This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well, good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” We're nearing the end of our second full week of total saturation Ukraine coverage - that means every channel, every hour of the day.
So at this point, you'd think it would be obvious what exactly the fuss is about. After this much talking, you would assume every person in America would understand what crimes Donald Trump is being accused of committing.
But no, even now, the story still feels obscure and strangely light. There's nothing mysterious or weighty about it. We already know all of the facts, there's a transcript, and yet they still don't seem very sure shocking.
And so maybe for that reason, our news anchors have been doing their very best to keep the blood pressure high. The game is boring, so the cheerleaders have to work overtime, twice as hard.
For example, here was MSNBC's best attempt to get you to care.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: I don't say this lightly. But let's be frank, a national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the President.
We begin tonight with a series of admissions by the President that all that assures his impeachment in the House of Representatives.
This moment should arguably be a national emergency. The Founding Fathers would have considered it a national emergency if the President publicly lobbied multiple foreign governments to interfere in the next election. It's tough to say lightly. But this is the moment that we're at.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well, I think a good cliche bomb just went off. Try to ignore how hackneyed and badly written that speech was. The state of education in this country clearly is in rapid decline. Nobody can read a decent paragraph anymore. Someday we're going to do a special on that.
But for now, consider the substance of what you just heard, to the sense, if there was any. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack - that's what they're telling you. So what exactly are the basic rules of our democracy? Well, the most basic rule of all, is it the people rule.
In a democracy, the big decisions are made by voters in elections. They are not made by left-wing talk show host or by "The Washington Post," or even by high level C.I.A. employees acting anonymously as whistleblowers. No.
In a democracy, the main decisions are made by citizens casting ballots - that, for example, is how you remove a President by beating him in an election. That's always the way we did it here in America. Not anymore.
So yes, our democracy is under attack. They are right about that. And yet for all of his faults, Donald Trump is not the attacker. But wait a second, they're telling you, we understand how grave a decision impeachment is, in fact, we're praying over it -- people of faith that we are.
But in this case, impeachment is another avoidable. Soliciting information from foreign countries is corrupt and evil. That's what they're telling you. Okay, fine. But let's at least acknowledge that this standard is a brand new standard, I mean, brand new standard, like 20 minutes ago, because it wasn't that long ago, less than a year, you'll remember this - that all of American politics revolved around information solicited from foreign countries. It was called the Steele dossier. And back then, the press corps strongly approved of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The allegations in this Christopher Steele dossier and you went through the timeline very well a few moments ago, are stunning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're actually substantial portions of what was in the Steele dossier, which was a raw Intelligence document that have indeed checked out.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Based on our own reporting and word from numerous official sources, the dossier, in fact, is far from bogus.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we're going to actually have to stop calling it the infamous dossier. Increasingly, it's the accurate dossier. Increasingly, it's the damning dossier. Increasingly, it's the dossier that's going to hang around the neck of the Trump administration and drag them down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Oh, the dossier. It was totally fine. In case you forgotten and you may have forgotten because, why would you remember? But Christopher Steele, who wrote the dossier was a foreign Intelligence operative. He gathered his material abroad in foreign countries, some of it clearly from foreign government officials.
At the time, that was absolutely fine with Democrats. They weren't embarrassed to say so. Clinton campaign staffer, Brian Fallon tweeted this. We can give you many examples. Here's one, here's his tweet. "I regret I didn't know about Christopher Steele's hiring pre-election. If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him."
Oh, okay. And by the way, if foreign interference is such a concern, and by the way, it should be a concern, then why are we more worried about foreign companies sending de facto bribes to the family members of connected politicians? There are a lot of those. We're picking on Joe Biden's son because it's in the news, but it could be a lot of people's sons, trust me, but in the case of Biden's son, nobody thinks he's an expert on Ukrainian energy policy. He got the gig because of his dad. It was influenced peddling, obviously. In this case, that's okay, though, for some reason.
So let's just be totally honest. Let's stop lying if we can, just for a second. I know it's hard in modern America where everyone is required to lie all the time. But let's just be honest, for this one moment.
In Washington right now, there are no actual rules. Partisan simply invent standards for the purpose of destroying their political enemies. Just today, Hillary Clinton tweeted this, from the late Democratic member of Congress is this quote. "If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th Century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th Century paper shredder." That's Barbara Jordan, by the way
In other words, if the process doesn't reach the outcome that Hillary Clinton wants it to reach, she thinks we ought to scrap the Constitution. Oh. Probably not a question that that concept appeals to Michigan, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. This week, Tlaib told her constituents that the Democratic Party is now considering ways to arrest members of Trump's Cabinet. Jailing them in Detroit would be a good option, she explained, watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MICH.: So they're trying to figure out, no joke. They're trying to figure out well, is it the D.C. Police that goes and gets them? We don't know. Where do we hold them?
So I just want you to know, I will relay your message. I will tell them they can hold off those people right here in Detroit, we will take care of them. And make sure they show up to the committee hearing. We won't hurt them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes. Just going to arrest them. That's not Third World or anything. Arrest the cabinet. You've got to give Tlaib credit for honesty, anyway. She is not pretending to be prayerful, like Nancy Pelosi. She is just saying what she really thinks she speaks for, unfortunately, quite a few people in her party.
What we're watching here, what you just watching that clip is politics itself breaking down. That's not politics, of course. That's not the effort to persuade people, bring them over to your side through reason. No. That's something different.
Modern partisans on the left don't want to just win the next election. Electoral power is too transient. Voters might change their mind in the election after that. It happened by the way in 2016. Democrats don't want to take that risk again.
So they moved on from the goal of winning votes to utterly destroying their opponents, their enemies. They want them imprisoned as you just heard there. They want their families intimidated. They want their supporters humiliated and demoralized. They want to vanquish rather than win over.
That's not a good way to run a country. But it's an awfully effective way to maximize political power.
Catherine Herridge is our Chief Intelligence Correspondent at Fox News. She joins us with the very latest on the Ukraine investigation -- Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Tucker. Today, the Intelligence Community watchdog was on Capitol Hill for seven hours behind closed doors. Sources familiar with the questioning tell Fox News that Michael Atkinson told lawmakers the whistleblower did not disclose his contact with the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee.
The sources said Atkinson revealed that the whistleblower was a registered Democrat who had a prior working relationship with a high profile Democratic politician. And Atkinson said that he had no knowledge of how a Schiff tweet in late August about Ukraine aide and Rudy Giuliani, as well as other statements apparently mirrored the substance of the whistleblower complaint before it was declassified and shared with Congress.
A spokesman says the Chairman could have been more precise in his earlier media appearances. Democrats and Republicans today disagreed on the significance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses about contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.
REP. JACKIE SPEIER, D-CALIF.: This whistleblower did a profoundly important thing by alerting the Intelligence Community and the Intelligence Committee about what is a criminal act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: This week also saw the release of these text messages from top diplomats over the President's July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian leader and the request to look into corruption allegations against Biden and his son.
In September, a top diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor texts Gordon Sondland, who contributed to Trump's inaugural fund and is now the Ambassador to the European Union.
Taylor writes, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." And Sondland responds, quote, "I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President's Zelensky promised during the campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
On the whistleblower, Fox News contacted Chairman Schiff's office and the whistleblower's legal team about the disclosure issue and there was no immediate response -- Tucker.
CARLSON: No immediate response. Catherine Herridge, thanks so much for that.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
CARLSON: News you can believe. Stephen Cohen is a Contributing Editor at "The Nation." He is a retired Professor of Russian Studies at NYU in Princeton. He is also the author of the fantastic book, "War with Russia: From Putin in Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate." Professor Cohen, thanks so much for coming on tonight.
STEPHEN COHEN, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "THE NATION": Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: So I just want to be clear about the Steele dossier. I don't want to re-litigate, you know, the years that we spent talking about this, but now that the standard in Washington is soliciting information for foreign governments is an impeachable offense, the Steele dossier, which was the basis of the Russia investigation, was that information in whole or in part from foreign governments?
COHEN: Well, by the way, the first time we met on your program was two and a half years ago when the Steele dossier was published. I think it was January 2017. And we talked about it then.
And I said to you then, this is clearly something concocted probably by Intelligence agencies around the world. And that's what it has turned out to be.
Steele's premise, which got him attention was that he got all this from sources high in the Kremlin, correct? It was supposed to be Kremlin sources. But the story didn't make any sense because the dossier said Putin wanted to elect Trump. So why then we asked ourselves, would Putin's own agents, give Steele dirt on Trump to destroy his candidacy? The whole Steele document made very little sense.
By the way, we now know that Steele was more of a composer than a writer. A lot of people contributed to it, including the wife of a very high- ranking American F.B.I. agent, Louise (sic) Ohr. She said she researched for Steele, so I assume that's what it means.
CARLSON: Pretty surprising. Pretty stunning, actually. So you've been in and around this world for many decades. Have you seen anything like this? This appears to be in part, an Intelligence operation aimed at a sitting U.S. President-- is there precedent for this historically?
COHEN: Right. So you've asked me to go someplace we can't go at length. Coming down here, I asked myself, have we ever had a presidential scandal like this in America? No, I can't think of one.
Then because I study the Soviet Union as a profession. I asked myself, did the Russian secret police, the KGB, run its own operations against Soviet leaders who pursued policies they didn't like? And the answer is yes. Particularly detente related policies.
COHEN: So now I connect dots, and feel free to tell me I shouldn't connect these dots, that it's a crazy Russianist thinking, but all of this Russia- gate stuff seems to have originated and that's what Steele tells us with intelligence agencies, American and foreign.
What we don't know is why -- and we need to know this -- they set out to destroy Trump as a candidate in 2016, and then as a President. After all, other American Presidents had pursued cooperation with Russia. What was it about Trump that determined them to destroy him?
CARLSON: That is -- that is -- that is the question. I have theories, but I don't know if they're right. Professor, thanks so much for that -- for that perspective. Always. It's great to talk to you.
COHEN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, the Trump White House says that if Nancy Pelosi wants to pursue impeachment, she should. The administration reportedly is planning a letter to Pelosi saying it will not comply with requests for documents or other materials, unless she holds a full House vote to begin a formal inquiry.
Hogan Gidley is White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary and he joins us tonight. Mr. Gidley, thanks very much for coming on tonight.
HOGAN GIDLEY, WHITE HOUSE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: Thank you so much.
CARLSON: So is the House or is the House not impeaching Donald Trump?
GIDLEY: That's a great question, I think one you'd have to pose to Nancy Pelosi. I mean, their own rules dictate they have to vote if they want to move on toward an impeachment. They have not done that.
CARLSON: That's a good point.
GIDLEY: They keep issuing subpoenas, or are they conducting oversight, which of course at this point is overreach, or are they going to move to impeach? And she hasn't answered that question.
The fact is, Donald Trump has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it. And also he deserves due process just like any American citizen would, and the democrats can't void that simply because they hate him so much, or because they want to overturn the election of 2016.
CARLSON: So you've seen a number of not simply in his conversation with the Ukrainian President, but in a couple of other calls with heads of state, the President's phone calls monitored and then leaked. You just saw Gordon Sondland, who is the Ambassador of the European Union, it is not a minor job.
His text exchanges were leaked, what is going on?
GIDLEY: That's a great question, and it has been obvious that people inside the government for quite some time -- I mean, before this President was sworn in and the oath of office, I was here in Washington, D.C. I watched them rail against him and protest him before he was sworn in.
He had not passed a single piece of legislation. He had not taken a position or push things as President. They wanted him out before he was actually sworn in. This is more of the same. It is very clear that there are people inside the government hell bent on destroying this President and taking him down. They try it every single day.
You've seen that with the leaked calls from Australian Prime Minister that we had a conversation with. The President spoke to the President of Mexico also leaked. And now this whole Ukrainian conversation. The Democrats are so lost.
What you are not hearing them talk about is USMCA, for example, to help our farmers and ranchers.
GIDLEY: They're not talking about guns anymore, which was the most pressing issue on the planet for a hot minute. They aren't talking about Medicare or fixing the healthcare system at all. They aren't talking about closing our borders at all.
All they can see is hatred for this President, blood red trying to attack him. It's disgusting. It's gross. And the American people quite frankly deserve better. It doesn't hurt Donald Trump. It hurts the American people because they need safe infrastructure, for example, but Democrats won't even come to the table to discuss.
CARLSON: So the other day during his press conference, the President made a remark about China, maybe they should look into what Hunter Biden was doing there.
CARLSON: Mitt Romney almost immediately issued a statement saying that that was quote, "wrong and appalling." Do you worry about Romney specifically voting to convict in an impeachment trial?
GIDLEY: I'm not sure what he is going to do. But listen, Mitt Romney has a long history of trying to go to Donald Trump and get money. For example, he obviously wanted to be Secretary of State as well. He didn't get that job either. He goes back to Utah and runs for Senate.
The President has great relationships in the United States Senate. The Republicans obviously control it. We expect we're going to be fine in the United States Senate. So I don't think --
CARLSON: Yes, so really quick, does the President regret not hiring Senator Romney as Secretary of State?
GIDLEY: I don't think so. I think he is quite happy with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is doing an incredible job and quite frankly, shares the President's vision.
CARLSON: Hogan Gidley joining us tonight. Thanks so much.
GIDLEY: Thanks so much.
CARLSON: This is a Fox News alert. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been discharged from the hospital. His campaign now concedes that it was a heart attack that put him there. The campaign had previously said that Sanders suffered chest pain and then underwent emergency surgery for blocked arteries.
In a statement announcing his discharge though, they describe his ailment as a myocardial infarction. That's a type of heart attack that involves permanent damage to heart tissue.
For now, Sanders says he will stay in the Democratic race for the nomination. In fact, on Twitter tonight, he has ignored his heart attack admission completely. Sanders also says he plans to participate in the next primary debate. Obviously, we'll keep you posted.
Impeachment is back in the news and you know what that means, the creepy porn lawyer has stormed back onto the stage as well. He says Stormy Daniels -- Stormy Daniels owes him millions of dollars for all the self- promotion he did at her expense. CPL. Back in the news, next.
CARLSON: We have a long list of felony charges pending against him. You might have imagined the creepy porn lawyer was gone for good. If so, you were wrong.
As long as there are television cameras to jump in front, of course, creepy porn lawyer will live on. There is oxygen. Now, he is suing Stormy Daniels. He keeps claims she owes him $2 million in unpaid legal fees.
It's a bold move considering that CPL is already facing criminal charges for embezzling $300,000.00 owed to Daniels. Hutzpah might be the term for it.
Chadwick Moore is a columnist for "Spectator USA," which is a fantastic magazine, and he joins us tonight. Chadwick, great to see you.
CHADWICK MOORE, COLUMNIST, "SPECTATOR USA": Good to see you.
CARLSON: So CPL is suing Stormy Daniels, who last time I checked, had no money and was dancing in strip bars in Richmond, people threw beer bottles on her. He is trying to take money from her.
MOORE: That's exactly right. Well, you know, he is just trying to express -- well, he is trying to litigate how hard he worked himself to the bone for this client, his relentless dedication to this case, to her wellbeing.
And you know, this guy had a grueling 19 months, or however long it was that he was putting himself fully and completely out there for her.
You know just look at what he had to go through. So hundreds of times his day would be showing up at CNN. Now, I don't know if you ever -- you have been to CNN, you used to work there. I've been to CNN. Just showing up there is an experiment in human misery.
You have to dry clean your clothes when you leave to get the stench of decay out of it, and he has to sit in makeup. He has to -- then he has to go into the studio hundreds of times we're talking about. And he has to surround himself with the Stelter's and the Tapper's and the Cuomo's, and essentially perform a kind of Mr. Rogers-like role where he talks to puppets for the entertainment of children.
But his day isn't over then. He has to then go home and relentlessly Google himself. He needs to get onto Twitter and search for himself all night long and pick fights with random people. Then he has to run for President.
And he has to hold press conferences where no one shows up and buy really, really expensive suits.
You know, this guy was really putting himself out there and what was Stormy doing? Well, she was dancing.
CARLSON: She was dancing. Wait, but you're missing one task that he had before him. It was about a year ago at this time. He had to pose as America's foremost feminist hero. He was a defender of women. He was woke.
And now, he is basically trying to try to steal money from a stripper. That doesn't sound like a feminist move to me.
MOORE: That's exactly right. I wonder if -- he was America's sweetheart back then. You know, Brian Stelter told us that he had a real shot at the presidency. And the feminists loved him. He was going to take down the President, and I'm so shocked that now he is trying to steal money from a hard working dancer.
CARLSON: I've always felt sorry for her and I feel more sorry for her now than I ever have. It's just it's -- he is a predator. Chadwick Moore, great to see you. Relentlessly Googling himself. I'll think of that right before I go to bed.
CARLSON: Actor Robert de Niro has made it very clear how he feels about politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR: This guy is -- should not be President. Period.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN BUSINESS CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: And when you say that, folks on Fox come after you. I remember the Tony's you he got up there and cursed. A lot of [bleep].
DE NIRO: [Bleep] them.
STELTER: Okay, well, you know, this is cable --
DE NIRO: Sorry.
This [bleep] idiot is the President. The guy is a [bleep] fool. Come on.
How dare he say the things he does? Of course, I want to punch him in the face.
JOY BEHAR, ABC HOST: Right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Why does he feel so passionate? Because he cares about the little people. Because he is a progressive. He is a liberal and that means his instinct is always on the side of the underdog. The people who are unheralded. You may not know their names, but they make this country work. That's whose side Robert de Niro was on. And that's why he's fighting the power on their behalf.
Is that really true? It turns out he may not reserve his rage for political topics. A former assistant has filed a $12 million sexual harassment case against Robert de Niro, and her suit includes this voicemail that he left her. Listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DE NIRO: You [bleep] don't answer my calls? How dare you. You're about to be fired. You're [bleep] history. How dare you [bleep] disrespect me? Don't [bleep] get angry with me because I'm pissed off because I didn't get a simple thing that I need right now here out in California where I'm here for less than 24 hours. You've got to be [bleep] kidding me, you spoiled brat. [Bleep] you. God [bleep] it. How can you [bleep] say you don't answer, you're upset, you're living in Spain. You spoiled [bleep] brat.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: He just cares about the little people, expect for his assistant and the valet parker he screams at. Joe Concha writes about media for "The Hill." He does care about the little people. He joins us tonight.
So this is -- this seems to be kind of revealing Joe or am I -- am I maybe drawing to grand a conclusion from this voicemail?
JOE CONCHA, MEDIA WRITER, THE HILL: Oh, no, I don't think so at all, Tucker. And there's a $12 million harassment suit against Robert de Niro at this point. But you know, by the rules of the #MeToo era, Robert de Niro shouldn't be going on CNN or any other media outlet going forward.
And this isn't a he-said-she-said situation. You just played the tape. And it's brutal. Alec Baldwin listened to that tape and said, wow, that guy is really out of control.
De Niro is a great -- he is a great actor. I'm not going to take that away from him.
CARLSON: It's true. He is.
CONCHA: "Good Fellas" is one of my all-time favorite movies. "Raging Bull," "Midnight Run." He does comedy. Forget about it. But he is also the leader of the resistance in entertainment circles. And the more he speaks, the more he helps the President.
And by the way, the President doesn't need any sort of Hollywood help. I mean, he has Jon Voight, Dean Cain and Chachi, and that doesn't matter because he still won the 2016 election, despite all of Hollywood being against him.
So I think that whole thing around -- well, you need Hollywood support because they connect with people. That's completely overrated. I'm making a very obvious statement.
CARLSON: It doesn't seem like an accident that some of the worst people in America wind up as political activists. It's like, instead of straightening out in their personal lives and be kind to the people around them, they make themselves feel like good people by you know, getting passionately involved in an issue.
Shouldn't you start this as a life lesson, as a kind of rule for living with the people around you? If you can't be nice to them, then why should I listen to you?
CONCHA: Take care of your own home. Mow your own lawn before you start telling other people how to run their own homes and mow their lawns.
CARLSON: Yes, that's exactly right.
CONCHA: And looks, de Niro, I mean, this stuff is bad by the way. De Niro would direct the accuser to scratch his back, button his shirt, fix his collars, tie his ties. Prod him awake when he was in bed. Stood idly by while his friends slapped her on the buttocks.
I mean, this is very serious stuff, and I don't hear a peep, Tucker, out of anybody that's even remotely substantial in Hollywood denouncing Robert de Niro, the same way of Brett Kavanaugh or at least for any conservative, for that matter, would be ostracized and shamed at this point, it's amazing.
CARLSON: Because they're all this way. They all have dysfunctional, unhappy, disordered personal lives, and that's why they're so angry. Joe Concha, great to see you.
CONCHA: Have a great weekend.
CARLSON: You, too. The City of Seattle has surrendered its parks to vagrants. Now it may surrender its streets to criminals. The city's prosecutors are allowing thousands of criminals to walk away without any charges. That's next.
CARLSON: Elizabeth Warren spends an awful lot of time telling us how tough she is going to be if she's elected President with Silicon Valley.
She claims she'll break up the largest tech monopolies like Facebook and Amazon and Google. Well, we support that idea, of course. Everyone should support that idea. But can we believe that Elizabeth Warren really means it? Well, maybe not.
A recent story in a business website profile the tech bigwigs who are donating to Warren's campaign and amazingly there are quite a few of them. One former Facebook executive
Not a recent story in a business website profile the tech bigwigs who are donating to Warren's campaign and amazingly, they're quite a few of them. One former Facebook executive, for example has already donated more than five grand to Warren's presidential campaign. Uber and Twitter investor, Chris Sacca has donated as well.
Even more investors and executives in the piece said they were backing Elizabeth Warren, but kept their names anonymous.
By the way, employees at Alphabet -- that's the parent company of Google -- have donated almost $130,000.00 to Elizabeth Warren. That's the second most of any company or organization in the United States. If as long as we're ranking them, Amazon is number four on the list, Apple is fifth.
So it turns out Big Tech loves Elizabeth Warren, almost as much as it loves Pete Buttigieg who has got no chance, and far more than it loves Joe Biden.
So Elizabeth Warren may say that she plans to rein in Big Tech, but Silicon Valley is full of really smart people who got rich by making good bets, and they're betting she doesn't mean it. They don't believe her for a second. Why should we?
Well, Seattle is one of the country's most progressive cities and that means that leaders there are treating their city as a test tube for radical ideology. The city has already ceded its public spaces to massive homeless encampments. Now, they're trying another experiment. Mass decriminalization.
A report commissioned by Seattle Business Association found that city prosecutors refused to prosecute almost half of all non-traffic criminal cases referred to them by the city's police.
For example, more than 1,800 robberies were referred by police over an 18- month period, but less than a thousand of them resulted in criminal charges.
Christopher Rufo is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, and he joins us tonight. So this is kind of an amazing number. First perspective, this is unusual, correct?
CHRISTOPHER RUFO, FELLOW, DISCOVERY INSTITUTE: Yes, this is highly unusual, and really what you've seen is that Seattle has embarked on an experiment of mass decriminalization. Not only decriminalizing homeless encampments and public spaces, decriminalizing possession and use of drugs like heroin and fentanyl, and now essentially a de facto decriminalization of low level property crimes, assaults, and even robberies.
But the evidence is really clear. Seattle now has property crime rates that are 86 percent higher than Chicago, 250 percent higher --
CARLSON: Than Chicago?
RUFO: Than Chicago. Two hundred fifty percent higher than Los Angeles and 400 percent higher than New York City. And they're kind of operating under this mistaken idea that if you decriminalize crime, you'll get less of it.
But what we've seen, especially with property crime is that you've gotten much, much more of it and it's reaching a pretty dangerous point.
CARLSON: Is that the idea? Or is it the idea that we have no moral standing to enforce the law and we hate ourselves so much that we can't possibly tell a criminal not to commit a crime?
RUFO: I think that's at the heart of it, and I think there is a, really a radical progressive ideology that is seeping its way through institutions in cities like Seattle, San Francisco and Portland, where they're saying that essentially, people who are homeless or committing crimes or addicted to drugs are the victims of an unjust society, and we can't hold them accountable because to do so would be another vestige of white supremacy or fascism or racism.
But what you've seen is that it's essentially devolved into a situation where you have widespread addiction, you know, by the latest estimates, we have 6,000 homeless heroin and fentanyl addicts in the Seattle area. And we know that almost all of them don't work.
And they have on average, according to Federal data, a $1,800.00 a month drug habits. So what happens? You get a huge increase in property crime. I live in Seattle, Washington, and even just within a few blocks on my house, you know, you've had a guy set a -- doused another guy with lighter fluid, light him on fire.
You've had a number of robberies. I had a neighbor who -- there was a deranged man banging on her door trying to gain entry, and it took two hours for police to arrive because they're so busy going call to call to call.
CARLSON: That's a horrifying story. Seattle, for our viewers who haven't been there is one of the prettiest places in the world. And they are wrecking it.
RUFO: Yes, it's a beautiful city. It's a city paradoxically of really dynamic capitalist enterprise, mass prosperity, but it's being undermined by this kind of ideological commitment that is really kind of multiplying these problems and now we're seeing huge uptick in property crime, and even random acts of violence downtown.
CARLSON: It's the self-hating decadence of the new rich and you see it all up and down the coast on your side of the country. Thanks so much for joining us tonight, and Godspeed out there.
RUFO: Thank you.
CARLSON: Well, a Federal judge, an Obama judge, of course, just gave Harvard University a green light to discriminate based on skin color. That's not progress, but we've got details.
CARLSON: Harvard University is this country's oldest and most prestigious college, but it's not because they have fair or meritocratic admissions, they never have, but it's getting worse.
A lawsuit brought by students for fair admissions produced devastating hard evidence data that Harvard systematically discriminates based on skin color in deciding who to let in. I mean, discrimination is the basis of their decision. It is no different morally from anything that happened in the Jim Crow South.
This week though, a Federal judge appointed by Barack Obama says it is totally fine. Judge Allison Burroughs said that for the sake of fighting quote, "entrenched racism," Harvard is allowed to entrench racism.
Peter Kirsanow is a lawyer and a U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner. He joins us tonight. Peter, thanks so much for coming on. So what should we draw - - what can we conclude from this court decision?
PETER KIRSANOW, U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSIONER: Basically that our elites think discrimination is okay as long as they say it is okay. What happened here, as you just indicated in the intro is that Harvard was engaged in pretty egregious racial discrimination against Asian students who brought the lawsuit, but also white students.
To give you some type of a benchmark, Asian students on average admitted into Harvard have SAT scores that are 218 points higher than the similarly situated black comparatives. White students have SAT scores that are 193 points higher than similarly situated white comparatives.
The court says that, nonetheless, that's consistent with the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter that allows the elite universities, frankly, almost any university, to use race as one component among many to achieve the educational benefits that purportedly derive from having a diverse student body.
That's, by the way, never been litigated that there are such true educational benefits. But that's neither here nor there.
CARLSON: Good point.
KIRSANOW: Yes, but the fact is that Harvard could probably get away with it, even though the evidence shows that if they did engage in this type of discrimination, the black student population at Harvard would decline by more than 60 percent.
The Asian population obviously, would increase dramatically, because on average, the Asian students that apply to Harvard have extremely high board scores, extremely high GPAs -- by the way that GPA and SAT differential is replicated in terms of the GPA differential of admitted students.
So the discrimination is significant here. It'll be going to the Supreme Court.
CARLSON: It's hard to believe once you see the actual numbers unearthed by this lawsuit, it's hard to believe that our meritocracy is real. I mean, it almost isn't -- it's insulting that people claim that it's a meritocracy.
KIRSANOW: Yes, meritocracy for me, but not for thee.
KIRSANOW: One of the more troubling aspects of this -- again, this is -- a lot of elite schools do this, but almost every other school of a certain level does it. One more troubling aspects of this is, this is supposed to, as you indicated in the intro, be a benefit not just to the school, but to the students who are the intended - purported intended beneficiaries.
However, there's something called the mismatch effect. And there's copious data in this that shows those intended beneficiaries actually suffer egregious harms as a result of this to a large extent.
KIRSANOW: In many schools, for example, two and a half times as many blacks fail than whites, 50 percent of blacks congregate in the bottom 10 percent of the GPA level.
And so a lot of these folks will also transfer from STEM courses to software courses.
KIRSANOW: Because you can't take someone who has an SAT score that's 200, and some schools is 400 points below their comparatives and expect to compete.
CARLSON: But it's not done for their benefit. It's done so white liberals can feel like saviors. And you know that that's true.
KIRSANOW: So that the college catalog has a rainbow on it.
CARLSON: Exactly. So they can feel -- they can feel good about themselves. Peter Kirsanow, thank you as always for coming on. Appreciate it.
KIRSANOW: Thanks a lot.
CARLSON: America's elite colleges in general are far less impressive than they once were. They're much more expensive though. And they still admit the children of the American elite. Chris Cuomo went to Yale, did you? Literally.
But they don't put a lot of emphasis on learning. Instead, activism rules today. Students campaign to stamp out free speech. Some of them probably spend more time protesting lectures than actually attending lectures. It's a situation ripe for satire, and we finally have such a satire.
Scott Johnston is a Yale graduate. He recently wrote a fantastic novel, a hilarious novel called "Campusland" about experiences on that campus. We recently spoke to Scott Johnston. Here is how it went.
CARLSON: So it is a novel. There's a story. I don't want to give it away. I hope our readers will find out for themselves. And it's not a preachy book. But if there is a message, what would the message be?
SCOTT JOHNSTON, AUTHOR: I think I wanted to draw some attention to just how crazy things are getting because as crazy as you might think it is, it's about three times as bad.
CARLSON: That is true. So you went to college. You went to Yale. Then you left. You had not spent a life in academia to write this book, you obviously had to immerse yourself in what was currently going on in campuses. What was your reaction to it?
JOHNSTON: Well, I was an adjunct at Yale for a little while, and I'm a fellow there, so I stay involved. And I pretty much know what's going on there and elsewhere.
But I did not set out to write a novel. A couple of things happened that compelled me too, really. The first was I went to a conference on Free Speech at Yale, and 200 protesters showed up to try and shut the conference down. I have on a good authority, they skipped irony class that day to be there.
CARLSON: I was just thinking that exact thing.
JOHNSTON: And as I was walking out through this phalanx of screaming undergrads like, I started wondering why no one has made satiric hay out of all this craziness, but it didn't occur to me that I should be the one to do it. I had never written a novel.
And then fast forward to my college reunion and I was holding the door open late one night for an undergraduate who stopped dead in her tracks and looked at me and said, patriarchy. She accused me of patriarchal behavior for holding the door open for, so then I decided, well, no one else is going to do it, so I'm going to do it.
CARLSON: How did you respond when she said that to you, nasty little person?
JOHNSTON: How did she respond?
CARLSON: How did you respond?
JOHNSTON: Well, I said, I thought I was just being polite. And then we had a standoff for about a minute before boredom overcame her principles before they overcame mine, and she walked through the door.
CARLSON: So I mean, part of what she learned reading this and part of what she learned reading the news, in fact, is that a lot of these schools, I would probably count Yale in the Liberal Arts in this category, haven't simply given up on the traditional mission to educate people broadly, but are actually turning out pretty bad people. Like they're making students worse people. How did that start?
JOHNSTON: If you don't show up at a school like Yale outraged about something, they'll turn you into a student who is outraged by something. It's become part of the culture, it's almost an addiction. And they have sit-ins and marches. And when they get really mad, they walk around with signs. And every week, it's something different. And they mistake it for action.
And it's all fairly silly and the majors that they have now, there's so many that I just call oppression studies that are turning out kids who are unemployable. So I had to make fun of it all.
CARLSON: So -- but why are we paying for this? I mean, I imagine when you go back to Yale, you know some people think you're great. Other people think you're part of the patriarchy like you just said, but it's people like you who keep Yale afloat. Why do people keep sending money to these schools?
JOHNSTON: Many people are stopping actually. They're catching on. And hopefully if they read my book, they'll catch on a little more.
CARLSON: Congrats on the book. This is a great book, "Campusland" by Scott Johnson. Thanks a lot for joining us tonight.
JOHNSTON: Thank you.
CARLSON: We have a Fox News alert for you, an update. This appeared in "The New York Times" just moments ago, the newspaper says that a second Intel official, an Intelligence official is considering filing a whistleblower complaint against the President.
Apparently, this official would also be complaining about the President's behavior toward Ukraine. But this one supposedly has more firsthand knowledge on the topic as opposed to the first anonymous whistleblower's whose accusations were entirely secondhand.
What does all this mean? We have no idea. We're just throwing it out there and trying to figure it out. We'll stay on the story.
The U.S. Military admits that U.F.O. footage is genuine. Sightings continue to pile up. Now, a group says they have physical evidence related to unidentified aircraft. A member of that group joins us, next.
CARLSON: Just a few weeks ago, the Navy admitted for the first time that several U.F.O. videos were real, meaning they show actual aerial phenomenon that so far the Pentagon cannot explain.
Now a U.F.O. investigations group says they have found materials that could potentially be physical evidence of U.F.O.s. Luis Elizondo is Director of Special Programs at To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science. He also headed the Pentagon's office for investigating U.F.O. incidents. And it's the star of the History Channel's "Unidentified." He joins us tonight. Luis, thanks so much for coming on.
LUIS ELIZONDO, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS, TO THE STARS ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE: Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: So what is this material? And why could it shed light on the question of what U.F.O.s might be?
ELIZONDO: Sure, well, our company over the last year and a half has actually obtained quite a bit of material. And let me first preface by saying some of that material, its provenance is frankly hearsay, while other -- the provenance of some of this material has been substantiated.
And ultimately, we're in the process of analyzing this material at three different levels. We're looking at its physical properties, its chemical, or if you will, molecular properties, and then ultimately, its atomic properties.
And it's really at that point, we'll be able to make some sort of definitive conclusion, keeping in mind that we still have to follow the scientific process and methods and at the same time have peer review.
So it's not just as simple as coming out and saying, hey, look, what we found. There's a lot of work that still needs to be done.
CARLSON: I bet that's right. And of course, you'll be challenged as you ought to be challenge, I think.
CARLSON: But actually quickly, sum it up for us, why do you think this material might be connected to U.F.O.s?
ELIZONDO: Well, without getting to a lot of detail right now, because it's -- frankly, it's too speculative for me at this point to say why I think something.
At the end of the day, it's going to be what the analysis tells us. And if you have, for example, interesting isotopic ratios that are not normally found, let's say on this planet, then you have to scratch your head and either A, it's been engineered that way, or B, it came from somewhere else. And ultimately, that's what we're trying to find out.
CARLSON: So these are materials brought to you by people who say this is at the site of a U.F.O. incident or a crash?
ELIZONDO: In some cases, yes. Again, unfortunately, I can't elaborate too much with some of these individuals. We do have non-disclosure agreements, but it's from various sources, both private and governmental.
CARLSON: It goes without saying, I hope that you'll come back as you get to the bottom of this. We remain skeptical, but open-minded on this and all things. Luis, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much.
ELIZONDO: That's right. Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: Of course.
ELIZONDO: Absolutely. Thank you.
CARLSON: That's it for us tonight, and for the week, amazingly. Tune in every night starting Monday 8:00 p.m. on into the future indefinitely to the show that is the sworn and totally sincere and we hope, cheerful enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think. DVR it if you have advanced science degree or configure that out. Good luck.
Good night from Washington. Have the best weekend with the ones you love. Enjoy it. You never know.
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.