Former Bush ethics attorney wants President Trump removed from office using the 25th Amendment

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 19, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Bernie Sanders is running for President again, not that he ever really stopped. Sanders announced his second campaign this morning in a ten-minute video. Before you drop everything and watch it, take half a moment to appreciate just how much America and the Democratic Party have changed over the past four years.

Pull up Sanders' first presidential announcement speech. It was May 26, 2015 in Burlington, Vermont. Sanders looked a lot different then, but the second thing you will notice, if you watch it is how familiar his words sound. It is spooky.

Virtually, all of the themes in Sanders' announcement speech, his first one, or what in the end got Donald Trump elected President -- the collapse of the middle class, the crushing cost of healthcare and student loans, the pointlessness of perpetual war in the Middle East, the distorting effects of the Washington lobbyists and donors - the swamp, the dangers of corporate power and the need for better jobs and higher wages for Americans, the generational disaster that is the trade policy -- it is all there, everything but build a wall.

Sanders has often described the 1970s era of socialist and that is basically true. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union. He looks like he combs his hair with a balloon, but if you listen carefully, what Bernie Sanders was really selling in the last campaign was not Marxism, it was economic populism and an awful lot of people agreed with it.

Many of them wound up voting for Donald Trump in the general election. In case you have forgotten, here is what Bernie Sanders sounded back then.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT.: I am fighting to break up the large banks on Wall Street.

(Cheering and Applause)

SANDERS: But I do want the opportunity to tell them face-to-face what their greed and illegal behavior has done to this country.

(Cheering and Applause)

SANDERS: If Wall Street does not end its greed, we will end it for them.

(Cheering and Applause)


CARLSON: Well, you can disagree about whether Wall Street and the big banks are really driving America's decline like all politicians -- Sanders was and is an over-stayer -- but looking back, there was something touchingly old fashioned about the way Bernie Sanders ran that campaign.

Sanders made no appeal at all to interest groups. He explicitly opposed interest groups. He instead talked about national unity and the people left behind. His first announcement speech did not mention the words "racism" or "sexism" or for that matter, "abortion" or "gun control." He said nothing about immigration or noncitizens.

Sanders was running for Americans, all of them whether you would agree with him or not. Needless to say, Sanders quickly found himself at war with Democrats. The modern Democratic Party has no place for the idea of nationhood. It rejects the existence of universal interests and values. Instead of a common American culture, Democrats see only tribes.

Now, Bernie Sanders is pushing 80 and he seems completely bewildered by these changes in attitude. In the weeks after 2016 election, Sanders told one reporter that Hillary Clinton lost the race because quote, "It's not good enough to say, 'I am a woman, vote for me.'" Well, Sanders was right, obviously. But he was way too late.

Modern Democrats are defined by identity politics, that's the idea that the accident of your birth determines what your worth, your value. Some groups are favored, others are blamed and punished. What matters isn't what you do, the choices that you make. What matters is who you are genetically. By the time Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court six months ago, the Democrats had made this entirely explicit.


JOHN GARAMENDI, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.

ELIE MYSTAL, HOST, LEGAL TALK NETWORK: This is all gross strategizing from 11 old white men.

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

JOY BEHAR, HOST, THE VIEW: These people in Congress right now in the Senate Judiciary Committee, these white man, old, by the way, are not protecting women.


CARLSON: Old, white men. Not a favored group in the modern Democratic Party to put it mildly, and yet Bernie Sanders is undeniably all three of those things. So how do you win the nomination of a party that hate you for qualities that you can't change?

Bernie Sanders is not the only Democrat facing this dilemma, far from it, nor is he the only one to realize that there is only one solution, you have to embrace identity politics. Getting woke is the only option, so Bernie Sanders has done just that. Here is a clip from his second presidential announcement video released today.


SANDERS: Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Our campaign is about redoubling our efforts to end racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, and all forms of discrimination.


CARLSON: So that is the new Bernie Sanders, and he seems a lot smaller than the old version. Instead of saving America from predatory global capitalism, Sanders plans to save us from Donald Trump's racism and sexism. Okay, let's say he does that. What then? Racism and sexism aren't actually the biggest problems that America faces, sorry, not even close actually. Growing economic stratification and a dying middle-class, those are the biggest problems, but nobody in Washington wants to talk about those things and why would they? People in Washington are richer than ever.

Any change of the status quo is a threat to them by definition. It is much better for them to have the population squabble over unresolvable questions of identity. A nation that is arguing about skin color is not asking how a tiny group of people is now flying private while almost everybody else has gotten poorer.

So identity politics is a tactic designed to prevent conversations dangerous to the ruling class, obviously. It is also a way for some of the most privilege people in America to recast themselves as victims. Cory Booker, for example, Cory Booker went to Stanford, Oxford, and Yale. His parents were IBM executives. Booker has spent most of his career in the Senate carrying water for his fellow privileged people, his peers on Wall Street.

Privileged? Yes, Cory Booker defines that word. Now that he's running for President, it will be interesting to hear Cory Booker explain why he has allowed his friends in the finance world to continue to pay half the tax rate that you are probably paying now, but he likely doesn't want to talk about that.

Instead, he will probably spend most of his time talking about racism, including the racism he has personally experienced as a powerless person. A powerless person who went to Stanford, Oxford, and Yale and whose parents were IBM executives.

So you can see what is going on here. This is a scam. Identity politics is a scam and it is not so different from the one that Jussie Smollett just pulled.

Smollett a rich actor with a hit TV show. That is fine. We used to call people like that "pampered," but Smollett doesn't want to be thought of as pampered and nobody does really, so here he recast himself as a victim.

The people oppressing him, he told us, were Trump voters. Badly educated thugs from some rural backwater probably, in-breeds who have never read a book. People who do not have Kamala Harris' personal cellphone number. People who probably don't even believe in global warming or like Thai food. Those people. They are the problem and they must be crushed.

Somehow, the left is telling us the weak are now oppressing the strong. That is their claim. The old left would have pushed back against this. They would have felt some sympathy for the people our economy has left behind, but not anymore. The new left reveres Cory Booker and Barack Obama. They are rallying behind Jussie Smollett.

Once Smollett's fraud was exposed, they defended him without saying so.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: Well, the information is still coming out and I am going to withhold until all of the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: Okay, so I will say this about that case. I think that the facts are still unfolding, and once the investigation is concluded, then we can all comment, but I'm not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation.


CARLSON: So no one can admit that Jussie Smollett is not a victim. He is a rich guy who played the victim and blamed other people. Now, nobody has asked Bernie Sanders about that story. But he would probably say the same thing. He has to say that, it is required now.

Suraj Patel is an attorney, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business and he joins us tonight. Mr. Patel, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So how disappointing, I was not a Sanders voter, but I certainly respected his willingness to make a case for economic populism back in 2016 and I agree with a lot of the things he said honestly. How disappointing is it to see him become another identity politics drone? Why is there no room in the Democratic Party for someone to just make a straightforward economic case?

PATEL: Well, Tucker, I don't think he isn't making an economic inequality case, but you cannot talk about economic inequality in this country without talking about racial and economic disparity because of the systems we have built, because of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and interment and all of those things.

What he is saying, basically is that things like race and inequality are inextricably intertwined based on institutions we have built and the legacies of them. And it's only responsible that -- it is only responsible that --

CARLSON: So now you are confusing me because you are making a case that there is no relationship to the facts or the number, so the richest people in America are not white people immigrant groups, actually including African immigrants, Indian immigrants I think are the richest group in the United States, and the Nigerian immigrants makes more than your average native and foreign white American, so it's a lot more complicated.

PATEL: That's right --

CARLSON: I am not sure what that means exactly, but I know that what you just said is totally false.

PATEL: It is very complicated, but the fact of the matter is --

CARLSON: Yes, it is.

PATEL: The fact of the matter is that, you are by and large, statistically speaking, the darker you are in this country, the poorer you are. Some of us --

CARLSON: But hold on, but hold on, that's not true. Hold on, slow down, that is not true. It is so much more complicated than that that what you are saying is a lie. And so Asian immigrants for example have the --

PATEL: It is not.

CARLSON: Hold on, have the highest educational attainment level and the highest incomes of any group in America, okay?

PATEL: Sure.

CARLSON: So if what you are saying is true, and again, I will agree with you on this, it is super complicated. But what you're saying is not complicated, it is blaming -- it is painting a picture of racial division that isn't backed up by the facts and you know it.

PATEL: No, no. That's not right. Look, Tucker, what we are saying is simply this, we know for example the Criminal Justice System presents and creates significantly unequal outcomes for people based on their color or background.

Like the black people are given stronger sentences, surveilled more often, and policed more often. That puts them into a cycle of poverty at times that you can't get another job after you have a felony on your record. You have one in three chances of being incarcerated and put on parole by --

CARLSON: But hold on, but there is some truth to what you are saying that people of all colors who are convicted of a felonies have a really tough time of digging out of it.

PATEL: Sure.

CARLSON: Now, I have real sympathy for them, but what you are saying --

PATEL: So I think what I am saying is Bernie Sanders is not --

CARLSON: Hold on, what you said is untrue and you know it's untrue that the darker you are, the more oppressed you are, when in fact ...

PATEL: I didn't say oppressed.

CARLSON: ... most poor people in America are white. As you know, the poorest states is the white state, West Virginia, so let's stop lying. Look, I'm not making the case for any racial group. I'm making a case for non-racial approach to policy and only way we can have without wrecking the country, no?

PATEL: And there is no doubt that the single best argument and the single best candidate is going to be the one who is able to convince that white working class voters that they have more in common, their lot in life right now has more in common with a single black working mother in Queens or somewhere than they do with someone like Jared or Ivanka who are born with everything, and so this is not --

CARLSON: But you are offering another species of identity politics. Like why do I care about the color of the voters?

PATEL: No, I am not --

CARLSON: I mean, Bernie Sanders 2016 never mentioned anybody's color. He is like, "Look, you are getting exploited by your employer in these big companies." That was a color-blind case and the Democratic Party hated it because that is a stake in racial division. You know that that is true.

PATEL Tucker, it's like I said, you cannot approach the issue of inequality without talking about and looking at some of the racial disparities in it and that's all people are saying.

CARLSON: Really? Then how do Nigerian immigrants wind up making more than native-born white Americans? What's the -- really, quick we don't have much time.

PATEL: All Nigerian immigrants have not done that. All Nigerian immigrants do not make more money than all of the people that's --

CARLSON: But if it is as simple as the blacker you are, the more oppressed you, like that's just not true.

PATEL: And that is not what I'm saying. You are simplifying the argument and making it sound ridiculous.

CARLSON: Oh, you're simplifying it.

PATEL: The fact of is, like I said, that identity is intertwined in this, and it is not that you need to sit there and always talk about identity of our voters, of ourselves that are running for office, what you have to do is at least show the curiosity and the understanding and the acknowledgment that we have significantly treated races differently in this country in the past and that creates unequal outcomes today.

CARLSON: Okay, I have a lot of curiosity about what the facts actually are which is why I'm bringing this up tonight. I just think, look, race is a dead end. Let's bring back the old Bernie Sanders. You disagree. Mr. Patel, thank you very much for joining us.

PATEL: Thank you.

CARLSON: Appreciate it. Bernie Sanders, another Bernie -- I have it on the brain. Tammy Bruce who is not Bernie Sanders --


CARLSON: But is also from New York and radio host, President of Independent Women's Voice, and one of our favorites, so Tammy, look, I'm not here to endorse Bernie Sanders' economic program, a lot of his ideas are dumb.

But I always admired his willingness to stick with the universal principles over the grubby, creepy divisive of politics of race, why has he given that up?

BRUCE: Well, as you have noted in your opening, this is a dynamic that has overcome the Democratic Party, and he is a politician. And perhaps he needs a fourth beach house, I don't know, but he does well as a politician, right, this is a career.

And so he is appealing to a group of people who have been trained and who are now demanding for this kind of an extreme dynamic, and this is what is heartbreaking. Is the Civil Rights Movement - was it a demand for people not to be treated differently because of who they are? Was it a demand for an elevation of people to be treated like everyone else?

Identity politics is the cancer, it is the opposite of that. It demands that we not only treat people differently because of who they are, but then condemn some and elevate others based on some kind of benefit we have been assigned to a particular identity. It is the antithesis of what we fought for throughout the 60s and 70s and frankly, beginning at the turn of the 20th Century. This is how retrograde the Democrats have become, and it is what Americans reject.

And so it is concerning that we see that this is happening with the Democrats because we need a good loyal opposition, but it certainly is what not America has been. It's not what we are now and not what we want to become.

CARLSON: I mean, the only reason I keep hitting this is because I sincerely feel and I mean this with my whole heart that this is a threat to the unity of the country and that it makes people hate each other.

BRUCE: Well, that is the goal, you're right.

CARLSON: Is there any Democrat who is running on a universal platform? Can there ever be another one again?

BRUCE: Well, there can be, look, I am a Democrat. There are other Democrats who perhaps may be already switched and identify as an independent or registered as that. It is a sensibility about a classical liberalism that frankly, now, it clearly is represented by the conservative ideal. This desire for independence, for freedom, for personal responsibility, capitalism that we are only limited by our own ambition and imagination. That that is the American ideal and that is something that both parties can embrace. What you are hearing now --

CARLSON: I hope so because the rest of the stuff is just absolutely in a dead end. I mean, that is weird.

BRUCE: And it is meant to turn us against each other, Tucker. That is the goal.

CARLSON: Of course it is.

BRUCE: It is to distract us.

CARLSON: It's a diversion. Let us look at who is practicing it. Woke billionaires. Tammy, thank you very much.

BRUCE: Thank you, sir.

CARLSON: So Jussie Smollett apparently concocted a fake hate crime, but it's only the latest example of the left using phony stories to vilify its enemies. We will investigate and expose that tactic, more detail after the break.


CARLSON: Well, I'll give this to Jussie Smollett. He was pretty clear about what he said happened to him. He claimed he was violently assaulted outside of his apartment in Chicago because of his race in a premeditated attack by a pair of psychotic, racist Trump supporters. Watch.


JUSSIE SMOLLETT, AMERICAN ACTOR: I see the attacker, masked and he said, "This MAGA country, [bleep]," and punches me right the face.

ROBIN ROBERTS, HOST, ABC: And there is no doubt in your mind what motivated this attack?

SMOLLETT: I can only go off of their words. I mean, who says, "[Bleep] Empire [bleep]. This is MAGA country, [bleep]." Ties a noose around your neck and pours bleach on you?


CARLSON: Just for the record, when you don't ask any follow-up questions and just nod sympathetically, it is not journalism, it is affirmation. But on the internet, there were people who were paying close attention to the claim Smollett was making and they didn't add up and they began publicly doubting his case. Smollett did not answer their questions, instead, he denounced these people as racist, watch.


SMOLLETT: I'm pissed off.

ROBERTS: What is it that has you so angry? Is that the attackers?

SMOLLETT: It is the attackers, but it is also the attack. How can you doubt that? Like how do you not believe that? It is the truth.

CARLSON: Now, reports apparently leaked from the Chicago Police Department say that all of this was a scam. That Smollett planned this from the very beginning and hired others to carry it out. We have more information on the case tonight. Matt Finn joins us from Chicago at the exact intersection where Smollett said that he was attacked. Matt, good to see you.

MATT FINN, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, good evening. Behind me is the door that police say Jussie Smollett used to get inside into his apartment building on the night of that alleged attack and now, we are learning this evening that Jussie Smollett was convicted of a DUI and lying to the police in 2007 according to court documents obtained by Fox News.

This arrest was confirmed by an L.A. county clerk who tells us that the birth date that we have for 36-year-old, Jussie Smollett matches the birthday of the Jussie Smollett that was arrested for this DUI and giving false information to the police.

We reached out to Smollett's legal team who did not deny his arrest. We have not been able yet to pinpoint exactly what Smollett lied to the police about, but it is related to a vehicular charge. Smollett was sentenced to 36 months of probation.

Also new tonight, Chicago Police tell Fox News that the two brothers that CBS reports confessed to carrying out the hoax with, met with prosecutors and detectives late this afternoon. Tonight, Chicago Police are still waiting for Smollett to respond to their very important request for a follow-up interview. The police tell us they are giving Smollett a quote, "responsible amount of time," what happens next depends on Smollett's actions.

Police can't present this case to prosecutors or a grand jury seeking an arrest warrant and tonight, we are learning police appear to be doing just that. Smollett was very cooperative with the police before this whole story dramatically altered, apparently no longer responding to phone calls to police requesting more information.

Tonight, the police are no longer insisting Smollett is the victim. There are now referring to him as the person who filed the police report. Smollett's attorney say anyone who say Smollett was in on this attack as a liar and here in Illinois, filing a false police report is a Class IV felony. It is punishable up to three years in prison. It is also probational, but Smollett might even be in more trouble with the FBI who is investigating that alleged death threat letter with the MAGA return address that was sent to Smollett just one week prior to this alleged attack, Tucker.

CARLSON: Matt Finn for us in Chicago. Thanks, Matt. Well, the Jussie Smollett story is amazing, but it is exceptional only to the extent it has received much more publicity than most hate hoaxes, and there were many of them.

Bogus stories concocted by the left for political reasons and repeated without question by a compliant media. Dr. Wilfred Reilly is an Associate Professor at Kentucky State University. He is the author of the book, "Hate Crime Hoax: How the left is selling a fake race war."

Professor, thanks very much for coming on tonight. So you have looked at a lot of these cases, what would you say generally speaking is the point of them?

DR. WILFRED REILLY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, thanks for having me, Tucker, and as you said, first of all, they are quite a few of these cases. What we find is that virtually all of the high- profile widely reported hate crimes over the past two to three years have been hoaxes. That extends To Jussie Smollett.

CARLSON: Wait, wait. I am sorry, I am going to interrupt you there. I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Virtually all of the well-publicized hate crimes in the last several years have been hoaxes?

REILLY: Very, very many of the best air publicized incidents -- Eastern Michigan, Air Force Academy, Yasmin Seweid, the burnt black church, the young African-American woman that said that she was literally urinated on by white men, Kean College, Wisconsin Parkside -- so on down the line. All of those incidents that I have mentioned, I think you could probably put Covington Catholic in that category.

CARLSON: Yes, we sure do.

REILLY: Those have been not actual incidents of interracial violence. They have been hate hoaxes. This is also by the way very often true of hate hoaxes reported by alt-right, but the phenomenon does seem concentrated on the left.

Very many high-profile hate hoax stories probably most simply turn out to be fakes. I'm not surprised that the Jussie Smollett story turned out to be a hoax, and I don't think you are either and that very many other people are.

CARLSON: No, I'm not. Now, most hoaxes are designed to enrich the person who perpetrates them. I mean, they are scams, right? They are scams that bring the criminal money, but money doesn't change hands in these cases, so what is the point of doing it?

REILLY: Well, I that is a fascinating question, Tucker, first of all, I will say that in a fair number of cases, money does change hands if you are talking about insurance money. So in Chicago, for example, we saw the Velvet Ultra Lounge case where the owner of a popular gay and bisexual nightclub burnt his own business to the ground, collected, I believe a 20- plus thousand dollar check for that and attributed that originally to homophobes, so that is a partial motivation.

But I will say that I think a broader motivation for these hoaxes is that the demand for bigots in America greatly exceeds the supply as of right now.


REILLY: So it is not much of a secret that in America, we have a very well-funded grievance industry. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which 30, 40 years back did a great deal of good, but currently has an active and vested endowment of $432 million.

CARLSON: That's unbelievable.

REILLY: They've taken $58 million to $96 million every year, at least in terms of the records that I have looked at back going some time. Black Lives Matter right now up to about 400,000 social media fans; 360,000 followers. You have organizations like CAIR - Council for American Islamic Relations.

CARLSON: Right. Someone has got to justify the existence of all this fund-raising machines. Professor --

REILLY: Quite right.

CARLSON: This is a fascinating great conversation and I appreciate you coming on tonight. Thank you.

REILLY: All right.

CARLSON: Jussie Smollett's phantom assault is not the only bogus hate crime the hate hoax is creating blowback tonight. Nick Sandman of Covington High School was tarred as a modern Simon Legree for the sin of standing in place and smiling while an activist beat a drum in his face.

Now, Sandman is suing "The Washington Post," the vanity publication of the world's richest man, Jeff Bezos. His lawyer say the paper quote, "bullied an innocent child with an absolute disregard for the pain and destruction its attacks would cause to his life." The suit, the first of what could be many suits seeks $250 million in damage. That is of course a fitting number. It is the same amount that Jeff Bezos paid to turn that paper into his personal property. So we will be following that with some interest.

A departing CBS reporter says the press has become so liberal they can't report the news, only produce propaganda. Brit Hume has been in the news business a long time. He will join us next.

Plus dumpster fire expert, Richard Painter says we have to just pull Trump out of the White House with nets because he's not competent to govern, 25th Amendment. That conversation after the break.


RICHARD PAINTER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ETHICS LAWYER: There is an inferno raging in Washington, but here in the land of 10,000 lakes, we know how to put out a fire.



CARLSON: War correspondent Lara Logan has left CBS News after a number of years there. She said goodbye by doing something unthinkable. She found an obvious unspoken truth and said it out loud.

While appearing on Mike Ritland Podcast, Logan described the process as so liberal that they are unable to perform their basic duties as journalists. Watch.


LARA LOGAN, FORMER CBS WAR CORRESPONDENT: In this media everywhere is mostly liberal, but in this country, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats. So that is just a fact, right?

There is one Fox, and there is many, many, many more organizations on the left, but the problem is that the weight of all of these organizations on one side of the political spectrum, when you turn your computer or you walk past the TV, they are all saying the same thing.

The weight of that convinces you that it's true. You don't question it because everyone is saying it.

I didn't even notice that there was a bias in the media. When you read one story after another or hear it, and it's all based on one anonymous administration official, a former administration official, right? I mean, that is just -- that is not journalism, that's horse [bleep].


CARLSON: Fox News senior political analyst, Brit Hume has been in the media long time. We mean that in a good way. He joins us tonight. What do you think of what Lara Logan said, Brit?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, she is absolutely right and it is perfectly obviously that she is right. And the striking thing about it is that as many of her colleagues and mine and yours deny it as do. They do.

And I've always thought this about bias and about fairness in news coverage. Fairness is not really a policy or even an attitude. Fairness is really kind of a skill. And it begins with the recognition of your bias.

Once you do that, it's really not all of that difficult if you are aware that you don't like this particular politician or you feel this way about a particular issue and you're covering something related to it, it is not that hard to screen it out of your coverage. It really isn't.

Lawyers do it every day. They represent clients that they think are guilty. Judges decide cases in favor or against people that they like or dislike all the time. It is not impossible. It is a discipline. It is a skill.

But if you won't admit it to yourself, you have got no chance. And it used to be, you know, that the editors of newspapers around the country really led in those days by "The New York Times" were very careful to make sure reporters wrote their stories in neutral language.

That discipline, I'm afraid, Tucker is out the window. The morning after the state of the union address by the President, "The Washington Post" had a banner headline that said "A discordant appeal for unity." Now people may have found this speech discordant. I am confident that the journalist who wrote the story did, but that is an opinion.

And in the lead of the story, it was referred to as a dissonant speech. Well, that is a judgment; that is an opinion. It had no business in the new story. Now, if you want to have editorials and denounce the speech and have columnists who write all kinds of invective about it that is all fine. That is the way it's supposed to work.

CARLSON: That is why you have columnists.

HUME: That's right, that's why you have and editorial page and it's -- and all the restraints are seem to be coming off now. And the media is -- it is no accident that the media is at its lowest level in public opinion than anybody can remember.

CARLSON: So here is may be an example of that. You had a strong reaction to this over the weekend, 2020 campaign reporters fawning over Kamala Harris and giving her fashion advice during her visit to Columbia, South Carolina. This seemed to grate on you, why?

HUME: Well, here you had this glowing tweet published by a young journalist who was assigned by CBS News to the Kamala Harris campaign. And she and her colleagues were with Senator Harris, and she visited some female owned enterprises, including a store where one of them picked out a jacket. It looked like a Rubik's cube, as you can see and insisted that the candidate try it on and then got her to buy it. And then tweeted about it, glowingly.

Well, I'm sorry, there is nothing wrong story with going into the store with a candidate who is visiting as a campaign event a store and observing the candidate's rights to try on clothes. It is totally and obviously, politically inappropriate for the members of the media to come across and start recommending with the candidate should wear and encouraging them to buy things.

CARLSON: Well, wait a second. Hold on. You were the White House correspondent for ABC News for eight years. You never bought clothing for Ronald Reagan?

HUME: I didn't because I was covering bush, and then later Clinton and I never recommended any clothing to either one of them. Now, look, there are things that you can do. There are things you can do, Tucker.

I mean, you can have a meal with someone you are covering, right. You sit across the table and you discuss things. You might buy the meal. You can be an anchorman or woman and invited to the White House on State of the Union day and be entertained at lunch by the President. Those things are arm's length. They are perfectly appropriate. And they've been going on for a long time.

But this kind of chummy, "let's go shopping" stuff is obviously something inappropriate. And the fact that these journalist who are involved in that defended it and a lot of others, too, shows you how far down this road we have gotten.

Can you imagine, for example someone with a hard right candidate, helping them try on a jacket. I mean, it is just unimaginable. But that's how it is.

CARLSON: National reporter, they shouldn't be doing that. No back rubs. No picking out clothes. Those are my personal rules, I've lived by it.

HUME: And I am totally with you.

CARLSON: It is great to see you. Thank you.

HUME: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: California's leading cities are the richest cities on this continent and yet, they are unbelievably dirty. Why is that? After the break, we will tell you.


CARLSON: Well, California, our biggest and formerly most prosperous state is increasingly a place that is impossible to live if you are not rich. Housing costs sky high, public schools are failing. The State's chief concerns seems to be enabling illegal immigrants and enlarging its homeless population, which it is very good at.

John Stossel visited San Francisco and found officials working hard there to erect a homeless utopia. Here is part of i


JOHN STOSSEL, AMERICAN TELEVISION PERSONALITY (voice over): San Francisco is generous. It offers street people food stamps, free shelter, train tickets and $70.00 a month in cash.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: San Francisco is just a good place to hang out.

STOSSEL (voice over): Like many, these two come here from out of town.

STOSSEL (on camera): Do you like the lifestyle?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As you just heard, they love the freedom of not having to follow the rules.

STOSSEL (voice over): So the homeless stay on the streets and every day, new people arrive.


CARLSON: Normal people are just about sick of it. A new poll finds that 53% of Californians and critically, 63% of millennials living in California want to flee. Ethan Bearman is someone who is staying in California because he hosts a radio show there. He joins us tonight.

So I mean, I've got to say, there is no blaming the right for this. It's a one-party state for good or ill -- in this case, it looks like ill, and so at some point, you're thinking, what liberal lunacy gave birth to this futile disaster called California? Has it caused any soul-searching for you?

ETHAN BEARMAN, RADIO SHOW HOST: Absolutely, the fifth biggest economy in the world and you talk about the homeless problem. We can look to Ronald Reagan, the conservative Republican when he was Governor who turned everybody loose from the psychiatric institutions and the abuses that they had in the early 20th Century, but instead of having a plan to get people the proper care they needed in the neighborhood, he let them free, and now we have Federal courts --

CARLSON: I am just wondering. I am sorry. Let's just pause really quick, when was that? Was that like 50 years ago that he was Governor of California?

BEARMAN: Yes, and it's only gotten worse because of the laws, but we have new leadership now, Tucker, that is actually addressing the problem.

CARLSON: So you are saying that the homeless problem in Los Angeles and San Francisco, not just, but mostly in those two cities, is the fault of someone who is dead and hasn't been Governor in 50 years? That is really the answer?

BEARMAN: That is the root, that's the genesis of it. When we decided that we can't keep people who need mental health care, conservatorship is the term around it. There is a fair percentage that John Stossel of course found two people that he could use as an example as an anecdote to prove how bad it is, but the point is this, we have people who need mental health care and because of what Governor Reagan did and the Federal courts have ensured since then is we have a hard time with this. State Senator Scott Wiener actually has new legislation on it.

CARLSON: I am not even going to argue -- you and I both know that closing down the sanitariums, the mental hospitals was a liberal project from beginning to end. Reagan was the Governor. He signed it. Shouldn't have. I agree. But that if you are blaming Ronald Reagan for modern day homelessness in California, you are not really looking at yourself in the mirror and admitting like, maybe my dumb ideas had something to do with this, I mean, honestly.

BEARMAN: No, because now we have new ideas. So State Senator Scott Weiner has a new bill that has been passed experimenting with a new conservatorship program. We have Mayor London Breed in San Francisco and Mayor Eric Garcetti in Los Angeles addressing it head on.

Mayor Garcetti actually got funding to finally build some housing that was a requirement from the Federal courts before we could do something about getting people off of the streets. So Mayor Garcetti has led --

CARLSON: Wait, just to be clear, so you're saying -- hold on, you're saying very quick, the driving problem is profound mental illness, but we want to put profoundly mental ill, schizophrenics for example, in their own housing unsupervised? So that is a good idea, do you think?

BEARMAN: No, it's a bifurcated problem. You have mental illness on one hand, but you also have the issue of a severe shortage of housing and the courts prohibit anything being done until we got housing built. Mayor Garcetti is working on this as Mayor Breed.

CARLSON: Ronald Reagan -- oh my god. Ethan, great to see you. Thank you very much. Well, the U.S. is winding down its military adventures in a number of different countries, but it appears to be on the brink of something big, maybe an intervention in Venezuela.

Yesterday, the President said quote, "all options are open in that country." Meanwhile, National Security adviser, John Bolton, an advocate of war everywhere went on Twitter to praise Colombia for accepting Venezuelan refugees and then said the rest of the world, including us, should show quote, "the same generosity."

In other words, get ready for a massive migration wave into this country. Are we ready? Douglas MacGregor is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, author of the book, "Margin of Victory," and a frequent guest. Great to see you, Colonel. So that sounds like a public warning of imminent action that we should prepare for refugees in this country.

DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RETIRED U.S. ARMY COLONEL: Well, the only thing I can say that I agree with is that Latin American should solve this problem. This is not something we should involve ourselves in.

If we go to Venezuela with military power, not only will we be initiating a war effectively for regime change, and we know where that leads because we have been through several of those thus far, but we are making the problems created by the people of Venezuela our problems and we will be on the hook for it. It will become an enormous money pit much like Iraq and Afghanistan.

CARLSON: But our operating and John Bolton's operating assumption is that when there is a disaster, we have to admit as many refugees as we can. What does that do to the countries from which they are coming?

MACGREGOR: Well, we have operated as release valve for Mexico for many, many decades. Every time, they can't employ people. Whenever they have discontent at home, when people lose their jobs, they are sent north, and so we have actually relieved the pressure on the Mexican government to do anything about the social inequities, the lack of social justice, the criminality and the problems in the country, and this is exactly what you will see in other Latin American countries like Venezuela.

CARLSON: So how are we making it better if we allow the mismanagement in some cases, criminal governments of these countries to continue without being challenged by the population because their populations now live here?

MACGREGOR: Look, first and foremost, the foundation for any success for foreign policy towards Central America and South America is a secure southern border. If that is not secure, it is an open wound and it will be exploited by everyone south of the Rio Grande repeatedly in perpetuity.

So we have got to secure that border first. And by the way, if we go into Venezuela, it is going to cost us an enormous sum of money that dwarfs the cost of securing the southern border.

CARLSON: But isn't it racist to secure our borders?

MACGREGOR: No, in fact, you don't have a country without borders. We have plenty of evidence all over the world that walls, border fences, troops on the border work. They preserve the security and the population they protect. They also ensure rule of law in many cases. Israel has done this very successfully. The Hungarians have done so very successfully. We need to do the same thing because if you don't, eventually you lose your country.

CARLSON: You just named two countries that don't hate themselves whose leaders think it is their job to take care of their country.

MACGREGOR: That's right.

CARLSON: I wish we had that. Colonel, great to see you.

MACGREGOR: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you very much. Richard Painter, an expert on dumpster fire is still trying to put one out. He is taking a brief break to talk with the FBI's plot to undermine the President which he wholeheartedly supports. You will hear his plan for removing Trump after the break.


CARLSON: All publicists have the same strategy. First you do "60 Minutes" when you are selling a book, and then you go on "The View" to talk about what you said on "60 Minutes." You saw that happen with the former FBI Director and now, you are watching with his Deputy, Andrew McCabe. He was on "60 Minutes" the other day and now, he is taking a victory lap around America's media landscape and predictably he was on "The View" today to justify the DOJ's plan to spy on, undermine and perhaps overthrow the elected President of the United States. Here is part of it.


ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FBI: You understand how far we had been pushed even - to even have a conversation that included those statements. We were all operating under incredible stress. We were all grappling with this idea that we have a President who we think may have committed obstruction of justice, who we think may in fact be a threat to national security. What do we do in this circumstance?


CARLSON: Because of Russia -- one man who likes the sound of that idea is University of Minnesota law professor and dumpster fire expert, Richard Painter. He has endorse the idea of having the Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President.

Richard Painter joins us now. Professor, thanks very much for coming on. Good to see you tonight.


CARLSON: So how exactly would this work? Would -- obviously, it has never been attempted. This is not the kind of scenario it was designed for, but in your mind, how would they remove the President? By force? With firearms? Nets? I mean, how would this play out practically speaking?

PAINTER: Well, first, Tucker, I want to tell you we are on a great tide and I love having the University of Minnesota call us there. I've talked about the 25th Amendment a number of times, with respect to this President. It was put in to the Constitution in the late 1960s to address a situation in which the President is physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to carry out his duties in office.

CARLSON: Right. I mean, we know what it is. We are not law professors like you, but we know what it is. But how would you effect it? How would you do it? Presumably, the President wouldn't concede to being overthrown, so would you rush into his office? Would you rouse him from bed? Like how would you do this?

PAINTER: You don't overthrow the President. This is not about overthrowing the President.

CARLSON: Yes, you are.

PAINTER: There are thousands of psychiatrists who have voiced extreme concern about President Trump's mental state.

CARLSON: Okay, I get it. You get some compliant shrinks to agree he shouldn't be President and I am sure, you'll probably get 99% of them to say that. I would not be surprised.

PAINTER: Under the 25th Amendment ...

CARLSON: But what do you do?

PAINTER: The cabinet, the majority of the Cabinet and the Vice President could temporarily remove the President from office.

CARLSON: But how do they do that? No, I get it, I've read the amendment, but how do they get him out of the office? Assuming he wouldn't want to go, do they rush him?

PAINTER: Well, that is not physically remove him. That is not what is provided for the Constitution. Physically removing him from office. The objective is to have the Vice President of the United States to take over the duties of the President temporarily while the President for example would get a psychiatric exam and then the United States Congress will make the ultimate decision by two-thirds majority.

CARLSON: I mean, we're almost out of time. So just put some meat on these bones. So you're always rushing around the 25th Amendment. The President says "I'm not crazy. I don't want to leave. I was elected by voters two years ago. I am not leaving." And then you do what?

PAINTER: If the majority of the Cabinet, the Vice President were to temporarily remove the President, then it would be up to two-thirds of the United States House and Senate to permanently remove the President under the 25th Amendment.

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are out of time. Look, think this through a little bit. Come back and we can play it all out because you just started your own dumpster fire in my mind and I want you to douse it with the cool fluid of reason if you will.

PAINTER: We just need some time to talk about the 25th Amendment.

CARLSON: Richard Painter, great to see you tonight.

PAINTER: You don't need the dumpster fire for this. No way.

CARLSON: No, you don't. No, you don't. We are out of time. Unbelievably. It could go on forever. Be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.