Biden's story about a showdown with gang leader 'Corn Pop' causes confusion

close

Video

Tucker: New York Times revives attacks on Brett Kavanaugh

Left resurrects Kavanaugh smear campaign as 2020 Democrats demand his impeachment.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 16, 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." Believe it or not, it was a year ago this week that a constellation of left-wing activist groups cooked up a series of outlandish lies designed to Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

The national news media as you remember, joined the smear campaign. They repeated and magnified the slurs. But in the end, it was to no effect.

Kavanaugh was confirmed any way. Why? Because not a single allegation against him turned out to be true -- not one. And so the only lasting effect was to traumatize Brett Kavanaugh's wife and children.

And yet the left never to this day, apologized for their dishonesty or their profound cruelty, nor did they ever accept defeat. They never do accept defeat. Why? Because when politics is your religion, acknowledging reality looks like sin, and so it continues.

Over the weekend, The New York Times revived the attacks on Brett Kavanaugh. The newspaper ran a story, an excerpt from a book written by two of its reporters that claimed that while in college, more than 30 years ago, Kavanaugh exposed himself in effect to another student while drunk at a party. It was the flimsiest kind of charge. Where did it come from?

Well, it came second hand from a single classmate of Kavanaugh's, a man who worked as a left-wing activist, later worked for the Clintons, in fact.

So 20 years ago, no credible news organization would have run a story like that on the basis of that sourcing. The Times didn't hesitate, and it was picked up everywhere of course, instantly.

On NBC's cable channel, for example, they immediately denounced Brett Kavanaugh as a gang rapist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASON JOHNSON, POLITICS EDITOR, THEROOT.COM: I've never heard of a guy who is a one-time rapist. I've never heard of a guy who is a one-time sexual assaulter. I grew up with guys like this. He is from around this area, right? He is the fifth guy in a gang gape. Okay? He is the guy who comes in after he is drunk, as everybody else encourages, he can get away with it. And he has been pretty much covered his entire life.

But this amazes me that we have an administration that out of the millions of people who are qualified in this country of all races and genders, they consistently find men who beat, abuse and sexually assault women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Imagine saying something like that about somebody, where there's no evidence that it's true and a lot of evidence that it's not, but they didn't hesitate.

Democratic presidential candidates, meanwhile, demanded that Kavanaugh be removed by force immediately from the Supreme Court. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What becomes clear is that he should be impeached. The House absolutely has the ability to impeach him.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: And do you believe then that he is essentially a sexual predator or that he was at some point?

CASTRO: Yes, I believe -- I believe that he engaged in the conduct that was described.

BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And given the fact that it appears as though Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath, which is a crime, I think that he has disqualified himself for service on the Supreme Court and he should step down or he should be impeached.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: A sexual predator who must be impeached. Okay. But wait, here's a late breaking addition to the story. It turns out that the woman it supposedly happened to, the alleged victim back at Yale more than 30 years ago, I turns out that person has no memory whatsoever of the incident.

Now, the paper knew that, but somehow neglected to include it in their account, probably because it strongly suggests that their story is once again, a total crock, yet another lie.

They should have told you that and they didn't. It's dishonest, of course.

And you'd think it would spur the Democratic candidates, the one who called for Kavanagh's impeachment to rethink their positions. New evidence?

Maybe that would shape their view. But no, not at all. They said exactly as they did a year ago. Remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): We have a constitutional duty to get to the bottom of these allegations. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them.

SEN. CHRIS COONS, (D-DE): Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations, rather than Dr. Ford and Miss Ramirez.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): To those who I hear, say over and over, "This isn't fair to Judge Kavanaugh. He is entitled due process. What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?" He is not entitled to those because we're not actually seeking to convict him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: We're not trying to convict him, we're just trying to destroy him and his family, so no due process, no presumption of innocence. Fairness is irrelevant.

Whatever they tell you, don't let them tell you that justice has any role in this. Of course, this is a pure power grab. The left feels entitled to run the country truly entitled to and they feel entitled to control the Supreme Court. If they don't, it drives them crazy.

Kavanaugh frustrates their political hopes, so any smear against him is acceptable, no matter what it is. But don't kid yourself. It's not just about destroying Brett Kavanaugh, he is ancillary. It's about destroying the entire legitimacy of our third branch of government, the judiciary.

Plenty on the left are using the Kavanaugh saga to justify packing the court, adding more justices to make it reliably left wing or to change the rules so they can remove any judge the left doesn't approve of.

This is the opposite of what the third branch was meant to do or be. The judiciary was meant to change slowly. The courts change over decades, rather than in response to a single election cycle. That's the way it was designed and for a reason, and for more than 200 years, it's worked. But to the modern left, that's totally intolerable.

They're committed to remaking this country completely right now. America needs a new system they tell us, one with open borders and far fewer pesky individual rights. Rights like the freedom to speak clearly out loud. The Freedom of Expression, the right to bear arms, the Freedom of Religion -- no. To create this new utopia of obedient happy serfs, they're going to have to destroy all of that, two centuries of precedent and tradition.

Maybe even destroy the country itself, whatever. They're happy to do that.

As Robespierre noted, when you make omelets, you break eggs.

Ryan Lovelace is the author of "Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh," and he joins us tonight. So Ryan, thanks a lot for coming on. You spent a year thinking about this, reporting on it.

Were you nevertheless surprised by the shoddiness of the story that "The Times" printed?

RYAN LOVELACE, AUTHOR: I was surprised by the shoddiness of it, but I was also in some ways, you know, warning that this was part of a larger pattern -- a pattern of not disclosing what actually is going on here.

You know, it's not simply enough that The New York Times had to run a correction -- a correction that explained precisely what actually went on here. A correction that said of the woman who is alleged to have been victim has been telling folks that she wasn't a victim, that she hasn't been able to confirm this story for these "New York Times" reporters for more than a year.

It's also about their failure to disclose their own personal relationship with the story. This is personal for these two women that have covered this story. Robin Pogrebin, one of the reporters is a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's, and I think that's hugely important, because that's something that wasn't disclosed in this excerpt from their book, and yet, it's the whole reason for the story.

CARLSON: Let me pause you there. So she was a classmate at Yale of Brett Kavanaugh's and yet the story that we're talking about didn't disclose that?

LOVELACE: Correct. And you know that's really interesting because she was an undergraduate there at the same time, and that's her whole authority for writing this book with "The New York Times." You know, she is not a legal reporter. She is a culture reporter.

And the way she is approaching this is because of her personal relationships with those in the Yale community at the same time, Kavanaugh was there.

CARLSON: Remarkable. The story itself sounds a lot like the three or four other different allegations that we heard at great length a year ago, in that there's no evidence whatsoever that it's true -- none.

LOVELACE: Right. And one of the important parts about it too is it's trading up the chain in just the same way that those allegations did last year.

Now, looking back now to last July, Christine Blasey-Ford, the first primary accuser came forward, and when she first tried to get the attention of "The Washington Post" by an encrypted app, they didn't pay attention to her. Then she threatened to go to "The Times."

But immediately it spread online. It spread through a blog, "The Intercept," that there was an allegation alleging an incident, then Senator Feinstein came through and said, "Yes, I've heard of that, and I've now referred it on."

And then after that point, reporters like me in the national press didn't bother looking into the truth or falsity of the matter. They simply decided, "Well, is this going to help him? Is this going to hurt him? How is it going to affect him?" And they never ever bothered looking into the truth of the matter.

CARLSON: So it is repeated uncritically by people who are paid to look deeply into stories and assess whether they're true or not, but they didn't do that?

LOVELACE: That's correct. And it's really one of the new phenomenon that Supreme Court Justice nominations are going to have to experience for years going forward. You know, thinking back to Judge Bork and Justice Thomas and other Supreme Court nominations that have been bitterly fought, this didn't exist before. And so much else of this didn't exist before either.

You know, in reporting out "Search and Destroy," I expected the advice and consent process to unfold as it had with Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick that the Senate rejected and with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who the Senate confirmed that was President Trump's pick.

But what I really found was a search and destroy process that began even before Judge Kavanaugh was selected.

CARLSON: What does that mean?

LOVELACE: Well, the left had said from the very beginning, we're going to oppose whoever, whoever Trump picks and demand justice. A new organized dark money group on the left pledged to spend $5 million opposing whoever the pick was. And that group is run by Brian Fallon. He is a Hillary Clinton campaign flack. He said no at the time. It wasn't even so much about canceling whichever nominee was picked. It's about building the muscle memory to organize around the courts looking towards 2020.

CARLSON: What a loathsome little extremist he is. Ryan, thanks for joining us tonight. Appreciate it. Congrats on the book.

LOVELACE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Lisa Boothe is a Senior Fellow at Independent Women's Voice. She joins us tonight. Lisa, I was struck by how quickly --

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: Nice to see you -- how quickly after this story emerged on Sunday that the candidates and the press responded immediately to it. There seemed to be no pause.

BOOTHE: Well, there wasn't any, and we also haven't heard them, you know, take back these calls for impeachment either considering the fact that there really is no alleged victim here because the alleged victim told her friends that she doesn't even remember that this incident ever happening.

So there's actually no story here, yet, they haven't taken back those calls for impeachment.

But does it surprise you? Because you saw how Democrats weaponized these baseless allegations during the confirmation hearing. Senator Feinstein sat on that information for six weeks and Democrats weaponized it at the 11th hour despite multiple times where they could have come forward with this information whether it was Brett Kavanaugh testifying closed doors, 1,300 questions that were submitted to Brett Kavanaugh that could have been in that, or even in these meetings sitting down with Brett Kavanaugh as well. Senator Feinstein could have done it then.

CARLSON: Is it --I mean, part of this is a little confusing, because we know that he is not going to be impeached. This is a lifetime appointment, probably nothing you could do about it, unless, you know, we learn something very dramatic

But on the basis of what we just learned, and of course, he's not going to be impeached. So what's the point of this exactly, do you think?

BOOTHE: I think there's only two things going on here for the left. One, it's about abortion. I mean, we heard Debra Katz who was one of Christine Ford's attorneys say as much, right? She said that Christine Ford wanted to put an asterisk above Brett Kavanaugh's name when he takes a scalpel against Roe versus Wade, right? So it is abortion.

CARLSON: Right.

BOOTHE: We know that people like Kirsten Gillibrand were saying that women were going to die as a result of Brett Kavanaugh if he gets confirmed, right? So we knew that this -- it's about abortion, and then it's also about intimidation as well

I think what Democrats want to do is send a message to Brett Kavanaugh that, you know, "Don't take any action against issues like abortion or else ..."

We also saw that with Senator Whitehouse when he filed that amicus brief talking about, you know, look, the court better heal itself or there's going to be a restructuring.

CARLSON: Well, you can sort of see that this has an effect. I mean, you watch the career of the Chief Justice who has moved left in really kind of the most mindless conceivable way, I would argue, and what is that a product of? Maybe his judicial philosophy has changed? Or maybe it's just really hard to live here in Washington, if you don't kind of toe the line?

BOOTHE: Well, that would be a good question for him, but I think another thing that's important with all of this that doesn't get discussed as much, it's just how thoroughly vetted Brett Kavanaugh was, right?

He went through seven background checks. When he was a staff secretary for George W. Bush, he went through a vetting process with that because of his access to sensitive information. When he was confirmed to the District Court of Appeals, he also went through a vetting process and confirmation process.

The Senate Judiciary Committee investigated and looked at 45 different witnesses, 25 witness statements, produced a 414-page report looking at all of this.

So I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, this guy has been as vetted as possible. You even now have Justice Ginsburg, who is singing his praises, which we need to take a listen to what she has had to say about him as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Our new Justice, Justice Kavanaugh, whose entire staff are all women, are all of his law clerks are women.

It's the first time in the history of the United States that there have been more women clerking at the court than men.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOOTHE: So you have there talking about how he has actually been a supporter of women with the amount of law clerks that he has taken on that are all female. So -- and there's also been a lot of character witnesses that have stepped forward knowing him from his time in high school saying, "Look, this guy is salt of the Earth, right? This is not something he would do."

And one thing I would like to ask because I wonder why the mainstream media, why they haven't looked further in to his accusers? Why are they not concerned that Leland Keyser doubts Christine Ford's story, right?

This is one of the eyewitnesses that Christine Ford gave, someone who was supposed to be one of our best friends who told the F.B.I. that she was being pressured by Christian Ford's friends to change her story.

And it was also reported that Christine Ford's dad congratulated Brett Kavanaugh's dad on his confirmation. So if you don't have your own dad behind you that certainly raises questions.

CARLSON: It does. It does. It does raise some questions. In the parking lot of the Burning Tree Country Club here in Washington.

BOOTHE: Right.

CARLSON: Lisa, great to see you tonight.

BOOTHE: I could on.

CARLSON: Thanks a lot for that. Me, too.

BOOTHE: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Amazing story. Richard Goodstein is an attorney, a former adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he joins us tonight.

Richard, good to see you tonight.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you.

CARLSON: I think Lisa raises a really important question. So the story comes out on Sunday -- yesterday. Or maybe on Saturday -- over the weekend anyway and the media jumped on it. The candidates jump on it and come to this conclusion that we need to impeach Brett Kavanaugh.

And then the newspaper itself admits in effect that the story is a crock, actually. That the supposed victim doesn't remember it and says she is not a victim. So isn't it time then to say, "Oh, wow, you know, now I have new information. I guess we can't impeach him." Why is no one saying that?

GOODSTEIN: Well, let's talk about the facts. The victim hasn't spoken to anybody. The people that she should have spoken to were the F.B.I. Of course, when the witness that, who Max Stier who Senator Coons tipped off basically the F.B.I. about because he had witnessed this, and he told -- and Senator Coons told the head of the F.B.I. directly, "Please talk to him."

And the FBI, as we know, had a list of dozens of people between Deborah Ramirez and this Max Stier who they did not speak to and or Christine Blasey Ford, why did they not speak to Christine Blasey Ford, or Kavanaugh?

Well, I think that might be the first investigation of the F.B.I. They never talked to the accuser or the accused.

CARLSON: I can answer that. I think in the case of Christine Blasey Ford, she didn't want to talk to them. She was clearly --

GOODSTEIN: That wasn't a choice of hers.

CARLSON: And I agree with you. But I am not certainly out here to defend the F.B.I. on many levels. My point is that the newspaper itself has conceded in a note amended to the piece that the piece is a crock that she -- the newspaper tells us that she can't remember.

So like --

GOODSTEIN: No, it says friends with a quote, "friends" of hers who are unnamed that she hasn't talked. We don't know what she says.

CARLSON: Okay, but the newspaper is telling us, as far as they know, she doesn't think she was a victim. So on the basis of that shouldn't Beto O'Rourke and the rest of these morons say, "Wait a second, I guess we shouldn't impeach until we know more." I mean, how reckless can you be?

GOODSTEIN: The reason the Democrats are talking about doing something -- I agree that impeachment is absurd -- is to basically show, here's what the F.B.I. did and here is what it didn't do, and here is what next time it should do.

I just think, look, there was a rush of judgment here. The F.B.I.'s hands were tied. That was shameful. There were dozens of people who witnessed things regarding any number of these witnesses, who never got contacted.

CARLSON: But so do you -- I mean, but hold on, there is no -- I mean, I followed this as closely as anybody. I think we did 16 shows on a row on it.

GOODSTEIN: I agree with you.

CARLSON: There's no evidence at all, actual evidence whatsoever that Brett Kavanaugh whom I've never met in my life, I'm not here to carry water for the guy. But there's just no evidence that he committed sexual assault against anybody.

GOODSTEIN: Well, using the term sexual assault, right, if --

CARLSON: That he did anything.

GOODSTEIN: Well, the evidence is this fellow Max Stier, who clerked for two Republican appointed judges and worked for a Republican Congressman, this is the Clinton toady.

CARLSON: He is not a Republican. He is a leftie.

GOODSTEIN: Okay, but I am just saying. Well --

CARLSON: But whatever, the point is, the woman does, apparently according to The New York Times doesn't remember it, so it's like --

GOODSTEIN: According to her friends.

CARLSON: Okay, okay. Yes --

GOODSTEIN: That's exactly the point Democrats are saying, let's have the F.B.I. maybe now, account for itself, do an investigation now.

CARLSON: If the woman is a victim, she should come forward. She is an adult.

GOODSTEIN: And they should knock on her door --

CARLSON: And in this country, if you're a victim and an adult, you can say so and if you don't say so, then I'm sorry, we're not going to punish the perpetrator.

GOODSTEIN: Christine Blasey Ford has had to move four times. She's had death threats. She couldn't go back to her job. She has to hire a security to protect yourself. That's probably why this woman hasn't talked.

CARLSON: Yes, I know a lot about that as someone who lives that life, and I'm just saying, if you're the victim of a crime, and you're an adult, these are not children, then you have an obligation for the sake of the rest of us to stand up and say, "This is what happened." I'm sorry. Those are -- that's the system. These are not kids. But whatever.

Richard, thank you.

GOODSTEIN: Of course.

CARLSON: Speaking of not kids, Joe Biden -- not a kid -- once was a kid though, and he says that when he was, when he was young, he stood across from and then defeated a tough, hardened gang leader called corn pop.

Possibly the greatest story in American politics in the last 10 years.

Biden versus corn pop, after the break.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The corn pop was a bad dude, and he ran a bunch of bad boys. I said, "When I tell you get off the board, you and get off the board, and I'll kick you out again."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Joe Biden was a United States Senator for nearly 40 years and he was Vice President of the United States for eight years after that, surrounded by armed security the entire time and yet, the amazing thing is, Joe Biden has had more close calls with his life with physical danger than your average cinematic action hero.

I mean, he is one tough hombre. We know that because he talks about it a lot.

Tape has recently surfaced from two years ago, Biden bragging about a standoff he once had with a gangster called "corn pop." It's pretty dramatic. There are chains and a straight razor involved. But some people, some skeptics out there are wondering if it's actually real.

Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher has been investigating this story for us and he joins us now with the result of his investigation.

Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker.

Joe Biden says to better understand black America in 1962, he became the only white lifeguard at a predominantly black pool in Delaware and that's where a quote "bad dude named corn pop" violated pool rules. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: If you used pomade in your hair, you had to wear bathing cap, and so he was up on the board and wouldn't listen. I said, "Hey, Esther, you.

Off the board or I'll come up and drag you off." Well, came off and he said, "I'll meet you outside."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Esther meaning, the swimmer Esther Williams. Biden says when he got to his car, corn pop and three other guys were waiting with straight razors. So Biden went to his buddy. Listen again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: And he cut off a six-foot length of chain, he folded it up and he said, "You walk out with that chain and you walk to the car," and he said, "You may cut me man, but I'm going to wrap this chain around your head." I said, "You're kidding me?" He said, "No, if you don't, don't come back."

And he was right. So I walked out with the chain. And I walked up to my car.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Biden says he then use diplomacy to get corn pop to stand down, offering a half apology. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: "I shouldn't have called you, Esther Williams. I apologize for that." I apologized. But I didn't know that apology is going to work. He said, "You apologized to me." I said, "I apologized not for throwing out, but I apologize for what I said." He said, "Okay." And closed the straight razor, but my heart began to beat again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: It turns out after a thorough investigation, there was a corn pop living in Delaware at the time and a former NAACP President says it is true, Biden stood his ground. As you might imagine plenty of others are very skeptical of that story -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher. Thanks for the latest on that. I appreciate it. Well, because of the skepticism that hovers over the story, we dispatched our crack reporting team to the archives, Delaware all through the Mid-Atlantic region and came up with what we think is authentic video footage of that showdown in 1962 between Joe Biden and corn pop. Here it is.

(VIDEO CLIP OF "WEST SIDE STORY" PLAYS.)

CARLSON: All right, so my producers are telling me that actually that is footage from the rumble from "West Side Story." Easy mistake to make, but we assume the encounter with corn pop did look something like that.

Mark Steyn is an author and a columnist and he joins us tonight. So Mark, we don't have the footage, unfortunately, we thought we did, we don't.

We're honorable enough to issue a correction there.

But we believe that the standoff between Joe Biden and corn pop at the public pool looked something like that, do you think it did?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Yes, I as I understand this, Joe Biden faced down a gang leader who was threatening to cut him with a razor because Biden had called him "Esther Williams."

This is in all America's epidemic of gang violence. This has never happened before. And I take my -- you said it was the greatest political anecdote of the last 10 years. It's the greatest political anecdote ever.

It should be in the Smithsonian.

Dick Morris and James Carville should be teaching this in political campaigning master class. It's brilliant.

I did an impromptu parody of a Joe Biden anecdote on your show last week.

This is like a parody of my parody. I was floundering toward the end and threw in Brigitte Bardot. He went Esther Williams -- that's brilliant.

You can't -- and for the benefit of your younger viewers, by which I mean Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Esther Williams was the star as you know of "Million Dollar Mermaid: Dangerous when wet." And my personal favorite "Scotts Ahoy."

We all know if you're surrounded by MS-13 members that they absolutely -- they don't mind -- they let it go when Adlai Stevenson compared them to Sonja Henie in "Sun Valley Serenade" and when LBJ said, "That pillbox hat makes you look a little bit like Doris Day," they let that go.

But if you call them Esther Williams, you better be prepared to have a six- foot metal chain with you. And Biden has -- I think Biden has this. You know, Kamala Harris says she smoked weed listening to Tupac and Snoop Dogg.

He has gone -- Biden has gone full Esther Williams on that lousy pop culture pandering and literally blown her out of the water. You can't get what he is smoking when he's doing his Esther Williams on you.

CARLSON: You can't even buy it. It's not even legal in Colorado, is it?

STEYN: No. No.

CARLSON: I imagine that in the background on a record player was the soundtrack probably of "West Side Story" as this was happening.

STEYN: Yes, I mean, I think that's the problem, corn pop. It must be terribly annoying to face down a guy who is trying to cut you with a razor, and you want to tell your friends about it. And the only fly in the ointment is that he is corn pop who was, as you correctly pointed out, the third shark on the left in the last summer stock revival I saw of "West Side Story."

I mean, just as the work, it's like as a bad hombre a name. So he has a basic problem there. But you know, essentially, it's like Barry Manilow.

I think -- what was that -- it is from "Copacabana" I think. "His name was corn pop, he had a razor." It made the brilliant bid. It's in the second chorus of "Copacabana."

CARLSON: Yes, I think you were in boarding school in the U.K. in third grade. But for those of us who grew up in this country, we know that corn pops are actually one of the sugariest brands of sugar cereal available, which seems --

STEYN: Right. It's not a good name for a gang member. But again, it's the attention to detail. He says, for example, that the way you make the straight razor rusty is to put it in a rainbow, like a milk toast, like you Tucker, you've got indoor plumbing, and you think you can just run it under the faucet.

But in fact, you have to have an actual rain barrel. The details in this anecdote are brilliant. They should be teaching it.

CARLSON: Rain barrel. You're making me like him. Mark Steyn. Great to see you. Thank you.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, some of the Democratic Party are upset that voters are beginning to suspect the Democrats want to confiscate guns. Where did voters get that idea? We have the answer. After the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: When it comes right down to it, almost nobody really likes Beto O'Rourke. He has been stuck below five percent in the polls for months.

That says something very good about America by the way.

But during last week's debate, in a desperate last chance bid for relevance, Beto decided to drop the pretense on guns. He's not for passing common sense gun reform. He is for sending cops to your house to seize your firearms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID MUIR, ABC ANCHOR: Are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work?

BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am if it's a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.

Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47 ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, people were shocked, but within a year or two, mark our words, Beto's position will be mandatory for every Democrat running for office.

Right now though, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware is worried that statements like that could hurt the Democrats going forward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS, (D-DE): I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Imagine that? Scaring people by showing them what Democrats have promised to do. Jason Nichols is a Professor of African-American Studies in the University of Maryland. He joins us tonight. Professor, thanks a lot for coming on.

JASON NICHOLS, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Thank you.

CARLSON: So I wonder if -- you know, it's not just by the way Beto, it's a bunch of other candidates who have said that they're for this, for mandatory buybacks and gun seizures. What would that look like? And I'm thinking about this and I'm thinking, well, there are lot of guns in poor neighborhoods, both bad people, but primarily good people, law-abiding people who use them to protect themselves.

And a lot of those guns would be banned under the Beto scheme or the Elizabeth Warren scheme or the Kamala Harris scheme. And that would mean that armed agents are going to be going to the, you know, West side of Chicago or the East side of Detroit. They're going in African-American neighborhoods in Baltimore, door-to-door taking people's guns.

NICHOLS: Yes --

CARLSON: How is going to work?

NICHOLS: Well, first of all, I think, you know, I do have respect for Beto. I think that Beto was a man who -- he didn't spin in the spin room, which I respect. I think he actually was somebody who said what it is that he is going to.

CARLSON: I agree with that.

NICHOLS: I just disagree with what it is that that he intends to do. I think number one, when we look at it, in particular, with gun violence and deaths that are related to gun violence, most of it comes from handguns, not from AR-15s. Actually, 64 percent of fatalities that come from gun violence come from hand guns, not from your AR-15 or your AK-47.

CARLSON: But you're absolutely right, and thank you for pointing that out.

Because it's -- you know the numbers, most people don't; however, the gun ban that he has endorsed, and that a lot of other candidates have endorsed would also include an awful lot of handguns.

You know, any handgun with a magazine over 10 rounds would be confiscated.

NICHOLS: Right. Well, I'm for you know, limiting the capacity of a magazine. I think there are lots of, you know, gun reforms that we can have. You can be pro-gun and pro-gun control. I don't think those two things should be an excuse.

CARLSON: But in the end, if you're saying -- so, but here's the distinction that I think is new. Clinton banned the sale of so-called assault rifles for 10 years, but nobody has proposed going into people's homes and grabbing them.

So what you're going to have is law enforcement that everyone on the left is calling racist, going into black neighborhoods and taking people's guns away.

NICHOLS: Yes, you know --

CARLSON: So tell me, I mean, what does that look like to you?

NICHOLS: Yes, that's obviously something I'm not for. I think one of the things we need to work on if you want to work on something that's going to benefit, you know, America, I would say, "Get rid of voter ID." You know, get rid of ways that are keeping people from having rights. Don't take their guns away.

CARLSON: But what is it that make you think about Beto or Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris that they are endorsing a plan that would disproportionately mean taking Federal agents in black neighborhoods and taking people's guns away, what the hell?

NICHOLS: Again, I think Beto is somebody who right now is emotionally hurt, to be honest by what occurred in his city. And I and I understand that and I think that he's reacting off of emotion. I think that Chris Coons --

CARLSON: Wait, wait. But he is an adult man, though, right?

NICHOLS: Sure.

CARLSON: He is running for President, so like he has thought this through, I would assume, or do you think he is just a total captive? I mean, he is like emotionally incontinent.

NICHOLS: No, I don't think he's emotionally incontinent. I do think that he was emotionally affected, just like many America had been emotionally affected by a lot of the mass shootings.

I think he you should look at the numbers and see you know, what's going on and think this through a little more than he has. And I think Chris Coons is right that -- Chris Coons is right that you know, if we want to win states that we can win like Texas and Georgia and Florida and Pennsylvania, we can't talk about taking people's guns away.

CARLSON: You can't tell voters what you really think, I totally agree.

You've got to keep lying to them. Don't be honest. Professor, thank you.

NICHOLS: Thanks a lot.

CARLSON: Well, someone finally decided to ask Ilhan Omar why her takeaway from 9/11 was that some people did something. She was asked that directly.

We will show you what she said.

Plus, the President is about to speak live in New Mexico. We will be airing that speech right here on Fox when it begins. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota famously summarized that the 9/11 attacks this way, quote, "Some people did something." Well, in contemporary Washington, even a high school yearbook is fair game for debate. But Omar amazingly hasn't had to explain her remarks. No one asked her.

That is until the 9/11 commemoration last week when a man who lost his mother rebuked Omar by wearing a t-shirt that said, "Some people did something."

So finally this weekend, on CBS "Face the Nation," Omar was asked to explain what she said. Was she sorry at all? Did she see why her remarks may have hurt some people? Here is how she responded?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): 9/11 was an attack on all Americans. It was an attack on all of us. And I certainly could not understand the weight of the pain that the victims, of the families of 9/11 must feel.

But I think it is really important for us to make sure that we are not forgetting, right, the aftermath of what happened after 9/11. Many Americans found themselves now having their Civil Rights stripped from them.

As a Muslim, not only was I suffering as an American who was attacked on that day, but the next day, I woke up as my fellow Americans were now treating me a suspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, okay. So in other words, Omar is not sorry. 9/11 wasn't the specific murder of 3,000 Americans by Islamic extremists. No. It was simply the amorphous attack on all Americans, but most important, it was an attack on Omar herself. She suffered more than you did.

In other words, not only is Ilhan Omar more ungrateful, anti-American, she is also not surprisingly, a narcissist.

Well, last week on the show, we spoke with Jim Kreindler. He is an attorney who represents the families of 9/11 victims. They've been shooting Saudi Arabia. Those families are hoping the F.B.I. would declassify documents related to Saudi's role in the attacks.

Following our interview, the F.B.I. gave those families a victory, but only a small one. The F.B.I. gave Kreindler the name of a man who may have ordered two Saudi officials to assist the hijackers. But we'll let him share that name with any of the 9/11 families.

They said its State secrets and refusing to declassify the F.B.I. report that contains Saudi ties to 9/11 hijackers. Why? D.O.J. did this on the grounds of what they call an active investigation. Instead, it would hurt relations with a foreign ally. Kriendler called the D.O.J.'s position, ridiculous and said they, quote, " ... want to keep the information of their failures secret."

He has vowed to have that information declassified, we will of course, keep you updated on that.

So Americans are not allowed to know the extent of Saudi's involvement with 9/11. Many people think it's America's obligation, though, to fight wars on behalf of the Saudi Kingdom. You're seeing that all over today.

Once again, tensions are rising in the Persian Gulf after an alleged Iranian attack on a Saudi oil facility that shut down about half that country's refining capacity.

This under normal circumstances would be a flat out disaster for the United States, and yet fracking -- fracking has meant that the United States is now energy independent. We have some buffer. We don't need to fight Middle Eastern wars over oil anymore. We don't as of today. That is until we shut down our own energy sector to implement a Green New Deal, which many are proposing on the left.

Daniel Turner is Executive Director of Power the Future, and he joins us tonight. Daniel, thanks so much for coming on. So for decades, literally, you heard politicians, most of them Democrats say something that was correct. We're dependent on foreign oil, and as a result, we have to intervene in these wars where Americans die and our Treasury gets drained.

Now, thanks to new modes of energy exploration, fracking, we're not as dependent. You'd think we'd be celebrating that.

DANIEL TURNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POWER THE FUTURE: This is a huge win for America, and you would think, yes, this is something that everyone running for President would applaud, right? But yet, we have dozens of running for President who wants to make fossil fuels illegal by 2030. They want to ban the practice.

Elizabeth Warren said on her first day, she will make fracking illegal as did Bernie Sanders on their very first day. That's millions of jobs, without a doubt, ruining small towns across America. But most importantly, what would it do to our energy supply? What would it do to oil prices?

And what we see with these attacks that happened in Saudi Arabia, we're going to feel the price at the pump. There's no doubt about it because it's a global commodity.

But if you were a Minister in Europe, where they get a huge percentage of their oil and gas from the Persian Gulf, I would be nervous if I were them.

CARLSON: Well, yes, I mean, I know we're all supposed to love the Saudis now. I don't quite -- and everyone in Washington loves the Saudis. But the over -- I think 17 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They hate us, actually. And so being dependent upon the Saudis for energy is crazy.

TURNER: Yes.

CARLSON: So why are people pushing us?

TURNER: I don't understand that and remember the whole phrase "no blood for oil."

CARLSON: Yes.

TURNER: We've heard that. I was in high school when the first Gulf War broke out, "no blood for oil." During the last Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan, we kept saying "no blood for oil." I have three nephews, Jack, Peter Aiden, they are going to vote in their very first presidential election coming up.

Their entire lives -- all they have known is an America at war. And yet we have for the first time at our fingertips the chance that we are liberated from all overseas engagement, and it is shameful what happened there and Middle East turmoil is not going to be solved in our lifetime, and it's sad, especially for the citizens who are trapped there.

But isn't it great that America can stand back and support our allies, and at the same time, employ millions of people with really good jobs that don't require expensive college degrees in rural America. But again, these people who are running for President with the goal of making all of that illegal by 2030.

CARLSON: It's the most vibrant sector of the American economy and it's critical to our national security.

TURNER: Absolutely.

CARLSON: So if you are sworn to destroy it, you are attempting to undermine the United States in a profound way?

TURNER: Absolutely. And if they are pledging an oath to defend the Constitution and the people of this country, I don't know how you do that.

And what other issue has garnered this level of media attention? Rival networks gave it seven hours of climate change coverage. Another network is going to give it two full days of coverage just on climate change.

Opioids didn't get that. Veteran suicide didn't get that. Homelessness didn't get that.

CARLSON: They've got it here.

TURNER: It's amazing that this issue that runs our entire economy is being attacked. And these are noble men and women and thank God they are in oil fields, because if the Democrats had their way, they would be overseas in battlefields.

CARLSON: Yes. Dependent on the Saudis. Disgusting. Daniel, thank you.

TURNER: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, Netflix just released a documentary produced by Barack Obama's Film Company. Has America's top streaming service become a propaganda outlet? It seems that way. We'll talk to one of the best film critics in America who makes that case?

Plus, President Trump about to speak in New Mexico, you can see it live right here on Fox, so stay tuned for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: The President is about to start a rally in New Mexico. Of course, we'll go there as soon as he begins. Look for that live here on Fox.

Meanwhile, for decades, the American left offered the sharpest critiques of big business in this country. Now in the age of woke capital, they are deeply aligned, in fact intertwined with big business.

Google protects users from encountering websites and ideas the left doesn't like. Credit card companies decide whether Americans actually have the right to buy guns. And then, most notably, there's the alliance between the Obama's and Netflix.

Netflix just released an Obama produced documentary called "American Factory." It profiles the Chinese takeover of a former General Motors plant in Ohio, a politically fraught topic, if there ever was.

Armond White is a film critic of many years who writes for "National Review." He just published an essay in "The New York Post" calling Netflix quote, "An Obama propaganda machine." We're happy to have Armond White join us tonight. Mr. White, thanks very much for coming on.

ARMOND WHITE, FILM CRITIC, "NATIONAL REVIEW": I'm happy to talk to you again, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you. So what is the problem that you have with the Obama's reaching this producing deal with Netflix? Why is that bad?

WHITE: Well, I suppose they have the right to do it, of course. But the thing that bothers me is the lack of disclosure, the lack of transparency about it.

CARLSON: Yes.

WHITE: Netflix promotes it as a great thing, as a great advance for the Obama's, and a message from them to the American people. But they are not honest about it being propaganda. And that's the problem that I have with it as a film viewer and as a film critic.

CARLSON: So you believe that there is a political cast to it that they're putting their thumb on the scale that's there's a political message to the content.

WHITE: Oh, surely, there certainly is. In fact, there was an article about this film, "American Factory" in "The Wall Street Journal" last week that talks about how the film itself ignores Obama's -- the part that Obama played in the factory in Ohio that the film deals with itself.

That's one part of the lack of disclosure about this, but the part that really bothered me that I focus on in the article is the way the film media -- culture media -- decided to cheer the Obama's connection with Netflix.

And it's the kind of illusion, I'm sorry, it is a kind of collusion that Americans should be very worried about and concerned about, especially the lack of disclosure there.

CARLSON: Well, sure. Why would it ever be a good idea for a politician to be involved in the content business, in making entertainment or news for that matter?

WHITE: Never, never. And it's worrisome when you think about a politician leaving office, then all of a sudden becoming a mogul, a mogul in the film industry, and a mogul not to simply give entertainment to people, but to give political ideology. And that's very worrisome as well.

The fact that Obama has become a movie mogul, to me it's just a continuation of his -- of that too cozy relationship he has always had with the media -- with the corporate media.

CARLSON: Yes.

WHITE: And that's got to be of concern to everyone.

CARLSON: So really quick, do we know how much he is making from this? He and his wife? And do we know what Netflix is doing it?

WHITE: We don't know the amount. Netflix has not disclosed the amount the way the publishing industry disclosed the $65 million that was given -- that gifted to the Obama's.

CARLSON: Yes.

WHITE: But clearly, Netflix is a part of Hollywood. Hollywood has always been leftist, primarily leftist, and especially the documentary genre.

People need to know this, I think that it wasn't just Michael Moore who ruined the documentary genre. But in Hollywood, documentary has always been a form for political ideology, not for information.

CARLSON: Yes.

WHITE: That's the difference between Hollywood docs and true journalism --

CARLSON: That's a really good point that I think most consumers don't understand. Armond White, one of the very few critics to think for himself and for that reason, we're always happy to have you on the show. Thank you very much.

WHITE: Thank you, Tucker. My pleasure.

CARLSON: That's it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night and every week night at 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and especially groupthink, which is everywhere.

President Trump will start speaking any moment now in New Mexico. For now, we turn things over to our friend, Sean Hannity standing by in New York.

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.