This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 9, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to the “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Here's a helpful hint about how your government works. We're full of helpful hints on this show. If you ever see consensus forming in Washington run, something awful is about to happen.
For decades, you will remember there was total consensus that our trade deals could not be better. They helped everyone. Meanwhile, as they were telling us that, America's manufacturing sector died and huge parts of the middle class died along with it. Then it was bipartisan consensus on the Iraq War and the stock piles of weapons of mass destruction we'd supposedly find there, but didn't. A few years later, there was consensus on banking regulations that was just before the financial crisis hit. Then there was still more consensus on the creation of an all seeing surveillance state that was supposed to somehow help you, but that is now scanning your face and reading your texts.
There wasn't much debate in Washington about any of those policies. There should have been. So it was with was some skepticism that we note a new consensus forming here. This one about our southern border. It may look bad down there, they're telling us, but calm down, it's fine. Everything is just fine. That's the new word for Max Boot.
Boot is a columnist for Jeff Bezos, his newspaper. But more than that, Boot is the living repository of every warmed over cliche, every silly half-truth, every stale scrap of stupid conventional wisdom the buffoons who run this place have thought up recently.
So here's the latest. This is from Boot's appearance on CNN last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I'm ready to declare a national emergency. The national emergency is not on the southern border. It's in Washington, DC with a President who is lawless and out of control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Who is this guy? Well, Max Boot calls himself a foreign policy expert. That's a title that doesn't actually mean anything, but in practice, it allows Boot to agitate for more counterproductive foreign wars.
In the year since 9/11, Max Boot has demanded military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea and likely many other places. He has called for the U.S. to topple the Saudi monarchy. And of course, like so many neo-cons, Boot fell headlong into the Russia conspiracy nuttiness for more than two excruciating years.
It's hard to think of anyone in this country more discredited than Max Boot. Going to him for foreign policy advice is like giving Jeffrey Dahmer a cooking show. He'd be the last person you would ask. So of course, Max Boot now has gigs at CNN, "The Washington Post" and the Council on Foreign Relations, because that's how Washington really works.
The key is never apologize, never admit fault no matter what. Watch Max Boot explain that the idea of toppling the Libyan government, which was deranged, was in fact brilliant. We just didn't do it right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOOT: We did a great job of overthrowing Gaddafi, but they had nothing to secure the country afterwards. And there was, I might add, a similar lack of planning for our pull out in the case of Iraq, where there was very little sense of what would happen after U.S. troops left in 2010.
We can't think about these as being kind of quick in and out engagements. We send some troops, kill some people and then come back home to a victory parade; sadly, it doesn't work that way.
Boot didn't explain how exactly it does work, he didn't need to explain. Everyone knows his assumption. It's the same as permanent Washington's core assumption. Military occupation is always the right answer, no matter what the question is. Sending somebody else's kids to a foreign country is always in everywhere the right thing to do.
When Donald Trump pledge to pull Americans out of Syria, Max Boot went crazy, just on principle, because no troops can ever leave -- ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOOT: There is nobody who knows anything about the situation in Syria who recommends doing this. This is a Christmas gift to America's enemies. This will help ISIS. This will help Russia. This will help Iran. This will help Bashar Assad and this will hurt Israel and our Kurdish allies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: What did Max Boot not say? What do you notice about that? Well he never explained how keeping Americans in Syria would help the United States. Why didn't he mention it? Because he doesn't care. Nobody in Washington cares, and maybe that's why you never hear anyone ask questions about our current military commitments. Are we overextended perhaps? We hear the numbers.
As of tonight, we have nearly 175,000 active duty personnel serving overseas, American troops are posted in 158 different countries. For perspective, there are only 195 countries total on the entire planet. We're almost everywhere. This map might give you a sense of the scale of it. Keep in mind there is no World War currently in progress. This is what we've signed up for in peacetime.
And yet, you may notice that there was one place American troops are not. They are not on our southern border protecting us. They should be, we could use them. Tens of millions of illegal immigrants already live here in the United States. We don't know the exact number. We don't even know who they are. They just show up and a hundred thousand more are showing up every month.
Over time, this is how countries collapse. Max Boot doesn't think that's a crisis. Nobody in Washington thinks it's a crisis. As far as they're concerned, illegal immigration is just some right-wing talking point that Trump throws to his base at rallies in Grand Rapids. You know, what they think is a crisis? You know what they're really concerned about? Medical care and Morocco. That's a problem we must solve immediately.
Luckily, we have exercise African lion. Never heard of it? You're paying for it. In the last year, 1,100 US military personnel have participated in that exercise. All of them working to make Morocco healthier or how about the plight of the Ethiopian Navy?
Ethiopian Navy needs a lot of help considering that Ethiopia is entirely landlocked as a country. Thank heaven for our Sixth Fleet, they're on it. The Navy just sent out a press release last week bragging about new talks with the Ethiopian government to quote, "discuss the exciting task of building the Ethiopian Navy." Feel safer? The people of Mozambique feel safer. U.S. military aircraft have flown 60 missions. They've transported more than 663,000 metric tons of relief supplies in there in there in the wake of a cyclone. That was nice.
In Honduras, we currently have 400 American troops stationed. Our 612th Air Base Squadron recently helped extinguish a wildfire in a small city called Comayagua. In Malaysia meanwhile, a U.S. Navy amphibious construction battalion is rebuilding water tanks at an elementary school and we could go on and on.
Now these are all good works, virtuous things, done at taxpayer expense by the most altruistic country in the history of the world. That's us, the United States. But what about us? What about our country? We're being invaded, no offense to the Ethiopian Navy, but we could use American troops a lot closer to Tijuana than the Horn of Africa.
Max Boot and his friends scoff at this. Troops on our own border? Protecting our own people? That's disgusting, immoral. It's fascism. Only in Washington do people believe that.
Douglas Macgregor is a retired colonel. He is the author of the book, "Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War," and he joins us tonight. Colonel, thanks very much for coming on.
DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RETIRED ARMY COLONEL: Sure.
CARLSON: It is in no way to denigrate the service of our troops who are improving the lives of foreigners, a lot of foreigners in a lot of different places. But why do you think it's so repugnant to our leadership class that they would help protect us?
MACGREGOR: Well, first of all, let me point out contrary to what Brother Boot is saying, there are no Russian armies massing on the borders of Europe prepared to strike West and conquer Europe, none. There are no Chinese armies massing on the borders of Southeast Asia, or on the border with Korea ready to pounce on the Korean Peninsula or invade Vietnam and Thailand. They don't exist.
So there is no imminent threat contrary to popular belief. These troops and do not have to be overseas where they are. So why are they there? Very simply because special interests enrich the ruling class. The lobbies that exist -- foreign and domestic -- have enormous money, and it pays people on the Hill, obviously a great deal of money to support whatever involves overseas contingency. So the overseas contingencies, the overseas presence is a cash machine.
CARLSON: So just to get back to first principles for a second, the purpose of the U.S. Military is to defend the United States, correct?
CARLSON: So if there is a threat to the territorial sovereignty of the United States, the U.S. military, you would think?
MACGREGOR: Absolutely. Title X of the United States Code specifically says just what you've said, and the Army in particular in addition to conducting decisive operations on land has the task of conducting the mission for wide area security.
So the U.S. Army belongs on the border right now and it's perfectly obvious to everyone on the border. You can add more patrolman, you can add more customs officers. It's not just a function of the wall, they cannot possibly cope with hundreds of thousands of people marching over those borders, especially when they're told that if you reach the border, you have to be admitted.
We need martial law on the border. I just spoke this afternoon to people on the border with New Mexico, Arizona and Texas and they all said the same thing, "Please send troops. Send the United States Army."
CARLSON: So we're going to put on the screen a list of places the U.S. Military is committed, and I think maybe some of our viewers might not be aware of the scale of the commitment. And again, this is not criticism of those troops who are doing they're doing their duty and doing it well.
MACGREGOR: Sure, sure.
CARLSON: But they were sent by policymakers who see what they're doing in Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France -- we're going to keep scrolling here as a good deed, but why would it be offensive for them to protect this country? I don't understand. Why is one good and the other bad?
MACGREGOR: Well, the Democrats look south and they see voters moving across the border. The Republicans are afraid of losing votes. And so they lack the courage to stand up and say, "Stop." Those are the two problems.
No one on the left is going to advocate for the defense of that border, because they see in the future, a foundation - a human foundation for a permanent dictatorship of the left.
CARLSON: So I mean, you spent your life in the military. Tell me if you were to ask your average frontline infantryman.
CARLSON: The U.S. Army, would you rather - would you feel better about protecting your own country's border or protecting our quote "Kurdish allies," whoever they are in Syria? What do you think the answer will be?
MACGREGOR: Well, first of all, let's face it, the average American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who arrives in the Middle East and looks around. He says, "My God, there's nothing here worth my life."
MACGREGOR: So as a result, "I'm not going to take any chances. So if I'm going to fight, I'm going to pull the trigger. I'm not going home in a body bag." The average soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine doesn't see anything in Afghanistan or the Middle East or for the most part, in Africa that justifies the loss of his life.
So to answer your first question, they would all be delighted to defend the United States, to defend our borders, particularly the Mexican border, without question. The generals, of course, are part of the ruling class here in Washington. They're not interested because they look at the same cash machine. How do we justify bloated ground forces? A huge Marine Corps? A large army? Massive investment in surface fleets if we pull back? And we admit, there really is no justification for it overseas? Can't be done.
CARLSON: Grim. Grim, but smart. Thank you, Colonel. It's great to see you.
CARLSON: It always is.
MACGREGOR: Good to see you.
CARLSON: So why should the United States maintain troop forces in 163 foreign countries? Handing out billions in aid every year? If it fails, even the secure its own border. David Tafuri is an international lawyer who advised President Obama's campaign and he joins us tonight. David, thanks very much for coming on.
So it's a really simple question. It's not an argument against helping the Ethiopian Navy, they need help. They don't even have water. So there's a lot to do. But it's a question of priorities, why wouldn't you first put those troops on our border to protect this country?
DAVID TAFURI, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, as you highlighted, our troops do great things all over the world. We're in many different countries. That's how we project power. That's also how we build up militaries in friendly countries. So if we need to work with those militaries in the future, we know that we can rely on them and then we have a strong partnership with them.
So places like Ethiopia, like Denmark, other places that you mentioned, our soldiers are doing great work there. It's important. I think we all agree that as you mentioned, America is the most generous country in the world. It's also the most powerful country in the world and it's the country that really needs to lead right now.
We are being challenged by China. We're being challenged by Russia. China is doing some of those things. Would you prefer to have America and American troops doing these things around the world or would you prefer to have China? That's one question? American people should ask themselves --
CARLSON: Well, but hold on, but I would also --
TAFURI: This President -- one thing this President has done is build up the military.
CARLSON: Wait, hold on. Hold on. Wait a second. I am going to stop your filibuster right there and just ask you a very simple question.
TAFURI: Go ahead.
CARLSON: So we've had your foreign policy for 20 years and we have funded a number of foreign wars, and I would ask you at the end of that period, is America stronger than it was in 1999? And the answer, of course, no, it's much weaker than it was. So it's not working, so why would we keep doing it?
TAFURI: Well, first of all, we didn't have my foreign policy. I didn't set the foreign policy over the last 20 years. I didn't support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Although I went to Iraq in 2006 and 2007, during the war to try and help out.
I think some of -- a lot of the things that our troops have done have made the world safer. We also have new challenges that we didn't have before like the challenge that was posed by Al Qaeda, when we were attacked on 9/11; like the challenge posed by ISIS in 2014. These are substantial challenges that resulted in terrorist attacks and killed Americans.
CARLSON: Okay, and we did --
TAFURI: And so our troops are helping make America safer by fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS and other terrorist organizations in those countries --
CARLSON: Right in Syria before they get, right, to Syracuse. Yes, I've heard -- I've heard the talking point. But I'm wondering the justification for continuing to send aid to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador is that if we don't, a lot of their population will move here.
But wait, we've been sending money to those countries for 20 years, and a third of El Salvador already lives here and they're continuing to stream in from the other countries. Why would we keep doing this?
TAFURI: Look, the immigration situation at the border is constantly changing. So 20 years ago, there were a lot of Mexican immigrants coming across the border with Mexico, that's actually gone down.
CARLSON: No, no, I know the story.
TAFURI: And there not that many Mexicans. Now, as you highlighted, it's people from countries in Central America -- Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, for instance. These are economic migrants. They're leaving because they faced dire economic situation in their countries, and because there are not jobs in those countries. So one reason to continue to the aid and to use the aid effectively is to create and help those countries create --
CARLSON: Well, wait, wait. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Better --
TAFURI: Just let me finish. Let me finish.
CARLSON: No, no. No, because you're actually wrong.
TAFURI: To help those countries create jobs so we address the problem there.
CARLSON: And I looked up the numbers. I agree. Well --
TAFURI: Rather than addressing the problem at our border.
CARLSON: Okay, we've tried it for 20 years, it hasn't worked, but they're not actually facing dire economic consequences. The per capita income in Nigeria --
TAFURI: They are.
CARLSON: No. The per capita income in many countries around the world is much lower than it is in those three countries. For example, Nigeria, it's lower.
TAFURI: Well, we're talking about Nigeria, Tucker. We're talking about Honduras.
CARLSON: But why wouldn't we? Hold on. No, no. Hold on. Nigeria is 191 million people -- 191 million Nigerians.
TAFURI: But Nigerians are not coming to the border with Mexico.
CARLSON: Their standard of living -- but why shouldn't they? But hold on, why shouldn't they? By your reasoning, poor people have a right to come here because they're poor. Well, then why doesn't the rest of the world have a right to come here? Sincere question.
TAFURI: No, I never said that. I never said they have the right to come here. I do not agree with that. I think we have the right to control our border and we have the right to turn them away. But what I'm saying is they're going to keep coming until we help them address their economic situation. We can ignore their economic situation and we cannot help them with improving their economy. But if we do that, they will keep coming, and building a wall won't stop them.
CARLSON: We've done it and it doesn't work and nobody understands.
TAFURI: They'll come by boat.
CARLSON: Let me just say, not on person on earth knows to fix the economy of Central America.
TAFURI: For instance, you talked about Africa and migrants from Africa. Let me make one point.
CARLSON: I'll give you one sentence, we've got to go. We're out of time.
TAFURI: You know, migrants from Africa are going to Europe in droves and they don't even have a board land border with Europe. They go by boat. They go other ways.
CARLSON: I am highly aware of that.
TAFURI: So just building a border on the land between Mexico in the U.S. isn't going to stop migrants from coming. So that's one reason why we should try to help these countries address the situation.
CARLSON: We already are helping them.
TAFURI: In the country so they don't come here.
CARLSON: And it's not working. Right, it's our fault. Okay, David Tafuri from Brussels.
TAFURI: It's not enough and not well enough and not effectively enough. We have to reorganize USAID. We have to do it better. America can do this.
CARLSON: All right, okay, when you crack that code, call me because once you've done that, you've also cured pancreatic cancer, which is probably a little easier than figuring out the riddle that you say you have the answer to. But it's great to see you. Thank you.
People at Washington was shocked when Robert Mueller failed to prove Russian collusion, which they knew on faith was true. Now, the Attorney General wants to know why the investigation was launched in the first place.
Plus, a major update to the college admissions scam, including possible prison time for a very famous, but deeply remorseful actress, straight ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: This process is going along very well.
I think that from my standpoint, by -- within a week, I will be in a position to release the report to the public.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That's the Attorney General of the United States, Bill Bar talking to Congress today. He reiterated his promise to release a version of the Mueller report redacted - color coded redacted by the middle of this month, "The Federalist's" Mollie Hemingway has been covering the story and she joins us right now. Mollie, thanks a lot for coming.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: Thank you.
CARLSON: So what are we going to get and when are we going to get it?
HEMINGWAY: Well, I think one of the big takeaways from the hearing is that the report is going to come fairly quickly next week and there are rules that prohibit the full release of everything because there's grand jury testimony that can't legally be released. I'm kind of a fan of full transparency here.
CARLSON: I am too.
HEMINGWAY: But there are limits, at least at this point. So we will have much more information in a week. But I think the underlying issue remains the same, which is the Mueller probe ended without a single American being indicted for collusion with Russia and that is a pretty stunning and given how much we were led to believe that something much more dramatic would happen.
CARLSON: So as a postscript to kind of where are they now, addendum to the book, I'd like to know how this started and why and who did it? What were the motive?
HEMINGWAY: And I think that's the definitely the most interesting thing that came out of the hearing. You had all these people asking really tough questions and Attorney General Barr had these very reasonable responses. And he said that one of the things that he's very interested in doing now is just understanding how did this investigation get going? What were people thinking?
You know, we know that it's not true that there was this grand, treasonous collusion issue that we were led to believe had happened. Well, why did people fall for this? Or how did it get started? Were the norms and processes that should have been followed, followed? Obviously, there are some problems there, and so I hope that it's a legitimate investigation.
It's kind of crazy that we haven't had a legitimate investigation this many years into it. But finding out how did it start? Finding out a little bit about, you know, all the criminal leaks that were part of this? We had people leaking classified information that should not have been leaked. And I'm not even sure if anyone has looked into it, much less been held accountable.
CARLSON: I wonder why. I mean, I'm not even particularly punitive on this question. I'd be happy to just stop and stop subpoenaing people and sending people to jail or whatever. But we had a case of mass hysteria and we should know how it started, then why and why don't we have a Blue Ribbon Commission of -- I don't know, some wildly respected, you know, Oprah could do it. I don't care. But just to find out.
HEMINGWAY: Right, I don't really care of the particular means by which we hold people accountable.
HEMINGWAY: But I actually think you should care. It can't be something that we just move past on.
CARLSON: Well, I agree.
HEMINGWAY: This is something that shouldn't happen in General in our system of government and in order to make sure it doesn't happen again, we need to know how it was able - how this was able to be allowed and people who were engaging in these behaviors, they need to be held accountable. And if there are actual laws that need to be rewritten then, they need to be rewritten so that we don't have people going - using all of the tools that are helpful for going after our actual enemies against opposing --
CARLSON: So I've got a question, I don't even know if you know the answer, but there's a committee in the Senate chaired by Richard Burr, the Republican of North Carolina that is like a ghost ship that's like some kind of runaway robot that is not aware that the Mueller report has been issued, and they're continuing to investigate claims of Russian collusion and bother people, issue subpoenas. Why are they doing that?
HEMINGWAY: I'm not sure if that's necessarily a problem and that Congress should do its own investigating. The issue with the Intelligence Committee on the Senate side is that they haven't really done particularly good work in the last couple of years, in general; and in general, they tend to view their role with intelligence agencies as being protective as opposed to doing oversight.
Our constitutional system says that Congress should perform oversight of these agencies to make sure that we don't have unaccountable bureaucrats running wild and when you think your job is to protect them and enable them to continue doing whatever they're doing, you're not going to be doing a good job with oversight. You're not being responsible with taxpayer moneys and you're not being responsible with our Constitution, which says that Congress is in this oversight role or which strongly suggest that.
CARLSON: So, Adam Schiff is on MSNBC right now, I'm not encouraging our viewers to turn over there and burn their retinas, but he apparently is saying he will not be satisfied until the totally unredacted version of this comes out. Which I would be happy with, by the way, as well. Will we get the unredacted version of the FISA warrants?
HEMINGWAY: Well, he's welcome to continue pursuing this and there are legal courses of action that he can take. I think that the fact is, he has spent the last several years claiming that he had definite evidence of treasonous collusion with Russia.
It is long past time that he needs to put up or shut up with that evidence. I mean, at this point, it's just delusion.
CARLSON: How about resign?
HEMINGWAY: Yes, and he was actually obstructing investigations into how it was that this conspiracy theory was running wild. He was communicating with some of the people who were involved in the conspiracy theory.
HEMINGWAY: I think people should find out more about his relationships with some of those people that were creating the conspiracy theory, but I also think media shouldn't just treat him as if he's someone that you have on without asking tough questions, given how strongly he has misled the American public.
CARLSON: He has totally disgraced himself and we should least say that out loud. Mollie, great to see you.
HEMINGWAY: Great. Thank you.
CARLSON: Well, there are new and serious charges tonight against actress, Lori Loughlin in the massive college bribery scam. We're learning information about the jail time that she might face; she and many others and we've got the details for you, after the break.
CARLSON: Prosecutors are tonight seeking jail time for more than a dozen parents who attempted to lie, bribe and cheat their children's way into supposedly meritocratic colleges and universities. Now, Federal prosecutors are hitting 16 more parents that would include actress, Lori Loughlin with additional charges. Trace Gallagher has been on the story from the beginning from Los Angeles tonight -- Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, for Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli and 14 other parents, the new indictment adds a money laundering charge, which could up the jail time significantly.
The reason it's money laundering is because when the parents allegedly paid the bribe money to the ringleader of this scandal, Rick Singer, they funneled it through his purported charity. In other words, they tried to hide the payment and then clean it.
The parents were also charged with wire fraud because the Fed say they brought the money from outside of the United States with the purpose of committing a crime in the U.S. Some of the parents have already said they plan to fight the case in court, and prosecutors say a few parents who fessed up early and cooperated may avoid jail time.
For Lori Loughlin, her husband and others, prosecutors say they won't listen to any plea deal that does not include at least two years of prison. But "People Magazine" now reports that Lori Loughlin has refused a plea deal because she won't accept jail.
Meantime, their youngest daughter, Olivia Jade, finally got her trademark application accepted for her new line of makeup. The application had been denied because of numerous punctuation mistakes.
And finally, Felicity Huffman, who pleaded guilty to mail fraud yesterday and will likely avoid jail time is taking a career hit. Today, Netflix announced her new movie, "Otherhood" will no longer be released later this month and there is no new date. Her movie "When They See Us" is for now, still scheduled to launch on May 31st -- Tucker.
CARLSON: Numerous punctuation mistakes. I trust you implicitly, so I know you're not making that up. But it's just -- it's unbelievable. Trace Gallagher, thank you.
Tammy Bruce is President of Independent Women's Voice and a frequent and honored guest on the show and she joins us tonight.
TAMMY BRUCE, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Tammy, it seems like the takeaway is what we already knew that the system that tells us it is meritocratic is nothing like a meritocracy at all, it's not. So why?
BRUCE: Well, it is a little bit. I mean, some kids get into school. They've worked hard. Maybe they used scholarships. They're working jobs, of course, while they're going to school. They studied for the for the SAT test, they took it themselves. They did well enough to get in.
But what we're finding here is that there's a part of the system where some young people were pushed out in order to allow these individuals to get in. That's one of the biggest problems here. So when you're especially taking a slot for athletes, who have really worked hard all their lives to get that scholarship, those positions were eliminated. So that's the real harm.
Some people are saying, "Well, what's the harm?" Well, you know, young people - some young people were shut out of this process. But in addition to the fact that it's cheating, right, I mean, this un-self-aware kind of vulgarity in the actions that have been taken in this regard by individuals who really could have whatever they want. They've got a lot of money. Maybe they're not as rich as Jeff Bezos, but they've got half a million dollars allegedly to get their two kids on a couple of crew positions there in USC.
So it's a remarkable thing for Americans to watch unfold, and now, and this is the good news, while we're focused on these actresses and they are behaving very differently from each other in this regard. The Department of Education is investigating the eight colleges involved. But I think this tells us, Tucker that this entire system has to be looked at.
It's not just the eight colleges that were caught being involved. I think it's an infrastructure of entitlement because of the liberalism that guides that institution as a whole.
CARLSON: So why -- since we fund these institutions through tax dollars in tuition, why shouldn't we have some transparency in the admissions process? Why shouldn't we know how people get into college and since it's the gateway to the success in our society?
BRUCE: Right now, eight of these -- we've got eight universities, six of them are private, and two of them are public. However, even with private institutions like Harvard, conservatives complain, understandably a lot that we give research grants to these private institutions, right?
CARLSON: Yes, a lot.
BRUCE: And there's a lot of other things, there's a lot of other ways that Federal money flows into these institutions. So there has to be -- I think it's the height of naivety to suggest that it's just a few of these individuals or one conspiracy.
As a matter of fact, earlier this month, we learned that Harvard is investigating their fencing coach, who sold allegedly his home to the father of a student who was trying to get in for almost it appears, half a million dollars more than what the home was worth.
BRUCE: And so there's a lot of different things going on at the highest levels here of academia. And clearly, we see that the Washington structure is dissolving the problem at the FBI. And it is scary to think that even academia, the higher education structure is corrupt, but we've got to face it. It's like you have cancer, you've got to admit it, and then you've got to work on it to get the thing fixed.
CARLSON: Of course.
BRUCE: That's what we have to do.
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, great to see you tonight. Thank you.
BRUCE: Thank you, dear.
CARLSON: Well, as Tammy just mentioned, correctly, Ivy League universities are some of the richest institutions in the world. Harvard, for example, has a $36 billion endowment. That's more than the entire GDP of Paraguay. It's more than three times what Goldman Sachs made last year. It's a lot of money.
But for some reason, the Federal government hands out billions of dollars to these universities instead of financing, I don't know, border security or clean water in Flint, Michigan, or something else that might help normal people.
The organization Open The Books has revealed just how much these schools profit from taxpayers. They also expose billions being sent to cosmetology schools and community colleges with graduation rates of barely 10%.
Adam Andrzejewski is the founder of Open The Books joined us to talk about this scheme.
ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI, FOUNDER, OPEN THE BOOKS: Great to be on the program, Tucker. Thank you for this platform to launch our new oversight report on the Department of Education specific to higher education where we found outdated policies, misaligned priorities and a lack of in-house financial accounting controls.
CARLSON: So give me some specific examples. I'm interested in this phenomenon which if you talk to people who don't live in big cities, they'll tell you it is pretty common where low income people are lured into these schools with the promise that they'll get a great job at the end and they wind up only with student debt. Those schools are getting a lot of tax dollars, too.
ANDRZEJEWSKI: There are schools across the entire continuum that the American public has no idea that they are funded. You mentioned the schools on hair and beauty and massage. The American taxpayer last year funded those schools to the tune of three quarters of a billion dollars and you come out with a license to cut hair, do massage or do nails.
Now, what's interesting is, the tuition at those schools, sometimes rivals that and exceeds that of big 10 universities, your empire ump schools, your high-end beauty schools now, the tuition is over $20,000.00 per year.
CARLSON: So I mean, if you're analyzing this in terms of outlay versus return, is it worth it? Is it worth it for taxpayers to subsidize this and students to pay this tuition in order to get a license to cut hair?
ANDRZEJEWSKI: Well, I think you know, with student debt, arguably, you can make the argument that student -- the cost of student tuition, fees and room and board at these colleges is the biggest financial scandal facing America with student debt now exceeding $1.7 trillion and exceeding consumer credit card debt.
So you know, look, market forces need to come into play. I think some of these policies are outdated. You've got the for example, in our report, we show you've got the 50 worst performing junior and community colleges in the country. Last year, they soaked up nearly a billion dollars' worth of Federal student financial aid funded by the American taxpayer. Their average graduation rate is 12%. We need to take a look at accreditation reform amongst other reforms within Higher Ed.
CARLSON: There is a massive lobby in Washington, which gets virtually no attention at all that makes this wealth transfer possible. I mean, higher education swarms the Congress with lobbyists. Is there a more effective lobby in Washington?
ANDRZEJEWSKI: Well, you know, maybe the Fortune 100 companies, right? So look, we took a look at the salaries and how Higher Ed is literally gaming the tax pairs for personal gain. So at openthebooks.com, we've captured nearly every single public employee that works for a college and university across the entire country. And Tucker, there's a new minimum wage for a Higher Ed employee, and that's $200,000.00 a year.
We found 43,000 employees in Higher Ed across the country who make $200,000.00 or more. Just in the State of California, there's 10,000 public employees working in colleges and universities that make more than 200 grand.
CARLSON: And lastly and quick, what percentage of those are administrators versus teachers?
ANDRZEJEWSKI: So I don't have the breakdown of the professors, the administrators, the executives; however, in the eight schools of the Ivy League, it's a perfect example of how they've gamed the system.
ANDRZEJEWSKI: There's 147 of these administrators and professors that make more than $400,000.00 a year. There's 47 of them that make more than a million dollars a year and five of them over the course of the last five years, cleaned off collectively, each $20 million.
CARLSON: It's a pretty good gig. I went into the wrong business. I should have been a Professor. Adam, thank you very much for that. I appreciate it.
ANDRZEJEWSKI: Great to be on the program, Tucker.
CARLSON: 2016 Presidential Election did not go at all as the media and the Democratic Party had hoped, but they have a plan to make sure that something like that never happens again. I'll tell you the details after the break.
CARLSON: So let's say we're determined never to lose an election again, no matter what, what would you do? Well, the left has thought about it, they've got a new strategy to permanently solidify Democratic majorities. This does not involve persuading new people to vote for them.
Democrats would rather enact policies that would make it impossible for anyone, but a Democrat to get elected. Steven Law is President of the Senate Leadership Fund and he detailed their plans in a column for the "Wall Street Journal" recently and we're happy to have him with us tonight.
Mr. Law, thank you very much for coming on. So what is the plan to make structural changes to ensure a permanent majority?
STEVEN LAW, PRESIDENT, SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND: Well, you know as you look at Washington, it's easy to get mesmerized by the green new deal and Medicare for all and abolishing I.C.E., but what's behind all of that shock and awe, as you said, is a very methodical plan to try to lock in a majority and it starts with HR 1, which was the first bill that Speaker Pelosi introduced.
LAW: You know, the first bill you introduce is symbolically important. You know, for Speaker Ryan it was the tax bill, but for Speaker Pelosi, it was a bill to federalize state election systems to make it very, very hard to impose registration deadlines. You have to register anybody as young as 16 years old. Felons can vote after they get out of prison.
And then beyond that, for the first time ever, the House went on record in favor of DC statehood, which then could create a larger Senate with two additional Democratic senators and a larger majority for them to start a new Congress with.
CARLSON: They live in DC though.
CARLSON: So they know it's the most dysfunctional functioning city in the world, but they still wanted to become a state. So they're totally cynical is what you're saying.
LAW: Yes, well, precisely. I mean, I think if they can create more states that would produce Democratic senators, they've not only talk now about the District of Columbia, which Senator Chuck Schumer endorsed, but they're already talking now about statehood for Puerto Rico, potentially, with what they call full voting rights for Guam and other territories, which ultimately means statehood.
So you could start with the small Democratic majority in the Senate and instantly expand it by the addition of more stars in the U.S. flag, more states, all of whom would be more Democratic senators.
CARLSON: Are they making an affirmative argument about how this would make the country better? How America would be improved by this? Or is it just naked power politics?
LAW: Well, I think, you know, it's all encased in this argument about enfranchisement. You know, we're helping people get the right to vote, self-representation, just like it shows in all of the DC bumper stickers and all of that, but really what they're trying to do is to create impediments to Republicans ever getting back in power should we lose control in 2020.
And as I said, the start of it is by changing state, not just Federal state election laws, weaponizing the Federal Election Commission to go after people who criticize Federal officials, even on policy, then you create more states. And then I think that the thing that's really the ultimate centerpiece and this sounds like it could never happen, but it's being talked about very seriously and that is to pack the Supreme Court, to actually expand the size of the Supreme Court, so that the narrow balance of power that's currently there would suddenly be tilted radically in one direction and stay that way potentially for a very long time.
CARLSON: I hope Republicans are awake and concerned, they should be. Steven Law, thank you very much for that.
LAW: Thank you.
CARLSON: Appreciate it. So will this plan work? Does it make any sense? We thought we'd talk to an actual Democrat about it, Richard Goodstein, a former adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton. He joins this time. Richard, thanks a lot for coming on. So I'm going to run just four ideas by you that are now endorsed by Democratic presidential candidates. The first is allowing inmates to vote while still behind bars. Are you for that?
RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON: You know, it really depends on kind of what this state law would be. I mean, the fact is, in most states, that's not an option.
CARLSON: But Bernie is for it.
GOODSTEIN: Look, the fact of the matter is, Tucker, can we just talk about this HR 1. If you'd like the status quo, if you like having somebody go -- somebody who could basically only asked for $600.00 as a donation, but then step out of the room and ask -- have their lackey ask Sheldon Adelson for $56 million. If you like that, then yes, you would hate HR 1 because what HR 1 will do is actually restore some sanity to our politics against voter suppression and against big money. That's all.
CARLSON: Who took more big money in the last election? Just wondering.
GOODSTEIN: Who took more big money?
GOODSTEIN: I think we don't know.
CARLSON: Which campaign took twice as much money as the other campaign? That would be the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign, twice as much.
GOODSTEIN: Well, there was dark money. I don't think that we actually know what all the money is because it is unregulated, right?
CARLSON: I think we're pretty sure of this.
GOODSTEIN: People in the super PACs don't actually have to identify themselves.
CARLSON: Virtually every rich person in America supported Hillary Clinton, so I think we know the answer. Okay, so you're going to take a pass on the voters.
GOODSTEIN: Some of them are -- some of those rich people are ambassadors now, I've heard.
GOODSTEIN: And I don't think they supported Hillary.
CARLSON: Rich people typically do become ambassadors. That's kind of how the system works. If you're against it, maybe we should change it.
CARLSON: That's a bipartisan thing. Lowering the voting age to 16, are you for that?
GOODSTEIN: Again, I think what we're trying to do with HR 1 is safeguard against voter suppression. You think it's a joke.
CARLSON: I think it's a joke to say that children should vote.
GOODSTEIN: In a lot of states of the country -- look, in a lot of states in the country, people are taking measures, closing polling places, reducing the number of days for early voting.
CARLSON: That's not true.
GOODSTEIN: Well --
CARLSON: It's time to whip up racial hysteria.
GOODSTEIN: That's true.
CARLSON: And actually, African-American voters in the last couple of elections in a lot of places have a much higher turnout than white voters. So like the idea that there's -- I'm sure that there is crummy voting behavior, maybe even suppression in isolated places, but overall, that's the opposite of the truth actually, as you know.
GOODSTEIN: No, because I think they would be voting in bigger numbers still, if they were --
CARLSON: They have a higher turnout than white voters.
GOODSTEIN: But I am just saying --
CARLSON: So let's be real for a second, like that's not -- that may be a lot of things, it's not suppression. So let's stop saying that because it scares people.
GOODSTEIN: Well, no, it's a demonstrable fact, take Georgia as an example. Well, you know what happened. There were all of these people that were stripped from the voter rolls who were disproportionately black. I mean, you call that what you want, it feels like voter suppression.
CARLSON: Okay, racializing everything only makes people hate each other. There is bias in the country, let's expose it. But saying there's suppression when African-American voters voted in a higher percentage than white voters, it's just -- it's a terror tactic.
GOODSTEIN: But if you're stripping people out, and it so happens that they're disproportionately black, you call that what you want, I'm just looking at a fact. I'm not putting a label on it. I'm just looking at the fact.
CARLSON: Okay. It's a fact based analysis.
GOODSTEIN: You can laugh, but to those people, it's actually not funny.
CARLSON: I am laughing. No, I know, it's not that's why it's sad because its scares people. Richard, thank you very much.
CARLSON: A 900-foot one bedroom apartment in San Francisco rent for just $4,500.00 bucks a month. And if you could afford the rent, you'll be able to see for yourself just how repulsive San Francisco's trash covered, syringe laden streets have become. Our investigation into the crumbling State of California, straight ahead.
CARLSON: Health officials are warning about measles exposure, efforts to combat HIV are threatened due to rampant homelessness. Newspapers say the poor are digging through their neighbors' trash cans to make a living. This isn't Tegucigalpa we're talking about, we are describing one of the richest cities in the world, San Francisco, where NRA TV's Colion Noir recently visited. Take a look at what he found.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIGITAL VOICE: There's, you know, close to a billion dollars being pumped every year in San Francisco into the pockets of various in the homeless and the harm reduction industry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: San Francisco manages all of this through at least eight different city departments issuing some 400 contracts with at least 75 private organizations. A tangled network of services with no unifying oversight by the city that actually hands out most of the money.
DEL SEYMOUR, MEMBER, CODE TENDERLOIN: So it's all the big, good old boys club. The people that run the management of homelessness out of our city halls and our county seats are formerly owners of nonprofits.
COLION NOIR, HOST, NRATV: Got you.
SEYMOUR: This is what it is. Yes, we've still got -- we've still got 14,000 -- okay, great. We'll try better next year. Where's my check? We'll check back next year. Where's my check? And the checks keep coming.
NOIR: Basically, this is a kind of industrial homelessness complex, so to speak.
SEYMOUR: Oh big time. Big time. We've got a prison industry. We've got a pharmaceutical industry which runs this country and then we've got a homeless industry. There is people that is running nonprofits for homeless and in this state only that are making $250,000.00 as an ED. That's BS.
You say you care about homelessness and you're taking home $250,000.00 a year. That's ridiculous. That's ludicrous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That entire video is going up tonight on our Facebook page, check it out. Colion Noir joins us tonight. So you made such an interesting point that I never hear made that this is a money making operation for a bunch of different supposedly nonprofit organizations. How does that work?
NOIR: I mean, it was very interesting. I hadn't really spent much time in San Francisco. When I went down there, I'd do it for my show. And when I'm speaking to different people and talking to them about the different organizations and private institutions, and how the money just kind of circulates between these institutions and then put back in such a way that almost enables some of the behavior that goes on in San Francisco, especially from a drug-use perspective. It's almost like it's sustaining itself.
It's like there's the money and then you kind of move around a little bit and then don't really put them in a position to improve their life, just keep them constant. And then while, as he said in the video, you know, they're pulling home $200,000.00 plus a year in salary. It kind of baffled me in many ways.
CARLSON: Well, it's so -- it's a metaphor for how a lot of things work in this society. When you keep people dependent, you increase your own power and make yourself indispensable. I mean, the Democratic Party exists to do that.
So it's not like San Francisco is not spending a lot of money on this problem then, they are.
NOIR: Oh, no, they're spending a ton of money in ways again, like that doesn't really deal with or attack the issue in a way to solve it. It's weird. It's just this massive sweeping under the rug and they've been doing this over time and I think now, what they're dealing with and what they're seeing is, is there's nowhere to put the mess.
And so now you just have a bunch of rich people arguing with the richer people about where to put the homeless people. And it's just -- it was really nutty to be honest with you.
CARLSON: Well, it is. So it's a beautiful city. It's a wonderful city. You said you hadn't really been there before. Give me your 30-second take on it. What really struck by?
NOIR: Initially, within, I want to say the first two to three hours that was in San Francisco, I saw more deliberate drug use, open drug use in San Francisco than I had seen in my entire 35 years of life. That's a problem.
CARLSON: That's a sad and crisp summary. Colion Noir, thank you. It's a great piece you did.
CARLSON: It's on our Facebook page.
NOIR: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thanks. We're out of time, sadly. We could go on. We'll be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m. The show that is this sincere sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. DVR it if you have a Master's in Electrical Engineering. Good luck with that. And good night from Washington. We have good news though, the fun doesn't end here.
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.