This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 4, 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.” There is a new Congress here in Washington. But the government shutdown continues as before. The stalemate over Border wall funding entered its third week. Each side is betting the other will give in first.

Negotiations continued at the White House today. But apparently, they bore no fruit, because afterward the President emerged to say the situation on our Southern border is so grave, he may be forced to build a wall without Congressional approval.


TERRY MORAN, ABC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Have you considered using emergency powers to grant yourself authorities to build this wall without Congressional approval? And, second, on Mexico--


MORAN: You have?

TRUMP: Yes, I have.


TRUMP: And I can do it if I want.

MORAN: So, you don't need Congressional approval to build the wall?

TRUMP: No, we can use them -- absolutely. We can call a national emergency because of the security of our country, absolutely. No, we can do it. I haven't done it. I may do it. I may do it. But we could call a national emergency and build it very quickly.


CARLSON: Well Democrats call that extremism. But who are the extremists here? Well the ones who refuse to defend their country.

The new Speaker of the House has announced that the Democratic Congress will never, under any circumstances, allocate a single tax dollar to build the Border wall, not because it's too expensive, obviously, these are the Democrats, but because a wall would violate some previously unknown and never-explained moral code.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President wants to cut a deal.

PELOSI: --a wall is an immorality. It's not who we are as a nation.

It's an old way of thinking.


CARLSON: Well it's tempting to assume that the Speaker must have misspoken there. But it's hardly the first time she has said that. Immoral, immorality, she's used those words repeatedly.

Now, Pelosi is the highest ranking Democrat in the United States. She's the leader of her party. So, we should not blow this off. We should take it seriously. As a matter of policy, Democrats believe a Border wall is immoral. And that raises the question, what do they consider moral?

Well American troops stuck forever in Syria, for one thing. That's just fine. Sex-selective abortions, paid for with tax dollars, can't get more moral than that. Antifa, rioting in the streets, all perfectly virtuous.

And turns out, even walls can be moral under the right circumstances. They just can't protect America. Democrats gladly signed off on border defenses for Jordan, Tunisia and Israel, no problem, glad to do it.

But here, on behalf of our own people? No. Americans don't deserve that. They're immoral for asking. Those are the parameters of their morality. So, what religion is this exactly?

Joining us now to explain it is Archbishop Chris Hahn. He's an attorney, radio host, and former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, and he joins us tonight.

So, if you would, I think we've talked about this before. Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly called the wall immoral. And at first, I thought well, you know, she talks a lot, and I know the feeling, sometimes you misspeak.

But this is a talking point. This is something she's saying intentionally as the leader, now officially, of your party. So, Democrats believe Border walls are immoral. What does that mean?

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST: I don't think she means it in the good versus evil type of morality. But rather this is a colossal waste of money since there's never been a ladder and a rope that hasn't beaten a wall--

CARLSON: Wait. Wait, wait, I'm -- I'm sorry but--

HAHN: --and to borrow the--

CARLSON: --I'll let you finish. I'll let you finish but I just want to back up. I promise. I'm not -- I don't want -- mean to interrupt you, but I just want to backup--


CARLSON: --what other sense of immoral is there? I mean, by definition, immoral describes something that is not moral. It is, again, by definition, within the scheme of morality. It's a religious precept, so what does that mean?

HAHN: I -- I don't--

CARLSON: How is a wall immoral?

HAHN: --I -- I -- look, I mean I don't think she means it in a good versus evil religious way. I think she means it in a--

CARLSON: What other way is there?

HAHN: --this is a colossally stupid -- this is a colossally stupid thing to build, when a guy with a ladder that's a foot taller and a rope to get down the other side will beat it.


HAHN: And quite frankly--

CARLSON: We want (ph) respect--

HAHN: --to borrow the--

CARLSON: --no, you're -- you're making--

HAHN: --NR--

CARLSON: OK. Keep -- keep going.

HAHN: --to borrow the NRA's argument though, if we put a wall up to block out illegal, you know, people from -- come here to want to harm us, people who want to come here illegally are the only ones who are going to be stopped by that wall because people who are going to come here illegally or come here to harm us are going to figure a way around it, just like they figure out a way to get guns. So, it's -- it's a--

CARLSON: They're going to get -- oh, so they're going to get their own wall--

HAHN: --it's -- it's something that--

CARLSON: --oh, I got it -- I think -- I think I'm following you. So, they're going to get their own wall. They're going to buy a wall in the black market and bring their wall to our wall and beat it. Is that what you're saying just to continue the metaphor?

HAHN: No. No. Law-abiding people will be stopped by the wall. But the people who wish to break our laws will be -- will avoid the wall like they do--

CARLSON: Is that true--

HAHN: --like that's the right argument for everything--

CARLSON: --is that -- is that true at prison?

HAHN: --that's the right argument for guns.

CARLSON: Wait, wait, hold on, wait, I'm trying to take -- Chris--

HAHN: It's the right -- it should be -- it should be accepted here too.

CARLSON: --OK. OK. I'm trying to take you seriously. Is that also true at prisons, which are surrounded by walls, walls meant to keep lawbreakers in? Do they not work?

HAHN: So, you know, a prison is -- is a couple of acres. And you've got sentries pointed that can -- can -- can monitor that wall. The President's talking about thousands of miles of wall. Are we going to have sentries every 100 yard -- every 100 feet to watch--

CARLSON: I don't know. It--

HAHN: --that wall? Look--


HAHN: --we'd be better off -- Tucker, we'd be better off with modern technology. We've used drones. We can use other things to monitor the border, make sure it's backed up--

CARLSON: But -- but--

HAHN: --by the appropriate amounts of--

CARLSON: --but -- but it hasn't worked. But look--

HAHN: --Border Patrol than putting up a--

CARLSON: --I'm -- look, I'm trying to be -- I'm trying to be reasonable. I mean--

HAHN: --structure that's not going to make sense.

CARLSON: --we -- we both know that you're in favor of more people coming here illegally, and I'm not, and that's the actual debate. But for the purposes of--

HAHN: I'm not.

CARLSON: --we're pretending -- we're all pretending we're both--

HAHN: I'm not in favor of anybody coming here illegally.

CARLSON: --for border security. Of course, we're not. But I just want to drill down a little bit on this idea of morality because I think it's really important.

When the leader of a political party starts calling the other side immoral, that's not a small thing. So, I just want to understand. In the very same day that she said that, she pushed to allow taxpayer dollars from the United States to go abroad to fund abortions in Latin America, among other places.

So, you're saying it's immoral to keep Latin America out with a wall but it's not immoral to pay for Latin American abortions? That's what Nancy Pelosi is saying. Do you agree with that?

HAHN: Well, look, you know, I think we would need like an -- a -- a couple of hours to discuss the morality of actions like of--

CARLSON: No. How about -- how about just as -- how about (ph) just an answer. I mean just the two of them--

HAHN: --of -- of actions of choice.

CARLSON: --which -- which is more immoral? Building a wall or--

HAHN: I'm -- I'm pro-choice. I'm not going to put -- I--

CARLSON: --using tax dollars to pay for abortions in other countries? I'm just wondering, seriously.

HAHN: I'm not going to -- first of all, tax dollars do not pay for abortions in other countries under the Hyde Amendment--

CARLSON: Right. And they're trying to change that that that's the--

HAHN: --which we all know about.

CARLSON: --no, no, but that -- OK.

HAHN: So, they will never -- they will never go that way, right? But I -- I mean debating whether or not that's moral or immoral, that's a longer conversation. We probably got about a minute and a--

CARLSON: Well no, it's -- it's actually not. I'm just wondering which -- which--

HAHN: --half left.

CARLSON: --no, hold on. But let's just -- I'm not asking you to conduct theology here. I'm just asking you to give me your view.

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: The two things, taxpayer money for sex-selective abortions, which Nancy Pelosi is for, OK, or building a wall? One's immoral. Which one is it?

HAHN: I -- I don't believe -- I -- I don't believe that she's for sex- selective abortion in foreign countries.

CARLSON: Yes, she is. Yes, she is. That is -- well actually--

HAHN: And I think that's an overreach of what she's for. And look, I--

CARLSON: --in point -- in point of fact, she is.

HAHN: --I think the more moral use of the funding for the wall would be to fix the bridges and roads that are crumbling in this country that actually need repair--


HAHN: --and spend a couple of bucks--


HAHN: --on ring video doorbells for border security if you're really that worried about it.

CARLSON: So, can I just ask you another sincere -- a sincere question?

HAHN: Because it's really not as big of a problem as the President--

CARLSON: It's not as big a problem, right--

HAHN: --what's immoral is the President making--

CARLSON: --yes.

HAHN: --a problem that doesn't exist.

CARLSON: OK. So, really quick, at the very same time again that she was pushing against America's ability to defend itself and its borders, and for more taxpayer-funded abortions in other countries, she was also--

HAHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --pushing for more foreign aid for other countries, some of which would go to border security. We've already funded, with her approval, border security, including walls in a bunch of other countries. Why were those not immoral, but our wall is immoral?

HAHN: Well, you know, when we talk about the Israeli wall and other countries that have walls like that, they are in a constant state of war with their neighbor. We are not--


HAHN: --in a state of war with Mexico.

CARLSON: No. No, no, no, that's not true. No, no, no, hold on, hold on--

HAHN: We are not having a crisis at the border. People are not lobbing--

CARLSON: --no, no, no, no, no (ph)--

HAHN: --bombs into our country from--

CARLSON: --no, no, no, hold on, hold on, no, no--

HAHN: --from Mexico. In fact, they're our biggest--

CARLSON: --there are a number of--

HAHN: --trading partner.

CARLSON: Right. I understand that. And there are a number of barriers in Israel. And some of them are designed to keep terrorists from coming in, and I don't think anyone would question the right to do that. Good for them.

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: But there's also a barrier on the Southern border of Israel with Egypt that is designed solely to keep immigrants from Africa out of their country. Now, I think it's Israel's right to build that wall. I would never contest that. I don't have a problem with it.

But Nancy Pelosi doesn't have a problem with it either. That wall's not immoral. But our wall is immoral. I don't -- I honestly don't understand that. What is the answer?

HAHN: You know, we're -- we're a nation of immigrants. It's what makes this country great. It's what refreshes this country and gives us competitive edge with the rest of the world. If the President and his party want to change that, that should be what they talk about.

CARLSON: But has there--

HAHN: What they're doing right now is demagoguing about some invisible--

CARLSON: No, no it's not demagoguing.

HAHN: --threat that does not exist at the Southern border.

CARLSON: Oh, oh, so--

HAHN: And it's time for them to stop--

CARLSON: So, how many--

HAHN: --and face reality and--

CARLSON: --how many--

HAHN: --open the government and have a conversation about newer (ph)--

CARLSON: --how many people--

HAHN: --border security.

CARLSON: --how many people are here illegally now in the United States? Do you know?

HAHN: I would think over 10 million--

CARLSON: Over 10. Try -- try--

HAHN: --between 10 and 14 million.

CARLSON: --try over 20, which is the latest estimate, and not from some Right-wing organization but from Ivy League researchers. Does that seem like a lot? Does that seem like the current border security schemes are working to you, over 20 million people?

HAHN: It seems like a lot and -- and--


HAHN: --it seems like a lot. And -- and -- and 90 percent of those people, Tucker, did not cross the Southern border. They overstayed their visa.

CARLSON: How do you know that? How do you know--

HAHN: They may have come here on a plane or a boat--

CARLSON: --wait hold on, but how do you -- wait slow down--

HAHN: --because that's what this--

CARLSON: --how do you know that?

HAHN: --because--

CARLSON: You don't even know within 10 million--

HAHN: --because every--

CARLSON: --how many are here. So, that's (ph)--

HAHN: --every -- every--

CARLSON: --how do you know how they got here?

HAHN: --sorry. I wasn't prepared for that question. But every--

CARLSON: Well, it seems like a basic question.

HAHN: --Ivy League study that I've read shows -- every Ivy League study that I've read about this topic says that exact same thing that most people who are here illegally have just overstayed their visas.


HAHN: And building a wall at the Southern border is not going to change that. It's just a colossal--

CARLSON: It's not. Even though we don't know at all--

HAHN: --waste of money. And if you believe the waste of money is immoral--

CARLSON: --how many people there are or how they got here.

HAHN: --then it's immoral.

CARLSON: We're just guessing it's not going to work. OK, maybe right. We'll see. Chris, thank you very much.

HAHN: All right. Thank you, Tucker, have a good one.

CARLSON: Thanks.

Well a new Member of Congress, a Democrat, just made a sincere but pretty vulgar promise about her party's agenda going into this Congress. Lisa Boothe has the latest on that after the break.


CARLSON: Democratic leaders have downplayed the odds they will try to impeach the President. "It'll never happen, you're being paranoid," that's what they said before the election. Turns out, what we knew all along is true. They may not, in the end, be able to contain their party's own base.

Rashida Tlaib is a newly elected Democratic Congresswoman from the State of Michigan. At a Thursday night event, hosted by, she delivered a vulgar promise about what her party would accomplish this year. Watch this.


REP. RASHIDA HARBI TLAIB, D-MICH.: When your son looks at you and says, "Mama, look, you won. Bullies don't win."


TLAIB: And I said, "Baby, they don't."


TLAIB: "Because we're going to go in there and we're going to impeach the (BEEP)."



CARLSON: Yes, she's impressive. The amazing thing that was that was founded, I remember when this happened, to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton 20 years ago. Huh! Interesting. Times change.

Lisa Boothe is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women's Voice. She's been following the story and she joins us tonight. Hey, Lisa.

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CO-HOST, OUTNUMBERED,: Hi, Tucker. I know there is a little bit of irony, right?

CARLSON: You think?

BOOTHE: She said this at a event. Obviously, that was started to encourage Congress to censure and move on. Clearly, she does not want to do that with President Trump, so little bit of irony there. And also, this is not the first time she's called for President Trump's impeachment either.


BOOTHE: She's also tweeted about this a month ago as well. So clearly, this is something she fully believes in.

CARLSON: It's just so interesting that a group like which started, you know, with some principle behind it, is just like completely dishonest, and without any principles at all. It's like whatever it takes to achieve power wherefore. Does anyone ever say that?

BOOTHE: No, they don't. And think about it too, Tucker. We -- we're only in the first -- this was the first week, not even a full week of the 116th Congress. But -- but listen, this is what happened this week.


BOOTHE: You have those comments from Rashida Tlaib. You also have Hank Johnson that compared President Trump to Hitler. You had another Member of Congress introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, and another one that brought forward articles of impeachment, so it's already been a banner week for Democrats, not even their full -- first full week in Congress. So, this is what we're--

CARLSON: Well, so--

BOOTHE: --facing for the next two years.

CARLSON: --I'm -- I just wanted--

BOOTHE: So, buckle up.

CARLSON: --I don't know if you ever followed up on this story. But Hank Johnson from Atlanta, Democrat from Atlanta, said a number of years ago in a hearing that he worried that Guam, the island might capsize, might flip over if too many American troops were placed on one end of it.

Did Guam ever capsize? Do you know? Did you ever follow up on that story?

BOOTHE: Well, I did some research, and they did not. So--

CARLSON: It did not. OK. Good.

BOOTHE: --this for -- it did not, no, yes.

CARLSON: You know, not all of our fears come true.

BOOTHE: So, he was wrong. His--

CARLSON: And that's the good news, I guess.

BOOTHE: --his foreshadowing was a little bit off there, so--

CARLSON: Oh, my God (ph). I kind of like Hank Johnson. I can't help myself. Lisa Boothe--


CARLSON: --it is so great to see you, as always. Thank you.

BOOTHE: Good to see you too, Tucker. Bye.

CARLSON: Well we often hear people say that Donald Trump has driven the American Left crazy. That's a talking point, obviously. But it's also increasingly true. And not just figuratively crazy, meaning zany or eccentric or red in the face mad, but actually crazy, meaning delusional, needs help, dangerous to self and others.

For example, here's a guy called Donny Deutsch reading aloud from his dream journal this morning on MSNBC. Keep in mind, as you watch this that he appears to be completely serious.


DONNY DEUTSCH, FORMER HOST, THE BIG IDEA WITH DONNY DEUTSCH: This is all Donald has left. He has one thing. This wall is not a wall. It is a "Let's keep America White again."

One thing that talks (ph) that 39, 40, 41 percent base that says either the Black man, or the Brown man, or the Jewish man, or the media man, or the banker man is coming to take your life (ph)--


DEUTSCH: --and you're -- it's not your -- you're not in the position you're in because of you. It's because of everybody else. That's all he has left.


CARLSON: Take your wife? Well that was bizarre. What does it mean? Who knows?

Much easier to interpret is Rick Wilson. Now, Wilson is a semi-obscure consultant, who's held just enough low-level political jobs that cable television producers can bill him as a Republican strategist.

Wilson seems to spend most of his life opining in one of those six guests shout fests in boxes that the other channels specialize in. He's often shouting the loudest. What makes Wilson notable is that, like so many on the Left, he's moved on from hating Trump to hating the people who voted for Trump, which is to say a lot of the country.

Here's what Wilson from last night on CNN.


RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: The wall has always been a con for Donald Trump's credulous rube, 10-tooth base. The wall has always been a scam. It has always been a lie. Nothing about the wall has ever been real. And Donald Trump knows it.

It seems to work with his base because they believe it over and over again that nothing will stop the Brown horde except the wall.


CARLSON: His 10-tooth base. Imagine mocking people who can't afford to fix their rotting teeth. There are a lot of people like that in this country still. And many of them did vote for Donald Trump in the hope he'd care about them or at least not rub their faces in their own poverty. What a cruel and awful thing to say?

Did it ever occur to Rick Wilson that people who are losing their teeth might benefit from cheaper dental care? Maybe Washington could help with that, but no. Easier to make fun of them and get rich doing it, something Rick Wilson specializes in.


WILSON: The pictures of the cruelty of this administration are a very deliberate part of this.

Their core supporters, you know, want anybody who's darker than a latte deported.


CARLSON: Oh, so not only are those poor toothless Americans ugly, they're racist now too. They're bad people. It's OK not to care about them. They can die young of diabetes and cirrhosis and drug ODs, and we can feel fine about it.

Rick Wilson can keep taking pictures of himself inside private airplanes, securing (ph) the knowledge of those dummies with bad teeth deserve everything they get. They're immoral, unlike Rick Wilson.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and he joins us tonight.

Professor, thanks very much for coming on. I -- I keep noticing this phenomenon where the farther behind middle America, rural America falls, the longer, you know, the -- the death rate continues to rise, the life expectancy continues to fall. The more the people in charge--


CARLSON: --hate rural America they hate the people who are suffering the most. Why is that?

HANSON: I don't know. I'm speaking from rural America. And I can tell you that it's phenomenal when you see their concrete evidence in an empirical fashion of when you have 3 percent annual GDP growth or a record low peacetime unemployment or 300,000 jobs created in a year that's a moral act, Tucker.

And the Latino population, I live in a community that's 90 percent Latino, is at record lows, and you can see it. People are upbeat.


HANSON: They're working. They have more disposable income. But rather than fixate on that or even critique it, we get back to this not just that Trump is a Nazi and, by the way, both of -- of those clips, the speakers had called Trump and his supporters in the past Nazi-like, but it -- it's an attack on people.

And I thought that was the whole purpose of the politically correct movement. You don't stereotype an individual by demonizing an entire group. And then we -- we've got to remember that this is not new, Tucker.

CARLSON: Exactly.

HANSON: All Wilson was doing was re-channeling, I think his name was Caputo, a political reporter, couple of months ago, three or four months ago, went to a rally and say that one person had more teeth than everybody in the rally.

You remember Peter Strzok saying that he went into a Southern Virginia Walmart and heard -- he could smell the Trump reporter. And we have another FBI person in that same textural that said Trump supporters are P -- POS, pieces of blank. It's kind of the underbelly of the deplorables, irredeemables, and clingers at Obama and cling -- and Clinton use (ph).

And it's -- it's really ironic because they have a -- they're very elite themselves, and they think that by making fun of poor White and they're mostly poor White working-class people that earns them an exemption from their own privilege as being privileged elite White people.

CARLSON: Exactly.

HANSON: And then people like Hank Johnson believe -- and remember, he called Israelis termites, channeling Farrakhan, they believe that they're exempt because they're -- they have victim status. They can say whatever they want.

But it's -- it's a sad commentary when the entire political correct movement, which was -- was designed to not use offensive speech that stereotype people turns out to be nothing to do with principle but power all along.

CARLSON: But have you ever seen -- so, you're a historian. Have you ever seen a revolution aimed at the people below? Aren't most revolutions from below trying to seize power from the people in charge? This looks like the people in charge trying to suppress the people who don't have power.

HANSON: Yes. I think what we have is we have a Versailles aristocracy and they're very worried that people outside the, you know, Versailles, the Gates of Versailles, are getting restless. And we see -- we actually saw it in France.

And I think they understand that whatever they were doing and that was a devotion to globalization, optional -- optional wars overseas, stagnant economy, this green initiative that -- and that was really hurting people in the middle that a lot of people were hurt by it, and we had created two Americas.

There are the winners America -- on the winning coast and they had to develop some type of exegeses to explain why the people in the middle were not doing well. And rather than saying their -- their jobs were outsourced or we were offshoring--


HANSON: --or we were neglecting our manufacturer, they came up with this self-fulfilling process -- prophecy. Well they don't have teeth or they stink or they didn't -- they're not educated or they're worried about their manhood.

And then that explains, you know, A to Z why they're not doing as well as people in Malibu and the Upper West Side. And people are sick of it. They're sick of it because they're hypocrites.

Rick Wilson went around in 2012 in a red pickup, I remember it, and bragged that he carried a knife and he was going to connect with the real people and help Mitt Romney get over his isolation on Wall Street. And so, whatever that -- if it paid better, they'd do something else.

If Barack Obama wanted to build a wall, and he did it one time, as did Hillary Clinton, then they would be saying the wall is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

It's political prostitution. And it's sad because we have a revolutionary economic and foreign policy cycle going on that's helping millions of people. And if they don't like it, they should criticize it on the principles. Bring facts.


HANSON: Let's talk about the debt, you know--

CARLSON: Stop attacking American citizens.

HANSON: --but -- anything but that and it's -- it's--

CARLSON: I mean I think it's totally within bounds. I -- it's totally fine to attack politicians, including Trump, by the way. But when you turn around and attack tens of millions of your own countrymen, something's really wrong, I think.

Victor Davis Hanson, thank you very much for that.

HANSON: I think so too.

CARLSON: Great to see you.

HANSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Bernie Sanders could run for president once again. Looks like, he may. But now the Left is mounting a #MeToo campaign against him. Is it fair? Is there some other reason they're doing that? After the break, we'll explain.


CARLSON: Well it's no secret that cities are the economic hubs of America now. A 150 years ago, young people looking for opportunities settled the frontier. Now they go to big cities, places like New York, San Francisco, Boston and, of course, Washington.

In fact, those four cities accounted for the majority of the places last year's graduating class at Harvard went. Why? Because that's where the jobs are. Rural counties are shrinking. So that's a success for the cities, correct? But there is another side to it.

Cities may have jobs for young people but they don't offer the life America used to be able to give children. Homes are much more expensive. Public schools are often awful, almost always awful. And if the jobs pay more, it's not enough to offset the rising cost of healthcare and servicing student loans.

As a result of all this, something dramatic, and not very often noted, is happening in American cities. Even though that's where the young people live, nobody in the cities is having children. Birthrates are falling everywhere in America. But the most dramatic drop, by far, has been in urban areas.

According to the CDC, from 2007 to 2017, birthrates in major cities fell by almost 20 percent.

At this point, the City of San Francisco has more pet dogs than it has children. If this continues, if this trend persists, it doesn't matter how rich our cities get, or how many jobs they provide, if society can't reproduce itself, it has, by definition, failed. Our cities are failing by the most basic measure, and no one's paying attention. We are though.

Well Bernie Sanders may run for president again this year. Before that campaign can even begin, the media are targeting him over deeds apparently committed in 2016. Not policy decisions made, but #MeToo matters.

A series of New York Times reports accuses the Sanders Campaign of having a toxic sexist atmosphere, where women were routinely mistreated without any consequences. Asked about this recently, Sanders said he didn't know. He was busy trying to become president,


SEN. BERNARD SANDERS, D-VT.: I am not going to sit here and tell you that we did everything right in terms of human resources, in terms of addressing the needs that I'm hearing from now, that women felt disrespected, that there was sexual harassment which was not dealt with as effectively as possible.

ANDERSON HAYS COOPER, ANDERSON COOPER 360 , CNN: You seem to indicate that you did not know at the time about the allegations. Is that correct?

SANDERS: I -- yes. I was little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case.


CARLSON: Allie Beth Stuckey is a podcast host, and she joins us tonight. Allie Beth Stuckey, thank you so much for coming on. So, I'm not--


CARLSON: --really sure what to make of this. I mean in the one hand there's the irony story that this, you know, progressive--


CARLSON: --campaign had an environment that women felt threatened by. On the other hand, you got to wonder, are these stories plants from another Democratic campaign? What do you think this is?

STUCKEY: I'm not -- I'm not sure about that. I think this is a sad situation. Apparently, there are campaign workers that have been bringing this to the attention of Bernie Sanders and those around him since 2017.

And according to them, this is actually the first time that they've heard from Bernie Sanders actually acknowledging that this was a problem. So, I certainly don't think this is exclusive to his campaign. In fact--


STUCKEY: --we know that it's not exclusive to his campaign.

But there is a special irony in someone like Bernie Sanders saying, "Well, I'm really sorry. I was kind of too busy to worry about harassment," when he just very recently made a very impassioned plea to the President or to make sure that we didn't confirm Kavanaugh because he wasn't a "Choirboy," and we had to believe all women.

It doesn't seem like he has the same consideration for the women on his staff.

CARLSON: What kind of answer is that in 2019 when exquisite sensitivity is required to say, you know, I -- I was busy. I had other priorities. I mean are you allowed to say, particularly, if you're a progressive standard- bearer like Bernie Sanders? "I -- I was busy." Is that adequate?

STUCKEY: Certainly not. Certainly, if you're not going to be making the accusations against someone else that he has and, of course, this is kind of a generalization that we see from many progressives that the #MeToo movement is kind of more of a conservative problem that we are the ones perpetuating--


STUCKEY: --toxic masculinity in the patriarchy when that just doesn't seem to be true.


STUCKEY: So, no, I don't think it was an adequate answer. And, hopefully, he'll be held accountable for that.

CARLSON: Whenever you go into a policy debate assuming that you're a good person, you wind up--


CARLSON: --excusing your own crappy behavior. I never assume I'm a good person. I just -- I just want to get some right answer.


CARLSON: OK. So, I want to ask about this story too. So Jill Abramson who ran the New York Times for a while has a new book out. And in it, she recounts this moment when the publisher of the paper, Mr. Sulzberger, wrote a letter of apology to the fascist government of China after the New York Times had written a story about corruption in China.

Now, there's no indication, never was that the story the paper wrote was false. The problem with it was it offended powerful leaders in China. So, in the letter, The Times reportedly apologized for the "Perception" that the story had created about that totalitarian hellhole.

Allie, is it I mean I -- I don't know what to say about this. I -- I don't want to believe this is true.

But if it turns out to be the case that the publisher of The New York Times apologized to the fascist government of China for being rude, is there anything more craven than that? Is there anything that kind of contravenes the basic principles of journalism more completely than that?

STUCKEY: Well, apparently, if this story is true, like you said, she alleges that it is, the publisher was actually very embarrassed when he was ousted by her that he had written this letter "all but apologizing," she said, because he wanted to keep the site open in China.

New York Times is still actually banned in China. He wanted to make sure that that wasn't the case. But this is maybe not him exactly, but this is the same kind of press that says President Trump and people over here are shutting down a free press.

But you can't simultaneously say that and then--

CARLSON: We lost Allie Beth Stuckey there. She was on a roll and she was absolutely right. And you got to kind of wonder, if that story is true, why didn't The Times report on it at the time?

And, by the way, I think around the time this happened, the kid who's the Media Reporter at CNN was the Media Reporter at The New York Times. Did he report on this? I don't remember reading that.

Allie, you're back. Why didn't The New York Times--


CARLSON: --report on this? If the editor knew that the publisher was sucking up to this totalitarian government on behalf of the paper, I mean I never saw a mention of that in the -- in the paper's pages. Did you?

STUCKEY: Right. Right. Well we don't know. We have also seen that Abramson said that they are violently anti-Trump or they're passionately anti-Trump. And they have also denied that.


STUCKEY: And we -- we know that that's true. So, they just seem to not be able to take on that self-awareness. But if they are the stringent reporters and journalists that they say that they are in fighting for these facts, then they should be able to own the -- the misdeed of apparently this one publisher to acquiesce to censorship.

CARLSON: Yes. The paper's a joke. I wish I -- I wish that weren't the case. There are some nice people there actually, some smart people. But, in general, the -- it's -- it's garbage. It's sad.

Allie, hacked by China mid-segment. Thank you though for coming on--

STUCKEY: Yes. That's what it was.

CARLSON: --and bearing with it.

STUCKEY: It must have been.

CARLSON: Appreciate it.

STUCKEY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well you remember Parkland Deputy, Scot Peterson. He did nothing to stop mass shooter Nikolas Cruz. He hid outside. He was allowed to keep his massive pension, over a $100,000 a year in taxpayer money for life anyway. Why did that happen? We'll tell you after the break.


CARLSON: One of the most dreadful and frustrating parts of the horrific school shooting that took place in Parkland, Florida last year was the role played by a Police Deputy called Scot Peterson.

Peterson was armed and right on the scene. But because of cowardice, stayed where he was and refused to go inside and confront the shooter. Despite this, clearly a dereliction of duty, Peterson was not fired. He now draws over a $100,000 a year in a pension.

Now, we have a hint as to why. Of course, Matt Finn is Fox's expert on Parkland. He covered extensively for us last year. He joins us tonight. Matt, good to see you.

MATT FINN, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, this week, the Stoneman Douglas Commission released a scathing 450-page report.

The investigators on that Commission interviewed hundreds of people, and poured over massive amounts of evidence, and determined that that School Resource Officer, Scot Peterson's response was, "Abysmal," and that law enforcement's response overall was a failure, and that the massacre would not have happened if the shooter Nikolas Cruz's mental health issues were adequately addressed.

Also this week, the latest in a series of reports questioning how disgraced Parkland School Resource Officer, Scot Peterson, was able to retire with full benefits, a six-figure salary, even though he was caught on tape standing by outside, instead of rushing into the Parkland school to stop the shooter from murdering more students.

A 2014 school incident report filed by that School Resource Officer, Scot Peterson, might hold the answer. The report indicates Peterson's boss, Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, had a son, who was a student at Stoneman Douglas, and according to the incident report, assisted in battery and, perhaps, sexual assault against a fellow student.

Peterson called for the Sheriff's son to be suspended, instead of referring him for criminal prosecution, perhaps a favor, Sheriff Scott Israel never forgot. The parents of that student that was assaulted later said they were OK with law enforcement -- without law enforcement action because they felt it would have caused trauma to their son.

Sheriff's Israel office confirmed that it received our request for a comment on the story. We did not hear back. Next week, Governor-elect Ron DeSantis will be sworn into office, and he has already indicated that he is considering suspending Sheriff Scott Israel.


CARLSON: Long overdue. Matt Finn, for us. Thank you very much.

FINN: Sure.

CARLSON: Jeff Bell is the President of the Broward County Sheriff's Office Deputies Association. And he joins us tonight. Mr. Bell, thank you very much for coming on. So, the last part of--


CARLSON: --Matt Finn's report, also corroborated by a long piece this morning, great piece in RealClearPolitics that suggests that there's at least an appearance of quid pro quo between Sheriff Israel and this Deputy Peterson. It's corrupt, if true.

BELL: Yes.

CARLSON: Do you believe that that's what happened?

BELL: There's absolutely the appearance that there were some improprieties of how that case was handled all day every day. The report that was made is absolutely a felony that has alleged to have happened to that victim. And Deputy Peterson took that report, which he should have, and he did complete a -- offense report.

But in the body of the report, he described the felony as a misdemeanor to justify it to fit under the Promise Program, which would allow the Sheriff's son to skate any type of criminal prosecution or severe punishment, and he was allowed to be referred into the Promise Program, where he was then issued a three-day school suspension, instead of having a felony on his record, which would have -- should have been the outcome of that case.

CARLSON: Peterson's behavior, you know, whatever the truth of what we're just talking about, Peterson's behavior on the scene of the shooting that day is especially infuriating to the law enforcement officers I know personally, because it's such a perversion of the duty of a law enforcement officer, which is to protect the public with courage, if necessary.

Do you think it's odd that he wasn't -- wasn't fired for that?

BELL: Tucker, what -- what we see from within the Broward Sheriff's Office is completely different from what the average person on the outside sees looking into our office. We, as the employees, realize that there are numerous problems within the Sheriff's Office that encourage bad behavior by the Command Staff and encourage the--


BELL: --the -- the behavior by the people inside the school. The juveniles are getting away with arrest. And it almost seems like the deputies are being punished more for their actions than what the criminals get through the juvenile justice system.

And this is why we've made recommendations to the Governor that we need to start getting tough on juvenile crime because, in -- in theory, the Promise Program, it keeps kids out of prison. But, in reality, what we're doing is we're not arresting these juveniles.

We're not showing them that there's consequences for their actions. And we're actually creating a pipeline for these kids to go into prison instead of staying out of prison because we're not showing them that there's consequences for their actions.

CARLSON: What about the other kids who just want to go to school and maybe learn something, go to college? I mean what -- what's their experience like going to school with kids who are out of control?

BELL: Well, Tucker, those are the true victims in this just with the school program, because you continually have a small percentage of kids that go to school that on a daily basis they disrupt a school system.

Good teachers cannot teach in a classroom because they're constantly spending 90 percent of their time with a 3 percent of the population inside of the school.


BELL: And if they cannot refer those kids to law enforcement because they're forbidden to tell the police officers on campus if there's a crime or not, and then the School Administrator gets to make the decision whether or not to make that report to the police officer.

And then -- then, if they do, you have to take it a step further, where each child is allowed for criminal offenses per school year before we are allowed as deputies to actually act on reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

And that is the main root of the problem with the public school system today is that we have School Administrators dictating to deputies, law enforcement officers, what reasonable suspicion and probable cause is. We need to remove the politics out of law--


BELL: --law enforcement and let the law enforcement personnel do their jobs to keep our kids safe. Otherwise, we're going to see this tragedy again and again and again.

CARLSON: I suspect Scott Israel is not helping. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. It's great to see you. I appreciate that.

BELL: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well America's borders remain open tonight. Its middle class is in decline. Its military is gravely overstretched. Meanwhile, the media they're on top of it. They're asking Nancy Pelosi which ice cream she prefers. We have the tape. You'll want to stay for it.



TEXT: Drugged.


CARLSON: Well there isn't just one drug crisis going on in America at the moment. There's one you read about a lot, drug overdoses, mostly by opioids, Fentanyl plays a big part. Those have been rising for years.

They now kill more Americans every year than the entire Vietnam War did over a decade, so there's that. It's horrible and it needs more attention.

But there's another drug crisis going on. It may not be as deadly, but it's worrying, and no one ever mentions it. At this moment, more than one in six American adults is on some kind of psychiatric drug.

Among Americans over the age of 12, one in eight are taking antidepressants, a 65 percent increase compared to just 1999, 20 years ago. Among women, 16.5 percent are now on antidepressants. One in every six women in America is now taking a pill just to cope with feeling miserable. What is going on?

After antidepressants, the most common psychiatric drugs are anti-anxiety medications like Xanax. These drugs are typically very addictive and abuse of them has soared along with the abuse of other opioids. Try to get off one of those benzo drugs, you can die from withdrawal. People do.

But our frenzy for brain pills is hitting kids as well. Almost 10 percent of all American children are diagnosed with something called ADHD by the age of 17. Half of those kids, fully half, one in 20, overall nationally, take medication for it.

And some of these drugs are very powerful, more than we may realize. One of the most famous anti-ADHD drugs is called Adderall. It's an addictive amphetamine. It's banned in Japan. It's rarely prescribed in Europe.

But in America, millions of people have received diagnoses and received it. Since it can improve focus, there is an upside, Adderall is routinely abused by students to help with academic performance and also by adults to cope with demanding jobs.

Forget using coffee to wake up in the morning, in this country, millions of people are taking amphetamines just to adequately service the market.

Is this pill habit making the country happier? Is it making the country more sane? Of course, not. And the proof is in the numbers. The suicide rate is the highest it's been in half a century. It's still climbing.

Among those who haven't taken their own lives, self-reported happiness is lower than it was a decade ago. This is particularly true in our country. This is not something that's happening worldwide.

The OECD recently looked at antidepressant use in 25 wealthy countries, the U.S. was far ahead of every other except one, Iceland. Another study compared American children with German and Dutch kids. American children take three times as many psychotropic drugs to fight ADHD, three times as many antidepressants, about twice as many antipsychotic drugs.

We don't have data for every country worldwide. But it seems possible that American children and adults are both the most medicated groups in the world. Why is this happening? And is the country doing anything about it?

Well, to the extent the country is, we seem to be looking for another drug with a new high to fix our problems. Right now, legalizing marijuana is very popular. Lot of Republicans are behind it.

The obvious downsides to this are suppressed. Politicians rave about the tax revenue. They're greedy. They always have been, always will be. While the advocates discuss the supposed medical benefits in medical marijuana, and there may be some, there probably are, but there are also downsides.

Once it's legalized everywhere, we'll doubt we'll (ph) see some other illegal drug like Ecstasy or LSD touted as a fix for our country's problems. You're already seeing that with microdosing for LSD.

At some point, you begin to wonder is it really America's brains that are sick or is there something bigger going on, maybe a problem with the society.

Everywhere you look, things that make people happy seem to be vanishing. Americans report having fewer close friends. They're getting married less. They're having fewer children. Some are having no children because they can't in a lot of cases. They can't afford it.

Their families are smaller and they live farther away. Confidence of government, also declining, so people feel like they lack control over their lives. Jobs confer (ph) less dignity if they can get them at all.

Dramatic demographic change means many Americans don't recognize where they grew up. Their own towns are unrecognizable to them. Many can't relate to their own neighbors. Sometimes, they even can't understand the language.

We're told that we're not supposed to worry about this. But, in real life, people do. And why wouldn't they? And then, of course, other physical problems, massive obesity ruining public health and causing misery as well.

There's a lot of stuff going on. But the point is instead of trying to address these crises, politicians focus on economic growth rather than problems that caused all of this in the first place.

Incomes in America more than doubled compared to 40 years ago, but are we better off? Probably not. Maybe we should stop and think about that for a minute.

So, as we said, there's a lot going on in America, so it's the time to ask serious questions of America's leaders, maybe even the new Speaker of the House. CNN had a chance to talk to Nancy Pelosi yesterday. What did they ask? About her ice cream choices.


DANA BASH, JOURNALIST, ANCHORWOMAN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: She attributes her boundless energy to Italian genes. It's certainly not a balanced diet. Dark chocolate and ice cream. Vaccaro's has been her favorite since she was a little girl.


PELOSI: The chocolate. Not the chocolate chip. The chocolate. I like my chocolate unadulterated.

POPPY HARLOW, ANCHOR, CNN NEWSROOM: That was fascinating. She doesn't like her chocolate un-adult -- she likes her chocolate unadulterated. I didn't know that.

BASH: No white chocolate, no milk chocolate--


BASH: --dark chocolate. Period.


CARLSON: Dan Bongino was a former Secret Service Agent, Author of the book, Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, he joins us tonight.

Dan, you've written a lot and talked a lot about press hostility toward Trump. I guess I think I'm much less bothered by that than I am by the fawning suck-uppery we just watched. I mean, in other words, if the press was hostile--


CARLSON: --to everybody in power, I'd be pretty satisfied. But to see them suck up to someone who's third in line in secession (ph)--


CARLSON: --in this country, one of the most powerful people in the world, and they're asking about ice cream at a time like this, what is that?

BONGINO: I mean remember the -- the Beto O'Rourke phenomenon, Tucker. In Texas where people are -- the Left-wing media types walked with them through rallies, he said, "Oh, Beto, you're a rock star, you're a rock star."

Listen, you're a journalist. You're supposed to be reporting on him. You're not supposed to be fawning over him. You might as well ask Nancy Pelosi for an autograph after that thing and a -- and a selfie to put on Instagram.

But, Tucker, what's really funny about this is -- is you're right.


BONGINO: Listen, I don't care about, you know, these -- these soft kind of lifestyle pieces happen all the time. The problem is when they happen on Donald Trump, it's always painted to paint him as transactional and -- and greedy and self-centered.

I'll give you a perfect example. You want to talk ice cream? Let's talk--


BONGINO: --turkey and ice cream right now. Remember the ice cream story with Trump? Donald Trump gets two scoops of ice cream and everybody else at the table he's around gets one. This is one of the dumbest stories, we were all dumber for having heard it, but it's a similar thing.

When it's a lifestyle story about Trump, it's meant to paint him as some kind of a self-centered jerk. Meanwhile, the story probably wasn't even accurate. It's just incredibly stupid.

CARLSON: So I -- I -- I couldn't help but so we called over to that weird kid over at CNN who does their media criticism, the Jeff Zucker's little guy--


CARLSON: --and just asked that the -- the simple -- his puppet (ph) and we asked the obvious question, which is, is this journalism? And, of course, he didn't get -- he didn't get back to us.

But why not -- again, if you're going to be hostile to one side, why don't just go all the way and say, "You know what, we have a permanently hostile posture toward people in power and we're going to grill all of them."

Wouldn't you feel like that had some integrity? Wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you did that?

BONGINO: Well -- well, Tucker, I know the guy you're talking about it. What's -- what's fascinating is he watches Fox News all day, which I want to thank you for watching. He always tweets about it. He tweets when I'm on too. So, that's really terrific that CNN's guy watches Fox.

But, you have to understand, I know you get this, Tucker, so I don't want to sound, and I hope you didn't take that as condescending at all, but these are people who have grown up in Left-wing academia and have surrounded themselves with journalistic Left-wing media bubble types.

I genuinely don't think, my friend, that they think any of this is unusual at all, like Nancy Pelosi is a good person just because she is. We've been indoctrinated around this Liberal nonsense for so long that it's the default position.

Donald Trump is the automatic Skeletor to He-Man because we've been told that He-Man was the good guy the whole time. So, I don't really think they think there's anything unusual about that.

They think, "Oh, Nancy Pelosi, yes, this is great. The chocolate ice cream story, she's wonderful, you know, we should all do this, professionally make her look good because this is what we're supposed to do."

CARLSON: I keep wondering these are people who have, you know, short time horizons. They're not long-term thinkers, most people in the media--


CARLSON: --to be honest. I don't think they realize that at some point Trump's going to be gone like--


CARLSON: --presidencies don't last forever, no matter what happens, like we will have another president at some point. And what about the press? Is anybody ever going to trust like the Washington Post again? I mean it's not even a real newspaper anymore.


CARLSON: What are they going to do when this is over?

BONGINO: Yes. No, that's a good point. You say, "Trust them again." I don't know when we've trust them recently. I think the last two decades we've seen a -- a genial -- general diminution of their credibility amongst the population in general.

But I've always wondered, Tucker, from the start, in my last line of work, when I traveled around with a lot of media types, and you see them acting in their natural environment, you know, media people generally can't even do journalism like why are we taking their opinion on economics, healthcare economics, education, policy?

None of this -- what makes them an expert, I'm really not sure. It's a serious question. If anyone in the media wants to tweet to me--

CARLSON: No, you're right. It's a fact (ph)--

BONGINO: I'm just wondering. I mean they've no--

CARLSON: Can I -- can I ask you a really quick--

BONGINO: --expertise in at all.

CARLSON: --we're almost out of time. But we did a segment earlier. There was a guy called Rick Wilson, I've never met him--


CARLSON: --was attacking Trump supporters for not having good dental work, attacking poor people for having bad teeth, do you know this guy?

BONGINO: I have the unfortunate displeasure of having interacted with him often on Twitter. Listen, he's a Tier-1 level loser. I don't -- I don't know what to tell you. I mean I know that's probably not the most elegant way to say it, but he's just known for attacking people of this side (ph). He's made a target out of me in the past--

CARLSON: That's fine. Attack -- attack people. Don't attack--


CARLSON: --poor people for having bad teeth. It's one of the meanest things I've ever seen. And it just enraged me today for some reason.

BONGINO: Yes, well he does it because he was on the wrong side of the Trump prediction and he--

CARLSON: I guess.

BONGINO: --throw himself out so (ph)--

CARLSON: Whatever, that's OK. Ah! Dan Bongino, have the best weekend.

BONGINO: Yes, thank you, man.

CARLSON: Thank you.

BONGINO: Good to talk to you.

CARLSON: We're done for the week, sadly. Wish we could keep going. We'll be back Monday at 8:00, the show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

Sean Hannity, next from New York. 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.