Why are Tijuana residents being ignored about caravan?

close

Video

Why are Tijuana residents being ignored about caravan?

Liberal radio host Ethan Bearman weighs in on the impact caravan migrants are having on the community of Tijuana, Mexico.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 14, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Think back to the weeks right before the 2016 election. Try to remember what they were telling you. One of the main things they were saying was that if Donald Trump lost the election, he would not accept the results and this would be a deep challenge to our democracy.

Well it turns out, like a lot of what they tell you, this was pure projection because ever since that November, more than two years ago, they've been working not just to ignore the results but also to destroy anybody associated with those results.

Exhibit A is fallen National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn. He really has become the archetype for all of this. Newly filed court documents confirm it. Documents from the Mueller investigation showed just how far the FBI went to destroy Flynn's life.

Trace Gallagher joins us with details on that, Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, when General Michael Flynn's legal team filed court documents saying the FBI discouraged him from bringing a lawyer to the interview, and never advised Flynn that his false statements in that setting could constitute a crime, District Judge, Emmet Sullivan, ordered prosecutors to hand over the government's files related to Flynn's questioning.

And those documents appear to confirm some of Flynn's claims. For example, two FBI agents, including former anti-Trump agent, Peter Strzok, "both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying," and that warning Michael Flynn "might adversely affect the rapport."

And former FBI Director James Comey acknowledged that during the George W. Bush or Obama administrations, he would never have gotten away with sending two agents to the White House. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: In both those administrations, there was process. And so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel, and there'd be discussions and approvals, and it would be there, and I thought "It's early enough. Let's just send a couple guys over."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: President Trump says the feds tricked Flynn into cooperating but Robert Mueller says, "Nothing about the way the interview was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements to the FBI."

You'll recall it was last December Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher for us tonight. Thank you, Trace.

So, here's the quiz. What crimes did Mike Flynn commit? If you were to ask 50 people on the street, what kind of answers would you get?

We'd likely get a full range. Flynn worked for Vladimir Putin. He colluded with the Turks. He was a Russian spy, a secret agent serving a hostile foreign power. He and Carter Page were seen reloading on The Grassy Knoll in Dallas that kind of thing.

The details might be hazy. But everybody you asked would know for certain that General Mike Flynn, after 33 years in uniform, betrayed this country. How did they know that? Because the media told them so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI MELBER, THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER HOST, MSNBC: Do you view him as compromising the national security of the United States?

RALPH PETERS, RETIRED UNITED STATES ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL: Mike Flynn betrayed his country. It is unforgivable.

But the greater crime was what, to me, in my view, was treason.

DAVID EVAN MCMULLIN, FORMER CIA OPERATIONS OFFICER: What Flynn did in supporting a candidate who the Russians were helping through this operation so egregious.

NATASHA BERTRAND, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: He was essentially acting as an unregistered foreign agent.

STEPHEN TYRONE COLBERT, THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT HOST, CBS: It's funny because it's treason.

(CROWD LAUGHING)

(END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Oh, it's treason. That's a pretty heavy charge. It's a death- penalty offense, actually. Did Mike Flynn commit treason?

We know the answer was some precision it turns out because the details are publicly available. Here's what Flynn did. He gave an untrue statement to the FBI about an entirely legal phone call he'd had with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. And that's it.

Mike Flynn did not collude with our enemies. He did not leak national security secrets. He didn't even lie under oath. He simply claimed not to remember talking about a certain subject and the FBI didn't believe him. The government threatened to prosecute Flynn's son, so he pled (ph) guilty. That's what happened.

"Oh, but," say the news anchors, "Flynn lied. He's a liar, unlike us. We never lie. We're good people." But Mike Flynn is not a good person. He's a liar and a criminal. That's what they're telling you. And it's partly true.

Flynn did give inaccurate statements to FBI agents. He's admitted that. Even though he wasn't under oath that is a crime. OK. But what's interesting about all of this is that the FBI also lied to Mike Flynn. And yet, somehow, that's not a crime.

So, to restate, and you should definitely remember this, get a pen, it is OK for the government to lie to you. They do it all the time. Constantly, in fact. But if the government ever catches you in a factual contradiction, you are shafted. They can send you to prison, bankrupt you, threaten your children. That's the system that we have.

America's news anchors think it's great. The system has served them well. They're on the government side on this one, in fact, on most matters. Whatever the ruling class is for, they're fully onboard.

Here, for example, is behavior that the news anchors consider totally fine. That would be in stark contrast to Mike Flynn's dastardly lying. So, here's what we know.

We know that notes taken by Andy McCabe, he was in the Deputy Director of the FBI, show that the Bureau deliberately planned to trick Flynn and take advantage of his friendliness and his stated desire to help their investigation. We know this because Andy McCabe took notes.

And in his notes, he explained that he told Mike Flynn he wanted to interview him, "As quickly, quietly, and discreetly as possible." McCabe suggested that having a lawyer, one of those pesky attorneys present, would be unnecessary and time-consuming, a hassle. "Don't worry about it man."

Well Flynn, and a close associate who we talked to this afternoon, describes him as trusting by nature, agreed to those terms. Obviously, a mistake. He clearly thought he was helping the FBI, but he wasn't. He was walking into a trap.

One of the agents he met was Peter Strzok. Remember the name? He's a political activist who famously promised his mistress he'd help to stop Trump, whatever that means. Well, we're getting a sense of what it means, actually.

According to the FBI's own documents, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok and the rest decided that FBI agents should not warn Flynn that making a misleading statement to the FBI would be a crime.

Now, the analysis suggests that somehow Flynn knew this and he must have been a moron for not bringing a law - a lawyer, and that since he ran an intelligence agency he must have known that any calls with Kislyak would be taped and transcribed.

But that is, in fact, an argument for his innocence. Of course, he knew that the FBI would be able to check everything he said against information they themselves had gathered. So, knowing that, why would he lie? Maybe because he didn't think he was lying.

As Law Professor Jonathan Turley put it yesterday, Flynn's downfall appears to have been engineered from day one. The feds chose their man and then picked the crime to pin on him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: And then Mueller decided to go back and charge him. It became a canned hunt. They put this guy in a cage and they shot him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: They put him in a cage and shot him. Huh! Well just because there's still no evidence of Russian collusion doesn't mean we haven't become a lot more like Russia.

Joe diGenova is a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and he joins us now. I just want to state at the outset, Joe, he lied, say the news anchors, he lied, and he deserves whatever's coming to him. Assess that claim, if you would.

JOSEPH DIGENOVA, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: He did not lie. And, in fact, the FBI knew it. Let's remember what this is about. This was a pre-textual crime created by the FBI and by Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General.

Remember, after the election, Hillary Clinton needed a reason why she lost. Enter Russian collusion. Part of that was to find somebody in the Administration to frame for talking to the Russians. They found General Flynn.

But, in fact, all of General Flynn's conversations with the Russian Ambassador and everybody else were legal. So, why did the FBI approach him? They knew what he said. They knew it was legal. The answer is they wanted to frame him, and they succeeded.

And he did not tell them false information. Some of it may have been paused. It may have been nuanced. He did not lie. And indeed, the agents who actual 302s are available said he didn't lie.

And it's interesting that Mueller did not turn over the original 302s to Judge Sullivan today. He turned over an interview of Agent Strzok, which was done months later by Mueller's people.

The answer is Michael Flynn was framed in order to get at Donald Trump. Sally Yates, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe, all planned it.

What you are watching play out in an American courtroom is one of the most disgraceful events in American criminal justice, and everybody on Mueller's team should be ashamed of themselves, and none of them should ever be allowed to go back into the Department of Justice.

CARLSON: And - and any attorney who advised Michael Flynn to plead guilty to this rather than going public with the frame-up that was happening to him ought to be, I think, disbarred.

Let me ask you though, what do you make of the reaction to it? I think a lot of people watching, even in this channel, pretty well-informed news consumers, are surprised to learn that the - the crime here, the only crime here arises from that interview, the lawyer-less interview in the White House.

Did - Mike Flynn was never charged with colluding with anybody, including the Turks. You've heard all the speculation--

DIGENOVA: Right.

CARLSON: --around how (ph) he's working for Erdogan. He was never charged with any of that. And yet, he's totally been destroyed as a man. His family's been crushed. They're bankrupt. They need to sell their house, on the basis of that one crime. Why doesn't anybody on any other network say, "Wait a second. Could (ph) that be slightly disproportionate?"

DIGENOVA: Well, Tucker, the people on the other networks and the people at the FBI at that time in the Department of Justice wanted one thing. They wanted to find a way to destroy Donald Trump because he wasn't supposed to be elected. But he beat them.

And once they were beaten, they got angry. And then they got vindictive. And then they got vindictive by using the criminal justice system, weaponizing it. And John Brennan at the CIA and James Clapper followed through on their promise threat to figure out a way to get the people that they didn't want elected in order to make up for the fact that she, Hillary Clinton, had lost.

This has become one that - one of the greatest scandals in the history of our country, and the media is ignoring it. And it is - it is - it is truly important that what you are doing by focusing on these stories continue to be done until there's a new Attorney General and there can be a grand jury to find out who was it that leaked the conversation of Michael Flynn with the Russian Ambassador. That was a crime.

CARLSON: Yes.

DIGENOVA: The leak to David Ignatius of The Washington Post exposing General Flynn's con - conversation with the Russian Ambassador was a crime. And the question--

CARLSON: Yes.

DIGENOVA: --tonight is why isn't that crime being investigated?

CARLSON: Because everyone in Washington is deeply invested in our failed foreign policy. And anybody who suggests changing the foreign policy, that they're deeply invested in and get rich from, gets crushed, as you know.

Joe diGenova, thank you.

DIGENOVA: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, the Mike Flynn story, a lot more interesting than it gets credit for being. And it raises some pretty important questions about how our government operates and the rules under which we live in America.

We're going to debate that after the break and react to Michael Cohen's new statements, facing three years in prison on a media tour. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: So, is General Michael Flynn a villain, as they're telling you on television, or, as it increasingly appears, are there deeper lessons that all of us can learn from his case?

Chris Hahn is a progressive radio host and a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, he joins us tonight. Chris, thanks a lot for coming on. So, what's so interesting if you take--

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, PROGRESSIVE RADIO SHOW HOST: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --three steps back, you know, we basically know about the Flynn case pretty much what we knew two years ago, was one count and it's lying. And the news anchors, all of them accomplished liars themselves, are very upset that he's a liar.

But, you know, who else lies a ton is the government. So how - who thought up a system where the government gets to lie to you all it wants, including lies designed to get you to commit crimes, for which you can be prosecuted.

But if you misstate fact or lie, you go to jail and they're considered heroes by all the lying news anchors. How does - are you happy with a system like that?

HAHN: Well--

CARLSON: I'm serious.

HAHN: --he is - he has pled to lying, right--

CARLSON: Yes, yes, he did, for sure.

HAHN: --that means there could--

CARLSON: He pled to lying.

HAHN: --have been other things--

CARLSON: He pled to lying.

HAHN: --there - there could have been - I - I'm an attorney. I've - I've - I've negotiated plea deals. Usually, you don't plea to the worst thing you've done. We don't really know how bad his actions were. We know that he pled to lying. We know that he lied. Joe diGenova was--

CARLSON: Oh, so is that the system that we have?

HAHN: --misstating the facts. He lied--

CARLSON: That if you plead to a crime we assume you've done--

HAHN: --he - he - he has--

CARLSON: --something much worse? I'd - I thought you said you were a lawyer. I--

HAHN: Well, I - I mean, I can only - I can only--

CARLSON: --I thought we judge people on the basis of the legal--

HAHN: --speak - I can only speak--

CARLSON: --outcome. OK.

HAHN: --I - I can only speak to my experience as a lawyer--

CARLSON: Right. OK.

HAHN: --and when you cut a plea deal, it's usually not for the worst thing you've done. It's for the lowest crime--

CARLSON: OK. Well I mean look, if you have evidence that he's done something else--

HAHN: --they're (ph) charging with. So--

CARLSON: --but no but I want to ask you about the government. So, look, I'm not defending lying--

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: --I'm against it. I'm appalled when I see it on television. And I often do.

HAHN: Sure.

CARLSON: But I often, maybe most frequently, see it from government officials. When Jim Clapper gets up and tells the Congress under oath, "NSA isn't spying on American citizens," he - he actually committed perjury under oath. That's totally cool. He got picked up by another channel as - as an Intelligence Analyst.

No consequences whatsoever. They can lie to you without limit and without penalty. But if you, as a citizen, misspeak, you go to jail. So, are you comfortable with that system?

HAHN: Yes, I mean I--

CARLSON: Why aren't they held to the same standards--

HAHN: --I'm not so sure --

CARLSON: --that we are?

HAHN: --I'm - I'm not so sure how that applies here. This man was the National Security Adviser to the President.

CARLSON: No, no, no but - but hold on, wait. Can you - can you just pause - I mean you don't like Trump but hold on--

HAHN: He invited FBI agents into his office and he lied--

CARLSON: --I get it. I get it.

HAHN: --to them.

CARLSON: But, right, OK, that - that's fine. But can you just address the question because I think it's an important question that we should really kind of get straight before we proceed, all of us who live in this country.

The government gets to lie all at once. There's literally nothing you could do about it. But if you misspeak, you go to jail. Are you comfortable with that system? Everybody else, the handmaidens to power--

HAHN: See--

CARLSON: --on the other channel are totally happy with it. Are you - are you happy with it too?

HAHN: It's - it's - it's a slippery slope, Tucker. Well I think we would like everyone to be honest all the time. Are we now saying that people can't go in as undercover agents into a drug ring or a terrorism ring and lie about their identity? So, you're talking about a slippery slope here. These agents--

CARLSON: Well a slippery slope. Well I mean--

HAHN: --went into his office and were having a casual conversation--

CARLSON: --oh, so they might have to face--

HAHN: --with him and he lied.

CARLSON: --consequence. So, you don't have any problems. So, like, if the FBI lies to you in the course of an investigation, and then charges you with lying, that doesn't ring any bells for you? You don't think well maybe that's a system that's inherently unfair? No? Or is that that's totally cool--

HAHN: Tucker, Tucker, look--

CARLSON: --as long as this is being done to someone you don't like?

HAHN: --Tucker, law enforcement - law enforcement agents infiltrate crime rings all the time. And they lie--

CARLSON: Was Mike Flynn running a--

HAHN: --about their identity and they lie about other things to gain access to people. So, let's be clear what you're talking about here. Are you saying that that should stop too?

CARLSON: I don't know. I mean I - I - no, I mean I'm - I'm all for - for cleaning up drug rings and - and stopping espionage and doing the business of law enforcement--

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: --but here you have a--

HAHN: I am all from stopping Washington disappearing (ph) with our--

CARLSON: --you - you have a - you have a very specific situation--

HAHN: --republic.

CARLSON: --hold on (ph). So, you have Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok, both of whom clearly lied. One of them was canned from the FBI for lying. And yet, neither one faced even a suggestion of prosecution because they're immune from that, not in the - in the service of breaking up drug rings, but they just lied, OK?

HAHN: What?

CARLSON: But nobody cares. And everyone's like--

HAHN: What did they - what did they lie? I mean I'm still trying--

CARLSON: --oh, it's OK, they're FBI agents.

HAHN: --I'm--

CARLSON: That doesn't bother you?

HAHN: --I'm still trying to figure out what the lie was to Michael Flynn. I don't believe that they did lie to Michael Flynn.

CARLSON: No, they misled Michael, no but hold on they--

HAHN: They went to Michael Flynn's office. They were asking him questions and he--

CARLSON: Right.

HAHN: --lied to them. I don't know what you're talking about.

CARLSON: OK. No, actually, I'm - I'm--

HAHN: I'm trying to figure - I'm trying to (ph) follow you.

CARLSON: --I'm actually not - wait, hold on, slow down, I'm saying in the case of Andy McCabe, I don't know if you follow the news, but he had to leave the FBI for dishonesty.

HAHN: Sure.

CARLSON: But in this specific case, so but is he going to be prosecuted for that? Should he be? I mean Mike Flynn was.

HAHN: It had nothing to do with--

CARLSON: He pled to because (ph) they threatened his son.

HAHN: --this case.

CARLSON: I mean are there standards that universally applied or they only apply to people whose politics we don't care for?

HAHN: Again, I would like everyone to be honest all the time. Unfortunately, there are some bad--

CARLSON: But not under a threat of prosecution.

HAHN: --people in this world. And we sometimes have to go after them. And you shouldn't be lying--

CARLSON: Uh-huh?

HAHN: --to law enforcement.

CARLSON: OK.

HAHN: And when you're the National Security Adviser to the United States, President of the United States, you should know better than to lie to the FBI.

CARLSON: You should - they should have known better. Yes, they should have known better.

HAHN: In fact (ph) I don't think that was the worst thing--

CARLSON: Buyer, beware. You should know--

HAHN: --I don't think, Tucker--

CARLSON: Yes. You should know--

HAHN: Tucker, I've--

CARLSON: --as an American citizen, the government--

HAHN: --I don't think that's the (ph) worst thing he did.

CARLSON: --can say anything to throw you in prison. But you - you should just know, those are the rules. OK? It's a predatory law enforcement establishment that is lying in wait to wreck your life. And like, if you don't know that, you're just an idiot. That's kind of what you're saying, I guess.

HAHN: Well, was it OK to lie to El Chapo when they infiltrated his drug ring--

CARLSON: El Chapo. I love that. My - it was (ph)--

HAHN: --law enforcement has to do that all the time.

CARLSON: --my favorite response in D.C. It's like if you don't like something, it's like either you don't like kids or you're on El Chapo's side. And I just want to say for the record, I'm anti-El Chapo. Chris Hahn- -

HAHN: I'm glad you're anti-El Chapo.

CARLSON: --I'm anti-El Chapo. And on that--

HAHN: And it was OK to lie there (ph). Good.

CARLSON: --on that note of bipartisan agreement, thank you very much, Chris Hahn.

HAHN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Michael Cohen is doing three years in prison. He was just sentenced. But he doesn't have to report for three months. So instead, he's going on a publicity tour, of course. He was on GMA this morning and he took credit for somehow, this is the best, reuniting a fractured country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER COUNSEL TO TRUMP: The country has never been more divisive. And one of the hopes that I have out of the punishment that I've received as well as the cooperation that I have given, I will be remembered in history as helping to bring this country back together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Michael Cohen, healer of the breach. Dan Bongino is a former Secret Service Agent, Author of the terrific book, Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, and he joins us tonight.

When you see Cohen up on the screen, do you think--

DANIEL JOHN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Right.

CARLSON: --to this is (ph) your first thought, you know, this is a man who's bringing this country together. He's kind of healing the divisions here. He's balm on the soul of a weary country.

BONGINO: You know, it's - talk about hubris. I mean that's like hubris on top of hubris in a hubris - hubris gift-wrap sent to your house in a box of hubris. I mean is he serious with this?

Tucker, Michael Cohen actually is unifying in a way. Both sides agree that Michael Cohen's a snake. Listen, think about this, right?

CARLSON: I know.

BONGINO: The way this works in a criminal case, having arrested people in the federal system and gotting them - excuse me, and - and - and gotten them to flip, you get a 5K letter, it's called. It's a letter written to the judge indicating, "Hey, listen. This guy cooperated, gave us valuable information in the prosecution of - of such-and-such."

Cohen never even got a - a 5K letter from the DoJ, meaning even they don't trust this guy. Tucker, he taped his client. He did - now listen, I'm not suggesting all of this was seemly and on the up-and-up--

CARLSON: No.

BONGINO: --I'm not. I'm simply suggesting to you things happen in the business world, things we may not like. This guy taped his clients. So, yes, he is unifying in that all sides think he's a snake.

CARLSON: He also seems and I - I mean this without cruelty, but he seems a little dumb. And I do feel a little sorry for him. I'm sure I'm the only person in America, if it's a little sorry (ph) I feel sorry for any man headed to prison, I really do. I mean that. I don't care what you did. I feel a little sad for you.

But Michael Cohen seems like he was thrust into this position of prominence, and he's still kind of bewildered like, "How did I get here?"

BONGINO: Yes. You know, I agree with you on one point, and on very serious note (ph), you're right. I think we can all agree Michael Cohen would not be going to prison if he was not associated with Donald Trump. It's clear this was some form of selective justice at this point.

But, on that front, Cohen's handled this horrendously. Tucker, yes, you're in the media business. You know, me too. It's all about snapshots and sound bites, right? You got to be quick. It's a picture and a sound bite.

When the memorable sound bite from your interview with George Stephanopoulos is, "Hey, I'm done lying now," that was the memorable sound bite, you kind of had a bad interview. I'm just going to throw that out there.

CARLSON: I know.

BONGINO: That should not be the takeaway. Now, I'm really done lying. I mean it's over. The guy's not a credible witness. Every side--

CARLSON: No.

BONGINO: --agrees this guy is not a good valuable character guy to testify in their behalf.

CARLSON: No. He--

BONGINO: He should just kind of go away and take his punishment.

CARLSON: He seems hapless to me, not clever enough to be sinister, I think.

BONGINO: No.

CARLSON: Dan, it was great to see you.

BONGINO: Not at all.

CARLSON: Have the best weekend.

BONGINO: You too buddy, take care.

CARLSON: Mexican citizens are increasingly upset with the migrant Caravan that settled in one of their major cities. Do they have a right to be upset? We'll talk to a progressive about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, since it absorbed thousands of unskilled migrants from Central America who came up in that Caravan, Tijuana, Mexico should be well on its way to becoming one of the world's richest cities. At least, you think so based on what you hear every day or read in The Washington Post.

But surprisingly, many people in Tijuana are upset. We've interviewed a couple of times an elected official, a municipal delegate called Genaro Lopez. We talked to him the other night. And he suggests that the Caravan has not actually been that good for Tijuana itself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENARO LOPEZ MORENO, TIJUANA DELEGATE: They're still here. Problems are still going on. There's been like 280 arrests. Before, it was solely for drug possession and being drunk in the streets. Now, it's for breaking and entering into homes. People have even made citizen's arrest of (ph) them. And things aren't very nice here and the neighborhoods is tired of them, the merchants and the schools.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, what exactly is the matter with these people in Mexico? Why don't they like this Caravan?

Ethan Bearman is a California radio host and he joins us tonight. Ethan, thanks a lot for coming on. So, I guess--

ETHAN BEARMAN, LIBERAL RADIO SHOW HOST: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: --the reason we keep going back to this topic, and let me just stipulate, as I have before with you, that I - I like immigration. I like immigrants. I give every person in the Caravan the benefit of the doubt. I think most really do want to come here for a better life.

What infuriates me is that nobody gives the residents of any country into which immigrants for (ph) the benefit of the doubt. All of them are dismissed immediately as bigots if they don't like it.

What's so striking is that nobody in the Left is saying anything about the reaction of Mexican citizens in Tijuana to this Caravan, who are sounding like Donald Trump, all of a sudden. Why are people ignoring this?

BEARMAN: I don't know that they are ignoring it because we definitely recognize the plight of human beings that who have crossed from one of the poorest countries in the world that had 36 years of Civil War and is now the conduit of the cartels for exporting drugs to the United States.

And that's what we're talking about with these people who are camped out there. You know, there - there are issues, obviously.

Anytime you take a couple of thousand people and stick them in a stadium and tell them to just wait there with an unknown amount of time before they're going to be processed for asylum, you would have trouble with an unknown amount of time that you're stuck in a place as well, while you're trying to figure out how to bring your family to a country for a new life.

CARLSON: I - I believe that. And I probably wouldn't engage in any home invasions during that time. But, you know, who knows? Maybe it's a situational response. But here's what I'm, so again I was (ph), struck by, is everybody I talked to says we have deep sympathy for the plight of these migrants. And - and I said at the outset, and I mean it, I have sympathy too.

I've never heard anybody in the Left say, you know, we have deep sympathy for like normal people who just want to pay their taxes and send their kids to school, and their lives are being overturned by this. There's an effect on the people who live there when new people come.

And nobody cares about them at all. Even in Tijuana, nobody cares about them. Why is that?

BEARMAN: Well I think people do care about them. But here's the issue. We have a--

CARLSON: Really? Who were (ph) their champions?

BEARMAN: --we have two-fold problem. One, we - we - we - wait, champ - we have - we have a problem of governments failing but - both Mexican and U.S. governments failing to deal with this human refugee crisis. And then the people are stuck with that problem in the local community, especially, in places like Tijuana.

And on top of it all, yes, we always have a problem with the other. There are deep-seated issues of implicit bias--

CARLSON: Well but wait a second - wait a second--

BEARMAN: --of people of (ph) a different economic status--

CARLSON: --OK, see, I know (ph) what you're - what you're saying is the people of Tijuana are bigots. And - and before we reach that conclusion, I think it's fair to look at the facts. So, there is at least one school in Tijuana that's been closed for three weeks because they can't open.

People want to send their kids to school in Tijuana, in any place. There's trash all over the streets. It's super expensive. And there's been a crime spree. So, all I want from you and from everyone on the Left is an acknowledgement that there are real concerns that are not rooted in bigotry but that are rational and it's fair to be upset about this.

But no one will give the benefit of the doubt to normal people, ever. Why?

BEARMAN: Well there's - there's definitely a right to be concerned about trash and - and the inability to send your kids to school and the environment and everything else.

CARLSON: The crime?

BEARMAN: But again--

CARLSON: Is it OK being (ph)--

BEARMAN: --blaming you got to figure out who--

CARLSON: --upset about crime?

BEARMAN: --yes, of course, you can be upset. You should be upset about crime.

CARLSON: Yes.

BEARMAN: And that is a problem. But you have to look at what the causes are and who's responsible for what is actually happening. You're taking people who have a - a - a problem with getting food.

67 percent of people from Guatemala have an inability to have regular access to food. They have extreme poverty. They're still dealing with the aftermath of a 36-year Civil War. They're still dealing with the aftermath of the United Fruit Company--

CARLSON: It's a--

BEARMAN: --that the United States sent down there and created the idea of--

CARLSON: --oh, oh, spare me the United Fruit Company. I mean, look, it was- -

BEARMAN: --a Banana Republic. We - we have all of these--

CARLSON: --it was a tough comp - country before--

BEARMAN: --yes, we did that. And that's the term Banana Republic--

CARLSON: --the United Fruits were planting (ph) bananas there.

BEARMAN: --Tucker.

CARLSON: OK. But - OK, but again, I see all these religious figures, very self-righteous religious figures show up and say, "We're on the side of the migrants." Why do I never see anybody show up and say, we're on the side of just the normal people of Tijuana who aren't rich and have prosaic concerns like the rest of us?

Why does no one if - on the Left ever go up and say, we're going to stand up for you?

BEARMAN: Well, I'm not sure I have a good answer for you there because the government and the way the system is set up--

CARLSON: Exactly.

BEARMAN: --is for the citizens that are there in places like Tijuana or here in the United States. And we're talking about a refugee crisis that's happening, an asylum crisis--

CARLSON: Yes.

BEARMAN: --the earth (ph) of human beings and children. We just had the seven-year-old who died crossing over--

CARLSON: Yes, it's - it's terrible. It's terrible--

BEARMAN: --in New Mexico because it's a desert (ph)--

CARLSON: --but I mean what about people in (ph)--

BEARMAN: So, we have a responsibility.

CARLSON: I guess. But we also have a responsibility to the people who already live in Tijuana and already live in this country, and they feel like no one cares about them, and that's why they elected Donald Trump, so like someone should care about them or else they're going to get madder, don't you think?

BEARMAN: Well, of course, I do care about my fellow citizens.

CARLSON: OK. Good.

BEARMAN: I - I - I clearly do. But the issue is again--

CARLSON: Yes.

BEARMAN: --you can't just kick people to the curb because you don't like them because they're refugees, and we view people of different socio and economic status with - with a bias, implicit bias. Go take the Harvard--

CARLSON: Right.

BEARMAN: --one of their tests from Project Implicit. It's - it's a--

CARLSON: Couldn't get into Harvard. But I - I see--

BEARMAN: --it's a great way to understand how - how you feel.

CARLSON: --what you're saying. Ethan, thank you very much.

BEARMAN: No, online, Tucker. Online, thank you.

CARLSON: What is it like to be inside a radical cell? We're going to speak, for the first time, a very interesting story, to a man who spent years as an anarchist in this country, very much like Antifa. What was that like? Well like a cult, actually. He'll explain it to us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the violent Left is a growing force in American politics and life from here in Washington to Portland, Oregon, to the Bay Area. And yet, even now, movements like Antifa remain mostly mysterious to news consumers. You, most of the time, just see them when they riot, couple 30-second clips, and that's about it.

What is it like inside these groups? And what motivates their members? Conor Barnes spent years as part of an anarchist community. He later left the movement, and has published a pretty remarkable essay about his experiences in Quillette, which is excellent, by the way.

Conor Barnes joins us tonight. Conor, thanks a lot for coming on. I - I was really struck by--

CONOR BARNES, FORMER ANARCHIST: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --your piece. I don't think I've ever read an account - I know I've never read an account of what it's like to be at - at the center of something like this. By the way, I - I've no idea what your politics are now. I'm not even going to ask you.

But I was interested that you described this as like a religious community almost.

BARNES: Yes. Yes, there is a - a really strong faith-based component. You become absolutely sure that you're right and nothing's going to sway you from it. You've - you've set your course. You figured it out.

CARLSON: So, it didn't seem, from your description, like there were a lot of other inputs coming into the cell. It seemed almost totally self- referential. You talk only to people--

BARNES: Yes.

CARLSON: --you're in it with. What are the things that you convinced yourself of, or were convinced of when you were in this cell?

BARNES: Yes. Oh, just, gosh, everything. You were able to find what was wrong with everything from school to government to police to any interaction people had, you can find what's wrong with it. It's a - it's not a very happy way to live.

CARLSON: What was your view of violence?

BARNES: So, violence - there's a - there's a shifty way people talk about it. Direct action and diversity of tactics, which is a subtle way of saying if somebody wants to be violent, we're going to turn our head and be OK with it.

CARLSON: So, it's not a non-violent movement?

BARNES: No, no, no, no.

CARLSON: Huh?

BARNES: It's a--

CARLSON: How did you - how did you get into it?

BARNES: I was a pretty unhappy teenager. And I'm told that happens a lot to teenagers. And I went looking for an explanation. And I ended up just reading a lot of radical literature, and found more and more radical literature, until I found things that explained that happiness wasn't something you had much control over. Capitalism was keeping you down.

CARLSON: Yes. What - what spurred you to leave it?

BARNES: Yes. There were - I'd say there were two components. There was - there are nasty people in the scene, and I got mixed up with somebody and that kind of shook me out of my headspace and forced me to reconsider things.

And I just started reading wider and wider literature and, you know, I encountered gradual things that made me go, oh, that totally changes, you know, that - that can't be true. You know, you - you get shocked out of the cult bit by bit.

CARLSON: Huh? Huh, interesting. Conor Barnes, I - I just want to say again to our audience, if you haven't read this piece, it's on Quillette. It's just so interesting. I've never seen anything like it. I really appreciate your--

BARNES: Not so much (ph).

CARLSON: --coming on tonight. Thank you.

BARNES: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Colleges are banning comedians from telling offensive jokes when they perform. Is that the same as banning comedy entirely? Pretty much. We'll talk to a censored comedian after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well free speech has been ebbing away on college campuses, of course, for many years. Now, colleges seem increasingly unable to take a joke, literally.

Konstantin Kisin is a comedian. He's the host of the YouTube show, TRIGGERnometry. He was recently invited to perform at a college in London.

But the group that invited him asked that he sign a contract promising not to engage in any way in, "Racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-religion, or anti-atheism," that's a long list.

What was he supposed to joke about? Well, we've asked him to come on tonight to tell us. Mr. Kisin, thank you very much for coming on. First, is that real?

KONSTANTIN KISIN, CREATOR AND CO-HOST OF TRIGGERNOMETRY: Thank - thank you.

CARLSON: Is that - did you make up that list as just (ph) a comedy bit?

KISIN: No, it's not. It's been very good for my comedy. But, actually, if - if you go further into the contract, they also demanded that all jokes must be respectful and kind, which I think really takes the biscuit. And, as you know, I was born in the Soviet Union. And this really - getting this contract made me feel right at home.

CARLSON: It's - it's a - it's a - it's a little ham-handed, I would say. But what is it - I mean you're a working comedian. That's why - why I'm so grateful you're on. What is your life like now?

KISIN: Well it is getting very sensitive. And I think this is obviously an outline. No one would suggest that every university and college is like this.

CARLSON: Right.

KISIN: But I think the reason that I made a stand on this issue is I don't want it to get worse. I don't want this to--

CARLSON: Yes.

KISIN: --continue.

CARLSON: So, but it's so striking that this is being applied to comedians, these standards. They're being applied to all of us. We're all terrified. All of us live in fear. And freedom, really, is evaporating.

But comedians used to be the one group that, by definition, was allowed to be transgressive because that's the whole point of comedy, saying the thing everyone else is afraid to say. Is it ominous, do you think, that comedians aren't even allowed to practice comedy?

KISIN: I think so - I think so. We're - we're the canary in the coal mine. And I think this is why it's gone viral. I think it's nothing to do with comedy, this story, actually. The reason that people all around the world--

CARLSON: Yes.

KISIN: --are tuning in and - and watching the video we recorded of - of this is because it's not about comedy. It's about ordinary people up and down the country in here in Britain and in America--

CARLSON: Yes.

KISIN: --feeling like they can't say what they think. I've had so many messages from people messaging me, all kinds of people. Sometimes women going, you know what, I don't agree with radical feminism. And if I say that in the workplace tomorrow, I won't have a job anymore.

So, what it's coming to is the fact that everybody feels like we're - we're all kind of under arrest. We are all - all--

CARLSON: Exactly.

KISIN: --everything we say can and will be used against us in a court of public opinion.

CARLSON: Yes.

KISIN: And they're coming for the comedians first because we're - we're the ones that, as you say, are allowed to transgress. But everybody else feels it. And that's why the story's got the resonance that it has.

CARLSON: It's not - this is not sustainable, this moment. Thank Heaven. Konstantin, thank you very much. God bless you for what you're doing. I appreciate it.

KISIN: Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well a--

TEXT: CAMPUS CRAZINESS.

CARLSON: --a free speech non-profit has sued the University of Texas saying the school has suppressed speech.

Like many colleges, Texas has a special bias response team armed or unarmed, I'm not sure. But their purpose is to investigate alleged bias incidents at the school. More than a 100 such investigations have occurred in just the past year and a half.

Nicki Neily is the President of Speech First that filed the lawsuit, and she joins us tonight. Nicki, thank you very much for coming on. What does your suit allege?

NICOLE NEILY, SPEECH FIRST PRESIDENT: Sure. So, we allege that the University of Texas has four unconstitutional policies on the books.

They have a verbal harassment policy, a campus climate response team, a bias response team, as you said, an acceptable use policy, which governs all internet and digital use on the - on the - on the campus, and then their residence hall manual.

And all of those policies violate students' First and 14th Amendment rights because students are terrified to express their opinions. They don't know what they can be in trouble for. These policies are written so broad with such bizarre vague terms that students out of an - out of an abundance of caution just self-censor because they're terrified.

CARLSON: So, this is like downtown Kandahar circa 2000, where the religious police come around in squads to check--

NEILY: Right. Well it's - it's very much--

CARLSON: --to make sure that you're morally appropriate.

NEILY: --yes, these terms are very vague. It's definitely in the eye of beholder. So, you know, what is offensive to me might not be offensive to you. But there are terms like rude, uncivil, insulting, derogatory. And so, I mean, you know--

CARLSON: Do they have enforcement power? Are there penalties for those who- -

NEILY: There are enforcement penalties, yes.

CARLSON: Oh, wow.

NEILY: So, for the acceptable use policy, if you were to send a rude or uncivil email, you could be subject to a suspension and you might even be referred to the police for criminal prosecution, so.

CARLSON: Is there any, buried in the regulations, any hard definition of what rude is?

NEILY: No, there's not. And there - therein lies the trouble. The devil's in the details because you have a bunch of unelected campus administrators and bureaucrats who are going to be the ones who are defining that.

The verbal harassment policy actually says language that is not necessary to communicating political, philosophical, religious ideas, who's defining what's necessary?

I mean is it going to be me as somebody who believes in the Constitution saying what's necessary or is it going to be someone who works for - for the Diversity and Inclusion Bureaucracy determining what's necessary?

CARLSON: I don't understand how a state school can ignore the Bill of Rights.

NEILY: There you go. That's why we sued them.

CARLSON: Well, I don't know what's going to happen. But I know I'm rooting for you. Thank you very much.

NEILY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

Well time now for The Friend Zone.

TEXT: THE FRIEND ZONE.

CARLSON: Friend Zone. We bring on one of our friends here at Fox on to the show. Dion Baia is one of our best friends here at Fox. He's one of the people who helps this place run. He's worked here for years as a Studio Tech. He appears on Your World with Neil Cavuto.

And he has just written a novel, which I have read. It's called Blood in the Streets. Dion joins us now. So impressive that you went - by the way, the obvious question, when did you write this?

DION BAIA, ACTOR, BLOOD IN THE STREETS AUTHOR: Well, geez, I wrote this back, it started as a screenplay, so I wrote this years ago, 2003 to maybe 2006, and then I ended up turning it into a novel in 2012.

And that was around the time you read it and, you know, you were so great to - to look it over and all that. And then it just took a couple years of refining it before I was able to, you know, get it out there to market, so to speak.

CARLSON: Why did you write a screenplay and then a novel?

BAIA: I wanted to make it a movie. It was - it's - it's a - the - the book and - and its context now is very cinematic in my - I went to film school. My original idea was to make a movie and write myself in as like, say, Quentin Tarantino would do.

So, I wrote the screenplay. And then, I just couldn't get anybody to look at it for a couple years. So, I didn't want to give up. So, I had the idea well maybe it'll be easier turning it into a novel and getting it published that way.

So, in 2012, I turned it into a novel, and then it took a couple years and I finally got it out that way as this brain-spanking new novel, Blood in the Streets.

CARLSON: Amazing. Set where?

BAIA: In New Haven, Connecticut, where I was born and raised in the 1970s. So, it's a - it's kind of an homage to like, you know, the 70s gritty cop films, and it's a fiction but it is in a historical context set within New Haven in the 1970s.

CARLSON: Interesting. This is one of those books that, I think, really has only been read inside Fox News. I keep getting texts and emails about "Have you read this book? It's great."

BAIA: Yes, well thank you.

CARLSON: What's the reaction - what - have people outside the channel read it and what's the reaction, Baia?

BAIA: People close to me have and they've been messaging me that they like it. And I think they're just, you know, maybe they're just being nice.

It's just so weird because I've been with the material so long in my head that it's now surreal that I never envisioned it now getting out there and that people are going to actually have a reaction to it and come up to me and ask me, you know, questioning me about it.

So, it's just kind of - it's almost I'm taken aback by that, you know, that people are actually interested in - in talking to me about it. And I'm like "Wow, I never saw this day coming." So, it's surreal.

CARLSON: Better than the alternative.

BAIA: Yes.

CARLSON: I've written ignored books before so (ph)--

BAIA: Yes.

CARLSON: Super quick, are you writing a sequel?

BAIA: Yes, yes, there is a sequel, which will be a prequel, yes, which--

CARLSON: A sequel which will be a prequel?

BAIA: Yes, a prequel to this. So--

CARLSON: Yes. I'm - I'm too dyslexic to understand what that means but it sounds excellent and I'll be--

BAIA: Yes.

CARLSON: --reading that one too.

BAIA: Yes.

CARLSON: Dion, it's great to see you.

BAIA: Tucker, thank you so very much.

CARLSON: Congratulations, man.

BAIA: Good to see you too.

CARLSON: You're a published Author of a novel, which is--

BAIA: Yes.

CARLSON: --not easy.

BAIA: Yes, thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well this is a Fox News Alert, and certainly surprising.

A Federal Judge in Texas has just struck down Obamacare, true story. Judge Reed O'Connor says the individual mandate, the part of the law that requires you to participate, is unconstitutional, and because it cannot be separated from the let - rest of the law, which it cannot be, the entire law is invalid.

Now, the individual mandate, you'll remember, was previously upheld by the Supreme Court. But on the grounds that it was a tax, the fine for not following the mandate was eliminated last year. So, O'Connor says this makes that ruling invalid (ph) because it's no longer a tax. The ruling is certain to be appealed - appealed, obviously.

Obamacare, by the way, was passed on March 21st, 2010. It was signed three days later. Wow! Didn't see that coming. We'll continue to follow it, obviously.

That's it for tonight and for the week. Man, it went fast like all good things. We'll be back Monday at 8:00, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. DVR it if you can figure out how to do that. Tell us if you can.

Mr. Chaffetz, in for Sean, right now. Have a great weekend.

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