Rep. Gohmert to Mueller: You perpetuated injustice

close

Video

Rep. Gohmert to Mueller: You perpetuated injustice

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert reacts to Robert Mueller's congressional hearing on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," July 24, 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.” Never meet your heroes. That's how the saying goes. They'll only disappoint you. Well, that's true, by the way as Democrats across the country learned the hard way today.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified on Capitol Hill this morning. If you watch the other cable channels, you're probably accustomed to thinking of Robert Mueller as a kind of progressive superhero sent here from on high to do battle with the diabolical Mr. Orange on behalf of the forces of light and justice.

Hollywood literally produced a comic book about Robert Mueller. That's how convinced they were of his power and goodness. Single handedly, Robert Mueller was going to save America. And then came the long, sad spectacle of today.

Here's the actual Robert Mueller caught without his cape and mask, squirming under the cold light of television cameras.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE CHABOT, R-OH: When discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you reference quote, "The firm that produced Steele recording," unquote, the name of that firm was Fusion GPS, is that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: And you're on page 103?

CHABOT: 103, that's correct. Volume 2.

MUELLER: I'm not familiar with that -- can you --

CHABOT: It's not a trick question, it was Fusion GPS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Not familiar with Fusion GPS. Well, it turns out that if you're watching this show right now, you almost certainly know more about the Russia investigation than the man who led the Russia investigation.

You know that Fusion GPS is the democratic oppo firm that paid Christopher Steele to produce the Trump dossier. Fusion GPS is the reason we're talking about Russia right now. In fact, Fusion GPS is the reason we had a Mueller investigation in the first place. But of course, you knew that because you're paying attention.

Somehow Robert Mueller himself did not know that. What does that say about Robert Mueller? Well, this isn't a medical program, so we're not going to speculate about it. What we can say for certain, though, is that Robert Mueller never should have been testifying before Congress today. He didn't want to come. He came because Democrats forced him. They knew his condition. They were happy to exploit him anyway, and they did.

To the left, the individual is always far less important than the mission, and the mission never changes, acquiring political power. Watch, the congenitally shameless Jerry Nadler of New York use Mueller as a kind of human backboard, throw the question -- get it back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: The report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.

NADLER: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the President?

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the President.

MUELLER: It does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Mueller did not exonerate the President. That was the headline on CNN today. Of course, it was the headline. And that was the point of asking the question in the first place, to create a headline.

Unmentioned was the fact that prosecutors don't exonerate anyone -- ever. Prosecutors charge people with crimes or they don't. That's the full scope of their power. Only God exonerates.

The whole thing was a dishonest word game. Moments later, in fact, Robert Mueller conceded that his was the first Justice Department investigation in history to claim that its unindicted subject was not exonerated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

MUELLER: I cannot -- but this as unique.

RATCLIFFE: Okay, well, you can't -- time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That was probably the high point of the day for everyone -- everyone participating, everyone watching at home. Most of the rest of the time, it was depressing to watch. Mueller seemed deeply confused. At times confused about why he was there. Repeatedly, he struggled just to hear the questions he was being asked. When he did hear them, his answer has often revealed he was not familiar at all with the report that bears his name.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: Collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms. Correct?

MUELLER: No.

COLLINS: If no, on Page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, "As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the General Federal Conspiracy Statute 18 USC 371." I'm reading your report, sir. It's a yes or no answer.

MUELLER: Page 180.

COLLINS: Page 180, Volume 1.

MUELLER: Okay.

COLLINS: This is from your report.

MUELLER: Correct. And I leave it with the report.

COLLINS: So, the report says yes, they are synonymous.

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: Hopefully, finally out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It went on like this for more than six excruciating hours. We hope you were doing something else today. We can tell you though, that over 200 times, Mueller simply declined to answer the question at all. Repeatedly, he said that critical questions central to the Russia investigation weren't in his purview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?

MUELLER: As I said before, and I'll say again, it's not my purview. Others are investigating what you address.

GAETZ: So, it's not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying. It's not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele. And it's not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, given what we've already said about Mr. Mueller, we don't want to be cruel here. But we also want to be clear about what he is indicating.

Mueller just told us that he doesn't know if Christopher Steele is lying about the basis of the entire Russia investigation. Nope, he doesn't know. And by the way, he doesn't care.

Keep in mind, Robert Mueller is the very same man who as of right now is trying to send Roger Stone to prison for the rest of his life, for telling minor and totally irrelevant lies, allegedly, that hurt no one.

But he doesn't care to know if Christopher Steele is lying about the most important question in the investigation, to which he has dedicated two and half years of his life.

It's enough to shake your faith actually, if you think about it for a minute. By the end of the day, even partisan Democrats had to admit that Mueller's testimony had been a complete debacle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK TODD, NBC HOST: As they were using him for clarity, he had somehow fogged it up in how he would he would do certain things. And so look, an optics, this was a disaster.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was the ball advanced?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Impeachment is over.

CLAIRE McCaskill, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Today, he was a witness. And he frankly, was a really good witness, because he declined to answer by my count over a hundred times.

JEREMY BASH, MSNBC ANALYST: I thought he was boring. I thought in some cases, he was sort of evasive. I thought it really was a very ineffective defense of his own work.

DAN ABRAMS, ABC NEWS CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Look, from the Democratic perspective, to me so far, it's been a bit of a bust.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: A lot of Democrats in particular used the "D" word and branded this a disaster early on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: At the very least, we now know the truth about Robert Mueller, a mysterious prosecutor with unchecked power revealed at last to be a daft old man blinking in the sunlight once his curtain was torn away. It was a sad coda to the long and ridiculous Russia saga. And absurd story for certain, but not a harmless story. Hardly.

This year's long charade deeply hurt this country. It corrupted our most important institutions that divided our people, but worst of all, it distracted all of us from our real problems, which are legion.

Get in the car tomorrow morning and drive five hours in any direction in this country. Stop frequently. Look around. How is America doing, do you think?

Now, remember that all the sadness you just saw on your drive, the drug zombies and the homeless people, the payday loan places, the boarded up buildings, all the slow motion disasters unfolding unmistakably all around us. All of that has been completely ignored for years in favor of some stupid invented story about Russian spies that never even made sense and didn't even happen. A ruling class did that. They did that to you as a distraction. They do not deserve to rule that much is clear.

Congressman Louie Gohmert was at today's hearing, you're about to hear from him. Watch as Gohmert questions Mueller and that colloquy quickly turns into sniping. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TX: And if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election, and that you see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after him and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires dozen or more people that hate that person and he knows he is innocent. He's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done. What he is doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice.

NADLER: The gentleman's time is --

MUELLER: I take your question.

NADLER: The gentleman's time has expired. The witness may answer the question.

MUELLER: I take your question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas joins us tonight. Congressman for thanks for coming on. So you were there. You spoke to the former Special Counsel, what was your assessment of his condition? Of what he said after talking to him?

GOHMERT: Well, he is older. He has lost a wrung or two on the ladder. But I was telling our guys early on right after he started, there is no question his staff has been telling him if you mention the report, he's going to ask you which volume, which page. He is going to take up as much of your five minutes as he can. You know, taking his time, gee, what was that?

So, I thought somehow, it was an act, some of it, you know, he's just the older gentleman. But that does not excuse him putting this country through hell as a special prosecutor dragging this thing out.

I don't know if you're aware, but back last summer, he was on with Harris Faulkner and she was saying, "Well, Rudy Giuliani is saying he is going to be done for the end of the summary. Didn't want to let it affect the election," I said, "He doesn't know Mueller like I do."

This guy is going to keep this thing going as long as he can, and he is certainly not going to end it before the 2018 election. I knew the guy. I knew he wouldn't do that. He would probably have continued, if we hadn't had a strong Attorney General come in and see that he had nothing after two years.

This is my speculation. But I think Weissmann had been left to his own purposes, he would have kept going on and on. So, I do think --

CARLSON: May I ask you to pause there --

GOHMERT: Sure.

CARLSON: I would just clarify something, Congressman. So, you're saying that from what you know of the information he gathered, he could have wrapped this up before the midterm election in 2018?

GOHMERT: Yes. He was careful to say he wasn't going to answer when he knew that there was no conspiracy, collusion, whatever you want to call it, but the law calls it conspiracy. He wouldn't say, but it was clear he knew early on.

And in fact, we all new way back over a year ago, that there was nothing there on the conspiracy with the Russian agents, that it was a bunch of garbage. He could have ended this back then. But he chose to affect an election.

It was also clear from the hearing today that Weissmann must have been the driving force in all of this.

CARLSON: Exactly, exactly. And that I think that's been clear for a long time, but it was crystal clear today. Congressman, thank you for that. Good to see you.

GOHMERT: Thanks for your clarity. You've seen it all along.

CARLSON: Another Congressmen at today's hearing was Tom McClintock of California, he accused Mueller of trying to conduct a political case rather than a legal one for impeaching the President. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK, R-CALIF.: Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms when in court, you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?

MUELLER: I'm not going to get into that any further than I already have.

MCCLINTOCK: But you have left the clear impression throughout the country through your report that it was the Russian government behind the troll farms and yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.

And it's starting to look like, you know, having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the President, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: One of the great images at today's hearings. Tom McClintock represents the State of California and joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks a lot for coming on.

MCCLINTOCK: It's a pleasure.

CARLSON: You raised, I thought, one of the most interesting points of the day. We've changed our entire foreign policy on the basis of some of the ideas that are contained in this report. Some of them including the Russian troll farm allegation as you almost alone pointed out are not substantiated. No, we don't know that that's actually true. Why is nobody else saying this?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, it was not just me that pointed it out. As you know, there's a court case going on right now in the District Court of D.C., where an indictment was brought against the so-called troll farms for election fraud.

The defendant say, "Wait a second. You guys published this entire report linking us to the Kremlin. There is no connection." The judge says, "Fair point. That's prejudicial. Department of Justice, show us your evidence linking these troll farms to the Russian government." And the DOJ says, "We don't have any evidence." That is stunning.

CARLSON: Well, it is stunning considering that Russia is an actual place with nuclear weapons and by the way, could be our ally in the fight against Islamic extremism or China or you know, other actual threats to our national security and is not partly because of allegations like this.

Why did so many people in Washington, including a lot of Republicans, I can say, Congressman Hurd I saw today, fall hook, line and sinker for this Russia must be behind everything idea, and not asked the questions that you did.

MCCLINTOCK: You know, because that's what the Mueller report strongly implies. That the Russian government was behind these internet troll farms. What we found out on May 28th, during this court hearing is they don't have any evidence. The judge says, "This is awful. I'm going to consider contempt of court citations against the government."

The very next day is when Robert Mueller called his press conference, and in that press conference, in one line, he very cleverly separates out the allegation that the troll forms were connected to the Russian government from the rest of his report.

I asked him did that have anything to do with the court hearing the prior day? He said, "No," I'm sorry, that really doesn't pass the smell test.

CARLSON: No, it really doesn't. This is such a scandal, and it's been ignored by everybody. And God bless you for bringing it up. Congressman, thank you very much.

MCCLINTOCK: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, believe it or not, CNN was once a semi-serious news network, some of us used to work there. And then a former entertainment producer called Jeffrey Zucker took over the place.

Zucker has long aspired to run for office as a Democrat. He has bragged about it. And so he decided to use CNN as his personal mouthpiece for political purposes. Net result -- more than any other media company, by far CNN bears responsibility for promoting the absurd Russia hoax day and night for years.

At times, Zucker's puppets on the channel openly colluded with Robert Mueller's prosecutors. For one example, Mueller's team clearly tipped off CNN before arresting Roger Stone at his home in Florida. There was a CNN crew on the scene before dawn to humiliate Stone as armed Federal agents barged into his home at 6:00 a.m. for purposes that have never been clear, even to this day.

Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked about that during today's hearing, here's how Mueller responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHRIS STEWART, R-UT: Were you aware of anyone providing information to the media regarding the raid on Roger Stone's home, including CNN?

MUELLER: I'm not going speak to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: To borrow a phrase from Mueller himself, he certainly did not exonerate his team. Congressman Stewart joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks very much for coming on. What did you think of his answer to your very straightforward question?

STEWART: Well, I think I thought the same thing most Americans who watched this. They were frustrated by it. It's a simple question. It was clearly within the guardrails that he had set up with things that he would and would not talk about. And I think it was important for people to know were individuals within the Special Counsel leaking information, and by the way, Tucker, if you noticed, I made this point before.

In every one of these cases, all 25 of them, it was always information that was detrimental to the President. It was always embarrassing and meant to diminish him. They never leaked anything that exonerated him, to use the word you just used, or that seemed to indicate that you know, there was innocence involved. It was always negative information. I just think American people deserve answers to this.

CARLSON: Well, what's so striking is this nutcase, Federal judge, Amy Berman Jackson has now told Roger Stone that if he speaks up in his own defense, he will go to prison. He's not allowed to talk in public at all. Period.

And yet, it's clear the government was leaking against him, so he can't speak -- his First Amendment rights are null and void, but the government could leak against him to hurt his reputation. What country is this?

STEWART: I know, and in fact, that's exactly the same kind of feel that I haven't asked myself, "What country is this?" For heaven's sakes, you always have the right to defend yourself. You always have the right to go to the public forum and to tell your side of the story, especially, Tucker, as you just pointed out, when the government isn't muzzled. The government hasn't been held back on this. And even when they are held back, many times they leak information anyway.

You look at this, and by the way, Mr. Stone, who is a bit of a character and someone I've gotten to know a little bit, but he's not the only one who's been treated in this way.

CARLSON: I know. You're right. There are so many, why is it so hard to get an answer from the government, which we pay for? They work for us, at least theoretically, to get an answer to the question, who did they leak to and why?

STEWART: Yes, and not just that question, but virtually everything we've been asking for two and a half or three years now. Why is it impossible to get answers from the Federal government about the FISA process? And was the F.B.I. and Department of Justice, honest about their application to the FISA?

I mean, we could go down a list of dozens and dozens of questions. And by the way, something that I never really understood and that is, this administration has empowered you. Look at some of these individuals and think, "Hey, look, we're trying to help you. We're trying to facilitate, you know, truth and transparency here."

If Hillary Clinton had been elected President, I could understand why we've hit so many roadblocks. But there's been a couple times when I think I don't understand why our own team is making it so hard.

CARLSON: Right. I know. It's a fair -- actually, you are infuriating me all over again. I keep waiting for this Russian nonsense to end. Congressman, thanks so much for that.

STEWART: Yes, it's an honor. Thank you.

CARLSON: And for that question which was really smart. Robert Mueller didn't seem very familiar with his own report. So, if he didn't write it himself and he clearly didn't, who did write it? Catherine Herridge has that, next. You'll also hear directly from the President as our expanded coverage of Robert Mueller's testimony on the Hill today continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Weissmann was untruthful. And Weissmann got caught just like he did with Arthur Andersen where he lost in the Supreme Court nine to nothing. His aides were very untruthful and they put Mueller --

QUESTION: ... lying and impeding the investigation ...

TRUMP: And they put Mueller -- not at all -- they put Mueller in a very bad position. His aides put him in a very bad position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: We're continuing our coverage of Robert Mueller's testimony today on Capitol Hill. During the hearings, Robert Mueller repeatedly showed an apparent lack of familiarity with the report and some of the key individuals in it. To be clear, the report that his name is on.

Someone wrote the Mueller report. He clearly didn't. Who did? Fox chief intelligence correspondent, Catherine Herridge joins us tonight -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tucker, at times, Robert Mueller seemed tone deaf to the politics of his own investigation in the fact that so many members of his team openly supported Hillary Clinton and donated to Democrats.

Today, Republicans singled out Andrew Weissmann, Mueller's so-called pitbull prosecutor who went to Hillary Clinton's election night party in New York, anticipating her victory. And Weissmann praised senior Justice Department official Sally Yates, who openly defied President Trump's travel ban in early 2017.

Weissmann who we believe wrote the report, sent an e-mail of congratulations after Yates refused to defend the President's order.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG, R-N.D.: I can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have ever appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated.

MUELLER: Let me -- one other fact that I put on the table and that is we hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. Of those 19 lawyers, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, only five came from outside.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Well, it was mandated, the Special Counsel was to investigate Russian election interference, but Mueller testified it did not extend to the opposition research paid for by Democrats and used to secure a surveillance warrant for a Trump campaign aide.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GAETZ: Director Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign?

MUELLER: No, as I said in my opening statement, that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: My intelligence contacts report that it is standard for the Russians or any foreign intelligence service to collect information about both campaigns. So, investigating the source of the dossier was really counterintelligence 101 and therefore a major gap in the Mueller report -- Tucker.

CARLSON: That's a sort of fascinating gap you might say. Catherine Herridge -- the great Catherine Herridge. Thank you.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Good to see you. Well, the Mueller report was supposed to be the product of two years of dedicated investigation and cost at least $25 million. That's enough to buy a European palace or a three-bedroom condo in San Francisco.

But despite all of that money -- your money -- hundreds of times in the report, Mueller's team simply cited major press outlets rather than original findings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEBBIE LESKO, R-ARIZ.: I think you relied a lot on media. I'd like to know how many times you cited "The Washington Post" in your report?

MUELLER: I don't have knowledge to that figure.

LESKO: I counted about 60 times. How many times did you cite "The New York Times"? I counted --

MUELLER: Again, I have no idea.

LESKO: I counted about 75 times. How many times did you cite Fox News?

MUELLER: As with the other two, I have no idea.

LESKO: About 25 times. I've got to say, it looks like Volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, there's almost nothing in Volume 2 that I couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50.00 cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost the American taxpayers $25 million.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Kim Strassel is on "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board. She has been on this story really from the first day and has been one of the most incisive critics, I would say and analyst of everything that's happened during the Russian investigation. Kim, thanks a lot for coming on. Take three steps back and assess what you saw today from Robert Mueller.

KIMBERLY STRASSEL, EDITORIAL BOARD, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, what I saw from Robert Mueller was not what Democrats wanted. Let's step back and remember, why did they want this to happen? They wanted the sound bites and they wanted to relaunch the impeachment conspiracy theory going ahead and having hearings on that.

And he, I have to say this, for all of some of his other failings today, he clearly prepped hard on that. He did not give them the opportunity that they wanted. And he did not in any way didn't do any audio for them. He wouldn't read his own report for them. And he certainly would not agree with some of their overstatements about the characterization of his report, for instance, that Trump had committed obstruction of justice beyond a doubt.

CARLSON: Interesting, do you think that Democrats -- I mean, clearly, we know what they wanted. They wanted a pretext for impeachment. But how could they have miscalculated so very badly?

STRASSEL: Well, I think that this was their only shot. Think about it. The report was a complete dud. Okay. The party is also hopelessly divided over this between the sort of crazies that are desperate to impeach Trump, parts of the resistance, and then the calmer heads like Nancy Pelosi who know that that can be terribly bad for them politically.

So, those who really want impeachment, this was their last gasp to get Mueller. A hope that he gave them some great soundbites, gin up the troops, and I don't think that they stopped to consider his ability to manage a hearing like this, or the fact that he had no interest whatsoever in putting himself in the middle of a political fray. And he definitely was careful not to do so.

CARLSON: But I mean, wouldn't -- I'm not a lawyer, but at least in the movies, rule one of cross examination is knowing what the answers are going to be. So, wouldn't they have gamed this out? I mean, they just completely destroyed their case for impeachment. They humiliated themselves. They made it crystal clear that the whole thing is a hoax. No?

STRASSEL: Oh, yes. By the way, I think the only person in Washington perhaps more happy with Mueller's appearance than Donald Trump would be Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't want to go down the impeachment road, and he made it a lot easier for her today.

You know, I mean, I just think that in general, they didn't know where else to go with this. The report did not help them out. And look at -- think about how disingenuous this was, in a way, too, Tucker. We have been hearing from the day that Mueller put out his report that all they wanted to do was talk to him so that they could ask him more questions about the underlying evidence.

There were no questions like that today. All there was, was attempt after attempt to get Mueller to agree to publicly say that Trump had committed a crime.

CARLSON: To what end? I mean, there's such buffoons. So, it is destructive. Kim Strassel, thank you.

STRASSEL: Well, it may end now --

CARLSON: Good to see you. Yes, I think it's -- I think it will end now. I think we can say that conclusively. And that's at least one piece of good news. Good to see the night.

STRASSEL: You, too.

CARLSON: At the peak of the left's Mueller mania, the Special Counsel was revered as a kind of religious figure. We're not exaggerating. People sold Robert Mueller prayer candles. The elderly worried they would die before getting a chance to read his report. Remember that story?

Celebrities even co-opted the Christmas Holiday to make it about the man they dubbed Mueller Claus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We wish you a Mueller Christmas and impeachment next year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We wish you a Mueller Christmas. We wish you a Mueller Christmas. We wish you a Mueller Christmas and impeachment next year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indictments will come to you and do your kin, indictments for Christmas and impeachment next year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now, even the most starry eyed children must admit Mueller Claus doesn't exist. Mueller Claus isn't real. Even Harvard's Laurence Tribe, the man who hates Trump so much he tried to subvert the Electoral College, the man who has destroyed his own reputation and revealed himself to be a complete buffoon for the last two years. That man, nonetheless called today's hearing a disaster. Many others reaching the same conclusion.

Chris Plante hosts the "Chris Plante Show" on radio, which you should listen to if you don't because it's fantastic, and he joins us tonight. Chris, how bad was this for the Democratic case?

CHRIS PLANTE, RADIO SHOW HOST: Oh, boy, I'm telling you, you know, honestly, halfway through the hearing, I was waiting for him to reach under the table, pull out his thermos and pour himself a bowl of soup. This was tragic. It was disastrous. It was --

I feel sorry for the man. Obviously, he wasn't up to the task.

CARLSON: I did, too.

PLANTE: And it was mean. I mean, my friend Marty suggested that Nadler should be charged with senior abuse for what we witnessed today because it was horrible. It was all just designed to be a television show.

People didn't read the book, they say, like all Americans are supposed to read 448 pages of a government report. And so they wanted to make it into a TV show or a movie. And they tried and their star fell flat on his face.

And let me say also that and you know, God bless, Mr. Mueller, but the Democrats and the committee were not up to the task either. They were ill- prepared. They didn't have what I thought were intelligent questions. I don't think they moved anything forward. Whatever it is they were trying to achieve, I don't think they achieved it.

Mr. Mueller really deflected almost every Republican question with a "That's not within my purview." The word purview was used more times today than any other single day in television history.

And he really didn't answer any questions about the important stuff. And so now, America hangs on pins and needles waiting for the next big government report.

CARLSON: He couldn't and I'm so glad that you made the point about cruelty, because that's really what it was. That's what Nadler did. I kept thinking of Mueller's girls. He has got a couple of girls watching their dad fumble around on television when he really ought to be, you know, sitting on his dock in Maine or whatever, doing something that an old man would do during the summertime and Nadler makes him do this. It's just awful actually what he did.

PLANTE: It was all just warmed over. There was nothing new. The democrats didn't have anything new.

CARLSON: Exactly.

PLANTE: It was all fake. It's all just a terrible television show. And you know what they're going to do tomorrow. They're going to -- they're going to subpoena more people. They're going to talk about more indictments. They're going to keep dragging out.

I mean, they've crazy glued themselves to this Russia collusion fantasy and they're not going to let go of it because honestly, they have nothing positive to say. They have nothing affirmative to say. They are not running --

CARLSON: Is there a constituency for this? I mean, honestly be -- you know, don't be partisan. Just be as -- you've seen all the numbers, you follow this closely as anybody. Is there a large group of voters who really want them to continue with this?

PLANTE: No. I mean, certainly the polls don't indicate that and most Democrats have moved on from this Russian collusion thing. And if they hadn't yesterday, then they certainly have by close of business today, because this is -- honestly, this is not what our government is for. This is not what our media is supposed to be doing.

This city and the axis -- the New York, Washington axis -- is really a catastrophe for the United States of America and for the Republic, for freedom loving people everywhere.

CARLSON: You're exactly right. And I hate to agree with you, but you're absolutely speaking the truth.

PLANTE: Go ahead.

CARLSON: Chris Plante, great to see you tonight.

PLANTE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: I am going to.

PLANTE: See you.

CARLSON: Thank you. The Democratic Party's top presidential candidates have been demanding impeachment for months. Did they learn anything from today's hearings? You probably know the answer to that. But you can confirm it with us, next. Also, we'll hear from the President straight ahead. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Their party is in shambles right now. They've got the squad leading their party. They are a mess. This was a devastating day for the Democrats.

The Democrats thought they could win an election like this. I think they hurt themselves very badly for 2020.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, that was the President of the United States. Obviously, he has an interest in expressing a certain point of view about the hearing today. But the truth is, most people who watched it reached the same conclusion that Donald Trump did, the one he just expressed. It was a disaster for the Democratic Party and their impeachment agenda.

As one left-wing media figure put today, "It's over." There's no impeachment after what happened today. But the people running for President may not know that. They live in a totally alternate reality. They're on the road. They're completely cut off. And by the way, they're all weird anyway. They're running for President. They're egomaniacs, by definition, they crave the adulation of strangers. They're not normal people. And they're prone to fantasy in the first place.

These are the same people who were telling you that we can keep the border open and give free healthcare to everyone in the world who wants to move here, so they're easy to convince of untrue things.

Naturally, they're still full steam ahead on impeachment. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, President Donald Trump did everything he could to obstruct justice.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You read the Mueller report, and you see quite clearly that he spells out behaviors, deceit, instructing people to lie and cover things up.

QUESTION: What are your thoughts about the fact that Mueller feels that the President is not exonerated from obstruction of justice?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, that's kind of what he wrote in his report, and he is not exonerated. Look, we know for a fact that the President did everything that he could do obstruct the Mueller investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Bernie Sanders speaking even more slowly than usual. Lisa Boothe is a senior fellow at Independent Women's Voice and a frequent guest on the show. We're proud to say. She watched the hearings today.

Lisa Boothe, I understand that the people running for President are on the road. It's hard to catch up with the news. I've been there, I get it. But they also seem unusually unwilling to readjust their perceptions to suit reality, if you know what I mean.

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: I do. But it's intentional, Tucker. And that's the key point to keep in mind. The reason they're doing this is because they're running in the Democratic primary. Those are the voters they're concerned about right now, that progressive base that wants to impeach President Trump, even if it's to the detriment to the party as a whole.

And you contrast that Tucker to what Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been doing. She doesn't want to move forward on impeachment because she wants to protect the Democratic majority in the House and she knows that that majority runs through districts that President Trump won in 2016.

And the problem for Democrats is that President Trump has two important things going for him. One, he is an incumbent; two, the economy is strong. So, they have been desperately hoping that Robert Mueller and both the reports, and his testimony today would somehow do irreparable harm to President Trump, but it simply just did not happen.

CARLSON: Yes, I understand the strategy completely. But at some point, and it's not that far off, one of these -- in fact, it's a year from now, one of these candidates is going to be the Democratic nominee and it's going to have to pivot and appeal to the whole country. This is pretty late to be pretending that they can impeach Trump, isn't it?

BOOTHE: Well, I think from us, if you're an objective observer, yes, but if you're a partisan Democrat who despises this President, you want to keep hearing what you want to keep hearing, which is "Let's impeach the President."

CARLSON: Right, that's right.

BOOTHE: "It's still possible, we can still do this." But as we both know, and what the majority of the country knows who actually watched today, is they did a lot of damage to that impeachment narrative for three key reasons.

One, Mueller was a terrible witness. Even David Axelrod admitted this saying it was very painful to watch him in a tweet. Second, Mueller himself said today that he was able to conduct and conclude his investigation, unhindered. Third, I think the substance of the investigation was really called into question, particularly even looking at the fact that Aaron Zebley was sitting next to him, a guy who represented Justin Cooper, a top Hillary Clinton aide, who both set up the server -- the private server -- and also destroyed evidence.

Also, I think what Representative Ratcliffe pointed out is the fact that President Trump was denied his presumption of innocence by Mueller and his team. So, I think for those three reasons, Mueller did a lot of damage to Democrats' impeachment narrative.

CARLSON: Boy, it sure looks that way. Thanks for that summation. Lisa Boothe, good to see you tonight.

BOOTHE: Thanks, Tucker. I always appreciate being on. Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you. In a resurfaced interview from 2018, Ilhan Omar told Al Jazeera that America ought to engage in racial profiling of white men, whom she blamed for, quote, "Most of the deaths within this country."

In the same interview, Omar said America shouldn't worry about young Muslims leaving her State of Minnesota to fight for ISIS or Al-Shabaab. The real -- I'm not making this up -- I've got a pause right here, because we're not making this up. It's hard to believe, but we're actually not, this is real.

Omar said the real concern was the rhetoric of local politicians, which apparently drove these young terrorists into terrorism. In short, Ilhan Omar is a lunatic, an embarrassing blight on American politics, but hopefully, one that will eventually pass.

Recently, the group Judicial Watch filed a formal ethics complaint against Omar. The group requested a full investigation into matters that include potential tax fraud, marriage fraud, and immigration fraud, as well as perjury. Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, and he joins us tonight. Tom, thanks for coming on. What are you hoping to find from Congresswoman Omar?

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, whether she's a crook or not. The House Ethics Committee needs to begin the process of figuring out whether the strong evidence of marriage and other criminal activity or marriage fraud and other criminal activity is accurate, in terms of she did it.

And you know, we've had Powerline blog, and you've had them on talking about their comprehensive investigation. Her left-wing hometown newspaper has basically said these allegations are out there, she hasn't disproven them, and has raised more questions than answers. And it's about time for the House Ethics process to begin to work.

Now, I say that knowing that the House Ethics Committee is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, but the American people are probably going to want the House to make sure that Ms. Omar who may have committed marriage fraud by marrying her brother, and then we know for sure that she was signing incorrect tax returns. So, the extent of the criminality needs to be explored.

And if the Houses are going to -- the House needs to do it. But the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS need to do something as well. This is -- you know, she has been protected from this scandal by the big media for a long time. And you know, we've got to lift that protection. She is not above the law, you know, and this isn't about her crazy socialism and her anti-American statements. This is about whether she just follows the basic rules that other Americans would be subject to severe scrutiny over if they were seeing to be breaking them.

CARLSON: Some scrutiny. I mean, she's credibly accused of coming here to this country under a false identity, marrying her brother. Clearly she lied about it. I'm just going to say that flatly. She lied about it. She said she was married in her faith tradition, she wasn't. She was married by a Christian Minister.

FITTON: Right.

CARLSON: And then credibly accused of committing perjury and lying about all of it. So, why isn't the administration just honest with both feet? Because people are afraid to be called racist? Is that what it's about?

FITTON: You know, I don't know, maybe the Justice Department is doing an investigation they are not telling us about.

CARLSON: I hope so.

FITTON: But go back to your first point. We're not even sure Omar is her real name.

CARLSON: Exactly.

FITTON: That's how crazy this is and you know -- and I've been doing this for 20 plus years. And this is about the most significant congressional scandal by a member that, you know, I'm aware of, you know, you have to go back to Traficant, I think back in Ohio to come up with something so far out.

But in terms of the scope of the potential criminality, this is pretty significant. And the question is that, if this doesn't go forward, it's probably going to be because Democrats are protecting her. And so you know, they tell us today at the Mueller hearing, because we know they don't believe it that no one is above the law. The question for the House Democrats is Ms. Omar above the law?

CARLSON: Right. They said that today. They said that today. But of course, that's the one thing they mean least of all.

FITTON: That's right.

CARLSON: Because they've got a whole bunch of people they believe are above the law. Tom Fitton. Appreciate it. Good to see you tonight.

FITTON: You're welcome.

CARLSON: The entire framing of Robert Mueller's investigation exposes how corrupt it was from day one. In America, innocence is supposed to be assumed, not guilt. But to Democrats in the Congress, Americans are, quote, "not fully exonerated, and therefore they're guilty."

Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin blasted Mueller for enabling this Democratic talking point. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, R-WIS.: There were a couple of statements that you made, you know, that said that this is not for me to decide. And the implication is that this is for this committee to decide.

Now, you didn't use the word impeachable conduct like Starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the word, impeachable conduct. And I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said, and that is, is that even the President is innocent until proven guilty. My time is up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, that's it. That's it right there. Congressman Sensenbrenner joins us and for raising that point. It's not a defense of any specific politician, it's a defense of the centerpiece of our justice, which is the presumption of innocence. Why is that getting lost?

SENSENBRENNER: Well, it's getting lost because Democrats want it to get lost. After sitting through this hearing today, I think it's over. The case is closed. Let's have the country move on.

We've got a whole lot of things to do -- crisis at the border, deficits, fiscal responsibility, healthcare, I can go on and on and on. But Chairman Nadler and the left-wing of the Democratic Party, you know, is absolutely zeroed in on impeachment. Good luck getting that after the performance today, both in the Judiciary Committee and in the Intelligence Committee.

CARLSON: I've got to ask you, since you were there, I mean, a lot of us. I'm not sympathetic to Mueller personally, I'll be honest, but watching him today, I felt sorry for him. Do you think Democrats knew his condition and forced him to come anyway? That's my read on it.

SENSENBRENNER: Well, I think you're going to have to ask the Democrats on that. You know, I've known Bob Mueller since my Chairmanship of that committee 15 years ago, and today, he wasn't the person he was five years ago.

Now, whether or not the Democrats knew it and, you know, trying to put a good face on, I don't know. You know, the fact is, is that, you know, I kind of felt sorry for Bob Mueller, because he evaded questions about a hundred times.

And, you know, he was their star witness. If I were sitting on a jury, you know, I wouldn't put a lot of credibility into him.

CARLSON: Unbelievable. We know you have to go vote. Congressman, thanks a lot for joining us tonight.

SENSENBRENNER: Yep. See you later.

CARLSON: See you. Will the hearing today finally end this Russia hoax once and for all, or will it continue to haunt America? Mollie Hemingway, who has been our correspondent on the story since the very first day joins us to close out this special hour. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think Robert Mueller did a horrible job, both today and with respect to the investigation. But in all fairness to Robert Mueller, he had nothing to work with. I don't think there's anybody that would say he did well. I looked at your people. They're saying it was devastating for the Democrats.

The performance was obviously not very good. He had a lot of problems. But what he showed more than anything else is that this whole thing has been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country. The Democrats had nothing. And now they have less than nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: There was a lot that was sad and frustrating about the spectacle we saw today. It also seemed like the end of something big. And so to close out our hour, we want to turn to someone who has actual mastery of the Russia story. That person certainly is not Robert Mueller as we saw today. That person is the great Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at "The Federalist," and a very frequent guest on the show on this subject. She joins us right tonight.

Mollie, you obviously watched all of this. This kind of coda to this long story. What do you make of it?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it was really interesting. We were told for years that you could not criticize the Special Counsel or Robert Mueller in any way precisely because Robert Mueller had such credibility. That's what we were told. That, yes, he had hired 13 Democrats and no Republicans to run this investigation.

Those 13 Democrats were close allies of Hillary Clinton, in some cases, donors to her or lawyers for people closely associated with her, but you couldn't criticize because Robert Mueller who was a nominal Republican, was beyond reproach.

And what we learned today was that Robert Mueller is not very familiar with the investigation that he was the figurehead of. The entire question of Russia collusion, we were told for years that Donald Trump was a traitor who colluded with Russia to steal the election -- that imploded. Then we were told, well, he got upset about being called the traitor and that might be obstruction. I don't think that case was well made today.

People keep trying to keep us from asking questions. But I think that now more than ever, people need to know, how was the Special Counsel setup? How were the people picked for it? How did they understand their job? How did the investigation of the Russia hoax begin with? And these are questions that Robert Mueller was unable and unwilling to answer today, but people will need those answers.

CARLSON: The fact that he made baseless allegations against Russia and I know, having been accused of being a hand maiden to Vladimir Putin, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but there is something kind of infuriating and really wrong about changing our foreign policy on the basis of lies. I mean, is that a concern as well?

HEMINGWAY: Well, even just the role that people being upset about foreign policy motivated quite a bit of this investigation, we learned that the Special Counsel was setup in part because bureaucrats opposed the foreign policy that voters put in place by electing Donald Trump.

CARLSON: Exactly. Exactly.

HEMINGWAY: That is such a usurpation of power that is not appropriate, such a threat to rule of law. And it is something that can't be allowed to happen again. That's not about whether you like Trump or you like his foreign policy.

CARLSON: Exactly.

HEMINGWAY: You know, whether you're -- whatever you're for, but just about whether bureaucrats get to decide our government and how we do things or whether the people get to.

CARLSON: Exactly. That's the attack on democracy hiding in plain sight. Yes, our democracy was hacked by our own bureaucrats. Mollie Hemingway, you have a gift for clarity, and I'm so glad that you display it on this show. Thank you.

HEMINGWAY: Thank you.

CARLSON: The attack on our democracy was real and it came from within. That's the lesson. We're out of time tonight. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. We will be back every night in the service of those values which will not change despite fashion or trend. Have a great evening.

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