This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 5, 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.” How do you know if you are living in a free society? Here's a quick test. Are you allowed to say obviously true things in public? Or are you forced to lie?

As George Orwell put it in 1984, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

But what if that freedom isn't granted? What if you are required to repeat things you know aren't true? What if everyone who hears you know perfectly well that you are lying, but can't say out loud? What if they're required instead to nod along and mock sincerity as if it's all completely real? That's what a PEP rally in a police state looks like. "Thanks to the dear leader for bountiful potato harvest," they chant even as they starve to death.

You get the same feeling as you watch the current race for the Democratic nomination. Pete Buttigieg is in that race a few years ago back when he was best known for being Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg made the point that all lives matter.

He said it because it's true -- all lives do matter no matter what they look like. Every life has value, period. That's the message of Christianity and of the civilization that it spawned in the west, but in the modern Democratic Party, that can no longer be acknowledged, so Buttigieg apologized for his wrong-think.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In 2015, you said that all lives matter when you spoke about two police controversies that were happening in South Bend. Was that a mistake?

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-SOUTH BEND, INDIANA: What I did not understand at that time was that that phrase just early into mid especially 2015 was coming to be viewed as a sort of counter slogan to Black Lives Matter, and so the statement that seems very anodyne and something that was kind of nobody could be against actually wound up being used to devalue what the Black Lives Matter Movement was telling us.

Since learning about how that phrase was being used to push back on that activism, I stopped using it in that context.


CARLSON: "I'm sorry I said all lives matter. I won't say that again. Going forward only some lives will matter, whatever lives the party deems meaningful. I am penitent and I stand corrected." The crowd nodded gravely. "We are pleased to see your turn of heart, comrade."

Well at least Buttigieg managed to preserve some dignity as he went through the motions of his ritual apology. Beto O'Rourke who is 46 years old and still skate boards has no dignity. When asked about a harmless joke he once told about his wife staying home to raise the kids, O'Rourke fell apart completely.

He groveled and whimpered and abased himself. He even expanded the self- criticism and apologized for how he was born.


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Constructive criticism -- it has already made me a better candidate, not only will I not say that again, but I will be much more thoughtful going forward in the way that I talk about our marriage and also the way in which I acknowledge the truth of the criticism that I have enjoyed white privilege, absolutely, undeniable.


CARLSON: This is what Maoist tribunals looked like during the Cultural Revolution. By summary, you can picture Beto wearing a paper dunce cap with white privilege scrawled across it in red letters as a warning to other would-be counter revolutionaries.

Pretty much everyone running for President as a Democrat this year has had to face inquisitions like this. They write their confessions of guilt bowing before their accusers on social media and begging for forgiveness.

Kirsten Gillibrand read her confession on live television years ago when running for a different office. Gillibrand once expressed sympathy for the idea of a border. Looking back, she is deeply ashamed. She can hardly believe she ever thought something so immoral.


RACHEL MADDOW, ANCHOR, MSNBC: You essentially said that you were embarrassed about previous position on immigration.


MADDOW: Tell me about that.

GILLIBRAND: Well, I don't think it was driven from my heart. I was callus to the suffering of families who wants to be with their loved ones. People who want to be reunited with their families and I recognize, as we all do that immigration and diversity is our strength as a country.

I really regretted that I didn't look beyond my district and talk about why this is an important part of the United States' story.


CARLSON: "Diversity is our strength," she says. "I once was lost, but now I'm found. Diversity is our strength." This is the new Nicene Creed. Don't ask what it means, that's not your place. Just mouth the words.

Well, there is nothing liberal about any of this. Obviously, it is purely authoritarian -- woke fascism. Power over ideas in place of thinking, obedience. In return for dissent, punishment. Lying as an official policy. And not just conventional lying, the ordinary truth shading of everyday life, but terrifying full inversion lies. The exact opposite of the truth. The kind of lies that regimes that seek total control must tell in order to maintain their power.

The latest of these lies is that low grade mafia figure, Al Sharpton is in fact a legitimate Civil Rights leader. All of the Democratic candidates claim to believe that now. This week they trooped over to his extremely tax except organization to pretend he is the new MLK.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know that Reverend Sharpton takes his platform seriously. This is not the place for talk. This is the place for action.

GILLIBRAND: People like Reverend Sharpton who has never stopped fighting for social justice.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, thank you so much Reverend. Thank you for your wisdom and your witness. Your work ...

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am expressing my deep appreciation to you, Reverend Al, for everything have you done not just organizing this conference, but more importantly, over the years to make sure that this country can live up to the words of its founding documents and then well beyond.


CARLSON: Ah, the Reverend Sharpton fighting for social justice. Where were these people in the mid-1990s? When Al Sharpton was denouncing a Jewish landlord in Harlem as a quote, "white interloper" just before his store was fire bombed and eight people were killed?

Well, Beto was still a mannie then. Kirsten Gillibrand was a lawyer working for the cigarette companies. None of them were woke yet. They are now. Watch them clamor for an idea that not 20 percent of the American population supports race-based reparations.


AL SHARPTON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER FOR PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has proposed a bill to form a commission to study how to do reparations.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When I am elected President, I will sign it.


SHARPTON: Would you sign that bill?



SHARPTON: Would you sign it?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If the House and Senate pass that bill, of course I would sign it.

GILLIBRAND: I firmly support Congresswoman Jackson Lee's bill to create a commission to study reparations.

SHARPTON: Would you sign the bill for reparations?

WARREN: Yes, I would. I already support that bill.

CASTRO: There are things that we need to do in this country that have been a long time and coming. One of those is to move forward with reparations.


CARLSON: Well it's like an altar call. In fact, it is an altar call, the modern version. But the bigger question isn't will we get reparations in this country? %he real question is, do you want to live in a place where people like the ones you just saw on the screen have more political power where humor and dissent are criminal acts? Where lying is the currency of public life? Where authorities whose names you don't know can destroy you for thinking the wrong things?

You're familiar with that world. You have you seen it before. It's called Twitter. Imagine if it had control of the U.S. military.

Jason Hill is a Professor of Philosophy at DePaul University and the author of the book "We Have Overcome" and he joins us tonight.

Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So define for us, if you would, what it means to be woke? Everyone we just played on the screen, I think would describe him or herself as woke. It's a certain brand of political philosophy right now. What is it?

JASON HILL, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Well, first of all, it's a non-concept. It's floating abstraction that really has no meaning. I think woke culture really means to instill in people a sense of invoking social justice or injustices that have been inflicted upon marginalized groups.


HILL: But really what woke culture is successful in doing is inviting people to accuse people who don't agree with their mores or their norms or their sense of what constitutes social injustice as bigots, as ethno- centric, as racists.

And it is a form of moral bullying, I think, in terms of coercing people into a kind of consensus around what constitutes injustice when what constitutes a concept of injustice might be open to moral debate and it is a way of shutting down debate, really by invoking a non-concept. Woke is really a non-concept. It really doesn't stand for anything.

I think when individual rights are violated, we have a right as a moral society to say that individual rights have been violated in this area, but the concept of a woke culture is really a bullying movement to shut down free debate, to shut down dissent when so-called received wisdom by members of probably the very, very far left had been challenged on their viewpoints.

CARLSON: So what you are describing is really a form of social control?

HILL: Social control.

CARLSON: How could you -- but how could you have a functioning democracy? How could you have pluralism under a system like you just described?

HILL: Well, you can't. You cannot. And I think that especially on issues that affect the public interest that affect the public. You need to have a divergent -- a multiplicity of viewpoints. You can't have a thriving democracy in which consenting viewpoints are criminalized or demonized.

For example, with the recent controversy going on with Google and the Heritage Foundation and the President of the Heritage Foundation being on the Advisory Board of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board and having all, you know, conservative viewpoints being criminalized, I think here is an issue, Tucker, where -- and I'm not an enemy of artificial intelligence, but I think in areas where artificial intelligence can nefariously affect the sanctity and dignity of human life, you do need to have religious viewpoints, you do need to have conservative viewpoints that can properly frame and question and debate policies and research projects and then actions that can affect the dignity and sanctity of human life and to sort of just like frame opposing viewpoints as a form of bigotry or criminalize them is really quite dangerous to a free and open society.

CARLSON: Well, I am still struck by -- I mean, they have always been forces - totalitarian forces in this in every society, but quickly, I am wondering, why is nobody in power in that Party standing up against them?

HILL: Because I think there is a system of fear and political correctness that has been -- that has really superseded truth. We have spoken about this on your show before.


HILL: There is a degree of relativism that takes prevalence over truth and objectivity and there is -- and the preference for pandering to people's feelings and pandering to people's emotions take precedence over the truth and I think people would rather appease feelings and emotions of persons rather than get to the hard truth which comes by contestation of divergent viewpoints ...

CARLSON: Well, that's exactly right.

HILL: ... attending to rejoinders, right, and I think that emotionality and emotionalism have taking precedence over something called truth and standards for adjudicating among truth claims in this country. And it's a form of moral cowardice that has taken ascendancy in our culture.

CARLSON: I agree with that for certain. You are not a moral coward. That's obvious. Professor, thank you very much.

HILL: Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Well, we have described woke fascism. We want to bring you now a premier example of it. It's our next guest. Titania McGrath, a self- described radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice and armed peaceful protest.

Titania's preferred pronouns are ze, zim and zer. For the past year, ze has been tweeting heavily to 240,000 followers. Here is a sampling of those tweets, quote, "The only bad thing about e-books is that you can't burn them if they are offensive." "If a sufficient number of feminists were to join ISIS, we could turn it into a progressive social justice movement." "The police have asked me to stop contacting them whenever someone disagrees with one of my tweets. And they say we are not living in a fascist state."

Now Titania has a new book, it's called "Woke: A Guide to Social Justice." Here is an excerpt from the book. "I would go so far as to say all knowledge is a patriarchal construct because it has been acquired over centuries of male totalitarianism. Every time a man speaks therefore, he is contributing to a culture of androcentric hegemony. In order to remedy this problem, we need to assure that women today are speaking more than men. This is why I never stop talking even when I have nothing of value to say."

You should read it. Actually, you really should because fortunately, the author is not real. She is the work of English writer and comedian, Andrew Doyle, who is by the way genius. Maybe too smart for some of his critics on the left. Twitter's cultural staucy have banned and reinstated his Twitter feed no fewer than four times. We are proud to have Andrew Doyle join us tonight. Andrew Doyle, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: Let me just say, you write one of the best things on the entire internet and that's -- I mean that as high praise. Why do you think you are so disliked by the people you are mocking? Are you surprised that they see your mockery for what it is?

DOYLE: Not at all. I mean, if I was the person being mocked, I wouldn't find it very funny either. But part of the whole point of the Titania character is that she is this very kind of po-faced, very sort of privileged woman who still think she's is oppressed because she is a modern-day feminist who believes in this sort of nebulous thing that we call the patriarchy. But she never laughs and she never has a sense of humor about herself.

And I think one of the reasons I wanted to poke fun at this whole woke movement because ultimately, it is totally humorless. It can't have a joke. It can't handle a joke because it is constantly looking to be offended by absolutely anything even when there is nothing to be offended about.

So of course, the woke people aren't going to like this book. And in fact, the fact that they don't suggest that I am doing something right.

CARLSON: I think that's right. I first -- so someone sent me one of your tweets, I mean, some time ago and it wasn't clear to me whether it was real or not. You must get that a lot. I mean, do you have people who believe that this is sincere?

DOYLE: Oh, absolutely. I get it all the time. But I mean, in the book, I constantly quote a genuine modern social justice activist alongside with what I am saying of Titania and the point is that you can see that they are not a million miles away from each other. That's what's quite scary about this.

I mean, like when Titania tweets and says, "The only way we can stop the rise of fascism is if the government are allowed to arrest the people for what they say and think. I mean, that's obviously a self-contradictory joke.

But actually, it's not a million miles away from this kind of censorial basically authoritarian aspect that comes with the social justice movement as it currently stands. I mean, I think social justice should be something that is wonderful. It should be something that we are looking out for, you know ...

CARLSON: Of course.

DOYLE: ... because you know, we're standing up against racism, homophobia and the rest of it. But it's not that, is it? The way it currently plays out is nothing like that, it's actually quite sinister.

CARLSON: I'm just struck that you are one of the only talented comedians who has been brave enough to make fun of this. Why is that?

DOYLE: Well, I mean, you will have noticed probably over the past few years that comedians are constantly told to apologize for any joke that causes any offense at all. The problem with that is, there is literally not a single joke I could make that wouldn't upset someone in my audience, right?

I've had situations where people have been upset. I mean, I could tell a knock-knock joke and someone could be upset because maybe their wife was crushed by a heavy door or something like that. You know, you can't do anything to stop people being upset or offended.

And comedians, I just wish, comedians would stop apologizing. That's --I mean, it happened in America, didn't it, with Kevin Hart.

CARLSON: Oh, yes.

DOYLE: He made some joke as few years ago on Twitter and then all of a sudden, someone has trolled through Twitter to dig this stuff up and try and discredit him and say, "You can't host the Oscars anymore." And then he has to apologize all over again even though he apologized before.

I just wish comedians just -- I think comedians should just stop apologizing for causing offense. It's called the real world. You are going to get offended sometimes, and that's sort of fine, isn't it?

CARLSON: They are supposed to be the bravest people in our society. That's the whole point of being a comedian, it is bravery, and you are one of like two people who lives up to that, and so congratulations. I hope this book does really well, it deserves it.

DOYLE: Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Thank you.

DOYLE: Thanks. I mean, I think certainly a lot of people are nervous about saying things that offend people because they know that these people can ruin their careers. Because that's what they do, they go through everything have you ever said. I mean, let's face it, you could through anyone's e-mails and tweets and everything. You can find something that can be taken out of context and make anyone look like a monster.

CARLSON: Oh I've heard.

DOYLE: You know, I am sure --

CARLSON: Yes, I read about that.

DOYLE: Except for yourself, of course.

CARLSON: Yes, that could happen.

DOYLE: Now, you're pure with the driven snow, but it can happen to absolutely anyone and there's real power in that, you know. People keep saying -- the people who misinterpret what I'm doing will say that I'm punching down. You know, I'm making fun of minority groups, right, but I'm not. I'm punching up ...

CARLSON: You are punching up.

DOYLE: ... at these very powerful woke elite. These people have so much clout. You know, they --

CARLSON: You know, you've just summed -- I wish we had more time. You just summed up my world view in a single sentence. You are punching up.

DOYLE: Okay.

CARLSON: You are punching up against the powerful.

DOYLE: Absolutely.

CARLSON: And that's why they hate you and God bless you for what you are doing. Thank you.

DOYLE: Thanks very much. Cheers.

CARLSON: Good to see you, Andrew Doyle. Well, the woke left destroys all that it touches even touching itself. That may be the real lesson of the Joe Biden story. The frenzy over his hugging is continuing tonight. And we will have the latest on that.

Plus, the parents who paid bribes to get their kids into college have been humiliated. Could they wind up going to jail? We've got an update on that story as well, after the break.


CARLSON: Actor Jussie Smollett had a chance to make his fake hate crime fiasco go away. Last week, Chicago authorities demanded he pay $130,000.00 to cover the cost to the city of investigating his act of racial and political slander. But instead of paying, Smollett remains defiant. Now Chicago is suing him. Smollett says he is ready to fight.

Matt Finn has been following the story from Chicago for us tonight and he has more. Hey, Matt.

MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, this evening, Jussie Smollett's high profile criminal defense attorney, Mark Geragos is defying the city of Chicago writing in a letter to the city if it proceeds with its pending lawsuit against Jussie Smollett, Geragos' legal team will demand Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson give depositions citing how quote "vested they are in this case."

Chicago demanded more than $130,000.00 from Smollett for overtime investigators spent on Smollett's police report that Chicago's mayor and police superintendent insist was a hoax. Smollett was notified if he didn't pay that 130 grand by this past Thursday, he could be sued and fined three times the amount.

Smollett did not pay. This comes as police chiefs from around Cook County demand State's Attorney Kim Foxx resign for what they call a history of being anti-police and for how her office dropped Smollett's the case. Police alleged Foxx does not prosecute other solid criminal cases they bring to her and even lets offenders into her office without prosecution.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When officers are coming into my office who has a broken kneecap, one of them almost had their finger bit off and we can't get felony charges? Our officers are not punching bags.


FINN: In a statement, Kim Foxx indicating she is not going anywhere. Writing, quote, "I was elected by the people of Cook County to pursue community safety, prevent harm and uphold the values of fairness and equal justice. I'm proud of my record in doing that and I plan to do so through the end of my term, and if the people will so will it, into the future."

This week, former Illinois Appellate Justice and a separate attorney both filed a petition to have a special prosecutor investigate Kim Foxx -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Matt Finn from Chicago tonight. Thanks, Matt. Jussie Smollett is not the only famous person facing a legal reckoning tonight, so are dozen of parents accused of bribery and fraud in order to get their children admitted to some of America's most prestigious colleges.

At least one parent has already announced he is pleading guilty to the charges. Could actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman and the rest of the parents also face jail time for what they are accused of doing? Emily Compagno is an attorney and she joins us tonight.

Emily, thanks for coming on. So the consequences, if convicted, these people face, do they include jail time?

EMILY COMPAGNO, ATTORNEY: Yes, they do. So the two charges that Lori Laughlin and Felicity Huffman and 32 others face. That's conspiracy to commit mail fraud and then also committing honest services fraud -- those each carry a penalty possibility of 20 years.

And I want to point something out for our viewers, why this is such a big deal. Prosecutors use both of these charges as a significant leveraging tool because of the high and long penalty associated with them, right? And you don't have to prove that there was a public loss of funds in the honest services charge.

So, bear with me on these stats, but basically, 97 percent of Federal defendants plead guilty and of those, almost 50 percent get sentences below the sentencing guidelines. So there is a benefit to pleading out, right? And of those half, almost 60 percent are because the government recommended it and the average sentence for that kind of fraud is 26 months.

So my point is that while these individuals are facing literally 40 years in prison, the average, if they plead out, because of the decades they are facing, is actually only about 26 months. So it behooves all of them, actually not to fight this, if the evidence is overwhelming. Otherwise, they will be facing a long time in prison.

CARLSON: And they didn't volunteer for the Trump campaign in 2016, so they are probably not going to get 30 years is, I guess, part of what you are saying. Interesting. One last question, has anyone from the colleges been charged?

COMPAGNO: No, however, the Department of Education has launched a probe into it and that includes potential for criminal referral charges to the DOJ. Now, essentially the colleges are under obligations, obviously, as steward of funds and also to uphold Federal compliance and there is a whole host essentially of requirements that they have to adhere to.

So essentially, the Federal government is conducting an extensive probe including how they conduct their application processes especially in the realm of student athletes and it remains to be seen whether depending on the data found in that probe whether it's referred for criminal charges.

CARLSON: Interesting. It's a bigger deal than we realized it at first legally.

COMPAGNO: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Emily Compagno, thanks very much for that summary. Appreciate it.

COMPAGNO: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, Joe Biden says he won't apologize for hugging people. The press is mad at him. They believe Biden must submit or be destroyed. We will have the latest on that story after the break.


CARLSON: Prince Harry of the British Isles recently made news when he told people he plans to raise his child in gender neutral way, but that's not Prince Harry's only view on parenting, not all of his views are insane.

After a recent meeting with mental health experts, he said that Fortnite, that's the world's most popular video game offered for free online ought to be banned. A central part of the game is so-called "loot boxes." These grant digital rewards to players. The boxes and their features in the game make it deeply addictive, perhaps as much or more as drugs and alcohol.

Prince Harry says the government and parents should act instead of quote, "waiting for the damage to be done."

Tom Kersting is a psychotherapist, the author of the book, "Disconnected: How to Reconnect Our Digitally Distracted Kids" and he joins us tonight. Tom, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON: So what do you make of this? I have read many stories about the popularity of Fortnite, ubiquitous among young people, people playing for days at a time. I haven't read a whole lot on what the bad effects of it might be. What are they?

KERSTING: Well, it is. It's very addictive -- that would be accurate, and here is why. It is a game that is highly stimulating. It gets the brain going. It kicks in the body's sympathetic nervous system, so you get an adrenaline rush like most video games.

But there is also a sort of reward involved. You have you things like skins, the other thing that you mentioned. There is also, for the player, you have the ability to build things. There is a team work element. You aim -- and things of that nature. So all of those things coupled especially for kids creates sort of a psychological reward, all right? And it activates the part of the brain that reduces dopamine. The same substance that you will get from doing drugs.

So, you know, addiction is basically that in a nutshell and when you have kids that are playing this and getting this sort of psychological reward constantly, they crave that and that's how you get addicted and there's lots and lots of stories I could share if we had time.

CARLSON: Okay, and I believe it and anecdotal evidence backs you up. I mean, you're always meeting people whose kids are quote, "addicted" to Fortnite.


CARLSON: What's the downside of being addicted to Fortnite?

KERSTING: Well, the downside is what I'm seeing as a therapist and when I am out lecturing, I mean, I just gave a lecture last night and we talked about Fortnite. The downside is that what happens is kids aren't paying attention as much in school because that's all they are thinking about when they are sitting in class, they can't wait to get home and play Fortnite, all right.

They are spending a lot of time after school playing Fortnite which is compromising their academic work. It is leading to arguments with parents. There is chaos in the household. For anybody watching right now, any parent whose kid has Fortnite has likely argued with that child. To me, the biggest downside, what I am saying is, the game is recommended for children over the age of 12 and there are countless kids under the age of 12, as young as six years old playing this game.

CARLSON: So it seems to supplant human contact though. If you are spending hours a day playing Fortnite, you are basically locked in a fantasy world without other living people in it, right?

KERSTING: That's right. I mean, the other argument that people might make is you could put a headset on and you could play with your friends which creates interaction, but that's not real interaction.

CARLSON: No, it's not.

KERSTING: There is nothing better than actual face-to-face interaction and picking up on the nonverbal nuances and stuff of the people in front of us.

CARLSON: So a society whose leaders tell us so often they care about children, it's always for the children, children are our future, wouldn't they have spent some time thinking through the consequences of something this ubiquitous?

KERSTING: Not whether you have billions of dollars to be made. If we know -- the World Health Organization, Tucker, last June, actually and people probably don't know this, they have now classified gaming disorder as an actual diagnosable illness okay, here in the United States. There san actual disease, an addiction. It is a classifiable disorder.

So I guess, the question is, we could talk about banning things. Maybe we need labels like we do on cigarettes that this may be addictive. This may be dangerous for your health. Because when you see kids, I see this on a daily basis, a kid that would be like considered the nicest kid, the teacher's pet, and I'll have parents call me up and they say that there was like 12 holes in the kid's bedroom because every time they take a way a video game or something, the kid freaks out. That's addiction.

CARLSON: So 30 years ago, you heard people use the phrase "couch potato." It was considered unattractive at best; immoral at worse to spend a lot of time passively staring at a screen like a vegetable. People said that all the time. Far preferable to get outside. You never hear anybody say that anymore. Have we given up on that idea?

KERSTING: I am afraid -- I fear that we have. I mean, our kids are more sedentary than ever before in history, and that's why we have an obesity epidemic among kids. That's one of the reasons. And the other issue here, Tucker is that, the natural habitat for a child is the creative world -- being outside, making shapes out of clouds, scraping your knees, having fun, throwing a ball against the wall -- it's not about sitting in front of a screen. That's not in our human nature. It's not in the natural development for our kids. It's not what works for them. It's not what they are supposed to be doing.

CARLSON: Last question, do we know the effects on the developing brain of spending three, four, five hours a day playing video games?

KERSTING: Sure, sure. There is a lot of -- all the research in my book has covered all of this, okay? And there is a lot of research since then that has come out and it's called brain neuroplasticity. And essentially what will happen is, the brain, whenever engaged in anything highly stimulating for three or more hours per day, it will grow neuropathways to adapt to that environment.

The problem is when it adapts to the cyber world, it unadapts, it can unadapt to the real world, and that's why we are seeing so many issues with kids with poor coping skills, kids coming out of college that can't interview well during a job interview and social skills problems and so forth.

CARLSON: Interesting. Tom Kersting, one of the few people thinking seriously about this. We always appreciate it. Thank you.

KERSTING: Thank you.

CARLSON: Joe Biden is refusing to apologize for hugging people, Washington is going berserk over that. We will bring you the latest after the break.


CARLSON: It's been two weeks since Robert Mueller finished his investigation and found what many suspected -- well, few suspected, but some of suspected it pretty vehemently from the very beginning, there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the government of Russia.

So to that extent the case is closed, but members of Mueller's team want to continue the allegations. In a series of leaks to the "New York Times" they have complained that the report, despite finding no criminal activity, should be released because it is, quote, "damaging to the White House."

In other words, prosecutors working for the Federal government no longer see their job as enforcing the law, instead the point is a political vendetta in an attempt to influence narratives about people they dislike. How does that make you feel? Is that a proper role of a prosecutor working for the Federal government?

Glenn Greenwald co-founded "The Intercept" and he joins us tonight. Glenn, thanks very much for coming on. What do you make of this most recent "New York Times" story about what apparently is in the report we haven't seen?

GLENN GREENWALD, CO-FOUNDER, THE INTERCEPT: Well, it's similar to the journalism that has fueled the three-year hoax that has drowned U.S. discourse namely that the "New York Times," "The Washington Post" gives anonymity to totally unknown people to make claims that are completely bereft of any specifics unaccompanied by any evidence whatsoever, so that it's impossible to analyze and then journalists see it and start celebrating online on social media and cable news as though it's some sort of a smoking gun.

I don't really have personally any problem with having the Mueller report published since I don't think that in this case, a Special Counsel is just acting as a prosecutor, they are also there to say what actually happened. I think we would all benefit from that so that we no longer have to have CIA leaks trying to manipulate our brain.

CARLSON: I agree.

GREENWALD: But the one thing we do know, Tucker, about this report, like we know very little, but the one thing we do know that they have said is that these complaints from these anonymous leakers whoever they are, these anonymous objectors, they are not complaining about the section of Barr's letter that reported that Mueller found no collusion. They are only complaining about the part where Mueller said it's impossible to say one way or the other whether Trump obstructed justice.

So, it's amazing that actually the part about the no collusion got bolstered because even these malcontents who are complaining to the "New York Times" anonymously are saying, "We don't have the problem with the section finally finding no collusion, we only have a problem with the obstruction issue."

CARLSON: What about all of the people over the last two years who have been dismissed you are one of them as agents of the Russian government? Where is the justice for them? Where do they get their reputations back?

GREENWALD: I think one of the things that we have seen over the last two or three years is that journalism more than ever is a profession of complete groupthink and mob rule, in part because it's really difficult to be a journalist these days because of financial constraints. Big media outlets are laying off huge numbers of people.

So if you are a young journalist, the last thing you want to do is stick your head up and challenge the prevailing consensus because you could lose your job or if you would lose your job, it would be hard to get another job.

And also Twitter makes it so that journalists constantly talk to one another and create these sort of gangs that are designed to punish anybody who challenges their orthodoxies and I think journalism has completely disgraced itself at the exact time that they are claiming that a grave danger to the republic is that Trump is demeaning journalists. They have done more to demean their profession with this behavior calling people Russian agents who question them or Trump supporters or apologists or denialists, they have a whole long line of accusations and new terms to stigmatize anyone who questions their dissent and it's really effective for a lot of people who unlike us, don't have established platforms and it's been really effective to prevent them from being questioned or challenged.

CARLSON: So here is a question I wanted to ask you for two years. You are making your critique from the left. You are on the left and you're not a Trump fan. That's a tough position to take and have you maintained it this whole time. Why were you able to maintain an independent perspective on this when so many others weren't?

GREENWALD: You know, it's amazing because if you think about it, the question, is there evidence to demonstrate that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is completely bereft of ideology. It doesn't matter whether you are on the left or the right, you're just looking at evidences. It's just an epistemological question.

And one of the things that has happened is that everything is so tribalized, so they actually want you, if you are to maintain your good standing on the left to lie. They want -- they are demanding you lie. They are demanding you say that you see evidence and you see a convincing case for a conspiracy theory even if you don't really see it.

And I have to say that unlike establishment journalists like Jeremy Scahill and Matt Taibbi and myself who have the protection of being established, there were a lot of young journalists like Michael Tracey and Aron McTay (ph) and a bunch of others who are very vulnerable, who have the courage to incur the wrath of this profession in order to do what journalists should do, which is to say what it is that they think without any fear of who it angers and very few of them are willing to do that and they deserve a lot of credit for that.

CARLSON: I agree completely. We have had Tracey on this show a number of times, another brave journalist. Glenn Greenwald, thank you very much.

GREENWALD: Okay, thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Joe Biden is not apologizing for hugging people, the press is mad about that. After the break, we will bring you the latest.


CARLSON: At the beginning of tonight's show, we showed you all the Democratic candidates appearing at Al Sharpton's extremely tax exempt conference to pay homage to him. They weren't the only ones there. Young pioneer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came, too. She didn't come just to prostrate herself before Emperor Al, she was there also there to test out a brand new accent, one you probably haven't heard her put on before. Listen to this.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: The fight's been long, y'all. This is what organizing looks like.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: This is what building power looks like. I'm proud to be a bartender, ain't nothing wrong with that.


CARLSON: Oscar worthy? We will let you decide. AOC has issued a statement, "I am from the Bronx, that's how I talk." That's not how you talk, actually. We have played a lot of clips of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She doesn't talk like that in a single one of them. That's fake. That's what that is.

Well, for the second week in a row, there was a huge amount of news, an explosive amount of news, so what better time to debut a new segment idea "Dan Bongino's News Explosion," where our favorite former Secret Service agent reveals the three biggest news stories of the week.

The explosive Dan Bongino joins us live. Hey, Dan.

DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Hey. Wow. That's some intro, the news explosion, man.

CARLSON: I know.

BONGINO: Tucker, you really tied it.

CARLSON: It's Friday.

BONGINO: Nobody teases a segment like you, brother.

CARLSON: We're going crazy.

BONGINO: That was really --

CARLSON: So blow us out here.

BONGINO: All right, the first story -- the third story is rough being a former police officer, you know, Tucker, very seriously, the worst cases you can ever respond to is missing children.

So we have this story where this guy shows up. He pretends to be a child who went missing in 2011, a child by the name of Timmothy Pitzen, I believe it is. He, of course, turns out is not Timmothy Pitzen. They have DNA testing, it's a guy by the name of Brian Rini who has serious issues it appears. Just a horrible story, but this was all over the news this week. And just, you know, I have being a former cop, why would you do that? You know, people who --

CARLSON: I know, it's awful.

BONGINO: You get people -- yes, it was a terrible story. So, we had that story.

CARLSON: It was.

BONGINO: Story number two though is really, I know an issue close to your heart and close -- an issue close to mine. Listen, this non-crisis crisis at the border is completely out of control. And I say non-crisis with the dreaded air quote because the Democrats, of course, want you to believe nothing is going on. So I wanted to put this in perspective. I was looking at some stories on this, Tucker.

I live in Palm City, Florida. It's not a small town, but it's not New York City where I grew up. It's a lovely place. It's a medium size town. We have about 23,000 people. In 12 days, we had to let go 17,000 people in the country illegally in just 12 days who crossed the border. Not vetted. We have no idea who these people are.

Basically the entire population of the town I live in, in 12 days. But don't worry, Tucker. It's not a crisis. Everybody at ease in the studio. Are you in D.C. today? I don't know.


BONGINO: Everybody calm down. There is no crisis. Don't worry about it. Everything is a-okay according to the liberals. I mean, really unbelievable.

CARLSON: But there is no crisis in their world. I mean, that's one of the reasons they can say that with a straight face.

BONGINO: In their gated communities, life is peaches and cream, buddy. No worries at all. Cheap labor, gated communities, no problem here.

CARLSON: No, it's totally true.

BONGINO: We can go on all night about this.

CARLSON: There is a massive class divide in that question, I agree.

BONGINO: You know, I have story number one, but I've got to tell you, I was thinking about changing it after seeing that AOC clip. What is with Democrats and constantly changing the way they talk? Just be genuine. Gosh, what's the deal here? But we have a real number one story.

CARLSON: Well, let me just ask very quickly, if you were in the audience, how patronized would you feel if someone talked to you like that? Mimicked that accent.

BONGINO: Almost as patronized as I would feel when Hillary Clinton said "We are not that --"

I can't even do that accent. What was -- just talk. These are human beings. You don't have to patronize nice them trying to be something you are not. It's so artificial and phony.

CARLSON: They always do that.

BONGINO: Speaking of which, story number one in the news explosion, I will tell you, you teased this segment, I better not disappoint. Joe Biden -- now, listen, I watch your show. I'm not just a guest. I enjoy your show thoroughly. Your interview with Heather Mac Donald on this topic, Joe Biden and the touching episode was incredible.

And I have to tell you, your opening segment where you had said, "Listen, let's not fall into this leftist trap and have this antiseptic sterile culture." You are right. But, Tucker, there is two takeaways from this from my perspective. Number one, where the heck is Barack Obama?

CARLSON: Good point.

BONGINO: Barack Obama and Joe Biden -- I'm not a Democrat, but I was a Secret Service agent proudly for Barack Obama. You know, I'm not a bitter Democrat. He won the presidency, you know, I was happy to serve. This guy served with you for eight years. Where is Barack Obama?

CARLSON: That's a good point.

BONGINO: He has been oddly quiet on this. And second, Tucker, listen, we know the liberal rules are nonsense. Liberal rules are garbage. But if the liberal rules are and they are credo now, is that women are to be believed, our rule is women are to be respected. Victims are to be heard, absolutely. Be investigated. But evidence is to be believed in a due process society.

CARLSON: Exactly.

BONGINO: If the liberal rule is women are to be believed no matter what, then Democrats, if he is your nominee, we'll expect to you stand on your own principles. Show us what you really believe in and ask Joe Biden to step aside if he wins the nomination. You won't do that of course, because this is about political power. This really has nothing to do with --

CARLSON: You're totally right on all counts. I do wonder though for eight years Biden was running around violating feminist law and hugging unwilling huggees and Obama never said anything about it?

BONGINO: Here is the real -- no, which is very odd, right? Because he is supposed to be at the tip of the spear of liberal ideology. We are all woke, right? But here is one more thing, one takeaway, I don't want to take up too much time here, but, listen, this is just creepy though. It may not have been illegal or anything, but it's creepy, and I think Joe is going to have to deal with the creepy factor. No one likes a close stalker, you know.

CARLSON: Dan Bongino, the explosion. Great to see you.

BONGINO: I hope I didn't disappoint.

CARLSON: You didn't. In the past two decades, polar bears have seized to be mere animals, instead they are now talismans, living symbols of mankind's global warming sins, a picture of Dorian Gray, but for the climate.

In 2017, a viral video of a starving polar bear reached hundreds of millions around the world. The message was simple, global warming is driving polar bears to extinction. The only way to stop that is to give the left total control over the global economy.

But it turns out that polar bears are not dying. They are not endangered. In fact, over the past 50 years, the population of polar bears seems to have quadrupled. Over population is now the problem.

Susan Crockford knows a lot about this subject. She is the author of the book, "The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened" and joins us tonight. Susan, thanks very much for coming on.

SUSAN CROCKFORD, AUTHOR: You are welcome. It's a pleasure to be here.

CARLSON: So this is news, I think, to most of us who imagine that we are down to our last couple of dozen polar bears. There are more polar bears than there were?

CROCKFORD: Absolutely. And one of the things that happened back in 2007, we were told that polar bears were acutely sensitive to the effects of global warming and as it turned out, the bears are much more flexible and resourceful than they were given credit for.

One much the reasons that we know this is that it turned out in 2007, the sea ice declined that were not predicted to happen until 2050 and they have stayed down at that level for the last 10 years or so. And so rather than two thirds of the world's polar bears disappearing in that time, as we were promised would happen, in fact, polar bear numbers have increased.

CARLSON: So you are a zoologist. You know a lot about polar bears, but you have been attacked by many in the climate established as a denier, as a subversive person whose voice shouldn't be heard. This seems like a fairly straightforward question, they told us the polar bears were going extinct, you are certain they are not. Why is this controversial?

CROCKFORD: Well, the original proclamation of polar bears becoming extinct or being threatened with extinction back in 2007 was that polar bears were raised and used as an icon for global warming.


CROCKFORD: And it became an important talisman for the whole movement and that whole level of argument is being protected and one of the reasons that I am being attacked is that I'm using the data, the scientific information that these biologists have collected themselves, I'm using that against them. And all of this information in the scientific literature.

CARLSON: So that's what makes me nervous, I mean -- right, so these are people who claimed that they are standing in defense of science. You are marshaling science, and they are attacking you. Does that confuse you?

CROCKFORD: Absolutely. Well, yes, it does confuse me. But I think it's why I can stand on solid ground that the information that I'm using to support my statements are in the scientific literature that they wrote.

CARLSON: It's a remarkable story and by the way, as I end, I just want to say thank God. Polar bears are noble and beautiful animals. I'm glad they are not going extinct. Do you would think that people would be happy about this, no?

CROCKFORD: You would think that they would be happy. But it turns out that you know, the whole idea that you could blame this polar bear decline on global warming probably saved the careers of a lot of polar bear specialists, and so it's their best interest to make sure that this concept stays in the public limelight.

CARLSON: Even though it's a lie. By the way, they don't care about polar bears at all --

CROCKFORD: Even though it is a lie, yes.

CARLSON: And you clearly do. Susan, thank you very much for joining us tonight and for your bravery. I know you have taken a lot of crap for this and good for you.

CROCKFORD: Thank you.

CARLSON: Out of time. End of the week. Back 8 p.m. Monday. Sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Have a great weekend with people you love. Hannity is next.

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.