This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," July 26, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well, good evening and welcome to a special "Inside the Issues" edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” we're taking a deeper dive for the next hour beneath the headlines into some of the issues that influenced the way America is changing.
First tonight, when Robert Mueller's final report on Russia came out this spring, the geniuses on television had one word for it, "damning," truly and completely damning, so damning you could block the Colorado River with it and create your own hydro power. It was that damning. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The report contains a potentially damning list of ways the President tried to quote "influence" the investigation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Arguing that the Mueller report is far more damning.
CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And it's not pretty. It is an ugly, damning piece of business.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree with him that it's absolutely damning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats say the report is damning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The report from the Special Counsel is more damning than all of those reports.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Far more damning to the President than the Attorney General initially indicated.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: But it's still very damning,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: As we told you, damning; and that's the geniuses concluded before a single one of them had even read the report. In fact, they still haven't read it. But eventually other people did read it or skim it and those people let our trusted television journalist know that actually Mueller's report really didn't say very much.
There was no collusion in it, much less treason. It wasn't much of anything actually, it was disappointing. So, at that point, the media and their masters in the Democratic Party had a choice to make, they could have moved on and started worrying about America's actual problems. There are many of those, or they could double down on a weekend and demand that Robert Mueller come testify before Congress. As you know, they chose the latter.
Mueller himself did not want to participate in any of this. He didn't see the point of it, but Democrats insisted. And so this Wednesday, Mueller shuffled up to Capitol Hill. Democrats prodded him like a zoo animal hoping that he would transform suddenly into Clarence Darrow and deliver an epic speech denouncing Trump as a traitor to our nation and a war criminal. But he didn't do that.
So, California's Ted Lieu pushed him. Lieu tried to make Mueller explain that even though he did not indict Donald Trump, Trump should still be in prison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.: And I'd like to ask you the reason again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?
ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: That is correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Oh, get it? Orange Mussolini was a criminal all along. Mueller never said Trump committed a crime in his report. He also didn't say that at his press conference or in his opening statement.
But finally, Ted Lieu was able to extract the truth from Robert Mueller. President Trump is a criminal. Except not. A few hours later, Mueller backtracked and clarified that he had not called the President a criminal. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUELLER: Now, before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Liue, who said, and I quote, "You didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion." That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: "As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening," in other words, Mueller wasn't saying anything new. He was just repeating what he'd been saying for months. But Congressman Ted Lieu was not convinced by this. Indeed, Ted Lieu smelled a rat. There had to be a reason that Robert Mueller was unwilling to disavow two years of work, and all of his prior statements to produce a Democratic talking point for Ted Lieu. What could the reason be?
Ted Lieu had a pretty good idea. Clearly, the Russians had gotten to Mueller, too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You were at the center yesterday of one of the most dramatic moments of the hearings with Robert Mueller, where he had to walk back this testimony to you in response to your questioning.
LIEU: It wasn't until there was a recess at the Intel Committee that he started to walk some of that back. I don't know who got to him. I don't know who talked to them. But that was very odd what he did.
BLITZER: Well, what are you suggesting? Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?
LIEU: I don't know. But he clearly answered the way he answered to me and then he had numerous times to walk that back. So, I don't really understand what happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Hmm. Now to be clear, this is a diagnosis. This is how crazy people talk. Tin foil Ted is a nut cake. He is like your cousin who is convinced the moon landing was faked on a soundstage. Ted Lieu thinks he's got secret knowledge that explains everything. How did the Russians get to Robert Mueller? Was it a cash bribe in rubles? Could it have been brainwashing? Are they holding some of his kids hostage in a Lubyanka Prison?
Hopefully one of our beautiful congressional correspondents will ask Ted Lieu for details. We'd like to know.
But first, it might be worth checking in with Lieu's colleague, Eric Swalwell. If you think Ted Lieu has gone around the bend, and he, you haven't listened to Swalwell recently. He sets the standard. Listen to Eric Swalwell explain that Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling our voting machines. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: I fear that we are more vulnerable than we were in 2016. Because Russia and other countries will see the United States is open for business when it comes to interference.
BLITZER: Well, do you worry that the Russians have developed the capability to actually change vote -- vote counts in the United States?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes. And to think there are people who believe we should legalize hallucinogenic mushrooms. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's sad as hell to watch, actually. But it's also unnerving because adult political parties must exist in tangible reality.
The Democratic Party no longer does. For two years, they have accused anyone who has ever read a Tolstoy novel of being a Russian agent, and they mean it. Stacey Abrams announced that she is the real governor of Georgia after losing by 50,000 votes. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us recently that border enforcement is actually a plot to build Nazi death camps in America, and so on.
These are not minor figures in the Democratic Party. These are its leaders. What's going to happen when these people get to run the country?
Buck Sexton is the host of "The Buck Sexton Show," a frequent guest on our show, and we're always glad to have him. Buck, just let's -- I've been dismissing these claims as absurd. But I just want to run them by you, just as a fact check. Is there any evidence that the Russians are controlling Robert Mueller?
BUCK SEXTON, HOST, "THE BUCK SEXTON SHOW": No, absolutely not. But let's remember that there have been former very senior members of the Intelligence Committee where I used to work as a C.I.A. analyst. There have been people who have come out, former directors, who have also indicated that without any evidence, by the way, without evidence, like the journalists like to say about some things, maybe someone got to Donald Trump, they have something on him. He is a Russian asset. He's a traitor.
There's nothing that is too extreme for them to say in this regard, and yet they never provide any evidence. It used to be, "Oh, once the Mueller report comes out, then we'll see this elusive evidence." Now it's "Well, Mueller didn't get it. But the gum shoes in Congress are somehow going to find this stuff out just in time for the election."
Look, Tucker, it's just bad faith at this point. It's been bad faith all along, and if someone believes that Trump is controlled by the Russians, they're either very cynical or not very smart.
CARLSON: But not just Trump. Now, it's Robert Mueller. And now it's our voting machines. And I wonder how long it'll be until the Russians control our polling companies?
SEXTON: Well, there's also --
CARLSON: That's to explain why Eric Swalwell had to get out of the race because the Russians dropped his polls to negative numbers. I mean, do they believe it? Or are they just saying it? I'm starting to think they believe it.
SEXTON: I think there are some who believe it and certainly the audiences of CNN and MSNBC have been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that the big reveal was coming, that I don't believe at this point, the Democrats could walk it back.
I don't think that the hosts on those networks could say, "You know, maybe we got this mostly, if not entirely wrong all along." So, they have to double down and play into this. But let's also remember that the big reveal this week was that Bob Mueller was not in fact, running this investigation, he was not -- the paragon of virtue that Bob Mueller supposed to be was used as a front. He was essentially a cover story for a whole bunch of people that everyone knew all along working on the Mueller probe, were effectively Democrat pro-Hillary operatives with law degrees.
But we were told, "Don't worry about it. Bob Mueller would never let them run wild. This couldn't be a political vendetta." Well, Mueller was just a figurehead. It was a political vendetta, and now I think they're talking even crazier than they usually do, Tucker, on this stuff, because they just want to change the subject at some level.
And let's also note that when Eric Swalwell said, I know the day that he dropped out was the saddest day in American history for point 0.0001 percent of Democratic primary voters, but now that he said that maybe somebody in the Russian government or maybe the Russian Intelligence Services could affect votes, just by planting that seed, there will be nutcases on the left with major platforms -- and I'm sure some who are elected to office, who when Trump wins, as I think he will -- not to jinx anything in 2020, they'll make that claim just based on Swalwell's wild speculation on television, but that's kind of been the M.O. the whole time for the Democrats with the Mueller probe.
CARLSON: Well, of course, but they don't believe it, because if they did, they wouldn't be for internet voting. They'd be for same day paper ballot voting with IDs. And they're against all of that. They're for voter fraud. So if they really were afraid that the Russians are subverting our voting system, they would do something as absurd --
SEXTON: Yes, it's all about national security until someone says, "What about voter ID guys?" And then they don't care anymore?
CARLSON: Exactly. Buck Sexton. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.
SEXTON: Tucker, Thanks.
CARLSON: It's getting harder and harder for people who make wild claims like the ones you just heard to win elections on substance. But coming up, they may not have to.
America's largest tech companies are overwhelmingly in the Democratic column. And they're not afraid to use their power for ideological purposes. Tonight, we have a remarkable guest joining us. He is a current Google employee who says his company is far from politically neutral. Greg Coppola is a current Google engineer, and he joins us tonight. Greg, thanks very much for coming on the show.
GREG COPPOLA, GOOGLE ENGINEER: Hey, thanks, Tucker. Good to be here.
CARLSON: So, you -- first of all, I'm grateful that you're here. I'm surprised that you're willing to come on and speak to us live, but we're thankful. You're telling us that Google is what they claim not to be, which is partisan and political. Is that correct?
COPPOLA: Well, here's what I would say. I would say that, as a user of various tech products, I noticed a lot of the same biases that a lot of people have been concerned about in terms of the end result.
COPPOLA: And the one thing I just wanted to communicate to anyone, maybe who isn't used to launching software products into production, that basically any software launch reflects the outcome of thousands of human decisions. If you made different human decisions, you would get a different result.
And so if you see a result, if you see a resulting end product that seems to encode a bias of one sort or another, there must have been that bias in the process that produced the end result, because like I say, you know, different human decisions that went into the process would produce completely different results.
CARLSON: So, this gets to the core business at Google and the question about Google, which is Google Search. And so, all human information essentially flows through this portal. And if you ask Google, and I have, how is it sorted? They will say, by an algorithm, and the suggestion is that it's unbiased, because the machine is doing it. And you're saying that that's not true.
COPPOLA: Right. In fact, in my experience, you know, as algorithms get more complicated and more advanced, they only have -- that only means that they have more human decisions going into them. So, there's actually more opportunities for human beings to influence, you know, the final product.
CARLSON: So, this is a meaningful -- this is not an academic conversation, because we've got a presidential campaign on the horizon -- and again, all American voters get the bulk of their information about everything, including candidates on the internet, and Google, of course, is the portal to the internet.
So, do you think that the biases you're describing will influence the outcome of the election? How could they not?
COPPOLA: I think it is going to, if people aren't able to think critically about all the information that they're being given, especially if there's kind of this illusion that maybe somehow technology exists in a world that's completely apart from humans, that somehow you can create a computer that will think for itself and be free of any human biases, then you know, people could be easily misled or manipulated.
CARLSON: Will you be -- so you're basically saying that Google is a liberal company and its liberalism will tilt the presidential election. Are you going to be punished for coming on our show to say this?
COPPOLA: I'm not sure what's going to happen. I'm on administrative leave at the moment, and I'm not sure about the future.
CARLSON: Okay. Well, hopefully, you'll come back and tell us what happens. Greg Coppola, thank you very much for that.
COPPOLA: Thanks very much.
CARLSON: Google's agenda isn't just a concern for conservatives, it is worrying to anybody who believes in free speech and certainly to anyone who wants to challenge the status quo.
For example, after last month's Democratic debates, Tulsi Gabbard, the Congresswoman from Hawaii, was the single most searched candidate and she well deserved to be. She was the only one on stage saying anything interesting or sane. All of that extra attention was a great opportunity to buy ads for her campaign, but Google wouldn't let her.
For several critical hours, Tulsi Gabbard was blocked from buying new ads on Google. Now, Gabbard is suing Google. She is accusing them of deliberately censoring her ads and sending her campaign's e-mails to the SPAM folder at a much higher rate. Is that true? We can't say for sure, it certainly sounds true. And given what we already know about Google, it is definitely possible.
We hope Gabbard's lawsuit is able to find the truth and of course, we'll be keeping you abreast of what it does find.
We want to bring you a Fox News Alert, the Supreme Court has just handed the Trump administration a major victory tonight in its fight to build a wall along our southern border.
Last February, you'll remember, the President declared an emergency along our southern border and sought to use money allocated for Defense to build barriers -- the border wall. The lower court blocked him from spending the money though.
Well, now in a decision released tonight, the Supreme Court overturned that lower court ruling and the administration will have access to about two and a half billion dollars of Pentagon funds.
A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the administration can now begin wall construction before the litigation finishes. President tweeted in response quote, "Wow. Big victory on the wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows southern border wall to proceed. Big win for border security and the rule of law." We will continue to follow the story, of course.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is finally getting the attention she deserves for her radical views from her mysterious past and her obvious duplicity. Now a new report says there could be real drama in her personal life. Trace Gallagher has that story for us, next.
Plus, the White House plans to execute five criminals, Democrats are outraged. Why exactly? That's just ahead as our special continues.
CARLSON: Welcome back to our "Inside the Issues" Special. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is facing increased scrutiny for her views. She is also getting attention for a story that's been building for years, her unusual marriage history.
Several journalists have looked closely into her background and they believe that Omar had a fraudulent marriage to a man who could be her biological brother. The local paper has been unable to get anywhere in the story because Omar refuses to answer even basic questions about her family.
Now a new report in "The Daily Mail" says her current marriage may be in trouble as well. Trace Gallagher has the very latest on all of this -- Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, "The Daily Mail" is reporting that Ilhan Omar is splitting with her current husband, Ahmed Hirsi. This would technically be her second divorce from Hirsi, but legally, it's the first. Stay with me here.
She religiously married Ahmed Hirsi in 2002, had two children, then religiously divorced him back in 2008. They got back to together in 2012, had another child, but didn't legally get married until last year.
When asked about the latest separation, Ahmed Hirsi her see said quote, "Wow, I can't comment on that. I'm sorry. I just can't say anything." Then of course there's the controversy surrounding her other marriage. In 2009, she legally and religiously married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Both PJ Media investigative reporter David Steinberg and Judicial Watch claim they have significant evidence to prove that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is actually Ilhan Omar's brother and she married him as a sham to get him into the country.
Fox cannot confirm these reports, but we can confirm that Ilhan Omar was found to have violated campaign finance laws by filing a joint tax return with Ahmed Hirsi when she was still legally married to somebody else -- Tucker.
CARLSON: Byzantine. Trace Gallagher, thanks so much. Well, thanks to the recently passed the First Step Act, more than 3,000 criminals have been released early from Federal Prison. You remember when the First Step Act was being debated, we were all told that only nonviolent criminals would be the beneficiaries of the law.
Some like Senator Mike Lee of Utah told us that the Bill would not provide early release to criminals, only incentivize participation in so-called recidivism reduction programs. But that turned out to be completely untrue.
In less than a year, the First Step Act has granted early release to a lot of dangerous people and it didn't require any of them to do anything to earn it. Here's one example.
In October 2008, Okin White participated in the robbery -- an armed robbery -- of a Brooklyn apartment. During that robbery, White and his accomplices tied up two children including a seven-year-old girl. They pistol whipped a woman and threatened to kill her and her entire family if she didn't reveal where the cash and the drugs were hidden.
Every victim of that robbery had be hospitalized; one, for more than a week. Now, White would still be in prison right now where he deserves to be, but thanks to the First Step Act, he was released last week. Here's the key. He didn't join any recidivism reduction program. Instead, since the Bill retroactively increased his good behavior credits, his sentence was simply shortened. White didn't have to do anything. He is out of Federal Prison now along with hundreds of other people like him convicted of sex crimes, robbery, assault, and other acts of violence.
Remember, these are the nonviolent marijuana users who are getting out early. Right? It's not true, but Washington doesn't care. For them, crime is an abstraction. They don't have to live with the consequences. So, it's not a big deal. They can feel virtuous, your neighborhood gets more dangerous.
Senator Tom Cotton represents Arkansas. He was one of the most vocal opponents of this law last year and he joins us tonight. Senator, are you surprised?
SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.: Tucker, I'm not surprised at all that almost 5,000 serious felons, as you say murderers, sex offenders, robbers, drug lords had been released early under this law. I predicted it. This would happen exactly as it has. You could read the plain text of the law and know that thousands of felons are going to be released in just months after its passage.
CARLSON: So, I'm one -- I think of myself as one of the people who you can convince on this. I mean, I think there are people in prison who deserve to be released. I don't think that everybody who commits a crime should spend the rest of his life in prison and I believe in rehabilitation.
What I'm infuriated by is they told us that the people getting out early would be sent to recidivism reduction classes, in other words, they would be rehabilitated. And in a lot of cases, as the one we just described, they haven't been. They've just been released early. They lied to us.
COTTON: Well, Tucker, I agree with what you said about the goals of what that legislation should have had, which is trying to get people back on their feet, to give them an education, to help them find the Lord. So, when they leave prison as everyone does, if they're not sentenced to death or life without parole, they become a productive member of society.
But it was always the case that thousands of serious felons were going to be released early if that Bill passed. I said it at the time, and it's come to pass now.
CARLSON: I mean, is there anything that could be done about it? I mean, if you're going to really serious felons -- violent felons -- then why can't they go into one of these much talked about recidivism reduction programs? Why do they have to just be released?
COTTON: Tucker, about the good news is that Attorney General Bill Barr believes very firmly in law and order, and he is taking a very deliberate and careful approach to crafting some of these programs and the way that prisoners who go into them will be released from prison in the future. His hands have been largely tied, though on these releases up until now.
But just look at what Attorney General Barr did this week in signing execution warrants for five heinous murderers. One, who murdered an eight- year-old girl and her parents just a few miles up the road from where I grew up in Arkansas. It gives you a sense of where Attorney General Barr's mind is when it comes to criminal justice; that he wants to make sure that we are protecting the vulnerable among us in our communities.
CARLSON: Let me just ask you one final question on this Friday night. I mean, you are again, probably the lead of the opposition to this law. Some people you work within who are your friends supported it. Now that we know that the law isn't working the way they told us it was going to work, have any of those people come up to you and said, "You know, I was wrong. I'm sorry."
COTTON; No, Tucker, not many people in Washington, which is a town of a lot of folks who make confident predictions that don't come to pass have come up and said, "Yes, you told us so." And I don't take pleasure in saying, "I told you so."
You know what has come to pass is what I predicted that thousands of serious and oftentimes violent felons will be released. To my knowledge, none of them have committed a crime yet. I said at the time that given recidivism rates, especially if they don't go through any kind of anti- recidivism training, they're likely to commit crimes in the future. I hope I'm wrong in that prediction. But with the thousands of serious felons release early, I fear that I won't be.
CARLSON: Senator Tom Cotton, thanks so much for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.
COTTON: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, the Black Plague killed a third of Europe 700 years ago. Now, thanks to the homeless epidemic in some of our biggest cities, the Black Plague is back. That's next is as our "Inside the Issue" Special continues.
CARLSON: Welcome back to our "Inside the Issues" Special hour. Almost 700 years ago, the Black Death, the Bubonic Plague killed about a third of the entire population of Europe. The disease behind that again, the Bubonic Plague and it came we think from rats.
Fortunately, the plague is almost done heard of in modern times. But now it could be coming back. Where? Well, to the City of Los Angeles. Why? Massive homeless encampments there are so filthy that they have brought rats, rats have brought fleas and those fleas carry bubonic plague.
Now, the city is at a tipping point, 1.5 percent of the rats in Los Angeles are now believed to be carrying the plague. If that figure hits two percent, it will start jumping to humans.
Dr. Marc Siegel is Fox's medical expert and a frequent guest on our show. We're glad to have him back tonight. Doctor, this sounds like an imminent threat.
MARC SIEGEL, MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I think it is an imminent threat. You already mentioned that rats are carrying the fleas. The fleas are on the rats and the fleas are carrying a bacteria called Y. pestis that causes the Bubonic Plague.
And the problem is that rats are all over the place in Los Angeles and garbage is all over the place and the rats are eating the garbage. And even if they bring garbage trucks to take away the garbage, more garbage is formed and then also human waste.
And the rats are proliferating, the fleas are proliferating. We're going to start seeing Bubonic Plague. Now, we can treat it with antibiotics, which we couldn't do in the Middle Ages, but you've to first know somebody has it, and you have to first be able to get the antibiotics to them, which is the point I've been making, which is as long as 60,000 people are living on the streets of Los Angeles, we can't treat their mental health issues. We can't treat their drug addiction. We can't treat their illnesses, their infections. We can't treat typhus and we certainly cannot treat the plague.
CARLSON: So, that's kind of the point. I mean, the reason we haven't had the Bubonic Plague really since the Middle Ages is because we have modern sanitary standards. And now we don't. So, it's not hard, right, to create a society where there aren't so many rats that you get the plague, is it?
SIEGEL: That is so true, Tucker, and I have to emphasize your point. We cleaned up the plague even before antibiotics because of public health. Here we are back in Middle Ages type situation. And let me tell you how we can fix that.
I worked in the Bellevue Emergency Room in the 80s and the 90s, and you know what we did? We used to have a diagnosis found on street, living in cardboard box, came in for three squares in a blanket. These patients came in with infections. They were dehydrated, they were malnourished.
What we did? We built shelters in New York. Now, New York, of course, is another Democratic stronghold, but two Republican Mayors were behind the expansion of shelters. Ninety five percent of the homeless in New York are now living in shelters, and we don't see the same kind of diseases.
Wake up, Los Angeles. You have a Democratic Mayor that's waving his hands saying, "Here's another garbage truck. Here's a shower I'm sending out to one of these streets." We need to get the homeless off the streets or we're never going to be able to treat these problems, and they're going to burgeon the neighborhoods next to them.
CARLSON: I mean, that's really it. It's just -- it's absolutely horrifying. And it gives you a sense of how tenuous our hold on society and modernity is. Dr. Siegel, thank you very much.
SIEGEL: Thanks very much, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well after decades of denial and secrecy and flat out lying, America's defense establishment is finally admitting some of what it knows about UFOs. The Navy has admitted that its pilots encounter unidentified aircraft so often that they've had to draft new reporting guidelines to allow pilots to come forward.
It's easy to find this funny, but it's also scary if you think about it. Our vast, well-funded defense establishment is seeing things in the sky they cannot account for, doing things they cannot understand. Should we be worried?
Congressman Mark Walker is a Republican representing the State of North Carolina. He just sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, about the Military's UFO investigations. We recently spoke to the Congressman, here's part of what he said.
CARLSON: Should we be worried about this?
REP. MARK WALKER, R-N.C.: Well, we are concerned about it as the Ranking Member of Terrorism and Counterintelligence, we have questions. It comes down to some of the new infrared radar systems that we're putting on some of our new jets, are detecting some things out there. We call them unidentified aerial threats, and that's something that we're looking at -- UAPs is what we call them. We want to know the information, and that's why it's important that we take a look at this.
CARLSON: So, this has been going on an awfully long time. There's a lot of data the government has stored about this; most of it, I think is still classified. But there must be theories about what these objects are with these aircrafts are. What's the most plausible theory, do you think?
WALKER: Well, we don't know for sure. Obviously, what we do know is the question that we're wanting to get to is, is this something that's a defense mechanism from another country?
We do know that China is looking at hypersonic missiles. That's 25,000 kilometers -- to sort of break it down into our language -- that's getting from D.C. where I am at to LA in about nine minutes. We don't know that nuclear warheads can be attached to those. Is it something like that? Or is it something more? We don't know. But I feel like it's something that we must take a look at and that's why we've written Secretary Spencer of the Navy.
CARLSON: Is there any indication that you're aware of that these sightings are foreign aircrafts? Russian or Chinese aircrafts?
WALKER: We don't know. We have no evidence to support that. We do know there's something that's traveling at that speed of what we call hypersonic now, which is a Mac 4 or 5, not too get too technical. That is something that we want to know. Is this something that another defense system in another country is more advanced? Or is it something else?
We're not trying to spin people out, but the AATIP, which is basically a program that monitors this was to close down a 2017, so part of my question, Tucker, is it really closed down? Are we still spending resources? Or is there more documentation that this program is still being able to file somewhere? That's something that we need to know, even if it's just for defense purposes alone.
CARLSON: We spoke to a government employee who has worked on this issue, who said that the U.S. government has wreckage from one of these aircraft. Do you know anything about that?
WALKER: We don't know. But that's one of the four questions that we are asking. Is there evidence being held somewhere -- not to get too spooky once again -- but if there is evidence, I believe it's important for people specifically, in my position as the Ranking Member of Terrorism and Counterintelligence, we need to know what this is.
CARLSON: Of course, that's -- and those are all legitimate questions.
WALKER: I believe so.
CARLSON: And I am grateful you're not being bullied or mocked into not asking them. I hope you'll come back and tell us what the answers are.
WALKER: We look forward when we find out, I'm coming back. Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thanks, Congressman. I appreciate it.
CARLSON: It's time now for "Final Exam." The question, can you beat our experts at remembering the weird things that happened over the past seven days? That's next as our special continues.
CARLSON: It is time now for "Final Exam," where we quiz the professionals here at Fox News to find out who's been paying the closest attention to the obscure news of the week. We have a very special challenger tonight. Martha MacCallum, of course, hosts "The Story" every night right before our program, 7:000 Eastern. We're glad to see her.
MACCALLUM: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: Martha MacCallum sitting next to Rick Reichmuth, our head meteorologist here at Fox. A man --
MACCALLUM: I feel like I am on a game show.
CARLSON: You are on a game show.
MACCALLUM: I am on a game show.
CARLSON: Rick Reichmuth is the returning champion.
RICK REICHMUTH, METEOROLOGIST: Yes.
CARLSON: This match up makes me nervous. I'm not sure why.
MACCALLUM: It's so scary. Me too.
CARLSON: I am not sure who to root for.
REICHMUTH: I want you to make sure of that, just for who is the returning champion.
MACCALLUM: Huh, you're trying to psych me out.
CARLSON: The returning champion. Martha, he is really good.
MACCALLUM: Oh boy. Why didn't you tell me that? I came in here like -- feeling like you know, like a million bucks and now I am scared.
CARLSON: In about six minutes, we will know the answer. Okay, you know the rules. I am going to repeat them for our audience. Hands on buzzers, I ask the questions. First one to buzz in gets to answer the question. Of course, critically, you must wait until I finish asking before you answer. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Every correct answer is worth a single point. If you get an answer wrong, we subtract a point. Best of five wins. Are you ready?
MACCALLUM: I guess so, yes.
CARLSON: All right, question one. We're going to start with multiple choice, so wait for all the options. According to newly released campaign documents, Joe Biden's presidential campaign has spent over $12,000.00 on what type of food? Is it A. Lobster tails? Is it B. Paella? Is it C. Clam Chowder?
REICHMUTH: No idea.
CARLSON: Martha MacCallum says paella. Paella?
REICHMUTH: Twelve thousand dollars?
CARLSON: Is it paella?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: POLITICO had pulled some of the most notable records in recently released financial forums finding that at one point, Joe Biden spent $12,000.00 on paella. So if you think that your donation to your favorite candidate is just funding campaign mailers and bumper stickers, you'd be wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: It wasn't just for him though.
CARLSON: I don't know what surprised me more that he spent 12 grand on paella or that you knew that. How would you know that? It's impressive.
MACCALLUM: I really like paella. I wish someone would spend 12 grand on paella for me.
CARLSON: I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds healthy. Okay. Question two. Another 2020 question here.
CARLSON: Despite telling us a lot about the importance of love, there is a Democratic candidate for President who says his testosterone -- he has so much testosterone welling up within him, he wants to punch the President in the face. Who is it?
MACCALLUM: Cory Booker.
CARLSON: Martha says Cory Booker.
REICHMUTH: It sounds like it.
CARLSON: Filled with testosterone. Is that true?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You cannot lead the people if you don't love the people. You cannot love your country, unless you love your fellow countrymen and women. Love is the best strategy.
Donald Trump has a guy who you understand he hurts you and my testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: That was the most awkward moment. Oh my.
CARLSON: In a long list of awkward moments, the testosterone filled Cory Booker. All right. Nice job, Martha MacCallum, up two, question three.
CARLSON: This is another multiple choice, so wait for all the options. The City of Berkeley, California across the Bay from San Francisco wants to eliminate dozens of gendered words and expressions. The word "manhole" henceforth will be known as A. A Person Tunnel? B. A Maintenance Hole? C. A People Pit? Rick.
REICHMUTH: Maintenance Hole.
CARLSON: Is it maintenance hole?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For example, the city is doing away with the term "manholes." It'll now be called a maintenance hole.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a steel cover. It's a steel cover on the ground. It's covering a hole that goes to the sewer. They come up with these cockamamie things all the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Impressive. Impressive. I was for people pit. I don't read the answers ahead of time by the way.
MACCALLUM: People pit.
CARLSON: So, you -- it's actually, you guys are being --
MACCALLUM: I really want to -- I really don't want to go into it.
CARLSON: Three-zero -- you really don't. All right. Question four is a two pointer. It's also again a multiple choice question. Here it is. A French inventor just failed in his attempt to cross the English Channel between France and the U.K. He made it halfway before dropping into the sea. What type of flying vehicle was he using? Was it A. A hand glider? B. A rocket drone? C. A hoverboard? Martha.
MACCALLUM: I think it was a hoverboard.
CARLSON: Was it a hoverboard? For two points.
[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]
REICHMUTH: That looks fun.
MACCALLUM: That does look fun. Is he going to make it though?
REICHMUTH: Hoverboard. Nicely done.
MACCALLUM: Thank you.
CARLSON: Martha MacCallum, ladies and gentlemen. Amazing.
MACCALLUM: How many more?
REICHMUTH: Yes, I don't know. How many more do we have to go here? Am I still in it?
CARLSON: We have one more question.
MACCALLUM: One more?
CARLSON: This is a multiple choice. It's worth two points. I don't know. This segment goes fast. Okay. Here it is. As we assure you, you both know, Thursday was National Wine and Cheese Day in this country. To celebrate, Kellogg's -- Kellogg's is celebrating Wine and Cheese Day for some reason -- and the company is selling a party combo box. Half the box contains red wine and the other half contains which cheesy snack? Is it A. Doritos? B. Cheetos. C. Cheez Its?
CARLSON: Rick. Cheez-Its.
MACCALLUM: Oh my favorite.
CARLSON: Rick Reichmuth says Cheez-Its.
MACCALLUM: I love Cheez-Its.
CARLSON: Is it now? Now, I'm a little confused as to where we are on the score. But we'll figure out the numbers after --
MACCALLUM: You're the boss.
CARLSON: After we find out. Here we go to the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, TALK SHOW HOST: This is cool. I saw the Cheez-Its -- I love Cheez-Its. They're teaming up with -- this is real. They're teaming up with the vineyard to make a box that has half Cheez-Its and half wine.
People in the store were like, "Gross. I'll take a dozen boxes."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REICHMUTH: I mean, it's amazing.
MACCALLUM: I'm going to get that. It's a great combination.
REICHMUTH: Nicely done.
MACCALLUM: Weekend and a box right there.
CARLSON: Amazing. I don't think we've ever had a "Final Exam" with better informed contestants. That's just remarkable four to three though, Martha MacCallum host to the 7:00 p.m. hour of "The Story" wins.
REICHMUTH: Wasn't mine a two-pointer, the first one?
CARLSON: Look I'm merely a marionette repeating the math done by accountants in the control room by our producers. Rick Reichmuth, thank you very much. Martha MacCallum. Congratulations.
REICHMUTH: Nicely done.
CARLSON: You are our new champion.
MACCALLUM: Oh, that's scary.
CARLSON: We're passing you an Erik Wemple mug. By the way, this is American made. This was not made in some sweatshop in China by slave labor.
MACCALLUM: This is so special.
CARLSON: This was made by happy Americans. Erik Wemple's face hand painted on there. You can get one on tuckercarlson.com if you want one at home. Enjoy your coffee. Martha MacCallum, congratulations.
MACCALLUM: Thank you, Tucker. That was fun.
CARLSON: Thank you, Rick. More "Final Exam" next week. We'll be right back.
CARLSON: It's Friday. It's time to wrap up our special presentation with the "Dan Bongino News explosion." Our favorite New York City cop is here to share his top stories to what has been a remarkable week in the news. Dan Bongino joins us tonight. Hey, Dan.
DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Tucker, always good to see you. And I just want you to know that I bought the Erik Wemple mug. I'm not kidding. And when we do this in the next appearance from my studio -- it hasn't arrived yet -- I will be toasting with my Erik Wemple mug from tuckercarlson.com. I'm not messing with you, brother.
CARLSON: It's going to be coveted. It's an heirloom. Thank you for that.
BONGINO: Yes. I can't wait. All right. Here we go with my top stories this week. Story number three. The Erica Thomas story. Quick background. Erica Thomas is a lawmaker from Georgia, got into some beef in a public supermarket with a guy. Allegations came out after she posted a video that the guy told her to go back to your country or where you came from. It turns out this story was another hoax.
This is not a story about Trump and tweets or anything else, but it's really a story about, Tucker, is don't mess with people on the express line in the supermarket. When they say 10 items, they mean 10 items.
The guy who confronted her, who by the way is Cuban. He is a Cuban- American, he is not white, was apparently so furious about the express line and Erica Thomas's items that he confronted her and said some nasty things. Bottom line, don't mess around in the express line -- 10 means 10 items. A public service announcement from Dan Bongino.
CARLSON: Ten means ten.
BONGINO: Ten means ten.
CARLSON: That's a really good point, Dan.
BONGINO: Thank you. All right. Story number two. This was a sad story, given my background with the NYPD. You know, I spent a lot of time in the streets of the 75 Precinct in East New York, and I learned a lot. It is a great job. But the disrespect for our police officers, these water attacks, these bucket attacks are a real shame.
And Tucker, I've said it earlier on "The Five" and I'll say it on your show. I pin the blame directly on the leadership of New York City. The New York City cops I know and I still talk to are some of the bravest, finest men and women I have ever met my entire life.
Listen, every agency -- I get it -- has their bad apples. Ninety nine percent of the men and women that work there are heroes, working for almost no money. They are never going to get rich putting up with the garbage they put up with and I'll tell you what, in the Giuliani administration, here was the rule, Tucker, if someone threw a rock or a bucket at a cop, you got arrested. The second guy who throws a bucket or a rock at a cop, they get arrested. There was no third guy. The example have already been set. No one else wanted to go to jail.
With de Blasio, it's lectures about how he has to give his son a special lecture about the police because they're all racist or something. He is a disgrace to humankind and our gene code. And this guy should resign immediately and give the cops a real leader in New York City. It's a disgrace what's happening to some of the finest men and women we have on our planet. These are great men and women, they really don't deserve this.
CARLSON: And I agree with you. The police don't deserve it in New York or anywhere else. But you also have got to wonder about everyone else who lives in the city. I mean, what's going to happen in a city of eight million people where the police are powerless even to you know, respond to this?
BONGINO: Well, I can tell you, Tucker --
CARLSON: The crime has got to go up, right?
BONGINO: You're going to have the David Dinkins New York, pre-broken windows where chaos reigned, everybody jumped the turnstile. You peed in the street, you drank in the street, you beat up your buddies in the street and nobody cared because we didn't do anything about low level crimes unless you murdered someone.
BONGINO: The problem, Tucker is the same guy who was peeing in the alleyway after drinking was the same guy who would have murdered someone later. That's why broken windows, policing work, but de Blasio doesn't understand any of that because he is all about making SJW -- social justice warrior tropes out there to try to raise campaign dollars to get above 0.0000 percent in his dopey presidential race. Just another embarrassment to politics.
CARLSON: Nicely put.
BONGINO: Well, thanks.
CARLSON: You've got about 20 seconds to hit us with your top story.
BONGINO: All right, well final story has been covered to death, the disaster on Capitol Hill, the Mueller implosion. What a mess. Listen, here's my quick thought on this. If Jerry Nadler who decided this was a good idea had done this -- and literally any other job in America -- he'd be walked out of the building immediately. What a mess. Jerry Nadler should have resigned after that disaster. Terrible job.
CARLSON: That's a really good point. No normal job that would allow that.
CARLSON: Dan Bongino. Thank you for that explosion. Have the best weekend.
BONGINO: You too, buddy. See you.
CARLSON: That's about it for tonight's Special Edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” We will be back Monday, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Have a great weekend with the ones you love. See you soon.
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.