New developments in Tucker's Google investigation; Dean Cain on Hollywood rallying behind Kavanaugh's accuser

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 21, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: The president is speaking in a rally right now in the State of Missouri. We're keeping a close eye on what he's saying. There's a lot of news going on. And if the President responds to any of it, of course, we'll bring that to you right away.

Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." One of the stories we're following, there is a new deadline for Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Ford, to respond to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys, this, according to the Chairman of the committee, have less than two hours from right now to respond and explain when and where she will testify.

If they don't, the vote will be held on Monday. Obviously, we're monitoring that.

The other big story tonight, a blockbuster actually, the New York Times dropped a remarkable allegation today about the number two man in the Department of Justice, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.

According to the paper, in the spring of 2017, in the middle of a meeting, Rosenstein proposed secretly recording the President in an effort, apparently, to expose chaos for the Administration and to discredit it.

The Times also says that Rosenstein talked about recruiting members of the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the President from office in a kind of internal coup. Rosenstein has denied this story. But almost nobody in Washington seems to believe him.

That's not surprising. Rosenstein is not a particularly popular person here. He's also a permanent federal bureaucrat, a group that has been working to undermine the President since the inauguration, so those are two strikes against him.

But none of that means the story is true. Before you decide whether it is, consider where it came from and why it was published now. The piece seems to be based on notes that FBI employees Lisa Page and Andy McCabe typed up after meeting with Rosenstein.

Only McCabe's notes mention anything about the 25th Amendment. He is obviously the core source for this story. So, if it's a question of deciding between Rod Rosenstein and Andy McCabe, who are you going to believe? It's not a great choice admittedly. But it's also not a close call.

McCabe was fired from the FBI for leaking and then lying about it. Federal prosecutors are looking now at the evidence. McCabe could soon be indicted for that. He has every incentive to want to see the President impeached.

How could he get the President impeached? Well he might start by leaking this story to a reporter called Adam Goldman at the New York Times, reporter whom his co-workers believe he's been leaking to for a long time.

He'd do that knowing that the story might cause the President to fire Rod Rosenstein. Democrats have long argued that firing Rosenstein would constitute obstruction of justice. That's an impeachable offense.

Come November assuming - assuming they take the House, Democrats will be in a position to do that to file impeachment charges. Even if they don't impeach, the story would doubtless drive the President crazy, and so division within the White House.

Perfect. A punji stick placed right in Trump's path. Is that what actually happened? We can't say for sure what happened. But if you were laying a trap for Donald Trump this might be exactly how you do it.

Before moving forward, the President might ask himself, "Why do Andy McCabe and the New York Times want me to fire Rod Rosenstein? And why do they want me to do it now rather than a year ago?" When your enemies give you political advice, it's worth asking questions like that.

Fox Correspondent Kristin Fisher has been following all today's news and she joins us tonight in the studio.

KRISTIN FISHER, FOX NEWS: Hey, Tucker. Yes, it's - it's a complicated story--


FISHER: --even for those of us that follow it.

So just to bring all of you up to speed let's start at the very beginning because this all started with that New York Times report claiming that the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had contemplated secretly recording the President at a meeting with top DOJ officials in May of 2017.

Remember, that's right after President Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey. While citing anonymous sources, The Times also claims that Rosenstein discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office.

Well in response to all of this, Rosenstein put out a statement saying "The New York Times' story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. But let me be clear about this. Based on my personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment."

So, Rosenstein calls the story inaccurate but you'll note he doesn't categorically deny it. And that's likely or could be because according to our Justice producer, Jake Gibson, who spoke with a DOJ official who was in that room during the meeting, Rosenstein did say something like that but he was joking.

He was allegedly in the middle of a heated exchange with then acting FBI Director, Andrew McCabe. The source says and this is a direct quote. "The statement about secretly recording the President was sarcastic and was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the President."

As you might imagine, already some Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill are worried that this could lead to the Deputy Attorney General's firing. But so far tonight, at least publicly, the White House is not weighing in, Tucker.

CARLSON: Probably had a conversation behind the scenes, I would think.

FISHER: I would imagine so.

CARLSON: Kristin Fisher, thank you for that.

FISHER: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz represents the State of Florida and he joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks a lot for coming on. So this is no defense of Rod Rosenstein--

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Thank you.

CARLSON: --who's never struck me as someone I would trust, personally. But does it seem odd that both the New York Times and Andy McCabe clearly would like the President to fire Rod Rosenstein, so what does that tell you?

GAETZ: Well we're only going to find out the truth if we're able to get Rod Rosenstein under oath to explain what he said in the context. There appears to be no denial that he talked about wiretapping the President. So now, we're supposed to believe the insurance policy wasn't really an insurance policy. The secret society didn't really exist.

This is just sarcasm. When you're talking about taping the President and when they said we'll - no we'll stop him, they didn't mean they'd stop Donald Trump. They meant that America would rise to its greatest virtues. So, I guess we can either believe the lying Department of Justice or our lying eyes.

CARLSON: So, again, I don't want this to come off as some sort of defense of permanent DOJ personnel whom, as I've said many times, I would not trust. On the other hand, consider this.

So, Andy McCabe apparently is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney in D.C. based on that IG report from DOJ that said that he leaked and lied about it, so he could be indicted.

If that's true, and I think it is, then no one at DOJ could call Andy McCabe a liar without invalidating the case. In other words, the prosecutor can't call the person he's charging a liar before the case or a judge will throw it out, so maybe they can't actually deny this for that reason.

GAETZ: Well there were other people in the room, Tucker. I've had sources who've said Scott Schools was in the room and that he's the other anonymous source cited in the New York Times piece, so--


GAETZ: --let's bring Scott Schools back from his Uber job. Let's bring Rod Rosenstein down. Why not put him under the - under oath and ask them? And if we're not afraid - if we're afraid to do that as a Republican Congress then, you know, we are - we are derelict in our oversight responsibilities.


GAETZ: We got to find out if they - like how appropriate - let's assume it was a joke, Tucker.


GAETZ: How appropriate is it for the Deputy Attorney General to be joking about wiretapping the President while he's overseeing an investigation of the President in front of his colleagues and subordinates? Roseanne Barr got fired for a joke. And frankly, I think Rod Rosenstein might too.

CARLSON: Interesting. So I want to ask you, speaking - speaking of the Congress' obligations as an oversight body, these documents pertaining to the Russia investigation, particularly, the FISA warrant that allowed the Obama Administration to spy on Carter Page, we were promised that they would be declassified.

And apparently, the permanent bureaucracy has prevented that from happening. It's deeply frustrating to those of us who believe in transparency and openness and the - and the public's right to know the details of what its government is doing behind its back.

Can anything be done about this or is it final?

GAETZ: Well I think that there were some who convinced the President that since the Inspector General is already looking at this content that if the Inspector General finishes, it will all come out anyway. That's frustrating for guys like us who want to turn all the cards face up on the table.

But I do have great confidence that Michael Horowitz will get to the bottom of this and will issue a fair report. So, we may have to wait a little longer than we would have liked but I don't think that the Deep State's going to be able to hide behind their inappropriate redactions for too long.

CARLSON: So, let me just ask one final question. If the, and I think you're absolutely right. Everything in the end becomes known. Nothing is hidden forever.

So, when these documents are finally released to the people who own them, which is to say, the American people, and it turns out that none of the things that were redacted were actually questions of national security, but merely butt covering by federal employees, will all the people who lied about it get punished because they should?

GAETZ: Well they've never been - been punished before. When we had text messages redacted just because Peter Strzok was friends with a judge or Andy McCabe bought a $60,000 conference table, there were no consequences--

CARLSON: Exactly.

GAETZ: --there was no punishment. We just sort of threw our hands in the air and lost trust and their ability to do their own redactions. But time and again, bureaucrats redact information that's embarrassing to them that the American people have a right to know.


GAETZ: And that's why we've got to continue to fight for Congress to have a robust oversight role.

CARLSON: Nicely put. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us tonight.

GAETZ: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well the Brett Kavanaugh saga continues. It's changing minute by minute. Why is our Republic hostage to this and what's going to happen next? We have the very latest on that.

Plus we'll keep watching the President's rally in Missouri. We'll go there right away if he reacts to either of tonight's breaking stories and he may. Stay tuned.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You're voting for me. A vote for any Democrat this November is a vote for massive regulation, massive taxes and, I hate to say it, massive crime because--




TRUMP: --Judge Kavanaugh. And I said we have to fight for him--


TRUMP: --not worry about the other side. And by the way, women are for that more than anybody would understand.


CARLSON: That was the President, just moments ago, speaking at a rally in Missouri addressing the chaos around the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. And there is, in fact, a lot of it.

The main debate is over timing of the next Kavanaugh hearing. You know the basic facts about it. According to the schedule most of us assumed it was real two weeks ago, the Senate should have already voted on the nomination by now, and Kavanaugh almost certainly would have been confirmed. He had the numbers.

And then the wrinkle, Democrats leaked the name of Christine Ford to the press. Ford alleges that sometime back in high school about 36 years ago, Kavanaugh jumped on her at a party and groped her over her clothes.

She's provided very few details including when and where it allegedly happened. Kavanaugh has indeed - denied the story entirely and so is the other person Ford said was present, a man named Mark Judge. That's pretty much what we know.

In order to know more, we're going to need to hear from Christine Ford. Both sides once agreed on that because it's obvious. She should have a chance to speak. Everyone thought that was a good idea. It was a consensus view.

Republicans in the Senate asked Ford to testify this week. She refused. They offered to send in a staffer to her house in California to take her testimony privately, and she refused that too.

Finally, they asked her to testify this coming Monday. She has said she won't but she will not explain why she won't. Ford's lawyers are now saying she's willing to explain herself in the Senate next Thursday.

Thursday is a significant date in this story. Because of Senate rules, which are complex, if Ford testifies next Thursday, the vote on Kavanaugh will be pushed back at least another week.

In this environment that very likely means forever. His nomination will be over, so will any Trump nomination to the court. There is a time before the mid-terms for the White House to introduce and vet a new candidate.

Democrats will have prevented the Administration from filling this vacancy. We'll have just eight justices for the foreseeable future and probably until there's another Democratic president.

You may have voted for Trump in the hope you would put reasonable people on the Supreme Court but tough. If this testimony is delayed until Thursday, that's likely not going to happen. So, that's what's at stake over this timing question.

What's amazing is that almost nobody on television is telling you that. They're still pretending this is all a matter of protecting Christine Ford's feelings or civil rights or something to that effect. Watch.


JULIE PACE, ASSOCIATED PRESS: --that's an incredibly sensitive, incredibly emotional decision to make. And, you know, for people to be sort of casting doubt on - on the timing of this or to be sort of rendering judgment on how she proceeded, I think, is - is probably pretty inappropriate.


CARLSON: Now, we mean no disrespect to Christine Ford here, and we have shown her none. This show has given her every benefit of every doubt. We have assumed and we still assume she believes everything she has said. But this is absurd.

Whether she intended to be or not, Ford is now at the center of a partisan effort that has nothing to do with sexual abuse or protecting women or the details for that matter of a high school party close to 40 years ago.

This is about political power and how it is apportioned in Washington. In the process of trying to regain that power, one party is corroding our legal norms and threatening our system of impartial justice.

In our system, individuals do not get to dictate the terms of investigations. You can't just say you don't feel like participating. Why don't you try that? Try it the next time you get someone for jury duty or told to appear on small claims court, blow off a speeding ticket and see what happens.

You can't do that because the Justice Department isn't just about you. It's about all of us. In this case, Brett Kavanaugh could sit on the court that shapes the lives of 330 million other people. And so, the rest of us have a right to know exactly what Christine Ford is alleging here.

Now, the operatives posing as her defenders claim that Ford was so traumatized by an event that supposedly happened in 1982 that rules cannot apply to her. That's many things. It's also patronizing.

Democrats are treating a middle-aged woman like a child. Ford is not a child. She's an adult. She has a family, an advanced degree, a high-level job.

She's accused a public figure of a sex crime, a felony and she's done it in vague terms. She's now part of an effort to destroy that public figure's life wittingly or not. She needs to explain herself or allow the country to move on.

Now, if there's one good thing about this spectacle it's that it has drawn the usual cave dwellers from their holes and forced them to expose themselves in the light of day as the buffoons they are.

For example, here's Joe Biden explaining why Ford cannot be asked to explain her own allegations. Keep in mind that Biden was thinking about running for president next year. Hard to see that happening after this. Watch.


FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: It's important that - that people understand, and I think people do now, understand how hard it is to come forward.

And I always say to men, they say, "Why it's so hard?" How about if you've been abused? You see the movie Deliverance? How about if you were the guy strapped to the tree? Would you come forward? Would you want to relive that? I'm serious, I'm deadly earnest.


CARLSON: I'm serious, says Biden, deadly earnest, which, of course, as usual is exactly the opposite of the truth. There's nothing earnest about what's going on now. It couldn't be more false. Serious? Well about as serious is Joe Biden's next presidential campaign.

Republicans may be figuring that out finally. Tonight, Chuck Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered an ultimatum to Ford's lawyers. "Settle on a time to testify by 10:00 P.M. tonight," about two hours from now, "or the vote on Brett Kavanaugh will go ahead on Monday."

We'll keep you posted on what happens there. In the meantime, Dana Perino hosts The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino. Obviously, she's on The Five. Obviously, she's one of your heroes. And thankfully, she joins us now.

You - what do you - what do you think of this last minute Grassley move, Dana?

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS: I think it's smart. And I think it's following the lead of Senator Mitch McConnell who this morning at the Voters - Value Voters conference gave a speech. You know, he's a steady easygoing guy.

And he's the one who was - took a big risk when President Obama was president and Antonin Scalia passed away in the January of 2016, it was Mitch McConnell who said we are going to follow precedent. We are not going to have a hearing and a vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court in a presidential election year. And he held to that.

He was - well he was ridiculed by the Left. But think about how risky that was, Tucker, because President Trump was not a sure win. Most people thought Hillary Clinton was going to win.

But because Mitch McConnell held strong, he was able to allow President Trump this opportunity not only to get Neil Gorsuch on this - on the bench but also to have this opportunity to nominate a second justice and that would be Brett Kavanaugh, if he's confirmed.

This morning, Mitch McConnell said the Value Voters there, "Don't worry. Don't get rattled. Judge Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court Justice soon." And I do think that if we - if it does get down to just the raw politics of this then I think that the Republicans would be smart to go ahead and call the vote.

CARLSON: Well I - I think that's absolutely right. Otherwise I mean why wouldn't the Washington Post and Democrats on the committee be deluged with anonymous accusations against Kavanaugh? The temptation is just too strong.

I do wonder though as five nights in a row we've done this story, five nights in a row we said at the outset and meant it that she seems sincere. We are not attacking her--

PERINO: Right.

CARLSON: --we take these claims seriously and all people following should want to know exactly what they are and what does this mean.

Given that, it does seem to me she's being used very badly by a number of highly political lawyers who've taken up her case and are yanking the rest of us around with this timing question. Why would it be so hard to allow an investigator to fly out to California and get a full story?

PERINO: Well I - maybe we'll never know but perhaps we will. I mean there's about an hour and 40 minutes left for them to decide if she's going to testify.


PERINO: Then you got this late minute thing today that well she didn't want to fly to Washington D.C.--


PERINO: --but the Committee had said they'd go to her. But actually what she wants is for the Senators to have to attack them and that what they - Democrats seem to be counting on is that America will be so unhappy that a 11 White men are going to be doing the questioning when, you know, that - is that really the issue? Or are we trying to get to the truth?

So, it - it does seem to me that there's some strategy going on here. But I do think that the Republicans have been quite open to saying well we've just found out about this a week ago tonight. We'll have a hearing. We'll come to you. We'll accommodate. But then but you know what, we're not going to wait forever.

And I think that's what Chuck Grassley is saying tonight, following Mitch McConnell's lead and actually the will of the people who voted for President Trump. They wanted somebody to go in there who is not going to roll over for these types of accusations without any chance to have due process.

I did think it was strange that one of the demands from Christine Ford's attorneys was that Judge Kavanaugh should speak first at the hearing. Well what is he supposed to say? We don't even know what the full story is.

So, they're turning Justice on its head at the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think the Republicans are going to say we're not going to stand for that.

CARLSON: Yes. I mean leaving Kavanaugh, and the, you know, House and Senate Republicans who I, you know, I've no allegiance to them, this whole thing makes me nervous because you want your basic judicial norms to remain in place, I think.

PERINO: Right . Well absolutely, we should all--


PERINO: --we should all want that because as they are seen now, when you break norms like Harry Reid decided to do by breaking the filibuster for nominations--


PERINO: --well, look what happens. You can--

CARLSON: No, you're right.

PERINO: --figure out a way and but like all those things comes - comes back to haunt you, but we should not allow this to happen at all.

CARLSON: Right .

PERINO: But let's - we should have the hearing if she wants to testify. If she does not want to--


PERINO: --I think they should call the vote.

CARLSON: Dana Perino, thank you for that.

PERINO: Thank you.

CARLSON: Have the best weekend.

PERINO: OK. Thanks.

CARLSON: The debate over Judge Kavanaugh has given rise to quite a bit of race-baiting not that race has literally anything to do with this story, not one thing. We'll ask why is that, after the break.

Plus we're still watching the President's speech in Missouri for any comments on today's big breaking stories in there if coupled . We'll be right back.


TRUMP: --ask Israel whether or not a wall works. It works. It works.




DONNY DEUTSCH, ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE, FORMER HOST, THE BIG IDEA WITH DONNY DEUTSCH: --you're seeing on display a metaphor of, like, what this party is, and just basically just ignorant White men. And you're just seeing it on display.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White male Republican--



CARLSON: Wow! A whole passel of dumb people have been on TV recently using the Brett Kavanaugh story to inflame racial tension in this country. It's confusing, of course, because this case has literally nothing to do with race at all.

Everybody in it, accuser and accused, and the only supposed eyewitness we know of, are the same color. No one is accused of making racial threats, using racial epithets, or even mentioning race. And yet, time and again, on the Left, you hear race highlighted in outrage about this case. What could that possibly be about?

Chris Hahn is an attorney, a radio host and, most importantly, a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer and he joins us tonight.

So Chris, I'm - I'm confused. What - if there was a fire at my house and you showed up and the first thing you said - you started doing was denouncing some race or other, that'd be kind of a weird response? You'd be like a racist or a crazy person. Why would - what would race have to do with it? What is this about? Why am I seeing this all week?

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: I think they're comparing the 1991 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with the 2018 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and how very similar they look, whereas the Democrats which were all White in 1991 are not anymore on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, there's a comparison to be made there. And there are no women on the committee, that's more important. And I think this is an issue--

CARLSON: Well but--

HAHN: --that is very sensitive to most women across this country.

CARLSON: Well it is.

HAHN: And I think that the Democrats have made that point. And I think a lot of pundits have made that point. I know I've made that point to you as well.

CARLSON: But I'm - I'm confused though because this is a legal case. And so, the race or sex of anybody in it and certainly anyone judging it should be by definition irrelevant. Legal cases are determined not on the basis of race. That's a Nazi thing, which we're against, I think. But they're determined--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --on the basis of the facts, the evidence. So, again, why would race be relevant? This would not be allowed in a court of law--

HAHN: Well--

CARLSON: --why is it allowed in the Judiciary Committee?

HAHN: I agree that this is not a case about race. And we should be taking the time to do what's relevant in this case. It's not a - it's not anything that has any strict timing on it yet that seems the Republicans' only concern that we get this done by Wednesday.

This woman's asked to come on Thursday, and that's one day later. I don't know why they can't wait till Thursday and - and that's--

CARLSON: Well because it delays the vote, hold on, you well, hold on, wait, when you say--

HAHN: --a very important issue her more than any other issue--

CARLSON: --I don't know, wait, well hold on, hold on. You - you know exactly why, which is because it delays the vote for a week. That's - that's the whole point of saying you can't come until Thursday and her lawyers who are--

HAHN: So - so what?

CARLSON: --her - well because her lawyers who--

HAHN: But--

CARLSON: --made a career of excusing sexual assaults in the case of Bill Clinton, literally--

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: --are political operatives who are trying to affect a political result but - but let's just get back to the core question, which is I don't--

HAHN: It's wait --

CARLSON: --how you can feel good--

HAHN: --wait, wait, wait, wait, wait--

CARLSON: --about a party that divides people by race in the middle of a story that has nothing to do with it. Do you worry that constantly--

HAHN: I - I don't think I - I don't--

CARLSON: --constantly picking at that wound is going to hurt the country? How is that good for America when you're pointing out the race in people--


CARLSON: --when it's irrelevant?

HAHN: I - I don't think that the Democratic Party is pointing out the race of people. I - I--

CARLSON: Well they are. They--

HAHN: --know there's some strategy --

CARLSON: --I just showed you a montage.

HAHN: --continuously pointed out . But - but arguing about - but arguing about the timing in one week it's kind of like arguing about the clock in a baseball game. The Republicans kept the seat open for 444 days. One more week's not going to hurt anybody.


HAHN: Let's get to the facts here. Let's call some witnesses. Let's not talk about who's right and who's White --

CARLSON: No. No. I've - I've read the topic of talking points and you're - you're--

HAHN: --or not . And I - I think the Republicans and they should and by the way and --

CARLSON: --doing a fine job between them. Let me just ask you --

HAHN: --they should --

CARLSON: --well hold on, wait, hold on, since it's - it's - hold on, since I'm answering - asking the questions, let me just ask you a final one which is--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --why has there been this hesitance for her to testify? If - if the Senate Republicans, if Grassley's offered to send someone out to talk to her in her home - I thought the whole point was giving voice to victims of sexual assault. And now--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --morons like Joe Biden are saying that that's an assault on her to ask her to explain what happened. How does that work exactly?

HAHN: Well I think we're going to find out exactly why next week and whether we find out in a Senate committee or we find out on 60 Minutes she will be heard before this vote happens. And it will not be good for this nomination. It is very much at risk whether she comes to the--

CARLSON: 60 Minutes? Why not just speak--

HAHN: --Senate or not because they're more than - more forums. There are more forums and the American people want to hear from her and they will hear from her. And the Senate Republicans should let her--

CARLSON: But why not now?

HAHN: --come on Thursday and they should stop playing games. Well - well look --

CARLSON: Wow! The shamelessness. You know, at a certain point it's like--

HAHN: --you just know when we don't know what's going on in her life.

CARLSON: --there's never going to be another confirmation hearing again for Supreme Court Justice because this is--

HAHN: Well I don't - I don't think so. I think--

CARLSON: --such blew I know. This is - you guys--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --just blew up the system. It's over. Sad because --

HAHN: Look, we were both wrong in 1991--

CARLSON: --it worked for like 250 years.

HAHN: --but we remember it and we said the same thing then, right?


HAHN: We said the same thing after Clarence Thomas it--

CARLSON: No, we didn't.

HAHN: --you know, things change.

CARLSON: All right. Chris Hahn--

HAHN: Sure we did.

CARLSON: --thank you very much.

HAHN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well the Left has cast the Kavanaugh case as a war of men against women. That's the talking point. Fascinating though, a new poll by YouGov finds, buckle your seat belt now, that women are actually less likely than men to see Christine Ford's allegations as credible, 25 to 28 percent, not a huge margin but a real one.

Meanwhile in Minnesota, a Star Tribune poll finds that only 5 percent of Democrats believe accusations against DNC Vice Chair Keith Ellison despite much greater and far more detailed evidence against him.

Beverly Hallberg is President of media - District Media Group and she joins us tonight.

Beverly, I'm confused. So, I've heard from everyone, including our last guest, that this is a subject that inflames women. If that's true then why do fewer women than men believe Christine Ford?

BEVERLY HALLBERG, DISTRICT MEDIA GROUP: Because I think they objectively look at this and realize that there is no proof to the claims to this point.

But even beyond that, I think women realize they have men in their lives that they care about whether a husbands or sons or brothers, I don't think any of us would want these type of accusations, which could be false accusations, placed against any of them without due process.

CARLSON: Could it also be that women, in general, trust other women much less than men trust women? Are we not allowed to say that because it's too obvious?

HALLBERG: Well if you live in Washington D.C. you would think that - you would believe what Democrats say, which is that only women tell the truth and only men lie. You even had senators come out and say I believe her, yet we don't even know what the truth is.

So there - there's something going on with the Democrat Party. Of course, I think this has a lot to do with political posturing and trying to rid Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court seat that he - he's for.

I think it actually has a lot to do with abortion. But what they want to do is try to pit women against men. And what this does it's actually extremely damaging to the MeToo movement. When you politicize this, when it's not about really finding the truth, you do a grave disservice to women who do need to be heard who have been attacked in the past--


HALLBERG: --and so, I think women are standing up because they're concerned about that.

CARLSON: Just the lying is so nauseating. I mean I - I'm surrounded by women. I have four in my house. I'd believe almost everything women tell me. I just instinctively, as a man, and most men I know are kind of the same way.

The people who are most deeply suspicious of women, who I know, are other women. And I don't know - I don't - do you know anybody who hasn't had that experience who doesn't know what I'm talking about but we all have to pretend it's not true because why, again?

HALLBERG: Yet I'll even say the women who I've talked to, friends of mine, personally we talk about this, and we look at the accusations that are made and we say, a lot of this doesn't add up. She can't remember when. She can't remember where. Why is that? This - if this happened and - and I want to hear what she has to say, this is a traumatic event, you would remember those details.

CARLSON: It's so funny--

HALLBERG: --and so women I think they truly definitely --

CARLSON: I have been --

HALLBERG: --know that.

CARLSON: Look, I mean the reason in me is starting to believe that this is really a setup and bad. But my first instinct was, and almost always as with women, she seems sincere to me, you know.

HALLBERG: And - and here's the other part--


HALLBERG: --women talk to their friends.

CARLSON: Right. We're at--

HALLBERG: Where are the other friends coming out --

CARLSON: Good point .

HALLBERG: --that's something that women do, so there's an aspect to this where you say "OK, really want to know what's going on," but I think women listen to this and say, "It's not adding up."

CARLSON: I've noticed that, the women I've spoken to. Beverly, thank you very much.

HALLBERG: Thank you.

CARLSON: Good to see you tonight.

Last night we exposed how Google employees plotted to subvert and corrupt Google search, which has a monopoly on search in this country, to push a political agenda while not telling users to lie about it.

How is Google responding today to that revelation? An update to our exclusive continuing investigation into Google is coming up after the break.

And of course, we'll continue to monitor the President's speech. It's underway in Springfield, Missouri. If there's breaking news we'll bring it to you. Stay tuned.


TRUMP: --200 million and 25 percent. Chinese made goods and we will come back with more if they retaliate. We have a lot more to come back with.



CARLSON: Last night, we showed you internal emails from Google employees in which people who work for Google plotted to alter search results to bolster Left-wing groups and undermine the Administration's travel ban Executive Order. It was a disturbing discovery.

Google is the most powerful company in history. It can change not just what you know but how you think. And if it's willing to use its influence secretly for political reasons that's a real threat to us. It's a bigger threat to our democracy than a few Russian Facebook ads. It's a big deal.

So, how is Google reacting to this story? Well Fox Business Correspondent Hillary Vaughn has been trying to find out all day and she joins us now with what she's found.

Hey, Hillary.

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX BUSINESS: Hey, Tucker. Well Google says this type of brainstorming is actually encouraged at the company and they aren't going to do anything to stop it from happening again.

Google is saying management-level employees were just spitballing when they came up with ways to change Google's search function in favor of their own personal political opinions.

But Google is saying they aren't taking any action because no changes were actually made to the platform, even though employees were caught crafting plans that, if enforced, would have violated Google's own standards.

I asked Google if there was any company-wide memo sent out to let employees know that brainstorming ways to alter the platform in favor of their own political biases was not OK, but Google says, "They didn't."

They also tell me they didn't reprimand any of the employees on the email chain that exposed an effort to use their roles at the company for their own political activism. We're also learning more information about Mackenzie Thomas, the Search Product Marketing Manager that suggested that Google quote actively counter search results for words that she says are prejudiced and was Islamophobic like the words Muslim or Mexico.

Now, Google says Thomas has claimed that those words generate skewed search results are her own personal opinions and don't reflect the opinion of Google, the company, Tucker.

CARLSON: It's an amazing story. Hillary, thank you very much for following up and I hope you'll keep on that. We're certainly going to. Great to see you.

We're going to have more on allegations that the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein considered spying on the President wearing a wire and organizing, in effect, a coup of cabinet members against him.

Should the President fire Rosenstein immediately or is there more to this story? Dan Bongino, just ahead to discuss that.

Plus, the President's still on stage in Missouri. There's an awful lot going on. And, as you know, he's apt to comment on it. If he does, we'll bring you right back there. We'll be right back.


TRUMP: --and letting our bases and equipment fall into total disrepair, we are now purchasing the finest planes, and ships, and tanks, and missiles, and artillery, and submarines, anywhere on earth. Nobody makes it like us. Nobody--



CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you: The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has issued a brand new statement.

In it, he's categorically denying a New York Times report from today that he discussed secretly taping the President wearing a wire and considered mobilizing the cabinet to remove the President using the 25th Amendment, which is, of course, never been used.

Rosenstein said this. "I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false." That denial is much more explicit than the one that the newspaper published today where Rosenstein called the story merely inaccurate.

Dan Bongino is an NRATV contributor, former Secret Service Agent, author of "Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump" and, of course, a very close observer of all things happening right now, which is saying a lot because a lot's happening.

Dan, what do you meant - there are so many different ways to look at this, and it's certainly not a defense of Rosenstein to suspect that maybe this is a trap being laid for the President. What's your view of it?

DAN BONGINO, NRATV CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Tucker, if it's a trap or not at this point, I don't know. We're into triple double reverse psychology at this point. The bottom line here is this.

CARLSON: Yes, we are.

BONGINO: How does Rod - I mean, really, is this, you know, we would - I don't want to get off topic here but, listen, the Republic, the whole premise here, Tucker, is a government by the people, for the people, OK --


BONGINO: --that wasn't meant to be like a bumper sticker or a silly slogan. Let - let - let - let's just throw that - that - that's - that's out the window. That's gone now.

It's now clear as day by the New York Times op-ed these - these videos we've seen surface of Democrats, socialists of America embedding themselves in the government and allegations, to be fair against Rosenstein, which he has not been to many of us, by the way, covering Spygate, to be fair that they were - there were discussions, these allegations, there were discussions of removing a duly elected president from office, Tucker, not with the guy at the McDonald's, with the Deputy Director of the FBI and a lawyer working on the investigation of Trump.

Tell me again, how all this Deep State stuff is just a bunch of kooky conspiracies - conspiracy theorists, you know, sitting in a car in a driveway with the radio antenna? It's just insane.

CARLSON: Well I - I've been very late to the - to the Deep State idea because I - I hate the phrase. I don't want to sound like a nutcase. I've lived here most of my life. I don't want - you know what I mean? It's like - it's - it's hard to get me on board with that idea.

But watching how they have prevented or the - and the President's buying into it, to his discredit, prevented the release of the FISA warrant that allowed the Obama people to spy on Carter Page is making me think, actually there the people who run the government are against the people who pay for the government, us.

BONGINO: Tucker, I get it. And I don't want to play the euphemism game with you, either. And I don't care if the New York Times op-ed writer calls it the steady state, which they did, call it the sloppy state, the smarmy state, I don't care what you call it.


BONGINO: I'm just interested, and I agree with you. They will use the Deep State as like "Oh look, a tinfoil cabware ." I get it. I'm totally with you. And I don't ever say anything I can't back up.

I mean my book - I'm not - I'm not trying to sell anybody my book is extensively footnoted with Left-wing media sources saying things like "Oh, British Intelligence was passing information about the Trump campaign to the Trump team."

Tucker, that's an actual CNN headline from April.


BONGINO: I did not make that up. They wrote that. So, tell me again how we're all crazy? A foreign intelligence entity was assisting the United States government in - in spying?

The only reason I bring it up is because Donald Trump, in that interview with Sean Hannity last night, dropped a little hint that there are some foreign governments that object to this FISA release.

CARLSON: I heard .

BONGINO: Really? Why? What were they doing in this?

CARLSON: No, so why--

BONGINO: This is crazy.

CARLSON: --why are their concerns more important than the public's right to believe in its own government? Speak slowly so I can understand. We're out of time. Dan Bongino, so great as always.

BONGINO: Yes. Hey --

CARLSON: Good to see you.

BONGINO: --thanks buddy. See you later. You too.

CARLSON: Hollywood is rallying to support the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. Do they know something that we don't know? Are they more informed than the rest of us? We'll find out from someone who works there.

Plus, we're still watching the President speak in Missouri. We'll go live if anything happens. Of course, we will. Stay tuned.


TRUMP: --we will not break, we will never give in, we will never give up, we will never back down and we will always fight on to victory. We will always be victorious.



CARLSON: Well a group of actors in Los Angeles, deeply informed by spending over an hour on Twitter, have banded together to produce a video supporting Christine Ford and demanding a halt to Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Watch.


JULIANNE MOORE, AMERICAN ACTRESS: We know how difficult it is to stand up to powerful people. He should not be confirmed.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He should not be confirmed.


CARLSON: I don't know any of those people. You probably don't either. Dean Cain does though. He's an actor and producer.


CARLSON: He's from Los Angeles. His dad was in the business. He joins us tonight. What do you make of that?

CAIN: Uff wow, look, sexual assault, I feel for any victim about - -

CARLSON: For sure.

CAIN: --sexual assault, no question, male or female. But that is just completely political. Where - where - where's the video for Karen Monahan, you know, Keith - Keith Ellison's accuser?


CAIN: Where's - where's the full-length movie for the Bill Clinton accusers? It - it just doesn't exist. It's completely political. And - and that's kind of tragic because sexual assault is a very serious, very serious thing. And it - it kind of cheapens it because they're doing this specifically for political reasons.

CARLSON: Well it's such a good point. I mean these are not standards they apply equally. So, Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor in Philadelphia who abused, well, killed a bunch of viable children--

CAIN: Hundreds of them --

CARLSON: --right, but also abused all these women, people tried to make a movie about it in Los Angeles and not everyone was on board. You actually did make a movie about it--

CAIN: We did it. And --

CARLSON: --what was the reaction?

CAIN: Well first of all, we had to raise the money on Indiegogo because nobody would pay for it. We - we did that and we made the film. And I - I think it's a very good film. It comes out October 12th.

And nobody would put it out there. Nobody would distribute it. So, we finally found distribution. So, two years ago we finished the film. Now, we can tell the story. And it's - it's because it deals with abortion. We couldn't even buy ad time on NPR because we called him an abortion doctor. We had to call him just a doctor. So, nobody wants--

CARLSON: All he did --

CAIN: --to attach it .

CARLSON: --was commit abortion, I mean he wasn't - he wasn't doing appendectomies.

CAIN: No. He was also pushing drugs and got busted on a narcotics charge. That's how it started. But - this guy was--

CARLSON: Are you worry - are you worried about - I mean that's one subject that you're kind of not allowed to deviate from the prevailing view, are you concerned--


CARLSON: --for yourself?

CAIN: Not at all. I, you know, I'm up a certain age now where I'm not that concerned about. I'm going to tell stories that I want to tell. I'm not worried about if it has rip up - repercussion on my - on my job or my hiring. It should never do that to tell stories.

And we're telling a true story. This happened. I play a real-life detective, James Wood. And this happened. And - and--


CAIN: --the way we tell the story, we don't take a side on it. I actually am pro-choice which shocks people to a degree up until viability of a child like then - by then, I - I can't.

CARLSON: By hold .

CAIN: I would never - I would never abort my own child. I would never want that. But I'm not going to tell somebody what they can do with their body and that surprised a lot of people that I would make this film. But I think the film - the film is hugely important and it should get out there and people should make up their own minds.

CARLSON: Man, I - I hope that all of our viewers watch this movie. I'm going to watch the movie. And I think - I think you're a brave man for doing it--

CAIN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --by the way because that is everybody who spent a lot of time living in liberal America where I live and where you live, you know that's the one subject you can't - you can't have your own views on.

CAIN: No, absolutely not.

CARLSON: Well good for you. Dean Cain, it is great to see you.

CAIN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you.

Amazingly, we have come to the end of this show. So much going on, at least two huge stories, both of which will bleed into next week, Rod Rosenstein accused of trying to foment a coup against his boss, the President of the United States, and Brett Kavanaugh, his nomination still hanging, we're not sure by a thread, by something.

We'll be on it Monday. Have the best weekend. "Hannity" is next. See you then.

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.