Media in a frenzy over Mueller's letter to Attorney General Barr

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 1, 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 a weird day it was in Washington. Hard as it may be to believe, two weeks after the release of the Mueller report. But on Capitol Hill tonight, they are still yelling about Russia.

It's as if the most exhaustive Federal investigation in a generation never even happened. It's as if the Russia collusion story was completely real, and not a ludicrous hoax pushed by ruthless partisans. It's as if facts no longer matter at all, only emotion and ambition and the overriding will to power. These apparently, are the new rules in Washington.

The Attorney General William Barr learned them today as he was summoned before the Congress, angry Democrats interrogated Barr, but the letter he wrote in March summarizing the Mueller report. Now, you might wonder why anyone would care about that letter. The entire Mueller report was subsequently released, not long after the letter. That report is now available online. Anyone can read it. You can read it if you want. You can draw your own independent conclusions about what it says. You don't need Bob Barr's help. His summary is irrelevant.

Now partisans on cable TV or pretending otherwise, but let's be clear, let's be very clear what they are giving you is opinion. It is not fact and they should be honest about that. The Barr letter means nothing. Again, that is fact not opinion.

So what was the point of today's hearings? Well, part of the point was to allow people like Mazie Hirono to perform for the cameras. Just a few years ago, virtually nobody outside of Hawaii had ever heard of Mazie Hiron. She was considered forgettable even by the standards of the U.S. Senate. Now, she's a celebrity on CNN.

Technically, she remains unimpressive. She has never written a single bill you've heard of, but when the cameras roll, Mazie Hirono comes alive. She'll repeat literally anything her staff puts on a card enhancer, no matter how extreme and stupid it might be. Here she was today.


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HI: Mr. Barr, now the American people know that you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway, or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office. You once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump.

But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller's concerns were valid, and that your version of events was false. You told Senator Chris Van Hollen that you didn't know if Bob Mueller supported your conclusions, but you knew you lied.

But I wasn't surprised, you did exactly what I thought you do. It is why I voted against your confirmation. But now we know more about your deep involvement and trying to cover up for Donald Trump. Being Attorney General of the United States is a sacred trust. You have betrayed that trust America deserves. Better, you should resign.


CARLSON: Reading it right off the card. Hand her the card. Here you go. She will read it. "Deep involvement in a cover up." Now remember, Bill Barr wrote his letter on March 24th. The full Mueller report was released on April 18th. That means that for three and a half long weeks, America was under the false impression that Donald Trump was not a Russian agent.

To Cory Booker of New Jersey; that sounds like a sophisticated disinformation campaign run by -- you guessed it -- Russian agents.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have here documented a level of coordination with a foreign adversary sharing polling data, and we're seem to be, and your conduct seems to be trying to normalize that behavior. And that's why I think we are in such a serious moment that could that is eroding the cultures of this democracy and the security of this democracy. And so let's just get into some of this specifically.


CARLSON: "Eroding the cultures of this democracy." Now, we can only guess as to what that might mean, Spartacus did not explain himself. But if you actually wanted to undermine democracy, probably the first thing you would do is ignore the expressed will of voters. And you would instead create sideshows designed to deflect attention from your incompetence and lack of interest in what the actual population wanted or in the President they elected, or in the priorities that they expressed to pollsters and at the ballot box, you'd ignore all of that.

Instead, you pretend that some irrelevant letter that Bob Barr wrote back in March was more important than all of it, more important than the opioid crisis or the ongoing invasion from Central America over our southern border. They didn't want Mazie Hirono on TV as much as possible screaming about a cover-up. That way, maybe nobody would notice that the roads were crumbling or the suicide rate was rising or that you for reasons you could never really explain, were intent on wasting still more money and still more lives on pointless wars in Syria or Yemen or Venezuela.

You continue to whip up hatred and division in the population, needless to say, nothing works as well as that does. So you'd employ slogans like "white privilege," or "toxic masculinity" to make people really hate each other. Over time, the population will be so mesmerized and afraid, they might not even notice that you were wrecking the country. Yes, if you wanted to undermine democracy, that's exactly what you would do.

Dana Perino is one our favorite people. She can break down anything. She does every afternoon on "The Daily Briefing" at 2:00 p.m., which we watch religiously, almost like a stalker, but not. She joins us tonight.

DANA PERINO, HOST: That's what I feel at eight o'clock every night.

CARLSON: So, Dana, thank you for coming on and adding some sense to this. So, take three steps back. What is this -- what is this really about? Is this a groundwork for impeachment? It is about something else?

PERINO: I think so.

CARLSON: Okay, that's what it is.

PERINO: I think so, and even though you have democratic leadership like Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker who wants to tap the brakes on impeachment, Democrats, I think about 70 percent of them are saying like they want to try. They think that they have the moral high ground here. And what today was really all about was to try to get Barr on the ropes.

But I have to tell you, from a communication standpoint, you can't have a better communicator. And I know that there are people who was very tribal today, watching reaction to this hearing. People that love President Trump were, of one mind; people that don't like President Trump were completely of another mind. There was very few people in the middle.

But objectively as a communications person, I have to say is an unflappable witness. He is deeply briefed. He used to run the Office of Legal Counsel of which a lot of this is to be debated over. And it basically ended up that America's favorite four words today were, "My time is up." But all of the Members of Congress, all the senators have to say, "Okay, well, I guess my time is up," because I did feel like he was basically running circles around them.

There are some things you could split hairs on. But I think the two basic things that he promised in his confirmation hearing to those very same senators; one, Mueller will not be interfered with. He will be allowed to finish his report. That came true. Number two, he would try to make the report as available as quickly as possible and as transparently as possible. That also came true.

Quibbling about a summary that was six weeks ago, when the full report is out for anybody to read if they wanted to seems a little bit to me, like being way over the top. So I do think that now, you'll see somebody like Elizabeth Warren, and you know, it'll be interesting to see does Biden or Bernie Sanders, do either of those two -- the front runners -- say, "Let's do impeachment." Then you'll really know that they want to go for it.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I think I agree with your analysis completely. And I was sort of a little bit amazed by the number of supposedly sober newsmen-types on TV who are saying, "Oh, this is so important," which is really just a partisan point, not a factual point.

PERINO: They also said -- they have another line that they keep using, Tucker, that I thought you would like when they -- they would look at everything that Barr did not say, and they would say, "That's incredibly telling." This is the new line that's incredibly telling. And they get to decide what it is that they're going to tell you.

CARLSON: It's all so dumb, but impeachment, so really quick. I'm interested to hear you say that because clearly the leadership on the Democratic side does not want impeachment, but you're reading the poll numbers correctly, I believe, most Democrats do. So what happens if that happens, do you think?

PERINO: Well, I think that -- I think Pelosi will try to slow walk it in the House. They know that it won't ever pass the Senate. In some ways you would imagine that the Trump campaign would think, "Fine, knock yourselves out. Talk about impeachment for nine months."


PERINO: But you know what? That's not good -- that's really not good for anybody. For all of the issues you talked about...

CARLSON: Well, it's not.

PERINO: ... that we're not focusing on. We can't even talk about filling the pothole in our roads and bridges, like those are the things that people really want to talk about. But if your base is pushing you for impeachment, it's going to have to be somebody that I think who wants to be the front runner in the Democratic primary to stand up and say, "Enough. Let's not do that." I don't know if any of them are strong enough to do that, though, Tucker.

CARLSON: I agree with you, and that would that would take some courage right now and I would be impressed by it if someone had the strength to do that. David Perino, thank you for that analysis, for making sense of it.

PERINO: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: I appreciate it. Alan Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School Professor. He wrote an introduction to the print edition of the Mueller report. He joins us tonight. Professor, thanks a lot for coming on. Summarize, if he would -- I know you've been paying close attention -- the Attorney General's behavior in this process. How has he done do you think?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Well, I think the bottom line is that Barr is right and Mueller is wrong. He defended very articulately his conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice that a President can obstruct justice, by firing, by pardoning, by doing anything that Article II of the Constitution authorizes him to do.

Mueller and the report take a different view of that. That's a very interesting constitutional legal issue. Barr gets the better of the argument historically. The best precedent comes under when Barr was Attorney General for George H.W. Bush, the first bush President when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger on the eve of his trial, and the special prosecutor said he did that to obstruct the investigation. He did that to prevent the culmination of the Iran-Contra investigation and yet nobody suggested that a President can obstruct justice by pardoning.

A President can obstruct justice by firing, and so I think after you put aside all of the stuff about did he or didn't he mislead, did he or didn't he mistake something? The bottom line is he is right and Mueller is wrong. The President did not obstruct justice.

CARLSON: I mean, since we have the Mueller report, I mean, substantively, there are a bunch of it is redacted, probably too much, but we know what the thrust of it is. Why is Barr's letter relevant in the first place?

DERSHOWITZ: It's not. It's a moot issue. It's just, "get you," you know, "gotcha." You said something on one day, and now you're saying something a little different on another day, but it has nothing to do with deceptions. Let every American read the Mueller report. Read my introduction, I hope and read the letter and see whether you think there was any misstatement. I don't think there was. The conclusions that Barr stated were absolutely correct -- no collusion, no conspiracy, and insufficient evidence to charge obstruction of justice. Those conclusions were correct.

The Mueller people who worked very, very hard on the report were disappointed that there wasn't more nuance, more content, but now everybody has that. So judge for yourself.

CARLSON: So you don't think that substantively anything has changed after today's hearings?

DERSHOWITZ: No, I don't think anything changes and I think Barr put it exactly right. His job is over. That's it. Decision not to prosecute, move on. If people want to investigate if there are other mechanisms of investigation, okay, but the Justice Department under his authority is finished. They've done their job.

CARLSON: Is the President vulnerable to impeachment charges? Will he be impeached, do you believe?

DERSHOWITZ: I do not believe he will be impeached. And I think if he were to be impeached, it would be in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution specifies treason, bribery or other crimes and misdemeanors. And the Mueller report found no sufficient evidence of any crimes. I don't think Congress has the power to redefine what a crime, it isn't to say we think there's obstruction of justice. No, I don't think he is in any danger of impeachment.

I think he's in danger of a thousand cuts by legislative investigation, subpoenas, of court cases, further investigations, perhaps investigations of his finances before he became President. But I think impeachment is essentially off the table.

Look, some Democrats who are running for President will want to impeach. They will make the same mistake Republicans made when they impeached Clinton. They will lose public support for that. I think look, what's going on in Venezuela, what's going on around the world today, the President needs to be able to get back to governing.

You know, I say all the time, when I fly in an airplane, I root for the pilot. I don't care whether he is a Democrat or Republican. And right now the President is the pilot and he has to be given breathing room to govern. We had the investigation. It's over. Let's move on. I love what Barr said, "Let's stop weaponizing the criminal justice systems on either side." I've been making that point now for two years.

CARLSON: I agree.

DERSHOWITZ: Let's get back to legislation

CARLSON: I agree. I don't want to lock her up and I don't want to impeach him.

DERSHOWITZ: Good. I'm on your side.

CARLSON: Thank you very much, Professor. Good to see you tonight.

DERSHOWITZ: Likewise, thank you.

CARLSON: Venezuela is still in turmoil. One reason that country got this bad in the first place, though, is that its government disarmed its population very much. Like what the Democratic Party has said out loud it would like to do in this country. We've got details on it next.


CARLSON: Venezuela remains in some chaos today. The country's opposition leader continues his effort to topple Nicolas Maduro's autocratic government. Trace Gallagher has been tracking all the developments down there for us tonight and he joins us now. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: And Tucker throughout the day, thousands of people still gather on the streets of Caracas demanding the ouster of Nicolas Maduro. But so far, there is little evidence to show the balance of power has shifted toward the U.S.-backed opposition leader, Juan Guaido, because despite having the support of the United States and 50 other nations, Guaido has been unable to secure the loyalty of top military leaders and some of those leaders went on television last night proclaiming their loyalty to Nicolas Maduro, although the Trump administration believes many of those military leaders are just covering their tracks.

And the predictions of mass defections have also yet to materialize. Though the Director of Venezuela's Intelligence Agency did break ranks with Maduro late yesterday. Today, Juan Guaido addressing his supporters urging them to ramp up the pressure. It's in Spanish. So read the captions. Watch.


JUAN GUAIDO, VENEZUELA'S SELF-DECLARED INTERIM PRESIDENT (captions): Today, I tell you with certainty, we are going to achieve it. Venezuela is going to change and we are close to achieving it.

CROWD: (Chanting "Yes we can.")

GUAIDO (caption): Of course, we can.


GALLAGHER: Yes, close to achieving it. National Security adviser, John Bolton thinks Maduro is still being propped up by the Russians and the Cubans. Listen.


JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: And I think the key point here is that if this afternoon 20, 000 to 25,000 Cubans left Venezuela, I think Maduro would fall by midnight.


GALLAGHER: But if Maduro does not fall and if the uprising fails, Plan B is very unclear at this point -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace, thanks a lot for that. So Venezuela's pretty rotten government has been in power for a long time and it's been able to pull that off in part because it rules over a population that is not armed. The only people with guns in Venezuela are members of the military or criminal gangs, sometimes working for the government. Law-abiding citizens are at their mercy.

Yesterday, even MSNBC had to admit this because it's true.


KERRY SANDERS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You have to understand that in Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that is open to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they have the power and as long as Nicolas Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.


CARLSON: David Kopel is the Research Director for the Independence Institute, and he joins us tonight. So this is one of those ideas that is now floating around in the Democratic primary as you're aware. Eric Swalwell running for President has said it out loud. Let's just take the guns away from the population. Here we have kind of a case study and what it looks like when that happens -- Venezuela. Tell us how that population got disarmed.

DAVID KOPEL, GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE: In 2012, the legislature passed, and then in 2013, it was implemented what amounted to a gun ban. It sort of had the appearance of a change in the licensing system, but it basically prohibited people from acquiring arms. And then in 2013, the dictator Maduro also announced that all gun stores would be closed, so it's impossible for anyone to legally acquire a firearm or ammunition.

And the Venezuelan government also has the sort of the same theory that you see when people talk about gun buybacks in the United States, as if the government owned the gun and then it's going to buy them back from citizens.

In Venezuela, the law actually says all guns are owned by the government, and the government can recuperate them, as they say, at any time and that is why people are defenseless against what you mentioned before, the Colectivos -- about 400,000 criminal gangsters trained by the Cuban government and by the FARC terrorists from Colombia, and they really run most of the many regions of the country and practice as an organized crime extortion group.

CARLSON: But if ordinary people don't have guns at home, it must be an incredibly safe country. That's the promise of gun control, right? Is it an incredibly safe country?

KOPEL: It has the second highest murder rate in the world, behind only Honduras. It's an incredibly dangerous country. And it was dangerous before the gun law was passed in 2012. But things seem to keep getting worse and worse.

I mean, the Chavez-Maduro regimes have always been kleptocracies basically based on running the government as an organized crime syndicate for the principle of theft, and that has had a lot of -- it has infected a lot of society. It's a terribly dangerous place.

CARLSON: So I mean, I'm starting to think that a lot of the precepts of American gun control schemes may not be right then. If you take guns out of the hands of most people, your society doesn't get safer. It turns out that the government may turn against you actually, if you can't fight back against them. Is there any upside to gun control in Venezuela that I'm missing?

KOPEL: Well, Maduro said he was doing it for the children, and this was a youth led movement to disarm the public. But you see the dangers of what happens when the government becomes more powerful than the people. Then it's like you've thrown the fire extinguisher out of your house, and you're dependent on the other checks and balances and he destroyed those as well.

CARLSON: He was doing it for the children. I didn't even know that. That is such a great detail, and a detail I will never forget. Thank you very much for that.

KOPEL: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Good to see you, David. Well, progressive activists in Denver are promoting a law that will legalize permanent homeless camps across the city. What would that mean for the environment? Open space, water and the middle class? We'll tell you after the break.


CARLSON: Homelessness suddenly seem everywhere in this country, blocking sidewalks, filling parks inside of what were once America's most beautiful cities -- Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle -- you don't see many families in parks in those places, you will see plenty of tents and needles and human waste.

Denver, Colorado isn't yet world famous for its homeless problem, but that may change. In an upcoming election activists are pushing a measure they're calling the Right to Survive. If passed, the law would allow the homeless to set up permanent encampments in any public space in the city.

Jeff Shoemaker is a former Colorado State Representative. He's the executive director of the Greenway Foundation, which preserves open space in the city and he joins us tonight. Jeff, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So you served in the state legislature. You don't seem very partisan. However, you spent a lot of years working to enhance the environmental quality of your city and the open spaces. So you seem like the person to ask, what effect would this have on the environment if passed?

SHOEMAKER: The challenge of 300 and the ramifications to our parks, our open spaces, our natural areas and our rivers is significantly damaging. What will happen under the measures involved with 300 is any park, any public space, any river bank as a legal resident will allow anyone to use these parks and priceless amenities as bathrooms, and at the end of the day, we will see challenging results of that in terms of degraded water quality.

The South Platte River in Denver is now healthy enough that cold water native species of fish have been reintroduced and are not only surviving, they're thriving. This will go away under Measure 300.

CARLSON: And the fly fishermen of America, thank you for your work to make that happen. So this is -- the point you just made is such a demonstrable, it's such an obvious point. If you allow people to use parks and rivers as a toilet, it's going to hurt the environment. Why isn't there an uproar against this idea?

SHOEMAKER: I think there is a challenge based on the language in the ballot measure to fully understand what Measure 300 does and doesn't do. I'd like to talk about what it doesn't do in terms of compassion for the homelessness in Denver.


SHOEMAKER: It provides no housing, no food, no clothing. It provides no mental care. It provides no physical health care. It provides no education, no employment, no independence. It does nothing to take dependency and addiction and turn it as we all want into independency and into sobriety.


SHOEMAKER: What the Measure 300 does by effect, Tucker, is it says any park, any public space is a Civil Rights protected residence as is any vehicle in the city and county of Denver. My vehicle is now a residence. I can park it -- residence, excuse me -- I can park it anywhere on any street in the city, certainly in residential areas, and that's my Civil Right protected residence. And this is why no service provider that we know of is behind it.

I don't know if any first responder, be it Fire, Police or medical caregivers are behind this measure. I find it sadly to be without compassion and care and solution. In my mind, it is in great part, almost a rejection of the homeless. It does not provide any kind of bathroom-ing or showering in these public parks, no trash cans and I'll finish, Tucker with, that it says to the homeless, whether it's 15 below or 150 and above, we have no way of helping you with that.

CARLSON: What an articulate reputation. Don't turn Denver into Calcutta. And again, thank you for what you've done for the actual physical environment of that city. It's amazing. Jeff, thanks.

SHOEMAKER: I'm part of a great team, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: You've done a great job. Denver is not the only place where things seem to be falling apart faster than anybody expected. Jason Hill is a Professor of Philosophy at DePaul University, and a frequent guest on the show. We're always honored to have him. Recently, wrote a piece for "The Federalist" arguing that Israel has the right to annex the West Bank. Now, you can agree or disagree. But at the college where he works, students and faculty were so offended by it that they've launched a campaign to destroy him.

Thousands of students signed a letter calling on the school to censure him and tonight, the faculty voted officially to condemn his article as quote, "an abuse of academic freedom." We wanted to give Professor Jason Hill a chance to respond, and so he joins us now.

Professor, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So you took a position that not everybody agrees with, but it does have a fairly large constituency. It's not an unheard of position. And it's certainly no crazier than what most of your colleagues are saying on a day-to-day basis. Why are you being censured for that?

HILL: Well, I'm being censored because I've taken a very positive pro- Israeli stance in a very anti-Semitic culture and on college campuses that are pushing for BDS movements, and divestment against Israel. And I'm a conservative independent, who speaks his mind very clearly and will not be silenced. And in that article I -- aside from defending Israel, I made the point that Israel was the only democracy amidst a bunch of illiberal and primitive regimes that do not respect the inability of human rights and individual rights.

And I think students took offense and individuals, faculty and people at large took offense at me defending Israel, and defending my right to defend Israel's rights defend itself against a war that was launched against it in 1967 by Jordan.

The students have claimed that I am racist, that I'm xenophobic, have called for my removal, that I am an islamophobe and that I am guilty of advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide, which I have not.

CARLSON: Oh gosh. Well, it's ludicrous, so we have some video of the protests against you on your campus. I think we're putting it, yes, there it is right there on the screen. Tell us what we're looking at.

HILL: Well, I was not there. But I think you're looking at the Arts and Letters Building in the DePaul campus in which students are calling for my removal or calling for my -- the President to fire me, calling for my downfall. Calling Professor Hill to be dumped -- all sorts of nefarious accusations against me. I was made aware of that video only yesterday.

CARLSON: And so watching them -- we're watching them throw paper, we're watching them litter, which they're good at, I noticed -- any idea what they're throwing down from the balcony?

HILL: They're throwing down quotes from the article, tweets that I have made, which I have articles that I've written, which I've discussed on your show. They've taken sections from my book, "We Have Overcome," in which I defend Israel and defend American exceptionalism. We've discussed this on your show before, and they have taken some of these quotes out of context from my book, and from the article and pasted them and they're throwing them around campus, accusing me of genocide and siding with an apartheid state, which they claim Israel to be, which I most vehemently have defended Israel as not being an apartheid state.

CARLSON: Hysterical children have taken control. I guess we can only hope this moment passes soon, this revolution burns itself out soon. And we are definitely rooting for you, Professor, one of the brave voices, I would say. So Godspeed and I hope you'll come back and tell us how it goes. Good luck.

HILL: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, the novelist Bret Easton Ellis just released his first nonfiction book and it has outraged the woke left, and for good reason. Bret Easton Ellis joins us next to discuss that book. We will be right back.


CARLSON: Good news for you tonight. We've solved all of America's problems. Congress must believe that because instead of working on fixing our problems, they spent yet another day, all day rehashing the 2016 election. That's what they did today and it won't be the last time.

Unfortunately though, there are still problems in America starting at the border, which has basically collapsed. This newly released footage of the Border Patrol shows about 111 migrants stampeding across the Mexican border into Arizona. Border Patrol agents were able to apprehend them, but you already know how this will go. Those migrants will likely claim asylum, many of them will likely be admitted temporarily in the United States and no one will ever be deported. Nobody ever is. That's how it works. And it works because Congress doesn't care about fixing it at all.

One of his bestselling novel, "American Psycho," Bret Easton Ellis satirized the yuppie culture the 1980's, and now he has just released his first work of nonfiction, it's called "White." The book has a target victimhood culture. Ellis says his book is an attack on what he calls generation wuss, political correctness and young progressives in general, but are any of them ready to hear a voice that disagrees with them? We recently spoke with Bret Easton Ellis. And here's what he said.


CARLSON: You've been famous for so long. Decades, you've offended people. Did you think you had it in you to offend a brand new generation?

BRET EASTON ELLIS, AUTHOR: Definitely not. Because I'm never trying to offend anybody. And I'm always amazed how I manage to trigger generation after generation after generation. I thought this was a pretty benign book, and I didn't think that it was going to be considered as political as it has been considered within the mainstream press. And I never thought it would be as controversial as it has become. It's certainly the most controversial book I've written since "American Psycho" and I find that to be kind of mad.

CARLSON: Well, a little bit. I mean, I don't think of you as a political person to the extent you know, I've followed your career for all these years and I don't think of you as a right-winger or anything, and I read this people by Molly Jong-Fast who is not super smart, I'll concede, but in which she dismisses you as like a Trump clone or something. Why are people writing you off as a right-winger when I don't think you've written a particularly right-wing book?

ELLIS: No, because if you do not adamantly condemn Trump, if you do not come out and agree with the kind of hysterical overreaction to Trump, then you are colluding with him. And I've dealt with this for the last two or three years of my podcast where I'm not -- I look, I'm probably not your typical Trump supporter. I definitely didn't vote for him.

But I am a free thinker, in many ways, and I did see something wrong with the portrayal of Trump in the media. I thought the media was covering him in a way that wasn't necessarily truthful, and I talk a lot about this on my podcast, and even though I wasn't a Trump supporter, necessarily, just because I complained about the way the mainstream media was dealing with Trump, I suddenly got branded a conservative some kind of like psycho right-wing guy, when actually I'm pretty nonpartisan. I'm pretty much in the middle of the aisle.

CARLSON: Who has been angriest about this?

ELLIS: Certainly, the liberal side of the mainstream media has taken this book to be a kind of betrayal in a way because, as you said, I've never been a political person -- particularly political person. And for some reason, because I talk about a lot of hysterical liberals I know in Los Angeles, who lost it all over Trump, entitled people I know who felt that they were somehow this massive betrayal that happened because Trump at one and I covered this in my podcast, and I cover this in "White," somehow I'm a Trump supporter, when all I'm doing is trying to find out the truth and talk about the reality of the situation and not some fantasy.

CARLSON: Well, since you're a novelist most of the time, and so you think outside the kind of constraints that most of us are bound by the political -- in the political world.


CARLSON: How long do you think this can last? Like how long can we have a society where creativity is banned, and free thinking is illegal? And anyone who steps outside the parameters is crushed? Like can this go on forever?

ELLIS: No, it can't. And this is the one thing that has bothered me the most about the left and as a creative, it is something that worries me. I often wonder how you can be a writer, an artist, a director, a filmmaker and align yourself with a party that is basically subsidizing an authoritarian language beliefs on what you can say and what you can't say, how you can express yourself, how you can't express yourself.

And to me, I don't understand how this is not more worrying to the creative community and how -- where is it going to end up? What is the dead end of this -- of the censoring in a way? I don't know. But there has got to be some kind of pushback on it ultimately, because actually, I know, neither side likes it. The left doesn't like it and the right doesn't like it. And yet somehow, we're enthralled to this and we're all following it. And yet, I'm not sure why.

CARLSON: Yes. Well, you've definitely pushed back in this book, and congratulations on that, on the bravery it takes to write a book like this right now. Bret Easton Ellis, appreciate it.

ELLIS: Thank you, Tucker.


CARLSON: A male power lifter has just smashed four records in a single meet for female power lifters. But some bigoted people say there's a problem with that. We will attack them after the break.

Plus the Mueller report is out, but the partisan press is still obsessed with revisiting Barr's summary of the Mueller report. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. We'll have more facts after the break.


CARLSON: Imagine what it's like to be Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He is running for President. But he is one of nearly two dozen Democrats running. He needs a niche, but skateboarding and socialism are taken, so he needs a different path. Swalwell has decided to come off like a parody of a cringing, self-loathing beta male.

So yesterday for example, he tweeted this, quote, "Do you know how many times the word 'woman' is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero. That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow."

Swalwell has a point. We checked it. "Woman" does not appear in the Constitution, neither does "man" actually. Trans is missing, too. For that matter, white, black, gay, straight -- they're not there. Weirdly, the Equal Rights Amendment that Swalwell says he wants to pass wouldn't add those words either because despite Swalwell's pandering, the Constitution is not the bigoted document he wants it to be. It's actually for all Americans, regardless.

Well, some congratulations are in order tonight for power lifter, Mary Gregory. Gregory just competed at a 100 percent raw power lifting tournament. Gregory competed in nine events and won all nine of them setting four records in the process. That was a triumph of the human spirit. Of course, some people are unhappy about it. Some people always complain.

In this case, they argue that Gregory had an unfair advantage because of being a biological male with male physiology and a lifetime of male hormones. These people think that women's sports should be reserved for biological women. They think that women are somehow different from men. And you know why they think that? It's not for any good reason. It's not like there's a mountain of evidence for that visible to anyone who goes outside or who has functioning senses. No.

They think that because they're incorrigible bigots. Powerful people tell us that every day and threaten our livelihoods if we disagree with it. So of course, we buy that idea completely without any reservation at all. So congratulations to Mary Gregory for being one of the greatest female athletes since Caitlyn Jenner.

MSNBC, if you're watching today, you may have noticed could not contain its excitement during the Attorney General's testimony. During the hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham noted quite correctly that Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Brian Williams wouldn't have it that he cut in to call Graham a liar.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: So, what did we learn from this report? After all this time and all this money, Mr. Mueller and his team concluded, there was no collusion. If there's no underlying crime --

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: We're reluctant to do this. We rarely do, but the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Mueller found there was no collusion. That is not correct. That a phrase or the lack of, it's absence from Federal Code, this no collusion mantra is so foundational to why we're here today that we decided to flag it when we heard him use it, yet again, back into the Chairman in the committee room.


CARLSON: Yes, just another fact check from a guy suspended for lying. I don't mean to be mean, nice guy, but please get some self-awareness. It wasn't the only time something like that happened though today. An hour later, they cut away again to say that Barr was a big fat liar, too. Watch this.


WILLIAMS: So much has been said here and placed on the record by the Attorney General, that starting with Nicole Wallace, we want to correct some of the record against -- of all things -- what it says in the Mueller reporting, Nicole.

NICOLE WALLACE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: So, I'm not going to dance around this. He is lying. He is lying about what the Mueller report finds around one of the critical flash points in the obstruction investigation.


CARLSON: When you're turning to the Nicole Wallace as a fact checker, you've gone all the way. Joe Concha writes about media for "The Hill," and he joins us tonight. I mean, I don't -- look, I've always liked Brian Williams. He's very funny actually. He is always nice every time I've dealt with him, but he's gone full MSNBC. I mean, he used to be like an NBC News guy. He's still has the voice, but like, this is pathetic, right?

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER, "THE HILL": Conforming to the hive, Tucker, and look, I'm a Jersey guy. He grew up in Manasquan down the Jersey Shore. I go there all the time. He is a nice guy, by all accounts.

CARLSON: Yes, I agree.

CONCHA: But yes, the environment that he is in, he realizes that he has to give his audience comfort food, what they want to hear at this point. And the scary part about that is that he could just pivot into being what he has become now, which is completely and totally partisan.

Remember, he was the anchor of the "NBC Nightly News" for many, many years and he's gone the full Dan Rather, I would say. Rather was the evening anchor news for CBS from, I believe, 1982 to 2005. And these guys were people that you trusted because there they are CBS, NBC giving you the news. And now instead, they've gone completely and totally to one side to the left and they've destroyed their legacies in the process, unfortunately.

CARLSON: But what's so weird is to see Nicole Wallace, who has never been a journalist and I mean that despite the glasses routine -- this thing where they do this -- "Well, Brian, let me put on the glasses and readers." She has been a flak. I mean, I met her when she was Jeb Bush's flak, and she's always been like someone who spins on behalf of politicians. So how is she being referred to? How is she being used as like a source of truth? It's bizarre to me.

CONCHA: Yes, if I'm MSNBC in that situation, I would use like a Pete Williams, who I think is an excellent journalist.

CARLSON: Yes, exactly. I agree with that completely.

CONCHA: Let's go with that for a fact check instead. But what we're seeing here, particularly on the other cable networks is putting in Republicans, people that are conservatives, whether that be Nicole Wallace or an Ana Navarro, and they just go -- more than sometimes Democrats or liberals going completely and totally anti-Trump to give this perception that somehow even Republicans are turning against the President.

And then you look at Gallup polling and shows that loyalty to this President is around 90 percent within his party, but the perception that the cable news networks are trying to give on CNN and MSNBC is that, "No, no, no, everybody is turning against this guy, because he is that bad."

CARLSON: So what you're describing is really a political campaign where every segment is sort of plotted out as a propaganda show in order to deliver a message that's totally disconnected from what's real.

CONCHA: It seems that way, if you believe polling, and then you see what's on television. They are two disconnected things completely, just like this constant obsession with collusion is something that the American people almost didn't care about in every poll. You saw leading up to the Mueller report that was completely and totally true.

So yes, that's the whole ball game here, Tucker, that collusion wasn't proven here, yet Brian Williams saying, "Oh, no, no, it wasn't." And now the collusion that they're trying to prove is between President Trump and Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Bill Barr worked for George Bush -- George H.W. Bush and last check, the Bush's don't like the Trump's like the Hatfield's don't like the McCoy's and the Ewing's don't like the Barnes's. So to think that he suddenly decided to throw away his career for this guy that he barely knew before he took over in some sort of conspiracy, same of Rosenstein, who is willing to wear a wire to invoke the 25th Amendment reportedly, it's just so ridiculous. That's the conspiracy theories that are out there, Tucker.

CARLSON: So we've got 10 seconds left. Totally sincere question. Do I look more credible? If I pause and use my CVS readers in the middle of this? Should I do this regularly like Nicole Wallace or no? It's totally up to you.

CONCHA: Oh glasses will add 15 points to your IQ and $15,000.00 to your bank account, so yes, absolutely. I do it when I was single to impress girls.

CARLSON: You're a wise man, Joe Concha. Thank you and that's a fact.

CONCHA: Thank you.

CARLSON: Not an opinion. Thanks. We will be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. DVR if you can, but more than anything, watch this man who takes over right now from New York City, Sean Hannity.

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.