This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 27, 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.” Happy Friday. It's been one of those weeks that really nobody could have predicted.

On Monday, we checked the records, we opened this show the segment about climate change hysteria. At the time, it seemed like the most pressing issue in the country if you can believe it. And then just 24 hours after that, we were assessing the impeachment of the President of the United States. That's the kind of week it's been and that's where we remain tonight.

As of right now, it looks like impeachment is likely to happen. The fascinating thing is that nobody can seem to explain exactly why it's going to happen. Can you explain? Quick, in a paragraph or less describe the specific crime that Donald Trump has been accused of committing. Stumped? It's okay. Don't feel bad. So is Nancy Pelosi and she is running the whole thing.

The best she could do today was to suggest that Russia somehow has a role in all of this. Watch.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: It is wrong for any foreign government to interfere in our elections. And here you have the President of the United States asking for that. And they know how -- how long it is. So it's wrong for -- as we saw it with Russian interference, and by the way, I think Russia has a hand in this, by the way.


CARLSON: Huh. Now, as she put it, to be clear, Nancy Pelosi can point to no evidence that, quote, "Russia has a hand in this." She is just saying that, just throwing it out there. So she is simply saying that Donald Trump cut a secret deal with the President of Ukraine. She can't say a single fact to show that is true. She is making it up. But nobody in Washington cares.

Facts are not the point of this exercise. Power is the point of this exercise, seizing it, wielding it.

Well, it turns out that when power is your only aim, you will say anything including maybe especially things that are the precise 180 degree opposite of what is actually true. Case in point, the latest claim they're making, it definitely fits in that category.

They're telling you that the push for impeachment has nothing to do with politics, nothing at all. Political considerations couldn't be more irrelevant here. Watch them lie.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The politics be damned. It's time to do what is right. And in this moment, we must continue these impeachment proceedings.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY: This is not a political statement. It's a harsh reality, which is why the Speaker has acted.

PELOSI: And I don't think the action of an inquiry is a political move. It is not about politics, it is not about partisanship. It's about patriotism. It's about protecting --


CARLSON: Yes, it's about patriotism, kids. Aunt Nancy swears it is. If you love this country, you will shut up and obey her.

So what's the point of even repeating a talking point that stupid? Is there a single person in this country who really thinks it's about patriotism? The fact is, is there anyone who thinks it's about protecting the country? How many more self-righteous lectures are we going to need to hear about national security delivered by the very people who gave us open borders and endless string of pointless wars?

In fact, if there's one thing that group doesn't care about at all, emphatically doesn't care about, it's the security of our nation. National security. There's no moral component to any of this. They saw an opening to grab power, and they're taking it. The question -- the interesting question is why now? Why impeach now?

There's a presidential election a year from now. The President actually is beatable. Theoretically, anyway. Look at the numbers, you can beat him. You could try anyway. Elizabeth Warren is not a weak candidate. So why not try? Why not just let democracy do its thing as it has every four years for 240 years?

Because -- and this is the deepest truth -- they can't. They can't win that way. The Democratic Party has become too radical to win a conventional election. And if you're wondering if that's true, ask yourself this. When was the last time a Democratic candidate seemed to care about improving your life? By the way, improving your life is the most basic of all political promises. Vote for me and I will make your life a little better.

When was the last time someone on the left said that to you? Unless you're a convicted felon, or an illegal alien, you probably can't remember the last time.

In just the last three years, the Democratic Party's agenda has become openly hostile to Middle America. Hostile -- by the way, including too many of its own voters. They're not even pretending anymore. If they get power, they're taking away your rights, starting with the most basic right of all, your right to defend yourself and your family.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: So to gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they're going to come from my guns.

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Bingo. You're right, if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal. Period.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote unquote "assault weapons"?

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do believe that we need to do buybacks and I'll tell you why. They are weapons of war with no place on the streets of a civil society.

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.


CARLSON: Yes. Meanwhile, the assault on our core and most basic institutions continues apace, ever more aggressive with every passing week. Law enforcement itself, they are now telling us has no moral standing to enforce the law.


PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have challenged our police department to recognize all of the ways in which the uniform has been burdened by racism.

HARRIS: Training for police officers on implicit racial bias and procedural justice, because to deny it exists is to deny folks liberty and in many cases, life.

O'ROURKE: How do we continue to lose the lives of unarmed black men in the United States of America at the hands of white police officers? That is not justice.

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you are young and black, you're treated differently because of the color of your skin. I don't believe that it's just a case of a few bad apples. I believe that the system is broken.


CARLSON: It is just crazy talk. I mean, none of it is accompanied by numbers because they can't prove it because it's not true. And outside of faculty lounges, everybody in America recognizes that, and it's not just their position on law enforcement, it's all of their new positions. Free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations for slavery, forcing everybody in the country to pretend that there are somehow more than two genders. That's the new Democratic agenda, and it's so bonkers, that there's no precedent for it.

If Barack Obama came back to run on his 2008 platform, the one that made him President, Antifa would show up outside his house to protest.

So the bottom line is, you can't win an election with this stuff. Normal people don't support these ideas. This isn't agenda fit not for an election, but for a revolution. That means that ordinary democracy must be suspended. That's why the left wants votes for violent felons and children and illegal aliens. It's why they want the Electoral College to be dismantled and discarded.

And ultimately, it's the reason behind this fake Ukraine crisis. If the vote next year is simply about Trump's priorities versus those of the New Democratic Party, it is not close. They'll lose. People don't support these ideas.

They may not like Trump, a lot of people don't like Trump. They think he is weird or off putting and brags about himself or whatever.

But if the election is about what you're going to do when you're elected, if it's about ideas, if it's about a platform, an agenda, the Democratic Party will lose. They can't win because people don't support this crap. Period.

So what do they do? They have to delegitimize Trump completely. They have to cancel the 2016 election and prevent a fair race from being run in 2020.

So in a way, actually Democrats aren't wrong. They're telling you that democracy is in the balance. They are right, it is. But the President isn't the one trying to get rid of democracy; they are.

A new report, meanwhile, indicates that Ukraine couldn't have had a quid pro quo with Trump because they didn't even know that military aid was being delayed. Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher has more on this developing story. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker. The whistleblower's account and Democratic lawmakers both argue that during his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump laid out a quid pro quo. You know, this for that, meaning the President was dangling $391 million in foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

Democrats also argue that even if the President didn't explicitly make the demand, the innuendo was certainly there. That's where the so-called mob boss secret code comes in.

But if a quid pro quo is in place, it stands to reason that both parties would know about it. Except "The New York Times" is now reporting that a Ukrainian official says Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. had suspended security funds until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

Even the whistleblower acknowledges not knowing quote, "how or when they learned of it," they being the Zelensky administration.

Separately the whistleblower complaint says that U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker, who by the way, resigned today was upset about Rudy Giuliani's role in pushing Kiev to open an investigation into the Biden's and that Volker sought to, quote, "contain the damage from Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine."

But Fox News now has text messages between Volker and Giuliani from July 19 showing that Volker actually encouraged Rudy Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine and even connected Giuliani to a source very close to President Zelensky -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you, Trace. For two years, Democrats told us that proof of Russian collusion was imminent. Any day now, they said. We're still waiting.

Now Democrats like Ted Lieu want the public to trust them that the evidence on Ukraine is just around the corner. President Trump they tell us was definitely making a corrupt deal with Ukraine's President. But Joe Biden's son and his $50,000.00 a month no-show job, nothing to see here. Move along.


SAAGAR ENJETI, HOST, THE HILL TV: Hunter Biden receiving $50,000.00 a month from a Ukrainian energy company. Do you think that that is evidence of corrupt behavior?

REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.: No, people sit on boards and they get monetary payments and what evidence actually shows is that Ukrainians looked into this, terminated the investigation, found nothing there.


CARLSON: Yes, it's not -- that's not corrupt at all. But asking about it is an impeachable offense. Is that really a story they can sell the public for next year?

John Daniel Davidson is Political Editor at "The Federalist," which if you don't read, you ought to, and he joins us tonight. So John, simple question, is that distill down to its essence, a message that they can ride to victory in impeachment or in the election?

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON, POLITICAL EDITOR, "THE FEDERALIST": Absolutely not. This is a half-baked story that the American people are not going to buy, especially not from this Congress.

Look, the Democrats decided that Trump needed to be impeached the day after the election in 2016, and ever since then, they've been grasping at straws.

First, it was, oh he fired Comey. And then it was this Russia collusion hoax. And now we get this story about the Ukrainian phone call.

The American people aren't going to buy it. They have every reason to be suspicious of this Democratic Congress.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, it seems like in real life, you can't do impeachment, except as a bipartisan matter. I mean, you could -- you know, Obamacare, maybe is their model, you can kind of squeak it through on one vote, but impeachment is bigger than any piece of legislation. It's undoing an election. Do they really think they can do this party line in the House?

DAVIDSON: Yes, absolutely. The last two impeachment we had, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were both bipartisan affairs. In fact, the vote to just authorize Impeachment Inquiries got support from the opposing party.

Nancy Pelosi won't even call for that vote, because she knows that it'll be an entirely partisan vote, and it will undermine the credibility of an impeachment investigation that's already tainted.

You know, you're talking about a Congress, by the way that has something like 14 percent approval rating.


DAVIDSON: You know, the American people don't have confidence in this Congress, and you need to have the American public to have confidence in Congress in order to do something like this.

CARLSON: So what's the message? And by the way, this is not a defense of this President or any President, but it's a defense maybe of democracy itself, so what's the message to voters who voted in 2016 hoping they were going to drain the swamp or shake up the system or, you know, put something new, a new kind of person in there? What's the message to them? Like, no, you're not allowed to have what you want?

DAVIDSON: That's exactly the message. The message is you are wrong and you don't -- you can't be trusted with this and we're going to have a do over.

In fact, today, Senator Kamala Harris called for the formal Impeachment Inquiry against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They want to undo 2016 and everything that happened since and have a whole do over, except this time, they'll be in charge because they know what's best for the American people.


DAVIDSON: That's essentially the message.

CARLSON: She is an appalling lightweight. I mean, do you see any parallels between the way that permanent Washington treats the 2016 election and the way the European bureaucracy treats the Brexit vote, also of 2016?

DAVIDSON: Absolutely. The European Union has a long track record of calling for new referendums and new elections every time one of their initiatives fails. They've done it multiple times over the past 15 years. And now you see, you know, politicians in the United Kingdom calling for the same thing for Brexit.

You were just wrong voters the first time and then so this time we're going to we're going to get it right. It's appalling and it's completely -- talk about trampling on democratic norms and institutions. I mean, this is much worse than anything Trump has done.

CARLSON: Or that Russia did. They don't believe in democracy. They're not hiding it anymore.

DAVIDSON: That's right.

CARLSON: That's fine. Then, let's get rid of it then. But this weird kind of half fake democracy is not satisfying. And it just causes volatility, I think. John, thanks so much for coming on tonight.


CARLSON: Ian Samuel is a former Supreme Court clerk and he joins tonight. Ian, thanks a lot for coming on. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but it does occur to me occasionally that debates like the one we're watching over impeachment because of Ukraine, where a lot of our racial debates, all seem like sideshows designed to prevent us from ever debating economic issues.

Like what is the role of private -- is private equity good for America, exactly? And why are they paying half the taxes I am paying? Things like -- like real questions that actually matter. Have you noticed this? Or have I gone crazy?

IAN SAMUEL, FORMER SUPREME COURT CLERK: Well, I don't know if you're crazy. Although I think that actually this impeachment investigation couldn't really be better timed if you want to have that debate, because that debate would never happen if Joe Biden were the Democratic nominee for President.

And I think the most likely effect of this impeachment investigation, in addition, obviously, to whatever it turns up about what Trump did is to remind everybody that Joe Biden, whether or not what his son was doing was formally illegal or not, is like the preeminent swamp creature in the Democratic Party.

And it's coming at a time where there's still an opportunity to nominate somebody else who actually did want to have that debate. And so I have sort of mixed feelings about this impeachment process. I don't really want to spend the next year talking about Hunter Biden and what he was up to and Joe Biden's views on, you know, Ukrainian gas law.

But on the other hand, this might be the only opportunity to talk about something else by getting Joe Biden out of the picture. So, I have mixed feelings.

CARLSON: So, let's ask the question. I mean, I agree with you completely. I wonder how Joe Biden got to be the front runner in the first place. I don't really understand that. How could a party that claims to believe all the things Democrats claim to believe have put him in the top spot?

SAMUEL: Well, I mean, remember, this is really early in the process. Why is Joe Biden the front runner? I'll tell you why. Because he is Obama's friend. He is the guy from Obama. He is the guy from the onion.

And as people are getting reintroduced to the actual Joe Biden, they are remembering why the first two presidential campaigns of his crashed and burned. He doesn't really fit the modern economic populism that is emerging in the Democratic Party, or at least that is trying to emerge.

And I think that this sort of an impeachment investigation, in addition to what it'll say about the administration, which is great, whatever is true is true, will also be revealing about what sort of Democrat Joe Biden really is, and that's good because they're still trying to do something about it.

CARLSON: Right? This guy who carried water for the credit card companies for decades. He is the senator from --

SAMUEL: Absolutely, he is the senator from MBNA, right? I mean, Joe Biden was Mr. Bankruptcy Reform.

CARLSON: It's unbelievable.

SAMUEL: He has no place in any party that is going to put the interest of working people first. It is implausible and the extreme. And he is not a person who can credibly say to people, look, if you're a working person who voted for Trump, because you thought he was going to make your life better, he lied to you, but you weren't stupid for doing that.

But I really want to do something about it. Joe Biden can't sell that message, because it ain't true with Joe Biden.

CARLSON: No, it's not. Defending the interest that they charge. They should be ashamed. Ian, thank you. Great to see you tonight.

SAMUEL: Indeed.

CARLSON: Well, Ilhan Omar, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the squad are now firmly in charge of the Democratic Party. They are leading the charge for impeachment and raising money off of it. What does that mean for the Democratic Party and for America? We will tell you, next.


CARLSON: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a genius, she doesn't know a lot, but what she lacks in impressive quality, she makes up for with pure aggression and moxie, and as a result, she and her friends now dominate and to some extent, control the Democratic Party. They're the ones pushing impeachment.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: A corrupt President who violates his oath in office must and will be impeached.

REP. AYANNA PRESSLEY, D-MASS.: It is absolutely time to start formal impeachment proceedings.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: What he has admitted to is already impeachable, regardless of future developments.

REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MICH.: I know it's time, it's been time. We must impeach this lawless President.


CARLSON: Well, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, she is a charmer. The last one you saw there is selling impeach the mother-effer t-shirts online. Now, that of course echoes a promise she made well before the Ukraine controversy even existed.

Ned Ryun is the Founder of American Majority and he joins us tonight. So, Ned, you know, for the first I would say, a couple months that the squad became prominent, it was a Republican talking point to say for obvious reasons that they're really in charge of the Democratic Party. But it's starting to kind of seem true.

RYUN: Oh, absolutely. I think with every passing day, Nancy Pelosi is really Speaker in name only. The inmates have taken over the asylum, which isn't really that surprising, Tucker.

The parasitic far left has been eating the Democratic Party from within for years, and now it's coming to the surface. And you're right, they are an amazing blend of ignorance and petulance and stupidity and hatred.

I mean, the fact that they're selling shirts for $19.99, to which I say knock yourselves out, since Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment, Trump has raised $13 million for his reelect.

But then you have Adam Schiff out there deciding that the chairmanship of the House Intel Committee is now platform for parity. It's pretty amazing to watch.

The thing that's crazy to me is Dems are willing to destroy all of these norms because orange man bad. If you think about what's taken place over the last two and a half years, Russia-gate, collusion, Ukraine-gate -- all of this stuff. It's about one thing, Tucker. It's about policy differences.

They cannot stand the fact that they are not in power and that Trump has a different approach to governing not only domestically, but on foreign policy as well. And so now their new approach in all of this, we shall impeach all things. We will impeach Kavanaugh. We will impeach Trump. Based off what? Nothing. Policy differences.

CARLSON: So you've got to kind of wonder once these people take full control, formal control of the party and that's only a cycle or two away --

RYUN: That's right.

CARLSON: Do people like Adam Schiff really believe they're going to continue to run committees? I mean, what does it mean, at least for Adam Schiff?

RYUN: No, no, no, the amazing part is, if you study history, these revolutions have a way of eating themselves, just look at the French Revolution and Robespierre.


RYUN: So I think they're going to start to realize this will eat -- they'll start eating each other. But as you go down this path, I think they are -- it shows how deranged they are. Look at the impeachment polls this week in the midst of all of this hysteria about Ukraine-gate, POLITICO/Morning Consult only showed 36 percent of the American people supporting impeachment of Trump.

And if you get into the heartland, where I grew up, Tucker, impeachment dropped to the low 20s, and you start to think about how stupid they are when you get to the swing districts of Oklahoma 5 and Illinois 14, which are real pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2020. They're going to make those members watch walk the impeachment plank and lose the majority, I really do think so in 2020 if they continue to push this because I think impeaching Trump is a fool's errand being pushed by fools.

CARLSON: We will see. Ned Ryun, great to see you tonight. Thanks so much for that.

RYUN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, the White House -- this White House -- for the past three years has really been in some ways defined by the leaking. Now C.I.A. bureaucrats feel empowered to use anonymous hearsay to shut down the political process.

That's not just a worry for the current President. It's a deep concern for all future Presidents who might try to defy the consensus here in Washington.

Danny Coulson has been around the process for a long time. He is former Deputy Assistant Director of the F.B.I., and he joins us tonight. Danny, thanks so much for coming on. So --


CARLSON: This -- and I'm not saying this in a funny way, this is sincere. If you care about our system and you believe in the peaceful transfer of power and you believe that the people should rule in democracy, in other words, you don't want faceless, unelected bureaucrats wielding the real power, do you?

COULSON: Oh, absolutely not. I think we're talking about leaks here. And that's where we get in big time trouble. They're very harmful. I've done several leaks at the White House, several investigations that were somewhat successful, but they need to close the faucet here, so that there has to be some things done in confidence.

The American people do not need to know, don't need to know about everything that goes on in the White House, especially over conversations with another leader. So they need to close down the circle of access and get control of this thing. If not, this President and Presidents in the future can be plagued with this kind of stuff and they're going to be having the run around chasing their tails trying to stop it.

CARLSON: You'll notice that the leaks are particularly common and virulent around foreign policy questions because the President's views on foreign policy contradict those of the of the foreign policy establishment here in Washington, particularly in Russia.

They hated the fact that he said on the campaign trail that we should be closer to Russia. They hated that and found that unacceptable. So really, what you're seeing is permanent Washington deciding what you're allowed to say as a politician. That's scary.

COULSON: It's very, very scary. And a lot of this has to do with ego at the White House, not just this White House, but every White House. Everybody wants to know what's going on, and the bigger the circle of knowledge is, the bigger the likelihood of leaks because you can hide among the crowd.

If 30 people know about a conversation, then you leak it, the chances of finding you are very, very difficult. If there's four people who know about the conversation, then people are less likely to go out and leak information because they know they are going to get caught doing it.

So it's a matter of securing your own people, securing your own -- the secrecy of what you do, which is good. Secrecy is important when you're dealing with foreign affairs because there's a lot of issues dealing with other leaders and whatever.

So we don't need that people need to know every aspect of what's going on. And you have to take steps to secure that. That's why we have compartment information systems in the Intelligence service to keep the number of people knowledge close.

CARLSON: This used to be obvious points. No longer. Thank you for reminding us of them. Danny Coulson, good to see you.

COULSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, for the crime of doing a good deed, a young man in Iowa found his life basically derailed by "The Des Moines Register." She used to be a newspaper and now it's an activist group. Cancel culture. That's what they're calling it. By the way, one of their own reporters fell to it. So the question is, why is the editor in charge of the newspaper facing no consequences? We will investigate that question, next.


CARLSON: California has already become tragically famous as a ruined paradise. It's once beautiful cities are now covered in waste, needles and tent cities. Now, it has a new self-inflicted problem: organized shoplifting rings.

Instead of siding with law-abiding citizens though, California State priority appears to be protecting criminals. Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher has more on this story -- Trace.

GALLAGHER: Tucker, these are called grab-and-dash crimes where groups of people rush a store, grab armfuls of merchandise and then flee and while the crimes are on the rise, arrests are on the decline. Police in Vacaville which is about halfway between Sacramento and San Francisco say that over the past year, there have been 746 retail thefts, and despite video all over social media and local news, more than half the suspects got away.

And both law enforcement and the retail industry blame California's Proposition 47, passed back in 2014, the law more than doubles the amount a suspect can steal before facing felony charges. Before Prop 47, stealing $450.00 or more was a felony, now, it's $950.00.

Police a criminals have done the math and realized the benefits heavily outweigh the consequences. First off, the odds are, you won't get caught. And even if you do, the fine won't be as much as what you stole, so it's win-win.

And to increase the odds even further, groups of people are harder to track down than individuals, hence the major uptick in these organized retail thefts.

Experts say criminals are also taking advantage of other police department policies by targeting malls and shopping centers close to freeways, because they know police won't risk a high speed chase for a misdemeanor.

Finally, for safety reasons, many large retail stores are now telling their employees not to engage these grab-and-dash groups, so a lot of these crimes are not even being reported -- Tucker.

CARLSON: It has fallen apart. Trace, good to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

Well, we recently told you that pretty remarkable story of a young man called Carson King from Iowa. King raised a million dollars for charity for Children's Hospital and "The Des Moines Register," the local newspaper rewarded him by digging into his personal history all the way back to high school, denouncing him for tweets he made seven years ago.

For this, he was pilloried. Anheuser Busch, which had agreed to a partnership with him, dropped him. Now, in a fascinating coda to the story, Aaron Calvin, that's reporter who wrote the original story, has been fired himself after he was found to have offensive tweets on his Twitter timeline as well. Amazing.

You know who is still though, at "The Des Moines Register"? Carol Hunter. She is the editor who made the call to publish the piece and to crush Carson King. She appears to be completely fine.

And to be clear, we're not calling for her firing. We just think it's a little bit weird that the kid gets fired, and the person who makes the decision gets to stay. Is that fair? Joe Concha writes about media for "The Hill" and joins us tonight. Joe, is that fair?

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER, THE HILL: No, it is not fair. This isn't some rogue reporter, Tucker, that just writes a story and there it goes, out, published. There is a vetting system, and the vetting system starts with the senior editor that you just mentioned. She has a job tonight.

And by the way, she only put out a statement, an op-ed basically explaining what happened, and we hear about news organizations publications demanding transparency from people in power that they cover. I agree with that completely.

But in this case, she should be answering questions right now in terms of why she okayed it and why this reporter was thrown under the bus because he very easily, Tucker could have been on orders saying, why don't you to look into his social media history.

And look, as a writer, as a reporter myself, if an editor tells you to do something, you do it. And when you submit a story, the editor can either pull that out or keep it in. But either way, ultimately, it shouldn't be completely your responsibility while the editors get away with zero responsibility.

CARLSON: Well, that does seem right. I mean, her justification was -- and by the way, she's basically illiterate. I mean, for a newspaper reporter or editor, she can barely write in English, maybe it's not her first language.

CONCHA: Right.

CARLSON: But in her explanation, she said, we wanted to perform a background check on this subject. I'm just some kid who is giving money to a charity. There's no need for a background check, but we're going to do a background check. They didn't do a background check on their own hire? How does that work?

CONCHA: Exactly. When do you need a background check by the way? It's completely irrelevant to the story. He raised more than $1. 7 million and yes, I mean, I think we have to start doing that now.

And as a matter of fact, Tucker, I think the educational system starting at the high school level, and even Junior High should start and I am completely a hundred percent serious about this in their curriculum, a course that says, you know what social media behavior and consequences. Because guess what employers are doing now?

They used to hire companies to do background checks. They don't do that anymore. They check your social media feeds -- your Twitter, your Instagram, your Facebook. One inappropriate tweet or Facebook post or picture and that can alter your career path.

And I don't think enough kids, 16 years old in the place of Carson King when he put up those tweets, or even this writer, Aaron Calvin, I don't think anybody understands at that age that anything you put up into the public record is going to have consequences. No question about it.

By the way, the reporter is speaking out tonight from "The Des Moines Register" who was fired and you're not going to believe what he said. You're not going to feel quite as sorry for him. He tells BuzzFeed, Tucker and I quote, "This whole campaign was taken up by right wing ideologues and largely driven by that force," adding, " ... it was just a taste of what I assume that women and journalists of color suffer all the time."

I mean, are you kidding me? He is making himself a victim. He is the victim that the editor threw under the bus. But to say that, I mean, it's hard to feel sorry for him at this point, Tucker.

CARLSON: It's said. I mean, who goes into the newspaper business now? You know, we're not sending our best into the newspaper business, as Trump would say. Unfortunately, I used to work in a newspaper, but it's true, unfortunately. Joe, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

CONCHA: It's a dying breed. Unfortunately.


CONCHA: Thank you, Tucker. Have a great weekend.

CARLSON: In the Democratic presidential race, moderates are no longer welcome. So where does that leave an old-fashioned Democrat like John Delaney who joins us to talk about his campaign, next.


CARLSON: America currently receives more than a million legal immigrants every year. Also, we get hundreds of thousands, some unknown number, but certainly hundreds and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants moving here.

A lot of polling on this, and it shows pretty consistently that Americans like immigrants. They work hard, mostly nice people. But they're not begging for much more immigration, and they're definitely against uncontrolled migration.

They want their country to have a secure border. Why wouldn't they? Every population of every country in the world wants that. And they know that mass immigration puts a lot of stress on services. Public schools, for example. Now, that definitely depresses wages, especially for vulnerable workers. It drives up in equality.

Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan, meanwhile, has a message for Americans, the majority who think that way. And the message is, tough.

Kaplan told us recently that America, in fact, must have more immigration. Period. And we're quoting now, "If you think you're actually going to cut the number of immigrants," Kaplan said, " ... and grow GDP, those two things do not go together. You need to grow the workforce," end quote.

Hear that. He is telling you, you don't live in a country where happiness is influenced by things like social harmony, or equality, definitely by equality, or other factors. You live instead, and this is how our ruling class feels, in an economy.

You live in a place where the only thing that matters is GDP and it must go up, always and forever, or else growth is what matters. And the only way to drive up GDP forever is to import more workers who will work for less.

Investing in Americans who have fallen out of the workforce or helping American parents have more children way too hard and expensive. That's their position.

Actual voters have a very different view. In fact, nobody in history has ever voted to turn their country into a GDP calculation. They at least don't care, they are not for elections anyway. So whatever.

Well imagine being former Maryland Congressman John Delaney. He has been running for President longer than any other Democrat in the field. Delaney is a traditional Democrat. He wants his party to be a big tent. He wants it focused on bipartisanship and the core economic issues that face Americans.

But over the past year, he has watched as a revolution has consumed the Democratic Party. A revolution obsessed with far out policies like seizing guns and decriminalizing illegal immigration.


ANDREW YANG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I mentioned before that we might not own our own cars. Our current car ownership and usage model is really inefficient and bad for the environment.

O'ROURKE: Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

CASTRO: When somebody comes across the border, not to criminalize desperation and to treat that as a civil violation.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If somebody commits a serious crime -- sexual assault, murder -- they're going to be punished. They may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That's what happens when you commit a serious crime.

But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy, yes, even for terrible people.


CARLSON: So that's not going to happen in the real world, but more to the point, normal people are not going to vote for you when you talk that way, and John Delaney knows that.

He urged his fellow candidates to focus on making promises that maybe they can actually keep and when he said that, he got a scolding from Elizabeth Warren. Watch this.


JOHN DELANEY, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So I think Democrats when we run on real solutions, not impossible promises. When we run on things that are workable, not fairy tale economics.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for President of the United States just to talk about what we were can't do and shouldn't fight for.


CARLSON: That party is getting more radical by the day. So what does that leave someone like John Delaney? Well, we recently talked to him about that. And here's what he said.


CARLSON: So the question is, has the Democratic Party changed irreversibly? Are we going through a moment, you know, a frenzy that will subside? And the party will get back to making economic arguments? I mean, put some perspective on this, if you would.

DELANEY: I think we're going through a moment and I do think the party will get back to the party of my dad's kind of Democratic Party. My dad was a union construction worker. And he used to say, if you care about workers, you vote for the Democrats.

And that's the Democratic Party that I grew up in. And I think we'll get back there. That's where I get the sense most Democrats are, but the loudest voices in the room are getting a lot of coverage right now and the activists have had a very strong kind of voice in the party and in many the D.N.C. has been enabling it -- this Democratic primary.

CARLSON: So, the last point you're making and I'm not a Democrat, so I'm from the outside looking in, but it seems to be right, just from everything I'm reading and hearing, why would they do that? Because clearly, most voters are closer to where you are than to where some of these other candidates are. So what will be the point?

DELANEY: You know, you never know who is really making the decisions behind the scenes. I mean, they're requiring a certain number of small dollar donations to qualify for the debates.

Yet, we all know that the people who tend to make small dollar donations online tend to live in New York and California and tend to represent the more extreme parts of the party.

I mean, half the American people can't afford their basic necessities. I'm running to help those people. They're not making a lot of donations to Democratic candidates online.

CARLSON: Well, exactly.

DELANEY: So I just think we've got our priorities all wrong in terms of how we're choosing who gets to debate issues on the debate stage in front of the American people.

CARLSON: So in 1972, Democrats really hated Richard Nixon and they thought, you know, that attacking him personally would work. And they nominated the most radical person they could find, and then lost.

And that lesson enabled Bill Clinton to win two terms, because he looks at that and said, you know, that doesn't work. Why have Democrats forgotten that lesson?

DELANEY: You know, I've made that point. I mean, if you look at Mondale and Dukakis, they ran very far to the left. They turned off independent voters. They didn't run on core economic issues, kitchen table issues, pocketbook issues, building infrastructure, creating jobs, improving people's wages.

But Bill Clinton, and actually Barack Obama, people forget about Barack Obama, he was the more moderate candidate in the 2008 primary, compared to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. So that's the lesson we've got to remind ourselves.

I mean, obviously, there's a lot of rage for the current President. But if we want to beat him, we have to capture independents and the way to capture independents is by running on things that a majority of the American people support, it's actually pretty simple.

And what most people care about is, you know, their kid's education, their job, their healthcare, their pay, you know, opportunities for their kids, those basic issues that affect every American. We have to get back to that as a party.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, what you're saying is, I mean, and you can substitute Republican for Democrat. I mean, it's it -- you know, that's the substance. That's the core of politics right there.

DELANEY: Think about your average American, right? They care about their job and their pay. They care about their kid's public education. They care about their healthcare and they want to know that the next generation, their kids and grandkids are going to have opportunities and they want to be safe. That's what most Americans care about.

CARLSON: I know. It's not hard. It's so weird. It's so weird that you're one of the only guys saying that, but anyway, I'm glad you are. Thanks so much for joining us tonight, John Delaney.

DELANEY: Thanks for having me, Tucker.


CARLSON: Well, it's Friday. You know what that means? It's time for a "Dan Bongino News Explosion." Bam. Our favorite former Secret Service agent on the big stories of a remarkable week, next.


CARLSON: If there was ever a week for a "Dan Bongino Friday News Explosion," it's this week. Our favorite New York City cop here to break down everything huge that happened. He also by the way has a brand new book, "Exonerated: The Failed Takedown of President Donald Trump by the Swamp." Outstanding.

Dan Bongino joins us. Congrats on the book, Dan, by the way.

DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, yes, thanks, Tucker. We lay out the blueprint, you know, they tried this scam before this Russian collusion thing. So I deeply appreciate you mentioning the book.

But let's get to the news. Explosion because it's my favorite segment of the week. We have two stories this week, but really three because there's a tie for number one and stay tuned. We'll be giving out a special award at the end.

So story number two, Hillary Clinton: Corruption fighter, Tucker. Warrior against corruption. Hillary Clinton. Get your bearings here. Listen, I have some props here for you. Here's the penalty flag.

Hillary Clinton illegal procedure 15 yards. Corruption fighter? Now, what's the genesis of this? She claims Donald Trump and I quote, I had to write this down, Hillary Clinton, who is back on the scene again, is a corrupt human tornado.

So Tucker, I don't like writing notes for the segment. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton's corruption, you need some notes. "I had Uranium One pay to play in the Clinton Foundation," her Ukraine Pinchuk scandals, the Rose law firm spy game. Hillary, just to note, you may just want to sit this one out. I'm just saying. Pro tip on that.

CARLSON: I think that's probably pretty good advice.

BONGINO: Yes, you think so. Hillary Clinton, corruption fighter? Who knew, right? Okay, story number one. Now, we have a little competition. We're going to be giving out a special award today, and the winner for the Best Dramatic retelling of a Democrat fake news hoax. We have two contestants.

We have Adam Schiff, who reinvented the entire transcript in the congressional hearing yesterday in the Ukraine call and told a totally different story, a hyperbolic story of what Trump said to the Ukrainian President.

He was very gifted though, Tucker, in his retelling. I want to compliment him on his skills there. And then "The New York Times" decided they were going to get creative. Their opinion section and they put out a tweet with the "Star Wars" scroll telling what they believe to be the Trump story of corruption. Of course, of their fake news story.

So Tucker, I have the envelope. We have a winner here.

CARLSON: Who wins?

BONGINO: Is attention building? The winner is Adam Schiff. Actually, this is an invite to my seven-year-old daughter's dinner party. Tucker, we have a trophy. Here it is. This is actually my daughter's lacrosse trophy from the Sticklettes Lacrosse, but you get it Adam Schiff, come claim your trophy. It's here in Palm City, Florida.

CARLSON: You don't want him there. Dan Bongino, great to see you. Have the best weekend. We will be back Monday, 8pm. Have the bset weekend with the ones you love.

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.