Tucker: Brett Kavanaugh and the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 17, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: This is a Fox News alert: The president has ordered the declassification of Carter Page's FISA warrants, the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages, and other documents at the center of the Russia investigation.

Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." We have lot of news breaking, particularly in this development. We'll begin our coverage with Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS: Well, thank you Tucker. According to a White House statement released late today, the records also include FBI interviews with senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr all matters to the Russia case because of his connection to the Trump dossier.

After the former British spy behind the dossier was fired by the FBI in November 2016, documents show that the spy, Christopher Steele, maintained contact with the FBI and other government officials by using Bruce Ohr as a back-channel.

The declassification also calls for the unprecedented release of text messages related to Russia, clean copies without sections blacked out, from former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, Ohr, as well as former FBI agent Peter Strzok, the former FBI lawyer Lisa Paige.

Until now, some texts were available, but with significant redactions. A source familiar with the records requested by House Republicans told Fox they expect to see exculpatory evidence about Trump campaign aides Carter Page as well as George Papadopoulos who recently played guilty to lying to federal investigators and got 14 days in jail.

In the last few minutes, a Justice Department spokesperson told Fox they're already working on the request, but emphasized it is a process. The House Intelligence Committee's Ranking Democrat Adam Schiff called the President's move, "An abuse of power, not about transparency." Tucker.

CARLSON: Catherine, when do you think we're likely to start to see these documents

HERRIDGE: Well, we haven't been in the situation before. But I spoke with one of my contacts this evening who said they believe that we could see some records as early as this week, so within days. And they believe the first records would probably be the FISA application renewal for Carter Page from 2017.

CARLSON: Amazing.

Catherine Herridge, thank you for reporting, I appreciate it.

HERRIDGE: You are welcome.

CARLSON: Lou Dobbs of course host Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business and he joins us tonight. Lou, there's a lot of news going on. We led with this story because these documents potentially tell us a lot about one of the great scandals in modern political history.

What do you think we're likely to learn from this FISA application

LOU DOBBS, FOX BUSINESS: I believe that we're going to get confirmation, first of all, of a lot that we have had at least an indication of, and that is rancid corruption throughout the upper reaches of the FBI.

I think this is a terrific day for America. I think it is a very bad day for James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Strzok and others, including perhaps Bruce Ohr.

The thing I hope that we see will be what actually took place and how much of a relationship there was established by these 20 pages from the Carter Page FISA court application showing exactly what came from the famous fraudulent Trump dossier and how much of it was presented to the court without reservation, without any qualification.

It's going to be quite a story in and of itself. I'm -- that's what I'm looking for.

CARLSON: So, you're looking forward to it because one of the reasons is you're a journalist and you want more information rather than less. You've been in journalism over time, we worked together in another network a couple of decades ago.

DOBBS: That's how long.

CARLSON: Have you ever -- have you ever seen reporters less interested in knowing what happened than right now

DOBBS: Tucker, it is remarkable to me where this craft has fallen. We have news organizations that are simply absolutely bemoaning the President's decision tonight to declassify these documents.

If all the people in this country, journalists, at least those who still repair (ph) to the tenets and the standards of the craft, that's what we want. We have an obligation to the public's right to know and let the chips fall where they may. And this President to his credit has done precisely that.

He has with openness, transparency as his values said we're going to let the American people read these documents, see what is here these texts and make their own judgments. And I applaud the President for that.

CARLSON: I never thought I would live to see journalists arguing for government secrecy, but they are.

So what about Obama I mean what we know is that the Obama administration spied on a rival Presidential campaign. We're about to find out on what pretext they did. You don't hear Obama asked about this in his many paid speeches that he is giving, why

DOBBS: Right. Well in part because he's so busy speaking about himself throughout each speech that it leaves little time for anything else and there are no press present to questioning him.

He is not a man as you recall of over eight years of his Presidency who liked being questioned by a journalist and certainly did fewer news conferences than one could have ever imagined a President having.

The reason is that the press has an alignment they've taken some sort of fealty oath that requires them to keep their mouths shut and pretend still that he is some sort of historic President who basically accomplished nothing in eight years. They have to preserve that fiction.

CARLSON: Unbelievable. I honestly can't wait to see what is in these documents.

DOBBS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: --in the interest of full disclosure. Lou Dobbs, thank you very much. As always, great to see you.

DOBBS: Great to be with you, Tucker, thank you.

CARLSON: Well, all of a sudden, out of the blue things have changed. The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court appears to be in peril tonight. His accuser has publicly stepped forward. We know who she is and what she is saying. We'll tell you what it means, after the break.


CARLSON: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's accuser now has a name. She has come forward. She is Palo Alto University Psychology Professor Christine Blasey Ford. Ford says that, at a house party in the early 1980s, while they were both in high school in suburban Washington DC, a drunken Brett Kavanaugh tried to hold her down and sexually assault her.

She said she was afraid at the time. Well, several Republican Senators have already said they want additional testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh. It looks like Ford will be testifying on Monday of next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee; not clear if it's going to be public or not.

But for the first time, because of this, Kavanaugh's nomination appears to be in some actual trouble. Democrats are not waiting for more information; they're already rendering judgment on what he did.


ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: And we're looking at brushing a potentially and extremely concerning incident onto the rug, which should not be occurring.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe her story?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I could tell you that it really does have a ring of truth to it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the allegations of Professor Ford are extremely credible. I don't think the allegations that this is political at all.

Senator Feinstein did the right thing, because when a woman is abused, it is her prerogative as to how, where, why, when, if at all it should come out.


CARLSON: Well, they're all very, very deeply concerned. What's telling is that Democrats have known about this allegation for weeks. They could have asked Kavanaugh about it at any time during his hearings; he was sitting right in front of them.

And that's of course what you would do if you cared about the answer to the question. But they didn't. Instead they waited and the point of course was to derail his nomination. The timing was entirely political, anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth.

But what about the core story itself, what happened in the early '80s in suburban Maryland Well, come to your own conclusions, people will come to their own conclusions. But for this show, we are not dismissing Christine Ford as a liar. Doesn't seem like she is, it seems like she sincerely believes everything she is saying.

But that does not mean that she is right. Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially over time. What were you doing one drunk night in the spring of 1982 Don't remember clearly Of course you don't. It's been 36 years.

Past a certain point, the past is unknowable and that's why we have statutes of limitation for crimes. Not because our desire for justice dims, but because the chance of achieving it does. Everybody knows this, the Left included.

This story doesn't have anything to do with justice actually or even with what Brett Kavanaugh may have done in high school. Underneath it all, anyone who lives in Washington can tell you, it's about abortion.

Does anyone really believe the story would have surfaced if Brett Kavanaugh had pledged allegiance to Roe v. Wade of course, it wouldn't have. Some of the very same people suggesting that Kavanaugh is a sex criminal once defended Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape.

The same group practically beatified Ted Kennedy. Kennedy, you'll remember, once killed a woman. Not metaphorically killed her, but literally killed her. And yet Clinton and Kennedy supported abortion in all cases and therefore the Left treated them as heroes, and swept speaking of under the rug their crimes into the dustbin of memory.

Kavanaugh, though, may not support Roe v. Wade, we don't really know. Therefore, he must be destroyed. It's pretty straightforward. Whatever the story is, it's not about protecting women, don't buy that spin. The larger lesson though of this moment in actually over the past two years is that the Left will not abide losing power, even temporarily.

For liberals, political power is personal power. And without it, they are exposed and terrified. Some become vicious. If you've lost friends, since Trump got elected or been yelled at over dinner or on an airplane, you know exactly what we're talking about.

Liberals believe they were meant to run this country, our government and our culture. They have no intention of sharing control with you. If they're not in charge, they'll burn it down, which is what they're doing now.

The question, the political question, for right now is will the Republican Party let them do this If Republicans allow Kavanaugh's nomination to be derailed over an unprovable allegation you can't rebut, it's over, they'll never put a justice on the court again. It'll be too easy to stop them.

A single charge from 35 years ago will be enough, that's the precedent they would set. And let us pause parenthetically and say we may learn more in the coming week. Who knows, and the calculation may change.

But as of today, there is no way to prove either way what happened 35 years ago in Bethesda, Maryland. It's an unsolvable mystery, again, unless something else comes up. So to just derail a nomination on the basis of it would be a brand new thing.

Republican voters put up with a lot already, including a party leadership that does not share their values or even like them very much; it doesn't hide it well. They vote Republican anyway in part because they would like to see judges who care about the Constitution sitting on the Supreme Court.

Once that's gone, what's the point of voting Republican.

Tammy Bruce is a radio show host and President of Independent Women's Voice and she joins us tonight.

So Tammy, I just want to be totally clear. I am not impugning the character of this woman. We actually have a mutual friend who says she's a very good person, and I believe that she believes what she's saying.


CARLSON: I just don't think that means it's right, accurate. But what bothers me is the political use to which this story is being put right now. It seems very hypocritical.

BRUCE: Well see, that's it. We really don't know what happened 36 years ago. And no matter what happens in hearings, we also still won't know, and that's what makes it so appealing to the Democrats.

Now, for me as an advocate for women, I care about the nature of the fight that's gone on for generations to have women be taken seriously about--


BRUCE: --sexual violence with strangers or acquaintances or loved ones. And yet this kind of politicizing of an event like this, as it's alleged, really makes a mockery of all of our experiences as women when we've encountered that kind of a situation.

So that's my concern. And Americans are watching that--

CARLSON: Well let me ask you to pause right there.

BRUCE: Sure.

CARLSON: Tell me, how does it make a mockery of that, can you elaborate

BRUCE: Well look, we've been told or at least we were dismissed before when we complained about domestic violence or the way that we're treated in a society that suggests of course through pornography and other means that we are to be abused, that our role in society is limited and were to be used for either the pleasure of men or other people, and that if we don't perform properly, we'll pay the price for that.

And we said we're better than that, right, we've got a right to be treated well. We want a legal system that listens to our complaints and that we are serious. These are serious issues that happened to all women across the board.


BRUCE: It's not a partisan issue, right, it affects us. So when we say we want to be taken seriously and that is because we want justice, and then allegations come forward specifically to harm someone--


BRUCE: --to be used in a manner to ruin them personally, to ruin their career, their personal reputation, and it's outside of the justice system. That it's not about the accuser being taken seriously and the accused having rights as well. Because that's the only way that we are treated fairly.

So we're actually saying everyone who was saying that women can't be trusted, that women are going to use accusations against us--


BRUCE: --that comes back into play, and this is what none of us deserve this. So, we want this to be a fair dynamic. Your outline of course put it perfectly, this is about a political dynamic. There is only one agenda forward here. For me, it's a political character assassination and it's a shame that she's in this position and that we are and certainly that Judge Kavanaugh is, we all deserve better.

And I hope that really the one way to stop this from continuing is to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. We have this dynamic of knowing him and his history as an adult, and we can't allow allegations that can't be proven to derail this kind of dynamic, when we've got all of these other elements in place.

CARLSON: Well sure, and very quickly, would it be nice to have a real debate about the Constitution and how the Supreme Court interprets it, rather than have an endless series of debates about the moral character of this nominee to that or the other thing

BRUCE: Well, actually this is a good example of the difference between what the conservatives want, which is a view of the Constitution, what the Supreme Court's supposed to do, which is look at the nature of what our law is supposed to provide in a reasonable, sober way versus what the Democrats are doing.

They are putting him through a Star Chamber. They want you to have the feelings and the feels about what it is that's going on to forget about the facts that you can prove this is a woman who and I -- give her credit who admits she doesn't remember when it happened, what year, where it happened, how she got there, how she left.

She seems to be honest in those frameworks about what she can remember and what she can't. But the fact is this is clearly, with the way it's been handled from the start with Senator Feinstein, meant to simply be a political hatchet job.

CARLSON: Of course.

BRUCE: And it's a shame that this woman now will be put in that position. And I - look, for those of us who have experienced sexual violence or harassment or assault, we handle it in different ways in our lives.

I'm not going to begrudge her for how she handled what she says happened to her. But right now, we all have a responsibility not to not have it become a charade in the name of all women and our experiences.

CARLSON: And when Chuck Schumer starts giving you a moral lecture, then you know that this is -- none of this is real.


CARLSON: Tammy, thank you. Great to see you.

BRUCE: Thank you. Thank you Tucker.

CARLSON: Hillary Clinton did not get elected in 2016 and you may not know this, but has not gotten over it. Now she says America must scrap its entire system of government in response. We'll tell you what she said, next.


CARLSON: Well at a new essay for The Atlantic magazine, which if you've got some free time you really ought to read, Hillary Clinton says that American democracy is "in crisis." Now her piece is laden and predictable as you'd expect, banality after banality stacked like Lincoln Logs.

But it's also Orwellian in that its basic claims are the very opposite of the truth. Because of course Trump is not evidence of democracy is dying, he is the product of self-government, like it or not. Almost nobody in power in this country on either side wanted him to become President.

They outspent him two-to-one, they attacked his voters as immoral, they got the intel agencies to spy on his campaign, and he won anyway, because lots of people voted for him. That is the textbook definition of democracy; he won the Electoral College.

But it's not the Left's definition of democracy. Hillary Clinton didn't like the outcome of the election. So now she demands that we change the Constitution and write new rules that would insure more Democrats would win.

Out with the Electoral College, in with California and New York choosing the President, along of course with the tiny group of Left-wing billionaire tech oligarchs, who control our access to all news and information.

That's the Hillary version of democracy, fewer people making decisions. Other leading Democrats seem to agree with this all of a sudden. They believe the lesson of the last election is that voters have too much power, voters are disgusting.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who's now running for President, suggests that Trump supporters are apologists for slavery or something. Watch.


FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: This Make America Great mindset is not only flawed, it's rooted in fear and it favors an imagined past over a realistic future. What time period do they want to wind the clock back to What century, what decade, what year


Certainly, it was not when people were enslaved, certainly it was not when segregation was the law of the land.


CARLSON: Wow, that's what extremism looks like. Well, here's old Joe Biden, who by the way was a populist from Pennsylvania at one point, telling his audience that Trump supporters are human garbage. Watch this.


FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: These forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made. This time, they not you have an ally in the White House. This time they have an ally.

They are a small percentage of the American people, virulent people. Some of them the dregs of society.


CARLSON: Misusing the word virulent of course. Vote for us or you're the dregs of society, says old Joe Biden.

Richard Goodstein is an attorney. He advised Bill and Hillary's campaigns. He joins us tonight. Is that a winning message, you are the dregs of society if you don't agree with me

RICHARD GOODSTEIN: , FORMER ADVISER TO HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: We kind of learned that lesson in 2016, talking about a certain class of people that didn't like being called names.

The fact of the matter is he said this is a small percentage. He's referring presumably to the people at Charlottesville, who Donald Trump called fine people, right.

CARLSON: No, he said -- he just - you just watched the tape.


CARLSON: He said they have an ally.


CARLSON: They want to roll the clock back, they have an ally in the White House, people who like Trump. They're the dregs of society.

And by the way, should he be calling anybody, any American, the dregs I mean first of all, what are you some sort of like snobbish patrician or something This is like Joe from Scranton, he's saying you're the dregs of society. I'm not letting you in the club. Like, who is this guy

GOODSTEIN: So that's not what he said. He said, again, it was a tiny percentage. But the fact is, when Eric Holder -- can we talk about this whole slavery notion being when America was great, the only candidate who I recall being asked the question, when was America great, was Roy Moore, and he's the one who said it was when slavery was in effect, because (ph) families had unity.

CARLSON: Now what - look--

GOODSTEIN: Well, I'm just saying--

CARLSON: Roy Moore, first of all, lost--

GOODSTEIN: Donald Trump forced (ph) on him.

CARLSON: He lost as a Republican in Alabama.


CARLSON: So, I wouldn't say that he is - I don't even know what he said, I could care less. I'm just saying, is it -- you really want to suggest that your fellow Americans are for slavery, nobody's for slavery. I mean slavery was maintained Democrats anyway.

But let's just be real, like that's a horrible thing to say about anybody. Why would you say that

GOODSTEIN: No, he's talking about this notion of Making America Great. Look, America's been great and it's always going to get greater. But are we more great now than when women couldn't vote, are we more great now than when blacks couldn't participate equally

CARLSON: Nobody's saying that.

GOODSTEIN: Yes. No that's exactly--

CARLSON: So is somebody trying to return us to slavery I mean like that's how extremists talk. Nobody is calling for return to slavery, nobody is calling for ending universal suffrage. Like these are not issues that are being debated, because nobody supports them, so don't pretend that they do.

GOODSTEIN: Well, so if you ask Donald Trump, do you think he could give a straight answer to the question when was America great, right What do you think his answer would be He will point to a decade when blacks, Jews, women didn't have the rights they have now.

CARLSON: But nobody is contesting those rights or doing anything but celebrate those rights. You can make the case and I've made it that the country was best when the middle class was the largest and the most prosperous and the most secure. It's really -- it's an economic argument.

But demagogues, dumb people like Eric Holder, are always like, "Oh you want slavery." You scare the hell out of people when you talk like that. It's totally false and it's totally irresponsible. Why do that

GOODSTEIN: Yes. I think what Holder saying is that Trump needs an other, which in this case was this mythical decade when America was great and he's going to restore that. The problem is he's going to restore it at the expense one thinks of the rights that have been earned in the decades since then.

CARLSON: Is it a racial thing like, "Oh it's so bad, they want to return to slavery" I mean you really should be ashamed to say something like that. But whatever, I made my point.


CARLSON: Let me ask you about this question which I think is an interesting one about democracy. You always hear embittered Democrats that our democracy is in peril. The facts of the last election are, Trump was outspent 2 to 1, almost every rich person in America voted against Trump, they disliked Trump.

Almost everyone in power disliked Trump. Maybe the energy sector liked him, but nobody else did. Anyone anyway because voters liked him. That is democracy, is it not

GOODSTEIN: Well, no, democracy purely is the more people that vote for something, they get the outcome that they want.

CARLSON: It is democracy, he won the Electoral College.


GOODSTEIN: This notion that well he wants to give New York and California, he wants to give people voters disproportionate say, as opposed to this fluky outcome of Electoral College, which we'll have to agree when the founders came up with it, it's not representative of what--

CARLSON: Well, I can't speak for the founders. I would say you always want an electoral majority, I would say that, OK.


CARLSON: But he didn't have one, Bill Clinton didn't have it either time. It didn't mean that Clint was an illegitimate President, I never argued that he was or he was a bad President. But isn't it true that this is what democracy looks like, it's when people who don't have the power, still retain their power of the ballot, like they elect the guy they want, that's democracy, no

GOODSTEIN: So it's almost an epistemological kind of issue here, which is, if more people voted for Hillary, does Trump get off saying the people elected me to do X No, actually more people voted for her, and if you add Jill Stein and a portion of everybody else, she actually had more than 50 for her point of view.

So, when Donald - Donald Trump I think is doing quite well for somebody who got 46 percent of the vote.

CARLSON: But shouldn't it -- I mean do you think it's actually a threat to our system itself two years in to call into question publicly every single day for two years the legitimacy of the outcome Nobody actually contests that, under our system, Trump won and yet Democrats have never stopped pretending that he didn't really win.

GOODSTEIN: I think it sticks in their craw about Russia and Comey and voter suppression, all those things. But nobody honestly says he didn't win. He got more votes in the states that he needed to get to win the Electoral College. Democrats really aren't contesting that.

CARLSON: Hold on, the groups that were supposedly suppressed voted at a higher frequency than the groups that were not suppressed. So, like that's not true.

GOODSTEIN: Well, it's true in the sense that more would have voted. I mean again--

CARLSON: No, no, no, higher proportion than groups who weren't suppressed supposedly suppressed (ph).

GOODSTEIN: We can't -- life is not a controlled experiment. We will never know but for voter suppression what would have happened, no. But the fact of the matter is asking -- bring any voter expert in here, I think they'll tell you that there are efforts underway to suppress vote and it's not of the Trump voters.

CARLSON: Voter experts. There's never been a more corrupt group than self- described I'm a voter expert. What does that even mean I'm a voter expert, I've lived here 50 years, I'm an expert.

Richard, thank you.

GOODSTEIN: My pleasure.

CARLSON: California sadly prettiest state probably, certainly the biggest in the country, collapsing. A San Francisco news crew was robbed while doing a story about robbery. We have the tape. Stay tuned.


CARLSON: Well, we have an update, not a full one, but a partial update on a very weird story, the closure of the Sunspot Solar Observatory in New Mexico. Now was shut down for nearly two weeks, the observatory has finally reopened; it happened today.

In a statement, the observatory explained that it was closed to cooperate with law enforcement who are investigating some kind of criminal activity on a nearby mountain peak. They suggested there was a dangerous person afoot and that's why they had to make everyone evacuate.

They still won't say what the crime was or why a mandatory mass evacuation of people was necessary; someone had to leave their homes. Meanwhile the local sheriff told reporters he does not know of any criminal investigation at all.

We of course called the FBI, which continues to tell us that they cannot confirm or deny any investigation. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's not, but we're going to stay on it and continue our own independent investigation.

State of California was for many years a paradise for the middle class in this country. People moved there from everywhere. But increasingly it's becoming an unlivable dystopia for normal people. Nowhere represents that better than the city of San Francisco.

Car break-ins are surging there, but arrests are rare and police seem unable or even unwilling to protect the public. Recently, the show Inside Edition tried to investigate the crime wave and here's what happened.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These Bonnie and Clyde wannabes stroll up and peer inside our car. He tries to bust out the front window with the glass puncher, but it doesn't break. So he goes for the back window and--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There he goes, he just broke in.

LISA GUERRERO, "INSIDE EDITION": First, he grabs the purse and tosses it to his female accomplice. He reaches back in and struggles to pull out our big speaker. Time to activate our GPS unit. The chase is on.

He went down there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We finally catch up to them at this subway entrance.

GUERRERO: I'm Lisa Guerrero with "Inside Edition," you've got my speaker right there and you just broke into our car.


GUERRERO: We've got it on camera. You're going to want to give that back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just going to call my mother.

GUERRERO: You should call your mother, that is an awesome idea, can I talk to your mom?

We got our speaker back. Now we have to find the girl.

The purse is in this area some -- here it is. Purse is in the trashcan.

Unbelievably, when we were inside conducting the interview, thieves came out here and they broke into our crew truck. They stole thousands of dollars' worth of our equipment, so we actually got hit twice in one day.


CARLSON: Unbelievable. Joe Alioto Veronese is a candidate for the DA of San Francisco and he joins us tonight. So, Joe, obviously you are from there, but our viewers may not know that these crimes took place not in some obscure tough neighborhood on the periphery, but in one of those famous squares in the city of San Francisco in broad daylight. How does this happen, why didn't nobody stop it?

JOE ALIOTO VERONESE, FORMER MEMBER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE COMMISSION: Well we have -- we had 31,000 last year and that was reported, which means it's probably closer to 40,000, 45,000 which is 100 a day. So, it's not unusual in San Francisco that this happened.

What they do is they come from out of town, because they know they're not going to be prosecuted, and then they also target areas such as the Painted Ladies here and other areas like North Beach and Pier 39, where they hit tourists, because tourists won't stick around for the prosecution.

It makes it harder on the prosecutes to actually -- to convict. But even when you've got cases like this, which is absolutely horrible, it's not uncommon. We shouldn't be having people taking law enforcement into their own hands.

What this lady did was extremely dangerous. And in the circumstance of the individuals that broke into her car--

CARLSON: You mean, talking about the reporter.

VERONESE: --another car. Yes, that's right.

CARLSON: But wait, the cops aren't doing anything. The city is not doing anything. Why shouldn't people take the law into their own hands. If the state won't uphold the law, why shouldn't citizens

VERONESE: Well the police department, the fire -- the police department, the prosecutor's office, they are the ones that should be doing this. And the problem is, in the instance -- let me give you an example, the instance where the individuals broke into her car and they jumped into another car, there are rules that the police Commission here in San Francisco have set, where the police department cannot chase once they get into a car.

So, you could break into a place in San Francisco, and as soon as you get into a vehicle, if it's a property crime, the police department is ordered not to chase you.


CARLSON: Who are these - OK, but I'm confused. Typically, the laws in the city or a state or a country are written to protect normal people, taxpayer people with families, people who aren't bothering anybody. These laws all seem to be written to help criminals. Why is that

VERONESE: Well that particular law was written to prevent high-speed chases in high urban areas. But really what we should be doing in San Francisco is taking a look at laws that were well intended and changing them to make sure that they are effective.

And the problem in San Francisco, and this is true throughout the country, is that when you attack a progressive law, you're attacking with - it's seen as attacking progressive, as opposed to being a leader and taking a leadership position.

And that's the real problem, is that when we see faults in our ideal -- our progressive ideals, we should be correcting them, we should be going back and saying this isn't making sense, it's not working, put some metrics behind it, trying to find out what the success metrics are. And then--

CARLSON: So, is anybody doing that

VERONESE: --changing those laws. But we're not doing that.

CARLSON: OK, so but, what are the supervisors of the city of San Francisco think when they get on BART and there's like a passed-out junkie and someone shooting up at a pile of human feces and a mugger, do they think, "Boy this is working really well. I'm doing a good job" Like, what do they think

VERONESE: Well I think what they're thinking is, and this is another problem is, well OK our Homeless Department isn't working well, so let's give them more money, or our Department of Health isn't working well, so let's give them more money.

And we're building these large institutions that aren't really based on any kind of success metrics. We should not be stepping over those individuals in BART stations. And in fact, I have proposed even at the fire department that we do something about the mental health emergencies that are happening on our street.


VERONESE: Because if you call 911 and you have a broken arm or you've been shot, we will show up to help you with that emergency. But if you're having a mental health emergency, we currently don't have a protocol to deal with that and we really need to--

CARLSON: But can I just ask really quick--

VERONESE: --be addressed of the problem.

CARLSON: I don't know if you've got kids, but you'll notice when you have kids if you don't put up with something, you get less of it.

VERONESE: I've got one.

CARLSON: OK. Then you'll find out, when he gets older, cities that put up with this kind of nonsense get a lot of it. Cities that don't put up with it don't get any of it. Has that occurred

VERONESE: Right. Well, here's the thing, is that Gavin Newsom who is running for Governor recently said, and was attacked for it, he said we shouldn't be spending more money on homelessness in San Francisco, this is a regional problem.

And this is a man that for years worked really hard on the homeless problem for years and actually put a dent in it. He's saying no more money for homelessness, and he's absolutely right about it. We've got to take a look at these institutions--

CARLSON: That guy. I'm sorry, I know - OK, you are not allowed to plug that- -

VERONESE: I know, you can attack him.

CARLSON: No, I'm serious. Look at the city he left behind.


VERONESE: You can ask him, Gavin Newsom, we worked really hard with Gavin Newsom on the homeless problem in San Francisco.


VERONESE: But he's right about this one. This is a regional problem.

CARLSON: He's right on that one.

VERONESE: This is a regional problem.

CARLSON: Joe, thank you very much for joining us and I appreciate it.

VERONESE: All right.

CARLSON: So the rest of us are waiting to hear more evidence in this Brett Kavanaugh story, but famous people in LA don't wait for evidence. They're out on Twitter convicting.

Mark Stein joins us to discuss that next.


CARLSON: The President has ordered the declassification of a number of documents close to the center of the Russia investigation, the FISA application, the Page Strzok texts. Fairly soon, maybe as soon as tomorrow, we're going to get a very close look at why these decisions were made, we can see for ourselves.

What are we likely to find when we see them. Author and columnist Mark Steyn has been following this story from the very beginning and he joins us tonight. So, what do you think we are going to learn

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR: I think we'll learn that, in terms of probable cause for surveilling an American citizen, Carter Page for example, the United States government had absolutely nothing to go on, other than something that is basically a cooked up dossier by a man who is a foreign spy.

The FISA applications, if you look at what's redacted, everyone thinks there's all kinds of interesting stuff in there. Most of it is actually just the boilerplate form you have to fill in to get the application. It's just box checking, which is a lot of what this stupid paperwork is.

And then when you actually look at the main section of probable cause that Carter Page is a Russian spy, they explain that Russia is a sovereign state, its capital city is Moscow, they've been spying on Americans since the end of the Second World War, blah blah blah.

If you actually take the justification they have for spying on an American citizen, it's absolutely minimal. And if that's confirmed tomorrow, then serious principled people, whether they're conservative or liberal--

CARLSON: That's right.

STEYN: --ought to be mad about that.

CARLSON: You don't have to be a conservative or a Trump voter to be upset about that.


CARLSON: You just have to be an American.


CARLSON: I don't know, you've probably been on Twitter all day and you've seen that the famous community has already decided what they think of Brett Kavanaugh. Actor Rob Delaney, apparently I'm taking on faith he's an actor, he writes "Male GOP Senators, huge opportunity for you to pretend you give a bleep about women and say he'll be the first to vote no on Kavanaugh. Ben Sasse, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake One of you soft pieces of bleep should grab this once in a career opportunity."

I could go on -- actually I can't do it, it's too annoying. But let me ask you, do we live in a world where anybody cares what these people think

STEYN: Oh come on, Tucker. If you ever were in the debating society at school, or you did Model UN (ph) you know that calling people a soft piece of bleep is dispositive in an argument.


It's ruthless forensic logic, it's utterly persuasive, it's right up there with calling your political opponent's supporters the dregs of society, and that's the way these guys are doing it. This guy, Rob Delaney, it's interesting to me by the way how I am a drag of society. I don't know whether you can be a singular dreg, but I am.

And I'm interested -- always interested to know how high up the dregs go to the Hollywood guys. One of these people who's mad about it, Jeffrey Wright who played Felix Leiter in a couple of Bond movies a few years back, Jeffrey Wright says Christine Ford will now face barbaric Republican wrath and also lifelong ostracizing by Kavanaugh's insular suburban Maryland seersucker and dock siders country club set.

You're wearing dock siders tonight, Tucker. You're probably wearing seersucker suit under that phony suit you've got on top of it.


So the dregs of society includes people in seersucker suits. Hollywood elite, it would be much easier for Joe Biden and Eric Holder and the Hollywood crowd to make a list of people who are qualified to opine and discourse and participate in the public life of the nation, because it doesn't seem to be a very long list in a nation of 300 million.

CARLSON: No, it's their friends. I don't know if you're a citizen, but if you are, you should run for office. I will send you money.

STEYN: I'm a citizen of Seersuckerstan, Tucker.


It's a great land.

CARLSON: Seersuckerstan, I want to go there.


CARLSON: Mark Steyn, great to see you.

STEYN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: A longtime colleague of Brett Kavanaugh joins us after the break to tell us what he's like. That's next.


CARLSON: So nominee Brett Kavanaugh is under attack, as you have seen, not his legal views but his integrity and his decency as a man. In response to that, several of his friends are standing up for him in different forms. One of them is Helgi Walker, she's a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

She worked alongside Kavanaugh in the Bush administration and has known him for more than 25 years. She joins us tonight.

Helgi, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON: So when you read these allegations, what was your first thought

WALKER: I was shocked and stunned, and this came completely out of the blue to me, and I know to Judge Kavanaugh. He said that he didn't even know what this was about, until the accuser's identity was made known. He had no idea what this is about, he has said, and neither did any of us.

This is completely out of character for him and every woman friend of his has come forward. 65 women from high school, women like me who worked with him in the White House Counsel's office, scores of women have said this is completely out of character for him and a total shock.

CARLSON: What is the effect on his family I mean, this is a man with a wife and two little girls.

WALKER: I hope they're doing OK. His wife Ashley who he met while we were all working in the White House together is a strong person, a person of faith, and his girls are wonderful. I'm sure that they are doing their best to hold it together. But I can imagine it's very difficult.

CARLSON: So, now as a lawyer, what do you think the next move for Judge Kavanaugh is

WALKER: Well the President said today that he welcomes the opportunity for the process to unfold, and I know that Judge Kavanaugh has said that he's eager to defend his honor and his integrity.

Judge Kavanaugh likes to play offense, not defense. He's a big sports fan, as I think you know, and he's a very proactive person. And I believe that he's going to set the record straight about exactly what is going on here.

Senator hatch today issued a really interesting statement, Tucker. I don't know if you saw it.


WALKER: --where he said that Judge Kavanaugh again denied ever being at any sort of a party like the one that has been described, and that this might be Senator Hatch suggested a case of mistaken identity.

CARLSON: It's 36 years ago, it's entirely possible.

WALKER: It's possible that Judge Kavanaugh was not there any -- just not even there at all.

CARLSON: Really quickly, what kind of justice would he be in the Supreme Court

WALKER: He would be a wonderful Justice, Tucker. He, first of all, has been a DC Circuit Judge for 12 years, which is a very important Federal Court of Appeals. He's written over 300 opinions. They are by all accounts, whether you are more liberal or conservatively oriented as a lawyer, they are by all accounts stunning work, well researched, and he's an impressive colleague.

CARLSON: That's the thing. Nobody even questions that and that's the frustration.

WALKER: Nobody even questions, and we should be talking about that. We be talking about the Constitution, we should be talking about separation of powers, talking about all that.

CARLSON: It's the spring of 1982, we can hug you Walker. Thank you for joining us and for your first person account of what he is like.

WALKER: Thank you for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: That's it for us. We will be back tomorrow, there's so much news, it's unbelievable. This is as we told you many times, a show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. And we hope that you will tune in tomorrow and the next night and on forever as long as we are on.

Good night from Washington. Sean Hannity, live from New York City, the metropolis to the North is with us right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.