Is the Mueller probe worth it?

close

Video

Is the Mueller probe worth it?

Mueller expected to release filings on Manafort and Cohen; former Obama regional campaign director Robin Biro weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 6, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

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

One of the most bewildering parts of our current moment, and there are many, is watching the American Left become the mirror image of what it once was.

Not so long ago, do you remember when Liberals supported free speech and due process, when the ACLU had principles? Remember when they sided with wage earners over billionaires when they kind of cared about you or pretended to? Seems like about a 100 years ago.

Liberals also, by the way, used to care about the environment, not the politicized abstract stuff like climate policy, but the actual physical environment of America, our land, and our water, and our trees, even our sidewalks.

Liberals were worried about mass immigration and overpopulation then. They didn't want to live in a crowded, dirty country. Well after a whole lot of searching, we have located the last Liberal in America who feels that way. We'll talk to him in just a minute.

But, first tonight, speaking of Liberals, they are thrilled by the Mueller investigation these days. It seems like all upside to them. Their political opponents are being harassed day and night. Some of them may soon be indicted. The Administration can barely govern with all the noise about Russia.

Now, Robert Mueller is said to be a Republican. They always tell us that. But, in effect, Mueller is doing the heavy lifting of the Democratic Party. If you're a progressive who hates Donald Trump, this is like Christmas every single day. Or, is it?

Writer T.A. Frank has his doubts about that. Frank is no Right-winger. He doesn't like Donald Trump, actually. But he's thought this through carefully. In an insightful piece for Vanity Fair, Frank wonders if Liberals will look back on this moment and consider the Mueller investigation worth doing.

In response to criticism from the Left, for example, Frank notes, "Trump's White House has pursued what is arguably the harshest set of policy to -- policies toward Russia since the fall of Communism. That's hardly something to celebrate. Yet nearly all of the pressure from the center-Left as much as from the Right, is toward making it even tougher on Russia."

So, the question is, is it really wise to risk war with a nuclear-armed power solely for short-term partisan political advantage? Is that a precedent you want to set, Frank wonders.

And then this, which ought to be printed and taped to the fridge in the kitchen of every political consultant on the Democratic side in Washington, here it is.

"The weapons you create for your side today will be used by the other side against you tomorrow. Do we really want the Special Counsel investigation to become a staple of presidential life? It's a creation with few boundaries on scope and a setup that encourages the selection of a suspect followed by a search for the crime, rather than the other way around."

Well, that's a good point. Democrats are now telling us that Robert Mueller is somehow above the reach of government. Any Executive Branch oversight of his investigation qualifies, they tell us, as an impeachable offense.

In their view, Mueller is something like a God prosecutor, accountable only to himself. But the question is will Democrats be comfortable with that standard when the next Independent Counsel investigates the next Democratic President?

And more to the point, whatever happened to representative government? Shouldn't all federal employees answer to elected officials who in turn answer to voters? That's what representative government is. Well, not anymore.

In the name of defending democracy, the Left is weakening democracy. Democrats don't seem to understand that now. They're having too much fun watching their enemies suffer. But they will understand it and, likely, they'll deeply regret it.

Robin Biro is a former Obama Campaign Regional Director. He joins us tonight. Robin, thanks a lot for coming on. So--

ROBIN BIRO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --first to the Russia question. I would never argue that Russia is our friend. I think, you know, they--

BIRO: Thank you.

CARLSON: --they don't seek our best. And I think they've undertaken a lot of mischief at our expense over the years, in the last election, probably, one example of it. But the idea that Russia's our primary geopolitical adversary is like insane, it's untrue.

That, of course, would be China. No one disagrees with that. And so, doesn't this whole investigation amount to, in effect, a lie to the American people about the threats we really face?

BIRO: You know, Tucker, I look at this from the standpoint. I -- and I'm a veteran--

CARLSON: Yes.

BIRO: --a Spec Ops veteran. And I look at this as protecting our democracy. The sole intent of this was to -- to look at foreign influence in our electoral process.

CARLSON: Right.

BIRO: That really shouldn't be a partisan issue. I think that as patriotic Americans, and I think that we -- we both are, and most of the viewers are, I'm sure, we support federal law enforcement and want to make sure that they are not adversely affecting our electoral process.

CARLSON: But I wonder though I mean of -- look, like a lot of things, I -- I don't disagree with what you say in theory. But I wonder if we're not undermining democracy in its defense.

So, here you have a Special Counsel who Democrats are telling us is not accountable to any branch of government. The Executive Branch run by Trump can't rein him in because that would be an impeachable offense, and Congress has no authority because he's an Executive Branch employee, technically.

So, that's not a democratic system where you have someone with the power to destroy your life and put you in prison, who can't be accountable to anybody elected by voters? That's the opposite of democracy, is it not?

BIRO: You know, I looked at the -- the appointment memo for Robert Mueller in this investigation, and it gives him the authority to look into any matters that may arise directly from the investigation. So, that takes -- that's pretty broad.

And to your question about whether or not this could come back on Democrats, yes, it could. I remind you that the memo -- that the Flynn memo that just came out this week pretty much showed us that there are two other criminal investigations.

Those could very well be against Democrats. Those could come back to haunt us for sure.

CARLSON: OK. So but -- but this -- look, I want to get--

BIRO: So, yes. The weapons that we use now could come back to--

CARLSON: --you're absolutely right. Of course but--

BIRO: --haunt us. And--

CARLSON: --but may I get to a more fundamental question now and (ph)--

BIRO: --I wouldn't be surprised.

CARLSON: --since you're for democracy, I'm for democracy, then let's just agree--

BIRO: Yes.

CARLSON: --on the terms here. Every employee of a government in democracy must answer, by definition, to an elected official because the voters are in control, the power resides with them.

BIRO: Sure.

CARLSON: Correct?

BIRO: Yes.

CARLSON: What elected official does Robert Mueller answer to?

BIRO: I don't know exactly how the DoJ works but I do support federal--

CARLSON: Oh?

BIRO: --law enforcement. Ultimately, the man at the top of the DoJ--

CARLSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry--

BIRO: --hold on, hold on, hold on, ultimately the man at the top is--

CARLSON: --look, I don't mean to be a stickler at the civic state (ph)--

BIRO: --is President Trump--

CARLSON: --but hold on. As long as we're defending--

BIRO: --the--

CARLSON: --democracy--

BIRO: Yes.

CARLSON: --let's defend democracy. And--

BIRO: Sure.

CARLSON: --democracy is predicated on the idea that people rule, and they rule through their elected representatives in our version of democracy. So, he -- if he is working for us, if he's a federal employee, which he is, which--

BIRO: Yes.

CARLSON: --elected representative can fire him? Which elected representative does he answer to? And the answer from Democrats is well, none. But that's not democracy, is it?

BIRO: No -- no.

CARLSON: That's something else. That's more like, I don't know--

BIRO: Technically--

CARLSON: --monarchy.

BIRO: --well, if you want to get technical, he answers to President Donald Trump--

CARLSON: Oh.

BIRO: --who is, by technicality, he's Head of all of law enforcement. He's our Chief Law Enforcement Officer. So--

CARLSON: By technicality? What -- was he elected, I thought--

BIRO: --would he not then be the ultimate--

CARLSON: --by voters though (ph).

BIRO: --person that he would answer to.

CARLSON: OK.

BIRO: Donald Trump himself says that he's had the authority many times to fire him and chose not to for political reasons.

CARLSON: Right.

BIRO: I think that was a good move on his part.

CARLSON: Yes. But maybe it was politically or not, but Democrats are telling us, and I watch the dumb people on TV. It's on in my office all day long--

BIRO: Yes.

CARLSON: --and I do. I do. I can't help it. And I hear them say again and again that Trump cannot fire or rein in a federal employee. He doesn't have the authority to do that. Now, that seems to me that's a pretty clear argument against democracy.

What you're saying is voters have no role in this. Their elected representatives are powerless. They have to sit back and let some guy elected by nobody do whatever he wants. Is that the demo -- democracy that we're defending now?

BIRO: No. And -- and--

CARLSON: Oh.

BIRO: --you're correct to point out the hypocrisy of -- of the Left, especially on some of the other networks. I watch those networks too. I get counterpoints. I watch Conservative media. I watch the -- the other mainstream networks. And they're not calling out things appropriately.

You are correct that President Trump has been tougher on Russia than any other post-war President or post-Cold War President. That is correct. I fact-checked that with NPR because I -- that's a trusted source. But I don't see that--

CARLSON: That's where we differ.

BIRO: --coming -- I don't see that -- I don't see that--

CARLSON: But can I say--

BIRO: --coming from mainstream media--

CARLSON: --we're almost out of time. Can I just (ph) ask you a--

BIRO: --other mainstream media.

CARLSON: --again a 30,000-foot question here? So, we've been tougher on Russia. We're also closer to war with Russia than we've been at any time probably since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

BIRO: Right.

CARLSON: How are we safer for that? Does that make you feel safer? It doesn't make me feel safer.

BIRO: I -- as far as protecting our democracy and protecting against cyber warfare, it's a real problem in this day and age. And -- and we saw all of those intelligence agencies, the U.S. Intelligence Agencies come out clearly and say that this was a problem. This actually did happen.

CARLSON: Right.

BIRO: President Trump has kind of been waffling on whether or not he believes U.S. Intelligence. But, you know, it's a -- it's a problem. And we are better--

CARLSON: Yes.

BIRO: --for -- for looking into this because it protects our democracy, which again--

CARLSON: Yes, I--

BIRO: --I say is a nonpartisan issue.

CARLSON: Yes, I feel it's been undermined--

BIRO: As patriots, we should all--

CARLSON: --but I guess (ph)--

BIRO: --truly (ph) protect--

CARLSON: --we could just agree (ph) on that.

BIRO: --our democracy.

CARLSON: Robin, thank you very much.

BIRO: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Elizabeth Price Foley is a professor at Florida International University College of Law. She thinks about these questions a lot, and she joins us tonight.

Professor, thank you very much for coming on. So, I don't think--

ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY, CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN LEGAL THEORIST, LAW PROFESSOR AT FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --it's an arcane or irrelevant question. Who is Robert Mueller's boss? I keep hearing that Trump can't have anything to do with Robert Mueller, neither can DoJ. That doesn't sound democratic to me at all.

FOLEY: Yes. He's kind of a strange constitutional chimera, if you will. I don't know who his boss is in theory. He's an employee or an officer, more specifically within the Department of Justice, and he would be accountable to the Attorney General, who is in turn accountable to the President. However--

CARLSON: Right.

FOLEY: --what they've done is they've disabled that accountability by not only obtaining Jeff Sessions' recusal, but by now suggesting that the acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker, can't exercise supervision because if he does, it'll be shutting down a legitimate investigation and obstruction of justice.

And if -- if the A.G. can't fire Mueller then, presumably, the President can't either, without facing the same headwind of political criticism that might be fatal to his presidency. So, they've managed, somehow, to completely disable one of the President's key constitutional powers, which is the power to fire his subordinates.

CARLSON: So, what you're telling me is a howling pack of cable news morons braid (ph) until the Administration got bullied into placing a guy who'd been elected by nobody into the position of ultimate power. He's not accountable to any elected official, and this is the democracy that we're supposed to be defending?

FOLEY: Yes. I mean that's pretty much it in a nutshell. And they did it--

CARLSON: Oh, OK.

FOLEY: --and they did it on purpose. And I think one day they're going to come to regret it because if you can do this to President Trump, you can do it to, frankly, any incoming future president.

CARLSON: But there's nothing -- I mean I guess just to the point -- I mean leaving Trump or future presidents or any politician out of it, there's nothing that voters can do because they are wholly powerless over Robert Mueller. So, isn't that like the opposite of the system that we're supposed to be living under?

FOLEY: Yes. I mean, you know, he's kind of a fourth branch of government unto himself because, you know, he has actually, let's call it entrenchment via regulation, which means he can't be fired except for "Good cause," and so you'd have to lay the foundation to even try to begin to fire him, which is not easy to do.

It's kind of the functional equivalent of having tenure as a professor. It's very difficult to get rid of him.

And if you do dare to try to fire him, if Trump did it or if Whitaker or a future Attorney General tried to do it, you could be sure that there would be investigation after investigation after investigation, and cries of obstruction of justice. So, there'd be a very high political price to pay.

CARLSON: So, he's just a heavily-armed Pope, and we just have to kind of look at it (ph), OK, even as we defend democracy. Professor, thank you for clearing it (ph). I'm not a lawyer. So, I just appreciated the clarity on that. Thank you.

FOLEY: Sure.

CARLSON: Well the former FBI Director, Jim Comey, is scheduled to testify tomorrow to the House Judiciary Committee. Why is he going there? What questions should House members ask him?

It's easy to lose track of all these different threads. That's why we're grateful of have Terry Turchie with us. He's a former Deputy FBI Assistant Director of Counterterrorism. And he's with us right. Mr. Turchie, thanks very much for coming on. So--

TERRY TURCHIE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FBI: You're welcome, Tucker.

CARLSON: --what should Members of the Committee in the House ask of Mr. Comey tomorrow?

TURCHIE: Well, I think, first of all, Tucker, I'd like to say that we should all keep in mind that when you take the Clinton email server investigation, and the Russian collusion investigation, much of this wasn't done in accordance with the way the FBI usually does business.

So, that's your first clue that something is wrong and something was wrong with the decision-making process inside the FBI. So, what I would do -- because these people on the Committee have had access to millions of records and done a lot of interviews over the last couple of years, they have a lot of information.

So, what I would try to do here, because I think the -- the key here is to find out from Jim Comey if he ever thought there was political interference in what he was doing in the FBI, and the decisions he was making.

And if he did, who were the people behind that because after all the questions that have been asked and even these questions have been asked, we still don't have simple answers to simple questions.

Let me take one, for example. I'd like to see them asking this. Who made the decision not to use a grand jury in the Clinton email server investigation?

CARLSON: Yes.

TURCHIE: That would have saved us a lot of trouble right now because we would have a neutral party, and the FBI, the Department of Justice, all these personalities would have been out of this. But that didn't happen. Why did that not happen?

Jim Comey should know the answer to that. He should know--

CARLSON: Yes.

TURCHIE: --who decided not to use a grand jury. The other thing or another simple question is, I'd like to go to the interview of Hillary Clinton, and then we know that he was already working on the memo to exonerate her, even before she was interviewed.

So, I think they should really hone in on all of the questions related to the planning of that interview. And when we're -- when we're FBI agents, and we're trained to do interviews in our car, and I mean when we get to the street, the -- the normal FBI case, you know, you plan a lot of these interviews in -- in the back of your car.

You're talking to each other--

CARLSON: Of course.

TURCHIE: --you put somebody in the front seat, and you plan it though. You know going into it what to expect, what you're going to try to get out of it and kind of have an idea of what you're probably going to be told by the subject.

But you -- you -- you are independently in control of all of that, the atmospherics, the atmosphere, everything. So, in the Clinton case, that's not what happened. In the Clinton case, logistically, all kinds of people were involved in making decisions that made that interview just about useless. And so, we need to know why was that--

CARLSON: Right.

TURCHIE: --and who was calling--

CARLSON: Yes.

TURCHIE: --those shots, and who in the DoJ was doing that. I'll give you a real quick example. Why was Cheryl Mills, who was the Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, and part of the problem here, why was she allowed to be there representing Hillary Clinton as one of her attorneys? These are really problematic--

CARLSON: Yes.

TURCHIE: --really problematic.

CARLSON: Two years later, we still don't know. Terry Turchie, thanks very much for that, really interesting.

TURCHIE: You're very welcome.

CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you. Multiple sources are telling Fox News tonight that the President plans to nominate Heather Nauert to replace Nikki Haley as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Nauert previously, of course, worked right here at Fox. She currently serves as the Spokeswoman at the State Department. For the record, like her a lot. We'll continue to follow the story.

Well the Left has united around the idea of admitting as many people as they can into America. But could that imperative clash with the Left's traditional concern about the environment? Not a small question, really. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: So, there are a lot of divisions on the Left, not often aired in public. They do disagree with each other. If there's one issue that unites almost everybody on that side though, it's immigration.

And the principle they've united behind is that anybody from anywhere on the globe should be allowed to come into the United States, no questions asked. If you don't believe that pay attention. For example, look at the theater surrounding the recent migrant Caravan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE LEIGH RUHLE, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT, ANCHOR, MSNBC LIVE: All of this for a group of people, a lot of whom are mothers and children, who pose no imminent threat.

VAN JONES, AMERICAN NEWS COMMENTATOR, AUTHOR, NON-PRACTICING ATTORNEY, DREAM CORPS CO-FOUNDER: The President of the United States has decided that a couple thousand scared, sick, you know, people fleeing violence are a bigger threat to the United States than ISIS.

MARIA CARDONA, LATINOVATIONS FOUNDER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CNN/CNN EN ESPANOL POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Guess what, Ben? It's in our laws that people are allowed to come to our borders and ask for asylum.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, this is a new thing. It seems like they've always had this view, but no. Many on the lift -- Left, used to be skeptical of mass immigration, partly for economic reasons because it undermined the wages of workers. But there were others, many others, who had environmental concerns too about letting a lot more people into the country.

Phil Cafaro is the Author of How Many Is Too Many?: The Progressive Argument to Reducing Immigration into the United States. And he joins us tonight.

Mr. Cafaro, thank you very much for coming on. Having you is the result of a long nationwide search to find someone with your views, because I remember so well as a kid that Democrats were really concerned, some were, Liberals, about overpopulation and the effects on the natural environment.

And I always kind of agreed with that. Tell me your concerns about mass immigration and its effect on the environment.

PHILIP CAFARO, HOW MANY IS TOO MANY AUTHOR, PHILOSOPHER, PROFESSOR: Well, Tucker, I'm not sure I'm the last Liberal in -- in the country who's concerned about immigration-driven population growth. But we are a minority--

CARLSON: Good.

CAFARO: --among environmentalists. I -- I'll give you that.

CARLSON: Yes. So, I see like the Sierra Club, which used to care about the Sierras. Huge fire breaks out in the Sierras last summer, started inadvertently by an illegal immigrant or the -- the degradation of marijuana farming in Northern California, which really does poison the soil, and they say literally nothing because their concern for open borders overrides their concern for the environment.

What is that about?

CAFARO: Well, I think you're absolutely right. If you go back to the -- the birth of the Environmental Movement 50, 60 years ago, there was so much concern and -- and focus on population issues because people saw the connections between--

CARLSON: Yes.

CAFARO: --overuse of resources, between too much pollution, and -- and the sheer numbers of people. And -- and environmentalists used to talk about that. I think what happened between then and now is back then most of our population growth was coming from the number of children we were having--

CARLSON: Right.

CAFARO: --native Americans. Whereas today, population growth in the U.S. is primarily driven by high levels of immigration. So, people, for whatever reason, weren't as comfortable saying we needed to limit immigration, as they were saying we need to limit how many -- how many kids we have.

CARLSON: So--

CAFARO: I think that's a mistake though because either way--

CARLSON: I agree with that.

CAFARO: --you're -- you're driving population growth and that has environmental consequences.

CARLSON: So quickly, and I wish we had more time for this, because I think it's fascinating and I would urge people to buy your book on this, what's the response you get from your fellow Liberals when you -- when you say, "Wait a second. You know, there are environmental effects of letting all these people in," what do they say to you?

CAFARO: Well, mostly what I get are -- are people who -- most people say, "Well, I didn't realize that. I -- I hadn't thought about that."

CARLSON: Yes.

CAFARO: Because, as you say, environmentalists have stopped talking about it. But the -- the responses really run the gamut from, you know, how long have you been a racist to--

CARLSON: Yes.

CAFARO: --oh, thank you so much for talking about that. I've -- I've been thinking that myself, and -- and I'm just not comfortable talking about it.

CARLSON: Exactly.

CAFARO: So, it's an interesting thing to talk and write about because you do get such a wide range of responses.

CARLSON: Yes. I mean, spend a week in a crowded, dirty country, and you'll find that you don't want to live in a place like that, I think. Phil Cafaro, thank you very much for your positions and for explaining them to us.

CAFARO: Thanks for having me, Tucker. I appreciate it. Thanks.

CARLSON: Kirsten Gillibrand is an accidental senator. She was appointed by an unpopular New York Governor to bolster his, it turned out, doomed re- election hopes.

At first, she seemed pretty moderate. She opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. She had a decent NRA rating. But her ambitions have grown. Being Senator, a bad senator, is not enough. So now, she has moved full woke (ph).

She now sounds like a sociology professor from SUNY Oswego. Half her constituents are men, for example. And she recently posted a message just for them. "There's no future for you," she said.

On Twitter this week, Gillibrand wrote this. "Our future is female, intersectional, and powered by our belief in one another, and we're just getting started."

What the hell does that mean? Manhattan Institute Fellow, Heather Mac Donald might know the answer to that. So, we've asked her to come on tonight to explain. Heather, thanks a lot for coming on. What does--

HEATHER LYNN MAC DONALD, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, CITY JOURNAL, THE DIVERSITY DELUSION AUTHOR: Well thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: --that mean?

MAC DONALD: Well, it means that academia is taking over more and more of the real world. I wish it was something that was just confined to Gillibrand, but it's not.

CARLSON: Yes.

MAC DONALD: It means that feminism has ambitions to take over civilization. And when that happens, you can say goodbye to civilization. They're trying to disappear males. They're committed to a narrative that America is a rape culture, is oppressive, is sexist, is racist.

That's the whole concept of intersectionality, which is a way of describing the growing number of victims, and their -- their complicated ways of being oppressed by White heterosexual males.

Unfortunately, again, Gillibrand is not some outlier. You have--

CARLSON: Yes.

MAC DONALD: --Trump's own Administration bragging about the fact that he's spending billions of taxpayer dollars to encourage more females to go into STEM, which means discouraging males.

And if you -- look no further than the opposition to the very appropriate rewrite of the campus rape rules by Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, that are merely trying to restore our concept of due process and fairness to these very absurd kangaroo court tribunals.

The feminists are having nothing of it. So, feminism is really at odds with the civilizational legacy that we have inherited that we have to preserve at all costs.

CARLSON: Can I ask you a really simple quick question? Why would a group, any group, want to poison the relationship between men and women, which is the building block of everything that's good in the world?

MAC DONALD: Because they would rather hate. They are self-interested. They have no understanding of the future. They have no understanding of the -- the -- the values and virtues that make civilization possible. And they're simply seizing power and are in a -- a manic rage to efface males.

And this sounds hyperbolic, Tucker. But you look around at institution after institution that has been taken over by feminists and the absurd diatribes that are launched against males, and that's the only conclusion--

CARLSON: Yes.

MAC DONALD: --you can reach.

CARLSON: Well, you know, maybe five years ago, I just thought, "You know that Heather Mac Donald, nice, kind of a hothead." Now I think you're absolutely right. And I think you're really brave for saying it as clearly as you do. And I'm -- and I'm grateful that you did tonight. Thank you.

MAC DONALD: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well the war on Christmas isn't real. But it's also expanding faster than American commitments to the Middle East. The latest victim, candy canes, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the war on Christmas is totally fake. They always tell you that on TV. But it's also underway again, and got off to a hot start last week with the Left launching a new offensive against Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

Now, the war machine is opening up new fronts faster than we can keep up. We're trying.

An Elementary School Principal in Nebraska has banned a whole swath of Christmas-related items from his school that would include Christmas trees, elves, Santa, and red-green color combinations. How about candy canes? Are they allowed? No. They're banned too. Why? Because they're in the shape of a J, which represents Jesus.

Mark Steyn is an Author and Columnist. He joins us tonight. You know, I just want to say again, the war on Christmas is not real, Mark. So, stop talking about it, you--

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR, COLUMNIST, STEYNONLINE.COM: No.

CARLSON: --Right-wing--

STEYN: No, no.

CARLSON: --Fox guy.

STEYN: Yes, entirely fictitious.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: OK. I'll -- I'll bite -- I'll bite on that and go back a -- a couple of centuries, Tucker. You know, the separation of Church and State, when the Founders came up with it, it's basically that they didn't want President Washington being the Head of the Church of America, as the Queen is Head of the Church of England. That's it.

They didn't want the Archbishop of Virginia sitting in the Senate as the Archbishop of Canterbury--

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: --sits in the House of Lords. And like a lot of sane concepts, it's metastasized into something utterly insane. And when you're actually banning colors, when you're banning two of the colors on the color spectrum, red and green, so there's only orange, yellow, and blue left, you're bonkers. You're nuts.

You've -- you've flown the coop of reality. You are in -- you are living in a -- a more bizarre fantasy than Santa, and his reindeer, and his elves could ever come up with.

CARLSON: You just banned Starboard and Port, how dare you? OK, another thing.

A Minnesota State University professor tweeted this week that Mary the Virgin could not have consented the conception of Christ, and that God was behaving, therefore, in a, quote, predatory manner.

That professor, who's salary is paid for by taxpayers, also tweeted himself decorating a Christmas tree with satanic ornaments. Have you taken any of his classes, Mark Steyn?

STEYN: No. And -- and the reason is this is the thing that this is because 50 years ago, this kind of shallow banality would have been the province of a drunk undergraduate at 3:00 in the morning.

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: I mean and -- and, basically, the idea that that God has gotten the Virgin Mary back to his pad, and she's saying "I really must go," and He's saying, "Oh, baby, it's cold outside, and put some records on while I pour," I miss the days when atheists were at least intelligent enough--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --to take seriously what they were porting to knock down. The -- the stupidity and banality and shallowness and reductiveness of this is a dismal comment on the state of atheism in America.

CARLSON: And it's not even brave. They'd never criticize Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world or Apple, Tim Cook, or Google--

STEYN: No.

CARLSON: --they suck up--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --to people in power and then beat up on--

STEYN: No.

CARLSON: --evangelicals and call themselves, you know, counterculture or--

STEYN: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: --I mean it's pathetic.

STEYN: And they don't seem to make as -- the -- the same kind of Ramadan jokes as they do--

CARLSON: Oh, they don't?

STEYN: --Christmas jokes. No, it's all that (ph), isn't it? I wonder why that is, Tucker.

CARLSON: Huh? So, you mean this community college professor, whatever this guy is, is not--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --attacking Mohammed?

STEYN: No, no, no, no, this is the card -- this is cardboard -- this is cardboard courage. By the way, from teachers, even if you're an atheist, the greatest glories of Western -- to go back to what Heather was saying, the greatest glories of Western music, art, architecture, painting--

CARLSON: That's right.

STEYN: --were in the cause of Christianity. You're cutting out--

CARLSON: Of course.

STEYN: --Botticelli (ph) and all the rest of it.

CARLSON: Well, the university wouldn't exist without it. So, right, but--

STEYN: No, no, no.

CARLSON: --these guys are too dumb to know that. Mark Steyn, great to see--

STEYN: No, from Botticelli to Frosting (ph)--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --that's a -- that's a very--

CARLSON: To Frosting (ph).

STEYN: --short leap.

CARLSON: So good. Thank you.

STEYN: Rud -- Rud -- Rudolph and Leonardo, all gone, all got to go.

CARLSON: It's the Cultural Revolution. See you. Thanks, Mark.

STEYN: Thanks.

CARLSON: Time now for Final Exam. We have news professionals here at Fox who follow this stuff for a living. Can you beat them in recalling what just happened? How's your short-term memory? The ultimate test of that, Final Exam, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TEXT: FINAL EXAM.

CARLSON: The best segment of the week, the respite from the real news, time now for Final Exam where you pit the experts against one another, see who's been paying the closest attention to what's happened in the last week.

Joining us tonight, frequent Fox News contributor, Morgan Ortagus and Correspondent, Peter Doocy, really, two of the best.

MORGAN DEANN ORTAGUS, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Definitely.

CARLSON: Are you ready?

ORTAGUS: I'm nervous.

CARLSON: I -- I -- I'm--

ORTAGUS: Because I'm (ph)--

CARLSON: I'm nervous too. I don't even know what the questions are. Here are the rules, doubtless, you know them, but for viewers, who don't. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. The first one of you to buzz in gets to answer the question.

You must wait until I finish asking it before answering it. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Each correct answer's worth a point. If you get it wrong, we detract a point out of cruelty. Best of five wins. Are you ready?

ORTAGUS: Yes.

PETER DOOCY, GENERAL ASSIGNMENT REPORTER, FOX NEWS: I'm ready, hey.

CARLSON: Question one. Which Caucasian, 76-year old cisgender male has just announced the world that he and he alone is the most qualified person in America to be President?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

DOOCY: I don't know about the first part of that.

CARLSON: I don't. Look, I just read the scripts here.

DOOCY: It's Joe Biden.

CARLSON: You think it's Joe Biden?

DOOCY: I know it's Joe Biden.

CARLSON: You know it's Joe--

DOOCY: Is that worth two points --

CARLSON: Is it -- we'll find out. Is it Joe Biden?

DOOCY: --like again (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM- HOST: Old Joe Biden is reemerging to say that--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ORTAGUS: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: --hey, wait a minute, Amtrak minute here, OK? "I think I'm the most qualified--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: Amtrak minute.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: --person in the country to be president," he said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ORTAGUS: I knew this. I could have answered (ph).

CARLSON: For the record, I don't know what cisgender means. And that's the first and last time I'm ever going to use the term.

ORTAGUS: Yes.

DOOCY: OK. We'll see.

ORTAGUS: I knew the answer to that (ph).

CARLSON: But you're right. It was Joe Biden.

OK. Question two.

ORTAGUS: OK.

CARLSON: Politicians come up with all kinds of excuses for their shortcomings. But this week, possibly the best on record, which not-so- bright Democratic Senator said that her party has problems relating to Americans because they're just too smart?

ORTAGUS: Oh.

CARLSON: The Democratic Party is just too smart, says this famously un- smart Senator.

ORTAGUS: Oh, I know. I know who it is. I just wanted to (ph)--

CARLSON: From a state that was added in 1959.

DOOCY: Is that true?

CARLSON: Yes, it is.

DOOCY: The '59 part?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Who is it?

DOOCY: Mazie Hirono.

CARLSON: Mazie Hirono--

ORTAGUS: Oh, I can't remember (ph) the name.

CARLSON: --you say. Is it Mazie Hirono, who's just too smart?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREG GUTFELD, FOX NEWS HOST, THE FIVE & THE GREG GUTFELD SHOW: At a symposium, Democratic Senator Hirono was asked what Democrats must do--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Risked it all, that's right. I mean--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: --to connect with voters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: I would have been back down to zero.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAZIE KEIKO HIRONO, JUNIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, HAWAII, DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBER: We have a really hard time doing that--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Fortune favors the bold, Mr. Doocy, as we know.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HIRONO: And one of the reasons that -- that was told to me at one of our retreats--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ORTAGUS: I knew it was Hawaii. I just couldn't get the name.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HIRONO: --was that we Democrats know so much. That is true. And we have to kind of tell everybody how smart we are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ORTAGUS: Right.

CARLSON: Yes. Just, you know, when you know too much, it's really good (ph)--

ORTAGUS: Me too. I -- I also have to tell everyone how smart I am (ph).

CARLSON: Tag me too. It's -- you just -- I just know too much that that's my problem.

ORTAGUS: Yes.

CARLSON: All right. Now, the National Game Show Commission has required that the remaining three questions be food-related in honor of the holiday season.

ORTAGUS: Oh, OK, good.

DOOCY: Food question, we're fine (ph).

CARLSON: Question three, in reverse order. Millennials are being blamed for killing off which canned food product because they don't like using can openers?

ORTAGUS: Do we get multiple choice?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

ORTAGUS: No. Peter is killing me.

CARLSON: Peter Doocy.

DOOCY: My guess, this is just a guess. Is tuna?

ORTAGUS: Oh.

CARLSON: Tuna?

DOOCY: I love it man (ph)--

CARLSON: That's kind of an out-there guess. Could it be canned tuna?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 42 percent. That's how much tuna and canned fish--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ORTAGUS: Oh.

DOOCY: It's tuna.

ORTAGUS: Its' tuna.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --sales have dropped--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --since the 1980s. The Wall Street Journal says--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now, this is lies (ph) so you got to tell the truth, but they're going to hook you to a polygraph (ph)--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --young consumers don't find it convenient--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --since it requires--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Did you see the question in advance (ph)--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --opening and draining. How lazy is this--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: --before you came on the show (ph)?

DOOCY: I would go with--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --generation? We don't want to drain tuna.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: --brain stressor and (ph)--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And StarKist CEO claims--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Young generation, your generation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --many Millennials don't even own can openers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: What else would it be? What other canned food are people, are Millennials eating or not eating?

ORTAGUS: Out of the can? Soup?

CARLSON: I know. But they can't--

DOOCY: They're not (ph)--

ORTAGUS: Soup. You eat soup out of a can.

DOOCY: --I -- I feel like soup, still big.

ORTAGUS: Yes, soup's--

CARLSON: Yes, but twist it (ph)--

ORTAGUS: --still big.

CARLSON: --you legalize marijuana--

DOOCY: --brief ID (ph).

CARLSON: --and the can opener becomes too much. OK. Good.

ORTAGUS: Brief ID (ph).

CARLSON: I'm getting a new direction from our producers in New York in my earpiece saying the following two questions are now worth two points a piece.

ORTAGUS: Oh, good. I have a chance.

DOOCY: OK. That's very tight (ph).

CARLSON: I don't understand their reasoning. But that's what they're telling me.

ORTAGUS: Peter's killing me.

CARLSON: Question four. This is multiple choice, to answer your question.

ORTAGUS: OK. Good.

DOOCY: Uh-oh.

CARLSON: Animal rights activists are asking the rest of us to stop using the phrase, bring home the bacon. But they have a replacement phrase for us to use. Is it A, bring home the tofu, B, bring home the bagels, C, bring home the--

(BUZZERS SOUND)

ORTAGUS: Oh.

CARLSON: --wait till I finish--

ORTAGUS: I did the release (ph).

CARLSON: --putting (ph).

ORTAGUS: Can I hit it now?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Our -- our producers are, clearly, are on your side. They're saying they're letting you answer it anyway.

ORTAGUS: Thank you. It's B, the bagels.

CARLSON: Is it B, bring home the bagels.

ORTAGUS: I hope.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEY BYRNE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CAMPAIGNS, PETA: Bring home the bagels. And, as a New Yorker, I like that.

The pork industry is--

CARLSON: Right.

BYRNE: --pretty ugly. So, absolutely--

CARLSON: --which I don't--

BYRNE: --"Bring home the bagels."

CARLSON: --ever think about. I didn't think about it this morning when I ate it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOOCY: Are you telling us that you didn't know the answer to that even though that was you?

CARLSON: Look, it's, you know, the show's over--

DOOCY: That was you.

CARLSON: --and it's -- and it's over. I'm onto the next one.

DOOCY: You know (ph).

ORTAGUS: It did (ph).

CARLSON: I did actually know the answer.

OK. Final -- final question.

ORTAGUS: So, wait. So, I got two points?

CARLSON: Yes.

ORTAGUS: All right--

CARLSON: We got Doocy in the lead--

DOOCY: --good.

CARLSON: --three to two.

ORTAGUS: All right.

CARLSON: This is another multiple choice, so listen carefully and wait until--

ORTAGUS: Yes.

CARLSON: --all options have been presented before buzzing in. Scientists have now discovered the perfect portion size for French fries. In order to live a happy, healthy life, how many French fries should you eat per serving? Is it A, 20 French fries, B, six French fries, C, 13.5 French fries, or I'm adding this myself, D, no French fries at all?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

DOOCY: It is B, six.

CARLSON: Six.

DOOCY: Final answer reach (ph).

CARLSON: You don't think it's 20?

DOOCY: No. Because that would--

CARLSON: So--

DOOCY: --that's like a normal serving of French fries.

CARLSON: Right. Not for me. I got 40 of them (ph). OK. Is it six French fries?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CORDEN, THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH JAMES CORDEN HOST, CBS: Only six fries.

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

CORDEN: I'd rather have no fries than six fries.

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

CORDEN: Six French fries is an insult to fries--

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

CORDEN: --and to America, and to France, for that matter.

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

CORDEN: In the study, the Professor refers to fries as "Starch bombs."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You know, I don't know who that foreigner is, but I totally agree with him a 100 percent.

ORTAGUS: I do too.

CARLSON: I like that man.

DOOCY: The guy who sings in the car.

ORTAGUS: I love French fries.

CARLSON: Oh, well, he's very good.

ORTAGUS: The best--

CARLSON: He's very true about French fries.

ORTAGUS: --the best French fries are at -- at the Eagles game, Chickie's & Pete's, and you dip them in the cheese sauce.

CARLSON: I -- I agree. Takes--

ORTAGUS: Amazing. Fly Birds, Fly.

CARLSON: It reduces the pain from being beaten up, which everyone who goes to Eagles games is.

ORTAGUS: Yes.

CARLSON: Thank you both very much. Peter Doocy, you are the winner and you win a commemorative--

ORTAGUS: I hate losing.

CARLSON: --Erik Wemple mug.

DOOCY: Do I really get to keep that?

CARLSON: Erik Wemple work for Jeff Bezos' website.

ORTAGUS: Yes.

CARLSON: He came on the show. Could we get a tight (ph) shot of this? And this was his reaction to being on our program. We're honored to have him and honored to give this to you.

DOOCY: I -- I think this is what I looked like when I won the quiz.

CARLSON: I think it is. Thank you both very much.

ORTAGUS: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Morgan, Peter, thank you.

That's it for this week's Final Exam. Pay close attention to the news, especially the weird news, all week. Next Thursday, see if you could beat the news professionals. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, if you've been paying any attention at all you know that official Washington has been hyperventilating for weeks because the Trump Administration has not yet ended America's relationship with Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Well the U.S. can't be allied with countries that assassinate people, they're telling us with a straight face. There must be some sinister reason that Trump is sucking up to the Saudis. Watch the tsunami of false outrage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNARD SANDERS, JUNIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, VERMONT: It is possible that the President, himself, through Trump Enterprises, may have some financial dealings in Saudi Arabia.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY CO-ANCHOR, CNN: Is that Saudi money paying for 500 rooms inside of Trump hotel? What do you make of that?

RICHARD JOSEPH DURBIN, SENIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, ILLINOIS: I can't think of a parallel in American history where a United States President or his family has profited from his office the way this Administration -- this Administration appears to be.

JOHN ARTHUR HEILEMANN, JOURNALIST AND NATIONAL-AFFAIRS ANALYST, NBC NEWS AND MSNBC: He's using the White House to make money while being President and to try to enhance his opportunities to make more money after being President.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, again, if you--

DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT HOST, CNN: And I remind you, the President himself has told us why he is taking the Saudi side. It's all about the money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Don Lemon, ladies and gentlemen.

So, Trump is "Taking the Saudi side for money." Now, for the record, as a factual matter, there is no evidence of that. But there is definitely strong precedent for it here in Washington.

Half the country's elites have made a good living taking the Saudi side for money. They've been doing it openly for decades now. In fact, if it weren't for Arab Petrodollars, Washington would have far fewer swimming pools and $80 entrees.

Certainly Bill and Hillary Clinton would be a lot poorer without the Saudis. The Clinton Foundation received as much as $25 million from the Saudi government. They took another $5 million from the Royal Family's PR operation.

Now, why did the Saudis give the Clintons all that money? Because they care deeply about AIDS in Africa and the childhood obesity crisis? If you believe that, get your resume ready. CNN has a reporting position open for you.

But it wasn't just the Clintons that got rich from the Saudis. Their allies did too. The Podesta Group was co-founded by Tony Podesta and his brother John Podesta. You remember he served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff in the White House, and then Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman.

Well, immediately after the last election, the Podesta Group was hired by, yes, the Saudis to lobby the U.S. government. In 2017, the Podesta Group earned nearly $2 million from that contract alone.

Meanwhile, the Democratic lobbying firm, Glover Park Group did almost as well from the Saudis. They made $700,000 just last year and another $600,000 from the Saudis this year, before bad publicity from the murder forced them to end that contract.

But nobody, maybe in the world, tried to cash in like Democratic fundraiser Ari Emanuel. His talent agency, William Morris Endeavor, cut a deal to receive $400 million in investment from the Saudi government from its Sovereign Wealth Fund.

This April, Ari Emanuel co-hosted a dinner in L.A. for the Crown Prince, the one who apparently ordered Khashoggi's murder. Jeff Bezos from Amazon was there, of course, so was Bob Iger from Disney.

Here's how Vanity Fair described that evening. "Topics that were deemed off-limits included the Prince's bombing campaign in Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians, his abduction of Lebanon's Prime Minister in November, and the repression of independent media and journalists, one of whom was recently imprisoned for five years for insulting the Royal Court."

So, Ari Emanuel and his fellow Hollywood Liberals wanted to make sure that nobody asked the Saudis these uncomfortable questions. The Left cares deeply about human rights but not when it gets in the way of business with the Saudis.

We should pause here and note in the interest of fairness two things. First, it's not just Democrats who've taken truckloads of Saudi money. Republicans in Washington definitely have done so too.

And second, the Saudis are not the only despites (ph) currently making America's ruling class richer, hardly. Many of our leaders, again, on both sides are being paid off by the Chinese government. That's a dictatorship far more bloodthirsty than the Saudis.

The Chinese, remember, have kidnapped children and harvested the organs of executed political prisoners. They threw a Nobel Peace Prize winner behind bars until he died. As we speak tonight, the Chinese are throwing hundreds of thousands of ethnic majorities -- minorities into concentration camps.

Earlier this year, China disappeared the Head of Interpol. How much of that have you heard on MSNBC? Probably not much. Now, none of this is a defense of the Saudis or their behavior.

In fact, twice in the last two years, this show has attacked the Saudi government for pushing the Administration into pointless bombings in Syria. The rest of official Washington, especially the media, applauded those bombings.

Now, amazingly, the very same people are pretending to be shocked that a primitive desert theocracy killed somebody. Please, spare us the sanctimony. It is nauseating.

Well, up next, the Miss Universe pageant is 10 days away. And there's something very notable about the person favored to win. We'll tell you what it is after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the Miss Universe pageant is less than two weeks from now. The favorite is Spain's Angela Ponce. Her unusual background makes her the favorite this year. Ponce is biologically male, the first transgender contestant in the pageant's history.

As SUNY Oswego Professor Kirsten Gillibrand informed us all a short time ago, the future is female. That doesn't sound very inclusive or accurate, according to Miss Universe.

That's it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow 8:00 P.M. We can't wait to see you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.