Grisham on public impeachment testimony: It was a joke

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 13, 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.” If you could remember that far back, Democrats formally began impeachment proceedings against President Trump on September 24th of this year.

Today, nearly two months later, they held their first public hearing. CNN went wall to wall with it all day under strict instructions from their reclusive Dwarf King to squeeze every last drop of partisan drama from the proceedings.

If you got stuck in an airport and happened to catch some of it, you can testify to how pointless and tiresome the whole thing was, if nothing else, it made you realize that Democrats really have no master plan for impeachment, whatever you may suspect, they clearly haven't thought it through. They're making it up as they go along as most people in D.C. are and in the end, impeachment almost certainly will hurt them. The whole premise is just too dumb not to hurt them.

But in the meantime, here's the good news. We did solve at least one nagging mystery today, Trump's crime. It's never been clear exactly what Democrats believe is the impeachable offense here. But now we know. It's this.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it actually be wonderful if we could get along with Russia? Wouldn't that be nice?

If we get along with Russia, we'd go out together with others and we knock the hell out of ISIS. Wouldn't that be great?


CARLSON: So that was August of 2016. Wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia? It turns out that voters agreed with that view. They elected Donald Trump President just three months after he said that.

But permanent Washington was appalled, scandalized, really getting along with Russia isn't simply considered an alternative view here. It's a crime.

Listen to State Department of Veteran George Kent, one of the witnesses who testified today explains that conflict with Russia is the entire point of American foreign policy.


GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS: The United States has a very clear national interest at stake in Ukraine. Ukraine's success is very much in our national interest in the way we have defined our national interest broadly and Europe for the past 75 years.

Our strategic game for the entirety of my Foreign Service career is not possible without a Ukraine whole, free and at peace, including Crimea and the Donbass territories currently occupied by Russia.


CARLSON: Okay, you need to get a pen. This is getting complex, but it's important. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is essential to America's national interest. Now, our own borders mean nothing, of course, defending them is racist, and it's immoral. Everyone in Washington knows that and they'll remind you of it, if you think otherwise.

But Ukraine's borders -- and by the way the borders of Crimea and Donbass - - wherever those places might be, those are vitally important matters and have been George Kent tells us for 75 years or so as he puts it, for the entirety of my Foreign Service career.

So back off Donald Trump with your wild ideas about changing things simply because the world is totally different now and voters want to move on.

Moving on isn't allowed here. Change is prohibited. Career bureaucrat William Taylor agreed.


WILLIAM TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country, as well as Europe. Ukraine is on the front line in the conflict with a newly aggressive Russia.


CARLSON: Okay, for God's sake, America, listen to what this man is saying. And we're quoting, "Ukraine, it's on the front line in a conflict with a newly aggressive Russia." So we need Ukraine like a drowning man needs a life ring, or more precisely like an alcoholic needs a drink.

We've been doing it this way for so long that we are addicted. Too many careers depend upon keeping our assumptions exactly what they were in the fall of 1977 when fighting the Soviet menace consumed the lion's share of our Federal budget. By the way, if we don't, they could invade Afghanistan, which is strategically essential, as you know.

So here in Washington, that's what we're doing. Our real fear is that the rest of America will at some point discover that the Soviet Union no longer exists. We're afraid to learn that Russia's economy is now the size of Italy, that their military budget is one tenth of ours, that their only aircraft carrier needs to be towed around the ocean because it's broken, that their best scientists and engineers have moved to New Jersey leaving them unable to build a working escalator.

That if we're really being honest here, Russia poses no threat to the United States at all.

Washington doesn't want you to know that, which is why William Taylor and George Kent and many of their friends spend all day insisting that Russia remains a moral threat to our country.


KENT: Ultimately, Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO. U.S. and NATO ally trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavari near the Polish border and elsewhere.

TAYLOR: We and NATO began to provide military assistance to Ukraine's Armed Forces in the form of training, advice, military equipment and weapons.


CARLSON: Man, feel better, rest easy, America. NATO is providing critical military assistance to our key ally, Ukraine in a struggle against Leonid Brezhnev and the Red Army. We're fighting them in Korea. Why? So we don't have to fight them in Cleveland. That's what they're telling you. That's what they're demanding that you believe.

Trump, by the way disagrees with that. He is saying things like this.


TRUMP: If you look at the Ukraine, we're the ones always fighting with the Ukraine. I never hear any other countries even mentioned. Ukraine is very far away from us. How come the countries near the Ukraine, surrounding the Ukraine -- how come they're not opening up and they're not at least protesting? I never hear anything from anybody except the United States.

What I'm saying is NATO is obsolete. NATO is obsolete and it's extremely expensive to the United States disproportionately so.


CARLSON: Ukraine is very far away from us. That can be Trump's campaign slogan. In fact, let's hope it is Trump's campaign slogan. Now, it's not a sentence it's going to get you 800 on the SAT, obviously.

But there is a kind of simple brilliance to it. It implies a question that official Washington cannot answer. And the question is this. Why exactly are we doing things this way? How does it help America?

For daring to ask that question, which is the only question that matters ever, they are impeaching him. Listen to Adam Schiff admit that.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: While the founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over policy, they also made impeachment a constitutional process that the Congress must utilize as necessary.


CARLSON: You want to know what the left is up to? It's not hard actually to define what they're up to. There's a code. Write this down. Listen carefully to what they deny. That is always the real answer.

So you're not supposed to impeach the President over policy differences, says Adam Schiff. And he's right about that. And yet, that is exactly, indeed precisely what they are doing.

Christian Whiton served as Senior Adviser at the State Department. He is a better man now and joins us live tonight. So this is in fact an argument over policy, Christian and wouldn't the rest of us be better off in fact, edified if we could have an honest policy debate?

CHRISTIAN WHITON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT: Yes, that would be a lot better. What look like a bunch of deep state crybabies wailing over process and being cut out and not being consulted, even though they're three levels down in the State Department and working against the President actually really is about policy, it's about this, this resistance to Donald Trump.

It actually started even before he took the oath of office when the F.B.I. went and set up General Flynn shortly after he was in office, but based on a phone call he had with the Russian Ambassador before taking office.

You know, all of the leaks, all of the animation against Donald Trump really stems back to this desire to make Russia enemy number one and start World War III.

CARLSON: If I'm coming at this cold, if I hadn't, you know, spent the last 35 years marinating in Washington and someone just said, go on Wikipedia for an hour and tell me what the preeminent threat to the United States is, I'd have to have a head injury not to decide it was China.

And yet I never hear anybody say that in Washington and instead, this endless parade of washed up bureaucrats and Foreign Service officers are lecturing me about Russia, like how are -- they are missing the threat, it seems to me.

WHITON: Yes. Well, of course today's Foreign Service officers were arch typical. I mean, they look like people who sat by themselves at recess, but you really hit the nail on the head, which is that, you know, what are the threats today?

They are China, radical Islam, maybe North Korea, maybe Iran. Those are the ones who are sort of you know, coming after us threatening the West.

CARLSON: And the drug cartels that are killing 70,000 Americans every year. Yes, that would be it exactly.

WHITON: Something like that. But what if you can't address those? What if you're Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and you can't say anything too bad about China? What if going after radical Islam is not politically correct? You need something to sound tough. Okay, so Russia is there. I really think that drove them.

And it was remarkable when I got to the State Department again, second time early in the Trump administration. And really, you know, just sort of like, okay, where is China and this threat matrix? And everything was Russia, Russia, Russia, just so animated.

CARLSON: Can I ask you a question? So Madeleine Albright was the Secretary of State. She was appointed by Bill Clinton in his second term. She is revered in Washington. I mean, she's a great bureaucrat. She's very impressive.

She left that office, set up a consulting firm and got rich from China. Nobody ever thought of the Albright Group. Nobody ever says that. So how are you allowed to leave high levels of government service, collaborate with our enemies, get rich in the process, and not one person in the presser or official Washington even mentions it?

WHITON: Right. It's very inconvenient when you mention it. You know, Biden's kid not only got rich off of a no show sinecure with a Ukrainian firm that's corrupt. He also raised a whole lot of money in China that really hasn't been focused on too much.

But this is a sort of a repetitive story. Kissinger is in it, too, where you have people who go and squire CEOs through China and other sort of adversaries of the United States, get rich, and then come back and accuse Donald Trump of being unpatriotic.

CARLSON: Yes. And then you wake up in the morning, they're in control of the NBA and you're like, how did that happen? Oh, Madeleine Albright did it. Okay. She should at least get the credit.

Christian, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much.

WHITON: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So how is the White House planning respond to what happened today? The White House Press Secretary, Stephanie Grisham. I don't think she has ever been on the show, so we're especially happy to have her on tonight. Thanks so much for coming.


CARLSON: Appreciate that. So one thing I noticed in watching this is that a lot of current employees at the State Department who appear to be not at all on the President's page on foreign policy. That's bad.

GRISHAM: Yes, it's not great. And that's part of the problem that we're having. I mean, there's no reason that anybody in our government across our administration should be actively working against the President and especially a President who is doing so well for this country.

CARLSON: So like, as a constitutional matter, if you believe in democracy, then legitimacy comes from votes, no foreign service officer got elected to anything.

GRISHAM: Correct.

CARLSON: Aren't they constitutionally bound to carry out the foreign policy of the President?

GRISHAM: Absolutely. I mean, and if they aren't ready to do that, then they need to resign. I mean, it's simple as that. It's clear that people aren't happy with the results of the 2016 election and they're trying to stop the win that we will have in the 2020 election and we're ready for that. That's fine.

CARLSON: So what -- I mean, you watch there. Did you watch today, and what did you think?

GRISHAM: I watched, yes. Look, the two star witnesses couldn't even say that they've ever met the President. The two star witnesses. There was a quote actually that said, hearsay can be much better than evidence from a Dem. I don't understand how that's even possible.

So today was a joke. It was a public joke, which I'm happy the American people got to see, which was different from the last two weeks when everything was held behind closed doors. It was all a sham. And it's going to be very easy for the rest of this week for us to fight back.

CARLSON: So you said I watched.

GRISHAM: I watched.

CARLSON: And your inflection suggested ...

GRISHAM: That's my job.

CARLSON: ... that others didn't. Did the President watch?

GRISHAM: No, the President was working. He was down in the Oval at 8:30 this morning, and he was in meetings all day. As you know, we had President Erdogan from Turkey come in. So he had a foreign visit, and then he met with many other people. And he was working well into the evening before I left to come here.

CARLSON: Are you worried that this -- just the constant outrage we get all manufactured in my view about Russia will force the administration into a more hostile posture toward Russia than it would otherwise assume?

GRISHAM: No, I think that the President has been very tough on Russia. I think that the President has an obligation to work with all foreign leaders all across the world. But I'll tell you what? We're not worried about what the country or what the swamp is thinking.

If you go out into the country, when we go out into the country, this President is so popular. I'll mention the LSU-Alabama game. I couldn't believe that stadium. So people out in the country know how well this President is doing.


GRISHAM: So we're really not worried.

CARLSON: The people out in the country like the party, maybe they're all Russian agents. They liked the part where he said, why don't we just get along with Russia? Like we don't need to be at odds with Russia.

Everyone in D.C., Lindsey Graham, for example, he is always jumping up and down about how they're our enemy. We need to fight them in Crimea, if not Cleveland or whatever, these ridiculous bumper stickers. But like, why wouldn't we do what the public clearly wants, which is lighten up a little bit and like update our assumptions for the modern era.

GRISHAM: He has an obligation to work with all foreign leaders, and that's what he is doing. I sit in meetings with him with many, many foreign leaders and he works with very well with a most of them.

When he needs to get tough, he gets tough and it makes me so proud as a citizen. But yes, he's got an obligation to work with everybody. So he'll do that. He will do that with Putin.

CARLSON: Last time I saw you, you were standing next to Kim Jong-un.


CARLSON: And I'm not implying anything here. I don't think you're a North Korean agent.

GRISHAM: No rumors should start there.

CARLSON: Great to see you. Thank you for coming on.

GRISHAM: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: Well, Congressman Brad Wenstrup serves on the House Intelligence Committee, which is orchestrating the impeachment. By the way, he is a physician who we think serve as the head surgeon at Abu Ghraib, which is an amazing fact and would make a great story.

If there wasn't impeachment. I would ask you about more about that. Yes. So the most interesting detail I thought today was that Adam Schiff, who is the Chairman of the Intel Committee, claimed that he didn't know the identity of the whistleblower, something we've been obsessed over here in Washington. How can that be?

REP. BRAD WENSTRUP, R-OH: Well, he seems to be going back and forth on that, doesn't he? He made a public statement, I never met the whistleblower and then he said he did. And now today, he is going back to no, I've never met him.

Well, if it wasn't you, was it your staff? And this is the problem? We're never going to get an answer from Adam Schiff. He is not going to be under oath on the House side. He is running this investigation when in fact, he should be a witness.

CARLSON: If you're the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and your job is to oversee our Intel gathering agencies and really the repository of the world's deepest secrets, and you're a proven liar. How can you continue to serve in that capacity?

WENSTRUP: Well, he has lost the faith of the American people. He has lost the faith of the people on the committee. There's no doubt about it. Maybe some of his members play along. But I think a lot of them even on the Democratic side have started to see like, this is getting a little tough to follow, this man.

You know, if you look at the whole Russian collusion thing for three years, I would be embarrassed to have been out there day in and day out saying he has evidence and then it's never there.

Devin Nunes pointed that very well and pointed that out very well today about all the things that he has done or they have done, the Democrats have done that have been disproven and sure enough, once the Mueller report comes out and it falls on their face, they start up with another event.

CARLSON: So if you have no shame at all, no capacity for embarrassment, then there's probably nothing you wouldn't do. Right?

WENSTRUP: It doesn't seem to be at this point. And certainly we'd like to have him under oath. That's the one thing he doesn't seem to want to do is to get under oath and answer questions that we may have about his activity, his involvement, and who else was involved with whistleblower, maybe even bring in the whistleblowers attorney who said in 16 or 17, right away says the coup begins.

And we see that this is going on. I think the American people have caught on to this, Tucker, they really have. I'm not getting much at home. They say, when is the circus going to end? When are you going to finish? You see USMCA and some of these other things that you need to be working on that the American people want.

CARLSON: And run the country. I mean, this is such a sideshow, and it's dumb. But what exactly is the plan? So it's -- at this point, not a single Republican in the House voted to begin this inquiry, not one. This is an entirely partisan exercise. So do they really think they are going to peel off 20 Republicans in the Senate on the basis of like, the stuff we saw today?

WENSTRUP: No, and I think they think this is working for them, but frankly, I do not. I think it's working just the opposite.

CARLSON: But a sincere question like, so what's -- they're not going to get a conviction or a removal. So what do they hope to get exactly do you think?

WENSTRUP: They hope to take an opportunity to now be on the stage and to cherry pick who they want to talk to, and try and give a negative impression of this President, but it's not working. I think America gets it. Even the witnesses today, they were not good witnesses.

They don't know anything. They were never involved, and we pointed out time and time again, that we went through proper channels. This was done - - think about this. Pelosi announced the inquiry before the complaint was even presented.

CARLSON: But as a macro question, is there a single voter out there planning on voting in 2020, who is kind of on the fence about Trump? You know, if only I knew a little more, oh, wait, he talked to some Ukrainian guy whose name I can't pronounce. I'm out. That's it. I'm voting Elizabeth Warren. Is there a single person like that in America?

WENSTRUP: No, not that I know of, not in my district. I'm not finding them out there. And if they want to go this route, I think they're helping the President more than hurting the President in his next election.

CARLSON: I've got to get your response to something that the Speaker of the House said today. Here it is.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: So I'm very prayerful, thoughtful and actually sad today that our country has to come to a place where the President doesn't understand that Article 2 does not say that he can do whatever he wants.


CARLSON: Obviously, a person of deep faith member of the church of partial birth abortion, praying deeply. What do you make of that? Her repeated professions of faith?

WENSTRUP: Well, I think it's part of her charade. I mean, I think about that when she says a lot of things that she always goes back to that, and oh -- she said -- she is giddy about this. She wanted this to happen.

Again, go back to what I just said, she called for this Impeachment Inquiry before we had a complaint.

CARLSON: That's fine. I mean, look that's politics, but why discredit Christianity along the way?

WENSTRUP: Well, I find her to be very hypocritical. I'm a Catholic. She claims to be a Catholic. I see her on Ash Wednesday with the ashes on her forehead and I'm thinking -- and then you want to go out and kill babies in the womb.

CARLSON: Yes, you wonder. Yes.


CARLSON: That's true. Congressman, thanks very much.

WENSTRUP: You bet. Thank you. Good to see you.

CARLSON: More coverage of impeachment proceedings straight ahead, but not too much because we don't want to over inflate its importance, which is questionable. This is stupid. A week from now you won't remember the details. So we're going to tell you about big tech and how it's censoring coverage of some of the key news stories of the day. That's next.


CARLSON: The so-called whistleblower who started this whole Ukraine story reportedly is profiting off his role, even though we don't know his name. He is still hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Amazing story really.

Fox chief breaking news correspondent, Trace Gallagher has all the details. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker, from a legal standing, it's important to note the Office of Government Ethics had already warned government employees earlier this year that they cannot accept any gift because of their official position, meaning the gift would -- quoting here, " ... not have been given had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with the employee's Federal position."

But as the anonymous complaint filed with the Intel Community Inspector General clearly lays out, the GoFundMe page setup for the whistleblower fully acknowledges exactly who is benefiting from the donations, quoting here, "A U.S. intelligence officer who filed an urgent report of government misconduct needs your help," and the help came flooding in. Donations from roughly 6,000 individuals raised more than a quarter million dollars.

The man who started the GoFundMe page is John Tye, who is not only a former State Department official, but also a former whistleblower. And Ty is the founder of the nonprofit law firm, Whistleblower Aid. Mr. Tye calls the complaint bogus and says fundraising will continue.

But aside from the money flowing in, the complaint also raises the possibility that some donations are from improper sources, foreign sources, and here's why.

The fundraising page says donations will only be accepted from U.S. citizens, but because the majority of the whistleblower donors are not named, it's kind of difficult to figure out where they might be from. The whistleblower's attorney says they will cooperate with all government inquiries into this matter --Tucker.

CARLSON: Really an amazing story. Trace Gallagher, thank you for that.


CARLSON: So you'd think that we'd have a free press in this country, we're guaranteed it in the Bill of Rights, but it's not exactly free anymore. Big tech controls it and the tech companies are doing everything they can to shape the narrative, the storyline around impeachment.

For example, Facebook and YouTube, which control a much larger percentage of digital media than anyone realizes are now censoring, flat out censoring any material that mentions the name of the man believed to be the whistleblower. They're not letting you know who this guy is.

Floyd Brown is co-author of "Big Tech Tyrants." And he joins us tonight. So Floyd, it seems to me that we've moved to a stage a year out from a Presidential election, where the tech monopolies which really control all of digital journalism in this country are deciding what facts we're allowed to know. Why should we not be terrified?

FLOYD BROWN, AUTHOR: We should be terrified and I am terrified. The truth is, is that over half of all news consumed by Americans is consumed on these social media platforms.


BROWN: And when they can censor the way they're censoring right now both Facebook and Google around the name of this whistleblower, it's chilling. It's absolutely chilling.

They have such dominant power. In fact, you know, I know that Fox News isn't saying the name of the whistleblower, but the name of the whistleblower was accidentally said by somebody on your network, and then that was posted on YouTube, which was immediately censored by Google.

So what you have -- I know -- I'm the publisher of the "Western Journal." We have decided to publish the name of the whistleblower, and we've done four stories on the whistleblower, and we have 43 million followers on Facebook. I don't think ten of them have seen those particular stories.

CARLSON: So I mean, look, there's a legitimate debate here. Let me just say that no one in Fox has told me what to do or not on that issue despite a lot of reporting to the contrary, I haven't named the guy because I haven't confirmed it. I can't find anybody who will confirm it. But as soon as we do, we will I mean, that's, you know -- that's journalism, and you may disagree.

But the point is this guy, whether he is the whistleblower or not, is at the center of a really important news story, and the average person ought to be able to make up his or her mind on that, but we're not allowed to, because the tech monopolists won't allow us. So why is Congress standing back and not saving us from this? Seriously.

BROWN: Yes, well, you know, the -- it's amazing to me that a lot of the publications that you know, publish things like the Pentagon Papers, and have, you know, published almost all of what WikiLeaks released, and time and time again, they have been more than willing to publicize things that are the deepest secrets of the U.S. government.

But here this one particular secret, they're so good at keeping the name of this whistleblower out of the media and you know, there's been major changes in tech since Donald Trump was elected. And those major changes are all around keeping Donald Trump's -- really his ideas and his message - - from reaching people.

CARLSON: Yes, I noticed that.

BROWN: I mean, when you look at Twitter, Twitter suppresses Donald Trump's own tweets. And, you know, Facebook has limited the amounted of people --

CARLSON: So this is much greater interference. I mean, this is an interference on a scale that Putin for all of his determination to hack our democracy never even approached or could have imagined purportedly American companies are putting a thumb on the scale of democracy and nobody is saying anything about it, why?

BROWN: They should be and Congress should be investigating them.


BROWN: These companies have all grown incredibly large. You know, in my book, "Big Tech Tyrants," I talk about the amount of data that has been collected on individuals. Americans don't have any idea of the volume of information from medical records to you know, what they Google, to what they're looking at, every single page of the internet that they visit is recorded somewhere.

CARLSON: Of course.

BROWN: And, yet people should be rebelling against that. And frankly, it's a very dangerous situation.

CARLSON: Well, it is.

BROWN: When you see this kind of -- when you see this kind of censorship, this is worse than what you would imagine from Putin and the Soviets.


BROWN: Or the Russians.

CARLSON: These people are not your friends.


CARLSON: Meanwhile, I think Republicans control the Senate. I think it's not just Josh Hawley, he is not the only U.S. Senator, where are the rest of them? It would be interesting to know.

BROWN: Well, as you know, as I --

CARLSON: I am sorry, but my lecturing is as put us over the edge, this this topic is worth being mad about. Thank you for your book. Thank you for coming on tonight. I appreciate it. I wish we had more time.

Well, the media went completely bonkers today. Because it was the first day of impeachment hearings. It defies belief what they put on the air. We collected a sample because we couldn't control ourselves either. And we'll show you what they did when we come back.


CARLSON: You watched TV today? If you're watching the other cable channels, you know it was like Christmas and New Year's and the Super Bowl all put together.

Over on MSNBC, they actually rousted some of their all-stars for a pre- hearing panel. Here is part of what they did.


BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: Ambassador Bill Taylor and the State Department's George Kent. They'll talk about the shadow foreign policy they discovered.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC ANCHOR: This isn't about Donald Trump versus his political rivals in Congress. This is about Donald Trump extorting America.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: I'm not a lawyer. Maybe I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, but I love courtroom movies. They're always great. This is going to be a courtroom drama tomorrow.

These hearings today are going to be much like the OJ trial, the great trial at the end of the 20th Century where people took sides very quickly.

WILLIAMS: Day one of the public impeachment hearings that could put this presidency in peril.


CARLSON: If they weren't yapping on cable news, what would they do? Who would hire these people with their dyed hair and their ludicrous florid face -- and then, of course, there was a stunt casting. This morning, it reach new heights, you've got to give them credit. The booking team over at MSNBC somehow convinced Kellyanne Conway's husband to show to show up. Here's what happened next.


GEORGE CONWAY, ATTORNEY: The Mueller investigation was about what Russia - - it wasn't really about Trump as such, but because of Trump being Trump. He made it about himself.

It was really stupid for him to do that. It didn't have to be about Trump. But because he is so self-obsessed, it became about Trump because he tried to quash the investigation. If he had just shut up about it and not tweeted witch hunts 600 times and not just play golf for two years, there wouldn't have been a whole Volume 2 of the Mueller investigation.


CARLSON: I almost appreciate the kind of laid back approach to television, but this is the Leaning Tower of Pisa approach. Larry O'Connor hosts radio shows at WMAL and KBC, contributes to the "Washington Examiner" and in his spare time comes on this show. We are always happy to have you.

LARRY O'CONNOR, RADIO SHOW HOST, WMAL AND KBC: Let me just -- you know, let's face it, if he hadn't married well, he is perfect for television. I'm sure they would have had him on regardless of who his wife was, right? Because he is --

CARLSON: I mean, the whole thing makes me so uncomfortable. It really is like a dinner party argument.

O'CONNOR: I know. I know.

CARLSON: Like gone out of control, but televised. But what did you make of today?

O'CONNOR: The buildup on cable news was capsulized. They're pretty well, actually, Tucker because I couldn't tell whether it was like the Super Bowl pre-game.


O'CONNOR: Or whether it was the season finale of the impeachment mini- series they've been promising for three years, right? We've been -- if only we could have binged it instead of had to live through it in three years in real time.

But that's what this is like. This is a drama, and the media, let's be clear, they're part of this drama. They're woven into this from day one. They determined after this election that this President had to be impeached. "Washington Post" of course ran an article on Inauguration Day about the impeachment process.

This isn't impeachment in search of a crime and the media has been working with Democrats to get this finale today.

CARLSON: Yes, I watched this and among other things, I thought poor Brian Williams. I mean, how diminished. I mean, I've been fired and I appreciate a guy who hangs in there as he has and good for him, but I wonder if you would have asked him 10 years ago, can you see yourself on MSNBC?


CARLSON: With like the full freak show panel talking about fake impeachment.

O'CONNOR: Right.

CARLSON: Would you do that and he'd be like, no, I'm a newsman. I wouldn't -- you know what I mean?


CARLSON: It's sad.

O'CONNOR: And he had the alliteration go into the presidency in peril on this -- it's like, the whole thing and we had George Stephanopoulos lauding one of the witnesses today saying that he had a Cronkite-esque delivery, because it's all about the show. It's about the delivery.

In fact, they were even saying, Tucker, this is the movie version of the "Book of Impeachment." We had to read it up until now. Now we get the movie.

CARLSON: You know, we always accused the media, correctly, I think of taking their cues from their masters in the Democratic Party. But Nancy Pelosi has said really clearly that this is a religious exercise. She is praying about it deeply. She is a woman of deep faith as you know.

O'CONNOR: Oh yes.

CARLSON: And very deep faith. And they don't seem to have even heard that talking point.

O'CONNOR: Yes. Yes. I think actually, this isn't necessarily the media taking the cue from the Democrats. I think that they're working so hand in glove here that almost in some respects, the Democrats are taking cues from the media. They're wanting to push this narrative, they've been wanting to push this narrative and Democrats have been scrambling because they know their base is watching MSNBC, watching the network.

CARLSON: But shouldn't they at least pretend to be prayerful? Or is that just too much for --

O'CONNOR: The prayerful part of it?

CARLSON: The prayer --

O'CONNOR: We forgot the prayerful part. Let's begin our broadcast.

CARLSON: Really? We hate to do this. It's solemn. It's a sad moment for us.

O'CONNOR: No, it's the OJ murder trial, which apparently was a good thing by the way. I love that Chris Matthews is loving the OJ murder trial and missing those halcyon days.

CARLSON: It does seem like yesterday to me.

O'CONNOR: Yes, but don't forget, I mean, real fast. Adam Schiff, as you said earlier in the program has been caught in lie after lie after lie and the media still brings him on.

They never challenged him on the lies that he has told over the last three years and they continue to allow him to use their platforms. They've been screaming about a free press and how important and I agree. I want a free press. This is not a free press. These are political activists who are using television for their own purposes.

CARLSON: The press, I mean these are people who actually believe hate crimes are a real category that you should be punished for saying things they don't like.

O'CONNOR: Right.

CARLSON: They don't believe in this First Amendment.


CARLSON: The free press, I'm not going to take any lectures from these people about the free press. They wouldn't know free press if they got in a shire with them, as I say.

O'CONNOR: Well --

CARLSON: Larry, great to see you.

O'CONNOR: That's an odd thing, ain't it?

CARLSON: Not that it would.

O'CONNOR: They don't like that, no.

CARLSON: I am saying not that it would, but if it did --

O'CONNOR: Let me just get back in my --

CARLSON: Larry O'Connor. Well, unlike other cable news networks, we acknowledge there's more than just impeachment going on.

For example, apparently ABC News is trying to destroy the person who leaked that footage of Amy Robach accusing executives of her channel of covering up for Jeffrey Epstein. The question is, who is that person? They don't know. We will tell you what they're doing to find out. It's revealing. Stay tuned.


CARLSON: Well, they're busy over at ABC News tonight. The executives are frantically searching for the person who leaked the Amy Robach tape.

In that leaked footage, you'll remember, Robach accuses network executives of spiking her story on billionaire pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. We say billionaire, but we don't actually know if he is a billionaire. He is a very rich guy, but not clear where the money came from.

ABC has done nothing to tell us where the money came from. Instead, they're going after the whistleblower. Then they conspired with CBS to fire a producer who they thought leaked the tape, now we learned she didn't do it. So who did do it? And why are these networks more interested in investigating a whistleblower than the billionaire pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein?

We put that question to "Outnumbered" co-host, Melissa Francis who mulled it over all day and called her sources. She joins us today. So Melissa, thanks for coming on, what's the answer?

MELISSA FRANCIS, FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL HOST: Well, you know, it's so interesting. So I talked to a couple of people over at ABC who are working inside and they said, it's all anybody can talk about, who is the whistleblower? Do you know? Is it someone who likes Harry Potter or someone who speaks Latin judging from the name they're going by?

It seems like the person is still inside. But inside, people think that coworkers are trying to figure it out. And then they're going to go tell their managers what they found. It's all very "Hunger Games."

But if you think about everything about this story, it's so backwards because they're trying to hunt down the whistleblower as opposed to figure out why they sat on this story.

And if you think about what Amy said in this tape, she had the story dead to write. They say that they weren't able to, you know, go and source everything and make sure it was locked down.

But remember James Patterson years before this in 2017, wrote a very detailed book with all accounts from all people who had been involved with him in Florida. How big of a flyer would it have been for ABC to say, oh, my he was doing it in New York as well?

I mean, it was already out there. They claim they couldn't vet it? That makes no sense.

CARLSON: So why now? Here's why I'm getting at. They are a news organization and I know some people at ABC who are good people and smart.


CARLSON: Why are they spending their time searching the building for the whistleblower? When they could be trying to tell the rest of us what Jeffrey Epstein did to get so rich, we still don't know. It seems like it would be worth knowing. Why aren't they doing that?

FRANCIS: Because they're embarrassed. Because they're embarrassed. They don't want their own employees outing what's going on in the building. On one hand, you can understand everybody, including Fox, everybody, you're not allowed to take video outside the building. You can't take work product -- its intellectual property and all that kind of stuff.

CARLSON: No, I get it.

FRANCIS: That's not what this was. You know, they're looking for the internal source of their own embarrassment because they want to pretend like they were on top of this story, when really probably for the reasons Amy said, they didn't want to do it.

They didn't want to upset the Royals.


FRANCIS: They didn't want to do this and the other thing -- I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Why would you sit on a story like this? It's explosive. It was already out there to a large extent. He had been in jail. There was a huge book. I mean, it wasn't like it was a secret who this person was.


FRANCIS: She had a new explosive interview, you know, I mean, they just -- they sat on it probably for the reason she said and now they're very embarrassed and they want to know who internally is embarrassing them and that's only going to make them more embarrassed. I mean, I noticed --

CARLSON: Yes, and it's also making everybody paranoid and conspiratorial. I mean, there's a reason that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.


CARLSON: Is not like a national meme.

FRANCIS: Right. Notice the leaker went to Veritas not to another network.

CARLSON: Well, exactly, right.

FRANCIS: Because they said, when they watched the CBS thing, they knew it's the same story over there. I mean, you look at that girl, the producer, she went to Megyn.

CARLSON: They trusted James O'Keefe more than they trusted their own employers at ABC. That tells you a lot, I would say.


CARLSON: Melissa Francis, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

FRANCIS: You, too.

CARLSON: Well over in New York State, a state senator called Kevin Parker has introduced legislation that would give the vote to convicted felons. Under his proposal, inmates, people who are currently in prison would be eligible to register and vote from behind bars.

Now Parker is somewhat notorious in Albany. He was arrested after punching a traffic cop in the face. He was one charged with felony criminal mischief for attacking a "New York Post" photographer.

Late last year, he came on this show to defend the proposal that required gun buyers to submit their social media accounts to state scrutiny. Here's how that went.


KEVIN PARKER, MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE: This law simply says, let's look at, you know what people are putting out on social media. As a, you know, you know, part of a set of criteria that we're using to determine who gets handguns.

CARLSON: You're calling for people to turn over their social media passwords, so you can just whether they've said things that are naughty, and if they have, they don't get to own a gun. And so my question is what other constitutional rights are dependent on your approval?

PARKER: What I'm saying is we should also have the State Police review the social media accounts of the people who are making the request.

CARLSON: Okay, and take the passwords, right?


CARLSON: Says the guy who punched the cop. Okay. Nicole Malliotakis currently serves in the legislature in New York State. She is now running for Congress from Staten Island and Brooklyn. She has been on the show a lot. We think she is sensible. She joins us tonight.

Nicole, thanks so much for coming on.


CARLSON: Nice to see you on set, by the way.


CARLSON: So this idea which were -- some of us are apt to dismiss out of hand let people vote from the prison cells. Why exactly is it a bad idea?

MALLIOTAKIS: Well, to be honest, it actually makes sense for New York because in many ways, this legislative session has been all about putting criminals before law abiding citizens.


MALLIOTAKIS: And if you look at the long list of policies that they've passed this year from completely revamping bail reform, I mean, come January 2020, strangling someone, just so many crimes, criminally negligent homicide, burglary, grand larceny, assaulting a child, selling drugs on school grounds, these are all going to be just complete -- no bail, no bail. You walk right back onto the street after committing those crimes.

That's what's going to happen come January 2020.

CARLSON: So wait, hold on. I am -- we'll get back to the issue quickly. But if I'm charged with murder, strangling someone, and there's no bail, then why would I show up for court?

MALLIOTAKIS: Well see, everyone should go to my website and look at the long list of crimes that are eligible for no bail come January 2020, because it's really quite shocking. And I think people will be very concerned to know that 90 percent of the arrested population in New York will be released back onto the street as they await trial.

And my website is, take a look at that list of crimes and sign my petition by the way to tell the Governor let's make changes before January 2020.

Now to answer your question, the interesting thing is, is that now Mayor de Blasio is saying well, we're going to incentivize people to come back to court by offering them gift cards, movie tickets, Mets tickets. It's completely --

CARLSON: They are bribing criminals to come to court to be tried for crimes.

MALLIOTAKIS: Yes. And if you're someone who is here illegally and there's a detainer request for you, you will just be released back onto the street if you've committed one of the crimes that I've mentioned, and it's very -- it's very concerning. I think people need to get involved and write to the Governor immediately.

If you're in New York, you need to go to my website, look at that list, Send a message to the Governor, because this is just one of the things that they passed this year.

CARLSON: Governor Cuomo.

MALLIOTAKIS: Governor Cuomo.

CARLSON: Not the guy with the show on CNN, but his brother who is the Governor of your state. So basically, just about a minute, you come on, I ask you, it's a terrible idea to give prisoners to vote and you point out, you think that's bad. There's a lot worse.

MALLIOTAKIS: Not only is there a lot worse, but it makes sense they want the prisoners to vote because that's who they're putting first in the State of New York. Criminal.

CARLSON: You're totally right. Nicole, thank you for coming.


CARLSON: Great to see you tonight.


CARLSON: Even though that was depressing. Democrats in the 2020 race are lining up behind impeachment, but is that good politics for them? Could it hurt their election chances? The very wise Dana Perino answers that question after the break.


CARLSON: Well, the Democrats running for President in 2020 are unified in their support of impeachment. Here's just one example from today.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE No one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. So I believe is appropriate for this Impeachment Inquiry to go forward. I think it should have happened earlier, but we're here now, let's do it.


CARLSON: So they're all for it. The question is, is it good politics? Will they regret it later? Dana Perino anchors "The Daily Briefing" weekdays at 2:00 p.m. One of our all-time favorite people and she joins us tonight.

So Dana, simple question. Do you think what seems like good politics today will turn out to be unwise a year from now.

DANA PERINO, HOST: Well, right, so the Democrats before they get the nomination and run against President Trump, they have to compete against each other. And I think amongst the Democratic base right now, if you polled impeachment and removal, it is probably a 90/10 issue, right.

CARLSON: Right. For sure.

PERINO: Ninety percent support removal. So if you are not going to be for impeachment right now, you're probably not going to be able to win the Democratic primary.


PERINO: Now, will that hurt them later on? Probably. There's a lot of things that are going -- that work in an incumbent's favor, so many things. In fact, today, those amazing statistics, as the markets closed today with records with each of the different markets, I mean, that's actually your biggest obstacle to winning reelection in a very close election for an incumbent President.


PERINO: Most Americans give a President a second term. However, in this case, remember back when we had the Russia investigation going on with the Mueller investigation, back then even those candidates weren't talking about it on the trail.

So I think they will try to watch each other. They don't want anyone to get an advantage. But there's a couple of people that do have an advantage, and that would be, I would think Biden and Buttigieg and maybe Bloomberg and Deval Patrick, if they decide to get in. They aren't actually senators.

If the senators actually have to go and sit at an impeachment trial, that's about six days a week, six hours a day, you're not allowed to talk, right? Because there's a rule, you basically have to keep your mouth shut, which means you can't go to Iowa or New Hampshire, and you are of Washington and then those other candidates can say, I'm not from Washington, look at these ridiculous people back there in D.C.

CARLSON: That's really smart. That did not occur to me until you just said it. So I mean, that's a huge -- that's a massive -- I mean, disadvantage. We're moving into -- this is not some theoretical far off place, like Iowa is about to happen, basically.

PERINO: Right. And it's not only that you can't say anything as a senator, if you're in the trial. Basically, it's really frowned upon if you talk about it at all, because you are a potential juror.


PERINO: And jurors are not supposed to talk about a case. So it's not like Elizabeth Warren could sit there for six hours, be in the trial and then leave and do a quick trip up to New Hampshire and talk about impeachment, that wouldn't be allowed.

And I think that if -- if the senators decide to do that, it just increases the likelihood that the Republicans are able to have the votes to acquit the President, if it even goes this far.

CARLSON: So in the 12 seconds we have left, does it absolutely have to go to the Senate, do you think?

PERINO: I think that McConnell would -- I think it would be almost impossible for him not to take it up if the House does pass impeachment.


PERINO: Not that he would want to, but I think that system is set up that way.

CARLSON: No, I mean, it might in the end help Republicans just as Clinton's impeachment helped them with that.

PERINO: And also watch how much money everybody is going to raise in the next seven days on impeachment.

CARLSON: No, it's a really good point. Dana Perino, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

PERINO: Good night.

CARLSON: It's super interesting. See you tomorrow. We will be back tomorrow, too, 8:00 p.m. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and especially group think. Good night from Washington, a city in the grip of insanity.

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.