After being bombarded with harassment, do Covington students have any legal recourse?

close

Video

After being bombarded with harassment, do Covington students have any legal recourse?

Attorney Libby Locke weighs in on the students' options to bring forward defamation and libel claims.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” The State of the Union address is still scheduled to take place next week. But it's not clear where it will be delivered. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has said the President is not welcome in the House. Latest on that, just ahead.

But first, there was a brief moment, a small window at the beginning of this week, when it seemed possible that our media establishment might look inward and learn something useful about itself. Humiliation, as always, is the best teacher, and they were definitely humiliated.

In the space of just a few days, two separate high-profile news stories turned out to be utterly fraudulent. First, BuzzFeed announced that former Trump Lawyer, Michael Cohen had been coached to commit perjury by the President of the United States.

The cable news caucus immediately erupted in glee, "Finally, we got him!" until Robert Mueller's office weighed in to point out that the story, thrilling as it sounded, wasn't strictly speaking true. So, that was embarrassing.

And then, just 24 hours later, our entire Ruling Class united as one to crush a group of Catholic school boys from Kentucky, who would apparently behave disrespectfully toward an American Indian man here in Washington.

A short video clip on social media appeared to tell that story. The only problem was there were other, much longer videos of the very same event, and they revealed a very different truth. The students from Covington Catholic did not harass anyone. In fact, they were the ones being harassed. Ouch!

Various media luminaries swiftly deleted their scolding tweets. Some even apologized for them for getting it wrong. Self-awareness made a rare appearance in the National Press Corps. But the moment passed quickly.

It is always painful to concede your mistakes, especially the mistakes you make because you've allowed mindless stereotypes rather than facts to shape your understanding of the world. Nobody wants to admit that. It's much easier to blame others. And so, the media did just that.

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a story that summed up the new consensus on the Covington students. Here it is. "A viral story spread. The mainstream media rushed to keep up. The Trump Internet pounced."

Got it? The real villains here are not the journalists who pushed for innocent kids to be expelled from school, and punched in the face. The real bad guys are the people who are offended by the fake story. They're the ones who "Pounced." That's what bad people do in Washington Post headlines. They pounce.

So, having absolved themselves of any wrongdoing and recast themselves as the real victims here, the media went back on the offensive against the Covington students. One of those students, a boy called Nick Sandmann made the mistake of going on NBC this morning, and here's what happened next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH CLARK GUTHRIE, CO-ANCHOR OF TODAY, NBC NEWS: Do you feel from this experience that you owe anybody an apology? Do you see your own fault?

Have you looked at that video and thought about how it felt from the - the others' perspective? In other words, there were a lot of you, a handful of the others. Do you think they might have felt threatened by a bunch of young men kind of beating their chests?

Do you think if you weren't wearing that hat, this might not have happened, or it might have been different?

There's something aggressive about standing there, standing your ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes. There's something aggressive about standing there. Failing to move is a hostile act. We can't have people standing still in public places. Get a move on, son. That's what NBC is telling us. Just kidding.

NBC is actually fine with people standing around, most people anyway. Go ahead and make the case for loitering laws and see what happens. NBC will attack you was a fascist before you finish the sentence.

NBC just doesn't think that people like Nick Sandmann should stand in place. It's "Aggressive."

George Orwell imagined a world like this 70 years ago in 1984. For the disfavored, Orwell wrote, "The smallest thing could give you away, a nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself. To wear an improper expression on your face was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it, facecrime."

Nick Sandmann committed facecrime on Friday. There was just something about his face, something aggressive and sneering. For that crime, some of our superiors don't believe that Nick Sam - Sandmann ought to be allowed to speak in public.

Let MSNBC's Eddie Glaude explain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDDIE GLAUDE, CHAIR, CENTER FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES: There was this attempt to kind of give a fuller account of the young man. And I think a lot of folks were asking the question, when - why do we always do this in these sorts of cases, when White boys are involved?

We give privilege to these White kids. He can sit down with Savannah Guthrie and redeem himself, but then there are all of these other folk who we just presume, you know, who aren't so innocent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Privilege! That's the real problem here. Nick Sandmann has too much privilege, so says the tenured Princeton professor with the cable contract. That Professor, by the way, works nine months a year for a guaranteed salary that puts him in the top 2 percent of all wage-earners in this country.

His day job has so few demands that he can spend most of his time sitting around a TV studio, wearing makeup. And yet, he is still the victim of Nick Sandmann's privilege.

The Ivy League professor has far less privilege than Nick Sandmann who is a Catholic school student from one of the country's poorest states, way less privileged, doesn't even compare. That's the case they're making.

Let's be honest. This entire conversation isn't really related to what happened outside the Lincoln Memorial last Friday. The people who are angriest at Nick Sandmann and his classmates don't actually care what happened there. They don't even know.

They haven't watched the video. They don't plan to. This is not an argument about facts and evidence and truth. It's an argument about identity. The Kentucky students are being attacked for who they are, not for what they did or didn't do.

The sooner the rest of us understand that, the sooner we will understand what is at stake here. Everything is at stake here, most specifically, our ability collectively to live at peace in a multi-ethnic society.

There's no longer an overwhelming majority group in this country. It is a diverse country, as we're often told. There's nothing wrong with that. But it takes thoughtful leaders to pull it off. The presumption of equality is a prerequisite for a diverse country.

Once people start believing that some groups are inherently inferior to other groups, "They have more privilege. They shouldn't be allowed to stand in public. There's something about their faces we don't like," when people start thinking that, the whole project falls apart.

People start hating each other. And not hating each other for their opinions, we could fix that. People's views evolve over time. Political divisions can heal, and often do. But fights over identity do not. They are different.

Identity does not change. It cannot be moderated or controlled. It's inherent. We're born that way. When we go to war over who we are, it is a permanent battle. It is a disaster that lasts for generations.

Identity politics will destroy this country faster than a foreign invasion. You should know that as you listen to them push it relentlessly as they relentlessly do.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and he joins us tonight. Professor, thank you very much for coming on.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION SENIOR FELLOW: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, we've really passed the stage where we're debating what these boys did or did not do, or the other participants in the moment did or did not do. This is really a debate over whether some groups are good and others are evil. Is there any resolving a debate like that?

HANSON: No. I think one side wins and one side loses. I think we're in a age of unreality where there's a big truth and that's predicated on your race and gender and class, and then there's little things like facts, testimony, actual events, empiricism, and that doesn't matter.

And in that divide, unfortunately, these students had nothing going for them. They were White. They were male. They were Catholic. They were at a pro-life demonstration. They had hats on.

And Mr. Phillips had everything going for him, didn't matter where he lied about almost every circumstance that he was involved in. The eight (ph) videos could not be corroborated with what he said in various interviews. But he posed as a die-hard hero in Vietnam that had fought for smarmy little Brett Kavanaughs (ph) like these kids.

And once that narrative took over, that was the truth. And had the kids been a minority ancestry or had they been at a pro-life demo - pro-choice or they had pussy hats on or they had been female then, and had Mr. Phillips been White and a real combat veteran who was, you know, humming a Country-Western song and did the exact same things, then all of these people would weight in in a different manner because--

CARLSON: Well that's right.

HANSON: --they wanted to get in on the social media lynch mob because they understood that they could virtue-signal and the preponderance, the heft, the centrifugal force in this era that we live on is with identity politics.

So, whether it was Mr. Morrissey, the Disney Producer who was actually tweeting that they should be put in a woodchipper, and then illustrated what would happen to them, he understood that the Disney Corporate World would reward that behavior.

And if he had did something else, they - they wouldn't. And they would excuse that if he was wrong. And even my friend (ph)--

CARLSON: But - but - but can I ask you just--

HANSON: --among the narrative (ph).

CARLSON: --this is so bewildering--

HANSON: Yes. Yes.

CARLSON: --because this way of looking at the world allows people to protect what they have. So, here you have a--

HANSON: Yes.

CARLSON: --tenured, guy with a sinecure job at some mediocre university, but a job for life, it is very high-paying, describing some Catholic school's kid from one of the poorest states in the country, as having more privilege than he does.

I mean that's prima facie ludicrous. But everyone, sort of, nods in agreement. "That's right. He's privileged. We're not here on TV" like--

HANSON: Well - well they do--

CARLSON: --how does that - how does that stand?

HANSON: Because they don't believe in anything. They don't understand - they put their finger in the air, and they see where are the career rewards, and where's the downside. And the downside is not there because they want to get ahead early, and they want to get mean on - on their social media.

And then they not only feel better about themselves, but then people admire them. And that's where the career rewards are to be found.

What - what - what - what - how does it benefit you, Tucker, to say, "I think these kids, we should look at the evidence, and give them the benefit of the doubt just like we should give Mr. Phillips, and adjudicate it on evidence?"

Then, you're old-fashioned. You're supporting the old racist, sexist class order. And there - there's nothing in for it. Most of the money the universities, the professional sports, entertainment, popular culture, it's all on one side, and people make the necessary adjustments.

And so, they - they - that's what this was all about. It's about a higher truth. It's social justice, quality result rather than of opportunity. And we're not empirical anymore because that's for losers, and that's where the rewards are in society. Even a Congress - Congresswoman Omar understood that. Everybody understood that. And that's why--

CARLSON: No, that's right.

HANSON: --they wanted to get on record as early as they could, and as mean as they could that their fides was on question. They're - they're just like the mob in the French Revolution about 1790 during the Jacobin Robespierre phase or Ancient Athens.

And when you get in these rev - revolutionary cycles of extremism then yes - today's extremism, putting somebody's head in a woodchopper is yesterday's passe moderation. It's just a spiral. And that's what we're in. And it's going to--

CARLSON: No, you're - you're totally right.

HANSON: --it's going to continue until somebody stands up and says, "I don't - I'm not going to take this anymore. I'm going to say what I want. Shame on you! And you're going to be fired. You're going to be sued. You're going to be held accountable."

But we haven't got to that point yet.

CARLSON: Well I hope we get there soon. Professor, thank you very much for that.

HANSON: I do too. Thank you for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: After being vilified by the press and Members of Congress, the Covington students and their families faced a wave of harassment and threats. Yesterday, the Head of the - the High School had to cancel classes. Do these students have any recourse, any defense when the strongest members of our society try to crush them?

Well this morning on Fox & Friends, Lawyer Robert Barnes warned that media outlets could be sued if they don't retract the slander against these students. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT BARNES, ATTORNEY HELPING COVINGTON STUDENTS: By Friday, everybody needs to retract incorrect, any false statements they have issued about these kids. That includes any major member of the media. That includes any major celebrity. That includes anybody with a substantial social media platform.

If you've said anything false about these kids, they are willing to extend you a 48-hour time period, a period of grace, consistent with their Christian faith for you to, through confessions, get redemption, and retract and correct and apologize.

If you do not, the next week, you may be a defendant in a lawsuit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: All right. No idea if that guy knows what he's talking about. But our next guest does.

Libby Locke is an Attorney who represented the UVA Dean after she was defamed in the famous Rolling Stone fraternity gang rape story, which turned out to be an utter fabrication. Libby Locke joins us tonight.

Libby, thanks very much--

LIBBY LOCKE, CLARE LOCKE LLP FOUNDING PARTNER: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --for coming on. You have deep experience in this. The broader question is, how do the weakest members of our society, high school kids--

LOCKE: Yes.

CARLSON: --defend themselves when the strongest people in our society, those with tenured positions and cable shows, defame them?

LOCKE: Sure.

CARLSON: What's their recourse?

LOCKE: Sure. Well they can bring defamation claims or claims for false-late (ph), Tucker. There are a lot of potential defendants here that they could pursue. You know, with all due respect to Mr. Barnes, some of the ideas that I've heard him express are - are not viable options.

You can't bring a Class Action for defamation. And you certainly can't sue a Congresswoman for tweets that she made as well (ph).

CARLSON: You can't - so that's reverent (ph) because we have a new Democratic Member of Congress who accused these boys in tweets of things that are clearly not supported by the evidence on videotape. So, they're lies. They can't sue her?

LOCKE: No. She has absolute immunity under Federal Statutory Law. And this is exactly where these students need to take Donald - Donald Trump's invitation, President Trump's invitation, and go to the White House and encourage President Trump to open up the Libel laws.

CARLSON: So - so - so wait, why would a Member of Congress - if I, as a private citizen, attack someone, say something that's I know is untrue, and accuse them of a crime, for example, I could be sued. But a Member of Congress can't be? Why?

LOCKE: No. There's something called the Westfall Act.

The Westfall Act creates blanket immunity for all federal employees, including Members of Congress for stupid comments, false comments, all sorts of different claims that you could bring against a Member of - of Congress, an employee or another normal citizen are exempted for federal employees.

And there are some claims that federal employees can - can be brought against them, but defamation is not one of them at this time.

And this is where Donald Trump - President Trump should really fulfill his campaign promise, to open up the Libel laws here. This is one of the areas where federal law prevents Mr. Sandmann and his family from getting recourse against this Democrat Member of Congress.

CARLSON: So, if an employee of a news organization writes something that is provably untrue and damaging to someone much weaker than he is, and that happened a lot over the weekend, that person's news organization is not responsible for it, right?

LOCKE: Well, they can be. They absolutely can be.

Here, Mr. Sandmann is a private figure. He's not a public figure. You're not going to have the New York Times versus Sullivan actual malice standard that higher burden that would apply is not going to apply to him as a private figure.

So, liability here is on a negligent standard. That's a much lower standard. And the media outlets who published this stuff, and didn't reach out to him for comment, I think they have real legal risk here, Tucker.

CARLSON: Would you recommend to the families of these boys whose lives, I think, it's fair to say, will be overshadowed by this--

LOCKE: Yes.

CARLSON: --deeply and it's deeply unfair, would you recommend that they pursue a legal course?

LOCKE: Absolutely. They should hire experienced defamation counsel, someone not just an experienced lawyer, but someone who knows this area of the law, and who can really evaluate legal claims. It's what we did in the UVA case- -

CARLSON: Yes.

LOCKE: --where we were looking at federal versus state court, which jurisdiction, because look, this is an area where you don't want to swing and miss, because if you lose even on a procedural issue, it's going to be reported as a vindication--

CARLSON: Right.

LOCKE: --of the truth of - of - of the - of the defamation.

CARLSON: Libby Locke, one of the most successful lawyers in this small but important field. Thank you.

LOCKE: Thanks so much for having me.

CARLSON: Well Nancy Pelosi has ended for now the traditional State of the Union that takes place before a joint session of Congress. The battle with the President and Pelosi continues.

Trace Gallagher has the very latest on that. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker.

This State of the Union standoff fully materialized today. But it was back on January 3rd with the shutdown already underway that Speaker Pelosi first invited President Trump to the House Chamber on January 29th.

Then on January 16th, Pelosi wanted the speech delayed over security concerns. Now the Secret Service and DHS have knocked down those concerns, and the President today sent Pelosi a letter saying in part, "I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty."

That's when Pelosi responded by disinviting the President, quoting again, "The House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President's State of the Union address."

That written back and forth led to this verbal back and forth. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP: Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy, as I call her, she doesn't want to hear the truth, and she doesn't want to hear, more importantly, the American people hear the truth.

NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The government is still shut down. I still make the offer as for the mutually agreeable date, as the original date was, mutually agreeable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Meantime, the President is now looking for an alternative venue for his State of the Union address, Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thanks for that.

Well the entire federal government has ground to a complete halt over a few billion dollars for the Wall. Where could Congress find that money? We've taken a close look at the federal budget, some ideas ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Federal government has been mostly shut down for more than a month now. The key point of contention in this debate isn't even really funding for a Border wall. It's funding for maybe a fifth of a Border wall, a total of about $5 billion.

So, let's say you're not Jeff Bezos, and you're having trouble getting perspective on how much is $5 billion. Well, to start with, it's about one- eighth of 1 percent of the federal budget. And to put that in perspective, that's less than the amount of money taxpayers send to Ivy League colleges every single year.

A 2017 report from Open The Books found that from 2010 to 2015, the aid schools of the Ivy League received about $41.6 billion in government support. That's about $7 billion per year.

Now, you probably think, "Well, I'm sure all of that went to vitally important scientific research." No. Most of it was in the form of grants. It also included billions in special tax breaks, including for their endowments.

The Ivy League's combined endowments total more than a $120 billion of 2017. Now, in a normal non-profit foundation, they're required to spend a certain percentage every year. I think it's 5 percent.

But Ivy League or all university endowments can just keep it, growing completely tax-free in perpetuity. Meanwhile, have tuitions gone down? No, they haven't. They've risen faster than the rate of inflation.

Who's benefiting from this? Well in the Ivy League, those schools are run and mostly attended by the connected and the well-off. What you see here is a very familiar syndrome, the rich are getting richer and you're paying for it.

So, here's an idea. Why not eliminate their indefensible tax breaks and use the savings to fund a Wall?

If the price is really what you're bothered by, is billions of dollars a year to people who are already rich really a better use of taxpayer funds than protecting the country? We'll let you think about it.

From 2007 to 2013, the Small Business Administration gave more than $160 million in loans to country clubs, yacht clubs, and golf courses. That's true. The V.A., meanwhile, has spent $20 million buying art.

So, what's more important to you? Those expenditures or a secure border for the country you live in? It doesn't really matter what you think, by the way. Washington has already made up its mind, and they honestly don't care what your opinion is. Well you can still have one, if you want, at least for now.

So, if a wall isn't built, we can't necessarily expect any help from Mexico in keeping our border secure, in fact, just the opposite. A new Central American Caravan is rapidly growing in size.

The Mexican government, meanwhile, has made it much easier to obtain Humanitarian Visas to allow these migrants to move northward toward our Southern border as they are right now.

Meanwhile, in Washington, there are a few cracks, tiny ones, but may be significant forming in the Democratic coalition against a physical barrier on our border.

Democratic Congressman Collin Peterson says Congress should give President Trump the money he wants for the Wall because it would be helpful and if we - as we just said, we've spent a lot more money on far dumber things.

Mark Morgan was the Head of the Border Patrol under President Obama, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Morgan, thank you for coming on.

MARK MORGAN, FORMER BORDER PATROL CHIEF: Yes.

CARLSON: This news from Mexico is really interesting and kind of unexpected. You wouldn't think in the middle of a crisis like this, Mexico, supposedly our ally, would be working against our interest but they seem to be. Why?

MORGAN: Absolutely. And if you think - I was thinking about this the past couple days. They really went from incompetent bystanders to facilitators. That's what happened with this latest announcement (ph).

CARLSON: The Mexican government?

MORGAN: The Mexican government, absolutely. And it just furthers the - the - and it really, I think, identifies what - what the problem is on this side. It's different. And that's why the President is right when he talked about the national security issue as well as the humanitarian.

On the humanitarian side, the - the loopholes in our Asylum laws and the bad - bad judicial decisions like Flores, it's acting as an incentive for those to come to this country illegally.

And now, we have Mexico, again, now they've gone from incompetent bystanders to facilitators to help those individuals come here. It's just outrageous.

CARLSON: Considering the Mexican economy is, I don't think it's an overstatement to say, dependent upon the United States, both remissions from Mexican citizens living here, trade, the Mekia (ph) doors along the Border, why wouldn't the U.S. government say, "No, you - you can't do this or we're going to punish you?"

MORGAN: Well that's exactly right. And that's one of the narratives. If you go to the experts I've been working, all things now, security human - humanitarian crisis on the Southwest border, Tucker, that's what they've been saying for a very long time, decades.

If you go to leadership of CBP, you go to DHS, they have been trying to work with Mexico, and force them to get skin in the game, to force them to be proactive participants in solving this problem instead of now being facilitators.

So, the Wall is a great thing. It's a great start. And we need that absolutely, need it now. But we also have to continue to drive and force Mexico to do what they should. If they don't, the problem will continue.

CARLSON: What - why do you think the coverage, and this is not an attack on the Mexican people, many of whom are great people, I think.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: But the Mexican government is corrupt. I mean the last President's just been accused of taking a $100 million from drug traffickers. So, it's - there's no question it's corrupt. Why does the American Media act as if the Mexican government is morally superior to our own?

MORGAN: I - I think that's a great question. Again, I think that goes in part of the false narrative that makes me so angry. We - we haven't talked about the Mexican cartels that they're alive and well, and they're thriving, and they're warring over the Plaza corridors.

And why is that? Because it's real. Because corruption is real. Their control over the Mexican government is real. We - we have to stop denying that, and tell the American people the truth about the issue. And the Mexican government, they are part of the problem.

CARLSON: It seems really clear, and thank you for saying that so clearly yourself. Appreciate it.

MORGAN: Right.

CARLSON: Democratic Party has changed an awful lot. So, all of a sudden, you see the Party's top contenders for president in 2020 issuing apologies for their past ideological sins. "I'm sorry, I believe that." "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

Dana Perino has been watching very carefully, and she joins us after the break to discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RASHIDA HARBI TLAIB, D-MICH.: When your son looks at you and says, "Mama, look, you won. Bullies don't win."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

TLAIB: And I said, "Baby, they don't."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

TLAIB: "Because we're going to go in there and we're going to impeach the (BEEP)."

(CROWD CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, Dick Gephardt is gone forever. Democrats are back in power. Some of them look nothing like the Democrats you remember. And some of the most radical are taking spots on key committees.

The Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, you just saw raving there in the video, she's on the House Oversight Committee. She's joined there by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Will they be very different from the Democrats they replace?

Independent Women's Voice Senior Fellow, Lisa Boothe, joins us tonight for a preview on that. Hi, Lisa.

LISA BOOTHE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE SENIOR FELLOW: Hi, Tucker. How are you?

CARLSON: Ah! I'm mesmerized by the tape we just played.

BOOTHE: Exactly! Well, as you mentioned, she's going to be one of the new Members of the House Oversight Committee.

And look, the House Oversight Committee, they have the broadest authority to investigate. And so that's really going to be the primary committee that's going after the Trump Administration, and trying to, you know, see what they can come up with, right?

And to - just today, the House Oversight Committee who's chaired by Elijah Cummings sent a letter to the White House saying that they are investigating the White House over the way that they give out security clearances. So, they're looking in to Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, and a variety of other Members of the Administration.

Elijah Cummings has also said that they're going to be looking into things like President Trump's zero-tolerance policy with immigration, also Scott Pruitt, his time as EPA Director.

So, the Oversight Committee is going to be incredibly aggressive. And you can see that too by some of the Members like Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who were named to be part of this Committee.

Dan Kildee who is part of the Steering Committee, which is the committee that chooses the Members that are going to be on committees said that he chose these Members because they're going to be aggressive in going after the Trump Administration.

CARLSON: Do you think that's a promise we should take seriously?

BOOTHE: 100 percent, Tucker. I mean, look, think - think--

CARLSON: Yes.

BOOTHE: --think about it this way, Tucker.

So, the House - Democrats only have control of the House, right? So there's only so much--

CARLSON: Right.

BOOTHE: --legislation you can really move forward. Most of the bills that are passed in the House are going to go die in the Senate. So then, what do you do as a body? Their objective is going to be investigating the Trump Administration. This is going to be the primary goal of House Democrats.

And remember too, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I think we have this tweet, if we can put it up there. She tweeted out to Don Jr.

She said, "I have noticed that Junior here has a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up. Please, keep it coming Junior. It's definitely a "very, very large brain" idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month."

So she's already basically put out there via Twitter what her objective is as this incoming Member of the Oversight Committee. So, the Trump Administration should buckle up. It's going to be a lot of pain over the next two months, a lot of negative headlines. And this is really what--

CARLSON: Yes.

BOOTHE: --Democrats are after over the next two - two years here.

CARLSON: Well we've at least settled the question of whether AOC runs her own Twitter account. Answer? Yes, she does.

BOOTHE: I think she does. I think she does.

CARLSON: Yes, she does.

BOOTHE: That's a safe bet.

CARLSON: It is. Lisa Boothe, thank you.

BOOTHE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well the race to pick a Democratic presidential candidate is already underway. Almost every major Democrat in the world has joined it already, several thousand, it looks like.

But any Democrat who's been around longer than about five years has a major problem to confront. The party has changed so much since then that what do you say about the things you've said before? They're totally out of step.

Apologies are in order, in other words. Joe Biden recently apologized for supporting laws against crime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT: I know we haven't always gotten things right.

That Barack and I finally reduced the disparity in sentencing, which we had been fighting to eliminate in crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

BIDEN: It was a big mistake when it was made. We thought, we were told by the experts, that crack you never go back, it was somehow fundamentally that it's not different. But it's trapped an entire generation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Joe Biden, suddenly an expert on crack. He believed the experts when his knowledge of crack he already had. He just needed to mine his personal knowledge of crack. By the way, that was speaking at Al Sharpton's group. You can't - you can't make this moment up (ph).

Meanwhile, Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator of New York was a moderate. She once supported the existence of borders. Now, she's atoning for that support. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KIRSTEN ELIZABETH GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.: Well, I don't think it was driven from my heart. I was callous to the suffering of families who want to be with their loved ones, people who want to be reunited with their families.

I really regretted that I didn't look beyond my district and talk about why this is an important part of the United States story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Dana Perino, the most beloved person at Fox News, obviously, the Host of The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino, joins us tonight.

So Dana, if I'm giving advice to the Democratic Party, not that they want it, or that I want to give it. But if I were, I would say, "Wait a second. You know, revolutions end at a certain point, so there's no reason disavowing something you'll ultimately embrace like a support for law or borders, maybe slow down a little bit."

Is there any market for someone who says, "Yes, I thought it. I still think it?"

DANA PERINO, HOST: No, this is like if you're playing Monopoly, it is you cannot - do not go - do - you go straight to jail, basically if you have--

CARLSON: Right. You do, OK, fair enough

PERINO: --any of (ph) these other things. Do not pass go, do not pick up $200.

CARLSON: Yes.

PERINO: The - the - the ticket to the starting gate is an apology for things you've held in the past. Kamala Harris hasn't quite apologized for her criminal justice background, but she did say that she was sorry that her staff had done those things, right?

So that - she's inching up towards it. You - you're going to see this trend (ph).

CARLSON: She apologized for her staff. That's - that's close enough.

PERINO: And then, you know, somebody that hasn't - yes, like actually declared yet is Mike Bloomberg. He's kind of the only one who has not apologized yet. He's still standing up for his positions on things like stop-and-frisk in New York City that he thinks helped make this city safer.

So, I think you're going to continue to see this. But I think that a lot of this activity and attention on the early primary is really interesting, right? But it's masking some problems that the Republicans have, and they better pay attention to because the energy is there on the Left.

And so, they've got to focus on it.

CARLSON: Yes.

PERINO: In particular, on the economic message, the Democrats are formulating a pushback against the Trump economy, which would seem to be his strongest point for re-election. But they're going to try to make it his Achilles' heel.

CARLSON: I agree with that completely. Economic populism whether you like it or not, is the future. So, it's not - it's not a question, are we going to get it. We're going to get it. The question is will it be really destructive, radical, and crazy, or will it be something that actually helps the country?

What do you - give me a quick, I'm interested, particularly from you, in your view of what's going to happen to the State of the Union address next week? Where's it going to take place?

PERINO: Well I wish that I had been on last week because on Tuesday, last week, I thought, "Wonder what's going to happen." I bet you - she has the power to invite or disinvite. And if the government is shut down--

CARLSON: Right.

PERINO: --it seems weird to me to have a State of the Union when the government is shut down.

And I do think that the - that he should have said to her, "OK, I'll come and give a State of the Union address when the government is re-opened. We'll do that. We'll re-visit that," because he could always do that.

That doesn't have to be on the 29th of January. He could have held her to that. But she has all the leverage right now. Roy Blunt, earlier today on my show, said that it used to be a couple of weeks ago that both parties thought they were winning. Now, both parties think they are losing.

But if you look at the polling that came out today, it is President Trump that is continuing to take water on this. So, I don't think the State of the Union address, obviously, it's not going to happen next Tuesday.

I hope that it happens at some point because, you know, it's a nice American tradition. Greg Gutfeld, my colleague, totally disagrees. He does not want to go to D.C. He does not want to see the speech.

CARLSON: Ha-ha.

PERINO: But I do think that the President of the United States, you know, he can give a speech anytime, anywhere. He has the power and the trappings of the office that give him that ability.

CARLSON: Right. No, that's exactly right. He has a--

PERINO: He can do it anywhere.

CARLSON: --portable State of the Union available to him. That's exactly right. Dana Perino, you are always welcome in Washington, State of the Union or not, great to see you.

PERINO: Thank you, bye.

CARLSON: Well here's an interesting fact. Since voter fraud does not exist, and we know that, and we know we're required to believe that, but if that's true, then why does one of America's largest cities have more registered voters than it has adult citizens?

Huh? Maybe someone can explain that to us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well voter fraud is impossible. It never takes place in America. And only flat-earthers and crazy people believe otherwise.

You know that because you've been told it again and again and again. And that's why we don't need any safeguards against it or investigations into it or voter ID laws. And that's why extending voting over the course of a month is no problem at all.

The only people capable of threatening American elections are Macedonians with laptops and Facebook accounts. That is all true, except it's not true. It's not even close to true. It's a full-blown lie like a lot of the things they tell you. How do we know?

Well California is currently purging its voter rolls after settling a lawsuit from Judicial Watch. One of that group's findings is that Los Angeles County had more registered voters than it had adult citizens, which even if you're not a math major doesn't make sense.

Guy Benson is a math major, also a Townhall Reporter, and the host of a famous radio show, he joins us tonight to assess these major concerns (ph).

GUY PELHAM BENSON, BENSON & HARF HOST: I was not a math major.

CARLSON: I know.

BENSON: I want to make that extremely clear.

CARLSON: You know what? You could've been a poetry major, and it still doesn't make any sense. Does it?

BENSON: No. So, what Judicial Watch did was an investigation. And they found that in the State of California, writ large, they had 101 percent of their eligible citizen adult population registered to vote. And--

CARLSON: So that means they're doing really well then.

BENSON: I mean, hey, bananas right to say just like gangbusters. Then, in Los Angeles County, it was 112 percent.

So Judicial Watch has done legal actions like this in a number of states. They've had successes in courts in Ohio, in Kentucky, and now, California as well, where they basically said, "You guys have to clean this up. This is not OK."

And so, there will be a purge of the voter rolls. I know that word is used sort of as a scary buzzword sometimes on the Left, but you have to legally remove people who are--

CARLSON: A correction of the voter roll.

BENSON: That's right. So, you're purging ineligible or dead voters from the rolls.

CARLSON: Right.

BENSON: And California was--

CARLSON: But that's bias against the deceased, isn't it?

BENSON: Well, yes, that's very bigoted--

CARLSON: Yes.

BENSON: --towards - towards the living, which I think is part of the election line (ph). Again, I'm not a - a lawyer here like I'm not a math major either, Tucker, but I think, again, we shouldn't overplay the problem of voter fraud.

But I - it does irk me when you hear over and over again from our moral betters, it's a complete figment of our imagination, and any concern about it whatsoever has to mean that you are dead set on disenfranchising large groups of people.

I think what we're seeing in this lawsuit and what the California government has been forced to do because of it, proves that there needs to be oversight.

CARLSON: So, all widespread voter fraud, in my lifetime that I'm aware of, systemic voter fraud has benefited the Democratic Party. If you think - if you thought it was reversed, if widespread voter fraud was perceived to benefit the Republican Party, do you think we'd more - be more vigilant in trying to prevent it?

BENSON: I suspect the cultural elites would have a different view on this issue. And a lot of the verbiage that surrounds the question would be turned on its head.

I will point out, and this is actually an interesting sidebar to the California issue, one example of apparent, I think, serious allegations of voter fraud is in North Carolina recently on a Congressional race, and I believe the Ninth District, which benefited a Republican.

CARLSON: Huh!

BENSON: And what happened there was there is this practice which was illegal in North Carolina called Ballot Harvesting, where third parties can go and collect absentee--

CARLSON: Right.

BENSON: --ballots and there is chain of custody issues and all of that.

CARLSON: It's crazy.

BENSON: And that was manipulated to help the Republican win. That seat is now in jeopardy that they might have to do - have new elections.

CARLSON: Let me - let me just, for the record, say, I'm totally opposed to that and all fraud--

BENSON: Well--

CARLSON: --no matter who would benefit.

BENSON: A 100 percent.

CARLSON: Yes.

BENSON: The reason I brought it up is Ballot Harvesting of absentee ballots is actually legal in the State of California.

CARLSON: It's crazy. It's totally, completely crazy. Guy Benson, thank you for being on that.

BENSON: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Great to see you.

BENSON: Sure.

CARLSON: Well the purpose of the Mueller investigation was to find Russian agents in the United States. That's what they told us when it began. But that's long ceased to be its purpose.

It is now a permanent federal investigation into anyone who has publicly supported the President or made other unpopular political noises. Whether that person did anything wrong, colluded with Russia, irrelevant.

Being the subject of a federal investigation, anyone who's been that, can tell you is enough to wreck your life.

Roger Stone has learned that lesson. He has not been indicted for anything. He says though that being investigated by Mueller has pushed him to the brink of bankruptcy. Roger Stone joins us tonight with that account.

Roger, thanks very much for coming on. So--

ROGER STONE, FORMER DONALD TRUMP AIDE: Tucker, thank you very much.

CARLSON: --the - the details of the investigation to the extent they're publicly known are batted back and forth on TV every day and will have, I suppose, decades to figure out exactly what it was about and your place in it.

But, as of right now, you have not been indicted or even accused of any crime, much less colluding with Russia. Tell us the effect on you and your family of being publicly linked to this investigation.

STONE: Sure. First of all, because of the intense censorship of my own show on Infowars, which you've talked about a lot, I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

CARLSON: Of course.

STONE: I've been under a two-year microscope, in which every aspect of my life has been examined, my personal life, my family life, my private life, my business life, my political life. And that has been an extremely draining process.

At least 12 of my current or former associates have been browbeat by the FBI or dragged before the Grand Jury. Literally, millions of dollars have been spent. I believe all my emails, text messages, phone calls in 2016 and since have been scrutinized.

And today, there is still no evidence of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other illegal act in connection with the 2016 election or anything else.

This has been financially devastating. The leaks from the General - from the Special Counsel's Office have devastated my private consulting business. In December, I lost my health and life insurance, unable to pay the premiums anymore.

I had to sell my car. It was a 2006, but I had to sell it nonetheless. A small fund, I had put aside for the college education of my grandchildren, derived from my book sales, had to be liquidated.

I am this close - I mean, in all honesty, I struggle to pay my lawyers first and foremost, pay my rent, pay my taxes. It is not a fun existence.

CARLSON: It's - it's unbelievable. I - I don't even - I mean you're in your 60s is my understanding. And you have no money whatsoever. You don't even have health insurance. And you have not been informed that you are going to be indicted, much less been indicted. I mean do you even know what the crime is they're alleging, presuming they're alleging anything?

STONE: It's very hard to say. You have a runaway Special Prosecutor who is accountable to no one. The - the House Intelligence Committee Democrats keep insisting that I have perjured myself. That's a lie. There were lies told the day I testified.

Adam Schiff said, for example, the FBI did investigate and examine the DNC servers. But my testimony is both accurate and truthful, but I'm not even allowed to have a copy of it, Tucker. I'm not even allowed to examine it.

My lawyers can go examine it in a sealed room in Washington. But they're not allowed to take notes. 4.5 hours of voluntary testimony.

So, as I say, the - the financial cost has been more than a half million dollars, projected to be substantially more, because I'm being sued by the Democratic National Committee for non- existent Russian collusion.

I am still being investigated by the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committee. And now, Congressman Schiff is gearing up a new investigation, still haven't come up with nothing. I have had to rely on a legal defense fund, stonedefensefund.com.

It - it is only through the help of good citizens and - and patriots and supporters of the President that I am able to fend these people off.

CARLSON: So, I just - I just want to--

STONE: But the most--

CARLSON: --before we get the Mueller report, I just wanted this on tape, on the record, you know, they better charge you with the Kennedy assassination at the end of the day after doing this to you or anybody. That's the point.

I'm not here to defend you personally. I'm here to defend all Americans who are not indicted against having their lives destroyed by someone who's not accountable to anybody. It's a total outrage, I think. Anyway, Roger Stone- -

STONE: Well--

CARLSON: --last word to you.

STONE: It is - certainly. Here's the most important thing, Tucker.

No matter how much pressure they put on me, no matter what they say, I will not bear false witness against Donald Trump. I will not do what Michael Cohen has done and make up lies to lease the pressure on myself.

CARLSON: Yes.

STONE: You know, my God and a great wife and my great family see me through this.

CARLSON: Honestly, I hope I would have the integrity that if the roles were reversed, and a Democrat was in the White House, and this was happening to one of his supporters, who had not been accused of any national security violation that I would defend his right not to be destroyed because I - I really mean it.

Roger Stone, God bless.

STONE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well a college professor in Wisconsin has turned a political science course into re-education, essentially. We have the documents. We're going to speak to one of his students after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CAMPUS CRAZINESS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well it's no secret that political indoctrination is replacing teaching in many college classrooms. But sometimes, it's useful to see just how bad the rot is, and just how unimpressive the people involved are. Deeply unimpressive!

Case in point, a professor at the University of Wisconsin has been caught diverting a course on the presidency into the most banal possible screed against the Trump Administration. His name is Kenneth Mayer. He's a professor there.

In his syllabus for the American presidency, he spends an entire paragraph ranting about Russian collusion and testimony from Michael Cohen, and promising that other shoes are almost certain to drop, and lots of other cliches that college professors would probably be above in an ideal world, but are not at all in 2019 America.

McKenna Collins knows this well. She was a student in that class and has publicized the syllabus, and she joins us tonight. McKenna, thanks very much for coming on.

Are we overstating this syllabus in its ludicrousness and just sort of doctrinaire Democratic talking points? Or is that really what it was?

MCKENNA COLLINS, UW-MADISON STUDENT: Well, it's good to be with you, Tucker.

I got to tell you, I took one glance at the syllabus, and had to double check and make sure that I was in an actual academic course, and not in a course called Trump Derangement Syndrome 101.

I mean it was - it was unbelievable, the amount of overt bias that this professor explained in what was supposed to be a course description.

CARLSON: But I mean it's not even interesting. I mean this is like midday Sunday afternoon third-string MSNBC guest talking point stuff.

COLLINS: Oh, absolutely.

I mean the - the part that rubbed me the wrong way, I mean there were - there were numerous things. First of all, it's an oversimplification and misrepresentation of what Trump supporters actually stand for, and what they - what they appreciate about the President.

The complete lack of discussion about all of the policy accomplishments and achievements of the President serves to - to sway students to kind of form this - this certain perspective of the President that now they're going to (ph)--

CARLSON: So, what if you dissent? But what - so what if you say, "Look, I - I came to this class to learn about the history of the American presidency. You're giving me the CNN crap instead. Why don't you stop and just teach me what happened."

COLLINS: Yes.

CARLSON: What would happen to you if you said that?

COLLINS: I - I'm sure that I would be penalized for that, you know. And it's not the course that I signed up for. The course I signed up for was to take a critical objective look at the history of the Presidency of the United States.

Now, if this professor is going to, you know, spew unfounded claims, claims that, you know, have turned out to be largely false, I mean this is something that needs to be addressed, not only by the Dean of students, acknowledged by the professor.

But I hope that this, you know, shows students who are uncomfortable with this kind of bias infiltrating the classroom that they need to stand up and use their voices.

CARLSON: It's not even smart. They're not even smart. All the smart people, I guess, went into finance or something and they're all getting rich in private equity. All the dumb kids wind up teaching at the--

COLLINS: No. The - the political--

CARLSON: --University of Wisconsin.

COLLINS: --the political posturizing (ph) is - is unbelievable and--

CARLSON: Yes.

COLLINS: --it's not just me. Democrats and Republicans alike have reached out to me and said that this is unacceptable behavior that the professor needs to acknowledge that he's wrong.

CARLSON: Yes, I'm sure.

COLLINS: Students have - have messaged to me and said that they have had to, you know, change their opinions just to get an A in a class.

CARLSON: Yes.

COLLINS: So, I'm certainly not the first person that this is happening.

CARLSON: No, I bet you're not. Don't hold your breath, McKenna. They've got tenure. You'll learn about that. None of us will ever have it.

COLLINS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Great to see you. Thanks for coming on.

COLLINS: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, and also, by the way, mediocrity, which is really the story of the people in charge. Pretty amazing!

In the meantime, Sean Hannity, live from New York.

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