that is the sworn enemy, and we mean it, of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, all of which overwhelming this country and, especially, the city. And in our small, but persistent, way we are fighting back. We'll hope you'll join us as we do that. Good night from Washington.
Guess who's next ladies and gentlemen? Live from New York City, the financial capital of America, Sean Hannity.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: The swamp is Tucker's. The sewer is Tucker's. And I'm in New York and I pay all the taxes, it's great. Perfect.
CARLSON: Exactly. Thank you.
HANNITY: Tucker, great show as always.
CARLSON: Thanks so much.
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.