Do Democrats have their priorities twisted ahead of 2020?

close

Video

Do Democrats have their priorities twisted ahead of 2020?

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume weighs in on the shifting Democratic agenda ahead of 2020 election.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," March 5, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” We want to begin this evening with the story of Mike, the headless chicken. It sounds implausible, but it really happened and it tells you something. It begins this way. One afternoon in the fall of 1945, a farmer in western Colorado called Lloyd Olson walked into the barn yard to get dinner.

His wife said she wanted some chicken, so Olson found a five-month-old bird called "Mike" and then beheaded it with a hatchet, but then a funny thing happened, Mike didn't die. In fact, Mike lived another full year and a half, he lived long enough to become a traveling sideshow attraction before he ultimately choked to death in a motel room in Phoenix, a sad story.

But the question is, how did Mike live for 18 months without a head? Well, scientist had a number of explanations for how he did it, but the real reason is simple. Mike had no idea he'd been killed so he just kept going. Mike was too dumb to die.

Something very similar just happened in the Russia investigation this week. For two years, we've been told that there was some form of collusion between the Russian government and the 2016 Trump campaign. Details were sketchy, so we paid for an independent counsel and a number of congressional investigations to find out exactly what happened.

Then last week, Democrats hit pay dirt. They produced the perfect witness, the one man in America who would know exactly what happened between the Trump campaign and Russia. Michael Cohen.

Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's personal lawyer for ten years. Communications between Trump and Cohen were supposed to be privileged and protected, so Trump would have been free to tell Cohen anything and everything.

If there's one person who would know firsthand about Russian collusion and all its detail, it's Michael Cohen. And if there's one person who would be happy to tell Congress about Russian collusion in all its detail, it's also Michael Cohen.

Michael Cohen hates Trump. He has said so repeatedly and vehemently. So last week, Democrats on Capitol Hill put Cohen under oath and asked him about Russian collusion. Here's what happened next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, R-FLA: Based on what you know, would Mr. Trump, or did he lie about colluding and coordinating with the Russians at any point during the campaign?

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY OF DONALD TRUMP: So as I stated in my testimony, I wouldn't use the word "colluding."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: There you have it. Michael Cohen says there was no collusion with Russia. That is the final word. After two years, the most far- fetched spy story in American history ends abruptly. The Russia conspiracy is dead, killed with hatchet on stump finality on live television.

But here's the twist, nobody in Washington seemed to notice. They had no idea what just happened. Like Mike the headless chicken, they are still running around bumping into things. In fact, they are still issuing subpoenas.

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent out at least 81 of them. The subpoenas are aimed at individuals, organizations and government agencies that might have damaging information about Donald Trump. Information that for some reason, a reason nobody can explain, his personal attorney of 10 years did not have. Apparently, it's extra double secret information.

If this all seems a little nuts, prepare yourself. We learned on CNN yesterday that it's simply the beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, CNN: In addition to the 81 names of entities and individuals released today, do expect more?

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I.: Yes, in short order there will be additional names, additional document requests that are made in the coming days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Additional names, additional document requests. If you had to sum up the entire Democratic platform, those two sentences would do it. "More subpoenas, vote for us, we will investigate." At some point though, it's easy to lose track of what all these investigations are about. Can you remember? Search a memory for a moment.

Last week it, was Russian collusion, the hacking of our democracy by Vladimir Putin, unseen saboteurs. This week, every bit as solemnly its obstruction of justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN BURNETT, ANCHOR, CNN: You say the President, you know, has obstructed justice, you've been clear about that. But you said yesterday --

REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: There is certainly a lot of evidence that he has, but that's exactly the kind of thing we have to look into.

BURNETT: Okay, so now you are not sure he's obstructed justice?

NADLER: Personally, I think he has, but we have to look and see.

BURNETT: But the reason I ask is obviously, if he obstructed justice that's a crime, it is an impeachable act. You don't have to have a crime to be impeachable, but a crime is an impeachable act.

NADLER: Right. Not every crime is an impeachable act. That one would be.

BURNETT: That one would be. Okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So what are they telling us? Well, you can see what they are telling us. Impeachment is coming. And of course it is. Democratic leaders have assured us again and again, they have no plans to impeach, but they are lying. Their voters demand impeachment. So really they have no choice.

In some ways, an impeachment trial would be an upgrade from the creepy secretive process we have now. Shadowy intelligence agencies won't be spying on anyone during and impeachment trial. Federal agents won't be rousting anyone from bed at rifle point.

Impeachment is a public and fairly transparent process. We can watch on television. We can assess for ourselves what we think of Jerry Nadler and his friends. Best of luck to the Democrats on that.

But take three steps back. What's the cost of all of this? To the rest of the country? Well, it's hard to assess that really, but a story in the paper this morning does give you some hint of it. It's this. In 2017, the combined death rates from alcohol, drugs and suicide in this country hit their highest recorded levels ever -- ever -- since recordkeeping began.

But you know this if you live here. If you haven't been to the funeral of someone who's died from booze, drugs or suicide lately, count yourself lucky because they're everywhere.

The surreal thing is that nobody on television ever mentions any of this. It's like it's not even happening. Maybe that's because in their world, it isn't happening. Everything is fine where they live. People there are prosperous and secure and happy and they plan on staying that way. They resent any attempt to remind them that in the world beyond the coastal cities, America is killing itself.

That means that people who built this country are dying. The people in charge of this country are ignoring them as they die. You've got to wonder how long this can continue. It's too frivolous, it's too dishonest. They keep telling us, the only thing that matters is Trump. They know that isn't true. They just want to talk about the rest of it because they are implicated in it.

Rochelle Richie is a former Press Secretary for the House Democratic Policy and Communication Committee and she is nice enough to join us tonight. Richelle, a lot for coming on.

ROCHELLE RICHIE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: So not to pull back the frame too far, but I see the story in "USA Today" this morning saying the death rates from alcohol, drugs and suicide are the highest ever measured in this country. That seems like a huge story to me. And I am not just blaming Democrats. I can't think of a single political figure who mentioned that today. How could they miss that?

RICHIE: You know, I think that both sides have missed that and it is a huge problem in our country, but I don't think that it is necessarily something that we can say is taking away from us focusing like the Mueller investigation is not necessarily taking away from our opportunity to focus on drugs and alcohol addiction.

I mean, for instance, I live in New York City and I can tell you that Governor Cuomo just last month puts forth $7.5 million to fight drug and alcohol addiction and then last summer, he put forward a program that was about $4 million to address suicides. So I think that Democrats are focusing on this.

CARLSON: Hold on. I don't know if you are intentionally mocking him or not. $7.5 million for drugs and alcohol, it's one of the biggest killers in the state of New York and $4 million for suicide.

RICHIE: It's a grant. It's a grant to improve the services.

CARLSON: Hold on. We spend more in homeless shelters per month in the burrow of Staten Island than he is spending the entire state on some of the biggest killers in the state. So what you just did is indict him, I think in a pretty vicious way.

RICHIE: No, I didn't.

CARLSON: I don't know if those numbers are right, but if they are, he should be ashamed.

RICHIE: They are right. $7.5 million and that's what he's investing into programs that already exist.

CARLSON: Then that's -- it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing what you just said.

RICHIE: No, it's not.

CARLSON: But let me ask you, and look, they are not mutually exclusive. You can have a Mueller investigation and still talk about the fact that the middle of the country is dying, but we are not talking about it at all and all we are talking about is Trump. And I just wonder, at a certain point, like how much of that is a distraction? Honestly.

RICHIE: It's not a distraction. Look, I think that we cannot necessarily say -- I heard your monologue in the beginning and I don't think that we can necessarily say that Democrats want to see him impeached.

If you look at the Quinnipiac polls that just came out, 59% of the country does not support starting the process of impeachment. That's a good sign for Republicans and that's sort of a sign to Democrats that, "Look, you can't just ride this 'We hate Trump' train and think that people are going to support you as far as an impeachment." There has to be a political process and that's why Nadler said in that interview with George Stephanopoulos, where he said, "Look, we have to persuade the American people. We have to prove and provide evidence for impeachment."

CARLSON: I got it. Look, there are things about the President I wouldn't defend, it's not my job. He doesn't pay me, okay, but you've got to kind of wonder after the entire first half of his first term completely taken over by these investigations from all kinds of directions, Republicans played a role in them as well, and there's nothing. There's nothing. There's not one actionable charge. There's not one indictment on any of these charges of anybody, any American.

RICHIE: Well, I will -- no, there's been -- Tucker, there has been indictments.

CARLSON: Nobody has been indicted for betraying the country.

RICHIE: No one has been indicted? Manafort, Cohen -- they haven't been indicted? Yes, they absolutely have. Now, the President has not been indicted.

CARLSON: Okay, look, let's be totally real. I am not you know -- Paul Manafort, he wasn't my accountant, thank God. But nothing Manafort did, not registering into FARA, cheating on his taxes --

RICHIE: Firestone.

CARLSON: I mean, that's bad, I'm not here to defend it, but I'm telling you when you shut down the entire Federal government for two years and that's what you get, can you really look at the camera and say, "Yes, it was worth it."

RICHIE: I don't think that the Federal government has been shut down for two years.

CARLSON: Half the Executive branch doesn't have any employees in it. They can't get --

RICHIE: What we did see happen is the Federal government shut down over a border wall, that we did see. But as far as being shut down for the Mueller investigation is not true.

CARLSON: Okay, but that's not real. Hold on. But that's a real question. We have higher illegal immigration rates now than we did in January of last year. Like there are a lot of people coming across the border, and maybe you think that's great, maybe you don't, but that's a real conversation. This Russia stuff --

RICHIE: Illegal immigration has actually decreased.

CARLSON: No, that's not true. That's the talking point that -- update your talking points, that's not true. But let me just ask you this, can you look at the Michael Cohen tape where he says to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "No collusion," what do you make of that? No, I am serious, what you make of that?

RICHIE: Now, what I make of that it is that it's so funny because you have Republicans that come out and say, "Oh, you can't believe Cohen. He's a liar. He is going to jail for a ..."

CARLSON: Yes, but that's what they're saying. I am not saying that. I am asking you what you think of that.

RICHIE: I didn't say you. I said Republicans. I am going to tell you what I think.

CARLSON: Yes, whatever. There are a lot of silly Republicans out there, trust me.

RICHIE: But this is the point. They are questioning Cohen's credibility, but then when it comes to this point of "Oh, there was no collusion," then it's like, "Oh, yeah, believe Cohen."

CARLSON: I get it.

RICHIE: It's so hypocritical.

CARLSON: But I am not here to take credit for some dumb House Republican, I'm asking an honest question on behalf of our viewers. Michael Cohen would know there's a collusion, we both agree, and that he has no reason to pretend there wasn't. Asked directly, he said there wasn't and we are pretending that didn't happen. So if Michael Cohen knows of no collusion, then what are we doing here exactly?

RICHIE: What he did say -- well, Tucker, what he did say during that testimony however is that he was in the room when Roger Stone called President Trump and told him that Assange had information from WikiLeaks that they were going to dump Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

CARLSON: But so what? I mean, so what?

RICHIE: That is huge.

CARLSON: I mean, everybody I know --

RICHIE: That's a huge point.

CARLSON: Okay, but not --

RICHIE: And he was working Felix Sater on the deal. He said that Felix Sater had an office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower. So clearly there was some sort of collusion going on.

CARLSON: I don't think I'm going to get you to answer that question. Okay, Rochelle, I appreciate it though. Thank you for coming on.

RICHIE: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So the investigative agenda is the agenda. It's the entirety of the agenda on the Democratic side, that and shutting down the fossil fuel industry. Is that a workable plan for the next election? Brit Hume has seen a few elections and he will come back and tell after the break.

Then a new complaint against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could put someone in jail. Not an overstatement. We will tell you what that complaint is, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, are you going to cooperate with Mr. Nadler?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I cooperate all the time with everybody and you know the beautiful thing, no collusion. It's all a hoax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That was the President yesterday signaling in his way his willingness to cooperate with yet more Democratic investigations into Russia. Well, they will be doing a lot of that the next two years since investigations have become the top priority of the Democratic Party, far above fixing the drug, alcohol and suicide crisis, our porous border, the collapse of our middle class. Will that work as a campaign platform?

Fox senior political analyst, Brit Hume has covered a lot of campaigns and he joins us tonight to assess. Brit, thanks a lot for coming on. Do you think -- and this is a sincere question because maybe -- who knows what voters want, but do you think that that is a winning message? "Vote for us and we will investigate more"?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it certainly isn't the message that the House Members who successfully captured control of that body ran on last fall. They were talking about delivering for the American people on things like healthcare and other matters, and they make a case on the economy to the extent that they can in a full-employment economy like this.

But they didn't run an endless investigations and they certainly, Tucker, didn't run on some of the other stuff they've been talking about, such as reparations, which is Elizabeth Warren and others who are running for President are now talking about reparations. She wants to extend it to Native Americans.

They are talking about all of the elements of the Green New Deal, which is extraordinary. I mean, we are talking here about a program of actions that are not simply implausible or difficult, they are impossible. These are things that can't happen and won't, but four or five of their presidential candidates have endorsed it and are cosponsors of that.

Not to mention the fact that they are talking about Medicare for All, which is utterly unaffordable and every serious person who's looked at it will tell you that, but this is what they are doing. They've staked out these positions, these exotic positions on a range of issues, they're following Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez around as the pied piper of the new Democratic Caucus. She has completely eclipsed Nancy Pelosi and is undoubtedly giving her fits.

So I don't think that if this keeps up, Tucker, and you can couple that with this endless investigations and so on, that this is really a very good platform to run on in 2020.

CARLSON: If you believe you can change your biological sex just by wishing it, so you believe in magic? So maybe some of this shouldn't be too surprising to us, but I wonder what people like Steny Hoyer or the people who have been around a long time in Washington in the Democratic Caucus and the House, what do they make of all this?

HUME: Well, I'm sure they are frustrated by it and they know that the elements of the Green New Deal are impossible and undoubtedly would be impossible to pass any time in the next two years, but look, if you completely cover yourself with this stuff, and this is what you are seen to be promoting, this is what all the noise has been about, this is what all the talk is about.

You may be able to do some other things, but they are going to be overshadowed by all of this exotic stuff or whatever the stuff is, it makes a lot of news and that's why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for all her callousness and arguable shallowness is able to become so prominent.

She makes news and she's kind of compelling. She's kind of adorable sort of in the way that a five-year-old child can be adorable, and she is at the moment, I think it's fair to say, she's the de facto leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

CARLSON: I think that's right, and she is brave. I will say that. She says things nobody else will say, but she is also really arrogant. I wonder if she will wear well.

HUME: Well, I thought for the first few weeks of this, Tucker, frankly that the novelty would wear off, it hasn't. She is still the hottest ticket in town and I think she's got a lot of talent. I mean, she's really kind of cheerful and positive and attractive in that sense and that goes a long way in politics.

But if this keeps up and she is able to continue to promote these exotic positions and get people - prominent people, important people to sign on to them, she will leave that party off a cliff. I don't think there's much doubt.

And in the meantime, of course, we thought or we should expect the Mueller report to him and as expected now, it does not convict the President or accuse the President of collaborating with the Russians to get himself elected, I think a lot of the air will go out of the investigation because no matter what Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee, no matter what they try to do, they don't have anything like the investigative resources Mueller has and therefore their probes cannot be expected to find anything like as much as he does and if he doesn't find it, it's probably not there.

CARLSON: I think that's probably a fair assumption. Brit Hume, great to see you tonight, thank you.

HUME; Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: We've got some interesting new information tonight about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When she ran for office last year, she described herself as an enemy of big money in politics. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: This really speaks to the corrupting force of money and politics in general and this problem is not going to go away until we tighten the reins on the role of money in politics.

I really hope that we really pass, introduce and pass very strong legislation that's going to put much stronger limits on how special interests and how money can be moved, especially when they interface with campaigns.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, she doesn't like when money moves and interfaces with the campaign so of course, Ocasio-Cortez is also the sworn enemy of carbon. But that didn't stop her from taking hundreds of Uber rides when the subway was just a few feet away. She may feel the same way about money, for you, but not for her.

A new FEC complaint accuses Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff of diverting a million dollars in donations into private accounts, apparently too obscure how that money was used.

If true, the complaint could result in prison time. Ocasio-Cortez was confronted about this allegation today and here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: There is no violation, so there is no violation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think that's a sign of you taking the dark money?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh, no. No, I am 100% people funded. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: She is people funded. She wants you to know. Speaking of people funded, Melissa Francis, who hosts, "Outnumbered," also one of our all-time favorite people on Fox Business joins us tonight for an update on this story. Hey, Melissa.

MELISSA FRANCIS, HOST, FOX BUSINESS: Hey, Tucker. So here's what this really boils down to in my mind. So it should be noted that the group that brought the complaint to the FEC is a right-leaning organization. we want to say that upfront, but if you boil it down, basically what she and her Chief of Staff are accused of doing is moving almost a million dollars from a PAC fund that they controlled over to an LLC, a limited liability corporation that they controlled.

So were I her, I would ask this gentleman in the photo here, who is a multimillionaire tech and finance smart guy who is running her campaign, I would say, "Hey, why am I moving this money, these donations that were made to me from this PAC over to this other account that I control? I control them both, why move it? What difference does it make?"

Well, one difference could be, look at the rules that govern both and the rules that govern a PAC are very clear and much more strict about how much you can spend? Where it came from? What you have to disclose? How you list things? When it's an LLC, a limited liability corporation, the rules are very different, much lighter and she marked a lot of stuff strategic consulting, and you can do that rather than itemizing things.

Now, is this illegal? I don't know. Both sides are going to have their arguments in court about this, no doubt. And by the way, the rules that govern campaign finance are written by the very people in power who are trying to hold onto it.

So talk about the fox guarding the hen house. So the people who wrote these roles that she's saying, "We are going to rewrite the rules," more people who have come to power that are trying to hang onto it. So is this legal under the rules? I don't know. We have people saying it is not, both sides will argue and we will see, but what's interesting is you just have to ask yourself, why did you need to move it from one thing you control totally to another thing you control totally in order to make the expenditures? It sounds like that's dark money that she's talking about, but we will see when they investigate.

CARLSON: Well, just -- I mean, quickly, the fact that we don't know anything about it, the fact that it's not itemized, doesn't that by definition make it dark money or at least opaque money?

FRANCIS: It doesn't make it bright money. It doesn't make a transparent money, it makes it obscured money. At the very least, it is obscured. There is not a bright light shining on it. But, Tucker, I mean, you made the point before, think about what socialism is.

Like the very definition is a government takeover of the means of production. It's a power grab. That's what she's been all about, is a power grab. "I'm in charge, I'm the boss." We go to Washington, we decide, we get the means of production, we get control and we tell you all what you get.

It all has the same theme if you boil it down to its most basic sense, so she doesn't want other people using planes, but she will use a plane going back and forth between D.C. and New York because she's important. It means that she's the ruling class. She's powerful. She's important. So she gets to do these things, but for you and me, we are just the serfs along the way, so we shouldn't have a carbon footprint, we should do all these other things.

CARLSON: No, I will see you on the bus, Melissa Francis, they have Wi-Fi, so don't complain.

FRANCIS: Hey, I love the bus. I love the subway, the Q Train, it's right by my apartment. I'll see you there.

CARLSON: Melissa Francis, one of the best, thank you very much.

FRANCIS: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well, a host over on ABC on "Good Morning, America" now admits that she went easy on Jussie Smollett. The softness of the softballs interviews and she did of identity politics reasons. Why is she in journalism? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, from the first moment, there were plenty of good reasons to doubt Jussie Smollett's alleged hate crime in Chicago. Who walks around with bleach and a noose on the coldest night of the year? How many Trump voters live in downtown Chicago or even visit and of those, how many have even heard of Jussie Smollett, much less are willing to go to the effort to commit a hate crime against him?

Those are just few of the very obvious questions, but nobody in the press was asking them, and the person who was most assiduously not asking them, but instead ignoring them and making excuses for Jussie Smollett's ludicrous account was "Good Morning America," host Robin Roberts. In her, we are using air quotes here, "interview" with Smollett, she gave him free rein to slander an entire segment of our country and he did it for personal gain and she let him. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, AMERICAN ACTOR: I see the attacker masked and he said, "This is MAGA country, [bleep]" and punches me right in the face.

ROBIN ROBERTS, HOST, ABC: And there is no doubt in your mind what motivated this attack?

SMOLLETT: I can only go off of their words. I mean, who says,"[bleep] [bleep]. This is MAGA country, [bleep]." Ties a noose around your neck and pours bleach on you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: By the end of the interview, Roberts dropped the pretense completely and basically show the world her new alliance, her deep friendship with her new pal, Jussie Smollett. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMOLLETT: I still want to believe with everything that has happened that there is something called justice, because if I stop believing that, what was it all for?

ROBERTS: Beautiful. Thank you, Jussie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "Beautiful, thank you, Jussie." That really should follow her for the rest of her life. It won't though. It should. Roberts now admits her entire approach to the interview was guided by her views on identity politics. She couldn't be too hard on Jussie Smollett, too skeptical of his ludicrous tale, she now says, because she has the same skin color and sexual orientation that he does. That's what she said.

Jason Hill is a Professor of Philosophy at the Paul University and author of the book, "We Have Overcome," he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks very much for coming on. This whole approach, the tribal approach to journalism strikes me as inherently dishonest. If you have a different measure of one person based on the way that person looks, who that person sleeps with and takes you for another person, isn't that lying?

JASON HILL, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, THE PAUL UNIVERSITY: It's not only lying, it's also putting your professional oath and your professional obligation above truth and objectivity where you are saying that identity politics and tribalism supersede your obligations to tell the truth and your adherence to objectivity, which puts journalism and truth and objectivity at a dead end and it backfired on her, as it should have.

CARLSON: It seems like it's very common. I mean, the fact that you could admit this out loud, especially in journalism where you are supposed to be, you're standing in by proxy for your viewers or readers to ask questions that they would ask, to be as honest as you can be, that's the baseline requirement of it and she's admitting, I didn't do any of that and everyone sort of nods, "Well, that's totally fine, we understand." Well, I don't understand, why does everyone else -- why does she get a pass for that?

HILL: Well, you know, I think she gets a pass, Tucker, because I think this is part of a larger issue and I think she has bought into the cult of victimology, which is big business in America today.

It's big business in America today because to be a victim is to take on the mantle of permanent innocence. It is to become a certified moral icon and when you become a certified moral icon, you become a permanent innocent person. Your transgressor or your alleged transgressor becomes a guilty person from whom you can extract some kind of reparation and I think she bought --

She has bought into the cult of victimology as have many Americans and there's also a deeper sense of -- a deeper sense that is going on in this country in which victimized -- people who take themselves to be victims luxuriate in a sense of infantilization, I think, and they don't really want to grow up. They don't really want -- they prefer to have their agency expropriated by others who can take care of themselves.

Because to not be a victim means to say, "I don't want to be exceptionalized. I don't want to be taken as a special person, as a special case. I want to take care of myself." And one of the things I talk about in my book, in "Overcome" is that, since the end of legal oppression in this country with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a lot of people who were legal victims of the state simply don't know what to do with themselves.

So what they do is they go about creating a victim identity like this fellow, Jussie Smollett, who comparatively speaking is in the 1% in the world.

CARLSON: Well, of course.

HILL: Right?

CARLSON: No, but you're totally right. That's it. It's the powerful pretending they are powerless. Professor, I wish we had more time and I wish you would have been my professor in college. I probably would have enjoyed the experience. Your students are lucky. Thank you for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.

HILL: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, there's really no sector of our economy probably that receives more taxpayer subsidies than universities - higher education. All of it comes from the Federal government. So the question is, are these colleges teaching anything worthwhile? Or is it purely propaganda designed to make your kids hate you and the country that made this all possible. I think you know the answer.

But the Young America's Foundation has just produced a list of 12 of the craziest college courses taught at taxpayer financed schools around the country. Spencer Brown is a spokesman at Young Americans for Freedom and he joins us tonight. Spencer, thanks very much for coming on. Some of these -- I have a list of some of them and actually it's so infuriating I had to stop reading it because we listed it with the cost of the college attached, but I'm just going to start reading. Swarthmore: Queering God, Feminist and Queer Theology. By the way, $68,000.00 a year to attend that school.

SPENCER BROWN, SPOKESMAN, YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM: It's absurd what students are paying to supposedly receive an education when really they are just being indoctrinated. I saw what the survey from Young America's Foundation found in courses like this, it addresses the idea that the God of the Bible has always been masculine and it's definitely male, but then it goes on to ask, "Or is he?" And then looks at different attributes of God in order to twist his character and his words and his actions and making him into a feminine figure or impacting feminist theology on this important issue.

CARLSON: These are all so dumb. Davidson is $66,000.00 a year. The college is Latinx -- if I am even pronouncing that correctly -- Sexual Dissidence and Guerrilla Translation.

BROWN: I was recently yelled out on Twitter for saying Latinx, apparently, it's Latin X, but when it's a made up word, I don't you can pronounce it wrong.

CARLSON: Probably not.

BROWN: But this addresses sort of something your last guest was talking about which is this matrix of oppression and everybody is a victim and it's this victim Olympics that you have young people in, even in college now, and so this addresses a number of things.

The description for that course is especially long and it goes into everything from the abolition of prisons to ableism, speciesism, but of course views them all through a leftist pro-pleasure perspective.

CARLSON: Well, and what's interesting about the description is it has grammatical errors and made up words. I mean, it's written by dumb people, I guess, not surprisingly. So is this, this is from Northwestern, apparently, a good school. Unsettling Whiteness -- 76 grand to go to Northwestern by the way -- and it's got the word "narratable," which is not a word, so wouldn't a college professor know. I mean, right? Have a handle on the English language?

BROWN: Well, you would think so, but obviously, what the left has done is taken these centers of higher learning allegedly and just turn them into these fantasy lands where they are not even using real words anymore and when we compiled this report, this year's release of comedy and tragedy has more than 250 courses in total and when I compile it, you should see the spell check, it just lights up because these are not real words.

And that one addresses the cultural construction of whiteness as an institution supposedly making it out to be that race is a social construct now.

CARLSON: You know, at some point maybe guys should just do a survey of America's parents and ask, is it worth it? You are going into debt for this, really?

BROWN: Well, clearly it's not. You know, if you look at recent reports, 40% of recent graduates are consider underemployed and then you have $1.5 trillion in student loan debt right now. This isn't an equation that adds up.

CARLSON: No, it really isn't, thank you for saying that. Spencer Brown, great to see you.

BROWN: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: It was great. Well, Google is routinely accused of having a pay gap. It turns out there was a pay gap between the sexes, but not at all what you might have expected. We have the details on that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, for many years, the left, particularly the shallow televised left has attacked companies for their sexism. Especially in tech, they have told us about a pay gap, women they tell us are paid less than men for no reason other than bigotry, sexism.

Well, these attacks are the reason tech companies are in part so vocally left wing, it's why James Damor at Google had to be fired immediately for expressing his opinions.

At Google, leaders decided to do an internal investigation on the question of the pay gap. They reviewed every employee, every employee's job, every employee's performance to see if there was sexism lurking in the hearts of their employees and reflected in their paychecks, and it turns out there was sexism. They found white a bit of it.

There were thousands of people being paid less than colleagues doing the same work, but in a twist, most of these employees were in fact men. Google and "The New York Times" were apparently shocked by this finding, but why would they be? It's exactly what you would expect. The press has spent years attacking one sex as naturally bigoted and demand the other be hired more, paid more, prioritized more and thanks to those calls, guess what they were?

So maybe the best way to achieve fairness is to advocate for fairness but that has never occurred to anyone in Washington, they are too dumb.

Well, American tech companies used to not so long ago, tout themselves as champions of freedom in American life. Now tech has replaced government as the leading vector of censorship.

Google employees have been caught discussing how to manipulate search result to promote their views on immigration among other things. Facebook has clamped down on conservative friendly new stories. Almost every tech company increasingly is willing to use its censorship powers to shape what you see in order to benefit their political agenda.

Raheem Kassam is the new global editor-in-chief of humanevents.com and we are happy to have him come tonight. Raheem, thanks very much. Do you think it's fair to say that the tech sector has replaced government as the main censorship threat that we face?

RAHEEM KASSAM, GLOBAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HUMANEVENTS.COM: Yes, I mean, it's become absolutely abhorrent and it's not just abhorrent because these are very successful corporate entities that are putting their power up against not just the American people by the way, you can probably hear from my accent, I am not from here.

They're doing it in the United Kingdom. They are doing it all across Europe, and indeed, all around the world, but what's particularly egregious about it is that they are the benefactors not of the free market, they are the actual benefactors of government intervention on their behalf.

The Communications Decency Act in the United States allows the Googles and the Facebooks, and the Twitters to be classed as non-publishers which means that they are just platforms and can get away with making editorial decisions.

You know, I was banned last week from Facebook. That's an editorial decision they made and I have, as an individual, no recourse against them, no legal recourse against them, they are protected within U.S. legislation against me as an individual --

CARLSON: So they have a special deal with the U.S. Congress.

KASSAM: They have a special deal, of course.

CARLSON: They also have government contracts up and down one the other.

KASSAM: Absolutely. Absolutely. And so when people like me -- there are a lot of what we call boomer conservatives out there who say, "Oh, but the free market, the free market, the free market," but it's not a free market. They are actually undergirded and underwritten by government intervention. So all we are saying is take that away, let us be able to sue them if we want to and let's hear it out in the courts.

CARLSON: So what is the counterargument and why haven't Republicans, whose job it is to protect their own voters -- I don't know if anyone told them that -- why haven't they moved to strip the tech companies of this artificial protection they enjoy?

KASSAM: And even more so, it's not just about protecting their own voters, it's about protecting everyone.

CARLSON: Well, I agree.

KASSAM: It's about protecting the First Amendment for everyone and actually you are starting to see in the United Kingdom because you know we have this hard left loony Labour Party with Jeremy Corbyn in charge. Even some of the hard left in the U.K. are now being kicked off and they are starting to concern themselves with free speech all of a sudden.

So it's about protecting everyone and what I don't understand, I mean, somebody who has been very good on this, by the way in particular is Donald Trump, Jr. he almost -- if you could describe it like this, rode to my rescue when I was banned from Facebook last week and made it a big international story, but it's not about me and it shouldn't be about people like me who can get Don Jr. to help me out, ordinary people use social media to keep in touch with their loved ones, to get pictures of their grandchildren and there's a big question mark, I think, over especially older people who use it to keep in touch with people who are being kicked off because they've said something incorrect or they've said something politically incorrect, right?

And that's who I'm concerned about and I'm afraid your congressmen and your senators especially on the right are just sort of sitting there and letting this happen.

CARLSON: I think Republican voters especially should demand that their representatives do something immediately, like yesterday.

KASSAM: Yesterday, five years ago.

CARLSON: I couldn't agree more. It is great to see you. Congratulations. I know you just took over Human Events.

KASSAM: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Good for you. Democratic voters have a message for Hillary Clinton, "Please, if there's any mercy and justice in the world, go away." That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, senator and presidential contender, Kamala Harris is obviously a champion of women. She says so all the time and you nod in agreement, you believe her. But should you? I mean, politicians claim all kinds of things so sometimes, it helps to judge them by what they do rather than what they say.

Kamala Harris was the Attorney General of California for six long years. During her tenure, one of her top aides allegedly sexually harassed an underling, a coworker. He resigned over those allegations just three months ago.

So what did Kamala Harris do in response? Well, in a remarkable interview that she gave recently, Harris admitted that in fact, she has never even bothered to talk to the accuser.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ILIA CALDERON, ANCHOR, UNIVISION: Did you reach to the alleged victim in this specific case to offer your support?

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: I have indicated that I'm very supportive of all women who come forward and speak up and have the courage to speak up.

CALDERON: In the specific case?

HARRIS: In this specific case, I have not talked to the victim.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: She's a champion of all women so she doesn't have to champion any specific woman. She is a good, unlike you. This is true on immigration or racism or countless other issues. She just knows that she's morally superior and that's why she deserves to be President and that's why she is above gestures like actually caring about the people she claims to support.

If only the employee had faked a hate crime instead, should be getting a lot of personal attention, but she didn't.

Well, Hillary Clinton's never ending blame tour across America is premised on the idea that she is very popular and was robbed of the presidency in 2016 by underhanded means and that you feel it very sorry for her because her dreams have been dashed. But increasingly even Democrats want her to go away. They said it on CNN recently. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, ANCHOR, CNN: Does Hillary have a role in 2020? Should she campaign?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stay away.

CAMEROTA: Why is that?

CHRISTIAN TAMTE, DEMOCRAT: I love you, Hillary. I love you, I love you but stay away. We are so divide right now that anything that has Hillary on it is automatically going to suffer again.

MARY REARMAN, DEMOCRAT: I just her time is done. I think it's been -- it's done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Tammy Bruce is a radio host, the President of Independent Women's Voice and she joins us tonight. Tammy, thanks a lot for coming on.

TAMMY BRUCE, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICES: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: So those are the responses you would expect. They weren't hostile to Hillary. They don't hate Hillary. They voted for her, but they are saying something pretty obvious, which is you know, things change, time moves on, people kind of age out of the process, why are you still here? Why is she still here?

BRUCE: Well, actually this has always been Hillary. This is not a new Hillary. This is the Hillary we've always known. This is the Hillary they voted for, but that sound after she noted that she was not going to be running in 2020, everybody thought it was an asteroid.

It was all the Democrats breathing a sigh of relief and all the Republicans sobbing through bitters tears that they will miss her, but she says she is not going to be leaving, but this is what is also strange about the Democratic position. They say she should be President now, Tucker, right? That she was the winner. She was robbed by the Russians and everything, which means 2020 would be her second term and yet they don't want her then.

So are they saying in fact voting for her in 2016 was in fact a mistake? That's one of the points, but the other thing that's a real revelation here is that after over two years of her complaining of the entire system saying that the current President, Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and stole the election.

Americans love fairness. We don't like anybody getting robbed and yet they say no, just don't come back even though this is supposed to be hers, it tells you that all of this rhetoric, Tucker, has not worked.

The American people do not believe it. They didn't believe it then, they don't believe it now. In other words, recognizing even if subconsciously all of this has been a charade, that's important for the Trump administration and the Trump campaign to realize. The American people still care about truth of the matter, facts and delivering politically and delivering on the issues.

CARLSON: It is so interesting though, I never thought of the point you just made, but if they really believed what they were saying about Russian inclusion and the theft of the election, and the hacking of our democracy, they would insist that Hillary, by definition would be the nominee. They don't even believe it.

BRUCE: Yes, exactly. I mean, we would be in the streets. Who wouldn't be? In other words, it's almost like a cognitive dissonance in a sense, like a suspension of disbelief. I should say, like when you going to the movies, you really know it's not real life but you're going to allow yourself to believe so for a minute because it would be fun for a few hours.

In this case, it's been a nightmare for two years and they want to out. They want to be out of the theater. They want the movie to end. They want to move on to something else and the Trump administration -- and this is what we care about regardless of what your party is, we want the future back for our families. We want the economy to be better. We want that this nonsense to end. What the Democrats are planning in the House is going to be a disaster.

They've created now, not just the fact that it is a witch hunt, but they've created an enemies list with the 81 individuals and entities that they are going to try to persecute or material on Trump. It's a remarkable thing that they've accomplished that is not what I think -- I think most Americans would agree that is not why they hired those people to go to the House of Representatives.

CARLSON: No, probably -- and my feelings are hurt that you and I were left off the enemies list.

BRUCE: I know, I was looking for my name, we weren't there.

CARLSON: Maybe Jerry Nadler can rectify that.

BRUCE: Yes, hi.

CARLSON: It's great -- Tammy Bruce. The great Tammy Bruce.

BRUCE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Nice seeing you tonight. Thank you.

BRUCE: Thank you.

CARLSON: We're out of time, sadly. We will be back tomorrow 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy -- and we mean it -- of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Following us from New York City is Sean Hannity. Good night from Washington.

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.