American Dystopia: San Francisco in decline

close

Video

American Dystopia: San Francisco in decline

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' takes a close look at what the country's leadership class has done to one of America's greatest cities: San Francisco.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 6, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

As Washington obsesses over the internal politics of nations thousands of miles from here, all the non-Farsi speakers are experts all of a sudden you'll notice, our own country frays and degrades and in some places falls apart completely.

One place where this is especially true, a place that you would barely recognize these days if you haven't been there recently, is the City of San Francisco.

Tonight, the first installment in our five-part series on the destruction of that great American city -- that's coming up in just a minute.

But first, if you were in an airport over the weekend, you may have seen American troops on the move leaving their families on their way to the Middle East.

Now, just a month ago, not one in a hundred Americans was thinking about Iran.  Now, suddenly we are on the brink of war.

In Washington, that is considered an upgrade, indeed a massive improvement.  
It's harder to get rich and powerful in Washington during peacetime, so our leaders have a built-in bias for war.

And so they descended on television studios over the weekend to describe in detail the kind of violence they're prepared to wreak on a country very few of them know anything about.

Here, for example, is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.:  If the Iranians hit American targets and American interests and American allies, we will respond militarily.

If they hit us again, then I would not want -- I would not want to be working in an Iranian oil field because I think the President is determined to bring this regime to its knees if they continue to be provocative.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Meanwhile, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured reporters that the U.S. seeks quote, "de-escalation" with Iran, and then just moments later suggested the U.S. might bomb dozens of sites inside Iran itself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION:  President Trump is saying that there are 52 sites that the U.S. 
would target if Iran retaliates.  How is that consistent with what you say is your message of de-escalation?

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE:  Entirely consistent.

QUESTION:  Threatening to bomb mainland Iran?

POMPEO:  The Iranian leadership needs to understand that attacking Americans is not cost free.  To take a terrorist off the battlefield does not increase the risk of terror.  The risk of terrorism is increased by appeasement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  The risk of terror is increased by appeasement.  It's a good line and it may be true, it probably is true.  Of course, the risk of terror is also increased by bombing other people's countries.  That is also indisputably true.

It's hard to remember now, but as recently as last week, most people didn't consider Iran an imminent threat.  Iranian saboteurs were not committing acts of terror in our cities.  Oh, but our leaders tell us they were about to any second and that's what we struck first.

What's so striking is how many people appear to accept this uncritically.  
Just the other day, you'll remember, our Intel agencies were considered politically tainted and suspect, certainly on this show they are -- were -- and will be for quite some time.

Keep in mind, these are the people who invented excuses to spy on the Trump campaign purely because they didn't like Donald Trump's foreign policy views, and they're the ones who pretended he was a Russian agent in order to keep him from governing.

Remember that?  Russiagate?  Our friends at the Intel Community did that.

And by the way, these are the same people who lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction way back in 2002.  And by doing that, got us in to an utterly pointless war that dramatically weakened our country.  The people pushing conflict with Iran are the same people who did that.

It seems like about 20 minutes ago, we were denouncing these very people as the Deep State and pledging never to trust them again without verification.  
But now for some reason, we do seem to trust them implicitly and completely.

In fact, we believe whatever they tell us, no matter how outlandish.  Iran did 9/11 they are telling us.  Oh, okay.  I didn't know that.  Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Sunni Saudi Arabia.  None were from Shiite Iran.  
But if you say so Mister unnamed C.I.A. official, I'm happy to send my kids to the Middle East a week after Christmas, on the basis of your anonymous and unverified leak to "The New York Times."  You've earned my trust through years of lying to me.

That appears to be our position now.  And maybe all of this will turn out fine in the end.  We're certainly praying for it.  We love this country.  
But in the meantime, pardon the skepticism.

Andrew Bacevich knows a lot about war.  He was an officer in the Vietnam War in 1970.  He is President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.  He is author of the book, "The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered its Cold War Victory."  And of course, you may know he has a personal understanding of the toll of war.  His son was killed during the Iraq War in 2007.

Andrew Bacevich joins us tonight, Mr. Bacevich, thanks so much for coming on.  So --

ANDREW BACEVICH, PRESIDENT, QUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT:  Glad to be with you.

CARLSON:  So, we for a moment today learned that the United States was at request of the Iraqi Parliament pulling out of Iraq, it seemed that way.  A letter hit the newswire saying that and then that was swiftly corrected by the Pentagon, and the update was, no, actually we're not leaving.

What do you make of that?  Do you think there's a chance that we won't leave Iraq in the midst of all of this?

BACEVICH:  Sadly, no.  It seems to me that what's appropriate here is to widen the aperture.  That is to say, let's not just talk about what happened with Iran over the last week or so.  Let's reflect on the course of U.S. military policy in this part of the world for the last 20 years, 30 years.

We've tried to fix the place, whether fix means spread democracy, eliminate terrorism, create order.  We've broken the place, and it seems to me that the key issue is whether or not to persist in this misguided effort.

I didn't vote for President Trump.  I can't imagine voting for President Trump.  But he did promise in running for the presidency to get us out of this mess.

And it seems to me that the assassination of General Soleimani is not a step in that direction.  Pulling U.S. troops out pursuant to the stated preference of the Iraqi Parliament might be a step in the right direction.

CARLSON:  I'm concerned that there's manipulation going on here.  And I wonder as someone who has been in and around government for your entire life, if you think it's okay for the rest of us to take it face value assessments, whose provenance we don't know, can never know, that come from people who we've just caught lying to us.

Just the other day, we were just announcing them as the Deep State, in my case, it was heartfelt.  Those same people are telling us things we can't verify.  Why do we believe them uncritically all of a sudden?

BACEVICH:  I think our skepticism is entirely appropriate.  The Afghanistan papers that were leaked or released by "The Washington Post" a couple of weeks ago, chronicle a long period of dishonesty, deception and incompetence.  And there's no reason to think that the present administration with Trump's advisers are going to do any better.

But it seems to me here that the larger problem may not be conscious dishonesty, trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  I think the larger problem is a mindset widespread in Washington, among civilians and among the military, that somehow or other the use of American military power is going to solve our problems.

And again, we've been at that for two, three decades now, with no evidence that we are achieving any significant progress.  So you know, it seems to me might be -- it might be the moment to try something different.  Try foreign policy based on restraint, prudence, diplomacy, rather than simply more force, more bombs, more killing.

CARLSON:  Yes, it doesn't seem to have made America stronger, which is my concern.  It seems to have made us weaker in an economic sense.  Andrew Bacevich, thanks so much for coming on tonight.  Congrats on your book.

BACEVICH:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Well, there's not much chance that a war with Iran will make this country safer or richer, or happier if recent history is any guide, the opposite is likely to happen.

Does anyone think 19 years in Afghanistan has improved America?  Look around.  Obviously, it hasn't.  Part of the problem is that tar pits like Afghanistan and Iraq and now, Iran, distract our leaders from the business they were hired to conduct which of course is improving our lives.  That's why we hired them, that's why we vote for them.

Making Cleveland better is a lot harder, a lot less fun than lobbying cruise missiles into Syria, and yet it's incalculably more important.  We need to make Cleveland better, but that doesn't even occur to them.

For the next week, we'd like to remind Washington what their basic duty is.  Their basic duty is to improve our lives and that's why tonight, we're beginning our series, "American Dystopia."

It's a close look at what is happening and what has happened under the leadership of Washington to America's greatest cities, maybe its greatest city of all, San Francisco.

It's hard to wreck a place as beautiful as San Francisco, but they have effectively done it.  The reality of that city we discovered when we spent time there is even worse than you may have heard.  Civilization itself is coming apart in San Francisco, right there in broad daylight on the city sidewalks, which are littered with junkies and feces and dirty needles.

The Jewel of our Pacific Coast is now filthier, and more chaotic than downtown Mumbai, India, literally.  How did that happen?  We need to know.  
Here's the first installment in our five-part series.

But a warning.  Some of the footage we shot is graphic and disturbing and as you watch it, remember this, this is what they would like to do to your neighborhood.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Get some Narcan.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I know.  Go down the alley.  There's someone up there.

CARLSON (voice over):  At this intersection just four blocks from City Hall, drug addicts were frantically looking for a drug to reverse an opioid overdose.

Down the street, paramedics were rushing to help a man who had just overdosed on the sidewalk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I have to say, this city is messed up.  It is very messed up.

CARLSON (voice over):  Such scenes are becoming common in San Francisco where the city's left-wing officials no longer enforce so-called quality of life crimes, like public urination or defecation or even open air drug use.

TRACY MCCRAY, LIEUTENANT, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT:  Well, they call it San Fran-psycho.

CARLSON (voice over):  Tracy McCray, is a lieutenant in the San Francisco Police Department.

QUESTION:  If I went into a store and stole a PlayStation, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  If it is under $950.00, you get a citation.

QUESTION:  If I smoked crack on the street, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  Citation.

QUESTION:  if I expose myself in the public park, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  No, citation.

QUESTION:  If I camped on a sidewalk, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  A warning, maybe a citation.

QUESTION:  If I broke somebody's car window, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  Again, under $950.00, a citation.

QUESTION:  If I stole somebody's wallet or purse, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  No force of fear used, you just took it and we caught you, citation.

QUESTION:  Pimp a prostitute, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  Yes, no, nothing.

QUESTION:  If I was carrying an illegal firearm, what would happen?

MCCRAY:  Discharge, pending further review.  You'd be back out on the street.

CARLSON (voice over):  Police say those citations are handed off to prosecutors who do nothing.

MCCRAY:  Right then and there, they will make the decision whether it will get charged or not.  And the most times, it's like nope, not charged.  
Nope, not charged.

CARLSON (voice over):  Many criminals never even step foot in a courtroom.

Among America's 20 largest cities, San Francisco now has the highest rate of property crime.

Violent crime on its Mass Transit System doubled from 2014 to 2018.

ERICA SANDBERG, CONTRIBUTOR, CITY JOURNAL:  Just ask anybody.  You know it.  We feel it.  Crime is really out of control and whether it's property crime or even violent crime.  It is scary.

CARLSON (voice over):  Addicts do drugs on the sidewalk, homeless people defecate in the streets.  Smash and grabs happen more than 60 times a day.  Many go unreported because victims know the laws won't be enforced.

MCCRAY:  Our car windows got busted.  I didn't bother making a report.

QUESTION:  You're in the Police Department.

MCCRAY:  Hey, we're not immune to that.  We're not immune to that at all.

CARLSON (voice over):  Criminals act with impunity because they know there aren't consequences.  We filmed drug dealers selling drugs in broad daylight.

QUESTION:  Do the police officers know who the drug dealers are?

MCCRAY:  Yes, they do.  We make these arrests.  We get us all of the report, we hand it off all.  I could come back from my days off and they're back out on the street.

SANDBERG:  San Francisco has definitely become more dirty, more dangerous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Yes, film me mother [bleep].

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I'll [bleep] kill you.

CARLSON (voice over):  Rather than confront the drug use, like a normal city, San Francisco enables drug use by distributing roughly 400,000 free syringes every month.

City leaders say that giving out syringes reduces the risk of disease.

SANDBERG:  Of course nobody wants to have somebody get HIV or Hep C, but they are unintended consequences is insanity.

CARLSON (voice over):  And even though city leaders build a syringe program as an exchange, only 60 percent are ever returned, meaning they're giving needles to drug addicts.

MCCRAY:  It's like a minefield, because you never know what's coming around the corner.

SANDBERG:  So we give as many needles as we possibly can.  Well, they end up here.  They end up here.  It is dangerous, disgusting, and it has got to stop.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Our producer and camera crew spent a lot of time in San Francisco and we have a lot more footage to show you from that city.

If you've been there or know it, it is heartbreaking, but you need to see it that this is happening to your country.  Our "American Dystopia" series continues every night this week.

Tomorrow, we will introduce you to a businessman, a small businessman struggling to run a grocery store in a city where the law isn't enforced.  
It is hard to believe it's our country.  But again, you need to see this.

Well, after half a year, there's still plenty of questions about how Jeffrey Epstein died.  "60 Minutes" over on CBS just released a new report that casts even more doubt on the official narrative.  It's unbelievable, actually.  We've got details on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  After five months of investigating the story, "60 Minutes last night released a deep dive into Jeffrey Epstein's death.

Now, like most stories about Jeffrey Epstein and how he died and how he made his money, the report didn't answer as many questions as it created because it raised for example, "60 Minutes" discovered that a note left by Jeffrey Epstein was not contrary to what you may have heard, a suicide note.  No.

Instead, it was a list of complaints about how he was being treated while behind bars.  But one of the weirdest and most disturbing parts of the story was an interview with forensic pathologist Michael Baden, who is one of the most experienced pathologists in America.

He said that the noose that Epstein supposedly hanged himself with was false.  Here's some of the images and they are disturbing.  We want to tell you that now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION:  What do you see when you see these two things together?

DR. MICHAEL BADEN, FORMER NYC CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER:  What I see here is that this noose doesn't match the ligature furrow mark.  It's wider than this.

QUESTION:  To the naked eye, it looks like there's some blood here and it doesn't look like there's any blood on this noose.

BADEN:  That's right.  This looks like a clean noose that was never used to compress anybody's neck.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Dr. Baden says a wound straight across the neck is more common when a victim is strangled by a wire or a cord.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Dr. Michael Baden joins us now.  Doctor, thanks so much for coming on.  So you have, I think done a pretty good job at least in the view of non-experts like us in raising questions about the official account.  What is your guess as to what actually happened?  How did he die?

BADEN:  I think from the autopsy findings, and I was there the autopsy, the petechial hemorrhages in the eye and the crushing injuries of the neck, the three fractures in the hyoid bone and in the Adam's apple are often found in manual or ligature strangulation, homicidal and not found in hanging suicide.

In a hanging suicide, most of the time, there are no injuries to the neck and no petechiae, maybe 10 percent of the time, there might be a fracture of one of the bones in the neck.  But to have three fractures present means that one has to be very suspicious of a homicide, even though the circumstances may not suggest it and that the basic information, Tucker.

What was the body position in when it was cut down?  Nobody knows.  The body was removed before the photographs were taken.  It's improper to remove a dead body.  It's a crime scene.  And that there's no evidence as to what happened to the videos.  Didn't they weren't because they weren't cared for or did somebody cut the wires?

There's a whole lot of circumstances that need investigation and need more information.

CARLSON:  So you are -- I just want to clarify, you were at the autopsy because you were hired by Jeffrey Epstein's brother to be there.

BADEN:  That's right.  By the family.

CARLSON:  Now, you've been at some number of thousands of autopsies.

BADEN:  Yes.

CARLSON:  Have you ever seen someone who died from hanging by suicide who had all three of those bones broken?

BADEN:  No.

CARLSON:  Never?

BADEN:  No and that's 25 years when I was Medical Examiner in New York City, and in all of the suicidal hangings that have occurred since Attica in New York State, which are over a thousand suicides in the various jails, none have had three fractures and petechial hemorrhages.

CARLSON:  Not one?

BADEN:  No.

CARLSON:  Okay.  So, that -- I mean, do you think it's without impugning the integrity of the Medical Examiner who pronounced this as a suicide, it sounds like you think it's pretty strange that a pathologist looking at this evidence could reach the conclusion it was a suicide?

BADEN:  Well, I think what's strange is to cut it off -- is to make the opinion before all the evidence is in.  That's the concern I have.  Strange things happen, they can happen.

CARLSON:  Right.  Yes.

BADEN:  But the investigation was really closed off when about five days after the autopsy, it was closed as a suicide and that kind of interferes with the investigation from the forensic pathology point of view.

CARLSON:  Amazing.  It's an amazing conclusion particularly coming from you.  Doctor, thanks so much for that perspective.  Appreciate it.

BADEN:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Geraldo Rivera is the Fox News Channel's correspondent-at-large, meaning everywhere.  And tonight, he is on the show.  Geraldo, thanks so much for coming on.

So you've been following this really carefully, and you just heard Dr. 
Baden.  What is your best guess as to what happened to Jeffrey Epstein?

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE:  Well, I have a guess and I'll -- if I can give you an overview first.  I mean, why do we -
- why are we so suspicious, yet everybody from Presidents to Princes putting themselves in this pervert's orbit presumably, you know, Bill Clinton flew his plane -- Epstein's plane -- 27 times, where did they go from?  Where did they go to?  What did they do when they got there?

Presumably Prince Andrew visiting the mansion in New York.  Presumably there are a lot of very powerful people who had reason to be relieved that Jeffrey Epstein is dead and can't give testimony.  He can't give graphic accounts, presumably, of what happened on the Lolita Express or on the Orgy Island.

So you have this suspicion that something happened.  Let me just say parenthetically that I've worked with Dr. Baden ever since the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee investigation of the assassination of JFK.  I trust him.  He is highly skilled, although in this case he is working for Epstein's brother.

But what I think happened, I mean, in my opinion, when you have people like the Attorney General of the United States William Barr, a person I trust, when he says that he has reviewed the video and he is convinced that nothing untoward happened.  That it was a classic suicide with you know, a cascade of errors including the negligence and the fraudulent behavior of the guards who were on duty and were supposed to check him every half hour and didn't check him for anywhere between eight and 11 hours.

You know, I think what could have happened if I were going to guess is that maybe somebody got paid off to be asleep on duty.  Maybe someone in the prison itself was given some money to ignore that cell.

I can't imagine, although it is entirely possible that someone took advantage of a corrupted camera system and went in there and killed this guy.

CARLSON:  Here's a question, and I don't understand the answer to this.  
According to the "60 Minutes" report last night, the guy who found Epstein's body has never been interviewed by anybody.  How can -- five months later -- how can that be true?  How can that be the case?

RIVERA:  Well, the guards are charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and you know -- and lying to Federal investigators, so I imagine their lawyers have told them to clam up.

Those are the people, you know, one of them who found Epstein in his cell hanging from that noose.  You know, the noose, why didn't it have DNA on it?  I think that's a very powerful piece of evidence to rebut the official account.

But I think that Dr. Baden's overall point is really the important one, Tucker, why was this investigation closed?  Why not reopen it?  Why not have a grand jury?  Why not have a full blown, full-fledge investigation that includes you know, if you want to give these guards, you know, immunity, I wouldn't do that right now.

But there's a lot of ways to gather data.  What exactly was the status of those cameras?  Which camera was corrupted, and why was the --

CARLSON:  And where did all the money come from?

RIVERA:  Yes, why was the roommate removed the day of?

CARLSON:  How did this guy get rich?

RIVERA:  They got rich, so I think that those are good questions.

CARLSON:  I think there's a lot going on here, actually, it seems to me.  Geraldo, great to see you tonight.  Thank you so much.

RIVERA:  I think there's more than meets the eye.  Right.

CARLSON:  Be sure to check out Geraldo's Fox Nation program, "I am Geraldo."  So awesome.  First episode, January 21st.  Don't miss it.

Well, America's open border with Mexico is allowing drug cartels and human traffickers to ply their trade with impunity.  Lara Logan went to the border to document what's going on there.  She joins us to report what she saw, which was amazing.  Stay tuned for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  It took two years, but Harvey Weinstein is finally going on trial.  He was in court today hobbling on a walker for a final conference part of jury selection.

The trial itself is expected to begin next week.  Weinstein was arrested all the way back in May of 2018, you'll remember.  He was accused of rape and other sex offenses by two different women.  He could face life if convicted.

Meanwhile, out in Los Angeles, prosecutors filed new sexual assault charges against Weinstein.  Those involved two additional women.  He also remains under investigation by authorities in Ireland and the U.K. and who knows where else.

It sounds like he's finished even if he avoids prison, he will be permanently disgraced.  But keep in mind, don't forget and don't let anybody tell you otherwise, people knew what Harvey Weinstein was about for a long time.

He was a very close friend of Bill and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, the very people who lecture you about your moral shortcomings protected Harvey Weinstein for decades.  Write that down and put it on your fridge.  Don't forget it.

Well, under current American law, every person born on our soil automatically becomes a citizen.  It doesn't matter if their parents are tourists to this country or are here illegally or even spies seeking to undermine our country.

Congress could change that law, obviously, but they don't actually care so they won't.  What effect does it have?  Well, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, last year, about 372,000 anchor babies were born in the United States, their parents had no legal right to be here.

Those children allow their parents though to qualify for a whole suite of welfare benefits, and of course their parents will never be forced to leave the country.  That's just one of the many ways that America's open borders have turned into a disaster for this country.

Lara Logan is a Fox investigative journalist.  She is the host of the Fox Nation program, "Lara Logan Has No Agenda."  In the first episode, which is coming out tonight, she journeyed into the Mexican border.  There, she was harassed by Mexican police.  Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I've been asked to depart the area about a week ago.  
They did -- they did lynch a couple of people that were here just asking around about the town.

LARA LOGAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST:  The policemen told you they lynched some people here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Yes.  And he's asked me to calmly leave the area.

LOGAN:  For our own safety?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  For the safety of the town, he said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Lara Logan made it back to the U.S. and joins us tonight.  Lara, thanks so much for coming on.  So what was your assessment?  I mean, we spend a lot of time talking about Mexico, you were just there.  Does it feel like there's a war in progress?  Does the country feel stable?  
Unstable?  Dangerous?  Safe?  What did you think?

LOGAN:  You know, Tucker.  I think the simplest way to explain it is in the words of a DEA agent where he said to me, if you take the illicit economy, if you take the illicit money and the drug money out of the Mexican economy, this country's economy would collapse immediately.

So there is no ability to separate those things anymore in Mexico, and you know, the U.S. State Department has -- Mexico is the only country in the world, which they give a state by state rating -- safety rating.

Every other country just gets a country rating.  Because, you know, they want to argue that certain parts of Mexico are safe and other parts aren't.  
But what I would -- what I have said to many U.S. officials who've used that line on me, is what I learned from Mexican investigators and U.S. law enforcement, that more than 90 percent of crimes in Mexico are never investigated and for murder, that's 98 percent of murders.  Ninety eight percent of murders.

CARLSON:  Are never investigated?

LOGAN:  Never investigated.  Never mind brought to trial or convicted. You know, there's no justice for most people in Mexico and that's for the Mexican people.

CARLSON:  So I mean that -- first of all, it's a great story on its own terms.  Mexico is a big, important country and it seems to be kind of falling apart.  That's not really covered except by you and a few others, but secondly, it has huge implications for us as a border country.

I mean, if there's -- it sounds like it's a flat out dangerous place.

LOGAN;  It is an extremely dangerous place, and one of the things as a journalist, you know, I really wanted to understand why this extreme level of violence?  Why are so many women murdered?  Why are they murdered in such a brutal way?

And what I really came to understand because I pretty much spent most of the past year working on, you know, on the border and on this issue, and I learned, Tucker, it's about control.  It's about the most extreme form of control.

So you know, they will film themselves doing the most terrible -- they kill people in the most terrible ways.  They figured out how to take the bottom, you know, of the feet off and then the legs, then disembowel them, then take the arms and I asked, you know, it's just a head and a torso that's left.

And they film it and they send it to your family or to other people that they're threatening.  You don't pay, you know, your tax or your extortion money.  This is what will happen to you.

And I asked the Mexican investigator, how long can you stay alive like that?  When you're just a torso and ahead, and he said to me, the longest I've seen is a week.

CARLSON:  So we're just dealing with a very different culture.  I mean, that's just -- I'm sure that doesn't happen in Cincinnati.  I'm sorry, just it doesn't -- for all of our problems like what -- it's a very different place.

LOGAN:  Well, it's different in some respects.  But I tell you, what to me, the most significant thing that I learned working there was that the cartels, the Mexican cartels are no longer the drug organizations that most Americans think they still are.

You know, they started moving marijuana across the border in the 70s.  It was mostly grown in Mexico.  Those are not the same organizations that you're dealing with today.

The Sinaloa Cartel, for example, which dominates the drug trade in America.  They operate in more than 50 countries across the world.  Cartel Jalisco New Generation, CJNG.  They're in more than 40 countries.  These cartels have diversified.  They don't just do drugs, they control most of the global trade in narcotics.

You don't hear about rural meth labs, you know, exploding anymore, right, in this country.  Because meth is produced in super labs in Mexico.  Almost a hundred percent of the meth worldwide comes from Mexico.

You buy cocaine on the streets of Moscow or in Brazil, you're buying it from a Mexican cartel.  And on top of that, they control the street gangs in every city in America.  Because what do those gangs do?  They make their money out of drugs?  Where do the drugs come from?  They come from the Mexicans.

And U.S. law enforcement doesn't properly and accurately catalogue the impact of these cartels.  We know about car thefts, but they don't document the car thefts that our car is stolen to move narcotics.  Car is stolen to move people.

CARLSON:  Amazing.

LOGAN:  The cartels now trade and they take money out of the avocado industry.  They take it -- there's industrial scale theft of oil pipelines across Mexico.  They've got the human trafficking that's worth more than
$150 billion a year globally.

They have the narcotics.  There's extortion.  There's kidnapping.  These are the wealthiest criminal organizations in the world -- the wealthiest organizations.

CARLSON:  It's an unbelievable story and I don't think I've ever heard it as well summarized as you just laid it out.  Lara Logan, thank you so much.  
Appreciate it.

And our viewers who want to hear more and I'm among them.  Check out "Lara Logan Has No Agenda."  It's on Fox Nation and it's out now.

Up next, Democrats have stalled the impeachment process for close to a month.  Remember, it was going to move to the Senate, but it never did.  
Some Republican senators are pushing to end this charade whether Democrats want to or not.  Trey Gowdy joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Well for months and months, Democrat screeched that it was a national imperative to impeach and remove the President.  They don't want to do it.  They said they were praying very hard, almost constantly, fasting and prayer.  Ashes and sackcloth.  But it simply had to be done.  
People of faith wanted the president impeached, so they did.  They impeached him.

And then suddenly, like in a day, Democrats lost interest in impeachment.  In fact, they've refused to forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate as they are required to do constitutionally.

Now Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri is proposing that the Senate summarily dismissed the Articles passed by the House because they're not prosecuting them.  The whole thing is bizarre.  What does it mean?

Trey Gowdy is the man to answer that question.  He is, of course, a former congressman and prosecutor from South Carolina.  He joins us tonight.  
Congressman, thanks so much for coming on.  So where would you assess where we are now?

TREY GOWDY, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE:  Well, I understand the Senate's frustration.  The House's constitutional prerogative is over, but these impeachment Articles are sitting somewhere in legislative purgatory.

If I were a senator, and I won't be, but if I were, I would file a motion to assume jurisdiction and set a trial date.  I would do both things -- assume jurisdiction, so it doesn't remain in this constitutional penumbra, which is where it is now.

Set a trial date for a week from today and say, Mr. Schiff, if you're proud of your work product, show up and present the case to the jury.  If you don't show up, Monday, we're going to assume that you weren't serious about it to begin with, and then we'll file the motion to dismiss.

I wouldn't make the Cory Gardner's of the world and the Martha McSally's vote to dismiss before I gave them the chance to acquire jurisdiction and set a day certain for the trial to begin a week from today.

CARLSON:  What's the thinking do you think in Pelosi's office right now?  I mean, is it just that they didn't want to impeach.  AOC forced her to essentially, and then she decided it was hurting them so they stopped.  Is that what happened?

GOWDY:  I think there's a couple of things, Tucker.  I never thought this was about removing Donald Trump from office because that's not going to happen.  And I think it was always about neutering his second term by taking the Senate.

And you know, there are a couple of ways to provide oversight in our culture.  One is with the voters, but that happens irregularly.  It'll happen again in November.

But in the meantime, that's the media's job to provide that oversight.  
I'll give you $1.00 for every negative story you have read about Nancy Pelosi sitting on Articles of Impeachment in a constitutionally unprecedented way.

I hadn't seen a word of criticism.  I've seen her lauded as a tactician, but no criticism about this legislative purgatory she has the country in.

CARLSON:  No, to the shills at The Washington Post.  You know, it's whatever it takes.  They don't care.  Thank you, Congressman.  That was a great and clear explanation.  We appreciate it.

GOWDY:  Yes, sir.  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Well, a month ago, as we said, Democrats were telling you that impeachment was an urgent necessity.  It wasn't simply that the President was a bad man.  They told you that America's very national security was at stake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  President Trump is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and our national security.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.:  The President is an ongoing threat to our national security.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The President betrayed our national security and undermined the security of our elections.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Donald Trump has been and remains a threat to our national security.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  He undermined America's national security.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Numerous crimes, threatening the national security.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, D-FLA.:  Severe threats to our national security and democracy that we cannot defend or dismiss.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  He undermined our national security.

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN):  And compromised our national security so that he could keep power.

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.:  He harmed America's national security.  We must act without delay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Without delay.  Of course, in the end, the delays were of the Democrats making and moreover, in the end, impeachment seemed to hurt the Democratic Party.

For one thing, it drove reasonable people out of the party.  One example this is Congressman Jeff Van Drew from South Jersey, represents the State of New Jersey in the House of Representatives.  He joins us tonight.

Congressman, you've been a Democrat for an awful long time.

REP. JEFF VAN DREW, R-N.J.:  I have.  I have.

CARLSON:  This impeachment debacle, and I think it has been a debacle for the Democratic Party convinced you to leave your party.

VAN DREW:  It was part of it.  It certainly was part of it.  I mean, even the most bizarre behavior that's occurring right now.  I mean, it was so important that it be timely that it be done.

We had to do it for the safety and good of the country.

CARLSON:  That's what they told you as a Member.

VAN DREW:  I voted no.  No.  I didn't vote for it because it was a weak impeachment.  It wasn't, in my opinion, an accurate impeachment.  And I don't think it should have been done.  It harmed the country.  It split us apart.

It really hurt the very essence of this nation, I think in many ways, but they did it.  So we finally did it.

And now the necessary paperwork, the Articles of Impeachment have not been transferred over.  That's unbelievable.

CARLSON:  So you didn't go along with it.  What did they say to you when you didn't?

VAN DREW:  They knew I wasn't because I was very upfront with folks like you and everybody else that I could talk to and really spoke to even some of the individuals in the House of Representatives that were more moderate on the Democratic side, or more conservative.

We do have the blue dogs, and everybody in the end decided that they were going to go along.  I was very surprised, because, we in essence could have stopped it.

And that and along with other things that I've believed over the years about America and the direction that America should take whether we were talking -- you just had a segment on about strong borders -- how we need to have strong borders, because of what is going on in Mexico, et cetera.

I just think we're going the wrong direction.  I think the Democrats are going in the wrong direction.  They are not the old blue dogs that I remember of years ago.  And so I really came to the point, it was all -- it all just came together.

It was like an amazing situation where, you know, I heard from the White House, and at the same time and by the way, this was after I already voted, you know my way.  I didn't vote for the impeachment.

CARLSON:  Yes.

VAN DREW:  There was no -- there was never any question that gee, if you help us and vote a certain way with impeachment, then we'll help you if you want to change parties.  Never.  Ever.  All it was, it all came together.

And sometimes it happens in life, and I feel more comfortable as a Republican.  I've always been more conservative.  And frankly, I feel like I've been liberated.

CARLSON:  How have Democrats in your state and here in Washington treated you since?

VAN DREW:  Most of them, there are some that haven't been nicer, they don't talk to you.  There's some people that won't speak with you at all.  I've also had some amazing reactions, because some people who even are Independents or undeclared or Democrats, it wasn't only the principle of, you know where Democrats are going and that's important because it's something I disagree with.

It was the idea that I was told and I was speaking to you about this before, by you know, eight counties.  And in one of the counties, one of the Chairman said to me, you're voting for impeachment, and I've never had that before, just somebody spoke to me that way.

And I said, what do you mean?  He said, you're voting for impeachment, or you're not going to get the line which is a big thing in New Jersey, and you're not going to probably even get to run in this county.

And I said, thank you very much.  And I just walked away and I thought about it, and everything came together in my mind.

That was a wrong thing -- so talk about quid pro quo.

CARLSON:  I'm glad that threats didn't work.

VAN DREW:  They didn't work.  They didn't work.  And it was such a wrong thing to do, and that's why some people who are not even that political have been so amazing and supportive because they said it took guts what you did and you did the right thing.

CARLSON:  Don't cave to the thugs.  That's the lesson.

VAN DREW:  Exactly.

CARLSON:  Congressman, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.

VAN DREW:  It was great to be on.  I enjoyed it.  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Great to see you.  Well, Golden Globes' host Ricky Gervais went after Hollywood last night by calling out its ignorance and hypocrisy.  
Kind of an amazing moment.

Mark Steyn was watching.  He joins us next to assess.

Also American cities are on the decline.  So don't miss part two of our series, "American Dystopia: The Decline of the City of San Francisco."  Our investigation continues tomorrow night.  8:00 p.m. Eastern.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Well, in the past few years, Hollywood award shows had been skippable and that's putting it mildly, unless you have a desire to get lectured about your shortcomings from the world's least talented, least credible ruling class buffoons, really.

But at the Golden Globes last night, host Ricky Gervais tried something very different.  He gave a lecture to the actors themselves.  Here's how it went.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICKY GERVAIS, COMEDIAN:  Well, you say you're woke, but the companies you work for?  I mean, unbelievable.  Apple, Amazon, Disney.  If ISIS started a streaming service, you'd call your agent, wouldn't you?

So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech, all right.  You're in no position to lecture the public about anything.  You know nothing about the real world.  Most of you spent less time in school then Greta Thunberg.

So if you win, all right, come up, accept your little award.  Thank you, agent and your God --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  That was a well-deserved profanity bleeped out there.  Author and columnist, Mark Steyn could read lips.  What did you think of that, Mark?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST:  Well, I love it because it's the contrarian spirit which is absent otherwise, in so much of our popular culture today.

I mean, he could have gone on and done a monologue about Trump and climate change and all the rest of it, but isn't so much more satisfying, sitting in front of that audience to take Greta Thunberg and Apple's sweatshops and Harvey Weinstein and just shove it all down there galoot.

Ninety-eight percent of standup comedy is pandering.  You can see it on the late-night network shows every night, where the host is basically congratulating the audience on holding the correct attitude.

And I must say, the comedians I've always liked are those who -- they just have something they want to say and they don't care if you find it funny or not.  They're going to say it to you.

And that's what he did, and God bless them -- Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep -- they were doing such a good job of sitting there with these stone faces that early on, I wondered if it was actually one of these things where they'd rehearsed it and planned it all beforehand.

And it wasn't until he was like two or three minutes into it that I thought no, no, he's actually going to -- he is actually going to win one for the decaying contrarian spirit of our times.

CARLSON:  Did you feel like maybe this was the moment where, you know, like the rest of us realize we could be free if we all just simultaneously gave the finger to our tormentors, the woke scolds who terrify us?  Like maybe this is the beginning of something bigger?

STEYN:  Absolutely.  I think it has to be someone on the inside.  It's like the fool at a Medieval Court.  You have to be inside the court as Ricky Gervais is and I think that's actually one of the things that was best about it.

This isn't really a political speech.  This -- he was talking to Hollywood about the nature of Hollywood.  Hollywood are the enablers of Harvey Weinstein and they are the people who are getting into bed with companies that do deals with the Chinese politburo, and yet there are model superiors.

So he's actually -- he's not giving a political speech.  He said it's like addressing the National Institute of Dentistry and discoursing on the character of dentists.

He actually discoursed on the character of the people who dominate our popular culture.

CARLSON:  Exactly.  The worst people in the world pretending to be the best. Mark Steyn, great to see you tonight.  Thanks so much.

STEYN:  Thanks.

CARLSON:  We'll be back tomorrow night at 8 p.m.  Sean Hannity is right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.