Minnesota Senate candidate slams probe of Rep. Keith Ellison; are Democrats using delaying tactics against Kavanaugh?

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 1, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." We have got some pretty interesting news out of the State of Minnesota for you this evening.

You'll remember that Congressman Keith Ellison has been accused of physical abuse by his former girlfriend, a woman called Karen Monahan. Monahan says that in the middle of a domestic argument, Congressman Ellison grabbed her by the legs and dragged her off the bed while screaming obscenities at her. She said this happened just two years ago in 2016.

We can't say whether Karen Monahan's story is correct. Of course, we weren't there. We do know though that these are serious allegations, and they're specific and recent, and they're made against a powerful man.

Ellison is, of course, a sitting Member of Congress. He's also the Deputy Head of the DNC. He's a candidate for Attorney General in Minnesota. Under pressure from critics, the State Democratic Party pledged to investigate Monahan's story. Tonight, we have their conclusions.

"An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred."

That's the finding of the top lawyer for the Minnesota Democratic Party. In other words, Karen Monahan's words don't mean anything. Unless she provides tangible proof, we don't believe her.

Let that sink in for a minute in light of all you've seen over the past two weeks. This is the standard, Democratic Party politicians use, to judge their own when they're accused of abuse, at least when political power is at stake. "Prove it honey. Otherwise, shut up and go away."

Meanwhile, in Washington tonight, Brett Kavanaugh faces a very different standard. Little more than a week ago, a woman named Julie Swetnick told a remarkable story.

Swetnick claim that as a college student during the early 1980s, she attended at least 10 parties outside Washington where high school boys took turns raping underage girls who had been rendered semi-conscious with drugged punch.

The gang-rape, she says, took place in the open. Swetnick says she saw them but she never told friends and she never filed a police report. She kept attending these rape parties until she herself was gang-raped. According to Julie Swetnick, Brett Kavanaugh attended these parties. She saw him standing in line, she says, waiting his turn for rape.

Here's how Swetnick described the scene in an interview with NBC News just tonight.


JULIE SWETNICK, JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH ACCUSER: My body was violated, my soul was broken.

I was at a party and I remember that I started not to feel very well. And next thing I know, I was shoved into a room and I'm having my clothes torn in different directions.

I was physically assaulted in every way you could possibly physically assault a woman.

KATE SNOW, NBC NEWS: Everyone is wondering if one of those people was Brett Kavanaugh.

SWETNICK: I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me. But, before this happened to me, at that party, I saw Brett Kavanaugh there, I saw Mark Judge there, and they were hanging about the area where I started to feel disoriented--

--and laughing, I could hear them laughing and laughing.

If Brett Kavanaugh was one of those people that did this to me, there is no way in the world that he should go scot-free on this, and that he should be on the Supreme Court


CARLSON: If he was one of those people, a claim she's not actually making. Judged on its own terms on the things that she is saying, Swetnick's story raises more questions than it answered.

For example, why did she keep going to rape parties 10 in a row? Where are the witnesses to all of this? Dozens of people must have seen these atrocities, and they are atrocities, and yet, not a single person has admitted even hearing about any of this. That's hard to understand given the close-knit community of Catholic schools that produced Brett Kavanaugh.

Swetnick has provided no evidence of any kind to show this happened. Reporters have interviewed many of her classmates, and nobody recalls it. The whole thing is hard to believe and many questions need to be answered before it can be taken seriously.

And yet, Chuck Schumer hasn't asked those questions. He heard Swetnick's claims and immediately called for Brett Kavanaugh to drop out of the running.

Professional charlatan, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, agree with that. He called Swetnick's allegations, "A gut punch." "If my Republican colleagues have any sense of morality they will refuse to move forward with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination."

Now, Democrats are demanding that the FBI investigate Swetnick's story. So far, that is not happening. Why is it not happening? Maybe here's part of the answer. This is NBC's Megyn Kelly. Watch her explain.


MEGYN KELLY, HOST, NBC: She faced allegations of her own misconduct or a stint at -- during a stint at a Portland company 18 years ago. That company claims she told them she graduated from Johns Hopkins but they learned the school had no record of her.

She also falsely described her work experience at a prior employer. They said she engaged in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct herself. They said she made false and retaliatory allegations against her co-workers that they had been inappropriate with her.

They said she took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits. At the same time in D.C., there was a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend.

So the people who are very upset that the FBI is not looking into Julie Swetnick's allegations, there are reasons for that.

DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, NBC NEWS AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Avenatti has been begging for the FBI--

KELLY: What a shock?

GOLDMAN: --to come. So, I don't know--


AMY HOLMES, PBS: He's been begging for a TV camera. He has been begging for a TV camera.

GOLDMAN: --but -- but I don't think, I don't think that--


CARLSON: Takes a lot of guts to say that on NBC. So, if you are sincerely concerned about rape victims, and there are rape victims, a lot of them, you would hesitate before repeating Julie Swetnick's claims uncritically. That would discredit legitimate victims.

Democrats don't care. It could work politically and that's the only point. More than two weeks since the Brett Kavanaugh saga, only Senate Republicans still believe this story has anything to do with sexual abuse.

Last Friday, Democrats said they needed a few days for some additional FBI interviews to follow up on Christine Ford's claims. "Let's give this one week," said Senator Amy Klobuchar. Her fellow Democrats nodded solemnly. Poor Jeff Flake believed them.

Today, and you won't be surprised to know this, Democrats are screaming that a week is not enough. The FBI will need a lot more time, who knows how much time, to interview everyone who has ever made a claim against Brett Kavanaugh, including Julie Swetnick, maybe the editors of the Georgetown Prep yearbook too.

Just a week, they're telling us. That's a cover-up.

Jeff Flake may fall for this again. Everybody else knows exactly what's going on. It's not about Brett Kavanaugh at this point. It's about punishing everyone who looks like Brett Kavanaugh. Watch this.


DONNY DEUTSCH, ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE: --that Kavanaugh performance that as a man I was embarrassed for him. It was -- it was the ultimate display of -- of white entitlement. And speaking of which, just one more point.

As I talk to men over the weekend, I find that the higher you go on the income curve the more men are like why, you know, well, we all did this, we all did this in one form or another, still not getting it. Women are getting it. And I find the lower you go on the income curve, men are getting it.


CARLSON: Donny Deutsch has been talking to people. Now, if you're Deutsch's shrink, you might understand what he just said. But if you're not, you might wonder what in the world this story, the Kavanaugh story, has to do with race. Seemingly, nothing.

Everyone in it is the same color. But you'd be too literal if you concluded that. You'd be missing the point. Democrats aren't looking for justice here. They want a revolution. For 60 years, they have been telling us that it is immoral to judge people by their skin color and they were right about that. Absolutely right.

They put up a monument to Martin Luther King on the National Mall just in case we forgot. And yet suddenly, without notifying the rest of us, they have changed the rules. Anyone who doesn't judge others on the basis of skin color is, wait for it now, a bigot. Refused to commit racism? You're a racist.

Is your head spinning yet? It's just starting. Wait till you see this. Here's Saturday Night Live's treatment of Senator Lindsey Graham over the weekend. Now, a month ago, Graham was one of the very few Republicans, Liberals could stomach. And then he stood up for Brett Kavanaugh, now he's a monster, a very specific kind of monster. Watch this.


KATE MCKINNON, ACTRESS: You give him a damn robe and you let him do whatever the hell he wants. Because this right now, this is my audition for Mr. Trump's cabinet. And also for a regional production of The Crucible, and let me tell you, queen, I was good.


CARLSON: Let me tell you, queen. Get it? Lindsey Graham is secretly gay. That's what NBC is telling you. And they're implying there's something wrong with that that Graham ought to be deeply ashamed of that and mocked for it.

But wait a second. When did Liberals start using gay as an epithet? Isn't that against everything they supposedly believe? Only if you assume they'd believe anything. But they don't. It's only about power, whatever it takes.

Tammy Bruce is a radio host and President of Independent Women's Voice. And she joins us tonight. Tammy, I have to say I'm -- I'm getting used to the idea that if you argue against judging people on the basis of skin color, you're a racist, OK?


CARLSON: That's Orwellian right here all the time.

BRUCE: Sure.

CARLSON: But now the Left, guardians of America's gay community, are using gay slurs against Lindsey Graham like what -- what?

BRUCE: Yes. Yes, look, regardless of what you think of Mr. Graham, whether you agree with his policies or not, what's fascinating is the Left does this all the time. When somebody is whether they don't like somebody, they want to smear someone that is the accusation to some degree is that it -- you're supposed to believe that somebody's a monster, and as a result, they're -- they're gay. Now this is where--

CARLSON: Wait. From the Left?

BRUCE: --well of course. My -- my first book in 2001 was about how homophobia, sexism, racism lives on the Left. All the finger-pointing on the Right is projection. The fact is, and you've seen this when it comes to the impact on women these last few weeks, they don't care about women. Women are to be used.

They don't care about gay people. Gay people are to be used. And on the -- the same issue with race, if it can get them something that's what they then will say. But every now and then, the curtain gets drawn back and this is one of those times.

You're seeing this all wrapped up. The panic, clearly, is visceral and what they really think is coming out. Now, whether or not their constituencies who they -- they think they're their constituencies will put up with it is the issue.

Can they -- will there be a pushback on effectively, clearly the mocking of someone or the -- the attempt to paint someone with the Scarlet Letter of G--

CARLSON: But how could they -- how could they--

BRUCE: --that's what they're doing.

CARLSON: --how could honestly, and I don't want to single anybody out but if you're the human rights campaign and you exist--

BRUCE: Right.

CARLSON: --to call out and punish this kind of behavior and they do--

BRUCE: Sure.

CARLSON: --how can you sit and not say anything when this happens?

BRUCE: Well we're going to watch that, aren't we? I think that what happens on the Left is everybody gets trained that the -- the ends justifies the means, right, that what it is it's -- it's -- it's the end result. So, no matter what we've got to do, you've got to be able to deal with it because in the end we really mean the best for you.

It's very much like a battered woman or a battered man is your batterer says, "Look, I'm doing this for your own good. Even though it hurts you in the end, I know it's best." That's what the Left has always been saying to Americans and look at the end result.

The end result, of course, is economic decline. The end result is a decline in the quality of our lives and, certainly, not being taken seriously for who we are as individuals, whether it's about being women or being a person of color and then, of course, denigrating everyone else in every other category like people who are white or who just don't fit within the framework of who the -- the protected classes are for the Left.

CARLSON: It's unbelievable. I'm learning more about the Left than I ever wanted to know. And I -- I -- I'm glad I didn't read your book in 2001 because I would have been upset this whole time.

BRUCE: Oh, these last two weeks have been shameful. They've been an insult- -


BRUCE: --to every single American, ever -- all of us who rely on decency, treating people fairly, expecting Americans stand up for her ideals, and the very people who say they're the banner-carriers of that are the ones carrying the torch--


BRUCE: --and burning it to the ground.

CARLSON: Just the opposite, amazing. Tammy Bruce, thank you for that.

BRUCE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, as we just told you, the Left somehow amazingly out of nowhere is making the Brett Kavanaugh saga, which is about a lot of things, it's not about race, but they're making it about race.

And they're telling you that certain people of a specific race and gender are bad, and deserves to be hurt, possibly killed, not exaggerating by the way. Details ahead. Plus, the President is speaking in Tennessee. We're monitoring that speech. And we'll go there, of course, if news occurs. Stay tuned.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --because as you know, we are American and our hearts bleed red, white and blue.



CARLSON: Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and the controversy around it is many things. But the one thing it's not is a race story. There's no racial angle whatsoever. And no reasonable person could disagree with that.

But that has not prevented the Left from using it to vilify people for their skin color. April Ryan and Bill Maher said Kavanaugh being grilled for sexual assault showcased the notion somehow of something called white privilege. Watch.


APRIL RYAN, JOURNALIST: It was a sense of entitlement. This is mine.


RYAN: This is mine.

MAHER: Oh wait I mean the whole thing is--

RYAN: Yes.

MAHER: --such a -- such a -- a pageant. When people ask "What is white privilege?"--

RYAN: Right.

MAHER: --I mean that this is a pageant of it.


CARLSON: He didn't explain exactly what that means or how it works. Former Bush Campaign Strategist and ABC News Political Analyst, Matthew Dowd went further than that. He published an op-ed demanding that "White male Christians vacate their positions of power for other people." He's not doing that himself. But he did not notably advocate for genocide.

A Georgetown professor called Christine Fair did do that. She recently tweeted this. "Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: We castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes." Georgetown has issued a statement defending Fair. Of course, they have.

Marjorie Clifton is the Founder of Clifton Consulting LLC and she joins us tonight. What do you think of that Marjorie? Do you think it's -- you think it's within bounds of reasonable political discourse for a Georgetown University professor to call for genocide?

MARJORIE CLIFTON, PRINCIPAL, CLIFTON CONSULTING LLC: No, I don't. I don't think that's an appropriate or helpful statement--

CARLSON: Oh, not helpful or appropriate?

CLIFTON: --but what you're seeing--

CARLSON: --would -- would you add--


CARLSON: --any other superlatives to that or just not helpful and appropriate?


CARLSON: How about immoral and disgusting, would that--


CARLSON: --would that qualify?

CLIFTON: It's not creating a dialog and it's not adding to an environment that addresses the real heart of where a lot of people's concerns are and --

CARLSON: Wait, wait, hold on, wait, wait, I'm sorry. I can't. Look, these aren't your remarks. I'm not holding you responsible for them. But I think a normal person will look at that and say, wait, are you joking? What? Killing people? Can't we just say that this is like totally over the top and like calling for violence against people on the basis of their race--


CARLSON: --we're not for that, right? Or are we for that?

CLIFTON: Yes. No, I agree. It's not--


CLIFTON: --appropriate. And it's not -- it's not how I would talk.

CARLSON: Well how about disgusting? Can we do that or is that too much?

CLIFTON: Sure, sure.

CARLSON: OK, yes. All right, so but I guess I just want to get to the core principles here. So, I was raised to believe that you're not allowed to attack or judge people based on their skin color. We've got a whole monument on the Mall reminding us of that. Are we still for that? Or have we moved on to something else?

CLIFTON: Well what we've erupted in this -- in this debate and why it's coming out to this white male Christian conversation that Matthew Dowd was having in his -- his article is that what we saw in the optics of that trial was about gender.

And it really is about who we believe in a situation which is her against him. And that was a very hard thing for a lot of people to have to -- to -- to reckon with because what we do know is that 97 percent of companies are represented by white men and are not representative of the labor force that that--

CARLSON: Well but hold on, wait, wait, wait, hold on, let's just start--

CLIFTON: --work for them. Yes.

CARLSON: --let's start our first principles here. Are we allowed--


CARLSON: --to judge people on the basis of their skin color to attack or wear them --

CLIFTON: Of course not. Of course not. But -- but -- but we--

CARLSON: --of course not. But you are though. That's what you're saying.

CLIFTON: No, I'm not actually --

CARLSON: You're saying, but hold on, yes, you are--

CLIFTON: --no.

CARLSON: You just said that it's bad that companies have too many white people in them.

CLIFTON: No. What I'm--

CARLSON: And I think if you were looking at this from the perspective that Martin Luther King told us to look at the world through, you would say that that's wrong, right? Or would you not?

CLIFTON: Well what I'm -- what I'm going to tell you is that the workforce was largely built by white Christian men. And that's not a bad thing. It's just the reality.

And when we look at issues of fairness like we look at issues of fairness in this case, in this trial was about who is being represented and how are we hearing it, how are we understanding it. And businesses are seeing this that when they think diversity --

CARLSON: Wait, wait, hold on, I'm sorry, you can't keep going with that explaining because I'm -- I'm not following. I'm not tracking. And I'm not just playing games--

CLIFTON: --I am explaining.

CARLSON: --I don't get it.


CARLSON: Why -- so the race of the people sitting in the Senate matters because why?

CLIFTON: The gender I would say even more in this case because--

CARLSON: No, but -- no, but -- but let's just look--

CLIFTON: --it was a white man and a white woman--

CARLSON: --I think there are differences between genders--


CARLSON: --that are real and biological--


CARLSON: --and are verifiable. They're reflected in DNA. We don't believe that about race though, do we? Do we think that certain races have more wisdom or more honesty than others?

CLIFTON: No, of course not. Of course not.

CARLSON: OK. Well of course not, then why is the race relevant at all?

CLIFTON: Well I think it's creating a larger conversation about diversity and who's at leadership and what --

CARLSON: It's not creating a conversation. It's causing people to attack others on the basis of race. And Liberals are endorsing it, including you, and I'm wondering like what changed? What have I missed?

CLIFTON: I did not endorse that. But what I would say is that there it is erupting a lot of unhelpful conversations that are related but not about this particular trial. So, but I think--

CARLSON: Would it be fair to say to someone who attacks white men you're not allowed to attack people on the basis of their skin color ever? Period. And if you don't like the --


CARLSON: --attacks on other races, don't attack a race, is that OK?

CLIFTON: Absolutely. Absolutely, I -- I--

CARLSON: OK. So, you'd say that to Bill Maher and April Ryan and all these other dumb people who are going on with these racist attacks, it's OK to call them out?

CLIFTON: Yes. I wouldn't have a conversation that way. But I -- what I would say is that when you -- when I'm talking about representation is that companies even see this in terms of productivity. When they increase diversity in their leadership by 10 percent, they see a 1 percent increase in earnings. That's just the -- that's the productivity and the reality so there's--

CARLSON: No, that's not actually a real statistic. It's a made-up statistic, and it's much more complicated than that --

CLIFTON: By Mackenzie Consulting that --

CARLSON: --I wish we had time you can come back to--

CLIFTON: I would love that.

CARLSON: --to throw that statistic at me.

CLIFTON: Yes. I would love that.

CARLSON: I don't even know what diversity means. But whatever, thank you.

CLIFTON: It means non-White men and that's what -- and that's what's hard--

CARLSON: Oh, is that what it means?

CLIFTON: --and -- and well let me be clear--


CLIFTON: I was raised by a white Christian man. And -- and he very much understands and sees--


CLIFTON: --issues from a different way like you, Tucker, who is a father of many daughters and as we go into the workforce as we experienced what that's--

CARLSON: OK. Well I'm just -- I'm just amazed that we're all racists now. I thought we weren't but I guess we are--

CLIFTON: That's not -- but that's not me calling anyone--

CARLSON: --no, we are. We're attacking people--

CLIFTON: --racist.

CARLSON: --well we're attacking people on their race, so you're racist now- -

CLIFTON: --no, what we are -- no, what we are is--

CARLSON: Right. We can call whatever we want.

CLIFTON: --what we are, are human beings who--

CARLSON: --we're all George Wallace.

CLIFTON: --well, no--

CARLSON: OK. Well I'm out of time unfortunately--

CLIFTON: --no, we will --

CARLSON: --it's a sickening conversation. But I appreciate your taking part.

Arizona prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has prepared a memo for Senate Republicans expressing her beliefs about Christine Ford's allegations after last week's hearings. In that memo, she says Ford's case -- Ford's case is even weaker than he said, she said and that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges.

Lisa Boothe is a senior fellow at Independent Women's Voice and she's followed this closely.


CARLSON: Lisa, what -- well tell me about her conclusions.

BOOTHE: Well her conclusions, as you stated, I mean basically she goes through all these various inconsistencies that we've seen with Christine stories -- Ford's story.

But the problem is she's basically remained unquestioned by the media and the Left and that's dangerous because if you're bringing life altering and life ruining accusations against someone, your story should be questioned.

You go through the inconsistencies. One, every witness that Christine Ford has named has denied the event in question. You go back and looking at the fact, she's different -- given different periods of time. She texted The Washington Post, mid-1980s.

And then she comes to the conclusion in The Washington Post article it was the summer of 1982, she's given different stories about how many people were there. And her polygraph letter alone, she has two different versions.

Originally, four people crossed off, and then it's four boys, two girls. And then even if you want to give her the benefit of the doubt of oh, that's -- it was 36 years ago, maybe her memory's just not straight, then you go to the recent problems.

She said she doesn't remember how The Washington Post got her therapist. No, it's yet The Washington Post says that she -- she provided them to her. She can't remember when she had the polygraph test.

Whereas this complete farce from her and her attorneys about being afraid to fly, then it turns out she's flied to Hawaii, Costa reach -- Rica, French Polynesia, so we have seen all these inconsistencies not just with long-term memory but also with recent. However, nobody's called her on and I think--


BOOTHE: --the reason being is everybody is so afraid of the MeToo movement, so afraid of these bullies on the Left that they're afraid to call a spade of -- a spade.


BOOTHE: And she's not credible. Her story doesn't add up. And Rachel Mitchell, this memo I think just completely lays all the facts bare.

CARLSON: It's amazing. You've been great on this from the very beginning--

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --and thank you for your bravery. The whole country is afraid. This was not the country we were promised.

BOOTHE: Well--

CARLSON: We were terrified to say what you think or to be reasonable. And I -- I hope this ends soon.

BOOTHE: I have three brothers and a dad.


BOOTHE: And so I think about that and I think it's important.

CARLSON: It's bad for all of us, men and women. Lisa, thank you.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Having received the FBI investigation they demanded, Democrats now say it's not enough. They want a bigger investigation that goes on forever. Jeff Flake is really surprised by this. He thought it was just a week. Is anyone else surprised? That's next.


CARLSON: Well having convinced poor Jeff Flake to order a week-long FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh that happened after someone screamed at him in an elevator, which is how our democracy works now, Democrats are now trying to dictate the scope of the investigation as if they're in charge of Congress, which, thanks to Jeff Flake, functionally they are.

In a letter released today, 10 Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee have called for the Bureau to investigate all three allegations against Kavanaugh including Julie Swetnick's fantasy about gang-rape. Their letter also lists 24 people they would like interviewed at a bare minimum about their allegations.

Jonathan Turley is Professor at Georgetown University Law School and he joins us tonight.

Professor, thanks for coming on. So it -- are we right to feel a little bit misled when Democrats in public told us just on Friday, it's now Monday, so three days later that they wanted just Christine Ford's allegations investigated for a week, and now the goalposts are so far down the field we can't see them. Should we feel like we've been lied to?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well I think that the least convincing part of the Democratic case is that this was not being manipulated in terms of its timing. I think most people believe that this -- these allegations were held to the last minute right before a vote. And I think there's some legitimate criticism for that.

And also, I think you -- one can anticipate that one week is not going to satisfy many of the critics. The fact is that that most of these statements, if not all of them, were previously given to the committee. They're unlikely to change.

And so, the outcome of this investigation is unlikely to change many minds. And we're going to get to a point where we have to make a decision. If Senators feel that the record is insufficient, they have a reason, I suppose, to vote on that basis.

But to keep this open indefinitely is going to do, I think, an injustice to the nominee and to the process. So, we have to come to some conclusion.

CARLSON: So, Julie Swetnick's claims that there was a series of at least 10 gang-rapes that took place in public of children sometime in the early 1980s outside Washington, no one's ever heard this before, it's never been alleged before, do you think this rises to the level of credibility that would spur an FBI investigation almost 40 years later?

TURLEY: It sounds like the FBI is not going to investigate that allegation. Part of the concern for many people is that this is an extraordinary allegation with -- with it and no one going to the police previously or any accounts being published as to what occurred. And I, it's -- for that reason, I think that the FBI is focusing on the other -- the earlier two allegations.

CARLSON: Huh? Do you expect that Republicans will be able to reassert control over this process since I think they do run the United States Senate? Could they say, you know--

TURLEY: Ha-ha. Ha-ha.

CARLSON: --it's been enough time. We, you know, it's been -- Mark Judge has been interviewed, again, under oath. And we're done. Can they do that?

TURLEY: Of course, they can. And it does appear that McConnell was going to push this through. He insists that there's going to be a vote this week. The timing is a little bit curious because the FBI was given a full week that would end on Friday.

Presumably, a lot of material would be given to the Senate on Friday. So it's not quite clear how the logistics are going to happen for the FBI to be concluded on Friday, presumably, and also have the vote on Friday.

CARLSON: OK. Professor Turley, thanks very much. It's great to talk to you- -

TURLEY: Thank you. See you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --as always.

Senator Tom Cotton is a Republican. He represents the State of Arkansas and he joins us tonight. Senator, thanks very much for coming on and I mean that because we've been trying to get any Republican from the U.S. Senate to come on and make the affirmative case for Judge Kavanaugh for two weeks now, and you're the only one who said "Yes."

I'm watching another side an army of surrogates go out to call him a sex offender. Why are you the only Republican who's willing to come on TV to make the case for Kavanaugh?

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.: Tucker, it is pretty one-sided out here that army of surrogates needs to get a lot bigger if they're going to take me on because it's very easy to defend Judge Kavanaugh.

He have a -- has a stellar record on the bench. He has a long and distinguished history of public service. And he has undergone six background checks, Tucker, six background checks.

CARLSON: He has.

COTTON: And now, somehow, the FBI is supposed to turn up new information in just a few days to satisfy all the Democrats.

Yet, as soon as we agreed to have a limited investigation by the FBI into current credible allegations of which I would say there are none, but to humor them, to give them a few days, they immediately started moving the goalposts saying that we have to interview two dozen witnesses, and has to take weeks and on and on and on.

It's never going to end, Tucker. This is not about trying to get the facts or get the proof. It's about trying to stop Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court, that all comes to an end this week, Tucker.

CARLSON: What I find so striking is that he's a sitting federal judge who's authored scores and scores of opinions. And yet we're not debating any of them.

His judicial philosophy is not even up for debate. It's all about his high school yearbook. Does it strike you this conversation is unbecoming of a country as advanced as ours? It's just so stupefyingly dumb. Why?

COTTON: It is -- it is pretty amusing to see Democratic senators poring over a high school yearbook as if it were the da Vinci Code, Tucker--


COTTON: --and hypocritical of senators like Amy Klobuchar who are condemning Brett Kavanaugh for uncorroborated allegations from 36 years ago. Yet, Amy Klobuchar stands by Keith Ellison who stands credibly accused of beating his ex-girlfriend just a few years ago with contemporaneous medical and police records.

It just goes to show you that the Democrats are engaged in an orchestrated smear campaign to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh's character--


COTTON: --because they'll stop at nothing to prevent him from getting on the Supreme Court.

CARLSON: Finally, a U.S. Senator to make the case -- and a -- and a -- and very ably made. Thank you very much, Senator. Good to see you.

COTTON: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Nancy Pelosi says that whether the party succeeds or fails in keeping Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, they're going to try to impeach him if they win in mid-terms. That is next.


CARLSON: Democrats doing their best to stop Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and destroy his reputation, they may win at that, they may fail. Either way, they're not giving up. Nancy Pelosi says that even if the Democrats win control of the Congress, they're ready to impeach Kavanaugh.


HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: If Judge Kavanaugh, see I'm being really spec, President Trump, Judge Kavanaugh, if -- if they -- if he is not telling the truth to Congress, or to the FBI, then he's not fit not only to be on the Supreme Court but to being the -- on the court that he's on right now.


CARLSON: She didn't specify what court he's on right now. But that was the future Speaker of the House, perhaps, Nancy Pelosi. Rochelle Ritchie is a former Press Secretary for the House Democrats and she joins us tonight. Thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So, look, I know I've got a position on this. But do you really think it's wise to create a system where even if you lose your effort to stop someone from getting on to a court that you will impeach him once he gets on the court?

RITCHIE: Well look, I think that there's a lot of hypocrisy right now coming from Conservatives. And the reason I -- why I say that is because they're literally outraged right now and pushing to have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein fired for unsubstantiated comments. And yet, they religiously stand behind Judge Brett Kavanaugh. So as--

CARLSON: I'm not sure I'm tracking your logic. What do you--

RITCHIE: What do you mean?

CARLSON: --what, fired for unsubstantiated comments, which one?

RITCHIE: The comments about recording Donald Trump, those comments.

CARLSON: Well for whatever it's worth, I'm not calling for Rosenstein to be fired and I'm --

RITCHIE: You're not. But there are -- but there are 11 --

CARLSON: --just the opposite. But even I don't like Rod Rosenstein but it would be a little weird if Republicans said, well Rod Rosenstein should be, I don't know if he could be impeached, but impeached?

RITCHIE: --fired. That he'd be fired--

CARLSON: Yes, fired--

RITCHIE: --and you have a 11 Republicans right now pushing for that. But I think that we do have to listen and understand what Pelosi is saying. If this man is not qualified because of his temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice, then why will we not question whether or not he should be on the Supreme Court?

CARLSON: I don't know. I think it's totally fair to question whether he should be on the Supreme Court--

RITCHIE: We agree then --

CARLSON: --but that's not what she said. Well, of course, I mean I -- I believe in questions. I do it for a living. It's the Left. It's always denouncing me for asking obvious questions. But let me just ask you this.

RITCHIE: I'm not denouncing you.

CARLSON: Well here is an obvious question. On what grounds would he be impeached, removed from the bench? What will be the argument? What will be the crime?

RITCHIE: Well I think that with any one, well see, there is no crime, is he ? I think that's the problem that's happening with Conservatives is that -- is that they're looking at this as a criminal trial.

CARLSON: No, but hold on wait, no, no, but doesn't impeachment by definition requires a crime, I believe.

RITCHIE: I would not --

CARLSON: I mean so impeachment is a process of putting someone on trial--

RITCHIE: Well I -- I think--

CARLSON: --removing him by the Congress.

RITCHIE: --I think that what -- what they're saying is it's going to depend on what comes out of the FBI investigation, obviously. If there is an FBI investigation, which I don't think this is a criminal investigation--

CARLSON: It's not.

RITCHIE: --and that's why I was saying this is not a trial. There's no jury, judge, prosecutor, or public defender.

CARLSON: Right. But in --

RITCHIE: This is about character references.


RITCHIE: And if those references don't pan out, just like with anyone else in the United States, you don't get hired, or as Trump says, you get fired.

CARLSON: OK. I -- I get it. But that's not what Pelosi's arguing. And it may be that Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand the system. She seemed odd in the clip, I will say--

RITCHIE: I think she understands. I think she understands the system.

CARLSON: --well then -- then impeachment, I believe, requires a crime. She said if he lied -- if he lied under oath. What would he have lied about? And how would we know that? I mean--


CARLSON: --what is she talking about actually?

RITCHIE: --well, he could have lied about sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. He could have lied about--

CARLSON: And that can be proved how?

RITCHIE: We'll have to see what comes out of the FBI investigation.

CARLSON: Do you think if it -- so he said that he didn't drink that much in high school, in college, and Democrats seem very eager to prove that he did. Are you comfortable with that as a line of argument that 37 years--


CARLSON: --after the fact sitting United States senators could make it their single-minded focus to show that you drank more beer than you said you did? Or does that degrade our system a little bit to have a conversation that stupid?

RITCHIE: Well, I don't think that it's a stupid conversation. I think it's a very serious conversation because we are talking about sexual assault. And those comments have been backed up by college peers of his -- his that he went to at the university --

CARLSON: So is that the so the standard is--

RITCHIE: --he--

CARLSON: --and they're not claiming that he hurt anyone--

RITCHIE: --he had one woman call him a sloppy drunk.

CARLSON: OK. That -- that's great. This is this -- this is the party of Ted Kennedy saying that if you drink too much you're not suited for high office. Is that the argument they're making in college--

RITCHIE: No. The argument is is that if you are accused of sexual assault then you are not fit to sit on the Supreme Court.

CARLSON: They're not and that -- and that's a fine standard. But they're not making that argument. They're saying his friends from college say he drank too much.

RITCHIE: I don't think that that is necessarily the complete--

CARLSON: You don't --

RITCHIE: --argument, Tucker. I think that's part of it as far as his character --

CARLSON: Well no one from college has said that he -- that he sexually assaulted anybody. I haven't seen that -- even that allegation.

RITCHIE: But we do have an allegation that's coming from Dr. Ford right now. And we have to let the FBI do their investigation to get to the bottom of it--

CARLSON: Right. Well they are. They are and -- and it's going to take a couple years apparently according to Senate Democrats to get that done.

RITCHIE: A couple of years ?

CARLSON: I don't know. It was supposed to take a week. It's all such a scam --

RITCHIE: Have well --

CARLSON: Thank you very much Rochelle for joining us.

RITCHIE: Thank you, Tucker. Thanks.

CARLSON: Nice to -- nice to see you.

Kirsten Gillibrand is bringing a new brand of justice to America where an accusation is the same as guilt. That's not the country we grew up in. How do you feel about living in it now? That's next.



CARLSON: Well Brett Kavanaugh's show trial is disturbing enough on its own terms, all these pompous know-nothings going on about stupid things. But worse than that, it appears to herald a new era in American justice, a time whose foremost prophet is turning out to be Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

In this new world, a person is guilty as soon as accused of any crime. Questioning an accuser isn't a constitutional right. Instead, it's a crime.

Michael Anton is a Research Fellow at Hillsdale College. He's former National Security Official in the Trump Administration. And he just wrote a piece on this new Gillibrand standard. He joins us tonight.

Michael Anton, thank you very much for coming on. What is the Gillibrand standard you wrote about?

MICHAEL ANTON, LECTURER AND RESEARCH FELLOW, HILLSDALE COLLEGE: It is as you've said and as your last guest said. It is that in certain cases, the accusation suffices to convict that, you know, further investigation, presumption of innocence, right to confront accusers, none of that matters.

The -- the accuser raises the hand and says, I say this, and we're all obligated to accept it. Now, the Democrats, I think, in their defense would say, well this isn't a trial. It's not a criminal trial. In this case, the Judge is seeking a -- a great thing, a seat on the Supreme Court that no one is entitled to, so we don't need to be held to these niceties of law.

But once they've set this standard, essentially, if this precedent is allowed to hold, what will happen is any citizen of the United States will have an effective veto power over any member of any court or the cabinet.

All they have to do is come forward and say, "I accuse you of something 30 years ago. You can't question my sincerity. The accusation is enough to sow doubt, therefore you -- you have to step down."

In the piece, I described it as essentially akin to, you know, being in a - - a sporting event, you know, going up to your opponent before the thing with a baseball bat breaking his arm and then saying "Well, too bad you can't play. I guess you got to forfeit and let me win."

CARLSON: Yes, it's not a--

ANTON: I mean that needs some help too.

CARLSON: --it's not a criminal trial. So, why do you have a problem with that?

I mean I guess what I find so striking is the idea that those standards only applies in a strict legal setting, those are the standards of fairness that apply to all human interaction including the way you parent your children. Since when do they not count?

ANTON: Since the Supreme Court is divided five to four, and since this has become, as you say, a completely politicized event, and there was nothing in Brett Kavanaugh's record as a judge to sow any doubt about his qualifications.

In fact, his qualifications, as you've pointed out many times, are beyond sterling. So, the Democrats were clearly looking at a -- a loss here. Brett Kavanaugh was going to get confirmed. They had to do something, so they came up with this. I think it sets a disastrous precedent for our country--


ANTON: --it's also cruelly unfair to him and to his family.

CARLSON: --well it's -- it's awful. But what does it say, quickly, about the people doing it? If you say in public that fairness doesn't matter what does that say about you?

ANTON: That power is everything. All that matters is winning in the here and now. Collateral damage to institutions--

CARLSON: That's right.

ANTON: --doesn't matter. Damage to people, damage to families, damage to little kids doesn't matter, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is power, holding on to it, gaining more of it.

CARLSON: Yes. Well, it's a secular worldview, I would say. Michael, thank you very much, great to see you.

ANTON: Thank you.

CARLSON: The Deputy Chairman of the DNC, Keith Ellison, has been cleared by his own party because they say the woman accusing him doesn't have videotape. Therefore, who cares what she says? Huh. We'll get more on that case next.


CARLSON: Democratic Party has finally finished its long-awaited probe of the Deputy Chairman of the DNC, Keith Ellison. Its law firm says the allegations against Ellison can't be substantiated because the accuser doesn't have videotape, so they're ignoring her word. That would be called victim-shaming under other circumstances.

Karin Housley is a State Senator, a Republican, U.S. Senate candidate from Minnesota and she joins us tonight. Karin, are you happy with this new standard that the DNC has articulated?

KARIN HOUSLEY, AMERICAN POLITICIAN, REPUBLICAN MEMBER, MINNESOTA SENATE: No. And thank you so much for having me, Tucker. It just shows the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party and the double standard that they do have.

I'm running for the hashtag MeToo Al Franken seat for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota. And my opponent is still out there campaigning with them and she says that Keith Alex -- Ellison categorically denies these allegations. Therefore, she believes them and she stands with them.

Yet, when it's Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican, they want a full and complete investigation. So, it just shows the hypocrisies that and the investigation that was done was done of Keith Ellison, who was the Vice Chair of the DNC Party--


HOUSLEY: --done by the law firm of a Democrat of the Democrat Party in Minnesota. So, it's like the fox watching the henhouse. So it -- and it's Karen Monahan, the Keith Ellison's former girlfriend, she's out on Twitter again tonight, and I've retweeted it.

She's -- she's begging for somebody to listen to her. But the Democrats and the complete hypocrisy that they are -- that they are, aren't listening to her.

CARLSON: So look, I have no idea if the allegations are correct or not. I - - I really don't know and I would withhold judgment because I think that's what fair people would do. But I'm surprised by the reaction. Have the press in Minnesota, the paper there in the Twin Cities, for example, been hounding Keith Ellison to explain what exactly this is about?

HOUSLEY: No, absolutely not. It is dead silence among the media and the Democrats in Minnesota. Yet, all we hear about is Brett -- Brett Kavanaugh and how we should have a full FBI investigation. But the media is quiet.

And my opponent, Tina Smith, again, out there fully campaigning and supporting Keith Ellison, and nobody, nobody is bringing these accusations, are calling for an invest -- investigation, so I did.

Today, I called on the Attorney General of Minnesota to do a full investigation of Keith Ellison because the voters of Minnesota, they want to know before they go to the polls in November who is Keith Ellison and -- and he's -- has he really done these things to his girlfriend?

CARLSON: But I -- I mean I can't keep up with what the rules are because they change so often. But quickly, aren't we supposed to believe the woman? I keep hearing that.

HOUSLEY: You know, I -- sexual harassment abuse, domestic abuse it is all wrong. And every accuser should be heard--


HOUSLEY: --because and -- and against Keith Ellison, these are some really, really serious accusations--

CARLSON: I know.

HOUSLEY: --but nobody is listening -- nobody is listening to Karen Monahan- -

CARLSON: It's -- it's only about power.

HOUSLEY: --so I am, I'm--

CARLSON: Karin, thank you.

HOUSLEY: --it's only about power and it's--


HOUSLEY: --yes, thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Wish we had more time. Great to see you. Thank you very much.

I'm not great at selling things, which is why I haven't been talking about this book every night for the past year. But it's coming out tomorrow and I'm proud of it because I think it tells the story.

It explains what has happened in this country, how President Trump was elected, why, and how the battleground seems to have shifted so completely?

If people you're watching on television were saying one thing 10 years ago and saying the opposite tonight, and you are seeing that, this book explains why. It's out tomorrow. Hope you buy it. It's great, I think.

That's it for us tonight. See you tomorrow on the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. We're live in New York tonight. Sean Hannity is live in our studio in Washington. Hey, Sean.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Hey, I'm in your studio. By the way, and you get to be a guest on my show coming up later tonight. I give - - give you time to breathe and collect yourself after a great show. Good show tonight.

CARLSON: Thank you, Sean.

HANNITY: Congrats on the new book, by the way.

CARLSON: Thank you.

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