Ja'Ron Smith: Prisoners recently released would still be let go regardless of First Step Act

close

Video

Ja'Ron Smith: Prisoners recently released would still be let go regardless of First Step Act

Ja'Ron Smith, special assistant to the president, addresses prisoners being released due to the First Step Act on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," July 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well, good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Tomorrow, the former Special Counsel Robert Mueller will spend the entire day testifying before Congress, and that means that for yet another 24 hours, our leaders will fixate on the virtually nonexistent threat we supposedly face from the government of Russia. Russia. It's a show of course, it's a diversion, but our news networks will dutifully amplify it anyway. They always do.

Turn on CNN or MSNBC tomorrow at any point in the day and you will hear breathless coverage of an event that contains precisely zero news. Why are they doing this? Why are they so anxious to make you care about something that's entirely pointless? That has no effect on your life and never will? Why? Maybe so you won't notice what's actually happening in the rest of the country. Things like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my god, they came over here to talk to them that they violated. You know, they violated them. They violated them. They violated them. Oh, they're not stopping. Oh, my god. Y'all get back in your car. They're laughing at them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That video is real. It was taken in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn in New York City. It shows on NYPD officers being attacked while attempting to do their jobs. But remarkably, it wasn't the only time it happened.

Yesterday, just a few miles away in Harlem, more officers were attacked. One was hit in the head with a bucket. Watch this.

[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]

CARLSON: What are those videos? Well, what you are really watching on the tape you just saw is a society unraveling. The men we have hired to maintain order and keep us safe were assaulted and humiliated. They could do nothing in response.

They couldn't act because they know better than anyone what kind of government they work for. It's a government that favors criminals over society itself. Bill de Blasio runs the government of New York City, watch him just a month ago explain how he has told his son that New York City cops are racist murderers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-NYC, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I also want to say that something that sets me apart from all of my colleagues running in this race and that is for the last 21 years, I've been raising a black son in America. And, I have had to have very, very serious talks with my son, Dante about how to protect himself on the streets of our city and all over this country, including how to deal with the fact that he has to take special caution because there have been too many tragedies between our young men and our police, too, we saw recently in Indiana.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, it's easy to dismiss Bill de Blasio as a buffoon because he is a buffoon, but if you are a New York City cop, you can't dismiss him. The NYPD works for a Bill de Blasio. Imagine hearing your own boss denounce you as a bigot on the basis of the zero evidence. No evidence whatsoever. What effects would that have? Would it make you want to risk you like to do your job? Would it convince you just to give up? You know the answer. You just saw the video.

When cops give up like that, criminals thrive and that means that innocent people get hurt. Something similar is happening in cities across the country viewed almost every Democrat in the presidential race suddenly sounds just like Bill de Blasio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to crack down on police brutality in primarily at people of color.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Training for police officers on implicit racial bias and procedural justice because to deny it exists is to deny folks liberty and in many cases, life.

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

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: They all say it would it with total confidence like they know it's true, like they've got the data to prove it, but they don't have the data because it's not true. It's an utter lie.

Most cops are not racist and anyone who bothers to learn anything about the subject knows that. In fact, just this week, a new study, there have been others, but a new study by researchers at Michigan State and University of Maryland found no systemic racial bias at all in policing.

It turns out that whether cops are black or Hispanic or white or Asian or whatever, they have the same likelihood of using force against a criminal suspect, nor do police show bias on who they use force against. It turns out the shooting rate for different races closely matches the overall crime rate.

And in the vast majority of police shootings, the criminal suspect was armed or otherwise, appeared to pose a danger to police.

Now, obviously there are bad cops out there, of course, just as there are bad teachers out there and bad senators and an awful lot of bad lawyers, but most cops are not bigots. It is just not true. There is no evidence of it.

Maligning law enforcement though serves the short-term political interest of the Democratic Party, so they do it. But the rest of us ought to be very worried.

If you are over 40, you may remember that this used to be a much more dangerous country than it is today. Huge parts of urban America were uninhabitable because of crime. You've ever wondered, why we built those sprawling soul-less suburbs everywhere? That's why we did, because people were afraid to live in cities. And that could easily happen again, and it may.

People like Pete Buttigieg take part. Buttigieg is running around promising to cut America's prison population in half, indiscriminately, just the top 50 percent -- rapist, murderers -- it doesn't matter. They are out. Cory Booker meanwhile is promising to release a murderous drug lord calling him a nonviolent offender.

Every Democratic candidate of note now supports de facto open borders with Mexico, sanctuary cities are everywhere in America. All of these are connected by a thread. They are all attacks on law and order, but there is a deeper problem. What they really are, are attacks on society itself and they are having an effect.

Our biggest cities are now filled with filthy homeless encampments, typhus and bubonic plague has returned, for example, to Los Angeles for the first time since the Conquistadors left.

Americans are dying of drug ODs in greater numbers than were killed during Vietnam. Our schools are a joke. Young people can't get married, buy homes, or have kids. Big Tech increasingly controls what you do, what you see, what you are allowed to think. These are some of the real problems that we face in this country, problems that challenge our future as a nation. They are not small things and yet, our leaders ignore them completely.

To them, America has just two problems -- Russia and white racism. It's delusional, except, it's not really a delusion, it's a diversion. They are lying to you on purpose and hoping you won't notice.

Bernie Kerik is a former New York City Police Commissioner and he joins us tonight. Bernie Kerik, thanks very much for coming on.

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, you were a cop. You supervised the largest police department in the United States. When you see those videos of police officers being assaulted and walking back to their patrol cars or walking away, what does that tell you?

KERIK: You know what it reminds me of, Tucker? In October, I think it was October 8th, 1993, a cop in New York City by the name of John Williamson was hit in the head with a bucket filled with spackle from a building and died.

When I saw that cop get hit in the head with that bucket and the cops get tossed -- the people tossing water on them and doing what they were doing, total disrespect and disregard for the police. I think of the David Dinkins years. I think of the years that mothers had to put their young children in bathtubs worried about gunfire coming in from outside. I think about the highest crime rates, the highest murder rates in the city of New York, in the country.

Rudy Giuliani came along and changed that and you know what? Bill de Blasio is a worse than David Dinkins. Those cops walked away yesterday because they knew they would not be supported, they would not be indemnified by the city, by a mayor that despises cops and tells his son to look out for cops.

The city is completely imploding, in my opinion and all because of Bill de Blasio. And it's not only happening in New York City, it's happening all over the country. It's happening in California, it's happening in Portland, Oregon, it's happening all over the country where you have Democratic left-wing lunatic liberal mayors and governors who are letting people go out there and do what they want.

CARLSON: How long before crime rates start to really spike?

KERIK: Well, at this point you will see that start to happen because there is lawlessness in the street. When stuff like this happens, it emboldens the thugs and then, you have a mayor that villainizes the police and basically victimizes the thugs and when that happens, the thugs are going to get right in the forefront, they are going to go out and do things they shouldn't be doing.

This is minor stuff, but it's a demonstration of what happens when people have no respect for law.

CARLSON: How is it a Civil Rights victory when people in poor neighborhoods can't go to the grocery store at night or when grocery stores won't open in poor neighborhoods because they're too dangerous?

KERIK: Tucker, keep in mind, from 1990 to 1994, when we had the highest crime rates in New York City, people couldn't go anywhere. And Giuliani came in in 1994 and said, "Look, nobody wants to work, visit, live, or go to school in a place where they are not safe and as long as it's not safe, the city will implode."

For every percentage point, we reduced crime and murder in New York City, I could show you increases in economic development, in real estate value, in tourism, reductions in welfare rolls. It's -- you know, what's going on in New York City is the beginning of a turnaround to the demise of New York City and it's all because of one guy, Mayor Bill de Blasio.

CARLSON: What a sad story that is. Bernie Kerik, great to see you tonight. Thank you very much for that.

KERIK: Thank you, sir.

CARLSON: So, the First Step Act passed not long ago and was signed, it is now law. It had some bipartisan support. We were told at the time that that the First Step Act was prison reform and it would only benefit nonviolent offenders. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JA' RON SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (via phone): The only caveat, it is only focus on individuals who are nonviolent offenders.

CARRIE SHEFFIELD, HOST, BOLD: You mentioned that this is only for nonviolent offenders.

SMITH: Correct.

SHEFFIELD: Can you tell our audience the important distinction between nonviolent versus violent offenders as it relates to sentencing reform?

SMITH: Sure. These are individuals who may have been locked up, but don't have direct victims who may have lost their life or were murdered or harmed from the act of the crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, we were surprised last week -- late last week -- when we were handed information by someone in the administration, in the Trump administration, that show that hundreds of people who committed violent offenses, robbery, assault, gun charges, explosive charges, sex offenses, even murder, have been released thanks to the law. That's not what we expected at all. That's not what we were told was going to happen.

Well, the reporting got the attention of the White House and they asked to have someone come on and discuss the law and of course, we're always happy to do that. John Smith is a special assistant to the President of the United States. He was also the person you just saw in the clip moments ago and he joins us tonight. Mr. Smith, thanks very much for coming on.

SMITH: Thank you so much for having me, Tucker. Thank you so much for having me.

CARLSON: So, it's our pleasure. There seems to be a disconnect between what you said in the tape that we just showed, that this would apply only to nonviolent criminals, and the numbers that we got last night from someone in the administration showing that hundreds of violent criminals have been released. What are we to make of this?

SMITH: Sure, so what you heard me discuss was talking about sentencing reform specifically, but the First Step Act wasn't passed. This same population of people that you talked about last night would still be coming home in a couple of weeks because current law allows for them to -- people who have been prisoners who have served the time, they are allowed to come home early if they earned it. And so these are people who have turned their life around and that expands to the whole prison population.

And so that current law still exists and so, the First Step Act actually focuses on what happens when they come home. When these individuals come home, what are we going to do? because the status quo hasn't worked and a lot of these people end up turning back to crime and creating career criminals, so the First Step Act, what it does is, it focuses on people being a model citizens when they return home and actually helping improve their community and community safety.

That's why our parole law enforcement, as well as many law enforcement groups support it.

CARLSON: Right. I mean, well, I certainly agree with you that it would be nice to cut recidivism and to get people when they are released doing something useful and turn their lives around. I mean, I think we are all for that.

But, I'm confused by the explanation. So, you said that the law would not hasten the release of violent offenders, but it has. And if that's not a big deal, then why did we have to find that from the source in the administration? Why weren't these releases in a press release that you guys issued?

SMITH: Sure, so what we are talking about is good time credit. So, what I'm trying to tell you, that's a part of current law. What Congress didn't do was they clarified -- what they did do was clarify that portion of the law by allowing for individuals who are -- people who turned their life around to be able to get out through the good time credit provision over 54 days instead of 47 days.

And so that's a clarification from Congress where the B.O.P. administrators had proactively interpreted that law differently. But that law already exists and so that's not new law.

CARLSON: But not to interrupt you, but, okay, we just put on the screen a press release that you guys issued bragging about these releases. So, if - - there it is right there -- if the releases had nothing to do with the First Step Act, I'm confused by what this press release is saying that they are the results of the First Step Act.

SMITH: Let me clarify for you again, Tucker. This law currently exists, right, so under current law, individuals are able to earn good time off if they are model prisoners, right?

CARLSON: Right.

SMITH: The First Step Act, what it did was clarify that law. There was some confusion on do a person owns 47 days versus 54 days? And so what we're talking about is on average people getting 54 days on time early.

CARLSON: Okay.

SMITH: But that was current law. And so, what we want to do is create an environment where people are not returning to prison. And that's the focus of the First Step Act. It is creating -- we settled for deduction.

CARLSON: Well, look, I am for that. I am totally for that. I think we all are for that. You just can see why crime rates are starting to rise, it seems that way. The country is a patchwork of reporting, so it's hard to know exactly, but it does seem like in some places, they are rising.

And letting people out of prison is one of the fastest ways we know, from long experience, to make crime rates rise, so you can see why we'd be nervous about it, no?

SMITH: I can understand that. I mean, look, some of these things were used as scare tactics during the passage of the First Step Act, but the truth of the matter is, this followed conservative states like Texas, like Georgia, we've seen Governor Perry actually reform the system by empowering these individuals to be productive citizens once they get out, by partnering with nonprofits, faith groups, restoring the families.

They were not able to only close some prisons, but they were actually able to lower the crime rates and so, this President supported the First Step Act because it lowers crime rates. It stops people from coming out of prison and then returning.

We know that 50 percent -- fifty percent of individuals who go to prison return back to prison and 90 percent of the people who are in prison are going to get out someday, so with First Step Act, it has taken a common sense and smart approach from conservative states that we've got to focus on reducing the crime rates throughout the country, by empowering individuals to come home and be productive members of society.

CARLSON: Okay, people have been thinking about this stuff for 400 years and no one has ever figured out a way to across the board to reduce recidivism rates, but if you guys have, then that's great. I just want to make sure that the public is being protected and I know that you feel the same way.

SMITH: Well, it's based off of evidence.

CARLSON: Okay, good.

SMITH: It is based off of evidence.

CARLSON: Mr. Smith, thank you very much.

SMITH: Thanks so much for your time.

CARLSON: Thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate it. There's new evidence tonight that Jim Comey spent his final days running the F.B.I. lying to his boss, the President and spying on the President. What does that reveal about the Mueller investigation and our corrupt bureaucracy? We will investigate that question after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: President Trump fired Jim Comey, you will remember and doing that was the original justification for Robert Mueller's investigation. Democrats told us the firing was obstruction of justice.

But now, more than a year later, we're learning more details. An upcoming investigative report could reveal that Comey was lying to the President and spying on the President just before he was canned.

Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge is on the story and has more for us tonight, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Tucker. Our sources could not independently confirm the Real Clear investigations report that former F.B.I. Director James Comey also tried building a conspiracy case against the President using a standard post- election intelligence briefing to gather information on Mr. Trump.

Significantly, the alleged use of briefings to gather information on the Trump transition team first came to light in April when Fox News broke the story that text messages between then F.B.I. agent Peter Strzok and then F.B.I. lawyer Lisa Page as they also discussed using a similar briefing with the incoming Vice President Mike Pence to identify sources inside the White House, track lines of questioning and assess demeanor.

Fox News got those text messages to the Vice President's office with the Vice President responding he was quote, "Deeply offended to learn two disgraced agents considered infiltrating his team."

Meantime, two sources close to the process said Justice Department Inspector General Michael Lee Horowitz may not be ready to release his report into alleged surveillance abuse in targeting of the Trump campaign until September after key witnesses including the author of the anti-Trump dossier came forward at the 11th hour -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Catherine Herridge, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Well, Chris Swecker is former Executive Assistant Director of the F.B.I. and he joins us tonight to unravel some of the mysteries that arise based on what you just heard from Catherine Herridge. Mr. Swecker, thanks very much for coming on.

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I.: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, if it is true that the head of the F.B.I. was spying on his boss, the President almost immediately after the inauguration, would there be a justification for that? Would that be legal? Is there precedent for it? What's your take?

SWECKER: Oh, Tucker, there's no absolutely no precedent for it. It would be difficult to overstate how egregious and a violation of the Attorney General guidelines and probably several criminal statutes, that type of operation would be without predication.

And in this case, you know, assuming that these two sources are correct, I don't see any predication whatsoever. And certainly no documentation of an intelligence assessment or counterintelligence assessment as Comey described it in his book or a preliminary inquiry or a full investigation, and those are the only three types of investigations there are.

So, there would have had to been some sort of documented predication for him to do that.

CARLSON: If that existed, if a document --

SWECKER: Right.

CARLSON: If that justified that existed, we would -- we would know, right?

SWECKER: Right. This sounds -- I mean, I've read the article, it sounds like a rogue operation on the part of the F.B.I. Director, if it's true. I mean, I thought all along that Deputy Director McCabe's initiation of an investigation out of the Deputy Director's Office was thoroughly unprecedented.

The Deputy Director should not be running any investigation whatsoever, and the Director himself should not be operational in any investigation. So, there's -- it's hard to the number all the things that are wrong with the things that are described in this article; again, assuming that these two sources are true.

CARLSON: But as someone who spent a lot of time and management over at the F.B.I., you see this, and your first thought is, this is bizarre and rotten.

SWECKER: You can can't make this stuff up this. This is about as shady as it gets. I mean, we know -- at least many -- myself and many of my former colleagues and current F.B.I. agents, who I hear from think that Jim Comey was and his inner circle were just off making their own set of rules, doing their own thing for their own personal reasons, primarily because they just dislike the President. That's not how it works. Of course, Tucker, as you well know.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I grew up getting lectures from liberals about J. Edgar Hoover, and how he went rogue and that was bad.

SWECKER: And anything J. Edgar Hoover was accused of would pale in comparison to this. I mean, this is seven days in May. This is an inner circle of self-appointed moral guardians taking over the presidency and trying to take it down but for their own personal reasons. I don't even think it was political. I think they just personally dislike the President as part of that inner circle.

CARLSON: I mean, that, you know, the democracy is fake if things like this happen, obviously.

SWECKER: Yes.

CARLSON: Chris, thanks very much for your perspective. It's shocking.

SWECKER: Yes, thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Everyday, more questions arise about the past of Ilhan Omar, she won't answer any of the questions. A Minnesota lawmaker says it is time for a full investigation. Did she lie in order to get here from Somalia? We should know that.

Plus, a transgender activist says it's a human right to have other people touch your genitals -- we're not making that up. That story from Canada will shock you. It is the cutting edge of progressive justice. Stay tuned for details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, here's a weird story out of Canada, which used to be a kind of staid boring country. Immigrant business owners are being harassed out of business, businesses shut down -- they're being dragged for kangaroo courts having their lives destroyed. Why is this happening? If you guessed racism? No, it's radical gender activist.

Jessica Yaniv is a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman and so to make a political point, Yaniv has been traveling across British Columbia, visiting beauty salons that provide Brazilian bikini waxing for women.

The only problem is, Yaniv has male genitalia, so some of the women who work at the salons have refused to wax him. Some had religious objections to it; others were just too uncomfortable. But in Canada, it doesn't matter. To punish them, Yaniv is taking those salons before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and claiming there's a human right to make another person touch your private parts. And so far, the caving government agrees. Yaniv is winning.

One woman had to close her business following the complaint. Another, a single mother paid Yaniv $2,500.00 simply to go away. One journalist who was covering it was banned from Twitter simply for observing the truth that Yaniv is in fact a biological male, which is true.

Why is all of this happening? Well, it's not to conclude the obvious -- because Canada is a sick society. Only a society that hates itself would allow itself to be bullied by someone like Jessica Yaniv. Hopefully, America will never reach that point, but many people are doing their best to make certain that we do. We should resist that if we can.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar continues to be a walking indictment of America's immigration priorities. In a tweet last night, she lamented that America isn't doing enough to help illegal immigrants get free abortions. For real. That's the problem that needs solving.

Who is going to pay for illegal aliens abortions? We need to -- taxpayers. Well, she has many things to say about that, though Omar has almost nothing to say about her own past. She refuses to answer questions about it, questions that involve serious questions -- tax fraud, perjury, possibly even a marriage to her brother.

Steve Drazkowski is a Republican State Representative in Minnesota. Earlier today, he formally requested that a House Ethics Committee launch a full investigation into Congresswoman Omar's past. Representative Drazkowski joins us tonight. Representative Drazkowski, thanks very much for coming on.

STEVE DRAZKOWSKI, R-MINN., STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Good evening, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, what don't we know? What questions does the Congresswoman still refuse to answer?

DRAZKOWSKI: Well, Tucker, she refuses to answer everything from who her siblings are to details about her immigration documents that she has shown briefly to one reporter on her phone. Anything that you ask her about or that people ask her about, she simply just ignores or may call you a racist.

CARLSON: Well, she will definitely call you a racist. I mean, she has made a career of that, in fact, I would say that's been the engine of her political career, calling other people racist, but there are -- this is not a crackpot theory. It is not birtherism, they are serious questions about whether or not she committed immigration fraud and then committed perjury and lying about it. Why wouldn't law enforcement agencies be looking into that?

DRAZKOWSKI: Absolutely. And that's what we want them to do. As a matter of fact, Tucker, today we held a press conference in order to ask the U.S. House Ethics Committee to investigate this and get to the bottom of it. We also launched a website, a citizen petition at omartruth.com to engage citizens, to hold Congress accountable so that they can investigate. And end the cover ups that we are seeing by Representative Omar.

CARLSON: Well, I mean, let me ask you this. If she were not a famous Member of Congress, how hard would it be to get law enforcement to investigate these questions given the amount of evidence that she committed perjury and fraud?

DRAZKOWSKI: The evidence is in huge piles now. It's not being refuted by the left or by the mainstream media. Their fact checkers have not come out and said, "This stuff isn't accurate, it hasn't happened." Because it is. The information that David Steinberg and others have put together is very compelling.

There are public documents that are filed that shows that she committed perjury eight times, not to mention the tax fraud stuff that we found. We're working hard to bring this to light. I appreciate your help, Mr. Steinberg, and we did our bit today to bring forward this to the House Ethics Committee because we think they need to act.

We encourage citizens to get behind it. There's a citizen petition at omartruth.com.

CARLSON: She's a liar. I mean, she's clearly lying. She said she married in quote, "her faith tradition," but the record shows she was married by a Christian Minister, and she's a Muslim. So, I mean, there's a seat here and it's not just a question of ethics. It's a question of laws. I mean, she is an immigrant to this country, she clearly violated immigration law and clearly lied about it.

DRAZKOWSKI: Tucker, she does not have respect for our laws. And it's actually a great disdain for laws and that's what we're seeing. The end justifies a mean for Representative Omar, that's what we've seen over again, with all the campaign finance stuff. That's what we've seen with the cover ups she's done around her sham marriage, and each time she has to cover it up in order to get where she wants to go.

CARLSON: That's exactly right and the left certainly abets the cover up as always. Thanks a lot for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.

DRAZKOWSKI: Thank you.

CARLSON: Meanwhile, here's the case of another lawmaker, Erica Thomas. She is tripling down tonight on her fake hate crime. She now says insulting her should be a criminal offense. It should be a crime to insult her. She is not joking. A remarkable story, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Last week, Senator Josh Hawley spoke to the National Conservatism Conference in Washington. He delivered a great speech, legitimately smart and interesting, it's online if you'd like to watch it, it's worth the time.

So naturally, because the speech was effective, the left is coming out of the woodwork to accuse Hawley of crime think. They're now saying he's an anti-Semite. Anti-Semite. Why? Well, because during his speech, Hawley accurately described America's elites as being globalist cosmopolitans with no real attachment to America, because they are.

Everyone knows that. Nobody thinks Hawley is an anti-Semite, if they did, they probably would have been upset a few years ago when President Obama said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: Now, it should be noted that this new international elite, the professional class that supports them, differs in important respects from the ruling aristocracies of old.

A decent percentage consider themselves liberal in their politics. Modern and cosmopolitan in their outlook.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It was true when Obama said it, it was true when Senator Hawley said it. Senator Hawley joins us tonight. Senator, thanks a lot for coming on.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY, R-MO: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So did we mis-describe that? You're being called an anti-Semite for describing many of our elites as not attached to the United States?

HAWLEY: Yes, I guess that's right. I mean, what I've learned Tucker, is that when it comes to liberals, there's only one thing that they love more than being elitist and that's accusing everybody else a big bigot in order to shut down speech, in order to devalue the views of the American people. They say, "Oh, you're a bigot, you're a racist," because they don't want to admit what they have done.

They don't want to admit what their policies have done -- shipping jobs overseas, hurting working families, keeping wages flat for decades. That's their legacy. And it's time that they owned it.

CARLSON: So, what you're saying is that they use cries of bigotry as a diversion, to keep you occupied on the defensive, so you won't notice how badly they've mismanaged the country?

HAWLEY: Yes, you know, I mean, it is strange as you point out that when Barack Obama makes the same point that an international elite, that's his word -- cosmopolitan in their outlook -- who are increasingly disconnected. He goes on in that same speech to say this new elite is disconnected from national feeling and increasingly disconnected from the workers who actually make the products that they depend on, who actually built this country. I mean, that's precisely what I said.

But the left can't take that, they can't be put on the spot, and they don't want to be called out as elitists that they truly are, and they don't want to be put on the spot for their failed policies that have hurt this country, that have hurt the workers of this country, and they don't have anything to offer. And so all we get is that well, "you're a bigot, you're a racist" as they try to distract from their failures.

CARLSON: What's so interesting is the left is suddenly in the position of defending the prerogatives of the ruling class. I mean, here you are, a Republican taking up for the interest of people who you know make 40 grand a year and liberals are saying -- you know, those people deserve no attention and stop criticizing George Soros because he can't be criticized, is that weird, do you think?

HAWLEY: Yes, oh, I mean, it's totally weird, but listen. I mean, the liberals are increasingly the party of the elites. I mean, they are the party of the ruling class and that's the point, and that's what they don't want to admit.

They are the ruling class and they have been for decades. They control the commanding heights in this country, the media, the big multinational corporations, our universities. I mean, they have effectively run the country, the liberals have for decades now.

And their consensus has given us what we have today. I mean, they're the ones who are responsible for jobs' offshoring, they're the ones who are responsible for wages flat, for the plight and struggle of working Americans.

You know, working Americans, ordinary Americans in places like where I grew up in rural Missouri, they just want somebody to speak for them and to be constantly told that they're bigots and they're racist, and their lives don't matter and their views -- they're tired of that.

CARLSON: Well, you clearly are. Very quickly, did it ever occur to you to sort of put your head down? I mean, they basically hit you right in the face rhetorically, the second you gave that speech. You don't seem intimidated. Did you ever pause and think, "Oh, it's not worth that. I'm going to stop talking like this."

HAWLEY: Oh, no, because I knew as soon as they were hitting me that we had hit a nerve and that we're on the right track.

CARLSON: Yes.

HAWLEY: I mean, I knew then that what we said was right, and I'm more determined than ever to speak up for the people who don't have a voice, who have been ignored by the elite for too long, and who, by the way, are the backbone of this country.

CARLSON: Amen. It's so nicely put. Good for you. Godspeed, Senator. Thank you.

HAWLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: America's ruling class is constantly denouncing this country as racist. There's only one problem. It's not true. Most Americans aren't racist. They're really nice people. So, evidence of actual racism is getting harder to find. Instead, they fall for racial hate hoaxes. They make them up, they disseminate them, they amplify them.

The latest example comes from the State of Georgia. Late last week, Georgia democratic lawmaker Erica Thomas said she was told to, quote, "go back where you came from" at a supermarket checkout.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERICA THOMAS, D-GA, STATE REPRESENTATIVE: For that white man to come up to me and call me a son of a [EXPLETIVE] and lazy and go back where I came from, because he had a couple of items and he wanted to get in front of me. And he said I had 20 items in a 10-item line. What would make you that angry - -

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, of course, the press loved this because it bolsters every preconception they've ever had, it bolsters their bigotry. Another racist Trump supporter on the loose. Actually, it turns out the man that Thomas was accusing Eric Sparkes, is not only Cuban, he is a liberal. He came forward and called her story a total lie. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC SPARKES, ACCUSED AS RACIST: She said a few words. I stated, "Why you selfish little B-I-T-C-H." I did say that. That's all I said after that, and I walked out of Publix. Her words stating on Twitter on her video, stating I told her she needs to go back where she came from are untrue.

I am white, but I am Cuban. I was raised with a Cuban grandmother that didn't speak any English, Facebook. I will make it public. Proven facts. All my statements are anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-racism, anti- bigotry. This lady does not know me. She is using this to get on camera for political purposes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "I hate Trump. Stop calling me a racist." That's his defense. It sounds like he is telling the truth though, Mr. Sparkes. We as he continued to try to defend himself, Thomas kept harassing him. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS: You know what? I had 11 items. I had 11 items.

SPARKES: You had --

THOMAS: You know what? I have my receipt. I have my receipt.

SPARKES: Show it.

THOMAS: And they will see it.

SPARKES: Show it.

THOMAS: But you know what, it doesn't matter if I had any item.

SPARKES: You had at least 20. You had at least 20.

THOMAS: You would not tell a pregnant -- nine-months pregnant woman --

SPARKES: Did I know you were pregnant?

THOMAS: Sir, I told you that. I told you I was pregnant.

SPARKES: After you took two steps towards me.

THOMAS: And you said, "I don't care. You're a lazy son of a [EXPLETIVE]." That's what you said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: By the way, Thomas later admitted that she was lying. She had meant that Sparkes never said the things the things that she initially claimed he said, but it doesn't matter.

Her lawyer now says -- brace yourself for this -- that Sparkes should face criminal charges for saying mean things to Thomas. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thomas and her attorney believe the incident was racially motivated and wants Sparkes to face charges.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This individual violated Georgia law by placing her in reasonable fear of receiving a violent injury. That is a crime in this State.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Dave Rubin hosts "The Rubin Report" on YouTube and he joins us tonight. Dave, clarify this if you would. It's still America, right, with a First Amendment, but you can be criminally prosecuted for insulting a lawmaker in this country?

DAVE RUBIN, HOST, THE RUBIN REPORT: Tucker, for now when I come on your show, can we put a little title underneath that just says it's completely bananas, because every time I come on, I think it can't get crazier. It can't get more bananas and more bonkers and it does.

CARLSON: Tell me about it.

RUBIN: I mean, this is just patently absurd at every level whatsoever. I mean, first off, you may have heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. I think we all grew up with that story. We now live in a time of the politician who cried racism.

I mean, they are using the false cries as Senator Hawley correctly pointed out in the previous segment, they're using the false cries of racism to silence everyone.

I live in Los Angeles. Have you ever been to a Whole Foods where you walk into the express line and you have one thing over, most likely someone is going to scream at you and it has nothing to do with their race or your race or the rest of it.

But if you really want to see how pernicious identity politics is, because that's really what this is about, of course, it's that the gentleman there had to go back and sort of imply that he is not even white, in a weird way. He was using identity politics because he is really Cuban. And that should then -- that should then create a force field around him.

This is a set of ideas that is doomed to implode on top of itself and we have to call it out. And just to shout out Senator Hawley, again, I think your question was right, which is what do you do when you know this is happening to you, and you must punch back.

You know, these false cries of racism, they only work if we give them power and a story like this, and the idea that now she is getting the legal system involved, they had a little personal private spat over how many items can go in a certain lane, that's it. There was nothing racial here.

He obviously did not tell her to go back where she came from, which would be pretty freaking incredible in and of itself and that just happens to be what we're all talking about this week because of Ilhan Omar and Trump.

So you know, we just need to keep calling these things out because eventually they will run out of steam.

CARLSON: Yes, and shame will be reintroduced to the public conversation. That would be nice. I would definitely enjoy it. Dave Rubin, thank you for the clarity.

RUBIN: Thanks, my friend.

CARLSON: Elizabeth Warren is out on the record telling people she did legal work to protect women from a chemical company. In fact, that claim is as fake as her American Indian heritage. We'll tell you why after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Elizabeth Warren often describes herself as a champion of the underdog. For example, in the 1990s, Dow Chemical was hammered with lawsuits for women who said they were poisoned by the company's breast implants. Warren was involved in that case, and in her telling she fought to help thousands of women gain compensation for mistreatment by the corporate giant. It fits her story perfectly.

But as it turns out, that's not true, just like her Cherokee heritage, it was completely made up. Warren wasn't fighting for women. She was fighting on behalf of Dow Chemical it turns out.

Bill Jacobson is a Professor at Cornell Law School. He publishes the blog, which you ought to read called "Legal Insurrection," which first broke this story and he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks a lot for coming on.

BILL JACOBSON, PROFESSOR, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL: Thank you for having me on.

CARLSON: So she has been very clear, "I fought for women against Dow Chemical." What actually happened?

JACOBSON: That's right. This first came up in 2012 during her Senate campaign, when her legal practice representing several major corporations against consumers became an issue in the campaign. It was raised by Scott Brown, including her representation of Travelers Insurance regarding asbestos workers.

She on the eve of a debate released to "The Boston Globe," a list of 13 cases she was involved in to try to absolve herself of having been essentially representing corporate America against consumers.

But she conveniently left off one key case she was involved in, which was the breast implant litigation against Dow Corning and Dow Chemical, its parent corporation.

I discovered that case and brought it forward. And her immediate reaction was, as you indicated, she was trying to help the women get money, which was preposterous. She was representing Dow Chemical, the parent corporation of the breast implant manufacturer, which was vigorously fighting any claim of liability. And she was representing them at that time and advising them.

So, there was nothing to suggest that she actually was trying to help the women, there's everything to suggest that she was actually fighting it.

And fast forward to 2019, "The Washington Post" just completed an investigation, which confirmed exactly what I was saying, which is that she was not attempting to help the women, she was fighting against the women. And in fact, they interviewed people who were involved, who said that she was on the wrong side of the table.

So, this is another example of Elizabeth Warren, not being -- not having lived the life she demands others live. She vilifies big corporations. She does all of those sort of things, yet she represented Dow Chemical and many others. There's nothing illegal about representing Dow Chemical or big corporations against consumers. And certainly if she's playing that role, she's obligated to do a good job for them. But why is she portraying it as something other than it was and why is she vilifying these corporations?

CARLSON: I'll tell you exactly why. Because Elizabeth Warren, representing big corporations against consumers is like PETA running a slaughterhouse. It's the exact opposite of what she's promising. I mean, it's like a full inversion. It's bewildering, and if it hadn't been for your piece, I wouldn't have known about it. And I don't think our viewers would have either.

Bill Jacobson, you've really done a service in bringing that to light. Thank you very much.

JACOBSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: We're out of time, unfortunately. We will back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying pomposity, smugness and groupthink. I am being reminded by my producers to remind you to DVR it, if you can figure that out. And if you can, no need to go to college, you pass the only test that matters.

In the meantime, have a great evening.

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.