Migrants breach border amid asylum process frustrations

close

Video

Migrants breach border amid asylum process frustrations

Former DNC communications director Luis Miranda on being empathetic towards migrant crisis and Tijuana residents.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," December 4, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." For more than a year now, the media storyline in immigration has been as mindless and predictable as a Jim Acosta script.

The talking points never change. It doesn't matter what the story is. Could be the Caravan or family separation, sanctuary cities, even MS-13, the details are irrelevant. Immigration is always good whether it's legal or not, because immigrants are always good.

It doesn't matter where they're from or how much English they speak or how they've lived their lives, what they've done before, immigrants are always the heart of America. By definition, they're impressive, much more impressive than actual Americans, most of whom are fat and racist.

That's Jim Acosta's position, or it was. You may have noticed that the other channels suddenly seem less eager to talk about immigration. They're de-emphasizing the issue. Why is that?

Well part of the problem maybe the Caravan, which actually exists, and is in Tijuana, Mexico right. Now, this should be good news for Mexico, if you believe what they've been telling us on TV.

If there's one thing we know for certain about penniless Central American immigrants, it's that they tend to found a huge number of wildly successful tech startups. They're at the heart of your economy. And yet, the citizens of Tijuana don't appear to have gotten this message because they don't seem grateful for the Caravan.

Instead, they look highly annoyed that their city has been invaded by strangers. As the city's Mayor noted, when people enter your country illegally, many of them are criminals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN MANUEL GASTELUM BUENROSTRO, MUNICIPAL PRESIDENT, TIJUANA: These people came, are coming in violently, unrespectfully, not as a good law-abiding citizen, and that's what's hurt us.

It's - it's not all of them. But yes, a lot of them are not really nice people, who want to work, who want to integrate to our economy. They're just troublemakers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: A lot of them are not really nice people. They're troublemakers. Imagine an American Mayor saying something like that on television? And it got more intense from there.

Last night on this show, a Tijuana City Councilman told us that the government had to intervene recently to keep Mexican citizens and the Caravan members from throwing rocks at each other. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENARO LOPEZ MORENO, TIJUANA DELEGATE: We had to bring them over here because the neighbors from - from that - from that part of town, it's called Playas de Tijuana, it's like Tijuana by the sea, they were getting mad and they - they even started throwing stones at each other. So, we carried them (ph) over here like 360 but things got out of hand because it kept growing and growing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Throwing rocks at immigrants? That doesn't happen in this country. It does happen in Mexico, though. People who live in Tijuana are not American, so they haven't been told that expressing their honest views about immigration will get you fired.

So, they have no problem saying what they really think. And what they really think turns out to be very much like what Donald Trump really thinks, amazingly. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Should this Caravan had been stopped at the Guatemala border?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of course. I - I agree with that 100 percent. It should have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your country has to be beware of these people because they are people - they are bad people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Because they don't belong here. They're just migrants but it's like the same - in the same case, it's like when Mexican migrants going to the U.S., they're undocumented.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We do know of incidences here in Tijuana and in other cities that some of these people that are coming into these - with these Caravans are committing crimes.

This is not about racism. We don't dislike a certain group of people because they're from a country, one country or another. We are here because our government has not taken control of these, what we call invasion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now, if you're CNN or MSNBC or NBC News or ABC, what do you do with an interview like that? You can't put it on the air because it doesn't make sense, according to the rules you've established.

You can't really argue that Mexicans are anti-Hispanic racists. That's what you call everyone else, who's opposed to immigration. So, what do you do? Well, you just pretend that none of this is happening. It's not real, and that's what they're doing.

But that won't work forever. People tend to notice obvious things. They can't help it. And if they keep noticing obvious things, their views change. And that's why the consensus on immigration is changing fast.

Even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry recently warned that mass immigration can destabilize countries as it's done in Europe. They're right, of course. It's happening here too.

A new analysis of census data shows that 63 percent of non-citizens in this country receive some kind of welfare benefits. That's not what they told you, but those are the numbers from the census. Even among legal immigrants, the best kind, the ones who've become naturalized citizens fully half are on government assistance.

By the way, that's well above the native average. Now, leaving aside the moral considerations, does it work as a math question? Well, it would work in a country with infinite resources. Is America a country with infinite resources?

Well, look around. Every night, hundreds of thousands of our citizens, Americans, sleep outdoors on the street. They're homeless. The country's middle class is shrinking and dying younger for the third year in a row.

Again, these are American citizens. Some of them probably think they should have first dibs on help from the government, but they're not getting it.

And, by the way, looking forward, here's a question that no one's considering. Will the mass immigration we're now watching make this country richer or poorer? In fact, the majority of our immigrants have only a high school education or less. Many of them know very little English. Some, none at all.

Now, that was a difficult problem to solve a 100 years ago, during our first major wave of immigration. But consider what it means now, at a time when automation is killing entire sectors of our economy.

How are immigrants with low levels of education and low levels of English supposed to succeed in an increasingly high-tech skills-based economy? And, by the way, how about our own vulnerable workers? Do they benefit from the presence of these immigrants?

These are real questions. They're critical questions that Washington should be thinking about deeply and answering. But Washington isn't thinking about them, and Washington can't answer them. So, instead, they're trying to ban the conversation from taking place. We're going to try again anyway to have it.

Luis Miranda is a former DNC Communications Director, and he joins us tonight. Luis, thanks a lot for coming on.

LUIS MIRANDA, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Hey, thanks Tucker. I appreciate the opportunity to have an honest conversation on this, particularly as we're also--

CARLSON: Yes.

MIRANDA: --remembering President George H.W. Bush, who taught us that we can disagree on some of these issues, but do it respectfully. So--

CARLSON: Amen.

MIRANDA: --I really appreciate the chance to do this. I actually went to see his--

CARLSON: Well - and I - I do, too.

MIRANDA: --yes, I went to the Capitol yesterday just after leaving the studio here--

CARLSON: Good for you.

MIRANDA: --to see him, took my kids. And that was one of the things we talked about is that there's going to be different perspectives on these issues. But we can talk about them respectfully.

CARLSON: Right.

MIRANDA: And I think what you've laid out here brings up some very legitimate issues. The question is, is it--

CARLSON: So that's - hold on, but that - that's what I like about what's happening in Tijuana, and I feel deeply for the people of Tijuana because I think they're going through what of - a lot of Americans have gone through.

But because it is Tijuana and it is Mexico, we can't dismiss them as anti- Hispanic. And so, we have to look more clearly at what their concerns are. And so, my question to you is a very simple one.

Looking at the concerns that we just played on tape, and those are real, does it make you a little more empathetic toward our fellow Americans who have similar feelings?

MIRANDA: I think we have to be empathetic all around here, which includes people who have legitimate concerns but a lot of those concerns are being stoked without a basis of reality.

And - and so, here's the problem that a lot of these immigrants that are part of this Caravan are decent people who are fleeing either violence or economic situations that are untenable, but they're victims all around because they're being victimized by human traffickers and smugglers that want to take advantage of them that want to--

CARLSON: I agree with that.

MIRANDA: --and - and so, there's actually an AP analysis that just came out that 4,000 of these people have disappeared in the last few years on the way.

CARLSON: Yes.

MIRANDA: In other words, their families have no idea what happened to them. They either got murdered--

CARLSON: Right.

MIRANDA: --or worse just along the way. And so--

CARLSON: Right.

MIRANDA: --there's a legitimate humanitarian crisis of people who were being taken--

CARLSON: I agree with that. But I--

MIRANDA: --advantage of and victimized on that end.

CARLSON: --I - I totally agree. But I just want to shine the light on the victims, who don't really get representation of any kind in the press, and those are the citizens, who are having to absorb large populations of, and I agree with you, largely decent people. I think most migrants want what I want, which is a better family for their - better life for their families. I get it.

MIRANDA: That's exactly right, yes.

CARLSON: I don't think most of them are criminals.

MIRANDA: Now, I just need to say a thing (ph).

CARLSON: No, I've - I've always thought that.

MIRANDA: This is--

CARLSON: But - but hold on--

MIRANDA: --not--

CARLSON: --but I think it's really - but - it's important to empathize as deeply with the citizens whose lives are being upended by the arrival of these immigrants as is with the immigrants themselves. So, when you see this--

MIRANDA: How do (ph)--

CARLSON: --can you say that, you know, American citizens say, "I don't want any more immigration. We've - we've had more than we can handle," they're not just racists, are they? I mean they have a point. Do they not?

MIRANDA: I - I don't think they're racists. I think it's important that they also understand the other side of this, which is that immigrants have actually made our economy a lot stronger through the years.

You touched on it a little bit at the beginning. Let me add some color to that, which includes that our population is aging. We have baby boomers retiring, and a lot of the people that we are able to replace in the economy are because of immigration now.

We want to do that ideally in a legal and orderly fashion. But the reality is that--

CARLSON: Wait. Can I stop you there and ask you a question? Hold on--

MIRANDA: --we have a huge advantage of economy (ph)--

CARLSON: --right, no, I've - no, no hold on--

MIRANDA: --because of that.

CARLSON: --I need to ask - I need to ask this question. You say our population is aging. We're not reproducing ourselves. Why do you think that is?

Nobody seems to pause and ask, "Why can't young Americans afford to get married and have children, afford to buy homes and cars?" And their solution, the elite solution is, "We'll just bring in new people."

But what about the Americans, the young people? A 30-year old American, I can't afford to have kids. Does anybody care about that person?

MIRANDA: Absolutely.

CARLSON: I mean maybe there's a real problem here that we - what, really? Because I never hear that person addressed ever. No one--

MIRANDA: And it's not just the United States. This is happening--

CARLSON: --ever says that (ph) oh, we need immigration.

MIRANDA: --in the - it's an industrialized country issue more than it has--

CARLSON: Yes. But I'm an American--

MIRANDA: --to do with--

CARLSON: --but, hold on. I'm an American, OK? So, my concern is for my fellow Americans. And they can't afford to have children. But rather than fix their problems or even think about them, we're like, "We'll just import new children." Does that seem like--

MIRANDA: You know, I think - I think--

CARLSON: --sort of ask for a (ph) way--

MIRANDA: --we should be able to--

CARLSON: --to approach this?

MIRANDA: --we should be able to do both. Look, over the last 10 years, American companies and stocks have outperformed the rest of the world by a lot.

American companies and the economy have been so strong over the last 10 years compared to anything else in the world. And part of the reason for that is because we have an economy that is constantly renewing itself. And so, we absolutely should be able to have an economy where people who want to have children can do so, but it doesn't mean that we don't--

CARLSON: But we don't.

MIRANDA: --a space to absorb it. I think that--

CARLSON: No, but, hold on, no, no, but you're - no, no, but that's not what you're saying. Hold on.

You just said we need to bring in people because Americans aren't reproducing in sufficient numbers. And my question is why aren't our leaders thinking about how our people can afford to have children? They don't even consider that a subject worth studying, much less trying to fix. It's just like, "Oh, well, they're not having enough kids."

MIRANDA: But those aren't (ph) mutually exclusive things.

CARLSON: Why doesn't anyone care enough?

MIRANDA: Those aren't (ph) mutually exclusive things.

CARLSON: No, no, you - no, no, you're saying that our low birth rates are the justification for immigration. I'm saying our low birth rates are a tragedy that say something awful about our economy, and the--

MIRANDA: Well--

CARLSON: --selfish stupidity of our leaders.

MIRANDA: --it's - it's a combination--

CARLSON: But you don't seem to care.

MIRANDA: --of our growth and our prosperity that is enables us to have a stronger economy, so there's - there's definitely a - a - both sides to this, where you can look at well who are going to be hurt by it.

When you've looked at states like Georgia and others that have implemented anti-immigrant measures that forced a lot of these immigrants out, what you saw was, you know, food rotting on the vines, a lot of lost crops because there weren't enough people there to work them.

And so, the reality is, is that--

CARLSON: Yes. All right--

MIRANDA: --we can both do something about--

CARLSON: --that's - that's actually not--

MIRANDA: --strengthening the economy--

CARLSON: --OK (ph), so--

MIRANDA: --for people who are suffering and who are--

CARLSON: Right. And (ph)--

MIRANDA: --American and who have lived here their whole lives, they want to have children, they want to have an opportunity to do better than--

CARLSON: Yes. Maybe someone should--

MIRANDA: --their parents did. That's--

CARLSON: --care about them--

MIRANDA: --important.

CARLSON: --a little bit.

MIRANDA: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Yes. It's the most important thing.

MIRANDA: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Nothing is even close--

MIRANDA: But - but that doesn't mean that we have to demonize--

CARLSON: --to as important as that.

MIRANDA: --the immigrants who are legitimate--

CARLSON: I'm not demonizing anybody.

MIRANDA: --victims of this process.

CARLSON: I'm - I'm not against the immigrants. I'm just I'm for Americans. And nobody cares about them. It's like--

MIRANDA: No (ph)--

CARLSON: --shut up, you're dying. We're going to replace you. And it's deeply, if - anyway, we're out of time.

MIRANDA: Not at all. Not at all.

CARLSON: I hope you'll come back because I enjoyed that conversation. Thank you--

MIRANDA: Likewise, Tucker.

CARLSON: --Luis.

MIRANDA: Thank you.

CARLSON: The Mueller investigation appears to be approaching some kind of climax as the Special Prosecutor plans to drop new information on Michael Flynn and other key targets of the probe. Michael Flynn? What?

Brit Hume will be here to explain what that means for the Administration and the rest of us. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well after a year and a half of investigations and much-touted, but in the end, false breakthroughs, the Mueller investigation finally appears to be approaching something.

This very evening, new information is expected to drop of the investigation's plea deal with former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. Remember General Flynn? And then sometime this week, the investigation is expected to file newer court documents about Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort as well. What does all of this mean, if anything?

To help us unwind it, we go to the man who helps us unwind things. Fox Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume. Brit, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.

Michael Flynn? Let me just ask the overview question first, then, please explain the Michael Flynn portion to me. But does anything you have seen so far touch - touch directly on contact with collusion with Russia?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, FOX NEWS: I - nothing that I've seen has, Tucker. And I must say I've - I reached the point now where we've seen so many of these moments in this investigation when somebody or other gets subpoenaed or somebody pleads guilty to some, you know, process crime like, you know, lying to the FBI or--

CARLSON: Right.

HUME: --whatever that and people extrapolate from that that - that - that Mueller is on the verge now of the big one that's - that's going to - that is going to tell the tale of President Trump's malfeasance, and it's never happened, and the investigation drags on.

And I was, sort of, of the view that - that Trump that - that everybody was misreading all this that - that what was happening here was that Mueller was carrying out what was after all his original mandate.

And his original mandate was - was primarily to take over a counterintelligence investigation that was about what the Russians did. That's what - that's what Comey was doing at the FBI.

CARLSON: Right.

HUME: And when he got fired and that's what Mueller was named to take over.

And it was at - and - and if you go back and look at the - at the statement that was made by Rod Rosenstein in naming Mueller, it says he's to take over the investigation that - that Comey had announced was going on in his Congressional testimony when we became aware that this FBI inquiry was underway.

Well, that was a counterintelligence investigation. And he adds that he was authorized, as well, to look into the question of whether there was collaboration between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Well, fine. So, we know - we knew that was going on. And - and - and it - it has never been the case as far as I could tell looking at the documents that the principal focus was this collusion question.

So, Mueller has proceeded--

CARLSON: Yes.

HUME: --along the way, ends up indicting a whole bunch of Russians who will probably never see trial, but it was a sign that what the Russians were doing was a big part of what he was up to, which all made sense to me.

This latest stuff, I don't know what to make of it actually. I wish I could tell you, Tucker. You asked me to unwind it. I would if I could. But, you know, every little twist and turn in this is being hyped always as then - as the prelude to the big one, the big breakthrough, the big bombshell that keeps coming, and never has come.

In fact, you know, what is--

CARLSON: Well, may I just ask you about Michael Flynn, quickly, because we - his name has been out of the headlines for boy, over--

HUME: Right.

CARLSON: --a year but am I misremembering it? Or did Michael Flynn plead to lying, basically--

HUME: He plead--

CARLSON: --to a crime that arose in the course of the investigation--

HUME: Right.

CARLSON: --and then his life was completely destroyed, he had to sell his house. I think he's still unemployed. Did he do something else that I forgot about?

HUME: The - yes - no, he - not that I know of.

I mean Michael Flynn was supposed to have not told the truth to some FBI agents who were interviewing. I mean that was what he was charged with, possibly in the hope that by charging him with that, and - and being prepared to sentence him, he would then, you know, spill the beans on what was really going on between Trump and Russia.

Well, it seems to have turned out that he didn't really have any beans to spill. And that and - and - and not only that, Tucker. It's - it's very hard to see, you know, where any of this is going.

And when you see people being investigated and then prosecuted for crimes that didn't happen until after the investigation got started, you begin to stop and say, "Wait a minute. Why - what are we doing here?"

CARLSON: Exactly.

HUME: This is - this is what, you remember Karl Rove was pursued remorselessly by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for about the - the famous Valerie Plame CIA leak. And it turned out we--

CARLSON: Yes.

HUME: --we later found out that that - that leak--

CARLSON: Yes.

HUME: --source of that leak had been known from the very start and they pursued him anyway. And this is the problem with independent--

CARLSON: I know.

HUME: --this is - this is the problem with Special Counsels--

CARLSON: I know.

HUME: --is that they become - they become almost another branch of government that they - that they are theoretically accountable to Main Justice. But as a practical matter, they don't seem to be, and they go on and on and on and--

CARLSON: No, they're--

HUME: --and - and - and in the meantime, you know, of course, they've got all this process they could use, subpoenas and grand jury testimony, and the threats of perjury investigations and all that to pressure people and, you know, now we're hearing that Roger Stone may be, you know, prepared to- -

CARLSON: It's--

HUME: --to - it won't - won't stick up for Trump - I mean, won't testify against Trump. And so, he--

CARLSON: Now, we're getting into--

HUME: --so Trump--

CARLSON: --crazy town.

HUME: --yes, we're getting - well it's into the weeds here and I'm - my view is we need to get to--

CARLSON: No, it's right.

HUME: --this report needs to be finished. We know - want to know what they've got. And we, above all, want to find out what the Russians actually did. I'd love to know. It would tell us about whether it made any difference in the election or not. I hope.

CARLSON: I think we know. But I - we'll be waiting in. Apparently, there'll be a sentencing report tonight pertaining to Michael Flynn. Catherine Herridge is standing by for it. If we get it, in the course of this hour, of course, we'll bring it to you.

Brit Hume, thank you very much.

HUME: OK, Tucker. You bet.

CARLSON: Obviously, no one I like talking to more than Brit Hume.

HUME: Sure.

CARLSON: There is a special digital feature out tomorrow on the new digital platform, Fox Nation. We just had a long conversation about George H.W. Bush for that. And it, again, will appear on Fox Nation tomorrow morning.

Just a few weeks, Democrats will be running the House of Representatives. Their - will their top priority be helping the country or impeaching the President or maybe a little of both? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Democrats took back the House in November's midterm elections. There are a lot of reasons voter may have - voters may have given them back a share of power. Maybe they trusted them more in healthcare or social programs or the economy. The polls aren't exactly clear.

Newly-elected Democrats say they plan to make a priority of legislation over investigations. But is that true? The Daily Beast, Betsy Woodruff says that much of the party is most interested in the chance to take part in a Trump impeachment. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETSY WOODRUFF, POLITICS REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: Democrats are lining up to get on House Judiciary because they're expecting it to be the place where the action is in part, of course, because now they would be in a position to preside over any potential impeachment proceedings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Chris Hahn is a progressive radio host and former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer. He joins us tonight. Chris, thanks a lot for coming on. So, I don't understand--

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, AMERICAN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST, RADIO SHOW HOST, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Anytime, Tucker.

CARLSON: --all the lying and embarrassment.

So, obviously, Pelosi has decided. And she went through this, again, when she was Speaker in 2006 when Democrats wanted to impeach Cheney and Bush, and she said we're not going to talk about them publicly (ph).

She's trying to keep her troops from talking about impeachment. But the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are for impeaching Trump. And why wouldn't they be? They've been told he's a war criminal. I get it. So, why are we lying about what Democrats have a mandate to do from their voters, impeach?

HAHN: Well, look, I think there's people in - in the party that would like to see some sort of investigation of the President. But I think the majority was won in suburban swing districts, which want people to work on things like healthcare, changing the tax reform, so it benefits the middle class and other issues that they campaigned on.

Most of the campaign was not about impeachment. I have always said to you, I don't believe we're at a point where impeachment would be a real thing. And I think impeachment has to be a bipartisan thing.

Of course, it has to be for removal in the Senate. I think Nancy Pelosi knows that. She will be the Speaker of the House. I do not think, barring some major revelation in the Mueller report, I don't think you will see impeachment on the agenda for the next Congress.

CARLSON: Well, I think that's probably right because Democrats are terrified of her. And anyone who steps out of line is crushed. Poor Marcia Fudge got totally destroyed by Nancy Pelosi when she briefly suggested running against her.

People are afraid of Pelosi, I get it. I'm just saying it doesn't make much sense. I mean I've spent two years listening to Democrats say that this guy, comparing him literally to Hitler, and saying that he colluded with a foreign power, he's treasonous. Many people have said that.

So, if he's all the things you've told us he is, why don't you have a moral obligation to impeach him this afternoon? I'm serious.

HAHN: Well, look, like I've said, unless there's something that both sides agree is criminal, ready for removal, I don't see Nancy Pelosi allowing that to go forward in the House. Look, we know what happened--

CARLSON: No, but, but, but hold on. But why shouldn't--

HAHN: --when they tried to impeach Bill Clinton? It made Bill--

CARLSON: --rank and file (ph) Democrat--

HAHN: --Clinton stronger. People--

CARLSON: --I - you're right. You know, you're right. Look, I get it. I'm - I agree with you as a political matter, you're--

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: --you're absolutely right. And Pelosi's very smart, politically. And she knows it'll hurt Democrats if she tries to impeach. And so--

HAHN: She's brilliant.

CARLSON: --sort of ingest (ph) - encouraging you to impeach because it would hurt you. But I'm also sort of serious about this. Let's take your rhetoric seriously. How can you live in a country with a President who is like Hitler, who colludes with Vladimir Putin to destroy our democracy? He's literally evil--

HAHN: Well, here's my answer to it - here's - here's my answer to--

CARLSON: --they're saying (ph) every day. MSNBC is predicated on--

HAHN: --that.

CARLSON: --that idea.

HAHN: Here--

CARLSON: Yes, no, seriously.

HAHN: --my answer to - my answer to that is we're not going to be able to remove him through impeachment. The only way to remove Donald Trump is to beat him at the election box.

So, what I have said and what others have said is Democrats should investigate where there's clear evidence of problems within his Administration, so that it makes it harder for him to get re-elected in 2020.

If you try to impeach him, without the Republicans coming on board to actually remove him, it is a waste of time, it's a waste of political capital, and it will lead to the Democrats losing their majority, and Donald Trump being re-elected President in 2020.

But if you run government good--

CARLSON: Is there a time--

HAHN: --if you put good bills in front of his desk that he will not sign, then he will have a hard time getting re-elected.

CARLSON: But is there a time when Democrats say, look, you know, we disagree with Trump on some things, not that many things that - to be totally honest, on a policy level, not that many things but some things--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --we don't like his style. And we don't think he should tweet. But that time that we said he was a traitor to his country or like Hitler, we shouldn't have said that because that was like a grotesque overstatement that made us look stupid, and it was kind of wrong to talk that way. Is anybody ever going to say that?

HAHN: Well, I hope people, I don't know if they're going to actually say that. It seems - seems like the apology and taking things back is gone from American politics.

But what I do hope is we'll see people come together on things they can find common ground on and pass bills on things that will work. I'm really I'm encouraged by this--

CARLSON: Everyone's so modern all of a sudden.

HAHN: --criminal justice reform that's out there right now.

CARLSON: I love it.

HAHN: But--

CARLSON: Yes.

HAHN: --I'm encouraged by--

CARLSON: OK. No, good, I mean look I'm--

HAHN: --that sort of stuff. I wanted some (ph)--

CARLSON: --I'm for that. I--

HAHN: --real infrastructure.

CARLSON: --OK.

HAHN: Yes. It - it's good stuff--

CARLSON: Well I - look, I hope you're right on this--

HAHN: --but nobody's ever - nobody's ever going to say--

CARLSON: --where we agree.

HAHN: --nobody ever says they're sorry anymore. It's a lost art form in politics in this country. So, I wouldn't--

CARLSON: Yes. Well, they should.

HAHN: --hold on my breath on that, Tucker.

CARLSON: They should. OK. Chris Hahn, thank you.

HAHN: I agree. Thank you.

CARLSON: Well some Democrats want to focus on impeachment.

TEXT: TECH TYRANNY.

CARLSON: An incoming Republican says taking on big tech ought to be a priority for all of us. Josh Hawley is a Senator-elect. He'll be replacing Claire McCaskill in the Senate representing Missouri.

One of the first issues, he confronts, will be the President's renegotiation of NAFTA. Now, a minor change to the wording of that treaty could protect tech companies that decide to censor any content they dislike, something that they are obviously very anxious to do.

Senator-elect Hawley joins us tonight. Senator-elect, thank you very much for coming on tonight. Congratulations--

JOSH HAWLEY, U.S. SENATOR-ELECT, MISSOURI: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --by the way--

HAWLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: --on winning that seat. So, tell - I - I think most of our viewers are probably not aware of this. Most of them probably support renegotiating NAFTA. But this clause, tell us the potential implications of it.

HAWLEY: Well, there - there are changes in the NAFTA agreement to what's called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And what that is, Tucker, it's - it's actually a deal that the tech companies get from the government that says that they can't be sued like any other publisher.

They can't be sued like a newspaper. They can't be sued like a TV station. And, supposedly, what they're supposed to do in return from that - that immunity is they're not supposed to exercise editorial content or editorial control.

They're not supposed to say, well--

CARLSON: Yes.

HAWLEY: --you can't express this political view or not. My worry is, is that these companies are increasingly censoring. I mean they are - they are censoring Conservatives. They are censoring based on political viewpoint.

And my question is, should they really be getting this special immunity from the government if they're also going to act like censors? And I think we need to take a hard look at that.

CARLSON: Well, I don't - it's not clear why they have it. I mean if I libel somebody, I can be sued, Fox News can be sued. You're Senator-elect. If you libel someone on this show, you can be sued. But Apple cannot be sued, Facebook, Google, the rest. Why should the U.S. government favor those companies in a way that they don't favor my company, for example?

HAWLEY: Yes. I - I think that's a very good question. And look, I mean let's be honest. These tech companies, Facebook, Google, Twitter, they have gotten huge, they have gotten powerful, they have gotten rich on the backs of this special immunity that they get from the federal government, on the back of what's called Section 230. And I think it's time we ask some hard questions.

CARLSON: Yes.

HAWLEY: They're monopolies now. They're very powerful. They appear to be using their power to try and shut down political viewpoints that they don't agree with, usually Conservative. And I think we need to ask, "Do they really deserve these special deals and special carve-outs that have allowed them to get so big and so rich?"

CARLSON: You know, you're not even in the United States Senate yet, and you're saying things that are truer and clearer and more forceful than any of the 100 Members sitting there now.

And I don't - and I don't want to wreck any friendships you might form once you get there. But can you speculate as to why all of this has been happening for the last decade and, basically, no one in the entire Senate has ever said anything about it?

HAWLEY: Well, I - I just don't know how much attention this has gotten from folks. I think people don't realize, for instance, that these tech companies have gotten such sweetheart deals from the federal government.

I don't think they realize that they get treated unlike anybody else, you know, that they're - they're different from TV stations, they're different from publishers, and they're getting this special deal.

And, again, I think it's time to ask, "Do they really deserve to get this special deal if they're going to act like censors?" We need to ask those hard questions.

CARLSON: How many phone calls you think you're going to get from lobbyists after you get off the air tonight?

HAWLEY: You know, it has never been my ambition to make friends with people who Congress ought to be investigating, frankly, and who they ought to be holding accountable.

And, look, we have a responsibility to the public to hold the big and the powerful accountable, especially, if they misuse their monopoly power. My worry is these companies are doing that, so Congress ought to look into it. Congress--

CARLSON: Exactly.

HAWLEY: --ought to investigate this, and they ought to consider action.

CARLSON: Senator-elect, Josh Hawley, of Missouri, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

HAWLEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, this probably won't surprise you if you thought about it for more than 10 seconds. The #MeToo movement is having unexpected consequences for women, particularly on Wall Street. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you. The Mueller investigation has just filed, I mean, just filed brand-new documents about former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, and his cooperation with the investigation, a sentencing guideline, apparently.

Catherine Herridge has those documents, is reading them right now, and assessing them. And we're going to go to her as soon as she has determined what they say. That'll just take about a minute. We'll be - we'll be back.

In the meantime, CNN President, Jeff Zucker has already spent years remaking his channel from a basically centrist sort of Liberal news outlet to a platform for pushing pretty extreme political views and prosecuting his personal vendettas, mostly with the help of his marionette.

Now, Zucker thinks it's time to aim even higher than that. In a recent appearance on David Axelrod's podcast, which people, apparently, listen to, Zucker says he's interested in running for Office.

How does Senator Zucker sound, President Zucker, Dictator-for-Life Zucker? Whatever it is he decided to run for, his ambitions explain CNN's coverage decisions in the past couple of years. Now, if only they would update their name a little bit to ZCN, the Zucker Campaign Network, but it really does tell you a lot.

Well, outgoing Senator, Claire McCaskill, now admits that her party's last- minute attempt to destroy Brett Kavanaugh's reputation and tar him as a race - rapist backfired. McCaskill says that attempt may be the reason she lost re-election in November.

Tammy Bruce is a radio host and President of Independent Women's Voice. She joins us tonight. Tammy, thanks a lot--

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS ON-AIR CONTRIBUTOR, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE PRESIDENT: Hey, my pleasure.

CARLSON: --for coming on. Interesting, we just spoke, actually, in the segment before to Josh Hawley who beat her in that campaign in Missouri. I find it fascinating that she would say that out loud, seems sort of honest for a politician to say something like that.

BRUCE: Yes. And look, she's free now though because she's not going back.

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: And - and that allows you some reflection about what's going on. But at the same time, this was - this did not happen in a vacuum, right? This was not a one-off experience.

And she should know because in her political work, she's helped facilitate, to a large degree, this notion that due process should end, in that due process is not a good idea, particularly, on college campuses, which is where, you know, a lot of people have watched this unfold that if you are accused as a young man on a campus, you are suspended.

Questioning the accuser makes you a sexist or a misogynist. And then, event (ph) - you lose perhaps your tuition and your scholarships etcetera. So - so, we've seen this move through society in - in more in little pockets that maybe not everyone notice, but we saw it happening on campus. It was inevitable, Tucker, that--

CARLSON: Yes.

BRUCE: --this would happen in the halls of - of the Senate where they make law. And I think she's realizing maybe too late, obviously, that what she'd helped facilitate before has now come back in a very serious dynamic, and has harmed her and her party.

CARLSON: Yes. And, of course, a female Senator loses her seat in the name of female empowerment, kind of interesting. So, where does - I mean do you see this, taking three steps back--

BRUCE: Yes.

CARLSON: --do you see this fervor the intensity of this moment (ph) accelerating in the next couple of years or calming down and the rest of us regaining our senses a little bit like--

BRUCE: Well--

CARLSON: --Claire McCaskill?

BRUCE: --yes, this is not unusual for the Democrats. We can expect the Democrats to once again not know when to stop. They will want it to accelerate. They will make the mistake of trying to do that.

And - and, especially, since they took the House, they're going to think that all of this activity actually help them. It didn't. And I think the--

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: --and this is going to be up to the Republicans and to fair-minded Americans to remind their loved ones and their families that this is not what we do that due process matters, that ideas matter.

This is - the Republicans are going to have to deliver, the President is going to have to really step up to make sure that, you know, this conversation is a fair one and is led appropriately, because we know bad things do happen to women. We want them to get justice, obviously.

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: I've spent most of my adult life working on that.

CARLSON: Of course.

BRUCE: But men are our partners in this. The - the due process and fairness is imperative for all of us. Women will be the first to lose, as I've argued through this entire dynamic. And that - and that--

CARLSON: Well that's actually--

BRUCE: --men are already losing very badly.

CARLSON: Well, so you said that from day one--

BRUCE: Yes.

CARLSON: --literally the set - when the Harvey Weinstein story broke, and we're all horrified, you were horrified, I was horrified, you said in that segment, I'll never forget it, this could whip around and hurt women--

BRUCE: Yes.

CARLSON: --and as well as innocent men, while we're getting yet another story suggesting that may be true. The #MeToo movement hurting women's employment prospects in many sectors--

BRUCE: That's right.

CARLSON: --but in this story, it's on Wall Street, according to Bloomberg because men are afraid to hire them.

BRUCE: That's right.

CARLSON: Does this story - it's a sad story. Does it - does it surprise you?

BRUCE: It - it doesn't. And yet, it's a reflection of the fact that this was always about dividing men from women that in fact men--

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: --are our allies on this issue that the majority of men don't do what Harvey Weinstein was doing that--

CARLSON: Exactly.

BRUCE: --that, you know, and this is where we've lost that dynamic. And so, all men are afraid, whereas, in fact, they should be our individuals - the individuals who help us the most with their - their brothers and with the - the men that they work with in their fraternities, there are--

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: --defenders, as well. So - so this was never really about women for the Left. It was about dividing men from women. And yet, for those of us--

CARLSON: Exactly.

BRUCE: --who care about the issue, we really have to make sure that men are brought along with us and that women do get the justice they - they deserve. But they'll only get it when men are not demonized, all men are not demonized as the bad guy.

CARLSON: You've been a consistent voice on that from, literally, from day one, and we appreciate it. Tammy--

BRUCE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --thanks a lot.

We're going back to (ph) that Fox News Alert we told you about. The Mueller investigation has just filed new documents about former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, and his cooperation with the investigation.

Catherine Herridge has seen those documents and joins us to describe what they contain. Catherine?

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Well, Tucker, I'm just still going through the documents right now.

But among the headlines that the Special Counsel says former National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, provided substantial cooperation with Special Counsel investigators. They are recommending the low end of the spectrum, no jail time, possibly probation, in this case.

The key document here I have is what's called the addendum, if you can just come back to me one second, because it has some very important details. It outlines here that Mike Flynn participated in 19 interviews.

But specifically, sections of the addendum are redacted because of ongoing criminal investigations. And I just want to show you sort of the depth and breadth of the redactions in this document.

Here on page - page two, it says, redacted criminal investigation. The defendant has provided substantial assistance in a criminal investigation. And then you can see the rest of that is redacted. I'm still pouring through the records.

But what you can see here, as I said is the bottom line of the Special Counsel, that the former National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, has provided substantial cooperation.

He's sat for almost two dozen interviews with the Special Counsel. And he's also provided communications and other records for ongoing criminal matters, which have been redacted in the publicly-released documents this evening, citing a need to protect the ongoing investigation, Tucker.

So, we have a recommendation on sentencing for Mike Flynn, but also very strong evidence that the criminal investigation by the Special Counsel is ongoing at this time.

CARLSON: So, just to be clear, the - the sentencing that you're referring to would be for the crime to which he pled guilty, which was--

HERRIDGE: That's correct.

CARLSON: --lying in the course of the investigation to it. So, it was a perjury charge.

HERRIDGE: That's correct.

CARLSON: And he might have faced actual prison time--

HERRIDGE: He, yes--

CARLSON: --for that.

HERRIDGE: --he could have been, max for lying to federal investigators, which is a violation of USC 1001, is up to five years.

In this particular case, given he has no prior offenses, the high degree of cooperation, it was always expected that it would be somewhere between zero and six months. What the Special Counsel is recommending is no jail time here, based on his level of cooperation.

You're right to highlight that. But the other big headline, based on the documents, is that this addendum that outlines how Mike Flynn has cooperated is heavily redacted, as I showed you here.

And they've done that because they want to keep that information secret. They don't want it to be public because it would tip their hand, if you will, to the ongoing criminal matters that involve other individuals, Tucker Carl--

CARLSON: So but - and there - and there's no suggestion. I know you just got these documents. But it's not immediately obvious to you what he's been cooperating about--

HERRIDGE: Wait.

CARLSON: --or who might be involved in any of this? I'm sorry to put you on the spot live--

HERRIDGE: No, no, you're not putting--

CARLSON: --but I--

HERRIDGE: --me on the spot at all, and I want to give you the best answer I can without speculating because it's just too--

CARLSON: Right.

HERRIDGE: --too important. What it speaks to is that--

CARLSON: Of course.

HERRIDGE: --he's been providing cooperation, documents, and testimony about allegations of collusion with the Russians and members of the Trump campaign. I'm still going through the documents right now.

I don't see anything more specific than that at this time, and that would dovetail with the records saying they want to protect elements of the investigation, they believe, are still sensitive, and could tip their hand, if you will, to individuals who have not faced any criminal prosecution at this time, Tucker.

CARLSON: Boy, there had better be a huge crime underlying all of this--

HERRIDGE: Well there's a lot of stuff that's--

CARLSON: --because we're really--

HERRIDGE: --redacted, I can tell you that.

CARLSON: --we're really going through--

HERRIDGE: OK.

CARLSON: --we're really going through a lot.

HERRIDGE: Yes.

CARLSON: And so, if this winds up just being a bunch of stupid perjury charges, I mean, you know, someone should be punished for it. Anyway, Catherine, thank you so much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: And we're going to go back to you. If you stumble upon anything we need to know about, we're going to go back to you, of course, before we get off the air at 9:00. Catherine Herridge, thanks very much.

Well vegans aren't just coming after your hamburgers, though they are. They want you to change the way you speak. They're going after your language. Bringing home the bacon? That's out. But so are a lot of other phrases you may enjoy. An actual vegan joins us next to tell us what you can't say. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Want to bring you back to that Fox News Alert. Catherine Herridge is continuing to go through the documents that we just received, the Flynn sentencing report, Michael Flynn, former National Security Adviser - Adviser sentencing report.

Remember, he pled to a felony for lying to FBI agents. Apparently, the Mueller investigation has recommended no jail time, and said that he has cooperated extensively with the investigation in their investigation of, we don't know, because it's redacted.

Catherine is going through it, as we said. And if she finds anything that adds to the story or is interesting, she will come back on our air instantly, and we'll be glad to have her.

Well, Trump Derangement Syndrome is all-consuming on the Left. You know that. But you may not know how powerful it is. How powerful? Many cannot even honor the death of public figures without comparing them to the President they hate most, the current one.

The co-host of The View, Joy Behar, got into a spat with Meghan McCain after her best tribute to George H.W. Bush is that at least he wasn't Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, THE VIEW: This President that we have now is trying to unravel everything that he did and Obama did. And if I ever become a one- issue voter, it will be about pollution and the greenhouse effect and - and the fact that--

MEGHAN MARGUERITE MCCAIN, THE VIEW CO-HOST, COLUMNIST, AUTHOR, FORMER FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Could we focus on the President, please? I - I just--

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, THE VIEW CO-HOST, AMERICAN ACTRESS, COMEDIAN, AUTHOR: Yes. You know should (ph)--

MCCAIN: --I don't want to talk about Trump--

GOLDBERG: --once (ph)--

BEHAR: Well, I do, for a second, so excuse me.

MCCAIN: --when we're in the moment of - we're honoring a great--

BEHAR: Excuse me a second, please.

MCCAIN: --President we've had (ph).

BEHAR: I - I want to talk about the difference--

MCCAIN: But we're honoring - but I'm not interested in your one-issue voter--

BEHAR: I don't care what you're interested in. I'm talking--

MCCAIN: --when our President just passed. Well, I don't care what you're--

GOLDBERG: You know what?

MCCAIN: --interested in either.

BEHAR: Damn it.

GOLDBERG: We'll be right back.

MCCAIN: Why (ph) OK.

BEHAR: Fine, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Later, Christmas controversy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Imagine opening up your head and letting someone you dislike in, and letting him take a permanent residence there, you would never sleep again. A wise man once said that when you hate somebody, you're the real victim of it, and that is on display now. Boy!

Well, recently, on this show, we told you how the future vegan dictatorship, we're all awaiting, could ban phrases they find offensive like bringing home the bacon. Well, it turns out that vegans have indeed been thinking about this for a long time.

The Animal Rights group, PETA, which is kind of wacky, but to be totally honest, we don't hate them, has a long list of new idioms it wants people to use.

For example, instead of "Kill two birds with one stone," PETA says you should use the phrase, "Feed two birds with one scone." What else they've been (ph) thinking about at PETA?

Ashley Byrne works there. She's a Campaign Executive, and she joins us today. Ashley, thanks a lot for coming on.

ASHLEY BYRNE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CAMPAIGNS, PETA: Thanks so much for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: Now, I know a lot of our viewers won't agree. I can't hate PETA. You're pro-dog, and you're kind of - you're obviously a little bit demented, but also kind of funny. I just cannot resist on this topic. OK. So--

BYRNE: And - and we love you even if you don't (ph)--

CARLSON: --so--

BYRNE: --hate us. Thank you.

CARLSON: I don't. Look, I'm for anybody who loves dogs. Now, some parts of PETA, really, are crazy. And I, just for the record, I'm against them. But some of this stuff does make me laugh.

So, you don't like the phrase, "To beat a dead horse," right--

BYRNE: Well, who knows really (ph) I mean--

CARLSON: --even the horse's already dead, so I guess it doesn't really matter, right but what would you replace it with?

BYRNE: We suggested "Feed - feed a fed horse."

CARLSON: "Feed a fed horse?" So, overfeed a horse, make a horse fat is what you're saying--

BYRNE: Exactly.

CARLSON: --force-feed a horse, kind of like you would a--

BYRNE: Right.

CARLSON: --a goose for pate, OK. "Feed a fed horse."

BYRNE: Yes.

CARLSON: OK.

BYRNE: Just as nonsensical--

CARLSON: I'm not sure that's going to--

BYRNE: --as beating a dead horse--

CARLSON: --catch on.

BYRNE: --right.

CARLSON: You know - you know what? That's a - it's a very good point. It's every bit as dumb as the idiom it replaced. OK, fair enough. "Bring home the bacon."

BYRNE: You're right, yes.

CARLSON: I kind of like that. But you say what?

BYRNE: "Bring - bring home the bagels." And, as a New Yorker, I like that, and as a vegan.

CARLSON: I know but you - I mean we - there's something (ph) a little emasculating about that. I mean "Bring home the bacon" has a kind of vigorous feel to it. "Bring home the bagels," uh, you think it - you think that's as powerful?

BYRNE: You know, I don't know where you're getting your bagels. But, yes, absolutely, and - and I - I think yes.

CARLSON: OK. Fair.

BYRNE: Yes. And, you know, and I - I think - when you think about where bacon comes from, it's - it's really not that light. You know, the - 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. "Take the bull by the horn"--

BYRNE: And that - and that's why we want to--

CARLSON: --well I'd love (ph) to take the bull by the horns anymore.

BYRNE: --have this conversation.

CARLSON: Right.

BYRNE: Well, you know, and--

CARLSON: OK. Good point.

BYRNE: --instead of taking the bull by the horns, let's - let's take the rose by the thorns. And, again, you know, it--

CARLSON: Oh, again (ph).

BYRNE: --sounds funny. But I think anyone who's ever seen a bull fights--

CARLSON: It does (ph)--

BYRNE: --it's grisly. It's awful. You know, it's - it's--

CARLSON: Yes, I agree.

BYRNE: --it's pretty ugly.

CARLSON: I agree.

BYRNE: Yes.

CARLSON: I agree. I don't want you to out me as an animal rights wacko--

BYRNE: Yes.

CARLSON: --but I'm kind of with you in the bull fighting. It's kind of - it's kind of - it's not really a fair fight. "Put your eggs in one basket"- -

BYRNE: Never a fair fight.

CARLSON: --that seems harmless. What's wrong with--

BYRNE: Well, we are proposing put--

CARLSON: --putting your eggs in one basket?

BYRNE: --put your berries in one basket because unlike eggs, berries don't come from chickens who live crammed into little cages where they can't turn around and, you know, defecating on one another. Again, the - the egg industry, it's - when you peek behind the scenes, you find cruelty, you find abuse and so--

CARLSON: I know. But we're talking about language--

BYRNE: --why not berries instead of eggs--

CARLSON: --here--

BYRNE: --why not?

CARLSON: OK. But--

BYRNE: Right (ph).

CARLSON: --if you're in a meeting and somebody says, look, I'm just worried we're putting all our berries in one bowl. You would ever would (ph) turn in silent horror at that person and saying, "You know what? You're just a - you're just a tool. You can't work here," right?

BYRNE: You know, I don't think so. I think language evolves with our values. And, you know, again, we're having fun with this that I - I think it - it's - it's cheeky.

CARLSON: OK.

BYRNE: It's fun. I - I think people like these.

CARLSON: So, I'm going to leave you on the last one, "More than one way to skin a cat." And, by the way, I hate changing language. But that's one phrase I think I'm open to changing because like what is that? But what would you replace it with?

BYRNE: I think - I think most of us don't like that. We would say, "More than one way to peel a potato."

CARLSON: Yes. I mean I sort of admire the spirit of some of this. And, by the way, I'm not worried that there's ever going to be a vegan dictatorship. It just doesn't sound plausible. So, I don't think you're going to force us to do this. But you're going to need to do better than peel a potato. But anyway--

BYRNE: You know, but that--

CARLSON: --thank you, thank you for trying.

BYRNE: --but that's the great thing. You know, we - we don't want to force anyone. But we - we do think that--

CARLSON: No, I know. I know you're--

BYRNE: --most people are kind. Most people--

CARLSON: --not about force us (ph). That's what I like--

BYRNE: --yes.

CARLSON: --about you. Ashley Byrne, we're out of time.

BYRNE: Yes.

CARLSON: It's great to see you. Thank you.

BYRNE: So good to be on, thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you.

That's it for us. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

And want to remind you, we have those documents from the Mueller investigation. Catherine Herridge is going through them now. Hannity is up next in four seconds, and we'll have more on that.

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.