New video shows migrant caravan is organized and well-funded

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 13, 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." The latest Florida recount, this generation's Florida recount is continuing across that state tonight. The President is alleging fraud in Florida. He's calling for the recount to end. Meanwhile, a storm of lawsuits from both sides is gumming up the court. And, just breaking a moment ago, a Florida Judge has now ordered that Palm Beach County be given a five-day extension to complete its recount. Democrats Bill Nelson and Andrew Gillum were down by a lot a week ago tonight. Now, a week later, they say they are being robbed.


BILL NELSON, SENIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM FLORIDA: Sadly, it's become clear that my opponent isn't interested in making sure that every lawful vote is counted.

ANDREW DEMESE GILLUM, MAYOR OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: We all ought to wonder when people don't want legitimate votes to be counted. We all have to wonder what's - what's going on.


CARLSON: Well there's a lot to wonder about in Florida tonight. For example, Broward County's suspiciously incompetent election overseer, Brenda Snipes is complaining about character assassination.


BRENDA SNIPES, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: I think the lawsuits, as they are written, certainly cast aspersions on my character.

I've worked here for about 15 years, and I have to say this is the first time that this office or I have been under such attacks.


CARLSON: Because it's about me, not the job I'm doing. Former DNC Chair and South Florida Member of Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz says that Snipes is, of course, the victim. Everything is just fine with Mrs. Snipes, she says.


DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR FLORIDA'S 23RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBER, FORMER CHAIRWOMAN FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: She's followed the process as Florida law prescribes, you know, and there's been absolutely nothing amiss that has been found by Rick Scott's own Department of State Election monitors.

The process is simply working.


CARLSON: It's working. Debbie Wasserman Schultz really likes Brenda Snipes. But then that shouldn't be surprising because just two years ago, Snipes gave Wasserman Schultz a boost by destroying ballots. When it helps establishment, Democrats misconduct is no big deal but complaining about misconduct?

Well as Kirsten Gillibrand of New York explained today, complaining is a form of voter suppression.


KIRSTEN ELIZABETH GILLIBRAND, JUNIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, NEW YORK: We're seeing what's happening in Georgia, what's happening in Florida, what's happening across this country where vote - our right to vote is being fundamentally undermined.


CARLSON: Is there anyone less believable than her? Craig Patrick is Political Editor and Chief Investigator at WTVT Fox in Tampa Bay, and he joins us for the second night in a row. We're grateful to have him. What is going on in Florida tonight?

CRAIG PATRICK, WTVT FOX TAMPA BAY POLITICAL EDITOR AND CHIEF INVESTIGATOR: Well, first, you had election managers having trouble keeping track of all the ballots flying in. And now, they may have trouble keeping track of all the lawsuits flying in because when you look at Nelson, you look at Scott, you look at League of Women Voters, we're now up to, by our count, nine different lawsuits and we're just in the first phase of this recount, possibly with much more to come.

There are signs of things bogging down though I wouldn't take too much stock in the state court giving Palm Beach County a five-day extension to complete the machine recount. That's ultimately something that may be weighed and worked out in federal court. It is a federal race.

But to that point, Bill Nelson is also calling for the lifting of all deadlines or extending them for all 67 counties, something also for courts to work out. And then, as you noted, there is Broward County and there are more wrinkles.

Broward County happens to be particularly late to starting its recount. It's just getting started because it seems election workers in that county had been bogged down and tied up in just separating pieces of paper, so that they would have the right pieces of paper to run through the machines just to get the recount started.

And with that, yes, Snipes continues to be the focus of this national debate. And the question up for debate seems to be whether she is corrupt or inept. That's not a place you want to be.

And you have former Governor, Jeb Bush, who appointed her 15 years ago, now saying she has to go. And Tucker, here's where it gets interesting because today she responded by saying, OK, she's going to put in her notice.

She put in her two year's notice. She just said she's not going to run for re-election in two years. So, she's effectively saying, "Just let me get through this mess, after all the other messes. Then let me manage the 2020 Presidential Election in Broward County, and then let me manage the race to find a successor for me, and then I'm out of here."

But, of course, the - the current or the incoming governor would have the power to - to hasten her retirement with the Senate and remove her from office. That's where we stand in Broward County.

And then you have a big day in court coming up for both Scott and Nelson tomorrow because Senator Bill Nelson is asking the State to accept a good number of ballots that had been previously rejected either because they may have been mailed before the election but arrived in the election offices late, he says by no fault to the voters.

He wants to change the process that loosen the rules in which some ballots are - are determined for voter intent if they mess up the ballot whether or not you counted. And he also wants to count ballots that had been rejected for signature mismatches on grounds that some people just don't sign their - their name the same way from - from time to time.

CARLSON: Of course, yes (ph).

PATRICK: That's where we stand. That's something that courts will hear tomorrow.


PATRICK: And then we'll get a much better idea, then, of where the story is going. But I'll tell you that his chances do not look good, still separated by 12,500 votes at this point. Senator Schumer, Senator Nelson said they still have a chance at this thing and that may be true. But at this point, I would say his - his chances may be only slightly better, Tucker, than if he had never been born.

CARLSON: Craig, thank you. The outstanding question of course is, is Florida prepared for self-government? We'll take that up at some length tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Eric Eggers conducted a lot of research with the Government Accountability Institute. He's the Author of the new book, Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election.

Now, that book was written just before this last election, and actually contains a section on Brenda Snipes. The very prescient Eric Eggers joins us tonight. Eric, thanks a lot for coming on.

So, Brenda Snipes is a name that most of us were not familiar with until very, very recently. Her position is that she's being unfairly attacked as a person. MSNBC - MSNBC's position is she's being attacked because of her skin color.

Why do you think she's being attacked?

ERIC EGGERS, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTE, AUTHOR: Well I think she's not very good at her job, Tucker. And I heard the quote earlier that this is the first time she's been under attack. That would seem to be another thing that Ms. Snipes is not very good at counting because, unfortunately, her track record is littered with missteps and violations of the law.

I mean in 2018, this election, we know that illegal ballots will count in the governor's race and in the Senate race because they were incapable of cleanly separating illegal ballots from legal ballots once they've been opened from their envelopes.

So, we know that's going to happen. But this is not the first time. She's admitted under oath that she's allowed illegal immigrants and felons to cast ballots in Broward County in violation of numerous laws.

You mentioned the time she destroyed the ballots that seem to have given a boost to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Her office has been found guilty of illegally opening ballots inappropriately, right, and without proper oversight.

And so, unfortunately, and actually, it's a fun fact when she was challenged on that topic, "Why is your office opening ballots outside the presence of the official Canvassing Board?" Her argument in court was, "Well, I guess I didn't understand the meaning of the word canvassing."

So unfortunately, her history is consistent with what we're seeing in the present and it augurs not very good things for Florida.

CARLSON: So, why wouldn't this be a concern of the Justice Department? I mean this is a federal election. We have a Voting Rights Act. If she's breaking the law and admitting it, why wouldn't the feds swoop in?

EGGERS: Well, you know, that's a great question. It's a question a lot of people have asked in all the - the tension that, you know, that Broward County is receiving right now is how in the world is this woman still in office?

Now, there's a difference between not being very good at your job and then violating criminal statutes.


EGGERS: And I'm not an attorney. But what I can tell you is is that people, I think, have historically been afraid to challenge Ms. Snipes or Dr. Snipes, quite honestly, because of what you mentioned. They're afraid of being challenged as and called a racist.

When Brenda Snipes' County Office Attorney pushed forward and she was being criticized because she donated to political campaigns and, actually, one of the County Commissioners, who was on the opposing end of one of the campaigns that Broward County Attorney donated to, the - the County - the Elections County Attorney played the race card and tried to rally support by generating a bunch of African-American attorneys to show up in solidarity.

Eight of the nine members of the County Commission, when this issue came up, were Democrats. And, quite honestly, you don't do very well as the political official in Broward County if you attack African-American Democrats.

Even though Rick Scott's a Republican, you know, you obviously had statewide aspirations, how well do you think you do statewide in Florida if you're perceived as a racist?

CARLSON: I mean this is how democracy dies, isn't it? When you have an openly corrupt person in charge of counting the votes, admitting in public that she's breaking the law, and no one can do anything about it, I mean why is that not an actual threat to democracy?

EGGERS: Yes. And I think the larger threat, Tucker, to be honest, is she's demonstrated that she's not very good at counting votes. How good do you think she's been at preventing illegal votes from actually being cast?

I mean we know that there's an effort to manipulate this election through illegal voting. There were a 108 attempts through double votes in Miami- Dade in this election, which means people tried to cast the second ballot in the same election.

The attorneys for Bill Nelson and Andrew Gillum have been criticized because they objected to the removal or exclusion of known non-citizen votes in Palm Beach County. So, you know, my concern, whatever you want to say about these 83,000 ballots that--


EGGERS: --showed up after Election Night, what confidence level do we have about the ballots that have already been cast?

CARLSON: Well that's exactly right.

EGGERS: And were they cast by legal voters?

CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's - it's a - if you care about democracy, and everyone claims to, these are real questions. Eric, thank you very much for that--

EGGERS: My pleasure, Tucker.

CARLSON: --and for your book. Well a new report suggests the Mueller investigation could soon be indicting more people? Who will those targets be and will it make your life better? We've got an investigation into that just ahead.

Well much more, by the way, in the Florida recount, Hillary Clinton has inserted herself into it. In fact, she's on stage at this very hour in Austin, Texas. We're monitoring what she's saying so you don't have to. We'll be right back.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES, AMERICAN POLITICIAN, DIPLOMAT: --using technology to control the minds and the behaviors of the people in their countries. And there is fear. There's not hope. There's fear, fear of the other all the time. I will feel very--



CARLSON: CBS News is reporting that the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, may soon issue new indictments. It's not clear who will be charged but there are indications of it. And some suggest that Political Consultant Roger Stone may be in the list.

Another possible target is a man called Jerome Corsi, a 72-year old author and, by the way, Harvard-trained Political Scientist. He's an Associate of Stone's. Of course, he has said he expects charges soon. What for? Well, apparently, perjury.

Of course, he says he was manipulated into making false statements to Mueller's lawyers. And if that's true, obviously it's not good. But let's put this into some perspective. False statements are everywhere in Washington. That's what the city specializes in, and not just false statements about small things.

Barack Obama told you your premiums would go down and you could keep your doctor. Jim Clapper told Congress that the NSA was not spying on you. Clapper said that under oath. It was an outright lie. He was never charged.

So, the obvious lesson is as long as you're powerful and your lie is big enough, you are never ever charged in Washington. No one is. You can wreck an entire healthcare system. You can take an entire country to war under false pretenses. You can kill American citizens with drone strikes, and you can lie about all of it, and nobody will ever think for a moment about prosecuting you.

But give the finger to the establishment, mock the people in power, that is dangerous, and they'll get you for that. Jerome Corsi is learning that lesson the hard way, just as Mike Flynn learned it, just as George Papadopoulos learned it.

All three and others have been bankrupted and destroyed by Robert Mueller for doing something that virtually everyone in Washington does every day with impunity, lying. So, what was the point of all of this? Why are we destroying all these people? What's the justification for it?

It was supposed to be Russia. Remember? They were foreign spies afoot. They were dark forces sent by Vladimir Putin to destroy our democracy here in America. That's what they told us again and again on cable news. And that's how we were sold on the Mueller investigation in the first place.

Well two years later, we learned, all fake. No evidence that any of that was real. No plot has ever been uncovered. All we've really learned is that an Independent Counsel was a handy way to settle political scores and that a lot of people on the Left don't really believe in the tenets of Western justice.

Watch as one of them, just today, one of the resident geniuses on MSNBC, explains the new legal standard for guilt in this country.


CHUCK ROSENBERG, FORMER ACTING HEAD, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: When Mueller indicted those Russian military intelligence officers, there was a very big hint in that indictment that there was an American deeply involved.

I talked about an American playing a role in that Russian interference scheme.

NICOLLE WALLACE, DEADLINE: WHITE HOUSE ANCHOR, CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST FOR MSNBC AND NBC NEWS: I remember the keystroke intelligence. I remember thinking anyone emailing with Russians, you're going to be in trouble.


CARLSON: Emailing with Russians, that's all it takes now to destroy a life. It's been enough to destroy Carter Page's life. Remember Carter Page? He graduated at the top of his class at the Naval Academy. He served this country for five years as an Intelligence Officer, and then he made a fateful mistake. He backed the wrong presidential campaign.

Page soon found himself accused of being a Russian spy. There was never any evidence that he actually was a Russian spy. Page was never charged with spying. He was never charged with anything. Didn't matter.

The ghouls on cable news kept up the drumbeat, "Carter Page. Russia. Carter Page. Russia." Before long, Carter Page's life was over. His reputation was gone. Who would hire him now? Nobody, ever. But the ghouls don't care. They're on to the next victim, and so is Robert Mueller.

Maybe it'll be Jerome Corsi this time, facing a criminal perjury count. Maybe someday, it will be you. They'll make up some official sounding charge. But don't fool yourself. What they're really punishing is disobedience.

Jonathan Turley is a Professor at George Washington University Law School and he joins us tonight. I am confused by the focus on Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi and Carter Page, and people who, you know, whatever you think of them, approve or disapprove, aren't - clearly not central players in a Russian espionage plot.

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well that's the striking thing is that most of the counts brought against non-Russians are for false statements or collateral crimes. And if - if the culmination of this investigation will be someone like Stone or Corsi, it looks like you're running around shooting the wounded.

I mean it - there - there's not - there still isn't a clear "There" there in terms of a central figure doing some substantive criminal act. And this is going to be defining (ph) moment for Mueller in that sense.

You know, he's supposedly working on his report. He's closing in on a new group of - of indictments. And what a lot of us are wondering is if these indictments are going to bring some powerful narrative end to this.


TURLEY: You know, because this sort of feels like an Agatha Christie, where no one's telling you a thing till the last scene because right now it doesn't look like he has really found central culprits, people who are actually colluding with Russia.

CARLSON: Because if you applied the standards that he applied to General Flynn, whom I'm not defending, I'm agnostic on General Flynn. But just being honest, having lived here all your life, if you applied those standards to any public figure in Washington, who couldn't you indict for criminal perjury?

TURLEY: Well, false statements is the darling of prosecutors in Washington. It is very easy to trip someone up to go under with U.S.C. 18, U.S.C. 1000 - 1001. And any statement you make of that is false on any subject to a federal investigator can be charged, and they certainly did that here.

If you take a look at some of these - these statements, Flynn's case is really quite weak, if you look just at - at that false statement. I mean they're originally the - the FBI agents were not viewing that as a criminal matter.

Every indication we have is that when Mueller came in, they converted it into something they wanted to indict for. There's no indication that when they saw that that statement is being false or misleading, they viewed it as a criminal act.

And so, the real question for Mueller is - is - is whether at the end of this investigation, I do think we can see it from here, are we going to have a figure step forward where you go OK, I get it. You know, you were on this guy's--

CARLSON: Yes. For sure (ph)--

TURLEY: --this guy's pair (ph)--

CARLSON: --tell me what it is.


CARLSON: You know, I want to arrest the perpetrators.

TURLEY: Right. But, you know, someone like Stone - Stone himself says he's a performer.

CARLSON: Of course.

TURLEY: And to indict him is like shooting a mime in Central Park. He's an annoying character, perhaps, but you're still wondering why did you wait all this time to indict Roger Stone? And, you know, all the earlier filings--


TURLEY: --said that they have no evidence that anyone knowingly engaged the Russians, and that would have included Stone. So, we'd have to see a very new shift in the narrative from the past filings.

CARLSON: I think it's disgusting. Professor, thank you--

TURLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: --very much.

Mollie, I guess I'm really struck by the individual. I think we should all care most about the individual. What happens to the American citizen, the actual person?

And I'm seeing a trail of people who really have been destroyed, and I'm seeing people on cable television laughing about this. The moron we just played a second ago, this is great, whatever but these are actual people who are being destroyed. And I'm wondering what the rest of us are gaining from this?

MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well and it isn't just about the individual, I think, also rule of law, in general.


HEMINGWAY: There's broad leeway in how you prosecute - prosecute something. The Department of Justice chose differently when it was investigating Hillary Clinton. They had a lot of people up to and including Hillary Clinton on false statement charges.

If you read the Inspector General Report about - that looked at that investigation, they knew they had Hillary Clinton on making false statements. She was never charged with a crime even though she could have been. And this isn't even mentioning that she could have been charged with all sorts of crimes with her how she handled her classified information.

So, you want to not just have fairness in how you handle an individual investigation but across different investigations. When you see that one group of people gets away with anything, no matter what it is, and another group of people gets brought up on processed charges, when we were promised, quite dramatically, treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election. And that's not a good sign (ph).

CARLSON: Doesn't it - I mean one of the costs here is the cynicism this engenders in all of us. I mean we don't believe in the system anymore to be frank (ph).

HEMINGWAY: Well I mean there's a reason we've talked about how in other countries they find the man and then they find the crime. They decide someone's guilty and then they figure out how it's done. That's not how we're supposed to do it in this country. We're supposed to start with a crime and then work back from there.


HEMINGWAY: And that is not - I mean in this case, we can see, they're going after people who supported Trump. It doesn't even matter in - in the end, how much they charge them with because the real problem is that they've had to spend all this money defending themselves. They've made it so that it's hard for people to stand up and--

CARLSON: I - I know a lot of them personally.

HEMINGWAY: --alliance with Trump (ph) in the future.

CARLSON: And I know that they've been destroyed by it. And it's no one seems to care. I care. Thank you--


CARLSON: --very much.

Well the Central American migrant Caravan is a myth. You've heard that many times. One reporter went to find out for himself. He investigated it. And we'll show you what he uncovered after the break.

Also, more on the Florida recount and the associates that Hillary Clinton sent down to influence it. Hillary Clinton is back. We've got details.


CARLSON: Well the migrant Caravan is fake. You've been watching CNN so you know that. Look at this graphic quote, "INVASION" then the word MYTH on the screen. It's a myth, a pernicious one too. Is it actually a myth?

Well filmmaker Ami Horowitz decided to find out himself. He went to Mexico looking for this fake Caravan. He found a real Caravan and he filmed it. Here's part of what he found.


AMI HOROWITZ, AMERICAN DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: Despite the framing of the Caravan as being full of women and children, the reality on the ground is quite different, approximately 90 to 95 percent of the migrants being male.

The major narrative being pushed by the press has been that the migrants are leaving Honduras because they're escaping extreme violence and that their lives are under constant threat, setting up the strategy that they would be able to enter the U.S. by asking for asylum. So, I started by asking them a simple question.

Why are you coming to America?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I'm looking for a better life. Economic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I wish to get there and work there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Being in Honduras there are no jobs.

HOROWITZ: There was a massive logistical effort underway akin to moving an army and is clearly costing someone millions of dollars for the transportation, food, water, medicine and services that are being provided for the members of the Caravan.

The Mexican government also seems to be sending police to escort the dozens of buses and trucks that are ferrying the migrants and supplies along the route to the next destination.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The buses have arrived, people! Let's go! Four more buses are coming!

HOROWITZ: Ever-present among the thousands of migrants are workers of Pueblo Sin Fronteras clad in black T-shirts and colored vests. Pueblo Sin Fronteras means people without borders. They're the ones that seem to be most involved in organizing and mobilizing this Caravan.

The organization, as the name implies, is looking to create a world without borders, which seems to be one of the reasons why they organized this Caravan in the first place, to flout American sovereignty.

While it does seem as the majority of these migrants are friendly and simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, there's an undeniable element of the migrants who are violent and dangerous. And many of the migrants know this and some have experienced it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Yes, there may be some bad people here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Actually, during the journey we've been victims of violence, verbally and physically.

HOROWITZ: It seems to me that there are Leftist organizations that are using these migrants as a tool to push a certain political agenda, which includes the weakening of American sovereignty and our border security. And unfortunately, these migrants are going to be caught in the crossfire.


CARLSON: Ami Horowitz joins us tonight. That - well that was really interesting. The thing that jumped out at me was how, as you said, well- organized it was. Do we have any sense who's paying for this? I know we're not allowed to speculate. But do we know that answer?

HOROWITZ: We - we don't. We know - what we do know is this whole thing cost millions and millions of dollars. And - and the mainstream media and - and there's so many layers to this onion to peel back, it's hard to know where to begin.

But one of the lies, the fake news, if you will, that the mainstream media is trying to propagate is the fact that this is all this weird, this organic thing and all the water and the food and the medicine all dropped from - manna from heaven. It's baloney.

It's all highly organized. It's paid for by a number of organizations. We don't know exactly where the money is coming from. We do know that that Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which is the - the main group, which organized this Caravan has a couple of front organizations in the United States, and the money is flowing from them to Pueblo Sin Fronteras.

We know there are some Leftist groups. I know it's - it's - it's forbidden to say that Soros is part of it. But Soros has, in fact, funded at least some of those groups in the past. So, we don't know where the money is exactly coming from. But we know it's not coming from Honduras.

CARLSON: So why would - I mean it's such an interesting and obvious question. Who's paying for this? Why haven't other news organizations gotten to the bottom of this? You're one man. You're doing this independently. Why isn't NBC News or ABC or PBS, why aren't they on this?

HOROWITZ: Oh, come on. You know the answer to that. They don't want to get to the bottom of it. They have no - they have no interest politically--


HOROWITZ: --they'd gain (ph) from the bottom of it. It's the same reason why they - whenever you see - when you see a photo in The New York Times, The Washington Post or a video in - in CNN or the BBC or MSNBC, what do you see?

You see the whole - the entire framing are women and children, when the reality is so far from the truth. 90 to 95 percent of all the people who are in this Caravan are men, although I do apologize for assuming their gender.

CARLSON: They're liars. That's - that's the answer. And that's why they aren't reporting and then you are (ph) because they are liars. Ami, thank you for that. That was valuable and really interesting. I appreciate it.

HOROWITZ: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well there's a huge debate right now over the question of nationalism. Some people say the word itself ought to be banned, struck from our vocabulary. But, why? What is nationalism? And why is it bad to put America first, if you're leading America? We'll take that question up after the break.



DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It's called a nationalist. And I say "Really? We're not supposed to use that word? You know what I am? I'm a nationalist, OK? I'm a nationalist."



CARLSON: Not too long ago, it wouldn't have seemed strange for an American President, to call himself a nationalist. Lincoln was a nationalist, so was Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, all very successful presidents.

But this President's critics say it's not just wrong to call yourself a nationalist, it's immoral. And the French President agrees. Emmanuel Macron, who, by the way, has copied the style and, to some extent, the substance of Charles de Gaulle, a nationalist French President.

But whatever, he attacked Trump by bashing nationalism. Why has this become a theme? Putting your own country first is not allowed. We'd like to get to the bottom of it.

Jim Kessler is Senior Vice President for Policy at Third Way, and he joins us tonight. Jim, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So, sincere question, so nationalism, there have been people who've claimed the title of nationalist who've had (ph) all kinds of creepy agendas that normal people, including me, would disavow, of course.

KESSLER: Absolutely.

CARLSON: But, strictly speaking, the definition seems a common-sense one. A leader of a nation state puts the interests of that state above the interest of other states.

KESSLER: Well, of course--

CARLSON: --why is that bad?

KESSLER: --I mean of course, a leader's going to put the interests of their own country ahead of others. That's not nationalism. Nationalism is a loaded term. I mean the definition of patriot - patriotism is, "I love my country," and nationalism is, "I hate your country."

That's what it - it certainly has become.

CARLSON: Really? When--


CARLSON: --when did it become that? I don't - I'm - like who - who came up with the idea that that that's the definition? I missed that.

KESSLER: Well the definition of nationalism, especially when you're in the European context, where President Trump made that statement, is the nationalism that engulfed Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The Nationalist Socialist Workers' Party that's the end for Nazi is - is that--

CARLSON: OK. OK. But - but hold, wait, but--

KESSLER: --and that's loaded. And he knows that.

CARLSON: --hold on. Hold on.


CARLSON: Hold on. Gandhi was a nationalist, OK, so the leaders of almost every nation stayed in history up until about 20 minutes ago would describe themselves and did as nationalists. So, I - I get what you're saying. But it seems a little too glib and - and pretty unfair. Let's address the substance of it.

So, we have all kinds of multi-lateral agreements with other countries. A nationalist would look at those agreements and say, "I want to make sure that my country doesn't get hurt in this agreement."

KESSLER: Absolutely.

CARLSON: The Court (ph)--

KESSLER: Why not?

CARLSON: --for example.


CARLSON: But that's not the way that our leaders who benefit from a borderless world, the finance community, for example, which has gotten so rich, doesn't benefit from that. And so, they attack the idea of the nation-state. Why would it be wrong to push back and say, "No, no, the United States shouldn't get shafted."

KESSLER: Of course, look, if the def--

CARLSON: No, not of course.

KESSLER: --if the def--

CARLSON: Not of course.

KESSLER: --if the def - definition of nationalism was Gandhi's nationalism, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

CARLSON: There's (ph) American nationalism--

KESSLER: But - but--

CARLSON: --Roosevelt's nationalism.

KESSLER: --Ronald Reagan never used the term nationalist. He used the term patriotism. And especially, Donald Trump is using this as a weapon. He's using this as separating the - the - this nation.

CARLSON: Separating who? I don't know (ph)--

KESSLER: --who's--

CARLSON: --from other nations? Why - why would that be bad?

KESSLER: --so, certainly in the European context, everyone knows that nationalism is what led to the rise of Nazi Germany. And when he says that the French are nationalism--

CARLSON: OK. But you're throwing the (ph) Nazi thing out here (ph)--

KESSLER: --of course they're not (ph).

CARLSON: --but hold on, but let's - let's--

KESSLER: --well that's where he did it, OK?

CARLSON: --no, no, no, no, he did it also in this country and I'm doing it here because I think it's important to have an adult conversation--


CARLSON: --not one where you win by innuendo, the end of Nazi is national (ph), OK, OK fine. But sincerely, I don't understand why the average person living in any nation-state wouldn't want his leaders to put his interests above those of other countries? And we don't, consistently we don't.


CARLSON: I can give you 10 examples. And you know what I'm talking about.

KESSLER: Absolutely. And look, of course, you want your leaders to put the - the interests of your nation ahead of others. That's what national - nationalism is not that. Nationalism is basically saying our country is always right. There are other countries, they are always wrong. And it is to separate us from other countries. And that's - and he is using that term as a weapon--

CARLSON: But - but - but - but so--

KESSLER: --and this is - his strategy is always to divide and conquer.

CARLSON: --OK. But - but - but hold on--

KESSLER: And that's what he's trying to do with nationalism.

CARLSON: --OK but, I guess that you're coming at this believing that all countries must be united somehow.

KESSLER: No. There are (ph) countries, of course, are going to have conflicts.

CARLSON: But what unites Americans? So, if not a shared loyalty to the country--

KESSLER: Absolutely. It's melting pot--

CARLSON: --they live in--

KESSLER: --national identity--


KESSLER: --those are important things.

CARLSON: Well but what would be more important than that like so what does hold this country that doesn't have a common race or religion or history and that's all fine as far as--


CARLSON: --I'm concerned. But what does hold us together if not nationalism?

KESSLER: A common center of (ph) ideals and beliefs and belief in democracy, and a belief in pluralism, and a belief in the American Dream and being inclusive. And I think those are the American values and those are not nationalist values.

CARLSON: Well sure (ph)--

KESSLER: Nationalist values are basically separating into sort of the in- group in this country and the out-group in this country. And if it--

CARLSON: No, wait, wait, but - but maybe you're misunderstanding the term. So nationalism, by definition, includes everyone within the nation. It does not exclude fellow American citizens. It unites them. And at a time when the Left is hell-bent, as you know, on dividing us by race, which is the - the basis of--

KESSLER: I disagree with that.

CARLSON: --well no, but identity politics is--


CARLSON: --the - the whole concept is we are - we owe our first allegiance to our tribe--

KESSLER: So, I'm a - I'm a melting pot--

CARLSON: --and that's obviously less interesting work (ph)--

KESSLER: --Democrat--

CARLSON: Amen (ph) I mean--


CARLSON: --good for you. And we - we agree on that, certainly. But at a time when we are divided by tribe, why wouldn't nationalism be the answer to that? We're all in it because we're Americans.

KESSLER: So here's my question then. Ronald Reagan wouldn't say it. George H.W. Bush wouldn't say it. Bill Clinton wouldn't say it. George W. Bush wouldn't say it. And Barack Obama wouldn't say it. But President Trump said that and he said it in European context--

CARLSON: That's the argument that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush--

KESSLER: --now and--

CARLSON: --wouldn't say it?

KESSLER: And Ronald Reagan wouldn't say it but--

CARLSON: You're not winning me over.

KESSLER: --but - well--

CARLSON: That's not an argument.

KESSLER: Because you don't want--

CARLSON: That's an observation.

KESSLER: --OK. It's an observation - because that word is now a loaded term based on what happened in the 1920s and 30s, and you know it. Nationalism--


KESSLER: --is not the benign, you know, Teddy Roosevelt--

CARLSON: Yes, and I mean, you know what--

KESSLER: --Abraham Lincoln nationalism.

CARLSON: --let's reclaim that word because--


CARLSON: --it's been 80 years. And it's I - we defeated the Nazis. Americans died to defeat them.

KESSLER: Yes, we defeated--

CARLSON: Thank God.

KESSLER: --we defeated National Socialist German Workers' Party--

CARLSON: We didn't defeat, no, we--

KESSLER: --of the Nazis.

CARLSON: --we defeated the Nazis.


CARLSON: And that has nothing to do with what we're trying to tell (ph)--

KESSLER: So, do you think when Donald Trump was talking about nationalism in France and to Macron, he didn't know what he was doing and referring to the Nationalist uprising--

CARLSON: Didn't surprise enough (ph)--

KESSLER: --in the 20s and 30s (ph)--

CARLSON: --Macron is himself a nationalist, whatever. We're out of time. I wish we could - I hope you'll come back because I think (ph) it's interesting--

KESSLER: I would love to.

CARLSON: --to have an (ph) important conversation, thank you.

KESSLER: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well just when you thought the Florida situation couldn't get any weirder, a former presidential candidate from last time around got involved. What is her plan? We'll tell you after the break.


CARLSON: Well the election recount going on in Florida tonight has been sorted enough. But now Hillary Clinton has gotten involved. And if you don't like it, you're a sexist. Clinton is deploying organizers and lawyers to Florida. It could be setting up a third presidential run for her, more evidence that God may be punishing America.

Independent Women's Voice Senior Fellow Lisa Boothe joins us tonight to decode these latest events. What is she doing down there? And what does it mean?

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CO-HOST, OUTNUMBERED, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE SENIOR FELLOW: Well so she sent out a fundraising pitch on behalf of the DSCC as well as Bill Nelson for specifically for attorneys and organizers to get down there and fight for this election. And I found it interesting for two reasons.

One, obviously, this comes on the heel of the Wall Street Journal column written by Mark Penn, and I think it was Andrew Stein as well, basically saying that Hillary Clinton is going to run again in 2020.


BOOTHE: And then the second reason I found it was interesting is she took a swipe at Rick Scott and President Trump. And right now, the narrative from the Left is that they're trying to undermine the Florida election.

What do you think Hillary Clinton has been doing since 2016? She has explicitly blamed Russia for her election loss saying that it wasn't Trump that got elected. It was at the hands of Vladimir Putin.

And also, John Podesta who was her Campaign Chairman, he was encouraging this effort for faithless electors that was organized by Nancy Pelosi's daughter. So, what do you think those two things do to undermine Americans' faith in the system?

CARLSON: It doesn't count though because that's Democratic officeholders. I mean come on, Lisa, you know the rules.

BOOTHE: Yes. I know. I should - I should know better by this point, right?

CARLSON: You should.


CARLSON: Thanks--

BOOTHE: The rules only apply to Republicans it seems so--

CARLSON: That's what I (ph) noticed.

BOOTHE: --yes, yes.

CARLSON: Lisa Boothe, thank you for that.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, news from the tech front tonight. Amazon has announced, after months of hype, that it's building two new headquarter facilities, one outside New York City, and the other outside Washington and Arlington, Virginia.

In return for bestowing his grace on America's two richest cities, Jeff Bezos, who is the world's richest man will receive more than $2 billion in subsidies from you, the taxpayer.

Well new Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had this to say today. "Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need more investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here."

Hate to admit it. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a very good point.

Brian Brenberg is Associate Professor of Business Economics, The King's College. And he joins us tonight. Professor, thank you very much for coming on. That's the only time I've ever agreed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


CARLSON: But it's hard to argue with the internal logic of her point. The richest man in the world just got $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies--


CARLSON: --how does that work?

BRENBERG: --and he's been shopping around the country for 14 months going to cities to see who will give him the best deal. And he's shaking down New York City for about $1.5 billion and he's done some - something similar down in Northern Virginia.

And again, the whole point is he's trying to cozy up the politicians so that they will give him and his company, a $200 billion company, the biggest tax breaks around, and put them in a position where they can fend off competitors for years to come because they're cozy with the rule makers.

CARLSON: Wait. So, you're saying that they're paying him to lobby them and then you see Adam Schiff, the incoming Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee saying he's going to investigate the President for daring to criticize Jeff Bezos.

BRENBERG: Oh, yes, no, no--

CARLSON: It's making my head spin.

BRENBERG: --Jeff Bezos is moving into town because he wants to control these narrative. He wants to control what's happening in the Halls of Power. He's already hired $13 million worth of lobbying and a 100 lobbyists to deal with this.

Now he's going to put 20,000 more people right next to D.C. and Northern Virginia to make sure every time there's an issue that affects Amazon, he has boots on the ground in the Halls of Congress, in the offices of politicians to get his - his preferences passed, even if it means consumers and other small businesses lose out. This is all about getting his hands on the levers of power.

CARLSON: Can I ask you a question as an American? I should just say I'm a property owner in the District of Columbia. This makes my property values go up. I guess it's good for me.

But having lived here for a long time, I can tell you, the last thing we need is more money in Washington. It's rich enough. Why wouldn't Amazon, subsidized by taxpayers, spread the wealth maybe to Detroit or Cleveland or Toledo or someplace that actually needs it?


CARLSON: I don't understand.

BRENBERG: --because, Tucker, Detroit isn't anywhere near Congress. Austin, Texas isn't anywhere near Congress. Dallas, whatever the city, this is purely a play for Amazon to buy political influence. They look around the world and they see potential competitors. They like being on top and they want to keep it that way.

And the way to do that is to write the rules, to write the regulation. They are buying prime real estate where all those rules are written. Amazon has gone from a company that disrupts industries to a company that stays on top by buying--

CARLSON: That's right.

BRENBERG: --political influence.

CARLSON: It's exactly right. And it's got a whole political party protecting it.

BRENBERG: They had pocket (ph).

CARLSON: It's unbelievable. It's the Democratic Party--

BRENBERG: And even more so.

CARLSON: --party of big business. Professor, thank you very much for that analysis.

BRENBERG: You bet.

CARLSON: Appreciate it.

Well something pretty remarkable and very strange just happened in the skies over Europe. Authorities are looking for an explanation tonight. We don't know what it is but we have some facts about what happened. The truth could be out there. We'll bring those to you when we come back.










CARLSON: A very strange event recently in the skies over Ireland. Two different commercial airline pilots reported seeing unknown objects moving very quickly, remarkably quickly, through the sky. Irish Aviation Authorities have launched an investigation into it.

Because we are interested in what is true, we asked Brett Larson of FOX News Headlines 24/7 to dig into this a little bit and he joins us tonight.




BRETT LARSON, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS HEADLINES 24/7: I just flew in, Tucker. It is another one from the X-Files. Several airline pilots flying across the Atlantic saw something out there, a bright light in the sky, moving at what the pilot thought was at least Mach 2 or two times the speed of sound.

Concerned for what it was, both pilots on a British Airways flight from Montreal to London, Heathrow contacted Air Traffic Control first to inquire if there was a military exercise, and then told Air Traffic Control--


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There appears to be multiple objects following the same sort of trajectory, the path (ph). They're very bright from where we were.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It flew kind of (ph) on our left-hand side and then rapidly veered to the north. We just saw a bright light and then it just disappeared at a very high speed. We were just wondering - we didn't think it was a likely collision course. We were just wondering what that could've been.


LARSON: So multiple pilots reported these lights. But as an astronomer chimed in on the sighting, it suggests it could likely be a piece of dust entering the Earth's atmosphere at a very high speed. November, busy time for shooting stars. Pilots, including our men and women in the military, have reported similar sightings in the past though never dismissed as simple space dust.

CARLSON: What's so striking about this, Brett, is that it's not ordinary people drinking beer and fishing--

LARSON: Right.

CARLSON: --who saw this. The people (ph)--

LARSON: And steering off into the sky, yes. These are--

CARLSON: Exactly right. These are commercial airline pilots who--

LARSON: Right.

CARLSON: --by definition are experts at identifying other aircraft and--

LARSON: Exactly.

CARLSON: --lights at night behavior in the skies. And so, you have to sort of take their perceptions a little more seriously than you would, say, mine.

LARSON: Right. And - and you recall earlier or actually late last year there was the situation with some Air - Air Force pilots who saw--


LARSON: --and filmed this - the video of this device sort of flying through the air and they gave a very a similar sounding description of it being very unusual.

CARLSON: So - so very quickly, we're almost out of time. But I'm always struck in these stories that nobody seems all that interested in following up. Do you think that--

LARSON: Right.

CARLSON: --well why is that, do you think?

LARSON: I - I - I've never understood this. I - I think it's because if you follow it up you're considered crazy because you're go - you're chasing after these unidentified flying objects when really we - we should be investigating this stuff to see what really is out there.

CARLSON: Yes. I have no idea what it is.

LARSON: Not just space dust.

CARLSON: But it might be nice to know. And of course--

LARSON: It - it would be nice to know. Yes, indeed.

CARLSON: --we don't care what people say, obviously. Brett Larson, it's great to see you tonight. Thank you for looking into that--

LARSON: Tucker, good to see you too. Thank you.

CARLSON: --for us and it won't (ph) be the last time.

LARSON: Of course.

CARLSON: Well unfortunately, our hour is done. What a great time that was? We will be back tomorrow night though 8:00 P.M. This is the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, hopefully, a cheerful enemy. We'll be back tomorrow. Good night from Washington.

Sean Hannity, live now from New York City.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: All right, Tucker, Area 51, Roswell--


HANNITY: --New Mexico. Check it out.

CARLSON: That's right.

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.