Andrew McCarthy: FBI Russia probe always about Trump

close

Video

Andrew McCarthy: FBI Russia probe always about Trump

FBI opened inquiry into Trump's Russia ties after he fired former FBI director James Comey; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 14, 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." We want to bring you the latest on what was really a remarkable story that broke late Friday in The New York Times. We didn't have time to address it then.

According to what are, apparently, high-level sources within the Department of Justice, in 2017, the FBI secretly began an investigation into whether the President is in fact a Russian agent.

The FBI apparently believed that President Trump could be a one-man sleeper cell, personally taking direct orders from his handlers in Moscow, and working from within the Oval Office to subvert this country. The FBI said they believe that could have happened, so they spied, apparently, on the President of the United States.

Well, shocking doesn't even begin to describe this story. Nothing like this has ever happened in this country. These allegations are literally without precedent. That is not overstatement.

And, by the way, the allegations are not true. The FBI did not find that Donald Trump is a Russian agent. No charges were ever filed against him. None will be. But an equally important question remains unanswered. How did this happen?

Deciding that a sitting President should be investigated for treason is not a small thing. Officials within the FBI had to push for this investigation and then marshal evidence to justify it. Leaders at the very highest levels of the agency had to sign off on the whole thing.

All of that happened. But on what grounds, exactly? That's what we would need to know in order to understand this. Well, thanks to The Times story, we have some sense of the answer. And if you're imagining a secret transmitter covered in Cyrillic scripts discovered, hidden in the Lincoln Bedroom, no. Think again.

There were no cloak-and-dagger clues in this case, apparently. The FBI assumed that Donald Trump might be a Russian agent not because of anything he did in secret, but because of things he said in public, very public, standing on a stage, on camera, while running for president. Here's one of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There's nothing I can think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now.

Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along, as an example, with Russia? I'm all for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That was then-candidate Trump speaking at a press conference in Florida, at Doral, in July of 2016. According to the FBI, the words you just heard are evidence that Trump may have betrayed this country. That's their view.

But there's another way to look at those words. Maybe Trump is right. Nuclear - Russia, rather, is a nuclear-armed power that's on the other side of the planet. It does not have the power to invade the United States. It can't close international shipping lanes. It does not seriously threaten our key allies like Japan or Great Britain.

Is there some reason, then, that we should inherently be in conflict with Russia? Is there moreover vast public support in this country for fighting a proxy war in Syria with the Kremlin?

And how many American parents are anxious to send their kids to die for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, an issue that we're supposed to think is very important? Well outside a few neighborhoods in Washington, not very many people, it turns out.

So, Trump did raise a fair question at that press conference in 2016. In Washington, saying that out loud is considered treason.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Vladimir Putin policies almost being parroted by Donald Trump. You had Trump say only nice things about Putin. He never spoke ill about Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Never spoke ill about Russia. That's the evidence a United States Senator holds up to prove that the President may be working for our enemies.

So, maybe Trump does like Russia. Who knows? By the way, he's allowed to if he wants to. It doesn't make him evil. It just means he disagrees with prevailing orthodoxy in D.C., and that's OK. We're supposed to have spirited debates over questions like this, but no longer.

Policy differences are now criminal offenses. Today on CNN, professional dumb person, Max Boot listed 18 reasons that the President may be a Russian spy. If you look to the reasons, a lot of them turned out to be political positions that Boot just doesn't agree with.

Firing Jim Comey, pulling out of Syria, criticizing the European Union, and this is our favorite one we're quoting, "Supporting populists." So, the permanent war caucus in Washington has succeeded in criminalizing dissent from their agenda. That's what this is.

And, by the way, if it were happening in a less-developed country, we'd know exactly what to call it. It's an attempted coup. A political leader gets elected on a platform that law-enforcement agencies don't like, so those agencies try to put him in jail.

It happens all the time in other places. Now, it's happening here. Former FBI lawyer and anti-Trump activist, Lisa Page described the FBI's thinking in her closed-door testimony before Congress. Russia is the most dangerous country in the world, Page reportedly said, because Russia works to, "Weaken our ability, America's ability, and the West's ability to spread our democratic ideals."

So, spreading our democratic ideals, as with the Iraq War, is now the most important thing that America does, the one thing we must defend at all costs. When did FBI lawyers start talking like neocon propagandists? No wonder Max Boot is on board with this.

Our entire media and political classes are with Max Boot and Lisa Page too. They have lost their minds. This past September, NBC News breathlessly reported that Russia was using, quote, sophisticated microwaves to cause brain damage to U.S. diplomats in Cuba.

No surprise there. Really, it sounds like something those dastardly Russians would do just because. Well now, months later, scientists have determined that the Kremlin probably didn't have anything to do with that. The real culprit? Noise from crickets. And, by the way, not even Russian crickets. Indies short-tailed crickets, non-Slovak crickets. Whatever!

The media didn't correct the story. They ignored it, and they moved on. They know who the bad guys are. Evidence does not deter their storyline. Russian espionage is so - so widespread, in fact, that the act of denying that you spied for Russia is now confirmation that you did.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well Kristy, the President's tweet trying to make the case that he's not a Russian asset really just undercuts his own defense. The President's tweet couldn't have been scripted better if it was written by Putin himself.

Someone has to have told the President that undercutting the FBI, insulting past presidents, and Members of the U.S. government, and criticizing their actions to keep a state safe is really advancing Russia's mission.

Our own intelligence community has said that those very things are exactly what Russia is after. So, in the President's response, he's really just making Russia's job easier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You say you're not a Russian agent, therefore, you're a Russian agent. Who puts these people on TV? That's a question we should think about.

Over the weekend, speaking of television, CNN President Jeff Zucker declared that anyone who isn't spreading fear of Russia is doing the bidding of Russia. Now, Zucker didn't say that himself, of course. He rarely speaks in public. Instead, he sent his marionette out, as he often does, to deliver the message.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: I was watching "Good Morning America" this weekend. And both mornings, they led with snowstorms and scares at malls and other stories, and not this.

And I - I just keep wondering if - if the public is ill-served, if we don't make it really clear what the stakes of this story are. How - how can a morning show not lead with this drama, I guess is what I'm saying.

CARL BERNSTEIN, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, AUTHOR: I think - I think plenty of times we lead with - with this drama.

STELTER: OK. Well, I agree.

BERNSTEIN: And - and - and with--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So the eunuch heads to the steps of the palace and reads the proclamation. Message received, thank you very much.

But take three steps back. Is the media's problem really that it doesn't talk about Russia enough? Doesn't seem like that's the problem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether the President was working for Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether Donald Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether President Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.

CHRISTOPHER CUOMO, CNN: Whether the President was secretly working with Russia against America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of the Russians.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So whether President Trump was working on behalf of Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether President Trump was working on Russia's behalf.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether the sitting President was secretly working for Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether President Trump was working for Russia from The Oval Office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Does every show on cable news have the same writer? Well, yes, it's the DNC. You've heard the script so many times that it's like background noise, Muzak in an elevator. We never pause to ask the obvious question, which is, does it make sense? Does what they're saying logically add up that Trump is doing the bidding of Russia?

I don't know. Let's assess it, just for a second. If you were Russia, let's say you're Vladimir Putin, how would you try to undermine American interest? Well you'd probably try to get America stuck in costly expensive foreign wars.

You'd look at Iraq and Afghanistan, you would say, those wars have made America much weaker. Why not try and replicate that experience in, say, Syria and Libya?

You might encourage America to do that. You might also encourage the U.S. to adopt a self-destructive energy policy. You'd have the American government sharply restrict the exploration of oil and natural gas in the name of the environment, so that America produces less energy.

Why would you do that? Because global energy prices would rise and the U.S. would have to import more. Who would that benefit? Russia, a petro-state. Their economy is dependent on energy.

But Trump, and this is weird behavior for a secret Russian agent, has done just the opposite of that. The United States, for the first time, in my lifetime, is an energy exporter. In fact, it's the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. Is that good for Russia? No, it's not.

Who's pushing the opposite? Oh, weirdly, it's the Left. They're the ones pushing a Green New Deal that would have this country shutting down oil and gas wells across the nation. Huh!

Someday we're going to look back in shame and confusion and wonder how so many supposedly smart people went completely off the deep end. That's the task for future historians. For now, it is time for some radical transparency.

Last fall, the President ordered the de-classification and release of Carter Page's FISA application. How did an American citizen who clearly didn't act as an agent for Russia have his phones tapped and his email read by the federal government, on what basis?

We have a right to know that. We still don't. So, the President ordered it. He also ordered the un-redacted release of all text messages related to the Russia investigation sent by Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr, the FBI officials.

Well instead of releasing them, the Department of Justice dithered, for reasons that were never really clear. The President got distracted. And we've never seen those documents. It's obvious, at this point, that the reason for not releasing them isn't protecting American national security.

They've just leaked the information about the FBI investigation to The New York Times on Friday. Clearly, they have no problem leaking information when it helps them. They haven't been released because those documents might embarrass the FBI.

This endless shadow investigation has caused vastly more harm to this country than any Russian Facebook ad. The President should order the de- classification of all documents related to this. It's clearly an abuse of federal power. If you want to restore confidence in the federal government, bring in some sunlight.

Tell the DoJ to do that. And if DoJ personnel refuse to do that, fire them, and replace them with people who understand that they serve elected leaders, which is to say the electorate, which is to say voters, the people, and not the other way around.

The President appears afraid to do this. He seems to be intimidated by his own lawyers, but why? What can official Washington do to him now? Call him a Russian agent, plan to impeach him? Too late, they already have.

Andy McCarthy is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and he joins us tonight.

Andy, I don't want to overstate this. But reading the justifications in The Times story for this investigation into a sitting President, it seems like FBI officials disagreed with his policy positions on Russia. Is that an appropriate pretext for a criminal investigation?

ANDREW MCCARTHY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: No, it's not, Tucker. It's not a - appropriate pretext for the FBI for any investigation.

And I must say that, you know, listening to your monologue, it occurs to me that, you know, since the Soviet Union fell, it's been the purpose of this government it seems, under administrations of both parties, to treat Russia as if it were England.

And I remember, you know, the Obama debate with Mitt Romney where, you know, Romney suggested that Russia was a geopolitical, our greatest geopolitical enemy, and Obama mocked him for that. Obama--

CARLSON: Yes.

MCCARTHY: --on a - in a conversation with Medvedev, who is basically the cat's paw for Putin, you know, says thinking he's not being heard, you know, as soon as I get by this election, I'll have more flexibility. I - imagine if Trump had said these sorts of things.

But I - I must say, listening to all that, it - it seems like Trump is the guy who was left without a chair when the music stopped, because all of a sudden, everything that was regular and fine is now, you know, now - now Trump is - I'm sorry, Russia's back to being, you know, I guess we're back in the Cold War.

And look, I - I think I probably find Russia to be more of a threat than you do.

CARLSON: Yes.

MCCARTHY: But the FBI is not supposed to be doing policy. That's not their job.

CARLSON: So, I mean why was there no - but and there's a lot that we don't know. But from that story, and no one has contested the basic facts that I have seen, officials in the FBI sat down and decided it is unacceptable for an elect - elected leader to come to these policy conclusions therefore, there must be some sinister motive.

Why did no one in the FBI say, "Wait a second. This is demonstrably not our job. We're not allowed to do this."

MCCARTHY: Because they didn't start doing it in May 2017. In May 2017, Tucker, all they did was, as a formal paper matter, they opened an investigation, specifically, on Trump. But it was the same investigation that had been being conducted for a year.

I keep going back to this - the Steele dossier. You've - you mentioned the warrant that they got on Carter Page. That was mainly on the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier is not about Carter Page, and it's not even about prostitutes in a - in a Moscow hotel. The theory of the--

CARLSON: Right.

MCCARTHY: --of the Steele dossier is that Trump and Russia, Trump and the Kremlin, Trump, personally, and the Kremlin, are in a conspiracy, an espionage conspiracy to subvert the election, so that Trump can get in and do Russia's bidding. That was what they went to the FISA Court with in order to get a warrant on Carter Page.

So, the theory behind this, if you look at the - the - the Steele dossier, guys like Page and Manafort and Cohen, they're sort of the emissaries between the Trump side of the conspiracy and the Kremlin side of the conspiracy, but the - the whole thing's about Trump, and it was always--

CARLSON: Exactly.

MCCARTHY: --about Trump. And all that happened in May of 2017 is they went overt in their files on something that they had been covertly doing for over a year.

CARLSON: Well that's - that's such a - you are the only one I've heard make that point. It's a really smart point. Andy McCarthy, thank you very much for that, over a year, unbelievable.

MCCARTHY: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer, and a whistleblower, who knows the federal government very well through hard experience. John, thanks very much for coming on tonight. Does this--

JOHN KIRIAKOU, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --so what - what do you - so, you read that story in The New York Times on Friday. Tell me if it ratified or contradicted what you already believed about how government works.

KIRIAKOU: Oh, no, this - this absolutely ratified what I believed about government. First of all, Andrew McCarthy is exactly right. This is what the FBI does. And it predates 9 - 2017 by at least a year.

Don't forget, Tucker, that the CIA has a Counterintelligence Center that works very, very closely with the FBI's Counterintelligence Division.

So just imagine, at the end of 2016, Jim Clapper and John Brennan and Jim Comey sitting in a room saying, "We don't like Donald Trump's positions. We should open an investigation, and let it leak out later that he's a Russian spy."

The FBI did this to Henry Wallace in the 1940s. They did it to Martin Luther King in the 60s, to George McGovern in '72. If they don't like you, they call you a communist or they call you a Russian dupe, and then they let the propaganda and the press takeover.

CARLSON: I mean why would Liberals, of all people, stand by and allow that to happen? Isn't - I mean this - wasn't this their Fever Dream that some unaccountable cabal of bureaucrats in the national security state would subvert democracy? Why aren't they saying something about this?

KIRIAKOU: Because they hate Donald Trump that much. They don't like the man. They don't like his policies. And they see the only way or the best way to unseat him as using what's - what we call the Deep State.

CARLSON: I mean, what does this mean for future presidents? I mean if - if Kamala Harris or just pick a - pick a candidate, gets elected next time, or the time after that, I mean can any President really believe that his or her bureaucracy won't try to end the presidency?

KIRIAKOU: No. I - I think that's exactly what the problem is. And what we need here is robust Congressional oversight, which we haven't had in decades.

CARLSON: Yes.

KIRIAKOU: It should - it should be up to the - the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to put a stop to this kind of nonsense before it even - it even forms its - its own life. It - they could have smothered it in--

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

KIRIAKOU: --the crib and they didn't.

CARLSON: They're cheering it on.

KIRIAKOU: Yes.

CARLSON: John, thank you. It's great to see you, always.

KIRIAKOU: My pleasure, thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Well the government shutdown continues. Americans bore - America's border remains a mess, obviously. MS-13 gang members, using a legal loophole to stay within this country's borders. That's next. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: HUNTING MS-13.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well a vicious MS-13 attack in New York is being blamed on America's gaping immigration loopholes. Ramon Arevalo Lopez and Oscar Canales Molina allegedly took part in an MS-13 assault on two New York High School students.

Both of the alleged assailants were detained at the border in 2016. But since they were unaccompanied minors at the time, they were allowed to settle in this country, while awaiting deportation.

Of course, they were never deported. Nobody ever is. Without that catch and release policy, the crime likely wouldn't have happened.

Mark Morgan was head of the Border Patrol under President Obama. He was dismissed by President Trump, which you should keep in mind as you listen to him speak, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Morgan, thanks very much for coming on tonight.

MARK MORGAN, FORMER BORDER PATROL CHIEF: You bet.

CARLSON: So, is it too much to say that this is a real-world example of what can happen if you have a dysfunctional immigration policy?

MORGAN: That's absolutely right, Tucker. And I think you said it right is that it's about that the immigration process in this country across the board is broke. This is a great example--

CARLSON: Right.

MORGAN: --American, you know, if they could look this up, the Flores decision. The Flores decision is what mandates the United States Border Patrol to release minor children. They only have a few amount of days.

And once they hit that, they've got to release them, regardless if they've been properly vetted, regardless if they have a - a parent in the United States, they have to be released into the interior United States.

CARLSON: And so, that's a judicial ruling. A - a court came up with that decision. Could - has Congress ever acted on it? I mean, since clearly that's crazy, why doesn't the United States Congress fix it?

MORGAN: That's a great question, Tucker, another reason why I'm breaking my silence, because Congress could fix this in five minutes if they wanted to. Before I was a Chief of Border Patrol, I was with the - with - with the FBI, and I actually--

CARLSON: Yes.

MORGAN: --supervised MS-13 Gang Force in Southern California. We used to catch them on surveillance wires, and they would laugh. MS-13 gang members would laugh how easy it was to go back and forth between the - the Mexico and U.S. border.

CARLSON: So, we've had a number of debates on this show with Democrats who say there's something bigoted about criticizing MS-13. As someone who's actually worked to apprehend MS-13, how would you respond to that?

MORGAN: That's ridiculous. MS-13, and - and I know this may be controversial. But when the - when the President referred to them as animals, I - I absolutely said, "That is correct," those MS-13 members.

And I can tell you, again, because I've worked it, and I've been there as a Chief, I've been to the detention facilities where I've walked up to these individuals that are so-called minors, 17 or under, and I've looked at them, and I've looked at their eyes, Tucker, and I said, "That is a soon- to-be MS-13 gang member." It's unequivocal.

CARLSON: And their - their - their victims are overwhelmingly immigrants themselves, right?

MORGAN: That's - that's another untold story, Tucker, that I'm glad you're talking about tonight. That's absolutely correct. That's another incredulous thing. They absolutely prey on their own.

CARLSON: Right. So if you - if you cared, you would care about that. Mr. Morgan, thank you very much. Mark Morgan, great to see you.

MORGAN: You bet.

CARLSON: Well California has been staying up late thinking of new ways to make life harder for normal people, the ones who haven't moved to Idaho yet. We'll tell you what they're doing after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Over the weekend, a group of Republican lawmakers and their many consultants agonized over the future of the party. They're worried because the Republicans' share of national elections is shrinking. Why is that?

Well, focus group experts say it's because of shifting demographics and the GOP must win over more minority voters in order to survive, particularly Hispanic voters, and that's probably true. The question is how do you do it?

And the geniuses who run the Republican Party in Washington think there's really only one way to win more Hispanic votes, you need more illegal immigration, and you need to give amnesty right away to those people who are already here illegally.

Well Democrats, needless to say, are cheering from the sidelines. They agree with this strongly. It helps them. But is it factually true as a political matter? It's worth thinking about that.

A closer look at the numbers suggests that Hispanic opinion on immigration is a lot more complex than they're telling you on television. A Harvard- Harris Poll last summer found that a majority of Hispanics want stricter enforcement of America's immigration laws.

According to - according to a Pew survey, meanwhile, only 14 percent of American Hispanics think our country needs more immigrants. Fully a quarter believe America has too many immigrants already.

And the most anti-immigration Hispanics of all are those who are foreign- born, less-educated, and speak mostly Spanish. Why is that? It's obvious. These are the very people who face the stiffest competition over wages from future waves of lower-skilled immigrants.

So, it turns out that opening the borders is not the key to winning the Hispanic vote. So, what is the key? Well maybe allowing parents to raise their own children. How about that? Turns out, Hispanic voters are for that, passionately.

One Pew survey show that 73 percent of Hispanic Americans believe it is better to have one parent stay at home to raise children, rather than having both parents work. That's well above the national average on that question of about 60 percent.

Hispanics put their belief into practice too. 38 percent of Hispanic mothers stay at home when their kids are small. That's 9 percent above the national average. So, think about what that means for a minute in political terms.

Three-quarters of Hispanic voters believe a parent should stay at home to raise children, but less than half can actually afford to do that. That means there are millions of Hispanic parents who wish they could be at home raising their kids, but they can't be because they can't afford it.

So, here's a crazy idea for the Republican Party and its legions of overpaid consultants. Why not work to give these voters what they want most? Why not run on a platform that unites children with their parents at home?

19 unhappy social activists on Twitter would not like this. But who cares? Those people are miserable and pathetic, and there is no reason they should have this level of control over our society. How about ignoring them for once?

Republicans ought to make giving parents the choice to raise their own kids their party's top priority. Hispanic voters would love that. Voters of all colors would love that. Why wouldn't they love that? Nothing would make this a happier country.

Well now we head to California, which was once the greatest place to live, really, in the world, and it's becoming tougher to live in California by the day. What's happening?

Trace Gallagher is on this story for us tonight. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Well, how about a new water tax, Tucker? Governor Gavin Newsom hasn't said what the new water tax would cost California residents. But a similar proposal by former Governor, Jerry Brown, would have run residents $0.95 a month.

That measure was abandoned after failing to get support in the legislature. Newsom says, this time around, the effort is aimed at providing clean drinking water in some of the state's rural towns and cities. But the Association of California Water Agencies says the tax is unnecessary because the state has many alternate funding solutions.

And the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - Association called the proposal an example of, "California's knee-jerk reaction to default to a new tax whenever there is a new problem."

Meantime, California has already banned plastic bags and straws. Now, paper receipts are on the chopping block. One Democratic state lawmaker wants to make it illegal to give out a paper receipt unless the customer specifically wants one.

Supporters say paper receipts are coated in unhealthy chemicals. And, by the way, if this passes, each violation would result in a $25 fine for the businesses. Tucker.

CARLSON: That'll work. Trace Gallagher, great to see you.

GALLAGHER: You too.

CARLSON: Author and Columnist, Mark Steyn, joins us tonight. You know, sometimes Mark, you hear an idea that's so brilliant, it's a transformative idea.

MARK STEYN, STEYNONLINE.COM: Yes.

CARLSON: It's almost like when Galileo got back from stargazing and hit you with it, you know, I can't make sense.

I was walking down Market Street today, in fact, in San Francisco, and there are people passed out, and there's human feces all over the sidewalk, and it occurred to me, if only they would ban paper receipts, maybe all of this would be better.

STEYN: Yes. I - I think so. As Trace was saying, they - this - these paper receipts con - contain a chemical called BPA, which if you eat it, in high quantities, can call birth - could cause birth defects.

And clearly, that's why California last year had the lowest fertility rate in its entire history because people aren't having any bar - births because they're eating too many receipts.

If you go to a Beverly Hills restaurant, and the waiter says, "Do you want the curly endive salad," and the lady says, "No, I'll just have the receipt and a glass of water. Oh, no wait. I can't afford the tax on the water. Just bring me the receipt."

I - I had a 40-receipt a day habit. I used to buy packs of cigarettes just so I could eat the receipts. But I actually think - I actually think, Tucker, there's a serious point in this. The beneficiary of this would be the Twitter guy who also makes--

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: --these little square machines that you see which issue the electronic receipts.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: And if you think about it, Tucker, just as social media has meant that news and information and knowledge is just in the hands of four or five companies around the world now, imagine if actual money just came under the control of the same four or five people who control social media?

I'd rather have a paper receipt than the Twitter guy controlling receipts.

CARLSON: Well OK, so but that's not actually--

STEYN: I have not that thing.

CARLSON: --a crazy thing to say because there are, as you know, proposals every year to do--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --away with paper money and to make everything paperless.

STEYN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: So, why, you know--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --at a time when big tech has shown no respect for the First Amendment, for freedom of association, really, any right at all where they - they ape Communist China, why would we trust them to control all of our commercial transactions?

STEYN: Because I think the same that there is now a generation of people who think this is entirely normal. I mean I don't - I don't want to go all, you know, electromagnetic pulse on you.

But one of the problems with that is if - if that ever does happen, we'll be going back to the mid-19th Century, but with a population that no longer knows what people knew in the mid-19th Century, including that it sometimes helps to be able to have paper receipts.

It sometimes helps not to deliver more and more of the daily functioning of the world into the same four or five companies.

CARLSON: That's so - I actually hadn't put those - those together, but I should have. That's why we're always so grateful to have you on, Mark Steyn, a genius.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you.

So, the latest FBI revelations, Friday, in The New York Times, we learned that the bureau did not agree with the President's policy positions on Russia, and so they accused him internally of being a spy for Russia. Hmm? Are the Democrats OK with that? We'll ask one after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: People doing that investigation were people that have been caught that are known scoundrels. They're in my - I guess you could say, they're dirty cops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That was the President today responding to the story on Friday that the FBI tried to investigate him as a foreign spy. That happened. No one contested it did. How is the Democratic Party viewing this development?

Joining us tonight is Richard Goodstein. He's a lawyer. He advised both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Richard, good to see you tonight.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thanks for having me. Sure.

CARLSON: So, here's the core of The New York Times story. The officials at the FBI watched the President on the campaign trail in 2016.

And they watched him say, and I'm quoting now from a press conference, July 26th, I believe, 2016, in Florida, "There's nothing I'd rather do than have a Russia - than have Russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with, as an example, Russia, I'm all for it."

So, he says that, reflecting the views, I think, of a lot of Americans, and they say, "He must be working for Putin." What's wrong with that would you say?

GOODSTEIN: Here's where I think you and most Democrats disagree. As Dick Cheney said, what the Russians did in the 2016 elections was an act of war. This was unprecedented. You talked in your opening monologue today about what was unprecedented about this investigation of Donald Trump.

We could spend the rest of this show, not just this segment, listing all the things that he's done, siding with Putin in Helsinki against our intelligence agencies.

CARLSON: OK.

GOODSTEIN: That's unprecedented. The list--

CARLSON: OK. So but wait, let me--

GOODSTEIN: --goes on.

CARLSON: --let me ask you. So, there's no question that he has a different view from the neocon establishment in Washington, the ones that have destroyed our country and the world, and have never gone to prison, unfortunately, as a result of what they did.

So, he is different. There's no doubt about that. But I'm just wondering as a kind of factual matter, is there something wrong, if I were to say on the air, you know, I kind of - I kind of like Russia, or, you know, I think they're a lot better than China, would that make my loyalty to America suspect? Would that--

GOODSTEIN: But that--

CARLSON: --qualify me for an FBI investigation, would it?

GOODSTEIN: No. But if you were a--

CARLSON: Oh.

GOODSTEIN: --presidential candidate and said to the public, to the Russians, please steal from Hillary Clinton, please steal from her, that would actually, and then, you actually knew as the intelligence agencies--

CARLSON: Right.

GOODSTEIN: --that the Russians were stealing from her and that Trump--

CARLSON: When did--

GOODSTEIN: --was using it a hundreds of times--

CARLSON: OK. Well--

GOODSTEIN: --and we'd actually don't know what else these intercepts of--

CARLSON: We don't - we don't know. We don't know.

GOODSTEIN: --we don't know. We will.

CARLSON: OK. But we do know - let me ask you this, do you think that it's within bounds for the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world to see a politician they don't like open an investigation into whether he committed treason, discover that he did not commit treason, file no charges against him, and then leak the existence of that investigation to the press?

GOODSTEIN: OK.

CARLSON: Do you think that's - that's - that's an OK way to conduct business within an Executive Branch? Are you comfortable with that?

GOODSTEIN: Well the predicate is that we - he didn't commit treason, which is siding - aiding and abetting your enemy. Actually, I think on the public record, we know that he kind of has, whether that rises to the level of anybody in Congress or the public--

CARLSON: OK. Look, you don't agree - no, but hold on - I'm talking about the law enforcement. Look, you don't agree with Trump, you don't agree with his Russia policy, I think that's fine. I have no interest in seeing the FBI open an investigation into you for disagreeing with me because I'm not a fascist.

But I'm just wondering if you think it's OK for a law enforcement agency to investigate a politician whose views they disagree with, find no chargeable evidence, and then leak the fact they investigated him, in order to discredit him, are you comfortable with that standard? That's all I'm asking

GOODSTEIN: Well again, we - we don't know that they haven't found chargeable evidence, one. We - until Mueller has his report--

CARLSON: Why don't they charge him?

GOODSTEIN: --well - well let's see what Mueller has to say, which--

CARLSON: This isn't Mueller. Wait, hold on. This isn't Mueller. He's running a separate investigation--

GOODSTEIN: He picked it up.

CARLSON: --which is an independent--

GOODSTEIN: We actually --

CARLSON: --hold on, hold on.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: It's - independent for Mueller. This was the FBI. Did they - if they didn't find anything, is it OK even if they did find something, shouldn't we learn about it in the filing of charges, like is it OK to discredit politicians using a law enforcement agency? Is that - is that cool with you?

GOODSTEIN: Well when you say filing of charges, I - I - I tend to agree, I think, with you that probably prosecuting a sitting President is not something that's considered appropriate. That's what impeachment's for.

So again, your predicate for your - your kind of assertion about misconduct by the FBI is something I just don't, and I think most Democrats, and most of the public, doesn't subscribe to, which is the--

CARLSON: So - so - so it's OK? I just want to know like what's the standard going forward? So, President Harris three years from now will have views that I don't agree with. If I see the FBI investigate her for having those views--

GOODSTEIN: And if she is consorting--

CARLSON: --for being too close to Uzbekistan or whatever--

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: --but they don't charge her but then they leak that they thought maybe she was a quisling, that's totally fine. It's not a big deal.

GOODSTEIN: And if Uzbekistan had the way to change the United States elections, and she consorted with them, and her son did, and her son-in-law did, and other - and her Campaign Chairman was an aide to the Uzbekistan--

CARLSON: Wow.

GOODSTEIN: --government, yes, and - and actually change the platform of the Democratic Party--

CARLSON: Change the platform?

GOODSTEIN: --to - to help the Uzbekistan, yes, actually--

CARLSON: It's - it's OK--

GOODSTEIN: --they - they might.

CARLSON: --hold on. It's OK - can I just ask one last question. Is it - do you think it's moral for the - for me as a parent, for example, to say, I don't think that my son should fight for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, or am I somehow working for Putin, if I think that?

GOODSTEIN: Look, Tucker, people have different views as to what's the standard by which their people - their - their flesh and blood should be committed to the defense of the United States.

CARLSON: OK. But so - so--

GOODSTEIN: Some people in the military--

CARLSON: --why should I care? Why should I care about--

GOODSTEIN: Here's why we should care if the--

CARLSON: --whether Russia invades Ukraine? I mean I'm not against--

GOODSTEIN: Here's why.

CARLSON: --Ukraine. I'm just saying like why - I'm an American. Why do I care?

GOODSTEIN: Here's why. Be - because if you--

CARLSON: Remind me.

GOODSTEIN: --if you look at the Russian press, I think they're coming to believe that Donald Trump is, sorry, a stooge and, therefore, they can get away with things in Ukraine in--

CARLSON: OK. But - but why do I care, just super quick--

GOODSTEIN: --right in Afghanistan--

CARLSON: --tell me why I care if they take over Ukraine? I'm not - I'm not- -

GOODSTEIN: Be - because and that's testing with Europe and--

CARLSON: --calling for invasion of Ukraine but--

GOODSTEIN: --well, again, you're--

CARLSON: Oh, so they're going to - they're going to invade Liechtenstein next like this is not--

GOODSTEIN: Well, it's not Liechtenstein, actually--

CARLSON: --settling, you can hear yourself?

GOODSTEIN: --I--

CARLSON: OK.

GOODSTEIN: --I think they're trying to - we - we know that they're meddling in Brexit--

CARLSON: Right.

GOODSTEIN: --and these elections in France and elsewhere. So--

CARLSON: Oh, they're invading England. OK, OK.

GOODSTEIN: Well, they're doing it.

CARLSON: OK. Richard, thank you so much. Good to see you.

GOODSTEIN: My pleasure, see you.

CARLSON: We're still waiting breathlessly, of course, for the release of the Mueller report. For some, the final import is anticipated like The Rapture, a religious event that will expose and destroy the Incubus that is Donald Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I personally think that what Mueller is heading to, is not only the indictments, because remember, there maybe more, right.

He's not going to, you know, he's going to, there - there may be more coming down the pike.

ANA CABRERA, JOURNALIST, CNN TELEVISION NEWS ANCHOR: Right.

KAYYEM: But also a report that discloses the extent to which Trump and his family are compromised by the Russians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Compromised! How do I get to be a CNN analyst? Low bar, obviously.

Others though are more cautious that one - Mueller's report could be a disappointment in the end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: People who are closest to - to what Mueller has been doing of, interacting with the Special Counsel, caution me that this report is almost certain to be anti- climactic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Ken Starr is a former Independent Counsel, of course. He's the Author of the book, Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Starr, thank you very much for coming on, Judge. So--

KEN STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --I'm not sure which I'm rooting for, the anti-climactic version of the report or the report that actually answers the questions outstanding.

But if it turns out the report does not find the President colluded with Russia, and goes in another direction, shouldn't Mueller offer some kind of apology for gumming up the wheels of government for two years and destroying public - I'm serious, and destroying public confidence--

STARR: No, I know you are. I know you are, Tucker.

CARLSON: --in every institution this country has?

STARR: I - I understand, Tucker. I have a different view. And that view is that Mueller should bring this to a close. We've needed to know the answer about collusion for a long time. And I think he knows that answer.

And I wish we would know that pretty darn soon because that goes to the heart of American politics etcetera several roles our relationships with Russia. But here's why I'm not subscribing to the anti-Mueller view.

All of the Republican leadership agrees, "Let him finish his work." Bill Barr, the nominee, and who's superbly qualified is not - now saying, "Let him finish his work." And that's what I want him to do. Now--

CARLSON: Right.

STARR: --I will say this in addition.

CARLSON: But let me just say, there's no group I respect less.

STARR: Those--

CARLSON: So, that holds no water with me. I'm just wondering, as an American, why wouldn't the interest of the country--

STARR: Well--

CARLSON: --come before all of this stuff like well - how are we benefiting from this--

STARR: I couldn't--

CARLSON: --protracted investigation?

STARR: Because Bob Mueller has been finding stuff that needed to be found out, specifically the 13 Russian individuals and the two organizations. You've read those indictments from some few months ago. And that's tells a very powerful story about Russian interference, alleged, it's an indictment.

But it doesn't, and this is - goes to the fundamental point, it doesn't have one word in those 35 pages in one indictment, many pages in the second indictment that suggests collusion. So, there's interference in the - the Trump Administration.

So, leave Congress aside. The Trump Administration agrees that there was interference and there are sanctions against Russia, and Russian individuals, because of - of interference.

Now, in terms of the report, I'd hope that the report will in fact be a report that is consistent with Department of Justice practice, which is, you don't bring scurrilous charges. You don't make charges against people in reports.

You either charge them, that is to say, you file an indictment, or you don't. And I think that's Bob Mueller's ultimate responsibility.

CARLSON: Right.

STARR: And that's the regulation. Listen, one of the many problems, as you know, the Independent Counsel Law under which I served is it called for this vast report to do what? To go to the House of Representatives for purposes of impeachment. Let's get the Justice Department out of that business entirely.

CARLSON: Yes, I would say that. The deal --

STARR: House Representatives--

CARLSON: --that - right. Just leaking against people they don't like, little, little scary, I would think.

STARR: Oh, that is terrible. In fact--

CARLSON: Yes.

STARR: --let me comment on that, if I may, very briefly. When--

CARLSON: Very quickly, if you would, yes.

STARR: --when I read The New York Times article, my first reaction was we need an investigation right now as to who leaked this. We think we know.

CARLSON: Yes.

STARR: What was their motivation, and why the timing? This was many months ago. There's been--

CARLSON: Right.

STARR: --no suggestion whatsoever of - to support this outrageous charge against the President.

CARLSON: Right. It's pretty scary. Ken Starr, thank you very much.

STARR: My pleasure, Tucker.

CARLSON: Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii is running for president as a Democrat. Some of her foreign policy views diverge from those of official Washington, so they're trying to destroy and defame her.

Huh! Interesting! We've got details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: It's been close to two months now. But the Yellow Jacket - Yellow Vests, rather, protests in France are still going on. In some ways, they're getting bigger. They began as a protest against a gas tax imposed to fight global warming. But now they have a new enemy, speed cameras.

The French government recently admitted that protesters have destroyed about 60 percent of the speed cameras in all of France. You might think global warming and speed cameras are not related, but they are.

Both are weapons our leaders use to bully the population. Elites love to impose gas taxes on everyone else while flying private to conferences in Switzerland, where they worry about melting ice caps. That's obviously a scam. Let's just be honest about it. Speed cameras, meanwhile, are not about safety. Studies have shown they actually increase accidents by making people slow down abruptly. The goal of cameras is not to help you but to take your money.

This is government as opposition, government hurting you on purpose for its own gain. Our leaders don't care. Our media don't care either. They live in city centers. They don't drive their own cars, are not affected.

Now, the Yellow Vests of France are reacting to this, and they're angry for the same reason so many people all over the world are angry, because their governments have stopped treating the well-being of ordinary people as their top priority.

America doesn't have Yellow Vests. The only people who riot in this country are Antifa. So, here's a suggestion. Instead of spending your time, Antifa, screaming at people in restaurants or smashing moss-covered statues, why not knock over a speed camera or two?

Yes, it would be vandalism. We're not encouraging it. But at least you might be helping somebody. Of course, they won't do that. They don't fight the system. They fight to preserve it.

Well back in America, Democratic Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, announced that she's running for President last week. And since then, she has been savaged by the Left.

Gabbard is a veteran of the Iraq War. She's been smeared as a puppet of Bashar Assad in Syria because she opposes keeping American troops in that country. Wow! She's also been accused of bigotry for opposing gay marriage in 2004 when, by the way, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and every other major Democrat opposed gay marriage.

So, what is this really about?

Glenn Greenwald is good at thinking through what things are really about. He co-founded The Intercept, and he joins us tonight. Glenn, this is not a defense of Tulsi Gabbard or we're endorsing all of her views or whatever.

But I'm just watching this and I'm thinking, when did Tulsi Gabbard get to be the enemy of everyone? What is going on here?

GLENN GREENWALD, THE INTERCEPT CO-FOUNDER: So, yes, I'm not a - a - a supporter of Congresswoman Gabbard's candidacy. There are some really legitimate and serious concerns that I have that have been raised by the real Left, not the Democratic Party Liberals--

CARLSON: Right.

GREENWALD: --about some of her support for the war on terror, her - her - her affinity for Hindu nationalism in India, her affection for some really terrible dictators that I think she should answer for, and be - be clear about.

But what's really going on is twofold. One is that in 2 - 2016, she resigned from the Democratic National Committee because she accused Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC of cheating on behalf of Hillary, and then supported Bernie Sanders, so Democrats hate her for that.

But they also hate her because she's been questioning a lot of Washington orthodoxy that both political parties support, including why it is that we continue to try and change the regimes of countries far away like in Syria, and why we continue to prop up regimes that make the world hate us like we do in Saudi Arabia?

So, for better or for worse, she deviates from a lot of the Washington Consensus. She's hard to put into a liberal or a conservative or a right-wing or a left-wing box, and - and that's what Washington really hates the most are people who are kind of independent-minded and critical thinkers.

CARLSON: But there's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her. If you don't like her foreign policy views, then let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anybody who deviates from their own dumb ideas. Have you noticed this?

GREENWALD: Yes. Well so, I think there's one particular smear that has become extremely pervasive in U.S. discourse that is central to sustaining the United States as a country that's at endless war, which is if you don't support a particular war that Washington wants, to remove a particular leader, you get accused of being a supporter of that Dictator.

In 2002 and '03--

CARLSON: Right.

GREENWALD: --people who were against the Iraq War were accused often on this network but others as well--

CARLSON: Yes, sure.

GREENWALD: --ridiculously accused of - of - of loving Saddam Hussein. People who - who opposed the intervention in Libya in 2011 were accused of being apologists for Colonel Gaddafi.

And now, Tulsi Gabbard is being accused of being a supporter of someone that she actually called a brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, because she's asking why it is that we are spending a billion dollars a year, or were arming rebels, who we don't know, trying to remove the leader of a foreign country, and engaging in all kinds of policies that are actually worsening the security of the United States rather than helping them.

You can criticize her. But to accuse her of being a supporter of - or a best friend of, as Claire McCaskill put it, Bashar al-Assad is just idiotic, but it's really toxic as well because it's the kind of argument--

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENWALD: --hauled out always to defend Washington foreign policy.

CARLSON: It's the kind of argument that ends the argument, and that's the point. Glenn Greenwald, thank you always for your incisive views on that.

GREENWALD: Good to be here, Tucker. Thanks.

CARLSON: Thank you.

That's about it for us tonight. We'll be back, have no fear, tomorrow night, 8:00 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. We hope you'll join us then.

Have a great evening, meantime. Guess who's next? You guessed it. And we're going to throw to him nine seconds early, Sean Hannity. He's standing by in New York.

SEAN HANNITY- HOST: This has become an issue. People say how many seconds extra did Tucker steal from your show? Now - good to see. Great show as always.

CARLSON: It's an act of love, Sean. Thank you.

HANNITY: Greenwald's an interesting guy. I like that.

CARLSON: He is an interesting guy. He's an honest man.

HANNITY: Very interesting.

CARLSON: Yes.

HANNITY: A whole debate about what is described as media because we know the networks, the newspapers, and cable channels are fake news, and have agendas, never people that are, you know, non-political that I'm interested in.

CARLSON: Yes, me too.

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