This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 3, 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.” As Washington fusses over the Russia hoax for a third year in a row, a lot of other things are happening that don't get the attention they deserve. For example, the big tech companies have launched their fearless attack yet on your right as an American to follow your conscience and to say what you believe.

Unlike earlier generations of authoritarians, the tech moguls don't say any of this out loud, they're not honorable enough to state their intentions clearly. Instead, they drape censorship in the soothing banality of HR department cliches. Listen here to Mark Zuckerberg explaining that the death of free speech in America is actually a really positive thing that we all need to get behind.


MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: We're taking a more proactive role and making sure that all of our partners and developers use our services for good.

We're very focused on making sure that our recommendations in discovery surfaces aren't highlighting groups where people are repeatedly sharing misinformation or harmful content and we're working hard to completely remove groups if they exist, primarily to violate our policies or do things that are dangerous.


CARLSON: Who knew fascism could be so chirpy? "Groups that do things that are dangerous." What exactly does that mean? Dangerous like hurting other people? Or dangerous as in saying things that Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like or considers bad for business?

Well, yesterday we found out Facebook released its latest enemies list: Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan, Laura Loomer -- all of them were designated dangerous individually and banned from Facebook and from its subsidiary, Instagram.

Alex Jones's company InfoWars was banned as well and described as a dangerous organization. Didn't explain exactly how. How dangerous is InfoWars? Well, Facebook believes it's so dangerous that you can be banned from using the platform, Facebook, just for sharing its content unless you simultaneously denounce it.

Let that penetrate for just one moment. Think about it just for a second. Mark Zuckerberg is not simply censoring opinions. He is prescribing which political opinions you're allowed to have, which conversations all of us in this country can have about America.

Keep in mind that nobody voted for Mark Zuckerberg, he is 34 years old. He is completely cut off from reality. He is worth $72 billion. And yet, he can single handedly make our First Amendment irrelevant after 250 years.

Here's the most amazing thing of all, our media think that's great. Now journalists are supposed to defend free speech, you would think that was their job since they make a living from it. But when corporate America issues in order, when Mark Zuckerberg says, "Jump," their question is, "How high, Mr. Zuckerberg?" Listen to them celebrate Mark Zuckerberg and sell you out completely.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why are they doing this now?

BEN COLLINS, NBC NEWS REPORTER: Well, it's a good question as to why they waited this long, but --


COLLINS: I mean, so Alex Jones has been banned from Facebook for a long period of time, but now they banned him, they banned his like little underling, Paul Joseph Watson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now that they've kicked them off the platform, that's great for now, but it doesn't roll back the clock.

JOY BEHAR, ABC HOST: You have also excesses in the First Amendment and the Second Amendment right now. You know, I don't think that the forefathers said, "Well, you can say you know, all sorts of hateful things and spread it around the world literally spread it through the internet."

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I have no issue with it at all. I want them shut down. I want them silenced. I want them muted. I think they are horrible for our society.


CARLSON: "I want them shut down. I want them silenced. I want them muted." But don't worry. These people aren't terrifying or anything. Don't kid yourself. It's not just Alex Jones they want silenced, muted, shut down.

Recently, the Poynter Institute which is a nonprofit that is supposed to support journalism, put out a list of what they called unreliable news outlets. Can you imagine unreliable? Self-awareness in short supply in the journalism business, but Poynter crafted this list with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center. So you can imagine who made the list?

"The Washington Free Beacon," "The Daily Caller," "The Daily Signal, "The Washington Examiner," basically everyone who's not CNN or MSNBC, or precisely aligned with their politics. Poynter called for advertisers to blacklist and therefore bankrupt, these news outlets -- crush them. Their fellow progressives applauded. As far as they're concerned, this is total war.

What we're watching now in real time is this country becoming unfree? So the question is, who exactly is defending us in all of this? Us, who might dissent from Mark Zuckerberg's view or think that NBC News maybe doesn't tell the whole truth all the time? We don't trust Mark Zuckerberg to control what we think. What about us? Who is standing up for us? Where are our leaders in Congress? Where's the White House? Nowhere. As long as big tech isn't hassling them personally and directly. As long as their accounts remain open, they don't seem to care. They're fools.

Will any of these people get reelected in a country where left-wing tech companies control the terms of political debate? Can you really win a presidential election if Google opposes you? No, you can. Not a chance. Not right now. Without free speech, there is no democracy. It's time to stop lying about that.

Chadwick Moore is a New York based journalist, and he joins us tonight. Chadwick, thanks a lot for coming on. So I don't think anyone is kind of pretending anymore that this is just about Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson or people you've only sort of heard of or Laura Loomer, or whatever. This is about anybody who dissents from the corporate view of what should be talked about, they are crushed. So why is no one defending the majority of Americans against this threat to our speech?

CHADWICK MOORE, CONSERVATIVE JOURNALIST: That's an extremely good question. You know, there actually is one person, one very prominent person out there who is calling for mass civil disobedience, and brace yourself, it's Snoop Dogg.


MOORE: Who just ordered all of his followers to start sharing Louis Farrakhan videos and footage on Facebook and Instagram. Good for him. I agree.

CARLSON: Good for him.

MOORE: Meanwhile, you have a Republican class, you have a sort of fence- sitting, milk toast conservatives who are so terrified of having their own precious accounts taken away that they will not stand up for these people.

CARLSON: Exactly.

MOORE: They refuse to stand up for these people. They're frightened. And I'm sorry to say that the censors are coming for them next.

CARLSON: Exactly.

MOORE: It is -- yes, and it is inarguable that especially Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos' Facebook and Instagram accounts were not in violation of any Terms of Service.

CARLSON: Of course.

MOORE: This - they've been extremely tame on social media, I followed both the accounts. And the designation that Facebook gave them underneath their Community Guidelines as being, quote, "dangerous." That wasn't just an adjective that they pulled out of nowhere. It's actually a designation they give specifically to serial killers, mass murderers, terrorist organizations and human traffickers.

Now, Paul Joseph Watson is an interesting situation because he is a British citizen in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom has much stricter libel laws, so he could have a very strong lawsuit against Facebook. In this country, the libel laws are not very strong, namely, because our First Amendment is supposed to be -- well, supposed to be so strong. So you might not have much of a lawsuit front there. But you're right that there's really no one standing up.

One of the most interesting things is that Facebook released a press -- sent a press release out before they had even banned these accounts. They set a press release out to journalists, and whoops, realized that the accounts were still active after it sent the press release.

So why? If we actually still had journalists, real journalists in this country, and we don't anymore because they've all been kicked off Facebook, they would be asking, what's going on? Who are these people colluding with?

CARLSON: Exactly.

MOORE: Who are they communicating with? Why do they have to make this into a media stunt? Or is that they were merely banning people for violations of Terms of Service, they would have just done it and not made it into a production.

CARLSON: Exactly. And why are the media cheering on this totalitarian impulse to crush people you disagree with? It's terrifying. Chadwick Moore, you are a voice for free speech. Thank you.

MOORE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, last August radio host, Jesse Kelly came on the show and predicted that he eventually would be censored by the tech companies.


CARLSON: You said, "Look, I don't agree with Alex Jones' views." But that's not the point. The point, as you articulated was if you can silence this guy, because you don't like what he says, why can't they silence you or me?

JESSE KELLY, HOST, "THE JESSE KELLY SHOW": That's the -- that is the point, Tucker. And they're coming for you and me next.


CARLSON: And they were, actually. November, Jesse's Twitter account was shut down temporarily until he complained about it. Jesse Kelly joins us tonight. Jesse, thanks very much for coming on. So they are coming. It's not just Alex Jones, let's not lie to ourselves.

But I wonder if the Republican office holders who are standing by and allowing this stuff to go completely unchallenged understand that they're not going to get reelected if you don't have freedom of speech in this country. It will be impossible for them to win the next election. Do they get that?

KELLY: They don't get that and in fact, they're complicit in it. Their silence makes them complicit in it, Tucker, because the social media companies are banking on weak-spine Republican politicians standing by and doing nothing as they pick up all what they think are the weak members of the herd. And that's all this is.

CARLSON: Exactly.

KELLY: They're just clipping out the outside members of the herd while they surround it and get ready to eat us all.

CARLSON: That is exactly -- I mean, what will it take? Will it take -- I mean, what's 2020 going to look like if people are not allowed to express views that Mark Zuckerberg doesn't agree with? Seriously.

KELLY: It's going to take politicians losing their job. And frankly, it should take media people losing their job. What we need is a media outcry, and as you pointed out at the beginning of the show, they're sitting there clapping like a bunch of seals every time this happens.

But conservatives have to wake up and realize you cannot only rely on social media now, they hate you, they want you removed. If you rely only on social media as a conservative for your career, you're going to be wiped out. Soon your career won't be worth as much as the price of a WNBA ticket.

CARLSON: It's gotten to the point where I am cheering on Snoop Dogg, whoever that is who is defending Louis Farrakhan, who I have never even considered defending Louis Farrakhan. I'm not defending him now. I'm defending the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. So like, why is it only Snoop Dogg who is doing this?

KELLY: I am defending him, Tucker. Yes. Lewis Farrakhan is a worthless scumbag. I'm not denying that. But he is somebody who should be allowed to speak.

CARLSON: Of course.

KELLY: And we shouldn't be afraid of hearing him speak. Why would we be afraid for somebody we don't like to speak? He can compare his ideas with my ideas, and let the best man win. And it's not as if he is inciting some massive movement now. He is not politically relevant.

Louis Farrakhan's political views are worth as much as his favorite kosher foods cookbook.

CARLSON: You just asked the deep question that underlies all of this, which is why are they afraid? Why? Why are they afraid to hear views that they disagree with? What do you think the answer is?

KELLY: Well, because that's what totalitarians do, Tucker, and let's not act like the left in today's America is Pol Pot or something like that. But the history of the left, the history of every form of the left involves censorship and in America, that means shutting down people so their voices can't be heard.

And in the most extreme cases in history, it's means kicking down your door in the middle of the night and hauling you off to a political prison so you can't speak anymore. They need us to not speak. But we don't have a great solution, either. Tucker. The government can step in.

You saw Dianne Feinstein a couple of days ago. Do you want that person in charge of Facebook? I'm pretty sure she died three times during that hearing.

CARLSON: No. But I would like Facebook to be stripped of the protections that the U.S. Congress granted it -- immunity from lawsuits on the promise that it was a platform not a news organization. Here they are editing content. I don't know why they have that. I don't have that exemption.

If I libel you on this show, you can sue me, you can see Fox News. You can't see Facebook, because they have a special exemption. Why do they have that?

KELLY: They have that because they have a bunch of money to lobby Congress, and you're right that is the one thing -- well, it's the truth. And it's the one thing they absolutely should change. It's what they're scared of. They are publishers. They are not platforms anymore. They're trying to remove voices and calling everybody a Nazi. Well, that shouldn't be allowed and somebody with some guts should step up in Congress.

CARLSON: Amen. I hope someone will. Jesse, thank you very much. Good to talk to you tonight.

KELLY: Good, brother.

CARLSON: Brett Amerige worked at Facebook. He was an engineer there. He left the company in October -- last October -- and he came on this show to explain why.


BRIAN AMERIGE, FORMER FACEBOOK ENGINEER: I'm leaving because of this content policy direction, which, you know, trying to draw lines around what is acceptable and what's offensive or too offensive, I think it's dangerous, and it's impractical.


CARLSON: Now, those warnings are coming true. We are grateful to have Brian Amerige back on the show tonight. Brian, thanks a lot for coming on. So you used the word "dangerous" the last time we spoke about Facebook's behavior.

Facebook yesterday described the people it was censoring and any of their supporters, it would be censoring as quote, "dangerous." Who is more dangerous would you say? People with heterodox opinions or an out-of- control tech company that shuts down speech?

AMERIGE: I mean, I definitely say the out-of-control tech company is more dangerous. I think there's a limit to what you want to do about that and you've got to be really principled about the way you think about reacting to that.


AMERIGE: But yes, I think Facebook is a lot more dangerous.

CARLSON: So I guess I'm just fascinated by the unwillingness of anyone to say that out loud. I mean, you're one of the relatively few people we've had on the show to explain it as clearly as you do. Why is that? Why are we so slow to recognize this threat to speech?

AMERIGE: I mean, I think part of it is this is just a really complicated situation. And part of what people don't realize is that, you know, this is an unprecedented situation, like people at Facebook, they don't really know what they're doing.

Like, no one has ever run a platform that's got two and a half billion people on it. Congress doesn't know how to deal with this. People don't know how to respond to it. Like this is -- it's just completely unprecedented.

And so, you know, for me, that's why it gets back to like, we've got to be really principled. When our intuition fails us, we've got to be really principled in thinking about what is our role as users in the veracity of our own knowledge? What is the role of government in protecting our rights and I think Facebook ought to be doing a lot more to think about what its role is in the distribution and the creation of a market of ideas.

And I mean, that's why I resigned, because I think that they're doing a poor job of that, and they're heading absolutely in the wrong direction.

CARLSON: They don't seem to perceive threats, like real threats to for like -- for example, they seem to find Alex Jones a greater threat than the fascist government of China. How could one seem -- no, I'm serious? How? How could they reach that conclusion?

AMERIGE: I mean, I don't think I have any answer -- any answer to that question. You know, I think it on one side, the demographics of the company lend itself to just having an incredibly left-leaning perspective, not because there's some sort of explicit bias, and they're trying for that to be the case.


AMERIGE: But just the demographics of the company mean that they don't even have non-left-leaning perspective in the room when they're making these decisions. I mean, I think that was a big part of it, which is why I wrote the note that I did that people who don't share those perspectives need to be encouraged to speak out about them when they disagree with where the company is going.

CARLSON: Right. I mean, you wrote a powerful plea for diversity. And we're ignored. Look, add that to the list of deep ironies of 2019. Brian, thank you for coming on. I hope you'll come back.

AMERIGE: Absolutely. Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks. Well, a lot of things that are obvious are the ones that are denied. In fact, the more vehemently denied they are, the more obvious they tend to be. Add to that list the fact that the Federal government, the Obama administration did in fact spy on Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The truth is coming out in stages, some after the break.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The word "spying" has been used. He probably was one of the people leading the effort on spying, so --


TRUMP: I know, I know. And we'll find out whether or not it was true. And I think it could very well be true. But we're going to find out pretty soon.


CARLSON: That was the President speaking yesterday with our Catherine Herridge. The President is confident he was spied on during the last election. He thinks the FBI under Jim Comey led the way. He could be right, but we need the DOJ inspector's report to be certain. How long until we get that? Catherine Herridge joins us tonight -- Catherine.

HERRIDGE: Thank you, Tucker and good evening. Two Republican senators -- Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson -- are investigating these text messages telling the Attorney General they may evidence the FBI used official transition briefings to gather information on the Trump team.

Nine days after the 2016 election, FBI lawyer, Lisa Page and FBI agent, Peter Strzok discussed strategy and staffing for an upcoming intelligence briefing for Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Strzok writes, they should use an agent whose specialty is espionage, quote, "He can assess if there are any new questions or different demeanor. If [redacted] husband is there he can see if there are people we can develop for potential relationships."

In a statement, the Vice President lashed out at Strzok and Page as disgraced agents who considered infiltrating the Trump transition team and failed.

The Attorney General William Barr and Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz are running separate reviews that will decide whether FBI surveillance on a political campaign was justified and based on solid evidence, including a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide, Carter Page that was secured by the FBI on October 21st, just two weeks before the 2016 election.

Speaking to Fox, the President said, "All associated records will be declassified."


TRUMP: Yes, I'm going to be allowing declassification pretty soon. I didn't want to do it originally because I wanted to wait because I know what they -- you know, I've seen the way they play. They play very dirty. So I decided to do it, and I'm going to be doing it very soon, far more than you would have even thought.


HERRIDGE: The Attorney General recently testified that Horowitz and his report is expected this month or next, Tucker.

CARLSON: I know you will be on that.

HERRIDGE: I sure will.

CARLSON: I can't wait. Thank you, Catherine.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Great to see you. Yet another potential conflict of interest exposed tonight in Kim Foxx's corrupt handling of the Jussie Smollett case. Matt Finn has been on the story from day one from Chicago. He joins us tonight. Hey, Matt.

MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, the latest chapter in the Jussie Smollett saga is that one of Chicago's most powerful judges who is deciding whether a special prosecutor should launch a fresh investigation into the Jussie Smollett case and also Kim Foxx's office is now deciding whether he should recuse himself from his own decision because it was revealed his son works for Kim Foxx as an assistant State's Attorney.

This all began last month when former Illinois Appellate Justice, Sheila O'Brien submitted a petition requesting a special prosecutor arguing state law requires a special prosecutor should have been assigned when Kim Foxx recused herself from Smollett's case.

Well, the Chief Judge of Cook County Criminal Court, LeRoy Martin was set to address that petition in court this week, but in a sudden twist and a feisty exchange, O'Brien argue that Judge LeRoy Martin should take the high road and recuse himself.

Judge Martin fired back that his son's job at Foxx's office has never been an issue before, but he agreed to think over his own recusal. O'Brien's petition criticizes Fox for appearing to be less than truthful for having to admit she only colloquially recused herself from Smollett's case.

Foxx responded in court documents that there was no conflict of interest and state law only requires a special prosecutor if Foxx was sick, absent or unable to fulfill her duties. O'Brien argues Foxx already admitted she was unable to fulfill her duties for talking to a Smollett family member.

O'Brien subpoenaed Foxx to appear in court today, but Foxx objected -- or this week -- Foxx objected and did not appear. This case continues on May 10th -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Matt Finn for us in Chicago. Thanks a lot, Matt. Well, it's not really up for debate, California public schools are failing miserably. Disorderly classrooms are one reason why, but instead of making things better, lawmakers want to ban teachers from restoring order -- literally -- it's about to happen in California. We have details after the break.


CARLSON: In California, state lawmakers may soon legalize anarchy in the public schools, a bill that has already passed the State Senate in California would prohibit schools from suspending students for what they call willful defiance -- that means students behaving in a noisy, hostile threatening or disruptive manner that make learning impossible for everybody else could not be punished.

So what would the effects of this law be? Well, according to supporters, suspending disruptive students is of course, and you could have guessed it, you know, racist. Apparently though, it is not racist to condemn their classmates to failing schools where learning is impossible, which it already is, they'll be made worse by this.

Deroy Murdock is a contributing editor to the "National Review" online, and he joins us tonight. Deroy, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: I'm great. You like me, you grew up in California.

MURDOCK: That's right.

CARLSON: Had one of the best public schools in the world. Now, it has some of the worst, reassure me that this is not going to make them even worse than they already are.

MURDOCK: I'd like to think that this would be an improvement, I don't think it will. And you're right, this is taking place not in the Jim Crow South 1968. This is California in 2019 and the idea here is that somehow these black students are suffering at the hands of racist teachers and racist principals.

Now, if these are principals and teachers in California, they are probably members of the teachers unions and the principals unions, and these I would think would be some of the most liberal, open-minded, tolerant diversity- celebrating people in the world. And yet, we're told that somehow they're racist and bigoted.

And so we have to let these undisciplined out of control kids run loose and the black and minority kids are trying to learn and do something with themselves and advance their prospects, they suffer, they're not able to focus, some of them get injured, or worse. And I guess all in the name of social justice, we're going to let total bedlam be the coin of the realm in California schools.

CARLSON: It doesn't -- and that is such a great point. It doesn't help the kids at all, how does it help a child if the kid sitting next to him can give the finger to the teacher? You know, "F-you, I'm not going to do ..." you know, and there's nothing that can be done about it. How does that -- how does that help anybody actually?

MURDOCK: It doesn't help anybody. It's not good for the teachers. It's not good for the students who are trying to learn. Ultimately, it's not good for the kid who probably needs to be disciplined and told, "No, this is not the way to behave."

And sometimes you get through to kids that way, and they realize, "Okay, I better shape myself up." And they do and they go on and have productive, prosperous lives. But if you let them totally run loose, they don't learn that lesson. The other kids don't learn their lessons. And very often, as we've seen in some of these other schools where this undisciplined campaign is taking place, the teachers actually get verbally or physically assaulted.

CARLSON: So why not pass a law right away -- a Federal law -- that would make all lawmakers subject to the consequences of legislation that they pass? So why shouldn't every person who votes for this in the California Legislature who have to send his own kids to public school in the state?

MURDOCK: How about that? Wouldn't that be something? You know, if these lawmakers had to send their kids to government schools, if they all had to live under Obamacare and experience the consequences of these failing policies, they might be on the side that people want to see major reform and privatization, a lot of things that make these upside down disastrous policies actually effective.

CARLSON: No, you're a hundred percent right. Deroy Murdock, from "National Review. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

MURDOCK: Great to see you, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, it's hard to remember that far back, but the United Nations was created after the Second World War to resolve international disputes. Later, it took on an expanded mission in protecting human rights. Now the UN has degenerated into something a lot like your liberal cousin's Facebook feed. It's constantly pushing woke politics on a confused population.

Recently, UN Women -- that's a Twitter handle tweeted this advice, quote, "How to be a champion for gender equality. One, defy stereotypes; two, talk the talk; three, disrupt the culture of toxic masculinity; four, share the care; five, don't stand for intolerance. Morons.

But speaking of intolerance, the newest member of the UN Women's Rights Committee, Iran. Martin Daubney is a British journalist. He is running for the E.U. Parliament as a candidate for the Brexit Party. We recently spoke to him about what is happening at the United Nations. Here's what he said.


CARLSON: So it's hard to believe -- it's hard to believe that this is real, that Iran is a member of the Women's Rights Committee and sort of like who has taken over the UN? I guess, is the bottom line question.

MARTIN DAUBNEY, BRITISH JOURNALIST; Well, it's hard to imagine, isn't it that in 1945, the UN was created to end the scourge of war, to be the post war, moral conscience, to be a shining light of how to lead our lives and fast forward to 2019 and their Twitter feed certainly has been taken over by the woke-experienced kid.

It's like, on the one hand, we are taught things like we will talk to Gillette or like these silly brands that dabble with woke politics and always hugely damage their reputation. And in fact, the UN themselves again, massively trolled by people who are sick of this because you're quite right to point out that inequality only seems to exist in the West and America or in the United Kingdom; racism and sexism don't seem to exist anywhere else apart from the west, which of course we know it to be simply untrue.

The very fact you mentioned that Iran is on the Women's Committee is pure exemplary information about that. How can we say that a country where women make up 19 percent of the workforce were posting about equality on Facebook can get you arrested where women aren't allowed to watch sport is somehow a shining bastion of equality.

Whereas whenever we hear about a special rapporteur, these are the kind of investigating officers that go from the UN abroad, a great expense in elected people, Donald Trump won't allow them into the USA and I think he should stick with that, because we've got two come to the U.K., one in 2014 concluded that the U.K. was the most sexist country in all of the UN, despite the fact that the report's author was from South Africa, which has horrible stats of 40 percent of all women who were likely to be raped and one of the world's most violent crimes episodes.

And secondly, we had one last year after Brexit, where the rapporteur concluded that Brexit Britain was much more racist. And as soon as these people leave our shores, they are reviled and leave nothing but disaster in their wake.

And frankly, it makes you wonder why we bother with them and why we are paying for them. The U.S. pays $10 billion a year to the UN for the privilege of being trolled by some tweenager on Twitter, why are we putting up with this?

CARLSON: Well, let me ask a question -- I just want to check your kind of woke quotient here. So if I forced my wife to cover herself with a piece of cloth, because I demand that she remained modest, that's not woke.


CARLSON: But if a foreign country requires its women to do that, is woke - -

DAUBNEY: Yes, that's what -- that's kind of observing religious faith.

CARLSON: Okay, so a burka can be woke. That's like a progressive statement, a statement of feminist solidarity, right?

DAUBNEY: Yes. Precisely. And it's much safer to not have a position on that. I think this is what this is all about. I think the UN is seeking - - it's going through an existential crisis. What does it stand for? It can't enforce world peace, because the power of veto is seen that it's toothless in in actual terms of power. And so it seems to have made its new mission to be like a moral arbiter and particularly of the West.

There was a guy in one of these rapporteurs on the television tonight in the U.K., from Geneva, Sweden in his bow tie, and he was talking about how the Venezuelan regime that's being overthrown, was being overthrown by right wingers. You know, people are dying of starvation. They're literally eating their pets. They're wiping their behinds on banknotes which are cheaper than toilet roll yet, in the eyes of the rapporteur, it's right wingers, it's fascists who are overthrowing this and by the way, they're always underpinned by Donald Trump.

There we have it. Every wrong in the world is perpetrated by the capitalists, by the West and every writer of the world is perpetrated by the rest.

CARLSON: Unbelievable. What a perfect description of their worldview. Thank you. Martin, it's great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

DAUBNEY: It's a pleasure. Thank you.


CARLSON: Ebola is back -- one of the world's most horrifying diseases, one of the most deadly outbreaks ever. Many experts are concerned. Should Americans be worried? Dr. Marc Siegel is here with an update on that. Also new information about UFOs just declassified. This is the only show that covers it. We're not embarrassed. It's an amazing story. Don't miss it.


CARLSON: I want to bring you a Fox News Alert tonight. This one report just minutes ago on South Korean media, not yet reported in this country. In South Korea, they are reporting that North Korea apparently has fired a short range ballistic missile. Now, if true would be the first time. North Korea has done that in the past year and a half.

The launch apparently came from the Hodo Peninsula and the missile moved in the direction of the East Sea. U.S. officials are analyzing details to find out exactly what happened. But it would be a significant setback of course to the administration's diplomatic efforts in the region, which sought to reduce tension between the two countries. We will keep following the story and bringing you more information as it comes in as it always will.

In other developing news tonight, there are new fears that Ebola could be heading to this country. One of the worst outbreaks of that horrifying disease in history is underway tonight and spreading fast. A thousand people have already died of Ebola in the Congo. It's one of the deadliest infectious diseases known to man, of course, fewer than one third of the people who display symptoms survive.

Just five years ago, there was a major outbreak of Ebola that made it to our country. How concerned should we be if at all this time around? For those answers, we go to the man, we always go to NYU medical professor, Dr. Marc Siegel joins us tonight. Doctor, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So this seems like a development really in in the history of Ebola, a thousand people. Should we be concerned?

SIEGEL: Yes, we should. And I'll tell you why, Tucker, because it's in an area of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where there is not an infrastructure where there is militia swarming around over 119 Ebola clinics -- they have been attacked by militia. So it's a security problem in addition to a health problem.

It's also erupting right now. We've had over 100 cases in the past week alone. You said a thousand deaths out of 1,500 cases over the last year. One hundred in the past week alone.

The World Health Organization is in the middle of this, but they don't have money. There's not enough vaccines. Here's a good development since 2016. We now have a highly effective vaccine. It's been given to a hundred thousand people that may sound like a lot. It needs to be given to millions. We don't have the vaccines and people are dying without even knowing they have Ebola.

Forty percent of the deaths, Ebola is identified after the person dies. It is erupting. It's spreading. It's getting out of control.

CARLSON: Interesting. But Ebola, at least, as it has been explained in the Western media, it seems like it would be kind of hard to miss. I mean, you hemorrhage from various orifices. I mean, it's horrible. And people don't know they have it?

SIEGEL: They don't know they have it because there's no one around there identifying it. There's no healthcare workers in the region. World Health Organization -- people have been killed. It's not a situation -- granted, someone that knows Infectious Diseases or even medicine is going to be able to identify it.

Now again, it's going to spread to neighboring countries, I believe. Here's one positive thing about it. It's very hard to spread. You can only spread it if you come in contact with secretions, with blood. So it's not spread casually.

So even if a traveler were to bring it here, which happened in 2014, with Craig Spencer and others, it will only spread if proper precautions are taken. If another case, God forbid shows up in the United States, hopefully they'll isolate that case, it won't spread here.

But there, it's an enormous problem. People themselves don't know what it is. They know they have some serious, horrible disease. They don't know it's Ebola.

CARLSON: It's unbelievable. Ebola, of course, is far from the only deadly communicable disease floating around the globe. Do you think politically it would be possible to block people coming from any other country in the world? Could we actually do anything in the face of an epidemic at this point?

SIEGEL: What we usually do in a case like this is we bring more and more of our workers in rather than blocking travelers. But if it gets to the point where I said a hundred cases in the past week, we were considering that back in 2014, if it gets to the point where we start having thousands and thousands of cases and nothing is being done internally.

Now, the Democratic Republic of Congo is trying to help. Their Health Ministry is doing a lot. But again the militias and the security problem there, UN Forces are there, but nothing with what we need. This is becoming not just a health issue, but also an issue of having to bring in armies and a mess -- a total, total mess and it's not diminishing, it's growing and it's going to spread to neighboring countries in Africa.

CARLSON: I'm not surprised at all. Doctor, thanks very much for your perspective. Great to see you.

SIEGEL: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, there's something going on in the skies above us; even the government isn't certain exactly what it is. Recently declassified documents show that U.S. government has for years maintained a program that investigated the health effects of UFO encounters on those who saw them.

Meanwhile, in response to the news that is crafting a new UFO reporting system, the Navy -- the U.S. Navy -- has openly admitted to repeated encounters with unusual aerial objects near its bases.

Nick Pope investigate UFO sightings with the U.K. Ministry of Defense. He has been dismissed by others as a conspiracy. That's turns out he wasn't. He was totally right and he joins us tonight. We're glad to have him.

So Nick, first to the news that the U.S. government has investigated the health effects of contact with UFOs. What does that mean?

NICK POPE, FORMER U.K. OFFICIAL: Well, this is a part of the Pentagon's AATIP Program that studied these unexplained phenomena, and it's a part that we haven't heard much about. Everyone has been concentrating on the videos of the Navy jets chasing the UFOs, but if you go back to Harry Reid's letter to the Department of Defense, he describes this in terms of the human interface and human effects aspect of the program.

And then recently, more recently, when the DIA wrote to Congress about this, in amongst all the papers on exotic propulsion systems that they produced was a paper entitled, "Field Effects on Biological Tissues." And it seems as if what they were interested in is the effects of all this on the people that witnessed it.

And I understand that this involved for example, things like blood samples, DNA tests and other medical tests and procedures.

CARLSON: So I mean, what this really tells us is that UFO encounters are so common that they are worried about the health effects of those encounters on Americans. So there's really no question that the U.S. government has known for a long time that something profound is going on, I'm not saying they know what it is. But they've lied about that. Why have they lied about that for so long? It's bewildering.

POPE: Well, I think there are very difficult defense and national security issues here and there is also this blurring of the lines. We don't know -- we really don't whether with some of these things, we're talking about Russians, Chinese or something from, shall we say farther field than that. And then so there is embarrassment.

The other point is you can't say we've lost control of our own airspace. But I did a cold case review on a case in the U.K. where it turned out some military witnesses were probably exposed to UAP radiation. Now UAP is the British government term for UFO -- Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. And these people are now trying to get medical settlements for health issues that they attribute to these close encounters.

CARLSON: It's almost like there's a whole kind of parallel world going on, where these stories are addressed, but the rest of us are not even aware of it and we sort of know that there are these UFO nuts. But it turns out lots of sober, well-educated people have been devoting an awful lot of time to studying this stuff for decades and I'm just amazed that we didn't know.

POPE: Well, the Ministry of Defense was studying it. The Department of Defense here and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and of course, as you said, in your introduction, just last week, the Navy have announced a new policy on this to encourage their pilots and their radar operators to come forward and speak out to destigmatize it. I support that. It's unfortunate that we're not going to get apparently the data that's actually produced under this.

I hope we can get unclassified summaries. And I certainly hope we can get for example, a copy of the guidance that they say they've just issued on this because that will give us some clues as to what's going on here.

CARLSON: Why the hell isn't "The Today Show" leading with this every morning for the next 10 years? Is there a more interesting story? I don't think there is. Nick Pope, I know you agree with that. Thank you.

POPE: Yes, absolutely I do and look, you know if the Navy want to diffuse all this UFO hysteria, all they have to say is, "Look we're just talking about aircraft and drones," but they don't.

CARLSON: Yes, no. They don't. Telling. Nick Pope, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

CARLSON: It's Friday. You know what that means? It's time for "Dan Bongino's News Explosion. Our favorite former New York cop joins us in just moments to break down the most explosive stories of the week. Stay tuned.


CARLSON: It's Friday. We've been waiting for it for seven days. Time for "Dan Bongino's News Explosion," the former Secret Service agent here to break down his top three stories of the week. The great Dan Bongino joins us now. Hey, Dan.

DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Wow, the Great Dan. I like that. I appreciate it, Tucker. All right. Let's get right to it. So story number three of my most interesting stories of the week. Joe Biden lashes off the China threat. He seems to be diminishing the threat from China, I know, a topic sensitive to your heart, Tucker.

I mean, what was he doing for the years in the Obama presidency? Did he miss the intellectual property theft? The growth of the biggest surveillance state in the world? The whole dash line territorial expansion? Was he like getting a snuggy, eating marshmallows? Did he miss all of that? I mean, this guy was the Vice President. He wasn't like the hall monitor. He was the Vice President. So story number three, very, very upsetting and disturbing.

CARLSON: It's unbelievable. Actually, nobody kind of said anything about it, which is the other weird thing.

BONGINO: Crazy how that happens. All right, story number two. This one is kind of a twofer here. In New York, the gift that keeps on giving. Listen. I love my home state. I was born there. But we have two politicians from New York making news. Number one, Bill de Blasio. He says he may run for President. Now, it looks like he's going to jump into the race appealing to a constituency of one -- Bill de Blasio.

He held that Town Hall up in New Hampshire. It was amazing. A Town Hall 20 people showed up and 14 of them were panelists. True story by the way. I'm not messing with you.

CARLSON: Oh, I believe you.

BONGINO: Yes, but no one is calling for this presidency at all -- Bill de Blasio. But secondly, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. She released this video about her garden. Now listen, she may be trolling us a little bit, I get it, but it's still worth your time. Check this out.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: I was so nervous because I was in New York for two weeks in recess. Oh, my God, look at this. It's like -- look at the collard greens. I am shookt. That comes out of dirt. Like it's magic.


BONGINO: Breaking. AOC discovers agriculture. I get it. It's a joke. Listen. You got elected to Congress. Congratulations. But this is a little bizarre, like you just discovered farming methods. "It comes from the dirt." As I said to a friend of mine, wait until she discovers hydroponics. This is going to get really confusing. They could swim the plant. Look at this, they can swim.

CARLSON: Next week. The wheel. Fire.

BONGINO: The inclined plane. Look -- that's how -- she's probably messing with us. I get it. Listen, AOC, we're just having a little fun at your expense. Nothing personal. Okay, story number one. You know, here's the story here.

"New York Times" yesterday breaks finally what you and I and every sane rational person has known forever that spy assets, intelligence assets were employed to surveil the Trump campaign. We get it.

Tucker, the news story here. I know we've got to wrap this -- the news story here is the news. The fact that the news took two years to report on this is absolutely gross. Everybody knew this was coming. One more thing on this. They reported that the FBI had to do it because it was frantic around election time. The FBI that is.

Listen, Tucker, frantic is not an excuse to throw the Constitution out the window. It's during frantic times that we should be adhering extra to the Constitution.

CARLSON: Exactly.

BONGINO: This is a horrible story. I can't believe the news missed it.

CARLSON: I don't think it was just the FBI.

Dan Bongino, it's so great to see you always. Happy weekend.

BONGINO: Thanks, buddy. You, too. See you next week.

CARLSON: We'll be back Monday, 8:00 p.m. The show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Have the best weekend.

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.