Bongino thankful the mail bomb suspect was 'inept'; Tucker takes on a migrant caravan supporter

Bongino thankful the mail bomb suspect was 'inept'

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino comments on the arrest of a Florida man accused of sending more than a dozen package bombs.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 26, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: This is a Fox News Alert. The man suspected of mailing more than a dozen apparent pipe bombs to prominent Democrats and media figures has been arrested and charged in the State of Florida.

The suspect, Cesar Sayoc Jr., has been charged with five federal counts. He could face decades in prison, if convicted on those. Fox News' Phil Keating is outside the FBI offices in Miramar, Florida for us tonight and has the very latest on this developing story. Phil?

PHIL KEATING, FOX NEWS: Tucker, the man accused of mailing political pipe bomb packages to 14 high-profile Democrats over the past four days, well he's behind bars tonight, including two presidents were receiving these packages and this put the nation in a chaotic watch for the suspect for three days.

56-year old, Cesar Sayoc, described by those who knew him as a hateful, disturbed man with extreme political views, seen walking in custody this afternoon, from the Miami FBI building to - to an SUV to be transported to Downtown Miami's Federal Detention Center where he is tonight.

56-year old Sayoc now faces five federal counts, including illegal mailing of explosives and making threats against former presidents. And if - if convicted on each, he faces 48 years in federal prison basically the rest of his life.

After a fourth morning of political pipe bombs being discovered, suddenly, the FBI made the arrest at an AutoZone parking lot in Broward County.

That revealed the man's very unique van which he'd apparently been living in placard with dozens upon dozens of ideological stickers and decals, including one of President Trump rising from the flames of a burning American flag, and a Hillary Clinton face in the crosshairs.

That van was then covered with a blue tarp and escorted under heavy guard to the FBI's Miami division, all broadcast live on national TV. This afternoon, from Washington, the Attorney General said any political zealot who turns violence of any stripe will pay heavily.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: We will bring the full force of law against anyone who attempts to use threats, intimidation, and outright violence to further an agenda. We will find you. We will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEATING: Federal investigators suspected that the package bombs may have come from the South Florida Postal Sorting Center. And overnight, sure enough, after evacuating the building, FBI and Miami-Dade police went in, searched, and found bomb number 11, that one addressed to Democratic Senator Cory Booker. It was there but had not yet been sent off to his office.

Now, Sayoc has a lengthy criminal history in going back numerous years that includes a 2002 threat to use a bomb and a 2014 shoplifting case. Well those put his fingerprints in the National Database, and that helped FBI agents make a match to a fingerprint found on the package sent to California's Maxine Waters.

Tucker.

CARLSON: Phil Keating for us in Florida tonight. Thank you, Phil.

Dan Bongino, former Secret Service Agent, author of Spygate, joins us tonight. Dan this, I mean and I guess this is always true, is not exactly what we expected. When this man's apprehended, he turns out to be a middle- aged male stripper who identifies as an American Indian.

These bombs may or may not been operative. What - what do we know about this story that we didn't know yesterday? What conclusions can we draw from the facts we have right now?

DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Well I can say having worked Protective Intelligence Cases in the Secret Service for many years, which are the cases where we investigate threat cases basically, out of the New York office, which was very busy that the pattern here is actually not that unusual.

You know, I've actually discussed this on - on Fox a couple times before, Tucker. You know, when you see movies like "In the Line of Fire," a lot of people are obviously influenced by what happens in Hollywood, they think that's the real world.

You see this target that's singularly focused on one subject. "Taxi Driver" --

CARLSON: Right.

BONGINO: --with, you know, used in De Niro movie, right, that's not the way it really works in the real world. What you see is pretty common with what you saw with the accused attacker today, where they - we call target shifting, where they actually pick multiple targets at the same time.

That's more common in the real world than it - and for - from our perspective, is indicative of - of a greater danger than that one person who focuses on that one so and stalks that one person.

CARLSON: For - for sure. What do you make of the fact that none of these devices exploded? And I just want to be clear, that doesn't minimize--

BONGINO: Yes.

CARLSON: --the terror that they inspired.

BONGINO: Sure.

CARLSON: It's horrifying. But does it tell us something that they didn't go off? Where they intended to go off and he was an inept bomb-maker? What can we conclude?

BONGINO: Well there's only two possible explanations for this. One is that he didn't intend them to go off, and had done his homework on it and intended them, as you said, to inspire terror again, no less devious, as you said, but obviously, less deadly if they don't go off than if they do.

CARLSON: Right.

BONGINO: The second explanation, which I believe is more plausible in this case, is that he just was completely inept. The word you used, I think, is accurate.

I think he was just entirely completely inept, Tucker. I mean the mistakes in this case, thankfully, I mean, and I say that in a positive way, the mistakes in this case are just incredible, simple misspellings of names, sending packages to CNN where John Brennan doesn't even work, I mean the use of tape.

You know, Tucker, that's how they get fingerprints, tape. That's how police print officers--

CARLSON: Right.

BONGINO: --in police departments get fingerprints, using tape. It's just such an amateur-hour operation, thankfully, that I think inept is the proper word. I - I don't think he intended these things not to go off. I think he was just really bad at this, if the accusations are correct.

CARLSON: If this man did what he is accused of doing, the profile is I don't think what you would expect. Again, this is a man in his mid-50s, who identifies anyway as a Seminole Indian and has worked apparently for decades as a male stripper.

You typically think of crimes like this is being committed by young men. He's not. Neither was the shooter in Las Vegas. Are we wrong in thinking that mass killing is typically create - inspired or carried out by young people?

BONGINO: Well, in this case, Tucker, I would attribute a lot of this, and I've seen this in some of the investigations I conducted into similar threat cases, where mail - the mail was used, whether the mail a threat or not, narcissism may be at play here, and I mean extreme narcissism.

CARLSON: Yes.

BONGINO: I don't mean looking in the mirror and combing your hair. I mean when you look at the--

CARLSON: Right.

BONGINO: --the background of this guy, apparently, again, these are allegations, of course. But a - a - a former coworker said he was a - a steroid user, was obsessed with working out. This extreme narcissism and thinking you're somehow going to change the political process, and you're the guy to turn this around, it's - it's actually not that uncommon.

And that target shifting is important. That was always a bull's-eye to me that this person was a bigger danger than he was letting on if - if we found evidence that they were targeting multiple people at the same time.

It's not just the quantity of people. It's the fact that they are so obsessed with doing something that they're not even willing to focus on one person, they'll get anyone. So it's not, it's--

CARLSON: Right.

BONGINO: --the profile is pretty - pretty serious on this.

CARLSON: This is a very weird story. And so, I look forward to--

BONGINO: Very weird.

CARLSON: --finding out more. Yes, I think we all do. Thanks, Dan, very much. Good to see you.

BONGINO: Yes, sir.

CARLSON: Thousands of Central American migrants are making their way to our Southern border to claim asylum. Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco, which is completely out of control and filthy wants to let illegal aliens vote in some local elections. That'll make things better. That's next.

And the President, meanwhile, rallying supporters in Charlotte, North Carolina, as we speak. We're monitoring that rally. And, of course, we'll take you there live if news occurs. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --then they go back to the White House. Look at this crowd, it's crazy.

(CROWD CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Go out and vote tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the President has threatened to close the U.S.-Mexico border and cut aid to various Central American countries in response to the massive Caravan of migrants making its way slowly up from Mexico. Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis, has also ordered hundreds of U.S. troops, about 800, to the U.S.-Mexico border in anticipation of their arrival.

Roberto Hernandez is an immigration advocate, who lives in San Francisco. He says he's happy the migrants are coming. He joins us tonight. Roberto, thanks very much for coming on.

I don't expect to convince you to change your views on immigration. We've talked many times. I know what they are. But I applaud you for being more honest than most on the Left in saying out loud what you really want. So, I - I want to use you to inform our viewers about the aims of the Left.

Tell me what the justification for this group coming here is. If they wanted asylum, they could have applied in the embassy in Tegucigalpa. They're instead coming to our border. Are they claiming that they're refugees, fleeing a war? If so, what war? What is the justification for this?

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ACTIVIST: Good evening. First of all, let's go to our history. You know, here in the Americas--

CARLSON: No. Let's not. Let's just go to the question.

HERNANDEZ: --we've always welcomed people around the world.

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: Look at all the Europeans that came here. This was Native American land and Europeans came--

CARLSON: All right.

HERNANDEZ: --here.

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --this is the Americas--

CARLSON: You've demonstrated an ignorance of history sufficient --

HERNANDEZ: --and we should always--

CARLSON: --that I don't want you trying to educate us--

HERNANDEZ: --welcome people.

CARLSON: --and that I just want you to answer my question about right now, if that's OK, if we just stick to the question, what is the justification, the legal justification, for these people coming to our border and not the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa?

HERNANDEZ: Well if you look at the role of the United States in Central America, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in Guatemala, in other countries, in Latin America, the United States has promoted wars to protect corporate interests in a lot of these countries. And so--

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --you have a lot of people who have been affected by these wars, and it's caused poverty in a lot of these countries. And currently, there are - is a political climate in a lot of these countries, and people are coming here looking for refugee--

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --and we should--

CARLSON: So, let - let - let's - let's - hold on, no, OK--

HERNANDEZ: --welcome these people--

CARLSON: --I'm - I'm going to try and take you seriously--

HERNANDEZ: --the fact is that the United Nations is --

CARLSON: --what, OK, right--

HERNANDEZ: --work is supporting--

CARLSON: --OK.

HERNANDEZ: --did you know that--

CARLSON: But--

HERNANDEZ: --that the United Nations--

CARLSON: --what? There's nothing the United--

HERNANDEZ: --is out there right now --

CARLSON: --Nations does matters to me or surprises me--

HERNANDEZ: --volunteers and helping people--

CARLSON: --but let me - hold on - let me just ask you--

HERNANDEZ: --get here through the Caravan.

CARLSON: --I'm trying to take you seriously. You said most of them in this - the first Caravan are coming from Honduras. What war specifically are you talking about that the United States promoted? Whose interests were benefiting from that war? And when did that war end? What are you talking about specifically?

HERNANDEZ: Specifically, look at the - the role of the U.S. government in Honduras. I mean--

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --we can go here all day--

CARLSON: --right, what war are you talking--

HERNANDEZ: --all night but we don't have that much time--

CARLSON: --about?

HERNANDEZ: --so, I want to make sure that--

CARLSON: Well just give me the war and tell me--

HERNANDEZ: --you understand--

CARLSON: --when it ended.

HERNANDEZ: --that the --

CARLSON: I'm trying.

HERNANDEZ: --that - OK, let me ask you this. Have you - do you know of any involvement of the U.S. in Honduras?

CARLSON: So, you - you - what you're saying is--

HERNANDEZ: Do you know of any involvement of U.S.--

CARLSON: --you don't really know what you're - hold on, what--

HERNANDEZ: --in El Salvador--

CARLSON: --what you're saying is you don't really know what you're talking about--

HERNANDEZ: --in Nicaragua?

CARLSON: --but you're throwing out a talking point--

HERNANDEZ: Oh then you need to do --

CARLSON: --designed--

HERNANDEZ: --then we need to have a show--

CARLSON: --OK, so--

HERNANDEZ: --just to talk about the U.S.--

CARLSON: --OK, Roberto--

HERNANDEZ: --government's involvement--

CARLSON: --I'm trying, I'm trying--

HERNANDEZ: --in Central America--

CARLSON: --I'm asking you - hold on, stop--

HERNANDEZ: --and the rest of Latin America--

CARLSON: --I'm asking you, specifically, what war in Honduras are you talking about that the United States inspired that justifies this migrant Caravan? What war? When did that war end? What year? What are you talking about?

HERNANDEZ: OK--

CARLSON: Or do you not know?

HERNANDEZ: What? I do, OK? Let's look at the role of the military of the U.S. currently in Honduras.

CARLSON: No, but you said there was a war. So, you're totally ignorant of the history of Honduras, but you are lecturing us about our responsibility to let these people in because of a war that we started but you can't tell us what war or what year it ended. I think that's what you're saying.

HERNANDEZ: And the - and - not only that but it's the involvement of the U.S. in--

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --Honduras and Central America.

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: We've talked about--

CARLSON: OK. So, obviously, history's not your subject.

HERNANDEZ: --this before. And you and I don't disagree --

CARLSON: Let's - let's go to something--

HERNANDEZ: --and that's fine with me.

CARLSON: --OK --

HERNANDEZ: But, you know, the fact is--

CARLSON: --I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I've - I - I think I don't really know--

HERNANDEZ: --that the United Nations currently is supporting--

CARLSON: --what you're talking about.

HERNANDEZ: --this--

CARLSON: Right, OK. United Nations--

HERNANDEZ: --Caravan. Why would the--

CARLSON: --yes, OK, I'm sure they are--

HERNANDEZ: --United Nations be supporting and helping--

CARLSON: I - not account by --

HERNANDEZ: --these people? And then Trump goes--

CARLSON: --can't imagine why the U.N. does a lot of things--

HERNANDEZ: --and - and says that - that the--

CARLSON: --OK.

HERNANDEZ: --U.S. should--

CARLSON: Right, got it.

HERNANDEZ: --stop Mexico--

CARLSON: Let me ask you--

HERNANDEZ: --from letting these people come here.

CARLSON: --all right. Let me, well we're --

HERNANDEZ: Mexico--

CARLSON: --we're going to change the category to the - to the 200--

HERNANDEZ: --let these people through--

CARLSON: --category, let's see if you can answer this, OK? San Francisco has now announced that illegal aliens, people who have no right to be here, will be allowed to vote in local school board elections. You live in the city. You think this is a great idea. Do you think Americans who sneak into other people's countries ought to be allowed to vote in their elections?

HERNANDEZ: Well, let's look at how many White people live in Mexico, the Mexican government doesn't harass them. But let's - let's look at how many people--

CARLSON: Are they allowed to vote in elections?

HERNANDEZ: --did - look how many people did not vote in this last election? Look, look at the numbers.

CARLSON: OK. I would say as a performance artist--

HERNANDEZ: OK. So--

CARLSON: --you're - you're talented. But I just want to get a one straight answer.

Are Americans who sneak into other people's countries without permission allowed - do they have a right to vote in those countries' elections? Do I have a right to sneak into Mexico and announce that I get to vote there? And if you don't let me, you're a racist. Is that a human right that I possess?

HERNANDEZ: So, let's get it clear. In San Francisco, these individuals that are being allowed to vote are only voting for the election, for the members of the Board of Education--

CARLSON: Oh, another question unanswered--

HERNANDEZ: --and these--

CARLSON: --all right.

HERNANDEZ: --these people, right, should have the--

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --right to vote--

CARLSON: I got it.

HERNANDEZ: --specifically for--

CARLSON: Right.

HERNANDEZ: --those who are going to make--

CARLSON: OK.

HERNANDEZ: --policies and decisions affecting--

CARLSON: I get it.

HERNANDEZ: --their children.

CARLSON: OK. So, I asked you a couple simple questions. You - you couldn't come up with an answer. Text me later if those answers come to you. OK, Roberto? I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Victor Davis Hanson lives in California as well. He's a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution in the Bay Area, and he joins us tonight. So, it does raise, I think--

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION SENIOR FELLOW: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: --I mean, tell me if I'm overstating the importance of this, but California allowing illegal aliens to vote in school board elections can be written off as it's just a school board. But how philosophically is that different from letting them vote in any other election?

HANSON: Well it's the - it's the beginning of the erosion of the federal electoral laws we saw with sanctuary cities. But it - it's part of a message that we're sending.

If you have 500 jurisdictions where Immigration law doesn't apply, and you start allowing people to vote in local then it might be state and eventually federal, it sends a message to these Caravans that there's already 22 million people here who came illegally. There's another 40 million who came illegally and it's a place--

CARLSON: Right.

HANSON: --where if you get across illegally, you're going to be able to function as a citizen. And then we don't - they have a lot more - the Caravan people have a lot more strategic assessment, much more astute than we do.

They have - the governments of Central America and Mexico gets $60 billion in their remittances. They want it. Employers, it's a boom economy, they need cheap labor. The identity politics, as your guest illustrated, they want them, and Democratic Party want.

The only people who want to follow the law are your viewers, the ordinary voters without a lot of clout. But I think they understand that there's only two ways to stop them once they get here, Tucker. You either have to have a wall or you have to use force.

800 soldiers or even the Border Patrols we saw with Mexico when they crash through is not going to stop them. You need three divisions.

CARLSON: Right.

HANSON: So, we don't have a wall. And the optics of - of using tear gas or rubber bullets will be as bad as children being separated and that's what they're counting on.

CARLSON: Exactly.

HANSON: What we need is what every country in the world throughout history - Saudi Arabia has a 500-mile wall. Israel has a wall. Greece, Turkey, Eastern Europe, then it changes the dialectic and it makes them try to come through a physical barrier, and they have to be the aggressor. And then usually the people who might get through are going to be young males who are easily more deportable than women and children.

But we say to them, "Here's our wall. We - we don't - we don't want to oppress you. Just stay on your side." But if we don't have a wall then we have to be pre-emptive and have the whole messy use of force and they count on that.

And I think--

CARLSON: So what--

HANSON: --that's what's behind it and I'm not--

CARLSON: --so the--

HANSON: --optimistic.

CARLSON: --the--

HANSON: I'm op--

CARLSON: --no, I'm not optimistic at all. But I also wonder this is not the end but the beginning. These migrants are claiming refugee status because of political instability in Central America. But by recent historical standards, things are relatively peaceful in Central America.

What if there really is a revolution or another Civil War or a natural disaster in any of these countries, could we potentially get an enormous wave, like a real wave, tens, hundreds of thousands--

HANSON: Yes, I - I think we are --

CARLSON: --of people on our Southern border.

HANSON: Well I live in a state where one out of every four people was not born in the United States, and not all of them - about only 60 percent are legal, and this is the time when we've rejected assimilation, integration, inter-marriage, the inner - the melting pot, and have opted for the identity politics sellable.

CARLSON: Right.

HANSON: So, we are getting into a tribal society. And one final thing about your speaker, he said that this Western civilization in California is sort of an artificial construct. But they have many alternatives of indigenous people. They can make a left turn and go south into Oaxaca and enjoy an indigenous person's paradise.

CARLSON: Yes.

HANSON: But they're going into an artificial civilization, according to the speaker, that they should detest because he says it's antithetical to the Native American experience. But when, you know, when we - when we formed California, there were only 15,000 Mexican nationals in this huge state. It was almost empty.

So this myth that there were millions of indigenous people here then they were displaced by so-called White Europeans is - is historically inaccurate. And we didn't have these--

CARLSON: Well, of - of course.

HANSON: --discussions when we believed in the melting pot and we had secure borders and legal measured meritocratic --

CARLSON: Wow.

HANSON: --and diverse immigration.

CARLSON: Of course. And many Mexican nationals are themselves--

HANSON: Yes.

CARLSON: --the descendants of European conquistadors who oppressed the indigenous population.

HANSON: Absolutely.

CARLSON: So, it's a lot more complicated than we're pretending, as--

HANSON: Absolutely.

CARLSON: --you well know. Professor, thank you. Great to see you, as always.

HANSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well Democrats have been promising America a Blue Wave for months. Are they going to get it? Some of their wackier candidates may be slothing that wave down. Lisa Boothe has been taking a careful look at those candidates and she joins us after the break.

We're, of course, also monitoring the President's rally now ongoing in Charlotte, North Carolina. Stay tuned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: --stop Catch-and-Release, end the Visa Lottery that we talked about, end chain migration. And we will keep the criminal drug dealers and terrorists the hell out of our country.

(CROWD CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Mid-term elections less than two weeks away, Democrats have raised unprecedented amounts of money, really, historic amounts. There're also historic levels of voter enthusiasm among Democrats. And the party hopes that all of that will propel a metaphorical Blue Wave.

Only one thing stands in the way at this stage, the quality of some of their candidates. It's low. Consider Law Professor Katie Porter, she's a Democrat running for Congress in a basically Republican-leaning district in Orange County, California.

The Washington Free Beacon has published documents that Porter submitted to a progressive activist group. And those documents show she supports the creation of something called The Department of Peacebuilding, dude, as well as reparations for African-Americans and lots of other Left-wing ideas that most people think are stupid.

In Arizona, meanwhile, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, treated by the press as a real candidate, has lost the endorsement of the State Troopers Association, after the members revolted against her candidacy.

Sinema has been caught faking key aspects of her biography. She's also called her state, "The meth lab of democracy," welcome to Arizona, and said on a radio show in 2003 that she did not care if Americans joined the Taliban. She's a lot of fun.

Lisa Boothe is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Voice. And she joins us tonight. Lisa, thanks a lot--

LISA BOOTHE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE SENIOR FELLOW: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: --for coming on. So, first to this candidate in Orange County, California, is she in step with the voters of this district, would you say?

BOOTHE: No, she's absolutely not. And that's what's so crazy about the fact that this race is so competitive because, as you mentioned, this is Orange County. Clinton did win the district by--

CARLSON: Right.

BOOTHE: --5.4 percent. But this has been a traditionally Republican-leaning district. However, Katie Porter says that Elizabeth Warren is her mentor. This is someone she admires.

You go to the list of endorsements on her website. It's EMILY's List, Planned Parenthood, anti-gun groups, every progressive organization you can think of. So, she is absolutely out of step with her district.

She wants single-payer. She supports Bernie Sanders' single-payer system plan that would also give healthcare to illegal immigrants. She supported California becoming a sanctuary state. So, you just go through the policy that she supports and it is entirely inconsistent with the district that she's seeking to represent.

CARLSON: Can you be a lot more specific about the Department of Peacebuilding? Would there be a Peacebuilding SEAL team that would go out and create peace by force? Or did she put meat on those bones?

BOOTHE: I don't know. It doesn't sound like a very dangerous group to be a part of though. So, unlike the SEAL Team Six where, you know, you go through rigorous training and yes, so, I'm not--

CARLSON: Standards are lower for peacebuilding--

BOOTHE: --I don't know much about --

CARLSON: --OK.

BOOTHE: I think so--

CARLSON: So--

BOOTHE: --yes.

CARLSON: --so, it seems like a big deal in the Arizona Senate race for any professional organization or a union to withdraw an endorsement this close to an election. How did this happen with the State Troopers and Kyrsten Sinema?

BOOTHE: It is a big deal because this is the thing. She's been running on the endorsement to kind of bolster her law enforcement and also on immigration issues, essentially, border security. So, this is a big deal for her.

And what happened is the group put out the endorsement and then found out that some members were not so happy about it. So now, they're deciding to be neutral in this race.

And I think the border security issue is really big because Kyrsten Sinema has also been part of this group called No More Deaths where she was part of a group that helped and aided illegal immigrants in trying to cross the border.

And this group has said about U.S. Border Patrol that they engaged in a systematic - systematic torture. So, this is a group that's been very critical of border security. And she has also compared illegal immigrants' deaths to that of or troops dying.

So, this group's been kind of wacky and she's supported in the past. And clearly, what she's been trying to do is run from all these comments that have come back to haunt her as she's been trying to position herself as a moderate in this Senate race.

CARLSON: Yes. Those remarks comparing the deaths of illegal aliens in the desert to our troops in Iraq really were pretty far out. I don't think that we're shading those who are taking them out of context. That was pretty unbelievable.

BOOTHE: Well, and--

CARLSON: Lisa Boothe, thank you.

BOOTHE: --sure.

CARLSON: You've been on this for us. And I appreciate that. And I hope we'll see you again next week for more updates.

BOOTHE: Thanks for having me, Tucker. I appreciate it.

CARLSON: Well does your right to free speech include your right to have views that organized Islamic groups don't think you should be allowed to have? Well European Court has ruled on that. Sharia speech codes have come to Europe. We're not overstating it. That happened. And we have details.

Of course, Europe isn't the only place where freedom of speech is threatened. Sadly, in America, our leaders don't support it either. The social justice Left, authoritarians in Silicon Valley wage war on speech every single day, and they are winning. We are sad to tell you.

That's addressed at great length in a new book called Ship of Fools, available for purchase TuckerCarlson.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A European Court has determined that a Muslim's right not to be offended takes priority over the majorities' right to free speech. That's not an interpretation. They said that out loud.

Here's the case. An Austrian woman was convicted of "Disparaging religion." She was fined more than $500. Her crime was suggesting that Muhammad's marriage to a six-year old constituted a form of pedophilia. She claimed her comments were protected by the freedom of speech because she is a European. And traditionally, they would have been.

But things have changed now.

The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with her. They affirmed her conviction. They said that they needed to balance her quote, right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.

Brendan O'Neill is Editor of Spiked Online, and a columnist for Reason Magazine, and he joins us tonight. Brendan, thanks for coming on. Just as a factual matter, did I misstate any of that? I mean are those the facts of the case?

BRENDAN O'NEILL, SPIKED ONLINE EDITOR: Those are the facts of the case. It's pretty shocking.

In 2009, this woman, whose name is not being given out in public, she gave a seminar in Austria in which she said that Muhammad behaved like a pedophile. And she was charged with inciting religious hatred.

And she appealed to the European Court of Human Rights believing that a - a Court of Human Rights might actually defend her rights. But the European Court of Human Rights has decreed that the Court was right to punish her for making these comments.

And furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights establishes precedent across Europe. So, we now have effectively being warned, all Europeans, that you are forbidden from making this comment about Muhammad.

CARLSON: So, in other words, a standard that has long prevailed in the Islamic world, which is that you can be punished for criticizing Muhammad, is now the law in Europe?

O'NEILL: Exactly right. And I think this is pretty terrifying because what we are witnessing in Europe is the return of Blasphemy Law by the back door. You know, people fought long and hard in many European countries for the right to question religion, to mock gods, to make fun of prophets.

This is a long hard for - fought for liberty. It's now being overturned by these new forms of Blasphemy Law, which really are rehabilitating quite medieval laws, which tell us that there are certain things about religious gods and prophets that we are not allowed to say. I think it is a brazen and terrifying attack on freedom of speech.

CARLSON: Yes. And one specific legitimate I - I assume you're still free to attack the Archbishop of Canterbury--

O'NEILL: Well--

CARLSON: --in fact, of course, you are. It's Islam.

So, but let me ask you this, the guardians of the First Amendment in any society, of course, are journalists. I mean that's their role in a society. But my sense is the European press has not reacted like their house is burning down to this. They haven't raised a hue and cry over it. Or have I missed that?

O'NEILL: They haven't. Not yet. I'm - I'm - I'm optimistic that something might happen because this is a pretty extreme case. But the problem we face in Europe, of course, is that Islam is offered the kind of protections that no other religion enjoys.

We have the term Islamophobia, which is used against anyone who simply raises criticisms of the Quran or the hijab or any other aspect of Islamic practices or Islamic behavior.

There's a real culture of conformism and censorship around the issue of Islam, in particular, which means that unfortunately many journalists probably will not take the tasks this court ruling in the way that they should.

I think what we have to recognize is that freedom of speech, by its very definition, includes the freedom to offend. And what the Court has done has it has said that people's religious feelings trump the freedom of speech. I think that's a really dangerous road--

CARLSON: Right.

O'NEILL: --to go down because nobody's feelings should trump the right of anyone else to say what they believe.

CARLSON: Of course, but there's - and this is a much longer conversation, which maybe you come back and we could have, but it's not simply a failure to defend speech. It's also kind of continent-wide self-hatred.

O'NEILL: Yes.

CARLSON: What people are saying is the culture - our culture should bow down before another culture, minority culture, from another part of the world. I mean no - healthy society would not take this position, right? A society that hates--

O'NEILL: Yes.

CARLSON: --itself would.

O'NEILL: That's absolutely right. I think what we are doing is we are demolishing one of the key principles of modern Europe in the - in the wake of the Enlightenment and the--

CARLSON: Yes.

O'NEILL: --Renaissance, Europe propelled itself forward and started to believe in freedom and choice and the right to express yourself. We are now backtracking on those great historic gains, and we are--

CARLSON: Yes.

O'NEILL: --allowing a new form of censorship to come through. I also think it's a very dangerous ruling. We have many radical Islamists in Europe. And the court--

CARLSON: Right.

O'NEILL: --has now basically said it is impermissible for people to say this thing about Muhammad. What message does that--

CARLSON: Exactly.

O'NEILL: --send to these people? It tells them that if they hear someone say this, maybe they can punish them, maybe they can--

CARLSON: Well exactly--

O'NEILL: --reprimand them.

CARLSON: --exactly. That's exactly--

O'NEILL: And exactly they--

CARLSON: --right. And--

O'NEILL: --in the way they did with Charlie Hebdo. I think this is green- lighting pretty violent responses to criticisms of Islam.

CARLSON: Brendan, thank you. And I hope you will come back. Nice to have you.

O'NEILL: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: NBC News and TIME Magazine both in effected PR for a Creepy Porn Lawyer, they hid facts about him. The public had a right to know. Why did they do that? We'll explain it to you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, if you've got a television set in your house, you know perfectly well that the media have been celebrating Creepy Porn Lawyer as a Resistance hero for months and months now. But turns out they're not just celebrating him, but actively protecting him by withholding damaging information about him from you, the public.

Two examples of this.

Last June, Creepy Porn Lawyer told TIME Magazine that the Democrats absolutely needed to nominate a White man in 2020. Now, saying something like that would have instantly wrecked his political career. As a Democrat, there's nothing that offends Democrats more than that phrase.

But have no fear, TIME did not tell you that. Democrats didn't know for months because they sat on the story. Meantime, Creepy Porn Lawyer became a national figure.

NBC News, by the way, did exactly the same thing to even more political effect, when Creepy Porn Lawyer and, his client, Julie Swetnick, accused Brett Kavanaugh of participating in a long series of public gang-rapes. Remember that?

Creepy Porn Lawyer presented a sworn statement from a second woman that seemed to back up some of Swetnick's claims. You probably vaguely recall this. Well two days after he released that sworn statement, the woman recanted the story to NBC News reporters.

She said that CPL had "Twisted her words." In other words, NBC News had credible information that dramatically undermined accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. Would have been nice to know that before the vote, but they didn't tell anybody.

Huh? Are you surprised? Well only if you imagine NBC News was still a news organization and not a particularly clumsy arm of the Democratic Party which, needless to say, they are, because it was, of course, NBC that leaked the Access Hollywood tape to The Washington Post just before the presidential election, in order to influence the outcome of that election, and later protected Democratic donor and accused rapist Harvey Weinstein.

They did all that. And yet, it wasn't enough for Creepy Porn Lawyer. Even with NBC's assistance, it has been a tough couple of weeks for him. His client Stormy Daniels was ordered to pay Donald Trump's legal fees.

His theatrics during the Kavanaugh confirmation helped put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Now the law firm, that he runs, is facing eviction for failing to pay its rent. He's still one of the best-known Democratic candidates for president though. How is he likely to do?

Chris Hahn is a progressive radio host and a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer. He joins us tonight from Long Island for a Creepy Porn Lawyer update. Chris, it's great to see you tonight. Thank you for bringing this up today.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO SHOW HOST: Great to see you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, here's my theory. So, Creepy Porn Lawyer makes baseless charges against Brett Kavanaugh, accusing him of participating in a rape. He says all of these lunatic things. He doesn't pay his taxes. He's obviously a discredited figure.

And not one Democrat criticizes him until he endorses the idea of, and I'm quoting, "A White man running for president," at which point all Democrats are like, "Oh, no. It's over." It's over. Why didn't anyone note that before?

HAHN: Hold on it. I have criticized him on this network several times and said he will never be the Democratic nominee for president. I do love his haircut. I think it's fantastic and very efficient. But I have criticized him politically.

I think he is the reason why Susan Collins voted for Brett Kavanaugh because I thought the Swetnick allegations were very outrageous and hard to prove. That said, he had an affidavit from a client. He was not the one defaming the President or defaming Kavanaugh. It was the client.

So, it is it - you know, look, there are lots of problems with him--

CARLSON: Oh no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, I'm - I'm sorry--

HAHN: --he will never - he's a sensationalist --

CARLSON: I - I agree with you up until there. But I just can't let you get away with the lawyer's dodge that it's the client. So, it was Creepy Porn Lawyer who brought these allegations forward, who took the deposition, who was the vehicle by which the rest of us know that these allegations were made.

And, by the way, these allegations were taken with dead seriousness by every news organization in America, practically, not this show, but everybody else. And Democrats never said, "Wait a second. 10 gang-rapes in a row? That's ridiculous."

HAHN: I--

CARLSON: They stood and they nodded--

HAHN: I think a lot of --

CARLSON: --their heads, "Oh, it's very serious."

HAHN: --a lot of people took it, you know, took it less than serious, and a lot of people dismissed it and thought that this was adding something to what was some very credible allegations against Kavanaugh.

And look, we call him Creepy Porn Lawyer because he--

CARLSON: Who are that made hold on, who were those people--

HAHN: --represented a porn star.

CARLSON: --though?

HAHN: He represented a--

CARLSON: Right.

HAHN: --he represented - myself. He represented a porn star who we know was paid money not to discuss her affair with the President of the United States. So there is--

CARLSON: Wait, wait, hold on, no, wait, wait, hold on, wait, can I--

HAHN: --there, you know, that's why we know him as a--

CARLSON: --just - can I just ask you, wait hold on--

HAHN: --porn lawyer.

CARLSON: --can I just ask a question. She took money for a voluntary sexual relationship in exchange for not talking about it. We used to call that extortion.

HAHN: Yes, she did.

CARLSON: Mafias specialized in it. But now we're totally cool with it. And we're blaming the guy who had to pay the extortion money. How does that work exactly? Are we for that now?

HAHN: We don't - we actually don't know exactly how that money was proposed. In fact, it could have been proposed by the person who wanted to cover it up, not necessarily the porn star who wanted a cover story.

CARLSON: Wait, wait, wait, so but you're--

HAHN: We never got to the bottom of that.

CARLSON: --you're totally cool--

HAHN: And the President--

CARLSON: --with people--

HAHN: --the President's lawyers did settle the matter. So, I think they were happy with the arrangement.

CARLSON: Oh? So they didn't want to talk about therefore they must be guilty. But just for the record, I want to get this on tape. You're totally cool if people have a consensual sexual relationship, and one of them gets- -

HAHN: No.

CARLSON: --money not to talk about it, that's OK with you?

HAHN: I'm not.

CARLSON: If that person breaks the agreement and talks about it anyway--

HAHN: No, look, look--

CARLSON: --it's the - it's the fault of the guy who--

HAHN: --look--

CARLSON: --paid her off not to talk about it, like what world is this?

HAHN: --I am not - I am - I am not in favor of extortion. I was just pointing out--

CARLSON: Oh, OK.

HAHN: --you're calling him a porn lawyer, we know why we call him a porn lawyer--

CARLSON: Well yes.

HAHN: --we got to remember why he's a porn lawyer and who he represented.

CARLSON: But look - not just--

HAHN: It wasn't like he was arguing for more money--

CARLSON: --a porn lawyer. If I could just correct you, no, no--

HAHN: --from the porn stations that--

CARLSON: --he's a Creepy--

HAHN: --right, sorry.

CARLSON: --Porn Lawyer. Anyway just want him to clear that up.

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: Chris, thanks so much for clarifying all that, appreciate it.

HAHN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, former Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor, George Papadopoulos now says that he was framed by the FBI. He may seek to undo a plea deal he entered into with Robert Mueller.

Ed Henry has the latest for that, tonight.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Tucker, I was there at Fox & Friends this morning when George Papadopoulos stunned us in this exclusive with Brian Kilmeade flat-out charging he was framed by the FBI that he may now seek to undo his plea deal with Robert Mueller and pursue a trial on what he called "An entrapment case."

That's a 180 degrees from the grand predictions in the media when Papadopoulos pled guilty one year ago this month to lying to the FBI. There were all kinds of reporters and pundits suggesting this was a bombshell, it would damage President Trump.

Instead, Papadopoulos was sentenced to just 14 days in prison. His plea deal has not a whiff of collusion with Russians. And he emerged from his testimony on Capitol Hill Thursday declaring he's happy with how all of this has turned out, a far cry from last October when people in the media were declaring his cooperation with Mueller would prove to be bigger than the indictments against Paul Manafort, even though Trump aides have repeatedly said Papadopoulos was a low-level aide.

Chris Cillizza of CNN insisting, "But, what Papadopoulos has already admitted to doing, lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russian operatives regarding dirt on Trump's general election opponent, is a very big deal. A bigger deal than the dozen counts laid out in the Manafort indictment."

Well Papadopoulos' interview today raised more questions instead about whether President Trump's campaign was spied upon. Back in December, The New York Times published a story claiming it was Papadopoulos' 2016 meeting with an Australian diplomat that launched the FBI's counterintelligence probe without any help from the Clinton-financed dossier.

Except, a more recent New York Times story said the FBI did not talk to the Australian diplomat until after that counterintelligence probe was already launched, and that there was surveillance of the Trump campaign. It even had a codename, Crossfire Hurricane, which Papadopoulos teed off on today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: It seems completely suspicious at a week or so after Joseph Mifsud drops this information on me in London --

BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS: Unsolicited?

PAPADOPOULOS: --unsolicited, then Alexander Downer apparently wants to figure out info on this particular topic. It just seems that it was some sort of a sting operation gone bad, to be quite honest with you

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Republicans on the Hill believe this suggests the Special Counsel was launched based on trumped-up charges. Democrats continue to insist no, this is all about the President's allies trying to undermine Mueller's findings, which we now expect to come after the mid-terms.

Tucker?

CARLSON: Ed Henry, thanks for that. Democrats tell us they believe survivors, but not all survivors. We'll tell you which survivors they believe, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors.

TED CRUZ, JUNIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, TEXAS: It was a delight. Excuse me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Beto is way harder than you dude.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We believe survivors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: God bless you Ted Cruz.

CRUZ: Excuse me, let my wife through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We believe survivors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The Democratic position on sexual harassment and assault is very simple. Believe women, all women at all times, in all cases, because women always tell the truth. They do not make false allegations ever.

You cannot doubt them. Skepticism is hate. So with that standard in mind, we've been watching the Keith Ellison case pretty carefully. Ellison is, of course, the Democratic Congressman from Minnesota. He's running from - for Attorney General for Minnesota.

His ex-girlfriend has accused him of physically abusing her because we do take women seriously. We asked her on the show to tell her story. Here's how she described the Democratic Party's response to her allegations. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN MONAHAN, KEITH ELLISON ACCUSER: If you look on social media, if you see some of the letters that have been written that basically say they don't believe me, the folks who have signed on you it's pretty apparent. There's been a lot of bullying. There's been a lot of harassment, isolation by many folks that I stood side by side with supporting them in their campaigns.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Democrats don't believe me, she said. Turns out, she was right. Just yesterday, the Chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party put it this way. "I don't believe her."

So apparently, it's time to revise the believe-all-women rule. It turns out Democrats believe all women who make allegations that could be politically useful to them. The rest are ignored and attacked. That's the real rule.

That's it for us tonight. Thanks for a great week. We'll be back 8 p.m. Monday night, the show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Have the best weekend.

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.