New evidence of political bias at Google; gender politics at play in Michigan Senate race

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 20, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Google's search engine is among, or maybe, the most powerful machine in - in human history. It's probably the most influential. Its results shape the way we understand the world.

Most of us assume that on some level it is honest, Google search. But what if it's not honest? What if Google is secretly corrupting its search results to influence votes? Tonight we have exclusive evidence that that may in fact be happening at Google. We'll have the report for you in a minute. Don't miss that.

We also have a can't-miss championship edition of Final Exams, Shannon Bream and Katie Pavlich for the belt coming up as well.

But first tonight, the claim against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that he committed some kind of sexual assault, while a student in high school, has metastasized into something different, something ugly, and something threatening to all of us.

We've learned remarkably little about Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Ford in the past week despite a lot of words on their behalf. The facts of the case are still sparse and they're murky.

But we've learned a disturbing amount about the Left and what it's willing to do in order to maintain control of this country. Watch a clip from today in which New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, explained why she knows Brett Kavanaugh is guilty. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KIRSTEN ELIZABETH GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.: I believe her because she's telling the truth. She's asking the FBI to investigate her claims. She's asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability because she's telling the truth. Someone who is lying does not ask the FBI to investigate their claims. Who is not asking the FBI to investigate these claims? The White House. Dr. Kavanaugh - excuse me--

SEN. MAZIE KEIKO HIRONO, D-HAWAII: Judge--

GILLIBRAND: --Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI review these claims. Is that the - is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So try to ignore the yelling there and the theatrics and the pure demagoguery of the moment and focus instead on Kirsten Gillibrand's reasoning to the extent that there is any.

"I believe her because she's telling the truth." Or put it another way, it's true because it is.

Now, in logic class, they call this circular reasoning which isn't actually reasoning at all. Instead, it's simply a demand that you believe something because someone else is asserting it. Children talk this way. You think you a U.S. senator would be embarrassed to.

But it's the second part of Gillibrand's statement that you ought to pay attention to because it's scary. Kavanaugh hasn't called for yet another FBI investigation into himself. Therefore, Senator Gillibrand says he did it. Is that the reaction of an innocent person, she thunders? It is not.

Well not since the McCarthy era almost 70 years ago have lawmakers talked like this in this country. Unless you call for an FBI investigation of yourself, you're guilty of a crime. Even Joe McCarthy himself never said anything like that. It was too reckless even for him.

And now, one of the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidates casually drops the line at a press conference and the media hardly notice. So, apparently that's the new standard in Washington.

OK. Well let's start with Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand was a friend of Harvey Weinstein's. Here's a picture of the two of them together. Weinstein has been credibly accused of rape. Did Kirsten Gillibrand know about Weinstein's sexual assaults? Was she an accessory to them?

We've asked those questions before on this show but we never got an answer. Why hasn't Gillibrand demanded an FBI investigation into herself to clear that up? Is that the reaction of an innocent person? By her standards, it's not.

So bring on the FBI. Let them interview Kirsten Gillibrand under oath, maybe surprise her at her home at dawn with a search warrant.

And while they're at it, they should take a very close look at her relationship with Bill Clinton, another accused rapist. No doubt the Senator will beg for an investigation into that too assuming she's innocent. If she hesitates, press charges.

This is lunatic. Sober liberals understand that it is. Democrats don't want Brett Kavanaugh on the court because they disagree with him and that's understandable, by the way. They're angry that the Republican Senate refused to vote on Barack Obama's last Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. That's understandable too.

But what's happening now is dangerous in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It's a threat to the civil liberties of every American, no matter who you voted for in 2016. Extremism has exploded on the Left and nobody is trying to contain it.

Here's one particularly jarring example of that. This is Congressman John Garamendi of California. We know him well. He's one of the few House Democrats willing to come on this show.

We don't usually agree with Garamendi but we've always found him to be a decent and reasonable person, always. Here's what he just said about the Kavanaugh allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN RAYMOND GARAMENDI, D-CALIFORNIA: Women across this nation should be outraged at what these White men senators are doing to this woman. The senators - the male senators who control that committee are playing the game as old as an assault. And that is the woman's the accused. The woman is at fault.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Wait a second. What does the race of specific senators have to do with any of this? Should we be angry at them because of their skin color? Should we distrust them more? Are they inherently less fair or less decent because of the way they look?

Garamendi is implying exactly that. So, how is that different or better than anything George Wallace ever said? Well it's not, except that suddenly this filth is everywhere, so you hardly even notice it. The last thing this country needs right now is more racial division.

Democrats are pushing it anyway. They're using allegations that have literally nothing to do with race at all. But splitting the country into tiny warring groups is useful to them. It helps them maintain their power and so they're happy to do it. Men against women, Black against White, divide and conquer whatever it takes.

In the end, it's unlikely that we'll ever know conclusively what happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford 36 years ago, if anything at all. But it's crystal clear what's happening right now.

This is a power grab. It is hurting the country destroying our centuries' old traditions of justice and empowering morons and demagogues. We ought to shut it down right now.

And yet, and this is late-breaking news, just seconds before airtime we learned that this may go on and on. Republicans on the Hill tonight are considering delaying the hearing scheduled for Monday. At this point, Brett Kavanaugh will be testifying by himself to some future date.

Because of the rules of the Senate, that would push back the vote on Kavanaugh by at least a week, if not more, which is, of course, the whole point, to drag the country through this pointless charade, this circus, which divides us and hurts us and degrades our standards of justice simply for political ends. That's where we are.

Ian Samuel is a Professor at Indiana University Law School and he joins us tonight. Professor, I'm glad you're here as a law professor. I - I want to ask you about what Senator Gillibrand said today.

She's a lawyer as well, I believe. And she said that the new standard is unless you call for an FBI investigation into yourself you are by definition guilty. Is that a legal standard that you recognize?

IAN SAMUEL, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Well what I like to think about is if I were, as Brett Kavanaugh says, an innocent man and if I were falsely accused of something this serious what would I want?

And as I - and I teach Civil Procedure and I think about Criminal Procedure and as I think through that question what I would want is a process that was regarded as so fair even by my audiological adversaries that I would live the rest of my life being able to point to the process and say, we had this out and everyone can agree the way we did it was fair and I was cleared.

CARLSON: Yes.

SAMUEL: That's what I would want.

CARLSON: I would want that too. And I think we would both agree that the first thing you would want in that process is a full explanation of what the charges are from the person who's making them. And he hasn't received that. None of us have.

But barring that and I'm not attacking her, though I think all of us should be distressed that she's not explaining herself, but that's not what Gillibrand said.

She said if you don't ask for an FBI investigation into yourself that is an indication that you are guilty. And let me just suggest the obvious which is that is insane, that is a third world standard, that is an un-American standard, and it's hard for me to believe that an elected U.S. senator would say something like that in public. You're not surprised by it though.

SAMUEL: Well two things actually as to that. So number one, if I were an innocent man I would actually welcome the FBI investigating. I might not call for it but I would say "Sure, investigate." You will see that I am an innocent man.

But the second thing when I was listening to you talk about this, you said and you pointed out, I think, quite correctly, many of the senior members of the Democratic Party are credibly associated with important sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein--

CARLSON: Sure.

SAMUEL: --and I thought what you were going to say was it would be a good idea to investigate that, which I do agree with. And it seems like you're kind of going in the opposite--

CARLSON: No, because - and I am going in the opposite direction--

SAMUEL: --direction. I don't really think that this is a partisan issue --

CARLSON: --well let me - and it's of course it's not a partisan issue.

The point that I am making is that guilt by association is a low and immoral tactic. And we used to revile people who engaged in it like Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin. And now, it's so commonplace, we don't notice it.

And so the idea is if you've had dinner with somebody who has unsavory views or unpopular views, you can be fired. And we've seen people fired recently from - for that very thing. Guilt by association is not the same as guilt.

And so, to say that because Kirsten Gillibrand was friends with Harvey Weinstein that she is somehow an accessory to his sexual predation is totally wrong. And I would never make that claim. I was merely saying that- -

SAMUEL: That's - that's fine. If that's not what you're suggesting, I - I appreciate--

CARLSON: --by the standard that she holds them--

SAMUEL: --that.

CARLSON: --it's not. What I'm suggesting is that--

SAMUEL: Fine.

CARLSON: --she shouldn't say that innocent people have a moral obligation to call down upon themselves an FBI investigation. That's insane. Why doesn't anyone--

SAMUEL: Oh, I quite - I quite agree--

CARLSON: --stop her and say--

SAMUEL: --with that.

CARLSON: Yes.

SAMUEL: But if I were an innocent man I wouldn't think of it as my obligation but rather my privilege--

CARLSON: Well I mean I--

SAMUEL: I will insist--

CARLSON: I don't - I mean --

SAMUEL: --if I were Brett Kavanaugh and if I were an innocent man I would insist on pointing every camera--

CARLSON: Hold I mean --

SAMUEL: --on God's green earth in my face as I denied these allegations if I were an innocent man--

CARLSON: But I - I believe he--

SAMUEL: --truthfully. And I want everyone to see it, wouldn't you?

CARLSON: --I believe - I believe - I believe he's already done that. I think he's been the subject of six FBI investigations into his background - background checks by federal agents. And I believe he's testifying Monday and he'll likely repeat what he's already said which is "I don't know what she's talking about. I didn't do this."

She, by contrast, who is the reason we're having this conversation in the first place, leveled the charge of felonious behavior against a public official and then has refused to explain herself. So, where's the onus on her?

She's dragged the whole country into this and short-circuited a process the rest of us are vested in and not bothered to explain herself? I know you're not supposed to like attack the victim. But at some point, she's not in charge of this country so why can't we ask her for the full story?

SAMUEL: Well I do think that the - look, as we say often in the law, the government is entitled to every person's evidence. And I do think it would be very useful--

CARLSON: Yes, exactly.

SAMUEL: --if she would testify.

But again, just to keep with the frame a little bit, if I were Brett Kavanaugh and if I were an innocent man I would say look, you don't want to testify on Monday? Take a week. Take two weeks, take a month because when this is done, and if I'm confirmed, I will not live my life under a cloud where people can say "Well the reason you got through is because we rushed it."

CARLSON: Uh huh.

SAMUEL: Take a month. This is my life.

CARLSON: But - but what - I understand but then--

SAMUEL: That's what I would do if I were an innocent man.

CARLSON: --if you are facing opponents who publicly declared that you were guilty on the basis of no evidence, and used as evidence the fact that you didn't request an FBI investigation into yourself you would acknowledge you're dealing with unreasonable people who don't care about justice who are merely trying to destroy your life for political ends, so maybe you'd behave differently or am I being crazy here?

SAMUEL: Well I don't know about that. If I were facing unreasonable people and if I were an innocent man what I would say is fine, you want to delay the hearing a month? Delay it. You want the FBI to look into it? Look into it. You want to interview this witness in closed session, in open session--

CARLSON: So more people can accuse me anonymously of--

SAMUEL: --look into it. I am an innocent man.

CARLSON: --yes, uh huh. Yes, I wish we lived in a country - I'd be happy to participate in such a system. But when you have people saying what Kirsten Gillibrand said today or Congressman Garamendi said today, you're dealing with unreasonable people who don't care about justice and it's scary. And I know that you believe that his --

SAMUEL: Prosecutors often don't and that is why--

CARLSON: Yes, I agree.

SAMUEL: --it would be important--

CARLSON: I agree.

SAMUEL: I would think in his position to position yourself as a person who says these people are unreasonable and the way I will prove it to you is I will give them everything they want and they will find nothing.

CARLSON: I think he's doing that Monday.

SAMUEL: I am an innocent man--

CARLSON: Uh all right .

SAMUEL: --if I were an innocent man.

CARLSON: I think that's the claim. Professor, thank you very much.

SAMUEL: Thank you very much for having me.

CARLSON: Well, our long-term investigation into Google and its behavior and practices has borne fruit tonight. We have internal documents that show Google employees plotting to use the company's search engine, the very core of its business, which has a monopoly on search in this country, to undermine the Administration's immigration policy without telling you, secretively and dishonestly. That exclusive is next.

The news has been overwhelming tonight. A very special break from the madness are two-time all champ - all-time champions face off in the ultimate Final Exam. They are, as you know, Shannon Bream and Katie Pavlich, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Tonight, we have a development in our ongoing exclusive investigation into the behavior of Google. There are new emails first obtained by this show.

Now Google, as you know, is the most powerful company in the history of the world. Virtually all human information flows through its software. And for that reason, Google shapes much of how the world understands reality.

At the heart of Google's business is its search engine which has a virtual monopoly on search in this country and others. Google search succeeds because it is blindingly efficient but also because it is perceived as honest.

When you search for a term on Google, the most popular results come to the top. The process is straightforward and democratic. That's what most people think. That's how it's perceived and that's why the world trusts Google.

But what if Google was lying to you? What if the results that you got were secretly weighted to get you to vote a certain way, to believe a certain thing? That would affect a lot of people and a lot of votes.

In fact, it would be impossible to have a real democracy under circumstances like that. A small number of incredibly rich people would be in charge of everything including your perceptions.

Well that is a major concern for all of us because Google is a very political company. We recently showed you email evidence of the Google effort to collude with a Left-wing group in support of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Now tonight, we have internal documents that show that Google employees discussed corrupting the company's search engine to push propaganda on hundreds of millions of unsuspecting users. Here's what happened.

Shortly after taking office, President Trump issued his now-famous travel ban. Almost immediately after that, Google employees began plotting ways to undermine the President's Executive Order.

On January 29th, a Google Product Marketing Manager named Mackenzie Thomas sent an email to a group of fellow employees. "There is a large brainstorm going on throughout the marketing org" she wrote, brainstorming about how to respond to Trump's order.

Among Thomas' ideas was "To actively counter algorithmically biased results for search terms such as Islam, Iran, Mexico, Latino and so forth."

In other words, Google employees wanted to alter the search results to make them more positive in certain cases for political reasons. Thomas also suggested promoting links for making donations to organizations fighting the travel ban.

This, of course, would be completely dishonest and unethical behavior. But Thomas' colleagues at Google seemed to approve of it strongly. Product Manager Rami Banna , for example, replied this way. "We're absolutely in Mackenzie, anything you need. We'll put together a list of orgs with Meryl and HL team."

Another employee named Stacey Chen added that group she thought Google should promote included the ACLU, the defect - the Immigration Defense Project, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Immigration Law Center. All of those groups were at the time agitating against the President's immigration ban.

Even at least one person on the chain seemed to realize how dangerous and out of the ordinary this conversation was. A Google employee called Clement Wolf commented that "He was very much in favor of Google stepping up" but was wondering "How partisan we want to be on this? To the extent of my knowledge, we'd be breaching precedent if we only gave highlights access to organizations that support a certain view."

We contacted Google about these remarkable emails and the reply to us is here in full.

"These emails were just a brainstorm of ideas, none of which were ever implemented. Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology - not in the current campaign season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President Trump's Executive Order on immigration. Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies."

Left unanswered by Google was why anyone would believe that statement for a second. Nor did Google say anything about the employees on that email chain. Presumably, they still work at Google which is remarkable.

If you ran a bank and caught your tellers brainstorming about how to rob the vault, would they still work for you? Remember that Google fired an engineer called James Damore last summer almost instantly.

The CEO flew back from family vacation to fire him. Why? Because Damore was caught expressing mildly conservatives ideas in a private memo. Here, Google employees are plotting to subvert our entire public conversation secretly. But that's fine with Google.

It shouldn't be fine with any of us or with the U.S. Congress. Google executives are scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill next week. The scheduled topic is privacy. But it would be nice if at least one elected representative asked about this because it's much scarier than anything Russia ever attempted.

Peter Schweizer wrote "Clinton Cash." He now has a fantastic new documentary called "The Creepy Line" about big tech and he joins us tonight. Are you surprised by this?

PETER SCHWEIZER, 'THE CREEPY LINE': Not really. It's just further confirmation that Google has been cooking the books as it relates to search.

And you're absolutely right. I mean this would be like a company having a brainstorming session on how we're going to fiddle with the books in - in - in accounting. Then you're going to step back and say "No, we were just having a brainstorming session."

It - it speaks to the culture of the company. And the culture of the company is they are prepared to put their thumb on the scale and shift the debate in favor of the direction that they want to go.

CARLSON: But this is so corrupt that it's--

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

CARLSON: --I was stunned by it--

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

CARLSON: --and I was worried that these emails were not authentic because it's such a big so search is the core of Google's business.

SCHWEIZER: Right .

CARLSON: It's many different things, Google, but basically, it's a search engine. It was built on the back of one.

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

CARLSON: And the promise has always been that they're not lying to you.

SCHWEIZER: Right.

CARLSON: But they are.

SCHWEIZER: That's right. And this is really the third strike as far as I'm concerned. The first strike, of course, is the commercial search. When travel websites and - and people like Yelp were complaining that they were, you know, tilting the algorithm, you know--

CARLSON: Yes.

SCHWEIZER: --against them to others, Google said "Absolutely not. We would never do that." We now know the Federal Trade Commission, the EU, and others have looked at this and said Google was fiddling with the algorithm. The second strike as far as I'm concerned was the work done by Dr. Robert Epstein--

CARLSON: Yes.

SCHWEIZER: --which shows clearly in 2016 that search was tilted to favor Hillary Clinton. This is strike three. It shows that the culture of the company is such that they're very happy having a free and open conversation about manipulating the algorithm on a highly political subject.

CARLSON: But I don't understand. I mean so people go to jail for violating our campaign finance laws because they put an extra ad on some cable channel--

SCHWEIZER: Right.

CARLSON: --nobody watches.

SCHWEIZER: Right.

CARLSON: This is the most powerful company in the world.

SCHWEIZER: That's right.

CARLSON: How can we have a democracy in a country where Google can just get whoever it wants elected by lying to us through the search function?

SCHWEIZER: It's a great example, Tucker, of regulations and campaign finance laws not keeping up at all with where we are in technology. Nobody were to consume when we pass laws about in-kind contributions to campaign from companies that something like this would happen.

But this is the ultimate - the ultimate campaign contribution. This is not like, you know, Exxon giving gasoline to a political campaign. This is a company secretly tipping the scales in favor of candidates or causes or beliefs that they have. It's done in secret. We don't know how it - how--

CARLSON: Yes.

SCHWEIZER: --extensive it's happening. And 80 to 90 percent of search in the world is basically done through Google, so they have complete dominance in this area.

CARLSON: And the Congress does nothing. And I can think of at least one Republican senator who I believe has been bought off by Google. I don't think he's alone.

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

CARLSON: At some point it might be worth naming who those people are. Peter, great to see you.

SCHWEIZER: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: We're not going to stop this investigation into Google or any of the other tech companies that increasingly seem to determine the direction of this country.

Well a Republican Senate candidate is being denounced as a would-be theocrat for saying that men have a duty to lead. He joins us to rebut his critics after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well one of the pivotal facts of modern American life is that the country and, particularly, its cities are pretty safe. They didn't always - they weren't always safe. But for about last 20 years, the murder rate has gone down. Now, sadly, it is rising again. But it's not surprising.

For years, the Left has been denouncing the cops as bigots, all of them. Just the other day, Senate Candidate Beto O'Rourke in Texas called police "The new Jim Crow," and claim they shoot people just because of the color of their skin.

So, think to yourself and be honest. Would you want to be a cop right now? Who would want to be a cop? Why would you want to risk your life to protect the public for very little pay while some moron like Beto O'Rourke who's never even met you, knows nothing about you, calls you a bigot? It's because of the uniform you wear.

It wouldn't be worth it for you probably. It's not worth it for a lot of people. For that, among other reasons, American cities are becoming less safe, much less safe, in some cases.

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions went to Chicago. It's one of the city's hardest hit by this trend. He laid out very clearly why more Americans are getting killed in big cities. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: The professors who studied Chicago called it the ACLU Effect. Policing went down. Crime when up. So there's a clear lesson here. If you want more shootings, more death, listen to the ACLU, Antifa, Black Lives Matter and groups who do not know the reality of policing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The funny thing is that most of these changes have taken place under the pretext of civil liberties. And yet, the people pushing them don't care about civil liberties, certainly not your civil liberties, in case you haven't noticed.

They're the ones telling you if you don't call an FBI investigation down on yourself you must be guilty, these civil libertarians. If you're older than 35 you may remember when America's great cities depopulated essentially, practically destroyed by blight.

That was definitely true here in Washington, certainly in New York City. They recovered and real estate boomed and lots of people became happy and didn't die because they became safer. What happens when they get dangerous again as they are? The Left doesn't seem to care at all.

Michigan Republican Senate candidate John James is coming under fire for expressing an idea that leadership can be a masculine responsibility. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN JAMES, REPUBLICAN MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: --men, we have a charge to lead and we are failing in that because we are afraid to hurt someone's feelings. The fact of the matter is women want men who've been tested. And boys need to be tested. And--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So women like strong men. Well don't just ask that guy. Ask anybody who's ever studied the subject. There are reams of social science on this question. And most Americans think it sounds sensible. But just for uttering these words, one writer at the Detroit Metro Times has accused James of seeking a Handmaid's Tale style theocracy.

John James joins us tonight. Mr. James, thank you very much for coming on.

JAMES: Thank you.

CARLSON: So before we get to what your critics are saying about you, why don't you tell us what you were saying when you uttered those words?

JAMES: Absolutely. I was raised in the church. And I - I know based upon my priorities which is God and country in that order, I also recognize we talked a lot about rights in this country but not enough about responsibilities.

I believe that we all have to step up. We are all created equal, male and female, but I truly believe because of how I was raised that men have an obligation to step up and not abandon their - their family responsibilities, to step up and be role models and mentors in their community and when I was talking to a faith-based business organization, talking to men, talking about stepping up in their communities and holding themselves accountable to be mentors.

The reason is right now the Left has very little way to attack me other than take things out of context or just flat-out lie. I'm not going to fit in anybody's blue box or anybody's red box.

I'm a conservative who believes very, very strongly in faith and family, God and country, and service before itself. That's why I went off to serve my country in Iraq. That's why I came back to build up my community right here in Detroit. And that's why I'm going to go to Washington and continue to serve my state.

CARLSON: So, just to be clear, you think that men should take care of the families they create. And for that you're some kind of Ayatollah.

JAMES: Imagine that. I think that right now, particularly, in the African- American community, I believe that if I can be frank, and I know I can be on this show that the overwhelming number of - of African-American females having children are - are doing so and managing the role and responsibility as a single parent.

I believe that men need to step up. And that's what I was talking about. And the Left attacking me for that just proves that their business model is dependent upon keeping Black folks dependent--

CARLSON: Exactly.

JAMES: --and in debt, and keeping them in the situation so they can make sure that they depend on the Left for their vote. I - I'm not talking about Left or Right. I'm not talking about Black and White.

I'm talking about the right thing, a message of economic opportunity where we focus on early childhood development, K through 12 education, but you have people here who talk a good game and talk about fixing the school system here, talk about getting people out of there blight and their socio- economic downtrodden state, but then--

CARLSON: Exactly.

JAMES: --you have the ACLU who continues to allow these things to get in the way. And I'm about creating--

CARLSON: Right.

JAMES: --freedom and opportunity for everyone, particularly in my - in my community here in Detroit.

CARLSON: Good for you. Families are a threat to them. Marrying people vote Republic and they hate the family as a result. That's the truth and I hope you'll keep telling it.

JAMES: Yes .

CARLSON: Thank you very much for coming on tonight.

JAMES: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Megyn Kelly had some brave and insightful words about the chaos surrounding Brett Kavanaugh. We'll show them to you in just a minute. Mark Steyn here to react to all that.

But first, the questions have been chosen. The crown is in place. The champagne is cooling. It is time for the ultimate Final Exam. Shannon Bream versus Katie Pavlich in a cage match to determine who wears the tiara, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Time now for Final Exam. News has bumped this segment off the air for the past couple of weeks but not tonight. This is the contest where you pit news professionals against one another to see who's been paying the most attention to the news in the last week.

This week, the biggest show of all this showdown. Last year, Fox News @ Night host Shannon Bream pulled off a full Brady Bunch. She beat nine opponents in a row.

Now, Townhall's Katie Pavlich has matched that feat. So naturally, as Pavlich goes for win number 10, the challenger is Shannon Bream.

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: Hey .

KATIE PAVLICH, TOWNHALL.COM: Hey .

BREAM: I did notice --

CARLSON: But when we find the ultimate Final Exam champion, and by the way, since this segment has done so well, we've upped our budget, our own--

BREAM: OK.

CARLSON: --Vanna White, Emily Lin joins us to that with glasses--

PAVLICH: Oh, my goodness. How classy ?

BREAM: Oh my good - this is fancy --

CARLSON: --of vodka or sparkling cider whatever to toast--

BREAM: Well, thank you. This is--

CARLSON: --tonight's contest before we get started.

BREAM: --very fancy.

PAVLICH: This is very classy.

CARLSON: We waited years for the Final Exam, why thank you Emily . These are our Final Exam classes --

BREAM: Yes. Toast you --

PAVLICH: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --that's right. I'm the Ryan Seacrest.

BREAM: Have a nice --

PAVLICH: I see you .

CARLSON: OK, are you all ready?

PAVLICH: I'm ready.

BREAM: Smell suspicious.

CARLSON: Ready.

PAVLICH: OK.

BREAM: By the way did you notice we both beat Peter Doocy--

PAVLICH: Cider.

BREAM: What a glutton for punishment?

PAVLICH: Oh, we did?

BREAM: He was reading a book --

PAVLICH: Poor guy. He was a team player.

CARLSON: But you know what?

BREAM: He's a good guy. He's team player.

CARLSON: No one should be ashamed to lose to either one of you because you're that--

BREAM: No, no.

CARLSON: --good at this game. I've not looked at the questions by the way--

BREAM: Thanks .

CARLSON: --sincerely.

BREAM: They're all on Kavanaugh though, I--

CARLSON: I want to be a perfect --

BREAM: --because if they're not, I - I don't know about anything else that's happening in the world like Kavanaugh.

CARLSON: That's tonight's conspiracy show. All right, you know the rules.

PAVLICH: I'm ready .

CARLSON: But I'll repeat them for audience. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. The first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. You must wait until I finish asking it in order to answer it.

You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Each correct answer's worth a single point. If you get it all - wrong, you lose a point from your total. Best of 5 wins. Dim the lights.

PAVLICH: I'm done --

CARLSON: Let's get started. All right.

BREAM: Where's the theme music?

CARLSON: Question - it - it's implied. Oh, there--

BREAM: OK. There it is OK, all right.

CARLSON: --Boston time . Question one. The Emmys aired on Monday night. It was the same boring awards show. It always is except with one exception. Upon accepting his Emmy, Director Glenn Weiss did something unusual on stage, what was it?

Shannon Bream.

BREAM: He proposed to his girlfriend.

CARLSON: On the air?

PAVLICH: Mm hmm.

BREAM: On the TVs.

CARLSON: Maybe I should have watched. Did he propose to his girlfriend? Roll tape please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN WEISS, PRODUCER, DIRECTOR: You are the sunshine in my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Mm.

PAVLICH: That is beautiful .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEISS: You wonder why I don't like to call you my girlfriend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAVLICH: Mm.

BREAM: How nice?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEISS: Because I want to call you my wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: I mean how beautiful --

PAVLICH: Think she says yes .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEISS: Will you marry me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Yes. We need to know . Tucker--

CARLSON: Wow.

BREAM: --even you got tearuped there --

CARLSON: I was going to say I've never watched the Emmys but--

PAVLICH: It's all there .

CARLSON: --if I do that, I'm going to watch him because I like that.

BREAM: OK.

CARLSON: I like him there .

Question two. A cyclist in the Commonwealth of Virginia, who did something very rude to President Trump's motorcade while it passed by her last year, is now running for office. She lost her job as a result of the original incident. What did she do to the President's motorcade?

Something - something - something rude to the President's motorcade.

Katie.

PAVLICH: She flipped him off.

CARLSON: Flipped him off--

BREAM: I think yes .

CARLSON: --the bird - the finger, did she flip them off?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --made headlines after this photo capturing her giving the--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Ooh, yes .

PAVLICH: That's right .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --President's motorcade the bird.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAVLICH: It does .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --that woman now is running for office.

JULI BRISKMAN, CYCLIST: I got really motivated. The first thing--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: I don't believe this .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRISKMAN: --I did was sign up to volunteer at the - at the polls--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Oh, that's ability --

PAVLICH: Running for office is platform --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRISKMAN: --the next week after 2017 election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Yes. I thought it was that or Mooney .

PAVLICH: Yes, I was going to say him --

BREAM: I was not sure but--

PAVLICH: --I almost said Rooney but--

CARLSON: You must have gotten double 800s in the SAT because you're the best guesser I've ever --

PAVLICH: Oh, no, I failed SAT yes --

CARLSON: Oh, well. Should have been--

BREAM: Oh, see that proves that --

PAVLICH: Yes. Sorry mom and dad.

BREAM: --that process are no good. Those tests are no good.

CARLSON: One to one going into question three. The question may offend vegans, vegetarians, and anyone who works at PETA, so turn off your TV if you're in those categories.

Chefs at a seafood restaurant in the State of Maine say they want to show compassion to the lobsters they're about to boil. Before going into the pot the lobsters are given what to relax?

Shannon Bream.

BREAM: Marijuana smoke.

CARLSON: No way.

PAVLICH: What?

BREAM: I mean I hope it's true but then what happens to the lobster?

CARLSON: Well lobster --

BREAM: If you eat it, are you in trouble?

CARLSON: OK.

PAVLICH: It's like a brownie.

CARLSON: Is it marijuana - it's Maine. You never know . Is it marijuana smoke on the lobsters?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A seafood restaurant in Maine is now getting lobsters stoned--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAVLICH: Oh my god .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --to kill them in a more humane way. Yes, instead of being--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: I mean brownie's good here

PAVLICH: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --freaked out by boiling water, the lobsters now OD on Chex Party Mix.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Wow.

BREAM: Oh. Chex Party Mix for the lobsters.

CARLSON: There's something kind of even sadder about that.

PAVLICH: How do you eat that --

BREAM: I know but--

CARLSON: It's acknowledging the pain--

BREAM: --are they happy when they go bye-bye--

PAVLICH: You know, they don't know what's happening--

CARLSON: I don't know.

BREAM: Yes.

PAVLICH: --it's fine.

CARLSON: Yes. They're certainly more passive.

BREAM: Delicious.

PAVLICH: Yes.

CARLSON: Question four. This one's a multiple choice.

BREAM: Oh.

CARLSON: There was a lot of rain in New York City recently and that caused some subway stations to flood. Now, there's a video on the internet of an animal protecting itself from rising water on the train platform. The animal has been given a nickname. Is it rain raccoon, flood rat or puddle pigeon?

Shannon Bream.

BREAM: Flood rat.

CARLSON: Flood rat?

BREAM: I think.

CARLSON: Is it flood rat?

PAVLICH: Probably. It's flood rat --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In New York, a rat has become famous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: All right, this maybe sane --

PAVLICH: They're rats, yes .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The rodent has taken the internet by storm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Oh, ho, ho.

PAVLICH: Yes, rats, pizza rat --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dubbed as flood rat after he was--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: I actually just heard from him --

PAVLICH: Stop it that's seems --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --caught on video shielding himself. He's at the bottom of the screen there--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes .

BREAM: That seems so badass .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --on a subway platform. We just have to show it to you. You can just make him out like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Oh.

PAVLICH: OK.

BREAM: I feel like he's scared.

PAVLICH: Really when --

BREAM: Don't you feel like--

PAVLICH: Shannon, it's a rodent--

BREAM: I do .

CARLSON: You're both such nice people but you know I need to feel sorry for the rats in the subway.

BREAM: I do.

PAVLICH: You can rip the place .

CARLSON: All right, final question. An Arby's restaurant in the State of California just announced they will give you a free sandwich for life if you show your dedication to the restaurant in what very permanent way?

Katie Pavlich.

PAVLICH: You get a tattoo.

CARLSON: An Arby's tattoo?

PAVLICH: Yes, an Arby's tattoo.

CARLSON: A high price for a sandwich.

BREAM: It is.

CARLSON: Isn't that Arby's tattoo?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SETH ADAM MEYERS, HOST, LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS, NBC: Arby's has announced they'll be giving out free Arby's tattoos in California this weekend to their most dedicated fans--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAVLICH: Free tattoo? Wow.

BREAM: Wait, they're giving it free --

PAVLICH: And free sandwiches .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEYERS: --Said one man, "Oh, no! What did I do last night?"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: This nearly was the battle of champions.

PAVLICH: Congratulations, Shannon.

CARLSON: But with one point - nice game Katie--

PAVLICH: Good game.

BREAM: Thank you.

CARLSON: --Shannon Bream, you are now and forever the--

BREAM: Thank you, my friend.

CARLSON: --champion--

BREAM: Listen. No one in this network can beat the two of us--

PAVLICH: That's true. Absolutely.

CARLSON: That's true --

BREAM: --I mean we combine our forces for that .

CARLSON: I want to ask our Vanna Whites, this is Louie and Emily - -

PAVLICH: Shannon is the only one worthy of wearing a crown. That is for sure.

CARLSON: You get the - oh, and not the first in your life, either.

PAVLICH: Did you hear that Shannon --

BREAM: I'm a professional at this --

CARLSON: And there you go, Emily has the crown.

BREAM: Oh, no.

CARLSON: You are our winner, Shannon Bream.

PAVLICH: We need some music something to wave --

CARLSON: Wear that. Wear that with pride.

PAVLICH: Congratulations.

BREAM: Thank you.

CARLSON: And let that be an --

BREAM: Thank you.

PAVLICH: Yes--

CARLSON: --inspiration to you at home--

PAVLICH: Yes.

CARLSON: --to follow the news more closely every week and come back next week to score as well as Shannon and Katie.

BREAM: Goodbye.

CARLSON: We'll be back next Thursday.

BREAM: Goodbye.

CARLSON: See you then.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Democrats hid Christine Blasey Ford's letter for months. She asked for anonymity. She didn't want her name out there. They leaked her name and the letter at the last minute for political gain.

Now, they're trying to dictate the terms for how Washington responds to her allegations in order to achieve further delays. Megyn Kelly at NBC News called out that strategy in the clearest possible terms earlier today. Watch what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, NBC: I think Dr. Ford is running out of options. I think she needs to show up on Monday and offer her testimony if she wants to be heard because for better or for worse, she is not in charge of this. The - the Senate is in charge of this. That committee is in charge of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Imagine saying that on NBC News? That's what bravery looks like. Author and columnist Mark Steyn joins us tonight.

So, look, I mean no disrespect to the woman lodging the complaint, making the allegation. You know, I take her tests - I think she's sincere. I guess is what it - but is she in charge of the process in the country?

MARK STEYN, STEYNONLINE.COM: No. Nobody has the right to do this.

You - you say she's the person making the complaint. She hasn't actually made a complaint. She's actually the only person in this story now who hasn't actually made a statement under oath because even these letters that Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge sent to the Judiciary Committee, that's made under penalty of perjury.

So you can't - if you have a complaint, you have to walk into a police station and make the complaint and the police interview you. The police won't investigate somebody if you're not even prepared to come into the police station and tell your story. And that's how it should be.

Kirsten Gillibrand, who, as you said, is a lawyer. Half these legislators are lawyers and the other half all have lawyers on their vast bloated entourages want us to live in a world where anyone can call down an FBI investigation on anybody else.

Well if that's the way we're going to live, I'm pretty certain it was Kirsten Gillibrand who bust into my car in 1998 and stole my car radio. And if she is innocent, she'll be calling for an FBI investigation into herself.

CARLSON: Let--

STEYN: Let's bring it on, baby. Let's have it - let's have it for everyone.

CARLSON: Let me - let me just preemptively counter the attacks you're going to face from the mindless shrieking dishonest harpies on the Left and the robotic war - water carriers in the media. "You're attacking the victim." I just want to be clear. Nobody's attacking the victim here.

STEYN: No.

CARLSON: But does this work for any other species of crime? Can I anonymously accuse you of embezzle - embezzlement or armed robbery and then not elaborate on the accusation while your reputation is destroyed and you lose your job, does that work?

STEYN: No. A - a criminal accusation is a serious thing. A criminal accusation 36 years on is an even more serious thing.

CARLSON: OK.

STEYN: And if you took it seriously you wouldn't, for example, just send the letter to one political party. You'd have sent it to both Dianne Feinstein--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --and to Chuck - and to Chuck Grassley. And but - but this is - this is actually going, you know, the - the presumption of innocence is at the bedrock of our judicial system.

And so, if you're - if you're just prepared to trash someone and we now have people in the Democrat Party, Cory Booker boasted that he groped someone--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --at high school, and we shouldn't - and we shouldn't just be having one set of rules for one party and for the other side you can trash him and demean him and degrade him and destroy them at their - their reputation--

CARLSON: You're right.

STEYN: --and if they don't want an FBI investigation they're to blame.

CARLSON: The great Mark Steyn, thank you Mark.

Richard Painter, up next. He abandoned the Republican Party early this year to become a Democrat. Now that party is turning against him and you won't believe why. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We've had Richard Painter on a couple times to talk about dumpster fires. But that's not the topic tonight. The former Bush Ethics Lawyer became a Democrat in response to the rise of Donald Trump.

Now he says he's being threatened by his new party, the Democrats, for asking questions about Keith Ellison. He's the DNC Deputy Chair accused of abuse by an ex-girlfriend. Richard Painter joins us tonight.

Richard, I wish we had more time. We've got completely squeezed by all this news. But lay out for us this story. You've asked questions about Ellison. What was the response you got from your party?

RICHARD WILLIAM PAINTER, AMERICAN LAWYER, PROFESSOR, POLITICAL CANDIDATE: Well, first, I think they're trying to run the clock to the election instead of having an investigation. It's been weeks.

I also complained back in May about the DFL's failure to investigate harassment of a gay - gay man in the 8th Congressional District. He wrote a very detailed email describing very explicit harassment in 2016 that was just swept under the rug.

And I finally wrote the DFL Chair Ken Martin, and that man went public with that. And he - of course, Ken Martin's been furious with me. And I complained about that not being investigated. And then Ken Martin started sending me emails saying he's got to, you know, starting to consider legal action if I keep complaining about this.

Well, you know, my answer to this is that both political parties need to focus on cleaning up their own act before they start attacking the other party. There's a lot of covering up going on and sexual harassment, abuse, and all of these problems are being covered up by the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

And, you know, I find that very, very disappointing what happened here.

CARLSON: Well it is disappointing.

PAINTER: I find it very disappointing what's happening in Washington.

CARLSON: It's shocking. And I appreciate that. And we're going to follow up on that story because I think it's - those are probably threads we should be pulling. Thanks a lot. Richard Painter, joining us tonight all too briefly, thank you for that.

PAINTER: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well it's been an unbelievable and action-packed hour because this is an unbelievable and action-packed moment with an awful lot at stake. We're following it closely. We know you are too and we are grateful that you're watching.

We'll be back tomorrow 8 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, all of which are everywhere and hurting our country.

Good night from Washington. Hannity live from Las Vegas where the President's about to speak. Sean?

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Yes sir.

Tucker, great show.

CARLSON: Thank you.

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