Olympic medalist: It's not about being transphobic, it's about wanting sport to be fair

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," March 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Less than 24 hours ago, a horrifying mass shooting took place in Christchurch, New Zealand. A gunman stormed into two separate mosques and murdered at least 49 people.

The killer's name apparently is Brendan Tarrant. In a dreadful modern twist, Tarrant live streamed his attacks on Facebook as they happened. Three other people have been arrested as well, though it's still unclear tonight if they were connected to the attack.

The attack is awful and not just because nearly 50 people were murdered. The killer appears to be motivated by ideology. All violence is bad, but political violence is the worst kind because it's the most divisive.

Over time, political violence tears countries apart. Tarrant left behind a 74-page manifesto in which he explains his motives in detail. Apparently, nobody in the American news media has read any of it.

All day have you heard left-wing commentators and politicians working hard to tie Tarrant to Conservatives in the United States. That is absurd. Tarrant was no Conservative. As he wrote in manifesto, quote, "Conservatism is corporatism in disguise. I want no part of it. The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China," end quote.

That's not a sentiment you hear from many Conservatives. Tarrant's views are not derived from American politics. The murders he committed have nothing to do with anyone in the United States, but that doesn't mean his rampage won't be used to change this country. It has happened before.

Political terrorism always makes countries less free. In the panic after the 9/11 attacks, we impulsively gave away our right to privacy. We awarded the Federal government the right to spy on our citizens without their knowledge for virtually any reason.

That was a grave mistake. Authoritarian forces within our country would like to seize this moment for similar ends.

Within hours of the Christchurch shooting, Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blamed the National Rifle Association somehow for the attack.

The NRA doesn't even exist in New Zealand. That's a country with far stricter gun laws than in the United States. Ocasio-Cortez doesn't care. Maybe she doesn't even know. What she does know is that the NRA is the single most effective guardian of the Second Amendment. The left would like to invalidate that amendment along with other parts of the Bill of Rights that are in their way.

Even as you sleep, they are working to do this. Democrats have already used the Russia hoax to undermine gun rights. Newly released congressional transcripts show that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS fed false information about the NRA to Bruce Ohr at the DOJ who passed it on to Federal investigators. Simpson's lies helped launch a Federal investigation into the NRA and that of course, was always the goal of it.

In Connecticut, the gun manufacturer, Remington is battling a lawsuit that holds them responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting. What did Remington do? What it always does. Sell completely legal firearms. The lawsuit's premise is absurd. The legal coherence isn't the point of the exercise. The point is to shut down gun companies making the Second Amendment irrelevant.

The tragedy was just a pretext to increase the power of a few over the many. That's always the way it works. Already tonight, you are hearing calls in this country for curbs on free speech in response to the New Zealand massacre. Jeff Bezos's newspaper wasted no time in blaming the entire thing on the free flow of ideas that are, quote, "spreading hate." For the censorship class, more control is always the solution. Ban more people, squelch more ideas, go de-platform someone.

A writer at the "Chicago Tribune" almost immediately blamed Fox News for what happened in Christchurch. You can see what's coming. It's already happening, but it won't work. Censorship does not make us safer. Instead it drives forbidden ideas underground where they fester and explode.

If you really wanted to stop horrifying acts of violence like the one we just saw in New Zealand, like the ones we have seen repeatedly over the past five or six years, you would take an honest look at what the west has become. It is a place where the Church has died, a place where a foolish ruling class calls itself god. A place where the people wither.

Its hallmarks are fatherlessness, addiction, mental illness, evaporating social trust and the widespread nihilism you would expect as a result of all of that. This is a society that our ruling class built. Talking about why it doesn't work is a threat to their power, so they shut down that conversation.

But, enforced silence doesn't help, it just divides us more. Dividing us was the point of yesterday's massacre in Christchurch -- literally. Tarrant said so in his manifesto, quote, "I chose firearms for the effect it would have on social discourse and the effect it could have on the politics of the United States. With enough pressure, the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the Second Amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines," end quote.

So that was the killer's dream. Ripping apart America. Destroying it from within.

Brendan Tarrant is in prison tonight. He has no power to hurt us anymore. We can only hurt ourselves. Let's hope we don't.

Colion Noir is a host at NRA-TV and he joins us tonight. Colion, thanks very much for coming on. Are you struck by how little time it takes for people in politics and the media to use a tragedy like the one that happened yesterday in Christchurch, New Zealand, to affect a political outcome in this country?

COLION NOIR, HOST, NRA-TV: No, not at all, largely because growing up in life, I have always known that whenever there is an issue, one side is going to attack another side and for me the way I look at it is, whoever they are attacking the most, that's who they consider the biggest threat.

And right now, when it comes to discussions of freedom, the Second Amendment or what have you, the biggest threat to them is the NRA, and that's why what they're doing to the NRA, NRA-TV and its members the same thing that they are doing to you. They are trying to silence you.

And so nothing that they do up to this point now really surprises me because with the free flow of information, there is almost no point in hiding the agenda anymore. They just kind of put it out there for the world to see and attack anybody that disagrees with it.

CARLSON: But to say that the NRA is responsible for a mass shooting in New Zealand where the NRA doesn't operate and a country that has very strict gun laws, I mean, to say something like that out loud, do you expect the people will believe you or are you just going through the motions of repeating your talking points?

NOIR: Well, most of them are talking to their own echo chamber, and so for instance, if you look at the way the discourse is handled online, right? I have been blocked by a number of these individuals that I have had tried to have regular conversations with about the issue.

And the reason they block me is so that my people don't see the conversation and then bring up their points and then the people on their side don't see the points that we are making so that we can have an open and honest discourse.

They just want to spit all the rhetoric to their echo chamber. So a lot of those people are going to believe it because they don't know anything other than what they see on their side of the issue.

CARLSON: Right. No, that's a very smart point. So sometimes, I watch the news and I get very concerned that the authoritarian elements in the Democratic Party are taking over and it really is a threat to all of us, I think. And then I see moments like this. I want to play something for you. We just got this.

NOIR: Okay.

CARLSON: This is a progressive activist screaming at Chelsea Clinton and blaming her for the shootings at the mosques in Christchurch because Chelsea Clinton dared criticized Congresswoman Omar over APAC. I know it's complex, but watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After all that you have done, and all of this that you have said.

CHELSEA CLINTON, DAUGHTER OF BILL AND HILARY CLINTON: I am so sorry, I certainly was never lying. It isn't my intention. I do believe words --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And this right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out there. And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep inside. Forty nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.

C. CLINTON: I'm so sorry that you feel that way. I don't think --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What does "I'm sorry you feel that way," mean? What does that mean?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Chelsea Clinton of course cravenly apologized because that's what you have to do. But why is it that when a crazy person kills innocents, other people have to blame bystanders? I mean, Chelsea Clinton, whatever her many failings and I've criticized Chelsea Clinton many times, she did not shoot anybody in Christchurch, New Zealand. Why can't people blame the guy who did it?

NOIR: Because that's the state of our country right now. What we have done is we have taken the idea of personal accountability and responsibility and pretty much shoved it out of the window and so now, any time something happens, we position a lot of people in this generation to just look to somebody else and blame them for somebody else's actions.

It's a weird kind of mentality that has developed over the last couple of decades. And I'm starting to notice it more and more. When I see something like that, I'm going to blame the guy. I am going to have my vitriol save all of my vitriol for the person who actually committed the crime.

And I'm not going to look to someone else and scapegoat that responsibility on to someone else or even worse, an inanimate object like a firearm which tends to happen on an even more regular basis.

CARLSON: That's exactly right, it's like blaming a hammer when your house falls down. Coilon Noir, thank you.

NOIR: Exactly.

CARLSON: It was great to see you will. It is really interesting.

NOIR: Tucker, thanks for having me on again. Absolutely.

CARLSON: Well, for one day, just one day, Beto O'Rourke of Texas was the hip celebrity of the Democratic presidential race. Now, the Party has woken up and realized, "Wait a second, we are the party of identity politics. Here a white guy with a lot of money. He can't be the nominee." A great debate has broken out and we are going to cover it next, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Beto O'Rourke is running for President. The actual voting part of the process is a long time from now. But to the press corps, he is already a monarch, the king of cool, the first stoner American president.

Chris Matthews looking on at Beto O'Rourke got the kind of tingles you have to stick a fork in a light socket to get. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, ANCHOR, MSBNC: I always say, the candidate who wins who has the sun in his face who looks like sunny, optimistic, not the indoor bureaucrat sitting at some desk somewhere. That's the image you want.

But being kinetic like that, I watched him on the campaign trail. I think it's part of his appeal. I think that liveliness and that physicality, and that outdoorsiness seems to work with people. It's not like we in the press created it. There is something out there that is magical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Nobody talks like Chris Matthews. It's a skill actually, I have got to say. And that was beginning of the Beto campaign. "He is Bobby Kennedy, but he can skateboard." It started on the very high note. It could only go down, and it has.

Twenty four hours into this candidacy, all is not well for America's hackie sack hero. He has got some great hookups for sticky bud, but that's not enough in the modern Democratic Party.

Today, CBS News asked if Beto was out of place due to his race and sex. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GAYLE KING, HOST, CBS: In this particular with the Democratic candidates, there are more women and people of color than ever before. Do you feel at a disadvantage as a white man, as a privileged white man they say about you?

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't feel at a disadvantage. This is a great moment for America. It's a great moment for the Democratic Party and I count myself so lucky to be a part of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It doesn't stop there. The "New York Times" and "The Atlantic" complain that Beto's wife didn't speak in his announcement video. Why couldn't she talk? "The Daily Beast" says that he drips of male privilege and, wait a minute, he is a rich kid who went to boarding school as Robert. Isn't he culturally appropriating Mexican culture by calling himself Beto?

Isn't he a kind of an Elizabeth Warren of South Texas? Can he exist in the woke Democratic Party? Well, our next guest joins us tonight and first we want to give him a victory lap.

He is Nate Lerner. He is one of the people who convinced Beto O'Rourke to jump in the race, co-founded draftbeto.org, so congratulations to you, Nate Lerner the way, sincerely that it worked.

And by the way as rollouts go, it was better than Howard Schultz's, that's for sure and better than Amy Klobuchar's. But it does raise some questions just who he is because identity, of course, is the core of the Democratic Party. You have all kinds of capable female candidates and you have all kinds of capable candidates of color and here is this rich white guy who elbows his way to the front and says, "Shh, let me talk," is that really the face of the modern Democratic Party? I didn't think it was.

NATE LERNER, COFOUNDER, DRAFT BETO: The whole point of the party is that we are the rainbow coalition. We have many faces and what we want to celebrate right now is all the great candidates we have, all on full display and especially in contrast to the Republicans that ran in 2016. It's quite a strong contrast and reflects very strongly in what our party represents and what we are about.

And I think with Beto, what you have is someone who is an inspirational figure who is going to unite people and that's what our party wants more than anything and that's why I think he is going to be the frontrunner and will eventually win.

CARLSON: So it needs to be a rich white guy to unite your party? I kind of thought you moved beyond that. I thought it was the progressive party? What's wrong with Kamala Harris?

LERNER: It can be anybody. The point is that we have these strong candidates competing from all different walks of life, from all different backgrounds and we celebrate that fact and then we look at those candidates and say, "Okay, which one is going to represent our values? Which one is going to unite the party, unite the country and be an inspirational figure?" And I think all the candidates in their own way do that very well.

But the one for me who stands out the most is Beto and that's why I'm supporting him.

CARLSON: But it's just kind of weird because every time I watch CNN or MSNBC, they are always looking at the Republican field and saying, "White guys." And that's obviously a cursed category. You don't want to be a white guy, that's bad according to the Democratic Party.

So why would they even run a white guy, and I am asking sincerely. Why would they do it? It's kind of insulting, isn't it.

LERNER: So the problem is, when you have -- the Republican Party is a great example. When you look at pictures of Paul Ryan's interns and it's all a bunch of white guys that's not a great look. Same thing with the Republican Party in 2016.

CARLSON: Oh, not a great look.

LERNER: When it's the Republican Party in 2016, it's all a bunch of white guys. If you look at Congress 10 years ago, it's all old white men and that's not our country. That doesn't make sense. You want people that are reflective of the people and the values --

CARLSON: So, okay, then why are you backing the white guy? Why are you pushing in a field that is diverse as the Democratic field is for the one young rich white guy with the fake name to jump in front of everybody else? Why wouldn't you say, "Hey, Beto, wait your turn." Why are you pushing the white guy if you are against white guys?

LERNER: So first of all, what we want is a party that reflects all of us and that is once we get to that point, we can then look at all the candidates and say, "Okay, which one is going to then be our standard bearer?"

And so I love the fact that we have the candidates running that we do. I want them all to run and I would be more than happy to call anyone of them "My President."

CARLSON: But you don't want them to win?

LERNER: No, I would be very okay with Kamala Harris, with Elizabeth Warren, with Bernie Sanders, with Cory Booker, I just happen to prefer Beto a bit more.

CARLSON: Well, wait a second, Bernie Sanders is a white guy, too. But wait a second. If you really believe that the Republican Party is bad because it's dominated by white guys, you have a choice of who to support. I'm not being mean or anything.

LERNER: No, I understand.

CARLSON: By the way, let me just be totally clear. I think these criteria are insane and racist, and so I'm just reading Democratic talking point here. I don't believe them. I think they are crazy. But your Party does believe them. And so I just wonder why you wouldn't personally strike a blow for diversity by supporting Cory Booker? I mean, obviously, is he a totally far --

LERNER: We've already struck a blow for diversity though.

CARLSON: But wouldn't you support him anyway?

LERNER: We were a party that -- we've already struck a blow for diversity with just the candidates that we have running. And now it's about saying, "Okay, great, we have all these great candidates." We are not going to make identity our sole issue. There is a lot of other issues on the table to consider, and obviously for me personally --

CARLSON: So it's enough that they run. You just don't want them to win. I get it. I think I totally get it. You want to be able to have them on the stage with a picture, but you don't want them to win.

LERNER: I would love to have the first female President to be a Democrat.

CARLSON: Okay.

LERNER: I would be more than happy with them winning.

CARLSON: Then why are you supporting Beto?

LERNER: I just happen to prefer Beto a bit more to some of them, but I would be much -- I'd be more than happy to call any of them "My President."

CARLSON: Do you think men are better leaders?

LERNER: I'm sorry?

CARLSON: It kind of seems like the message you're sending. Do you think men are better leaders? That seems like the message you're sending because it seems like you've got a really --

LERNER: I think, Beto is a better fit for this time for our country. I think if you look at his message of unity, his ability to connect with voters from all walks of life, his ability to inspire and his ability to beat Trump, for me that's what matters and that's why I'm supporting him. That's not to disparage any of the other candidates running in any way, I just happen to like him for those reasons. It's very simple.

CARLSON: Okay, so I have been mean to you for a reason. And I don't mean it personally. Everything you said is totally fair. I'm just being honest with you, but don't you see how this identity politics garbage is a dead end and deadening to the brain and you really should support a candidate based on the qualities that you just explained, like the best candidate. It doesn't matter what color he is. Don't you kind of look at revulsion? Aren't you repelled by your Party's obsession with race and gender now that we've had a time to --

LERNER: I think any time you get to the extreme in any position, it gets dangerous. If you look at the extreme opposite of identity politics that's dangerous. If you look at extreme versions of identity politics, that's dangerous as well. Any time you get into a radical position then, yes, you start walking a dangerous line. But there is inherent value in identity politics.

CARLSON: No, the extreme opposite of identity politics ...

LERNER: Is the Republican Party.

CARLSON: ... colored blindness and equality. No, no, it is equality which is the goal. Yes, okay, it's not the goal, okay.

LERNER: I disagree. No, I think it's allowing for our current system to continue to push down minorities and those who are at a disadvantage. But we want to elevate everyone to equal -- we want an equal playing field.

CARLSON: Right, by letting the one white guy in the field jump to the front of everyone else. Okay, now, I'm against you now. I was for you, but now I'm actively voting for Cory Booker just because I want diversity in your Party. Nate, thank you very much.

LERNER: Thanks for having me on.

CARLSON: Thanks. Well, privilege isn't Beto O'Rourke's only problem. There is also his taste in art. As a teenager, he went by the hacker nickname "Psychedelic War Lord." Has he dropped acid? That is actually a good question to ask Beto and I hope somebody will.

Whether he was doing that or not, he did write a poem about cows. Now, to be clear, Beto is a poet. He is an artist and we don't want to be disrespectful to his art. So we are not going to bowdlerize this. We are just going to read his words. And again, these are his, not ours. We would not add capital letters to an E. E. Cummings poem and we are not going to change Beto's poem, but it's a little vulgar, so if you don't want to hear it close your ears. Here it is.

"I need a butt-shine, Right now, You are holy, Oh sacred Cow. I thirst for you, Provide Milk. Buff my balls, Love the Cow. Good fortune for those that do. Love me, breathe my feet. The Cow has risen." End quote.

Author and columnist, Mark Steyn struggling mightily to keep a straight face joins us tonight. Mark, how would you rate Beto O'Rourke's poetry on a scale of one to horrifying?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Oh, come on, we're in Keats and Shellie territory here. I love the rhyme. I love the meter. I love the poetic sentiment about buffing whatever particular aspect of Beto -- personally, I would be privileged to buff any part of Beto.

But this cow is being invited to buff the essence of Beto and that in itself is a beautiful poetic sentiment. And I love Nate Lerner, too. And I have to say, I thought that was absolutely delightful to say that diversity and identity means we have to put up lots of black and gay and Muslim and transgender candidates so they can lose to the rich white guy. That seemed to be Nate's rational.

CARLSON: He's the greatest.

STEYN: The rich --

CARLSON: But that's what they want. That's what they really think. That's what they think. That's actually the plan.

STEYN: Yes, yes. And the thing I love about it is, I don't believe in the concept of white privilege, but these guys do. And actually, it's hard to get any more white privileged than a judge's boarding school son who is writing bovine poetry of the kind you just quoted and is the world's most dedicated middle-aged skateboarder.

You mentioned the other night, Tucker, that they are all hailing him as the new rock star and in our insane world, when it comes to political candidates, it seems to me, you are either the new boy band or the new Hitler. Increasingly, there is nothing in between.

So, if you are Trump, you are the new Hitler and Beto is the boy band de jour, and of course, all boy bands are de jour but there is something pathetic in being in a political boy band when you are pushing 50 and still skateboarding around like the rich white kid doing bovine poetry back when you were getting picked up on DWI and burglary charges. This is actually a parody of rich, white privilege.

CARLSON: I would like to apply the standards of identity politics to the people who espouse them and if I can pass one law it would be that. You would not be allowed to nominate Beto O'Rourke in the Democratic Party because it's contrary to what you say you believe.

STEYN: Absolutely. And if he was the -- if he had an R after his name, he would be George W. Bush. He would be the rich white kid from Texas with the DWI charge. All that is different is that he ...

CARLSON: Such a good point.

STEYN: ... has got a D after his name instead of an R.

CARLSON: That is so smart. I hadn't even thought of that. That's why I love having you, Mark Steyn. You always think of it. Thank you. Good to see you.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker. Great to be with you.

CARLSON: Hillary Clinton's e-mails are back. Newly revealed testimony exposes the FBI's deal to protect the Clinton Foundation which was working hard to solve childhood obesity. Did they solve it? That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, the Russian dossier is looking flimsier and filthier by the day. A newly unsealed deposition of its author, Christopher Steele suggests that Steele may have verified his research by using actual amateurs, literally amateurs.

Fox chief intelligence correspondent, Catherine Herridge has been on the story for a long time and has the latest for us -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thank you, Tucker, and good evening. These unsealed records from the BuzzFeed defamation case brought by a Russian oligarch show how the anti-Trump dossier was circulated during the 2016 election.

Court records confirm that David Kramer, then an aide to the late Senator John McCain gave the dossier to BuzzFeed news as well as about a dozen reporters. Kramer told the Court, he was singled out by the dossier's author, former British spy, Christopher Steele to lend credibility to the Democrat-funded opposition research.

Steele admitted under oath that he tried to verify the dossier using a CNN eye report story. The research was directed Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, quote, "I think they felt a senior Republican was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat, I think that the view was it that it would have been dismissed as a political attack."

The FBI's former counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap also filed this declaration confirming the FBI got the dossier's first 33 pages from McCain in December 2016. Now, the FBI was already receiving the memos from other sources.

Priestap also confirmed President Obama was briefed on the unverified dossier by senior intelligence officials including then DNI James Clapper 10 days before the inauguration and that's at virtually the same time that BuzzFeed published the dossier online, Tucker.

CARLSON: An amazing story. Catherine Herridge, thank you very much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Newly released congressional transcripts give us new details about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. Last year, Peter Strzok, formerly of the FBI, told the Congress that the FBI cut a deal with the Clinton camp that kept them from reading any of the Clinton Foundation e-mails that were kept on Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. How does that work?

Dan Bongino is a former Secret Service agent and he joins us tonight. Dan, thanks a lot for coming on. So we have seen a number of people get indicted -- investigated, indicted, prosecuted -- some of them will go to jail; one just did, Paul Manafort. Roger Stone's trial is coming up in November. Are any of those people offered that kind of accommodation, do you think, by Federal prosecutors?

DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: No way. You know, Tucker, I have never seen anything like this. I mean, it's right now that Lady Justice being blind means something completely different. Justice is blind to Democrats, but like here is the Republican thing. They are peeking and they are looking at the Republican at the other.

Lady Justice isn't blind anymore. I mean, think about what happened. Let's just rationally think this through. I know it's hard for liberals to put their politics aside, but you have a suspect in a criminal case -- the Clinton team. We can all agree they were suspects, right, in a criminal investigation.

CARLSON: Right.

BONGINO: You have the suspect's attorney dictating to the Department of Justice and the FBI the terms of what information they will surrender or they won't? Tucker, let's just think you don't have to be Macgyver to figure this out, okay? Do you think the suspect -- it's not a trick question, buddy -- do you think the suspect is more likely to turn over information that's incriminating or less likely?

Let's think that through for a second. I'm going to say give me what is -- they are not going to turn over the incriminating information, Alex for 200 and I think you would be okay with that, but the liberals and media think this is a-okay.

CARLSON: It almost seems like a nonpolitical principle. I'm still not convinced that most DOJ employees are hard core Democratic voters. Some of them clearly are. Peter Strzok is one of them. But it does seem like a case where the people who have the most power face the most lenient punishment and the people who have no power wake up to find a Federal agent with an AR-15 in their faces.

BONGINO: Yes, you know. I would agree with you. I'm glad you said that. I wouldn't disparage all DOJ employees either. I mean, the left does that. They broad paint brush everyone. But I would agree with your assessment here that this small cabal of people at the top who were operating the DOJ during the Obama administration were clearly at this point, if you are looking at this through clear and not rose-colored glasses, clearly covering up for the Clintons and Barack Obama.

Tucker, I can't say this enough. It's not some kind of crazy X files conspiracy theory to say what we know happened. Barack Obama e-mailed Hillary Clinton, excuse me, e-mailed Barack Obama. We know this. We know she e-mailed him from a private account. How do we know this? Because Hillary didn't have a state account.

We know she e-mailed him from foreign soil. We also know Barack Obama said he didn't know about Hillary's e-mail. He said it in a televised interview we can all watch. He said that, it's on the record. How did he not know?

Now, here is the kicker, Tucker. Barack Obama had a black Blackberry, an e-mail device. WACA - the White House Communication Agency has to white list e-mails that come into that device, so he doesn't get spam and Trojans and things like that on the device.

How did Hillary's private e-mail get on that if Obama and his staff didn't know about Hillary's e-mail? Sounds kind of like a scam to me, don't you think? I think they are covering for Obama.

CARLSON: It sounds like unanswerable question. Really quick, will this ever be resolved?

BONGINO: I think it will. I think Bill Barr has absolutely nothing to lose. I think he is going to go for it and try to reestablish the reputation of the DOJ and FBI and I think he will get to the bottom of this. I am sure of it.

CARLSON: I hope so, for the sake of all of us, regardless of political party.

BONGINO: Yes, I agree.

CARLSON: You ought to be able to trust your government. Dan Bongino, thanks a million.

BONGINO: Amen.

CARLSON: Have a great weekend.

BONGINO: Yes, man. Good to see you.

CARLSON: Olympic swimmer is being accused of what in the end all of us will be accused of -- hate speech -- for saying she wants women's sports to remain the domain of biological women. She joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Jeff Zucker came to Washington the other night to accept a First Amendment Award. Now, why would Jeff Zucker of CNN be getting a First Amendment Award, well of course, for his work crushing free speech and de- platforming his political enemies. Jeff Zucker cannot stand it when people say things he disagrees with, so he does his best to punish them, and sometimes does.

Well, apparently, Andrew Cuomo's brother didn't get that memo or couldn't read it. Last night, the New York Governor's younger sibling who hosts a show on CNN interviewed Kellyanne Conway. Jeff Zucker doesn't like Kellyanne Conway, she works for Trump.

So when it came time to hand off the show to Don Lemon, Don Lemon he let the Governor's brother have it. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, ANCHOR, CNN: She uses our network for -- to give her talking points. For me, it feels beneath the dignity of this network to have someone on who just constantly lies and misconstrues things and I feel like having someone on like that is giving them a platform that they have not earned.

I just feel like we do a disservice when we try to give false equivalence to someone who is clearly, clearly obfuscating and clearly has an agenda to mislead people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The Governor's little brother looks absolutely stunned in that video and you can see why. According to Don Lemon, ideas that Jeff Zucker doesn't like are quote, "Beneath the dignity of this network and should the not be heard." CNN, ladies and gentlemen, the First Amendment channel.

Well, we live in the age of the transgender athlete. More and more biological males are breaking into women's sports and in some cases, they are dominating.

Sharron Davies is a former Olympic swimmer from her Great Britain. She was recently accused of hate speech for saying that transgendered athletes should not be allowed to compete against biological women. We spoke to her recently about this. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

CARLSON: Sharron, thanks very much for coming on. Why did you say that transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete against biological women?

SHARRON DAVIES, FORMER OLYMPIC SWIMMER: Well, there is quite of us here in the U.K. -- myself, Kelly Holmes, Paula Radcliffe, Tessa Sanderson, Daley Thompson -- the list is growing every single day. So basically, what we have now decided is that we just need to speak out before this injustice actually happens.

As we know, there is a difference of about 10% to 12% between a female performance and a male performance. So a transgender woman who is biologically a man, had been born a boy will have that advantage whether they have had testosterone suppressant or no that will remain with them the rest of their lives and that gives the females that you're racing against a massive disadvantage and that's just not a level playing field.

So we felt that something needed to be said. It's not a matter of being transphobic, it's not a matter of having a problem with the transgender community in any shape or form. It's about just wanting sports to be fair and to be based on sex and not gender.

CARLSON: So the counter to this, well, the counter that you received is, "Shut up, you are a hater." But the second level counter is that when someone becomes transgender that person is no longer the other sex at all. The transformation is complete and that person doesn't have an advantage. That's not true, you are saying?

DAVIES: No. It's not true. I mean, you know, if you are born male, if you are born XY, then you are going to have a bigger lung capacity, you are going to be taller, you are going to have bigger feet, bigger hands, a better red blood cell count, better hand-eye coordination. All of those things do not go away if you transition and the majority of men transition after puberty, so they have all the extra strength that comes with testosterone that is very much pumped through the body when you go through puberty.

And even if you suppress for one year, it is going to make very little difference to your actual performance and women just cannot stand next to somebody and beat them.

You know, the reason why I suppose I'm speaking out more than most is that I competed against these Germans for nearly 10 years of my life, and I know exactly what it feels like to stand next to someone that you know no matter what you do in the swimming pool, you just can't beat them.

CARLSON: That is fascinating perspective. So you are making the rational case that is clearly true and science backs you up. Then why haven't the authorities who make the rules for sporting competitions stood up and said what you are saying?

DAVIES: Yes, I don't know. I mean, that's our problem and that's why our voice is gathering now. And it's not just gathering obviously here in the U.K. You know, Martina Navratilova started this a few weeks ago in America. I've spoken to friends in Australia.

My daughter is an ex-athlete. She has spoken to many of her friends who are competing nowadays. I've spoken to many swimmers that are competing nowadays, and they are all very frightened to speak out because they get called transphobic, which is just not true.

This is about sports. This is about biology. And this is about science. And all we're asking for is more research.

At the moment, for the Olympic Games next year in Tokyo, you just have to reduce your testosterone for one year. So no surgery, no diagnosis from a doctor, no estrogen in your system whatsoever. And in fact, if Putin want to put at all his third and fourth and fifth string males against the rest of the British athletes and world athletes, he could do that right now providing they stood up and said that they recognize themselves and self- identify as a woman.

And so it's the potential to abuse this rule that is also very worrying.

CARLSON: It's totally crazy. Finally and quickly, do you find it odd that self-described progressives are working to take opportunities from young women?

DAVIES: Yes, I do. You know, in this country as I'm sure it's the same in the States, women's sport has really grown particularly in all things like hockey, football, net ball, you know we have worked really hard over the last few years to give women better opportunities. I just find it extraordinary that we're not coming out with a better solution for everybody.

I think have you got two choices really, you've got to turn around and say, "Well, the men's category is an open category and women's sport is kept purely for biological females," or you've got to say the transgender community has their own games.

CARLSON: That's right, which might be the answer. You are a brave person to come on and say the obvious tonight and I appreciate it. Thank you.

DAVIES: Thank you.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CARLSON: A newly published study finds that fully one-third of all teenagers visiting emergency rooms were assessed as suicide risks. It's an amazing number. But if you know the bigger number, it's maybe not that surprising.

Suicide and suicide attempts are rising rapidly among young people along with depression and many other mental ailments. The dramatic surge in suicides coincides closely and you can graph it out with the rise of social media and the ubiquity of smart phones. Are they related? And if they are related as they appear to be, why aren't lawmakers doing something about it right now?

Tom Kersting a family therapist, author of the book, "Disconnected: How to Reconnect our Digitally Distracted Kids," and we are glad to have him tonight. Tom, thanks very much for coming on.

TOM KERSTING, FAMILY THERAPIST AND AUTHOR: Thank you.

CARLSON: So this seems like -- one-third of kids being admitted to emergency rooms are believed to be at risk for suicide. I don't know what to say about that number. Are you surprised by it?

KERSTING: It's frightening. I actually am surprised by it. I didn't think it was that bad. I want to explain why, okay? So when you look at preadolescents and adolescents, that's an important developmental stage. Your hormones are changing. You are trying to figure out who you are, where you fit in, who your friend group is. It's a built-in sort of insecurity. It's an important transition into adulthood, okay? And it's something that kids need to navigate in order to grow and learn and become sufficient adults.

Now, the anti-equation, what I call the modern day weapons of mass destruction, these smart phones with all of the social media and now these kids have a platform where they are constantly comparing themselves to others, where they are constantly getting feedback or seeking feedback from the outside world and it's compromising their self-esteem.

Because self-esteem which is how you feel about yourself, your happiness and your joy is never anything that can be gotten front outside world. It can only come from the inside. It's an inside out thing, not an outside in thing.

CARLSON: So why isn't there a national conversation about what to do about this? Why are we sitting passively back? Why aren't lawmakers -- I mean, if these were cigarettes, we would have a lot of florid faced members of Congress yelling in hearings, but nobody says a word. Why?

KERSTING: What's fascinating too, Tucker, I lecture on this topic all the time. The average age of smart phone issuance is 10.3 years old. So we can ask any parent, anybody watching right now. They know, we all know that's just a terrible idea. But that's the average age.

Basically we tend to do what everybody else around us is doing, and I think what we are going to see, I think we are going to have to see lawmakers step in and start having rules, like with cigarette smoking.

Maybe if I was in control of this, I wouldn't allow kids to have smart phones until they were 18 years old, if I was the guy that got to make that decision.

CARLSON: Well, of course, not. I would ban it tomorrow. I wouldn't agree more. But that's a radical position, ignoring it -- one-third of pre-teens admitted to the emergency rooms are liable to commit suicide, that's not a crisis?

KERSTING: That's a crisis.

CARLSON: So it's radical -- so, yes, it is a crisis.

KERSTING: So 2007 --

CARLSON: So is enough studying being done of this?

KERSTING: There are studies that are coming out right now that are starting to show a correlation between all of the anxiety disorders, the depressions that we are seeing in unprecedented numbers. The actual age in which kids are now committing suicide is going down. It's going earlier and earlier and it coincides with the rise starting in 2007.

And guess what also started happening right around 2007? That's when smart phones started coming out. That's when everybody started having all of their social media right in their pockets and the palms of their hands and our kids are getting lost in this superficial world and they are losing sight of the real world and themselves.

CARLSON: It's just amazing that -- I mean, you know, 1964, it was very controversial, the Surgeon General was warning on pack of cigarettes. People said, "Well, it's not really established." You really feel we are there right now. There are people who say, "Well, we don't really know," and it's blindingly obvious what's happening.

KERSTING: It really is and you look at big tech. I mean, the tech industry has a tremendous amount of power. And their job, their goal is to get eyeballs as long as possible on their products and they want to recruit these individuals when they are young and 10 years old, think about that, 10.3 years old is the average age that kids are getting smart phones. That's absolutely crazy.

CARLSON: Yes, well, I hope they are sleeping well. The people who are selling this garbage. Tom, thank you very much.

KERSTING: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

KERSTING: Good seeing you.

CARLSON: China is becoming a super power on the cusp of surpassing the United States in economic power and while it is doing so, it is still treating its people like cattle -- literally in some cases. That's next. Plus Mike Rowe joins us to discuss emotional support animals. Stay tuned for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, every day China edges closer to overtaking the United States as the world's richest country, but just because they are getting stronger economically doesn't mean the Chinese people are more free. They are not. China is still imprisoning its Muslim population in the west. Ordinary Chinese still lose access to travel or education if the government says they have poor social credit and now a hacker has discovered a bizarre Chinese database that evaluated millions of Chinese women on whether they were quote, "breed ready."

Gordon Chang is a columnist and author of "The Coming Collapse of China," can't come too soon. He joins us tonight. Gordon, thanks very much for coming on. What does breed-ready mean and why would the Chinese government be assessing that?

GORDON CHANG, COLUMNIST AND AUTHOR: Well, breed-ready means they are able to breed children. And the reason why is because China has declining demography.

You know, if you start to look at some of the statistics, they are really frightening. So for instance, last year, their birth rate fell about 12%. Perhaps to the lowest rate in the history of the People's Republic going back to 1949.

And we are seeing that the workforce has already topped out. The population as a whole will top out soon. China's officials are just in a panic.

CARLSON: So they are identifying women who are breed-ready but then what do they do with that information? Is there going to be a coercive breeding program in China?

CHANG: There very possibly could be because some Chinese officials are now talking about having a two-child policy which is not a maximum two children, but they are talking about requiring couples to have two children.

Now, of course, China is not there yet. But you can see where they are going largely because they have been taken by surprise by a collapsing demography. They shouldn't have been. People have been warning Chinese officials about this for the last 15 years. But they have sort of sloughed off the warnings but, you know, a couple of years ago they really started to see the consequences of declining demography.

CARLSON: But I mean, I have been hearing from Democrats in this country who are very concerned about having any kids because of global warming, it sounds like the Chinese aren't as concerned about global warming as we are.

CHANG: No, and largely because every social problem, every economic problem they have, almost all of them are made worse by declining demography and the Chinese leaders start to notice and that's starting with their economy because, you know, they grew during what was called the demographic dividend years. That was expanding workforce. Now, the workforce since 2011 has started to get smaller and it's gotten smaller fast.

CARLSON: So we have the same demographic problems here, obviously and so does Western Europe declining below replacement rate. We just import new people from the developing world. Has it occurred to the Chinese to do that?

CHANG: No, you know, the Chinese don't want to do that because they have a system and then basically, it's based on racial superiority where they do view the rest of the world in inferior terms.

And you know, Tucker, on demography, within maybe three years, for the first time in at least 300 years, maybe all of recorded history, China is not going to be the world's most populous society.

The world's most populous society will be India and the Chinese both disdain the Indians because of this racial superiority view but also, they fear India. So people are concerned that China is seeing a closing window of opportunity and will lash out on that Himalayan border.

CARLSON: So, very quick, you just said something that almost nobody ever says which is that China may be the most racist country in the world, maybe after North Korea, but certainly, it is right up there.

The country is based on racial superiority and yet liberals in this country suck up to China constantly. Why does no one ever point that out?

CHANG: You know, that, to me, is a mystery because this nation of enhanced superiority is bred into the Chinese political system and you see it, for instance, they put on a skit on the China Central Television's program, 900 million people saw it that depicted Africans as primates and it is just incredible, Tucker.

CARLSON: It's unbelievable. But Jerry Brown is happy to call them wonderful, and so is Dianne Feinstein. Unbelievable. Gordon Chang, it is great to see you. I hope we will see you again soon, thanks.

CHANG: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: While China rises to rivals the United States, our own people hardly inspire much confidence. To cope with modern life, more and more Americans are making use of emotional support animals. Not all are dogs or cats, that's probably a good thing. Some are spiders or monkeys, one man has an emotional support alligator called, Wally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOEY HENNEY, ALLIGATOR OWNER: Wally is my emotional support alligator for my home use and stuff. But we are invited everywhere. I do take him to Lowe's and Home Depot is usually always welcome there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Mike Rowe has thought a lot about emotional support alligators, so we invited him on the show to ask him are they good? Are they bad? Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: What do you make of the emotional support animal craze?

MIKE ROWE, TV HOST: Look, I mean, this is an interesting clip. I never really considered the alligator before and I admit, my knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss it as absurd, but it's I guess it's better than crocodile, right, which is completely a different animal and I suppose then, we would have entirely crossed over.

Of course it's crazy, except for the fact that it's not always crazy. So if we have our typical binary choice of crazy, not crazy, I'm going to wind up saying something that loses me, however, many fans I might have left.

So, all I can tell you, in my world, I love my dog. I have never traveled with my dog anywhere and I do not begrudge people who travel with their pets. But I was -- the first thing that I was invited to do when I adopted my little dog was to get one of those service tags and I said, "Well, I don't need a service tag."

And I was told very specifically by a veterinarian, by the way, it's so simple, just go ahead and apply. They can't turn you down. So if we are in a world where anybody can get any tag for any creature to thereby allow them to legally accompany them anywhere, well then I would simply refer to you that classic line in "Ghostbusters," I think where dogs and cats are living together.

CARLSON: I should say in full disclosure, I know a woman who I may be married to who has brought a Springer Spaniel on airplanes because it's a great dog, honestly. And that seems like a very positive thing to me. But I wonder, does it tell us something about people's lack of human contact that this is as widespread as it is.

ROWE: I think it tells us everything about people's lack of human contact and our increasing lack of empathy, but also, our increasing level of expectations and righteousness. All of this collides in a way that's really difficult to understand.

But I will leave you with this, I was flying back from Dallas and I just wrote about this on to Facebook. I got on, I sat down, I had a vodka soda, I fell asleep. I woke up and I looked down and between my legs on the floor was something I had not put there. It was about this long and it was brown and I just couldn't for the life of me figure out what it was, and then it moved. And then I thought, "My God, it's a snake."

And I reached down and I grabbed it and the dog yelped behind me. An enormous dog was sitting behind me, and so stood up because I had to see this creature. It scared the heck out of me. It was in the company of a veteran and it had the service vest on and so I sit down and I talk to this guy for about 20 minutes and get his whole story, which include, must visit destinations like Fallujah and all these places and suddenly, you know, I don't know what to think, Tucker.

I went from outraged, frightened, the size of this animal on a plane, what's going on, to thank you for your service, that's a good dog. Tail scared the hell out of me but still, you know, we have got to figure it out and there is not going to be playbook that makes sense in every situation.

CARLSON: I love having my mind changed like that. Amen. I am totally for that. Mike Rowe, great to see you as always. You are the great moral arbiter.

ROWE: At 37,000 feet.

CARLSON: Better than Solomon.

ROWE: Listen, I'm just as God made me, Tucker. I don't know what to tell you.

CARLSON: That's as good as it is going to get. Thanks, Mike.

ROWE: Good to see you.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CARLSON: That's it. The end of the show, the end of the week, and what a week it was. We'll be back Monday night at 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Do what you can to ignore the news over the weekend. Be with your loved ones. We'll see you Monday.

"Hannity" is next. Have great weekend.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.