Hungary Foreign Minister: Having another kid must not be an economic decision anymore

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 13, 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.” For decades now, you have been hearing about the threat that global climate change poses to this country and to the world. Al Gore warned you about all of it in a bestselling book and an award-winning documentary.

Bill Nye, the science guy has done a bunch of Internet videos on the subject. Chelsea Clinton often tweets about it passionately. This stuff is serious, okay? How serious? Well, here is the scientific consensus on what will happen if we don't immediately pass some sort of Democratic global warming bill. Watch.


BILL MURRAY, PLAYS DR. PETER VENKMAN IN THE MOVIE "GHOSTBUSTERS": This city is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportion.


DAN AYKROYD, PLAYS DR. RAY STANZ IN THE MOVIE "GHOSTBUSTERS": What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.


AYKROYD: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. River and seas boiling.

RAMIS: Forty years of darkness, earthquakes and volcanos.


MURRAY: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.


CARLSON: Sorry, that was from 1984, it's a clip from "Ghostbusters," but things have gotten much more dire since then. "Human sacrifice, the dead rise from the grave, cats and dogs living together," those were the old predictions. We would be lucky to get off that easy now.

A new generation of Democratic office holders is thinking bigger than that, and far more apocalyptically. Move over, Al Gore, these kids are serious. Watch.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: More like the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is --


OCASIO-CORTEZ: Your is your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And, like, this is the war -- this is our World War II.


CARLSON: Okay, so to recap the terms of this conversation. This is a matter of total war. The world will end if we lose that war. Any consideration of cost is immoral. That's what they are saying.

This is not the language of compromise and moderation. It is the language of fundamentalist theology. Just a few years ago, they were telling us we could fight global warming with carbon offsets and slightly higher gas taxes. Now, they are demanding we give up airplanes and walk to work.

But you have got to give it this, the Green New Deal does make kind of internal sense. Hysterical predictions require hysterical reaction. Half measures don't cut it when you are fighting a world war for the future of this planet. Maybe that's why Democrats seem all in on this.

Every single Democratic Senator running for the Democratic nomination right now has endorsed the Green New Deal. Cory Booker, a vegan lawyer who represents Wall Street describes the fight against carbon at least as morally significant as the fight against Adolf Hitler. Watch this.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: There's a lot of people now that are blowing back on the Green New Deal. They're like, "Oh, it's impractical. Oh, it's too expensive. Oh, it's all of this."

If we used to govern our dreams that way, we would have never gone to the moon, and when the planet had been in peril in the past, who came forward to save earth from the scourge of Nazi totalitarian regimes? We came forward.


CARLSON: Who came forward when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, we did. Okay, we give up. Let's take this seriously for a minute because it is at the very center of our national conversation. Let's concede that global warming imperils the earth and we need a mass mobilization of Americans to fight it.

Solar powered landing craft on the beaches of this generation's Normandy. No cost is too high and no sacrifice too extreme. Cory Booker is our Patton. Let's stipulate that's all true and not flagrantly insane. Who exactly is our enemy in this war? Well carbon, of course. Carbon is poison. Al Gore told us that 25 years ago.

Who is the biggest carbon dealer on Planet Earth? The El Chapo of CO2. You probably assume it's America because nobody has bothered to update you on this question. But, in fact, it's not America. It's not even close to America. It's China.

China is now the undisputed kingpin in the carbon trade. China throws more than twice the amount of deadly carbon into the atmosphere than this country does. China is the problem. That's true even if you are just a regular environmentalist who still believes in the earth and are skeptical of perceived climate theology because China is also the biggest physical polluter in the world.

China dumps almost as much non-degradable plastic into the oceans as the rest of the worlds combined. They have not banned drinking straws in Shanghai. So it's pretty clear. If you are worried about killing polar bears and poisoning fish with mercury, you should be very worried about China because they are the ones who are doing it.

But nobody in our ruling class seems to know this or care. You don't see Democratic activists or professional environmentalists camped outside the Chinese Embassy in protest. Nobody is demanding sanctions on China until they stop polluting. That screeching moron Ocasio-Cortez isn't telling China to give up coal and oil and natural gas and nuclear power within a decade. No way. The left isn't doing any of that because the left loves the Chinese government. It's their model for governing.

Just a few years ago, the California Governor Jerry Brown flew, yes, flew all the way to the Chinese mainland to praise its fascist government for its environmental leadership. For real. You see what's going on.

The Green New Deal is not about the environment, just like gun control is not about school shootings and speech codes have nothing to do with sensitivity. Nothing is what they say it is. What it's really about is punishment and control. The Green New Deal is a religious document. It punishes America for the sins of its prosperity. The only atonement it offers is turning over full control of the entire U.S. economy to the Democratic Party. That's the indulgence they require. They are using moral blackmail to get it, of course, they are theocrats always do.

Nate Lerner is the Executive Director of Build the Wave and he joins us tonight. So, Nate, we are being told that we need to fight World War II: on behalf of the environment, but fight it against ourselves is what they are saying. We have to wage war on our own economy. Why wouldn't would he be turning this effort outward towards the world's biggest polluter, China and forcing them to clean up the globe? Why aren't we doing that?

NATE LERNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUILD THE WAVE: Yes, that's a really fair question, but how can we ask China to step up to the plate if we're not doing it ourselves? Ocasio-Cortez, for example is, no position to demand that with China when our own government refuses to invest the funds and resources that we need to into changing our energy infrastructure.

So we need to start leading the way on this. We need to start showing this is something that can work and create jobs and strengthen the economy.

CARLSON: No, no.

LERNER: And then ask them to join us.

CARLSON: Okay, I get it. I mean, I have heard that argument, that's been the kind of way that the left evades the question for the past 25 years, but the new numbers show --

LERNER: Or advances it.

CARLSON: Well, it's not really an answer because China emits double the CO2, more than the United States does. In fact, if you combine --

LERNER: But they three or four times the size of us.

CARLSON: Okay, but you are making excuses for them. We are talking about the future of the Earth here. We could be gone in 12 years, this is an existential crisis. I'm taking the rhetoric of the left seriously, but they are not taking their own rhetoric seriously because if they did, they would assign actual blame to the world's actual largest polluter and that's China. But instead they make excuses like, "Well, China just needs inspiration from our moral leadership." No, why don't we say to China, "This is war, you are the enemy because you are destroying the protective ozone layer that protects the planet and we're going to force you to change your ways?" Why don't we do that?

LERNER: All right, there's a lot of things to unpack there. Let's start with the rhetoric. This is not rhetoric the world will end in 12 years. What Ocasio-Cortez was referencing was the U.N. Panel on Climate Change's report that came out recently that said if global energy infrastructure does not dramatically change in the next 12 years, it will be too late.

So if we don't drastically change the way we produce energy, we're -- in 12 years from now.

CARLSON: This is the same point.

LERNER: Well no, it's not the same point.

CARLSON: It's really -- no, no, but the point that you are making it's really serious and I'm --

LERNER: It's very serious.

CARLSON: Look, I don't know if that's known or not, actually. But I'm assuming that you are right and I'm taking your assumption and reaching the logical conclusion which is if this is really serious, we need to get after the people who are causing it.

LERNER: Right.

CARLSON: And it's China.


CARLSON: And you made excuses for their behavior by saying that they can't really do anything until we lead the way and since they are the biggest --

LERNER: I didn't say that, no.

CARLSON: Well, you did, you said --

LERNER: I said we are not in a position to approach them and ask them to join us.

CARLSON: Right. Aren't we citizens of this globe?

LERNER: We pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

CARLSON: The Paris Climate Agreement didn't ask them to reduce their carbon. What? No, it actually allowed them to increase the carbon they emit into the atmosphere.

LERNER: But that's just an example of where the U.S. priorities are right now.

CARLSON: That's insane, if you really believe this then why aren't you telling the biggest polluter in the world to knock it off and we're going to punish you if we don't.

LERNER: We absolutely should, but first --

CARLSON: Why aren't we?

LERNER: First, we do it here domestically, and also, if you look at China, this is a completely false narrative that they're not investing.

CARLSON: It's a false narrative.

LERNER: That they are not investing anything right now in green energy because they are. They are reducing greatly.

CARLSON: I don't know what green energy is, I'm just telling you because it's such a large category it has no meaning. I want to go to the science, and the science tells us they are emitting twice the carbon that we are. And yet, you are making excuses for them and saying, "Well, we need to do it first," because why?

That's like saying we can't fight an authoritarian regime because we have voter fraud problems. No, they are destroying the earth and you are making excuses for them, and so all the environmental groups are taking their money and don't you think you should be ashamed for doing that.

LERNER: We're not taking the Chinese money, first of all --

CARLSON: Yes, they are.

LERNER: Okay, first of all, I am not saying that the Chinese should not step up to the table. Absolutely, not.

CARLSON: Step up to the table? They are destroying the Earth.

LERNER: They absolutely should -- they should absolutely join us in this of course, I am calling on them to that. Of course, they need to be part of this just as much as we are, but I am saying, that we cannot politically approach them --

CARLSON: What do you mean, politically? This is not geopolitical. It is moral.

LERNER: How is our government supposed to go ask them to join us and we're not even doing this ourselves.

CARLSON: You're telling me that we need to shut down every power plant.

LERNER: We need to put our money where our mouth is.

CARLSON: Yes, it's not about our money. It's about saving the Earth. I am using the rhetoric which is a moral rhetoric, not an economic rhetoric, a moral rhetoric of every Democratic presidential candidate right now today and applying it to a foreign country that they like much more than they like the United States and you are making excuses for that country. I honestly don't understand why.

LERNER: I am not. I'm approaching this from a very logical standpoint when I am saying that the U.S. government --

CARLSON: No. Really?

LERNER: The U.S. cannot demand --


LERNER: They should demand, but it's not going to be effective unless we are always doing it ourselves. How does that not make sense you?

CARLSON: No, because --

LERNER: You can't tell someone to join new a fight if you are not fighting that fight yourself.

CARLSON: Really, okay.

LERNER: You say, "Oh, go fight climate change, we will do it too. Don't worry about it.

CARLSON: So the Chinese believe in fair play.

LERNER: We have to show them we are invested in this.

CARLSON: You're missing it. I don't think you're updated with the numbers. They are polluting twice as much as we are. They are the world's biggest polluter by a factor of 100 percent. So it's not like we need to lead the way.

LERNER: But they are 300% to 400% bigger than us.

CARLSON: Oh you're making excuses for them again.

LERNER: Why can't -- we are America. Why shouldn't would he be leading the way in this fight?

CARLSON: Oh, so we have a higher standard.

LERNER: I am not making excuses for them.


LERNER: Yes, of course, we do have a higher standard. We are the United States of America.

CARLSON: So we have to wage World War II against ourselves. That's exactly what you're saying.

LERNER: We should have the Chinese join us, but we cannot fight -- but we cannot expect them to join us in this fight if we're not doing ourselves.

CARLSON: It's a war against ourselves.

LERNER: I don't understand how you are not getting this.

CARLSON: Because it's their crime and we should told them accountable for it. Just my view.

LERNER: We should and you're absolutely right. We should hold them accountable.

CARLSON: Yes, but --

LERNER: But we ought to hold ourselves accountable, too.

CARLSON: We are the guilty ones. I get it. Nate, thank you very much.

LERNER: You are welcome.

CARLSON: High speed rail is central to the Green New Deal which says that rail would replace cars. Okay. Does high speed rail work? Has it been tried anywhere? How about our biggest state California which was trying to build a high speed rail line between its two biggest cities, San Francisco and L.A., and yet, yesterday, it cancelled that route. Why?

Because it didn't work. The cost rose to a staggering $77 billion. Chuck DeVore has watched this up close. He is a former California State Assemblyman and Vice President of the National Initiatives, Texas Public Policy Foundation and he joins us tonight.

So Chuck, what was suddenly a California story is now a national story because light rail is a centerpiece of the Green New Deal. Why didn't it work in California?

CHUCK DEVORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL INITIATIVES, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION: Well, it got too expensive. The travel times were way too slow. The ticket prices were about double what you would pay for Southwest Airlines and it became very apparent that they promised something that they couldn't deliver.

They said they were going to have this project that would have all this private money and investment. It wouldn't have to cause taxes to go up. Look, they haven't gotten a penny in private investment. The Federal government has put $3.5 billion into it, and now they are in material breach of their agreement with the Federal government. I think the Federal government should ask for that money back and use it to build the wall.

CARLSON: So I am just a little bit confused because it sounds like it's not that it didn't work in California, it sounds like it was a flaming disaster. It was a fireball of lies and embarrassment, and so why would you take that and make it the centerpiece of your energy policy?

DEVORE: Well, you had a lot of crony corporatism and big labor involved in selling this to the public. So, it narrowly passed in 2008 with Obama at the top of the ticket. It got 52.7% of the vote. It was backed by corporations like Siemen's, the locomotive manufacturer out of Germany and big labor, and it's basically been a crony corporate gravy train from day one.

Now, the problem is at the rate they are spending money, they wouldn't finish the route for about 100 years and as I recall, we are all supposed to be dead by then, isn't that how it's supposed to work?

CARLSON: Actually, I think it's 12 years. So I guess what you are saying is they are paying off their campaign contributors and calling it an environmental policy. I think I have seen that before. Chuck DeVore, I appreciate you coming on and clarifying.

DEVORE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: We have a Fox News alert for you. Congress on the brink, apparently, of working out a government funding deal to end the shutdown over a border wall. David Spunt has some new exclusive reporting on where we are in those negotiations and he joins us right now -- David.

DAVID SPUNT, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker. Good evening. Well, some members of Congress are clearly in favor of this border security package. Others say not so much. President Trump has made it very clear he's unhappy about the language. But we are told all indications are that the President will sign it.

In fact, the White House hasn't even seen the final package at this point. We're told that that text is being worked out, but the President and his team will see it at some point tomorrow. February 15th is the deadline. That is Friday for members of Congress to get a package to the President.

Now, we are told that it's possible there could be another shutdown. However, President Trump has backed away from that in recent days. Tucker, tonight we are learning majority leader Mitch McConnell is expressing concern and accused Democrats of adding what are called, poison co- provisions into the deal.

Now, a source tells "Tucker Carlson Tonight," one allows -- one of those provisions allows small town mayors to veto any part of a wall built in their specific jurisdictions. Democratic aides tell Fox News they are optimistic the bill will pass in the House, but there is Democratic concern that conservatives may turn some fellow Republicans against the deal that would fund the wall, not at $5.7 billion, but instead $1.4 billion for an additional 55 miles of a barrier.

Now, Tucker, late this afternoon, the House Freedom Caucus talked about introducing a continuing resolution to fund the government for another week, basically just kicking this down the road for another week, re- setting while these negotiations continue. If that doesn't happen, tomorrow is expected to be the final vote. The deadline is Friday, so certainly we will be in the 11th hour on this budget battle -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Cliff hanger after cliff hanger. David Spunt for us. Thank you very much.

SPUNT: Sure.

CARLSON: Congressman Ilhan Omar is becoming a standard bearer of the Democratic Party, you want to know what they think? Listen to her. But apparently, and this is interesting. She is immune from criticism. We learned that today. Why is that? I will tell you after the break.


CARLSON: Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is picking another fight this time over sports. In a new letter to USA Power Lifting, Omar attacks the organization because it opposes having a biological male compete against women in a lifting competition. Omar claims ludicrously that biological males have no advantage over women. That's in defiance of about a million years or so of evidence to the contrary.

It doesn't matter though, Omar's letter is just the latest case of powerful people on the left bullying anyone they can't control. You saw the same thing with the gay marriage debate in the Christian-owned bakery that doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake risked fines, lawsuit and ruin. Okay, so those are the new rules.

So what about Muslim owned bakeries? Do the rules apply there, too? Steven Crowder asked that question a while back and he found pretty much what you would expect. Lots of Muslim-owned bakeries will not bake gay wedding cakes and we are not complaining about that, private business owners shouldn't be enforced to engage in speech they find immoral.

But the left doesn't agree. So, where is the letter from Congresswoman Omar demanding that Muslim bakeries who won't bake these cakes be shut down? We are still looking for that letter and what about Omar's own mosque, by the way? Does it perform gay marriages? And if it doesn't, has she complained about that? Has she denounced them?

We called her office today to find out. They haven't replied yet. We suspect we will be waiting a while for an answer, but we're always open to one.

Congresswoman Omar is starting a lot of fights recently. For a newcomer, she is in the center of many news stories. Today on Capitol Hill, she berated the new envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams accusing him of being a liar and attacking him over the Iran contra affair that took place more than 30 years ago. Here's part of it?


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: More than 800 civilians including children as young as two years old were brutally murdered by U.S. trained troops. You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement. Yes or no? Do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, U.S. NEW ENVOY TO VENEZUELA: That is a ridiculous question, and I will not --

OMAR: Yes or no?


OMAR: I will take that as a yes.

ABRAMS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack.


CARLSON: Congresswoman Omar is herself, of course, a refugee to this country. She was born in Mogadishu. She spent most of her time, at least her political life attacking this country as immoral. She also supports a number of policy ideas like the Green New Deal that don't make mathematical sense. She is also for abolishing I.C.E.

So there are things you could criticize about the Congresswoman, but you are not allowed to criticize her. A new piece in POLITICO argued that. Now why? Well not because what she says is factually true, but because, of course, of her identity, quote, "The G.O.P. strategy risks a backlash -- a party that has problems with women and minorities continues to focus its attacks on women of color," end quote.

Not a woman it disagrees with, but a woman of color. Their color is the most important part to the people of POLITICO. MSNBC agreed with this, of course. In a segment yesterday, one of its guests said that it was quote, "Not a good look for conservatives to attack Congresswoman Omar because she is a woman." Her actual views are irrelevant. It's about her identity.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and author and she joins us tonight. Michelle, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: I think a lot of things about this, but one of them is that the rest of us are deprived an interesting debate over the issues. When that debate is shut down on the basis of immutable characteristics. You know, you are this color. The person you are talking about is that color. No more conversation. We don't even get to hear what the issues are.

MALKIN: Yes, it is cheating the American public of a true, honest and vigorous debate on very important policy matters. And I also feel a little bit left out, Tucker because this immunity shield is only provided to certain privileged women of color who claim a certain ideology.

CARLSON: Good point.

MALKIN: Over the last 25 centuries, I have never had this privilege. Who is handing out the Wonder Woman bracelets that can deflect all bullets of criticism? Because I have never gotten one. And it's that double standard of the attacks that women and people of color who are conservative or limited government or libertarian never enjoy that Ilhan Omar has and it's not just the left that claims this privilege for these radical racist, hateful women like Ilhan Omar.

Unfortunately, you've got enablers in the beltway who call them conservatives like Jennifer Rubin at "The Washington Post" carrying water for these people and you look at the hearing today that you showed a little clip of, what was that? It was coordinated kabuki theater. Code pink has achieved its dream of having essentially an ideological intern now sitting on the other side of the aisle carrying water for them. Amazing.

CARLSON: What I find so striking though is that if you are making the argument that people should be -- people of one color should be allowed to say one thing and people of another color can't say that thing because of their color, that's by definition a racist argument. You are a racist if you are making that argument. Again, by definition, and, yet, it's the same people who make that argument who are always denouncing everyone else as racist.


CARLSON: What do you make of that?

MALKIN: Well, I've diagnosed this at least online as what I call Silicon Valley Sharia, because a perfect example, of course is that Ilhan Omar is allowed to tweet heinous vile things while a Jewish woman first to criticize her before she was elected when people should have been listening, Laura Loomer banned from Twitter.

And this is insanity when you have Louis Farrakhan, I guess a man of color who is allowed to call Jews termites on Twitter. He is still on Twitter and Ilhan Omar is still on Twitter and the brave critics of jihad and this narrowing of what's allowed in public debate are increasingly being de- platformed.

And it is because of these people on the left smell fear, Tucker Carlson that they have been able to get away with it.

CARLSON: I totally agree with that and it's because the cowardice of a lot of people in Washington who should be defending their people and the right to speak honestly in public have run away and caved. I agree with that completely, Michelle Malkin.


CARLSON: Thank you for saying that.

MALKIN: You bet.

CARLSON: Michelle Malkin, as always. Well, we're not allowed to have voter I.D. we are told because it's a form of voter suppression. Is that actually true? Is it a factual matter? Is it a matter of social science? Well, thank heavens somebody decided to run the numbers on that and checked. We have got the findings for you after the break.


CARLSON: Well, just about every modern country requires a photo I.D. to vote, but when American States start to implement the same laws, they are of course described as racist bigots engaged in voter suppression. That's fake, of course. It's all a diversion. It's a lie and you should ignore it. But now, a new study shows just how fake it is.

Two university professors took a look at voting patterns in 10 different states and they found that voter I.D. laws had no effect at all on how much each group was able to vote.

It turns out that legal voters are perfectly able to get photo identification, something you knew already and that these laws are only a problem if you want to vote illegally, but helping people to vote illegally is, of course, the entire point of preventing voter I.D. laws as we knew.

Harmeet Dhillon is an attorney who covers this kind of thing and she joins us tonight. Harmeet, so it seems like the evidence is pretty clear on this from this study.

HARMEET DHILLON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Yes, actually, Tucker, these two economics professors -- one at Harvard Business School and the other in the University of Bologna -- used data from a liberal progressive database called Catalyst, which work with progressive groups on these issues and they examined 1.3 billion different data points and they had data on gender, race, sex, gender and political affiliation and they were able to compare the states that had the strong voter I.D. laws, 10 of them against the ones that don't, and there was statistically no difference whatsoever.

And so that really rebuts the left's mythology that voter I.D. laws are directed at suppressing particularly the minority vote, et cetera, on the theory that elderly or minority or poor people are unable to get I.D. I mean, you and I know that you can't operate in society today without I.D. and we need it for so many reasons, so I think this is really encouraging data.

CARLSON: Yes, you can't have a job, you can't fly an airplane. You can't cash a check. You can't get government benefits. You can't do anything. So it was prima facie absurd but they still wax self-righteous about it and any attempt to prevent voter fraud is suppression and you're Bull Connor.

I wonder if the right, if Republicans will begin to do something they almost do with any topic which is push back with facts against this demagoguery.

DHILLON: Well, you know, you raise a good point, Tucker. We, as Republicans tend to become very intimidated when everybody - when anybody says the "R" word. "Oh, you are racist. You are racist." And we really buy into that demagoguery and back down.

And I hope to see more Republicans step forward and say, "We are not racist. We are trying to protect the integrity of every single vote." I'm an immigrant to this country and the right to vote is very precious and something that people don't have around the world. So the way we casually water it down in this country by allowing people to vote who are not entitled to vote, we have three million illegal aliens plus in California, for example, is really shocking and it's time for it to stop.

So I am glad to see this data from non -- not from a conservative source, but from objective professors, economists and I hope that we will begin to start pushing back on this false narrative by the left.

CARLSON: Well, yes, because the only reason they keep using it is because it works and Republicans run and hide every single time. I mean, is there any other reason to oppose voter I.D. laws except to abet voter fraud?

DHILLON: I can't think of any, and on the flip side, and as these two professors point out in their study, the effect of voter I.D. laws does increase confidence among the voting population in the outcomes of these elections and we certainly need more of that as well.

CARLSON: Yes, that is such a smart point. I'm losing confidence. I have always had confidence in our system and not anymore. Harmeet, thank you very much.

DHILLON: My pleasure. Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, there's so many stories recently you may have noticed the press rushed to judgment before the facts came in. Russia, the boys from Covington and thought story around Jussie Smollett, the actor in Chicago. The press seems to keep reaching premature conclusions, but always conclusions that favor the Democratic Party. Why is that? After the break, we will tell you.


CARLSON: It's been two weeks now since actor Jussie Smollett said that he was attacked in a racially motivated hate crime outside of his apartment in Chicago. So far police have not found the perpetrators. They have not found videotape of the perpetrators in the neighborhood festooned with CCTV cameras and they have rejected the phone records that Smollett gave them saying that they are heavily redacted and insufficient.

Some other parts of the story are coming under fire as well tonight. Trace Gallagher has been following this investigation and joins us with the latest -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker, in his first interview since he was allegedly attacked, "Empire" star Jussie Smollett emotionally told "Good Morning, America" that he is, quote, "pissed off." Watch.


ROBIN ROBERTS, ANCHOR, ABC: What is it that has you so angry? Is it the attackers?

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, AMERICAN ACTOR: It's the attackers, but it's also the attacks.


GALLAGHER: Meaning those who are now skeptical of his story. Smollett claims that two weeks ago, he went to a 24-hour Subway Sandwich shop near downtown Chicago and on the way home, two men shouting racist and homophobic slurs beat him up, poured bleach on him, tied a string noose around his neck and yelled, "This is MAGA country."

Chicago police have said his story is credible, but so far had been unable to find any supporting evidence. They do have surveillance video showing Smollett before and after the alleged attack but nothing of the attack itself, and no video of any suspects.

Smollett claims during the attack, he was on the phone with his manager but when he finally turned over his phone records, Chicago Police rejected them because they were heavily redacted. That's key because the manager says he heard the attackers shouting homophobic and racial epithets. Smollett says the records were blacked out to protect the privacy of his contacts.

Initially, Smollett received outpouring of support but one of his neighbors now tells our corporate cousin, "The New York Post" he doesn't believe him because half the neighborhood is gay, the other half is black -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks a lot, Trace. It's looking increasingly possible that the attack you just heard about may not have been the attempted lynching it has been hyped as. But it doesn't matter. It's too late now. To those who only casually follow the news, they will hear only the press' initial breathless coverage which treated the incident as an obvious hate crime, yet another consequence of Donald Trump's America, another Trump voter bashing someone on the street.

Some parts of the media are still treating the story that way despite what we have learned in the last two weeks. A recent piece in the online website, apparently, "Daily Beast" argued that we should believe Smollett on the basis of his skin color. That sort of openly racist politically motivated journalism is increasingly the norm.

Covington worked the same way. Supposedly we could tell that a few high school boys were evil because of the way they looked and the way they smiled and the way their parents presumably voted.

Well, take a look at BuzzFeed's supposed smoking gun of the President ordering his lawyer to lie to Congress. There was no proof it was true. There never was any proof of it, but because it matched an established narrative, everybody knew what to call it.


SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: It would be certainly a bombshell information.

JIM SCIUTTO, ANCHOR, CNN: BuzFeed's latest bombshell report.

WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, CNN: White House is slamming a bombshell report by BuzzFeed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And in a bombshell report from BuzzFeed.

CHUCK TODD, ANCHOR, MSNBC: If the BuzzFeed bombshell is true.

ERIN BURNETT, ANCHOR, CNN: The bombshell report.


CARLSON: Thesaurus, please. Dumb people have a weakness for news cliches, it's unbelievable. Stuff like that happens every couple of weeks. But nobody in the press ever seems to learn or change? Why is that? Joe Concha writes about this stuff for a living for "The Hill" newspaper and he joins us tonight.

So, Joe, I'm recognizing a repetitive pattern of behavior where people who are supposed to soberly digest the facts and bring them to the public are instead jumping to wild conclusions that comport with their political beliefs and then not apologizing or changing that. Why is that?

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER, THE HILL: Because Tucker, how do you learn from when you are a little kid all the way through when you're an adult with a career? You learn by being held accountable for things.

So if you make a major mistake and it's funny because we talked about this, the mistakes are never made, let's put it this way. When was the last time you saw a major mistake in any big journalism piece any big outlet against a Democratic lawmaker.

But when mistakes are made, there is never almost with exceptions ramifications, suspensions, actual firings, so if you know you can get away with something, you just keep doing it.

But one thing I'm noticing with this story here, Tucker, if you google Jussie Smollett and attack, almost every headline I see says "attack." There is no word, and it's very key here before it alleged attack. When you take "alleged" out, it becomes fact. Like Pearl Harbor was attacked. When you take "alleged" out, suddenly it becomes absolute truth.

So, in this case let's put it this way, if I'm a journalist, I remove the noise here. I remove the fact that Smollett is a celebrity. I remove the fact that he is anti-Trump. You know, that's not a big surprise. I remove the fact that these were pro-Trump alleged attackers that went after him and I want to find evidence to support the claim. How do you find the evidence?

Smollett said he was on the phone during the attack with his manager. All right, so a man says he was attacked by two men, right? So if he is on the phone, then, therefore, he should turn over his phone records. When he does, he heavily redacts them and his excuse is that he doesn't want the Chicago Police to see his contacts?

Okay, how about the manager? Has he turned over his phone? Reportedly, he hasn't. So when you take that evidence out of this story, you have to question it.

So when I watch that interview tomorrow with Robin Roberts on ABC, she better press him on that point. Why wouldn't you turn over the only evidence that's available if we haven't seen this on camera?

CARLSON: She is not going to press him on the point. You can be sure about that. But let me ask you this, so I almost feel -- I mean, it looks to me like maybe this guy got over his skis, made up the story. We have seen this a lot. Maybe it's real. I mean, I don't know.

But I do know that two sitting U.S. senators, Harris and Booker both immediately shoot statements calling this a lynching. Now, that scares people. It divides the country. It's racially inflammatory. If it turns out this isn't real, should they be forced to apologize for doing that?

CONCHA: And the only way they will apologize, Tucker, is if the press presses them on that.

CARLSON: Exactly, that's right.

CONCHA: You made this comment. You read back the comment. Now, we have learned and, again, we don't know, but let's say we do learn, what do you have to say now? You know that's not going to happen.

And, look, it's that theme that we talked about over and over again. All Trump stories - not all, almost all come from a foundation of guilty. Whether that's yes, Trump must have collusion with the Russians, therefore, he is guilty. The Covington kids must have attacked the Native American, therefore, he is guilty.

When you come from that foundation, of course, these are the conclusions that are going to be drawn, Tucker.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. I mean, we have known this for generations. Any good editor makes certain that his reporters are honest enough not to act like this. But nobody cares anymore. No one does. Joe Concha, charges thank you. Great to see you.

CONCHA: Good to see you.

CARLSON: Well, the Trump administration is pushing for nationwide paid family leave. What would it be like for America to have a truly pro-family government policy? And is that one of those policies? We know of at least one country that's trying to make its politics help and protect families. We're going to speak to an official from that country after the break.


CARLSON: President Trump recently called for nationwide paid family leave in his State of the Union address. Today, his daughter met with Republican senators to push a proposal for that. It's a start, but is a few weeks off from work really better than an economy in which it only takes one working parent to support a family? What would a country that took pro-family policy seriously look like? Well, it might look like Hungary.

Like a lot of post-communist places, Hungary has a low birth rate. Rather than trying to fix that with immigration and importing new people, the Prime Minister is making a serious attempt to help middle class families have kids and raise them themselves. We spoke to Hungary's Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjarto about that. Here's what he said.


CARLSON: His first priority as leader of the country is increasing birth rates and marriage rates. I can't think of anyone else who says that. Why does he say that?

PETER SZIJJARTO, HUNGARY'S FOREIGN MINISTER: Absolutely. You know, we understand very well that if we are not able to turn around the negative trend of demographics, which his unfortunately a phenomenon all over Europe, then we will definitely not win the future, and we want to win the future, so we need more kids. We need to turn around the negative tendencies so we have put together an action plan. We have formulated our economy policy in this direction.

So the question in the families whether to be brave enough to have other kids must not be an economy decision anymore. This is where our policies put the focus on.

CARLSON: The truly conservative position. So our plan here in the West is to just let the depressed people die off and replace them with people from other countries. What do you think of that plan?

SZIJJARTO: You know, this debate has been there in Europe for a very long time whether migration is the right answer for the challenges on the labor market and on demographics and our position is totally different.

We think it must be up to decisions of certain nations and countries whether they want migrants on the territory of their country or not. And it must be the countries themselves to make decisions with whom they would like to live together.

Our answer is that migration is not the right answer, but it comes to challenges on the field of demographics or in the field of labor market. It's family policy, modernization of the education, having more kids, helping the families to be able to have higher living standards and create a situation where families, parents can be brave enough to have more kids.

CARLSON: Could you end with telling us what you think the most important thing that Hungary has done to encourage people to get married and have children?

SZIJJARTO: Well, actually, we have formulated our economy policy in the way that supports families. We introduced a flat tax system and if you have kids, then you have deduction from your tax. You get exemption from paying tax based on the number of kids being raised in a family.

So if you are around average salary and if you have three kids or more, you basically do not pay personal income tax, which leaves a lot -- let's say a significant amount of money in your pocket and the family in order to be able to raise your kids and we have introduced obligatory kindergarten, which is free of charge and in elementary school, most of the kids get free meal and free books. This is what we do on the high school level as well.

So in order to allow families to be brave enough to have more kids, we have put together this family policy and this economy policy.

CARLSON: I've rarely thought we could learn something important from another country, but I think in this case, we really can. I appreciate you explaining it to us. Thank you.

SZIJJARTO: Thank you very much for the invitation. It's been great being here.

CARLSON: Thanks.


CARLSON: Imagine living in a country like that that actually tried to make it possible to enable families. Since we recorded that interview, Hungary has gone even further.

On Sunday, the Prime Minister of Hungary announced plans to exempt women with four or more children from income tax for the rest of their lives. That's a crazy idea because why? No, it's not a crazy idea. It's a great idea.

Well, former CIA Chief John Brennan lies constantly, but this time, this rare time he told the truth about what he thinks and it's deeply revealing about where we are and where we are going. We will show it to you after the break.


CARLSON: Well, you would be shocked to learn that after two years, the Senate Intel Committee has found no evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, some kind of pact in the basement of skull and bones to steal the election.

Former CIA Chief John Brennon says, "Don't worry though, congressional investigations don't matter, only Robert Mueller's investigation has the real information." Watch this.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA CHIEF: We should be willing to accept whatever Robert Mueller comes out with. I am confident he has had access to a lot more than the Senate or the House Intelligence Committee has had.


CARLSON: In other words, our elected officials don't deserve all the facts, only an unelected prosecutor should get the facts. Wait, wasn't this all supposed to be protecting democracy? Right.

For the left, democracy is really just what the ruling class wants. Don't buy the hype, none of it is real.

That's it for us. We will be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the sworn...

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.