Rep. Devin Nunes on impeachment hearing: I can't believe anyone is watching this

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Another chapter in the House impeachment melodrama unfolded today. About the 18th most important thing happening in America, but we're in Washington, it happened and so, we're going to frame it for you this evening. So, the drama shifted from Adam Schiff's Judiciary -- I mean, rather, Intel Committee to the Judiciary Committee, which is run by another Democratic member of Congress, Jerry Nadler of New York. Now, last month, you'll remember that Adam Schiff's approach was to bring down the president by bringing in a whole cavalcade of intel and foreign policy professionals and having them explain how their feelings had been hurt by the bad orange man. "The president said nasty things about me. He fired me. I wanted to cry. Make him go away." It didn't work. So, Jerry Nadler tried a new approach today. His strategy was to treat impeachment like a faculty meeting at Wesleyan. So, produced a long line of academics with impressive-sounding credentials, have them condemn the president as a very bad man. Now, if you weren't paying close attention, if you were standing in line at the cafeteria and just saw it out of the corner of your eye, you might have been impressed. That was the idea. Watch.


PROFESSOR PAMELA KAPLAN: The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency. If we are to keep faith with our Constitution and with our republic, President Trump must be held to account.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL GERHARDT: If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.

MALE SPEAKER: I stand with the Constitution and I stand with the framers who were committed to ensure that no one is above the law.

PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN: On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high-crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency.


CARLSON: Oh, yeah. That sounds bad. And as you just heard, the framers would frown upon it. What would they think specifically? Well, fortunately, Jerry Nadler asked that question and witness Noah Feldman had an answer. Here it was.


REP. JERRY NADLER: If Washington were here today, if he were joined by Madison, Hamilton, and other framers, what do you believe they would say if presented with the evidence before us about President Trump's conduct?

FELDMAN: I believe the framers would identify President Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office, high-crime and misdemeanor that they were worried about.


CARLSON: [affirmative] Madison, Hamilton, Washington. These are basically the same people the left would like to see dethroned, their statues knocked over by screaming college kids. They must be very bad men. So, presumably, if even they think Trump is rotten, that impeachment mandatory. Of course, once you pause and consider this all for a moment, it starts to look a little less impressive. None of today's witnesses had any actual evidence the president. They were, instead, giving you their opinions. It was a little bit like reading the New Republic, but less interesting.

You probably heard enough impeachment opinions over Thanksgiving from one of your drunk cousins, so why would we care what these people think? Well, because of their credentials. Supposedly, they have exceptional knowledge and expertise, IQs far higher than yours, all of which enables them to give a fair, and balanced, and informed opinion on how America ought to proceed. But is that real? Well, consider today's star witness, Pam Karlan. Look up her biography online and you'll see that she's the -- quote -- "Kenneth and Harley Montgomery Professor of Public Interest law at Stanford." Wow, stand back, ladies and gentlemen [laughs].

And before that, she clerked for a Supreme Court justice and earned not one, not two, ladies and gentlemen, she earned three separate degrees at Yale. She's written several textbooks on constitution law. If there's one person in this country who is impressive, who our system has deemed capable of making judgments that you don't even understand, it's this lady, this professor, Pamela Karlan.

But think again. And this is a subtheme of the impeachment drama that we'd like to highlight. Because, really, it's a thing that will endure and change the country long after Trump is gone. It turns out, the more you know about the people you're supposed to consider impressive, the more you find out they're not impressive at all [laughs], actually.

They're not very smart, they have no wisdom, their personal lives are a disaster. By the way, if they're so wise, why are they so unhappy? Every one of them is. And in this specific case, they're not even unbiased arbiters. Karlan, for example: she's not some apolitical academic pulled out of Kohl's stores to testify about what we ought to do. She's an activist. She's literally a political activist who donates thousands of dollars to the Democratic party. Watch this.


REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Professor Karlan, you gave 2,000 bucks, or you gave 1,000 bucks to Elizabeth Warren, right?

KARLAN: I believe so.

GAETZ: You gave 1,200 bucks to Barack Obama?

KARLAN: I have no reason to question that.

GAETZ: And you gave 2,000 bucks to Hilary Clinton?

KARLAN: That's correct.

CARLSON: Karlan is wrong? No, it doesn’t actually. She proved that herself. She [laughs] made it very clear that she was incapable of clear-thinking or wise judgments. They said she made bizarre claims. She claimed that delaying military aide to Ukraine was just like cutting off rescue services to Americans after a hurricane. What [laughs]? It's, like, insane and dumb, by the way. She also engaged in embarrassing political stunts like ridiculing the president's teenage son. What?


REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: What comparisons, Professor Karlan, can we make between kings that the framers were afraid of and the president's conduct today?

KARLAN: The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So, while the president can name his son, Barron, he can't make a baron.


JACKSON LEE: Thank you. The founding –


CARLSON: Yeah. I wonder how long they practiced that one in the mirror. It was petty and dumb; not surprising, though. Karlan has made remarks like this before. She previously suggested that Jeff Sessions was evil. Why? Because of the name his parents gave him. What a mediocrity. In 2006, well before the rest of the left embraced the great wakening, Karlan was ahead of the game. She was already bashing people on the basis of their sex, skin color, and sexual orientation. Watch this.


KARLAN: We have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and on love of our country because we have more reason than they do to love America. The rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world and they always have.


CARLSON: This lady needs a shrink. The "sons of the powerful?" Really? You're a law professor at Stanford and you're lecturing other people at how they're powerful? Right. This is the legendary scholar coming down from on high to tell us who is good and who is evil. Please. What a mediocrity. What a moron. Her fellow witnesses were almost as embarrassing. Noah Feldman, the -- quote -- "Felix Frankford Professor of Law at Harvard law school" told lawmakers that he was skeptical of impeachment until this past summer, suggesting, of course, that his endorsement was more legitimate. He's not political.

But it turns out that was a lie. It was a lie. How do we know? Because all the way back in March of 2017, this same man, Noah Feldman, suggested that Trump should be impeached because of a tweet he sent accusing President Obama of monitoring Trump Tower. Yeah, that was impeachable, he said. He also said that Jim Comey's memo of his conversations with Trump was impeachment-worthy, too. He even told Please. If he's so impressive, why is he [laughs] writing for Slate? Whatever.

But he told Slate that the president doesn’t actually have the freedom of speech and should be impeached simply for saying things that Noah Feldman doesn't like. The only witness who didn't embarrass himself today was Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley. Now, reporters are describing as a GOP witness, implying that he's a partisan, or a right-winger, or a Republican, even. But he's none of those things. Turley, who has come on the show quite a bit, know him well, is a member of the Democratic party. He's on the left. He's advocated legalizing polygamy. He wanted George W. Bush tried for war crimes. He's not [laughs] -- he's not from the federal society. He doesn't' even like Trump and he didn't vote for him. But he called it absurdity where he saw one.


JONATHAN TURLEY: I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him. My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. I get it. You're mad. The president's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad.

Will -- and the slipshod impeachment make us less mad? Will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration? That is why this is wrong. It's not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but perfect. It's not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. It's not wrong because we're in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No, it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.


CARLSON: Well, exactly. And that's really all it is. Everyone in Washington is mad about something. You know, in a mentally fragile age like this one, everyone requires a nuclear response. Donald Trump thinks Haiti isn't a nice country? "He's a racist." He wants to have a border around our country? "Bigot." He thinks it's suspicious when the corrupt, do-nothing son of the former Vice President gets millions of dollars from a big company in one of the world's most corrupt nations, Ukraine? "You must impeach him [laughs]." Washington may be the most powerful city in America. At the same time, it is full of sad people grasping for things to complain about that they hope might give meaning to their dreary lives. This morning, one Democrat even complained about the witnesses who were testifying, not because they were biased, or unqualified, or irrelevant; not because they were off-track or had bad ideas, but because they were the wrong color --


REP. AL GREEN: It hurts my heart, Mr. Speaker, to see the Judiciary Committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment and not one person of color among the experts.


CARLSON: Apparently, Washington thinks it wants impeachment, what they really want, what they definitely need is psychological help. Congressman Devin Nunes represents the state of California. He joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on. This is not your committee where the impeachment drama started. This is Judiciary. But you were there today. What was this about? What did it accomplish? What was the point?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Well, I think you could just keep going for the rest of the show, just like you're doing. I mean, I'm enjoying watching that.

CARLSON: [laughs] Sorry, it's too easy.

NUNES: I didn't know about that clip from the lady from 2006. This is totally nuts. I don't know what I'm watching. I mean, I walked in there today. I mean, and first of all, you have to ask yourself, "What the hell are those people doing there?".


NUNES: They don't have any evidence. We're here to impeach the president. Well, you should be putting evidence on the table for what the president did wrong. And then, when they were asked direct questions, "Do any of you have evidence, any evidence that's in Adam Schiff's report to impeach the president on?" They don't have any. So, you have to ask yourself, what the hell is going on?

CARLSON: Yeah, I mean, I think they think it's appealing to voters or something. I think most voters, even most Democrats, despise the academic left. The academic left is disgusting, and everyone kind of feels that way.

NUNES: Yeah. Yeah. And these -- if you look at just -- I don't know how anybody could even watch this today. And I'm not sure if anybody did watch this. I can't imagine what the ratings are going to be like. You know, I guess we'll know in the next couple of days. But can you imagine people sitting through that? I mean, that are at home watching? I just can't imagine --

CARLSON: So, I have to ask you about something --

NUNES: -- if anybody's watching.

CARLSON: I know you've talked about this, but the new chairman of your committee, the House intel committee, somehow pulled the phone records of the president's lawyers. Now, we're going to assess with an attorney in just a second whether that was even legal. But my question to you is how did he do that? And on what pretext -- how did this happen?

NUNES: So, he has subpoena power. So, when the Democrats gained control, they have subpoena power. We knew he had issued -- he notified us that he has subpoenaed some phone numbers. We didn't know who those numbers were. And of course, because it's in the skiff and it's classified, we can't talk about it.

CARLSON: I'm sorry, a subpoena from whom?

NUNES: He subpoenaed from AT&T phone records.

CARLSON: Why would AT&T give those up?

NUNES: Phone numbers. That's a good question. That is a very good question.

CARLSON: Why wouldn’t AT&T say, "Buzz off." You know? "Take it to court."

NUNES: AT&T should have at least went to court to try to see if what they were going to do was the right thing.

CARLSON: Could they do that for my phone records or your phone records? I mean --.

NUNES: It appears like they could. If Adam Schiff now wants to go out and subpoena, they've now set a precedent where Adam Schiff can go and get any phone number that he has, send it to AT&T and AT&T is going to comply.

CARLSON: Could he get my email, too?

NUNES: I don't think that's been tried, but I assume -- be careful what you wish for. He could try it.

CARLSON: So, what is --.

NUNES: And then, it's even worse.

CARLSON: Is there a limit to it? I mean, you ran the committee, so you're uniquely positioned answers this.

NUNES: I'm not sure.

CARLSON: Is there a limit to his power?

NUNES: I'm not aware of any previous time that we subpoenaed phone records on the House Intelligence Committee. Maybe before my time we did. But I find it very strange. But then if you look at what he did then, it's not just the president's phone records, okay? Or the president's lawyers' phone records. He also was able to get a journalist, a journalist. Now --.

CARLSON: John Solomon.

NUNES: John Solomon, who they hate, who they say is a conspiracy theorist, and he was able to figure out that that was John Solomon's phone number. Okay, so now you have a journalist involved. Then he was able to get my number. Right? And because I had talked to Rudy Giuliani, and somehow that's now a crime. And then I make it into his report. And we have to remember, I just want to back everybody up. We spent the last three years, at first, if any Republican ever talked to any Russian at any time, even if you were Russian American, that was a no no. Then we were criticized, we switched to Ukraine. And if you talked to any Ukrainian, that's now a crime. Now, I can even talk to Rudy Giuliani, who I've known for 10 years. That's supposedly a crime. And I'm in his report for supposedly doing something wrong. So, this is wrong.

CARLSON: You're a sitting member of --

NUNES: And what's happening in this -- whatever has happened in this town is wrong. And look, I'm going to look at whatever legal remedies I have because I actually have some civil rights here, too.

CARLSON: Well, you ought to. And if they can do this to you, then, like, you know, what protection do we have?

NUNES: They could do to you.

CARLSON: I mean, he already called me a Russian agent, so yeah, we'll be checking. Congressman, thanks so much for that.

NUNES: Always a pleasure.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

NUNES: Thank you.

CARLSON: Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch, knows a lot about questions of privilege, for example. And so, I have a simple question to you. I was under the impression as non-attorney that communications that your lawyer has while discussing your case are, quote, "privileged." But I guess they're not now?

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: Of course, they are. I'm a non-attorney, too. But at Judicial Watch, I'm generally aware of the attorney client privilege and --


FITTON: -- how it works. And the communications that your lawyer engages in when he's working on your behalf, that's potentially privilege. So, the mere existence of Giuliani's calls on behalf of his client would be potentially privileged. And certainly, the president ought to be able to raise that issue before any records are turned over to Congress or publicized. It's -- this just another --

CARLSON: This is the second one in a row. I mean, the president's first lawyer, of course, is now in jail, but not before they raided his office and took all of the documents that pertained to his representing the president. Like I don't understand -- it's like being the drummer in Spinal Tap. It's like being the president's lawyer is a tough place to be right now.

FITTON: This president's been victimized as president and as a citizen. I'm not aware of any public officials had so many civil rights rolled over by the deep state, Mueller, in the case of the raid. Remember, Cohen went and testified before the Schiff committee -- I think was the Schiff committee or the Judiciary Committee, it doesn't really matter. But then again, the president's privileges were broken then. And now, on top of that, we have this invasion of the president's attorney client relationship in a way that's unprecedented.

This Schiff report is an abuse because of the Ukraine sham and all the false allegations there. But you've got a demonstrated abuse of power with this effort to take the records that the president's attorney.

CARLSON: Talk about -- and they're always the ones hyperventilating about --.

FITTON: And just because this subpoenaed doesn't mean it's right or legal. It wasn't challenged. It should have been.

CARLSON: Overturning norms. I mean, final quick question. This is not the norm, correct? Never seen this?

FITTON: No, it isn't. You know, and you know that that person, that woman who was testifying, Professor Carlin, she was seen as a Supreme Court nominee by the Democratic left during a presidential -- the early Democratic presidential administrations.

CARLSON: Well, she's like a parody. She's like a moron. She's a Stanford law professor. And I would just say, like her politics aside, that person is not smart. And they're going to put her on the Supreme Court? Tells you a lot. Tom, good to see tonight.

FITTON: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Thank you. Well, the press is used to calling Republicans racist, of course, but now they're calling Democrats racist, too, for not backing Kamala Harris. [laughs] Kind of amazing. We've got details on that. Feeling kind of great about it. Also, an update on our investigation into a hedge fund that decimated one small town in the Midwest. An update for you today. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Kamala Harris failed as a presidential candidate and dropped out yesterday for one simple reason: Democratic voters didn’t really like her. Now, we're giving Democratic voters the benefit of the doubt. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to like Kamala Harris. First, she wasn't very likeable. She felt synthetic because she is. And she is because she doesn’t herself. She has no clue who she is or what she believes in. But, according to the press, those can't be the real explanations because, on the left, and particularly in our press corps, there are only three reasons for anything: racism, sexism, and Russia. And they've decided the first two must be why Harris got out of the race. Watch this.


MALE SPEAKER: Can you tell me how it is that we're looking at the next Democratic debate with a sea of only white faces on that stage?

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: If the debate were held right now, it would be a bunch of white people on a stage. What is happening right now is a white debate stage just a week-and-a-half from now.

MALE SPEAKER: The real problem the Democrats are going to have is the next debate. You have no blacks on that stage.

MALE SPEAKER: That's the only African-American woman in this race who has been speaking to issues that need to be brought up is now no longer in it and we're spiraling towards a debate stage that potentially -- we're still fighting to get on it -- but could have six people with no diversity whatsoever.


CARLSON: [laughs] What's so funny is if you want diversity with a female candidate, there actually is one on the Democratic side. Her name is Tulsi Gabbard. She's from Hawaii. But, of course, everyone in the official Democratic party here in D.C. and, certainly, at CNN and MSNBC hates Tulsi Gabbard because she criticizes permanent war. If there's one thing they love, it's permanent war in the Middle East. But take three steps back. They're telling you that the Democratic primary electorate is racist because they rejected Kamala Harris. They didn't vote for some rich lady from San Francisco, so they must be racist. Now, this may shock a lot of news rooms here in Washington, but it turns out, in real life, a lot of Democratic voters are liberal; in fact, a lot are African-American women. And their favorite candidate is who? Joe Biden. So, what are they telling us? They're telling us that black women are racist. Okay. We're going to pack that with David Webb, the host of "Reality Check" with David Webb, who joins us. Hi, David.


CARLSON: So, tell me -- I mean, look, I'm -- no one's ever accused me of being a genius. So, maybe you can explain this to me. They're telling us, in outraged tones, that the Democratic primary electorate, disproportionally female African Americans, is racist against women of color. How does that work?

WEBB: You got me. Maybe you are the genius. Sure, between the two of us don't know.

CARLSON: [laughs] Don’t know, I mean --

WEBB: But, look, they actually have a very diverse field. You've got an old Jewish guy; you got a born-Irish kid, Joe Biden; Tulsi Gabbard; Booker's still in it last time I checked. You know, look at Pete Buttigieg. You've got a gay, white male, younger man. And you've got -- well, I'm going to say it -- a Native American running and a female all wrapped into one. So, they are diverse. Look, and let's be serious here. They have been pushing this fake narrative on American as long as the party's been around in its modern form that we're all racist. But, now, they're the ones casting the votes. They're the ones being polled. They're the ones picking your point about the numbers of African American women, the breakdown of the Democrat base. They're making decisions. You hit the nail on the head with Kamala Harris. She's a fake. She's a fraud. She doesn’t know --


WEBB: -- who she is. And a candidate who presents themselves as genuine, whether we -- you and I -- agree with them or not --

CARLSON: No, it's true. You're right.

WEBB: -- or anyone agrees with them --

CARLSON: I totally agree.

WEBB: -- will win. Elizabeth Warren presents herself, for her case --


WEBB: -- as genuine. Therefore, she resonates with voters. Bernie Sanders presents as genuine.

CARLSON: Totally agree.

WEBB: Joe Biden doesn't and he's flailing.

CARLSON: No, I completely agree. I just wonder, maybe they're just so used to repeating the same stupid talking point, they don't think about it all. You know, if the answer's always "racism," --

WEBB: Well, it has to be, for them.

CARLSON: -- they wind up accusing Democratic black women of being racist and they, like, can't even stop themselves.

WEBB: But it's the instant reaction. You remember Areva Martin --


WEBB: -- once you cite your qualifications, your color is determined no matter who you are.


WEBB: She thought I was white because I didn't fit the black narrative.

CARLSON: [laughs]

WEBB: The same thing for the Al Sharptons of the world --


WEBB: -- the race pimps, the poverty pimps --

CARLSON: It's totally true.

WEBB: -- they have to push this on you. And the victim pushers talk and they're pushing this. It's --

CARLSON: No, you're right. It's --

WEBB: -- victimhood.

CARLSON: -- so cynical but --

WEBB: Kamala Harris is a victim.

CARLSON: -- nobody believes this crap. I totally forgot that, when they [laughs] called you racist. The greatest --

WEBB: My white privilege.

CARLSON: -- thing ever. Oh, so good. David Webb, always so nice to see you. Thank you.

WEBB: Great to see you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, Senator Ben Sasse said nothing while one of his donors destroyed thousands of jobs in his state of Nebraska. So, we mentioned this last night and we highlighted it. And Senator Sasse has issued a statement to us. We're going to read that to you in a minute, an update, by the way, to our investigation into what happened with a hedge fund in a small town in Nebraska. That's straight ahead.


CARLSON: Last night, we brought you the story of Sidney, Nebraska, a small town devastated by the predatory business practices of a hedge fund manager called Paul Singer. Singer, it happens, is also one of the most prolific donors to the Republican Party, and particularly to Republican senators in Washington. A fact we suggested last night that might account for the silence of Senator Ben Sasse on what happened to Sydney. Two thousand Nebraska jobs disappeared, and yet, Sasse, a Nebraska senator, never said a word about Paul Singer's involvement in it.

Well, today, Senator Sasse responded to our segment. We asked him for a statement, and he sent us this, quote, "Melissa and I know the families in Sydney and I've constantly told companies, including Cabella’s and Bass Pro Shops, that nobody out works or outhustles Nebraskans. Sydney hasn't given up and neither have we. There's a real problem with American communities coming apart, and it's going to require creative policymaking. But this problem isn't going to be solved by the easy over-promising big government advocates on either the left or the right." End quote.

Creative policymaking is what Senator Sasse says we need. And of course, we agree with him. Here are three creative policies the U.S. Senate ought to consider in response to what happened in Sydney and Nebraska. First, call it what it is. This wasn't creative destruction. Nothing was created. It was just destruction. Destruction for the enrichment of a tiny number of people at the expense of many others. You don't have to make this illegal to call it disgusting, because that's exactly what it is. So, our first creative policy ought to be to tell the truth.

Second, return the money. We're not saying Ben Sasse, or any other senator is doing Singer's bidding purely for the cash, but why not remove all doubt about it? If one of your biggest donors turned out to be a pornographer or a mass distributor of OxyContin, you'd send back the donation. You wouldn't want to be associated with someone like that. You'd want to be clear about your own values. Senator Sasse should be clear about his.

Third, and finally, Republican senators ought to resolve to speak to the rest of us like adults. No more baby talk. Stop with the bumper sticker phrases from 1986. It's a different country now. The question isn't whether we're getting big government too late. We already have it, in part thanks to you, Republican senators. The question is whether we'll become a socialist country run by a terrifying alliance of authoritarian big tech moguls and wild-eyed identity politics cult members. That could happen. We're closer to it than our leaders acknowledge.

Just eleven months from now. Our system could change forever and swiftly destroy everything we have spent two hundred- and forty-years building. That's not an overstatement. It's horrifyingly real, and it's being driven by deep economic dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the professional conservatives here in Washington, who spend most of their time either ignoring or pretending it doesn't exist. These are supposed to be the guardians of capitalism. Somehow, they don't seem to notice it's in mortal peril.

Wake up. We're almost out of time. If we don't rein in the excesses of our system, and soon, we could very easily lose it. Senator Sasse was the only one to respond to last night's segment. Paul Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management, declined to give us a statement yesterday. But just minutes ago, they posted a response on the blogging platform medium. In a statement, Elliott Management denied responsibility for the Cabela's sale. The company was exploring a sale before Elliot bought a stake, they said. He also said Elliot did not exert, we're quoting now, "direct influence on the Capella's board to pressure them into that decision." But SEC findings contradict this claim. Capella's did consider selling itself before Paul Singer arrived, but in August 2015, they rejected that path. Suddenly, after Singer's purchase, they reversed course. Otherwise, Elliot contests no essential parts of last night's reporting on this show. They did end the statement with a promise and we're quoting now, "to protect and grow their clients hard earned capital." We're certain they're being honest, at least on that point.

Ned Ryan is founder and CEO of American Majority, and he joins us tonight. Ned, thanks so much for coming on. I have to ask you, since you are part of the kind of professional conservative firmament and have been for a long time, you know, that landscape well. Paul Ryan -- I beg your pardon, Paul Singer is one of the biggest contributors to conservative organizations. How would you describe his influence on professional conservatism in this country and the Republican Party?

NED RYAN, AMERICAN MAJORITY: [laughs] Well, I prefer to call most of this conservative class in Washington, D.C., nothing but a racket. Conservative Inc. has been selling out the interests of most of the American people for decades. The problem that we have here, Tucker, in all of this, I mean, again, it's hard for me to accept the fact that Paul Singer -- and I would actually argue, the Kochs, are barely Republicans and certainly not conservatives.


NED RYAN: And I would argue that any self-respecting conservative shouldn't be taking money from them. But no self-respecting conservative should be seen in a Koch seminar and actually be giving the Koch's money.

CARLSON: I agree with you.

RYAN: And the problem is the influence that they have on these. I think we actually -- there are a couple of things that we've got to have the conversation about. One is if the majority of the American people start to look at the behavior of Paul Singer and Charles Koch as what exemplifies the GOP and capitalism, I think it would be devastating to both the GOP and capitalism in the very near future. But I think we've got to have a conversation about Citizens United. Tucker. I get some of the arguments for it, but it has also empowered the vulture capitalist class to buy a lot of politicians, and buy a lot of think tanks, who are advocating and implementing policies that are antithetical to the interests of the American worker.

CARLSON: Well, and definitely seem antithetical to the views of Republican voters. I've never seen a --

RYAN: Yes.

CARLSON: -- bigger misalignment between what the voters want and what they get thanks to a small number of donors. And I -- and you're absolutely right. Charles Koch, I don't want to pretend like it's just Paul Singer. It's certainly not just Paul Singer.

RYAN: That's right.

CARLSON: Charles Koch, probably even more.

RYAN: Yeah. No, absolutely. And the influence that they have over the white papers and the thinking that's coming out of the Conservative Inc., the racket, again, people are identifying this as the true conservative movement. I lost all belief and faith and trust that that's what conservatism was about years ago. And in fact, I think we have to really reconsider what the conservative movement actually is, not only what it's advocating, but actually who's funding it and what are its priorities?

You know, is its priorities this billionaire class of vulture capitalists or is it actually on behalf of the American worker and the American people?


RYAN: I have to tell you, Tucker, I think we're kind of living an illusion right now. You know, we say we have a republic of we the people for the people?


RYAN: I would argue we haven't had that for decades. And the people that are supposed to be defending and advocating for it, they abandoned that a long time ago so they could have their six and seven figure salaries and their marble bathrooms with their gold-plated bathrobes. This is getting to the point of absurdity. We have to have a conversation about this as well.

CARLSON: Yeah, it's dangerous, too. I mean, we're playing with fire. Fake democracy --

RYAN: Yes.

CARLSON: -- frustrates people to the point where it becomes, you know, scary. And so, we should stop this right away.

RYAN: The last point I'll make is this. The last time we had is, about a hundred years ago, where very -- the uber wealthy and politicians actually created a system that was rigged against the American people. We got progressivism, progressivism, which has devastated this country. What's going to be the reaction to this? I don't know, but it's not going to be good.

CARLSON: I agree. That's exactly right. Ned Ryan, thank you.

RYAN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Hillary Clinton keeps getting plagued by coughing fits. She's had another one. Could it stop her from moving ahead with her presidential run. Is there a presidential run? What is going on with Hillary Clinton? That's next.


HILLARY CLINTON: [coughing] To advance the rights and opportunities of women. [coughing]



CARLSON: Hilary Clinton has run for president twice and lost [unintelligible] both times. But you got to hand it to her, she's undeterred, she keeps coming back. During multiple media appearances in the U.K. over the past month, Hilary Clinton refused to rule out yet another presidential run.


REPORTER QUESTION: Are you saying, "Forget me?" Is that your mantra now?

CLINTON: Not yet.



CLINTON: I especially have been deluged in, you know, the last few weeks with thinking about doing that. But, right now, I'm not at all, you know, planning that. I'd have to make up my mind really quickly because it's moving very fast.


CARLSON: Well, what is this? Is this real? Is this part of, like, an endless ego trip? How much affirmation does one person need? Joining us tonight to assess what the heck is going on with Hilary Clinton is Robby Soave.

He's an editor at Reason. He joins us on the set. Robby, thanks so much for coming on. So, I know you're not a shrink. Going to ask you to play one tonight.


CARLSON: What could possibly be the purpose of this?

SOAVE: Man, I think she just wants to be president more than any human being who has ever lived --

CARLSON: [laughs]

SOAVE: -- has wanted something.

CARLSON: I think that's true.

SOAVE: I'm not going to say she actually wants to fight for it again. I'm not sure --


SOAVE: -- she has that in her. But she wants there to be some circumstance where, like, someone puts a gun to her head and says, "You have to, you have to do this." She goes, "Well, I didn't choose this, but I will, for the good of the country and for me being forced, I will try." That's the situation she wants. Maybe that could happen in the convention in some very convoluted scenario. I bet that's what she's hoping for.

CARLSON: Well, I'm just fascinated, increasingly, as I get older, by how psychologically unhealthy the people with the most power in our country are. I mean –


CARLSON: -- they're almost all weird –


CARLSON: -- and unhappy and kind of tormented. But this person seems like the weirdest, and most unhappy, and most tormented person I've ever seen. Like, how -- why can't she just, like, give up on the presidency.

SOAVE: Well, and what are her distinguishing ideas that she thinks are valuable that are not represented somehow by the other Democratic candidates?

CARLSON: Well, exactly [laughs]

SOAVE: The best I can tell if you --

CARLSON: Good question.

SOAVE: -- disastrous history of -- on foreign policy.

CARLSON: yeah.

SOAVE: She was Secretary of State. She's an Iraq war-backer. She is a --

CARLSON: Oh, yeah. SOAVE: -- a critical proponent of the disastrous Libya intervention.

CARLSON: "Let's kill Khaddaffi."

SOAVE: We'd be overthrowing Assad if it was up to here, all these things that the American -- that are bad and that the American people firmly, decisively rejected last time around. I don't know how she could think that we have to have this fight again and, "I'm the candidate to do this because I was right about all these things." No one agrees with that, no one.

CARLSON: That's so interesting.

SOAVE: Yeah.

CARLSON: And last question. None of the markers of psychological health is having a network of people around who can tell you the truth, who love you enough to keep you from –

SOAVE: [laughs]

CARLSON: -- hurting yourself. This seems like evidence she doesn't have a network of people like that.

SOAVE: The people she surrounded herself with wouldn’t even [laughs] -- didn't even have the courage to tell her that maybe she should do a couple more rallies in Pennsylvania or Michigan.

CARLSON: [unintelligible]


SOAVE: So, I don't think they have the mind to say, "Maybe you should sit this one out."

CARLSON: That is such a wise observation, I stand in awe. Thank you. Robby, great to see you.

SOAVE: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well, during an appearance on the "Howard Stern Show," -- yep, Hillary was on "Howard Stern" -- she experienced a coughing fit that we couldn't help notice went on, and on, and on, and on.


HOWARD STERN, RADIO HOST: You and your husband went to see "Oklahoma" the other night, the play?

CLINTON: We did.

STERN: I can only imagine –

CLINTON: [coughs]

STERN: -- what the hell that must be like for you –

CLINTON: [coughs]

STERN: -- when you decide to go see a Broadway show –


STERN: -- like, in other words –

CLINTON: [coughs]

STERN: -- probably more people are watching you and Bill –

CLINTON: [coughs]

STERN: -- than –

CLINTON: [coughs]

STERN: I'm going to go see "Oklahoma," the play.

CLINTON: [coughs] Right.

STERN: -- and then they have a –

CLINTON: [coughs] Yeah, then they make a big deal out of it.

STERN: I know.


STERN: I feel like I need to give you a –

CLINTON: [laughs]

STERN: -- cough drop or something.

CLINTON: I got one.


CARLSON: [laughs] You can hear the bong bubbling in the background. This has been going on since she last ran for president, by the way.


CLINTON: -- [coughs] to represent inmates [coughs] -- excuse me -- [coughing] -- excuse me just one second here [coughing] a lozenge.


CARLSON: So, is it Camels, Chesterfields, or Lucky Strikes? And is this serious? We're generally concerned, at this point. Dr. Marc Siegel is a Fox medical contributor. He joins us tonight. So, Dr., I mean, no one [unintelligible] you can't diagnose, obviously, from videotape.

DR. MARC SIEGEL: Right, right.

CARLSON: But this kind of thing, is it a concern?

SIEGEL: Well, of course, I don't know her, and she would never come to me as a physician, that's for sure. But let me tell you --


SIEGEL: -- that if I see a chronic or recurrent cough like this, some things come to mind. One, the stress of being on the "Howard Stern Show," stress can lead to a cough. Two --

CARLSON: Wait, wait. Can you stop? Is that stress leads to coughing?

SIEGEL: Absolutely.

CARLSON: I didn't even know that.

SIEGEL: Absolutely. If you have an underlying tendency to cough for some other reason --


SIEGEL: -- you get an irritation or a tickle in your throat, the vagus nerve gets stimulated, you will cough. When you say, "Maybe I'll run for president again," or when you say, "What is he going to ask me about there on 'Howard Stern Show,' how far is he going to go," you may cough. Then, there are the issues that she had pneumonia in 2016.


SIEGEL: If she has a chronic recurrent, phlegmy cough, a patient like that, I would want to make sure if they were coming to me, does she have an underlying tendency to a respiratory infection. This is the season for respiratory infections.


SIEGEL: Also, in 2016, Tucker, she was known and repeatedly said that she liked to eat jalapeno peppers, and drink coffee, and drink alcohol. Well, all of those things can lead to a terrible amount of acid reflux, which causes cough --

CARLSON: [affirmative]

SIEGEL: -- asthma, too. So, if I were her physician or someone like her -- and we can do a public health service here -- I'd say if you're coughing, recurrent coughing, get to be seen, have a pulmonary work-up, make sure you don't have reflux, asthma, pulmonary infections, or stress.

CARLSON: Fascinating. I always learn something. Doctor, thanks so much for that.

SIEGEL: Thanks. Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, if you were to ask voters about their political priorities, and pollsters often do, abolishing human biology would be pretty low on the list. And, yet, Democratic candidates seem to be convinced that America can't wait to eliminate any distinction between male and female because, hey, gender isn't even real. Is that a winning formula for winning annoying? That's next.


CARLSON: Fifty years ago, Democrats campaigned for office on treating men and women equally. You may remember that. Now they're campaigning to make men and women literally the same. The party of science, it turns out, now opposes biology. Once upon a time, Elizabeth Warren opposed spending taxpayer dollars to provide sex changes to prison inmates, of course, most people did. Now she begs voters to forgive her past sins.


CHRIS CUOMO: You criticized a judge's ruling that granted transition related surgery to a transgender inmate. You said, "I don't think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars.".


CUOMO: -- you said, "I don't think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars.".

WARREN: Right.

CUOMO: Do you regret that?

WARREN: Yeah, I think it was a bad answer. And I believe that everyone is entitled to medical care and medical care that they need. And that includes people who are transgender, who -- it is the time for them to have gender affirming surgery.


CARLSON: Warren will say anything, of course. But this may be one of the few issues on which she isn't actually the furthest left in the field, at least rhetorically. That honor goes to also ran candidate Julian Castro, who promised to protect the right of transgender men to get abortions.

JULIAN CASTRO: I don't believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice.


And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman, or let's also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female --.


-- is poor, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose.

CARLSON: Obviously, he has no idea what he's talking about. And like Warren, he'll say anything, literally anything. But why would he? Conversations like this does seem a little bit strange to you if you're, I don't know, a struggling blue-collar worker -- and there are millions of in this country -- or a parent with an opioid addicted son -- millions of those -- or really any normal person. Can you win an election on this issue? What is this about?

Megan Murphy is a contributor to Spectator USA, and she joins us tonight. Megan, thanks so much for coming on. So, it just seems if you were to sort of compare what voters say they care about to the amount of time we spend on this question of whether biology is real, disproportionate doesn't begin to describe it. So, what exactly is this about?

MEGAN MURPHY, SPECTATOR USA: It is really odd because you wouldn't even need to speak to voters to assume that there are probably more important issues on the table than how somebody feels about their so-called gender. I mean, we're talking about a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the population who identifies as transgender. And I think that people are probably worried about, you know, things like keeping their jobs, having housing, having health care, et cetera, et cetera. It's a really strange thing to focus on.

CARLSON: But it does seem like a boutique issue, a particular concern, to people from certain zip codes, income levels, education levels. I mean, it's kind of an issue for rich people, is it not?

MURPHY: I consider it a totally academic issue.


MURPHY: So, you know, people who are in universities are privileged people in North America, people who, you know, exist in academia are, of course, going to be mostly middle- and upper-class people. These are academic ideas. These are academic ideologies. This is about postmodernism. This whole concept of transgenderism and gender identity was really invented within academia.


MURPHY: I believe that this this idea that it's possible to change your sex through self-declaration, that your sex and that, you know, material reality really is dependent on your own personal view and your own personal experience. I mean --


MURPHY: -- nobody in the general population really believes these ideas. Nobody in the general population, you know, globally thinks that it's possible to change sex. We all know, even the people who say that it is possible to change sex, I sort of am doubtful that they wholly believe that, because I'm not really sure where the scientific evidence is that that's possible.


MURPHY: And, you know, it's really an issue that only a few people are talking about, and yet it totally dominates the political discussion --

CARLSON: It's amazing.

MURPHY: -- on the left, in any case, and in progressive circles.

CARLSON: So, you can't be elected if you deny the idea that people can change their sex, but you can be shouted off the stage as he suggests that people can change their race. I think we [laughs] -- we need to think about the ground rules a little more, but whatever. Megan, thank you for being our Sherpa through these very, very confusing subject.

MURPHY: Happy to. Happy to. [laughs].

CARLSON: Good to see you. Thank you. We’re out of time, unfortunately, a lot of interesting stuff going on around the world. Happily, we'll be back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. The show, as always, the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Good night from Washington, D.C.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.