This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," March 13, 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.” Tonight, it was like a bad but still semi-amusing comedy film come to life. Federal authorities taking a quick break from chasing after Russian Facebook trolls have exposed a very large nationwide effort by actors, lawyers, private equity moguls, to game the college admissions process, to cheat. And it worked.

Suddenly, unimpressive students became geniuses, totally uncoordinated video game players became crew captains or legendary poll vaulters. Some people even fabricated new racial identities to get into school. Amazing. Trace Gallagher has the details for us tonight -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, late today, a Federal judge here in Los Angeles agreed to release actress Lori Loughlin on a $1 million bond. She and her fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli are charged with paying $500,000.00 to have their two daughters recruited for the University of Southern California crew team, despite neither girl knowing how to row.

And now, USC says all applicants connected to this cheating scheme will be denied, and those already in school will be reviewed, meaning that Loughlin's 19-year-old daughter Olivia Jade, a YouTube star, could be kicked out of SC.

Meantime, the hammer is also coming down on coaches and athletic departments. The charity foundation of Rick Singer, the ringleader of the whole scam, who already pleaded guilty, shows payments of $338,000.00 to the NYU Athletic Department and $546,000.00 to the University of Texas Athletic Department.

There's also a $100,000.00 contribution to a mysterious Princeville Enterprise, which coincidently shares the same address as UCLA's former soccer coach. So far, coaches and other athletic personnel have now been fired or suspended at USC, Stanford, Wake Forest, University of Texas, Georgetown, Yale, and UCLA. In other words, this scheme was a pay to not play.

Finally, the people who cheated to inflate SAT and ACT test scores are also being rounded up -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher. Amazing, yet not surprising. Two years ago, actress Lori Loughlin appeared on NBC on "The Today Show" and delivered one of those entirely staged, yet seemingly intimate moments that publicists refer to as humanizing.

Loughlin's daughter was going off to college and Loughlin wanted us to know that she might be a famous actress with a team of image consultants and personal stylists on-call, but on some level, she's just like the rest of us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HODA KOTB, HOST, NBC: So many parents watching I'm sure going are going through this where they are about to watch a child go off to college. Kathie, it happened to you. Are you preparing for it in any way?

LORI LOUGHLIN, AMERICAN ACTRESS: I think I'm in complete denial. I really am because when I think about it too much, it will make me cry. So I've got to stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Make me cry, just like the rest of us. But in fact, Lori Loughlin is not like the rest of us. Her kids got into college because she and her husband bribed their way in. Taking the spots of kids who worked hard and foolishly believed, it turns out, that the system was not rigged.

And how about those kids, Lori Loughlin's kids? Were they grateful for the advantage they received, here's one of her daughters explaining how she feels about going to the University of Southern California.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLIVIA JADE GIANNULLI, DAUGHER OF LORI LOUGHLIN: And then the whole college thing, yes, I'm going. I'm living in a dorm with a roommate. I do want the experience of like game days partying. I don't really care about school, as you guys all know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The whole college thing. I don't really care about school. Of course she doesn't. Her parents don't care about school either. None of the parents who supported this elaborate fraud care about school. They care only about the credentials that school confers.

The school part of school means less every year. The Liberal Arts curriculum in America has become a grotesque joke. Even the people who make a living from it know that very well.

Humanities professors may be the single most cynical people in this country. The Sociology of Miley Cyrus, Critical Text and White Privilege, Women's Studies. They are mocking us. They've got to be. This is pop art, not education. Nobody is pretending otherwise anymore.

Yet, even as academia descends deeper into absurdity and irrelevance, college degrees have become more valuable than ever. In modern America, only a small percentage of the population succeeds in the end, and the pathway to that success, to the world you read about on the internet, runs through a relatively small number of elite universities.

A ruling class claims legitimacy based on the fact that they have degrees from those places. It's all completely fair, they tell us. They are in charge because they won the great meritocratic competition and got into Yale. You are not in charge because you didn't.

But of course, they are lying to you. They were never playing by the same rules. Ironically, it was in fact Felicity Huffman who best explained how it actually worked, back when she acted in "Desperate Housewives." Watch this.

(VIDEO PLAYS)

CARLSON: Art mimics life. Your kids take high stake standardized tests that measure their ability for good or bad, people like Felicity Huffman certify their children with bogus disabilities to get extra time on the test or they just pay someone else to take the test.

Your kids have to practice a sport for years to get the attention of college coaches. Their kids just pay some fixer to transform them into soccer superstars and pole vaulting prodigies. Your kids must submit to quotas and affirmative action. They are punished on the basis of their sex or skin color and we are told that this has to be done, we must do this to offset their privilege, the blood guilt they bear for the bad behavior of others generations before they were even born. That's what they tell us. Please.

If you fall for that lie, it means you really don't have any privilege because people with actual privilege have the knowledge, the money, the connections to make certain that the quota system doesn't hurt them. It benefits them.

Elizabeth Warren did it. She lied about her race. That's how she got tenure at Harvard. Now Warren says she has no sympathy for the people who got caught playing the same game she did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, HOST, MSNBC: So as a parent, how much sympathy would you have for these parents who are embroiled in this alleged cheating scandal?

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Zero.

BRZEZINSKI: Zero.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, the indictments that just came out don't even touch the greatest scandal of all and that is how the mediocre children of the politically powerful on both sides take top spots at top schools without even resorting to bribery. They get it for free. They are just awarded them for the achievement of being born.

That's how Chelsea Clinton wound up at Stanford and Oxford and then a hedge fund at McKinsey and then on various boards of big companies and then making documentary films nobody ever watched -- all without having a single original thought ever in her life. Do you know that is? That's an aristocracy disguised as a meritocracy. It's a scam.

Too few have been punished for it. In this case only parents, athletic coaches, and a few university advisers have been indicted, no actual admissions officials have been named. As far as we know, none of the event been punished and that's a joke. They knew what was going on. They had to know.

What the rest of us don't know but should know is how the college admissions process actually works. What are the rules of it? What are the criteria? Who gets in and why? Those are the key questions in the whole chain, from birth to world domination. And yet, no one will reveal what the recipe is.

Like all systems built on secrecy and deceit, it's opaque. It should not be opaque. We pay for all of this -- all of higher education -- directly through tuition and then indirectly, billions in tax dollars, direct or in Federally-backed student loans. We have a right to know. So open the doors. Bring in the sunlight. Let's see their books. College is too important to be this corrupt.

Bradley Campbell is a sociologist, coauthor of the book "The Rise of Victimhood Culture," and he joins us now. Bradley, thanks very much for coming on. So who is the victim in all this, in this scam?

BRADLEY CAMPBELL, SOCIOLOGIST AND AUTHOR: The victims are certainly the students who are not getting places in these schools because people are cheating, that's one of the victims. And I think -- I look at it two ways. One is as a professor and somebody who teaches students and then also as a sociologist who studies these kinds of hoaxes and things.

But my first reaction is just as a professor, and also as someone who did not go to an elite college myself. I don't teach at an elite college now. I teach at Cal State Los Angeles. And if you look at elite colleges, Ivy League universities, we find the children of elites and wealthy people are already very overrepresented.

There are 38 colleges, including five of the Ivy Leagues where there are more students from families of the top 1% of income than the bottom 60%. So that's the disparities you're talking about.

And then you have my students -- the students I teach at Cal State Los Angeles aren't from anywhere close to the top 1% of income, and they work hard. Many of them are trying to raise families while they are pursuing their education, working jobs and all of these things, and so it's on a personal level to see that and it's just outrageous to think of people who are gaming the system and getting ahead of people who are trying to work.

College is still a pathway to success for many people and it's a very hard one for many people who have all kinds of other responsibilities and things going on. And so this is far --

CARLSON: We could fix this instantly. People trust the outcome of sporting events because they watch them on TV. It's transparent. You know what happens. You know who won. Increasingly people know that the whole gateway to the ruling class is controlled by the ruling class and it prevents lots of people from entering on unfair criteria.

So why not just tell us exactly how people are getting in? What the standards are for getting in? Why not open the books of the Admissions Departments of those 38 schools you just mentioned?

CAMPBELL: Yes, there's not much transparency always in the admissions process, and it's very -- even for people who may be highly qualified and have good applications can still be kind of a crapshoot. That's why you have such competition with the people, and the efforts to cheat.

I think of it in this way. There are always people who are out there trying to cheat, trying to game the system who will do things like this, but what does it reveal when it happens about, you know, the system? How are people getting ahead? And I think there's a tiny bit of good news and that some of it is paying people to take tests and things, so test scores and those kind of things do matter somewhat. If we are thinking about, is there a meritocracy? There is not completely, but it's not -- that merit has nothing to do with people getting in.

But at the same time, you see these other things. You see sports being so important where people are paying to get on rosters of soccer teams and these things. You see all of sees other factors that are important and even when people aren't cheating, it's the rich and wealthy people who have advantages there. They can pay for their children's extracurricular activities. They have the time to do it and they can pay for their personal statements and all of these other things that matter in college admissions.

CARLSON: Well, of course, and in this case you had kids who had only played Fortnight who were pretending to be, you know, star bobsledders or something, and it was literally dishonest. Professor, thank you very much.

CAMPBELL: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: Robert Woodson is the President and founder of the Woodson Institute, a frequent guest on the show on a very wise men we are proud to have him tonight. Mr. Woodson, thanks very much for coming on.

ROBERT WOODSON, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, WOODSON INSTITUTE: Pleased to be here, Tucker.

CARLSON: You're watching this story unfold, and you have been in and around higher education all of your life. What's the takeaway for you? What does this tell you about where we are?

WOODSON: I really think it amounts to child neglect and child abuse. We are raising children in an entitlement mentality and environment where they feel entitlement and so do the parents.

One of the most important books that I've read about this and I commend to your viewers is Richard Watson's book, "Fables in Fortune: What Rich People Have That You Don't Want." And the sequel to that is "Entitlemania." Where he talks about the entitlement mentality.

The very fact that we are exempting these children from the opportunity to be agents of their own uplift and as a consequence people -- places like Palo Alto have a suicide rate that is six times the national average among teenagers. There are people in that community who are wearing safety vests at railroad crossings because of a high number of teenagers that feel distress of meeting expectations. So I think it's worse than that.

This old entitlement mentality that also exists among low income blacks where the highest death rate is from homicide because reparations is the moral equivalent of what these parents are doing among blacks when we are creating false -- you know ...

CARLSON: Reparations is the moral equivalent of what we're doing, but reparations, as you know, a resurgent idea on the left, it is suddenly popular, at least one presidential candidate, but, two, I think. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are now calling for reparations. Is that good or bad?

WOODROW: It's the most ridiculous proposal that I've ever heard. First of all, it's important to deconstruct it a little bit. Reparations, the question is who pays and who gets paid? People don't realize that slavery, there were blacks who owned slaves as well. There were 3,700 blacks that owned 12,000 slaves, and that's three tribes, the Chickasaw tribes, the Creek Indians. They owned 3,500 slaves, so the question for me and for the audience should be, well, who pays? Do the sons and daughters of those blacks and Native Americans that owned slaves, do they pay?

And so, it's a little more complicated than people are making. What about the whites who came here after slavery? What about the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in the Civil War who never owned slaves? And so I just think that we ought to take this into consideration when we are talking about slavery.

It's also providing exemption from personal responsibility. All the problems that black America has, for someone to say that the answers to those challenges are external. Let's just say we accept the premise that reparations should be paid. What problem does it solve? If whites paid blacks money on Monday and we come back two weeks later, what would be the impact on black-on-black crime? What would be the impact of drug addiction? About the high dropout rate?

And so I just think it's lethal for us to just talk about a simplistic remedy so we can do virtue signaling on the issue of race and appear to be champions. What we have done at the Woodson Center is we believe you should look into black America's past and find out how our ancestors achieved against the odds where there was racial inequality and income disparity.

We built hospitals. We built schools. We had solid families. And so it is important for us to look back, but also to look at what are our strengths. And frankly, Tucker, I'm going to say I think black America needs to abandon complaining about what happened in the past and begin to address the enemy within -- that's the challenge we face today and we won't do that as long as we are looking to the people we say who are enemies to be our liberators, it's just ridiculous.

CARLSON: Robert Woodson, thank you for that. I appreciate it.

WOODSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Good to see you. Paul Manafort was hit with yet another prison sentence today. That's how dangerous he is at the age of 70. He may die in prison. We'll tell you why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Paul Manafort was sentenced to an additional three and a half years in prison today, the crimes include failing to register as a foreign agent under the FARA law. That's a law that Washington is in no hurry to enforce for anybody else since half the city lobbies for foreign entities and isn't registered.

There are a lot of potential offenses Washington doesn't seem interested in investigating, including newly released transcripts of Lisa Page's congressional testimony confirm that the FBI began investigating the President as quote, "an insurance policy" against him being President and that investigation began with almost no evidence against Donald Trump.

Fox corresponded David Spunt has more on both stories tonight -- David.

DAVID SPUNT, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker. Paul Manafort looking at spending nearly seven years in prison, if you include time served. He showed up this morning here in Washington where the judge said Manafort is quote, "not public enemy number one but he is not a victim either," end quote.

Manafort was sentenced for witness tampering and lobbying violations. Authorities also argue that Manafort lied after a prior plea deal combined his sentence today with the sentence from last week in Virginia also prosecuted by the special counsel and you get a 7.5-year sentence, but he has already served nine months.

Now, there have been questions over whether President Trump would give Paul Manafort a pardon. The president said this from the White House today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I feel badly for him. I think it's a very sad situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPUNT: If the President were to pardon Paul Manafort, he is still not out of the woods by any means. Today, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced a 16-count indictment against Manafort with charges mirroring the Federal ones from Virginia last week. The President would not have the authority to get Manafort out of those state charges if he is found guilty there.

Meanwhile, new light is shining on Lisa Page's closed-door testimony last year. New transcript released this week show along with Fox's early reporting that Page testified Russia collusion was still unproven. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in May 2017.

Tucker, today President Trump called the Obama Justice Department quote, "a broken and corrupt machine." Tucker.

CARLSON: David Spunt live from Washington. Thanks a lot. Michael Caputo is a former adviser to the Trump Campaign 2016 and he's been through the ringer in the last couple of years. He joins us tonight.

Michael, you watched the sentencing, again, the second round of sentencing for Paul Manafort today and you saw that one of the charges that he pled to was not registering in the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938. Something that basically nobody in Washington does. Did you begin to wonder maybe if this was a selective prosecution?

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER ADVISER TO TRUMP CAMPAIGN 2016: Wow. Yes, I guess so. I mean, Tucker, nobody knows more than you that the left views absolute annihilation as victory. They will stop at nothing to achieve it. They will try to get you fired, try and silence you or they will try, like in my family, try and ruin your family or even throw your dad in jail.

But in the meantime, Paul Manafort is going to jail for a registration charge and his partner on the Ukraine project where he was supposed to be breaking the law is Tony Podesta. And as far as we can tell, Tony Podesta hasn't been indicted.

So even a blind person can see what's going on here.

CARLSON: May I stop you there? Was Tony Podesta registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938? I don't think he was, was he?

CAPUTO: No, he was not. When Manafort was called on it, so was Tony and they both kind of extemporaneously registered for it and they thought that was fine for Tony, but I guess it didn't look too good for Paul Manafort.

You know, it's outrageous and now that we see Lisa Page's testimony and everything that's becoming more clear than we've ever imagined it would become, look, the Mueller report is supposed to be coming to a close. And my family has had our lives on pause for two years, along with dozens of other families, 81 other people learned this week or last week that it wasn't over in the House either.

Chairman Nadler appears to be starting it all over again and asked us all for documents and it appears that it's going to be a long, long summer with 81 people being marched in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

CARLSON: Are you going back?

CAPUTO: I won't go back. I gave them a quick answer, me and my attorney to their question for documents. We have no documents that they have asked for.

I also have the shortest document request of all 81 people, but they still asked my attorney if he would present me for testimony. They are inviting me, they are inviting all of us. Listen, at the end of the day, Tucker, we have talked several times about this.

I've been doing this for two years and it's a long dance. I've testified three times under oath. Each time, they are the same questions. Each time it cost me half a year's salary, and here we go again just for my family was waiting to press play on our lives, right? I've got nothing left. They've taken my business. They have punch the living crap out of my family. I've got nothing left.

So what are they going to take from me but my freedom and the only way they're going to take my freedom from me is if I testify a fourth time under oath and they get -- they tear me apart like Democrats want to do. I'm not willing to do that, so I'll take the fifth and I will keep doing it as long as my family's GoFundMe holds out on GoFundMe.com. We will keep doing it.

I think some of the other 81 people should do it as well. Your network stood up behind you and I'm hoping people stand behind me.

CARLSON: So I guess the lesson is you should have worked for Jeb or John Kasich. I don't see the Feds going after anybody who worked on the Jeb! Campaign or John Kasich. I just noticed. I mean, I'm sure it's not connected.

CAPUTO: Well, I mean, Jeb took money from the Chinese, over a million dollars into his affiliated PACs, so I don't see anybody asking about them about that, but here we go again with the Russian collusion delusion.

And by the way, you saw yesterday Chairman Schiff who is missing all the headlines and the camera time, he is saying if Mueller's report doesn't come in and has the President tweeting some question and answer with Mueller, he's going to start the whole thing over again.

All he is saying is, if you don't release the Mueller report, we're going to rip everybody like Caputo apart limb from limb. That's what he's doing.

CARLSON: It's really - we are going to look back on this in horror and shame, I think. Michael Caputo, good luck.

CAPUTO; Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, Democrats appear to be united in attacking that bad man, Paul Manafort and pursuing more investigations, but they are split on a major question and it's impeaching the President and seemingly everything else.

Jon Summers is a former Communications Director for Senator Harry Reid and we are happy to have him on the show tonight. Jon, thanks a lot for coming on.

JON SUMMERS, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR SENATOR HARRY REID: You bet, Tucker.

CARLSON: So I don't quite understand -- I understand the political reasoning behind Speaker Pelosi's statement the other day that she doesn't want impeachment, but how can you believe, as she has said repeatedly, that the President is a traitor, but you're not going to impeach him? Don't you have to impeach him?

SUMMERS: Well, I think you obviously have to have the documentation. You have to have the facts behind you before you impeach. So I think she was doing the right thing by putting it out there that, "No, we are not going to go toward impeachment unless there is actually data to support that." And that's actually been the Democratic position for long time.

So I know that she has been -- in that story, she said that "I'm going to make news now," it's not really news because the fact is that what's they've been saying. That's what we've been saying. And it's also required in order to have impeachment, but what the House is doing is exercising their constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities.

CARLSON: Wait, wait, wait. Right, their oversight, okay but they have actually and Pelosi has specifically claimed that Trump is guilty of crimes that clearly warrant impeachment, and the first among them is colluding with a foreign power, betraying your own country. She has said that, Chairman Schiff has said had that.

High-profile Democrats in positions of leadership have said for two years conclusively without the data that you just referred to that the President is guilty of these charges so why aren't they impeaching him?

SUMMERS: I don't think that's true, Tucker. I just --

CARLSON: Oh, it is absolutely true. I mean, I was there in Helsinki when he walked out of the press conference. Really. They said that he was a traitor. Do you remember that, a traitor. That's a quote.

SUMMERS: I remember people on this very network who were also upset with how the President conducted himself during that Summit and having a private meeting with Putin.

CARLSON: Well, whatever. I'm sure they were.

SUMMERS: So that actually does -- that matters and that is a whole separate issue.

CARLSON: Okay, then maybe they are for Trump's impeachment, too. I'm sure some of them are, but that's the point I'm making. If you think that Trump is a traitor and you say that out loud and many Democrats did, not just a handful, many did, then don't you have to impeach him? How can you allow a traitor to remain in office when you have this impeachment trial?

SUMMERS: Well, because an impeachment is just like a trial, just as you said. And you have to have evidence and you have to have proof. But here's the other thing. I will tell you, I don't want Donald Trump impeached. I don't want to give him that relief. I want him to lose and I want them to lose badly in 2020.

I want him to feel every bit of that pain and I don't want there to be any question at all that his loss was legitimate. That's actually I think our best way out of it and I think that's the direction we're headed toward in 2020.

CARLSON: So with that in mind, very quickly, two questions and both are spurred by votes that took place in the House among Democrats in the last week. Should 16-year-olds have to vote? And should noncitizens be allowed to vote in Federal elections?

SUMMERS: My own personal view is that I'm comfortable with it being 18 or above in order to vote, same as serving the military. In terms of people who are here illegally, no, I don't think they should have the right to vote.

CARLSON: Boy, that puts you on the fascist fringe of your party, Jon.

SUMMERS: Crazy.

CARLSON: Good to see you tonight. Thank you.

SUMMERS: You, too.

CARLSON: Well, the CEO of Wells Fargo just went to Capitol Hill. His bank has done bad things, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's blaming him for oil spills and imprisoning children. Is that true? After the break, we'll find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Tim Sloan is the CEO of Wells Fargo. He appeared before Congress yesterday. He was there to testify about the many customer abuses his company has been caught committing and there was plenty to be said about that and good.

But he also found himself being interrogated from a different direction by fake revolutionary Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She says his company is somehow to blame for how the Border Patrol operates. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: Why was the bank involved in the caging of children and financing the caging of children to begin with?

TIM SLOAN, CEO, WELLS FARGO: I don't know how to answer that question because we weren't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: In order words, your question is bonkers. She then went on to suggest that the CEO of Wells Fargo should be held responsible for any oil spills that occur, since his bank might make loans to the companies that build oil pipelines.

In fact, her fervor got so out of control that she then suggested that Wells Fargo should pay for damage caused by the Keystone XL Pipeline which Wells Fargo did not finance, and by the way, which does not exist yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Since Wells Fargo financed the building of this pipeline in an environmentally unstable way, why shouldn't the bank be held responsible for financing the cleanup of the disasters from these projects?

SLOAN: Which pipeline are you referring to?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Either.

SLOAN: So we were not involved in the financing of the XL Pipeline. We were one of the 17 or 19 banks that was involved in the financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Melissa Francis pays attention to politics and financial markets. She cohosts "Outnumbered" and "After the Bell," and she is a friend of ours. She joined us tonight. Melissa, what do you make of that?

MELISSA FRANCIS, COHOST, OUTNUMBERED: First all, proud to be on with you, my friend, tonight. I watch this and this is -- so this is the newest game of "Gotcha." You drag someone out for a beating and then you beat them about things that may or may not be related to their business at all.

So we decided to do an exhaustive fact-check of both what she said and also our interpretation of what we thought she was trying to say. I mean, she is talking about the caging of children, and as we look through it -- I mean, he looked befuddled and rightly so.

There was one company that Wells Fargo was involved with and they provided financing to this company which built one detention center under President Obama. And they sent us so many photos of it. It has no cages and it's much nicer than any school my child has ever attended or a summer camp.

I mean, from what we saw, it's lovely, but there's definitely no children that are separated in any way from their families at this location which I'm guessing was her point, but they also built a facility under President Obama and it looked rather nice.

So the premise of her question was a "Gotcha" that seemed to have no connection to anything that you said that Wells Fargo has done that hasn't been great in the past. This just wasn't one of them.

And on the pipeline question, I mean, she's going down this road and she names a pipeline that doesn't exist, so you give her the benefit of the doubt and he kind of pivots to one that does exist that they did help finance along with a bunch of other banks.

And the premise is sort of like, if you provided finance to a builder, if then the operator down the line does something bad, you are responsible. That's like saying if I kill someone in my house, you should go put in jail the mortgage broker at the bank that they gave me the loan. I mean, it's so many degrees of separation it just seems like there was enough to pick on. Why are you pivoting to your issues and sort of beating this guy?

CARLSON: Well, so maybe -- well, you're right, but you're approaching it as a smart person from a rational perspective, but maybe it's a religion and petroleum is sin and anybody who has the taint of sin must be punished. Maybe, that's the way she's looking at it.

FRANCIS: I guess, I mean, I think it's just this shortcut, easy "Gotcha." I mean, a lot of the different CEOs here in New York have been facing it, people coming outside, youth financed cages. And they don't really care about the facts, of what was a company that is in the private prison business, did they really build something like that on the border? It didn't matter. It was just that they had some contract with I.C.E. somewhere.

So it's sort of this, if you're even close to these things, you are immediately guilty of the worst degree.

CARLSON: It's just bizarre. Melissa Francis, it is always great to see you.

FRANCIS: Very difficult. Mortgage brokers, watch out, you could be in big trouble.

CARLSON: You could be in trouble. Good to see you.

FRANCIS: You, too.

CARLSON: Boeing 737s, the new model had been grounded around the world. Are the planes safe to fly or aren't they safe to fly? That's not clear at this hour. We are going to hope to get a little more on it after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Planes that are in the air will be grounded if they are the 737 MAX. They will be grounded upon landing at the destination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The President announced today that all Boeing 737 MAX planes, the new model are grounded nationwide after a deadly 737 crash in Ethiopia. The President's order is the culmination of a panic that swept over the globe the last week. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Breaking tonight, the U.S. standing nearly alone is most of the world from Europe to Australia has now grounded that Boeing jet after two fatal crashes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thousands of Americans are flying in a plane that has been grounded in most of the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The U.K., France, Germany among the countries now grounding the new Boeing MAX 8. Tonight, why they are still flying here in the U.S.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The panic and the grounding that resulted today is of course a golden opportunity for China and the E.U. which manufactures Airbus to crowd out the United States from aircraft manufacturing. That's one of the few industries in the world where this country still enjoys global supremacy. Are they behind it? How could they not be?

The question though is, is the 737 really an unsafe plane or is Boeing simply the victim of global power politics. Michal Pearson is an aviation lawyer and a former air traffic control and a trusted source on this question and joins us tonight. Michael, thanks a lot for coming on.

So the obvious question is, if there something inherently wrong with the aircraft, and it's not simply pilot error that has caused these two crashes, why haven't you seen them in the United States?

MICHAEL PEARSON, AVIATION LAWYER: Well, first of all, three things typically lead to accidents. Human error, pilots air traffic controllers; Structures, power plants; or software. And what's happened is over the last few generations, the aircraft systems is the software that run these airplane has become incredibly complex.

So first of all, is the 737 a safe airplane? Yes. It's been the most used and has the highest number of miles flown aircraft for decades in its various generations. I do believe there's an issue likely in the software side that will be fixed. And more importantly, taught to the pilots and the aircrews.

I think what happened has been unfortunate. I do believe the 737, including the MAX series, the 8s and 9s are a safe aircraft. I do think some changes need to be made to training, information for pilots and air crews on how to handle these situations. And certainly software adaptations that I think the FAA is working on now.

CARLSON: Grounding seems like a pretty severe penalty. One that's going to cost Boeing, one of a few industries in America that still leads the world, billions of dollars. Was there another way to do it?

PEARSON: Actually, I think President Trump took the appropriate action in grounding. The key is how long the grounding is for. Boeing has already gotten a negative press for these series of events, so I'm not sure how much more of an effect it's going to be on the stock price. It's already down, but more importantly, and I think President Trump did the appropriate thing erring on the side of caution when human life is at stake.

If it's what I believe and people in the industry tell me and contacts and sources inside the FAA tell me, it's what I stated before, it's a software and training issue, an information issue that hopefully -- well, it's way too early to determine probable cause for any accident, will hopefully prevent this from happening in the future. I think the key, Tucker, is how long does the grounding occur and how proactive is the FAA and Boeing to getting a fix in place in getting these pilots trained.

There is approximately -- Southwest, I think has approximately 38 airplanes, this series of airplanes have been grounded. American has the next largest number and United, approximately 250 to 280 flights a day.

While, it's certainly is not good and it's going to affect the bottom line revenue of each one of these airlines negatively. Don't get me wrong. It's not a great thing. And it will certainly impact people across the country that fly, two, three, four, five-day grounding period and rescheduling of aircrews and the flying public I think is a small price to pay to prevent another horrible incident from occurring.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, if that's what the stakes are, for sure. You're just always rooting for one of the last dominant American companies.

PEARSON: You bet.

CARLSON: Michael Pearson, thank you for that perspective.

PEARSON: You're very welcome, Tucker. Nice talking to you.

CARLSON: Thank you. Jetliners are not the only danger that could be lurking in daily life. Wireless communications are everywhere and in the form of cellphones and Bluetooth headphones. They are often right against your own brain.

Now hundreds of scientists have just warned that wireless headphones could increase people's cancer risk by exposing the human body to unsafe levels of radiation. Keep in mind, very little is known about this because there hasn't been a ton of testing believe it or not.

Is it worth being afraid? Dr. Marc Siegel is are Fox News medical correspondent in the first person we asked around questions like this and he joins us today. So, doctor, I guess the first thing to note in a story read this morning, it's not really known what the effect if, for example the Bluetooth in the ear, headphones from Apple might have on the brain.

MARC SIEGEL, MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Not yet, Tucker. But we are getting there. The National Institute of Health last year looked at rats and mice and found out that rats with prolonged exposure have increased risks of hard cancer, of certain brain cancers with prolonged exposure. But that's what our kids are getting, right? Prolonged exposure.

We don't have it yet in humans, but we are talking about rays that are like microwaves. They are radio frequency waves are like microwaves and with Bluetooth headsets, you're beaming it across your brain.

So your chances of prolonged used causing an increased cancer risk when you're disrupting the cells of your brain, the calcium channels in your brain, I think that that has to be carefully looked at and I don't think that the scientists, 250 scientists over 40 countries are way out on this. That's just one issue that they are changing the cells. That's one issue.

Another issue is of course ADHD is on the increase -- attention deficit disorder among people that use these headsets. And a study out of Brazil shows that you're more likely to have ringing in the ears of you use these headsets. My kids, I can't even get them to answer me, Tucker. I don't know about yours, but they don't even answer me and now I find out that there are health risks.

CARLSON: I don't understand how Apple could introduce and market a product like this which has since become ubiquitous, without knowing whether they give people a brain cancer that seems kind of reckless, no?

SEIGEL: Great point, Tucker and the answer is we have always known that it's the distance from the head that matters the most, how far away. That's what they always said. Cell phone users, just keep it away from your head. But now it's on your head.

So we don't know because nobody has done long-term studies in humans yet. And again, we are only just starting with the rats, but the reason you're seeing this outcry is because of the studies in animals, male rats by the way only, females were okay. I don't know why that is.

But we certainly have to see more and more research on this. And again, there's reasons like depression, anxiety that occurs from prolonged use, cutting off contact, lack of communication with your friends, with your parents, with your peers, with your teachers. I'm not for this, and I don't think it's harmless.

There's no evidence that low intensity radiation, radiofrequency waves like this actually disrupts cells the way that ultraviolet light does. It's not up at that level, but again prolonged use. Three hundred and fifty million headsets were sold last year -- 350 million. We've got to study this more. I'm a little concerned about it.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, of course, I don't know the answer. I'm hardly a physician, I'm just amazed that nobody is asking the question.

SEIGEL: Well, we are.

CARLSON: Dr. Siegel, I'm glad that you are. Thank you.

SEIGEL: We are, thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks. Well, the left is now entirely engaged in destroying the First Amendment and imposing a basically, a totalitarian outrage culture on this country, but they are putting their own well-being at risk when they do that it turns out, and we have at least one example after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Chris Hayes is an anchor over on MSNBC, the one with the glasses. His political views aren't very interesting. Cringing hipster sensitivity burnished with low grade academic buzzwords. Pretty banal stuff, but Hayes always seemed like a decent guy personally. He didn't seem like a hater. It was hard to imagine him promoting open racism or anti-Semitism or at least, it was hard to imagine until the other night.

That's when Hayes invited a man called Angelo Carusone on to his show. Carusone runs Media Matters, almost every day, he issues outrage press releases accusing other people of bigotry and yet because everything is irony, Carusone is himself an enthusiastic bigot.

We know this for sure because he has written about it extensively. It turns out that for years, Carusone maintained a racist blog, one post entitled quote, "Tr*nny Paradise" addressed a crime story from Thailand. A Bangladeshi man had been robbed and assaulted by a group of male prostitutes dressed as women.

Carusone objected to the idea that this was a story and ridiculed South Asians as inherently ugly and poor. Quote, "Is the writer a tr*nny lover, too? Or perhaps he's just trying to justify how these tr*nnies tricked this Bangladeshi in the first place. Look, man, we don't need to know whether or not they were attractive. The f-ing guy was Bangladeshi. What the hell was he doing with $7,300.00 with of stuff? The guy is Bangladeshi." End quote.

In another post, Carusone described how a male coach at a Japanese high school had sexually abused female players. People in japan were horrified by this, understandably. Carusone was not. His advice quote, "Lighten up, J*ps."

Later than month, Carusone, by now in a frenzy of racism heaped praise on a former Ku Klux Klan leader. And still another post from the same period, Carusone described a Jewish man as being handsome quote, "despite his jewelry." Carusone didn't like the man's political views, but attributed them to quote, "his possession of several bags of Jewish gold." End quote. Jewish gold. According to Angelo Carusone, Jewish gold is a problem.

Media Matters probably ought to issue a press release about this. They've done a lot more for a lot less and yet, somehow, this is the remarkable part -- Chris Hayes managed to pretend that none of this ever happened. Hayes never mentioned the Jewish gold. He never said a word about the Japs or the trannies or the Klan or even those dirty Bangladeshis who deserve what they get no matter what the trannie lovers say. None of that.

Instead, Hayes gave cover to Carusone's bigotry and anti-Semitism. Amazingly, he even directed his viewers to Carusone's website.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, ANCHOR, MSNBC: Angelo Carusone, of course, all of that can be found at Media Matters website, so you listen to the full clips. Get the full context.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Pretty amazing. If a guy with a history of ranting about Jewish gold came on your show, would you ask him about it? Would you challenge him on it? How would you not? You would feel morally obligated, but Chris Hayes didn't. That tells you a lot.

Now, to be clear, we are not calling for either of these people to be imprisoned or executed or even fired from their high-paying jobs. We are not planning to organize an advertiser boycott against them. We won't picket their offices with bullhorns. We won't attack their children.

But we do think you should know what they are actually like and in Chris Hayes' case, it's kind of depressing to find out. It turns out you really never know who people are.

Joe Concha writes about media for "The Hill" and he joins us tonight. So Joe, if you went on someone's show to talk about how someone had said naughty things 15 years ago, but you had kept a blog, in which you used the kind of stereotypes and racial attacks that this guy had and referred to Jewish gold and the Japs. Wouldn't at some point, you think, "This was too hypocritical, I can't do this?"

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER, THE HILL: I would think that would happen. If I knew that the interviewer would challenge me on those things and apparently Angelo Carusone knew that probably in advance that wouldn't happen and with Chris Hayes's case, it's a classic case of pushing a narrative by engaging in the worst kind of bias, the bias of omission.

A disservice completely to MSNBC viewers for not showing it, and by the way, "The Hill" has reached out to the MEDIA MATTERS president for comment, as have many other news organizations and he's isn't talking. But then again, Tucker, you have to feel sorry for him. I mean, how would you feel if somebody went back into your past and talked about the things that you said 10 or 15 years ago and then demanded that you get taken off the air? I mean, you've got to feel sorry for the guy.

CARLSON: I think it would be tough. It would be really tough. I mean, look, I just want to be absolutely clear. I don't care what he wrote on his dumb blog. He's a terrible writer by the way. I should say that he is kind of dumb. But I don't care. I don't care at all.

If he hurt an actual person, that would interest me. His dumb opinions interest me, not at all. So I'm not in any way suggesting that he or anybody else should be punished for what he wrote on some dumb blog 15 years ago. But that's because I'm not a progressive and I am not hysterical. But I just wondered why --

CONCHA: And I don't care -- right.

CARLSON: Right, yes, exactly. Like who cares. But how can you use this guy as an expert witness on bigotry with a blog like now?

CONCHA: You can't. And look, there are even people on the left, Tucker, that are talking about how obscene this is, these fishing expeditions. There's a leftist writer named Freddie Deboer. He is as left as you are right. He came up with this phenomenal phrase, it's called "A fenced archaeology," and he says, "Go to any space conservative social justice, you know what you'll find? Endless surveillance. Everyone is to be judged and everyone is under suspicion." He goes on to say that, "That's what liberalism is now. The search for bad, he is doing bad things like little offense archaeologist." Great saying. "Digging deeper and deeper and deeper to find out who is good and who is bad."

Nobody likes this, Tucker on the left or the right. Going back into people's pasts and finding things to destroy their careers. And that's one of the reasons why --

CARLSON: But especially in the media. I mean, and it's disgusting that whole thing, that way of thinking, but very quick, you've been in this business a long time and I have, too. If there's one group of people who shouldn't be throwing stones about their personal lives, probably the National Press Corps, right?

CONCHA: Of course. Look, we all have done bad things and we could all go back and find something that's bad. The bottom line is what Media Matters say, they have no leg to stand on here because when MSNBC's Joy Reid made homophobic anti-Semitic comments, they said it didn't meet the threshold for them to call for boycotts of her, and now obviously that's what's happening with you and meanwhile, you made some of your statement while you were at MSNBC. And maybe that was the reason why it didn't cause a ripple when you didn't make them on national radio.

CARLSON: Yes, whatever.

CONCHA: It wasn't like you set it in private. It was caught on tape somewhere. These were some said on national radio. It's amazing.

CARLSON: To be clear, they fired me. I couldn't stay. Great to see you tonight. Thank you very much.

CONCHA: All right, have a good one.

CARLSON: We are out of time. Back tomorrow. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. But it's not over. We have good news for you tonight. By special arrangement, live from New York City, taking over the 9:00 p.m. hour starting in just seconds, ladies and gentlemen, Sean Hannity.

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