This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 1, 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.” There is often disagreement in Washington. But if there's one thing that everyone who lives in the city knows for certain, it is that investigations of government officials are always a good thing. Yes, they can be expensive. They can run to tens of millions of dollars per. Of course they do paralyze the government making it impossible to fix our most pressing problems.

And then if we're being honest about it, we will also concede that investigations tend to destroy the lives of completely innocent people.

But in the end, as anyone in Washington can and will tell you, all of that is well worth it. Investigations are a search for facts. Anyone who stands in their way, obstructs the truth itself.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why we spent more than two full years looking into the question of whether or not Donald Trump worked secretly as an agent of Vladimir Putin.

There was never any evidence that he did that, but Hillary Clinton's campaign donors demanded a thorough investigation of it anyway. And so as you well know, we got that investigation.

In the end, the investigation in effect cleared Donald Trump of claims he colluded with Russia. But it also did something else. It inadvertently implicated quite a few other people for unrelated crimes.

We learned, for example, that quite a few senior law enforcement and Intelligence officials think nothing of lying to the public -- really lying to the public -- or of abusing their tremendous powers for partisan political ends. They did that, we now know that.

We also learned that the Obama administration was perfectly willing to spy on his political opponents in the middle of a presidential campaign. It did that, too.

Now, these are not small revelations, nothing like them has happened in recent American history. So it would seem wise to get the bottom of exactly what happened, who did it and why.

And as it turns out, for the past seven months, the Attorney General William Barr has been trying to do just that. He has opened an investigation.

Now, you would think, given everything you know about Washington, and its love of investigations that everyone in official D.C. would be thrilled by this, but you would be wrong. Because here's the thing. They are not happy in the slightest, they are outraged, in fact.

Former acting F.B.I. Director Andy McCabe went on CNN today to complain about Barr's investigation. As it turns out, McCabe is one of the people the Attorney General will be investigating.

Andy McCabe thinks that's completely outrageous.


ANDY MCCABE, FORMER F.B.I. DEPUTY DIRECTOR: There are two primary questions that I think you have to ask here. The first is why is he doing this at all? The circumstances behind the opening of the Russia case are not a mystery.

I have testified under oath about them as early as December of 2017. Jim Comey has made comments about them publicly. I have -- we've both written books that touched on the issues. So it's -- the circumstances behind the case are widely known. They were entirely validated by the Special Counsel investigation.


CARLSON: Got that? Jim Comey and I already wrote bestselling books explaining our side of things. So what is there to investigate? McCabe seemed completely serious as he said this. How dare the Justice Department not accept my word at face value, despite the fact I was fired for lying?

You'd have to be lacking a certain -- what's the term here -- self- awareness to make a case like that on television, but McCabe was happy to.

And by the way, the CNN anchor seemed to agree with him wholeheartedly. It's certainly a common view in Washington.

A story in this morning's "Washington Post" for example, quotes unnamed Federal bureaucrats grousing that they might be subject to the same oversight the rest of us could expect if we ever stepped out of line.

Here's a direct quote, "Current and former Intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in reexamining what they view is conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct."

Got that? The allegations against me are baseless. I'm claiming from behind the cloak of anonymity. How dare you investigate us? Didn't you hear what I said? It's baseless. Call off your investigation. I already wrote the book. I already denied it.

Now, this is the part in the story when honest journalists might step forward -- by the way of all political backgrounds -- and remind us that that's a pretty ludicrous response, actually, and that nobody is above the reach of a Federal investigation.

But no, the kind of journalist who would make that point seems to have retired or at least no longer works at NBC News. Instead, we get hacks like this siding with the nameless unaccountable bureaucrats against the rest of us.


KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS INTEL AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The top law enforcement official in the United States, Stephanie is spending his time amid all the great concerns that must be on his plate pursuing what many people believe is essentially a conspiracy theory about the origins of the Russia investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It appears that it is just the Attorney General operating outside the normal D.O.J. channels to kind of, you know, roam around the world, roam around the Intelligence Community looking for ways to smear the people the President sees as his political opponents, the Intelligence Community and the F.B.I.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: William Barr could be as deeply implicated in what Nancy Pelosi has called the Trump cover-up as Richard Nixon's Attorney General was in the Nixon cover-up.

Tonight, the Attorney General of the United States once again, needs his own personally paid for criminal defense lawyer who might soon become the only person William Barr can safely talk to in Washington.


CARLSON: Yes, whatever that means. Let's translate for you just to make it totally clear. Powerful people are telling you that they should not be subjected to oversight. We should not be investigated say powerful people. The people whose job it is to watch over the powerful people and hold them to account, they agree.

No oversight required. Ever feel like nobody's on your side? Maybe it's because nobody is.

Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herridge joins us with more on the latest on the Attorney General William Barr's investigation into what just happened. Catherine, great to see you.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, good evening. The investigation into the genesis of the 2016 F.B.I. Russia collusion probe is global with confirmation tonight from a senior Justice Department official that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham were in Italy last week as part of the case.

A source close to the process tells Fox News that earlier this year, Barr got the runaround from senior Intelligence officials about the Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud and whether he had connections to U.S., Italian or other foreign intelligence service.

The Special Counsel report describes Mifsud as quote, "A London based Professor with connections to Russia, who told campaign a George Papadopoulos that Moscow had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of e-mails." Those claims let the collusion flame with the F.B.I. later opening the counterintelligence case.

In May after this Special Counsel report and before the July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian leader, President Trump told reporters he wanted Barr to cast a wide net.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The Attorney General is one of the most respected people in this country. I hope he looks at Australia. And I hope he looks at Ukraine. I hope he looks at everything, because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country.


HERRIDGE: There is a second investigation by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz into the surveillance warrant and renewals targeting the Trump campaign, but the scope of that investigation is narrow and Horowitz cannot compel some testimony.

A source close to the process tonight suggested to Fox News, the report could finally come later this month -- Tucker.

CARLSON: That'll be interesting.

HERRIDGE: It will be.

CARLSON: Catherine Herridge, thank you so much for that. Well, Hunter Biden somehow got a corporate Board seat in a Ukrainian energy company. Why? Well, it seems obvious, the purpose would be influencing his father, who was Vice President at the time and whose portfolio included Ukraine.

Now Joe Biden, to the extent he has been asked about it -- not very often, presses deeply and curious -- but he certainly has been, and he says, well, it wasn't a corrupt arrangement, because he never spoke to Hunter Biden about the arrangement.

And yet, as we reported last night on this show, there is photographic evidence of Biden on a golf outing with both his son Hunter and a man called Devon Archer, who was another member of the Burisma Board.

What does this add up to? Doug Macgregor has deep knowledge of Ukraine. He is a former U.S. Army Colonel and author of the book, Margin of Victory." He joins us tonight. So, Doug, thanks so much for coming on. So you're familiar with the region and you're familiar with Washington.


CARLSON: What do you think was going on here?

MACGREGOR: Well, I think we know now and in fact, for your information, "Novaya Gazeta" in Moscow has now just recently published an article backed up by documents that go into far greater detail than we can hear, but the bottom line is that the oligarch who is responsible for appointing Mr. Biden to the Board and his friend, Archer, Devon --

It seems that he was banned from traveling to the United States. And then magically after the appointment to the Board occurred, suddenly the ban on this man's travel to the United States was lifted, and his suspected criminal activities and shady business practices were suddenly ignored.

So if you're looking for quid pro quo, it's pretty hard to argue that there wasn't a quid pro quo, at least on that level.

CARLSON: That is -- that is absolutely remarkable and checkable by the way.

MACGREGOR: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And to this, you've got to add a whole range of other things, billions of dollars over many years in Ukraine disappearing into private banks. One owned by this particular oligarch, and $5 billion, $4 billion -- we're not really sure that may have been lost of that, at $3 billion or $4 billion came out of the I.M.F. that was supposed to jumpstart the Ukrainian economy.

So the whole problem with corruption in Ukraine is pervasive.

CARLSON: Ukraine is not a rich country.

MACGREGOR: Oh, no, not at all. It's terribly poor. It's probably the poorest country in Europe at this point. It's certainly below Russia in terms of per capita GNP, which Russia is at 68. Ukraine is far below that. Things are not getting better.

But the best barometer of what's wrong in Ukraine is the youth. They've suffered an enormous exodus of human capital out of the country. Millions have left, and these are the people with the education, with the ability to leave and get jobs.

There are an estimated two million in Poland, and they recently polled the 1.5 million that are legal, at least in small numbers, and the top reason for leaving is corruption in Ukraine. And a third of them have said they'll never go home because they think corruption is hopeless, it can't be eradicated.

CARLSON: So politically connected Americans who are getting rich from their connections in Ukraine are really exploiting the poorest nation in Europe and its people for money.

MACGREGOR: This is where the swamp has consequences overseas, as well as here at home. Somebody like Hunter Biden is literally stealing from the Ukrainian people. That's what's really tragic about this, and it doesn't stop with him.

We could spend a lot of time talking about many politicians who have been involved in one way or another. But a good example is this recent military aid package. We're providing $400 million in aid.

It sounds like a great idea, unless you're a Ukrainian in the military and you look at this, and you see that most of the equipment that you're supposed to buy is coming from the United States, and much of it is not what you need. Much of it is not terribly useful to you, you would rather buy other things, things based on your experience, things that you can use immediately.

So who is getting -- who is benefiting from this $400 million aid package? We've got to go to the Senate. Look at the senators who sponsored it, the people in the House who sponsored it, look at the U.S. defense industries.

So it's kind of a recycling of American money, but it's not necessarily going to profoundly benefit the Ukrainian military establishment.

CARLSON: That is -- the deeper you dig, the sleazier everything that happens in the city becomes. Put that picture on the screen one more time.

We heard this last night, we asked the Biden campaign for comment on it, and of course, they haven't responded at all. Doug Macgregor, thank you for that perspective. Fascinating.


CARLSON: And tantalizing, too. Well, between the Biden's and the President -- President Trump -- Ukraine drama has the potential to be devastating for both parties in Washington.

What's likely to happen? Brit Hume is Fox's Senior Political Analyst and he joins us tonight. Brit, thanks so much for coming on.

So, this is one of those moments where it would be good to remind us what exactly the President stands accused of doing.

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: He stands accused of using American aid as a lever to get the Ukrainian government to investigate the Biden's for the purpose, it is alleged, of helping Trump's campaign. That's basically what the accusation is.

CARLSON: Is that a credible claim?

HUME: Well, it is not clear from the evidence presented so far that that is what he is doing. Now, if you are suspicious of Mr. Trump and think he's a bad guy, and you read the record of that phone call, you might infer that, but you also might very well not infer that because it's not at all explicit that that's what he's doing.

Because when the subject of the -- you know, when the issue comes up and they mention the Biden's, it's not right --

He asked for a favor, but that's not the first thing he asked for. Only later in the conversation does he then bring up the question of looking into the Biden's and he is quite vague about it.

He said, you know, we might look at that, because I heard the guy got -- the prosecutor got fired and it looked pretty bad to me. And that was the end of it. It's not clear at this point tonight, Tucker.

We know that some aid was withheld, for sure. Right? And it was later released. The Trump team says he was holding it back because he was concerned that the United States was carrying the burden in Europe once again, and putting up all the money to help these guys and the rest of Europe isn't doing its part.

I know that when Senator Rob Portman, who was very much in favor of that aid being released spoke to the President about this, and the President was talking about withholding the aid what he -- all he talked about in that conversation was his, you know, he was bellyaching once more about Europe not pulling its weight in this regard.


HUME: So it's not at all clear that the evidence supports the accusation, but that's where we are.

CARLSON: Interesting. So you, I'm sure heard Doug MacGregor say that according to a Russian newspaper -- obviously, we haven't confirmed this -- but that the oligarch overseeing this energy company in Ukraine was allowed access to United States, taken off a cannot visit list after the Vice President's son joined the Board. If that turns out to be true -- I don't know -- if it does, is that meaningful?

HUME: Well, it would be meaningful if we could connect that step by the U.S. government to the Biden's in some way and we might be able to do that, we might not. We don't know.

CARLSON: Why would -- and we should also say that this is very common in Washington. Hunter Biden is far from, I mean, if we are being honest, far from the only son of a famous politician to get a deal like this. But why would a foreign company, a Ukrainian energy company, for example, pay someone like that?

HUME: Well, basically, the same reason that these companies in Washington pay lobbyists.


HUME: They consider it, in a sense of defense. They are looking for ways to advance their interests. So you get someone with the name Biden on the Board and that might help you.


HUME: Now that doesn't establish that Biden, the young Biden himself did anything corrupt.


HUME: It doesn't establish that Joe Biden did anything corrupt on his son's behalf. It does seem to suggest this, however, if you are going to tell the Ukrainians as then Vice President Biden did, that you're not going to get this aid unless you fire this particular prosecutor, and you've got the son of the Vice President associated with that, with a company that figures in that prosecutor' investigation. That on its face is a conflict of interest and is improper, even if there was good reason for asking right that the prosecutor or the investigator be fired?

CARLSON: It sure seems that way.

HUME: Because it looks wrong. Biden is a lawyer, right? His son is a lawyer. Both of them should know better. The Obama administration should have known better than to have the Vice President be the point man on this threat, which, as you seen the Vice President brags about.


HUME: He talks about how, I went over there and I told them I was leaving in six hours and if they didn't fire this guy. They were going to get the money and son of a [EXPLETIVE DELETED], the guy was fired. That's --

CARLSON: The tough guy thing again, as he often does.

HUME: By the way, the next time you show that picture --


HUME: The golfing picture.

CARLSON: Yes, yes.

HUME: You might point out to the guy you're talking about is the one on the far left, because there's no way to tell that.

CARLSON: For sure. That's exactly right.

HUME: He is the guy in the dark blue shirt on the far left there.

CARLSON: That's right. Devon Archer is another member of the Burisma Board.

HUME: Right.

CARLSON: Brit Hume, thank you.

HUME: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Elizabeth Warren says she plans to rein in America's tech companies, maybe even unwind some of their monopolies. So why does so much of Silicon Valley support her? Why are they holding fundraisers for her? Couldn't be they know she doesn't mean it? We will investigate after the break.


CARLSON: Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has caught up to Joe Biden in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It's pretty clear, she is the party's front runner.

One reason could be that she has promised to break up America's gigantic, terrifying, and all powerful tech monopolies.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm deeply concerned right now that this space around companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google, is now referred to by venture capitalists as the kill zone.

So my view is, break those things apart and we will have a much more competitive and robust market in America. That's how capitalism should work.


CARLSON: Well, it's a good idea, and some people are taking it seriously. Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg is worried about it. Newly leaked audio shows Zuckerberg trashing Warren's anti-Facebook agenda.

Other Democratic candidates, meanwhile, are tramping through Silicon Valley to raise cash. Fox Correspondent, Gillian Turner is here with more. financially and Turner's here with more. Hey, Gillian.

GILLIAN TURNER, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker. Good evening. So in this new leaked audio tape, tech titan, Mark Zuckerberg has been caught red handed, telling his staff what he really thinks about Silicon Valley investor sweetheart, Elizabeth Warren.

He fears a Warren presidency would pose a quote, "existential threat" to his company.


MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACBEBOOK: Elizabeth Warren picks up the right answers to break up the companies, I mean, if she is elected Presidents then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal change. And does that still suck for us? Yes.


TURNER: Zuckerberg doesn't stop there. He says Warren's policies aren't just bad for Facebook's bottom line, they are also bad for democracy.


ZUCKERBERG: It's just breaking up these companies, whether it's Facebook or Google, or Amazon is not actually going to solve the issues. And you know, it doesn't make election interference, less likely, it makes it more likely because now the companies can't coordinate and work together.


TURNER: Warren was quick to respond. She tweeted, "What would really 'suck' is if we don't fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices."

Now, this is a familiar theme from Warren and the other 2020 Democratic hopefuls. They say big tech has become too big. The social media companies are spying on Americans, stealing their data and fake news bots are corrupting American democracy.

Yet for all the tough talk and threats to regulate and rein in these companies, the candidates can't stop seem to taking their money. As of tomorrow, there will have been a total of 16 fundraisers across the Bay Area and just six days for six different Democratic candidates, all raising millions of dollars.

Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, Klobuchar -- all cashing in this week with major fundraisers and sources tell Fox News it represents the biggest Silicon Valley campaign donation haul of the entire primary season so far.

And Tucker it's a two-way street, Warren's campaign despite all of this criticism of Facebook has spent nearly $1.5 million buying Facebook ad space since July to promote her candidacy.

CARLSON: With the evil company that she wants to break up.

TURNER: That's right.

CARLSON: Gillian Turner, thank you for that.

TURNER: You bet.

CARLSON: The impeachment drama in Washington has temporarily distracted everyone from the ongoing Democratic primary, but impeachment is also certain to have a political effect on the race itself.

So the question is -- not to be vulgar about it -- but who benefits most? Dana Perino hosts "The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino," one of our all- time favorite people. Dana, great to see you tonight.

DANA PERINO, HOST: Great to see you, too.

CARLSON: So the conventional view, which is to say my view, the surface view is that Biden is not helped by any story that gets us talking about his son's board seat with Ukrainian energy company, and that Elizabeth Warren is probably the beneficiary of that. Do you think that's true?

Per Well, I think that the questions surrounding Hunter Biden were going to come up at some point for the Biden campaign. And if you think back, it was July that "The New Yorker" magazine did this really long feature piece about Hunter Biden. It didn't get a ton of attention.

I read the whole thing because I learned early on from you, you always read these long magazine pieces because you can pick up things.

So this was going to come whether it came from President Trump or from perhaps one of his rivals on the 2020 scene on the Democratic side, it was definitely coming. So they were going to have to deal with it sooner or later.

But there is a beneficiary, and it is Elizabeth Warren, no doubt. She has had arguably the best summer of all of the candidates. She's raising a lot of money. She is now, in my opinion, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party until something else happens.

And with impeachment, she can kind of kill two birds with one stone, because Trump impeachment has like this toxic fallout, right? It encapsulates Biden, but it also for many -- many people think -- it has completed the radicalization of the Democratic Party. They are now on a war footing.

And she can kind of sit back. She doesn't need the media attention right now. Others do, like Kamala Harris. You look at what she tried to do today by having a campaign shake up. That's something you do when you're trying to get a little attention for your campaign.

And she didn't have a great fundraising number. It was fine. $11 million. But Bernie raised $25 million. Pete Buttigieg raised $19 million. So something had to give and Elizabeth Warren I think is content to sit back and let other people try to get some attention while she prepares for this month's debate.

CARLSON: Do you think the Trump campaign believes that? Do you think that they believe Elizabeth Warren is the person they're likely to face?

PERINO: I think that they are -- from what I can tell, they seem to be prepared for any eventuality. They are happy to try to dirty up the Biden campaign early on. They are looking at Elizabeth Warren. I mean, even President Trump himself said, gosh, I thought I really hit her with the Pocahontas thing, and now she's back.

Who hit her with the Pocahontas thing this week? Well, it looked like it came from one of her 2020 Democratic rivals, having old videos resurface of her, having said that her parents had had to move because of her mother's Cherokee background, et cetera. Like that's going to come back around.

But for now, I would say Elizabeth Warren is definitely in the catbird seat.

CARLSON: Interesting. Is there any other -- and this is purely speculative, but what's to do in politics ...

PERINO: That's what we do. It's our --

CARLSON: ... if you can't speculate exactly, that's exactly right. Let's be honest about it. Is if -- I agree with everything you've said, if you had to pick one candidate on the Democratic side, who had a shot of coming from the outside, and lapping Elizabeth Warren by the time it's over, who would that be? Who do you think?

PERINO: When you say outside? What do you mean like outside of the recent politics?

CARLSON: Well, I mean, I think most people think Elizabeth Warren is going to be the nominee at this point. I mean, Biden clearly is not up to it.

PERINO: I think that's pretty early. Look, I wouldn't -- you know, I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to get it either. However, you know, he is holding his own. He raised $25 million in the third quarter. That is not somebody who is dropping precipitously.

Biden's numbers have gone down quite a bit. I don't think Kamala Harris really looks like she has it there. Cory Booker, for example, this past weekend, he had to do an emergency fundraising plea for $1.7 million. Got his friend Bon Jovi to help him out. He barely makes it in.

Tom Steyer, the big billionaire in Mr. Impeachment, Mr. Climate Change. He is going to be on the debate stage as well on October. This field is not actually narrowing down very quickly, but I think that might change by Thanksgiving.

CARLSON: I'm enjoying the heck out of it. So --

PERINO: It's very fun.

CARLSON: May it continue for many moons. Dana Perino, great to see you tonight. Thank you, as always.

PERINO: Thanks. Have a good night.

CARLSON: Well, once again, the media turned a supposed hate crime into a national story, only to find out that the crime was, in fact, a hoax. That raises the obvious question, why do the media keep falling for these hoaxes? And should there be consequences for lying to your readers, and listeners and viewers again, and again and again? That's next.


CARLSON: Actor Jussie Smollett as you know got away with his fake hate crime, thanks to the intervention of the State's Attorney Kim Foxx, a special prosecutor is investigating that case. But it turns out the prosecutor was himself a donor to Kim Foxx's campaign. How does that work exactly?

To find out we go to Fox's Matt Finn in Chicago tonight. Hey, Matt.

MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, we've got yet another twist in the Jussie Smollett saga. It turns out that the special prosecutor assigned to investigate this entire case previously donated $1,000.00 to Kim Foxx, that's a State Attorney at the center of the Jussie Smollett scandal that the special prosecutor is investigating.

Attorney Dan Webb is a revered prosecutor, a former U.S. Attorney. He is considered unbiased, a no nonsense and was assigned by a veteran judge in August to review the entire Smollett case. He can charge Smollett with the same or even new criminal charges and he can bring charges against anyone he discovered committed a crime that includes Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx.

You'll recall Kim Foxx had to suddenly recuse herself from Smollett's case after texting Michelle Obama's former Chief of Staff about Smollett.

And later, there was outrage when Kim Foxx's office suddenly dropped the charges against Smollett. Well, now a status hearing this Friday will decide if a new special prosecutor needs to be reassigned because it's been revealed that Dan Webb's law firm hosted a fundraiser for Kim Foxx back in 2016, in which Webb himself cut Foxx a $1,000.00.

Webb says he doesn't recall attending this fundraiser or making the contribution to Kim Foxx as her office continues to cooperate with this investigation, and at this hearing Friday, Dan Webb could recuse himself or a new special prosecutor could be assigned. So stay tuned -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Amazing. Matt Finn has been on the story from day one. Thanks a lot, Matt.

FINN: Sure.

CARLSON: Jussie Smollett was not the first phony hate crime in this country and likely won't be the last. Fake hate crimes in fact had become routine here. They become routine because our credulous media rushes to believe them, all of them. They want to believe that America is a hateful, intolerant country despite the evidence.

Last week, for example, a sixth grade girl at a Christian school in the State of Virginia claimed that three boys attacked her at recess. Immediately, this became a national news story and the press hurried to racialize it as they do so much. Most people don't spend their lives thinking about race, the media does.

"The New York Times" wrote this headline quote, "Black Virginia girl says white classmates cut her dreadlocks on playground." "The Times" knows that America is a hateful country. They believe this with zero evidence. So they're eager to tout any story that backs up that storyline. It's also true that the Second Lady, Karen Pence sometimes teaches at that school in Virginia and so the story was also used to tar her by association.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A 12-year-old African American girl said three white classmates pinned her down and cut her dreadlocks.

The wife of the Vice President Mike Pence, she teaches there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A black sixth grader says she was pinned down by white classmates who cut her hair.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: A 12-year-old Virginia girl says she is traumatized after three of her white classmates pinned her down and cut some of her dreadlocks off.

Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen Pence teaches art, part-time at Emmanuel.


CARLSON: So after whipping up even more suspicion and race hatred, the Press found today that this like almost every other hate crime that's made headlines in recent years was fake.

Yesterday, the girl's family admitted the allegations were untrue, and they apologized. Good for them.

But we have far less sympathy for the media in all of this. This isn't a one-off incident. Of course, it's a pattern. They did it after the 2016 election. They did it with the Covington Catholic boys. They did it this week over and over and over again. The press in fact abets hate crimes because that's exactly what these are. They are hate crimes. They are not false accusations or hoaxes.

They are deliberate efforts to defame an entire group of people to arouse hate against them, and the press abets this. They drive it. They do it over and over and over. And when they're caught feeding a lie, they pretend it never happened. They face no consequences and they do it again just weeks later.

It's not a victimless crime. All of us are the victims of this. It hurts the country. It makes people hate each other. It divides them on the basis of skin color, which is the worst way to divide people.

Robby Soave is an Associate Editor at "Reason," and author of "Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump," and he joins us tonight. Robby, let me just ask you since you are, I think, the living expert on fake hate crimes, why they follow an unchanging pattern. It never changes why?

ROBBY SOAVE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, "REASON": The media seizes on these things the second they here about them without any care to actually properly investigate them because it's -- they believe -- they want to believe this narrative about America, right? That it's the most hateful place that's ever existed, that Trump has caused it. It fits exactly with their political bias.

So they don't even, I think, imagine sometimes that these things could be made up even though as you pointed out, a lot of times they are.

I mean, in this case, who thinks to themselves, you know, a really awful incident between a bunch of kids, but it should be turned into national news, why? Who says let's get this little girl in front of a camera and inflame the entire nation about racial hatred when something like this happens?

I mean they put her in a position where, you know, kids act and kids lie. Kids screw up, right? And they're supposed to be able to learn that's wrong and they would punished with, you know, in proportion to what happened, maybe a suspension or something and then they learn from that and they get on with their lives.

But because you decided this group should be on television talking about this. Like now, she is going to be subjected to all of this like national shame, it's terrible. Who thinks like that? That this needs to be something the entire country has to get itself worked up about. Right? That's crazy.

CARLSON: And you kind of wonder, and it's impossible to measure. The point you're making is such a smart and valuable one.

And I guess the next point would be, what's the effect on the country? If you persistently tell people that they're swimming in an ocean of race hate, and that everybody is inflamed with bigotry, which is totally a lie, by the way.

SOAVE: Right.

CARLSON: But if you tell people that what -- you know, what does it do to how they feel about their neighbors? How they feel about America?

SOAVE: Well, then they credulously believe things like statistics. I mean, "The Washington Post," all sorts of media outlets ran with this a couple of months ago that you know, hate crimes had spiked like 226 percent in counties where Trump hosted a political rally.

I looked at that study, actually, if you kind of control for population size in counties, it tends to be that you have Trump-visited counties that have more people in them. So of course, there's more hate crimes. The statistical correlation dropped to zero. There was just as many -- there's just as much of a hate crime increase in counties Hillary Clinton visited. Because again, they're just bigger counties.

So -- but this was a headline that every major media outlet ran with based on this completely flawed study. And of course, people are believing it. Bernie Sanders' campaign put it out. Ilhan Omar talked about it.

And there are probably tons of people in the country who believe that and they, just like you said, believe that about their neighbors, their relatives, the people they work with, and we should not be driving people to hate each other. People can find reasons to hate each other.

CARLSON: That's right.

SOAVE: And we don't want that to happen. We want people to get along. But we shouldn't be like adding fuel to the fire when there's nothing or when it's much less than what it is actually being claimed.

CARLSON: Well, especially not an ethnic grounds, because that's not resolvable. If I'm mad at you because we disagree on something, maybe we'll agree someday. But if I'm mad at you because of something you can't control, that's never going to get better. So it's very reckless to do this.

SOAVE: And there is real racism in our country. But I think a lot of people end up not believing that there is because of this stuff. Every time it blows up, it backfires. It's like a boy who cried wolf problem.

CARLSON: That's for sure. Robby, thank you.

SOAVE: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well, virtually all of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iran. No, sorry, Iraq. Oh, no, wait, they came from Saudi Arabia. The members of that country's government may have in fact assisted them on 9/11.

And yet today, Saudi Arabia is such a close ally of the United States that we may go to war with Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11 for their sake. How did we get here exactly? An in depth exclusive investigation on that question, next.


CARLSON: Well, today unfortunately marks the two-year anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting that was the deadliest shooting massacre in modern American history. Fifty nine people died that day, including the gunman, Stephen Paddock.

Authorities though, in two years have been unable to find a clear motive. So what have we learned, if anything? Chief Breaking News Correspondent, trace Gallagher joins us tonight with that. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker, the F.B.I. looked at hundreds of video tapes, listened to hours of 9/11 calls, interviewed dozens of witnesses, not to mention scouring every detail of the shooter's life and yet two years later, there is no motive as to why Steven Paddock opened fire on a Music Festival killing 58, wounding more than 800.

Consider that the F.B.I.'s report into the school shooting at Sandy Hook was 1,500 pages. The report on the Vegas shooting, three pages. And the only theory is that Paddock was an aging man in declining health with troubled finances who may have been looking for a way to gain infamy.

Over the course of six days, Stephen Paddock brought 23 bags to his hotel room. In those bags, he carried 23 weapons and enough ammunition to fight a small war. His shooting lasted 10 minutes in which he fired more than a thousand rounds using a dozen different weapons, many of them equipped with bump stocks that allow semi-automatic firearms to mimic the motion of a fully automatic.

Fifty pounds of Tannerite explosives were also found in Paddock's car leading some to believe he was planning to escape the hotel and pull off a lethal finale.

But the F.B.I. believes Paddock set up several cameras outside of his hotel suite so that he would know when police got close and take his own life, which he did.

Also unanswered is why the local police response was so slow and why they waited more than an hour to storm Paddock's room. The final report from local police also offered no motive and few answers.

I talked about all of this case in a lot more in our new documentary called "The Las Vegas Massacre," and that is airing now Tucker, on Fox Nation. Fascinating stuff -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Bless you for doing that, Trace. That's one of those stories that we should keep probing, I think, so thank you for doing that.


CARLSON: Well, after 18 years of war, you'd think the United States would be finally winding down its presence in the Persian Gulf. Instead, the opposite appears to be happening.

At times, we seem to be on the brink of bombing Iran. Why are we doing that? Well, we're doing it primarily to protect Saudi Arabia.

In Washington, the Saudis are overwhelmingly considered by both parties to be one of our closest allies. The strange thing is that Saudi Arabia has far closer links to the 9/11 attacks than Saddam Hussein ever did -- much less Iran. We're always hearing about Iran. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, was so connected to 9/11 that the families of many 9/11 victims are seeking justice -- payment -- as recompense for the Saudis role.

So how exactly does the country and its government get to ignore this? And what is the nature of America's relationship with Saudi Arabia?

We decided to take a closer look at that question. Here's what we found.


MARK ESPER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: In response to the Kingdom's request, the President has approved the deployment of U.S. forces.

CARLSON (voice over): That was Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, announcing a deployment of troops to help our quote, "partner" in the region. Not all Americans though view Saudi Arabia as an ally.

Chris Ganci, a New York City fireman lost his father on 9/11.


CHRIS GANCI, NEW YORK CITY FIREMAN: I think the American people should know what the Saudi involvement in 9/11 was before we commit treasure, well, God forbid American blood to a cause.


CARLSON (voice over): Ganci is one of thousands of family members of 9/11 victims suing Saudi Arabia. Their lawsuit states that Saudi Arabia quote "knowingly provided al Qaeda with support, financing and resources that were material, substantial and critical to the success of the September 11th attacks."


JIM KREINDLER, ATTORNEY FOR 9/11 FAMILIES: For years, Saudi Arabia through its charities had been funneling money to al Qaeda to get ahead in Saudi Arabia, to rise in the government, you need to show fealty to Osama bin Laden.


CARLSON (voice over): A heavily redacted 2012 report describes the support Saudi government officials gave to two hijackers after they arrived in Los Angeles.

The officials gave the two al Qaeda members quote, "assistance in daily activities," including providing money and helping the hijackers get flying lessons.


KEN WILLIAMS, FORMER F.B.I. AGENT: Many Saudi government officials were in cohorts if you will, with several of the 9/11 hijackers.


CARLSON (voice over): In a sworn declaration in 2017, retired F.B.I. Special Agent Steven Moore stated that the hijackers, quote, "would have had zero chance for success without a support structure waiting for them."

The families still want me information declassified about Saudi involvement, and feel as if their own government has betrayed them.


BRETT EAGLESON, RELATIVE OF 9/11 VICTIM: One would like to think that the F.B.I. works for the American people, not the interests of Saudi Arabia. They are choosing to side with the Saudis.


CARLSON (voice over): The Justice Department recently cited state secrets and national security in refusing to declassify a 2012 F.B.I. report that contains Saudi ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

In that same court filing, the D.O.J. decided it would only release the name of an individual who directed two Saudi officials to help hijackers under protective order.


GANCI: The obstacles that the American government has put up just for the truth is very disheartening.


CARLSON (voice over): The U.S. government has not been keen to hold the Saudis to account in the wake of 9/11. Shortly after the attacks, the Bush administration allowed more than a hundred Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family to leave the country on chartered airplanes.

And two years ago, the Trump administration cautioned a retired F.B.I. agent from working for the 9/11 families.


WILLIAMS: I couldn't believe that my former employer was telling me not to give assistance to the victims of 9/11.

To me, it was unconscionable. It really disturbed me.


CARLSON: Well, that's an understatement. Unconscionable. We asked the F.B.I. about Ken Williams' claim that he was told not to work with 9/11 families. They told us they are not commenting on that. They can do that. They just refuse to comment.

We will continue to follow this lawsuit for as long as we have to because we think it matters.

Well, one of America's most liberal cities is banning urinals. Why are they doing that? For the sake of gender equality of course. Tammy Bruce, next.


CARLSON: The left's campaign against science in general and Biology in particular, has already claimed quite a few victims, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts among them, but here's a new one -- urinals.

Portland, Oregon is abolishing urinals in all of its municipal buildings. The purpose is to quote, "remove arbitrary barriers" -- arbitrary -- between the sexes for the sake of gender neutrality.

How to assess this? Tammy Bruce hosts "Get Tammy Bruce" on Fox nation or reason to subscribe. She joins us tonight. Hey, Tammy, was there groundswell of support for this? Did people ask for this?

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NATION HOST: No, not really. I mean, from the beginning -- this is a great question, Tucker, because whether it was the transgender bathroom issue or this, nobody wanted this to change. Nobody was having a problem. The transgenders weren't crying for bathrooms change. Women weren't saying, get rid of the urinals.

CARLSON: That's right.

BRUCE: And this is going to be the case in the men's bathrooms as well, all the bathrooms. And here's the reality, Donald Trump is delivering jobs, prosperity and the future. Democrats are delivering wet toilet seats.

Maybe because this is -- now, at least men will find out what it's like to walk into a stall or into a bathroom and have the toilet seat up or not.

And then that's the other issue, separate from the inevitable bathroom humor, that fact is that this is actually very serious. This is an issue - - the bathrooms are the one very kind of intimate personal space in public space and they're trying -- it is a desperation to create a gender neutral framework, which is false.

I mean, we've been listening to the climate science apostles for, you know, years now, and certainly a lot in the last couple weeks, where we're being told listen to science. Well, let's try that. Right?

And except in this instance, apparently. They don't want us to listen to science, when it comes to Biology and Physiology.

And look, there are many different people in the world. I'm one of them, right? I'm a sexual minority. And the fact is, you know, we're part of a -- we're a minority in a part of a larger framework, and that's okay.

I don't think anybody wants us all to be homogenous and for it to all be the same.

CARLSON: Of course.

BRUCE: We understand the differences and this is just an unnecessary attempt to be too woke.

CARLSON: I knew you would take it to the deeper level. We appreciate that about you. Tammy Bruce, great to see you.

BRUCE: Thank you, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: Back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Sean Hannity live from New York City right now.

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.