IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for June 12

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Joan Quigley, Woody Vann, Luis Gutierrez, Bob Fox

RITA COSBY, HOST, “LIVE AND DIRECT”:  Thanks for joining me.  I‘m Rita Cosby.  THE SITUATION with Tucker starts right now—Tucker. 

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thank you, Rita.

Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  It‘s good to have you with us, as always. 

Tonight, a Duke insider speaks out.  The accuser‘s former attorney says his friend, the prosecutor, can‘t drop the case because of racial pressure.  We‘ll talk to him in just a minute. 

Also, ahead Ann Coulter has made a lot of people awfully mad.  But is that any reason to ban her book?  One New Jersey lawmaker says oh, yes.  She‘ll be here to defend her plan to keep you from reading the book for yourself.

And call them smart pills.  But are powerful drugs giving some college kids an unfair advantage?  That‘s coming up.

But first, hurricane season looks to be starting out with a bang.  Thousands of people were forced to flee their homes earlier today with Tropical Storm Alberto taking aim at Florida‘s Gulf Coast.  Hurricane warnings are up, and landfall could be only hours away. 

Here with the latest on what could be the earliest hurricane to hit the U.S. in 40 years, Bill Karins.  He joins us from NBC‘s Weather Plus.

Bill, what‘s going on?

BILL KARINS, NBC NEWS METEOROLOGIST:  Thanks, Tucker.  Not a hurricane yet.  Just got the brand new information from the National Hurricane Center.  Still a very strong tropical storm.  Seventy-mile-per-hour winds. 

The pressure is dropping a little bit and the hurricane center still thinks this has a chance early tomorrow morning, right before landfall, to become a hurricane. 

But I‘ll tell you what.  The worst of the weather right now is hitting north of Tampa, heading toward Cedar Key, where we have a lot of our NBC correspondents located.  They‘re going through some of the worst of the bands now.  And then they‘re actually not going to see much rain during the overnight hours.

The center of the storm is still pretty much off the coast by about 100 miles here, but the rain is all over coastal sections of Florida right now.  We could even see some isolated tornadoes throughout the night.  And then once again tomorrow afternoon tornadoes will be the big problem here in central Florida.  That‘s where we could see some of the most damage from this storm system. 

So Tucker, still could become a Category 1 hurricane early tomorrow, making landfall sometime before noon, then weakening after that, heading for Georgia. 

CARLSON:  Bill Karins.  Thanks, Bill.

Remember the old saying: I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it?  My next guest does not agree.  She is so offended by Ann Coulter‘s book she‘s telling people not to buy it. 

Joan Quigley is a Democratic assemblywoman from Jersey City, New Jersey.  She joins us tonight from New York. 

Assemblywoman Quigley, thanks for coming on. 

JOAN QUIGLEY (D), ASSEMBLYWOMAN, JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY:  Glad to be here.  And I don‘t really disagree with what she‘s saying, as much as the way she‘s saying it. 

CARLSON:  You agree with—let‘s put up for our viewers what you did say, what you said in a press release sent out by your office today.  You said, quote, “No one in New Jersey should buy this book, and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering.  We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter‘s book,” end quote. 

Why is it your business what people in New Jersey buy at bookstores or read in their spare time?

QUIGLEY:  Because Ann Coulter is criticizing these brave women, the 9/11 widows, for making money, as she puts it, from their misery, and yet, she wants to make money from mocking their very genuine tragedy.  I don‘t want New Jersey people to contribute one dollar to Ann Coulter‘s treasury.

CARLSON:  I don‘t agree with what Ann Coulter said either, but I don‘t see is as the business of an elected official to tell people what to read any more than it‘s your right to tell them where to go to church or where to send their kids to school to school.  It‘s just really none of your affair what people read.  And isn‘t it sort of creepy for politicians to be telling people what information they ought to be buying?

QUIGLEY:  I‘m not telling them. 

CARLSON:  Sure you are.

QUIGLEY:  I‘m requesting them.  No, I‘m requesting them. 

And I think it is my business as a political leader, because I was elected to be a spokesperson and an opinion leader.  And it‘s my opinion that she shouldn‘t be making money from this. 

I think these women are admirable.  We look at people who have had tragedies in their lives and gone on to make things better for other people. 

CARLSON:  Sure.  I‘m not saying—look, I‘m not attacking the women either.  I had Ann Coulter on the show and told her right to her face I thought it was wrong what she wrote about these women.  You know, I disagree.

But I also think it‘s important that people have the right to hear other points of views, not just yours and not just those of our elected officials, but divergent points.  Shouldn‘t people read the book and judge for themselves whether or not Ann Coulter is right or wrong?

QUIGLEY:  Well, if they buy one copy and pass it among themselves, just for the opinion, that‘s fine.  I don‘t want to see her make money from it.  That‘s not right. 

CARLSON:  Well, wait.  First of all, have you read the book?

QUIGLEY:  I have read the book and I didn‘t buy it.  Someone handed it to me and said, “Here, you better take a look at this stuff.” 

CARLSON:  With all due respect, did you really read the book?  We always say, “I read the book.”

QUIGLEY:  Yes, I did. 

CARLSON:  You really read it.  OK, then you know...

QUIGLEY:  It‘s awful.  She talks about it...

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  There are a couple of small parts that I think are indefensible.  This is one of them.  But it‘s a kind of sophisticated analysis of American life and liberalism.  You may disagree, but it‘s not all crazy, and why shouldn‘t people read that?  I don‘t understand. 

QUIGLEY:  You flatter her when you say it‘s an analysis.  It‘s a diatribe.  It‘s shock.  That‘s all it is. 

CARLSON:  Yours is a diatribe.  You call her a leech.  You claim to understand her motives for writing this book.

QUIGLEY:  No, no, no.

CARLSON:  You know nothing about her motives. 

QUIGLEY:  I said if there‘s only one witch in the story, it‘s not the 9/11 widows.  She calls them broads.  I haven‘t heard anyone use the phrase broad outside of a barroom in years. 

CARLSON:  Look, I agree.  I don‘t like that, because it‘s name-calling. 

QUIGLEY:  Exactly. 

CARLSON:  And I don‘t like the name-calling you resort to.  You refer to her, quote, as a leech.  Now in what way are you superior to Ann Coulter when you compare her to a blood-sucking insect or animal?

QUIGLEY:  I don‘t intend to claim that I‘m superior to anyone.  I‘m just saying that people of good taste, people of good sense, shouldn‘t be contributing to her marketing.  I hate to be here in a way, because I know ironically that I‘m contributing to her marketing just by talking about the book. 

CARLSON:  Well, you‘re also contributing to your political career which is part of the point here, also, of course.  Not that there‘s anything wrong with that.  I don‘t begrudge you that, but that‘s also what you‘re doing. 

What about this?  “Advertising Age”, a magazine today ran an editorial, a column by a man named Simon Dumenco who said that Ann Coulter ought to kill herself, that she ought to die, that she ought to take her own life. 

Now, that‘s far and above more offensive than anything Ann Coulter wrote in her book, as you know, since you said you read it.  Are you going to suggest that people shouldn‘t buy “Advertising Age”, too, just to be consistent?

QUIGLEY:  I have to tell you, Tucker, that I had hate mail, that I had people suggesting that—one man, I guess it‘s a man, people use phony names in these kind of e-mails, but said that he hopes someone would cut my throat so that I could bleed all over f-ing New Jersey. 

CARLSON:  That‘s crackpot mail.  Who cares?  I get that every day.  That doesn‘t mean anything.  We‘re talking about a columnist for “Advertising Age”, and I get a lot of crayon covered letters, too. 

This is a columnist.  He‘s saying Ann Coulter ought to kill herself. 

Are you willing to denounce that, as well?

QUIGLEY:  Of course. 

CARLSON:  Good.  That‘s the spirit.  All right, Assemblywoman.  Thanks for joining us.  I appreciate it.

QUIGLEY:  Thanks for inviting me. 

Still to come, Hillary‘s poll numbers are lower than you may realize, while Newt Gingrich is sniffing out a possible run for the White House.  Have both parties reached a point of total desperation?  And if so, should we all be worried?

Plus, a family judge is gunned down in Nevada.  Why would a sniper try to kill Chuck Weller in broad daylight?  Find out when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still ahead, three detainees kill themselves at GITMO. 

Plus, it‘s English only at a famous Philadelphia cheesesteak outlet. 

What‘s wrong with that?  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton. 

Are these names to make a voter‘s heart beat faster?  Apparently they are.  Party loyalists think so, anyway.  But do any of them have what it takes to win the White House?

Here to handicap their chances, Air American radio host Rachel Maddow. 

She‘s in Washington tonight at the scene of the crime. 

Rachel, welcome. 

RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Thanks, Tucker.  It makes me look even more officially like a pundit, doesn‘t it?

CARLSON:  Yes, it really does, with the Capitol behind you. 

Let‘s go in reverse order here.  Hillary Clinton, the most interesting thing I‘ve heard about Hillary Clinton in a long time—poll numbers out this past Friday.  She‘s at 51 percent in New York state, 51 percent approval rating.  That‘s, of course, lower than the number she won by.  I think she won by 54 percent originally in 2000 against Rick Lazio. 

That‘s pretty bad.  I mean, that‘s lower than you‘d expect someone to have who‘s planning a presidential run, isn‘t he?

MADDOW:  Well, it‘s—maybe she‘s not planning a presidential run. 

She certainly hasn‘t declared one. 

CARLSON:  Oh, come on. 

MADDOW:  No, listen, Hillary Clinton has been the presumptive nominee for so long.  You and I have talked about this before.

CARLSON:  She‘s raised $27.5 million to run against no candidate.  So yes.

CARLSON:  What that‘s meant is that everybody‘s spent a very long time, months and months and months, if not years, talking about all of the reasons why—what a Hillary Clinton presidential run could mean and all of the reasons why that‘s a good or a bad thing.  I mean, she‘s had a target on her for a very long time.  She gets attacked every night on cable news, no matter what happens in the rest of her day. 

Most other senators don‘t have that happen.  She‘s got an incredible spotlight on her.  I think it‘s going to affect her. 

CARLSON:  Let‘s be honest.  I mean, she‘s running for president at least at this point, and who knows?  Maybe numbers like this will dissuade her.  But at this point you‘ve got to admit that‘s strikingly low.  She‘s had six years to make her case to the people of New York.  We hear so much about what a popular senator she is at home.  Fifty-one percent is not a very high number.

John McCain, by contrast, in Arizona, 70 percent.  You know, there are other senators who aren‘t at 70 percent, but 51 percent is pretty low if you‘re planning to use your home base support as a launching pad for your presidential aspirations. 

MADDOW:  Tucker, the whole idea that she‘s weak, she‘s vulnerable, in New York state would tend you to lead you to believe that she was maybe going to have some trouble in a re-election bid this November. 

I honestly, as a person who lives part of every week in New York City, cannot tell you the name of the Republican who is running against her. 


MADDOW:  I mean, the Republican Party, literally in the entire state of New York, can‘t come up with a candidate to run against her.  It‘s not like she‘s in trouble.

CARLSON:  They‘re all drunk, no, it‘s pathetic.  I agree.  And that‘s why she‘s running for president, because you don‘t need $27.5 million to beat a drunk guy who no one knows.  Right? 

John Edwards, in this latest sort of semi-phony poll in Des Moines, Iowa, the other day, won among Democratic activists.  Most people that follow this stuff for a living are surprised to learn that he‘s still running for president, lo these many years later.  Do you think he‘s got any kind of shot?

MADDOW:  You know, it‘s interesting.  I think that if John Edwards had done one term in the Senate and then left and spent his time out of the Senate doing the kind of things he‘s done since 2004 and he never had done that little thing that was called running for vice president, I think he actually might be a very, very viable candidate right now. 

The fact that he ran for vice president with Kerry probably hurts him heading into 2008.  People don‘t generally like second helpings of their presidential and vice presidential candidates in this country. 

But the way he‘s been spending his time since 2004 I think is very enthusing to Democratic activists, and he‘s been talking to all the right people and doing all the right things. 

CARLSON:  If only he had a message.  He‘s such an appealing guy.  I think he‘s a good guy to talk to.  He‘s got it al, except something compelling to say. 

MADDOW:  I totally disagree.  I actually think that he really is—one of the reasons it‘s a good thing for him that he‘s peaking kind of very early—I don‘t know if he‘s peaking, but he‘s at least getting some attention very early in this presidential race, this Iowa poll certainly helping, is because it does put his issue, which is the concerns of working people...

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  Right.  It puts those on the agenda for all potential Democratic candidates, and that‘s one of the things that‘s really good about having a strong issue and getting it out early. 

CARLSON:  Democrats don‘t win elections with working people.  They win elections with poor people and with upper middle class women with master‘s degrees.  Working people actually don‘t vote Democrat all that much any more. 

Newt Gingrich.  Tell me, is Newt Gingrich—when you hear the idea that Newt Gingrich might run for president, do you smirk?  Do you laugh?  Do you shake in your boots?  Do you think this guy could win?  What‘s Rachel Maddow‘s response to that?

CARLSON:  I rub my liberal hands together in glee and cackle. 

MADDOW:  The idea of Newt Gingrich being the nominee is almost—almost better to me than Bill Frist being a nominee.  Just the idea of him campaigning of having led the crusade for Clinton‘s impeachment while he was working on wife No. 2 or No. 3, serving the divorce papers with the wife with cancer in the hospital. 

CARLSON:  That‘s so personal.  I mean, who cares about that?

MADDOW:  That‘s very personal.  But...

CARLSON:  But the whole point of Clinton was we‘re not supposed to care.  So you‘re a creep in your personal life.  Isn‘t that the whole Democratic platform?  You can be as weird as you want when the cameras are off, but we‘re not allowed to ask questions about it.  Who cares if he‘s served divorce papers?

MADDOW:  Tucker, I heard all about people being as creepy as possible in my personal lives (ph).  You know, I‘ve made that a personal crusade. 


MADDOW:  But I can‘t simultaneously leave the crusade for somebody‘s impeachment for lying about sex while you are serving divorce papers on your wife, who is in the hospital with cancer and then marrying your congressional staffer.  You can‘t do that. 

CARLSON:  He was the one in this case who was serving, not being serviced, and that right there is the crux of the difference between the parties. 

Rachel Maddow, thank you. 

MADDOW:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Still to come, a city agency plans to pursue charges of discrimination against a Philly cheesesteak restaurant.  Why is it now illegal to ask customers to speak English?  Good question. 

Plus, another female teacher is arrested for having sex with one of her students, but in this case the boy was 18 years old, old enough to die in Iraq.  So does she deserve 20 years in prison?  Some say so.  We‘ll be right back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

We turn now to the case that will not die, the Duke rape hoax.  Each day seems to raise more questions about the accuser‘s story, or at this point, multiple stories.  And even as this case evaporates before his eyes D.A. Mike Nifong continues to pursue the prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players.  But why?

My next guest knows Nifong as well as the alleged victim in this case.  Woody Van is the former attorney for the Duke rape accuser.  He joins us now by phone tonight from Durham, North Carolina.

Woody Vann, welcome. 

WOODY VANN, FRIEND OF MIKE NIFONG:  Good evening, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  At this point this case has devolved to she said versus they said and their evidence.  Her credibility is central to this case.  You told “The New York Times” today, quote, “I have no doubt that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor, believes her.” 

You know this woman.  Do you believe her?  Do you believe her accusations against these lacrosse players?

VANN:  That‘s difficult for me to say.  All I can say is that when I worked with her, which was about three years ago, I found her to be very credible in regard to the case I had with her.

So if I move that up to this point in time, I would like to believe that the statements she made to the police that night were in fact what happened.  I can‘t give you any better answer than that.  But I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

CARLSON:  Well, I mean, as a practicing attorney who knows half the people involved in this case, anyway, and you know at least the evidence that the rest of us know that‘s been in the newspaper, and there‘s been a lot of it. 

Are you a little confused as to what your friend, Mr. Nifong, must be thinking?  There‘s no DNA evidence.  There are no witnesses.  You have, in fact, witnesses who claim that this didn‘t happen, and they‘re fairly credible.  There‘s no medical evidence it turns out.  I mean, what exactly do you think Mike Nifong is thinking in pursuing this case?

VANN:  Well, first and foremost, he had to have had a meeting with the accuser and sat down with her across the table from her and determined her credibility for his own—in his own mind. 

And at that point in time I have to believe he believes that a crime was committed or he would not—would not have pursued it, would not have presented the case to our grand jury for possible indictment and subsequent indictment. 

CARLSON:  You said something that I found shock anyway, in today‘s “New York Times” about Mr. Nifong.  You said, quote, “He‘d have hell to pay from the African-American community if he dropped this case.”  And you said, “Give her her day in court.  What do you have to lose?  If you lose, at least the jury made the decision, so he‘s kind of stuck.”

Now, flip that around.  If there was a prosecutor who was prosecuting a group of black men at the request of the so-called white community, if a group of—a mob of white citizens demanding that someone be prosecuted in the face of counterevidence, that would be, obviously, immoral.  And the Justice Department would jump in at that point and set things straight, one hopes. 

Do you really believe that Mr. Nifong is bowing to essentially pressure from the mob in order to prosecute a case he knows is weak?

VANN:  What I—I guess what the point of that statement was that I believe he felt like he had to give it his best attention to give it the utmost seriousness that a case of this magnitude, irregardless of the severity of the charges, deserved. 

And that was especially so considering the sensitive nature of race relations in general, not just for Durham. 

And so I think he felt like he—I felt like he needed to give it his best effort.  And to go on now to say, “I can‘t win the case.  I‘m going to drop it,” yes, I think there still could be some—some difficulties with the African-American community.  Although less so as more information comes out that tends to cast some doubt as to whether a conviction, you know, could be obtained in this case. 

But if the victim, you know, sticks to her story and says, “I was the victim of this horrendous assault.  I want the case to go forward,” then I think he has an obligation to do that. 

CARLSON:  An obligation.  But meanwhile, there are three accused here, three men, who at least in one case clearly didn‘t do it.  I think any reasonable person who looks at the available evidence is going to say Reade Seligmann, who we‘re showing right now on television, clearly they didn‘t do it.  To continue to besmirch these guys when you know that the overwhelming likelihood is that they‘re innocent, isn‘t it negligent, maybe even criminally negligent?

VANN:  Well, it‘s not criminally negligent, but at some point he‘s got to make a decision.  He‘s got to sit down with the accuser and have another face-to-face and say I still—he can say, “I still believe you, but I have—I have grave concerns as to whether or not this case should go forward,” you know, whether or not even if he does believe everything that‘s been put forth with regards to Mr. Seligmann that we may have the wrong person, you know. 

We‘ve got a case that we may not win, at least against—clearly against him and maybe not against the others, and you want to subject yourself to, you know, the extreme rigors of cross examination in a trial that ultimately won‘t be successful.  And he‘s got to what I cal a tipping point and the continued amount of evidence that comes out in a case that he intends to present at trial. 

CARLSON:  Well, I‘d say as a layman I‘d say he reached tipping point a long time ago. 

Mr. Vann, I really appreciate your coming on and shedding some light on his thinking on this. 

VANN:  My pleasure, Tucker.  Have a good evening. 

CARLSON:  You, too. 

VANN:  Bye. 

CARLSON:  Time for tonight‘s “SITUATION Crime Blotter.” 

There are new reports that one of the FBI‘s 10 most wanted has been spotted in Arizona.  The state‘s attorney general says several sources indicate polygamist Warren Jeffs has been performing child bride marriages in Colorado City just near the Utah border. 

Jeffs is wanted for alleged sex assault on a minor.  There‘s $100,000 reward for information leading to his arrest. 

In Dallas, a high school Spanish teacher and former Miss Texas contestant is putting the law to the test.  Twenty-five-year old Amy McElhenney was arrested for having sex with a student.  The trouble is that student is 18 years old. 

Some lawmakers think his status as a legal adult ought to exempt her from felony charges, and, of course, they‘re right. 

And finally tonight, a 16-year-old Michigan girl is in hiding with her father after taking a trip to the Middle East to visit a man she said she met on 

The FBI Tracked down Katherine Lester in Amman, Jordan.  She was on her way to Tel Aviv.  U.S. officials in Jordan convinced her to take a flight back to the U.S. on Friday. 

Now, the FBI is investigating a 20-year-old man who called the local television station and said he arranged a meeting with the teen because he wanted to marry her. 

The manhunt continues tonight for the sniper who tried to kill a Nevada family court judge.  Judge Chuck Weller was working in his third floor chambers in Reno this morning when he was shot in the chest.  He underwent surgery earlier in the day, and information about his present condition is not being disclosed, at the request of his family.  But police think the bullet was fired from a building across the street. 

Still no motive for Weller‘s attempted murder either.  But retribution by disgruntled plaintiffs or defendants is not unheard of, often with deadly consequences.  In tonight‘s “Top Five”, other judges who have been targeted by ruthless killers. 


CARLSON (voice-over):  It‘s a judge‘s job to pass sentence on the guilty.  But tragically, the guilty have often turned the tables of justice and passed death sentences on judges. 

Baghdad, 2005.  A judge and his lawyer son are gunned down by Iraqi insurgents loyal to Saddam Hussein.  The victims were working with a special court that was about to hear charges of human rights abuses against the tyrannical leaders and other members of his government. 

She was once targeted for death by a white supremacist, but ultimately it was U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow‘s husband and her 90-year-old mother were murdered, shot last year in the basement of their Chicago home by a man with a grudge against the legal system.  Refusing to be taken alive, the killer eventually turned the gun on himself. 

As Italy‘s top anti-mafia crusader, magistrate Paolo Borsellino was a man living on borrowed time.  In July, 1992, the infamous Cosa Nostra made good on its death with and blew up Borsellino‘s car, killing him and five bodyguards. 

May, 1979, federal judge John Wood is gunned down outside his San Antonio home by Charles Harrelson, a hired hit man who claims he also took part in the JFK assassination. 

Harrelson‘s other claim to fame: he‘s the father of actor Woody Harrelson, co-star of the 1994 Hollywood thriller, “Natural Born Killers”. 

March of last year, accused rapist Brian Nichols leads police on an intense manhunt after escaping from an Atlanta courthouse.  Nichols surrenders one day later, but his bloody trail lead to four bodies. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He had nowhere to go.

CARLSON:  Including that of Judge Rowland Barnes.  Nichols has pleaded not guilty to the murders.  He‘s scheduled to go on trial next January. 

Three suspected al Qaeda members at Guantanamo Bay killed themselves over the weekend and predictably, the usual self-appointed human rights blowhards on the left are in a state about it.  Another example of creeping American fascism, they warn.  What a crock. 

Like the Islamist extremists were fighting, much of the so-called international community hates us for who we are, not for what we do.  If we close GITMO tomorrow morning they‘d still hate us.  So who cares with they think?  They can just be quiet.

On the other hand, though, what exactly are we doing with all those detainees at Guantanamo Bay?  Many of them have been there for four years.  It‘s not like they have fresh information about al Qaeda.  If they‘ve committed crimes, let‘s try them.  If we haven‘t, let‘s release them.

But hold them indefinitely, the only people who benefit from that are the anti-American propagandists, which is bad. 

Coming up, if baseball players can‘t use steroids, should students be able to use so-called smart pills?  We‘ll tell you about the new drug on campus that got some students A‘s.  Stay tuned. 


CARLSON:  Still to come, is a store owner discriminating by customers by asking them to order their cheese steaks in English?  We‘ll tell you. 

Plus, what are smart pills and why are they being ingested on college campuses throughout the country?

Those stories in just a second, but first, here‘s what‘s going on in the world tonight. 


CARLSON:  Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes from Washington, D.C. That‘s where Hispanic members of Congress are organizing workshops to help immigrants become new voters.  Their stated goal: to change the demographics of the United States in order to defeat anti-immigrant candidates. 

Our next guest is one of the congressmen behind the strategy.


CARLSON:  Joining us now from Washington, Congressman Luis Gutierrez. 

Congressman, thanks for coming on. 

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS:  My pleasure to be with you. 

CARLSON:  Here‘s the Associated Press summing up your plans.  It says, “By helping more immigrants become citizens, some Hispanic lawmakers hope they might increase the number of voters who might help defeat candidates considered anti-immigrant.” 

In other words, you‘re unhappy with public opinion on the question of illegal immigration.  So you‘re just importing new voters to change the demographic makeup of the country to get your way.  That sounds like a power grab to me.

GUTIERREZ:  Well, it‘s not importing, Tucker.  There are currently eight million permanent residents, all of them eligible to become citizens of the United States of America today. 

We watched the U.S. citizenship immigration services web site in March.  They had six million, two hundred thousand hits, and two million people downloaded applications for citizenship.  So what we‘re doing is attempting to help people in that process. 

Look, Tucker, they‘ll learn English.  They‘ll take civics classes so they can pass the Constitution exam that they have to take at the end.  It costs $400. 

So we‘re giving them a little, you know, head start.  They‘re not all as well to do as you are.  So it will take them awhile to get that $400 together.  They don‘t have access to legal.  I mean, Fortune 500 companies have lawyers specially dedicated to immigration. 

CARLSON:  I‘m sure they‘re great people.  I would like 99.9 percent of them.  I admire the fact they‘ve taken the time to come here.  They want to be part of this country. 

GUTIERREZ:  And they‘re legally here.

CARLSON:  But it‘s still a power grab by the Democratic Party.  Because the whole point is make them voters so they can sweep out of office people who are against your program and so you can liberalize immigration laws and elect more Democrats.  I see the plan.  I just want you to be honest about it. 

GUTIERREZ:  No.  There‘s the plan.  The plan is to allow them the ability to participate more fully in our American society.  Now, come more responsibilities and burden. 

I think, Tucker, you and I both know that we have tens of thousands of permanent residents serving in our armed forces.

CARLSON:  Right.

GUTIERREZ:  Some of them in Iraq that have come back in coffins. 

CARLSON:  Right.

GUTIERREZ:  It‘s a shame that we should posthumously grant them American citizenship.  We should help them reach that dream.

CARLSON:  I couldn‘t agree more.  You fight for our country, you should become a citizen instantly. 

GUTIERREZ: But that‘s what we‘re doing.  Look, Tucker, we‘re going to have American flags, copies... 

CARLSON:  We‘re talking eight million people in uniform in Iraq who aren‘t citizens.  That‘s a crock. 

GUTIERREZ:  But there are tens of thousands of them.  OK, Tucker? 

Quite seriously.

CARLSON:  Make them citizens tomorrow.  I‘m for that. 

GUTIERREZ:  And after that.  And quite honestly, on the one hand people complain when we organize marches and protests across the country.  Oh, too many Mexican flags.  They don‘t speak English.  They shouldn‘t be demanding.

CARLSON:  Yes, right.

GUTIERREZ:  Now we‘re reaching out to eight million legal, permanent residents, legally here in this country, all of them eligible to become American citizens and saying, “We want to teach you about the American Constitution.  We want to enroll you in English classes.  We want to...”

CARLSON:  And we want you.

GUTIERREZ:  “... and we want to help you.” 

CARLSON:  You‘re going to vote for politicians who are going to allow all your relatives to come here.


CARLSON:  and change the country completely and vote for Democrats. 

GUTIERREZ:  But you want to know something, Tucker?


GUTIERREZ:  They are going to vote like every other American citizen with common sense, right?  To defend their self-interests. 

CARLSON:  Of course they are.  And that is—when and if they become citizens, that‘s their right and it‘s uncontested.  You won‘t hear me complaining about it. 

However, I just want you to admit as a smart person, as someone at the very—I think the very center of the Democratic Party‘s long-term strategy, I want you to concede that somewhere around 90 percent of first-time foreign-born Hispanic voters vote Democrat. 

That‘s their right.  But I just want to make it clear that this is a boon for the Democratic Party.  There is a partisan agenda here, is there not?

GUTIERREZ:  Let me just—I am a partisan. 


GUTIERREZ:  Absolutely no doubt.  I respect you for your partisan point of view.  Right?

CARLSON:  I‘m not partisan at all. 

GUTIERREZ:  OK, you‘re not partisan.

CARLSON:  I‘m an ideologue.  I‘m a right-wing crazy (ph).

GUTIERREZ:  OK, but I appreciate the fact that you take a position, you hold on to it and you defend it.  And that‘s how I‘ll define partisanship here tonight for the purposes of our discussion. 

But look, Tucker, I sent out a “dear colleagues” letter, wrote a letter to all my colleagues, 435 of them, saying, “I will help you set up a citizenship workshop in your congressional district so that you can go out and help your constituents become citizens.”  So it‘s a question of outreach.  I think the Republican Party could outreach to that same community. 

CARLSON:  Nice try, and I don‘t think they‘re as smart as you.  As long as we can all be honest about what‘s really going on here, and I know that you will be.  Congressman Gutierrez, thanks a lot for joining us. 

GUTIERREZ:  Thanks for having me, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  We turn now to a man we like to call our one-man debate team.  He is The Outsider, ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host, Max Kellerman. 


CARLSON:  Hold on, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  How are you doing?

CARLSON:  Well, Geno‘s in Philadelphia is world famous for its cheese steaks.  Now the restaurant is getting attention for its English-only ordering policy. 

The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations—Orwellian sounding name—says it plans to file a complaint against Geno‘s because of a sign posted there that reads, quote, “This is America.  When ordering speak English,” end quote.  The commission says Geno‘s English-only policy violates the city‘s fair practice ordinance, which bans businesses from discriminating on the basis of nationality or ethnicity. 

Geno‘s owner, Joey Vento, says he will not remove the sign.  And good for him.  It‘s an open and shut case, Max.  Geno‘s is a private business.  They can have any ordering policy it wants.  You take up for your good friends at the Philly Commission on Human Relations. 

But the fact is that this sign has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.  It has to do with the language, which is distinct from both those things.  And if you want people to order cheese steaks in English, it‘s your right.  It‘s your store.

KELLERMAN:  Business is open to the public in this country, Tucker.  You cannot discriminate on various—for various reasons.  For race, for instance, for disability.  Right?

Now, you can turn around and say, right, because you can‘t do anything about your race.  You can‘t do anything about it if you‘re disabled. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.  That‘s exactly right.

KELLERMAN:  You can learn a language. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

KELLERMAN:  But I want to take it to a theoretical level.  OK?  Why really can you not discriminate in businesses open to the public?  After all, if I had $1 million in my private life, wanted to distribute it to anyone I wanted, I could do it.  I could discriminate.  I could only give it to white men if I wanted. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right. 

KELLERMAN:  Only bald midgets who are little people, whatever the politically correct term is nowadays.  But if there‘s a business transactions involved...

CARLSON:  Billy Barty would be excited.  Yes. 

KELLERMAN:  If I‘m getting something in return, if it‘s a business transaction, suddenly I can‘t discriminate freely like that. 

CARLSON;  Right. 

KELLERMAN:  So the question is why.  And I believe the answer is to retain the integrity of the dollar.  Because theoretically, all the work that can be done equals all the money in the world.  And once you do anything to discriminate in terms of a business transaction, where a dollar is changing hands, you were warping the relationship between money and labor.  Do you really want to do that?


KELLERMAN:  Do you want to undermine our monetary system?

CARLSON:  If you and I were sitting around with the bong eating pizza, freshman year in college, I would look at you and say, “Man, that‘s a deep point, Max.”  But since neither of us is doing any of those things...

KELLERMAN:  Some people watching the show might.

CARLSON:  ... I‘m going to point out the obvious.  That‘s insane. 

It‘s insane, because it‘s totally untrue.  It‘s removed (ph) from reality.  Here‘s the reality.  A society that can‘t stand up for its own language is a society that is in decline and is actually headed for destruction, in my view. 

KELLERMAN:  Tucker, the guy is hungry.  Give him a cheese steak.  He‘s got the money.  He‘s hungry.  Give him a cheese steak.

CARLSON:  If you‘re hungry, learn the language, buddy, or go next—to the next store. 

KELLERMAN:  Geno‘s or Pat‘s, by the way?  Everyone in Philadelphia says Geno‘s, and out of town, they all swear by Pat‘s.  So I guess if you‘re from out of town, you don‘t speak English, you go to Pat‘s. 

CARLSON:  You know, every four years we always do political shows from Philly, and we do a show from each place.  And I can‘t tell you which cheese steak is better.  They‘re both excellent.  That‘s my political answer. 

Well, Major League Baseball has a major problem with performance-enhancing drugs.  Now it seems higher education may be following suit.  Prescription stimulants like Adderall are becoming a very popular way for college students to heighten their concentration and short-term memory. 

The so-called smart pills, which often include amphetamines, allow students to stay up all night studying. 

Critics say the brain steroids are often obtained illegally and give the students who take them an unfair advantage.  The pills are also seen by some as a symptom of our hyper-competitive college culture. 

If you‘re going to go to these extremes to get higher grades you are taking college way too seriously.  Max will defend young people using pills for an extra tenth of a point on their GPA‘s. 

Max, look, there are a couple of problems with the Adderall craze.  And I think it actually is a legitimate craze.  And the first is it doesn‘t matter that much what your grades are in college.  I mean, unless you‘re going on to an extremely competitive—unless you want to be a physician, for instance, nobody cares what your college grades were. 

So this is a sign of, among other things, misplaced priorities.  If you really care that much about your grade in post-modern feminist poetry, you know, you need to get a life. 

KELLERMAN:  You know, I don‘t see the difference here in, you know, you take gingko biloba—I think that‘s how you pronounce it.  I asked somebody today.  Or, you know, massive amounts of caffeine and Red Bull and coffee or something and stay up all night studying.  What‘s the difference, really?

But along the lines of what you were talking about, for those who don‘t take college as vocational school, it doesn‘t matter.  Right?

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:   Because people taking these things will have an advantage.  Who cares?  It doesn‘t affect what you‘re learning. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.

KELLERMAN:  And for those who do take it as a vocational school, they‘re willing to take it and furthermore, they‘re actually learning a valuable life lesson.  Right?  Because that is how the real world works. 

CARLSON:  Yes, except in the end you do kind of rise or fall based on your natural talents and your willingness to work hard.  And in fact, every chemical is—I mean, not to be too much, you know, Mothers Against Drunk Driving bout it, but honestly, it‘s true.  I know from experience.  It‘s a dead end.  It doesn‘t make you smarter in the end. 

KELLERMAN:  So let them take it. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but I don‘t know.  I mean, the point is you‘re in college to learn, not just to, you know, check off four years...

KELLERMAN:  But it helps you learn.  If it keeps you awake, it lets you—or Tucker, it lets you party longer and then learn at the last minute.  Whatever it does, if it wasn‘t working they probably wouldn‘t be taking it. 

And if it isn‘t working, what difference does it make?  I don‘t see what the big deal is here. 

CARLSON:  That‘s pretty good.  You halfway got me.

KELLERMAN:  All right.

CARLSON:  If we had more time you‘d probably win me over completely. 

But we‘ve got to go to break, sadly for you.  Max Kellerman.


CARLSON:  Thank you, Max.

KELLERMAN:  See you tomorrow. 

CARLSON:  Still ahead on THE SITUATION, we can only hope these kids are not playing a college drinking game, speaking of.  We‘ll tell you why they‘re stacking these cups, and there is a reason.  THE SITUATION comes right back.


VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, we‘ve got a video of something that‘s been long suspected.  School buses do not make good getaway cars. 

Plus the sad side of a monkey turning to the bottle. 

CARLSON:  Dumb criminals and drunk monkey, when we come back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Sure, the pyramids of Egypt are impressive, but it took so long to build them.  My next guests are much more efficient at pyramid building.  Sport stacking is their sport.  It‘s a competitive test of human ability to quickly construct and then take down pyramids built from plastic cups. 

Sports has legions of fans and players around the world and its own international governing body. 

Bob Fox is the founder and president of Speed Stacks Incorporated.  He‘s known as the godfather of sports stacking.  He joins us tonight, along with his precision stacking team of Amanda. Jamie, Kip and Brendan.  They‘re all coming to us from Highlands Ranch, Colorado. 

Bob Fox, welcome.

BOB FOX, FOUNDER/PRESIDENT, SPEED STACKS INTERNATIONAL:  Hey, Tucker, thanks for having us on.  We‘re having a stack attack here tonight.  Thanks for having us on.

CARLSON:  Now who thought of this?

FOX:  You know, this all started about 25 years ago at a youth recreation center in Southern California.  And I saw it for the first time in 1990 on “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson.  It was five years later I became a P.E. teacher, and I introduced it to my students to help my students with their motor skill development, their eye-hand coordination and their overall development.  So it‘s been around quite a long time—go ahead. 

CARLSON:  How does stacking cups on top of one another help a child‘s development, exactly?

FOX:  You know, think of it much like juggling.  There‘s a lot of research out.  The importance of activating both sides of the body.  Using both hands activates both sides of the brain.  There‘s a lot of sequencing and patterning that‘s involved here. 

Think about all the traditional sports that we‘re involved with.  The best athletes are those that can use both their hands, that are whole-brain thinkers, that can use both sides of the brain.  They have light, soft hands; they‘re ambidextrous. 

All those kinds of things are involved in sports stacking.  And it stands alone as a sport because we compete, and it also is a great developmental sport to help out with all the other traditional sports that kids and adults are involved with. 

CARLSON:  The girl on your right who just finished stacking is unbelievable.  How big is this sport, for those of us not familiar with sport stacking?  I mean, is it huge in Japan?  Where is this popular?

FOX:  Well, we‘re obviously based here in Colorado.  We‘ve been sharing it all across the United States for the past eight years.  We are in over 11,000 physical education programs, and teachers see the value of providing an opportunity to help kids develop their motor skill development in this way.  We‘re international, as well.  We are in Japan. 

CARLSON:  Of course you‘re in Japan.  Right.  I mean...

FOX:  Of course. 

CARLSON:  Now, who is the best speed stacker you‘ve ever seen?

FOX:  Well, there‘s tons of them.  But the fastest stacker in the world happens to be a 19-year-old girl, and she goes to the University of Minnesota, and she holds the world record in two of the different stacks.  One is called the 3-6-3 and the other is called the cycle. 

CARLSON:  How fast can she stack?

FOX:  Well, she stacks what‘s called a 3-6-3.  If we taught it to you right now you would do it in 10 to 15 seconds.  The world record, which she holds, is 2.72 seconds. 

Another stack that‘s more complicated, you‘d do it in 60 to 90 seconds.  The world record is 7.43 seconds. 

CARLSON:  That‘s incredible. 

FOX:  So there‘s three—yes, it‘s unbelievable, yes. 

CARLSON:  Finally, are there endorsement deals?  Is there a—is there a career ahead for people who are profoundly good at sports stacking?

FOX:  Well, kids have made some commercials and done quite well with their commercial deals.  We‘re actually taking speed stacks and sport stacking to the mass retail soon.  And you will see it more and more as the sport grows. 

But certainly, it helps kids with their sports activities, and as time goes by you‘ll see professional athletes who have trained with sport stacking.  In fact, we have athletic trainers right now...

CARLSON:  Amazing.

FOX:  ... that use it to help with their ambidexterity and eye-hand coordination. 

CARLSON:  I can see Dixie Cup sponsoring the finals each year in Boca. 

Bob Fox, thank you so much.  Amanda, Jamie, Kip and Brendan, amazing. 

Thanks a lot. 

FOX:  Thank you very much, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, more evidence of the close evolutionary link between primates and human beings.  Monkeys, it turns out, love to sit around and drink beer.  We‘ll tell you what drove this monkey to drink when THE SITUATION comes right back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Time for “The Cutting Room Floor”, and for that a man who has spent a career stacking cups and then taking them down, Willie Geist. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  That‘s right.  I didn‘t get as much acclaim as these kids are getting.  Nobody put me on TV.

You asked them what career lies ahead for them.  Did you see their hands? Blackjack dealers, possibly. 

CARLSON:  No, no, that‘s Pai Gow. 

GEIST:  Right.  Pai Gow.  Or bartenders they could be.  Or Three-Card Monte. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Did you see that Tom Cruise movie where, you know, they tried to make martini making glamorous?

GEIST:  No.  I didn‘t see that, Tucker.

CARLSON:  From the trailer. 

Our first story combines two of everyone‘s favorite pastimes, beer and monkey watching. 

GEIST:  Yes.

CARLSON:  This 34-year-old primate spends her days knocking back suds outside a liquor store in Kenpoor (ph), India.  She started drinking from empty bottles outside the store 20 years ago, and she‘s been on the sauce ever since.  The sometimes monkey walks into the liquor store and picks out her own bottle.  She whacks down two to three beers every day. 

GEIST:  That‘s how I got started, Tucker, drinking out of empty liquor bottles outside a liquor store. 

Two or three beers a day?  She drinks responsibly.  Give her credit. 

CARLSON:  For her weight, that‘s like...

GEIST:  You know, I have friends who like much less civilized than that when they drink.  She looks pretty good. 

CARLSON:  It‘s like a taste of Milwaukee‘s best. 

GEIST:  Right, exactly.  You know who she should hang out with?  Ai Ai, the smoking chimp from the Chinese zoo, I mean. 

CARLSON:  Totally. 

GEIST:  There‘s Ai Ai.  Yes.  Unfiltered Camels. 


GEIST:  What a pair they‘d be. 

CARLSON:  What did you have for lunch today?  If you didn‘t eat 47 grilled cheese sandwiches in 10 minutes, speed-eating champion, Joey Chestnut doesn‘t even want to hear from it. 

Chestnut, his real name, shattered the previous grilled cheese record of 36 in Las Vegas over the weekend and served notice that there‘s a new player in the competitive eating game.  The 23-year-old set an American record last month by eating 50 dogs in 12 minutes. 

GEIST:  Wow, Tucker.  There are whispers that this guy is better than the great Kobayashi.  There was a time when you wouldn‘t say that out loud.  I guess we‘ll find out at the Nathan‘s Hot Dog contest.

CARLSON:  Plus, he‘s American.

GEIST:  Right.

CARLSON:  So I‘m on his team. 

GEIST:  Yes, you‘re right. 

I‘ve got a little name for myself as a grilled cheese eater upstairs in the cafeteria. 

CARLSON:  Yes, you do.  Every single night, two of them.

GEIST:  I‘d like my shot at the table.

CARLSON:  They disappear like a magician was there. 

As getaway cars go, school buses are not among the most effective or popular.  A 21-year-old Massachusetts man ripped off a Friendly‘s family restaurant early this morning and then took off in a stolen school bus.  When police pulled him over and approached the bus, the man hit the gas and led the cops on a wild chase. 

He eventually bailed out of the school bus—good thinking—and took off running.  That‘s when his pants fell down.  He was arrested in his underwear. 

GEIST:  Boy, that just did not go the way he planned, did it?  The school bus, the underwear, the whole thing. 

First of all, why are you robbing Friendly‘s?  What a jerk.  That‘s like where you take your 3-year-old for their birthday party. 

CARLSON:  Desperate for a clam boat, apparently. 

GEIST:  Exactly.  What a jerk.  He got what he deserved. 

CARLSON:  You‘re a hard man, Willie Geist. 

GEIST:  On him, yes. 

CARLSON:  Thanks, Willie.

GEIST:  All right.

CARLSON:  That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks for watching. 

We‘ll be back here tomorrow.  Hope you will be, too.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.