Robert De Niro makes case for Trump's indictment in new video

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 30, 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.” Tonight, an awful lot going on for a Thursday night.

Despite the best efforts of prosecutors to hide the details, the show has obtained documents that reveal that Jussie Smollett did in fact fake his hate crime and show how prosecutors responded.

It's possible they never planned to charge him in the first place. We've got developments and details on that in just a few moments.

But first tonight, a Fox News Alert. The President has announced plans for new taxes on Mexican imports, as a response to the illegal immigration crisis. Minutes ago, the President tweeted this, quote, "On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5 percent tariff on all goods coming into our country from Mexico. Until such time as illegal immigrants coming through Mexico and into our country, stop. The tariff will gradually increase until the illegal immigration problem is remedied at which time the tariffs will be removed." Not a small thing.

In a follow up statement, the White House said the tariffs will rise by 5% every month, until there's a 25% tax on every single import from Mexico. That means every car, every computer, every piece of avocado put on toast at brunch. If this happens, it is a big story. And of course we will keep you posted on it as it develops. Likely it will.

But that's not the only thing happening in Washington tonight. Less than 48 hours ago, impeachment seemed like a remote possibility. Speaker of the House was not for it. Joe Biden, the leading presidential candidate had not been come out in favor of it.

Now, just a couple of days later, it looks almost certain. Why? Not because we've learned anything new about the President. We have not. We've not found a new trove of compromising documents. There's no blurry iPhone video in which the President swears fealty to Vladimir Putin. That information is probably not going to emerge because it doesn't exist and never has.

Despite years of investigations and many millions spent trying to find it, nobody has found any evidence that the President colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election.

It doesn't matter though, yesterday Robert Mueller delivered a statement in which he said essentially, I couldn't prove the President committed to crime. But I also couldn't prove he didn't commit a crime.

On the basis of that, suddenly Democrats appear to be united tonight, "We must impeach."


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Anybody who looks at the politics of this, it's a thorny path. But I think history is going to look back at this moment and what we choose to do, and see if we did the right thing. I think the right thing right now is to hold this President accountable for his actions.

TOM STEYER, FOUNDER, NEED TO IMPEACH CAMPAIGN: We have to get the show on the road. We have to have these investigations done on TV under the banner of an impeachment inquiry. I don't think there's any way around that.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Make everybody vote. Make everybody in the House vote, send it over to the Senate, and make them vote. Put them on the record and make them live with those votes for the rest of their lives.

RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: The impeachment is a process, not a thing. They need to move toward it strategically and they need to make sure they're bringing the American people along with them.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would suggest that he told us enough to interpret what he said as a referral for impeachment.


CARLSON: So that was a parade of Democratic politicians, mostly presidential candidates plus one fake Republican strategist. So of course they're going to be for impeachment.

The regular press is supposed to provide some context, though, and level- headed analysis of what this might mean. But that's not what we've gotten over the past two days and said it's been almost an ending stream of hyperbole and hysterics. Here's a small sample.


BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: We begin with a litany of lies from the President of the United States, just one day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller again, but this time on camera, explained he did not clear the President of a crime.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: A President who theoretically can break any law he wants going forward, so long as 34 senators decide to stick with him.

ARI MELBER, MSBNC HOST: Mueller did not say the "I" word. I don't think anyone was bracing for that today. That's not how Bob Mueller rolls.

EUGENE ROBINSON, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: He considers this an emergency. He considers this a very serious effort by Russia to interfere with our election that it happened, that it's going to happen again.


CARLSON: "A litany of lies." "An emergency." "A President who can break any law." You know what, if you're that excited, go ahead and impeach the President.

Democrats ran last year on healthcare and income inequality, things that voters appear to be interested in. How excited will voters be to see the next year and a half blown on an impeachment trial that will not succeed, waste time and money and achieve nothing? It might be interesting to find out actually.

Pelosi may be extreme, but she's not stupid. There's a reason that she's been against impeachment from day one because she knows it will hurt her own party, but her party doesn't care. So go ahead, impeach him.

Until then, let's admit another fact, Robert Mueller's speech yesterday said a lot more about him and his investigation than it did about the subject of his investigation.

In his remarks yesterday, Mueller said that it was important that quote, "The office's written work speak for itself." The written work, of course, is his report. We've had that for a month, and obviously it didn't justify impeachment. So Muller decided to speak up and tip the scales in a different direction. That was the point of yesterday's comments.

He said that he was unable to exonerate the President of criminal activity, so it's up to Congress to decide what to do. Of course, in a fair society, in all fairness societies, prosecutors never exonerate people. Prosecutors either charge people with crimes, or they leave them alone.

Prosecutors are not supposed to release embarrassing material about private citizens unless it directly relates to a criminal offense.

Like so many other people in Washington, though, Mueller and his team forgot that basic principle, and so thanks to their work, our country will be suffering through another year of pointless political theater while the real problems fester and get worse -- opioid, student loans, the border, the rise of China -- take your pick, there are so many. None of those will get fixed.

Instead, we're going to have a pointless impeachment show trial, which we're going to dutifully cover. It'll be depressing, but we'll have no choice.

Sean Davis has watched this very carefully. He cofounded "The Federalist." He joins us tonight to tell us what this reveals about the Mueller investigation. Sean, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.


CARLSON: So what did we learn about -- I don't think we learned anything new about Trump yesterday. We learned probably some new things about Mueller. What were they?

DAVIS: I think we did. It was interesting, in my view that he even held this press conference, because as he said his report spoke for itself. This report, 448-pages long, which was released almost six weeks ago, if it truly spoke for itself, he wouldn't have needed to speak for it yesterday and yet speak for it, he did.

And I thought the most curious thing that he did was, it was twofold. He came out and said; one, we charged some Russians for the stuff. But by the way, everyone, even these Russians are presumed innocent until they're found guilty of a crime.

And then he immediately pivoted to Trump and said, but by the way, this American who hasn't been charged with anything? Well, we can't say he's innocent. But we can't say he is not, not guilty.

He inverted our typical standard of the rule of law, which is innocent until proven guilty. And he did it an extreme disservice both to the rule of law, to his reputation, and to the Department of Justice in general.

CARLSON: He didn't need to do this, of course, because as he said, and you just reiterated, the report purportedly speaks for itself. Why did he do this?

DAVIS: That's the million dollar question. We know from past experience watching Mueller that he is keenly sensitive to media narratives and how media tend to cover himself and his team.

He complained to Mueller -- or to Barr -- excuse me, after he announced the principal conclusions of Mueller's report and said, "You know what, I really don't like how the media is covering this." And then, of course, that letter found its way into the media shortly thereafter.

But the question I have is, why should an independent, supposedly impartial investigator like Mueller care what the media is saying, especially if his work speaks for itself? How the media covers his work, and his report, when it's out there for all to read, really should not be relevant to him, especially since his work is done.

So I think it's obvious that he was trying to pour gasoline on the impeachment fire. He was he was displeased with how the narrative was proceeding, especially the fact that there was no collusion. And he felt he needed to go out and personally reset the narrative, which is not his job.

CARLSON: So he wanted Trump impeached because he is an angry moralizer like so many prosecutors. The Democratic Congress didn't do that, and so he came out to prod them. That's what you're saying?

DAVIS: Well, he kind of referenced that in his own comments where he said, of course, it would be unconstitutional if I were to indict the president. But you know, there's other ways that can be done. Wink, wink, nod, nod.

I thought it was a really embarrassing spectacle that he put himself through one completely inverting the typical standard of the rule of law and then acting as if his job was to somehow serve as a congressional impeachment counsel and prod them until they did what he wanted.

CARLSON: So many people have degraded themselves in the past two years. It's hard even to keep track anymore. Sean Davis, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

DAVIS: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, after Mueller's remarks yesterday, it wasn't simply the Democratic presidential field that lost its mind. Hollywood obviously did, too, led by actor Robert De Niro. He started a new public service announcement that claims the President obstructed justice. Watch this.


ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR: You may have seen me on "Saturday Night Live" as a certain Federal prosecutor -- that was acting. But now we're going to hear from some real Federal prosecutors. I have so much admiration for their intelligence and dedication to their work.

Recently, over a thousand former Federal prosecutors who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents have united to sign a statement to help Americans understand what's actually in the Mueller report. Their conclusion should trouble us all.

In the words of the Mueller report, no person is above the law.


CARLSON: "No person is above the law." But certain rich, well-known people would like an outsized role in guiding what America does next. Robert De Niro would fit into that small category. This is part of a long- term obsession De Niro has with Donald Trump. Here's another example.


DE NIRO: It's just beyond surreal what this guy has done.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You called him a mutt.

DE NIRO: He is a mutt.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You still believe he is a mutt?

DE NIRO: Every word I said then, I mean, today.

This is [bleep] idiot is the President. The guy is a [bleep] fool. Come on.

How dare he say the things he does? Of course, I want to punch him in the face.



CARLSON: This is a man who yells at his driver speaking on behalf all of us in the rich person world. Mark Steyn is an author and columnist, one of our favorite guests joins us today. So what do you -- I mean, I don't understand. And I know we've talked about this before, but why is it if you're Robert De Niro or any of these people that are the very pinnacle of American society that you're mono-maniacal about Trump? Why the obsession?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, I think it gets back to the famous line back when Nixon won, and the New Yorkers film critic wrote that she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon.


STEYN: In this case, it's even worse, that they don't know anyone who -- they all loathe Trump. They don't know anyone who voted for Trump. And therefore, because they see themselves as exemplars of ordinary everyday Americans, Trump cannot have won, which is why this whole Russian collusion thing got going.

And it's interesting to me, for example, that we're doing real damage to important aspects of our society in letting Robert De Niro make the running on this.

Robert De Niro introduces a group of about 12 prosecutors on that video representing a thousand -- Democrats and Republicans -- who say that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

Now, two things. If you thought Trump was really guilty of obstruction of justice, and you wanted to do impartial justice, why would you stick a man who is most famous for saying "F Trump" at the Tony Awards on the front of that video? Whatever that is, that's not even the pretense of impartial justice.

And secondly, just to go back to what you and Sean were talking about, with this new standard, whereby you have to be proclaimed innocent by the state, it's not enough just to be not guilty. You have to be proclaimed innocent. We have something weirder going on with these thousand prosecutors. We have a jury of prosecutors - that is complete Alice in Wonderland-ification of the balance of common law, law for a thousand years.

It's a complete nonsense, Tucker.

CARLSON: But doesn't it make it easier? I mean, you don't really have to worry about the outcome when you have the prosecutors acting as the jury. You know the verdict is going to be guilty, right? So it's not just a sort of streamlined process?

STEYN: Yes. I know, especially with dirty, rotten, stinking corrupt Federal justice to pray see what I've said on your show before. You know, this is why it's important to know the date at which Robert Mueller knew there was no collusion or conspiracy.

CARLSON: That's right.

STEYN: Because everything after that just goes to the American method of the processes, the punishment, and for Trump to be indicted for obstruction of justice for something he said six months after Robert Mueller knew there was no collusion or conspiracy would be a perversion, even by the mountain of perversions that Federal justice has heaped on traditional common law protections.

CARLSON: I would not want to be charged with a crime right now. I never thought I'd say that. I'd be worried.


CARLSON: I'd be worried.

STEYN: No, I'll drive you across the border to Canada. Get under the top in my pickup, Tucker, it's a free deal because you can't win with these guys.

CARLSON: It feels that way. Mark Steyn, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Speaking of justice gone off the rails, there is news tonight in the Jussie Smollett case. We just got our hands on a trove of documents from the Chicago Police. They tell you a lot about the case and we'll take you through them, straight ahead.


CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you. At the top of the show, we told you about President's new plan to tax Mexican imports. This is a big story. We may have given a short shrift, so we want to bring you some few more details now.

So the broad outline is, effective June 10th, the President says the United States will enact a 5 percent tariff on every single good of any kind coming across the border from Mexico into the United States until the Mexican government clamps down on illegal immigration into our country.

This is Mick Mulvaney speaking to reporters just a moment ago, he said, "It is our very firm belief that the Mexican government can and will do more to help the situation in our southern border. We are asking Mexico to do what it can because Congress will not. We fully believe Mexico can stop people coming in from our southern border. If they do that, the tariffs will not go into place."

This is not the White House saying part of a trade dispute. This is purely about immigration. Apparently, the White House spoke to Republican leaders and leaders of both parties really on Capitol Hill and says that the Republicans they spoke to are for it.

So this may be one of the most significant developments in the immigration saga in quite some time and obviously, we will continue to follow it closely.

There are also major developments, as we told you a minute ago, tonight in the Jussie Smollett case, Chicago police just released new documents that contain hundreds of pages. What do those documents reveal? Trace Gallagher has gone through them and is joining us tonight to give us a view of that -- Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, the 460-pages of documents, one of the big reveals concerns the tick-tock or the timing of when the charges against Smollett were dropped.

Remember, on March 26, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx dropped the 16 counts and Chicago Police said they were blindsided, but the documents tell a different story saying that nearly a month earlier, on February 28th, the day Smollett was indicted, quote, "Assistant State's Attorney Risa Lanier informed detectives that she felt the case would be settled with Smollett paying the City of Chicago $10,000.00 in restitution and doing community service."

And that's exactly what happened a month later when Chicago Police said this. Watch.


EDDIE JOHNSON, CHICAGO POLICE SUPERINTENDENT: We found out about it when you all did.

The prosecutors have their discretion, of course. We still have to work with the State's Attorney's Office. I'm sure we'll have some conversation after this.


GALLAGHER: Well now, Chicago Police said the settlement was supposed to include Smollett admitting guilt, but that's not what the documents say and that's clearly not what happened. We're also learning it was during a supplemental police report that Jussie Smollett remembered that his attackers yelled quote, "This is MAGA country," followed by a racial slur.

Smollett identified his attackers as being white, saying he could see through the eye holes of their ski mask. But now we know on the advice of his attorneys, Smollett refused to look at a photo lineup of potential suspects that included the Osundairo brothers, and when the brothers were arrested, Smollett admitted that he knew them, but told police they could not be the suspects because quote, "They are black as sin."

Smollett later said he assumed his attackers were white because they said "MAGA country." Police videos, by the way, in this case are coming next week. We'll have those for you -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher. Amazing. Thank you for that. Kevin Graham is President of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, and he joins us now. Mr. Graham, thank you very much for coming on. So what -- these details, do they add to your understanding of what happened with Jussie Smollett?

KEVIN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, CHICAGO FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE: Well, certainly there were some facts that came out today that I was unaware of. Certainly, I believe that when the prosecutors told the police that they thought -- that the detectives thought that that was how they believed it was going to end, I don't think they actually thought that was going to be true.

I thought they felt that was just one of the State's Attorney's opinions, but they weren't concerned enough to put it into the reports.

Now, I don't believe I've ever had a State's Attorney -- an Assistant State's Attorney tell the police to stop investigating a case, which is what occurred in this case.

CARLSON: So before we get to how that happened, because there obviously is a story here, obviously, have you ever seen a case where a prosecutor declines to prosecute with an agreement without requiring the person -- the guilty person -- to admit guilt?

GRAHAM: Never seen that. Never seen that in 35 years of police work.

CARLSON: So clearly, I mean, somebody talked to somebody and no offense, it's Chicago. So of course that happened. What do you think actually happened?

GRAHAM: You know, at this point, it's speculation. I know that files from the State's Attorney's Office, from the prosecutor's office and Kim Foxx's -- those articles are going to be coming out very soon. I think it would be very interesting to find out who she talked to, when she talked to them and what transpired, because that is coming.

Look, we've got a crime problem here in Chicago and Kim Foxx is not prosecuting the criminals. This is one case, but we have a number of cases. That's why the Police Chiefs in Cook County stood with us more than a month ago and complained about this prosecutor saying she is just not doing her job.

We need a prosecutor to prosecute. We need people to be held accountable for the crimes they commit. Otherwise, law doesn't mean anything.

CARLSON: So her response is that criticism of her is racism. How do you respond to that?

GRAHAM: You know what -- I mean, it's ridiculous. We don't care about the color of somebody's skin. We don't care about their sexual orientation. All we care about is putting criminals in jail who actually commit crimes.

And if she can't get on board with that, then maybe she needs to find another avenue in which to do her work, because clearly, prosecution is not her forte.

CARLSON: No, that's obvious. I just -- I feel sorry for you guys. You're trying to do your best in these circumstances.

GRAHAM: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Kevin Graham, thank you. We appreciate it. Well, a quick update to a story developing this hour, we've been reporting on the President's plans to tax Mexican imports at 5 percent starting on June 10th.

The acting White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney previously said apparently that the White House spoke to leadership in both parties. The White House has just corrected that statement. The press is now being informed that the White House did not speak to Democrats before announcing this plan to tax Mexican goods. So we don't know how the leaders, for example, of the Democratic caucus in the House will respond, but we'll find out soon and we will bring it to you.

Well, for as long as anyone in this country can remember, big government seemed like the threat -- the only real threat to your basic rights as an American, that's not true anymore. Woke capitalism, left wing big companies are obliterating the Bill of Rights. We'll explain how that works and why, after the break.


CARLSON: A few weeks ago, Georgia lawmakers passed what they called a Heartbeat Bill. It bans abortion after the first few weeks of pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Now you may agree with the law or you may not agree with the law, but you can't call it illegitimate. Voters in Georgia elected lawmakers who represent their values, and that's exactly how democratic systems are designed to work. That's the point.

You think the people who claim to be defending our democracy from the Russians would understand that. But of course, they don't understand it. They don't care to understand it. They believe democracy is when a tiny group of rich people imposes its values on everyone else by force.

Bob Iger is the CEO of Disney, he doesn't live anywhere near the State of Georgia. He made nearly $66 million last year, therefore, he believes he can control what happens in the State of Georgia. Watch.


BOB IGER, CEO, DISNEY: Well, I think if it becomes law, it'll be very difficult to produce there, I rather doubt we will. I think many people who work for us will not want to work there and we'll have to heed their wishes in that regard.

Right now, we're watching it very carefully. I guess there's some speculation it could be enacted sometime after the first of the year. I think it's also likely to be challenged in the courts and that could delay it. And we're being -- we're being careful and cautious about it.

But if it becomes law, I don't see how it's practical for us to continue to shoot there.


CARLSON: Got that? The company that brought you Minnie Mouse and Goofy and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" now demands that you approve of abortion or they'll punish you.

Netflix is on board with this. That company currently films a number of shows in Georgia. If the state doesn't repeal its abortion law, Netflix says it will pull out.

This is all a remarkable change in American life in a very short period of time. It wasn't that long ago that it was citizens who boycotted companies they disagreed with. Now, it's corporations who boycott citizens. What happened? It's not hard to figure out what happened.

For generations, consumers and voters held the real power in this country, but not anymore. Now corporations are in charge, and they're happy to boss you around on behalf of the activists left. They'll lie about it, of course and tell you it's all a matter of conscience.

Right? As if they had conferences. Netflix, for example, filmed its show "Marco Polo" in Malaysia. In case you haven't visited Malaysia recently, being gay is a crime there. Most of that country lives under Sharia law. Of course, abortion is also restricted in Malaysia, just as it is in Colombia, where Netflix filmed its show "Narcos." But the company didn't seem bothered by that.

Disney, by the way, just filmed its upcoming live action "Mulan" film in China, which is to say in a police state, where huge parts of the internet are banned, and people are executed for having the wrong opinions. And in some cases, abortion is mandatory.

So no, Disney and Netflix aren't really worried about anyone's rights, no matter what their flax claim. Their real concern, their only concern is power. Women with children might be tempted to put the needs of their own families before those whose shareholders. Abortion solves that problem.

Family shrink or disappear entirely. Women are free to devote their lives to the company, reliable little worker bees, corporations get to expand their labor pool, lower wages and increase profits, all while delivering pious lectures about how they're giving women opportunities. We're feminists now. It's a grotesque scam. But it's remarkably effective.

Somewhere in the late 1990s, corporate America realized this. They learned that if they did the bidding of the left on social issues, they would get a pass on everything else. They could freeze wages. They could destroy the environment. They could strangle free speech. They can eliminate privacy. In general, they could make the public life much worse. All the while they could get richer than any class of people in human history and nobody would say anything. So that's exactly what they did and they're still doing it.

Salesforce is a major tech company that sells software mostly to businesses. Today, Salesforce announced that it won't work with customers who sell semi-automatic firearms or magazines that hold what gun control groups say are too many rounds.

Last year Citigroup announced it would not allow stores that sell semi- automatic weapons to use their credit card services. That's where we are today. But it's not hard to match wonder might be like tomorrow. What if for example, America -- corporate America -- decided to punish gun owners in addition to gun sellers? You've got a firearm at home, so you could no longer buy car insurance.

Okay, you use Facebook, you can't open a checking account. You can't have a credit card. You can't stay in hotels.

Well, libertarians will tell you that's just fine. Just the free market at work. If you don't like it, open your own credit card company. But you'd have to be a moron to believe them. In fact, that would be the end of the Second Amendment, the words would remain in the Bill of Rights, but they would be entirely symbolic. Big companies would have rendered them meaningless.

It's not a right if you can't exercise it. And that's where we're heading. It's not far off. Conservatives have been trained to see government as the only real threat to human freedom. And for much of the last hundred years that may have been true. It's not true anymore.

The tyranny of woke capital is real and it is terrifying. Just because they're selling you products, doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship.

Ethan Bearman hosts "Left Coast News" in California and he joins us right. Ethan, I would think this would be the one subject in which you and I might find common cause and I'm amazed by how many on the left are more than happy to give up their principles that they've defended for generations, because some big company is making liberal noises. Does this terrify you as much as it terrifies me?

ETHAN BEARMAN, HOST, LEFT COAST NEWS: It doesn't only because we have such a track record from the right as well. I mean, we have Chick-Fil-A, we have Hobby Lobby that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

CARLSON: It doesn't bother you.

BEARMAN: No, it does a little bit because we shouldn't even be having the conversation. But it's happening on both sides, Tucker?

CARLSON: No, it's not happening on both sides.

BEARMAN: And it's not unique to the left at all.

CARLSON: Actually, it is unique to the left.

BEARMAN: It is absolutely is.

CARLSON: Maybe 50 years ago, but name a large multinational corporation in this country that's right of center.

BEARMAN: Well, I just named one, Chick-Fil-A. We have Bass Pro Shops, we have Hobby Lobby. We have --

CARLSON: Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby.

BEARMAN: Well, it used to be Papa John's Pizza.

CARLSON: For real. Okay, up against like ...

BEARMAN: You bet.

CARLSON: ... American Express, Bank of America. I mean, are you serious? Really? So I mean, okay -- but the point is --

BEARMAN: The point is these are people -- these are companies that put values out there.

CARLSON: Okay. So you're okay with a company like Disney doing business in China or Netflix doing business in Malaysia where human rights are an afterthought. In Malaysia, homosexuality is illegal. That's totally cool because they make progressive noises when they're in the United States, you're willing to overlook that. That's what you're saying?

BEARMAN: Absolutely not what I'm saying. So China and Malaysia clearly have significant problems. But what we have here, Disney has an influence in the United States. We have control over our own country.

Georgia is moving away from women having a right to control their own bodies, while simultaneously we have groups on the right who reject providing birth control. Hobby Lobby again.

So you would think if you want to cut down an abortion, we should make free birth control readily available everywhere.

CARLSON: So Hobby Lobby -- this Hobby Lobby, I've never seen that. Where is the closest Hobby Lobby to you? Have you been in a Hobby Lobby before?

BEARMAN: No, I don't usually walk into a hobby. I don't have that kind of hobby that I go to the lobby.

CARLSON: I mean, that's like absurd, actually. It's absurd. So okay, let me --

BEARMAN: Yes, I went to the Supreme Court.

CARLSON: Let me ask you a question. Do you think that a woman's first loyalty should be to the company she works for? Or to her family?

BEARMAN: I think her first loyalty should be to herself and her family. And to if she believes in God, it should be to God and her country. Companies shouldn't be the first place of loyalty, not usually, Tucker. I think it doesn't make any sense.

CARLSON: Okay, so does it make you a little bit nervous. Well, it's the position of companies that your duty ought to be to them and to shareholders, and that's why they're weighing in on the question as intimate as the question of abortion, okay? So does it make you a little bit nervous that Disney or Netflix have strong feelings about abortion? That doesn't bother you at all? Would it bother you have fan strong feelings about eugenics? I mean, they might.

BEARMAN: Yes. Well, I mean, that's a much bigger discussion of why companies have first amendment rights. I've debated this with other people as well.

CARLSON: It's not a First Amendment. I am not denying their First Amendment. They're actively in favor of abortion? Why do you think that is? Because they're so progressive? Or maybe there is another reason.

BEARMAN: Look, I don't think that they're actively in favor. I think that's misleading the position, Tucker. They're not actively in favor of abortion. They're actively in favor of women having rights over their own bodies. And most of us believe that a collection of cells at day three of conception is not a baby until the soul has entered the body and we're not even having that rationale in this conversation.

CARLSON: This is actually -- the law specifies after a heartbeat can be detected. They are arguing in favor of abortion. And I'm just wondering, have you asked yourself why? Like, what's in it for them? Companies are rational. Why do you think they're in favor of it? Have you ever asked yourself that? Or is it just enough that they sound kind of liberal?

BEARMAN: Yes, because -- no, no. Tucker, Tucker. Disney in particular has led on issues like LGBTQ inclusion for their employees. I think that's a brilliant move on their part. And again, a majority of their employees aren't in favor of abortion rights and woman to have control.

CARLSON: They're just good people. They're just good people. They just care. All right, Ethan Bearman, great to see you tonight.

BEARMAN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: After the break, we've got "Final Exam." Can you beat our professionals at remembering the strange and obscure news that happened this past week? Find out in just a moment.


CARLSON: Oh, the happiest moment of the week. It's time for "Final Exam" where the top minds of cable news gather to see who has been paying the closest attention to all the weird things that have happened over the past seven days.

This week, our defending champion is Kennedy who hosts a program called "Kennedy" on Fox Business which is excellent. Her challenger is Fox Business correspondent Susan Li, who is very smart. Who will win tonight? Not clear. We are about to find out.

Thank you both for coming on. You know the rules, but I'm going to read them for the sake of our audience, for those who have had a few drinks. Hands on buzzers, I ask the question. The first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. You must wait until I finish asking before you answer. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name.

Every correct answer is worth a single point. If you get one wrong, the cruel math of "Final Exam" subtracts a point from your total. Best of five wins. Ready?



CARLSON: Okay, I'm rooting for both you. Let's get started.

LI: Thank you.

CARLSON: Question one. This is multiple choice. So wait until you hear all the options. IHOP, the restaurant chain is playing with its name again. It now tells us the P in its name stands for which new hybrid dish? Is it A. The potato burger? B. The pancake pizza? Or C. Pasta churros. Susan.

LI: Potato burger. A.

CARLSON: Potato burger? I don't know if I believe you. Let's go to the tape. Potato burger.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Try our pan pizza instead. What's a pan pizza? I'll tell you.

Hold the sauce, hold the cheese. Give me powdered milk, please. It's pan pancizza. It's a circle in a pan and --


CARLSON: Pancake pizza.

LI: But they changed the P to a B to mean burger.

MONTGOMERY: That was last year. Yes, they're changing to --

CARLSON: I don't know. IHOP have used to be International House of Pancakes, but that -- maybe I'm revealing how old I am.

MONTGOMERY: No, they made change to the B was they made another P.

CARLSON: If it makes you feel better. I had no idea what the answer was either. Question two, another multiple choice. Ford, the automobile company is developing a delivery robot called Digit. It will bring your package to your door. Which robotic form does Digit take? Is it A. lightweight drone? B. A mini tank? Or C. A humanoid? Susan.

LI: C. Humanoid.

CARLSON: Ooh, that's so creepy.

LI: I know.

CARLSON: Is it true? Is it a humanoid? C?

LI: That looks like a humanoid, don't you think?


LI: It kind of walks like one.

MONTGOMERY: And that's how it begins. That is going to go in the family now.

LI: The Skynet controls them.

MONTGOMERY: That is the way with the carbon based life forms and then steal everything. Give it to his robot overlord.

CARLSON: Obviously, I'm rooting for an American company. But I don't think that's going to end well. Just my guest. All right, we are back to par, zero, zero. Nice job, Susan. Question three. This is not a multiple choice.

On his recent trip to Japan, the President became the first U.S. President in history to attend which kind of sporting event? Susan.

LI: Sumo wrestling.

CARLSON: Sumo wrestling. Is the answer sumo wrestling? Yes, it is.

LI: There you go. And you're not allowed to wear shoes inside the ring.

CARLSON: So our judges who are very much like Robert Mueller, they don't want to let the results speak for themselves. They want to editorialize a little bit, have said that both of you clicked in it almost exactly the same time, but Susan by milliseconds won that. I think they wanted our viewers to know that.

Question four, a video clip emerged this week of a Democratic 2020 candidate apologizing to staffers for being a quote, giant A-hole.

LI: On cue.

CARLSON: I just want to let you know this is directly from the judges. I'm merely their marionette. They are saying we're going to give the question -- first try to Susan because the question had not been completed before the other contestant who shall remain nameless, Kennedy buzzed in.

Susan, do you have an answer? Who was that? You can pass if you want and then we'll go back to Kennedy.

LI: Um, I'm going to say Buttigieg.

CARLSON: You're going to say Pete Buttigieg. Is it Pete Buttigieg?


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I love you guys more than you'll ever know. And I know I was a giant [bleep] to be around sometimes. You have never allowed my shortcomings to get in the way of running the best campaign this state has ever seen.


CARLSON: But you know, you're not the only one person who has forgotten all about Beto O'Rourke. Trust me. So don't feel bad at all.

Okay, so we're going into -- I think there's precedent for this. We're going to have to check the logbooks, but not much. Zero, zero. Sudden death. Final question. This one is multiple choice. Here we go. The British Prime Minister Theresa May resigned this week, but she was upstaged by the cat of Downing Street, an actual cat who was posing outside her residence before a staffer took the cat inside. What is the name of that feline? Is it A. Pebbles? B. Norman? Or C. Larry? Kennedy.

MONTGOMERY: I'm going to say Norman. It just sounds British.

LI: Yes.

CARLSON: You're going say Norman. It does sound -- at least since 1066. Norman name. Is it Norman?

MONTGOMERY: Just take him away. Take the cat away, give him to Julian Assange.

CARLSON: Who could use one. Well, we have a winner with a total accrued point value of zero.

LI: Yes.

CARLSON: Susan, you win.

LI: Okay, at par.

CARLSON: Nice job. You are the winner of our Erik Wemple mug. And by the way, you did a lot better on this show than he did. So I hope we will send this to you by interoffice mail up in New York City.

MONTGOMERY: I'm changing the cat's name to Norman officially. The cat is now Norman.

CARLSON: By the way, can I just say you approached this game Kennedy -- this was the fatal mistake with reason. Because of course, it will be Norman because that's an English name. Right? It's really a French name, but yes, so it's an English name now.

MONTGOMERY: Norman fell Mr. Roper, a famed Brit.

CARLSON: Exactly.

MONTGOMERY: One would think.

CARLSON: Logic has no place here on "Final Exam." Thank you both. Congratulations, Susan. You're the winner. See you next week.

LI: Thank you.

CARLSON: And we'll see you next week, we hope. Every Thursday. Tune in to see if you can beat the experts. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Well, you think a college commencement address will be about celebrating the achievements of the kids who are graduating -- the students. But count on Hillary Clinton to make it about -- I'll give you three guesses. Okay. Hillary Clinton.

She delivered the commencement address at Hunter College in New York the other day and used her platform to deliver a political rant complaining that again, big surprise, Russia stole the presidency from her. Watch.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: There may not be tanks in our streets, but make no mistake, we are witnessing an assault on the rule of law and the foundations of our democracy.

Just today before this graduation ceremony started, we heard from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who said there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election and that allegation deserves the attention of every American.


CARLSON: Spencer Brown is a spokesman on the Young America's Foundation and he joins us tonight. Spencer, there is no one who loves her enough to tell her not to do this, obviously. But put yourself in the position of the graduate --a position you've been in fairly recently. What would you make of this? You're sitting there with your parents graduating and this happens?

SPENCER BROWN, SPOKESMAN, YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION: Well, this is something we've actually tracked at Young America's Foundation for decades. It's this phenomenon of liberal speakers being invited to give this last final lesson to the graduating class that should be you know, inspirational, sending them off with good words and advice, maybe for how to build a good life.

And instead, we see in this case, once again, Hillary Clinton a liberal being invited and there's really nothing inspirational she can say, so I don't know why a school would invite her when she spent the last two and a half years basically trying to convince herself as much as anyone else why she is not currently the President.

CARLSON: So you don't think it's inspirational. So like a 22-year-old on the cusp of adulthood doesn't want to hear whining from an elderly woman about how she deserved to be President, but the Russian stole it.

BROWN: Well and whining with jokes that she's already tried and flopped down before. You know, she got up there, and the first thing she did was make a joke about Madam President, which is just old at this point.

You know, we get it you're not the President, you're upset about it. You don't need to keep pointing that out, and especially not to a room of people you're supposed to be inspiring with ideas about the future.

You know, the left doesn't have any optimistic messages to give anyone anymore. So it makes sense that she would fall back to what she's best at which is playing the victim, blaming everyone, but herself for why she is not the President.

CARLSON: Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. I mean, maybe if your college is itself a joke, the faculty is unimpressive, the courses are uninspiring and dumb and trendy, totally disconnected from actual human knowledge. Maybe it's fitting that you have a joke commencement speaker talking about herself.

BROWN: Well, what we saw is her basically hitting all the same talking points that the students would have gotten in a joke of an education over the last, you know, four or so years. She hit on everything from pushing students to get involved and pushing for gun control.

She attacked Facebook for being sexist for not taking down the doctored video of Nancy Pelosi. And of course, she put the bow on it, which is attacking the President for what she considers to be a lawless administration.

And if you watch the speech, it's hilarious because she speaks about it with this sort of moral clarity, as if she has never done anything wrong in her life. And obviously, we know that that is not the case. But she still runs around as if she's the adult in the room, trying to impart her wisdom to these students, when really her own judgment has been flawed in the past itself.

CARLSON: So I guess -- this may be unknowable, but how long does this continue? Like you're a young man, do you imagine your kids going to a college like Hunter College and having this? I mean, will this persist? Or are people going to wise up and realize the system is a joke, we shouldn't participate anymore?

BROWN: Well, you think there'd be a breaking point, you know, and students who are paying all of this money or their parents are paying all this money, and then they turn around and are unable to get a job. You'd think somehow there would be a connection there, where maybe the education system is not doing us a service.

But I don't think we've seen it yet. And I mean, this year, we did our 26th annual commencement speaker survey and it's the same thing every time. We've been on talking about, you know, our college classes that are offered, and it's just all a joke.

CARLSON: It's a joke. The bubble is about to blow up that's my prediction. Spencer, great to see you.

BROWN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Thank you. So what's happening in the skies over the United States? After decades of ignoring it, the Department of Defense and senior government officials are finally willing to ask real questions. We've uncovered a ton of information in our ongoing investigation into it.

We're going to have it for you tomorrow night exclusively on this show. Remarkable. Even if you think it's hard to shock you, you should watch this. We will be back tomorrow 8:00 p.m.

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.