Was the Mueller hearing harmful to US security?

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," July 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” In general, the left isn't big on admitting things, even obvious things. But in the case of Robert Mueller's congressional testimony yesterday, they really don't have a choice. Tonight, most on the left are conceding, yes, it was a total disaster for their cause.

How is Nancy Pelosi reacting tonight? And what does Donald Trump, Jr. think of what happened yesterday? Both of them respond exclusively right here in just a moment.

But first tonight, The Russia hoax ended yesterday, we can say that. It ended not with a bang, but with the muddled half memories of a fading old man slipping in and out of focus. America set transfixed by Robert Mueller's halting testimony before Congress. No honest person could have come away at the end believing that the President of the United States colluded with the Russian government to steal an election. That was the allegation, you'll remember.

And then after the most extensive investigation in modern American history, we found the truth. And so tonight, we can say conclusively, once again, what we told you the day this all started, the whole thing is a crock. It never happened. They were lying to you. That's clear now. The debate is over. But that doesn't mean the Russia story has quite ended. There are loose ends.

For two and a half years, some of the most powerful people in America, supposedly serious, well educated people, very smart people. These people made wild and untrue and totally reckless allegations about issues critical to the life of this country, all on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. It's hard to believe they did that. But they did do it.

What should happen to these people now? Congressman Adam Schiff for example. Schiff claimed he possessed actual evidence of Russian collusion, and he didn't just say that one time, he said it repeatedly.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: And there is significant evidence of collusion. There is ample evidence -- and indeed there is -- of collusion of people in the Trump campaign with the Russians.

I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.


CARLSON: Well, in the end, you know what happened or didn't. Schiff did not produce the evidence. He didn't have it because it doesn't exist. Schiff was bluffing, which is to say why lying. He still is actually. As of yesterday, Schiff was continuing to claim that the Trump campaign quote, "embraced foreign, help made use of it and covered it up."

In other words, collusion. Schiff still believes the collusion hoax or does he?

Today Adam Schiff went on CNN to carry water for his boss, Nancy Pelosi. "Impeachment might not be a great idea," he told CNN's viewers. But wait, that doesn't seem to make sense. If Donald Trump is working for a hostile foreign power, as Adam Schiff has told us countless times that he is, how can we not impeach him?

No one on CNN asked Adam Schiff to explain that contradiction, unfortunately. Not that it matters, because think about it for a second, and you'll see exactly what's going on.

Adam Schiff never believed a word he was saying about Russian collusion. I suppose the good news is Schiff is not delusional. The bad news though, is that Adam Schiff is a soulless liar. He is a man willing to say literally anything for political advantage, and that's really the worst of all, being a lunatic would be much more appealing than that.

Naturally, Washington being the place that it is, Adam Schiff has been richly rewarded for his shameless deceit. He is still the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. That's one of most powerful jobs in all of government. Schiff is all but certain to be there for years.

But what about his enablers? And there are a lot of them, the journalists, the pundits, the fellow lawmakers who helped Adam Schiff tell his lies. These are the people you'll remember who blithely accused the sitting President of the United States of treason.


CARL BERNSTEIN, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: The evidence suggests, indeed, Trump is -- has been a pawn of the Russians.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HI: But when his start to see a pattern where he basically spout Putin's lies, then we have to ask the most unusual and frightening question about our own President.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Why this President seems to be putting Russia's interests ahead of our own?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Christi, the President's tweet, trying to make the case that he is not a Russian asset really just undercuts his own defense. The President's tweet couldn't have been scripted better if it was written by Putin himself.

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE C.I.A.: This is nothing short of treasonous, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Is there influence whether witting or unwitting by the Russians over President Trump?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: The possibility, the very real possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Trump's eagerness to sell out America proves the Russians must have something personally politically or financially on President Trump.


CARLSON: It proves that Trump is committing treason. Think about what you just saw. The last person in that montage was Nancy Pelosi, as you know, she is the Speaker of the House; third in line for the presidency. She is the country's most powerful lawmaker, supposedly a wise and sober person.

And yet, there she was telling you it's been proved that the President of the United States is working for a hostile foreign power. Has any Speaker in American history ever said something that irresponsible? Maybe nothing comes to mind. But if you think that's shocking, consider this. Pelosi is still saying that.

Our investigative producer, Alex Pfeiffer, ran into Pelosi just this afternoon on Capitol Hill and asked her. Listen to what she told our show.


ALEX PFEIFFER, INVESTIGATIVE PRODUCER: Speaker Pelosi, Alex Pfeiffer of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” In January, you wondered what Putin had on Trump; after yesterday, are you any closer to figuring that out?

PELOSI: We have it up on the courts right now.

PFEIFFER: Are you any closer to figuring out what Putin has on Trump?

PELOSI: That's why we need to have him to answer our subpoena.

PFEIFFER: You still think Putin might have some sort of blackmail on the President?

PELOSI: I wonder what Putin has politically, financially or personally.

PFEIFFER: So our President could be subject to blackmail, you think?


CARLSON: The exchange isn't long, but it really tells you everything you need to know. Pelosi told our show the President is a traitor who is committing treason, and yet, she doesn't want to impeach him. How does that make sense? Well, it only makes sense when you understand that Pelosi doesn't mean a single word that she says. Everything is political, meaning it's only about power.

That's not just annoying. It's also ominous. And here's why. Fifteen years ago, this spring, we invaded Iraq to stop a WMD program that didn't exist. Thousands of American troops died in the process, trillions of dollars were wasted. It was the single greatest mistake in this country in generations, and yet -- and here's the key -- nobody in Washington was ever punished for it.

The people who planned it went on to even better jobs. One of them is now our National Security adviser, John Bolton. Five years after the Iraq War, our economy collapsed. Remember that? The subprime meltdown? The specific causes were complex, but the themes were instantly recognizable -- greed and stupidity. And yet, once again, no one was ever punished.

Now, fast forward another 11 years to today, right now, America stands on the brink of yet more foolish foreign entanglements, and on the brink of and potentially another financial meltdown. Why is that? Because nobody in Washington has learned anything. And why would they learn anything? When they screw up there are never any consequences. They skate by on the usual mixture of aggression and BS. "Nothing to see here, keep moving."

Imagine for a second, what would happen if you let your kids act like that? Well, they'd been prison by now. So, maybe it's time to stop the cycle in Washington. How about this? If you get caught lying about the big things, whether it's about weapons of mass destruction, or subprime mortgages or Russian collusion, you have to admit it and serve penance, not necessarily prison time, though we're open. But punishment of some kind.

You can't stay in Washington making six times the average American salary. You can't do that. No, sorry. You've got to leave. You've got to relocate to Camden, New Jersey, maybe or Gary, Indiana, and do something useful, like clean motel rooms for minimum wage, put the little "sanitized for your protection" strips on toilets. Not forever, just for a decade or two. Until you've learned your lesson. Call us when you've done that, but not before.

Andy McCarthy is a contributing editor at "National Review" and author of the upcoming book "Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency." Andy, thanks a lot for joining us tonight.


CARLSON: So, do think at this point -- and try to be charitable because I know that you're a man of personal decency -- that an honest person looking at the evidence, watching Mr. Mueller's testimony yesterday could believe still that the President was being blackmailed by Russia?

MCCARTHY: No, Tucker, but you know, I actually thought that Mueller's testimony would be a non-event, I really thought that this died when Mueller didn't come through for them and find a collusion conspiracy. And I expected yesterday was just going to be he would be reading the report.

What I was taken aback by was, how detached and unable he seemed to be, but I really thought this was dead weeks ago.

CARLSON: Yes. Well, I mean, you'd think that it would be, but it persists. It persists at least in the rhetoric. Isn't part -- and you spent your life in and around the justice system -- isn't one of the main points of the justice system, to affect justice, to say this was right, this was wrong. The people who committed the wrong are punished, and the people who committed the right are vindicated.

I mean, isn't that kind of the point? Why is that -- why does that never happen in Washington?

MCCARTHY: Well, I think Tucker, you kind of hit it on the head with your opening. We don't really have justice. We have pre-textual justice, right? Everything is political.


MCCARTHY: And we have kind of the tenements of judicial processes, but what's really going on underneath it all is everything is geared toward what position will we be in, say, autumn of 2020? And to be a little more concrete about it, I always thought with this escapade, that it was carried as counterintelligence for a long time because they didn't have a criminal predicate to conduct an investigation.

They did the criminal investigation of mainly obstruction in order to stop impeachment chatter. And it's not that they wouldn't impeach Trump if they thought they could. But the real purpose of impeachment was the political goal of rendering Trump unelectable by autumn of next year.

So, I thought this was always all political and it was -- what they tried to do was make it look legitimate by carrying it under rubrics like counterintelligence and law enforcement. But I don't recognize it as such.

CARLSON: Have you ever seen anything more cynical and damaging to the country itself?

MCCARTHY: Not this widespread and systemically. I was thinking when you were making your opening remarks about Harry Reid back in 2012, when he just blurted out that Romney hadn't paid his taxes, and when they asked about it, it was just a blatant flat out lie.

And when they asked him about it later, he said, "Well, he didn't win, did he?" And that really seems to me the bottom line to these guys, it's all about winning. It's all about accumulating and keeping power. And you know, they'll use the criminal justice system if that helps them in order to try to legitimize what their schemes are. But we shouldn't be fooled by that -- they are schemes.

CARLSON: It's the Tonya Harding approach, just -- you know, take a steel bar to your opponent. Yes. Andy McCarthy, thank you for that perspective. Appreciate it.

MCCARTHY: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, Democratic candidates prefer to act like Robert Mueller's testimony never happened. Others in the left are being more honest about it. Talk show host Bill Maher, for example, tweeted this quote, "I can't watch this anymore. Go home guys. You made OJ try on the glove and it just didn't work. You can still win the election, but I wouldn't bet my own money on it."

Michael Moore was even more upset -- he is always upset. He wrote this, quote, "A frail old man unable to remember things; stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions. I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today. All you pundits and moderates and lame Democrats who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller Shut the F up from now on."

And on that for once, we agree with Michael Moore. Richard Goodstein is a lawyer and former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, he joins us tonight. So, are you with Michael Moore on this, tonight, Richard, would you say?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON: You know, my takeaway is -- I tip my hat to the President's supporters, whether networks, print, or pundits, because the majority of Republicans don't agree with what his own head of C.I.A., his own Director of National Intelligence said, which is that the Republican -- that the Russians did interfere with the election.

Most Republicans don't believe that. And I say, "Well done, Trump supporters." And after yesterday, the takeaway, I think, by all fairness is the Russians stole from Hillary Clinton and the DNC, the Trump campaign used stolen goods and the only reason there was no indictment is that used they used a cut through -- WikiLeaks -- who Mike Pompeo when he was head of the C.I.A. said was a hostile intelligence service.

So, again, well done. You managed to skate --

CARLSON: So, I mean, I guess, I'm not jumping all over you and trying to brow beat you into submission or even win this argument because of course, it's not worth it. You know, I don't think anyone watching agrees with what you're saying, I can't tell whether you really believe it or not.

GOODSTEIN: No Republican disagreed with me yesterday. There were dozens of Republicans at these hearings. Not one had issue with the facts.

CARLSON: There are an awful lot of stupid Republicans in the Congress, an awful lot. And in fact, I can't even count high enough to tell you how many dumb Republicans are on Capitol Hill right now.

Anyone who says Russia is the preeminent threat to the United States is an idiot. And I mean -- and I am happy to talk to --

GOODSTEIN: I didn't say that.

CARLSON: Well, that's the line of the Democratic Party that Russia is the preeminent threat to the United States, not China, not Google, not a bunch of other countries, not the Saudis -- Russia. Yes. And that's insane, actually.

GOODSTEIN: So it's not -- Dick Cheney said what Russians did --

CARLSON: I don't care what Dick Cheney says.

GOODSTEIN: What the Russians did was an act of war. But he is not a Democrat or even a stupid Republican in Congress. Okay. You can disagree with him, but he is not alone.

CARLSON: May I ask you a question. Rather than go back into the past and proof-text various Republicans, I want to play for you sound from your leader, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. This was a couple of hours ago. Our producer, Alex Pfeiffer just ran into her on the Hill and asked her, do you still think Trump is committing treason and here's what she said.


ALEX PFEIFFER, INVESTIGATIVE PRODUCER: Speaker Pelosi, Alex Pfeiffer of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” In January, you wondered what Putin had on Trump; after yesterday, are you any closer to figuring that out?

PELOSI: We have it up on the courts right now.

PFEIFFER: Are you any closer to figuring out what Putin has on Trump?

PELOSI: That's why we need to have him to answer our subpoena.

PFEIFFER: You still think Putin might have some sort of blackmail on the President?

PELOSI: I wonder what Putin has politically, financially or personally.

PFEIFFER: So our President could be subject to blackmail, you think?


CARLSON: So, Nancy Pelosi believes that Trump is working for the Russians, she just said that. Do you think that's right?

GOODSTEIN: I think what she's pointing to is there's been very little sane explanation for why Trump sided with Putin against his intelligence agencies on the question of whether or not the Russians attacked our democracy.

CARLSON: Wait, hold on. She just explained it. She said she thinks Trump is working for Putin. Well, she doesn't want to impeach him. It's not that kind of treason, but she just said he is working for Putin. Do you agree with that? Why would she say something like that?

GOODSTEIN; What she was saying -- well, I think what she is saying is, let's look at his taxes, let's look at some information about money laundering. All of this that they are trying to get to the bottom of and that may actually explain why he lied during the campaign about not have any dealings with Russia.

We know he was lying about it, as he did about a lot of other things and Mueller yesterday virtually called him a liar.

CARLSON: So, you think that he is, so you think you agree with Pelosi that Trump is working for Putin?

GOODSTEIN: I say the evidence --

CARLSON: Do think that before saying something like that, that you should have it nailed down? So, we just had a multiyear investigation -- there are several of them actually.


CARLSON: That didn't show that, but Pelosi has access to documents that we don't have access to? Is that what she is saying?

GOODSTEIN: No, she doesn't. She doesn't and I'm not -- I'm not saying that he is, you know, basically beholden to the Russians.

CARLSON: But she is saying that though.

GOODSTEIN: I am just saying that a lot of people -- ask questions about, why in the world would he trust Putin over his own handpicked intelligence agency heads? That's kind of hard to explain, but for something that we're not probably proud of.

CARLSON: Yes, if you don't believe -- if you don't believe our Intel agencies, then you're a traitor is the Democratic position.

GOODSTEIN: No. But why would you support? Why would you side with --

CARLSON: This whole thing -- really? Because I don't believe anything they say and I'm not a traitor. I'm a loyal American. That's my position. Richard, great to see you.


CARLSON: Unfortunately, we're out of time.

GOODSTEIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: I can't wait for the story to go away. It's just -- it's too infuriating. Robert Mueller refused to answer a lot of questions yesterday, including several about Donald Trump, Jr. Donald Trump, Jr. has something to say about it though. He will join us in his first interview since the hearing after this break.


CARLSON: Robert Mueller's report and his testimony yesterday before the Congress dealt a lot with America's so-called Intelligence Community, our various Intel agencies. So, how are those agencies reacting to yesterday's hearing with Robert Mueller? Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge has that story for us tonight. She joins us now. Hey, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Tucker. After the testimony, my contacts reported that they were beyond disappointed to hear directly from Robert Mueller that his team did not investigate the Steele dossier and whether it was part of the Russian playbook in 2016.

They say the key question is where the Russian intelligence operation targeted the dossier's author, former British spy, Christopher Steele.

Privately former Intelligence officers have told me, the Russian campaign was likely designed to damage both candidates -- Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump -- because Moscow's ultimate objective was to tarnish the eventual winner and the office of the presidency.

According to this Justice Department memo, Mueller's job was to investigate Russian election interference and related matters, but he testified that the dossier predated his appointment. That's technically true, but the National Security Court extended the surveillance warrant from Carter Page based on the Steele dossier through the summer of 2017, overlapping with Mueller.

This exchange from yesterday has not had nearly enough play, and it goes to the heart of the issue.


REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Now, Christopher Steele's reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the F.B.I. that senior Russian Foreign Ministry figures, among with -- along with others Russians told him that there was -- and I am quoting from the Steele dossier, "extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin."

So, here's my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele, or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the F.B.I.?

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: Let me back up a second, if I could say as I said earlier, with regard to Steele, that's beyond my purview.


HERRIDGE: Separately, the Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's next target is former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Jerry Nadler told reporters he may file a lawsuit as early as tomorrow to enforce that subpoena -- Tucker.

CARLSON: And the subpoenas continue. Catherine Herridge, thanks a lot for that.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: President Trump had what can only be described as a triumphant reaction yesterday after Robert Mueller's testimony. Here's part of it.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Their party is in shambles right now. They've got the squad leading their party. They are a mess. This was a devastating day. For the Democrats. The Democrats thought they could win an election like this. I think they hurt themselves very badly for 2020.


CARLSON: Well, the mood was widely shared. On Twitter, Donald Trump, Jr. called the hearing "a great win," quote and asked this, "Serious question: Has Mahler even heard of Mueller?" Donald Trump, Jr. joins us in his first interview since the hearing yesterday. Don, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So, what was your -- I mean, I think that tweet sums it up pretty well, but elaborate on what you thought of it.

TRUMP, JR.: Well, I really think it does. It speaks for itself. I mean, I'm watching a guy that led an investigation, he was the head of the F.B.I., he was a former prosecutor, spent two years and almost $50 million investigating it and I see a Congressman ask, "Let's talk about Fusion GPS." "I've never heard of it."

I mean, that'd be like a builder talking about not understanding what a foundation is. To not even have a finite understanding of how this all started tells the American public everything they need to know, Tucker. This was a hoax set up by the Democrats from moment number one.

It wasn't true. This investigation wasn't about trying to figure out what happened, it was trying to back into the result that they wanted. They couldn't do that, because there was nothing there. But they dragged people through the mud for two years.

They spread it in the media ad nauseum without fail. You saw your prior guest earlier today saying the same things. He still may be working with Putin. Yes. Because Donald Trump needed to live his lifestyle -- pretty cool luxury -- to go work for the Russians rather than because he is sick of what's going on in American politics, because he is sick of politicizing every single aspect and being willing to ruin people's lives, send American lives to fight wars for things that don't exist -- all of this nonsense that you talk about, because there's no accountability in Washington, D.C.

And I think the American people finally saw it, that this man who was the lead of the major -- the largest investigation in American history, really the largest hoax at this point, he didn't have a fundamental understanding of not only where it began, but what was even involved? How it took place?

Ultimately, I think the American public saw that he was put in there as a figurehead because he was the former leader of the F.B.I. He was a decorated Marine, and that he would do what's right. But no one is talking about this guy put in 19 leftist Hillary Clinton donor lawyers, all -- they worked on the Clinton campaign. They went to her what would have been Inauguration Party. They were there celebrating it.

He had no idea who was running the ship. The inmates were running the asylum, and those inmates were the Democratic Party who are doing whatever they could to destroy my father's presidency, because they see that he is actually getting things done. He is actually getting things done for the American people. He is actually delivering on the promises that he made.

And what I'd love to see as an American, and someone who has really been dragged through the mud myself in this whole hoax, is I'd love to see the Democrats actually do something for Americans for a change, not for their power base, not for the political elite, not for their nonsense, crazy that they're running with these days, but for actual hard working Americans.

How about getting the USMCA passed through Congress? How about working on an infrastructure bill? How not doing anything other than trying to destroy my father, who is actually delivering for the people that he said he would deliver for? All American people.

CARLSON: So, were you -- let me just say, two things, Jerry Nadler is on another channel, I think, right, as we speak, saying more subpoenas. So, this will -- apparently, according to Mr. Nadler will continue. Were you surprised to hear the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi say this afternoon to us that she still believes the President of the United States is working for Russia? Speaker of the House?

TRUMP, JR.: No, Tucker, because this is all they have. They've banked their entire reputation on it. Remember, it started off as collusion, then it was going to be obstruction, then it was a cover up, then it's going to be you know -- what? Southern District of New York.

Then, you know Mueller is going to be the savior. We're going to get him this time. They just keep doubling down. Again, because there's no one that's willing to hold them accountable.

You know, maybe you, may be Sean in the next hour, a few people, but the mainstream media will still by and large run with just about anything that they tell them. They don't have to be fact based. There doesn't have to be any evidence. As long as they say it, that's all that they need, because mainstream media has become the de facto marketing division of the DNC.

CARLSON: That is very clear. That is not an overstatement. Donald Trump, Jr. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

TRUMP, JR.: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: In the end, Robert Mueller's testimony hurt his own reputation and the cause of the Democratic Party. Did it also hurt our national security? One former F.B.I. official believes that it did. He will explain why in just a minute.

Plus, liberals in San Francisco are plotting to destroy a George Washington mural after deciding its offensive. The party of censorship destroying art like the Taliban. We will discuss, just ahead.


CARLSON: Well, more than 200 times yesterday, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller deflected or declined to answer a direct question while testifying before Congress. Anyone watching at home learned very little about Russia, but it was not a total loss. Viewers learned how to use the word "purview" from the sheer number of times Mueller said a topic wasn't in his.


MUELLER: It's outside my purview.

It's outside my purview.

With regard to Steele, that's beyond my purview.

As I said before, I will say again, it's not my purview.


CARLSON: So, Mueller's testimony in the end was weird, sad, and embarrassing. But was it more than that? Could it have been harmful to the national security of this country? Terry Turchie suggests it might have been. Turchie is a former F.B.I. Deputy Assistant Director of Counterterrorism, and he joins us tonight.

Terry, thanks a lot for coming on. So --


CARLSON: You're suggesting that this might actually have hurt the country. How?

TURCHIE: Well, absolutely, I think in fact, I've talked to a number of former agents today, and yesterday after the hearings, and I think we're pretty sure and feel pretty confident that we should be saying right now that we're probably going through one of the most dangerous times in our country's history, because we feel that what came out of this and what came out of those hearings, definitely confirmed our worst fears from two years ago.

And that is, from all the pieces that came out and all the pieces that we've collected, we feel like the Democratic Party is the hostile intelligence service here, if you will, that targeted the President and wants to get him removed from office. And if there's anything that was in the purview of Director Mueller, it was to look at Russian influence in the 2016 elections. And in fact, he didn't do that.

I mean, what he did is, he took facts from everywhere and that entire report is trying to pin those facts around the idea that the theory that Donald Trump was in bed with the Russians, that is not the way you do an investigation.

And we're -- today we sit and yesterday when he concluded his testimony said, one of the real bad things here is they're going to do it again. Well, yes, they are, because he did nothing to stop it. And the F.B.I. did nothing to stop it. And that's what really makes this different.

The F.B.I. has been compromised and the facts are very clear. We don't know today, if it's still compromised by the Democratic Party, and too many questions remain unanswered. We don't have time to go into all of them.

But let me just give you one little piece of something that we look at when we do counterintelligence investigations like this. You always look at and you ask, who initiated the meeting? In any kind of thing -- who initiated this meeting? With say the target. And so let's take Trump Tower. They all are raving about that terrible meeting at Trump Tower.

That meeting was initiated by Natalia Veselnitskaya. She is the one who called Donald Trump, Jr., not the other way around.

CARLSON: That's correct.

TURCHIE: Before she did that -- before she did that. Who did -- what did she do? She met with Fusion GPS that Bob Mueller has no idea who they are. I mean, I was crushed when I saw that. What did Glenn Simpson, the President of Fusion GPS, who had he met with before all of this? He'd met with Perkins Coie, the law firm that was representing the DNC and paying for and filtering money to Christopher Steele to write the dossier.

The same law firm, by the way, that would not allow the F.B.I. to get into the DNC network, when we had the e-mails all hacked. This is awful. This is this is very obvious. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find an experienced F.B.I. counterintelligence agent who really knows what they're talking about.

I worked Russian counterintelligence for 20 years. So did many of the people I talked to. This is not about Donald Trump. This is about the Democratic Party weaponizing Intelligence agencies to convince the nation. They've known for decades as to how those people work, and in this instance, turning it against the President to get him removed from office. That's what the resistance does.

CARLSON: To hear a former F.B.I. official say that is ominous.

TURCHIE: We are now going through the revolution that we started in 1960.

CARLSON: Terry Turchie, thank you for that. Well, out in San Francisco, the school board there is pushing ahead with a plan to destroy art. They plan to paint over and desecrate, destroy, obliterate New Deal era murals that show George Washington.

The murals were painted by a communist artist paid for by the FDR administration. And they meant to show Washington's flaws, as well as his virtues. But nuance like that is now illegal, as you know, on the left, and some people decided the murals were offensive, and so they're going to be destroyed at great cost.

Joe Alioto-Veronese is an attorney and a former member of the San Francisco Police Commission, a longtime resident, a liberal, San Franciscan. Joe, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So, the idea that hundreds of thousands of dollars in city funds would be used to destroy art and that liberals would cheer this is so bewildering to someone, my age -- a middle-aged person. I'm not sure what to say. So, I just wanted to bring you on who live in San Francisco and give us a reality check here. Is this actually happening? Is this the state of liberalism in 2019? Destroying art?

ALIOTO-VERONESE: So, this is -- by the way, I am a San Francisco Democrat and have been my entire life and so is my entire family.


ALIOTO-VERONESE: $600,000.00 is how much they want to spend to paint over this wall. Now, let me put this in perspective here. This is a mural of the life of George Washington at a school named George Washington High School. This mural is in the right place. It's a teaching moment that is being robbed of the students.

And worse yet, the teachers themselves should be outraged. This is a city where the average teacher starts at $52,000.00 a year where if you doubled that, it's $104,000.00 a year; you're still $11,000 short of the poverty level in San Francisco, and these guys voted unanimously to spend $600,000.00 to remove this painting.

The Teachers Union should be outraged. The teachers should be outrage. And it's ironic that this is a teaching moment that's being painted over -- back to a comment you made earlier, sanitized for your protection. That's what they're doing and you wonder what they're doing to the history books.

CARLSON: Exactly. Right. But that's kind of the next question. If you're willing to destroy a painting because you don't like its politics, why wouldn't you burn a book?

ALIOTO-VERONESE: Well, burn the book or even change the name of the high school. The high school is named George Washington High School. If you're going to vilify George Washington, where really does this end? I mean, it's really interesting. I know that they're talking now about a ballot initiative, what instead they should be doing is focusing on stuff like with the Mayor announced today, which is tax credits for housing for teachers. That's the type of thing that they should be focused on. But the Democratic Party has this cancer in it.

That is this radical left that if they do not take care of this cancer, it will cannibalize the party and it gives our President and then the Republicans fodder for this next election and it just makes us look like -- it makes us look bad. And that's not my party. That is not my party. It is not the Democrats in San Francisco.

CARLSON: From a Liberal Democrat in San Francisco that they've gone insane. Joe, great to see you tonight. Thank you very much.

ALIOTO-VERONESE: Yes, well, you know, we may agree on this one, Tucker. Don't tell anybody though.

CARLSON: I won't. Thanks. First, Jussie Smollett; now Erica Thomas - another fake hate crime undermined, thanks to video evidence. We've got the latest for you on that tonight. Plus, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar suggested America should not worry about radical Islam and should instead worry about white men. She is not racist because she said it, apparently. Details ahead.


CARLSON: Another week, another hate hoax that apparently is what's going on with Erica Thomas. She is the Georgia Democrat, the lawmaker, you'll remember who rallied the national media to her side last week when she posted a Facebook video and claimed to be the victim of a malicious, hateful attack by a white man at a grocery store. Watch.


ERICA THOMAS, D-GA, STATE REPRESENTATIVE: For that white man to come up to me and call me a son of a [bleep] and lazy and go back where I came from, because he had a couple of items and he wanted to get in front of me. And he said I had 20 items in a 10-item line. What would make you that angry --


CARLSON: So, she is sobbing therefore it must be true. Well, actually it looks like almost nothing she said is true. The story almost fell apart. Police footage reveals that according to an employee, Thomas was the one who said "go back to where you came from."


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I heard him call her ignorant and she said, "If you're not happy, you can leave the store." And then he called her ignorant again. And then she said, "You go back to where you came from." And was pointing him out the door.

QUESTION: And that's -- that's what he said to her?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, she said that to him. "You can go back to where you came from" to him.


CARLSON: Amazing. Now, surveillance tape from the supermarket further undermines her story. The footage has no sound, but it makes it clear that the fight was just a verbal altercation and Thomas did not seem to be in fear for her safety.

Jason Nichols is a Professor of African-American Studies at the University of Maryland and he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So, if there's one thing that raises the temperature pointlessly and makes people hate each other, when they don't need to hate each other, it is stories like this. And that's why I think it's worth pounding on.

This lawmaker shouldn't lie about stuff like this, because it really does make people paranoid and unhappy, wouldn't you say?

NICHOLS: So, I'm not so sure that she lied, I think, you know, number one, he did call her a "lazy B" word. And we have to remember that she is nine months pregnant. She hadn't, you know, 20 items in the line and this busybody comes over and you know, starts getting upset about that. He should have just rolled his eyes like the rest of us do, and gone on about his day and complained about it, you know, to his wife, but instead --

CARLSON: Okay, hold on. Let me let me stop you there and agree, I agree with you. I mean, he should have just rolled his eyes and he is an annoying busybody, I should say that. This is not, you know, white hat black hat deal. They're both kind of awful. I agree with you completely.

However, she is the lawmaker, and she made it into a race case. I guess that's what bothers me. Why do that?

NICHOLS: Well, you know, I'm not so sure that it was -- that it had anything to do with race. But what I will say is that --

CARLSON: Exactly.

NICHOLS: You know, that that's the environment that we're in now. And we can talk about, you know why that is? But I think the larger environment is a lot of people are really tense. And really, you know, sensitive and afraid. And so I think you know, when you said that she wasn't afraid I'm not so sure. I think a lot of people react aggressively when they are afraid.

So I think, her being nine months pregnant, having her daughter or I believe it was her -- she has another nine-year-old daughter there. I can see how she might be a little intimidated. And the man called her a lazy B word which in my opinion, where I come from may even be worse than saying go back to where you're from.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I don't even know what go back to where you're from means and apparently she's the one who said it. No, I agree with you. I just don't -- as soon as she said a white man did this. He claims he's not white, but whatever. Why make it a race thing. How about a rude guy did this? Do you know what I mean? Or some jerk did this. I get it. That's totally fine. But we all should like make an effort to de racialize things, in my opinion.

NICHOLS: Well, yes, no, I'm not so sure. Again, I don't know her experiences, you know, her coming from Georgia. And maybe some of the experiences she had made her think that this was a racial incident.

CARLSON: Apparently.

NICHOLS: I don't know the guy's intentions. But what I can say is, you know, him going up and approaching this pregnant woman because she had a couple of extra items was ridiculous, and then it calling her a lazy B word when in fact, she's founded a nonprofit. She's an elected official, and she's a mother and she is nine months pregnant. She's anything but lazy. I think that that went a little overboard.

CARLSON: Not lazy, but a liar. Yes, I agree with that. Professor, good to see it. Thank you.

NICHOLS: Good seeing you, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: The State of Minnesota gave us Keith Ellison and a pro wrestler as Governor. It didn't work very well. But neither of them are even close to that State's worst electoral mistake. That honor goes -- it's really not even contested -- to a friend freshman Member of Congress named Ilhan Omar.

In a recently discovered interview with Al Jazeera, Omar said that if America cared about keeping its citizens safe, we'd stop worrying about Islamic terrorism, which is really no problem at all. And instead, profile white men. Watch.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country. And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe, American safety inside of this country, we should be profiling monitoring and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.


CARLSON: So, not only is that obviously bigoted, it's also stupid. It's untrue. F.B.I. statistics prove that it's actually not factually accurate what she just said. But in any case, our real fear shouldn't be ISIS or white men. We should be most afraid maybe of clueless lawmakers like Ilhan Omar. Tammy Bruce is President of Independence Women's Voice and hosts "Get Tammy Bruce" on Fox Nation, which you should watch every episode of and she joins us tonight.


CARLSON: So, Tammy, it's just interesting that a lawmaker can get up and attack an entire racial group, and it's like, "Ah, it's no problem." No one notices.

BRUCE: Yes, there's even an attempt -- that was from last year, which is interesting, because she now has an opinion piece out calling Donald Trump a racist when she had called for while she was a State Representative for racial and gender profiling by Federal law enforcement.

You know, this country's history speaks very strongly about the fact that we have rejected that. We had a Civil War to reject the idea that people should be treated differently because of how they look or for an immutable personal trait, like race or gender.

And yet here she is, in the 21st Century, usually railing as we know about the supposed false racism of the President because it's political, and then her own -- and some leftists were actually saying we heard her tone that she was being satirical, when she said that. No, she wasn't, she was being serious.

This is a point of view that she felt comfortable presenting before she was a major national figure, and I think that that's what is the truth here. And at the same time, here, you've got a woman of color -- this is another thing that approves -- is that racism and bigotry is equal opportunity. Right? It is not with one group. It's not with one gender, it's not with one race. It is really about a major desire to control and to malign individuals who maybe are more inclined to not necessarily agree with you or believe what you believe. And we've seen historically how that works.

You denigrate individuals and others as a problem, you see separate them and in this country, every day we work and we practice being Americans by rejecting, but the very thing she suggested, which is of course we should look at other people and judge them on their race. And then once we do that we should set policy and law enforcement and surveillance on them based on how they appear.

It is the antithesis of the American dream. And it's not who we are as a people at all.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. And as always, so nicely put. Great to see you, Tammy. Be sure to check out Tammy's new program, as we said "Get Tammy Bruce," new episodes out every week. Only on Fox Nation.

Report say that billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was found injured in his cell yesterday. Was it a suicide attempt? Or something else going on? Trace Gallagher with the very latest on that story, next.


CARLSON: Avalanche of news today in the Jeffrey Epstein case, but the headline has to be that Epstein himself was found injured in his jail cell. It might have been a suicide attempt or maybe it wasn't. Fox chief breaking news correspondent Trace Gallagher has the very latest on that -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Tucker, to avoid federal charges of abusing underage girls in decades in prison, in 2008, Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a slap on the wrist plea deal for soliciting a minor for prostitution. He served 13 months in jail, allowed to leave five days a week to go to work and then he tried to repair his reputation. And The "New York Times" says some were happy to oblige.

For example, forbes.com called Epstein one of the quote "largest backers of cutting edge science around the world," no mention of his criminal past.

It turns out a PR firm paid a "Forbes" contributor $600.00 to attach his name to a pre-written story. In 2013, the "National Review" called Epstein a smart businessman with a passion for science, no mention of his passion for underage girls. That story was actually authored by a publicist for Jeffrey Epstein. The "National Review" apologized.

And finally, "The Huffington Post" lauded Epstein for helping scientists thrive. The sex crimes part was not included. Tonight, prison officials are investigating whether Epstein was attacked in jail, staged an attack or tried to commit suicide. He was found Tuesday morning, nearly unconscious with injuries to his neck.

Some believe the injuries were self-inflicted to get transferred out of jail. But others say suicide and assault have not been ruled out and another inmate has been questioned.

And finally former President Clinton says he had six encounters with Jeffrey Epstein, all after 2002, but "The Daily Beast" now says Epstein made numerous visits to the Clinton White House, a Clinton spokesperson says the former President knows nothing of the crimes or the charges -- Tucker.

CARLSON: They know nothing. Nothing at all. Trace Gallagher, thank you for the latest on that. Great to see you.

Well, there's clearly more to that story and we'll keep pulling the thread for you, but as of tonight, we are out of time. Back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. show that is the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, have the best night.

"Hannity" is next. The president expected to join him.

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.