This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 6, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. We spent months now assessing the coronavirus pandemic, mostly from a medical standpoint.

We now know a lot more about the virus than we did back in March and February and we're grateful for that, facts are always better than speculation.

But it's possible that in doing that, we've spent maybe too little time considering the rest of the country, the many millions of Americans who will never face serious health risks from this virus.

So, the question is, and we should be asking this a lot, how are they doing?

Well, more than 30 million of them are now unemployed. Thirty million. That is so many people that it's hard to digest what it means or what it is going to mean five years from now.

For some context, that is double the job loss from the Great Recession of 2009. That took us 10 years to recover from, many never did recover. In fact, the entire middle class never recovered.

So, how long will 30 million take? That's a terrifying question. In fact, it's too scary for many of our leaders to consider. It implicates their judgments, their policies. So, they're determined to ignore that question, and they're even more determined that you ignore it, too.

You are absolutely not allowed to think about that, much less talk about it. How many times in the last week have you clicked on a video a friend sent only to discover it has been deleted by YouTube, Google, because it criticized the people in charge.

We've never seen anything like this in the history of our country. It used to be a free place. We bragged about it. But it's happening and not just online.

The Police Commissioner of New York announced this week that political protests have been banned in America's biggest city. How long have they been banned? Well, for as long as his boss, Bill de Blasio says they're banned. So, it could be a while. It's nice when voters aren't allowed to criticize you.

As the Commissioner explained, that's the law now, quote, "These are laws that have been passed down through executive order." Yes, got that. Passed through executive order.

But wait, by definition, executive orders aren't passed. No legislature signs off on them. They're ordered. That's why they are orders, whatever details. Shut up.

You'd think some civil libertarian judge somewhere would do something about all of this. They're always inventing new rights for illegal aliens, usually the right to free stuff at your expense, there are a lot of those.

Maybe we could get some of those rights, too, but no, you're just an American. Do what you're told.

Shelley Luther just learned that lesson in the hardest way. Luther owns a salon in the City of Dallas. In March, she closed her business, the government told her to.

She lost all of her income when she shut it down, because that's what our leaders demanded. And then she waited. And she waited and she waited, and a month later, her business was still closed, and she was out of money.

Finally she decided she had no choice. Her back was against the wall. So on April 24th, she reopened her salon. The government warned her not to do that. They sent her a citation. She did it anyway.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dallas salon owner, Shelley Luther bound to remain open in defiance of state orders, tearing up a citation she received.

SHELLEY LUTHER, DALLAS, TEXAS SALON OWNER: I could be used as an example or they'll go away or, I don't know. I'm not going to shut down.


CARLSON: I can be used as an example, Luther said. She was assuming that other business owners in Dallas might follow her lead.

But the government took notice. They wanted her to be an example, too, but in a very different way.

Police arrested Luther. They dragged her before a Dallas County Judge called Eric Moy. That was Luther's bad luck.

Moy is a deeply irresponsible person. He is a political hack. He's a self- described Democratic Party activist. He once circulated a chain letter denouncing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a race traitor.

Eric Moy lectured Shelley Luther about how she was a bad person. Watch.


JUDGE ERIC MOY, DALLAS COUNTY: Your actions were selfish, putting your own interests ahead of those of the community in which you live. They disrespected the executive orders of the state, the orders of the county and this city.


CARLSON: What a pompous fool, but he's got a lot of power. He's a judge and Shelley Luther was sitting before him. Luther, to her enormous credit was not intimidated.

Instead of groveling, apologizing and begging forgiveness, which is what he wanted. She told the judge what was so obviously true.

For people who don't have salaries that are guaranteed by taxpayers. This lockdown as it continues has been a catastrophe.


LUTHER: I have to disagree with you, sir, when you say that I'm selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish. I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they'd rather feed their kids.

So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then, please go ahead with your decision, but I'm not going to shut the salon.


CARLSON: Feeding my kids is not selfish. Moy was unmoved by this. He is not worried about feeding his kids. He went to Harvard Law School. A 2007 article in "The Washington Post" describes this man as someone quote, "with a weakness for Cuban cigars and the finest steaks." What a poser.

As a judge, Moy has continued to collect a salary of about $150,000.00 throughout the shutdown. He can take that forever. He can afford all the finest steaks he wants, at least until meat supplies run out.

Moy sentenced Luther to a week behind bars.

So, that's what's going on in Dallas tonight. Small business owners who are going under. These are people with employees who are struggling to buy food or being punished for the crime of earning a living by authoritarian buffoons, goons who are living off their tax dollars. How's that for an arrangement?

Meanwhile -- and this is the best part -- actual criminals are going free. Three weeks ago, the City of Dallas began releasing more than a thousand inmates from the county jail, some are in for serious felonies.

Authority said they had no choice. They had to save the inmates from the virus, the very same virus that Shelley Luther will likely be exposed to in jail where she is now, for trying to earn an honest living.

It's hard to believe any of this is real. Unfortunately, it is real, it's happening right now.

Warren Norred is Luther's attorney. We're happy to have him on tonight. Mr. Norred, thanks so much for coming on. So, your client is in jail right now?

WARREN NORRED, SHELLEY LUTHER'S ATTORNEY: Thank you for having me. That's correct. He remanded her to the Sheriff's Department while we were in the court yesterday.

CARLSON: So, she was such a threat to the City of Dallas, that there couldn't be a period between conviction sentencing, she just had to go right to jail.

NORRED: That's correct, because she committed the actual crime of heresy against the City of Dallas, and it's an oligarchy that decided that real criminals could go to jail, but people who were heretics or people who are real criminals be led out, but the heretics could go to jail. And he demanded that she admit she was being selfish and being offensive and apologize to everybody.

He actually said, I want you to apologize for being selfish. And so of course, she wasn't being selfish. She is just trying to earn a dollar, like all of these people that are hurting.

So, all these salons, all of these people, they only get paid when they do haircuts. They are contractors. There is no government funds for those guys. Even Shelley, who is a salon owner could have access to some funds, which she received recently.

But her business family have no funds, and she only received that recently.

CARLSON: And so this buffoon hack judge, really the most entitled person in Dallas decides she must be in prison. Let me just ask you a question since you are an attorney, she violated the law.

But my understanding is laws are passed by legislators, by elected officials.

NORRED: Right.

CARLSON: This so-called law is just a decree. I don't understand how that's a law and how you can go to jail because you violated it?

NORRED: Well, we have -- we have a law that says that you can be enjoined from breaking an ordinance. So, then we have a mayor that says, I'm going to announce the fourth amended emergency regulations, and they have the force and effect of laws. They're not laws, but that's what they are.

So, what we've seen, Tucker, is that this emergency has exposed all the tiny tyrants for who they are. They've got this glimpse of power and man, they're going to show everybody exactly what to do, and so, if you don't follow exactly what they do, then here's a man who says and we can take -- we can say that we I understand the virus is serious without saying, look, we're all going to be walking dead zombies next month, right?

We can do what's reasonable. And so this man believes, well, it's an epidemic and we have to do something. But he is effectively -- if he believes that, then what he is doing is he is saying, you get a potential death sentence, because I'm sending you to the jail that we're kicking her criminals out of.


NORRED: Sure. So serious business.

CARLSON: Yes. I have the feeling if she was here illegally from another country, the chances are, let me just calculate, zero, that she would be in jail right now.

So, we're just getting word that Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick has offered to take her place in jail and to pay her $7,000.00 fine. Do you think that would be a sufficient burnt offering for Moses over there on your bench or no?

NORRED: No. No. She has to bend the knee. I mean, that's what he wants and in the order -- even in the order for contempt that he says, if you will, but express contrition and apologize, then we could look at doing this and we could fix this.

The idea that Dan Patrick or anybody could take the place is not going to be sufficient. They want her to bend the knee. Nothing else will suffice.

CARLSON: Is that allowed? I mean, I don't know where -- and I'm not that familiar with the Texas Legal Code, but is there a law in Texas that says you have to grovel before morons who are wearing robes? Is that part of the law there? Or is that just something he made up from the bench?

NORRED: I appear before a lot of judges, Tucker. So, I can't say that too much.

But I can tell you that I've never seen that. I've never seen it. And I've had judges that are mad at me, but I've never had a judge say, you must admit how selfish you're being in order to grant me -- for me to grant you mercy.

You know, he didn't have to do that. He could have said, look, I know you're just trying to earn a living, but I've got to enforce the law. So I'm going to hit you with $500.00 a day and let you go.

He could have done that. But that wasn't what he wanted. He wants the contrition. He wants that apology.

CARLSON: Well, he is like a power drunk third grade teacher. Can't chew the gum unless you have enough for everybody, was that part of his order, too? Don't ask -- don't answer that. Pure speculation.

Warren, thank you for coming on tonight and good luck to your client. More than good luck, we're rooting for her. This is an awful thing that's happened and I hope it awakens people to what's happening in a lot of places.

NORRED: We filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus a few minutes ago, and we're hoping that the Supreme Court of Texas will take action.

CARLSON: I hope so too. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

NORRED: Thanks for having us.

CARLSON: Well, the reason 30 million people are out of work, the reason we're sending small business owners to jail is that supposedly, it is essential to saving an enormous number of lives. Millions will die without it.

In the State of New York though, Governor Andrew Cuomo was unambiguous about why we're doing it. Watch this.


GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): Stay-at-home. When I issued the stay at home order, it wasn't, it would be nice, if you did. It is a mandate. Stay at home. If you're a nonessential worker, stay at home. If you leave the house, you're exposing yourself to danger.


CARLSON: Yes, Cuomo's brother, the CNN anchor wasn't watching. He was out checking on his second property. But the governor said very confident, as he said this. And it wasn't just him. We don't want to pick on Andrew Cuomo, future President Cuomo, every public official pretty much said the same thing.

Why are they saying this? What science was it based on? Well, not very much, it turns out. Coronavirus was a new disease that nobody really understood. And of course, nobody in history has ever tried a mass quarantine before, so we really didn't know.

But we bode forward anyway. The lockdowns happened. Lives were at stake. Shut up and obey.

But today, and you may have missed this, but it's worth knowing about. Governor Cuomo revealed something new and something pretty shocking.

New York's coronavirus cases are not coming from those still going to work amid the pandemic, those brave people. They're mostly coming from those who are stuck at home.


CUOMO: This is a surprise. Overwhelmingly, the people who are at home, 18 percent of the people came from nursing homes, less than one percent came from jail or prison. Two percent came from the homeless population, two percent from other congregate facilities, but 66 percent of the people were at home, which is shocking to us.


CARLSON: First of all, you've got to be honest about it, good for Governor Cuomo for admitting that. That's always the first step.

So, what do we make of this at home? Well, for all questions like this, invariably, we turn to the man who knows, Fox medical expert, Dr. Marc Siegel. Hey, Doctor.

DR. MARC SIEGEL, FOX NEWS CHANNEL MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Tucker, this is a huge event for public health in New York. They looked at -- New York State looked at 113 hospitals over a three-day period, and as you just said, they found that 66 percent of the people who were admitted to hospital were already sheltering at home, were elderly, were unemployed, or retired.

Ninety percent -- get this -- 90 percent weren't even walking around. They weren't using public transportation. They weren't using limos. They weren't using taxis. They weren't going out at all.

So, I want to tell you, from a public health point of view how they spread this. It's the way we've always felt, what doctors feel, by sneezing, by coughing, by being too close and having symptoms and spreading, not by touching the subway pole.

By the way, the New York City subway system is being shut down overnight to completely clean and disinfect the subway cars. What's the message here?

Governor Cuomo, you originally said May 15th, I have a message for you. Let our people go. Let some of our people get back to work. Transit workers are not spreading this. People at work are not spreading this.

I'm not saying open the restaurants. I'm not saying open the bars. I'm not saying open sporting events. But I'm saying working -- working is what our economy needs and for public health we can do it. Social distancing.

Tucker, areas of New York City downstate, minority areas, areas where they're not necessarily following social distancing. That's where it's spreading and that's where the hospitalizations are coming from.

But we flattened the curve here. We only had 600 hospitalizations over the past day. It's going way down. I can tell you from my own hospital, going way down. That's flattening the curve. It's time to loosen up, Governor.

CARLSON: I've never understood that and I wish we had more time. But I hope you'll come back and we can explore it in some detail why we didn't, at the outset, focus more of our money and attention on the most vulnerable populations, the elderly, the immunocompromised. Maybe there's a reason for that. But it seems like maybe we should have done that.

SIEGEL: We should have. Yes, we should have done that. And that starts with nursing homes, which we didn't pay any attention to. And it's a disgrace. And yes, people that were at home and retired and more vulnerable needed our attention first. Absolutely, Tucker.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. Dr. Siegel, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

SIEGEL: Thank you.

CARLSON: We've learned a lot of lessons about how our government works and doesn't work over the past couple of months. What have you learned about how the private sector works?

A CEO of a pharmaceutical company joins us with an interesting perspective on that. He is next.


CARLSON: The coronavirus pandemic appears to be, at least as of right now, waning. It has killed many, many of our fellow Americans and our leaders' reaction to it has also hurt a lot. It's caused incalculable damage to our economy.

But we could offset some of that damage if we can learn from all of this and translate those lessons into a new way of running the country.

Vivek Ramaswamy is founder and CEO of Roivant Sciences. That's a pharmaceutical company also serves on Ohio's Coronavirus Response Team. We're happy to have him on tonight.

Vivek, thanks so much for coming on. So, what have you -- so you're in the business of science. You run a pharma company. You are a scientist. What have you learned from all of this?

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, FOUNDER AND CEO, ROIVANT SCIENCES: I'd say one thing I'd like to start with, Tucker is that I'd actually like to salute my wife and her colleagues who have been treating patients on the frontline.

You and I were chatting earlier, we had a baby in February, my wife, Apoorva is a doctor and faced one of the most difficult choices of her life, whether to take maternity leave with our son or to go back to the hospital at the peak of this pandemic. And she ultimately decided to go back out of a sense of duty and was infected with COVID and has now been separated from our baby son.

Now, it's taught me I think that first thing I've got to say is we've got superior healthcare providers on the frontline, who are our true national heroes, right now.


RAMASWAMY: But, I'm happy to talk to you more about, you know the other lessons we've learned, Tucker as well as the therapeutic landscape.

CARLSON: I certainly am amazed by the decision that she made. Good for her and for all of those people. I wonder if this is going to change the country. I mean, we're all agreed on that, and the question is how. What kind of country we wind up with when the smoke clears, do you think?

RAMASWAMY: So look, I'm speaking as a citizen here and not as just a -- not just as just a company leader developing a drug. I think that this crisis gives us a rare opportunity to rediscover our shared American identity.

As a country, we spent the last decade celebrating our diversity and our differences. In the next decade. I think we ought to use this as a bookend to begin to celebrate once again, our commonality as a people.

In some ways, this virus reminds us that our greatest vulnerabilities aren't the micro-aggressions that one group commits against another, but rather the macro aggressions that we face together as one people.

And as best we know, COVID-19 can infect you whether you're male or female. Whether you're black or white, whether you're gay or straight, whether you're Democrat or Republican, for that matter.

And I think in any moment of national crisis, it's important to ground ourselves in what we actually share in common. We do hear the siren's song of authoritarianism. I heard you talking about it earlier on the show. We're starting to hear it now.

During the Great Depression, I think history teaches us a lot. Some people complimented the efficiency of Nazi Germany. During the Cold War, when the USSR beat us into space, some Americans preached about the strengths of Soviet collectivism.

And in the current crisis, we're starting to hear whispers that America could succeed by being more like China.

In my view, nothing could be further from the truth. And I think that America is defined by our ability to resist that siren song. So, I hope we come out, Tucker, out of this crisis with a renewed sense of that shared American identity, not around our shared genetics, but instead around our shared values and that's what I'd like to see in post-COVID America.

CARLSON: Amen. I mean, I think it's a beautiful sentiment. Not overstating. And I really think that's the most important thing that we can learn from all of this is that people of all kinds are dying. And I wonder why -- and people of all kinds are also uniting. And I wonder why we're not hearing that more often?

RAMASWAMY: Well, look, I think we've got to see the space. Right nowm people are in a place where they're still not sure of what the path to normalcy looks like.

And speaking from the seat that I'm in, maybe I could just offer a little bit of a perspective there where, you know, look, I think a vaccine would be great. I think people are holding out hope for that.

I don't think our national strategy can depend on it. But I do think that small hits along the way can give people a better sense of hope, so that we're able to be strengthened by this crisis.

We saw in the last couple of weeks, in the emergency use authorization for a new drug by F.D.A. Now, keep in mind, this is something important for people to keep in mind, the fact that for over 80 percent of the people infected with this coronavirus, it's actually no worse than the flu.

The thing that distinguishes this virus is that up to 20 percent of infected patients require hospitalization. The thing that kills you for people who go into the hospital is often the immune response and not the presence of the virus itself.

And so if we can get some just some base hits along the way, if you could just address that for the severe patients in the hospital, then our whole societal response to this pandemic could actually become much more measured, similar to that of the seasonal flu.

And even though that's a modest proposal, it's also potentially more achievable in the near term than waiting for a vaccine in the long run.

So, to answer your question, Tucker, I'm an optimist, I think that if your base hits along the way, it will get us right back on track to the right attitude.

CARLSON: So really quickly, in 30 seconds, you're saying that if we had effective treatments that help some significant percentage of the 20 percent who wind up hospitalized, that our whole outlook would change and you think that could happen?

RAMASWAMY: I think from a societal standpoint, I can't tell you which drug it's going to be right now. That's why we do clinical trials. But I think that there are enough shots on goal that yes, I think that's a likely nearer term, achievable goal, the vaccine is the Holy Grail. But there's never been a vaccine developed that I'm aware of in less than two years.

So, treatments that address the people who are hospitalized can really change the game here, even if they're not a cure for all people who are infected, that could really change the cost benefit analysis.

CARLSON: Coming from someone who runs a drug company, that's really hopeful, hopeful news. Vivek, thanks so much for joining us tonight. Good to see you.

RAMASWAMY: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: So, when he was Vice President, Joe Biden fought hard to roll back rights for students who were accused of sexual misconduct and he did roll those rights back, more than anybody else in the last century.

But now, because everything is irony, Biden's presidential campaign hinges on making sure that those rights apply to him. We'll tell you how that works after the break.


CARLSON: We've been bringing regular updates on the Joe Biden's sex abuse allegations and looking into it as deeply as we can.

The truth is, as of right now, we still have no real idea what happened between Biden and his former staffer, Tara Reade. The alleged assault took place more than 25 years ago. They were no other witnesses.

Reade's account may be entirely accurate, but as we told you last night, and then baffled some viewers, there are real and troubling inconsistencies both in her story itself and in her behavior.

As recently as three years ago, Reade enthusiastically praised Joe Biden on social media for his concern about the abuse and mistreatment of women. But think about that.

At the least, it is very strange behavior for Tara Reade, given what she now claims occurred.

Over the years. Reade has also accused others of abuse. At one point, she wrote that her ex-husband was being investigated by the F.B.I. in the disappearances of two women.

We checked and we found no record that her former husband was ever charged for murder. So, that's where we are. Now, why are we telling you all of this?

Well, first, because it's true. Those are the facts and facts are hard to keep track of during an election year, especially this year. There's a bewildering amount of lying and all of us ought to do whatever we can to fight against it, and to remain rooted in reality. That's always the key.

But there's another reason that this story is significant that the details matter. Joe Biden has been accused of a sex crime by a person who at least right now cannot conclusively establish that it happened.

And that's why Biden is still in the race. In our system, it is not enough to claim that someone is guilty, you've got to prove it, or the person cannot be punished. That rule is not a feature of our justice system. It is the whole point of our justice system.

The presumption of innocence prevents America from becoming a police state. It's one of the main reasons so many people move here from around the world.

They want to live in a country where you can't be denounced and imprisoned without evidence.

So, you'd have to think that right now, Joe Biden has never been more grateful to live in America. Without our long tradition of fairness and protections like due process, Joe Biden would have been forcibly retired the day that Tara Reade gave her first media interview.

And here's the irony bomb. No politician in America has done more to undermine those same protections than Joe Biden has.

As Vice President, Biden led President Obama's Taskforce on campus sexual assault. Under Biden's direction, the administration ordered thousands of American colleges to implement new standards for handling claims of sexual harassment and assault.

Those standards dramatically reduced the burden of proof. They made it far harder for the accused to defend themselves. It wasn't by accident that was their intent.

Many schools adopted standards that did not consider students innocent until proven guilty. In other words, under pressure from Joe Biden, they inverted the U.S. Constitution.

Their new standard was in fact, the medieval standard. Prove you're innocent or we will crush you, and many were crushed. Here's just one example.

In 2014, at the University of Findlay in Ohio, two students had separate sexual encounters with a woman at a party. Multiple witnesses later said the encounters were consensual. Yet a week and a half later, both students were accused of sexual assault.

Within 48 hours, the school found them guilty and expelled them. The school then issued a campus wide announcement proclaiming the students had been expelled.

Their names and their pictures ran in the local newspaper. They never had a chance to defend themselves. So, they sued.

After five full years, the college finally settled in effect, admitting the students had been railroaded. But by that time their lives had been derailed and their reputations remained in tatters.

The same thing has happened to a lot of students on campus. You may know some of them.

This is all a dark chapter in American history. And yet, amazingly, Joe Biden remains proud of it.

Not long ago, he dismissed any who criticized his attacks on constitutional norms, as quote, "Neanderthals," as if you'd have to be a rapist to believe in due process.

Keep in mind, that's the guy now insisting he is innocent until proven guilty.

The amazing thing is, some high profile Biden supporters assume he is guilty and they're supporting him anyway.

Last week, professional bottom feeder Lisa Bloom tweeted her support for Biden, quote, "I believe you, Tara Reade. I still have to fight Trump. So, I will still support Joe, but I believe you. And I'm sorry." She tweeted that.

In other words, hey, Tara, sorry you got raped. I'm supporting your rapist. Remember that not so long ago, the same Lisa Bloom worked as a toady for Harvey Weinstein. And that makes sense now.

But it's not just Lisa Bloom. Marty Tolchin worked for "The New York Times" for decades, a big figure on Washington journalism. Later he helped found POLITICO which still exists, sort of.

In a recent letter to his old paper, Tolchin laid out his reasoning with remarkable candor, quote, "I don't want an investigation. I want a coronation of Joe Biden. I don't want justice, whatever that may be. I want to win. The removal of Donald Trump from office and Mr. Biden is our best chance."

"Suppose an investigation (of the rape claims) reveals damaging information and Mr. Biden loses the nomination to Senator Bernie Sanders or someone else with a minimal chance of defeating Mr. Trump. Should we really risk the possibility?"

Again, we're not making that up. He wrote that. Bringing a rapist to justice might affect the Democratic Party's chances in the fall presidential election. Therefore, let's just ignore it. That's what Marty Tolchin is arguing and he is arguing explicitly.

These are the people lecturing you relentlessly about your moral failings. Who are these people? They're exactly the kind of people the Bill of Rights exists to disempower.

Without our constitutional protections, crazed and unscrupulous power worshipers like Lisa Bloom and Marty Tolchin would decide who goes to prison and who doesn't.

You do not want to live in a country like that. But with the fascism he unleashed on college campuses, Joe Biden brought America much closer to being that country.

So, at this point, now that he's been awakened since he's been accused himself, Joe Biden should get on his knees and offer a groveling apology, not an apology to Tara Reade, an apology to the rest of us.

And breaking news just into the show. Literally, as I read the script, my producers noticed a news release that was blasted out in an e-mail from Joe Biden, I'm reading this cold. The statement is titled "Statement by Joe Biden on the Trump administration rule to undermine Title 9 and campus safety." Just what we were talking about.

In it, the statement reads this, quote, "Survivors deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward, they should be heard not silenced."

It also includes this bit, "Trump's Education Department is trying to shame and silence survivors." There was no reference to the survivor who is accusing him of sexual assault, of course, what a pig.

Heather Mac Donald is a Manhattan Institute Fellow and author of the book, "The Diversity Delusion." She joins us tonight. So, Heather, thanks so much for coming on, as always. You covered this as it happened, and I think in more compelling detail than anybody.

Assess if you would what Joe Biden did to our constitutional norms or presumption of innocence on college campuses.

HEATHER MAC DONALD, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FELLOW: Well, here's the key point about the great Anglo American tradition of jurisprudence, Tucker. Your sex doesn't determine guilt or innocence. Your race doesn't determine guilt or innocence. The facts do. And those facts should be adjudicated in a neutral tribunal, and the accuser should have to prove the accused guilt, the accused should not have to prove his innocence.

Joe Biden was willing to completely shred that tradition in order to curry favor with the radical feminists. The campus rape tribunals that he was absolutely instrumental in setting up declared that neutral fact finding was traumatizing and oppressive, and that's female survivors should be believed because we all live in a rape culture and women deserve automatic belief from everybody else.

Now, the fact that Biden is willing to suddenly now discard that prior stance and rediscover the value of due process and the presumption of in would be amusing because hypocrisy in politicians is always amusing especially when it's as flagrant and shameless as this, but it's also a serious matter.

Because when politicians are so principled less, when they are so willing to discard their previous positions in the favor of self-interest or political advance that erodes faith in our institutions.

So, it's a broad question of what this does to our politics. And it's also an extraordinary danger for our tradition of due process.

CARLSON: So, I have concluded after looking a lot of evidence that these allegations against Joe Biden are suspect, deeply suspect and I don't care for Joe Biden's politics. I'm not going to vote for him. But I want to be honest enough to say that out loud because I think it's true. And what's true is what matters.

I'm getting the impression that Biden and the people around him could not care less what is actually true. It's only about what's expedient and brings them power or am I not being charitable?

MAC DONALD: Right, you're doing something that both sides of the political divide find it increasingly difficult to do, which is to apply neutral principles, disinterestedly, you know, regardless of partisan interest, which I don't assume you have in one way or another.

But what Biden is doing is saying, he is going to take, at one point, a lousy principle, which is believe survivors, but it's a principle, you know, at least he is applying it.

And then --

CARLSON: Right, exactly.

MAC DONALD: He discards that principle, when it's in his self-interest to adopt what I would argue is a far more profound and important principle, which is due process and the presumption of innocence.

So, to see a politician be that hypocritical, that shameless, again, means that we live close to a tyranny because the only thing that that protects us from sheer power is neutral principles and the rule of law.

CARLSON: That's exactly -- that's exactly right. That is such a deep point. Heather McDonald, thank you so much. Great to see you tonight.

MAC DONALD: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, virtually alone and no one saw this coming among countries in the West, Sweden refused to copy China in the way that it responded to coronavirus. Now, its Ambassador says Sweden is approaching immunity -- group immunity against the virus. She joins us next to explain what's happening there.


CARLSON: As the coronavirus swept the planet in early March, virtually every Western nation raced to adopt the Chinese model for fighting it. Aggressive lockdowns, targeting the whole population, severe punishment for anyone who didn't obey.

One nation though refused to go along. It stood alone. It was Sweden.

Sweden never closed restaurants. It never close primary schools. It encouraged people to look out for their own health and the health of their neighbors. According to the country's leaders, that strategy worked.

Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter is the Swedish Ambassador to the United States, and we're happy to have her on tonight. Ambassador, thanks so much for joining us. So, there's been -- and I know you've been following this as closely as anyone -- a lot of debate in the American media over how well your response has actually worked. Can you bottom line it for us? How has it worked?

KARIN ULRIKA OLOFSDOTTER, SWEDISH AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Well, both good and bad, I should say. First of all, I would really like to express my deep condolences to anyone out there who has lost a loved one with the virus, of course, spreading across the United States just as everywhere else.

And well, our strategy is based on you know, our way of life, how we function, how we function in Sweden. So, the aim is, of course to save as many lives as possible and keep the healthcare system running because of course, we know the flat curve and the spiked curve and so on. So, it's a strategy to keep the curve as low as possible and getting our healthcare system to function.

And we also realize that this is a marathon and that we will be at this for a long time, so we have to build a strategy that we can keep for a long time.

It's built on recommendations. My country is a bit different there as people have big trust in the government offices and public agencies, and the government and the politicians trust the population. So that's the fundamental of how we built the strategy.


OLOFSDOTTER: So, we advocate social distancing. People older than 70 should stay at home, which they mostly adhere to. And we have regulated so that it's now forbidden to visit people in the elderly care homes, and that's where we unfortunately have seen the biggest loss of lives among elderly people, so 90 percent of the 3,000 people who have died in Sweden have been older than 70 years old.

And that's of course, a big failure that we have and something we are working on.

We have also instituted sick days from the first day you're sick, it is said that, you know, if you have the slightest problem or sickness stay at home.

And yes, our restaurants are open. But, of course, it has seen an economic downturn like, you know, a lot of them are doing extremely badly, and -- but they are open.

Travel has gone down over Easter, for instance, 90 percent less travel in the country than before, so people are basically following these recommendations.

And so yes, it is the more open approach, but with the same aim as everyone else.

CARLSON: Let me ask you, Ambassador, one of the aims I think that all epidemiologists agree is the goal, it is to get enough people who are immune in a society to the virus who had been infected and recovered, that it no longer spreads as quickly. Group immunity. How close to that is Sweden right now?

OLOFSDOTTER: Well, right now, we know that Stockholm has about 25 percent of herd immunity. We are now doing a study, which will be ready in one or two weeks where we get where we are in the whole country.

But three weeks ago in Stockholm, pardon me, it was about 10 percent. So, we see an increase. And this is of course, something -- it is not a strategy to get herd immunity. It's something, of course, you want to get as long as we don't have a virus, and I think, the virus we do have.

CARLSON: Interesting. Well, thank you for joining us, Ambassador and congratulations on seeing some progress. We appreciate it.


CARLSON: So, we're trying to take this in a big picture sense and if you do that, you know, as the World Trade Organization, W.T.O., played a key role in creating this country's dependence on China. It really did. The numbers are amazing.

Is it time to get rid of the W.T.O.? One U.S. Senator says we should and he's here to explain after the break.


CARLSON: Almost 19 years ago, in December of 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization. It wasn't a huge story at the time, but the leaders then reassured us, it would be great.

President Clinton promised it would be a win-win for everyone involved, then President Bush was for it, too.

They were all completely wrong. It was a disaster.

After 2001, America's trade deficit with China exploded. Thousands of American factories closed. Millions of jobs disappeared.

Meanwhile, China completely ignored many promises it made, for example, protecting intellectual property and play by the international rules.

Yet, thanks to the World Trade Organization, it's almost impossible for the United States to retaliate. We have both arms tied behind her back, so why are we still in the W.T.O.?

Senator Josh Hawley represents Missouri. He has been thinking about this, unlike most people in Washington. Yesterday, he wrote a piece in "The New York Times" saying that America should take the lead in abolishing the World Trade Organization.

Senator Hawley joins us tonight. Senator, thanks so much for coming on and for having an original unauthorized thought that you're not allowed to have. Why should we do this?

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Well, because it's what's best for America. I mean, let's get back to basics, Tucker, and that is we ought to be pursuing policies that are good for our workers and good for our families.

We've lost over two million jobs to China, since China became part of the World Trade Organization, and the truth is that China has really weaponized the international trade system and the W.T.O. to their own benefit, of course, and against us.

And so it's time that we did what we've done in years past over the last century, that we take the lead and that we redesign these institutions. Let's set up new rules, new arrangements, new partnerships, that actually work for American workers and put American interests first.

CARLSON: But wait a second, you know, for a fact that you're not allowed to question the sacred postwar international framework that has served us so well. How dare you suggest this?

HAWLEY: You know, it is amazing to see people's head explode all over Washington when you question the W.T.O. as if it has been around for two centuries.

Let's remember, the W.T.O. was just founded in 1995. I mean, it's hardly a sacrosanct organization. And it hasn't -- it hasn't worked for this country.

I mean, that's the bottom line is that we pursue things that are good or should be, that are good for America and American workers and American families and the W.T.O. has failed.

So, let's not tether ourselves to it any longer. Let's replace it with something better.

CARLSON: I'm just so fascinated by why things happen. Why do you think -- speculate just for a second, if you would -- why are people so invested in it? Why would people demand that we stay in an organization that hurts us?

HAWLEY: Well, you know, the same people, I think, who created the W.T.O. and were really all in for America's involvement and for having us seed our economic sovereignty to the W.T.O. because that's what happened.

These are the same people who wanted to create a liberal Universal Empire and have America be the world's policeman. They're the same people who sent our sons and daughters overseas to die and these forever wars to try and create this universal piece.

And the truth is, is that the W.T.O. and the global economy, the new model global economy, it was supposed to be all part of this liberal Universal Empire. Well, it didn't work.

It was never going to work. It was never good for America. And now we've got to reform it and actually protect American workers and families and our security.

CARLSON: Once you start reframing things through that lens, is it good for the country that you represent? I think you come to different conclusions like the one you've come to, and I'm sure going to take a ton of crap for saying this. But I applaud you.

Good for you. Senator Hawley. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

HAWLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Sixty minutes, gone. We are out of time, 59 and 28. We'll be back tomorrow, Thursday.

In the meantime, despite all the chaos and sadness, we hope that you enjoy your night with the ones you love.

And now taking over for us, 9:00 p.m. Eastern from New York, being handed the show 15 seconds early. The great Sean Hannity.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.