Jason Nichols: Not all liberals think disarmament is the answer
This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," August 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” What's the point at which rhetoric forces action? When do words become incitement? At what point do political attacks become so reckless and unhinged that you can no longer heal the divide they create with politics and force people towards something darker?
Well, it's hard to know exactly when that point is, but the left is getting very close to it. We could give you many examples of this, we will begin with this exchange from last night on MSNBC. This is frequent guest, Malcolm Nance, accusing the President of the United States of sending secret messages to neo Nazis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALCOLM NANCE, MEDIA COMMENTATOR ON TERRORISM: These people feel that they are the foot soldiers executors of what the disenfranchisement that the white race is feeling and Donald Trump is giving them subliminal orders in their head.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Subliminal orders, whatever his false, you can be certain that Donald Trump is not doing that. Trump is the least subliminal politician in American history. He has no subtext. That's part of the problem, of course, if he is thinking it, he is saying it.
The claim is ludicrous. But at MSNBC, it wasn't even the weirdest thing uttered on their air yesterday, that distinction goes to Frank Figliuzzi. He is a former F.B.I. official turned talking head conspiracy nut.
He used numerology to explain the President's coded messages. Watch this, and keep in mind, it is entirely real. We've not edited a single word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER F.B.I. OFFICIAL: It's the little things and language and messaging that matters. The President said that we will fly our flags at half-mast until August 8th, that's eight-eight.
Now I'm not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary that's being demonstrated by the White House. The numbers eight, eight are very significant in neo Nazi and white supremacy movement. Why?
Because the letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and to them the numbers eight together stand for "Heil, Hitler."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Got that? Eight is a racist number. That's what they're telling you on MSNBC. In other words, things are getting dangerously crazy on the left. How crazy? Well, on Monday, former Jeb Bush spokeswoman, Nicole Wallace explained that President Trump is planning a genocide of Hispanic- Americans. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAUL REYES, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: He ramped it up again to the invasion, the warning people of the caravan and words like "infestation." What do you do with an infestation? With an infestation? The natural conclusion is to attempt extermination.
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC ANCHOR: President Obama used the power of the Presidency to try to pass comprehensive immigration reform with the Latino community, Latino leaders at the table. You now have a President, as you said, talking about exterminating Latinos.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: "Exterminating Latinos," keep in mind that Donald Trump as a factual matter, got a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney did.
It turns out that not all Latinos believe in open borders, a lot of them don't. Some of them agree with Donald Trump on immigration. And yet the left is now telling you and demanding that you believe that anyone who supports Donald Trump is a white supremacist and must be destroyed.
Now they're telling you that for political reasons, this is election season, obviously, and they want more political power. But there are other reasons, too, that they're saying this. Ever wonder why rich people seem the most hysterical on the subject? Ever noticed that it's the highest paid people on television, who are the most determined to convince you that white supremacy is America's biggest problem? Why is that? Simple.
Every minute you're angry about race is a minute you're not thinking about class, which of course, is the real divide in this country, working class, people of all colors have a lot more in common, infinitely more in common with each other than they do with some overpaid MSNBC anchor. And if you were allowed to think about that for long enough, you might start to get unauthorized ideas about economics, and that would be disruptive to a very lucrative status quo.
So they whip you into a frenzy of racial fear so that it never enters your mind. It's a diversion. Everyone else hates each other, they get to keep their money, pretty tricky. Unfortunately, it's also destroying the country. This is the path to civil war, obviously.
So we want to take a second to pass on a sincere message to official Washington and particularly to our colleagues on the other cable news channels, and it's this, please, for the sake of the nation, calm down.
Yes, America has problems. Yes, racism is one of America's problems. But so is a fading middle class, so is a terrifying drug epidemic that's killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, so is the national debt that is growing by a trillion dollars a year. These are huge problems. And people know that. People know their country is in decline. And it's making them turn to new political leaders.
Donald Trump was one of those new leaders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are a couple of others. This is a time of frustration, and it's a time of change. It's a hard time for America.
But this country is not on the brink of genocide. It's not even close to that. This is not a white supremacist country plotting the slaughter of its own people. It's a kind country full of decent people of all races, who like all people everywhere make bad decisions from time to time, but they mean well, and they generally try their best.
So going forward, give them the benefit of the doubt, even when you disagree with them, maybe especially when you disagree with them. These are your fellow Americans, cut them a break. They deserve it. And remember, the alternative is disaster.
Joe Concha writes about media for "The Hill" and he joins us tonight. Joe, in that spirit, I mean, I don't want to increase the temperature or traffic and even more outrage and I am outraged sometimes and sometimes I regret how outraged I've become.
But I have to say that accusing your political opponents of wanting to commit genocide or sending secret telepathic messages to Nazis does seem like it is ratcheting it up to a point where things start to fall apart.
JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER, THE HILL: Completely fall apart. I would argue, Tucker, that yesterday was the lowest point in MSNBC's 23-year history because there's another example, in addition to the other two you provided from Nicolle Wallace, and that analyst later on Brian Williams's show, and that was Mika Brzezinski of "Morning Joe" who said that the President of the United States wants mass shootings to happen, wants to see the American carnage and slaughter of American men, women and children.
And no one on the set, not one person could step up and say, ''That is too much. That is too much." And as you mentioned, Nicolle Wallace, a former Communications Director in the Bush administration, saying that Latinos are going to be exterminated. I've never heard something so offensive on cable news, and she'll be back on today because she only offered a half-hearted apology that obviously that whole nonsense around August 8th and sending a bad signal to neo Nazis.
This isn't MSNBC, Tucker. This is MSN-Fo Wars. Alex Jones is watching that and saying, boy, even me that sounds a little bit crazy. So here's what has to happen. This is the only way this gets solved. Brian Roberts is a CEO of Comcast. Comcast owns NBC Universal. Universal NBC News, MSNBC News has a chairman named Andy Lack. Andy Lack needs to get every important person at "30 Rock" that's under that news division into a room and says, "This is enough. You will be fired or suspended if you peddle in these conspiracy theories."
And it's happened at the network before and not too long ago. I don't know if you remember this, Tucker. Martin Bashir, I think this was about six years ago, said that people should defecate on Sarah Palin. And this wasn't something said in the heat of battle passion. It was an impromptu meeting that it was vetted and was scripted, and he was fired from the network.
And when a Nicolle Wallace says something like that, or you have on a Brian Williams's show somebody saying that, are you kidding me that if the President re-raises flags, that that's a signal to neo Nazis, these people should not be on the air anymore as a result of saying that because obviously, this is the stuff that divides the country, Tucker, as to your point.
CARLSON: It seems like it's moving towards something awful. I sure hope I'm wrong. Joe Concha. Great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.
CONCHA: Thank you.
CARLSON: Congressman Joaquin Castro was not backing down at all after his decision to target his own constituents for donating to a politician he doesn't like. Instead, he explicitly accused them of being complicit in murder, motivated by racism. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO, D-TX: There are people right now that are living in fear, and I don't think the President understands that. I don't think those donors understand it, but they need to understand what their money is going to.
You're giving money for somebody that's going after a community and people have gotten killed because of that.
Unless you support the white nationalism and the racism that Donald Trump is paying for and fueling, then I hope that you as a person of good conscience, will think twice about contributing to his campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: It's just one of the sickest things I've ever seen on television. Julian Epstein is a former Chief Counsel at the House Judiciary Committee. He had been in D.C. a long time. He joins us tonight.
Look, I get why people don't like Trump. I get what people don't like his rhetoric. I get that people disagree with his policy positions, all fine. But to say that anybody who disagrees with my politics is a white supremacist, it's just like the worst thing you can be. That's too freaking far actually, I think.
JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL AT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Look, I think your introduction was good. I think the call for de- escalation of the rhetoric on both sides is good. I think it is tearing the country apart while we are ignoring other issues.
I think your introduction could have included an urging to the President to also tone down the language, to try to tone down what has been I think incendiary name calling towards immigrant communities.
I think that has also played a contributory role. That is not to discount -- I mean, the problem with the left and the right, is it's all the "What about-ism." The right always, "Well, look at the extremist overreaction on the left." And there has been extremist overreaction. I agree with that.
CARLSON: Yes, I don't like the tweets. I mean, I have never liked the tweets, I get.
EPSTEIN: So, I think the President's rhetoric has played a role in what has been a disastrous kind of civic situation that we have right now. That's not to say that the left doesn't overreact. I mean, this is part of the problem of a political world that's dominated by Twitter and cable news. It's the loudest and most extreme voices that are always getting all the attention.
CARLSON: But this Castro character is a presidential candidate.
CARLSON: And his brother who tweeted that out is a member of Congress. So, these are not even cable news employees. I mean, these are -- these are a former Cabinet Secretary and a sitting Member of Congress. I mean, these are leaders.
EPSTEIN: So here's what he would probably say if he were on the show -- it was this -- this kind of tweeting and identifying and naming and shaming of donors has become par for the course in American politics, unfortunately. So why should this be any different?
CARLSON: I'll tell you because someone is going to get killed, that's why.
EPSTEIN: My response. That's would be my response.
EPSTEIN: My response would be is that you are dealing with an incendiary situation right now, and it's time for people on both sides to tone down the language because the last thing we want to see is another tragedy.
CARLSON: But also -- but here's what's happening and this is what Trump is actually not -- and Trump has said things that are imprecise, that I disagree with that I think are inflammatory, clearly. But here's what he hasn't done, said that anybody on the other side, just by virtue of supporting a politician he doesn't like is evil. Like that's too far.
If you're supporting Donald Trump, you're a white supremacist. If you don't agree with me, you're a Nazi. Like that is the beginning of Civil War.
EPSTEIN: Yes. Lincoln's famous words, "Nobody wanted war to come, but war came." And we are headed towards I think -- I think we are in a political cold Civil War right now. And that's bad for the country, really bad for the country. And I think people on both sides have a responsibility.
I think that it is important to say that I think the some of the President's language and some of the President's rhetoric has given encouragement to extremists on the right. I think it's true, but let me finish my point.
CARLSON: But let me just be clear. I will -- hold on, if you -- I don't like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I think she's dumb.
CARLSON: And I think her policy positions are wrong. If you give money to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you can be a good person. You just disagreed with me?
EPSTEIN: I was going to say that.
CARLSON: Right? I mean, so it's kind of that simple.
EPSTEIN: I was going to say that. Yes. I was going to say, I think you have to separate. I think while you can say that some of the President's language has given encouragement to extremists, and perhaps even this this mass murderer in El Paso, it is unfair to say that everybody supports the President as a white supremacist or a bad person.
People may have all kinds of reasons for supporting President Trump, and I just think so -- I think that unnecessarily polarizes and it's this kind of culture of contempt, where everybody on the other side is an evil person, and you look down derisively on them, and that is a toxic climate situation.
CARLSON: And I just want to be very clear about something because I think that wasn't clear enough. Those tweets calling out and doxing in effect, the donors to Trump from Texas, those came from the Congressman whose brother is running for President. They did not come for the presidential candidate, I want to be totally clear about that.
CARLSON: All right, Julian, thank you for that.
CARLSON: I appreciate it.
EPSTEIN: All right.
CARLSON: Mass shootings grabbed the headlines, but far more Americans are in danger from the routine violence they encounter in American cities. There's a lot of it. Larry Elder joins us next to discuss that. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: Thirty one people were killed in mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso, it was horrifying. And at the same time, it's not as rare as we'd like to tell ourselves. Mass shootings are just a small part of this country's violent crime problem.
Last week in Chicago for example, the city's deadliest all year and was as destructive as any mass shooting we've seen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the Chicago police ShotSpotter at 18th and Keeler which picked up the sound of shots being fired early Sunday morning.
It goes on for almost a minute. The gunfire leaving a 33-year-old man dead and eight people wounded. Citywide, seven people were killed and 48 wounded over the weekend, many on the west side.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Those seven murders push Chicago to over 300 murders for the year. Most of those have occurred in just a handful of neighborhoods. The city's black residents suffer the most by far, there are 80 percent of murder victims in Chicago.
Chicago has the most violence in the country, but it's not exceptional. Smaller cities -- St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit -- are even more dangerous. By the way, that's not what about-ism, it is totally real and it's ignored.
Larry Elder is an attorney and a radio show host and he joins us tonight. Larry, thanks a lot for coming on. Why is that? Why? By the way, you can deplore and be upset about mass shootings and I think all normal people are and still ask the question, why is the day-to-day carnage ignored resolutely, what's the answer?
LARRY ELDER, RADIO SHOW HOST: Well, it's a good question, 17,000 homicides last year, half of those were by black people against black people. The number one cause of preventable death for young black men is homicide. The number one cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents like car accidents. Twenty five percent of young black men have criminal records as opposed to 10 percent of young white men.
And, you know, arguably two of the most prominent leaders in the last several years -- black leaders -- have been Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Both of them have had either non-existing relationships or poor relationship with their own fathers.
In the case of Jesse Jackson, his pregnant teen mother, his mother got pregnant by the married man living next door, and Jesse Jackson grew up with kids taunting him in South Carolina, "Jesse ain't got no Daddy. Jesse ain't got no daddy."
Al Sharpton had a nice, comfortable middle class life, Tucker, until his father abandoned the family and then down to the ghetto he went. I mention that because 70 percent of black kids are raised without fathers.
And Obama said, a kid without a dad is five times more likely to be poor, nine times more likely to drop out of school, 20 times more likely to end up in jail and is far and away the number one problem in this country that is being ignored.
CARLSON: Why, I wonder? I mean, because if you cared, I don't really think there's a lot of debate among sociologists. There are longitudinal studies for the last hundred years on this question, and they all point to exactly what you just said. So if you cared, you would emphasize this, but people don't. Why?
ELDER: Well, the left does not because they have to create the problem. In 1940, for example, only 14 percent of black kids are born outside of wedlock; in 1965, twenty-five percent. Now, it's 70 percent and I argue that the welfare state has incentivized women to marry the government and allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility.
It would require the left to go to the mirror and say, "Oh, my God, I've helped to create this problem. What do I need to do?" The answer is to undo the welfare state. We know that the welfare state creates dependency, because in 1996, when Bill Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act, what happened? Welfare rows declined by 50 percent and you can't blame that just on a good economy.
What happened is, able-bodied people got off the couch and went into the market, and what we've done is distorted people's incentives with the welfare estate, and that requires a real big discussion that people on the left do not want to have.
CARLSON: Yes, we should be having that because it matters. I want to ask you about this, too. So the New York City Department of Health is now going after the city's police. The City's Health Commissioner publicly announced that interacting with law enforcement in any capacity is damaging to people's health. A new criminal justice action kit is being distributed to doctors to help them properly care for patients who suffered the trauma of interacting with the justice system. What do you make of that? And what's the long term effect of an announcement like that, would you say?
ELDER: It's a horrific lie. There was just a paper published in the official journal of the National Association of Science -- National Academy of Science rather -- two researchers from Pennsylvania, and they've been looking at a police shooting, I think it was in the year 2015, every single police shooting in the country, and they could not find any pattern of discrimination against black suspects, whether by a white cop or black cop, it didn't matter. There was no pattern of discrimination whatsoever.
And that tracks the paper written a black Harvard economist, who also thought he was going to find a disproportionate use of deadly force against black people. He found the opposite that police were more hesitant, more reluctant to pull the trigger against black people.
What this lie does, it causes young black men to be confrontational with cops instead of cooperating and it causes the cops to pull back for fear that they'd be called racist. And you've seen that what's called the Ferguson Effect in places like Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis outside of Ferguson where cops pulled back and the very people that the left claims they care about, black people were the ones who are most likely to become victimized. So it has a real world consequence. It is a lie.
CARLSON: Yes. And the usual people suffer the people, the people that ...
CARLSON: ... no one actually cares about, I've noticed. Larry Elder, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.
ELDER: You got it. Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: Well, you're hearing demands all of a sudden, mostly from Democrats, but also from some Republicans for new gun control measures. Some, like Beto O'Rourke are demanding outright gun confiscation, but not everyone on the left is on board.
Jason Nichols is Professor of African-American Studies in the University of Maryland, and he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks a lot for coming on. So, we don't agree on much. I think you're a man of good faith. I love having you on the show. But we sincerely disagree, I would say on most issues.
JASON NICHOLS, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Absolutely.
CARLSON: But in talking off the air the other day, you said something really interesting to me, and I wanted you to explain it more fully for our audience, that you're not reflexively on board with gun control measures.
NICHOLS: So there are some common sense gun control measures that I think makes sense. Even limiting the capacity of a magazine, we saw, for example, in Gilroy, California, where a guy had a 75-round drum connected to his weapon. I am against that.
I don't think we need silencers. I think we need universal background checks. But gun confiscation goes way too far.
When we look at the history of gun control in this country, it has been to keep guns out of the hands of black people and that's indisputable fact. I would point anybody to Adam Winkler's work out of UCLA.
As a matter of fact, when you go back to the antebellum period, it was to keep guns out of the hands of both enslaved and free African people.
And then you go to Roger Taney, who wrote the infamous Dred Scott case.
NICHOLS: And one of the things that he said was that he didn't think that black people had rights that white people were bound to respect, in part because he thought if you extended those rights, that they would have the rights to carry and own guns.
The Ku Klux Klan, the infamous terrorist group -- conservative terrorist group regardless of party --
CARLSON: A Democratic Party group. I mean, if we are being honest about it.
NICHOLS: Yes, well, but they're still conservative Christians.
CARLSON: Okay, but I am saying they are Democrats.
NICHOLS: But at the same time, that group were advocates of gun control. So I think honestly, you know, when you look at the history of the issue, I think that, you know, African-American people should be a little leery about people wanting to come around and take their guns.
CARLSON: You think? Yes, I'm sorry to laugh, but you make a compelling case, because what you're saying is factually true. And this is a non- racial point, it is a point about human nature.
But when you want to oppress somebody, you disarm him first, of course. And you've seen that in totally homogeneous countries where race is not a factor, but the first thing the government does is disarm the population before doing something horrible with them, obviously.
So because what you just said is so clearly true. Why is it so rarely said out loud?
NICHOLS: You know, I'm not exactly sure. You know, some of our Civil Rights heroes that are oftentimes not acknowledged whether we're talking about the Deacons for Defense, or we're talking about Robert F. Williams. I'm not sure exactly why people don't state this, I think because --
CARLSON: Was Martin Luther King for gun control?
NICHOLS: Well, Dr. King, at one point was certainly a gun owner, and at one point, they actually said, a journalist nearly sat on top of a gun in his home and called his home an arsenal, so --
CARLSON: Martin Luther King's home, an arsenal.
NICHOLS: Martin Luther King -- but at the same time, there are organizations that have worked against black people that are pro- gun, and they are pro-gun control when it comes to black people like the NRA. So that has a very serious --
CARLSON: Well, I would say -- I would say I'm not here to speak for the NRA. But as someone who believes in the Second Amendment, I believe it's a universal principle that applies. It goes without saying, but I will say it explicitly -- that applies without regard to race, of course. It applies to all human beings. It's a God-given right, the right to self- defense.
And I think most people of goodwill believe that, how much crap will you take for saying something so obvious on this?
NICHOLS: I'd say crap every time I'm on this show from one side or the other. So, you know, I think I'm prepared for the crap.
CARLSON: You're prepared for it. Professor, thank you very much for coming on. I hope that people can rise above the partisanship just for a second and meditate on what you said. Because I think it's absolutely true. Great to see you.
NICHOLS: Thanks a lot, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, at least 14 F.B.I. agents were caught leaking information to the press, only four were fired. Now, Peter Strzok is claiming he ought to keep his job. What does that say about the culture of the Federal bureaucracy and specifically about the culture of Federal law enforcement? We will investigate after the break.
TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I'm Trace Gallagher. President Trump heading back to the White House this hour after visiting the scenes of the two deadly mass shootings that left 31 people dead over the weekend.
The President and First Lady's first stop was in Dayton, Ohio, where they visited a hospital where many victims of Sunday's attack were being treated. Nine people were killed in that shooting. President Trump then headed to El Paso, Texas to meet with victims and first responders.
On Saturday, a gunman opened fire at a Walmart killing 22 people. After leaving the hospital, the President toured an Emergency Operation Center. His visit was also marked by protest both in support and against the President in Ohio and Texas.
Demonstrators blame the President's rhetoric for flaming tensions in the country. I'm Trace Gallagher with news breaks out, we will break in. Now back to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT.
CARLSON: Well, the F.B.I. is entirely willing and they've displayed it many times to drag American citizens from their beds at night and send them to prison for life if they miss remember what they said and irrelevant e- mails, they are trying to do that right now to a number of people as you know.
And yet strange that the F.B.I. seems not concerned at all with wrongdoing by its own agents. How do we know this? Well, new documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that 14 separate F.B.I. agents were caught leaking sensitive or classified information, only four of them were fired.
With an attitude like that, it's no wonder that new F.B.I. leaks were appearing in America's major papers almost every day for the past two years.
Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch and he joins us now. Tom, thanks a lot for coming on.
TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: You're welcome.
CARLSON: So, 14 separate agents caught. These are just the ones who were caught leaking sensitive material and only four fired? How does that work?
FITTON: If you're the F.B.I., you're a protected class it looks like. You had four of them -- one of whom who was fired was Andrew McCabe, the number two with the F.B.I. Others who weren't fired, they couldn't even -- they weren't even censured or punished the way the OPR initially wanted them to be punished. So, they were actually under punished in many instances.
CARLSON: So this is not a crime? It's a crime. My understanding is, it's a crime to leak classified information.
FITTON: And some of it was grand jury, it looks like according to the documents, so you had in 14 instances, the OPR investigate and request the firing of several officials. Some of whom they didn't even fire, they just censured or suspended.
CARLSON: How can that be at exactly the moment when the F.B.I. is sticking firearms in the faces of Americans who have been just accused of not remembering an e-mail? A totally irrelevant e-mail? How can they hold themselves to such a lower standard?
FITTON: Well, Andrew McCabe specifically was referred for criminal prosecution on his illegal leaking, and his lying allegedly about it, and that was well over a year ago. But it is a double standard.
CARLSON: So what does that mean? That means that McCabe will not be prosecuted.
FITTON: It suggests that nothing is going to be done about firing him.
CARLSON: Is anyone ever prosecuted for these kinds of crimes within the F.B.I.?
FITTON: Rarely, by all accounts, certainly we did this analysis, three years, 14 agents, no prosecutions, four firings. And many of the agents got away with lesser punishments than recommended.
CARLSON: So you're answering the question that we raised yesterday on the show, which is how did Peter Strzok get the kind of hutzpah required to sue the F.B.I. for firing him for clear conflicts of interest in the course of his job? Like, how does he get that attitude?
FITTON: I mean, we use the phrase "The Untouchables." It's a great old fashioned term. Well, you know, if you've got bureaucrats who think they're untouchable, they behave the way that Peter Strzok behaved. And to me, it's ironic that he is suing the F.B.I. because from our perspective, they've been protecting him for as long as the scandal has been out there.
He was fired from the Mueller investigation. We didn't know about that for four months. The F.B.I. currently is telling us that we should have to wait 26 months to get all of his communications with his paramour, Lisa Page, and they're withholding all the personal e-mails that he has been sending her. Forty three percent of the total documents he was creating with her were personal.
Man, you know, this guy has gotten away with a lot. And if anyone is to be sued, he should be sued by people like Donald Trump, who abused it -- and then James Comey, by the way, we caught him. The F.B.I. tells us that he had F.B.I. files at his house. Of course, nothing he has -- specifically D.O.J. --
CARLSON: Nobody cares. But try that if you're Roger Stone and you'll die in prison. Yes, I get it.
CARLSON: Tom Fitton, great to see you.
FITTON: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar may have committed campaign finance violation. She may have committed tax fraud. Even her marriage history cannot be verified by local reporters and yet somehow, the same press that's fine with harassing random donors to President Trump is not interested in any of this.
Steve Drazkowski is a Republican State Representative in the state of Minnesota. He and his colleagues have been demanding a formal investigation of Omar for fraud, perjury, and more. He joins us tonight with an update on that effort.
Thanks very much for coming on tonight. So how much closer to the truth have you gotten?
STEVE DRAZKOWSKI, R-MINN., STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, Tucker, when I was with you last time, we asked formally for an investigation with the Office of Congressional Ethics, and they are acting on that at this point at least getting the investigation required going forward.
I also formed an online petition omartruth.com to take input and encouragement from the citizens across this country to encourage Congress to act. So we did that last time.
Yesterday, I held a press conference with nine of my colleagues, and we focus specifically on the income tax violations that were exposed by a Minnesota State Agency, where Representative Omar actually filed taxes jointly with someone she wasn't married to.
And so we appealed to and wrote a letter to both the IRS Commissioner and to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
So the Department of Revenue knows about it. They received the letter yesterday from us, the IRS knows about it. Congress knows about it, and the media know about it. We are making certain that all of the people that should be investigating this are aware of it.
CARLSON: So, they are credible allegations that she both married her biological brother in a sham marriage designed to subvert our immigration law, and that in fact, Ilhan Omar may not even be her real name and that she may have come to this country under false pretenses. Are we closer to knowing whether those allegations are true?
DRAZKOWSKI: Well, I think we're appealing to the right people. As a matter of fact, you're right. It was a sham marriage. She lied to cover it up. Had she had the people not -- had the people actually known what happened, they wouldn't have elected her. She wouldn't be in Congress today. And if Congress would do their job, she might not be there much longer.
So we're getting the information in front of people. They should be doing the work and we're simply asking them to do their job.
CARLSON: Has her -- now, last we checked with you, her office was refusing to answer even basic questions about her family, which are not irrelevant. I mean, they are germane to these allegations that she broke our laws to come here and to live here.
Has her office given any of the details they've been asked to provide? Or are they continuing to stonewall?
DRAZKOWSKI: No, they continue to stonewall which is the opposite behavior of what you expect to see from someone if they believe that they are innocent of any allegations.
So the media here in Minnesota continues to just have a blatant disregard for this. And it is a struggle with the media, but they know about it. They've known about it for three years. These agencies know about it. And we're doing our best to make certain that they are prepared and fully equipped to do their job.
CARLSON: Right. I mean, ultimately voters will have a say in this fairly soon, and you know, I hope that you can keep them as informed as possible so they can make their decision with all available knowledge. Representative, thank you very much for that update tonight. Appreciate it.
DRAZKOWSKI: Thank you. Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, the Koch brothers, the famous Koch brothers have dominated the world of Republican politics for years. The question is, not, are they good people? They are good people. Question is, are they conservative in any sense? What have they done to the Republican Party?
Well, we'll talk to the author of a new book who spent years looking into this question. It's fascinating. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: Well, here's a fascinating little story that tells you everything about how those in power view ordinary people.
According to police, Isaiah Thompson has delayed hundreds of subway trains with disruptive behavior. He pulls emergency brakes. He rides on the outside of the cars and much more.
Since July of 2017, that's only what? Two years. He has been arrested 18 times for behavior like this. Thompson is a pest, I am not saying he is a serial killer, but he does makes life much worse for thousands, maybe millions of ordinary people. He is the kind of person authorities are supposed to protect us from. But officials in New York don't see him that way.
Thompson was caught back in May and despite his many repeat offenses, 18 arrests, he was released on bail. Now, he is already back to his old antics. This week, he was arrested once again for surfing outside of a subway car. He was arrested, but get this, authorities released him, yet again, this time without any bail at all. So he is still free to pester New York City residents, consequence free.
The subway hasn't even managed to ban him from using the subway. And why would they even try? In Bill de Blasio's New York, helping normal people is not only not a priority, it's a sin.
For years, brothers, Charles and David Koch have been the two single most important donors on the American right. They've reshaped the Republican Party, according to their personal ideology. They made the party far more libertarian, much more pro-immigration, and more pro-Big Tech.
Even if the Republican Party has evolved and elected Donald Trump, the Koch brothers remain tremendously influential, more than you may understand. And if you're frustrated, watching the party ignore what its own voters want, it is part of the reason.
Well, there is a new book out that takes a very close look at the Koch business and political empire. Chris Leonard is the author of it. It's called "Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America." We just spoke with him. Here's what he said.
CARLSON: So for my perspective -- my interest is the political activities of the Koch's who by the way, I can say, since I know them, are very nice people, personally.
CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, AUTHOR: Absolutely. Absolutely.
CARLSON: But there's a misconception in Washington that they're conservative. Tell me what you discovered about their ideology after writing this book. Are they conservatives?
LEONARD: Well, you know, I think you've gotten it exactly right, in the sense that they're not traditional conservatives, as you might think of that today.
Charles Koch is an engineer and you're right, he is a really nice guy, I interviewed him for this book, I've been around the people who have worked for him for decades. Charles Koch believes he has found the blueprint for how to organize society.
He is very libertarian. In his view, the best way to structure a society is just a free market exchange system. That's it. And I call it a blueprint, intentionally. You can't argue with a blueprint. If you mess up something in a blueprint, the building will collapse. You can't argue with physics.
And I think Charles Koch sees his political ideology in that way. He believes that the only way you can structure society is as a market. And when the government intervenes, it ultimately does more harm than good in his view. It causes more problems than it solves.
CARLSON: So how -- and our viewers can assess what they think of their views. I do bet that most of our viewers disagree with them on immigration. They've been strong advocates, I would say for opening the borders. How powerful are they -- the Koch brothers and Charles Koch, particularly within the Republican Party, would you say?
LEONARD: Extremely powerful. You nailed it at the beginning. Charles Koch has been patiently executing a political project since the mid-1970s, and that is to make America more libertarian and his goal in that -- his primary goal has been to reshape the Republican Party.
And particularly since the 2000s, you've seen the Koch network at large, which is a multifaceted machine that includes a grassroots group of people called Americans for Prosperity. It includes one of the largest corporate lobbying shops in the United States. It includes a constellations of think tanks here in Washington.
All of these resources have been put to bear to shift the Republican Party more toward what Charles Koch would call a classical liberal ideology totally libertarian, basically moving the Federal government back to the size it was in 1776.
CARLSON: So you've seen from the various Koch organizations, some of which you just listed recently this line that we really don't have anything to fear from Big Tech, that Republicans are being hysterical conservatives. This show for example, being hysterical about Google or Facebook, just calm down, everything is totally fine.
Why would they -- which is obviously a lie -- but why would they be telling us that?
LEONARD: So this is all part of the bigger picture in my view, and we have to go back to when Trump won the election and surprised the entire political landscape of America.
Donald Trump and what this administration is doing is essentially unacceptable to the Koch network, if you will, because Donald Trump has proven that his administration is willing to intervene in the markets to get a beneficial outcomes for the people who voted for him. That's how I would put it. So Trump is willing to use tariffs.
LEONARD: Trump is willing to tear apart trade deals. And that impulse needs to be kept in check if you're part of the Koch political machine. So if you start talking about regulating any company, if you start talking about regulating these tech companies, the Koch network is going to try to push you back off that as aggressively as they can.
CARLSON: Which you described in this book, which I would recommend to our viewers, are people who care more about ideas and outcomes, who really are ideologues in the classic sense of that term, and you know, maybe that's appealing to people, and we will let viewers make up their own minds.
But this is an interesting book, "Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America." Thank you very much, Chris.
LEONARD: Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
CARLSON: I appreciate it. Well, McDonald's has made a lot of noise about protecting the environment by making a switch to paper straws. And yet in one significant way, the new straw at McDonald's is worse for the environment than the old straw. I'll tell you how, after the break.
CARLSON: It's been about 35 outrage cycles since left decided we need to ban all plastic straws immediately. Last year, to great fanfare, the U.K. branch of McDonald's restaurants replaced all of their plastic straws with new paper straws. The move they said was meant to protect the environment.
It turns out it was just a sham and a publicity stunt. How do we know that? We know it because McDonald's has now admitted that, well, all plastic straws could be recycled, the new paper ones or not. They go straight to the garbage every time.
Meanwhile, back in the United States, San Francisco just became the first U.S. airport to ban all plastic water bottles. Michael Loftus has been watching all of this carefully. He is a comedian and he joins us tonight.
So Michael, do you feel you're doing your part by using one of these non- recyclable paper straws?
MICHAEL LOFTUS, COMEDIAN: Listen, I'm in the shadows of society. I'm still buying straws on the black market. I'm out in the parking lot talking to my straw dealer like, "Hey, man, you got a crazy straw. I need a crazy straw." It's ridiculous. This whole straw thing is insane. Common sense is dead. It was a good run civilization. But I think it's over. This is literally the straw that broke the camel's back.
CARLSON: Yes, it's nicely put. I mean, but it'd be one thing to learn that the new straws are not a net benefit to the environment. But to learn that they're actually worse. That is -- there's something about that's just so perfectly -- it's like an electric windmill. It doesn't generate electricity. It takes electricity.
LOFTUS: Exactly. It's a windmill that runs on a diesel generator. This doesn't even come close to solving the problem. The problem with plastic in the ocean is coming from India and China. So, this is all a feel good thing that's actually worse. It's just -- and when did McDonald's become the point man for this? And when did life turn into a Monty Python skit? When they invented the paper straw, who ran into that board meeting and go like, "I've done it men, I've done it. It's a straw that will dissolve in liquid," and no one thought to say, "You're going to put it in liquid."
CARLSON: That's a really good point. So plastic water bottles now banned in San Francisco apparently? Is this going to make life better for a single human being? Do you think?
LOFTUS: No. And it's going to make my line through the TSA that much longer because now people are going to have to come with like metal water bottles, you might as well put your water in a pressure cooker at this point.
CARLSON: Well, so like, what would be the point? I mean, I'm starting to believe that the point of all of these laws is to make the people who pass them feel like good people. It's a kind of religious observance.
LOFTUS: Yes, it is. It's like the people who pass our laws, like fell asleep as children in front of a marathon of "Gilligan's Island," and that's what they want our life to look like now.
Seriously, "Gilligan's Island" has got to be the perfect metaphor for the green deal or whatever thing. It's all green energy, just Gilligan on his bamboo bike, and they're eating off of bamboo trays, and the Professor can magically solve other problems. It's not reality, you guys, it's not reality.
Just everyone needs to take a deep breath and admit that common sense needs to make a huge comeback.
CARLSON: You know, I like "Gilligan's Island." I've got to be honest, I think of it more like Bulgaria 1975. I'd be happy with a bamboo bike. I think it's going to be worse than that. I think it's me crumbling, concrete apartment blocks with you know, flickering lights, but we'll see. Michael, great to see you. Thank you for that.
LOFTUS: Good to see you, man.
CARLSON: That's it for us tonight. Tune in every night. 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.
By the way I am taking several days off headed to the wilderness to fish with my son. Catch some brook trout. Politics is important; fishing with your son sometimes is more important, so I'm doing it.
But don't worry, some of our favorites will be here while I'm gone. Brian Kilmeade is here tomorrow. I'll be back for a special investigation on Friday that Mark Steyn anchors most of the week and then Tammy Bruce will be here. See you soon, August 19. Have a great night.
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.