This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 29, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” At 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time this morning, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller made a rare public appearance reading from a prepared statement from behind the podium at the Department of Justice.

Mueller explained that he will not testify before Congress. Why? Because he's got nothing more to say. It's all in that 300-page report, which you can read online if you feel like it.

So why bother giving this speech in the first place? Well, Robert Mueller had a message he wanted to deliver; not a message for you or me or the rest of the audience at home, but a message aimed at a very small group of elected officials in Washington.

Years of investigations could not produce a criminal charge against Donald Trump, but Mueller Miller suggested Congress could still step in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "A process other than the criminal justice system," end quote. That's how a 74-year-old anglophile might describe impeachment. It didn't take Democrats long to decode that message. Some are already calling for impeachment and had been for quite some time.

Those who hadn't been got on board immediately. Kamala Harris of California who is running for President tweeted this quote, "What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this President accountable. We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation."

Beto O'Rourke, meanwhile, took a break from skateboarding to agree, "There must be consequences." He wrote, "Accountability and justice. The only way to ensure that is to begin impeachment proceedings."

And then from their seats on cable news sets across New York City, America's opinion generating class applauded heartily.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: This was vintage Bob Mueller, no questions, no bull.

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, MSNBC NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: He speaks in measured, but clear tones and style.

GLENN KIRSCHNER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: That's the man Bob Mueller is. He is precise. He is factual. He is accurate. The man doesn't know the definition of hyperbole.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was a serious man making a serious point that the framers gave us a way to address a potentially lawless President.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: I think a lot of us have been very supportive of Mueller and what he's done. He has worked very hard and done a really good job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Man, can they suck up when they want to. A man never stands so tall when he stoops to kiss a butt. That's their motto. It's unbelievable.

But you may be slightly confused, listening to all this. Democrats are demanding impeachment, and as you just saw, the press strongly agrees with that. They love Robert Mueller. But what will the crime be exactly? What would the charges be in an impeachment proceeding? Would it be Russian collusion the core charge? Well, as Mueller himself conceded, there's no evidence that ever happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUELLER: The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "Insufficient evidence," in other words, there was no crime. That's how it works. The same is true for obstruction by Mueller's own admission. After two years, he and his subordinates were unable to find a criminal act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUELLER: The report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

Under longstanding department policy, a present President cannot be charged with a Federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, got that, we knew that, in fact, and just to be clear, prosecutors in civilized countries don't prove people innocent. They don't need to do that. That's the standing presumption that all of us have by virtue of our citizenship. Instead, prosecutors look for evidence of guilt and if there is no evidence of guilt, a person is declared not guilty. That's how our system works.

So when Mueller says he couldn't prove the President didn't commit a crime, it was an odd and striking and honestly kind of a bizarre thing to say. The bottom line is that the evidence Mueller gathered did not support charges of collusion or obstruction of justice.

Yet, Mueller would clearly like to see the President impeached any way, Democrats are likely to take him up on that. We're going to assess Robert Mueller's remarks from a number of different angles tonight. But we want to begin with the question of impeachment, because that was the point of what he said today.

Mollie Hemingway is a senior editor, "The Federalist." She has covered this saga from the very first day until now and she joins us tonight from Phoenix. Mollie, great to see you.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: Good to be here.

CARLSON: So it did seem if you stripped away everything in Mueller's remarks down to the essence, what he's really saying is, "Hey, Congress, please impeach." Why would you do that?

HEMINGWAY: Well, I think the whole idea behind the Special Counsel was an insurance policy, a way to put forth an impeachment report. And that's why we were told for years that there was treasonous collusion with Russia.

The bad news for the people who wanted to impeach Trump for the crime of winning the 2016 election, that there was no collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election. And so that's when they went to Plan B, which was to come up with this elaborate theory of obstruction, and even on that, they were unable to come up with any indictments for obstruction.

But that was always sort of the idea. And in fact, the failure of the Russia hoax means that the media are particularly invested, as are Democrats who participated in this collusion conspiracy theory of coming up with something that enables them to avoid accountability for perpetuating that hoax.

And this is the perfect idea to immediately go on to impeachment, even though there was no crime that we were told. There was ample evidence of for many years treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

CARLSON: So I mean, not to be, you know, a stickler for detail or anything. But before we get to impeachment, do you have any idea what the charge would be?

HEMINGWAY: Well, I think that, again, the underlying crime is sort of irrelevant, because the idea is that this President needs to be removed from office. And so it'll be whatever they think that they can come up with.

The idea that you would convince the American people that someone who complained about an investigation that turned to be based on a false smear of treason, that complaining about that means that you obstructed or that you really didn't like this investigation, that's going to be a difficult thing to convince the American people of.

But for people who think that the guilt is already apparent, because of what happened in 2016, it doesn't really matter. And as I mentioned, there is an effort by people in the media and others who perpetuated the Russia hoax to not be held accountable for what they did.

Taking these leaks from people, not asking difficult questions of why they were getting these leaks or what they really meant. And if this enables them to avoid being held accountable, they're all for it.

CARLSON: So if you didn't like the President's program, what he was elected on in 2016, if you thought, for example, the United States should continue involvement in various Middle Eastern wars, we should not become closer to Russia -- you know, all the things that he ran on.

Basically, if you wanted to prevent that agenda from being enacted, you would create a distraction like the one we've just seen. Do you think this is a continuation of the distraction?

HEMINGWAY: I do. And I also think the fact that people who perpetuated this false smear of treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, they understand that if there is an investigation into how that narrative was set, how it was weaponized by our Federal government, who engaged in criminal wrongdoing, such as the criminal leaks of classified information to undo a democratic election.

They understand that this is a threat and that this might be also an effort to make sure that there's some leverage there so that people will not be held accountable who engaged in this wrongdoing.

Again, you're free to dislike Donald Trump or dislike that he won the election. But there is a limit to what you should be able to do in terms of using the levers of law enforcement or Intelligence agencies to throw a fit over what the American people decided.

CARLSON: Yes, the whole system falls apart when you do that. As you pointed out, repeatedly, Mollie Hemingway, thanks very much.

HEMINGWAY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Ian Prior is a former D.O.J. spokesman. He joins us tonight. Ian, thanks a lot for coming on.

IAN PRIOR, FORMER D.O.J. SPOKESMAN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So what was the purpose of today's -- not really a press conference -- say a statement, do you think?

PRIOR: Well, you know, I think you hit the nail on the head. But what's really unfortunate as I see it, is this reminds me exactly what James Comey did in what was it? July of 2016.

CARLSON: Yes.

PRIOR: He went out and talked about someone that they weren't going to charge with a crime, but then continued to say all kinds of information that was derogatory about Hillary Clinton.

Fast forward to D.O.J. when I was there, and that was a big thing, especially with the DAG's Office, Rod Rosenstein. We're not going to go out there and talk about people that we don't charge.

Well, that's exactly what we did today. That's exactly what we did with the report, with the 400-page report that talked about all of these all this evidence and all of these theories on why the President possibly committed obstruction, but they didn't charge him.

So what have we learned from this whole process? Apparently nothing.

CARLSON: It's just interesting, though. I mean, he comes out and basically makes a serious and contradictory claims. He says, "I'm not going to testify before Congress because I've said everything I have to say. And if asked, I will just repeat what my report found." Which is fine, but if you've got nothing else to say, then why are you doing this months after you concluded your investigation? Why now?

PRIOR: Right. Well, you know, I'll tell you the two pieces of news that I got out of today was what you just said, right? He is not going to testify; and two, that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith with how he handled the report.

CARLSON: Right.

PRIOR: After that, I'm not really sure what the news was, because everything he said was in his report. So for the Democrats out on the campaign trail saying, "Well, now we have the case for impeachment." They're either misleading people. They haven't read the report, or they're too dumb to understand the report.

CARLSON: So did Mueller add -- I mean --

PRIOR: I don't think so.

CARLSON: Well, I can tell you, he didn't add anything that isn't in the report, correct?

PRIOR: The only thing he added was him going up there and, you know, making a statement, which he hadn't done. Right now, you recall, and or maybe you've seen some of the coverage. After that statement, you have a lot of people on the left saying, "Well, Mueller just went and criticized what Barr said. So Barr was clearly lying about what Mueller told him."

Well, just before this show, D.O.J. put out a joint statement between Attorney General Barr -- I'm sorry, D.O.J. and Special Counsel's Office saying there's no daylight between anything Barr said about what Mueller told him and what Mueller said today.

CARLSON: And it's obvious, and you know, the left lives and it's this airless little world sustained by those two cable channels. And I think they're not even aware what reality is at this point at all.

PRIOR: Exactly. And look, I have -- my theory here is that if you look at that Part 2 of the Mueller report, there's two types of acts that they looked at. One was pre-Special Counsel, two was after Special Counsel.

It seems to me from reading it that they didn't think the acts before a Special Counsel came anywhere near obstruction of justice.

CARLSON: Right.

PRIOR: Afterwards. They seem like they were leaning that way. And maybe that's enough in their minds for probable cause, which is the low bar you need for indictment. But there's no way that they were going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I think they used this O.L.C. opinion as an exit ramp, so they didn't have to conclusively say, there is not enough evidence to prove that the President committed a crime. And then they left it for Congress to you know, continue to spin the wheel.

CARLSON: Yet, Congress didn't do anything. So we've known this for quite some time. Congress didn't -- was not going to impeach the President, I don't believe before this morning. Now, I think they will.

And so that was not good enough for Robert Mueller and he had to push the country toward impeachment because he thinks it's good for the country? Is that -- I mean, what's the thinking here?

PRIOR: I guess that's what it is. It's really unclear. It was bizarre.

CARLSON: Do you think Robert Mueller really believes who seems like a patriotic character, served his country in Vietnam as a Marine officer. By all accounts, a decent man.

He believes that it's good for America, on the eve of another presidential election for the President to be impeached.

PRIOR: Well, you know, I mean, I guess the proof is in the pudding.

CARLSON: Yes.

PRIOR: But one thing I want to go back to is the Russia investigation. Right? The Russia investigation for all intents and purposes concluded in July of 2018 when they delivered the indictments for the Russian hackers.

CARLSON: That's right.

PRIOR: Why wasn't that announced before the election? Why wasn't that announced before the midterm election? If it was done, then why did they have to wait until --

CARLSON: You know, the saddest thing about this moment, it is all the people you sort of admire from afar and then the more you learn, it turns out that they're sleazy and dishonest.

And I hate to say Robert Mueller winds up in that category. And it pains me to say that.

PRIOR: I think today was disappointing.

CARLSON: It was disappointing. I agree with that completely. Ian Prior, great to see you.

PRIOR: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler could barely suppress his excitement or something. He seems to be shaking after Mueller's statement today. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: With respect to the impeachment question at this point, all options are on the table, and nothing should be ruled out. What Special Counsel Mueller said loud and clear today for the American people is that President Trump is lying when he says no collusion, no obstruction and that he was exonerated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So it looks likely that Democrats will move forward with impeachment proceedings. Is that a good idea for the country? Is it politically wise for them?

Dana Perino has to answer both of these questions carefully. She is the anchor, of course, "The Daily Briefing" with Dana Perino and anchor on "The Five" our friend, a frequent guest on the show, we could go on. She joins us tonight.

DANA PERINO, ANCHOR: But we must get to the topic.

CARLSON: We must get to the topic. So am I right in interpreting it this way? It's like at this point, I don't understand how the Democrats don't impeach.

PERINO: Well, there were cracks in the impeachment dam last week. If you remember when Schumer and Pelosi go to the White House, ostensibly for a meeting about infrastructure, and President Trump basically walks out and says, "No, I'm not going to do this while you have this investigation going on and retrying me is ridiculous."

But that was when you saw Pelosi under some pressure from Democrats because there's a drumbeat. Now, Elizabeth Warren, until this morning was one of the only 2020 Democrats to have said the President must be impeached.

After the Mueller statement today, you had Kamala Harris, Booker, Mayor Pete -- I could go on -- everybody jumping on the train. Who didn't however? Joe Biden.

Joe Biden, who is a long established person in Washington, D.C., we don't have to go over that, he and Pelosi are still locked together. And I think you will see them try to remain so. They're skeptical of impeachment. They are wanting to tap the brakes, but I don't know how long they'll be able to hold off all of the others.

I also think it's very different to think about impeachment as a Democrat, if you are a 2020 Democratic hopeful of which your chances are very slim tonight of becoming that nominee.

CARLSON: Right.

PERINO: Or you're a House Democrat. That one -- there's 31 of them that won in so-called purple districts where they flipped a seat, right? So it was a Republican seat and a Democrat won in 2018.

In some of those districts, President Trump won by plus 10. So impeachment is not very attractive to them to say the least.

CARLSON: No, not at all. And I haven't talked to anybody who has looked at poll numbers and suggested impeachment is going to help Democrats. And by the way, there's a presidential election looming right over the horizon.

PERINO: That's what I would say.

CARLSON: We can settle this question if we want.

PERINO: That's impeachment.

CARLSON: Right. Well, that's exactly right. So this -- I think we both agree with this, this should be kind of a lunatic move on the part of Democrats?

PERINO: I think, yes, I think so. And history tells us that.

CARLSON: Right.

PERINO: There's just one thing that's bothering me. Biden and Pelosi, as I said, long established characters, right? They're thinking back to history. They're looking at Bill Clinton. And I think that new Democrats are looking at this with fresh eyes and saying, "How could you not? What are you even there for?"

"You said that in order to hold President Trump accountable, we had to win the majority. We won the majority. And now you're saying we can't hold them accountable? Because we might lose the majority." And I think that in some ways, the Democrats are sick of establishment politics as well and they are thinking --

CARLSON: That's right.

PERINO: "Why not just go for this? This is the right thing to do." So I don't know about how that's going to end up. But I do believe this. Watch Biden and Pelosi. They are the leaders of the party right now. He is 22 points ahead of his competitors. He is the one that's going to call the shots here.

CARLSON: How long do you think he has finally to make that decision?

PERINO: Well, I think Chairman Nadler is chomping at the bit, right, so he's going to want to do this. The first Democratic debate is the end of the month.

Now, Biden today did not speak himself. He put out a statement by a spokesperson, God loves spokespeople, as you know, I was one I love that. But there's nothing like hearing it from a principal. He hasn't done many interviews. He hasn't done many sort of one-on-one events where you wouldn't be able to shout a question at him because he's been keeping himself away so that he can keep that 22 point lead.

But I would say it might be within the next two weeks to four weeks before that first debate that he is going to have to say something more.

CARLSON: Yes, can't play it safe forever with that many candidates.

PERINO: The illusion of safety.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. Dana Perino. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

PERINO: Thanks.

CARLSON: Well, during this morning's statement, Robert Mueller repeated the claim that Russia undermined American democracy in 2016. All of those who repeat that we're required to believe that and nod, "Oh, yes, it's absolutely true." But is it true? And does his own report actually prove that is true? We'll assess that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: During his press conference today, Robert Mueller repeated a claim we've heard from official Washington virtually every day for the past two and a half years. The claim is that in 2016, Russia made an unprecedented assault on the integrity of America's democratic system.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUELLER: Russian Intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign.

They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization, WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

There were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, that sounds compelling and terrifying. But is it actually true? Have we really proved that after two years of investigations? What does the evidence tell us?

Aaron Mate has been covering this story very carefully. He is a contributing writer at "The Nation" magazine and he joins us tonight.

Aaron, thanks a lot for coming on. So simple question. Does the evidence backup the claim that the Russian government substantially interfered in the 2016 presidential election?

AARON MATE, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NATION MAGAZINE: Well, the evidence that exists might, but we haven't seen it yet. That's the key point. It's quite possible that what Mueller is saying is true. But we haven't seen evidence to establish that yet.

Take this theft of the stolen e-mail. So Mueller has laid out in July 2018, a very detailed indictment of Russian military Intelligence officers as he mentioned today, but we don't know the source of the information that he is basing an indictment on.

What I can say pretty definitively that it does not come from the U.S. agency that would know best what the Russian military intelligence is up to, which is the NSA, because for NSA information to be publicly released, that would have to have to be declassified by the President. And we know that that didn't happen here.

So we don't know who Mueller is citing when he contends in a detailed indictment, that the Russian military Intelligence officers did this.

Roger Stone's attorneys contend that it was CrowdStrike in their -- which is a D.N.C. firm that first accused Russia of the D.N.C. hack and Stone is trying to compel CrowdStrike's evidence through discovery right now. We'll see what happens there. It should be very interesting. But the bottom line here is that we don't know.

And in fact, Mueller even acknowledges in his report that he doesn't know because when he talks about the theft of -- excuse me -- of D.N.C. e-mails, he talks about the Russians appear to have stolen the e-mails. He doesn't say the Russians stole the e-mails. He uses that qualifier "appear."

And he also doesn't rule out the fact that --

CARLSON: I'm sorry. May I stop you right there. This is in -- that went right over my head. In the Mueller report, you're saying he does not unequivocally claim that they did it. He says only they appear to have done it?

MATE: He is laying out a comprehensive timeline of what he says is the Russian effort to hack into the D.N.C. and to steal information, which -- and information can mean different things because not just the e-mails we are talking about, we're talking about research that was stolen, names of employees and so forth.

But what we're really concerned about is the e-mails and when Mueller is talking about the D.N.C. e-mails themselves, he uses the qualifier. He says, "The G.R.U. appears to have stolen the e-mails."

Now if Mueller knew for sure that they stole the e-mails, he would say, "They stole them." And he also doesn't rule out that those e-mails were physically transferred to WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016, which means he also does not know for sure how those e-mails made their way to WikiLeaks.

CARLSON: Wow, that's a lot of uncertainty at the center of the story the rest of us have been told for years is absolutely settled. This is settled science. This is -- the earth is round -- kind of stuff, like anyone who doubts it is a nutcase. Why are they pretending to know things that they don't know?

MATE: Well, because we have a media and political culture in this country where we're supposed to just believe what U.S. Intelligence officials say on faith no matter how many times that blows up in our face.

So we all know what happened with the Iraq War. Intelligence officials, including Robert Mueller, because he was the head of the F.B.I.. He testified before Congress that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He was concerned that Saddam was going to transfer that to terrorists. We know how that turned out.

John Brennan, who also played a key role in Russiagate, he was there at the C.I.A. during the Iraq War fiasco. He didn't raise any objections. James Clapper was -- he was a U.S. intelligence official during the Iraq War. He claimed that there was intelligence showing that Saddam had moved his weapons of mass destruction into Syria.

But despite this record of these people, we're supposed to now believe everything they say on faith and we're supposed to take seriously for example, when Robert Mueller says that this Russian social media campaign was part of a sweeping systematic effort to sow discord, when, when you look at what the Russian social media activity actually was, it was juvenile clickbait. They spent about $46,000.00 in Facebook ads on the election.

And we're supposed to take seriously this notion that this juvenile clickbait that nobody saw, and it actually wasn't even about the election, it was targeted, basically at certain demographics, we're supposed to believe that that influenced malleable American voters.

CARLSON: It's ridiculous. Your average Chevy dealership spends more on Facebook ads, I mean, it's like insane, actually. Aaron Mate, a man of the left, an honest man, a skeptical journalist. We have too few of those. Happy to have you on and I hope you'll come back. Thank you.

MATE: Thank you.

CARLSON: We've heard for many years about Russia's interference in our democracy, countries do interfere in our democracy -- Russia, doesn't happen to be one of them, Mexico was definitely one of them though, and we'll tell you how.

Then Mark Morgan will rejoin us to discuss his new role leading I.C.E. after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, if you watched Robert Mueller speak this morning at 11:00, you heard him echo the view of official Washington that Russia had a major effect on the 2016 election.

Well, as we've noted before, that is an absurd claim. There's zero evidence that it's true, none that Robert Mueller himself has presented.

But if you're looking for countries that really do influence American politics, there are quite a few. Anyone who lives in D.C. can tell you that, Russia does not make the list. Mexico definitely does.

At the beginning of the past presidential election cycle, for example, Mexico began what Bloomberg News described as an unprecedented effort to get American citizenship for its permanent residents living here in the U.S. The point was obvious, of course, to make them voters, so they could vote to defeat Donald Trump.

Russia never even considered election hacking that bold. Mexico did. And there's more, Marcelo Ebrard is Mexico's current Foreign Minister. From 2006 to 2012, he was the mayor of Mexico City. He is a very famous man in that country.

But between those two jobs, he was here in the U.S. What was he doing? He is working on behalf of the Democratic Party. He urged Latino voters in Spanish to turn out to vote for Hillary Clinton. He then compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler; subtlety, nothing one of his strong suits.

Imagine if the Russians did something like that? Put a friend of Vladimir Putin, say the former mayor of Moscow into the U.S. to spend the entire election cycle recording pro-Trump ads. How would that work? Well, it's unthinkable. You'd probably be arrested?

And yet, a top Mexican politician did exactly that and nobody cared. Why? Because it helped Hillary Clinton. This kind of thing has gone on for years here and anyone who lives in D.C. again can tell you, it goes on even today.

Here's another example, Juan Hernandez. He has appeared as a guest on this show more than once. He led President Vicente Fox's office for Mexicans abroad. How did he describe his job? This way, quote, "I want to get the third generation, the seventh generation in the U.S. I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"

Hernandez argued that Mexican immigrants to the U.S. are always quote, "going to keep one foot in Mexico and will never fully assimilate." This isn't just an idle hope on Mexico's part, they're working to make it come true. The Mexican government understands that if immigrants to the U.S. start speaking English, they will assimilate much more quickly into American culture and they don't want that.

The Mexican government now says it will spend $150 million on a campaign to help convince Mexicans living here in our country to keep speaking Spanish. Haven't heard about that on CNN? Huh. Well, there's more.

Mexico has helped its citizens to break our Federal laws. It's done that for years. The Mexican government published a pamphlet advising migrants on how to sneak into our country. The Mexican consulate in San Francisco distributed its 10 Golden Rules for the immigrants in the U.S. That paper instructed illegal aliens on how to avoid arrest and deportation.

The Mexican government has paid lawyers to clog our courts in deportation cases. We could go on and on and on. The point is, that's what it looks like when a hostile foreign power interferes in your democracy. They don't buy Facebook ads that nobody sees, why would they? They try to change the demographics of your country. That works.

Well, if Washington finally decides to fix the country's immigration problem, Mark Morgan will be at the very heart of that. You've known from this show. He has been a frequent guest. We've been happy to have him every time he's been on. And he is now the President's new pick to run I.C.E.

Mark Morgan joins us tonight for his first interviews since starting the job. Mr. Morgan, thank you very much. First of all, congratulations on the new job.

MARK MORGAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: Thank you.

CARLSON: And thanks for joining us. What are your priorities?

MORGAN: Well, first and foremost, I think anyone in this position is to make sure that I'm going to be a relentless advocate for the men and women of I.C.E. to get the tools necessary to do their job.

And part of what that means also is getting out here doing what I'm doing right now to educate the American people exactly what the hardworking men and women of I.C.E. do every day, to safeguard the security of this country and enforce the rule of law, and also working with Congress.

But here's the problem with that, Tucker. Congress has clearly showed its inability to do what they know they need to do to fix this crisis. And I've been on here many times and saying they could do several things within the legal framework. They could fix this in 15 minutes.

So although I'm going to continue to work tirelessly with Congress to try to get them to do their job, I don't have hope that they're going to. So we need to continue to come up with innovative ideas within the legal framework where we can to stop this problem.

CARLSON: Well, they've completely politicized your agency completely.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: We're moving into the heat of an election season. A number of the candidates have called for getting rid of I.C.E. completely, have compared you to the Nazis.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Really over the top stuff. So given your expectation that they're not going to help at all, what can you do?

MORGAN: So I'll give you an example right now. So I.C.E. actually have three major components that the American people and unfortunately, I think a lot of Congress don't even realize. So they have the E.R.O. side. That's the Enforcement Removal Operations that deports people.

They also have an incredible team of lawyers. That's an integral part of the overall immigration process that's absolutely needed. And then the last part of I.C.E. is H.S.I. -- Homeland Security Investigations.

And I'll give you an example. So those three major components makeup, I.C.E.

H.S.I., for example, what we've done is we've taken about 150, highly- trained, experienced, H.S.I. agents, and we push them towards the border. And what they're doing is they're looking at child exploitation. They're looking at those individuals who are grabbing -- renting the kid, right, and we called this, Tucker. We knew this was going to happen, and it is.

They are renting kids. They're paying to rent somebody's kid and then fake themselves as a family, and right now between -- and we've infused the DNA testing that we've talked about in the past, so between their investigative skills and the DNA testing right now in the pilot program. They're finding 25 percent of the so-called families come across -- absolutely fake and fraudulent.

Just the other day, they caught a 51-yearold man from Honduras, guess who he had with him as a family? A six-month-old. And because of work at H.S.I. They found that to be completely false. That's the kind of stuff that we're doing and we need to continue to do.

CARLSON: What would happen if we got rid of I.C.E.?

MORGAN: Exactly. So right now, I.C.E. on the E.R.O. side, this year so far, just the first quarter, 66,000 individuals have been deported. Of the arrests that they've made, 65 percent of those arrests were actually people with additional criminal convictions.

Ninety percent of those either had a criminal conviction or a pending charge. You get rid of I.C.E., think about that. So 66,000 not deported. You have just an incredible amount of people who are doing bad things that are going to remain in the United States.

On the H.S.I. component. Last year alone, 34,000 arrests, Tucker -- 34,000 criminal arrests. Four thousand, five thousand gangs, human trafficking cases, child exploitation cases, 1.2 billion in currency they seized, and the list goes on and on and on.

So when you have somebody that puts out the reckless, irresponsible rhetoric about I.C.E. been abolished, that's what's going to happen. This country will absolutely be less safe because of that.

CARLSON: It's demented. And I don't think there's any popular support for it. I've never seen a poll that says most voters, "Yes, let's get rid of I.C.E. Good idea."

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Get rid of the F.B.I. along with it.

MORGAN: Right.

CARLSON: So quickly if Congress is just in a dream world was willing to help you, if Democrats were on the same page in protecting America's borders. What's the first thing you would ask them for?

MORGAN: Two things, they have to adjust the legal framework. Right now, there's two major things. They have to fix the Florida Settlement Agreement, which mandates you can't hold a family more than 20 days, then plus T.V.P.R.A., and that's the Child Trafficking Protection Act, right?

That says that if you're from Mexico or Canada, we get to send you back. But if you're from the northern triangles -- countries, we can't. Those two things equal catch and release. Congress can fix those two things in 15 minutes. The second thing is they absolutely need to continue to increase the funding for I.C.E. specifically on the detention bed space. It's just common. It's common sense, Tucker.

CARLSON: They don't care. But you do care and I don't know a single person who disagrees. You were the right man for this job. And thank you for joining us tonight.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Good to see you. Well, Joe Biden has changed his position on basically everything in the past 30 years, but one subject has gotten virtually no attention whatsoever and it should, will tell you what it is after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, for decades, Joe Biden had pretty clear views on illegal drugs. He repeatedly introduced legislation to increase penalties for drug offenders, including people who dump marijuana. Marijuana is a harmful drug, he said, and within the past decade, he insisted it should remain illegal. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe it's a gateway drug. I've spent a lot of my life as chairman of the Judiciary Committee dealing with this. I think it'd be a mistake to legalize.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, that was in 2010. Now Joe Biden wants to be President, his party has changed completely, barely recognizable. So now just as he has on immigration and abortion and crime, and the view of English common law and you pick a topic, Joe Biden has a brand new position on marijuana.

He said that nobody should be in jail for marijuana offenses, and the prior offenders' records expunged. What's interesting is he apparently came to this conclusion after meeting with donors who may be profiting from legal marijuana. Interesting.

Ian Samuel is a former Supreme Court clerk, and he joins us tonight. Ian, thanks very much for coming on. Does this make you pause a little bit? I mean, marijuana -- legalized marijuana. I know I'm in a small minority of people on television who are against legalizing marijuana, all the cool kids are for it.

But it is presented as this kind of question of personal liberation. But it's also a major business interest, like there are people who have been profiting from cannabis. And they've now convinced the presidential candidates, the leading one on the Democratic side to support their efforts. Shouldn't we be a little skeptical?

IAN SAMUEL, FORMER SUPREME COURT CLERK: Well, I think one thing you're absolutely right about is that when you have candidates who are as donor- driven as Joe Biden, and the one thing he has always been -- he has never changed his mind about is that his donors are always right.

The thing that's interesting about that is that as new industries emerge, you can expect that the new things they want to do to make money, they're going to be able to buy lobbyists, too, and if they can buy a lobbyist, they can buy Joe Biden.

So I mean, I'd be more surprised if I didn't know that this is just how Joe Biden operates. I mean, the man is the Senator from M.D.M.A. What do you expect?

CARLSON: Well, that's -- it's a very good point, except when a credit card company pays off a politician and he is hardly the only one, I should say, there are tons of Republicans who take money from creepy big companies, too. But it's a very kind of straightforward thing. You understand why, you know, someone is for ethanol, because the soybean growers, the corn growers are giving money, whatever, I get it.

But the marijuana issue specifically is cloaked in the language of freedom and coolness. And so we don't think of it as a quid pro quo, as a payoff. But that's clearly what it is.

SAMUEL: Right. And I think that to a large extent, there is obviously a real issue with the justice of people sitting in jail for these sort of nonviolent drug offenses, right? That's right. But when what you want to do is you want to go to sort of full scale, you know, nationwide legalization and permit businesses to get into that arena, then you have to answer.

I mean, if you are as I am a critic of capitalism, you have to answer the question, what are we going to do when the deficiencies of capitalism are replicated in drug sales, right? And one of those deficiencies is the capitalist by politicians, and there are other deficiencies, too that we need to be taking seriously even if you don't think people should be rotting in jail for marijuana offenses, which I don't.

CARLSON: That is, and I agree with you completely. Of course, people should not be rotting in jail for marijuana possession. Obviously, I agree with you completely.

But the question is when politicians start pushing on their people, and their populations are supposed to be representing things that don't elevate them, but instead degrade them make them dumber and more passive?

I mean, like -- so let's say Joe Biden does a fundraiser in Miami and comes back and says, "You know, cocaine really shouldn't be illegal. Like, why don't we decriminalize it?" I'm serious, like, should the rest of us be like, "Oh, yeah, Joe Biden is really cool." Or should we at least acknowledge that like he is being paid to say this?

SAMUEL: Right. And one way to sort of think about this, one analogy you might think about, is how does -- what is the sort of structure of the alcohol industry in the United States, right? And because we would probably expect similar patterns because these two drugs aren't all that different.

And so what you see there is, you know, about 30 percent of Americans don't drink at all, another 30 percent basically, hardly ever, but the top 10 percent of Americans consume and this is true, on average, more than 70 drinks per week, right? And that represents a majority of alcohol sales in the United States.

In other words, booze companies, and I'm not saying you can't enjoy wine responsibly; if you can, congratulations. But booze companies make money on addicts. And I think there's every reason to believe marijuana companies are going to do the same thing. And I think that's who Joe Biden is, you know -- I mean, he is going to be happy to take that meeting.

CARLSON: God bless you for saying that. Because it's -- what you just said is absolutely true. And I just want to be clear, I don't agree with your politics on most things. But you're absolutely right to say that, and the rest of us have been so bullied, really, by corporate propaganda, into pretending that's not true, what it clearly is true.

So thank you anyway, the truth is worth telling no matter how unpopular it is and no matter who tells it. So thank you, Ian, very much for saying that.

SAMUEL: Well, I appreciate it. And, you know, again, all of this is not to say that there are not substantial issues of justice here, right?

CARLSON: I get it.

SAMUEL: Wage disparities and all of these things. And so at some level, you might say, look, any stick to beat a dog, right? If this is what it takes to make sure that we don't have all these young men sitting around in jail for their lives, then maybe I have to swallow that because I live in a capitalist world and you can't fix everything at once.

But I want us to go into it with our eyes open because when you know Coors opens up, it's you know, like, you know, leafy green sub-branch and starts making money the same way it makes money in alcohol, I just don't want anyone to think they weren't warned.

CARLSON: I agree, anything that makes teenage boys dumber and more passive, I'm opposed to. Ian, thanks very much for coming on. Good to see you.

SAMUEL: Thanks a lot.

CARLSON: Well, one woman says an F.B.I. informant and the press teamed up to defame her all in an effort to bring down Michael Flynn and Donald Trump. Now she is suing. That story is after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, we're covering Robert Mueller's statement, the one he gave this morning. We'll have more on that in just a minute with Michael Caputo, but first tonight, a woman is suing an F.B.I. informant and four news outlets. She claims they defamed her by tying her to alleged Russian collusion efforts in the 2016 election.

Catherine Herridge has the story for us tonight -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Tucker. After the Fox investigation, the Russian-born academic filed this lawsuit in Virginia suing an alleged F.B.I. informant Stefan Halper, and several major news outlets for defamation.

Svetlana Lokhova claims Halper planted false information alleging inappropriate contact between Lokhova and General Michael Flynn at a Cambridge University dinner five years ago. Lokhova told Fox she was never alone at the dinner with Flynn, who at the time ran military intelligence for President Obama.

Fast forward to early 2017, just after the inauguration, and Lokhova says multiple media outlets contacted her in what appeared to be a coordinated effort alleging suspicious contact with Flynn at the Cambridge dinner.

According to the lawsuit, Lokhova believes Halper who apparently targeted other Trump campaign aides planted the allegations to further support the Russia collusion storyline. This is a very colorful lawsuit in one section, Lokhova alleges quote, "Halper misrepresented that Plaintiff was a Russian spy and a traitor to her country. And that Plaintiffs had an affair with General Flynn on the orders of Russian Intelligence."

Lokhova who is a British system broke her silence in March, speaking exclusively to our team for Tucker's show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SVETLANA LOKHOVA, HISTORIAN: I am not a Russian spy, and I have never worked for the Russian government. I believe that General Flynn was targeted and I was used to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Halper has not responded to Fox's questions in the past, but of course, if that changes, we will update our reporting, Tucker.

CARLSON: Boy, wouldn't that be great. Catherine Herridge, you're always on these stories. Thank you.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: We appreciate it. Well, for more reaction to Robert Mueller's statement today, we're joined by someone who is no doubt was watching very closely. Former Trump campaign adviser, Michael Caputo. Michael, thanks very much for coming on.

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Thanks, Tucker. How are you doing?

CARLSON: I can imagine that you watched that live and that you had a strong reaction to it. What was your takeaway?

CAPUTO: To me, it was almost surreal. It was kind of like -- after it was over, I was going like, "Well, so long, Robert Mueller. I guess you want to ride off into the sunset now, " you know.

I thought he -- obviously, he didn't say anything that wasn't in the report. He accepted he didn't want to testify publicly. I don't think we're going to let him ride into the sunset. I don't think we should. There is some things I'd like a Republican congressman likely to ask him in a private session, off camera.

Things like for example, "When did you know that there was no Russian collusion? And why didn't you end it right then?" Because you've got believe they knew there was no Russian collusion, let's say as soon as Robert Mueller was cooperative -- I'm sorry, as soon as General Flynn was cooperating.

CARLSON: Right.

CAPUTO: Any prosecutor would figure out that, you know, if there was going to be some collusion, it would be something General Flynn didn't know about, if he didn't know about it, and he was cooperating, it was all over at that point.

CARLSON: So as it as a legal matter on one hand, but also as an ethical matter, could you continue?

CAPUTO: No doubt. No doubt, I think, you know, obviously, we also saw, you know -- first of all, I love the fact that he slammed the door, you know, slammed the window on the fingers of all these Russia collusion conspiracy theorists who are still hanging on by their fingernails.

You know, he slammed it on their fingers. Again, I loved watching that, but at the same time, he gave the resistance crowd a pivot point from which to turn off away from his investigation off into a House impeachment. I think he left them the breadcrumbs intentionally for this.

I think today, he shined the light on those breadcrumbs in case they were getting lost. And now I think they got the pivot point they were looking for to dive deeply into impeachment.

CARLSON: So he is pushing them to impeachment, there's no question. So we have about 30 seconds left. I was interested in hearing -- you're an old political guy, of course, analyze this as objectively as you can. Is it smart for the Democrats to impeach the President right now, do you think?

CAPUTO: I think it's a terrible idea for the Democrats. It's a suicide mission. But I think they're drawn to it like, you know, moths to a flame. Absolutely, they're committed to it.

I don't even believe any of these people are wringing their hands over it like Nancy Pelosi. I think this has been part of the plan since Election Day 2016. They're on target, you know, Mueller has given the path they need. They're off to impeachment, even if it kills them.

CARLSON: I think if you're, you know, if you're part of a party that has just called for eliminating I.C.E. and banning passenger cars and airplanes, maybe this doesn't seem insane to you. I guess that's all that matters.

CAPUTO: Of course.

CARLSON: Michael Caputo. Great to see you.

CAPUTO: Thanks.

CARLSON: Thank you.

CAPUTO: Great to see you.

CARLSON: We're out of time tonight, sadly. We will be back tomorrow night though and you can be certain of this at 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink -- all of which are in abundant supply here in Washington in case you haven't noticed.

By the way, you can DVR this show if you want. We encourage you every night to do that so you can figure out how, please DVR.

Good night from Washington. From New York City right now, ladies and gentlemen, Sean Hannity.

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