Who leaked Christine Blasey Ford's letter? Democrats' new attack: Kavanaugh's 'temperament'

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 28, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." This is the 10th day in a row that we have devoted a large portion of this show to Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination. We've done that because this story matters, and not simply because the Supreme Court itself matters.

The way Kavanaugh has been treated by Democrats in the Senate, as well as by the media, and the Left-wing interest groups, who obediently do their bidding in concert, gets the most basic questions about what kind of country we want to live in.

Does every American deserve due process? Are the accused presumed innocent rather than guilty? Does fairness still matter in this country? Well to all of those, we'd answer yes. The Left argues no. To them, acquiring power justifies anything. That's the real debate here. We thought you should know that.

And now to the day's developments and there are many. After yesterday's hearings, it seemed that this debate must be drawing to a close. It's hard to imagine watching what Brett Kavanaugh said to the Senate yesterday without feeling profound sympathy.

This is a deeply sincere man who believes that his family has been destroyed by false and unsupported allegations. Many wept as they watched him speak. Democrats remained unmoved.

Some argued that Kavanaugh's anguish was itself evidence that he is a monster, as if only a sex criminal would recoil at being called a sex criminal.


JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He's a very organized guy, to put it mildly.


CARLSON: Well that was the wrong sound bite, but you get the point. Barbara Boxer explained today that his anger onstage made her think he was capable of violence. Would you be angry if they said that about you?

But no matter what they say, Democrats don't mean any of this personally. They don't hate Kavanaugh or his family. They don't seek to destroy either one. They're just irrelevant. Democrats just want to be in control.

So yesterday, they immediately began stalling for time. And they did that by demanding a seventh FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh's life. The point was to run out the clock on his nomination. They continued that tactic today at two different hearings, and especially in the afternoon when the Senate Judiciary Committee reconvened. Watch this.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: I cannot sit here. I cannot participate in what I know the history's going to look back as a dark moment again, in the same way we look back at the Anita Hill- Clarence Thomas trials. I cannot participate that.

-- to again relegate ourselves to what I believe is a dark, dark element of our society.


BOOKER: With that Sir, I will leave.


CARLSON: Well that was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, a man so oily he qualifies as an alternative fuel. Almost nobody who knows Booker takes him seriously. But today, he found an ally, surprisingly, among Republicans.

That was Jeff Flake of Arizona. Flake had declared that he would be voting for Kavanaugh's nomination. Then he was confronted by a mob of screaming protesters, the Youth Wing of the Democratic Party. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are allowing someone who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator, do you want to - do you want to respond ?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --to sit in the higher court of the country and to - and to have the role of repairing the harm that has been done in this country to many people.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no thank you. What do you think? You have power over it too ?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma'am you want to talk to our staff ? Ma'am you want to talk to our staff ?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I want to talk to him. Don't talk to me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Care to respond ?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you think?

FLAKE: I need to go to the hearing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Care to respond ?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I understand, but tell me--

FLAKE: All right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --I'm standing right here in front of you.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you have? Do you think that he's telling the truth?

FLAKE: Thank you. And I'm going to the hearing.



CARLSON: Wow! That man looks afraid and ashamed. You don't often hear senators or see senators look like that. This kind of thing has been happening a lot in Washington. It happened to Ted Cruz. When he found himself surrounded by red guards like these at dinner, he left the restaurant.

Jeff Flake crumbled. Flake announced that he would not approve Kavanaugh's nomination without additional FBI investigation. Democrats cheered his change of heart.

"I applaud Senator Jeff Flake's decision to rise above the partisan circus on display during this entire process," harrumphed West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin.

Of course, in Washington, when they congratulate you on leaving the partisan circus, chances are you are now the ringmaster of the partisan circus, and of course, Jeff Flake is exactly that.

So what does this mean going forward? Well factually, it doesn't mean a lot. The FBI does not want this case. There is nothing to investigate here and they have said that pretty definitively already.

Weeks ago, Dianne Feinstein sent them Christine Ford's original letter and that was their response. This is not a federal criminal investigation. It cannot be. No federal crime has been alleged.

Only police in Maryland can conduct an investigation into this, and they're not because, strangely, Christine Ford has never filed charges against Brett Kavanaugh in the jurisdiction where she says this took place.

Instead, the FBI - FBI will conduct what is called a supplemental investigation. Agents will interview only those directly connected to Christine Ford's original allegation. In this case, that would amount to Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, of course, along with the three people Ford says were present when she was attacked in 1982.

That would be Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Keyser. The problem is that all five of these people have already given sworn testimony. You're aware of what they've said. Four of them have categorically denied under oath Ford's version of the story.

If they deviate from their previous testimony, they could face criminal penalties. So, what could we possibly learn from having the FBI interview them?

Keep in mind that the FBI makes no judgments in these investigations. It does not assess credibility. It does not render any kind of conclusion. It just does interviews. And then it summarizes them for lawmakers. The FBI, no matter what they're telling you, is not a tiebreaker in this or any other investigation. It's an investigative agency that will provide the Senate with information that Senators already have.

So Brett Kavanaugh is going to get interviewed again. You probably have to get a prostate exam to be more thoroughly vetted than Kavanaugh has been in the last 20 years, so they may try that too.

If you're looking for truth this would be an utterly pointless exercise. You wouldn't consider it. But the truth is not what anyone is looking for here, as you may have figured out. Democrats are hoping that more baseless allegations will emerge during the delay during which the FBI is investigating things that have long been investigated.

Perhaps another reptilian porn lawyer will come forward with another discredited client who describes fantasies of, I don't know, gang rape or human sacrifice or child trafficking. Maybe it'll be ritual satanic abuse this time. They haven't tried that one in a while. Who knows what it'll be?

But when those charges emerge, Democrats will demand new public hearings on every single one of them. Democracy hangs in the balance, they will tell us, meaning their access to power hangs in the balance. It's not a complicated formula.

And everyone in Washington knows exactly what's going on here, except for maybe a poor Jeff Flake. People who know Flake say he may actually believe Democrats are acting in good faith or maybe he's auditioning for a new employer. He's leaving the Senate early next year.

Either way, you'd have to be an idiot to think that caving to this demand will induce Democrats to call off their smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh and his family. They won't. They'll accelerate it. Why wouldn't they? It's working.

But there's a cost, especially for Republicans. At this point, Kavanaugh isn't just a Supreme Court nominee. He is a folk hero to many people, an inspiration to millions. People who've spent the last two years being browbeaten and bullied by their moral inferiors were buoyed by what he said yesterday.

These are people who've been told they are worthless and bigoted. They've been unfairly maligned because they are in the way of other people gaining power. They've been commanded to shut up and obey.

Kavanaugh stood up for those people yesterday. He raised a middle finger to their tormentors and they love him for it. Kavanaugh is far more popular with Republican voters tonight than any single Republican senator. And he's incalculably more popular than the Senate as a whole.

Kavanaugh probably wouldn't describe it this way. But he now has a constituency, a powerful one, and they will long remember whether or not Republicans defend him in his moment of need.

Shannon Bream hosts Fox News @ Night. She's also, of course, our Supreme Court correspondent, and the most popular person in the building. She has followed this saga closer than anyone else has and she joins us tonight. What do you think is going to happen?

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: Well we now have this delay over the weekend because Mitch McConnell is not going to go ahead and start with that Saturday vote and get this thing moving. So, we've got the delay of the investigation. I've got some folks who think, I think you've talked to people too within the FBI. I think they can get this done more--


BREAM: --quickly than Friday because you - we have a finite universe of people who could be interviewed--


BREAM: --unless we're talking about throwing in the Ramirez and Swetnick allegations.


BREAM: I - I - I think--

CARLSON: Is anyone seriously considering of doing that?

BREAM: --I think that Ramirez is potentially being considered. I think Swetnick is not falling under what the White House or the Senate Judiciary Committee is calling "Credible," so it wouldn't fall into this investigation. They can do it quickly.

I've also got a friend who is very close to an FBI agent and she says they're all praying. As you said that they don't get it. Nobody wants this to fall into their lap, so that they have to handle this investigation. They feel like it's very political.

CARLSON: As a factual matter have you heard - I mean taking opinion out of this, have you heard anybody describe what we might learn from interviewing the five people at the center of the Ford allegations who've already given sworn testimony?

BREAM: It's going to be the 302s. We've heard about this before. It's where an agent interviews people. They make a summary of it. And then they will hand them to the Senate Judiciary Committee and say, "Here are these interviews."

Now, unless they don't match exactly what the sworn testimony people have already given and then they're in trouble because everybody's been giving this under penalty of felony.

If they say the exact same things that they have said, and Mark Judge and P.J. Smith and Brett Kavanaugh have all said that they will absolutely cooperate. They've sent out messages through themselves or their lawyers tonight saying "OK. Great. We want to talk to you. Let's get this done."

And I - I don't know that we're going to find out anything new. If we did, it would be a bombshell. But I think it's going to be almost like having somebody repeat and - and be a stenographer to the, you know, testimony that you just gave and that you heard under oath--


BREAM: --and all the other statements we already have.

CARLSON: It's been a tiny fact-set from day one. There just aren't that many facts for this --

BREAM: Or people involved. Yes.

CARLSON: Yes, that's true. Shannon Bream, thank you very much.

BREAM: Good to see you.

CARLSON: Lou Dobbs, of course, hosts "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" on Fox Business and he joins us tonight.

Lou, it strikes me that Brett Kavanaugh is far more popular than any sitting Republican senator right now, far more popular with Republican voters, the voters that matter to Republicans.


CARLSON: What risks do they run playing along with this tactic, do you think?

DOBBS: I - I think that Jeff Flake runs no risk because, as you pointed out, he's a lame duck. I - he found out that he couldn't possibly win a primary in his home state and withdrew. And then upon learning that he's also learning that he's just singularly unpopular. Period.

What are the risks here? The risks are that the Republican Party is unable to move his confirmation through, and that would be a devastating loss to the nation. Tucker, I truly believe what is going on here.

What we are witnessing is not only the corrosive political corruption of the Left and these radical Dems who sit on, particularly, the Judiciary Committee. But we're watching a tenet of what has become the Democratic Party's most important manifesto that is to deny American exceptionalism.

And the man on that screen is extraordinarily exceptional. He is a man who took us through his life over the course of this hearing. This man stands for all that is good and great about this country.

His commitment to his studies, to improving himself, his service to the community, my God, how could you ask for anyone better to sit on the Supreme Court? It's a matter of just simple objective analysis.

And to watch the Dems of frankly foam at the mouth and blood drip from their fangs as they rip this man and his family apart, it is - it is obscene what they have done. It is obscene that any Republican would in any way enable and facilitate them in that gruesome, gruesome mission.

CARLSON: If - if Republicans can't get Brett Kavanaugh onto the court, do they have a hope of ever getting any right-of-center nominee on the Supreme Court ever again?

DOBBS: I - I don't think so. I really don't. And I think that's a great question because it is fundamental to what we're watching. If you cannot, as a - as a nation, turn to your very finest people, those who are - have worked hard, who've brought themselves through life to - to personify American exceptionalism, then we are - we are truly lost.

I - and - and this man and his family and his children to - you know, my heart goes out to them. It's - it is not tearing a nation apart. It's destroying a nation. It's not just simply division. This is not about redistribution. This is not about a - a socialistic view. This is about rewarding effort and excellence and - and applauding a man's success--


DOBBS: --to have a child, you know, talking about praying for the woman who is bringing charges against her father, to encourage them to pray, to - to- -


DOBBS: --have a - a career that has - I - with that - there is not, as the President said - President Trump said, "There's not a blemish on this man's record."

CARLSON: Wait. He's not a sex criminal. I mean there are a lot of creepy people in D.C. I would believe are sex criminals, like a lot of them--

DOBBS: Right.

CARLSON: --and this guy's the bottom of that. I mean it's a ludicrous charge. I mean come on.

DOBBS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Great to be with you.

CARLSON: Professor Ford wanted to keep her identity secret. Somebody close to her in the Democratic Party leaked her name and changed her life forever, not in a good way. Who was that? And why don't we know? And where's the investigation to find out? We are on that after the break.



SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Three groups had this letter that was requested to be anonymous. Dianne Feinstein and her staff, the Congresswoman from California and her staff, and the lawyers. Somebody betrayed her trust. And if you can't figure out why, you shouldn't be driving.


CARLSON: Christine Ford had wanted to remain anonymous. She didn't want to testify yesterday. She didn't want anyone to know her name. She only went public with her allegations after somebody leaked them to the press, just a few weeks ago.

Only a few people knew - knew about the letter that she written to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, and that it made its way to Senator Dianne Feinstein's office. And from one of those offices, her identity made it to reporters.

Who did that? And why aren't Democrats interested in finding out the identity of the person who did that since, supposedly, they care so deeply about Christine Ford?

Andy McCarthy was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Joe diGenova was a U.S. Attorney in Washington. And they both join us tonight.

Andy, to you first, why would it be so hard to find out how this information got from one of two Congressional offices to the Washington Post?

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: Tucker, if we assume that it had to be one of those two offices then it should be a small world of - of people. I think the problem that we have factually is that the first press outlet who got it, The Intercept, now says that Feinstein - Senator Feinstein was not the source.

That doesn't mean that the other California Congress critter, as you point out, could not be the source or that it could have come from the lawyers or perhaps an acquaintance, a friend of - of Dr. Ford.

But while it's a small amount of people who are in the circle of the possible leaker, and if you made an aggressive investigation, you might be able to get some leads quickly. Certainly, if Kavanaugh can be investigated seven times, you'd think that this might be at least worth a once-over.

CARLSON: Well you would think that. Joe--

MCCARTHY: They're not apparently interested.

CARLSON: --if you cared about Christine Ford, wouldn't you care deeply about who betrayed her and overturned her life?

JOSEPH DIGENOVA, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: Well, of course, you would. But this is not what it's about for the Democrats. This is not about ethics or morality or rightness. It's about power. The Democrats leaked this. Her lawyers leaked it. Maybe she leaked it. Somebody in her family leaked it.

We know one thing. It wasn't the Republicans who leaked it because they didn't have the letter. So, it was somebody who wanted to use her and to make it part of the process of trying to just flay away at Judge Kavanaugh.

This is part of the disgusting display that the Democrats have created. They're trying to make it look like it's something that's serious. In fact, it's awful. And it's demeaning the country. It's demeaning the Senate.

I don't know what effect it's having on Miss Dr. Ford or whatever her name is. The bottom line is this is an attempt to destroy a good man and his family, and the Democrats are succeeding. And they got their delay on the vote on the Senate floor, and they may ultimately win.

CARLSON: So, that's for sure. So Andy McCarthy, you've watched this for the last two weeks. I'm sure you've been as riveted as the rest of us. You follow this stuff already for a living. What's your - I mean give me your 30 second takeaway. What do you make of all this? What have you learned?

MCCARTHY: That it's - it's just phenomenal that the Democrats could not more clearly signal that what this is all about is delay, delay, delay. No matter what they're talking about whether it's, you know, the victims or the survivors or somebody's privacy or the need for an FBI investigation, it's all about delay.

And yet, the Republicans seem to think if we just give them a little bit more delay, we can bring this thing to closure. And I just for the - for the life of me, I can't wrap my brain around that.

CARLSON: I can't either. Have you ever seen anything this cynical, honestly? You've been here a long time.

DIGENOVA: No. Now, you know, I came here in 1967, 51 years ago. I have never seen anything like this.

And to watch Senator Coons today do that unctuous, just supercilious description of how - how wonderful it was to work with Senator Flake, and how well all we wanted was just a little bit more time, I mean this goofy disgusting performance by the Democrats.

You know, the Senate used to be a beautiful place. It's now a very, very, ugly place. And the American people are being just - just harmed by this. It's awful. It's just awful for the country and the Democrats don't care one whit because all they care about is power.

CARLSON: It's true. Andy, Joe, thank you both very much.

DIGENOVA: Thank you.

CARLSON: I hope you get a weekend away from all this stuff.

MCCARTHY: Thank you.

CARLSON: I'm going to try too.

MCCARTHY: Good luck.

CARLSON: Well the Left has made the Brett Kavanaugh story from the very beginning about race. What does skin color have to do with this story? Everyone in it is the same color. Why do they usually get to push racial division? Very confusing. That story's next.


CARLSON: Well, the press has taken only two lessons from the persecution of Brett Kavanaugh, not a sophisticated group. The first lesson is he is guilty no matter how little evidence exists against him.

And second, and this is a lesson they learned a long time ago, what they've been telling us a lot about for years, certain people are inherently bad because of their race and gender. And if you don't believe us, listen to this selection.


JUANITA TOLLIVER, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: --a panel of a 11 White male Republicans opted to have a female shield protect him--



SANDERS: --from Judge Kavanaugh--

SHIELDS: --hang on.

SANDERS: --was the patriarchy and White male privilege on display.

MICHAEL JOHN AVENATTI, ATTORNEY, ENTREPRENEUR: White men need to stop passing judgment on sexual assault victims.

DAVID RICHMOND GERGEN, AMERICAN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: --if you have a group of a 11 White men sitting there on the Republican side, you have to ask, do they get it?


CARLSON: Does Dave Gergen get it? Open question. Joy Behar gets it. She went on The View and went further. If you don't support further investigation of Kavanaugh, which seems like kind of a non-racial question, then somehow you want to institute apartheid.


JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW": The people on the Republican side, it looks like to me, do - do not want to investigate this any further. They just want to hold on to their power. They know that this country is getting darker.

So it's almost like they - they're worried that all White people are going to lose all their power.

Pretty soon we'll be like South Africa, apartheid, where 10 percent of White people were running the country.


CARLSON: I - I'm not advocating for anyone's firing. But I know a lot of people in television who've been fired for saying way less than that. I hope that Joy Behar's not canned by ABC.

But it's just kind of amazing that if you're Joy Behar you can say literally anything on your network and nobody does anything. There's no advertiser boycott looming in her future. It's unbelievable.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the new and improved version, introduced yesterday, responded to this madness today. Watch.



GRAHAM: Thank you. I know I'm a single White male from South Carolina. And I've been told I should shut up, but I will not shut up if that's OK.


CARLSON: Professor Jason Nichols teaches African-American studies at the University of Maryland. He's a frequent guest on the show and he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON: So, as an almost 50-year old American, I was brought up to believe that you should not, this was a core principle, judge people on the basis of their race because it's not a relevant criterion for judgment, and it's not something you can control. Is that still true?

NICHOLS: I think it's absolutely true that people should not be judged on the basis of their race. But--


NICHOLS: --there are advantages that certain people have on the basis of their race, class, and gender. And I think we need to acknowledge that.

CARLSON: --but - but, right. I mean that - that could be true in individual cases.

NICHOLS: Could be.

CARLSON: But when in individual cases, but when you say it's true in every case, what you're doing is judging people on the basis of their race, which we just agreed is wrong.

NICHOLS: Well again, I - well number one, I said race, class, and gender, and not--

CARLSON: Let's just - let's just stick with race because - because class is a fluid - is a fluid thing. I mean your class can change. It can. Sure, it's not--

NICHOLS: It can. It's rare but--

CARLSON: --no, but it can. It's not in your DNA.

NICHOLS: It's not in your DNA.

CARLSON: I - I can't study your bones and find out what class you were.

NICHOLS: Yes, I - I would say race is not in your DNA either but we - we can - we can go on--

CARLSON: Look I'm - I'm not a scientist--

NICHOLS: --yes.

CARLSON: --but - but most people can't change the race, and I don't--


CARLSON: --I don't think it's acknowledged that you can.


CARLSON: If it's wrong to judge people on the basis of their race, and I think both of us agree. We don't want to live in a country where people are making generalizations, negative ones, especially, about whole groups of people, we don't.

NICHOLS: I think we do live in a country that does that.

CARLSON: Right. But we don't want to add to that because it's wrong.


CARLSON: Then why are all the dumb people on television in unison attacking people on the basis of their race, and nobody's saying anything about it?

NICHOLS: Well I think, again, people are acknowledging the fact that certain groups of people have more advantages than others. So, we look at this in the criminal justice system. Even though, let's be clear, Judge Kavanaugh, for example, was not in a criminal trial. He is not being criminally investigated. This is basically a job interview.

CARLSON: But what are they saying so--

NICHOLS: --but - but--

CARLSON: --a - a woman of one race is accusing a man of the same race of a crime that has nothing to do with race, so why are all, again, all the dumb people on TV making it about race--


CARLSON: --other than--

NICHOLS: --again--

CARLSON: --to divide and destroy America?

NICHOLS: Tucker, you're simplifying it a little bit too much.

CARLSON: No, no, but tell me what I'm missing. That's what I'm asking.

NICHOLS: I - and - and what I'm saying is that it's not just race. It's race, gender, and class. You've got somebody--

CARLSON: But why are they bringing up race?

NICHOLS: --who's been--

CARLSON: Why - I mean why is that relevant in a case where race doesn't intersect with any of the facts?

NICHOLS: Because this would be totally different. If Judge Kavanaugh were say Native American, or if he were African-American--

CARLSON: If they were both Native American?

NICHOLS: Or if one - if, you know, Dr. Ford were--

CARLSON: How would it be different?

NICHOLS: --Dr. Ford and - and Judge Kavanaugh look like Dr. Nichols, it would be a - a very different situation.

CARLSON: But they're not. I mean they're both the same race so--

NICHOLS: Right. But the fact is as - as a comparable --

CARLSON: --is there a suggestion of racial bias here in this case?

NICHOLS: --well, I - I would say at the top of our society, as we said, you know, as we spoke about earlier, are usually educated, well-to-do White and male--

CARLSON: Like Obama?

NICHOLS: --and straight.

CARLSON: Like Obama, the President. Well this is--

NICHOLS: Well Obama - Obama is not White--

CARLSON: --this isn't, look, here's what--

NICHOLS: --but Obama certainly meets - checks some of those cute boxes--

CARLSON: --look, I don't want to bring up Obama. I'm just being --

NICHOLS: --but certainly not the Whites.

CARLSON: --snarky. What I'm really saying is this is destroying the country. Attacking people on the basis of their race is totally immoral. We're pushing people into race conflict with each other. And we shouldn't do that if we can help it.


CARLSON: And we can't help it at this case.

NICHOLS: Well I - I think that there are lots of things that - that are destroying the country.

CARLSON: Yes, there are but this is one--

NICHOLS: And - and I would say that the inequality that we have and the inequity that we have in our society is what has always made America not as strong as it could be. It's in our --

CARLSON: I totally agree with you. And I just wrote a book on that.

NICHOLS: --people who get stripped --

CARLSON: But it's not about attacking people as a group for their skin color.


CARLSON: That is wrong. We got over that.

NICHOLS: --it's about recognizing that certain people have advantages and trying to fix it so that we have a more equitable society.

CARLSON: Right. Race hatred is not going to help that. Do you think it will?

NICHOLS: I don't - I don't think anyone hates White men or--


NICHOLS: --I certainly don't.

CARLSON: I'm going to let you stew in the disingenuousness of that remark. And we can meet next time.

NICHOLS: Absolutely, Tucker, thank you.

CARLSON: Harmeet Dhillon is an attorney. And she joins us now. Perhaps to elucidate what's going on here, so I am like sincerely confused. I've noticed this trend going on for a long time. I've noticed that everyone's too intimidated to say anything about it.

I don't think that we should be because I really think it hurts the country, and it increases tribalism beyond where we already are, which is bad enough. I think people are doing it to maintain their own power by dividing the country. But tell me is it a--


CARLSON: --logical matter, what the hell does race have to do with this case?

DHILLON: It has nothing to do with it, Tucker. But I mean I think there are a couple of things going on here.

Number one, what we're seeing is a phenomenon that's been happening in America over the last few years, and it has become fashionable now to be beat up on White men and Whites more generally because we have this culture of spoils where we are being told that you are entitled to certain things in society and certain jobs and certain places.

In California, we have a law now that you're entitled to board membership on corporate - corporate boards if you're a woman. And so, that's part of our cultural shift. And, you know, like you, I was taught, certainly from my faith as well as my parents and my upbringing that we don't judge people according to what they look like or how they were born.

We only look at people according to their merit and we treat everybody equally. And that's an unfashionable concept now.

So, unfortunately, you know, if - if you believe in hate speech, what you heard yesterday would be the most vicious type of hate speech, and not just from the senators on the dais but from every Democrat group and all the talking points, it was all hateful towards people like Judge Kavanaugh which is kind of silly, as you pointed out, because both he and his accuser are from the same class and the same race and the same--

CARLSON: Yes. I mean it literally couldn't be weirder--

DHILLON: --socio background, so--

CARLSON: --are you worried that if--

DHILLON: --yes.

CARLSON: --dumb people like David Gergen or all the rest at CNN keep up with the race hatred that that will actually encourage some kind of conflict. You've seen this in a lot of different countries. We really don't want it here. But could we get there--

DHILLON: We have it. We have it, Tucker.

CARLSON: --if they don't stop?

DHILLON: Oh, my gosh so on --

CARLSON: I hate that.

DHILLON: --you know, Berkeley campus across the street where I'm, you know, helping with litigation over there, there are, you know, places where Whites are not supposed to go. I mean that is apartheid.

CARLSON: Come on.

DHILLON: It's apartheid on our college campuses. It's outrageous. But, you know, at a higher level stepping back from the cultural disintegration of this phenomenon--


DHILLON: --the Democrats are seizing on any kind of club that they have handy. So, if you got a White man--

CARLSON: --right Whites.

DHILLON: --in front of you, let's beat up on him for being a White man. If it's Brett Carson call him--

CARLSON: Yes, I mean maybe it works.

DHILLON: --Uncle Tom, you know.

CARLSON: Hey, you're right. I mean maybe it works short-term. But it seems like the long-term cost is potentially just way more than we'd ever want to pay.

DHILLON: Very corrosive.

CARLSON: Yes. Harmeet--

DHILLON: Absolutely.

CARLSON: --thank you very much.

DHILLON: You got it.

CARLSON: Well the coverage of the Brett Kavanaugh saga has been really amazing. We've been too busy covering the facts of the case all week to really analyze what they have been saying over in the other channels. But we have been keeping track. And we'll show that to you when we come back.


CARLSON: Viewers, many of them, were moved to tears by Brett Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday before the Senate. Many reporters though ridiculed Kavanaugh and said that he must be a liar based on what he said.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nobody buys that, who went to high school, he sounded like a terrible liar.


STEPHANIE LEIGH RUHLE, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT, ANCHOR, MSNBC LIVE: --all afternoon, the little lies, lying over and over about his yearbook page--


CARLSON: Others mocked Kavanaugh for displaying emotion while defending himself and his family.

Washington Post Columnist Jennifer Rubin, maybe the single most grating person in all media, said this, "With him screaming and interrupting senators I could imagine him putting his hand over someone's mouth," if you can believe it.

The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board, a paper that not one person in America has ever read said this. "A crying Brett Kavanaugh. This is what White male privilege looks like." Yes.

Larry O'Connor is associate editor of The Washington Times. He joins us tonight. So those are mostly opinion outlets that --


CARLSON: --we quoted. They have a right to their opinion. I give my opinions. But you saw reporters who were supposed to be covering this who were supposed to be objective--

O'CONNOR: Oh, yes.

CARLSON: --just weighing in immediately.

O'CONNOR: Weighing in immediately and - and falsely. Katy Tur, MSNBC, a bona fide star reporter over there said that none of the Republicans offered an apology to Dr. Ford and, yet, offered an apology to Brett Kavanaugh. And of course none of the Republicans actually interviewed Dr. Ford.

CARLSON: An apology for what?

O'CONNOR: For - or sympathy to them for what they've - what she had gone through, what she had to endure to come to the committee hearing, and also, I guess, for the alleged sexual assault from all these years ago, not that they were personally apologizing but just expressing sympathy to them.

But, of course, Chuck Grassley, the Chairman, he was the only one who actually spoke with Dr. Ford during the interview. And he did, in fact, offer his sympathy but that's just--


O'CONNOR: --one example of it.

CARLSON: --and so, I used to think the Democratic - that the press was liberal, right?

O'CONNOR: Yes, nice, nice Freudian slip by the way.

CARLSON: Well no, but then, no, what I realize was it's not that they're liberal. It's that they are the shock troops of the Democratic Party. They're being loyal Democrats who were doing the work of the party.

O'CONNOR: None of what we have seen that went on this week that everyone agrees has been an atrocious, atrocious display, 10 days, 11 days, none of it could have taken place without the media. The media made this happen.

CARLSON: Did you see anybody who broke from Democratic Party orthodoxy at all?



O'CONNOR: In fact, Media Research Center did extensive coverage of this, over the last 10 days, how the broadcast networks have covered this thing. 300 and some odd minutes of coverage, 4 percent gave Kavanaugh enough coverage actually to say that Kavanaugh had denied these reports. 1 percent actually said that there were corroborating witnesses that backed up Kavanaugh.

The overwhelming amount of coverage was sympathy for Dr. Ford and showing, you know, the various allegations--

CARLSON: Do you think they--

O'CONNOR: --against Kavanaugh.

CARLSON: --do you think they feel guilty doing unpaid PR work for a political party?

O'CONNOR: I think it's ingrained at this point. I really don't know. And - and listen, we've been in these newsrooms before, and you know how the conversations go.


O'CONNOR: There's nobody in those rooms who will step up and say, wait a minute, there's actually another part of this story. They're taking for granted that Dr. Ford is telling the truth that these allegations did happen.

And listen, could be telling the truth, they could be, but we as objective journalists or they as objective journalists, I'm an opinion guy like you, they're supposed to be looking at the entirety of this story.

CARLSON: It's just text.

O'CONNOR: If - if - if Dr. Ford is not telling the truth, if - if Judge Kavanaugh is in fact being genuine in his testimony, they are willfully ignoring--

CARLSON: Exactly. No, it's totally true.

O'CONNOR: --50 percent of this story.

CARLSON: When the Dem - Republican Party does something I don't like, I say so. I did tonight. If the Democratic Party invaded Canada, NBC as a network would applaud. It's true --

O'CONNOR: The allegation --

CARLSON: --yes.

O'CONNOR: --by the way there's another - all these--

CARLSON: Yes. Oh, sorry they're telling me I've got a hard wrap.

O'CONNOR: --other allegations they're telling are we--

CARLSON: I could--

O'CONNOR: --all right.

CARLSON: --talk about this forever with you--

O'CONNOR: So can I.

CARLSON: --because it enrages me. Larry, thank you.

O'CONNOR: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: After spending two weeks calling Kavanaugh a rapist, the Left now says he has a temperament problem for being annoyed by that. Hmm? More on that next


CARLSON: So, two weeks ago, one person accused Brett Kavanaugh of committing a sex crime in 1982. The four other people present deny it happened. Those are the facts we have on the table. For this, the left has called him a sex criminal, an attempted rapist and tried to destroy his life. He fought back yesterday. Now, his persecutors have a new argument. Watch.


HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: We know one thing, he does not have the temperament to be a judge.

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: He basically had a tantrum and showed that he doesn't have the temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Even just felt like, oh, well that's what he's like when he's angry and belligerent when he's drunk.

SUSAN DEL PERCIO, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: His temperament is just not suited.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he lacks.


CARLSON: Senator Blumenthal fresh from caisson delivering his verdict here. Chris Hahn is an attorney, radio host, and former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer. He joins us tonight.

So, I think this is the most Orwellian argument maybe I've ever seen. So you attack the guy as a sex criminal, an attempted rapist, a drunk, someone who's unfit not just to be a Supreme Court justice but to live in this country, and when he gets mad about it and defends himself, you say "Look at him. He - he's an abuser because he got mad," like what, it's too unfair, actually.

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, RADIO HOST: Well when you're weak on the law, pound the facts. When you're weak on the facts, pound the law. When you're weak on both, pound the table and scream like hell. That's what he did.

Judges are not supposed to scream like hell. They're not supposed to be partisan like he was. And it was quite frankly a disappointing display by Judge Kavanaugh, one that no judge would ever accept.

I worked in the federal courts. I worked in the state courts. I - I have never seen anything like that. That is not something you would expect to see from a--

CARLSON: Right. Except - can I just say this was not in the--

HAHN: --from a level-headed jurist.

CARLSON: OK. But the level-headed jurist was just accused of a sex crime he says he didn't commit. His reputation has been destroyed.

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: He will never work again unless he gets this job. You know that to be true. If I said, Hey, Chris, I have no evidence of it--

HAHN: Well, no, he's got a lifetime appointment. He'll be fine.

CARLSON: --but someone told me anonymously that you're a rapist. And I'm going to tell your kids about it until they don't like you anymore and your neighbors won't speak to you, and you would - I mean he would be very upset. I would be upset. It happened to me. I was upset.

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: It's just OK because it's legitimate--

HAHN: I - and - and - and I would not--

CARLSON: --to be upset, is it not ?

HAHN: --be behaving - I would not be behaving like a Supreme Court judicial nominee. He is a Supreme Court judicial nominee who should always present themselves as such--

CARLSON: So how should senators - how should senators--

HAHN: --and he did not.

CARLSON: --behave? Should senators be, especially Members of Judiciary Committee, should they be honest?

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: Should they be fair? Should they--

HAHN: Senators--

CARLSON: --right, should they stop trying to destroy him for political reasons--

HAHN: --senators should behave however their voters will accept. Senators - senators stand before the voters and are approved by the voters. This man stands before Congress. The standard is higher.

CARLSON: However, voters will accept.

HAHN: He's going for a lifetime appointment, sir.


HAHN: A lifetime appointment, Tucker.


HAHN: Come on.

CARLSON: Whatever it takes.

HAHN: You got to have a higher standard.

CARLSON: Whatever - well that was the most revealing answer I got on --

HAHN: You know--

CARLSON: You know, it's Friday. I'm just at the end of the show--

HAHN: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait--

CARLSON: --I'm sorry. It took this long just to get a really clear answer. They should behave whatever voters call for.

HAHN: Well I - I like to - I like to give--


HAHN: --you - you know I always give you a clear answer, Tucker, which is why you keep me on the air. But here - but - but here - but here's--

CARLSON: I just certainly did. I'll be thinking about it all weekend.

HAHN: --but - but here's the thing, Tucker--

CARLSON: We're - we're almost out of time. Sum it up for me.

HAHN: --the President of the United States Donald - Donald Trump said specifically--

CARLSON: Oh, it's back to Trump.

HAHN: --there should be no doubt. How could we have no doubt after yesterday? I'm sorry. There's plenty of doubts that this that--

CARLSON: It's so interesting. There really aren't --

HAHN: --of Kavanaugh's story.

CARLSON: --there really aren't two countries--

HAHN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: --because I mean this I'm not a partisan Republican. I don't even like the Republicans very much. But I watched him yesterday and I really felt for him. And I turn on the other channels they're like White privilege. I mean it's like we don't--

HAHN: Did you - did you believe her, Tucker?

CARLSON: --see the world the same way at all.

HAHN: I mean the question is, the question is did you believe her?

CARLSON: Yes, yes, I did believe her. Hold on, stop, I believed her--

HAHN: So--

CARLSON: --wait, I believed her. I think she thinks she's telling the truth. There's no evidence she's telling the truth but I believe she believes it. That doesn't make it true. There's a - it's an important distinction.

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: I've always thought she meant that.

HAHN: So most--

CARLSON: And I feel sorry for her. Anyway we're out of time. Chris, thank you.

HAHN: --most - most people who are reliving a traumatic experience will not have evidence of it 30 years later. Let's be clear.

CARLSON: No evidence required, no, just the accusation, thank you.

Well it's been an exhausting week in Washington. We're whipped. You probably are too. What have we learned from it? Dan Bongino has thought deeply. He joins us next.


CARLSON: For two full weeks, we've paid almost exclusively all of our attention to this Brett Kavanaugh nomination story. It's been exhausting and fascinating. We want to talk to Dan Bongino, he's the author of "Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump," to find out what he learned watching. He joins us tonight.

What did you learn from this Dan?

DAN BONGINO, FORMER AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE: Well Tucker, it reminds me of a, you know, famous Havelock Ellis quote, right, that civilization is a thin crust on a volcano. And what I'm--


BONGINO: --starting to learn out there is I don't know how much more, Tucker, people are going to be able to take out there. Friends of mine, only marginally interested in politics at best, are coming up to me in the supermarket, in the store.

I mean that, marginally interested, not even Democrats or Republicans, independent at best, and they can't believe what's happening.

Tucker, if you - if they let this guy go down, Brett Kavanaugh, if they let this character assassination of a father, a basketball coach, a son, and a dedicated public servant go down in flames, if they let this happen, I - I - I can't tell the GOP will be wiped, absolutely wiped out in the mid- terms, it'll be a stain on them forever.

CARLSON: Republican voters like Brett Kavanaugh a lot more than any Republican senator now serving in the Senate. I wonder if they know that.

BONGINO: Tucker, I - I really don't think so. And I - and I don't - listen, I'm exhausted this week. I think you can tell tonight. Everybody is. This is not time to give up the fight. Please don't take that the wrong way in the audience. But I'm worn out.

Like you, I'm in this content creation space. I live this every day. It's exhausting. I'm - I'm really - I've never felt like this. But I'm just begging these guys in Congress and these women on our side, take the damn vote. Take the vote. Get them on the record. If we're going to lose then go down swinging and at least we have--

CARLSON: Exactly.

BONGINO: --something in these mid-terms to hold these people to account on in red states and these Republicans who claim to champion our values. Take the damn vote. It's time to fight.

CARLSON: Exactly. It's like a horror movie. You can see the protagonist about to be killed, "Don't do it. It's a trap." I mean they're so dumb. Dan, thank you very much.

BONGINO: You too.

CARLSON: Great to see you. Have a great weekend.

BONGINO: Got it.

CARLSON: The weekend has come. Monday, our new book comes out, Ship of Fools. It describes pretty much everything we have witnessed not just the last two weeks but for the last two years.

Our politics have completely changed and realigned. It's not anything like it was before Trump was elected. Why? Because Trump was elected because of these changes. And this book explains it all.

If you're confused by what the Left is doing, this book will tell you what it is. Bookstore tour starts Monday. Book is out Tuesday. You can buy it tonight, pre-order it and we hope you will.

We'll see you Monday. We'll be back 8 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Good night from Washington.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.