Trump celebrates America's energy independence during SOTU, Democrats unimpressed

close

Video

Trump celebrates America's energy independence during SOTU, Democrats unimpressed

Democrats set to unveil Green New Deal; former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 6, 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 delivered his second State of the Union address last night. He hit a panoramic range of topics as they always do. Everything from economic growth to childhood cancer.

As notable as what he said was though, more interestingly was the reaction he got. Even on topics where you'd expect to find some bipartisan agreement -- record low black unemployment for example or the country's thrilling and totally unexpected energy boom that has made us independent, Democrats, as they heard these words, sat in angry silence. Watch this response to the suddenly controversial suggestion that it's wrong to kill children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in a mother's womb.

(Cheering and Applause)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Imagine that. For Democrats, it was an awfully grim night as you just saw. The only flashes of cheerfulness came when the President noted that a record number of women had won election in the last cycle, and at that, Democrats stood and cheered heartily for themselves.

Some of them danced. Winning elections is what really matters. They didn't hide that. We'll have more details from the speech in just a minute. But first tonight, we have still more news to bring you from that chaotic developing nation formerly known as the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As of tonight, Virginia's three highest ranking public officials, all of them Democrats, are embroiled in potentially career-ending scandals and it seemed to come out of nowhere just last week.

First you'll remember, Democratic Governor Ralph Northam casually endorsed infanticide while defending a Democratic bill to legalize abortion right up to the minute of birth.

Then just hours after he said that, a little over a day, I think, Northam was found to have a picture of man wearing a Klu Klux Klan uniform and blackface on his med school yearbook page. Oops.

Almost immediately, pretty much the entire Democratic Party leadership called on Ralph Northam to resign his office and among the most vocal was the Attorney General of Virginia, Mark Herring.

Herring was appalled - appalled that Northam would do this. He just couldn't believe that someone could be that racist, and then today, Herring admitted that he too has appeared in blackface, which apparently is the equivalent of business casual for Democrats in Virginia. Will Herring resign over this revelation? Will party leaders ask him to resign? We're still waiting to find out.

But in the meantime, we are mesmerized as well by the saga of Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax. Just days ago, Fairfax thought he was going to replace Ralph Northam as Governor. Then it turned out that he too may be forced to resign from office because a Professor in California called Vanessa Tyson says that Fairfax violently sexually assaulted her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston where both of them were volunteering because both are fervent Democrats.

At the time, Fairfax was a quote, "Body man for disgraced Senator John Edwards" because the details here are just too perfect to make up. Tyson came forward a couple of days ago, and when she did, according to two sources who were in the room, Fairfax's first response to the story from Vanessa Tyson was quote, "F that (EXPLETIVE)." It's not really the classic feminist reaction to an allegation of sexual assault.

Now, Lieutenant Governor -- rather, Tyson - Vanessa Tyson has released a highly detailed account of what she says happened to her and how it has affected her life ever since. It's all online and it makes for a harrowing reading if you care to read it.

For Democrats though, the response to all of this ought to be really obvious because they just went through something amazingly similar a few months ago. Another Professor from California accused another public figure of far less serious crimes with far fewer corroborating details.

Democrats know they have to believe all women. They have told us that countless times, but this time, they don't believe all women. They don't care about Vanessa Tyson. "F her" in the words of the Lieutenant Governor. She is in the way.

Watch presidential candidate Cory Booker, a self-described very good person dismiss Tyson completely today as unimportant. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: I think we should be focusing on what's right now happening with the Governor. I you know you guys are going to try to focus on lot of things right now, but right now, my focus is on, again, calling for the Governor to step down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, Booker has got better things to focus on than some girl in California who's alleging sexual assault against one of his party mates. The Cory Booker, just a few months ago, would be disgusted by the Cory Booker you just saw.

Back then sexual politics seem more important than race politics. And now it's the other way around. It's the never-ending car crash of intersectionality. Here's reminder of the way it once was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOOKER: How we deal with survivors who come forward right now is unacceptable, and the way we deal with this, unfortunately, allows for the continued darkness of this culture to exist and your brilliance shining light under this, speaking your truth is nothing short of heroic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: What was short of heroic then, it was a light in the darkness of our culture that Cory Booker, because, once again, he's an incredibly good person and way better than you and he went to Yale. He was going to shine to make this a better society.

Now, who cares about this woman? Will she shut up already? What to make of this sudden change in attitude. Robin Biro was a regional campaign manager for President Obama's Presidential campaign and he joins us. Hey, Robin, thanks you for coming on.

ROBIN BIRO, REGIONAL MANAGER FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So I'm little bit - as someone who has sat figuratively at the feet of Cory Booker, in an effort to learn how to be a truly good person like he is, to achieve the kind of enlightenment he has. I'm a little surprised by the abrupt change of tone from "You're a hero coming forwards with allegations of sexual assault to shut up, honey, we've got better things to quote, 'focus on.'" What would account for that?

BIRO: That's really terrible. Optically, it doesn't get a lot worse than that, because as you said in the lead up to the segment, we just went through this with now Judge Kavanaugh.

So you know, Democrat, and any politician needs to be consistent with their message regardless of who is being accused.

CARLSON: Yes.

BIRO: I'm proud that I was very consistent with Judge Kavanaugh, and said he is entitled to due process, innocent until proven guilty. So you know, I think these allegations should be taken very seriously. I'm glad that the Democratic Party of Virginia is taking him seriously. Does he need to be removed from office right now? I said no. When Judge Kavanaugh, when that same question was asked of me. So you know, he's entitled to due process. But it's not looking good right now in Virginia, Tucker.

CARLSON: Now, it's not looking good -- you have a marvelous way of that side. No, it's looking good in Virginia. I would say this. What is with, with all the black face? I mean, what? Anyway, but it's a more serious question, so there are Democratic leaders who are saying we are quote, "taking this seriously." But how many have called Vanessa Tyson?

And I am not advocating for her position. I don't know the answer. I do believe in due process. Fairfax could be absolutely innocent, maybe he is. But when these allegations were made against Republicans, you saw Democratic senators -- Mazie Hirono and the rest -- call up the person making the allegations and say, "We'll shelter you. What can we do to help you? We're on your side. Tell your story." As Booker had said, "You're heroic." Are they calling Vanessa Tyson do you think tonight and saying that?

BIRO: No, and they ought to be, because like I said, it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on. These are human issues and they are very serious ones. So, no, it's disingenuous, at best, not enough people are coming forward to say this is a serious allegation. It should be investigated.

I will say that the Lieutenant Governor himself said that he's open to being investigated. Let's see how far that goes.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, again, I don't know the truth and I wouldn't presume to claim otherwise. I did read the detailed account of Vanessa Tyson, who whatever, you know, I don't know anything about her other than her CV, which is -- let me just -- she's got PhD from Chicago, so I mean, she's not -- she's a serious person, clearly, she is. Anyway, what do you make --

BIRO: And Tucker.

CARLSON: Yes, of course.

BIRO: I understand that she just hired the same attorney as Christine Blasey Ford. So you better believe this is a serious allegation.

CARLSON: Right, yes. I mean, all allegations should be taken seriously. I am with you on that. But I wonder if we're for due process, then why are all of us demanding that Ralph Northam, whom I think should resign for support of infanticide, but on the question of his yearbook page, before we even knew or before he even knew whether it was him in the picture, people were saying he should resign before he could even offer an explanation. So that's not exactly due process is it? Or even like enough knowledge to judge?

BIRO: Here's where the tipping point was for me with that. He first said that it was him in the photo. Then he backtracked. So at that point, he is a public servant. He lost the public trust.

So once you lose the public trust, it's just over. He's got to go. I have some -- I don't know if I would take this seriously or not, but I understand that he's seriously considering running - changing parties to an independent because he's lost so many friends on the Democratic side. I might believe that. But you know, by and large, they've got some serious issues. And it's going to have ramifications for my party. I am concerned about that, Tucker.

CARLSON: I agree, and I would correct you, there are no friends in politics, merely allies -- momentary allies.

BIRO: Right.

CARLSON: Then what do you make of this character, Herring, who's the chief law enforcement officer of the state who told us a couple of days ago that Northam needs to resign because he wore blackface and that's racist, but oh, wait a second, I guess like a lot of Democrats in Virginia, he wore blackface, too. So why shouldn't he resign as well?

BIRO: And you know, he called for the Governor to do the same.

CARLSON: Yes.

BIRO: Which blows my mind because he knew this photo was out there. To his only credit, his only redeeming quality here is that he told us this himself. So perhaps, you could make the argument that he hasn't lost the public trust because he came forward with this information. He said, he dressed up as his favorite rapper, Curtis Blow. Okay, I got it, and that was 1980. I understand.

I'm more concerned, Tucker, for the youth of today. You know, you and I, at our age, we didn't have camera phones. It was Polaroids. But I'm concerned about the youth of today with the technology.

CARLSON: Also, I mean, not to brag anything, I wasn't wearing blackface -- but you know, I am waiting for Cory Booker --

BIRO: I think I dressed up as Kiss.

CARLSON: I am waiting for Cory Booker to weigh in on this Herring guy. I don't think he is going to called as a racist ...

BIRO: Yes, they need to.

CARLSON: ... because there's a Republican in line after him, so I think Cory is going to be okay with that, but I've got to check from my Oracle tomorrow morning. Robin Biro, great to see you. Thank you.

BIRO: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So what does the Vanessa Tyson story tell us about the current standards among our ruling class for allegations of sexual assault? It's a real question, and an important one. Francey Hakes has considered questions like this for a long time. She is a former Federal prosecutor and she joins us now.

So Francey, you're watching this unfold, three different stories, three different standards, shifting standards. For the rest of us, eating popcorn with jaws open, what do we conclude?

FRANCEY HAKES, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Tucker, I think it's very concerning when I see the rank hypocrisy among the so-called moral and thought leaders of our country and Hollywood, the Democrats, the Senate Judiciary members who went after Kavanaugh and said #IBelieveHer, and that's what we always have to do, we always believe the woman. We believe her instantly. And that is not happening here. The silence on that side is deafening. And I really am appalled by it.

CARLSON: What do you think it counts for? I mean, it was pretty unequivocal and let me just say for the record, I don't want to be a hypocrite myself. I thought that Kavanaugh deserved due process. I don't think we should believe all women. That's insane. We shouldn't believe all men, or believe all anybody. People lie, and that's why due process matters.

So I just want to be clear, but Democrats were as clear that we just axiomatically believe women. What accounts for the change?

HAKES: Well, it looks like politics to me, Tucker. And as a prosecutor, you have to look at things neutrally no matter who the person is that you're considering prosecution of. So when you looked at the allegations against Justice Kavanaugh and when you looked at the allegations against Lieutenant Governor Fairfax, you have to look at them with the same eye.

That is, for me as a prosecutor, would I bring this case? Does this make a prosecutable case? Are the allegations credible? What do both parties say? And that is not what is happening today with Dr. Tyson's allegations. They are not even talking about them, much less assessing them for credibility.

CARLSON: So I mean, if we politicize and clearly, we have, even the process of reporting a potential crime, I mean, what effect does that have? People feel like they can't go to authorities if they are from the wrong party or has the wrong political effect? I mean, that's pretty corrosive, no?

HAKES: Well, it is. It has very deleterious effects on victims. When you say things like "Believe all women," and then the other side is saying, "There's something wrong with her because she didn't come forward many years ago," which is common among sexual assault survivors, it just shows victims that they can't trust anyone, and that's my biggest concern here.

It is that when victims come forward and many, many studies have shown that survivors delay reporting abuse for years or even decades. We are telling them that they should never come forward and we can't have that as a nation if we expect to protect survivors and prosecute abusers.

CARLSON: It's a totally fair point. A nonpartisan point. A commonsense point. Francey, thanks a lot for that.

HAKES: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, the President last night attacked socialism in his speech to the Congress and he praised our country's booming energy sectors. Democrats weren't impressed at all. They would like to eliminate our energy sector in 12 years with a Green New Deal. Barack Obama's top economic advisor is here to assess all this, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Socialism is in the news for first time if a long time. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and now Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York have become pretty famous for calling for socialism in this country, and the President used his State of the Union last night to respond to them directly. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free and we will stay free.

(Cheering and Applause)

TRUMP: Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.

(Cheering and Applause)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "Darn," said Bernie Sanders. He wasn't impressed. He sat and looked even grumpier usual, which is pretty grumpy.

But in case you needed more evidence, the Democratic Party is actually lot more divided than they tell you on CNN. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York applauded that line or seemed to. Well, there was more agreement from Democrats on the question of America's energy sector which is now the strongest and most important part of our economy. They are opposed to the whole thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world.

(Cheering and Applause)

TRUMP: For the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.

(Cheering and Applause)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So that means that after a century overlying on a series of unstable, creepy Middle Eastern countries who hate us and support terrorism, America is now where we all said we wanted it to be - energy independent. You think we'd be celebrating that, but no, Democrats are upset about that. You just watched them. And they are proposing to shut the whole thing down, the entire energy sector -- the fossil fuel sector -- in a dozen years. Ban oil, ban coal, ban natural gas. So say goodbye to air travel and the car in your driveway, not to mention, a huge part of our economy. How is that for a platform?

Austan Goolsbee is an economist, University of Chicago. He chaired the Council of Economic of Advisors for President Obama. He joins us tonight. Austan, thanks a lot for coming on.

So I'm confuse by this. I understand that there are some forms of energy that people find preferable to others. That's totally fair. But the United States is now by some measures, the biggest energy producer in the world, a net exporter of it, no longer dependent upon Middle East oil. This was the goal we were striving towards. We achieved it, and Democrats look mad about that. Why?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, ECONOMIST, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Well, A, I don't believe that Democrats are mad about that, and the growth of oil and gas in the shale revolution long predated President Trump, by the way.

CARLSON: No, no. You're missing it. It's not about Trump. And I'm not saying Trump invented fracking. I am not making a bipartisan point. I am just saying, this was a bipartisan goal. I heard Chuck Schumer talk about it. I heard lots of Democrats. We have to get off the Middle Eastern oil dependency that's forcing us to finance terrorism. They said that. We've done it, they hate it, and I just think like, are they really rooting for the country at this point?

GOOLSBEE: Yes, but you're confusing two types of energy.

CARLSON: Okay.

GOOLSBEE: No, it's not that it's bad for -- you're confusing two types of energy. One is about oil and fuels that are predominantly used in cars and transportation. The other is about electricity and the generation of the electricity, which is about the use of coal, natural gas and there's been a huge increase as you know in wind power and solar and a lot of renewable sources of energy.

CARLSON: No, I am not confused. I know --

GOOLSBEE: We can -- all of those things -- the wind, the solar, the hydropower -- those are in the United States, so that's - your allegation that we're talking about throwing out the window, progress we've made towards self-sufficiency is not correct.

CARLSON: No, I am actually not making allegation. I'm merely reading the plan for the Green New Deal which is available online, and maybe revised, I think it will be because it's literally insane and anti-American.

But here's what it says in case you haven't read it, and I know that you have. We need to get rid all fossil fuels in 12 years. And that would mean no cars, and it would definitely mean no air travel, period. Because there's no solar airplane.

So that is the position that lots of Democrat have endorsed, and you know that I'm telling the truth. And what is that? That's crazy and you know it.

GOOLSBEE: That sounds extreme. I know that you have selectively chosen one. There are many different Green New Deal plans, and you have chosen one that you feel is the most extreme. And you're then saying that's what the Democratic Party represents.

CARLSON: No, this is -- hold on, okay, look. I'm not saying every Democrat agrees with that. I think most Democrats don't agree with it because they know it's nuts. Any adult who looks at it will be afraid of that, but they don't have the courage to say to the rising stars in the party, like AOC and Bernie, "Come on now. Only a tiny percentage of our power is produced by renewables, we can't do this in 12 years. This would wreck the economy and put 10 million people out of work." And they don't have the courage to say that, why?

GOOLSBEE: But I mean, is your view, Tucker, that we should therefore, not do anything to support or promote clean energy sources in the United States?

CARLSON: But that's not my -- but that's not the case I am making. That's not the view. I am not the one who is -- but the plan is saying --

GOOLSBEE: Well, but I am asking you because that is the position of President Trump and the White House.

CARLSON: Okay, look, I'm saying there is a plan that has been discussed in some detail on "Meet the Press" over on the other channel that calls for eliminating the entire fossil fuel industry in 12 years. And so it's not like I am pulling -- it's not like some leaflet I found on the subway, okay, this is a real thing in heart of the Democratic Party, and no one will say it's nuts.

GOOLSBEE: Do you take the subway, Tucker? If you take the subway, I'll be impressed.

CARLSON: It's called the Metro here, and you're dodging the question, which is that's insane comma, is it not?

GOOLSBEE: No, I'm not dodging the question. You didn't ask a question. You're just making a statement.

CARLSON: Is it not -- why won't anyone call that what it is, which is reckless, crazy and anti-American? I mean, it's not hard.

GOOLSBEE: Their argument. Look, Tucker, I'm an economic professors. I'm not a fan of socialism. Socialism doesn't work. But you are not doing a service when the people who advocate the most extreme version of the plan, which are the ones you're seizing on. Their argument is that through research and massive investment, we will get the cost of these alternative fuels and renewable sources of energy down below what the cost of fossil fuels are today. So it's not like going out tomorrow banning gasoline. That's crazy.

CARLSON: That is an argument. I haven't heard anyone -- okay, I mean, just -- I would encourage our viewers if they think I'm exaggerating this for theatrical effect to just look it up. I mean, this is what they are saying. I agree with you. They'll change their views because it's crazy. But I just think it's important to call crazy a crazy. Professor, great to see you.

GOOLSBEE: I believe it's unrealistic the way they say it --

CARLSON: Okay, good. Good, I'll get that --

GOOLSBEE: But if there are improvements to cost as they predict it, then it wouldn't be crazy.

CARLSON: Yes, okay, we'll see. Thank you very much, Austen Goolsbee. So how did the rest of the country react to the State of the Union? Ed Henry knows because Ed Henry knows all. He joins us tonight.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not all, but Tucker, this story, you are going to absolutely love. The best part is that the on-air talent at CBS and CNN looked like they were forced eat a really bad bowl of porridge, as they revealed the results of what they call snap polls, insta- polls, showing that among the people who watched President Trump's speech, a big majority -- wait for it -- actually liked the speech.

Now, we've got to be crystal clear at the top. These were the so-called snap polls that are not giving us a wide swathe of the electorate, just a tiny little snapshot of the people who actually watched the speech. Millions of people, but it's not the entire electorate.

And if the polls show the public hated the speech, you can imagine some anchors might have reported that bad news with glee. Instead, the CBS poll for example, showed among those who watched the speech, 76% approved of what the President said overall, and get this, 72% said they specifically approve of the President's ideas on immigration.

CNN had an instant poll, 59% said they were quote-unquote "very positive" about the speech; 17% said they were somewhat positive. That gives the president at 76% positive rating.

So it seemed like CNN and CBS maybe were surprised by the results. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CHALIAN, POLITICAL DIRECTOR, CNN: So I just want to stress here that for a State of the Union address, the President's partisan, his supporters tend to turn out to watch the speech. This is true of a President of either party. So tonight, we saw a heavily Republican skewed audience turn out to watch the President's speech.

But look at this, a very positive reaction from those who watched the speech tonight; 59% very positive, 17% somewhat positive, 23% negative.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Instant poll here following the President's State of the Union; 76% of speech watchers said they approved of what they heard, 72% said they approved of the President's ideas for immigration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Very solemn looking indeed that the results were positive. We're going to discuss it a little more tonight when I fill in for Shannon Bream, 11:00 p.m. Eastern tonight, Tucker.

CARLSON: And guess who will be watching that? Me and everyone else.

HENRY: I love it.

CARLSON: Ed Henry. It's great to see you, thank you.

HENRY: Thank you.

CARLSON: As Ed just reported, the news media was far less receptive of the President's speech and the general public was. As you'd expect, it wasn't just the anchors. Guests on the other cable networks were horrified. They barked and bellowed as their fellow panelists nodded and booed in agreement, "Oh, okay, you're right." Like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, ANCHOR, CNN: I saw this as a psychotically incoherent speech with cookies and dog poop. He is demonizing people who are immigrants in a way that was appalling.

DAVID JOLLY, R-FLA., FORMER REPRESENTATIVE: There's nothing that was said last night that is credible, believable or memorable.

JOHN KING, ANCHOR, CNN: That the President of the United States at this moment in the world did not mention climate change in even a sentence, is just, frankly a disgrace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It's just a disgrace. They should talk about my pet issue. It should be required. It's disgraceful. But those assessments were sober really compared to the ravings of the former CIA Director, John Brennan. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I Think Donald trump raised to a new level the demagoguery, the hyperbole, the chauvinism and even the misrepresentation on a lot of the issues including on the foreign policy and national security front.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, think about that. It was John Brennan on TV. If you wanted to reassure Americans that their core institutions were stable and competent, the so-called deep state, was just a paranoid fantasy. Everything was fine and totally on the level.

If you wanted to convince the public of that, you probably wouldn't give John Brennan a TV contract, because John Brennan's last job was running the CIA - the most powerful intelligence agency in the world, and yet, hear about 20 minutes later, we watch him play the part of the unemployed political consultant hack repeating the dumbest possible partisan talking points on late night cable.

So the question is, how did a guy that limited rise to the very top of the Federal bureaucracy to the agency with the most power and the most guns and the most knowledge? And what exactly did he do with all of that power? Those are the questions you might ask yourself about John Brennan after watching him on TV, and it's not reassuring at all.

Well, identity politics is the new rallying cry of the Democratic Party, but what happens to a country where basic questions are decided on the basis of a DNA? Can country like that function? We'll investigate after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A woman named Stacey Abrams gave the Democratic rebuttal to the State of the Union address last night. Abrams is not an office holder, she's a former state legislator from Georgia. She lost the governor's race there in the last election.

Nevertheless, party leaders clearly have big plans for Abrams. Her speech last night wasn't much. She talked mostly about herself. But far more interesting is a piece that Abrams wrote in this month's "Foreign Affairs" magazine.

The piece is called "Identity Politics Strengthens Democracy" and if you want to understand what the Democratic Party seeks for this country, you ought to read the piece.

Abrams went to Yale Law School, so the article itself is a chore to get through. It's written in that cloying indirect academic style that passes for erudition among our credentialed elites. Lots of meaningless adjectives, very few declarative sentences, but you'll get the point anyway. It's crystal clear.

Quote, "By embracing identity," Abrams writes in the final sentence, "Americans will become more likely to grow as one." So ponder that for a second. The less we have in common, the more united we will be. Is that true? Well, of course not. It's absurd. Even Stacey Abrams doesn't really believe it. Nobody does.

Abrams doesn't bother to defend that premise, much less explain how exactly identity politics will unite this country. Unity is definitely not what Stacey Abrams is interested in. Just the opposite. What she's selling is bitter division.

Abrams spends the bulk of the piece calling what she describes as the marginalized to unite against the quote, "dominant groups." So who is marginalized and who is dominant? That's not a small question.

In the scheme of identity politics, it's the only question that matters. Everything rides on who is the victim and who is the oppressor, that's the entire equation. And Abrams spells out the answer in very clear language. "The marginalized," she writes include, quote, "Women, Native Americans, African-American, immigrants and the LGBTQ community." The dominant are everyone who is left.

So do the subtraction. That is only one group. You know exactly who they are, and so does Stacey Abrams. She says these people, these unnamed people are responsible for the suffering of everyone else, and we need to overthrow them.

She uses language of violence and war to describe what must come next, quote, "Politics is the most effective method of revolt." Revolt. People get hurt in revolts. That's the natue of revolts.

Stacey Abrams knows that. She wants one anyway. She doesn't hide it. Demagoguery like this would make a certain kind of sense if your only interest was in winning elections and you didn't care what happened afterwards. That's where Democrats are right now.

The Democratic Party is a highly unstable collection of interest groups. Many of them with radically different interests and goals. It's not a natural coalition. There's no reason all of these groups should be voting for the same candidates in every election.

The only way to keep a fractious group like this together is by inventing a common enemy that everyone can oppose. You're one of us if you hate these people. And this often works in the short term. It worked for Democrats in the Jim Crow South for about a hundred years. And that's why they still do it.

The problem is that these people, these dominant groups as Stacey Abrams, says, aren't some foreign invader from a faraway land, they're your countrymen. You're not supposed to hate them or hurt them, or revolt against them. They is us. We're in this together. We're all Americans. That's the most important thing, really the only important thing.

Stacey Abrams doesn't see it that way, neither do the leaders of her party. They think they can win the next election by telling Americans they must hate their neighbors for the color of their skin. It's possible this will work one more time. But then what happens after the election? Abrams doesn't answer that question in her piece, she doesn't care.

But the rest of us should think about it. No election is worth the hatred and the division of identity politics, not if you plan to live here anyway.

Elections in this country used to be based on issues or that was the common agreement anyway. But what would happen to a country in which power is allocated on the basis of qualities you couldn't control. Things you were born with. Your skin color, your gender, your genetics. That would be called identity politics.

The Heritage Foundation's David Azerrad has been studying this question and he joins us tonight with the answer. David, thank you very much for coming on. So what happens to a country that is run with identity politics?

DAVID AZERRAD, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: In the short term, it kind of works because the majority group doesn't play along with it, and kind of keeps quiet and does the public self-flagellation to atone for the sins of the father.

But in the long run, it's untenable. How much longer until whites say, "Why don't we get to have an identity?" And the day that happens, then you get some form of Yugoslavia or Rwanda, you get Balkanization and you get ethnic tribalism, groups fighting against one another.

So it's tenable in the short term. I just don't see how you can still have a country in the long run with identity politics. And the great paradox is, it may well create namely white nationalism what they claim to oppose today.

CARLSON: What if there's any question, and I think that's really something to fear, just to be really clear because of the results. So have you ever seen -- so Stacey Abrams, but it's not -- I don't mean to pick on Stacey Abrams, she represents much larger group of people who tell us the same thing, which is, "This works. We must embrace it."

The question is, does it work? Have you -- you studied this question extensively, you're a scholar. Is there a country in which this way of looking at the world has produced a stable nation?

AZERRAD: I mean, you hit on it in your previous remarks. Diversity is not a strength in politics. I mean, a strength in politics is unity. I mean, if you want to have a strong united country, you want the citizens to be united. Now, we'll have a free country. You don't want everyone to be the same. You need to make an allowance for pluralism.

But it is not good to promote division. I am fine having hyphenated Americans, what bothers me is if you emphasize the part that comes before the American part. I think you can recognize hyphenated Americans. But you emphasize the commonalities, the shared history, the shared devotion to Republican principals, the love the country, and if there is one thing that identity politics is very strong on is making you hate your country, making you despise your past, making you hate your fellow countrymen.

CARLSON: Last question, if you and I hate each other over qualities we were born with and can't change, how is our division ever reconciled? How do we fix the problem between us?

AZERRAD: I don't think it can be. That's why I prefer the left we used to have in America, and Bernie Sanders is kind of the last gasp of it that looked at class divisions, and you still get pretty contentious politics with class divisions.

CARLSON: Yes.

AZERRAD: But there is upward and downward mobility. You can't immediately tell which class you belong to. It keeps -- you can still have a country with progressive class-based politics. You cannot have a country identity politics, and I should add, open borders.

CARLSON: David Azerrad, very smart analysis. Thank you for that.

AZERRAD: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Nearly 10 million immigrants arrived legally in the United States since 2010, millions more come in every year. This show has taken pretty tough standing. There's a lot of kinds of immigration, but we should say because it's true that a lot of people who would help this country and ought to be allowed to stay here are prevented by the government bureaucracy from doing so.

After the break, we're going to meet a Harvard graduate who spent more than a decade trying to get a green card, but for reasons that weren't clear and incredibly stupid, didn't. So before she leaves this country, she join us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways.

(Cheering and Applause)

TRUMP: I want people to come into our country in largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.

(Cheering and Applause)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So the President wants more legal immigrants. We already get a lot of legal immigrants, nearly two million came to this country in 2017, and most of them came on the basis of a single fact. Did someone from their family get here first?

So basically, it's a system based on genetics, rather than merit, and that has a downside. One that we have not talked about much on the show. Many qualified people who should be living here and would benefit the United States if they did are denied admission or the ability to stay.

Christine Mikolajuk is one of those people. She did not make the cut. She spent a decade following the rules. She went to Harvard. She speaks fluent English. She's highly qualified. She spent 14 years applying for green card, and then she moved to London. She join us tonight.

Christine, thank you very much for coming on.

CHRISTINE, MIKOLAJUK, FREELANCE WRITER: Hi, Tucker, thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So you didn't -- you already seem American, I would say. If you spent that long --

MIKOLAJUK: Thank you.

CARLSON: What did you learn about the system? What does the system value? Who gets in and on the basis of what criteria?

MIKOLAJUK: Sure, the trouble with the legal immigration system is that at the moment, it really only privileges families. Seventy percent of green cards are given to people because of their family and whether they have a connection to citizen already. And that's fine. You know, you should be able it bring in a spouse. But the problem is that there is a really big imbalance. Only 10% of green cards are given to people because of their jobs and their skills.

CARLSON: So did they stay to you -- you know, you're clearly dangerous or we think you're going to go on welfare? Do they even care about that? Or did they just say, you don't have a relative here, tough.

MIKOLAJUK: Well, no, that's the difficult part of it. So you spent - I spent 12 years working to be eligible to apply. So I came here for college. I got all the right jobs. I got my employers to sponsor me. I waited in line. I seemingly did everything right. And then we applied. It took two years for them to answer and then at the end of the day, it all came down to a government bureaucrat feeling like he didn't like what he saw.

CARLSON: Would it - I am sure you've been asked this before, would it not simply have been easier to go to Tijuana -- and I am serious -- and cross over and disappear into the huge unaccounted mass of illegal aliens in our country?

MIKOLAJUK: I wanted to do it the right way, so I wanted to follow the rules.

CARLSON: Were you awarded for that?

MIKOLAJUK: No.

CARLSON: So -- I did have lawyers who suggested semi-seriously that I should just marry an American because that was easier than following the rules, but I did not want to do it that way. So I wanted to do it the hard way, the long way, the honorable way. You know, I wanted my life in America to start off on the right foot. And unfortunately, that didn't work out.

And this happens to a lot of people, so 14% of my graduating class was foreign. And these are people who have big dreams of coming to America, you know, going to its great schools. They want to create a life here. They love it here. And then once they graduate, they have to leave. And most of those people, most of those 14% now live elsewhere, and they can go elsewhere. They can go to Canada. They can go to the U.K. They can go to Australia, New Zealand because America makes it so hard to stay here if you're applying on the basis of your skills and your education.

CARLSON: Right, if you're impressive. Last question, based on what you've learned, your English is perfect, it's native.

MIKOLAJUK: Thank you.

CARLSON: Okay, you obviously love America, you spent more than a decade trying to stay here. So you're assimilated in way that is meaningful. They didn't care about that.

MIKOLAJUK: Assimilation does not count. And that is a really unfortunate thing because when you're actually applying to become an American or when you're applying for citizenship, there's a citizenship test. You are asked questioned about the Constitution. You are asked questions about the Founding Fathers, you're asked all of these in English, but when it comes to visas and green cards, that doesn't play a role at all.

CARLSON: Well, our loss is London's gain. Thank you very much, Christine.

MIKOLAJUK: Thanks very much for having me on the show.

CARLSON: Elizabeth Warren -- I mean, the story is just unbelievable. We're going to bring you what you already know. Warren in her own handwriting described herself as an American Indian. But what this segment has that other segments on this question is Howie Carr, the pride of New England, he joins us after the break with even more details. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spent decades gaming our affirmative action system by pretending to be a Native American. She submitted plagiarized recipes to an Indian cookbook called "Powwow Chow." We cooked one of them on this show, not that good actually.

Then she claimed her parents were forced to elope because her racist grandparents refused to accept a Native American in the family, and then she took a DNA test to prove that she was in fact an American Indian, and the result showed that she may in fact be one out of 1,024th Indian, which is for the record, much less than you are.

The latest update in this bizarre saga comes in a form of a 986 from Warrant filled out for the State Bar of Texas. In it, she clearly states that she is an American Indian. Warren spoke to reporters about her ancestry just today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS.: When I was growing up in Oklahoma, I learned about my family the same way most people do. My brothers and I learned from our mom and our dad and our brothers and our sisters and those were our family stories. But that said, there really is an important distinction of tribal citizenship. I am not a member of a tribe.

CARLSON: Well, she's not a member of a tribe. Cleared that up. Howie Carr is a radio host, author of the new book "Kennedy Babylon" and of course, the pride of Boston. So Howie, I saw this and I almost felt sorry for Elizabeth Warren because obviously, it's over and she's disgraced.

But then I thought the "Boston Globe" made this lie possible. What have they said? They've covered her for years. They have defended her. How are they responding to evidence that they were lying all this time?

HOWIE CARR, RADIO SHOW HOST: Well, they ran a story in September just kind of trying to cover for her and they basically rounded up all the usual Democrat suspects at all of these law schools saying, "Oh, no, no. It had nothing to do with her being a Native American. It had to do with her great credentials."

But you know, there's nobody at Harvard Law School or Yale Law School or University of Pennsylvania that come from the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School, no knock on those schools, but that's just not where you get these people from.

You know what's coming out here, I think due to opposition research, Tucker, is we're starting to find out the outlines of this grift, you know. It starts like a small-time criminal, you know starts with shoplifting. She starts out with that cookbook, the plagiarized recipes. Nobody calls her out on it. Now she files this application with the Texas Bar. Nobody calls her out on it.

So she just keeps upping the ante and so a year later, she puts in that she's an Indian in the American law school directory and ding-ding-ding, Tucker. You know what happens, she's suddenly at the University of Pennsylvania Ivy League Law School, then she's at Harvard making major wampum for many moons. You know, $350,000.00 a year. And she has gotten away with it, but you're right, she's all done now. She's announcing her candidacy on Saturday then she's got to go to seven different states.

I wonder what questions the reporters in all of those seven states are going to ask her. She apologized nine times today in the course of that press conversation. Four minutes, nine times she used the word "apology."

CARLSON: It's unbelievable.

CARR: She has a better chance of being President of Cherokee Nation, I think, Tucker, than she does being President of the United States.

CARLSON: I just want to be clear, Howie, Elizabeth Warren stole the identity of a racial group to which she did not belong, but you're the bigot for making fun of her. Just so you know.

CARR: That's what Rachel Maddow said.

CARLSON: Yes, well. Congrats on the Patriots, by the way. Well-deserved for the country's greatest region. Good to see you.

CARR: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: We're out of time tonight and apparently out of security guards as well because while we were yapping, somebody snuck into this studio --

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Here we go again.

CARLSON: He did.

HANNITY: Here we go in.

CARLSON: Someone just snuck in, all of a sudden. Look, there are a show of hands.

HANNITY: Howie Carr, who you just had, knows Boston.

CARLSON: Oh, he's unbelievable.

HANNITY: He knows every detail of any politician.

CARLSON: And by the way, can I just say for the record because he deserves the credit. He really was almost assassinated by the mafia in Boston.

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.