Navy pilots report spotting UFOs over east coast

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 28, 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.” A couple of hours ago, "The Washington Post," our hometown newspaper here in the nation's capital published an op-ed by former FBI Director, Jim Comey. In the piece, Comey explains that whatever surveillance the Obama Justice Department conducted on the 2016 Trump campaign was entirely justified and within bounds, nothing weird about it at all.

Yes, American citizens were monitored electronically without their knowledge, but it wasn't spying. Of course, it wasn't spying. It was investigating. It was done for your own good. And if you don't like it, you're unpatriotic and possibly mentally ill. That's Comey's position.

What the op-ed did not contain was any evidence at all that what he said is true. Comey is a bitter partisan with a long history of shading the truth, but he suggests you've got to trust him anyway. It's your duty to trust him.

Okay. Well, here's another idea. We could see for ourselves exactly what happened in 2016. We could declassify all the relevant information and then make it public. That way, we wouldn't have to take anyone's word for what happened. Comey's word, Trump's word, anyone else's word.

The President has suggested doing just that. The left is outraged by the idea. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Trump has every reason to believe Barr will use his new powers to aid the President's anti-deep state propaganda efforts.

Trump giving Barr unilateral authority over classification is just a huge deal in the world of Intelligence agencies. Barr will be able to override other agencies' independent classification determinations. And the goal of all this here seems pretty clear. It's basically to give Sean Hannity material for his television show.

So the plan, as it appears now, is essentially a kind of purge of the ideologically suspect members of the Intelligence apparatus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It's a purge like Joseph Stalin, unless we stop the release of this information, people will die. That's what they're telling you. Just another day of balanced news coverage on MSNBC.

Keep in mind as you watch and rewatch that clip, that Chris Hayes is not a flak for the CIA. He's a member of the National Press Corps, but he isn't arguing for openness, just the opposite. Hayes is arguing, using his position as a public advocate to argue against giving the public more information.

These are not military secrets, by the way, or the names of U.S. agents working undercover overseas. The information in question is about how the FBI spied on Americans while investigating crimes that we now know did not occur.

So what could possibly be the justification for keeping all of that secret? The details secret? Really, the only justification would be to protect the Intel agencies from embarrassment. That's what they fear. And that's exactly why the former director of the CIA, John Brennan, and so many others are anxious to preserve the veil of secrecy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CIA: I think it's critically important that the counterintelligence professionals continue to carry out their responsibilities and resist these unwarranted and very, very irresponsible efforts to try to undermine what they're doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Okay, so John Brennan thinks it's risky, unwarranted, very irresponsible to let American citizens now whether their law enforcement agencies abused their power, that kind of transparency again irresponsible.

Okay. So what if we applied the same standards to John Brennan himself? You know that after leaving the White House, Brennan was allowed to keep his security clearance, and that clearance increased his value as an employee once he entered the private sector. It allowed him among other things, access to classified information, which he could then selectively leak to his colleagues at MSNBC.

So how does giving classified information to John Brennan help American national security? Well, it doesn't, it helps only John Brennan. Keep in mind, this is a man who has accused his political enemies of treason, a death penalty offense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENNAN: This is nothing short of treasonous, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Treasonous is defined as a betrayal of trust, as well as aiding and abetting the enemy. And so that was the word that came to my mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That was for the crime of holding a press conference with Vladimir Putin last summer in Finland. He was talking with the President. What you just saw is not stable behavior. John Brennan is exactly the sort of person who should not have a security clearance.

Close to a year ago on this program, we made that point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Brennan no longer works for the Federal government in any capacity. He holds no official post. And yet, according to two sources we spoke to exclusively today, Brennan retains perhaps the most valuable asset he had in government, a top secret security clearance. It is terrifying to think that John Brennan still has access to any of that information. Brennan is an out of the closet extremist. This is not a man who should have a security clearance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So shortly after that aired, the President announced that he was revoking John Brennan's security clearance. That was, as we said almost a year ago, it was July of 2018. What happened next?

Well, pretty much nothing. Apparently, as of tonight, John Brennan still has a security clearance amazingly enough as he works for MSNBC. According to "The New York Times," the President's order was, quote, "hampered by aides who slow rolled the President and by Justice Department officials who fought Mr. Trump on it."

Keep in mind that Paul Ryan, then the Speaker of the House mocked the idea publicly when Trump said he was going to revoke Brennan's security clearance.

According to "The New York Times," the same thing happened with documents that President wanted declassified. The bureaucracy fought back against the elected President and won.

This seems to be happening a lot recently. According to Bob Woodward's book on multiple occasions, Gary Cohn, the National Economic Council Director, prevented the President from pulling out of a trade deal simply by stealing the relevant order off his desk when he wasn't looking.

The President ordered troops out of Syria last December, you remember that, but that order has not been laid down. It's been delayed and mitigated again, and again. Now, it looks like troops will stay in Syria indefinitely.

In fact, we are now sending troops to the Middle East, in even larger numbers, directly contravening the President's campaign promises, and as we just showed you, the same might happen with the President's latest call for declassification.

John Brennan, among others is calling for the bureaucracy to ignore the order. Think about that, like so many on the left, Brennan is doing precisely when he accuses others of doing, "You're undermining democracy," they screamed even as they work to do just that. How are they doing it?

Well, to recap civics at its most basic level, all authority and representative democracy flows from voters. The President and the Vice President are the only elected officials among the millions who work in the Executive Branch of government. If you subvert their policies ratified by voters, you are subverting democracy itself.

Brennan obviously knows that. He doesn't care. But the rest of us should care.

Fox senior political analyst, Brit Hume joins us tonight. Brit, thanks a lot for coming on. So it seems to me that if you have a government where the elected leaders are ignored unilaterally by permanent employees and the bureaucracy, it doesn't matter what the political affiliations of anyone involved are, that's subverting democracy, isn't it?

BRIT HUME, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's been going on for a long time. Whether there's actually a deep state, as it is often called, I remain skeptical. But there certainly is a permanent bureaucracy that exists from one administration to the next. And it often resist Presidents on orders they give and sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes Presidents get talked out of doing things they shouldn't do, but --

CARLSON: But hold on, there's a huge difference between talking somebody out of an unwise decision, which I think is a fair thing.

HUME: And slow walking it.

CARLSON: And contravening the expressed will of an elected official. I mean, subverting it really, in a dishonest way. Isn't -- I mean, how is that not an assault on democracy?

HUME: Well, I think in many respects, it is. I don't disagree with that, and I can't help remarking seeing your monologue there and the clips from the guy from MSNBC that -- you know, I'm old enough to remember that when reporters were constantly trying to get the government to stop classifying so much information, and that respect for classified information was hard to find in the fourth estate.

Remember the Pentagon Papers? That whole study that went on, that voluminous study. The whole thing was classified. Newspapers got ahold of it, published it.

CARLSON: They were stolen. By the way they got literally stolen at night from the government --

HUME: That's right. It was stolen and published and the newspapermen who were involved in that were considered heroes. And I agreed with that.

CARLSON: And I agree with it now.

HUME: And remember also, Tucker, that when Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was about to publish his report that contained a lot of information about how this investigation got started and whether or not there was the collusion that had been so often charged. He was going to include some classified information and he went to the White House.

And all of the same people were wringing their hands and worrying about loss of sources and methods. The report was published and we never heard another word about it. So you know, it's the same characters making --

CARLSON: How many American assets were killed?

HUME: Well, none that we know of. That's for sure. And I think and if it had happened, do you think the John Brennan's of the world wouldn't let us hear about it? Of course, they would.

CARLSON: Should it make us nervous when news organizations hire people with top secret clearances who are basically running interference with the permanent bureaucracy? They'll push back.

HUME: The same guy as the guy that had to come on the air after the Mueller report was released, and tried to explain how he got it also wrong. He predicted there were further indictments coming in and you know that Mueller was really just getting started.

And then there were no further indictments. Mueller did not find the collusion that had been so often alleged by Brennan and others and he had to come on the air and say, "Well, I don't really know. I got some bad information." And so -- and yet, and you would think that after that, if he'd gotten something that big that wrong for so long, that the enthusiasm of certain networks for having him on might be diminished? Apparently not.

CARLSON: And that was my question. You've run a news organization, you've run a bureau, you've been in this business for many decades. Would you keep using a guy who got it wrong like that?

HUME: Well, if I did, I would certainly -- the first thing I would do is I would challenge him aggressively about how this happened. And I would certainly not be prepared to let him spout off like that and sit there with a straight face.

And I certainly wouldn't do with that anchor did and start whining about the release of information being -- listen, if what James Comey for example, is saying in that op-ed is going that's going to be in "The Washington Post" in the morning, it is up on the web tonight -- is it all true? You know what? Barr will find that. Barr will say that.

You know, the idea that Bill Barr himself, a former CIA man, that's where he started his career. He has twice been Attorney General. He is a pillar of the nation's legal establishment is going to willy-nilly declassify information in the face of the advice he will get from Dan Coats of DNI and the CIA. It's just ludicrous. It's just -- and not only is it ludicrous, it's not in any sense plausible. And to see these journalists buying into that is really distressing.

CARLSON: One of many things they bought into. Brit Hume. Thank you.

HUME: You bet, Tucker.

CARLSON: Michael Tracey is an independent journalist, I want to emphasize that, an independent journalist, one of the very few, and one of the most honest, he joins us tonight. What do you make of that? I mean, you've complained for years -- literally years now about news organizations hiring the heads of government, law enforcement and spy agencies and allowing them to, unchallenged, repeat their propaganda. But it seems like we're reaching kind of a new level of that now.

MICHAEL TRACEY, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST: Right. It will be one thing for Chris Hayes to have his colleague John Brennan on for an extended rant as to why it would somehow compromise national security for this classified material to be released. But Chris Hayes didn't even challenge any of his bombastic claims. He just let him spout unimpeded.

And it's incredibly ironic that it's now being cast as some kind of authoritarian power grab for President Trump to delegate to Attorney General Barr the authority to declassify information that would shine a light on the conduct of the country's most secretive spy institutions in 2016.

Supposedly, we're now to believe that it is authoritarian to release that information to the public, to let them view it. And it is somehow saving democracy, to have spy chiefs go on TV and declare that it would somehow jeopardize national security or put lives at risk to keep that information concealed.

It's truly an inversion of the highest order, and, you know, more indication that we're in this weird bizarre world.

CARLSON: So I mean, the anchor you mentioned who I know is a perfectly smart person, and in sort of aware of irony and like not unsophisticated, how can people like that say that it is totalitarian for the public to know more without tripping some kind of internal sensor that says, "Whoa, stop lying that much."

TRACEY: I can't get inside a television anchor's head, I wouldn't presume to get inside your head either, Tucker, frankly, although that might be an enjoyable adventure.

But, you know, all the incentives on somebody in the position of an MSNBC anchor is to elevate the most fanatical and alarmist interpretations of anything Trump does on a given day. So if there's an alternate explanation for why it might be a decent idea to release information in the public interest that would shed light on the activities of I don't know, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the institutions that not so long ago, we were told it was a progressive ideal to want to apply scrutiny, too.

I mean, that's what people heralded the Edward Snowden revelations. It's why throughout history, it's been a pillar of the liberal interpretation of national security really to want to apply maximum transparency to these institutions which have it as in their institutional interest to keep as much information as possible concealed.

And yet, it's all totally flipped now because Trump apparently has some interest in putting out that information. And the point that you mentioned about his subordinates, Trump's in the Executive Branch, not carrying out his will, is another weird paradox because we're constantly told that Trump is this ruthless, unbridled authoritarian, who can get anything that he wants done with the snap of a finger.

And yet his direct employees in the Executive Branch are constantly simply ignoring his directives, and as you mentioned, in a way it's subverting the democratic will and they're doing so and yet nothing seems to happen.

CARLSON: And that's -- I mean, that is an attack. If you're looking for an attack on democracy. They hate democracy. That is actually the truth as you know. Michael Tracey, great to see you tonight. Thank you for coming on.

TRACEY: Thanks.

CARLSON: Well, back in May of 2017, John Brennan insisted that the Steele dossier had no bearing on the CIA's behavior during the 2016 election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TREY GOWDY, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

BRENNAN: I don't.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment that was done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, that's such a lie and we know it's a lie. Just as when Brennan claimed that American drones never killed civilians -- lying. Lying intentionally. We knew he was lying. Other officials later admitted the dossier, of course, was critical to the Intelligence Community's actions, including their decision to spy on a wholly innocent American citizen called, Carter Page,

Carter page joins us to on our set. Carter, thanks very much for coming on. What's your -- when you when you see that, what's your reaction?

CARTER PAGE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE: Well, his cover up has, you know, one of the big things he is pushing is we have to protect our sources and methods, you know.

I was a source for the CIA and FBI for many years, and literally based on this dossier, you know, you'd want to talk about protecting the sources, I personally was getting frequent death threats from Oklahoma and elsewhere related to this, these threats or these, you know, false stories that they were pushing and kind of pushing through the system.

CARLSON: Wasn't Brennan concerned about your wellbeing as a source?

PAGE: Absolutely not. And not only that, I, in my meetings with the FBI in March of 2017, I told them about that, about these death threats I was getting from Oklahoma. And unfortunately, they only continued and escalated in April when they continued leaking this false information or misleading information related to me being a source first of all, in early April, and then, you know, the big "Washington Post" piece when my FISA warrants were first revealed, which kind of has this spin to it what a bad guy I was.

CARLSON: So you've got maybe more skin in this game than anybody I'm aware of. The President has promised to declassify all documents related to the spying in 2016. What do you hope to learn from that declassification?

PAGE: I just want exactly as you're saying, Tucker, in terms of people that have been obstructing this administration's objectives and all the great things that they have on their agenda. This has been -- and as what is alluded to in the Mueller report, this has been a huge headwind for the administration and I just hope once the truth is out there, you know, our country can keep growing and continuing to do the all the great things that President Trump has for this country.

CARLSON: Yes, hopefully you get an apology. You don't seem to care as much, but I care, I'm principled.

PAGE: He deserves the apology.

CARLSON: Carter Page. Great to see you tonight. Thank you very much.

PAGE: You too, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: Bad day for the creepy porn lawyer today. He went to court for some of the many criminal allegations levied against him. You can probably guess how he pleaded, but we'll have it for you anyway after the break.

And then the Brexit Party just dominated the most recent elections in the U.K. Nigel Farage, who heads that party joins us to talk about the results after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL AVENATTI, LAWYER: I am confident that when a jury of my peers passes judgment on my conduct, that justice will be done and I will be fully exonerated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Creepy porn lawyer is creepy, but boy is he confident. Today was no different. Lesser men might have considered taking a deal when credibly charged with -- I don't know -- extorting Nike and defrauding a vulnerable client out of $300,000.00, but that's why you'll never hear their names.

The creepy porn lawyer will not surrender. Trace Gallagher has more.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, he says he did not steal money from a porn star, did not try to shake down a Fortune 500 company, but he does blame the Trump administration though he didn't explain why.

In the first case. Stormy Daniels' former attorney is charged with forging her name and convincing her publisher to send him the porn stars $300,000.00 book advance. At the time, he was representing Daniels in a civil litigation against President Trump that they ended up losing.

The indictment filed last week accuses Stormy's former lawyer of using her money to pay the lease on his Ferrari, travel expenses and $56,000.00 of payroll at his law firm. In the second case, the allegation is that he tried to extort Nike for $20 million, saying if the company did not come up with the money, he would go public with claims that Nike was facilitating payments to the families of high school basketball players.

In court, as the judge read the four charges, Stormy's former lawyer said four times quote, "One hundred percent not guilty," and after court he said this to the media. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AVENATTI: For over 20 years, I have represented Davids versus Goliaths. I am now facing the fight of my life against the ultimate Goliath, the Trump administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: You heard him say he is also confident he'll be exonerated. Remember, he is also charged with stealing other clients' settlement money, bank fraud, tax fraud, and aggravated identity fraud just to name a few -- all told he's looking at a little over 400 years and change imprisonment -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Which is maybe why he suspended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President. Trace Gallagher thanks for the update. Good to see you.

Chadwick Moore is in New York based journalists and a frequent guest on the show. He joins us tonight. So Chadwick, it looks like not running for president anymore, at least in this cycle. Is there taking three steps back a deeper lesson to the creepy porn lawyer saga?

CHADWICK MOORE, JOURNALIST: Well, I don't understand how any of this could have possibly happened. I mean, creepy porn lawyer was America's sweetheart. We had -- he was a man who was going to take down the Trump administration, we had a Varys from "Game of Thrones," who has a television show called "Reliable Sources" on CNN.

Even he said this guy was a very strong contender for the presidency, and that he was going to pay a lot of attention to him. You know, I do not think this is the time to start mocking journalists and going after journalists. They've suffered a lot this year. They've had a very difficult year. All of their hoaxes have been proven to come -- not be true.

I just don't know why, you know, there were no red flags. It's just -- this is so shocking to me. I mean, the guy who is also accused of beating his girlfriend, who didn't pay his rent, who owed his employees $4 million in back wages now is facing coast to coast Federal charges. I'm shocked. It doesn't make any sense to me.

CARLSON: I can honestly say in 28 years of interviewing people, I've never interviewed anyone with the worst personal vibe. Really a hostile character, but why is it -- so actually, there is a connection here. I don't think I'm smart enough to quite connect the dots. You probably are. Why is it that the very worst people in the world somehow all wind up running for President in the Democratic Party?

MOORE: I really -- maybe the party is just full of the worst people in the world. I can't figure it out. But you know, the media encouraging this man and I think Varys from "Game of Thrones" summed it up best when he said that the media had created this man's political platform and gave him this this shot at the presidency apparently, which is not going to happen now.

But you know, it's interesting, because I always thought being a journalist, one of the key personality traits you want to have is be a good judge of character and a good instinct about someone and you've sat down with creepy porn lawyer, and you just said that you immediately got a really icky vibe about him, anyone at home would have gotten the same vibe about him.

No journalist thought it was worth maybe they shouldn't have this guy speaking at Democratic donor campaign events, on the campaign trail during the midterms. Nobody thought that maybe this guy might not be such a good fellow.

CARLSON: No, they loved him. I mean, Jeff -- this really is the worst shock plot. I mean, you look at him, I look at him, you look at him, we think, "Oh, man, I don't want that guy in my house." Jeff Zucker looks at him and says, "I must have him on my air." More creepy porn lawyer. More cowbell. It's so good. Chadwick Moore, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

MOORE: Thanks, you too.

CARLSON: Well, public schools in New York City have spent tens of millions of dollars on implicit bias training. The idea is to teach people to reject racism. Of course, they're encouraging it very aggressively. The details will shock you. Hard as you are to shock, this will shock you. After the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Congressman Eric Swalwell of California is among many other things running for President, that's his right to do it. But in order to run, he was asked to answer a difficult question with dozens of people in the most woke Democratic race in American history. Why would anybody vote for a boring, wrong colored Eric Swalwell? Well, fortunately, Mr. Swalwell has thought this through. Here's his answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why should another white guy be President?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, a white guy who doesn't see other identities or understand other experiences should not be President? I do. And you know, where there would be gaps in my knowledge or my experience, I will pass the mic to people, you know, who do have that experience. I've also pledged that I would ask a woman to serve as Vice President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So just save that tape. Think about it. What is he saying? Why should Eric Swalwell be President? Because he's not like all those horrible people who share his genes and look like him. They're bad, because they try to treat people equally. He is a good person, because he's willing to judge people based on their sex and skin color.

To prove it, instead of finding the best person for the job, Swalwell will make decisions based on superficial physical characteristics, the ones that matter that makes him deeply moral, unlike you who are immoral.

Well, with reasoning like that, it's no surprise that Jim Crow is making a fairly vigorous comeback in New York City's public schools. Under the rule of Chancellor Richard Carranza, the city has spent millions of dollars training administrators and teachers to fight something called implicit bias and achieve racial equity. We know where this is going.

Administrators who underwent training were told that racial equity meant favoring or disfavoring students based purely on their skin code regardless of their economic or other background factors, and certainly regardless of their ability.

In one case, administrators were told to give preference to middle class African-American students over and above poor white students, because color trumps all.

Well, others who work the school system say they were demoted because of their skin color. Deroy Murdock lives in New York City. He has been there a long time. He's a contributing editor at "National Review" online, and a Fox contributor as well and he joins us tonight. Deroy thanks a lot for coming on.

DEROY MURDOCK, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, a lot Tucker.

CARLSON: So kind of remarkable in the New York City Schools system and there are many levels of this, but one is this. One of the most liberal places in the world, tiny percentage of the students are white any way in New York City public schools that they've believe they have a problem with racism that's so profoundly need to spend tens of millions of dollars to fix it. What is that?

MURDOCK: It's very strange, Tucker. I mean, this is not Selma, Alabama 1965 or you right say, look, this is a really inherent problem, we've got to root this out.

I mean, this is New York City. These are people who probably voted for Hillary Clinton. They probably burst into tears when Donald Trump won. These are members of the Teachers Union, members of the Principals Union, I mean, these are probably some of the most racially correct people in the United States of America.

And yet my taxpayer dollars, $23 million for this program are being spent to root out the inner Jim Crow and inner Klansmen inside these people. It's really astonishing.

And by the way, the price of a new teacher in New York City is about $57,000.00 per year. For the price of this program, we could get 405 brand new teachers to educate students, black, white, Hispanic, and otherwise, and actually maybe do some good for them, as opposed to chase these racial ghosts through the five boroughs of New York City.

CARLSON: But are you allowed to say -- should you be allowed to say and get away with it, that we're going to give preference to people based -- children -- based purely on their skin color to some and discriminate against others purely on the basis of their skin color? Isn't that what we didn't like about the Jim Crow South, that attitude?

MURDOCK: Well, we've developed an Orwellian situation where we tried to escape this sort of bias in favor of one race versus another. And now it's being done in the name of racial equity. So inequality equals equality, if you follow that, I mean, this is really -- it makes no logical sense. And as I say, it's I think it's truly Orwellian.

CARLSON: And last question, maybe it should have been my first question. Is there any evidence that any of this helps kids learn? That it produces better outcomes? That it helps children?

MURDOCK: I don't think so. I think it -- what all it does is engage in racial obsession, racial bean counting, and it creates a situation of this idea of implicit bias. We're going to assume you're racist. I've got racial bias, that other person is a racist.

How about the idea of implicit decency? Let's assume we're all decent people. If there is a racist around, we'll probably try to correct that person. But let's at least try to get along rather than assume you're a bigot. I'm a bigot. That other person is a bigot.

CARLSON: Exactly.

MURDOCK: If you start off on that foot, you're not going to get very far and it just devolves into suspicion, intention and it doesn't end up in a good place at all.

CARLSON: Implicit decency. That's always a good bet I found in this country. It is a decent country and that's a wise point. Deroy Murdoch, thanks very much.

MURDOCK: Tucker, great to see you.

CARLSON: Well, a party demanding Brexit just won the U.K.'s latest round of elections. But as in America, the establishment isn't interested in democracy when it doesn't go their way. Nigel Farage leads that new party. He joins us next.

And breaking now, tornadoes and severe weather sweeping across the plains. More tornadoes are expected this hour. You're looking at Purcell, Oklahoma. Wow. We will continue to monitor the severe weather and bring you the latest as it occurs. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well of course, you've had that terrible dream where you have to go to class for a test or you have to give a speech and you look down and you're naked or in your pajamas. Nobody has to live through moments like that. That's a nightmare.

But Naomi Wolf, the feminist writer actually may have come about as close as a person can. So Wolf went on the BBC last week to discuss a new book she's written called, "Outrageous." The book argues that Victorian England was way more anti-gay than previously believed.

But instead of a breezy reception, Wolf learned live on air that her book, which she supposedly wrote, was a total sham, built on bogus assumptions. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAOMI WOLF, AUTHOR: I found like several dozen executions --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Several dozen executions?

WOLF: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't -- I don't think you're right about this. "Death Recorded" is what is in I think most of these cases that you've identified as executions. It doesn't mean that he was executed. It was a category that was created in 1823 that allowed judges to abstain from pronouncing a sentence of death on any capital convict whom they considered to be a fit subject for pardon.

I don't think any of the executions you've identified here actually happened.

WOLF: Well, that's a really important thing to investigate.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CARLSON: It might have been an important thing to know before writing the book, but she didn't. Melissa Francis co-hosts "Outnumbered" and "After the Bell" on Fox Business, and she joins us tonight.

So Melissa, just for context for our viewers. This woman calls herself Dr. Naomi Wolf, she's advised presidential candidates, Al Gore, most famously. She was a Rhodes Scholar. You and I were raised to believe that she was really impressive, but she's really not. So what does this tell us?

MELISSA FRANCIS, HOST: I don't know. I mean, the beauty myth, it was all about that when I was in college, she has a huge following. But here's what happened. So she basically said her thesis was that the course of history was changed because back in England at this time, they started executing people for being gay. And it was this huge discovery.

And by the way, I'm getting all this from Amazon, because I don't even think the book is out yet. But this is -- that the whole thesis right there is she discovered these records that men were executed and this sort of set off this chain of events where now we still shame people for being gay.

So at this point in time, you know, people who have studied this period are like, "What are you talking about? They executed people for being gay in England? In Victorian England?" So they invite her on the show, it turns out that she misread legal documents from the time and she went back and she looked at them in this notation that she thought meant that they were killed -- did not -- it meant what that other gentleman said that it had been basically put aside and he didn't want to rule on it.

So horribly embarrassing. She found this out on air. But it's the thesis for the whole book. So now the publisher is saying -- they're like, "Look, you know, it's up to be author. We stand behind her, but she's the one that was supposed to be fact checking her work, but we basically think her thesis still holds up."

It's terribly embarrassing. And actually, if you listen to the whole interview -- I have -- I mean, it's so embarrassing. I really feel for her, but here's the thing, you know, facts matter and checking your facts matter.

And when anyone who has a huge following asks you to believe something, and to go down this whole train of thought, where suddenly, you know, you're condemning a whole group of people, or you're finding the origin of why we're all so flawed today, and we believe this certain thing, just make sure you see the facts with your own eyes.

And it goes back to what you were saying about wanting records declassified -- trust your own eyes, and look for it yourself -- and in this case, you know, there were a lot of people that jumped on her bandwagon. And yes, she made a pretty simple mistake. But, you know, if she had consulted historians of the era or talked to other people, I think they would have said, "Gosh, I've never heard of anyone being executed for this in this period. This is really groundbreaking."

Either you found something that no one else knew about or you've made a mistake, and she could have done more, I guess, fact checking along the way. But I mean, others, this is like the other story I brought up with John Kerry, you know, and the State Department when they said the Syrian War was caused by this drought that didn't happen. They didn't check the rainfall, which was a very basic fact. But they made policy.

And then they left office still believing this thing. Now the State Department has gone back since John Kerry left and corrected the record. But when you're sold the bill of goods, you make sure you see the facts for yourself and don't just trust some person who is famous.

CARLSON: Melissa Francis, who believes in science --

FRANCIS: And math --

CARLSON: And math.

FRANCIS: I am so boring. I'm so crazy.

CARLSON: And you're good at that and so we love you. Melissa Francis, thank you so much.

Last week, British voters went to the polls to vote in the European Union elections and the results were a big victory for the brand new Brexit Party.

The Brexit Party demands a very simple thing that the British government honor the 2016 referendum to leave the E.U. Britain was already supposed to be out of the E.U. months ago, but the people in charge have dragged their feet and are now demanding a second vote.

As in the United States, democracy is only welcome when it confirms the policies chosen by people in power, in case you haven't noticed.

Nigel Farage leads the Brexit Party and he joins us tonight. Nigel Farage, thanks very much for coming on. Congratulations. And if you would crisply for our American audience explain why three years after Brexit, the U.K. is still in the E.U.

NIGEL FARAGE, LEADER, BREXIT PARTY: Yes, we voted in a referendum to leave the European Union, the greatest democratic exercise, the most voters ever in the history of our nation. We then, the next year, in a general election, voted for Labour and Conservative Parties, our traditional parties, both of whom promised they would honor the result of the referendum.

And the date was set. It was put into British law. We were leaving on March 29, 2019. And guess what happened? We didn't leave.

And they kicked the can down the road to the end of October, the 31st of October, Halloween. And I watched all of this as being one of the architects of the original Brexit referendum and vote. And I thought, "I can't stand aside. I can't bear the fact we're having to send members of the European Parliament back to Brussels."

So I founded the Brexit Party, and would you believe within six weeks of a brand new party being set up, we took the polls, we smashed the Conservative Party, we smashed the Labour Party. And regrettably, I'm back here in Brussels, Tucker, after 20 years, once again, as a Member of the European Parliament.

CARLSON: Now, I know it's complicated, but explain if you can, how it is a liberal or progressive position to remain in the German Empire, which is basically what the E.U. is. Why is that considered liberal?

FARAGE: Because they claim that as a European Union, they will deal with climate change. They claim that because they have open borders, this is the modern, liberal approach to the future.

What they don't tell you is they are literally killing and destroying something -- something so important that just next week, we're going to celebrate the 75th anniversary of D Day when America and Canada and others came to our aid, helped us liberate, you know, Europe from Nazi-ism to bring back something called democracy and what the European Union does, it crushes democracy. It takes decision making powers away from ordinary people and gives it to unelected bureaucrats.

CARLSON: Right, well the Head of the European Commission doesn't appear to be cutting you any slack. There's a quote -- a remarkable quote just the other day, which I doubt you saw and I'm quoting now, "These stupid nationalists," he said, "They are in love with their own countries." It doesn't sound like people like this have learned anything from these votes?

FARAGE: No, this is Mr. Juncker, who is President of the European Commission. That's his quote. But you know, the people I blame aren't necessarily the Brussels bureaucrats, the people I blame are British politicians in Westminster, who have not had the courage to take back the independence, sovereignty, democracy of our country.

Last week, I've given them the biggest seismic shock that has been seen in modern British politics. And I'll make you this one promise. If we do not leave the European Union on October 31st, I will lead the Brexit Party after that into the next general election, and we will sweep away parties that have dominated British politics for over a hundred years.

CARLSON: I could be talking to the next Prime Minister of Great Britain. Nigel Farage, thank you very much for joining us tonight and good luck.

FARAGE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, Obamacare was supposed to fix the crisis level wait times in American emergency rooms. Did it? No. They're getting worse. Every year. We will show you how desperate the situation has become in the state of California after the break.

Plus, the Navy just made a shocking admission on UFO's. We will share it with you, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: If you ever needed emergency medical care only to find the emergency room crammed with people, you know what a nightmare that is. Obamacare was supposed to fix that problem. But things have only gotten worse. As with other major issues, California is leading the way.

In 2017 more than 350,000 Californians had to leave the emergency room early against a doctor's advice. That's a 57 percent increase from 2012. Why? Because wait times were just too long.

The average in California is now more than five hours and rising. Why is this? The illegal immigration is a major driver of it. It's making California poorer and much more crowded. People in charge can avoid the consequences, but normal people cannot, and that's why so many of them are fleeing the state of California.

Instead of fixing things though, the left led by Joe Biden is now demanding free healthcare for illegal immigrants. Imagine what that will do to wait times in the emergency room. But they don't care. The Democratic Party has chosen its constituency and it's not the middle class.

Not so long ago, anyone who uses the term "UFO" was considered a crank or a conspiracy nut. But now a growing number of military pilots and serious professionals are discussing their own encounters with strange objects in the sky. Those experiences are unpacked at some length in an upcoming History Channel A&E Special called "Unidentified."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYAN BENDER, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Many of these pilots have hundreds if not several thousands of flying hours. It's not in their interest to make this stuff up. Because professionally, it could be very damaging to them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really no distinct wings, no distinct tail, no distinct exhaust plume. It seemed like they were aware of our presence because they would actively move around us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: There are a lot of people like that. According to a recent "New York Times" piece, in 2014, and parts of 2015, UFO shows were being spotted almost daily by the U.S. military along the East Coast.

Dr. Michael Wall is a senior writer at Space.com and author of "Out There." He joins us tonight. Dr. Wall, thanks very much for coming on.

Almost daily, it's hard to process that information. Were you surprised to learn that?

MICHAEL WALL, SENIOR WRITER, SPACE.COM: Yes. I mean, I'm a little surprised that it's sort of coming out now. But yes, I mean, I think it kind of speaks to a broader phenomenon that that this is not as sort of like a fringe pursuit as it used to be. People aren't as embarrassed as it used to be to kind of entertain the actual possibility that we're not alone. And I mean, I think that's probably a positive development.

CARLSON: Well, it kind of came out of nowhere. We, two years ago started doing shows on this subjects, because I thought, I don't know, it sounded like maybe it's real. People dismissed it as crazy just two years ago. But if this has been sightings almost every day, why are we just finding out about it now?

WALL: Well, yes, I mean, there's sort of this groundswell, kind of kind of like you're talking about me, and part of that is in the scientific community. This is not viewed as so fringe anymore.

I mean, we have learned recently over the past decade that there are probably about 50 billion habitable planets just in our galaxy alone. And we have found other worlds in our solar system that actually might be habitable.

So yes, it's just sort of creeping across the entire public consciousness that this is not like a crazy thing to actually think about.

CARLSON: Well, I haven't thought enough about it, because I live in D.C., and all we talk about is Russia. But should we be concerned? Are you concerned? Do you think about this a lot?

WALL: No, I mean, I'm not concerned. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I would say I'm kind of skeptical. But I don't dismiss these just out of hand. That's not very scientific. I mean, I would think if there are alien space crafts, I would wonder why they kind of got here on their own without being detected, like across vast scopes of space, but then zipped around for a little while, and then zoomed off.

I mean, it just kind of would, would be weird to kind of think about what are they doing? Why did they allow themselves to be detected? What's the point? I mean, all of those things kind of factor in, but then you're getting into like ET psychology. And that's a very dangerous thing to kind of wade into, because we have no idea what we're even talking about.

CARLSON: Yes, no, we don't. But that kind of is the point. We don't know. And we can say that conclusively. There's an extensive phenomena we don't understand. Correct?

WALL: Yes, yes. And I mean, I think it's really important to actually keep an open mind and say, I mean, it's probably instrumentation. Maybe it's like a software issue. And maybe people don't fully know what they're looking at on these infrared images of these weird objects from these fighter jet cameras.

But that does not mean that we should just totally say that there is no way that it could be something we don't understand.

CARLSON: And we won't, because we have an open mind on the show above all.

Doctor, thank you very much. Good to see you.

WALL: Yes.

CARLSON: We are out of time, sadly. Back tomorrow. Here's Sean.

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.