What's the relationship between the media and the Mueller investigation?

close

Video

What's the relationship between the media and the Mueller investigation?

Acting attorney general says Mueller probe is 'close to being completed'; Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley Strassel weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 28, 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."

Longtime Trump adviser, Roger Stone, was arrested on Friday by federal agents and charged with seven felonies. None of the charges had anything to do with Russian collusion or election meddling. But you'd never know that from the penalties he faces.

If convicted, Stone could die in prison. Nobody in Washington seems to find that punishment excessive. Many have cheered it. Officially, Stone was charged with lying, something most of our political elite engage in every day.

But his real crime was flamboyance. Stone has spent the last 40 years giving the finger to the people in charge. In the end, they got him. They always do.

Stone's arrest is already fading from the headlines replaced by the latest political crisis of the moment or some new skirmish in the ongoing culture wars. Soon, we'll forget it ever happened. But before we do, it is worth taking just a moment to consider a few basic questions about it if only because nobody else is going to.

First, why did the Justice Department stage what was, in effect, a military assault on Roger Stone's house? Stone himself asked that question on ABC over the weekend. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER STONE, FORMER DONALD TRUMP AIDE: The idea that a 29-member SWAT team in full tactical gear with assault weapons would surround my house.

And I would open the door looking down the barrel of assault weapons, that I would be frog-marched out front barefooted and handcuffed when they simply could have--

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Roger, let me - let me just - let me stop you there because it's, you know--

STONE: --contacted me. I want people to know about them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: --but as you know, it's pretty standard for that to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That's pretty standard, as you know. But is it pretty standard to send dozens of Federal Agents with rifles to arrest an unarmed 66-year-old man who's been charged with a non-violent crime?

Well, no. It is not standard. It is shocking. And any honest person who pays attention could tell you that. Roger Stone who was there says there were 29 agents on the scene along with 17 vehicles, two of them armored, and a helicopter overhead.

If that's an accurate accounting, it means the Feds sent more armed men to Roger Stone's house in Fort Lauderdale than they did to Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, just for some perspective on this.

So, what was the justification for doing that? Prosecutors knew perfectly well that Stone was not a flight risk. He's broke. He doesn't even have a valid passport. They could simply have called his lawyer and told him to surrender. That's the actual standard in cases like this. But they didn't do that. Instead, they went in with guns drawn.

So, who decided to do that, and how much did it cost taxpayers? We spent the last two days trying to answer those questions. And it tells you a lot about contemporary America that we couldn't, we still have no idea.

The Justice Department wouldn't answer us. The White House, which supposedly oversees the Justice Department, didn't even respond. Maybe they don't know the answer to those questions. Possible! They don't control Robert Mueller. Nobody controls Robert Mueller.

Mueller can send armed men to your home to rouse you from bed at gunpoint, just because he feels like it, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Mueller has an unlimited budget and no timetable. He doesn't have to answer questions. He can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants. He cannot be fired.

Mueller is the single most powerful person in America, and yet nobody voted for him. Hmm! He is a living rebuke to the principles of our democratic system.

At the same time, our leaders tell us that we need Robert Mueller, an all- powerful, unelected prosecutor, accountable to no one, to protect us from threats to, brace yourself here, democracy. Huh!

Nobody in Washington catches the irony in any of this. Mueller himself is a threat to our democracy, the most powerful man elected by nobody. Our media don't ask questions about any of this or even acknowledge that it is a question. They've chosen sides.

Here's Roger Stone from our show on Friday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STONE: It's disconcerting that CNN was aware that I would be arrested before my lawyers were informed. So, that's disturbing. If it was a dangerous situation, which would merit the SWAT team, well then CNN's cameraman would be in danger. I don't know why they would be allowed to be there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, that's a fair question no matter who asks it. And many began asking it within minutes of Stone's arrest on Friday morning. How did CNN know about a raid that was supposed to be secret? Did they learn from Mueller's team?

Well CNN reacted angrily to the question. "We're reporters," they said, "We're not state media. We didn't collude with the Feds. We used reporter's intuition." Huh! Yesterday, CNN President, Jeff Zucker dispatched his minions to bat down further questions on this topic. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLIVER DARCY, CNN: On the Right, on the fringes of the Right, a conspiracy theory spread. And I won't get into it. But it was about CNN or Robert Mueller and it spread.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN: That we were tipped off--

DARCY: Right.

STELTER: --by Mueller.

DARCY: Sure.

STELTER: Give me a break.

DARCY: Right. To embarrass Roger Stone and to record his arrest, so I guess it would embarrass him. It's like they were saying that's propaganda.

Lot of people, including some mainstream commentators and journalists, started asking questions about this conspiracy theory. And, I think, as journalists, we have to be very careful not to allow bad faith actors to hijack the conversation, and to move the story away from what it really should be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Save that tape! It's one for the ages because it summarizes everything.

So, just to recap what you just heard. We, journalists, says CNN, need to fight back against the "Fringes of the Right" who just want to "move the story away from what it should really be," which, it goes without saying, CNN decides.

They decides what the story should really be, and if you don't agree, you're on the fringes of the Right. In other words, "Shut up, you guys. Stop asking questions. We don't feel like answering."

But this show persisted because that's our job. And so, we asked both CNN's official spokesmen and the kid you saw playing Media Reporter on the screen a very simple question. Did Mueller's office help you with your story? The response, of course, feigned outrage.

"How dare you? You're Right-wing. Be quiet." But when we kept pressing them, an interesting thing happened. They didn't deny it. So, to be totally clear, here's the specific question that we asked. "Did federal law enforcement officials confirm the raid on Roger Stone's house to CNN before it happened?"

Very simple question. And when we pressed it, CNN dropped the fake outrage. They just refused to answer because, of course, CNN talked to Mueller's people before the raid. There was never any doubt about that.

All the barking aside, Mueller wanted the raid on Roger Stone's home caught on tape, and publicly aired, as a warning to other disobedient witnesses about what can happen to you if you step out of line.

CNN was happy to oblige. So, CNN acted as the Public Relations arm of the Mueller investigation, as they have before, and then they lied about it in the most self-righteous possible way, and set those kids out on TV to lie some more.

So, it answers a lot of questions. No wonder CNN seemed so eager to defend Friday's raid, and to belittle and attack and marginalize anyone who asked honest questions about it. The network is no longer covering Robert Mueller. They're working with Robert Mueller, and you should know that as you watch it.

Kim Strassel writes for The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and she joins us tonight. Kim, great to see you.

So, before we get into any of what we've just been talking about, there was news today from - from the Administration that the Mueller investigation is reaching its final stage. Do you think that's true? And what does that mean exactly?

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER: I hope so, Tucker, because two years of this is two - two years too long. We need some answers. It needs to happen soon. This could be the best thing that happened to the country in a very long time if it is indeed finishing up.

CARLSON: Well that's, I mean, what a distraction from a lot of important things that are happening. So, as someone who covers the criminal justice world for a living, give us some perspective.

Late middle-aged guy, no history of violence, no passport, no firearms in the home, under investigation for over a year, emails and texts already in the possession of the Prosecutor, would you send dozens of armed men to arrest him? Is that normal?

STRASSEL: No, of course not, of course not. And, of course, it's not normal. And as you said, the standard operating procedure here would be to call his lawyer, and ask him to surrender. And I think it gets to the other point of your opening as well too.

Mr. Mueller, unfortunately, does not answer to anyone. And, as a result, we can bring up these topics. You can call and ask the question, "Why did you do it?" He doesn't have to answer it. And he - he doesn't have to answer to anybody in the end.

And - and that is one of the reasons that we should hope that all of this is ending, especially when you look at the list of people he's gone after, and the crimes for which they've been gone after.

Nearly, all of them crimes that he claims that they have committed after he was appointed as Special Counsel, not any, for the time period he was actually asked to investigate, at least not of Americans.

CARLSON: So, as a constitutional question, how in a Democratic Republic can you have someone who's accountable to no elected person, who's accountable to no voters, in other words?

I thought all power in the government emanates from voters. But Mueller stands apart. How can this be constitutionally allowed?

STRASSEL: Well legal scholars have had a lot of problems with the Special Counsel Law for a long time, partly on reasons that you just mentioned just, and also on accountability questions as well too.

CARLSON: Yes.

STRASSEL: Now, look, in theory, he can be fired, OK? But what we both understand is that politically he can't be fired because of the brouhaha that would come up if anybody were to actually tell him to step down.

CARLSON: So, why doesn't this con - I mean, apart from what you think of Trump or maybe you believe Trump is a secret agent working for Vladimir Putin, but even if you believe that, why wouldn't, and you're a Liberal, why wouldn't you be very worried about a Prosecutor who was operating wholly outside the system and accountable to nobody?

I mean if you really cared about democracy that would - that would terrify you. Wouldn't it?

STRASSEL: Well we've seen the Left change their view on all kinds of things, Tucker. Remember, this is a party that at one point cared about abusive law enforcement tactics.

They cared about the things you just mentioned, accountability, making sure that there was accountability in democracy, and that someone had to answer to someone else. But when it comes to Donald Trump, they're quite happy to throw all of that on the other side.

And it - it's been very frustrating to people like me who've been trying to write about Mr. Mueller's probe in an objective way, and look at the evidence out there in objective way and say, "Look, would anybody like to see what happened to Carter Page happen to anybody else on the--

CARLSON: Exactly. It's exactly right.

STRASSEL: --basis of the opposition research that they used?" The Democrats should be very worried that a future Justice Department might do this to one of their candidates, and no one should want that.

CARLSON: I will defend that candidate if it ever happens. I mean it. I think this is totally wrong. Kim Strassel, thank you very much for that perspective.

STRASSEL: That's right.

CARLSON: I appreciate it.

STRASSEL: Thank you.

CARLSON: Michael Caputo was an adviser to the Trump campaign. He's had his own experiences with the Mueller investigation. He joins us tonight. Michael, thanks very much for coming on.

I withheld judgment on Mueller, boy, for over a year, wanted to think the best, law - you know, former Head of the FBI. But watching what happened on Friday at Roger Stone's home has, I think, ripped the veil off, the guy's a - an authoritarian nutcase to do something like that.

Were you surprised by it?

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: After we saw what went down with Paul Manafort and the story we heard, detail by detail without any cameras present, I - I think it matches exactly what happened to Paul.

And I think just like when it happened to Paul, people are going to complain and - and scream to the high heavens about how Soviet this tactic is, and it will do nothing. It will fall on deaf ears.

And Robert Mueller - and, by the way, the Department of Justice has verified that they can do this to anyone in America. I was surprised, I guess, for a minute. But the one thing I can't figure out is, you know, the CNN camera's going to serve Roger Stone better than it does the Mueller team, because look what we were all able to witness.

CARLSON: No. That's - that's a - that's a really good point. So, are you convinced, as I am becoming, that Mueller did this for a reason, not just because he doesn't like Roger Stone?

He - by the way, I should just note, I've texted a lot with Roger Stone, as many people in the media have, and Stone was always saying things like "I know Mueller's reading my texts," you know, and being provocative.

He clearly was reading his texts, but that this was designed to send a message to other people Mueller is investigating that if you step out of line, we'll hurt you.

CAPUTO: Right. And, you know, I'm a witness in this jackpot. But my attorney, who is former New York State Attorney General, former U.S. Prosecutor, told me you can flip from an - from a witness to a subject to a target in the blink of an eye with a group like this.

So, anybody who they have talked to, I think there is - you know, a couple three dozen who've they've interviewed.

This was a message sent to us that at any time you can get a knock on your door, and 29 men will come with automatic weapons which, by the way, it's not only more than they sent to go after bin Laden, it's 29 more men than they sent to Benghazi to pick up and - and defend our own men.

CARLSON: I mean I'm not defending Putin. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Putin's never done anything like that in this country, I have to say. We don't - we don't live in terror--

CAPUTO: No--

CARLSON: --of Putin doing this here. So, it - it tells you a lot.

CAPUTO: But you know what? He does it all the time in Russia. And for all of us who have been concerned about Russia's involvement in our elections, we have to realize that we are now living in Russia.

This is what Vladimir Putin does. I lived there for seven years before Vladimir Putin took over. It was happening then too. And, you know, that's where we are today.

CARLSON: Yes. Well I don't want to live in that country at all.

CAPUTO: You know, I'll tell you, Tucker, the one thing--

CARLSON: Yes.

CAPUTO: --the one thing I'm really concerned about is Roger's funding. That's why I'm trying to help him raise money at Roger Stone gofundme.com.

CARLSON: Yes.

CAPUTO: He's going to have to come up with a $100,000 every two months until this thing's over because he's fighting it to the end.

CARLSON: That's unbelievable. Michael Caputo, thank you very much.

We have a Fox News Alert. Police say five police officers have been shot in the City of Houston. Trace Gallagher is on this story, and joins us now. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Hi, Tucker.

This was a narcotic war being served in a Southeast Houston home. And police have only confirmed that at least one suspect was inside that home. And a neighbor says she heard at least a dozen rounds being fired.

Houston Police, as you say, have confirmed five officers were shot, two of them are critical, three are stable. All five have been taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital, which is a Level I trauma center.

Police say one suspect is dead. And despite numerous reports of one or more other suspects being barricaded inside the residence, police have no word on other suspects.

In fact, SWAT teams are now on scene using robotic cameras to search for any other potential suspects. We should note, a neighbor did say earlier that he could hear police trying to negotiate with somebody inside, which is not to say there was someone inside.

Along with Houston Police, the Harris County Sheriff's Department, and Department of Public Safety are also on scene. And Texas Governor, Greg Abbott is allocating any needed resources.

Again, five officers shot, two of them are critical, three of them are stable.

Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thanks a lot for that. Sad story!

GALLAGHER: Yes.

CARLSON: The 2020 campaign is ramping up. And the leading candidates are racing leftward so quick it'll make your head spin. Mark Steyn has been watching carefully. He joins us with his assessment next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: The 2020 Democratic presidential field is big and getting bigger. Kamala Harris of California has tried to be the most Left-wing of the candidates. But suddenly, that's not so easy.

Hillary Clinton has said that she hasn't ruled out a run, so expect an announcement any day or a non-announcement. And then, in a Sunday interview, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz said that he might run as an Independent. He was immediately attacked by Democrats as a Jill Stein equivalent. Chaos, basically.

Fox Washington Correspondent, Kristin Fisher has been following this and joins us tonight. Hey, Kristin.

KRISTIN FISHER, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Hey, Tucker.

Well Kamala Harris, she sure spent a lot of time in that speech going after President Trump and his policies. She called his wall, a medieval vanity project. And she called his policy of separating families at the border, a human rights abuse.

As for her own policies though, she's proposing tax reform that would reverse the Republican-passed tax cuts, criminal justice reform.

She says that she's running so no parent has to teach their young son that police officers, and I'm quoting here, "Stop him, arrest him, chase him, or kill him because of his race." And she also wants Universal Pre-K and debt- free college and Medicare for All.

Now, on that last point, another possible 2020 contender is calling free healthcare as false a promise as the wall. The Starbucks billionaire, Howard Schultz is infuriating many Democrats by threatening to run as an Independent, which could split the anti-Trump vote, and help him win a second term.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD SCHULTZ, FORMER STARBUCKS CEO: I am seriously thinking of running for president. I will run as a centrist independent, outside of the two-party system.

We're living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this President is not qualified to be the President, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people, and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FISHER: And since we're speaking of revenge politics, Hillary Clinton may be considering running again. CNN is reporting that Clinton has told people that she's not closing the doors to the idea of running in 2020, but there are other reports that say that that report is not true.

So, it's still a long shot. But Tucker, I think it's safe to say that President Trump wouldn't mind running against her again in 2020.

CARLSON: That'd be a remarkable race.

FISHER: Wouldn't it?

CARLSON: We would cover that gladly. Kristin Fisher, thank you very much.

FISHER: Thanks.

CARLSON: Author and Columnist, Mark Steyn has spent endless hours at the dog track, and always wins, so he's perfectly qualified to handicap all political races, including this one.

Mark, great to see you. Who jumps--

MARK STEYN, STEYNONLINE.COM: Yes, that--

CARLSON: --yes, sorry.

STEYN: --that mechanical heir is not going to run, Tucker.

CARLSON: No.

STEYN: We are not going to be - we are not going to be seeing a third Hilary Clinton term. I can--

CARLSON: No, I - I bet that's true.

STEYN: --I want to make it clear.

CARLSON: So, who jumps out? Does anyone jump out as interesting, as saying something unexpected, as maybe the - the Trump of this cycle on the Left?

STEYN: Well what's in - interesting, I think, about this cycle, and that's what - another reason why Hillary is all wrong for it is that this time around, and it's unfortunate for Bernie Sanders himself, but actually everyone is running as Bernie.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: If you look at Kamala Harris' platform, free pre-kindergarten for everybody. Even if you think that's a good idea, do you want a Secretary of Pre-K in Washington organizing that for 350 million people?

The - the - the universal healthcare, the universal free college, this is a party that is actually moving left at an astonishing rate. And--

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: --and - and the difference between now and then when Hillary run is that basically everyone is Bernie, everyone is Bernie, and there's no room for a Hillary.

Even old Joe Biden, when he stands up there, he - he doesn't even know the term systemic racism. He keeps calling it systematic racism. And systematic is what slavery was. And all the nice editors corrected for him and cleaned it up for him in his speech. But he's basically trying to be Bernie Sanders too.

CARLSON: Poor guy, he's too old to be woke. What about Bernie himself? I mean does he have a shot in a field full of look-alikes?

STEYN: Well the - the - that's an interesting question.

I - I happen to be every so often in the adjoining booth in my corner of Northern New England at the diner to Bernie's key advisers. And they actually figure out that if you're as old as Bernie is, then running against a 74-year-old incumbent is your best shot.

And it's actually an interesting question. Whether the reason Bernie can get away with full-blown socialism is because he is so old. And that when you actually--

CARLSON: Right.

STEYN: --hang it around someone in the relative bloom of youth like Kamala Harris whether that doesn't actually make the full horror of the unaffordable lavishness of the program seem more evident.

CARLSON: That's a - that's a deep point. I think it's easier to take from Bernie because you at least say, well, he's like a kind of legitimate Soviet.

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: You know, he was old enough to remember.

STEYN: Yes, yes. No, well or like he's like the genial old uncle.

CARLSON: Right to have.

STEYN: It's - it seems less - less menacing.

As for the Starbucks guy, when it's poll - polls are closing in Florida at 7 o'clock, that's the only place in America where the lines are longer and slower than Starbucks, so this is a natural career move for that guy, I would say.

CARLSON: Yes. He's the - the world's biggest operator of homeless shelters now with the--

STEYN: Absolutely, yes. Yes.

CARLSON: --policy change at Starbucks.

STEYN: Very generous also.

CARLSON: Mark Steyn, great to see you. I know. Sorry, that was mean.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

We're often told there are no problems at the border. There is no border crisis. And you're a nut case if you think otherwise. Tell that to the latest mass Caravan headed straight for our Southern border. We've got details on that with Buck Sexton after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well Gavin Newsom recently replaced Jerry Brown as the Governor of California. You may have read that he's designated his wife the State's First Partner. That's how hip and modern Gavin Newsom is. But that's not all.

He's also decided he doesn't want to live in the Governor's Mansion in Sacramento anymore. Instead, Newsom is moving in to a $3.7 million estate in an upscale suburb. Newsom has kids and he calls the neighborhood more kid-friendly than Sacramento.

The problem is that Gavin Newsom cares deeply about climate change. He says that a lot. He cares a lot more about it than you do. He's a really good person.

For an ardent environmentalist like Newsom, the California Governor's Mansion is a perfect place to live. It's within walking distance of the State Capitol. It's a no-emission commute. His new home is an hour ran - round-trip for the entire entourage, the frosted window suburban entourage. That's a big carbon footprint. There goes the planet.

And there's another problem too, maybe a bigger problem. Newsom also cares about diversity. He talks about diversity a lot, probably about as much as he talks about climate change. And for diversity aficionados, Sacramento is heaven.

In 2002, Harvard University and Time magazine described Sacramento as "America's most diverse city." The city's public school students speak 43 languages. About 40 percent don't speak English at home.

You would think Gavin Newsom would want his kids right there in the center of all that diversity, but no. Instead, he's moving them to one of the least diverse neighborhoods in the entire State of California. It's a place where the demographics look like 1950.

In other words, it's very, very White, which is something that Newsom thinks as very, very bad or says he does. But does he really believe it? Not really, because he's moving his family there.

You're starting to figure out how this works? So, you make policies that totally change the country. Then you attack anyone who criticizes those policies as evil, and then force them to be quiet or fire them if they won't. And then you personally move as far as you can away from the effects of those policies, preferably behind a wall somewhere. That's the trick.

And to be fair, it's not just Gavin Newsom who does this. They all do that, all of them.

Well it's well-established, at least on TV, that there is no crisis at all on the U.S.-Mexico border. The very idea of that is insane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.: Trump and Republicans continue to lie about basic facts. The truth is there is no crisis at the Border that justifies a government shutdown.

JOE LOCKHART, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There is no crisis at the Border. So you've got to start from the place that everything the President's saying is fiction. So, it's very hard to negotiate with someone who's dealing with a made-up problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: These guys would literally say anything like there's nothing they wouldn't say. And now, they're saying it's a made-up problem. It's all just a fever dream, a product of your deranged imagination.

But wait. There is that 12,000 person Caravan coming up right now from Central America. And Mexico's new Governor is making it easier for them to get here. Or did we just dream that up too?

Buck Sexton is a former CIA analyst, now with The Hill. He's recently been on the Border, and he joins us with an update. So Buck, it's made up, this crisis on the Border. Does that comport with what you've seen?

BUCK SEXTON, FORMER CIA ANALYST: No.

Members of Congress that say that either haven't been to the Border or haven't even taken the time to speak to members of Border Patrol or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement about the many layers of crisis that are occurring right now at the Border.

On one front, you just have now the increase in very serious medical cases, and this is - is problematic at a number of levels. You have people who are showing up, as we know. There are already two children who died in custody. They were ill when they entered custody.

But there are many people that are now coming into Border Patrol custody. And in - in most cases or many cases, they're surrendering, so they're actually actively seeking out Border Patrol knowing that they're going to get medical services.

They're actually having to set up now screening facilities, frontline screening facilities, for Border Patrol to deal with people showing up who have H1N1 Flu, scabies, a whole list, a litany of different communicable, very serious diseases that they have to be treated for, by the way, courtesy of the taxpayer, that often requires taking them to the nearest hospital, which takes one or two depending on the sector Border Patrol agents to accompany them to the hospital, all this, of course, paid for - paid for by Uncle Sam.

And then, you also have to deal with the drain on resources. Border Patrol guys are saying, "Look, we've got enough problems as it is." They had about 30,000 - close to 30,000 family units alone.

That doesn't include unaccompanied minors. It doesn't include people that are just trying to cross illegally, the old-fashioned way, by themselves that are showing up, turning themselves in.

And now, what's happening is, Border Patrol's being turned into a de facto Red Cross on our Border for people who are coming up with serious illnesses, diseases, people who were eight or nine months pregnant, this is happening in increasing numbers every month.

So, the problem, Tucker, is actually getting worse while people are going on TV saying there is no problem.

CARLSON: Well it's not happening in their neighborhoods. And we need to bring all of this awesomeness, you describe, into the neighborhoods of the people making these policies, and maybe they'll have a different view of them.

So let me ask you, since you've spoken recently to a lot of people who work down there, enforcing our immigration law, do they think there's a crisis? I mean is there any doubt in their minds?

SEXTON: No. No doubt at all.

I mean they're - they're certain that there is a crisis that's also getting worse when you look at the strain and the drain on overall Border resources. That includes the enormous, and now even bigger, because of the shutdown, backlog in the courts.

It includes the way that the asylum system has not been addressed so that Con - and Congress really has to actually pass laws, because right now, if you understand the system, there are many different ways to game it.

You can come into the country effectively and skip the entire line and stay in the United States. And even though you won't get asylum in the end, you'll be in the interior of the U.S. That has to be addressed by Congress. There's also a crisis of - of lawlessness.

I mean one thing, I think, is interesting is when you see all these people who are going on TV and saying, "You can't lie to the FBI, you can't lie to the federal government," when it has to do with the Mueller probe, well the same laws apply, same laws about lying to Federal Officers, to Border Patrol and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

And people who are showing up renting or borrowing children of other people pretending that they're the - that's fraud, Tucker. That's actually illegal. You can't do that. People--

CARLSON: How many of those felonies do we prosecute?

SEXTON: They've - I think they've gotten about under a 100 for the last 12 months of the estimated thousands that are probably occurring. They don't really know. They don't have the time. They don't do DNA checks at the Border. They don't have the ability to process.

It's essentially they have overwhelmed the system not just with medical requests, but they've overwhelmed the system with lawlessness because U.S. attorneys won't even take up the cases now of, as I was told, 30 something year olds saying that they're teenagers, so they can skip--

CARLSON: Yes.

SEXTON: --to the front of line, that's illegal too. The same law that sends people like Stone possibly to jail for allegedly lying to Federal Agents can send people to jail--

CARLSON: But here's the difference if I can just say--

SEXTON: --for giving wrong age. But - but--

CARLSON: --none of those people volunteered for the Trump campaign. And if they had, they'd be in jail right now.

SEXTON: That is probably true.

CARLSON: So, probably smart enough not to do that. Buck Sexton, great to see you, as always.

SEXTON: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well the arrest of Roger Stone is being touted as proof-positive of Russian collusion. Does it actually show that? We'll unpack it after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the FBI sent enough firepower to Roger Stone's house on Friday to overthrow a third-world government. His arrest is, needless to say, being taken as proof that Russia stole America's lunch money or burned our toast or egged our cars or subverted our democracy or something.

This past weekend, as she often has, Nancy Pelosi speculated that Russia must have something on the President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI: What do the Russians have on Donald Trump politically, personally, or financially?

What is Putin blackmailing President Trump - Trump with personally, politically, or financially?

So, again, I ask the question, what do the Russians have on Donald Trump politically, personally or financially?

The Russians must have something personally, politically or financially on President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Over on PBS, Eric Swalwell of California claimed that Trump is a proven Russian agent, couldn't explain quite how. Here's the exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARGARET CLAIRE HOOVER, PBS: At what point do you draw the line and not accuse the President of the United States without any evidence--

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: Yes.

HOOVER: --of being an agent of Russia?

SWALWELL: Yes. He - he's betrayed our country, and I don't - I don't say that lightly. I - I worked as a prosecutor for seven years. And I've had--

HOOVER: But betraying the country - by the way, we want evidence before you say that.

SWALWELL: Yes.

HOOVER: But you said an agent of Russia.

SWALWELL: Yes. He - he works on their behalf.

After it was revealed that the Russians were attacking our democracy, he went to a press conference and said, "Russia, keep doing it," essentially.

HOOVER: So we're - we're familiar with that sequence of events. As a prosecutor, as--

SWALWELL: Yes. And that's evidence. That's evidence.

HOOVER: --no, but as a prosecutor--

SWALWELL: Yes.

HOOVER: --that wouldn't be evidence in court. I mean, as a prosecutor- -

SWALWELL: No, that's evidence.

HOOVER: --you know the difference between--

SWALWELL: Yes.

HOOVER: --hard evidence and circumstantial evidence.

Still not hearing the evidence that he's an agent of Russia.

SWALWELL: Yes. I - I - I think it's - it's pretty clear. It's almost hiding in plain sight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Hiding in plain sight. So, does Roger Stone's indictment prove once and for all that all these people are agents of Vladimir Putin?

Glenn Greenwald co-founded The Intercept, and he joins us tonight. Glenn, is that - do you think - can we say now conclusively that the Russian collusion narrative is true in the wake of this indictment of Roger Stone?

GLENN GREENWALD, THE INTERCEPT: No, it actually demonstrates, if anything, the opposite.

But let me just address those horrific McCarthyite clips that you just played from Nancy Pelosi and Eric Swalwell claiming that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin, something that we heard throughout the 50s and 60s, lodged against Democrats--

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENWALD: --with the same amount of - of evidence, which was none.

In almost every important instance, including right now in Venezuela, giving arms to the Ukrainians, who are opposed to the Russians, bombing the Russian client state in Syria, imposing incredibly harsh sanctions on Russian oligarchs, Trump has acted contrary to the interest of the Kremlin.

The most important example of which is probably Trump's very vehement denunciations of the Germans for buying natural gas from Russia, one of their most important exports on which their economy depends, rather than buying it from the U.S.

Really weird behavior for somebody who is being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin, he keeps doing exactly the opposite of what Putin wants.

The Roger Stone indictment is like all of the other Mueller indictments. And that is the number of people that Mueller has indicted for what the original Mueller letters said he was supposed to find out, namely whether there was criminal coordination between the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and Russian government, on the other hand, with respect to the 2016 - 2016 election, that number is zero.

That was the number before Roger Stone's indictment. That continues to be the number after. It's not an investigation that's complete, but it's been - it's coming up on two years, it's like a year and eight months, I don't know what the future holds.

Maybe Mueller will someday indict people for that. So, maybe he'll cure cancer. But as a journalist, all I can do is say what has happened up until this point. And up until this point, there have been zero indictments on that core question.

CARLSON: So, very quick, why would, if the Mueller people send dozens of armed agents to the house of an unarmed middle-aged man to do something that could have been done through lawyers, why does nobody in the press say, "Wait a second. That seems overkill"?

GREENWALD: I mean with this CNN was not only not object, and they were super-excited by it. They sent one of their correspondents who has connections with or, I think, even worked for the FBI to cover it like it was the O.J. chase.

And I think that this has been one of the problems as the press has completely given up its adversarial role when it comes to questioning prosecutorial power, what the CIA does, what the FBI does.

Robert Mueller is almost like this Godlike figure, and as long as you do abuses to people they don't like, like Roger Stone, they'll sit and cheer.

CARLSON: Yes. I think you're exactly - I think you're exactly - I mean we should push back. And I hope that I have enough integrity to push back when the next prosecutor does it to someone I don't like. I really do. Glenn Greenwald, thank you very much

GREENWALD: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Richard Goodstein is a lawyer, and a former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he joins us tonight.

So, I just can't - I just can't resist. Nancy Pelosi and Eric Swalwell are telling me, and I know them both, that now we have the goods, the indictment of Roger Stone, which to the untrained eye has nothing to do with Russian collusion, but to the Russia collusion druthers, is proof-positive.

What am I missing about this indictment?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: Just two quick things. First of all, we had evidence of - of collusion from Paul Manafort's lawyers when he disclosed secret polling data to Russian Military Intelligence. So, that's collusion right there.

That enabled Russia, if they were so inclined, and there's evidence that they were, they could identify what the swing voters were and where, and go after them. And the intelligence community in the U.S. says that's exactly what they did. OK?

CARLSON: The intelligence - there is no intelligence community in the United States.

GOODSTEIN: OK. Sorry, every intelligence agency--

CARLSON: No. There are not - there's no such but I can't even say to you.

GOODSTEIN: Well there are - so - so you even dispute the fact that there are intelligence agencies. I bet all your viewers take issue with that.

CARLSON: No, I'm just saying there's no intelligence community. There are not 17 separate intelligence agencies.

GOODSTEIN: I didn't say 17.

CARLSON: These are all talking points that you should know.

GOODSTEIN: No, no, no, the - the CIA--

CARLSON: There's no consensus on anything--

GOODSTEIN: You - you - you--

CARLSON: --I mean in real life. We still don't know - there's no consensus on who hacked Podesta's emails as of tonight.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: So like let's stop pretending that we know things--

GOODSTEIN: So--

CARLSON: --we don't.

GOODSTEIN: The other thing that's striking about this, and I heard your guests earlier in the - the show, is that's vehemence about how Roger Stone was treated, about how horrible Mueller is.

Have we seen one ounce of that addressed by Donald Trump or his minions towards the Russians for interfering with our election? I would say the answer is no.

CARLSON: But because--

GOODSTEIN: And that basically proves to me, what would Nancy Pelosi is saying, which is something's going on. Why would there be a 100 contacts and not one of them, more than a dozen Trump people, why they lie time after time--

CARLSON: So let me just ask can I ask--

GOODSTEIN: --after time.

CARLSON: --ask you as an American because they really are two separate questions, Russian interference and what the federal government just did to Roger Stone. But just as an American, and someone presumably who cares about civil liberties, are you OK with that?

I mean here's a guy who was not a flight risk, who they've been investigating. They've been spying on him for over a year. He couldn't destroy evidence. It's ridiculous. Are you OK with sending dozens of armed people to his house to roust him barefoot? Does that bother you at all?

GOODSTEIN: Yes. So the evidence they were in dozens, they - there may have been a dozen, I think. I - I discount what Roger Stone says--

CARLSON: OK. Well, OK, but I saw the tape--

GOODSTEIN: --as a gentleman.

CARLSON: --that they set-up with CNN.

GOODSTEIN: Oh, yes. There were very heavily-armed people. I--

CARLSON: So, why would you need an automatic weapon to arrest Roger Stone?

GOODSTEIN: First of all, I don't know that Mueller is the one who says have this many people as opposed to two or three X. Secondly, the fact is, I think, Mueller's probably a little sick of what he got from Paul Manafort, which was attempts to destroy evidence, and obstruct justice, and change people's testimony.

And he saw evidence that Roger Stone was doing the exact same thing, so that's where you go, "You know what, I've had it."

CARLSON: So - so is it a prosecutor's job to punish people preemptively?

GOODSTEIN: Not - not punish, but make--

CARLSON: Oh, because that's where you say.

GOODSTEIN: --sure they don't do it again.

CARLSON: Oh make - so - so intimidate and frighten citizens--

GOODSTEIN: Not intimidate. Just--

CARLSON: --so they obey.

GOODSTEIN: --no, you freeze him so he can't do with his electronics --

CARLSON: They didn't freeze him. They brought him in and they--

GOODSTEIN: Exactly.

CARLSON: --let him out on bail in like 10 minutes.

GOODSTEIN: Well--

CARLSON: No, they did this to scare the crap out of him, and to tell the rest of us that if you disobey, this unelected God-figure, whose power is uncontested by anybody - I'm serious--

GOODSTEIN: Well--

CARLSON: --then we're going to hurt you.

GOODSTEIN: --he--

CARLSON: That's what they're doing.

GOODSTEIN: --he - he's not elected, but he does have super - he's a Republican. All his supervisors are Republicans. And the voters ultimately elected the people--

CARLSON: Who - who can fire him?

GOODSTEIN: Well, right now, the - the Attorney General could, right, the acting Attorney General could.

CARLSON: Well what would happen? He - because Democrats say, if you fire him, you'll be impeached immediately. So, this is someone, who Democrats say, has no oversight by an elected official.

GOODSTEIN: Well--

CARLSON: Does that bother you? That--

GOODSTEIN: --the--

CARLSON: --seems like the opposite of democracy.

GOODSTEIN: Congress actually has oversight over the Justice Department. They fund it. They can bring people in for questioning.

CARLSON: What would happen if you tried to fire Robert Mueller?

GOODSTEIN: What - what do you think would happen?

CARLSON: I think you'd be accused of working for Vladimir Putin. I don't think you guys are for democracy at all.

GOODSTEIN: Again, I worked for somebody who actually stood up to--

CARLSON: Right.

GOODSTEIN: --Richard Nixon around Watergate and - and that's--

CARLSON: It was a different time.

GOODSTEIN: --yes, right. Well--

CARLSON: You read the Washington Post. And we're out of time, unfortunately. Richard Goodstein, great to see you.

GOODSTEIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you.

It's easier than ever to be ruined by the crowd rushing to judgment. How do you survive in an age where the online mob roves free? Mike Rowe would know. He joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: You may have read about a wave of layoffs in the media last week. More than a 1,000 people lost their jobs, mostly in online news. Some of the biggest losses were at BuzzFeed, about 220 employees got fired there.

BuzzFeed is run by a guy called Jonah Peretti. Peretti isn't just a media CEO. He's an icon in the tech world. He's a living embodiment of the values of modern big business.

Peretti first became famous a number of years ago when he attacked Nike for running sweatshops. And the attention from that helped him break into the media. And from there, he helped found The Huffington Post and, eventually, BuzzFeed.

As a boss, Peretti transitioned smoothly from the traditional leftism of his youth to the new and far more lucrative version of woke capitalism that so many CEOs now practice. Peretti spent a lot of time extolling the virtues of inclusivity and diversity and, of course, attacking Conservatives as racist.

At the same time, Peretti crushed the efforts of his own staff to unionize. He argued it wouldn't be right for BuzzFeed because unions are only good for "Replaceable employees." BuzzFeed staff were apparently so special, they didn't need unions. Well it turns out they did.

Now, more than 200 of BuzzFeed's employees understand that they were, in fact, quite replaceable. After firing them, Peretti tried to weasel his way out of paying his employees for any of their unused paid time off until the public outcry became so great that he finally caved and paid.

"This is very common," Peretti told them, and that's true. Greedy, stupid bosses who buy a pass from the business press by mouthing progressive platitudes are indeed very common. They're everywhere, unfortunately. What's rare are humane bosses who care about the people who work for them. We could use more of those.

Well Mike Rowe has a new scholarship program trying to send young Americans to trade schools. And in doing that, he's willing to work with a bunch of different organizations, some of which not everybody likes. And for doing that, he's been accused of "selling-out."

Mike Rowe joins us tonight. So Mike, I mean this in the best way, but I like it when you're attacked, because unlike most people who get attacked on social media, you write these long, very thoughtful replies that actually inform us, and this is no different.

MIKE ROWE, TELEVISION HOST: Oh.

CARLSON: What happened here?

ROWE: Well, thank you. Full disclosure, I sold out years ago in the middle of the night on the QVC cable shopping channel on my very first job in TV. I - I haven't really --

CARLSON: Is that true?

ROWE: Yes. Yes. I was singing in the Opera--

CARLSON: Well--

ROWE: --back in the early 80s, late 80s, and I got an audition for QVC. And next thing, I knew I was selling things in the middle of the night that I could neither explain nor justify. But look, we all do what we have to do, you know, to make a go of it.

And, here in 2018, I can't tell you anything you don't know about cognitive dissonance or the transitive property or confirmation bias, all that stuff- -

CARLSON: Yes.

ROWE: --that is at work right now with a big fat umbrella of logical fallacies spread over top of it. But I see it in my world every single day, even on a - a non-profit charity, where I give away half a million dollars a year to kids who want to apply for a Work Ethic Scholarship.

If I take money from a company or an individual who wants to help me in that effort, they need to comport with whatever list you have in your mind of approved networks, personalities, and causes.

CARLSON: Right.

ROWE: Once upon a time, we distanced ourselves from people that we didn't necessarily agree with. But today, we distance ourselves from people who sit too close to people with whom we disagree. And again, this isn't headline news.

CARLSON: True.

ROWE: But in my little world, six years ago, it started when I had the temerity to talk to Glenn Beck and Bill Maher in the same week about the same topic, and people's heads exploded.

CARLSON: So, how do you respond? I mean does reason work? You wrote a very, I thought, thoughtful, which people should, it's on Facebook, look it up, it's worth reading, but a thoughtful response to someone who said you sold out. But does it work? Does reason convince people anymore?

ROWE: Well, look. Facebook, it's got its pros and it's got its cons. To be honest, one-on-one, I don't know. I feel like today, people are so dug in behind whatever position they espouse that you simply aren't going to convert.

But Facebook is a public forum. I've got 5 million people on my page. And the reason I take time to try and have something that passes for thoughtful discourse is because it gets passed around.

CARLSON: Yes.

ROWE: And there are people out there, in the middle who are willing, in this case, for instance, to say, "Well maybe Charles Koch isn't the person that I've heard he was."

CARLSON: Right.

ROWE: "Or maybe Tucker Carlson isn't the person" - look, I'm going to get killed tonight.

CARLSON: Oh, no. He is. He is every bit the man you think--

ROWE: I mean I'm going to get killed.

CARLSON: --he is.

ROWE: So, listen, I mean I don't mind. But they're just, to me, it's not a problem because I'm a public figure running a public charity, and I can take a public platform, and - and turn this kind of nonsense into what might be a thoughtful back-and-forth that might, in fact, change someone's mind.

Let's face it, it's also great publicity. It's hard to give away--

CARLSON: Yes.

ROWE: --half a million dollars through the lens of Work Ethic, mikeroweworks.com right now if you want to apply for Work Ethic Scholarship. But look, that's what it is.

I'm reduced to shameless plugs on your show because I don't really know how else to put that message out there without inflaming somebody, who's going to start the sentence with "Mike Rowe, I've always been a fan of yours but dot dot dot," till you sat down with that son of a gun over there and said this.

Now, all of a sudden, you're on the naughty list forever.

CARLSON: We believe that reason and decency will re-emerge, and that's why you always have a space to shamelessly plug anything on this show. Mike Rowe, thank you very much.

ROWE: My pleasure. Anytime.

CARLSON: Great to see you.

ROWE: I appreciate it.

CARLSON: Just thinking about that BuzzFeed story, the CEO spent most of the last five years telling you what a decent person he is, then mistreated his employees, and that really is the acid test. Lots of people jump up and down. Moral preening is definitely the coin of the realm at the moment.

When you hear someone talking about how he's morally superior to you, check and see how he treats his employees, find out what his kids think of him. That's really the test. There's no other test.

That's about it for us tonight. Tune in every night at 8 p.m. to the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and, especially, groupthink. Try and break its fetters, if you can.

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