Brit Hume on fallout from Kavanaugh hearing; Alan Dershowitz on Rachel Mitchell's performance

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 27, 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." A remarkable day, Brett Kavanaugh has stepped away from the microphone in the Senate hearing room.

He spent three and a half hours there, it was a remarkable moment, stunning in many ways like without precedent in the lifetimes of many who watched it. Until this afternoon, Kavanaugh had struck, many who watched him, as bookish and academic, the classic temperament of a federal judge.

He emerged though this afternoon transformed, a man on fire, fighting with everything he had to save his family, himself in the presumption of innocence. Kavanaugh began his testimony today with an unequivocal denial of the allegations against him. I did not sexually assault Christine Blasey Ford or anyone else at any time, he said his voice rising, the charges are false.

But then Kavanaugh did something entirely unexpected. He broadened his response and he aimed it directly at the Senate Democrats sitting before him.


JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.

Since my nomination in July, there's been a frenzy on the Left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated, the Democratic Senate leader said he would "oppose me with everything he's got." A Democratic Senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil, think about that word, and said that those who supported me were "complicit and evil."

Another Democratic Senator on this committee said "Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare." A former head of the Democratic National Committee said "Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come."

I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those Senators, your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listen carefully to you.

Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything, to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent email to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down.

You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.


CARLSON: No Supreme Court nominee has spoken like this in memory, not even Clarence Thomas, but then none has been accused more recklessly or with less evidence than Brett Kavanaugh has, and he did nothing to hide his rage.


KAVANAUGH: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside Left-wing opposition groups.

This is a circus; the consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.

I am an optimistic guy. I always try to be on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today, I have to say that I fear for the future.


CARLSON: Throughout the hearing, he categorically denied her claims about him. Kavanaugh showed no animus personally toward Christine Ford. Instead, in one of the most riveting moments of the day, he explained how his family had prayed for her.


KAVANAUGH: I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am, it is not who I was.

I am innocent of this charge. I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night, Ashley and my daughter Liza said their prayers. And little Liza, all 10 years old, said to Ashley we should pray for the woman. It's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will.


CARLSON: Behind him, as he spoke, Brett Kavanaugh's mother wept with emotion. Kavanaugh concluded his remarks today as he'd begun them defiantly.


KAVANAUGH: I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard, you've given it your all, no one can question your effort. But you're coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote, but you'll never get me to quit, never.


CARLSON: Democrats in the room seemed stunned by Kavanaugh's remarks, and for a moment, they seemed thrown back on their heels, but not for long.

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein began the questioning for Democrats. She seemed to suggest that Kavanaugh was secretly a sexual predator. Reading from a script, Feinstein referred to a woman called Julie Swetnick, who was a college student in suburban Washington when Brett Kavanaugh was in high school.

Yesterday, as we told you, Swetnick claimed that she witnessed at least ten public gang rapes in which Brett Kavanaugh was supposedly present and participating. It was a remarkable charge, and yet Feinstein never mentioned that part of Swetnick's claim. Why is that?

Well, because the story is ridiculous. It clashes with common sense and it's lunatic. Nobody believes it. So, Feinstein left that part out in order to smear Kavanaugh in front of the world and omitted highly relevant information about his accuser, indeed the entire accusation. It was reprehensibly dishonest behavior, especially for a U.S. Senator, and Kavanaugh all but said so.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at. And I don't understand, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts. So all we have is--

KAVANAUGH: You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, Senator. I'm sorry to interrupt, but you are doing it. There is no conclusions reached.

FEINSTEIN: And what you are saying, if I understand it, is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick are wrong.

KAVANAUGH: That is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke; that is a farce.

FEINSTEIN: Would you like to say more about it?



CARLSON: It was a surreal moment. The day was filled with those. At times, the hypocrisy level got so high you wondered how people in the room could breathe. There was the oleaginous Senator from New Jersey, a man who once admitted molesting a girl in high school, sitting there accusing someone else of molesting a girl in high school.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: There are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels of -- unacceptable levels of sexual assault and harassment. You are opening up to open air hurt and pain that goes on across this country, as you were speaking truth that this country needs to understand.


CARLSON: It'd be interesting to hear that the girl Cory Booker says he molested speak her truth in an open hearing, we eagerly await that testimony hopefully soon. Then there was the bloodless Senator from Connecticut, the guy repeatedly lied about serving in Vietnam, trying his best to impugn another man's integrity.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: False in one thing, false in everything. Meaning, in jury instructions that we -- some of us as prosecutors heard many times is told a jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find him to be false in one thing. So the core of why we're here today really is credibility.

KAVANAUGH: The core of why we're here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn't happen.


CARLSON: False in one thing, false in many things. If you're Senator Blumenthal, can you even imagine saying something like that? What kind of lack of self-awareness would it take to say something like that? Remarkable.

Underneath all of this though hung the most obvious question of the day which nobody asked out loud, who did this to Christine Ford? Democrats claimed they held these hearings for her, because they care deeply about her well-being. It was Democrats who leaked her name to the press against her wishes and dragged her into this maelstrom. Who did that?

Well, likely someone in Dianne Feinstein's office. Feinstein claims she was not involved. She'd like the presumption of innocence on that. OK, so who was it? If you care about Christine Ford, about all victims of sexual assaults, you'd be very anxious to know. Maybe we could have a new investigation to that.

Republicans would start one immediately like tomorrow. Would Democrats participate in an investigation to find out who leaked Christine Ford's name to the press? Probably not. They seem strikingly uninterested in talking about Christine Ford today. They rarely asked about her when Judge Kavanaugh was on the set.

Instead, they peppered Kavanaugh with questions about his Georgetown Prep yearbook and how much beer he drank in high school and college. Here's one of his responses to that line of questioning.


KAVANAUGH: I never sexually assaulted anyone. There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexually assaulting someone which is a violent crime.

If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault.


CARLSON: When they weren't demanding answers about his high school yearbook, Democrats stalled for time. They did that by demanding yet another FBI investigation into Kavanaugh.


FEINSTEIN: Why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims?

SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILL.: Judge Kavanaugh, will you support an FBI investigation right now?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN.: You could actually just get this open, so that we can talk to these witnesses and the FBI can do it instead of us.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: Are you willing to ask the White House to authorize the FBI to investigate the claims that have been made against you?


CARLSON: An FBI investigation sounds reasonable. It would be the seventh FBI investigation that has looked deeply into Brett Kavanaugh's personal conduct. He was once Staff Secretary to the President of the United States and at the highest level of security clearance this country gives, one that gave him access to America's nuclear codes.

He got that clearance because the FBI spoke at length to a cross-section of everyone he'd ever met, going back to high school and earlier, and there were no hints of sexual assaults, none. There's nothing left to investigate here, everyone knows that, this is a political tactic, and is disingenuous.

Why are they doing it? Well, simple, Democrats know that if the vote on Brett Kavanaugh has held soon, he will be confirmed. If it is delayed by pointless FBI investigations being demanded by demagogues in bad faith, he will not be confirmed, because the accusations will never end.

The incentive to make them is too strong. You'll see more anonymous claims that he led gang rapes on sailboats in Rhode Island or whatever, and this grotesque circus will continue. Our ancient standards of justice will further degrade with the help of the Senate Democratic Conference.

But Democrats will retain power and that is the point, is the only point of all of this. But for now, and until and if that happens, no Republican Senator who watched Brett Kavanaugh testify today is likely to vote against him. Those who did would be quickly punished by voters.

Many viewers at home wept as they watched Kavanaugh speak today, maybe you did as you saw it. Those of us who have been falsely accused of sexual assault by strangers understood well the feeling of terror and loneliness that's shown on Kavanaugh's face.

Prove you didn't do it or everything you have will be taken from you by force. That's not an easy task for anyone. Kavanaugh came as close as a man can to clearing his own name. He didn't get a lot of help from Senate Republicans other than Lindsey Graham.

The next time you're falsely accused of a crime, don't ask them for backup. Brett Kavanaugh did it all himself; he had no choice. As his life collapsed around him, he stood bravely and he spoke clearly and it's hard to imagine a fiercer test of a man's character than that.

We're going to be considering all for the next hour what happened in the Senate today and its implications, but we're going to begin fittingly with Fox senior political analyst Brit Hume, who spent all day covering this story.

You were on the set from 9:45 this morning until now. What was that experience like, as someone who's watched a lot of Senate hearings?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Well, it was personally distressing to me that we even got to this point, where we had to - where these squalid allegations came after the matter was essentially closed, and he had to respond to it in such a way that he had to try to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible to do.

And then, as I rather anticipated, came her testimony which was emotional as was his and powerful in its way. And I thought to myself, now the burden is even higher on him and the Republicans did next to nothing in the hired questioner they had -- through the hired questioner they had to cast doubt on her testimony.

And politically speaking, that might have been wise. So, it all is up to him, and I was wondering whether he could do it and whether the mild- mannered young man -- young compared to me that he is -- would be effective in this setting under these circumstances.

I have to say I think he was extremely effective. I think his emotion, his - at times he was near tears, was -- made his testimony credible. If you're accused, Tucker, and you may know this of something that wrong and is false, it makes you emotional.

CARLSON: I do know that feeling very well.

HUME: Exactly, and I think that came through. So, if you are -- so the audience here really comes down to a handful of Republican Senators who were undecided, at least nominally undecided.

It is a little hard to imagine after today's testimony by him that they would turn against him. Remember, these allegations against him were uncorroborated when the day began and they were uncorroborated at the end of the day still. And the only corroborative evidence really that were produced where his old calendars and diaries that he produced.

They're not dispositive, but they are something. And so, it comes down to his word against his, and he was, seems to me, at least as credible as she was. So, I think at this point, it's utterly regrettable that we got here. The process has been damaged for years now, it's ruined, and this is where we are. One hopes he may survive it.

CARLSON: The moment that shocked me the most, that I expected the least, and I agree with you, I never thought a man like Brett Kavanaugh could do what he did today; I was stunned by it. But the moment that really shocked me was when he spoke about praying with his daughters for Christine Ford.

As a father, what was your reaction?

HUME: Well, this is what serious Christians do. This is what serious Christians are called to do, that you were to love your enemies and that you were to pray for those who may have harmed you.

Now, I'm not saying Christine Blasey Ford was actually an enemy in that sense. But in this setting, of course she was. She was the one pitted against him.

CARLSON: She has harmed him.

HUME: Yes, she's harmed him certainly. And this is the kind of people -- I don't know Brett Kavanaugh, but I know his father, so I know the family to some extent. I also know her father and that family to some extent. They're fine people, all of them.

So this -- that's one of things that makes this thing so terribly sad.


HUME: But I think that was a moment and then I think, when Senator Lindsey Graham who I think has been indignant about this for weeks now, got his turn. He wasn't having any questioning done by somebody else. He made as powerful a statement and denunciation of this process and what's happened to it, as any I've ever heard from anybody in this town; I've been around here a long time.

CARLSON: That was an unbelievable moment. We're going to play clips of that in just a minute, in case you missed it, it was -- that was a moment for sure.

HUME: Yes.

CARLSON: I will never forget that. Brit Hume, thank you very much.

HUME: You bet, Tucker.

CARLSON: During her testimony earlier today, Christine Ford said she had no doubt she was the victim of Judge Kavanaugh 36 years ago.


DURBIN: Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?



CARLSON: Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been a judge and a defense attorney, said much more was needed. Shortly after Kavanaugh's opening statement, he denounced the entire process as a sham and a disgrace, with a level of vehemence we almost never see in the US Senate. Watch this.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020. You said that, not me.

You've got nothing to apologize for. When you see Sotomayor and Kagan tell them that Lindsay said all because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done to this guy. I cannot imagine what you and your family are going through.

Boy y'all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham that you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford, none.

She's as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it, because these have been my friends. But let me tell you when it comes to this, you're looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.

You have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation. You're supposed to be Bill Cosby, when you're a junior and senior and high school. And all of a sudden, you got over it. It's been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don't stop.

Here's my understanding, if you've lived the good life, people won't recognize it. To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat; I hope you never get it. I hope you're on the Supreme Court, that's exactly where you should be and I hope that the American people will see through this charade, and I wish you well and I intend to vote for you, and I hope everybody who's fair-minded will.


CARLSON: When was the last time you saw something like that in a Senate hearing. Mollie Hemingway is the senior editor with The Federalist and she joins us tonight.

Watching Lindsey Graham give that speech, and we truncated it, I mean it's worth pulling up and watching the whole thing. Not reading from notes, I mean most these people are reading directly from a script written by staff, he meant that.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST: Yes, and I think he really spoke to a lot of people who feel like the sane part of the country has been taken hostage by the insane part of the country.

What we have witnessed in these last couple of weeks is just a travesty.


HEMINGWAY: Anyone who cares about rule of law, presumption of innocence, having meaningful legal and political institutions, is wondering just what's going on. The media are throwing their credibility away, they're diminishing all of their standards, and Democratic partisans also behaved shamefully - shamelessly, depending on how you -- depending how you look at it.

And it is something that I think a lot of people don't understand what was unleashed by this behavior by Democrats-- CARLSON: Yes.

HEMINGWAY: --and the media. There is extreme sadness at what we saw happened to this man.


HEMINGWAY: This is so much anger too-- CARLSON: I agree.

HEMINGWAY: --and a desire to make sure that we do not let this happen, regardless of if you're liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We have standards for how we do things in this country. We have standards for what we demand before we declared--

CARLSON: If the Republican Party was doing this right now to a Democrat, I would attack them as vehemently. This is totally immoral and there's nothing -- I don't know Kavanaugh, I don't know anything about him, I don't care. This is wrong.

HEMINGWAY: I think it's so beyond a Supreme Court nomination. It's even beyond this man's honor in his name and his integrity which he clearly cares a lot about. To me, this is about the Republic and whether we will do things this way, whether we will let our political and legal institutions crumble, or whether we have a higher standard that we're known for, that's built into our Constitution in the Sixth Amendment, where we have rights for people who are accused, and where we don't destroy people's lives because we disagree with them politically.

CARLSON: I had honestly at least ten people text me today to say, men too, that they were weeping as they watched his testimony.

HEMINGWAY: I was sobbing when I was watching it. I heard that a lot from people as well. It was hard just to watch these clips here. I commend that ten-year-old daughter for praying and I think a lot of people, people who are Christian or people who pray should think about doing that, because this is one such time.

It is hard to watch what this family has gone through and it's a reminder it's not -- there are standards for when you accuse someone that there must be evidence to support that.


HEMINGWAY: We did not have any additional supporting evidence today, any at all. It's not an issue of whether you find one person compelling or another person compelling. It's an issue of whether we have evidence to convict someone in this court of public opinion or otherwise, to destroy their life, and we did not get that today.

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

HEMINGWAY: This is actually a fairly simple issue.

CARLSON: It told us everything. Lindsey Graham summed it up perfectly. He said this is about power, you want power, and I hope you never get it. And that's how I feel about it.

Mollie Hemingway, you've been great on this. Thank you very much.


CARLSON: A lot more to be said about what happened today in the Senate. Up next, we'll hear what legal and law enforcement experts have to say about what they heard. Be right back.



BLASEY FORD: The details that -- about that night that bring me here today are the ones I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory and have haunted me episodically as an adult.

KAVANAUGH: I swear today under oath, before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge.


CARLSON: We are continuing to cover today's Senate hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, probably the most dramatic in a lifetime of anyone watching. What's the political effect of this? Jonathan Turley is a Professor at George Washington University School of Law, and a measured observer of all things and he joins us tonight.

Professor, given that the fact set for this case is so tiny, we don't really know that much, we don't know a lot more now than we did this morning, does this change the calculation of the case? Did you learn anything?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well I actually thought he gained a lot of ground. If the vote had been taken right after Dr. Ford finished, I think he might have lost.


TURLEY: But he regained that ground. It was a difficult needle to thread, because he could only be on defense, he couldn't be seen as be going on offense against her. But he ended up going on offense, just against the committee Democrats --


TURLEY: --and it worked very, very well. And I think that what people saw in that anger was a certain genuine quality. They saw Brett Kavanaugh for the first time. I think he came off rather wooden and even robotic in his original confirmation hearing, and there was nothing particularly practiced here.

I mean people saw very raw anger. And in that way, he didn't become sort of Michael Dukakis of judicial confirmations. If someone accuses --

CARLSON: Well, that's right, exactly.

TURLEY: --you of being a rapist, people expect you to be angry, and he certainly was.

CARLSON: I had no -- just speaking for myself as an observer and not a friend, I had no idea that was within Brett Kavanaugh.

TURLEY: Neither did I, quite frankly. When he came in, I was like whoa this was - he didn't even look like the Brett Kavanaugh that I've met through the years. He was clearly going to take this over himself.

CARLSON: And so you're a law professor and you said you've met him a number of times, the legal community in DC at the high levels, pretty small. Is there any debate between Left and Right or anyone else about his legal qualifications for this job?

TURLEY: No, no, no. He's highly, highly respected and lawyers give him very high marks as an Appellate Judge. And this is very uncharacteristic for him. I mean he is not known as someone who is very emotive, somebody who does -- gets angry. It's quite to the contrary. He has a reputation for being very polite and civil to everyone. So this was a genuine moment, but maybe an uncharacteristic one for him.

CARLSON: I just wonder since you've watched all these confirmation hearings going back so far, they once took place on the sort of level of principle and law. We argued about what a nominee believed.

And now, increasingly, we're arguing about the soul of the nominee, whether he's a good person or not.

TURLEY: What troubles me is this mantra that was being repeated that this is not a trial, that this is a job interview. This is a man being accused of a serious crime. I wrote a piece in The Hill saying that it's wrong to say there's no standard of review here.

You have to have some standard to look at this evidence, some point in which a nominee is either presumed guilty or innocent in this type of scandal. I've suggested a clear preponderance standard. But I don't even think this evidence would meet the mere preponderance of evidence standard.

It's not even over the 50 percent mark. Maybe there's some more support there. But at the end of the day, you have to look at this and there is a lack of cooperation. I thought Dr. Ford performed well. I thought she came off quite compelling.

But at the end of the day, you have to look at whether there is that cooperation, and it's not there.


TURLEY: And so I think that these senators will have a tough decision to make. But if they make it on the evidence, then they'll return to the original question of merit. Does this man have the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice?

CARLSON: You'd like to think that's where the debate would have remained. Professor, thank you very much.

TURLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Besides Christine Ford and Kavanaugh himself, the chief figure of today's hearing was the Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell. Did she ask the right questions or miss anything important? Possibly a rhetorical question.

Francey Hakes is a former DOJ National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, and she joins us tonight.

As I watched these hearings today, I kept thinking how alone Brett Kavanaugh was. I'm not attacking the prosecutor who asked the questions on behalf of Republican Senators in the first half. But Kavanaugh seems to be the only one making a case for Kavanaugh.

FRANCEY HAKES, FORMER NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENTION AND INTERDICTION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Tucker, unfortunately I agree with you. Although, the way I look at it is that Kavanaugh was the only person even trying to challenge the allegations, which I think was the role of Miss Mitchell.

And while I think she did a couple of things well, establishing possible political bias and the sense of the delay of the hearing, this ridiculous allegation that she was afraid to fly, she certainly blew that one out of the water. And this elucidation of the issue of whether or not Ms. Ford or Dr. Ford delayed in her own words coming forward with this information, she said that she knew about Brett Kavanaugh's position on the short list and that she was determined to prevent his nomination.

And yet, somehow this PhD was unable to figure out how to call either of her two Senators, both of whom sit on the Judiciary Committee. So I thought Ms. Mitchell did a good job with that. But when it came to asking about the allegations, I was shocked when she told Dr. Ford that she would not be asking her about those allegations at all, and she didn't.

CARLSON: Right. It's like buying a new car but not mentioning price. I have to say, on the plane thing though, I wondered about it. I mean, she established that Christine Ford has flown an awful lot. But I thought what she could have teased out a little bit is why she lied about it in this case.

You can't come to Washington to testify, because she can't get on an airplane. This had a politically significant effect, delaying the confirmation of Kavanaugh. That's a lie. Why is nobody saying that?

HAKES: Well, I don't know, and I thought Judge Kavanaugh did a brilliant job of explaining what that delay has meant to him, his family, and his reputation and their future. Prosecutors like to say, don't ask a question you don't know the answer to, so don't ask a why question.

All trained prosecutors know that that's just garbage. You have to ask questions you don't know the answer to, and that's what happens in every trial.


HAKES: You often don't know the answer. She should have challenged Dr. Ford and she did not.

CARLSON: Right. Yes, I noticed. I was grinding my teeth throughout. Francey Hakes, thank you very much.

HAKES: Thanks Tucker.

CARLSON: Well the media, for reasons that aren't exactly clear, are using the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh to attack people on the basis of their skin color, though of course everyone in the story is the same color. It's totally bizarre, it's everywhere, and nobody mentions it, but why wouldn't you mention it, because it's totally wrong. We'll have more on it when we come back.



KAVANAUGH: I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately, it took the Committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, as was predictable and as I predicted, my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations.


CARLSON: So, if you've been watching the coverage of the Kavanaugh nomination over the past ten days or so, especially in other channels, but not exclusively, you might have noticed something a little strange about the coverage repeatedly.

Reporters and on-air analysts have interjected the question of race into this story. And that's odd because it's not a racial story. Everyone involved is the same color. And yet, again and again, you see people use this story as a pretext for denouncing an entire race of people.

We're going to remind you something you probably already knew. That's the definition of racism and yet it's everywhere.


REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, D-CALIF.: Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men Senators are doing to this woman.

ELIE MYSTAL, MANAGING EDITOR, ABOVE THE LAW REDLINE: This is all gross strategizing from 11 old white men.

SCOTT BOLDEN, ATTORNEY: It's a white man strategy that is politically dumb, in my opinion.

JOY BEHAR, 'THE VIEW': These people in Congress right now and not Senate Judiciary Committee, these white men, old by the way, are not protecting women. They're protecting a man who is probably guilty.


CARLSON: So why are these morons pushing race conflict on the country, when again the story has nothing to do with race, and why is nobody saying anything about it? Those are all questions that we should ponder going forward.

In the meantime, though, over at CNN, Jeff Toobin, normally an objective reporter, went further than anyone. He said that demands for due process for Judge Kavanaugh show this entire country, you and me and everyone, is evil.


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Maybe this country is a lot more racist and sexist than we thought. Maybe a lot of people find this allegation preposterous.


Maybe a lot of people think - you know, who won the election? The guy from the Access Hollywood tape won the election.


CARLSON: So if you don't believe the allegation made by a white woman against a white man, you're a racist. What the hell is going on?


CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, a radio show host and President of Independent Women's Voice and a wise person, she joins us tonight to unravel the complexity of this world.

BRUCE: Right, look we've spent clearly what 150 years at least arguing that your complexion does not equate to who you are, what your morals are, how smart you are, what your intentions are, what you do in life.

Hundreds of thousands of us died fighting to make sure that our skin color would not matter, that we rejected that notion. And now in the 21st century, the Democrats who have nothing to argue with, who have been rejected on the issues of principles, on the foundation of legislation, on ideas, they have failed. They've damaged this country.

We're bringing it back and what they're trying to do is appeal to the worst part of us.


BRUCE: They want individuals to look to the worst parts of themselves, to think awful things about other people, about Tucker the very personal aspects of who we are, our gender, our race, our ethnicity.

Maybe ultimately our age, certainly gender, and this is -- everything with Kavanaugh certainly, and maybe that's why the liberals have been inspired to go even further, has been about the worst in what they want from people, arguing for divisions, looking for these emotional buttons to have people certainly be upset to not trust their neighbor or even themselves, to really look at America again as being evil.

This now is what the Democrats have become. We saw it on display today, we've seen it destroy -- I don't think it's destroyed Judge Kavanaugh yet. Obviously Dr. Ford's life has changed forever. We all deserve better, and what we will not do is go back to that time in this country where gender and race defined who you were.

CARLSON: Exactly.

BRUCE: We have fought to change this.

CARLSON: Amen. Let's not put up with this garbage, seriously.

BRUCE: Exactly.

CARLSON: Let's speak out against it. Don't let them divide this country along tribal lines.

BRUCE: Exactly.

CARLSON: Which is what they do even as they accuse their opponents of doing that. It's always projection. Tammy, that's so nicely put, thank you for that.

BRUCE: Thank you. Nice meeting you.

CARLSON: Our coverage of the Brett Kavanaugh hearing continues in just a few minutes. Professor Alan Dershowitz told us yesterday he thought that the pick of Rachael Mitchell as Outside Counsel might not be a wise move. Was he vindicated? He joins us next to tell us.



FEINSTEIN: We hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts. So, all we have what they say--

KAVANAUGH: You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, Senator. I'm sorry to interrupt, but you are doing it. There is no conclusions reached.


CARLSON: That was Brett Kavanaugh responding to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California at today's hearing. We spoke with retired Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz ahead of today's hearing. Now that it's over, what did he think of the outcome?

Professor Dershowitz is also of course the author of the best-selling "The Case Against Impeaching Trump" and he rejoins us tonight.

Professor, thanks a lot for coming. You watched the hearing from beginning to end.


CARLSON: What's your assessment?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, when I watched her, I really thought she was extremely credible and I had grave doubts as to whether he could win the credibility contest. But then, he made this remarkable comeback and he really testified in a completely compelling manner. So, I think in the end, there is a tie when it comes to personal credibility.

So, how do you break the tie? I think one way is to look for corroboration and he has much more corroboration on his side. Now, the best way to make sure that corroboration is accurate is for the committee to call the other witnesses and let the FBI continue its background check. And I think in the end, it will do him more good than harm.

CARLSON: Now, when we spoke yesterday, you said that you were concerned about the choice of Rachael Mitchell from the Maricopa County sex crime investigations office in Arizona to speak on behalf of Republican Senators, as they questioned Christine Ford. And your point - well, I think we have a clip, I'll show you your point.



DERSHOWITZ: I want to see the greatest engine of truth ever invented used effectively, namely cross-examination, and I'm worried that we don't have the right people. The woman who has been hired to conduct the cross- examination has probably rarely ever cross-examined anybody; she's a prosecutor. So, I don't think she's the right person to question Dr. Ford.


DERSHOWITZ: I was criticized very much for making that point, and I turned out to be 100% right. She was totally and completely incompetent in terms of asking cross-examination question, because she has little experience.

For example, the main issue now is whether or not she recognized Kavanaugh correctly. She was never asked whether how well she knew him, how many times she encountered him before this, how close was their relationship.

There was nothing that could raise questions about whether even if she believes she's telling the truth, she may have misidentified. So, she just did a terrible job and I think the Republicans realize that, and they candor right in the middle. But it was a very bad choice.

CARLSON: So can I -- and those of us who ask questions for a living sat and watched with our mouths open, wondering throughout what is the point. It's not that she's a bad person or stupid, but--


CARLSON: --you would think -- I mean you've been around Congressional testimony before. You've been -- you've testified. When you are asking questions of a witness, aren't you doing so in order to prove a point, tell a story, you're doing so for some reason aren't you?

DERSHOWITZ: You have to have a theory. Every question has to be part of a tactic. You ask question A in order to lay a foundation for B. She was just asking questions. It just didn't seem to go anywhere. She didn't have much of a point. And in the end, she accomplished nothing.

CARLSON: Yes, Brett Kavanaugh defended himself, nobody else was -- other than Lindsey Graham. Thank you Professor, it's great to see you and I just wanted to let our viewers know what a prescient prediction you made.

DERSHOWITZ: Let the truth come out, that's what we are all interested in.

CARLSON: Thank you Professor.

Well more than once widely believed allegations of sexual abuse have been exposed as fraudulent. What happens to the victims in those cases? An attorney who knows very well joins us next.


CARLSON: Well, you don't have to search far to find examples of fraudulent sexual assault accusation. Some of us have lived them. Some of those accusations are widely believed, but that does not make them true.

What happens to those who are falsely accused in such cases. Libby Locke knows well, she represented UVA Dean Nicole Eramo after Rolling Stone made the dean a villain in their fake story about a gang rape that never took place at UVA.

Libby Locke joins us tonight. So, Libby, the reason I'm talking to you is that we never sort of follow up in these stories, what happens to people who've been accused of some horrifying sex crime falsely. The smoke clears, nobody asks them any other questions. What happens to their lives?

LIBBY LOCKE, ATTORNEY FOR NICOLE ERAMO: Well, it's a big problem. When your name is dragged through the mud, the national press like my clients was -- clients are faced with a choice of whether they put out a lot of money and depend on lawyers to litigate to clear their names, or finding lawyers who are willing to take on their case on a contingency basis and try and clear their name.

And the hurdles that you have to overcome in a defamation claim as a plaintiff are incredibly high. And Dean Eramo, to her credit, she was brave, she brought those claims and she hired us. We litigated it pretty fiercely and we indicated her reputation.

But it's not all people who are dragged through the mud have the relief to do it.

CARLSON: No, they don't. I mean the Duke lacrosse players who were called rapists for six months on TV by the morons on cable news, all innocent.

LOCKE: And that prosecutor who lost his bar license.

CARLSON: That's right, Mike Nifong. What about the kids in the fraternity who were accused of raping women, when they didn't?


CARLSON: Do they ever remain whole?

LOCKE: They had challenges too. They recently -- one group of students brought a lawsuit in the Second Circuit, brought a lawsuit in New York and it was dismissed. It was thrown out. They said you can't break, if you weren't named in the case, and they had to appeal that up to the Second Circuit.

They waited years to have their chance and they went back and Rolling Stone settled that case. But it's a long process-- CARLSON: It's unbelievable. Well thank you -- 50 years ago, you would have been a liberal hero for doing what you are doing, and I'm sure now they mock you.

Libby, thanks very much for what you're doing and for coming to Fox to tell us about it.

LOCKE: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: We really appreciate it. Well, it's been an unbelievable day, but it's not over. Stay right here for continued coverage of Brett Kavanaugh and the hearing that happened today, and of course we will be back tomorrow for the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

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.