Is America safer with George Papadopoulos in prison?

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 26, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." It's Monday. We just had a vacation, so we're trying to think a little more broadly about what's happening in this world. Here's what we come up with.

If you had to boil down the Democratic Party's long-term goals to the most important goals, the first would be this, and it's obvious, the federal government ought to cover the essentials of life for most people, healthcare, college, housing, food, in some cases, a guaranteed basic income.

That's the program the Democrats espouse. Another word for it might be socialism. The party's other long-term goal is the elimination of meaningful restrictions on immigration into this country. Get rid of ICE, accept most refugees, give citizenship to tens of millions of people here illegally. In other words, open borders.

So those are the Democrats' main priorities, a massive social welfare state and millions of new citizens from the third world. Nobody is hiding that. 
We're not making it up. They're saying it out loud. The problem is that those two goals conflict with each other.

You can either admit the world's poor into your country or you can give your own people more free stuff, but you can't do both. The math doesn't work. Socialism with open borders is impossible. It has never worked and it never will work.

Anyone who thinks about that for about a minute understands it. So, the idea is fatally flawed. The question is how do you sell a program that can never actually work? Well you lie about it. You pretend that what's obviously true isn't true at all, and you are evil for thinking otherwise.

And, of course, that's exactly what they're doing now. Watch DNC spokesman, Jim Acosta, from earlier this month scold the President for daring to suggest that migrants from the imaginary Caravan, should it actually exists, might try to hop the U.S. border.


JIM ACOSTA, CNN: But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on--


ACOSTA: --for -- but--

TRUMP: They weren't actors.

ACOSTA: --they're not going to be doing that.

TRUMP: They weren't actors. Well no, it's true. Do you think they were actors? They weren't actors. They didn't come from Hollywood.

ACOSTA: All right.


CARLSON: They're not going to be doing that, says Democratic flack Jim Acosta. Turns out, that's precisely what they're going to be doing, and just did, over the weekend. American authorities had to shut down the border crossing at San Ysidro, California right next to San Diego after about a 1,000 people tried to rush the crossing. Watch.






CARLSON: So, that's what the DNC channels told us was never going to happen. And, course, it did happen. And it was bad. Mexican Riot Police and the U.S. Border agents both came under attack from the mob, which threw rocks at them.

With no meaningful wall along the borders, authorities used tear gas to disperse the crowd. Now, there is fairly recent precedent for doing that.

In 2013, a group of about a 100 people tried to rush the very same border crossing at San Ysidro. American authorities forced them back with pepper spray. Barack Obama was President at the time. And the incident passed with little notice. Just five years later, there is a new President and an entirely different standard.

The Left erupted at these pictures of the tear gas and accused the Administration of moral atrocities. Hawaii Senator, Brian Schatz, got so worked up he suggested that American authorities had committed a war crime by using illegal chemical weapons.

Keep in mind, the same so-called chemical weapons are used against unruly American citizens all the time, and nobody cares.

But those weren't American citizens you just saw getting tear-gassed over the weekend. They were migrants. They were holy men on a sacred privilege -
- pilgrimage north. What happened to them was inexcusable. Cue the moral outrage.


DISTRICT: Here we look at children get -- being subjected to tear gas. 
That's the United States causing that. That's outrageous.

We have seen the images of the children and the women and there has got to be a pragmatic and compassionate answer here that does not involve tear- gassing children. That is not who America is.


CARLSON: That's not what America is declares some random blowhard on CNN who has somehow been deputized to lecture you about what America is. On the Left, America is always one thing for sure, in every case, wrong.

Watch, as this MSNBC guest suggest that federal Border Patrol agents must've been lying about being attacked with rocks.


LAUREN LEADER, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, ALL IN TOGETHER: The only (ph) question is whether or not anyone actually threw rocks yesterday. NPR was reporting that actually it was relatively peaceful.


CARLSON: Yes. Relatively peaceful, except for this scene, which somehow didn't make it into many news reports.





CARLSON: So well, yes, it turns out they were, in fact, throwing rocks. But according to a lot of the analysis you may have seen today, it was in a peaceful way, gentle rock-throwing, really more tossing than throwing, playful actually.




CARLSON: Now, here's a different perspective. This is from someone who was actually there in San Ysidro and, in contrast to the people you just saw, is not a professional propagandist.


RODNEY SCOTT, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, SAN DIEGO SECTOR BORDER PATROL: I kind of challenge that this was a peaceful protest or that the majority of these people were claiming asylum. We ended up making about 42 arrests, only eight of those were females and there were only a few children involved. 
The vast majority of the people we're dealing with are adult males.

One of the groups that I watched that one of the groups that actually, several of them were arrested, they passed 10 or 15 marked Border Patrol units walking east to west, or, west to east, I'm sorry, numerous uniformed personnel, as they were chanting, waving a Honduran flag and throwing rocks at the agents. If they were truly asylum seekers, they would've just walked up with their hands up and surrendered, and that did not take place.

What I find unconscionable is that people would intentionally take children into this situation. What we saw over and over yesterday was that the group, the Caravan, as we call them, would push women and children towards the front and then begin, basically, rocking our agents.


CARLSON: So, there you have it. We'll let you reach your own conclusions about who is telling the truth about what's happening right now in our Southern border. Check the video before you make up your mind.




CARLSON: But as you ponder it, step back and ask yourself some more fundamental questions. Is there a natural limit to this kind of immigration? How many resources does America really have to share with the rest of the world? Are we as rich as we assume we are? Are you?

How many poor people can we realistically accept before we're not that rich at all but increasingly resemble the countries from which these people are fleeing?

And, by the way, if accepting more poor people really makes you more prosperous, then what exactly has happened in California over the past 30 years, which despite record levels of immigration is poorer than ever?

Now, it's possible there are good answers to these questions, logical answers. On the other hand, if there are answers, why is the Left trying to prevent you from asking the questions?

David Tafuri is a lawyer and former Obama campaign adviser, and he joins us tonight. David, thanks a lot for coming on.

So, before we get to the broader questions about where the country is going and what we can absorb, a few questions about what happened over the weekend.

I've watched all day, as Americans have defended foreign citizens who attacked American Border agents and suggested that somehow the Americans are in the wrong, when foreigners waving foreign flags throw rocks at them, how does that work?

DAVID TAFURI, ATTORNEY, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, you showed some compelling footage. And I think both sides of this debate need to take a deep breath and think about their positions. So, I agree with you, remember, that we have the right to control our border and decide who gets in.

On the other side, we also have to use rule of law when we process people who do have the right to apply for political asylum under the laws of our country, and have the right to do that and while -- while being in a peaceful place and not under the economic and serious--

CARLSON: But then--

TAFURI: --security situation that they face in Honduras.

CARLSON: Oh, but hold on -- hold on (ph)--

TAFURI: And now there's a compromise--

CARLSON: --before we -- before we (ph)--

TAFURI: --let me (ph) -- let me tell you what the--

CARLSON: --address this, wait -- wait apply (ph) -- but hold on--

TAFURI: --compromise (ph) is.

CARLSON: --let's just address the facts of this case, just for a second. If they were applying for asylum, then, why did they rush the border crossing? 
Is that what asylum application looks like?

TAFURI: Well, not all of them are probably going to meet the standard for asylum clearly now--

CARLSON: But would you say that someone who waves the flag of a foreign country, as he rushes your border station, is eligible for asylum?

TAFURI: Well, I don't understand why they would be holding their flag when they're running from that country. So, that's a good point. But some of

CARLSON: Well what if they rush the (ph)--

TAFURI: --some of them--

CARLSON: --what if they try and bum-rush the Border agents? Doesn't that immediately disqualify them?

TAFURI: Well we both agree that they have no right to bum-rush our -- our border. And we have the right to use force, not lethal force, but a non- lethal force to prevent them from coming across.

And for those who threw rocks, it was right for our Border Patrol agents to arrest them and even to use tear gas if that's what they needed to do to stop them from coming across--

CARLSON: Then why is everyone -- I -- I--

TAFURI: --but at the same time--

CARLSON: --I agree with you. Hold on--

TAFURI: --yes.

CARLSON: --why is everyone lying about this? Why--

TAFURI: Because--

CARLSON: --why is the DNC and all the people who work for them, Acosta and all the buffoons you see on television, why are they demanding that we not believe our eyes that there's no Caravan, they're telling us, they would never hop the border, you're a racist if you think they're attacking us. 
Why are they lying to us, do you think?

TAFURI: Well it's not for me to explain why what they're saying. What -- what -- what I want to do is to talk about what is a sensible solution to


TAFURI: --which is the compromise that was reached in October between the U.S., Mexico, and UNHCR, which is the UN Refugee Agency, which is these people stay in Mexico.

They are given housing. They can stay there. And they are allowed to -- to apply for political asylum in the U.S. while in Mexico. And during that time, they will be processed legally and their rights will be adjudicated via our process.

CARLSON: So -- so--

TAFURI: And if they don't meet the standard, they can't come in. And the -- many of them, in the meantime, will likely find jobs in Mexico--

CARLSON: But what about us?

TAFURI: --or go home--

CARLSON: OK. No, I hear you (ph) look--

TAFURI: --and that's already happened.

CARLSON: --but all the --what I find so strike -- and look, I just want to be really clear as I have been many times. I have total sympathy for someone who wants to come here. I'm glad to be a citizen, OK? And I--

TAFURI: Good, yes.

CARLSON: --I understand why they want to be.

But what about our interests like how many people can we absorb, because no one's even pretending this is going to make us a better or richer country like that's a lie and everyone knows it. It's going to make us poorer, obviously, accepting a lot of poor people when automation is making our own jobs go away.

So, how many people can we accept before this country really changes for the worse, seriously? It's a serious question.

TAFURI: Well, I mean we have -- we have -- we have--

CARLSON: Why is nobody asking that question?

TAFURI: --different views of where America is. You paint America to be this feeble state that can barely deal with a couple thousand people--

CARLSON: No, no, like I'm (ph)--

TAFURI: --who want to be processed completely (ph)--

CARLSON: --we have 22 million people here--

TAFURI: --I think we are still the wealthiest, strongest country in the

CARLSON: But is it good for us?

TAFURI: --and we also -- we -- we also have--

CARLSON: But is it good for us?

TAFURI: --accepted many immigrants.


TAFURI: Everyone here--

CARLSON: No, but--

TAFURI: --unless you're Native American, you are an immigrant.

CARLSON: --no, but you're giving me a--

TAFURI: Just it doesn't matter how far--

CARLSON: --rhetorical answer.

TAFURI: --you go back to (ph)--

CARLSON: You're appealing the session (ph)--

TAFURI: --so -- no, but let me answer--

CARLSON: --no, no, no but--

TAFURI: --because--

CARLSON: --a real answer like what's the number?

TAFURI: --because--

CARLSON: So, we got 320 million people. I have got a bunch of kids. I plan to die in this country. And I kind of want to know what it's going to look like, and I want a voice in that. So, what can I expect? How many more people do we let in before it's like it's enough?

TAFURI: Well we're letting in far fewer this year and last year than we

CARLSON: But what's a good number. Where's--

TAFURI: --before and we're--

CARLSON: --what should I (ph) look forward to?

TAFURI: --but and -- and we have an immigration problem, which is we have too many people here who are here unlawfully. We need to deal with that problem. But we can't completely cut off immigration.

CARLSON: But then no one (ph)--

TAFURI: We have to have sensible immigration. We have to protect our border but not--

CARLSON: I know what -- I know what the bumper stickers are.

TAFURI: --close our border.

CARLSON: I just want to know I want someone to tell me 50 years from now, here's what America will look like.

TAFURI: Well that I mean--

CARLSON: But no one wants to have that conversation because--

TAFURI: --that's -- that debate--

CARLSON: --because it's--

TAFURI: --Tucker, that debate--

CARLSON: --ha-ha-ha, you know why.

TAFURI: --it's nice to have that debate here. But that debate needs to take place in Congress. Congress has to pass--

CARLSON: I don't hear it anywhere.

TAFURI: --an immigration law that makes these decisions.

CARLSON: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't (ph)--

TAFURI: It sets numbers--

CARLSON: --let's--

TAFURI: --and it decides who--

CARLSON: --let's have a real conversation.

TAFURI: --how many people we're going to let in and from what--

CARLSON: And let's do it on -- because no one--

TAFURI: --countries.

CARLSON: --else is doing it, I want it on this show. This is the only show

TAFURI: OK. We'll--

CARLSON: --actually has that conversation. And no one will engage with me.

TAFURI: I'm engaging with you.

CARLSON: Thank you, David. Great to see you.

TAFURI: Thank you.

CARLSON: Brandon Judd is President of the National Border Patrol Council and he joins us tonight. Brandon, thanks a lot for coming on. Do you think it's -- I -- I'm really struck by the waving the foreign flag and throwing the rock.

So, we're told -- and I think, it's true, in some cases, people want to come and they want to be part of America, and they're good people. And I absolutely believe that. But if someone's waving a foreign flag on our border and throwing rocks, isn't that person instantly disqualified from consideration?

And -- and that's why people are calling this an invasion. How is it not an invasion when you have thousands of people that are bum-rushing our border, waving another country's flag and throwing rocks at our law enforcement agents?

That's absolutely ridiculous to -- to consider that we're even talking about this right now.

CARLSON: So -- so, the question is how much would you have to hate your own country to make excuses for that kind of behavior?

JUDD: Yes. You know, and -- and -- and let's be honest. How much do they really hate their country if they are waiving their own American flag--

CARLSON: No, I mean -- I mean the buffoons--

JUDD: --but yes, you're talking about the Liberal -- yes, you're talking -- you're talking about the Liberal--

CARLSON: --on television who are doing that (ph).

JUDD: --media.

CARLSON: But -- but wait, if I could blame one group, it's not the migrants looking for higher wages--

JUDD: No, it's the Liberal media that's--

CARLSON: --I get it.

JUDD: --that's inviting them.

CARLSON: It's the people making excuses--

JUDD: Yes.

CARLSON: --for inexcusable behaviors.

JUDD: The apologists, absolutely.

Look when -- when you -- when you're constantly going on the news, and you're constantly vilifying the good people and -- and you're glamorizing the bad people, who are committing atrocious acts, more people are going to do that.

And that's one of the magnets that draw -- that are drawing people here. 
And that's why we face such a problem on the border. This debate's going to continue to rage until the Democrats finally say, "We want border security. 
Border security is what the vast majority of the American public wants. We want it too. Let's get it done."

CARLSON: I always think about the guys who are tasked with carrying out our laws that Congress passes, by the way. The buffoons yelling about this are the ones who could change it if they wanted. What it must be like to be a Border Patrol agent, ICE agent, and to turn on the TV and watch some chin- tugger call you a Nazi?

JUDD: It -- it's -- it's horrible. It's -- it's demoralizing. It makes you second-guess where this country is going when, again, I love this country, which is one of the reasons why I am a Border Patrol Agent.

It's one of the reasons why I put on a uniform and go out and patrol the border. It's to -- it's to keep this country safe and to have people calling me a Nazi for enforcing the laws that Democrats passed. Remember, this policy by which we deployed this tear gas, that's an Obama policy.

That policy was written under the Obama Administration and implemented under the Obama Administration. Yet, you don't hear people talking about that. They just want to embarrass President Trump--

CARLSON: Well how can that be true--

JUDD: --who's the one they're after (ph).

CARLSON: --because I saw -- I mean I saw today where the Senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz, compared it to a war crime.

JUDD: That's rhetoric. That's -- that's politics. Again, we continually get politicized in this country. Our law enforcement is constantly being politicized.

Tucker, you'll be the first person to say if a law enforcement agent or officer does something wrong that person should be held accountable. The problem is, is we're holding our law enforcement officers and agents accountable for not doing anything wrong--

CARLSON: I've noticed.

JUDD: --just because you don't like them or you don't like the mission that they perform, all of a sudden, they become bad guys.

CARLSON: Well, you see these demagogues standing up and saying, "If you dare carry out the law that I passed, you're in violation of some of God's law or something," it's like total insanity.

JUDD: Exactly. And that's why it becomes so difficult to recruit law

CARLSON: Well, of course, that's right. And it's the same--

JUDD: --officers, agents in that context (ph)--

CARLSON: --with the cops. I mean who would, honestly, want -- we need cops. 
We need Border Patrol agents.

JUDD: Right.

CARLSON: Who'd want to be one?

JUDD: Yes. Why?

CARLSON: It's people are not thinking through the implications of this.

JUDD: No, they're not.

CARLSON: Brandon, thanks very much.

JUDD: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Great to see you.

Even Hillary Clinton appears to have begun to realize that open borders are not sustainable, certainly in a democracy. Others on the Left may be realizing it too. And one of the smartest of that groups joins us next.

Plus, George Papadopoulos going to jail today. His wife joins us to explain how sending her husband to jail makes America a lot safer. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Hillary Clinton typically says very predictable things. But recently, she said something unexpected and interesting.

In an interview with The Guardian, Hillary Clinton warned that mass immigration into Europe may need to slow down because it is driving a rise in political extremism and volatility. And she's on to something.

When governments adamantly refuse to listen to the public, the public may start looking for alternatives. Now, many on the Left are attacking Hillary Clinton for her flash of insight. One person who is not is Angela Nagle.

She just wrote maybe the most interesting piece in the last six months. 
It's called The Left Case against Open Borders. And she joins us tonight. 
Angela Nagle, thank you for coming on.


CARLSON: I'll -- I'll say, I -- I have no idea what the rest of your politics are. But I thought this was such a smart and brave piece. I can't imagine what kind of reaction you got to it.

But tell me if I'm mischaracterizing it. You're making the case that open borders may harm low-wage workers in the country whose borders are open. Is that a -- a fair statement of what you're saying?

NAGLE: Yes. I mean I think it's -- it's kind of a disaster for working people on both sides. Countries that have a -- a lot of problems with, you know, emigration with brain drain--


NAGLE: --simply can't keep their professional class. And then the -- the -- the countries that migrants tend to move to, I mean this low wage migrants and, you know, it's -- it's not their fault. We shouldn't blame the migrants. But, you know, we--

CARLSON: I agree.

NAGLE: --we really need to start putting pressure on businesses and employers. The -- the -- the conversation has all been around ICE and the border. But the truth is if you don't put a lot of pressure on the employers, you know, the -- the migration situation is going to continue to be in a state of (ph) crisis.

CARLSON: Well, I agree with that. And one of the most bewildering things in the last couple of years is watching not people on the -- the actual Left, I think you're on the actual Left, but the sort of American Liberal Left taking the side of Tyson's chicken or some other big employer, in effect. 
When did that happen? When did that change take place?

NAGLE: I'm not exactly sure when it happened. But like a lot of these things, you know, there -- there is this kind of bubble around the media class, who change a position on something overnight and then the rest of the world wakes up and finds that this moral taboo has been erected kind of overnight.

But, you know, as I said in the piece, you know, billionaire-funded free- market think tanks have been churning out open borders ideology for years now.

And it's -- it's a shame that -- that people on the -- who should be offering an alternative that places, you know, the -- the -- the lot of workers at its center, but also the relationship between the kind of like almost imperial relationship between the -- the big world dominated economies and others.

I mean, right now, we're seeing this really tragic situation on the border. 
And the thing is, you know, I -- I, you know, defend in the piece, America's right to have borders and to have a sovereign nation.


NAGLE: But, you know, Trump was supposed to be the America First guy. And the -- the -- the truth is that, you know, a lot of time with American foreign policy, America is not respecting the sovereignty of other nations whether it's through--

CARLSON: I agree.

NAGLE: --you know, military interventions in the Middle East or economic interventions in Latin America, and we're seeing the consequences of that now. But it's just a very shallow debate where we just--

CARLSON: I agree. I agree. I can't believe--

NAGLE: --yes.

CARLSON: --I'm agreeing with you, but I am. And I, again, I respect your braveness. I'm sure you took a lot of heat for this. But I hope that it starts a -- a much-needed conversation--

NAGLE: I hope so too.

CARLSON: --on the Left. Thank you, Angela Nagle. I appreciate it.

NAGLE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Author and Columnist, Mark Steyn, joins us. So Mark, there (ph) you heard someone on the actual American Left make the point that--


CARLSON: --I think we've been talking about for a couple years now that the people who are telling you they're on the side of civil rights are actually on the side of some creepy global corporation that wants to reduce your rights. Why has nobody said this until like her?

STEYN: Well, I think it's -- it's because the -- the so-called globalists actually have prioritized their own virtue signaling over the interests of the masses.


STEYN: I find it interesting as -- as one Irishman to an Irish lady that that Angela Nagle spent most of her life in Ireland, which has always had open borders with England. And she--


STEYN: --quotes in the piece Karl Marx pointing out that when -- when Irish
-- large numbers of Irishmen went to England, it suited the bosses because it depressed wages. And it also set -- it also created two groups of the working class, so that the English-working class resented the Irish-working class, and the Irish-working class resented the English-working class, so it was in the bosses' interest.


STEYN: And that's now actually the situation that the Democrats are inflicting on America. I saw Geraldo today and he was going on about how the President needs to be more compassionate. We need more compassion with immigration, compassion, compassion, compassion.

Again, to quote Angela Nagle's piece, I don't see what the hell is so compassionate about there being more Somali doctors in Chicago than there are in the whole of Somalia, which is--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --a nation of 18 (ph) million people. What's compassionate about denuding developing countries of their best and brightest, so that if you want to see a doctor in Somalia, you're screwed because all the Somali doctors are in Chicago?

CARLSON: Why does nobody make that point? You know -- how are we helping if one third of the population of El Salvador lives here--


CARLSON: --why are we surprised when El Salvador is a mess?

STEYN: No, I think that's -- but -- but I think, again, it's to do with the elitist worldview. If you look at a Left progressive elite 60 years ago, their domestic staff were mostly Black, and that makes the progressives feel a little uncomfortable now, makes the Barbra Streisand class feel a little uncomfortable. So, they actually now prefer to have Hispanic, Latin


STEYN: --whatever immigrants as their domestic class. But -- but basically, this kind of mass immigration depresses workers' wages in developing countries and operates as a brain drain in -- in developed countries, it's
-- it depresses wages, and in the developing world, it's a massive brain drain.

It works in nobody's advantage except for the big corporations and virtue signaling Leftist elites.

CARLSON: God (ph), that's so nicely put. You are one of the crispest summarizers I've ever met. Mark Steyn, thank you very much.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: George Papadopoulos went to jail today. You can unlock the back door and let the kids play outside. Phew! We're now safer. We'll talk to his wife about how much safer now that he's in jail. Stay tuned.


CARLSON: Former Trump Campaign Adviser, George Papadopoulos, reported to jail today. He's serving a 14-day sentence. Supposedly, that sentence is necessary so that Robert Mueller can protect the rest of us and American democracy itself from the mortal threat of Russian operatives hiding in the bushes.

Is there a single person in the United States of America who believes that? 
And if they don't believe that, if they know it's a lie, because obviously it is, what is the point of putting George Papadopoulos behind bars or any of these people?

Many are being financially ruined, their lives destroyed by the Mueller investigation. Is it achieving anything? Is it part of a partisan vendetta? 
What is the point?

Simona Papadopoulos is George Papadopoulos' wife. She's been a tireless advocate in his behalf. She joins us tonight.

First, I'm -- of -- of course, our sympathies to you that your husband is now behind bars. I just want to make sure we're absolutely clear on this. 
Is there evidence that he worked for the Russian government to subvert our democracy?

SIMONA PAPADOPOULOS, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS' WIFE: Hi, Tucker. Thanks for inviting me. I'm -- tonight, I feel a lot of emotions. Most -- mostly, I feel defeated and scared, scared not only for the 14 days of jail time but mostly because something like as -- as completely groundless and based on inexistent contacts with Russian officials.

I always stress and have been very vocal about the possibility for George to draw (ph) his plea agreements. He walked today into the jail with a lot of courage and resilience. But at the same time, I feel this decision very unfair.

I'm not talking about the decision of the Judge but all the incriminating process fabricated by Mueller. This is clearly a fabrication. We know today many evidences came out recently about zero level of involvement in the Russia collusion--


PAPADOPOULOS: --scheme. So, I don't understand, honestly, how misremembering the date of the meeting with the Maltese professor and not as, some channel said, his Russian contacts could lead today to the -- this jail in Wisconsin, where -- where I walked him in a very stressful way.

I feel, honestly, defeated. This is an -- this is the democracy as a whole was (ph) undermined. I think this should never happen to any citizen and any American, any human being involved and destroyed in -- assassinated in this way, because today there is the stigma on the George reputation as for being a--


PAPADOPOULOS: --a traitor. He never betrayed anyone. He simply didn't deliver the information that Mueller was probably trying to extort from him. I'm sorry if I'm very straight talking about this point, but it is my strong belief. It looks to me an awkward situation that created that (ph) put it on all the -- his life and also my life.

I married George--

CARLSON: Of course, of course.

PAPADOPOULOS: --during this, you know, and I profoundly believed in him. 
And I -- I'm a personal witness of the case. I know Joseph Mifsud is no Russian agent. I know this man since five years. And I can't understand how the meeting with this Maltese professor could lead to the Crossfire Hurricane first and then to George incarceration--


PAPADOPOULOS: --incarceration today.

CARLSON: Well, he volunteered to help the Trump campaign. That may have been his real crime.


CARLSON: We should care if an innocent man goes to jail even for two weeks, and nobody cares, and we should care.


CARLSON: Simona, thank you very much.

PAPADOPOULOS: I agree, completely.

CARLSON: I know that you care, of course, it's your husband. Thanks for joining us.

PAPADOPOULOS: Thank you so much. Thank you.

CARLSON: Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 
He joins us tonight. So, without getting -- Dr. Hanson, thank you very much for coming on tonight.


CARLSON: There are so many details and threads in this story. But I -- I keep wanting to come back to the core allegation, which is that American citizens colluded with foreign government to rig the election.

Is there any evidence of that? And if there isn't, then why are so many people seeing their lives destroyed?

HANSON: Well there isn't in -- in the terms of the Russian collusion mythology. I mean 18 months ago and $25 million or $30 million ago, if you had said we came up with Carter Page as a possible suspect, he hasn't been indicted or Mr. Papadopoulos or now we're going after Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone because they might have been playing Fast and Loose with the truth. That's like saying PG Bar -- P.J. Barnum exaggerated.

If that's what this whole thing was about, it's because -- I -- I could call it as circus but it's a tragic circus. And what you get the impression, Tucker, is that what you cannot get in quality indictments, you're trying to justify with a quantity of indictments.


HANSON: You're indicting everybody. And remember that this thing didn't start off well, Tucker. What starts off badly ends up worse. This -- this whole idea of the Special Counsel came because James Comey had leaked classified -- confidential, maybe classified documents.

That prompted his friend Rod Rosenstein who was very much involved in a FISA warrant that was not truly candid to surveil Carter Page. And then their mutual friend, Robert Mueller, was selected and then he also -- almost immediately, picked a number of partisans.

And remember, the media gushing, called them the Dream-Team, the Allstars, the army. Two of them had given funds to the Hillary -- had defended Hillary Clinton associated clients. And we know what Mr. Strzok and Mrs. -- Ms. Page did.

And out of that nexus, we were told that they were going to find people who would -- who had tampered with the election. And this -- the final irony is that of all of these misdemeanors that he's trying all over the world coldly (ph), there were felonies right under his nose--

CARLSON: Exactly.

HANSON: --because--

CARLSON: It's right.

HANSON: --Christopher Steele was a foreign national, and he could be indicted very easily, and he could be extradited.

We have -- we -- unlike the Russians, we know that a presidential candidate hired through a firewall, GPS, Christopher Steele to find dirt on her opponent, and he did so, and he used Russian sources which were also foreign national, and then they used the auspices of the federal government, CIA, the FBI, and the State Department to seed those unproven allegations into an election error (ph) climate.

And they also, as we know, used that dossier to mislead a FISA Judge without telling him about its genesis. And out of all that, we don't get anything.

I think, in conclusion, President Trump should just declassify these documents that have been requested by the Congressional committees--

CARLSON: I agree.

HANSON: --stop the redaction and then give a speech and say, I want to restore the sanctity of the Special Counsel. I want to get a non-partisan attorney and I want to give him about 90 days to find out whether there was one thing, collusion. And if he can't, no problem. But if he can, it -- we'll see where it goes. And I think Christopher Steele has a lot of legal exposure.

CARLSON: And certainly start by declassifying the stuff, so the rest of us can make a judgment, which I think we deserve at this point.

HANSON: I think--

CARLSON: Professor, thank you--

HANSON: --I think it'd be wise to do so.

CARLSON: --very much.

HANSON: And that's -- it would be the ethical thing to do as well.

CARLSON: I agree with that completely. Thanks.

Well a few months ago, we talked to a Radio Show Host who told us that Twitter presciently would eventually silence him. It has happened. Why has Twitter silenced him? Our investigation into that is next.



CARLSON: Well just a few months ago, big tech texted -- tested its powers by blacklisting Alex Jones from every major tech platform all at once. No one really said anything about it because Alex Jones, Ew! We're not allowed to like him. We're supposed (ph) to think it's OK that he's de-platformed.

So, of course, the tech oligarchs were emboldened. And if they can silence one person, why not silence more? And, of course, now they are.

Jesse Kelly is a two-time Congressional candidate. He hosts a radio show in Houston. Just a few months ago he came on this show and predicted that Twitter eventually would censor him.



CARLSON: You wrote this piece that I thought was really compelling about Alex Jones. And you said "Look, I don't agree with Alex Jones, his views but that's not the point." The point, as you articulated, was if you can silence this guy because you don't like what he says, why can't they silence you or me?

JESSE KELLY, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS COMBAT VETERAN, THE JESSE KELLY SHOW HOST: That's the -- that is the point, Tucker. And they're coming for you and me next.



CARLSON: Well, Kelly turned out to be right. Just this past Sunday, yesterday, Twitter shut down his account, and they did not explain why. 
Tonight, we're trying to find out what happened. Jesse Kelly joins us live.

Jesse, thanks a lot for coming on. You knew this was coming. You presciently predicted it. Why did Twitter take you off its platform?

KELLY: Nobody knows. Quit -- Twitter kicked me off the platform because I was a mainstream voice on the Right that spoke the truth, Tucker. And -- and that's all anybody knows. They've given me no explanation, as they told Congress they would give explanations.

I -- all they sent was an email that said, "You are permanently banned and you can't appeal it for repeated rules violations." Only, I don't violate their rules. I don't cuss at people on there. I don't harass people on there. I don't do any of those ugly things that some people do.

So, Twitter is going to become what they are. All of a sudden, my account vanished like a Hillary Clinton email.

CARLSON: Did you call them? If -- I mean it's not -- let me just say, if you're in your business or my business that's not a small thing. I mean that's the way, one of the ways that you communicate with your listeners, one of the ways you disseminate your ideas, the main way you do. So, did you call Twitter to find out, or have any contact with them at all?

KELLY: No number to call. In fact, once they banish your account, it wasn't a suspension, they completely banished me, so I'm not even able to log in and email Twitter support.

A friend of mine sent me a couple email addresses for people that supposedly work at Twitter. But I'm sure they're not going to answer any of those.

It's -- they just -- they did exactly what I said they would do. They came for Alex Jones first because he's a nut job and they wanted to see how the Right would react. They got him. And I knew they were coming for me. 
They'll come for you too.

CARLSON: So, when -- when they did come for Alex Jones, the idea was "Well, you know, you can have him because he's embarrassing," and no one really said anything about it, in a -- in my opinion, a very cowardly and stupid way.

Do you think if conservatives, or not even conservatives, people who dissent from the conventional view of everything that we're now required to believe at gunpoint, if though -- if the rest of us start to complain, do you think we can push back against censorship?

KELLY: I think we can. And I think that's where the real power is. See, it's not a big deal that I got kicked off Twitter. It hurts Twitter worse than it hurt me because they finally kicked off somebody that woke everybody on the ride-up (ph).

People were now starting to realize what Twitter has become. Twitter's nothing but a platform. It's a blank piece of paper that somehow one day woke up and decided that they were the artist, that they were in control of what gets put on that piece of paper, and that's not where their power lies.

So, if they continue along this path, it's going to be nothing but two feminists screaming at each other because one of them accidentally found a boyfriend.

CARLSON: Am I misunderstanding this or do the -- do the social media platforms have a Congressional exemption that allows them not to be held legally responsible of things that are said on their platform? There -- in other words, they're not media companies and they can't be sued as--

KELLY: That's--

CARLSON: --media companies--

KELLY: --that's--

CARLSON: --can be sued. But now they're acting like media companies, how does that work?

KELLY: How it works is they have the best of both worlds. You have it exactly right. They are treated like media platforms meaning they are just an open site where people can post what they want as--


KELLY: --long as they're not inciting violence.

Only, they're acting like ThinkProgress. They're acting like The New York Times because these radical voices on the Left never get censored. Even Farrakhan, that complete scumbag that has a tweet still up comparing Jews to termites, he still has an account.


KELLY: But I post things about Velveeta and mine gets banished.

CARLSON: Jesse, thank you for that. I appreciate it.

KELLY: Appreciate you, Tucker.

CARLSON: A Federal Judge has thrown out the government's ban on a barbaric practice imported here from other countries. What exactly is going on? 
That's after the break.


CARLSON: Eight adults accused of mutilating children are going free after a Judge struck down the law they allegedly broke.

Last year, two doctors in Michigan and several other adults were charged with carrying out female genital mutilation on girls as young as seven. But now, a Federal Judge, named Bernard Friedman, has ruled that while the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, it cannot ban girls from being trafficked across state lines to be mutilated, so, the alleged child cutters get to go free.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an author and an anti-FGM activist and she joins us tonight. Ayaan, thanks a lot for coming on. I'm wondering as I have in conversation with you in the past where the outcry over this is. I -- I haven't seen this reported anywhere, really.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI, THE AHA FOUNDATION FOUNDER, FEMINIST, AUTHOR, SCHOLAR, FORMER POLITICIAN: Well, Tucker, first of all, thank you so much for having me. Thank you so much for shining a light on this once again.

CARLSON: Of course.

ALI: I -- yes, there is an outcry on one side. There's no outcry on the other. I have had so much. I've just spoken to a lawyer. We are, at The AHA Foundation, Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation, we are in discussions with a law firm that spontaneously decided to appeal this.

And it's not the only law firm, but it's the one that we are in discussions with. We need the Department of Justice to act and to act right now because if the Department of Justice appeals, we can go forward and, you know, at least, challenge the ruling of this Judge.

So, let's just put the legal stuff aside and, you know, that's a process. 
It's long. It's -- it's hard.


ALI: But I understand what you're after very much because it's the exact same sense of outrage and emotion that I have where you have all these women and feminist organizations that are challenging White privilege and racism and so on, how is it OK in the United States of America to be cutting the genitals of little Black girls? How is that not racist?


ALI: How is it possible that it's declared unconstitutional to protect little children? Many of them, of course, children of color. I don't know of White children whose genitals are cut.

CARLSON: It's such a horrible sometimes (ph)--

ALI: And--

CARLSON: --it's almost hard to talk about it. Have you -- I mean, you've spent so much time on this issue, it's so personal to you. When you make that point to feminist groups, what do they say to you?

ALI: They go into identity politics. We live in this crazy age of political correctness, of identity politics, it's all about Trump. It's hard to get people -- I've been to Congress. I've been to the Senate. I've tried to talk to people about legislation on this issue.

And what you see is that, you know, the people who are supposed to be protecting little children are terrified of being described as racist, as, you know, trying to impose whatever the American culture is on other. What
-- what happened to protecting little children?

We're talking about children five, six, seven, eight years old. We have all these states, you know, so 24, 25 of these states that will not pass legislation. We can't get a majority because they are afraid of being labeled racist.

CARLSON: It's grotesque.

ALI: Why is it -- how is it not racist, Tucker? How is it not (ph)--

CARLSON: I -- I agree with you completely.

ALI: --racist?

CARLSON: And I -- and I'm just thinking as you're speaking that we really ought to devote time regularly on this show to shining a light on anyone who would stand in the way of protecting a seven-year-old girl from being mutilated without consent. Seven-year olds cannot give consent. So, Ayaan--

ALI: And -- and it is -- just it's a--

CARLSON: --thank you.

ALI: --general human rights issue.

CARLSON: It is a human rights issue. And I hope that you will come back and I -- I think we should pound this issue until most people are aware of it, anyway, because many people are not aware of it, and we appreciate it. 
Thank you very much.

ALI: Thank you. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: An amazing new survey on political attitudes tells you what you already suspected. You're going to have to wait till after the commercial to find out what it says.


CARLSON: Well, every day and night on television, the Liberals tell you that they abhor stereotypes because they're good people and, obviously, you're not a good person. But do they mean it?

Well a new survey by the Card Game Company Cards Against Humanity has this result. In the survey, 39 percent of Democrats say it is wrong to negatively stereotype people based on where they were born.

And yet, that group also says that Southerners are more racist because they're from the south. Self-awareness was not on the quiz, apparently.

We'll be back tomorrow, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Sean Hannity, from New York, right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.