Trump sends six-page letter to Pelosi condemning impeachment inquiry

close

Video

Trump sends six-page letter to Pelosi condemning impeachment inquiry

Democrats take final step toward impeachment; former independent counsel Ken Starr weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 8, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Tucker Carlson, host: You're looking at live pictures of Capitol Hill. Steps from where we're sitting right now, the House is currently setting up the rules for the impeachment vote. They're apparently going to hold tomorrow. The House is temporarily in recess and is going to be reconvening in about a half an hour we're monitoring the situation there.

Good evening welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." It is here after months of false starts and threats and endless posturing by some of the saddest, most ineffectual people in America, impeachment apparently is imminent. Barring some last-minute plot twist. And that could happen but otherwise, less than 24 hours from now, Donald Trump will join Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as the third American president ever impeached by the House of Representatives. We're thinking at this point the final vote tomorrow afternoon. So Democrats been promising to do this since before the president was even elected president and yet still it feels kind of weird, surprising, surreal even that it's finally going to happen. Why? Because impeachment and there's really no disagreement about this is a terrible idea for the country at this point. At this point there's no question that Democrats can actually remove the president and in trying, they will only hurt themselves. The polls are clear and yet and here's the fascinating point they're doing it anyway. Watch Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin explain why they're doing it.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Rep. Jamie Raskin: The president's continuing course of conduct constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy in America. We cannot allow this misconduct to pass. It would be a sellout of our constitution, our foreign policy, our national security and our democracy.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: See if you can follow the logic chain maybe you can spot the missing link. Here's what he's arguing. Leaving a president in office until voters can decide to remove him from office if they want is, quote, a danger to democracy. It's a, quote, sellout of our constitution. OK. So, in case you've forgotten, what is the crime that undergirds this impeachment proceeding? What is the president accused of doing? Well in case you've forgotten, it's that Donald Trump may have delayed military aid to the government of Ukraine.

Now, keep in mind, that the only purpose of aid to the government of Ukraine is to antagonize Russia. Keep in mind also that Russia is a country with more nuclear weapons than any other country on the globe but according to Jamie Raskin, not giving weapons to Ukraine is a clear and present danger to America. It's a sellout he says of our national security to pause in our relentless attacks on Russia, even for a moment. That's a remarkable assertion. Hard to believe he could defend that in a rational conversation, but it doesn't even stand out under the current standards of political rhetoric.

There's a lot of talk like that all of a sudden. The entire impeachment saga, in fact, has become detached from reality. Here's the most basic facts about it. Democrats do not have the votes to remove President Trump from office. They never will have the votes to remove the president. The point of impeachment is to remove a president. They cannot do that. This process is doomed before it even begins and by the way, they don't have the votes because voters don't support it. The irony is that our democracy is working just fine. Voters supported, in fact, less than they did after a full month of watching public hearings on impeachment.

Democrats have not gain support they have lost it. In late October, when this began, about half the country backed impeachment. Forty four percent said they were opposed to impeachment in the most recent polling. Those numbers have inverted. In other words, the more people learned about impeachment, the less they wanted impeachment. That's not one person's opinion that is the sum total of the polling. The numbers could not be clearer on this question and yet, even in the face of all those data, elite Democrats still will not admit it. They're literally in denial. Watch Democratic Party cheerleader Jeffrey Toobin attack his own company's polling when it doesn't match what he believes must be true.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

David Chalian: You see a decline from our last poll in Democratic support from 90 percent down to 77 percent.

Jeffrey Toobin: Can I just say, my twin brother, that I don't believe that poll for one second?

David Chalian: What part?

Jeffrey Toobin: The 90 to 77 percent. I you know, it's just I don't believe it well like it makes no sense that that number would change like that. I mean, you know, life mean in life has shown us that polls are sometimes wrong and, David, that poll is wrong just because I said so ok.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Why don't you believe? Because I don't because I look out my window and I see the horizon that means it's flat. You can tell me the earth is round, but I just don't believe it. Enough with your dumb numbers in your scientific theories. I just don't believe it, says the legal analyst. Okay. What you're watching, obviously, is one man degrade himself. But it's bigger than that it's the definition of ideological extremism and that's the inability to change course. No matter what the evidence tells you.

So, that's the point at which this is no longer politics, of course we left that a long time ago. What you're looking at is religion and of course, being the Democratic Party and their religion it's always the exact opposite of what they claim it is. So, as President Trump noted in a recent letter to Nancy Pelosi and we're quoting, “you are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting American democracy. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our republic for your own selfish, personal, political and partisan gain.”

The public, whether they like Trump or not, agrees with that. The polling shows it, but the Democrats can't acknowledge that they're stuck. So, in 2016, they went all in on denouncing Trump remember this before the election? And every one of his supporters, you as beyond the pale, racist, worthy of being hated, not reasoned with or talked to, but hated and dismissed and physically assaulted in some cases but they lost anyway. When they did lose, they refused to learn. They refused to even think for a moment about why they may have lost and instead move seamlessly from racism into a conspiracy about Russia so bizarre they could never even fully explain its outlines.

What are you saying you would ask? Russia they would say, OK. That collapsed you watched it happen on live television. But what hasn't changed is the rage storm they created with years of propaganda. They whipped their voters into such a frenzy that the voters can't be pulled back now they want blood. And so, Democrats have no choice but to march forward, despite the fact that it will inevitably destroy them, and they know it will. It's poignant almost. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko represents the state of Arizona. She's been a sharp critic of all this impeachment since it began, and she joins us now. Congressman, thanks so much.

Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz.: Thanks for having me Tucker, I loved your intro too.

Tucker Carlson: Well it was heartfelt, and I mean, you work there I don't. So, you tell me, do you run into Democrats who sincerely think this is going to help them?

Debbie Lesko: I imagine there are Democrats that think this is going to help them. But you're right. I think it's going to really hurt them and they're going to lose seats and the Republicans will regain the House of Representatives. I mean, this has been a very unfair process from the start. I believe it's rigged they have no proof, no evidence even from their own witnesses of bribery, treason or high crimes and misdemeanors, which is required in the Constitution. I serve on the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee. So, boy, this is a total nightmare and hopefully I don't continue it in my dreams. I'm so used to talking about it.

Tucker Carlson: I bet you are. Do you think moving into tomorrow's vote that you will see a single Republican join the Democrats to vote for impeachment?

Debbie Lesko: No, I don't think one Republican will vote for the articles of impeachment, just like no Republican voted for going forward with the impeachment inquiry. No Republican voted for it in Judiciary Committee tonight. I don't think one Republican will vote for it in the Rules Committee of which I serve, and this has been a very partisan process. Not one single Republican is going to vote for it, but there will be some Democrats that vote with Republicans against it. It's just a matter of how many. I don't think we know for sure yet but boy, this is a shame. And I tell you, can I just explain to you how it is unbelievable blows my mind that in Rules Committee tonight, we're on a recess because my Democratic colleagues haven't figured out how much time they want to give on debate, what the rules are yet, as if they didn't know this was coming for weeks, months, years. But we're in recess until they figure it out and we've heard that they might only give four hours of debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. That would be 33 seconds per member of Congress.

Tucker Carlson: It's unbelieve --

Debbie Lesko: Unbelievable.

Tucker Carlson: They're divided because some of them are smart enough to know it, including, I think, the speaker, Nancy Pelosi that this is a disaster for them. Congresswoman thanks so much for coming on tonight great to talk to you.

Debbie Lesko: Thank you.

Tucker Carlson: John Roberts of Fox News asked the president today if he felt any responsibility for being impeached. His response was this.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

John Roberts, Fox News: Do you take any responsibility for the fact that you're about to be impeached?

President Donald Trump: No, I don't take any zero, to put it mildly.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: To put it mildly, expect CNN to come unglued. We should impeach him just for saying that. In fact, they're already going a little bonkers with it. Here's a screen grab from their coverage from literally a couple moments ago. Let's take a look at the graphic on the screen. Zero responsibility we're monitoring their responses, mostly because they amuse us, we will have all the highlights tomorrow night.

But first, tonight, Ken Starr was, of course, special counsel during the Whitewater investigation. That was in the Clinton administration. He knows more about this process than maybe any living person and he joins us tonight. Mr. Starr, thanks so much for coming on. So, you've been watching this as closely as anyone. How do you assess it as of right now?

Ken Starr, former special counsel: Well, it is shaping up that we're just going to keep hearing the same thing over and over again. Yogi Berra would say, “deja vu.” But really, the same things are being said in each of these committees. But here, I think, is a critical fact. I've not heard a single member of the House of Representatives say, “I need more evidence. I need to bring in -- we need to bring in more witnesses.” So, there's now a disharmony between the House of Representatives, some of whom were declaring today, “I'm voting for --“ or with respect to Mr. Golden of Maine, “I'm not going to vote in favor of the second article.” They're making up their minds based upon the record. So, consider, then, Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer saying, “We need more, or we should have four more witnesses at a minimum.” So, there's a real disconnect between the two sides of Capitol Hill.

Tucker Carlson: People like Jared Golden in the second district of Maine, who represents a district that went for Donald Trump, I mean, you've got to expect guys like that --

Ken Starr: Right.

Tucker Carlson: -- will lose their seats, as they should, for that vote. What do you think of an impeachment process that breaks along clean partisan lines like this one? What would the framers have thought of that?

Ken Starr: This is precisely what they did fear, that, in effect, we are doing that, which Mr. Madison warned against. We always talk about Hamilton in 65, Federalist 65, and rightly so. But Mr. Madison warned against successfully on the floor having a grounds of impeachment that would include maladministration. I think that's what this debate is really all about.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah.

Ken Starr: But the hyperbole, national security, which you just talked about --

Tucker Carlson: It's absurd.

Ken Starr: -- and a clear and present danger, that's another thing in terms of moving this forward. If the president is a clear and present danger, then the trial in the Senate, which is destined to come, has to move forward quickly. But the framers were very, very concerned about the idea of a truly partisan impeachment as opposed to that which Nancy Pelosi and other --

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Ken Starr: -- Democrats have said in the past, “We need to have something bordering on consensus.” And of course, we do --

Tucker Carlson: Of course, we do.

Ken Starr: -- because of the two-thirds majority requirement --

Tucker Carlson: Yeah.

Ken Starr: -- in the Senate.

Tucker Carlson: Ken Starr, thanks for that. Good to see you tonight.

Ken Starr: Good to see you. Thank you.

Tucker Carlson: Well, and speaking of the framers of the constitution. They have, of course, been gone for about 200 years. But Democrats agree they would have hated President Trump. How do they know that? We'll explore that question next. Also, a late night in the House of Representatives tonight. Rules Committee is expected to vote in about 30 minutes. We'll determine what happens next with impeachment [laughs]. We'll be back.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: You know what they say about cockroaches applies just as consistently to Democratic talking points, there's never just one. When you hear a Democrat use a particular line of attack, you can be absolutely certain his colleagues will be using it too assuming they aren't already. The left is nothing if not coordinated. Here's the latest example. Democrats explaining, in concert, of course, that the people who founded this country strongly agreed with them.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Male Speaker: The presidential election was tarnished by foreign influence, a danger our founding fathers warned us about.

Male Speaker: What the founding fathers warned against --

Male Speaker: What our founding fathers feared most --

Female Speaker: Confronting what the framers warned us about --

Male Speaker: It's the opposite of what the framers wanted for us --

Nancy Pelosi: His actions are in defiance of the vision of our founders --

Female Speaker: It is an outrage. And frankly, it's a tremendous disrespect to the constitution and to our framers.

Male Speaker: If Washington were here today, if he were joined by Madison, Hamilton, and other framers, what do you believe they would say if presented with the evidence before us about President Trump's conduct?

Male Speaker: I believe the framers would identify President Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office, high crime, and misdemeanor that they were worried about.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Oh, yeah. Oh, the framers are totally on board. Oh, yeah. Oh, for sure. Got that? Democrats care deeply and passionately about the founding fathers. But wait, isn't this the same party that's working to eliminate the founders' life's work? The first and second amendments to the bill of rights? The Electoral College? Yeah, it's the same party. So, actually the opposite is true, as is so often the case. The left has nothing but contempt for the men who founded this country, and that's why they're forever denouncing them as racist. So, why are Democrats suddenly telling you the opposite of that? Well, because that's what the left does. They don't simply lie, they invert the truth. Whatever they claim you did is exactly what they, themselves, are doing. We can think of a few examples, but here's one. Do you remember the hysteria over “family separation?” People on cable news were deeply upset about it at the time.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Female Speaker: His calculated, cruel separation of young children from their parents at the Mexico border --

Male Speaker: Ripping babies from mothers' arms at the border. That only makes evangelicals love him even more.

Female Speaker: It's too late. It's yours. You've done it. And there are babies who are hurting right now. And that won't end. And that trauma is permanent.

Male Speaker: For these parents that are separated from their children, this is a humanitarian crisis --

Mika Brzezinski: His administration's very hideous and unpopular policy to separate migrant families from their children at the southern border.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Man, you could just feel the passion there. If there's one thing Joe Scarborough won't count -- he's not a judgy, man, but if there's one thing, politics aside, that Joe considers just totally immoral and wrong it's separating families. I mean, call him old-fashioned but Joe just doesn't believe in that. It's now how he was raised. Breaking up that sacred unit, two parents, husband and wife, raising their kids together. Anyone who would do that and Joe, again, doesn't want to be judgmental here but sometimes it's hard not to be. That's how passionate he feels about it. Anyone who would break up and separate a family, says Joe Scarborough, is beneath contempt, the lowest of the low, disgusting as Joe's third wife put it so aptly. Family separation is simply calculated and cruel. It's just not something decent people do. Just so you know. Victor Davis Hanson is a classics professor. He's a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Author of the book, "The Case for Trump" among many other volumes worth reading. He joins us tonight. Professor, as you see the Democratic Party reach backward to the founders to justify what they're doing right now, what as someone who knows a lot about the founding period in this country's history, what's your response to that?

Victor Davis Hanson, the Hoover Institution: Well, they don't identify themselves, Tucker, as liberals anymore. They're progressives and by definition progressives want to go beyond or evolve beyond the Constitution. So, we've heard nothing from the people that you just aired, nothing from them but the -- as you said, the framers were dead old white men. They were racist, sexist, they were intolerant. They were -- some of them were slave owners and that their documents, the founder -- founding documents and the framing of the Constitution was flawed at the outset and that's why they want to change the 2nd Amendment or amend it until it's unrecognizable. They want to put hate speech codes into the 1st Amendment to water it down. As you said, they want to get rid of the electoral college. They're mad that there's two senators and a 40 million California and only two in Wyoming. Two in Wyoming and two in California. That's not fair. So, we shouldn't take these reverent references to the founders seriously. If you read the federalist papers, 65 and 66 are what Madison said. What we're seeing now is exactly what they were afraid of. The majority party that was in opposition of the House turning impeachment into something like a parliamentary vote of no -- they didn't want that.

Tucker Carlson: Right.

Victor Davis Hanson: So, they discussed how to stop it. Let's have the House do impeachment. Let's have two-thirds in the Senate. Let's have the Supreme Court justice be the arbiter and it would be rare and we've never removed a president because of what the founders foresaw and in the past, the immediate past, we always had bipartisan support. We had public -- some public support. We had a special council. We had a fair adjudication of witnesses. This is like not like the Nixon inquiry or the Clinton. This is like Andrew Johnson impeachment where it was a stain on the record of the United States. It was exactly the opposite as this is of what the framers intended. I had a couple other things just in finishing, Tucker. What would -- what's going to happen in January when four senators who are candidates for the presidency are going to put themselves and be the adjudicators of whether Donald Trump, their likely opponent for president, they're going to be judging and running against him at the same time and the Constitution also said that when a president leaves office he's not exempt from the crimes that he was found guilty of if convicted in the Senate. So, there's really something wrong with Donald Trump. When he gets back to Mar-A-Lago is a local district attorney going to say ah, you're not exempt. We're going to put you on trial for obstructing Congress or you abused your power that's a crime. It's not going to happen. And so, this whole thing is a joke and it's a cruel joke. It's a tragic joke because it's dividing the country and it's -- we're more like it's 1859 or 1860 than 2019. And it didn't have to happen.

Tucker Carlson: Four U.S. senators running for president will be sitting in judgment of the current president. That tells you everything.

Victor Davis Hanson: They will be.

Tucker Carlson: Right there. Professor, thanks so much for that. Good to see you.

Victor Davis Hanson: Thank you.

Tucker Carlson: Well, Jim Comey and Adam Schiff have been all over television recently desperately trying to act in their own interests, as always. They're trying to downplay the IG report from last week and how it exposed FBI lies, particular lies to a FISA court that allowed them to spy on an American citizen, Carter Page. According to Jim Comey it was not a big deal at all compared to a lot of other malfeasance currently going on at the FBI, none of which he would describe in any detail. But the FISA court appears to disagree. Today in a rebuke even the New York Times called "extraordinary," the FISA court accused the FBI of repeatedly misleading it, the court, in the Carter Page case. The court gave the FBI until January 10th to propose changes to its procedures to prevent future abuses. Francey Hakes is a former federal prosecutor, knows a lot about this process. She joins us tonight. Francey, thanks so much for coming on. So, when the court itself attacks the FBI for subverting the process, at that point there's really kind of no denying what happened, is there?

Francey Hakes, former federal prosecutor: Well, no, Tucker. It completely destroys the Democrats' argument that there was anything partisan at all in the complaints that President Trump and President Trump supporters and the Republican Party were making early on all the way last year, early last year, and even before that talking about this FISA warrant against Carter Page and talking about being spied upon while people are trying to make much of the fact that President Trump said his wires were tapped. It looks like maybe Trump Tower wasn't actually tapped, but you had confidential human sources run by the FBI against three different members of the Trump campaign, including one against whom not a single criminal allegation had been made. No one's even talking about that but what's extraordinary is Judge –

Tucker Carlson: May I ask you to pause right there? How can you wiretap an American citizen who hasn't even been accused? I believe it's not credibly accused but accused at all of a crime. How can that happen?

Francey Hakes: I, you know, it's a mystery to me, Tucker. They sent a confidential human source with a recording device of some kind against a "high-level campaign official" that we still don't know who it is, but we do know that they've admitted that there was no crime alleged against them.

Tucker Carlson: Why the hell don't we know who it is? Like, what an outrage is that? What would be the pretext for keeping that secret from the rest of us?

Francey Hakes: Well, I suppose it could be to protect them from being accused of something that they didn't do but at this point it seems to me that for full transparency we need to know who it was so we –

Tucker Carlson: Exactly.

Francey Hakes: --- might know who recorded them.

Tucker Carlson: You know, honestly at this point you feel like we need full transparency and anyone who stands in the way of it should be charged with a felony and prosecuted, at least as vigorously as I don't know Roger Stone has been prosecuted, right?

Francey Hakes: Well, it's true, Tucker, and what the Rosemary Collier, what Judge Collier did today in this FISA order was so significant and so extraordinary. She took the inspector general's conclusions. She called the FBI on the carpet. She labeled what they had done wrong and a violation of the court and said that they were not credible in their allegations and that they had to in a very short order explain to the court what they were going to do to make sure it never happened again and significantly she also mentioned an order of the FISA court that was apparently promulgated just a week or so ago that was top secret. So, none of us have seen it.

Tucker Carlson: Unbelievable.

Francey Hakes: And she's ordered the Department of Justice to allow it to be declassified so we can see what the FISA court wants.

Tucker Carlson: Good. Keep in mind, it's so-called liberals who are defending all of this crap. There's nothing liberal about them. They're authoritarians back with corporate power and you should be afraid of them. I am. Francey, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

Francey Hakes: Thanks, Tucker.

Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren says it's time for Michael Bloomberg to answer for his history of sexism. She throws around that term a lot but actually there may be some truth there. But turnabout is fair play. So, is Warren prepared to debate her own past details of which we'll present to you after this break.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: No normal person wants to vote for Michael Bloomberg for president. I mean honestly, the constituency for that is like zero but he's one of the richest people in the world so he's trying to buy his way into contention for the Democratic nomination. Senator Elizabeth Warren is against that, of course, because she wants it and she says that before Bloomberg becomes the nominee has to answer for a history of sexist remarks. So, we normally dismiss this because sexist remarks what does that mean? But in this case, we have some specific examples that are worth knowing about. While building his business empire Bloomberg is accused of running a workplace where crude and demeaning remarks were commonplace. What do we mean by crude and demeaning? Here's one example. One employee said that after she got pregnant with her baby, Michael Bloomberg repeatedly told her to, quote, kill it meaning the baby kill it he said. Yeah, that actually does qualify as offensive. The full extent of what Bloomberg said and did with and two women is being hidden, though, because so many of his former employees took cash payments in return for signing nondisclosure agreements. What do we make of this? Tammy Bruce is the host of "Get Tammy Bruce" on Fox Nation, which you should, and she joins us. So, Tammy, what do you make of this?

Tammy Bruce, Fox Nation host: Well, normally, I would tell people to be slightly suspicious when accusations seem to show up.

Tucker Carlson: Oh, I agree.

Tammy Bruce: When you've started to run for office. Right. We've seen that happen or when --

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Tammy Bruce: -- you're nominated to be a member of the Supreme Court. But in this case, these are allegations that have been going on for years. There are a number of lawsuits that have been filed over a period of years. There's one report that his staff actually put together, a book of his most outrageous comments to people. And so, this is actually like the best-known thing and in some ways about him in New York. So, it's now, he denies much of this, some of the more outrageous comments he says he doesn't remember making. But, you know, what's interesting is, is that, of course, he's running as a Democrat and he's appealing, trying to appeal to the Democratic base. Other Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, as you've noted, now are complaining, saying he's he must answer for this. But let let's be honest here Elizabeth Warren had to a fire staffer because of some alleged misconduct just a few months ago from her campaign. Remember, they're hiring other Democrats and people who are political in the Democratic Party.

Tucker Carlson: Right.

Tammy Bruce: Bernie Sanders had to apologize for a number of male staffers having complaints against them in his 2016 campaign. Kamala Harris had had some staff issues regarding sexual harassment. To say nothing of Hillary Clinton's still the ostensible leader of the party. So, if Elizbeth Warren is going to complain about Bloomberg, who may be apparently is in the perfect party for himself, she needs to ask questions still of Hillary and Bernie Sanders and the whole host of people. And frankly, even the people they're hiring at this point, obviously, it's about hypocrisy. And Donald Trump...

Tucker Carlson: You make is such a good point here. I'm like, I can't believe a Democrat. But actually, this is the party of Jeffrey Epstein it's the perfect party.

Tammy Bruce: That's correct look, we know Ronan Farrow reminded us that Harvey Weinstein was effectively an adviser to Hillary Clinton. It is Jeffrey Epstein who is, you know, trying to, you know, get everybody to, you know, to be his friend. But the reality is, is that, you know, we can't have these basic standards just for certain people and condemn someone like Donald Trump, who in the midst of the Democratic Party leadership is Sir Galahad at this point and certainly for the country, he's Sir Galahad he's my hero. These are this is just perspective when we when we think about who's making complaints like the Democrats and impeachment, it's like this is strange. It's we're living in a world of mirrors where everything is the opposite of what it should be when it comes to what we're saying.

Tucker Carlson: It's totally no but you're so right about it like the Catskills joke. How's your wife compared to what? You know, it's like get rid of these people. It's unbelievable. Tammy, it's great to see you.

Tammy Bruce: Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren says she's happy to debate Michael Bloomberg and his record on women but is she here to hold her own record to the same scrutiny? Here's specifically what we're talking about this has not received enough attention. In the 1990s, Elizabeth Warren provided legal assistance to Dow Chemical while it was trying to limit payments to women poisoned by the company's silicone breast implants and that wasn't the only case in which Elizabeth Warren worked on the side of a major corporate power against consumers. Again, you haven't read this piece in The Washington Post recently. Bill Jacobson, by contrast, is all over it. He's professor at Cornell Law School and a very precise historian. We would say he joins us tonight. Professor thanks so much for coming on. Tell us...

ProfessorBill Jacobson: Thank you for having me.

Tucker Carlson: About Elizabeth Warren's background, siding with big companies against people.

Bill Jacobson: Like this became an issue in the 2012 campaign for Senate against Scott Brown. When Scott Brown raised the issue that Elizabeth Warren made two hundred thousand dollars representing Travelers Insurance in a case which ended up depriving asbestos workers of hundreds of millions of dollars and that became a big campaign issue. And I analyzed it and I documented quite precisely and quite well, I think how her strategy and the representation she gave directly led to those is asbestos workers not getting their money. But that's not all there is. When she was called out for that by the Brown campaign, she gave the Boston Globe a list of 10 cases she had worked on. It was a completely incomplete list.

And this is a history that she has and she'd left off that list and I discovered at the time her representing representation of Dow Chemical to help deprive breast implant litigants of money and she said, well, I was representing Dow Chemical, the parent company of the manufacturer, because I was trying to help the women get money and that was, of course, ludicrous. And that's been demonstrated, and other newspapers recently have proven that.

She also represented an aircraft manufacturer against a family who lost a loved one. She said she represented a large energy company, one of the biggest coal producer coal users in the southeast in trying to save a rural electric cooperative. In fact, it's well documented that she was trying her client was trying to liquidate the rural cooperative. So, at every step of the way, she not only had a representation contrary to her political narrative, she tried to hide it she tried to spin it as something else and she never would disclose how much money she made doing it. I estimated it because I found 22 of her cases, which now is up to over 50 cases, and I estimated it had to be millions of dollars and she has now admitted that when the Buttigieg campaign raised the issue, she disclosed that she made almost two million dollars from this and so the question has to be she is somebody who is throwing stones and lives in a glass house.

Tucker Carlson: It's unbelievable.

Bill Jacobson: And she it's truly -- and what's even more --

Tucker Carlson: I mean, truly, she's like Mr. Burns on the Simpsons from what you're describing -- I mean, does she represent Union Carbide in Bhopal, too? I mean, of all people, just the irony here. Elizabeth Warren is always lecturing you about -- and I don't even like trial lawyers, and I wouldn't do what she did. So, like, the irony is overwhelming.

Bill Jacobson: And the bigger irony and the bigger issue is no Democrats have called her out on it just like they haven't called her out on her Native American deception, where she claimed to be Native American for employment purposes.

Tucker Carlson: They're such liars.

Bill Jacobson: Not a single Democratic candidate has raised that issue in any of the debates.

Tucker Carlson: I know. It's such a great point.

Bill Jacobson: And the question is, why?

Tucker Carlson: Oh yeah, because they're frauds. That's why. You know -- you know the answer, professor. Thank you so much --

Bill Jacobson: [laughs]

Tucker Carlson: -- you know, it's funny. The media are so corrupt that we go to a law professor for real reporting. And I'm just glad you're there. Thank you for that.

Bill Jacobson: Thank you.

Tucker Carlson: Well, America's greatest cities, some of the most beautiful cities in the world, increasing resemble medieval dung heaps. That's not an exaggeration. If San Francisco gives up on civilization, what are the risks to your health by going there? They're real. Dr. Marc Siegel tells us what they are just ahead.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: Even the great cities of the past, from Ancient Rome, to medieval Florence, to Victorian London were filthy. Their streets were covered with all manner of waste. Cleanliness, both personal and public, is one of the chief markers of modern civilization. The left doesn't like you to say that out loud, but it's absolutely true. Where the left reigns supreme, the standards are very different. In San Francisco, for example, leaders are simply unwilling to keep their civilization going. Chief Breaking News Correspondent Trace Gallagher joins us with the latest proof of that.

Trace Gallagher: Tucker, even by San Francisco's almost non-existent standards, this one really struck a nerve. A man walked into a Safeway store in the city's Marina District, went to the toilet paper aisle, grabbed a roll, and defecated all over the floor. The store is in Nancy Pelosi's district and John Dennis, the GOP candidate running for her Congressional seat wrote, quoting here, “Clean up on aisle three. Thank you, Nancy Pelosi. I publicly warned in 2018 that if we let people violate our streets, the homeless problem would get worse. The answer? Arrest then offer a choice: jail or rehab.” And a local journalist directed this tweet at the city's mayor, quoting, @LondonBreed, "Here's a pic of a man on drugs taking a poo in aisle 10 of a Safeway Marina Sunday morning in San Francisco. Why is this okay?” In a recent interview, the mayor admitted public defecation is a major problem. What she failed to mention is the city's political leaders are unwilling to stop it. In fact, the new far left San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin has said he won't prosecute these so-called quality of life crimes. So, public defecation kind of goes along with shooting up heroin publicly and burglarizing cars, shops, and homes, crimes that rarely have consequences. In San Francisco, people call the city's hotline 65 times a day to report piles of human feces. In 2011, there were just over 5,500 reports of human feces on public streets. Last year it was more than 28,000. And those are just the incidents that got reported. Tucker?

Tucker Carlson: Defecating in a grocery store. If I was running for president, I'd put that image on posters. I mean it, because it tells you everything. Trace Gallagher, thanks so much.

Trace Gallagher: Yep.

Tucker Carlson: We've got an investigative team in California right now taking a look at what's actually happening there. The reports that you are hearing, sound bad? It's worse. Our exclusive reporting on that is coming soon. Defecating in public, in grocery stores, for example, is repulsive, obviously. Hard to think of anything more repulsive. But is it also dangerous? We thought it might be worth asking Dr. Marc Siegel. He's a Fox medical contributor and joins us to explore the health implications of where this country's going. Dr. Siegel, thanks so much for coming on.

Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox medical contributor: Hi, Tucker.

Tucker Carlson: So, we're repelled by this. Should we be worried about it also?

Marc Siegel: Yes, we should. And isn't it ironic that a city of germaphobes, of exercise conscious, environmental conscious --

Tucker Carlson: Environmentalists. Right.

Marc Siegel: -- environmentalists --

Tucker Carlson: Exactly.

Marc Siegel: -- are now in a city that's awash in human waste, which is spreading Hepatitis A, outbreaks every year, big outbreaks of Hepatitis A, rats in the streets feeding off of the garbage and sewage, typhus, typhoid fever, bacterial infections, and even the plague may be coming. Now, what's really ironic here is they have a poop control that goes around, six highly paid individuals in San Francisco, according to The Chronicle, that go around trying to clean up the streets. Sixty-five million dollars was spent last year trying to clean up the streets. But the homeless have nowhere to go. And what about shelters? The governor of California has been asked repeatedly, “What about building temporary shelters?” And they're not being built. So, as a result, you have the sewage, you have the feces, and you end up with all of these health issues. This is a public health emergency. It's a disgrace in San Francisco.

Tucker Carlson: I mean, you're already hearing accounts of people getting infections for which we really don't have antibiotics because it's just such a septic environment. What will it take, do you think, to get public health authorities, you know, to shut this down?

Marc Siegel: They only do it one disease at a time. Like in 2017, the governor called it a, “Public health emergency in the state of California,” because of Hepatitis A.

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Marc Siegel: But he wouldn't put it together with the homeless problem. It's becoming medieval. Diseases resurfacing in California. It's -- and here's the other thing that's even worse. It's not just the homeless population, right? People trek through those neighborhoods. They get the poop on their shoes, and then they bring it to other neighborhoods. And then the diseases spread to other neighborhoods. So, to actually solve this problem, again, we have to offer bathroom facilities in temporary shelters, get cots, get food. This is what we did in New York City at Belleview Hospital, by the way. This is what has to happen in California. This is what HUD Secretary Ben Carson wants. This is what I want. It's the only way to avoid a burgeoning health emergency.

Tucker Carlson: It's -- and the people in charge should be banned from every running anything ever again, ever. Gavin Newsome? What a joke. Dr. Siegel –

Marc Siegel: The only people that should be allowed to remain are the poop control. That's it. Just the poop.

Tucker Carlson: That's exactly right. I mean this is the most basic responsibility of a society.

Marc Siegel: Clean your streets.

Tucker Carlson:

For sure. Doctor, thank you so much.

Marc Siegel: Thanks, Tucker.

Tucker Carlson: Well, the left is very upset tonight. Why? Because Justice Neal Gorsuch said Merry Christmas. He said that, like for real. Out loud. We have the tape. You're probably upset, too. Wait until you see it. I'm appalled.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Tucker Carlson: We've got an upsetting story for you tonight. Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch went on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss his new book and while there something pretty disturbing happened. Sensitive viewers, please plug your ears. Children, leave the room. Here it is.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Ainsley Earhardt: Joining us now for a rare live interview, Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch. Good morning to you.

Neal Gorsuch: Merry Christmas.

Ainsley Earhardt: Merry Christmas. I love that you say that.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Tucker Carlson: Whoa. Did you hear that? Merry Christmas. According to Blue Checkmark Twitter Gorsuch may has well have said Heil Hitler. Amee Vanderpool, apparently a real person, tweeted this, "Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch just appeared on Fox and Friends this morning making a point to parrot the Merry Christmas talking point of the GOP." This is real, keep in mind. If he's willing to go on Fox and throw a shoutout to Republican narratives, what else is he willing to do? [laughs] These people. Comedian Sean Kent tweeted this, "On Fox News Neal Gorsuch made a point to say Merry Christmas just like he gained the freedom to say it under Trump. This guy is such a worst case scenario of a stolen Supreme Court seat." [laughs] Chadwick Moore literally lives in Brooklyn so insanity doesn't shock him but he joins us tonight to assess. Chadwick, what do you -- I mean, do you know these people?

Chadwick Moore, journalist: Yeah. I mean, I know them without knowing them. Of course, I do. [laughs]

Tucker Carlson: Exactly.

Chadwick Moore: And it's basically a hate crime. They're right. If I'm surprised that just mildly calling it a GOP talking point because you know what they really want to say, which is white nationalist dog whistle when that in fact they have been saying this.

Tucker Carlson: Why am I laughing? That's everything.

Chadwick Moore: That's exactly who they are.

Tucker Carlson: Cleaning up litter is white nationalist.

Chadwick Moore: Exactly.

Tucker Carlson: Yes. I'm very familiar with this line of argument.

Chadwick Moore: Right and they have gone this way. In fact, Newsweek just two years ago on Christmas Eve published a professor, of course, who have the best arguments saying in fact this is a soft dog whistle to white nationalists who say Merry Christmas in the same way that Make America Great Again might be or whatever and, you know, these people just have nothing left and it's fantastic to watch. I hope they continue down this road. It's wonderful to see.

Tucker Carlson: So, when they say that in Kinshasa or Lagos or any, you know, the big Christian populations of the world really are in Africa right now, as you know.

Chadwick Moore: Right. Yes.

Tucker Carlson: Is it still a white nationalist dog whistle when they say it there? Or no?

Chadwick Moore: Well, as you know, multi-cultural white supremacy is a very, very serious issue. Think progress alerted us to this, so white supremacy is actually a bigger problem in Africa than we realize at the moment.

Tucker Carlson: So, let me ask you. Like let's say the world's unhappiest people, people whose therapists actually can't make any progress with them at all, they're just truly miserable, got together and formed their own political party and called it I'm just searching the Democratic Party, would they have a shot at winning like a major national election do you think?

Chadwick Moore: Well, you know, no, not in the current year I do not think they would have any shot at it. And they can please continue down this line and, you know, Merry Christmas to everyone in the resistance. I hope they have a wonderful one.

Tucker Carlson: What is the pitch? Vote for me and you'll be as unhappy and miserable and loathsome and stupid and small-minded as I am?

Chadwick Moore: Please suck all the joy and tenderness out of everything and let's just fight to maintain power and try to, I don't know, impeach Russia, whatever they're doing. Absolutely. No joy whatsoever allowed this Christmas season and not while we still have Trump in office. No one's allowed –

Tucker Carlson: Unbelievable.

Chadwick Moore: --- an iota of it.

Tucker Carlson: I want to know if this Amee, two E's, Vanderpool person is real or if she's, you know, I bet you that actually is Putin's personal Twitter account where he's just trying to discredit the left.

Chadwick Moore: Either that or she's my next-door neighbor. I'll let you know. I'll find out.

Tucker Carlson: More likely there.

Chadwick Moore: [laughs]

Tucker Carlson: Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

Chadwick Moore: Good night. Thank you.

Tucker Carlson: That's it for us tonight. The House is in the process of debating voting on rules for impeachment tomorrow. Stay tuned on Fox all night for the coverage and of course we'll be back tomorrow to tell you what happened.

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