This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 16, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Political campaigns are all about how you finish. You can be more popular than your opponent is for months, even for years, forever. But if you're less popular on Election Day, you lose. It's all that matters.
It's a pretty simple truth but it's easy to forget. Democrats may re-learn it the hard way very soon. Up until a few weeks ago, virtually, every Democrat in America considered the upcoming mid-term elections a certain win.
Why? Well they looked at the numbers. The majority of voters remain unsettled about Donald Trump. And if an election is a pure referendum on him, they believe the Republicans would lose, and lose big.
But what if it's not all about Trump? What if there's another side to the equation? Well there is. And Democrats have just reminded the country of that. It all began with Brett Kavanaugh.
Democrats had plenty of ideological reasons to oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court. He'd written hundreds and hundreds of decisions, but they barely mentioned any of that.
Instead, in their frenzy to oppose all that Trump endorses, they tarred Kavanaugh as a rapist. They tried to destroy his family and his life. Evidence and due process were irrelevant, they told us again and again. And if you didn't agree with that, they would scream at you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors.
(CROSSTALK)
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.: I believe her. I believe what she said. It rings true to me.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I believe her. A large number of Americans believe her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So, those are not ideological attacks. Those are Stalinist attacks, and they horrified normal people across the country, not just Right-wingers but people right in the middle.
Ever since, Republicans have been rising in the polls. For the Democrats, the lesson of all, this should have been very clear, keep your crazies under control, at least until Election Day.
But they wouldn't do that or maybe they couldn't do that or maybe they no longer recognize what crazy is. In any case, they refuse to make a rational case for their own program and, therefore, accelerated their own collapse.
Elizabeth Warren led the way in this. In a bizarre self-inflicted injury that she committed on national television yesterday, much to the confusion of everyone else, Elizabeth Warren released a video trying to show that she really is an American Indian. Watch as the Senator anoints herself the Head of the MeSioux movement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS.: Now, the president likes to call my mom a liar. What do the facts say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The facts suggest that you absolutely have a Native American ancestor in your pedigree.
WARREN: I'm not enrolled in a tribe, and only tribes determine tribal citizenship. I understand and respect that distinction. But my family history is my family history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: I am not enrolled in a tribe, says the lady who's way Whiter than you are. Who thought that would work? What consultant came up with that? Even the Cherokee Nation denounced Elizabeth Warren. And the media weren't that impressed either, actually.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
MEGYN KELLY, NBC: It's not one-tenth, it's not one-hundredth, 1/1024 does not allow you to say you're a Cherokee.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN: --seem to be that this was a way of getting the Pocahontas thing out of the way, put the test out there. Now, she can move forward.
KEN CUCCINELLI, AMERICAN POLITICIAN, LAWYER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA: Yes.
CUOMO: And I don't think it does that for her. I don't think that the standard--
CUCCINELLI: No, it doesn't.
CUOMO: --of what was found in there is going to be satisfying to people--
CRAIG DELANO MELVIN, NBC NEWS: Best I can gather according to your paper's reporting, she's 1/1000th something like - I mean I - I think I might be just as--
ANNIE LINSKEY, THE BOSTON GLOBE: But the--
MELVIN: --Native American as she is.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
CARLSON: Well some in the press did defend Warren. Of course, they couldn't help themselves. But their case hardly helped the Democratic Party because it was just too crazy.
The New York Times informed us that anyone who questions Warren's story, her ethnic appropriation of Indian culture is, you guessed it, of course, a racist. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARA GAY, NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER: In terms of the Elizabeth Warren, the attack on Warren, I believe that was actually about White anxieties among Donald Trump's base about who's White in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes. Keep attacking people for their skin color. Maybe that'll work just like it did in 2016. To Democrats, that still seems like a good idea along with a lot of other notions that ordinary voters find scary and repugnant.
Self-described socialists, advocating for abolishing ICE, border controls, effectively eliminating the barrier between us and other countries, and, therefore, eliminating our country. Maxine Waters cheering on the mob or as Don Lemon over at CNN calls them, "People who are angry."
In Arizona, where Democrats assumed they had an easy pickup of a Senate seat, their nominee Kyrsten Sinema has been exposed as a kind of lunatic who opposes all immigration laws. And apparently, she says, finds the Taliban more bearable than her fellow citizens in Arizona. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KYRSTEN LEA SINEMA, DEMOCRATIC ARIZONA SENATE NOMINEE: States are the laboratories of democracy. And then my state, Arizona, is clearly the meth lab of democracy.
For the past several years, people have watched what was happening in Arizona, and be like, "Damn, those people are crazy." "Is it something about the water?" "No, the water's fine. We stole it from Colorado."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The meth lab of democracy. There's a way to get votes. Democrats could probably get away with all of this and more if they at least had an agenda that worked, if they could demonstrate "Our ideas bear fruit that you might want to eat."
But they can't do that, not even close. California, which they run completely, is failing, sadly. While drugs and human waste fill the streets, middle-class people leave because they can't afford homes there.
Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, one of the prettiest cities in the country suddenly looks like Downtown Managua with bandana-clad thugs ruling the streets. Meanwhile, the city's impudent mayor, a wet Liberal, of course, orders police to stand down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: It wasn't supposed to end this way, as you may know. Loathing of Trump was supposed to be the glue that held all the constituent parts of the Democratic Party together. Instead, it's destroying the party. In their efforts to fight Trump, they have become what they said they hated.
For example, you've heard over and over and over again that Trump hates women. He's a misogynist. And yet, whatever Trump has said, he never created anything as repugnant as the Rapper T.I.'s new video that shows a Melania look-alike stripping in the Oval Office. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC VIDEO)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes. It's the party that cares about women.
Well still three weeks to go until Election Day, and Republicans in Congress remain vulnerable, in some cases, very vulnerable. But at this pace, Democrats may fall far short of what they expected. What was their mistake? As usual, it was revealing who they really are.
Joining us tonight is Julian Epstein. He's the former Chief Counsel to Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee in an earlier, more reasonable time.
So Julian, do you think as you consider the political landscape three weeks out that Elizabeth Warren, one of the leading presidential candidates for your party in 2020 that her racial makeup, her DNA results are kind of a key question for most voters?
JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER CHIEF DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: No. I think it's irrelevant to most voters. And I think the point that you're making and the riff leading up to this is one that I agree with. I think the lament about how trivial and hateful and - and irrelevant our politics is, at least the beltway politics, is to most people's lives, I kind of completely agree with that.
Where I differ with you is that I think there are sins that have occurred with Democrats, and Democrats are guilty of it, but I also think Republicans are guilty of it. I think both sides are guilty of it. I think it's a product of an increasingly tribal country that is not good for us.
I think it's a product of cable news. It's a product of social media. It's a product of many social and kind of media forces that are going on right now. But both parties seem to be at each other's throats. They seem to be increasingly ugly. And it seems to be increasingly irrelevant.
Democrats lost the election, in my opinion, in 2016 in large part because they didn't have a really good compelling answer for the middle-class. They also didn't get their base out as well--
CARLSON: Right. Exactly.
EPSTEIN: --as they could. But they didn't have a compelling answer.
They didn't have a compelling policy for the middle-class. The middle- classes basically had been in a recession since the 1970s. There hasn't been a - a wage increase for most middle-class workers since the 1970s, since the Oil Embargo, I mean very, very low --
CARLSON: Well and if that's in - in some cases, their --
EPSTEIN: --and that - and that's a Democratic and a Republican problem.
CARLSON: --their wages - I couldn't agree with you more, and that's why I think why Trump got elected because both parties were ignoring --
EPSTEIN: I agree.
CARLSON: --those voters and they're Americans--
EPSTEIN: Right.
CARLSON: --they're - they're actual people. And in some cases--
EPSTEIN: I completely agree with that.
CARLSON: --their wages have gone down by a 11 percent, actually, in the past 30 years, so the question is though--
EPSTEIN: That's true.
CARLSON: --why A, wouldn't the Democratic Party take up the cause of middle-class economics, and B, why are they still attacking those people as White men or, you know, bigots, this constant refrain that those people are immoral and bad, what do they think they're getting out of that, exactly?
EPSTEIN: Look, I think both parties are being pulled by their bases. And I think it is and, this is I know you don't want me to plug Eric Holder, but one of the important things that Eric Holder is doing is trying to do districting reform so you don't have completely Red and completely do - Blue congressional districts, and people are forced to talk to each other.
I think what happens is when you tribalize this country and you put somebody into a Blue camp or to a Red camp they tend to just talk to each other and the extremist voices are the ones that rise above. It's the same thing that happens on the Republican side.
Look, you have a Senate candidate in Minnesota and it was revealed today and that in 2009, she made a very unflattering reference to Michelle Obama comparing her to a primate. I mean so there are - there are - there are - there are - there are plenty of examples.
CARLSON: But - but what you don't--
EPSTEIN: We can point to on both sides, Tucker--
CARLSON: --hold on, what you - but - but what you don't have though is any Republican leader standing up and saying that a certain race of Americans is defective or wrong.
Racializing everything and attacking people on the basis of their skin color, I mean that seems like - look, we can debate the issues but that and - and I think we ought to, and we tried to, on this show, but doing that, I mean that's the most divisive possible thing you can do.
EPSTEIN: Look, the--
CARLSON: But it's universal on the Left--
EPSTEIN: We are--
CARLSON: What is that? I - I'm actually bothered by it.
EPSTEIN: Well look, I think the Left plays identity politics. But I think the Right plays identity politics. And I think both are unhelpful. At some point, we have got to come together--
CARLSON: I've never heard a Republican - and I - I don't even like a lot of the Republicans, but I've never heard a single one stand up and say, "You know, the problem is Black men." If somebody did that, I just swear, as God watches, I would attack them on this show because I hate that crap.
EPSTEIN: Well--
CARLSON: You do that everyday--
EPSTEIN: So--
CARLSON: --on the Left and nobody says anything. It's like it's normal. Why?
EPSTEIN: Well I mean I think that - again, we can debate this all you want. But I think that when - I think there are dog-whistle politics that occur on the Right when you refer to Mexicans as - as - as rapists and drug lords, and you use that to justify the Wall. I think that's dog-whistle politics. I think--
CARLSON: But they're foreigners. I mean it's not about their race--
EPSTEIN: --what's going in Florida right now--
CARLSON: --it's about their citizenship. I mean look, I think they're probably do - whatever, but this is not a dog-whistle--
EPSTEIN: Yes.
CARLSON: --this is an explicit attack on people based on their race like when is that - when do we allow that? Why is that OK?
EPSTEIN: Look there - look, it - it is polarized. Both people pour - both parties pour fuel on this fire. There is a reason that Republicans get less than 5 percent, 7 percent of the African-American vote. It's because it's not speaking to them. So the Republican party isn't speaking to them. But look, at some point, you know, look--
CARLSON: So good
EPSTEIN: --we're - we're - we're, look, we're--
CARLSON: All right, we got to wrap it up because I'm being told we're out of time, but I'll let you finish this.
EPSTEIN: No. I was just going to say we have bigger problems out there. We have the problem that middle-class agree --
CARLSON: That's for sure.
EPSTEIN: --on. We have 25 percent of the global economy. China's got 15 percent. In a matter of a decade, they'll be our size or bigger than us. India is right behind them. We have very, very big issues--
CARLSON: I agree with you. And --
EPSTEIN: --to deal with. And this is--
CARLSON: And --
EPSTEIN: --this trivialization of American politics that is occurring on both sides is--
CARLSON: I agree.
EPSTEIN: --just horrible for this country.
CARLSON: Julian, thank you for joining us tonight.
EPSTEIN: OK.
CARLSON: Appreciate that.
EPSTEIN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Another migrant Caravan of people from another country who have not been invited to this country are coming nevertheless and telling us that we're not allowed to do anything about it. Will that Caravan make it to the U.S. border? And what exactly happens if and when it does? That is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Another migrant Caravan from Central America making its way to our Southern border. It's a mass of about a 1,000 people across from Honduras into Guatemala on Monday night. The President responded today on Twitter to all this.
He said this. "The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately."
That threat may have worked, at least, in the short-term. Guatemalan authorities say they are arresting the Caravan's leader and plan to deport him back to Honduras.
David Tafuri is a former Foreign Policy Expert for the Obama campaign, well-versed in international law and the politics of Central America. We also - also note that he is an apparently registered foreign agent for the government of El Salvador.
David, thanks for joining us tonight. Why is that not exactly the response that every president ought to give when a foreign country at - in - attempts a kind of invasion?
DAVID TAFURI, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Here's--
CARLSON: Why would we pay for that?
TAFURI: Here's why. So, we have every right to protect our border. And we don't have to let any of these migrants in. But if the goal isn't for them not to come here, we should not be cutting off foreign aid to Honduras.
Honduras is getting that aid from the U.S., so we can help improve the economy in Honduras. And the reason these people are leaving Honduras is because the economy is terrible and there are no jobs.
These are economic refugees. And the reason they're trying to come to the U.S. is they're looking for a better life. So, if we don't want them to come--
CARLSON: So, so, wait so --
TAFURI: --in the long-term, if we don't want them to come, we have to try to work with Honduras and the other countries in Central America to improve their economies, so the people stay.
CARLSON: OK. So, how is that working for us? So, we've given obviously a lot of aid to El Salvador over the years. One-third of all Salvadorans on the planet now live in the United States, one-third of all existing Salvadorans. So clearly, everything we've done for Salvador hasn't stopped the flow of one-third of their entire population into our country.
So like that doesn't actually work, so why not just say "Look, rich people who run third-world country, we're going to punish you personally if you let this crap continue." I don't - why is that a bad idea?
TAFURI: We haven't given very much money to Central America. Now, keep in mind, we only give about 1 percent of our budget overall to - in foreign aid around the world. Just a very small amount of that goes to Central America.
Look at the Marshall Plan that we put in place--
CARLSON: So, how much goes to - how much goes to - wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on--
TAFURI: Right --
CARLSON: --why do we give any? One-third of all Salvadorans live in our country, OK? Lot of them illegally, and I'm sure they're all great people, I'm not attacking them.
I'm merely saying this arrangement isn't working. They're offloading their poor into our country at a time when working-class jobs are going away due to automation. They're benefiting. We're losing. And we're still paying them. So shouldn't we reassess--
TAFURI: I just - I just--
CARLSON: --this?
TAFURI: --I just explained that to you. The reason that we're giving aid is to help improve those countries so the people stay, that's the long-term goal. I think you and I both agree on that as do, you know, many policymakers here in Washington.
CARLSON: Well no because I don't--
TAFURI: But we haven't done--
CARLSON: --because I said wait but hold on--
TAFURI: --we haven't done a good enough - good enough job. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have done a good enough job of helping these countries improve their economies, helping these countries improve the rule of law so people don't leave--
CARLSON: But that's not true. But hold on--
TAFURI: That is true, Tucker.
CARLSON: --look at Mexico, so we - so hold on, so we sign after --
TAFURI: And look at the results.
CARLSON: --and Mexico has jumped more than 10 spots on the economic development list internationally. I think it's now number 11. We've made Mexico rich with trade, billions and billions of dollars, millions of jobs. And yet, we still have 22 million people in this country illegally, the majority of them Mexican.
So, I'm not attacking Mexico or Mexican people. I'm just saying we've made Mexico way richer than it was and we still have an inflow from Mexico. So like we're not getting anything out of this--
TAFURI: Tucker, that's a great example.
CARLSON: --are we?
TAFURI: That's a great example. Yes, we are because far less immigrants are coming from Mexico right now. You referred to immigrants that are already here from Mexico, many of whom came a long time ago before the benefits of NAFTA--
CARLSON: Why haven't they gone back?
TAFURI: --before the benefits of NAFTA went in place, so that's a - if you look at the data, we do not get that many immigrants from Mexico. And even your example that we're talking about today is migrants from Honduras, not from Mexico. They're going to come through Mexico--
CARLSON: We - you - you - you're missing this we have --
TAFURI: --they're going to pass Mexicans who are enjoying--
CARLSON: --we have--
TAFURI: --the benefits of NAFTA--
CARLSON: --wait, hold on, we have more than--
TAFURI: --who are gainfully employed and--
CARLSON: --OK.
TAFURI: --supporting their families. So, you're --
CARLSON: OK but David, David, I'm sorry since - since--
TAFURI: --you gave a great example that supports my point.
CARLSON: --you're using the term data, let me refer you to this essential datum in this conversation, which was we have more than 10 million Mexican citizens living in our borders illegally. Once again, not attacking them, but if the model that you're proposing works, and we both know that it doesn't, this is all a joke. It's all a huge lie. The whole point is to make the Democratic Party more powerful. We both know that.
But let's pretend, let's just play along. If your model works, then why are they still here? Why haven't they gone back to the newly enriched Mexico, which we enriched with our money and our jobs?
TAFURI: Well many came look --
CARLSON: Why doesn't that work? Why aren't they there? Why are they here?
TAFURI: --many came a long time ago. The data I'm referring to is over the last few years--
CARLSON: Why haven't they gone back?
TAFURI: --illegal immigration - illegal immigration from Mexico has gone down. You agree with me about that, right?
CARLSON: Well but I - I'm missing it. So we made Mexico - you'll concede because the - the data, as you said, show that Mexico is way richer than it was 20 years ago, way richer. We did that.
We suffered as a result of that. But we also got all of their poor people who they didn't feel like supporting with their non-existent social safety net, so they can make more billionaires, which they have assiduously done, and we get shafted. We're paying for the healthcare of their poorest people. You don't see what I'm talking about at all?
TAFURI: No, because your point doesn't even make sense. We're talking about illegal migration - immigration right? And illegal immigration--
CARLSON: Right.
TAFURI: --has gone down for Mexico, and it could go down for Honduras and Guatemala and other countries in Central America if we helped--
CARLSON: If we just gave them more money.
TAFURI: --improve those economies.
CARLSON: Right.
TAFURI: We only give a little bit of money. So let's help improve those economies so the people --
CARLSON: Yes. No, I think it's a really good point.
TAFURI: --who are there are gainfully employed--
CARLSON: It's - it's our fault--
TAFURI: --there.
CARLSON: --and we need to pay more so think of that--
TAFURI: I'm not saying it's our fault.
CARLSON: --on April 15th that's where your money is.
TAFURI: I've never said it's our fault. I said we can help.
CARLSON: Oh, it's totally our fault. David, thank you so much.
TAFURI: Thank you.
CARLSON: We haven't heard a lot about the Russia investigation, if we could repeat that, Russia. What does that mean? Anything? We'll get an update from the one man who might know who happens to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Devin Nunes joins us after the break.
The Russia investigation, of course, is a distraction and has been from the very beginning. It's a distraction from the failures of the ruling class, as explained in the book Ship of Fools, Number One in the New York Times bestseller list, also Number One at Barnes & Noble. You are to be thanked for that, and we are grateful. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well Democrats have stolen years of your life, years you'll never get back in the search for Russian collusion. We don't have any of that evidence yet. But the hunt for it left a broken credibility across the board and, particularly, at the Justice Department.
The FBI, for example, started spying on Carter Page, a U.S. citizen who went to the Naval Academy and served as a Naval Officer, based on a politically motivated, still uncorroborated series of allegations from Fusion GPS, which was in effect an arm of the Hillary campaign.
Now, Fusion GPS Founder, Glenn Simpson, is pleading the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before Congress. Congressman Devin Nunes represents California, and he's the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He joins us tonight.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for coming on. So before I ask you about- -
REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: --Glenn Simpson and why you think he might not be testifying to your Committee, I just want to get an update on the documents that the rest of us were supposed to see, most specifically, the FISA warrant that allowed the spying that the Obama Administration did on Carter Page. Are we ever going to find out the justification for that?
NUNES: Well years of - of your life not getting back, many Americans, including myself, I think that's such a great opening, Tucker. We are very frustrated that we have not been able to get these documents out.
The President ordered them. And then you had Rod Rosenstein who got in the middle of it, which I'd be fine if Rosenstein got in the middle of it if he had a real reason. But every time he said that he has a reason to block this information, he never - it ends up being false.
And now you have Rod Rosenstein who won't even testify before Congress. So, are we going to see this information? I guess we're waiting. The President put the I.G. in charge of it, Horowitz. I don't think that was a good idea. But--
CARLSON: Then --
NUNES: --at the end of the day that's what--
CARLSON: Wait--
NUNES: --we're counting on.
CARLSON: It's I mean at some point you start to ask like what's the point of voting? I mean you elect a new guy and but the same people are still in charge, still thwarting what you want. I mean it does kind of call into question democracy itself.
Do you think any Member of Congress would be willing to take the risk and just say, "You know what, as an American, I think you have a right to see this?" That person's --
NUNES: Yes, the challenge--
CARLSON: --welcome on this at any time.
NUNES: --yes, the challenge with that is - is - is - is, you know, we can talk about - we can, hypothetically, go down to the floor of the House and talk about it. We've talked about this on - on your show. But, you know, we don't have the--
CARLSON: Right.
NUNES: --actual documents in our possession. We can't march them down to the House floor, slap them down. So, those documents are in possession by the Department of Justice and the FBI. There should be no reason--
CARLSON: Yes.
NUNES: --why the - this - I mean we've been very narrowly focused on 20 pages of the last FISA that Rod Rosenstein signed. And I don't think that Rod Rosenstein should be in the decision-making process of whether or not the American people--
CARLSON: No.
NUNES: --should see these or not.
CARLSON: I agree with that completely. So, let me just ask you to sum it up since you are privy to much more information than the average person as the Chairman of the Committee, the - the pivotal committee.
Have you seen and - and answer this knowing that in the end, we're all - we're going to know all the facts because they're always revealed in the end. Have you seen any evidence that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, honestly?
NUNES: No, I have not. And in fact, I've seen the opposite that we know for sure. And I know you're going to ask me about Glenn Simpson in a second here but, and I hate to jump ahead, but Glenn Simpson who was work - work--
CARLSON: No, please - please do --
NUNES: --he was working for the Democrats, OK, the Clinton campaign. He got information from Russians. That information was fed into the FBI, OK? Glenn Simpson was spreading that information out to the press. And now we know that Glenn Simpson was actually meeting with the FBI long before he testified to Congress that he was meeting to the FBI.
CARLSON: Yes.
NUNES: So, this is somebody who likely lied to Congress, should probably be prosecuted, which is most likely why today he pled the Fifth and refused to testify before Congress.
CARLSON: It is so frustrating to watch this as a voter, I have to say. I think I speak for - for many other voters. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for everything you're doing.
NUNES: Always a pleasure.
CARLSON: Appreciate it.
NUNES: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Up next, a Facebook employee just quit the company. He denounced it as a Left-wing monoculture that opposes free speech. Nothing you didn't know but he puts some meat on those bones, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Well an engineer at Facebook has left that company. He says he's fed up with the company's culture. Brian Amerige left Facebook October 12th. He sent a memo explaining why he did to his fellow employees.
In the memo he calls Facebook, "A political monoculture," and says it follows a PR strategy of appeasement. Brian Amerige joins us tonight. Brian thanks a lot for coming on.
BRIAN AMERIGE, FORMER FACEBOOK ENGINEER: Yes, thanks for having me.
CARLSON: It was brave and nice of you, I thought, to explain why you were leaving. And you say a lot of nice things about Facebook, by the way, we should say, in the memo that you wrote.
You call it a monoculture that's not a surprise to our viewers. What I was struck by is you said, in one of your first lines, you said we've taken a stance on how to balance offensive and hateful speech with free expression.
Now, when Facebook launched, my impression as a user and just someone watching was that free expect - expression was the goal. But that's changed--
AMERIGE: Yes.
CARLSON: --it sounds like.
AMERIGE: Yes, absolutely. I mean it's - it's actually have been pretty dramatic to watch the shift over the years. And, you know, that - that's essentially why I'm leaving.
You know, I'm leaving because of this content policy direction which, you know, trying to draw lines around what's acceptable and what's offensive or too offensive, you know, I think it's dangerous and it's impractical.
You know, it's - it's - it's impossible to define what something like hate speech is and it's quite --
CARLSON: Right.
AMERIGE: --harder to implement it and enforce it, sort of at Facebook scale.
And - and to your point like, you know, this is core to what the mission of the company is. And, you know, I think it's a huge strategic misstep for a company whose products' primary value is to promote free expression is - is trying to draw these lines.
CARLSON: But it also changes, as you just noted, what Facebook is fundamentally. I mean my understanding that even as a legal matter, Facebook is a platform, it's a conduit through which - over which information flows. Once you start deciding what's acceptable or not, you're a media company, aren't you?
AMERIGE: You know, I - I think it's an interesting question. You know, I - I - people come to Facebook for all sorts of reasons, you know, speaking as an employee on - on the inside--
CARLSON: Yes.
AMERIGE: --I've always thought about it as a tool for free expression, and I've--
CARLSON: Right.
AMERIGE: --I - I supported the mission as a tool for free expression. So, you know, from that point of view, you know, us trying to draw those, you know, impossible to draw lines around what's - what's acceptable is a losing strategy.
CARLSON: Why are they doing that? I mean it's - it's fraught with peril. It's obvious. You just said it. And - and I actually think Congress could bite back because they're doing it but they're doing it anyway, so why?
AMERIGE: Well, you know, it's - it's hard to imbue intent to anybody on--
CARLSON: Right. That's true.
AMERIGE: --on these things. You know, I - I wouldn't pretend to be able to put myself in their shoes. You know, what I can say though is that, you know, executives at the company do actually take the - the - the sort of assertions and - and claims that I've made very seriously.
And, you know, they - they didn't fire me. They - they engaged me. And I actually spent like the better part of the last month working with them to figure out how to improve this stuff.
Now, there's a really big distinction though between how those executives are handling this and what a vocal minority inside the company is doing. And there - there is a vocal minority inside Facebook that is belligerent beyond belief in a quest, I think, to - to implement social justice policies, you know, across our mission, basically. And, you know --
CARLSON: Give me one example of that if you would?
AMERIGE: --yes, I mean I think like just looking at the way the hate speech policy is - is implemented like on - on the platform, you know, you - you can't even have conversations about that policy inside the company without having your character attacked, and I've experienced this personally, without being called a sexist or a racist or a transphobe or an Islamaphobe, like you - you can't have conversations about those kind that, you know, anything that's a tenet of the social justice ideology effectively, without having - without being attacked personally.
And, you know, the real concerning thing that's happening here is that, you know, even though this is a minority of employees in the company, unfortunately, I'm not sure that Facebook leadership knows how to push back against them.
CARLSON: Right.
AMERIGE: And like - like I said, they're unbelievably belligerent, demanding, and hostile, not just toward other employees but toward the Facebook leadership directly. And--
CARLSON: Yes.
AMERIGE: --you know, my real concern is whether they can push back.
CARLSON: Because everybody's terrified in this country. That's actually the lesson of this and so many things. Thank you very much for this and for your bravery, and I hope that you go on to something much better and more lucrative. Thanks very much for coming on.
AMERIGE: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Senator Susan Collins of Maine, pretty much out of nowhere, stood up for Brett Kavanaugh two weeks ago. Now, the Left which loved her until recently, despises her and they want to revoke an honorary college degree she received. We'll speak to someone who's for that.
Almost every institution in this country, schools, the media, the bureaucracy, tech, finance, you name it, they control it. They haven't done a very good job running any of these institutions though, in case you haven't noticed. It's all described in forensic and nauseating detail in a new book called Ship of Fools, for sale now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Few public figures acquitted themselves more memorably during the Brett Kavanaugh nomination saga than Senator Susan Collins of Maine. She didn't stage a public therapy session like Jeff Flake did or embarrass herself.
Instead, at the critical moment, she delivered not so much a defense of Brett Kavanaugh but a defense of the presumption of innocence and basic fairness, bedrock American institutions. For doing that, the Left, which long liked her, now despises her, and wants to see her punished.
Close to 1,500 alumni and faculty of St. Lawrence University in Upstate New York are demanding that their school rescind an honorary degree that Collins once got. They say that "Collins lacks integrity for the crime of failing to automatically believe Christine Ford."
Monica Klein is a Founding Partner at Seneca Strategies, and she joins us tonight. Monica, thanks a lot for coming on.
MONICA KLEIN, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Of course.
CARLSON: So, I'm - I'm a little confused by this. So, the idea is if you don't agree with me, this group is saying, on the Christine Ford-Brett Kavanaugh question then you "Lack integrity?" I mean I know a lot of decent people, including a lot of women, who were - found themselves agreeing with Brett Kavanaugh. Do they lack integrity for that?
KLEIN: Look, there is a 30 percent gap in voters of women versus men that now are supporting Democrats because of what the Republicans did with Kavanaugh. Susan Collins does lack integrity.
CARLSON: OK.
KLEIN: She lacks integrity because she voted to support the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice who is clearly a sexual predator. She didn't believe Christine Blasey Ford despite the fact that she was incredibly credible. And she didn't support a real FBI investigation, and said it was just one week, and they refused to listen to half of the people who tried to come forward.
CARLSON: So--
KLEIN: I think it's completely legitimate about --
CARLSON: So this is --
KLEIN: --1,500 people come forward and said that they don't support her having an honorary degree.
CARLSON: Look I--
KLEIN: The school itself said that they're not taking it away--
CARLSON: --I - I - I - I - let me ask you though --
KLEIN: --so it's I don't--
CARLSON: --wait, hold on-- I'm - I'm trying to get to a more core question than just an honorary degree from a school--
KLEIN: Sure --
CARLSON: --whose honorary degree you might not want to have anyway. But the question is, is it a question of integrity to reach a different conclusion? Are - so you're saying that a decent person could not disagree with you. That's what you appear to be saying and what you appear --
KLEIN: I'm saying that a decent person--
CARLSON: --to believe.
KLEIN: --would believe Christine Blasey Ford because she was extremely credible and Kavanaugh came across like an eighth grader. I don't think anyone truly believes that Kavanaugh did nothing to Christine Blasey Ford. I think Susan Collins herself--
CARLSON: So--
KLEIN: --is kidding herself and she made a calculated decision to support the Republicans--
CARLSON: --do you sincerely believe--
KLEIN: --despite--
CARLSON: --I mean what you're doing is offering a window into kind of a world view that I think a lot of people might find chilling, a world view that doesn't allow for - for honest disagreement, a world view that - that- -
KLEIN: Where we might take away an--
CARLSON: --honestly believes that anyone who disagrees--
KLEIN: --honorary degree?
CARLSON: --is a bad person--
KLEIN: Well I'm not saying--
CARLSON: No, no, what you're --
KLEIN: --put her in jail. We're saying she can - they can take away her honorary degree if they want. And the college itself--
CARLSON: I - I - I don't care about the degree--
KLEIN: --said that they're not taking it away--
CARLSON: --hold on, I don't - wait, but hold on--
KLEIN: --so what's the problem?
CARLSON: --you're, I - I don't think you're following this. I--
KLEIN: OK.
CARLSON: --look, I don't care about the degree or the school. I wouldn't - who'd want an honorary degree? I - what I care about is whether we allow for the possibility that people who disagree with us are good people who have integrity but who are reaching different conclusions from ours?
And you, like a lot of the robots I deal with on the Left, seem to have decided this is a theological debate where the other side is evil and you're virtuous.
KLEIN: Did I say she was evil?
CARLSON: And I just given you one more chance to explain that that's not true.
KLEIN: Did I say that Susan Collins was evil? I--
CARLSON: You said she lacked integrity. She was a bad person. She had no integrity--
KLEIN: I'm--
CARLSON: --which is--
KLEIN: --did I say she was about - I said--
CARLSON: --the core of human goodness.
KLEIN: --she lacks integrity. I believe that. She voted for a Supreme Court nominee who's a clear sexual predator without allowing for a real investigation. I think that lacks integrity.
CARLSON: But these are subjective - who taught you this, like where did you - was there a time in your life when you believe that like decent people with integrity could disagree? When did you change? I'm honestly--
KLEIN: You can't --
CARLSON: --I'm asking that.
KLEIN: Why can't you just - why can't you just disagree with me on this? I think that she lacks integrity--
CARLSON: Well but then I can --
KLEIN: --and you don't.
CARLSON: --no, but you're missing it. I can disagree with you. I don't think you lack integrity for having a different view than I. You think anyone who disagrees with you--
KLEIN: Maybe we just disagree on the word--
CARLSON: --I guess including me--
KLEIN: --integrity. I don't think she--
CARLSON: Well--
KLEIN: --has it.
CARLSON: Integrity means honesty, decency--
KLEIN: I don't think she has honesty or decency. I don't think Brett Kavanaugh does either. And I think it's ridiculous that she confirmed him for the Supreme Court. And I think she will be voted out--
CARLSON: I think that your world view was scary --
KLEIN: --because women are extremely frustrated with Susan Collins right now because she--
CARLSON: Well not every woman feels that way.
KLEIN: --supported a sexual predator.
CARLSON: And you don't speak for all--
KLEIN: OK. But there is a 30--
CARLSON: --women, just so you know--
KLEIN: --OK, thank you for--
CARLSON: --Monica, OK.
KLEIN: --mansplaining that to me.
CARLSON: I'm not mansplaining. I'm saying something that's obviously true. I appreciate you coming on. Thanks.
KLEIN: There is a 30 percent gap in between Democrats and Republicans, the fact that--
CARLSON: It's great, OK.
KLEIN: --women are supporting Democrats 30 percent more--
CARLSON: Got it. I read the - I read the polls--
KLEIN: --because the Republican Party is offending --
CARLSON: --I just don't think people would--
KLEIN: --women.
CARLSON: --disagree with - OK, thanks a lot Monica, good to see you tonight.
KLEIN: Nice to talk to you.
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce is a radio host and President of Independent Women's Voice, and she joins us tonight.
TAMMY BRUCE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE PRESIDENT: Oh.
CARLSON: I'm not going to "Mansplain" any of this to you, Tammy--
BRUCE: No, yes.
CARLSON: --whatever that means. I mean I guess what bothers me here is what I just said bothered me--
BRUCE: Yes.
CARLSON: --which is the idea that you see all the time on the Left that if you disagree, you must be a bad person. That's a Stalinist assumption. It's scary. I can't believe people who believe that live in this country. What is this?
BRUCE: Yes, look, and she - her - her explanation also changed during the interview. I mean the fact is she was saying that Susan Collins was evil because Susan Collins was clearly supporting a - a sexual predator.
And if you - if you knowingly support a sexual predator then - then you're evil. And then, ironically though, Tucker, she then complains that why can't we just disagree. That's your point. That's exactly your point in this segment.
CARLSON: Exactly, yes.
BRUCE: Well some of us just simply will have a different point of view in what's going on, and yet, what - what the Left is doing, whether they cloth themselves as feminists or not, is pushing the argument that if you disagree with them, something is inherently wrong with you.
It's like Kanye West being declared as mentally ill, that if you disagree with - with her point of view, you're evil or you support things that are horrible for society.
This is what they need to move because they can't make - they can't have arguments with us based on the details of the issues. And your exchange with her proved that. And I hope Americans were--
CARLSON: How do we get here--
BRUCE: --watching.
CARLSON: --how do we get here though? So, if you're dealing with people who honestly think that they are saved and you are fallen, they're virtuous, you are sinful, there's no possibility of agreement, is there?
BRUCE: Well there isn't. And you notice, of course, that this is, of course, hopefully for modern religion, they've moved away from that. But this is very middle-age religion like for the Left.
This is a middle-age framework where people were burnt at the stake, where heads were cut off, where if you - if you moved a little bit away from the orthodoxy, you were going to be declared a heathen or something else.
This is now turning into a religion. And there is no room for any kind of - of movement about and any kind of differences or differences of opinion or - or point of view. But we live in a modern age which recognizes faith and the importance of that, and the importance of us having our opinions.
But in the free world, and in a republic, and in democracy, in - in the 21st Century we - especially in America, we pride ourselves in the fact that we can have disagreements that we will not punish people for not conforming and that has been a hallmark of the American liberal sense - sensibility--
CARLSON: Yes.
BRUCE: --of which all Americans hold on to. And this, of course, this - this - it's a classic fascist framework and, of course, our universities, speaking of universities, don't teach history anymore really. And so, these are people who are graduating inculcated in a dynamic that has almost destroyed humanity in the last century.
CARLSON: I don't know how we wound up here but it's - it's very ominous. If we can't agree that decent people can reach different conclusions then we're already in a kind of weird theocracy, I think
BRUCE: Yes, we are, yes.
CARLSON: Anyway, Tammy, thank you very much.
BRUCE: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, up next, a direct descendant of Pocahontas, yes, a real one joins us to respond to the results of Elizabeth Warren's new DNA test. MeSioux.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEBRA WHITE DOVE PORRECO, POCAHONTAS DESCENDANT: I respect Senator Warren as a U.S. Senator.
CARLSON: Uh-huh.
PORRECO: But I just wish she take the DNA test. And if she took the DNA test then that would end a lot of this controversy.
CARLSON: Yes.
PORRECO: And if she was part American Indian, I'd be the first one to welcome her into our heritage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well that was one of Pocahontas' actual descendants, Debbie White Dove on this program a year ago. That's how long we've been covering this farce.
Well Elizabeth Warren has taken a DNA test so not from universally recognized lab, and it reveals that she may have had a Native American ancestor though that ancestor might not be from North America, and could be as many as 10 generations back.
Now, that's so far back. It's not impossible that her most recent native ancestor is literally Pocahontas. And that question made us think it could be time to speak to Debbie White Dove again. She rejoins us tonight.
Debbie, it's great to see you tonight. Now, you've watched Elizabeth Warren once again put herself at the head of the #MeSioux movement and come out with these DNA tests, which you called for.
Now that we have the results, what's your response?
PORRECO: Well, first of all, I am so glad she ended up taking one and--
CARLSON: Yes.
PORRECO: --it did prove that she wasn't the Cherokee Indian that she's been claiming to be for so long.
CARLSON: Well so how did that make you feel as a descendant of Pocahontas? I mean does it - they're - cultural appropriation is often in the news. Do you think she's guilty of it?
PORRECO: Well I think she's guilty of claiming she's been American Indian but had no proof, and then using it to for applications, for college, for political reasons--
CARLSON: Yes.
PORRECO: --and that was all wrong that she did that this whole time.
CARLSON: When you see that Harvard Law School listed her as its first faculty member, female faculty member of color, when she clearly isn't, how do you feel?
PORRECO: Well I feel betrayed because she wasn't. She was using the name trying to be American Indian, you know, just to - to rise above. And - and it wasn't meant to be and take the benefits away from American Indians--
CARLSON: Yes.
PORRECO: --that belong to them.
CARLSON: And do you think that other Native Americans feel as you do?
PORRECO: I do. I do. I think they feel betrayed. They feel disappointed, you know, and--
CARLSON: Yes.
PORRECO: --I think, at this point, she needs to come back and - and just - and apologize to everybody for what she's done.
CARLSON: Yes. I think that's right. Good. Well last time you said that you thought she ought to do something, take a DNA test, she did. Now you're calling for her to apologize to you and other Native Americans, and - and I hope that she'll take your advice once again.
Debbie White Dove Porreco, it's great to see you. Thank you very much.
PORRECO: Nice to see you too, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thanks.
If you have feelings about this question you can post, of course, on Facebook or Twitter or other social media. The hashtag is #MeSioux. S-I-O- U-X.
That's about it for us tonight. You can tune in tomorrow night and every weeknight to the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, the sworn and cheerful enemy, we should say.
And if you haven't DVRed it, good luck figuring out how that works. We would be grateful if you did. Have a great evening.
Sean Hannity live from New York City is right now. Hey Sean?
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: All right, Tucker. That was a great interview. Great show, as always. Thank you.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox