Piers Morgan on Democrats hating Trump more than al-Baghdadi

close

Video

Tucker: Left uses ISIS leader's death to criticize Trump

Trump administration orchestrates raid to take out ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

This is a rush transcript from "Special Report with Bret Baier," October 28, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well, good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." It was a moment that should have united this fractious country, we could use it. Instead, it became more fodder for those who profit from our division.

Late Saturday night, the Trump administration announced that thanks to a successful military raid in Northwest Syria, the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi had been killed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way.

He was a sick and depraved man.

And he died in a vicious and violent way, as a coward running and crying.

He died like a double. He died like a coward. The world is now a much safer place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Sick and depraved, it turns out is not an overstatement. As the head of the ISIS Caliphate, Baghdadi ran one of the most gruesome death cults in human history. In Syria and Iraq, his followers murdered untold thousands, beheaded them, and drowned them, set them on fire, often on camera.

In the U.S. and in Europe, terrorists pledging alliance to Baghdadi killed hundreds in mass shootings, bombings and vehicle attacks. So Baghdadi's death is really nothing less than a victory for civilization itself. And yet here in Washington, many complain that Trump had dared to kill him.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whined that she hadn't been given appropriate notice of the operation -- as if it were all about her. Former Obama National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, meanwhile, told television viewers that somehow the killing of the ISIS leader would make ISIS stronger.

And then on CNN, some compare the President to ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There were lots of moments during Donald Trump's speech which jar to some degree -- some of which sort of echoed, frankly the crudeness, you would often expect to hear maybe from ISIS about the whimpering, screaming Baghdadi pinned down in a sealed tunnel. It was it was so disturbing to hear to some degree --

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: ... said upper level on this.

You do not celebrate death. I don't care if it's a terrorist. I don't care if it's someone you hate. A human being has died. We don't celebrate that.

I would not use that and I find it -- it is very embarrassing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: I would not use that language, says the guy who is making a career out of screaming and foaming on television. Over on cnn.com, meanwhile, one of the reporters compiled a listicle called "The 41 most shocking lines from Donald Trump's Baghdadi announcement." CNN really reaching new lows every day, and then there was Max Boot, always the most deranged probably because he is also the dumbest.

Boot complained that Trump wasn't respectful enough of Baghdadi, quote, "Trump could not have heard whimpering and crying because there was no audio. The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up." In other words, says Max Boot, Baghdadi was a hero of sorts and shame on Trump for calling him a coward. So that sounds kind of far out.

You should know that MSNBC devoted significant coverage to the question of whether Baghdadi actually whimpered before he died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEOFF BENNETT, MSNBC HOST: He was talking about Baghdadi's final moments.

Take a listen to this.

TRUMP: He died after running into a dead-end tunnel whimpering and crying and screaming all the way.

BENNETT: But as you point out in the piece, there was no live audio from the raid, so square that circle for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Square that circle beyond parody. That award goes to "The Washington Post" tonight. Here's how that paper chose to announce Baghdadi's death quote, "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at the helm of Islamic State, dies at 48." That's one for the scrapbook. You can find it with other memorable headlines from history. Goal-oriented German leader with distinctive mustache found dead in bunker. Joseph Stalin, former seminarian and movie buff dies peacefully at 74. Osama bin Laden, husband to five, killed in home invasion.

So what is this about? Well, ultimately, you're watching the flailing of a leadership class that despises the country it governs. They loathe the elected President so much, they're incapable of acknowledging any accomplishment no matter what it is.

Trump is bad. Trump killed Baghdadi. Therefore killing Baghdadi was bad.

That's how these purported geniuses actually think. They are purely reactive about everything, not just the death of terrorists.

These are the very people who sat by idly as our entire middle class died.

And then China rose to take America's places leader of the world and virtually alone among political figures, Trump noted these things. Hey, what's going on? He said. He ran on those issues and he won.

And in response to that, rather than learn something, our leadership class took the opposite side. They took the side of the fentanyl smugglers from Mexico. They took the side of our mortal enemies and the fascist government of China.

Those are not positions you would take if you cared about your people. But at this point, it is pretty obvious, they hate Trump far more than they love America. Piers Morgan is watching all of this from across the oceans.

He is editor-at-large for dailymail.com, a Brit, but a keen observer of all things America. He joins us tonight.

So what do you -- Piers, I know that you're not actually in agreement with the President on a lot of things. But assess if you would, the response from our press to this latest announcement.

PIERS MORGAN, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, DAILYMAIL.COM: Well, just to clarify, Tucker, I am in this side of the ocean. Actually, I'm in Los Angeles, and so I'm here --

CARLSON: Even better.

MORGAN: I was watching -- I was watching the World Series last night and my mind went back to when Osama bin Laden was killed, and I was in New York City that night. And I remember the reaction, I remember the reaction from everybody. There was widespread jubilation throughout New York, throughout Washington, throughout America. This was a unified response from a country jubilant seeing the end and the grisly demise of the leader of al-Qaeda.

Compare and contrast their action yesterday to the demise of Baghdadi, who I would argue legitimately, I think, has committed even worst atrocities than bin Laden. He may not be as emotive a name, but certainly the work done under his name of ISIS has been barbaric, despicable, and heinous on any level.

And his death should have been a moment to celebrate a brilliant operation by American Armed Forces, a courageous and bold order to conduct the mission for the President of the United States, and a moment for America to show the world that when they said they'd get tough with terrorism, they meant it.

And it should have been a moment to plant the flag firmly, the American flag on that stand of we will not tolerate terrorism. But instead the staff has become let's just boo the President at the World Series.

These are thousands of Americans responding to his decision to conduct that mission and to order it. Let's respond by booing him. Let's chant lock him up.

Now, whatever you think of Trump, and there's no middle ground with him as we know, you love him or you hate it.

CARLSON: Right.

MORGAN: But the Office of the Presidency deserves more respect than I saw last night, particularly in light of what had happened a few hours earlier.

There is no comparison, Tucker, between Donald Trump and Baghdadi.

Baghdadi ran an organization that liked to burn people alive in cages, that like to throw gay people off rooftops, that like to kidnap and rape thousands of women, that like to eliminate vast swathes of their rival Muslims, they're bound and massacred and shot their way around the world, committing appalling atrocities against people in Paris, in Nice, in London, killing kids at pop concerts, running people over on the promenade in Nice. Let's not forget what this guy was.

So yesterday should have been a great day for America and a great day for the world. Instead, the narrative is, let's try and find where Trump went wrong in the way he spoke about this. Let's try and find a way that makes Trump look bad. And by doing that the message sent to the world is America is bad. This is not a good day. This is a bad day. I don't get it. How does that -- I don't believe it.

CARLSON: I don't either. But it's worth figuring out what's going on here because it's almost like a Rorschach blood. I mean, again, I just want to say for our viewers, you've had many disagreements with Trump. So you're not a Trump acolyte or suck up in any sense at all. But you see this happening? Your first reaction is, well, of course, that's a good thing.

But there are a lot of people here in Washington, to whom that wasn't clear. So what does that say about them?

MORGAN: Well, I was on Twitter as rumors were bubbling about what this was when President Trump did his tweets, saying something big has just happened. And people are getting to guess it might be Baghdadi.

And in that moment, I already saw the reaction from what I would call the more deranged liberals of America, boiling themselves up, not in jubilation of what had happened, but in fury, that somehow Trump may have done something right, that he may deserve some legitimate credit. And that was simply unconscionable. They were not going to allow that to happen.

And the narrative has played out ever since this. It has not been as I say what it should be, which is the destruction -- and by the way, I take great pleasure in celebrating the death of Baghdadi, this is one of the worst terrorists in modern times.

CARLSON: That is true.

MORGAN: I am glad he is gone. And actually, I quite enjoyed the gory details that the President gave us about that sniveling coward's last few seconds on this earth. I did enjoy it because I want him gone. I want him to stop maiming and killing people. So let's put that on the record. But what does it say about these liberals, these so-called liberals. I don't think they are liberals, Tucker.

CARLSON: There is nothing liberal about them.

MORGAN: They ought to be called illiberal liberals because they stand for the complete antithesis of liberalism. They don't believe in free speech.

They don't believe in tolerance or fairness or anything. They just believe right now in screaming at anyone that doesn't fit their narrow worldview, their narrative of events.

And when that is applied to something like the death of Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, it is a shocking moment. I thought last night, frankly, was shameful. I thought that thousands of Americans ...

CARLSON: I agree with that.

MORGAN:

... who that thought that was the right way to respond, shamed themselves, and they shamed their country.

CARLSON: I think that's exactly right. Piers Morgan. Thank you for that.

Good to see you.

MORGAN: Good to see.

CARLSON: James Hasson is an attorney, a former U.S. Army Captain and we think a reliable voice on questions on foreign policy, it is great to see you tonight.

JAMES HASSON, FORMER U.S. ARMY CAPTAIN: Thank you. It's great to be back.

CARLSON: Put it in context for us. What does this mean for the United States? Were you impressed by the operation itself?

HASSON: Absolutely. Killing Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was a victory for the United States and it was a great day for all Americans whether on the left, the right or the center.

CARLSON: Right.

HASSON: But instead, some of the media and the left, although I repeat myself, seem to be incapable of viewing any issue outside the prism of what is good for Donald Trump is bad and what is bad for Donald Trump is good.

And so immediately after this story broke, he saw a cascade of attempts to either downplay the significance of the mission, or to find a negative angle from which to spin it.

So John Harwood from CNBC, for example, compared killing Baghdadi to killing an ant. CNN this morning had a story on their homepage called, "How does killing Baghdadi affect the Impeachment Inquiry?"

And of course --

CARLSON: Did they actually have that?

HASSON: They do. I am not kidding -- on the front page. And of course, we have Max Boot, who takes the cake as he normally does with stupidity and decided to defend Baghdadi from the charges of being a coward.

And let's take --

CARLSON: Stand up for the manly virtues of Baghdadi.

HASSON: And let's take a step back here, Baghdadi, he ran down a tunnel with three children as human shields. They got to the end of the tunnel and he was cornered, and then he blew himself up.

CARLSON: He committed suicide.

HASSON: And the children with him.

CARLSON: Right.

HASSON: That's not anything other than cowardice. But yet, we go back to this prism of what Donald Trump -- what's good for Donald Trump is bad and what's bad for Donald Trump is good to many on the left. And you follow that to its logical conclusion, and there you have Max Boot, somehow defending the leader of ISIS, which if you find yourself defending the leader of ISIS, you should take a long walk, take the fedora off, look in the mirror and you know --

CARLSON: When you find yourself hating Trump more than you love America.

Very quick. Give us the perspective -- you've served. Give us the perspective of the guys who did this like -- what -- I mean, what do they think of this?

HASSON; Yes, well, I don't want to speak for them in particular, but what I can tell you is that, any time that you take a major player like Baghdadi off the battlefield, anytime you have a major success like that, it's huge for morale. And it sends a message that no matter where you are, the United States is going to come hunt you down and bring you to justice. And they did that. And they deserve all the credit in the world.

CARLSON: Even if you're underground in Northern Syria. James Hasson, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

HASSON: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Well, Joe Biden's presidential campaign -- we're not trying to be mean here -- is struggling having the endorsement of America's most popular Democrat seems like it would be a boost. But according to Biden, he doesn't even want the endorsement. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS HOST: Why hasn't President Obama endorsed you? You guys serve together for eight years?

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because I have to earn -- I want to earn this on my own.

O'DONNELL: Did he offer to endorse you?

BIDEN: No, we didn't even get there. I asked him not to. He said, okay.

I think it is better. I think he thinks it is better for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, he thinks it is better, but I asked him not to endorse me.

Well, Joe Biden's presidential campaign is already the saddest thing that's ever happened in American politics, but somehow, he is working hard to make it even sadder.

Richard Goodstein is an attorney and former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton. He joins us tonight. So, Richard, just -- if we could just dispense with this sad psychodrama here. Do you think it's plausible that the former Vice President called Barack Obama and said, please, don't endorse me.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, ATTORNEY: Well, he said that back in April when he announced. Look, let's keep this in perspective. Ronald Reagan as you know, did not endorse George H.W. Bush until May of 1988 after it was clear he was going to be the nominee.

CARLSON: Was that because Bush asked him not to.

GOODSTEIN: When Dwight Eisenhower was asked -- tell me about Richard Nixon's accomplishments when he was running as the Vice President for -- to succeed Eisenhower, as you know, Eisenhower famously said, give me a week, and I'll see if I can think of one.

In contrast, Barack Obama, like that could give you a whole list of everything that Joe Biden has done.

CARLSON: No, but Barack Obama has contempt for Joe Biden, for different demographic reasons. He had contempt for him in the White House, ask anyone around Biden. He was badly treated by the Obama people. No one ever talked about it, but that's real. Ask around.

My question is that why is he not endorsing. My question is why is Biden telling us that he asked Obama not to endorse him when that's so obviously not true?

GOODSTEIN: Well, I don't accept the premise. Look, I think that bromance was real. Look at all of those pictures of the hugs. The fact that their kids and grandchildren had sleepovers together. This was a real friendship. I would defy you to show one picture of Donald Trump and and Mike Pence in that same kind of --

CARLSON: Well, let me just say because I actually know this, some of the family members were close to each other. That is absolutely true. But Biden himself was treated like a factotum by a lot of the Obama people.

That's also true.

But here's the point. Why is -- I'm not going to force you to answer a question that you're not going to answer. He is lying to us.

GOODSTEIN: No.

CARLSON: It's sad. The whole campaign is sad. He's not going to be the nominee. So what does that mean for you? What does that mean for basically moderate Democrats? The Biden thing is not working for you.

What happens? Are you really going to support Elizabeth Warren?

GOODSTEIN: Again. Pardon me, but Joe Biden wants to win from the grassroots up, not the top down. And if Obama did endorse him and somebody else won, then that person is like, oh, like, you know, Obama's second choice.

CARLSON: I know. But look, by the way, I live in this country. I'm not for some crazy person getting in the Democratic nomination.

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: I'm not attacking Joe Biden. I feel sad that the whole thing is imploding, but what are you going to do when it doesn't implode?

GOODSTEIN: And just -- I think it's amazing that Joe Biden with all this Ukraine stuff, and the attacks on his son has actually held up as well as he did. And I would point out, out of the last 10 Democratic contested nominations, the person in first in the polls in December won a grand total of three times.

Howard Dean was first, John Kerry was sixth in December of 03. And five weeks later, Kerry had the nomination locked up. So I think we just don't know. Could Cory Booker win? He might.

CARLSON: If Cory Booker wins, we all have to leave the country, so let's not -- don't even say things like that, you know, that's true. But let me just ask you, if Biden doesn't get it and I'm not rooting against Biden.

GOODSTEIN: Yes, right.

CARLSON: I am not being mean here. I just honestly don't think he's going to. But if he doesn't, where does that leave non-crazy, non-socialist Democrats? Are they really going to support Elizabeth Warren? That's a sincere question.

GOODSTEIN: And I'm saying I think we just don't know if that happens, if Biden somehow falls away. And I think against the odds, he hasn't, but if he does, I don't know whether there is going to be a coalescing around on Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker or Michael Bennett, whom I'm actually supporting. It's possible.

Again, given the history, we just don't know. And I think any Democrat out there who is watching, who supports somebody who is a non-socialist, keep supporting them, because you just don't know how this thing is going to break.

CARLSON: Yes. Okay. Well, look, I will never root for anything having to the Democratic Party because I think it's corrupt. But I am rooting for America and I want --

GOODSTEIN: Me, too.

CARLSON: You know, if there's going to be a Democratic nominee, I want it to be the most reasonable person they can be.

GOODSTEIN: Of course. Let's hope.

CARLSON: Richard, thank you.

GOODSTEIN: Sure.

CARLSON: Record numbers of Americans say they're open to implementing socialism in America. Young people, mostly. Why? Well, part of the reason -- the main part of the reason -- is because our college system exploits and destroys young people. It's an existential threat to this country. The student loan crisis at the heart of it. We will explain it after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, you may be happy with the state of the U.S. economy, but many young people are not, and as a result of that, a lot of them are embracing political extremism. A poll released today by YouGov finds that half of all millennials and even more of the generation that follows them distrust capitalism. Fully 70 percent of millennials say they would be willing to vote for a socialist.

If you're not shocked by this, it is only because you have seen it before.

Polls like this appear to be everywhere all of a sudden, and that ought to scare you. It has taken us almost 250 years to build this country. We could wreck it in a single generation and at this rate, we will.

Polls like this predict a looming disaster. In order to prevent that, we need to be clear about what has gone wrong. You often hear it said that young people support socialism because they've been brainwashed by their professors. And of course, there is truth in that.

If you've got kids in college, you know that we have left the most vital job in America, educating the next generation of citizens to some of the most mediocre people in our society. That's a huge problem. We need to fix it.

But believe it or not, it's not the main problem. The main problem, the reason that capitalism increasingly is discredited, and socialism increasingly is popular is that our current system is making young people poorer.

Go to college, we tell them. You'll be successful if you do. But too often that advice is outdated, if not, an utter lie. Huge numbers of our kids wind up impoverished by the experience of college, their dreams thwarted forever.

And the reason for that is debt. Forty five million Americans now labor under student loans, the average debt burden is $37,000.00 per person.

That's the price of a brand new car. Imagine starting your first job with that hanging over you.

And keep in mind that college debt isn't like ordinary debt. Thanks to a well-funding lobbying campaign, student loans cannot be erased by bankruptcy. They last forever.

Many of today's college freshmen can expect to spend their working lives paying interest on loans that in the end, didn't help them at all. So no wonder young people aren't getting married or buying homes or having children. They can't afford to.

And no wonder so many of them support Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

If this is capitalism, they don't want any part of it.

The irony, of course, is that the only people benefiting from this current system are on the far left -- the smirking college presidents with multimillion dollar salaries, the authoritarian university administrators in the suddenly ubiquitous diversity and inclusion offices, the tenured professors of non-binary feminist poetry and other perverse and pointless fake academic disciplines.

As a group these are without question the least impressive people in this country and they're the only ones coming out ahead in this deal. They are feasting on our children's debt, an entire generation of Americans enslaved to interest payments, so that a small number of left wing academics can have lifetime employment making this country worse. That's the arrangement we've struck.

And for the rest of us, socialism, that's what we're going to get out of it in reaction to it.

There's got to be a better way to do things. Now, some on the left proposed forgiving student loans entirely, which is to say, sticking American taxpayers with the bill for all of this.

If there's one thing that could make a terrible situation even worse, it's that. Taxpayers didn't cause this problem. They shouldn't be punished any more than they already have been. The corrupt higher education establishment concocted this scam, they should pay to fix it.

Harvard's endowment is $40 billion. Yale's endowment is $30 billion. So let's start there. What's clear is that we need to move the crushing financial burden of student debt off the shoulders of the middle class families and 22-year-olds and back to the people who have gotten rich from it. That's an idea that every sensible person can support.

And in fact, there's a big political payoff for any politician wise enough to adopt it. The candidate who promises to make colleges ease the student loan burden will without question, be the next President of the United States.

Ian Samuel has spent a great deal of time in academic America. He is a former Supreme Court clerk, among other things, and he joins us tonight.

Ian, thanks so much for coming on.

IAN SAMUEL, FORMER SUPREME COURT CLERK: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Because a small group of greedy totally mediocre liberals have wrecked the U.S. economy, the rest of us get socialism? Does that seem fair to you?

SAMUEL: Well, obviously I like the idea of everybody getting socialism.

But I was intrigued by one part of your proposal, which is I do like the idea of making the people who caused the problem pay for it.

CARLSON: Yes.

SAMUEL: And I wonder if there was real promise in the idea of saying, look, these endowments are big and rich, much bigger and richer than the debt load of all the students out there who are, you know, sort of carrying this this burden. So let's make a deal, right?

We'll have free public colleges and universities and we will relieve the student debt burden of all of the people who were sort of hoodwinked into participating in the system in the first place.

CARLSON: Yes.

SAMUEL: And not for nothing, I don't want to forget this, by the way. The real people who really get screwed by this system are the people who are chased off of going to college in the first place, because they don't think they're going to be able to afford it, and they don't want that crushing debt burden.

And I think that they are a perfectly reasonable target to, you know, sort of distribute the rest the endowment because when the endowments are going to be distributing that to settle student debt.

CARLSON: So wait a minute, why is it -- I mean, you're getting warmer in my opinion, but why is it that all the student radicals are always telling me how radical they are -- I am so radical -- and they are of course, just slavishly devoted to in protecting the ruling class, of course, whether they know it or not, but none of them ever suggest just seizing the endowments of these -- of Harvard, for example, $40 billion; Yale, $30 billion. I mean? Why doesn't anybody ever stand up and say, we're taking your endowment and we're using it to pay off student debt. Nobody ever says that. Why?

SAMUEL: Well, sometimes all you need to do to move the Overton window is suggest an idea out loud a few times.

CARLSON: Well, that's my idea. I like that idea.

SAMUEL: To be honest, I never actually connected the two. Yes, I like that idea, too.

CARLSON: Yes.

SAMUEL: It is amazing how fast this stuff can work. So I think that's a perfectly reasonable idea and I think it's a reasonable idea for all sorts of debt that exists out there.

CARLSON: What do you think would happen if Trump suggested it?

SAMUEL: Because it just isn't fair.

CARLSON: What Trump wants to get reelected, if he really wants to get reelected, he'll suggest that because who is against that? But I bet you 20 bucks that none of the radicals out there if Trump suggested it will be for it.

SAMUEL: Well, I don't know about that. Because I think we may have a slightly different idea of what counts as radical, but what I will say is that the general concept -- I was thinking about this the other day that it feels a little unfair if you're, for example, going to have a gun buyback program, why does the taxpayer have to pay for that? Why shouldn't you confiscate the profits of the gun companies?

And this is sort of in that spirit, you caused this problem. You have a nice house. Maybe some of these people should, you know, get some of the profits of what they've done. I think it is restitution in other words.

CARLSON: But I don't think that big gun companies -- yes.

SAMUEL: I know you're not going to love the gun company thing, but it's in the same spirit.

CARLSON: Nobody has hurt this country more than the academic establishment. I mean that's the reason that an entire generation isn't getting married, and isn't having kids. Like we're going to see a collapse -- a demographic collapse and that's bad, by the way.

If you care about America, you want it citizens, you know, of all backgrounds to be fruitful and multiply and get married, and they can't, because a small group of left wing creeps is taking all the money. They're looting America. So like why does Elizabeth Warren defend them?

SAMUEL: Well, I think -- what I hear there is a very good financing proposal for universal public childcare because again, these are big endowments, and we may have some leftover after we're done ...

CARLSON: I don't care. People want to raise their own kids.

SAMUEL:

... forgiving all of the student debt with them.

CARLSON: They don't want to hire someone from the third world to raise their kids. They want to raise their own -- parents want to raise their own kids. How about this? How about even more radical, let's have an economy where one parent can support a family.

SAMUEL: That sounds good. And I'll do you one better. How about a universal allowance for a parent who stays home to take care of a child?

Pay them for that work? That seems okay to me.

CARLSON: I am for that. I am totally for that. Good, good.

SAMUEL: We've just produced an unusual level of consensus.

CARLSON: Amen. Ian, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

SAMUEL: Although, I don't think my old colleagues at Harvard are going to love it.

CARLSON: No, I don't think they're going to like that. That's all right.

Well, for decades, the American left shied away from socialism, even as it took off around the globe. We're not socialist, they say, we're just liberals.

Now the situation is reversed. Socialist governments are collapsing around the world because the economics don't work, we know that for certain, but here in the United States, Democrat after Democrat proudly pushes a socialist agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'll tell you what I believe in terms of Democratic socialism. I agree with what goes on in Canada and in Scandinavia -- guaranteed healthcare to all people as a human right.

BIDEN: I think undocumented people need to have a means by which they can be covered when they're sick.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC HOST: Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.

(Cheering and Applause)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Author and columnist, Mark Steyn joins us. So Mark, with the perspective that you have on the rest of the world, you're seeing lots of even the left in Europe is saying, you know, maybe open borders doesn't work, maybe we can't afford a welfare state, you know, for the entire world. And yet, why is that message not filtered down to liberals in our country?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, because I think there is a huge constituency for it. And I think it's very different from the way socialism took off in Europe, for example.

Socialism got hold because you were a coal miner and your family had been coal miners for generations and you were going to be a coal miner all your life. And so you wanted to organize to protect the economic security of being a coal miner.

And just as in the modern era, America has helped China find the only economically viable form of communism. So at home, it has had a knock on effect, and we now have a kind of prosperous people who've had one of the most privileged upbringings of all, who are socialists because as you were talking about with your previous guest, they spend six and a half years getting a worthless piece of paper, which leaves them with six figures of debt.

So that means that they enter adulthood ever later. We now have huge numbers of people in their late 20s and early 30s still living with their parents, traipsing -- they are traipsing up the stairs every night to the same bedroom they slept in when they were seven with the teddy bear wallpaper.

And the longer -- and so we have deferred adulthood. And when you maintain people in adolescence, it's not surprising that an essentially adolescent political philosophy, like socialism, retains a grip on them.

You know, 1970, I think it was 60 --

CARLSON: Can I just pause and acknowledge that's deeper than anything I've said in a long time. That is so smart. You're exactly right.

STEYN: Well, it goes back to what you were saying about family formation.

In 1970, seventy percent of 25 year olds were married and had a family and that's fallen by more than half. In other words, the Churchill line about how if you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. And if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.

We've actually extended that lower limit so that by maintaining people as children until their late 20s and early 30s, why be surprised that something like socialism has an ever greater purchase on them?

CARLSON: It's totally true, but we're robbing them of life's great pleasure which is becoming an adult.

STEYN: Absolutely, absolutely. And that's at the core of it and Ian's solution, oh, if we just had more government credits for this so you could hire somebody from Yemen or Venezuela to look after your child -- that doesn't correct the problem.

CARLSON: No. Hiring other people to raise your kids is not the answer, obviously. Mark, great to see tonight. Thank you so much.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, in case you've been gone for the last several years, not so long ago, all of official Washington insisted the Russia hoax was absolutely real. Now they're demanding we believe that the investigation into that hoax is fake. It's a conspiracy theory. Okay. We've got details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, the Russia collusion hoax wasted millions and millions of dollars, but much worse than that even, it wasted a lot of time in the final remaining reservoir of goodwill in Washington.

For two years, Congress was paralyzed by a witch hunt for internal traitors, they're under the bed. People beclowned themselves. The tape will live forever in infamy until YouTube scrubs it, which I'm sure they will at some point.

But then the credibility we saw of the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and other institutions, institutions we need was destroyed. Figuring out how all of that happen is critical if we want to restore public trust in our system, if we want a system worth trusting.

But official Washington does not want that to happen. They hate and fear the idea of the investigation, so without any sense of irony, they're telling us the whole thing is a conspiracy theory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: The Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation into his own investigators elevating what have been widely denounced as a conspiracy theory.

ALI YELSHI, MSNBC ANCHOR:

... baseless conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): He is running around trying to, based on a conspiracy theory of what happened in 2016.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:

... traveling the globe in an effort to dig up proof of a conspiracy theory.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD):

... reviving a discredited conspiracy theory about what happened in the 2016 campaign.

EMILY TISCH SUSSMAN, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: To go to this, quote, "deep state conspiracy theory" the President has been pushing for a long time.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Some of the same personal grievances and conspiracy theories that have also filled his interactions with Ukraine.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Isn't that sort of what got the administration in trouble in the first place?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is and that's a conspiracy theory.

DAVE BRIGGS, CNN HOST: The President says he was the victim of a deep state spy operation in 2016, a conspiracy theory the Attorney General has embraced.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Ever notice how politicians and journalists use exactly the same talking points. Congressman Devin Nunes has noticed that. He has been at the heart of the Russia probe from the very beginning and knows better than anyone what official Washington did to reverse the 2016 election.

That story is told in the new book, "The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in History," by Lee Smith, which, by the way, at this hour, apparently is number one on Amazon, which tells you a lot.

Congressman Nunes of California joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on.

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Thank you. Thank you and the title is very kind, but there's a lot of people that did a lot of great work.

CARLSON: Yes, I'm going to read it. I think it sounds -- Lee Smith is a credible reporter. Tell me what you make of journalists in Washington demanding that we stop asking questions.

Typically, our default is always we want to know more. We are the askers of -- that's our job. And yet, they're telling us, shh, no more questions.

Why are they telling us that?

NUNES: Well, not only that, it's even worse. Now, you had on the conspiracy theories. They're chasing daily conspiracy theories on this Ukraine hoax. And so what I've been trying to tell my colleagues that if these are mainstream reporters, and they're out there asking you questions about conspiracy theories about Trump and you know, what do you think about you know, did you send anybody to this place?

I mean, every day is a new conspiracy theory and when I walk down the halls, I have to continue to tell these reporters that look, I'm not going to talk to you in this lifetime or the next because these aren't real reporters, they are assassins. They're assassins that are taking information from the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee and they're spreading it out there.

And so --

CARLSON: Well, they're D.N.C. operatives.

NUNES; They are operatives. Yes. And we need a free press. We need a free and fair press. But that's not what we have today.

CARLSON: Well, I don't know. I mean, on this show, we're not always rushing reflexively to defend Trump and everything. I don't work for Trump. I say what I think. These people work for the Democratic Party, those hacks.

So let me ask you, what -- you know, why don't we know at this late date what exactly happened? Why haven't we seen -- to name one among many examples -- the full FISA applications?

NUNES: Yes, so that's waiting on Horowitz, the FISA application specifically, so Horowitz is gathering all the evidence. It is finished.

He notified Congress that it's finished. He said last Friday, I believe that it's going to have very few redactions. So that would tell me that we're going to get to see a lot of what went into that FISA.

When you go to the broader investigation, you know, why did Mueller spend $35 million and not get to the bottom of what actually happened? Look and I think this is -- this really needs to happen. There are investigators and lawyers that were on the Mueller team that also have to be looked at.

Because if they didn't get to the bottom of some of the stuff that Durham is going to get to the bottom of and Horowitz is going to get to the bottom of I think we have a lot to be concerned about. I'm -- just today another breaking news, you know, there's always a breaking news every single day on this subject, but General Flynn who was maligned, okay, and he talks about it in his book, he was maligned back in 2014.

They really maligned him in 2016, they said he had this Russian girlfriend.

It was all nonsense. So finally today, a judge canceled the Flynn hearing.

So I'm hopeful that the judge will read what Flynn's lawyers now have put in front of the judge. And hopefully the judge will throw this out. And this is not a way to treat a war hero.

CARLSON: Of course not. Meanwhile, he's not the only one. I mean, next week, Roger Stone is going on trial and in this city, likely to spend the rest of his life in prison because why? This whole thing.

NUNES: Well, that's going to be questionable. We'll see what happens with that. There's a lot more I think, to be learned on that case, too.

CARLSON: I think there is. Congressman, thanks as always for coming on tonight. Appreciate it.

NUNES: My pleasure, as always.

CARLSON: Well, there's something of a revolution underway at NBC News. A couple of the network's on-air host are openly defying their bosses, the same bosses who covered up the crimes of Harvey Weinstein. Where is this going? We will give you the very latest, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: It's been almost two years since reporter Ronan Farrow broke the Harvey Weinstein story. And for those two years NBC and the lack of Noah Oppenheim have denied any wrongdoing. We had nothing to do with it. They said, despite overwhelming evidence that has mounted year by year that they killed that story. Now the on air talent over there and NBC appear to be so angry they can no longer contain themselves.

Just last week, Chris Hayes on the air suggested that Lack and Oppenheim's denials are not credible. Chris Hayes is the guy who is opposite us at eight o'clock.

Now Rachel Maddow, who's got the 9:00 p.m. show on MSNBC has joined the revolt. On Friday, she announced that she had independently confirmed Farrow's chief allegation against NBC. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANCHOR: Accusations that people in positions of authority in this building may have been complicit in some way in shielding those guys from accountability. Those accusations are very, very hard to stomach.

As to whether or not Ronan Farrow was told to hit pause on any new reporting at a time when NBC didn't think there was enough to go to air with, we have independently confirmed that NBC News did that -- that that did happen. He was told to pause his reporting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Elizabeth Wagmeister is senior correspondent for "Variety" and she joins us tonight. Elizabeth, thanks so much for coming on.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, VARIETY: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So, it seems like this would be the beginning, rather than the end of the conversation. There's Rachel Maddow, who is probably the most prominent female anchor at that company, saying, yes, it's true, our company covered up for Harvey Weinstein. How can that be the end of it?

WAGMEISTER: It can't be and this is a big deal that Rachel Maddow, she went on her show. She not just spoke about this whole saga and spoke about her network live on air. She spent and dedicated three segments to it and then brought Ronan Farrow on the air, who we know has not really appeared much on NBC there. He said that they don't want him there.

CARLSON: Right. They do.

WAGMEISTER: So this cannot be the end of it. The fact that she came out here with guns blazing and spoke out against her bosses, she very much told her viewers what the climate is like at that building. I mean, that's a huge deal.

It's pretty much unheard of for anchors to go on and report about their networks on the air. We've seen that happen in numerous networks throughout the #MeToo Movement. But for Rachel Maddow to do this, she is the most prominent anchor, that's a big deal, but she also knows that she is safe there.

She has the top ratings. She can't be fired. This is quite a statement not just for her to do, but really for her staff. When I saw this, I thought to myself, Rachel Maddow knows what her staff is feeling. They're angry. They're confused. They're quite possibly living in a climate of fear. That's what I've heard from sources.

She is doing this. She is really speaking for her staff as well.

CARLSON: So but it's not a mystery as to how this happened or who did it.

Noah Oppenheim did it. Andy Lack did it, particularly Noah Oppenheim though as the head of the News Division over there, shielded Harvey Weinstein.

So my question is, you know, you've got non crazy people at the helm higher up. You've got Brian Roberts at Comcast. You know, everyone says he is a decent person. You've got Steve Burke, who's the CEO of NBC Universal.

Why has no one asked them what they think of this and why they're continuing to employ these guys?

WAGMEISTER: Well, you know, Comcast, they have stood by Noah, they've stood by Andy Lack. They've stood by NBC News. You recall, Tucker, because I was on your show when I broke the story at "Variety" with the Matt Lauer allegations two years ago in 2017 that NBC News at that time, they released a statement that said, we knew nothing about Lauer. We found out about the allegations, a woman came to HR. Now, we know that woman was Brooke Nevils, and we fired him within 24 hours.

They've been saying the same thing. They've been singing the same tune for two years. It's hard now to backtrack and say, oh, just kidding what we said for two years absolutely isn't the truth.

CARLSON: Okay, so how about -- how about Oppenheim is profiting from you know, hawking products on the air and is selling screenplays to Hollywood while he is supposed to be running a News Division? I mean, is there is there kind of anything he can do that's too much at this point?

WAGMEISTER: You know that has obviously been a complaint people have pointed out that he was the screenwriter of "Jackie," and of course, there's been rumors and Ronan Farrow has alluded to this that is that why he was kind of in bed with Harvey Weinstein? Now that has been denied.

And Comcast, you know, they have released statements in support of them.

So they seem to be sticking by their bosses. I think that's why we see Chris Hayes, I think that's why we see Rachel Maddow going on air, because they're having a similar reaction to you, and many of our viewers, I'm sure who are going, how does this make much sense?

CARLSON: Well, it's not a close call and if you're Brian Robertson, you're on the treadmill and all of a sudden you look up and this is happening.

You're thinking, what? Why do I need this? You know?

WAGMEISTER: Well, I think that's exactly why Rachel Maddow said that because look, she knows that she is fine. She knows with those ratings that she will be protected. And I think that quite frankly, she is pissed off. She is probably saying to herself, this doesn't makes sense. I want answers. I've been confused. Give me answers. That's why she did it.

CARLSON: Well, I guess it reflects poorly of everyone who works there, obviously. Elizabeth, thank you so much for that. Good to see you tonight.

WAGMEISTER: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, a former member of a throuple has now become a former Member of Congress. An update on the Katie Hill sex story, which was pretty amazing while it lasted. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Katie Hill is humbled, but she is not defeated. America's most famous polyamorous lawmaker is leaving the U.S. Congress with her head held high, in fact on a sassy note. Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher has the very latest on this story. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker.

Following a series of reports concerning Katie Hill's so-called throuple, the intimate relationship with her now estranged husband and a female campaign staffer, Hill vowed to fight on.

Then came reports of an affair with her Legislative Director that sparked an investigation by the House and Ethics Committee.

And by last night, Katie Hill had made her decision saying her resignation is the hardest thing she has ever done, but that it was best for her constituents, community and country.

But Katie Hale isn't going quietly claiming now that she's the victim of revenge porn, a reference to compromising photos that surfaced along with the news of her throuple.

Katie Hill blames her decision to resign on a smear campaign launched by her abusive estranged husband and hateful political operatives. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE HILL, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Some people call this electronic assault, digital exploitation, others call it revenge porn. As the victim of it, I call it one of the worst things that we can do to our sisters and our daughters.

I'm grateful for all of you who have spoken out about this in recent days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Katie Hill also says she is reviewing her legal options though it should be noted that Hill attempted or admitted to the throuple and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep along with the female campaign staffer involved in that relationship. Both say it was Hill who was abusive to them.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also released a statement saying, errors in judgment mean that she cannot continue her service as a Member of Congress.

CARLSON: Sad she has to play the victim, that kind of wrecks it. Trace, great to see you tonight. Thanks so much. "Hannity" is right now. We'll see you tomorrow.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.