Sarah Sanders on IG report: Russia collusion has been a sham from day one

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 10, 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." The president is rallying supporters in Hershey, Pennsylvania. We'll have highlights and newsworthy moments from his speech just ahead. But first tonight, at 11:59 a.m. on January 20th, 2017, Donald Trump took the oath of office and became the president of the United States. By 12:05, that same day, Democrats were calling for his impeachment. And that's barely an exaggeration, if at all. Literally, for years, the Left has been howling that Trump must be removed immediately from office, without the consent of voters. Every day. Finally, today, fewer than 11 months before the next presidential election, they explained precisely how they plan to do that as Democrats described their articles of impeachment today. Watch.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Jerry Nadler: The first article is for abuse of power. It is an impeachable offense for the president to exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit. That is exactly what President Trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election. This gives rise to this second article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress. We must be clear, no one, not even the president, is above the law.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: You got that? No one is above the law. Explain the very same people who spent all day making excuses for illegitimate government spying on American citizens. But never mind. Literally, no one is above the law. Watch.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Male Speaker: No one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States.

Female Speaker: Nobody is above the law.

Male Speaker: No one is above the law.

Nancy Pelosi: No one is above the law.

Female Speaker: No one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States.

Female Speaker: No one is above the law.

Male Speaker: No one is above the law.

Male Speaker: That no person is above the law.

Male Speaker: Nobody should be above the law.

Kamala Harris: No, they should be above the law, including the president of the United States.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, it's pretty simple. You don't need a law degree to understand it. Nobody is above the law. Nobody, except for the more than 20 million illegal aliens who left tell us have every right to be here ignoring our laws and shut up racist if we disagree. Also, the so called homeless shooting up and defecating and living full-time on our sidewalks. The law does not apply to them or to subway jumpers in New York or to Hunter Biden. But other than that, absolutely nobody is above the law. Meaning Trump. And that's why they're impeaching him. But they're not celebrating that fact. No, they're not. You might think they're excited, but they're not. Democrats want to be completely clear on this question. They're extremely troubled it has come to this. It is a sad day in Washington, a moment of poignant reflection, a moment redolent with sadness. Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff and a number of other people who've never had a single authentic impulse in their entire lives would like you to know that they feel extremely. What's the word for this solemn about what's happening? Seriously solemn.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Nancy Pelosi: Good morning, everyone, on this solemn day, I recall that the first order of business for members of Congress is this solemn act to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Jerry Nadler: That is why we must take this solemn step today.

Adam Schiff: The president's oath of office appears to mean very little to him. But the articles put forward today will give us a chance to show that we will defend the Constitution and that our oath means something to us.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, and if that wasn't entertaining enough and it was, but there was still more, because this is Washington, there's always more. Dig your hand a little deeper into the stocking. Another present. Today's was Chuck Schumer, the professional Wall Street shill who lies for a living going onto the Senate floor and accusing us this network and brace yourself here for a hot blast of irony, accusing Fox News of being dishonest for real. Watch.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Chuck Schumer: The president conjures fictions buys into baseless conspiracy theories told by known liars on Fox News or somewhere else here in the Senate certain members of the Grand Old Party are forming their own conspiracy caucus. Any crazy conspiracy whether the launched by Putin or some wild, wild-eyed, crazy conspiracy theorist who manages, of course, all the time to get on Fox News and have his story or her story repeated.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: It's just such a shame. Sigmund Freud has fallen out of favor. They're attacking him on the college campuses as a sexist. We need Sigmund Freud today because without Freud, it's hard to recognize what's going on, but here it is distilled to its essence. Write this down put it on your fridge is the best guide to politics ever. What the left accuses you of doing is precisely what they're doing themselves. They accuse you of fostering racism, pushing conspiracy theories lying [laughs] I can't finish the sentence.

Of course, those are the three main things they're doing and impeachment proves the point once more. The first article of impeachment accuses the president of, quote, abuse of power for, quote, soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine in the 2020 United States presidential election. End quote. So just so you understand. House Democrats are arguing here that there was no meddling in American politics when Ukrainian energy company hired the otherwise unemployable son of a sitting vice president at an exorbitant rate for no work. At the very moment, his father was policing, quote, anti-corruption efforts in their country. There's nothing political about that. And if you think otherwise, you believe in a conspiracy theory, a debunked conspiracy theory, a theory so debunked, in fact, that the president committed a literally impeachable offense simply by asking about it. That's right.

And you know, what else wasn't at all an abuse of power? But really the opposite of an abuse of power? When the last president, President Obama, killed a U.S. Citizen without a trial using drone strikes, not an abuse of power. Are you kidding? That's another debunked conspiracy theory. Or when he had the FBI investigated rival presidential campaign based on obviously fraudulent dossier of opposition research written by a foreigner using intel from the Russian government that was not an abuse of power. What? You're crazy what do you work for Fox News or something. You freak. And while we're on the topic, by the way, the last several presidents, Bush, Obama and yes, we're being honest, now Trump have all overseen the growth of a brand new surveillance state, one aimed at you and me, American citizens. That was not an abuse of power.

All those people have launched new wars abroad without bothering to ask Congress in violation of the Constitution, the United States, which requires them to do so explicitly, not an abuse of power. With every passing year, the presidency becomes a lot more like a monarchy, not an abuse of power. In fact, no big deal. But ask about Hunter Biden's sleazy deal with the Ukrainians. Whoa that's it, pal. We're moving you from office. Now the second article of impeachment, by the way, accuses the president of obstruction of Congress. The crime here supposedly is declined to comply with congressional subpoenas. Subpoenas, by the way, like the ones of the phone companies that got people's phone records last week you saw those, but subpoenas related to the impeachment process.

Now, if you don't live in Washington, you may not know that neither party actually takes this seriously. Both parties know it's not a reason to impeach. President Clinton resisted subpoenas consistently, constantly during his impeachment saga 21 years ago. Nobody remembers that. Nobody would care if they did remember it so we will spare you any long explanation of it, but it happened. Come on none of this is about actual high crimes and misdemeanors they're not even trying to make that case.

Why is this happening? You know why. Two reasons. First. Democrats, at least their troops on Twitter still haven't accepted the defeat of 2016. They think impeachment would nullify that shocking loss like it never happened and allow them to ignore every lesson that came with that election. The lessons that both our parties needed to learn but didn't and have no interest in learning. They can continue ignore those because Trump was impeached. He was an anomaly. Some weird orange guy showed up for a few years, but we kicked him out. We don't need to think about why voters would've supported him in the first place. But the other reason is looking to the future. Some Democrats, and they're not all dumb. That's for sure. Some of them sincerely believe that impeachment will help their case in the 2020 elections it will unify their base. It'll demoralize the opposition the Republicans. It will humiliate the president it'll improve their chances of winning the presidential election.

Are they right about that? We don't really know. But we do know that as of tonight, polling suggests maybe it's not that simple. So, for example, every three months, firehouse strategies here in Washington has been polling voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those are, of course, the three critical swing states that made Trump president in 2016. In all the previous polls this year conducted by firehouse, the president trailed Joe Biden in every one of those states. But in Firehouse's most recent poll, Trump is leading Biden and every other Democrat in all three states. Now, the economy is obviously roaring along according to some measurements anyway. That's clearly helping the president. But it does seem like at the very moment Trump is being impeached, his numbers should be going down and they're not they're going up. So, it's possible that instead of securing victory in 2020, these impeachment efforts could be leading the Democrats into a catastrophe. And why wouldn't that be the case? Because when you strip away all the analysis, here's the bottom line. Polls show consistently that for most voters, the ones who aren't on Twitter full-time. Impeaching the president is not even close to the top of their list of priorities.

They care about the things you'd expect them to care about, the things that you care about no matter what party you're registered with, health care, wages, student loan debt, which really is wrecking the country, crime, which is real and rising, the border which is open. It's not even a border anymore. And just about every other issue that's not impeachment. And that shouldn't surprise you because those issues actually affect people, even more -- brace yourselves, now, even more than internal Ukrainian politics.

So, every day the Democrats continue to focus all of their energy and all of our attention here in the media on impeachment. They're also sending a signal to voters that's pretty clear and it's we don't care what you think. And that's not a winning message over time. For more and deeper analysis of what's going on tonight and this week we're joined by Fox senior political analysis Brit Hume. Brit, thanks a lot for coming on. It -- a lot of this stuff is you're always as the man with perspective apt to point out. It's not entirely clear. We're not exactly sure what these numbers mean but it doesn't seem clear that impeachment is helping Democrats tonight.

Brit Hume: I would say that at this moment it probably is not. There's something to the perception that you just described which is that the Democrats are all about impeachment and only impeachment which helps to explain these numbers certainly help to explain why Nancy Pelosi is now prepared to allow a vote on the new NAFTA called USMCA, United States Mexico and Canada Trade Agreement, which gives them something to show for their efforts in Congress apart from this. Now that's been negotiated by the Trump administration. There have been tweaks made to it to appeal to certain interest groups in this country, many of them responsive to the Democratic Party. So, we now have the Democrats at least adding a fig leaf to the -- to what they've been doing all along which is principally to try to get rid of Donald Trump.

Tucker Carlson: It's interesting that they would support really one of Trump's signature issues, you know, his position on trade which was highly controversial not that long ago at exactly the moment they're impeaching him. That's a little bit -- I mean, the juxtaposition is a little bit strange.

Brit Hume: Yeah, the juxtaposition is striking but, you know, such things have happened in the past. I mean, these politicians have, you know, they can do more than one thing at once although at times it doesn't seem that way, Tucker, but you know, this is what you do when you're afraid you're going to be perceived as only doing one other thing. So, they're doing -- they're probably going to let this come to pass. Make no mistake about it, though, Tucker, I mean, in the short run it may be that this perception -- this is the impeachment party and little else is not helping the Democrats but in the long term impeachment is not going to help this president. Whatever effect it has on the Democrats it isn't going to help him and you only need to look to the example of Bill Clinton. Why do I say that? Well, Bill Clinton has often said -- or left office in a blaze of glory despite having been impeached but look at the issue that George W. Bush ran on against Al Gore in what was a pretty good economy. It was -- and the thing he harped on did Bush the entire campaign was restoring trust and dignity to the White House, right? There wasn't any doubt who he was talking about. It wasn't Al Gore and that proved to be as [unintelligible] as it sounds, that proved to be a winning message and that was because of -- that was the impeachment effect on that election in my judgment.

Tucker Carlson: Really quick. Do you think if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashid Tlaib and the rest of the small group of pretty radical democratic freshmen hadn't been elected in the mid-term do you think Pelosi would've elected to impeach?

Brit Hume: Well, I'm not sure that it's -- they were a symptom really more than anything else. They were a symptom of something larger, which was an absolutely outraged democratic electorate.

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Brit Hume: And the aversion to Donald Trump can't be overstated in that electorate and you saw it even, you know, on inauguration day with that massive demonstration in Washington. And with the reports that you cited that, you know, that the effort to impeach the president already begun. I don't think Pelosi, you know, made a cool calculation here that said well, this is going to work for us. I think she was stampeded.

Tucker Carlson: I think that's right.

Brit Hume: She couldn't resist this any long because I don't think she thought that it was a long-term winner for the Democrats necessarily, whatever effect it might have on Donald Trump and whatever stain it might have put on him. I think she didn't really want to do this. She wanted to do kitchen table bread and butter issues, send them over to the Senate, run on them and say look at us we're there to help you, they're not. And do it that way. But I think she got stampeded, the pressure to do something against Trump became overpowering and she had to acquiesce in it. I don't see her leading here. I see her acquiescing.

Tucker Carlson: Yep. I think historians will rate Twitter as one of the most powerful institutions in America like Brit Hume. Great to see you. Thanks so much for coming on.

Brit Hume: Thanks, Tucker. You bet.

Tucker Carlson: We showed you a minute ago how all the democratic candidates are trailing Trump in key swing states, according to those polls. But what if a new candidate got into the race at this late date? Well, a new Harris poll finds that the top choice of Democrats, believe it or not, if they had the option, which they don't, but if they did, they'd choose Hillary Clinton. Now Clinton herself of course keeps hinting that she may run. Robert Patillo is an attorney. He's predicted on this show repeatedly that she will. He joins us tonight in the wake of this new poll. So, first before the analysis to the facts of it, Democrats say at least in the Harris poll that they want Hillary Clinton to run. She's hinting that she might. It's getting late. Will she?

Robert Patillo: I still think she will. If you look at the cross tabs in the polls, the political nerds love diving into cross tabs on polls, it asks the specific question of if Hillary Clinton, Bloomberg, and John Kerry were all in this race you see Clinton leading Joe Biden 21 to 20, but the main effect that it has is eradicating the rest of the field. Elizabeth Warren goes from 15 percent to 9 percent in that poll. Pete Buttigieg goes from 10 percent down to about 3 percent given that metric. So, if you are Hillary Clinton looking at the fragmented nature of the early primary states looking at the fact that you have nothing but positive press coverage over the last year, you're on the Howard Stern show, you're on the Daily Show, you're getting nothing but positive press. There would be absolutely no reason for her not to run right now given that you're probably going to have a different winner in all the early states.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah. I mean, I don't think what you're saying is crazy at all. What I'm confused by is why the democratic leadership here in Washington isn't saying what you're saying. So, they're telling us on the one hand that impeachment is all about this question that the election was stolen from her by Vladimir Putin with the complicity of Donald Trump. She should be president. In fact, she really is. But they're not supporting her in another campaign. I don't understand. It doesn't make any sense at all to me. Why is that?

Robert Patillo: Well, Joe Biden is still the consensus pick. Joe Biden is still the centrist pick and he's still leading in every poll. Think about the fact that for the past year Joe Biden has been accused of being a racist by Kamala Harris.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I know.

Robert Patillo: About being old and senile by Julian Castro. About being anti-immigration. He's had Burisma. All these things that he still leads the democratic field by a large margin. So because of that there's no reason to hop off of that horse unless it looks like that horse is going to start losing steam and I think that's why you're seeing support for Biden to maintain tells its time as it doesn't and as we know things in policies change on the drop of a dime.

Tucker Carlson: But I mean, you know as well as I do the real answer, the reason that leading Democrats didn't call for Hillary to get in last year is that they don't like her and they think she's a loser and they don't want to say that in public but that's what they really think.

Robert Patillo: Well, I don't think you can call her a loser. She won the last general --

Tucker Carlson: No, I'm not calling her that. I'm saying that's what Democrats think of her.

Robert Patillo: She won by three million votes. She won by three million votes, but I do think there's -- nobody wants to have another situation where you can keep running these same candidates year after year. You want to give an opportunity to vet the 25 candidates who are running. You want to give people the opportunity to bubble to the top but as you see those candidates kind of flare out like a roman candle. Well, now it's getting to the point of needing to have to solidify around a legitimate candidate because history tells us a one-term president -- a first-term president with a booming economy is difficult to beat. So, that is why you're seeing more call for new people to hop in. We saw Deval Patrick get in.

Tucker Carlson: It's just -- we're out of time. I just have to ask you –

Robert Patillo: Tom Steyer, Bloomberg.

Tucker Carlson: --- really quick. Do you see the absurdity in getting all the way back to Hillary Clinton? Like 450 people running for president, all of them turn out to be inadequate and now we're back to Hillary? Does that make you laugh a little bit inside? Or no?

Robert Patillo: Look. We are -- we as a people we like comfort. We like the things that we know. That's a brand that we're comfortable with. Just like we go -- it's like when you go on vacation in China you eat McDonald's. You eat what's familiar to you.

Tucker Carlson: Uh-huh. [laughs] Hillary is Chinese McDonald's. I like that. It's my kind of metaphor. Robert, great to you see you tonight. Thank you.

Robert Patillo: Thanks, Tucker.

Tucker Carlson: I'll have the filet-o-fish. Well, the Russia hoax was so clearly a hoax from day one but the media appeared to believe it, mostly because they're dumb and they repeated it for three years. What was it like dealing with people who sincerely believe that the president of the United States was working for Vladimir Putin? Former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders joins us after the break to tell us. Plus, we're monitoring the president's rally in Pennsylvania. We'll have the highlights just ahead.

President Trump: Innocent Americans in all 50 states are being brutalized and murdered by illegal alien criminals. Last summer at least 19 illegal aliens --

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: Well, as the IG report yesterday confirmed beyond doubt, what we said on this show was true. At the heart of the Russia hoax was the Steele dossier. And the Steele dossier was from day one completely absurd. The only news outlet that ran it, remember, was Buzzfeed, a cat blog. It never should have seen the light of day. But once it did, half the country believed it. Hence the hoax went on for three long years. That's the truth, by the way. That's not partisan spin. That's what actually happened. Today, the Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr, blamed the press for abdicating its duty to the country in order to hype a fake story. Watch this.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

William Barr: I think our nation was turned on its head for three years. I think based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by an irresponsible press.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Yeah. I mean, that's true. And by the way, they're going to tell you it's not true and, "Bill Barr, he's in the pocket of the president. He's just a puppet. He's a marionette." Okay. Whatever. We have the tape. This is just a tiny piece of the CNN archives. Just a taste, but it'll remind you.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Male Speaker: Potentially big new questions in the Russia investigation and the corresponding lack of answers from the White House.

Male Speaker: And any kind of collusion with the Russians --

Male Speaker: And then there's the Russia investigation --

Male Speaker: We know the Russians were involved and interfering with the election.

Male Speaker: How do you explain the Manafort allegations as anything but collusion?

Male Speaker: And it's on the question of collusion, possible collusion with Russia.

Male Speaker: Fact. It's Russia.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: [laughs] Don Lemon. Sarah Sanders spent two years as the press secretary over at the White House. Every day, she had to talk about Russia. What was that like? She joins us tonight. Sarah, nice to see you back in Washington.

Sarah Sanders: It's good to see you. Yeah, it's good to be back.

Tucker Carlson: So, every day, you had to -- and I can't even remember who the name of the White House correspondent -- the dumb guy over at CNN. I shouldn't even say that.

Sarah Sanders: Oh, there were so many.

Tucker Carlson: No, but there's one in -- Jim Acosta.

Sarah Sanders: Yes.

Tucker Carlson: So, every day, you had to sit there and -- and it wasn't just that they disagreed with Trump's policies, which I think is totally legitimate. You're allowed to disagree with policies.

Sarah Sanders: Fair.

Tucker Carlson: But the implication is he was literally working for Putin. How did you -- what was that like?

Sarah Sanders: I mean, so many times, they were so out of control and absurd in the accusations that they were making against the president. They were literally accusing him of being a traitor to his own country. I mean, it was mind-boggling at times to listen to the repeated outrageous allegations against the president. But the good thing was we knew the truth. And finally, I think we're seeing all of that come out over the last several weeks and months. I think what we saw this week is further indication that this whole thing has been a complete and utter sham from the beginning.

Tucker Carlson: What I find so fascinating, almost mesmerizing about this story, is that it was never a close call.

Sarah Sanders: [laughs]

Tucker Carlson: We could debate the president's trade policy, or whatever, or any other policy. But the question of whether or not he colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton was so crazy from day one that I always wondered, do they really believe it? Do you think the reporters really believed it that he did?

Sarah Sanders: I think some did. I think they had convinced themselves that it was real because they had to validate why they had been so wrong. I think part of the kind of media class was so taken by surprise that Donald Trump became president --

Tucker Carlson: Yeah.

Sarah Sanders: -- that they had no other explanation other than there must have been some sort of scandal around it.

Tucker Carlson: That's right.

Sarah Sanders: And they couldn't admit the fact that they were just completely and totally wrong. And the sad thing is you would think that they would learn something from that, they would learn something over the last two and a half years, but they haven't. Instead, they're doubling down and they're getting it wrong again. Every single time they try to nail this president on something, whether it's the sham Russia hoax, or now it's the sham Ukraine scandal, they lose. Whether it was the economy, they said the economy would completely collapse. And it is absolutely booming. They said the president couldn't get good trade deals, he couldn't defeat ISIS, he couldn't rebuild the military. Literally every single thing they say he can't do, not only does he do it, but he does it better than even I think some people in the administration expected to happen.

Tucker Carlson: So, on the question of collusion with Putin -- Putin --

Sarah Sanders: [laughs]

Tucker Carlson: Did anyone ever apologize to you? Did anyone off camera, off the record say, you know, "It's pretty clear that he wasn't actually working for Putin, and I'm sorry I suggested otherwise?"

Sarah Sanders: No. Not only did they not apologize for that, but any of the other outrageous claims that they made against the president or his staff. I've never seen an administration attacked so heavily and sometimes so personally as this --

Tucker Carlson: You were attacked in --

Sarah Sanders: -- administration has been.

Tucker Carlson: -- public repeatedly. And you were attacked because people like Jim Acosta were making claims totally unsupported by fact that were wild treason --

Sarah Sanders: Yeah.

Tucker Carlson: -- as you just pointed out. Did any of them ever say, "Gosh, I'm really sorry what happened to your family?"

Sarah Sanders: You know, there were certainly moments, particularly after the White House Correspondents Dinner --

Tucker Carlson: Right.

Sarah Sanders: -- other moments where journalists, even some of the very far left came and said that they were sorry for what had happened.

Tucker Carlson: Good.

Sarah Sanders: But it didn't take away from the fact that they continued to push a completely false narrative against the president. And for that, I don't think -- I don't need the apology, but the American people do.

Tucker Carlson: I agree.

Sarah Sanders: They've wasted so much time and so much energy. Just think how much more the president could have gotten done if they hadn't been slamming every single moment this Russia scandal, down America's throat.

Tucker Carlson: That's absurd. And it's going to have consequences. I don't see how Jeff Zucker keeps his job at CNN after abetting --

Sarah Sanders: He shouldn't.

Tucker Carlson: No, Jeff Zucker should be fired -- he should have been fired a long time ago.

Sarah Sanders: But not just because of that. His ratings, just on performance and everything is terrible.

Tucker Carlson: I agree completely. I agree completely.

Sarah Sanders: Yeah.

Tucker Carlson: And the fact that Jeff Zucker runs CNN, the fact that the governor of New York's brother went to Yale, I mean, all of these are signs that this is not a meritocracy we're living in obviously.

Sarah Sanders: [laughs]

Tucker Carlson: Anyway, it's great to see you tonight.

Sarah Sanders: Good to see you too.

Tucker Carlson: Thank you, Sarah Sanders. Well, yesterday's IG report provided even more information about what actually happened, and confirmation of a fact that's been pretty obvious for a while. Former Obama CIA chief John Brennan is a liar. Not only that, he lied to Congress in the spring of 2017. Brennan told the House Intel Committee that the Steele dossier played no role in the creation of intelligence community assessment on Russian interference that was presented to both President Obama and President elect Trump. Now Brennan was not vague about this he said unequivocally on camera the dossier was totally irrelevant. That was a complete lie. The IG report proves that a lie. The Steele dossier, in fact, was a major element of the intelligence assessment, and Brennan in particular found it very important. In other words, John Brennan, not a close call here, perjured himself on camera in front of the world. But here's the striking thing. John Brennan is not facing perjury charges. In fact, he's still tweeting self-righteously and making smug appearances on CNN, which I think check my memory for a second, pays him as a contributor. Meanwhile, former Trump adviser Roger Stone is looking to spend the rest of his life behind bars. His crime lying about emails that were totally irrelevant to anything, literally irrelevant. So what sets John Brennan, former CIA director apart from Roger Stone, professional prankster. Really. It's obvious one supports the establishment in Washington and the other made fun of it. Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch and he joins us tonight. Tom, thanks so much for coming on.

Tom Fitton: You're welcome.

Tucker Carlson: I have never root for anybody's imprisonment or indictment. I really don't. It's bad karma, but I just can't get past the fact that John Brennan, the head of the CIA, lied right on camera, committed perjury, right on camera. And now he's not being punished. CNN hired him. Like how does that work?

Tom Fitton: Well, it's actually a reconfirmation that he wasn't telling the truth about the assessment, because there's been other information even prior to the IG report that the shady dossier was used in the intelligence assessment, which obviously goes to the fact that the intelligence assessment put out there by all the intelligence agencies isn't worth the paper it's written on because it's based on fraudulent information.

Tucker Carlson: But shouldn't the last, people who lie to us be the people in charge of our most sacred and closely guarded information that the intel agencies like, they can't lie like that.

Tom Fitton: Comey was referred for criminal prosecution for his taking of the FBI files of Donald Trump lying to investigators. No prosecution. McKay referred to for prosecution. In April of 2018 DOJ still did the ring on it, did several referrals to some of these deep state folks like Simpson and others for perjury, potentially. You've got Brennan. DOJ hasn't done anything yet. And I'm just concerned that we're just going to have another report from Mr. Durham in the end, as opposed to prosecutions or even let's at least do a criminal investigation let's have a real investigation with grand juries and people going on.

Tucker Carlson: How can you commit perjury on TV? It makes everyone cynical. Tom Fitton, who remains uncynical despite 20 years here. Thank you.

Tom Fitton: You're welcome thank you.

Tucker Carlson: 30. Okay. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to crack down on, meat and seize control of the economy because she says she cares about the environment. So, we check the environment in her congressional district, and we've got pictures to show you what that looks like. Don't miss it. Plus, we're monitoring presidents rally in Pennsylvania. Bring you the highlights just ahead.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Donald Trump: And some had eight years. One had more than eight years, more regulation and we have regulation and you need some regulation.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made herself the ideological leader of Democrats in the House of Representatives so one of her top priorities she will tell you again and again is the environment. She really cares about the environment, and that's why she wants to crack down on airplane travel and cars and eating too much meat. The environment. How many bird species could she name? Does she know a deciduous from a conifer? Of course not. In fact, she seems much less worried about actual environmental issues. The ones that are relevant to real people to find out just how little she cares we sent a camera to Ocasio-Cortez's congressional district and found that you won't be surprised to hear it is filled with garbage. Litter and trash piled in public parks on the sidewalks that have been overtaken by the homeless, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. How can someone who claims to care about the environment so much she's going to ban air travel, represent a district this dirty? That's a question we're posing tonight to Seth Barron. He's an editor at City Journal and he joins us tonight. So, Seth, what kind of a source of irony on the show. If you claim to care about the environment, you think that the little piece of America you're responsible for. You represent the Congress would be clean, but hers isn't. Why?

Seth Barron: Well, part of the reason is because her district is actually one of the least American districts in the country. And by that, I don't mean that it's not part of America, but it's occupied by relatively few American citizens. A very high percentage of her district is, in fact, illegal aliens. Now, the way they inhabit housing there is such that they live in a lot of illegal spaces like basements and many people live there. So, they wind up producing a lot of garbage that the landlords don't want thrown out normally. So hence you wind up with a lot of garbage on the streets. You have illegal food vendors pouring their pig grease into the gutters. Yeah, I mean, I worked out there. It's -- it can be a little gross.

Tucker Carlson: So, leaving -- I mean, leaving aside the question of the immigration status of the people there and I -- Seth Barron: Yeah.

Tucker Carlson: And as you well know I think it's a really important question, but it's not that hard to pick up garbage off the street of your own congressional district. How can we take seriously anything she says about the environment when this is her congressional -- she should be ashamed of this.

Seth Barron: Well, you know, even worse I would say than the garbage is the fact that her district in Queens, specifically there, is the epicenter of sex trafficking and fraudulent document sales, basically to, you know, facilitate identity theft. This is acknowledged by advocates and by law enforcement. Roosevelt Avenue is a notorious corridor for sex trafficking and, you know, these are things that presumably --

Tucker Carlson: Wait. In the middle of her district? Her congressional district?

Seth Barron: Yes, absolutely.

Tucker Carlson: I never hear her mention that. I mean, and she's all over social media all the time but she doesn't have time, it doesn't sound like to address the concerns of her actual constituents.

Seth Barron: Her constituents are in a lather about the sex trafficking but you know what? Her solution is to decriminalize prostitution and not arrest johns and not arrest pimps because that would take away the source of livelihood for the -- you know, for the immigrants.

Tucker Carlson: Right. You can't be against sex trafficking and for legalizing sex trafficking at the same time.

Seth Barron: That's right.

Tucker Carlson: That's a good point.

Seth Barron: That's right.

Tucker Carlson: Seth Barron, thank you for that reality check.

Seth Barron: Thanks, Tucker. Sure.

Tucker Carlson: Well, addiction is one of the central facts of American life all of the sudden from Fentanyl to Facebook Americans are addicted to more and more things. So, why does Congress want to make the problem worse not simply by legalizing marijuana but by subsidizing marijuana sales for real? That's next. Plus, the president just wrapped up his rally in Pennsylvania. We'll have the highlights for you just ahead.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: Whether it's pain killers or alcohol or antidepressants or social media or pornography, addiction is a central fact of American life all of the sudden. Something's wrong. The last thing I think we can agree on this country needs are more things to get hooked on but recently the House Judiciary Committee gave bipartisan backing to something called the More Act, which would spend taxpayer funds to subsidize marijuana stores, believe it or not. Brian Brenberg is an associate professor of business and economics at King's College and we recently talked to him about this.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: I'll leave the kind of metaphysical questions to our audience to decide why would Congress do this if they cared about the country, but let me just ask you a more discrete question. Is this a good idea economically? Is there evidence this is going to make this a stronger country economically?

Brian Brenberg: Well, it would only make the country stronger economically if this was good for businesses, if this was good for the people in this country, but the fact is we're talking about subsidizing businesses that many people in this country are fundamentally opposed to, not only because they have moral qualms with it but in many cases because they have family or friends or themselves who have struggled with drug addiction and now they're saying wait a second. You're talking about using my taxpayer money to subsidize businesses that are doing a thing that has caused wreckage in my life or caused wreckage in the lives of people around me? So economically the question is this good for American, and I think many Americans, too many to subsidize these businesses would say no. This is not good. I don't want my tax money spent in this way.

Tucker Carlson: So, there's a -- if you go beneath the official numbers in Washington, the unemployment numbers, for example, which really are cooked, I would say, one of the things you learn is there are an awful lot of Americans, men in particular, who are out of the workforce for whatever reason, I think there are eight million or so on disability. The answer Congress seems to have come up with to put them back to work is deal weed? Is --

Brian Brenberg: Yeah.

Tucker Carlson: That's kind of -- that's the solution?

Brian Brenberg: Well, the priorities are so crazy here. I mean, of all the things we could be funding with our tax dollars, of all the places we could be putting our money we're going to put it with businesses that fundamentally run on addiction. I mean, it's just crazy and you're right, Tucker, I mean, if you look at our unemployment rate, yes it's low but it does mask the fact that you have many, many, many classes of people, especially men in that 25 to 54 range who are out of the labor force. What's the best thing we can do to help them? Is it to subsidize a Cannabis business? I would say absolutely not but folks in Washington who are insulated from these issues who are not living in parts of the country where you have these kinds of problems, they're sitting in D.C. saying oh this is a great idea. We can handle this. Let's spend money to subsidize these businesses. Average Americans are saying whoa, whoa, whoa. Do you understand our reality and how is this going to deal with the reality that we actually face?

Tucker Carlson: Who's going to fight our next war, by the way? I mean, if -- honestly, I mean, and I hope there isn't ever another war, truly I hope that, I detest war, but history suggests, you know, that there's going to be more wars because that's the way people are. Who's going to fight it if we're put -- do you know what I mean? We're encouraging our young men to smoke more weed and play video games? Seriously?

Brian Brenberg: Yeah, I mean, it gets back to this question of priorities. Look. There's -- I think the federal government should be out of the business of subsidizing businesses and it's especially the case in situations like this because what always ends up happening is it gets politicized. It's not about what can help the average 25- to 54-year-old man. That's not the question at all. The question is what are my political priorities that somebody sitting in Washington, D.C. listening to the elites around me who all think the same way about issues like this and are not in touch with the average man or the average woman of the United States. And for those folks, they think things like this are a progressive dream.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah.

Male Speaker: But the average American says, "Look, I'm having a hard time getting a job. I'm trying to build a life. I'm trying to invest in my community. And you're telling me the best way we can do that is to subsidize cannabis?"

Tucker Carlson: Yeah.

Male Speaker: Come on.

Tucker Carlson: Well, I guess anything that makes the population docile and bovine and dull, passive, they're in favor of. Because the alternative is people waking up and realizing they've been completely screwed by a small group of dumb people who've gotten incredibly rich at the same time.

Male Speaker: It is one of the most condescending policies --

Tucker Carlson: Yeah.

Male Speaker: -- I have seen and it's a shame.

Tucker Carlson: It's unbelievable. Brian, thanks so much for --

Male Speaker: You got it.

Tucker Carlson: -- joining us tonight. Good to see you. They want you passive. Don't be passive. President Trump, meanwhile, wrapped up his rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania a few moments ago. We've got the highlights from what he said next.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: And now as promised, highlights from the president's rally in Pennsylvania tonight.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Donald Trump: The radical left Democrats and the failed Washington establishment are trying to erase your votes, nullify the election and overthrow our democracy. Not going to happen, don't worry about it. I wouldn't lose too much sleep. But the impeachment hoax is about overturning your great 2016 vote or, in the alternative, trying to win the 2020 election. That's not going to happen. You saw their so-called articles of impeachment today. People are saying they're not even a crime. What happened? All of these horrible things. Remember? Bribery, and this, and that. It got -- where are they? They sent these two things. They're not even a crime. This is the lightest, weakest impeachment. You know, our country's had, actually, many impeachments. You call judges and lots of -- many impeachments. But it was on today. Everybody said, "This is impeachment light." Far-left politicians support deadly sanctuary cities, demonstrating their sneering contempt, scorn, and disdain for everyday Americans. These jurisdictions deliberately release dangerous, violent criminal aliens out of their jails and directly onto your streets, where they are free to offend, where they are free to kill, where they are free to rape, where they are free to beat up people except for ICE, because ICE is much tougher than them. They don't beat up ICE. They don't beat up ICE. You're lucky we have ICE. They want to put ICE out of business. That's not happening. Here are the facts that "Shifty" Schiff -- is that guy the worst? He comes up to a microphone -- no, he comes up to a microphone, like, two and a half years ago. "I have absolute proof that the president of the United States conspired with Russia." Russia? What the hell do I have to do with Russia? By the way, Russia wishes that Hillary Clinton won. They wish. We are now number one in the world in energy. Russia's number three.

[cheering]

We're beating now Russia and Saudi Arabia. You'd have windmills all over the place if you had crooked Hillary. They'd be knocking out those birds left and right. Those windmills, wow, wow, wow. "Darling, I want to watch television tonight, and there's no damn wind. What do I do? I want to watch the election results. Darling, there's no wind. The damn wind just isn't blowing like it used to because of global warming, I think. I think it's global warming."

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: The president in Pennsylvania tonight. We're back tomorrow at 8:00, the show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Sean Hannity, right now.

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