This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 13, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. America is a great country precisely to the extent that it's a fair country. Fairness is the most important American idea, it's the foundation of all others and equality before the law is the purest expression of it.
That's why the Roger Stone case ought to horrify anyone who has followed it. Left or right, Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter.
Nine years in jail for lying. That's what prosecutors have demanded that Roger Stone receive. How disproportionate is that sentence? Let's put it this way. James Clapper and John Brennan are both confirmed perjurers. They did it in public. They will ever be prosecuted.
At this moment, they're getting rich on television. Meanwhile, for the crime of sending explicit sexual photos to a child, a serious felony, former Congressman Anthony Weiner got just 21 months and he served less.
Weiner was an admitted sex offender, but he was also a close personal friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton's. And in the end, that's what mattered most. See how this works?
Prosecutors want Roger Stone to serve nine years not because he hurt someone or hurt this country. He didn't. But because they hate him. As status liberals, they hate his politics. But above all, they hate his attitude.
Stone made fun of the ruling class. That's not allowed and they never forgot it. They're trying to kill him for it. How unscrupulous are they in pursuit of that goal?
Well, prosecutors lied about what Stone did. They linked him to foreign election interference, when he had no tie to that and it had nothing to do with the charges against him -- not one thing.
Then apparently, they deceived their superiors at the Department of Justice about it. Attorney General Bill Barr suggested as much today. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I was under the impression that what was going to happen was very much, and I had suggested, which is deferring to the judge and then pointing at various factors and circumstances.
On Monday night, when I first saw the news reports, I said, gee, the news is spinning this. This is not what we were going to do.
QUESTION: So you were surprised.
BARR: I was very surprised, and once I confirmed that that's actually what we filed, I said that night, to my staff that we had to get ready because we had to do something in the morning to amend that and clarify what our position was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now, thanks to details we've just learned, and you have to ask yourself, why are we just learning them? But we know them, and they lead us to the conclusion that the charges and recommended sentence against Roger Stone weren't the only parts of the process that were distorted by tough politics grotesquely. The trial itself was, too.
During the jury selection process at Roger Stone's trial, lawyers asked the eventual foreman of the jury, if there was anything that would affect her ability to judge Stone fairly. No, she claimed. She hadn't paid much attention to the Russia probe.
That turned out to be a lie and a stupid one at that. That juror's Twitter account is public, and it turns out that she's an anti-Trump zealot who closely followed the Mueller investigation.
In one tweet, for example, she called Donald Trump, "The Klan President." When Stone was taken into custody in a dawn raid by dozens of Federal agents armed with automatic weapons and an airboat, she mocked the idea that the arrest was excessive. Oh, it seems fine to me.
This is not a neutral person. This is not someone capable of judging this trial fairly. This is a partisan who lied about who she was.
Roger Stone is facing life in prison because an Obama appointed judge, Amy Berman Jackson allowed this woman to run the jury.
And that's all fine with CNN, which has colluded with the Justice Department from day one on this, and which is rooting for Stone to die behind bars.
But it should be deeply upsetting to anyone who cares about fairness and that should be all of us. But it's not.
For example, Republicans in the Senate. You'd think they'd be outraged by all of this. And yet, it's perfectly obvious they could care less. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd rather not there be political interference in such cases, but I'd rather look at the details before I answer hypotheticals.
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator, the President is not ruling a pardon for Roger Stone. Do you think that would be a good idea if he went that route?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he deserves what he's got when they made the decision. I assume that he thought -- contemplating it seriously at this point.
RAJU: He might be and I mean, he didn't rule it out. And he's already been convicted on seven counts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But he didn't rule it in, so --
QUESTION: The President also has not ruled out a pardon for Roger Stone. Would that be a good idea?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he hadn't said he would do it. So we will wait until that happens if that happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes, whatever, not really paying attention, naming new post offices. If you're a Republican voter and you may be, these are the people you vote for to protect you and your country. You think they will?
Democrats, meanwhile, have whipped themselves into a frenzy of bloodlust. Roger Stone must rot behind bars. If the President tries to save Roger Stone, we will impeach him again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Might you impeach him over this? Over Roger Stone and the sentencing?
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): You know, we're not going to take our options off the table. We don't wake up in the morning wanting to impeach him. You know, we want to work with him on prescription drugs, background checks and infrastructure.
But we're not going to let him just, you know, torch this democracy because he thinks that he's been let off once and we're not going to do something about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now, Eric Swalwell maybe the slowest of the 425 House Members, certainly in the running -- 435, but even he can remember talking points.
So this is among their plans, another impeachment. Why would they do that? Why do Democrats care so much about punishing Roger Stone? Here's why.
Because if Roger Stone spends even a day in jail, they will point to him for the next 40 years as evidence that Russia collusion was real. That's what they really want. Let's hope the President doesn't let them have it.
Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Fox senior judicial analyst. We just spoke to him about Roger Stone.
CARLSON: Judge, thanks so much for joining us tonight.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: I'm happy to be here.
CARLSON: Is it in your view, a problem that the foreman of the jury in Roger Stone's trial turned out to be a former Democratic congressional candidate who attacked Trump on Twitter and mocked concern, I think most critically about the F.B.I. raid on Stone's house.
Why would someone like this allowed to remain on the jury?
NAPOLITANO: Let me start by telling you, I'm happy to be here with you. And Roger Stone and I have been friends for about 40 years.
I'm going to take the friendship equation out of this and wear my judicial hat. This is information that she must have hid hidden from the lawyers and the judge who interrogated her before she was put on the jury.
Now in Federal Court, judges pick the jurors. So judges do the interrogation. The lawyers sign off ahead of time on the questions that judges are going to ask.
The purpose of the interrogation is to weed out people that have a biased prejudice, knowledge of the case or interest in the outcome.
She obviously had a prejudice against Roger Stone, a bias in favor of his prosecution and an interest in seeing him convicted. That should automatically disqualify her.
Now, what do you do when you discover this after the conviction, Tucker? The proper thing for the judge to do is to bring this juror back in the courtroom in the presence of Roger Stone and his lawyers and in the presence of the four prosecutors that have since resigned.
Because their resignations are not effective until, she, the trial judge accepts them and interrogate this woman in order to determine whether the bias influenced her guilty vote and whether that bias was passed on to other members of the jury.
CARLSON: So that's interesting. That sounds from a layman's perspective, like the right thing to do, though, I mean, the court screens for bias, of course in jury selection.
If it turned out that this juror who ran the jury as the foreman, lied about her background or her views, what would that mean?
NAPOLITANO: Well, it would be catastrophic for her. First of all, she's a lawyer, so she would be prosecuted for perjury since the statements are given under oath.
And if convicted, she would lose her license to practice law. That will be the least of her concerns.
She probably would serve jail time if she lied in order to affect the outcome of a case, and if she did lie, if the judge concluded she lied, Tucker, that is an automatic vacation of the conviction and an order for a new trial if the government even wants to try Stone a second time.
CARLSON: So Judge Amy Berman Jackson has kept Roger Stone under a gag order for many months now. He makes his living by speaking, of course. He is now broke as a result.
I'm confused. We can go on television and attack Roger Stone. CNN does it all day long. They did it all day today. Roger Stone is not allowed to defend himself using the First Amendment rights the rest of us enjoy. How is that allowed in this country?
NAPOLITANO: It is highly inappropriate and a direct violation of the First Amendment.
There is at least an argument to be made about restraining both the defendants and the prosecutors from making statements about the case while it's pending because those statements might make their way to the jury.
That's an extra courtroom way of communicating with the jury. And I hated having to do it. But there are sometimes that's the only way you can assure the integrity of the trial.
But there is zero benefit to be served to the justice system in silencing a defendant after he has been convicted.
Once conviction comes out or acquittal as the case may be, that defended resumes the full panoply of First Amendment rights that he had before the case started.
CARLSON: You would certainly think and finally, the sentence guidelines here. So the median rapist in this country serves about four years in prison; nine years is the top end of the recommendation for Roger Stone. Put that in context for us. Why would they recommend that?
NAPOLITANO: Probably because they dislike him, they despise him.
Listen, if you despise the person you're prosecuting, you probably shouldn't be in the case.
I did the calculation myself as if I were the judge. Tucker, there is some subjective elements to the calculation. There are 20 questions, aggravating factors. There are 20 mitigating factors, you have to choose the factors that apply. I came up with three and a half years.
Now this is just a recommendation. She could sentence him from zero to 50 years. Under the new law that President Trump signed, she is no longer bound by the guidelines. It's just a recommendation.
So when the public became aware of this recommendation, most of us were outraged. I mean, Roger Stone is not a menace to society. This isn't a jail case to begin with, much less one of this magnitude.
The judge is free to reject it. But now we don't know what she's going to do.
In my view, she has to examine the integrity of the trial and the conviction before she proceeds to sentencing.
CARLSON: I doubt she will. Judge, thanks so much for your perspective tonight. We really appreciate it.
NAPOLITANO: Pleasure, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, human TED Talk, Pete Buttigieg is often described in the press as a moderate. Of course, it's impossible to be an actual moderate in the current Democratic Party. All of them are long gone.
So one plank of Mr. Moderate Buttigieg's agenda is decriminalizing drug possession nationwide and that means all drugs. That's not a roach clip. That's crack cocaine, methamphetamine. That's heroin. That's fentanyl.
He will legalize them all. How decadent and out of touch would you have to be? You'd have to be like a Rhodes Scholar McKinsey guy to think that was a good idea.
By the way, Mayor Pete's plan is already being attempted in the City of Seattle. Leftwing prosecutors there have abandoned almost all drug prosecutions.
So how is it going? Is it working? Jason Rantz is a Seattle radio show host and he joins us tonight. Jason, thanks so much for coming on.
So simple question, Pete Buttigieg judge is telling us we need to do this. It's essentially happened where you live? Has it worked?
JASON RANTZ, RADIO SHOW HOST: Simple answer. No. It has not worked at all.
What we've seen here unfortunately, is an increase over the last 10 years when our prosecutor in King County, Dan Satterberg decided first not to charge felony accounts, and then he chose instead not to charge anyone with "personal amount of possession."
So to your point, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, whatever. And what we've seen at the same time is a dramatic increase in the amount of overdose deaths.
At the same time, we've also seen a dramatic increase in the amount of drug deals that are happening out in the open in Seattle streets.
A big part of the problem is that cops will say, well, now they don't really have any leverage to use over addicts to get them to seek treatment, because they know that there's no actual consequences.
CARLSON: Well, exactly.
RANTZ: At the same time -- yes, and then you've got the drug dealers who are carrying less product on them.
They resupply, they restock up on their supply, more often they would normally do, but they know that if they were to get stopped, if they had some product on them, they can say no, I'm not a drug dealer. I'm just a user and they know that they're not actually going to see any time in jail for their drug crimes.
And that's why it's gotten so out of control. It's been a total failure.
CARLSON: So you've got to wonder if the people behind this idea have ever met a drug addict or had one in the family or done drugs -- like do they understand the sum total of human misery that they're creating here? Do they care?
RANTZ: So Dan Satterberg does, this King County prosecutor. He had a sister who he lost to a drug addiction.
The problem with this when you put ideology into what is a reasonable idea, because I do think it's reasonable to say, if you're an addict, and you're not committing a crime, I don't want to just throw you in jail. I want to put you in treatment. I think that's the right thing to do.
CARLSON: You'll help in some way, for sure.
RANTZ: Yes, you at least try to help the people that you can. But you can't even at this point, leverage jail time against an addict to go after the drug dealer, to turn on the drug dealer to go after the bad guys.
And it's an unfortunate reality all across Seattle. They tried it in a neighboring county in Snohomish County, and it was a total disaster.
So they actually did the right thing, which was they got rid of that policy.
CARLSON: I hope, Pete Buttigieg takes a close look at Seattle. I'm sure he will like what he sees. Jason, great to see you tonight.
RANTZ: He is no moderate.
CARLSON: Thank you so much.
RANTZ: Thank you.
CARLSON: That's for sure. Radical libertarianism is now moderate. OK. The Democratic primary race is moving on to Nevada -- now, Nevada and South Carolina. That means candidates who are competing to see who can do the most transparent demagoguery. Oh, boy, are they, too? That's next.
CARLSON: OK, so here's a quiz. How many times did old Joe Biden run for President? Three times, at least. And so far, he's still never finished better than fourth in a primary contest -- any primary contest.
But Joe Biden is still in the race and he has a comeback plan. Make phony campaign ads to pander to black voters. Here's one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We don't feel no ways tired. We've come too far from where we started. Nobody told me the road would be easy. And I don't believe you brought me this far to stop now.
You don't like what's going on in this country, you only have one thing to do. Work. Together we can and we will win. Let's take back this country now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: No person would look at that and say, you know what, guys, we can't run this. It's too embarrassing. It's too fake. That's not who I am. No one is going to buy it.
Joe Biden said run it. And he's not the only one degrading himself for votes.
On Tuesday night, Pete Buttigieg suggested that if minority voters want to survive, they've got to vote for him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When people of color fear for their own place in their own country, while infants are torn from their parents at the border, we must get this right.
We can say to a young woman in a hijab, enduring taunts because of her religion, to a young man feeling fear instead of safety when he spots the lights of a police vehicle. We can say you belong securely in the heart of the American project.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Man, is it repetitive this stuff. Deroy Murdock is a contributing editor at "National Review" online. He joins us tonight.
Deroy, great to see you.
DEROY MURDOCK, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: Tucker, great to see you.
CARLSON: So, super simple question. The Biden spot that we ran. We ran it last night, too. I'd probably run it tomorrow night because I just thought it was the most fascinating thing I've ever seen.
Do you think that will move a single vote? Is there a human being in this country who is going to look at that and say, you know what, he -- that's like the modern Ralph Abernathy right there?
MURDOCK: I don't think that's probably the reaction we're going to get at all. I'm fascinated by this idea that the Democrats run to the south, they've got to adopt southern accents.
I mean, this is something that Hillary Clinton has done. Joe Biden, you may recall was in Virginia, I think back when he was running for reelection as Vice President, he said to a group of black people that if Mitt Romney ran, you're going to be back in chains.
You may recall that disgusting thing he said with a southern accent.
MURDOCK: It's like outtakes from "Gone with the Wind." It's very odd, very inappropriate and just really stupid.
CARLSON: So I think what you're describing is patronizing behavior. It's like slowing down the cadence of your speech, using simple words, babying someone. I mean, I can't think of anything more insulting than that.
MURDOCK: No, it's totally insulting. You know, why not talk to black people as adults and say, you know, we are going to listen to your situation.
You know, not all black people are terrified of the police. You know, we're not all running away from the cops. Why not talk to black folks about starting businesses, running businesses, expanding businesses, going to work, going to the movies, going out to dinner. You know, black folks do things like that.
You know, being black in America is not all about, you know, running from the cops. They chase you down the street with batons, which is, I guess the Buttigieg kind of stereotype he has presented.
CARLSON: So really quick, I just have to get your view of Biden and not just that ad. But of the campaign more broadly, for months, he's been saying and he has been saying it this week, I didn't do well in Iowa and New Hampshire because they're too pale. But once they get down to South Carolina boy, I'm in. Do you think that's going to happen?
MURDOCK: You know, I think he has fallen so far back. I think the thought was, well, Biden is somebody who can beat Trump and therefore let's back Biden. I guess, that was the thinking.
Now, he just looks -- I mean, he's just had these embarrassing showings. He may get hurt in Nevada as well. And I think the wonderful sort of electability halo he had is now completely shattered.
So he may continue to stumble down, you know, down into the memory hole and eventually just disappear.
CARLSON: He shouldn't be running for President. He has done a lot. He's not good at it. I played paddle tennis a few times, I wasn't good at it. I gave it up. You know what I mean? Like don't do things you're not good at, I would say. Deroy, great to see you tonight. Thank you.
MURDOCK: He had a pretty good reputation, it would good if he left it alone and he just really made a fool of himself, unfortunately.
CARLSON: Exactly. Don't degrade yourself in your final years.
MURDOCK: That's it. Good to see you.
CARLSON: Good advice. Good to see you.
Well, the number of coronavirus cases and the death toll both spiked dramatically yesterday. Are those numbers believable or is China is still lying to the world? Dr. Marc Siegel joins us next to assess.
CARLSON: Japan confirmed its first coronavirus death yesterday. Here in the U.S., the number of cases has risen to 15. Slowly, but surely the disease is becoming a threat to the planet, and the scale of that threat became clear yesterday in China, with almost 15,000 new cases and 242 more deaths on Wednesday.
It's clear that even China's authoritarian government can't keep this under control.
Dr. Marc Siegel is a Fox medical contributor. He joins us tonight. Dr. Siegel, thanks so much for coming on.
DR. MARC SIEGEL, FOX NEWS MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: So if I were to graph this out, it seems to point up, that's the trajectory from a layman's perspective of this virus. Are you more concerned than you were?
SIEGEL: I'm becoming more concerned. First of all, the international health community is in a state of outrage over the way that this virus has been handled in China from the very beginning.
We believe that they knew about this for weeks before it ever started to come out or was even declared.
Now, they're saying, well, we're running low on test kits, Tucker. So we have to start using chest x-rays and CAT scans to diagnose the pneumonia we see in 15 percent of cases and that points to a larger problem. How many thousands of cases are out there in China that are still in diagnosed or never diagnosed?
The head of the C.D.C. pointed out today that we think within the first week, you can spread it asymptomatically before you even have symptoms. All of this points to it still not being under control.
We still don't have the Centers for Disease Control in there to help out. Neighboring countries are starting to get more and more concerned about this.
Physicians having to diagnose this without all the material they need and the ability to isolate patients is very worrisome.
And eventually it's going to spill over to the rest of the world potentially causing a pandemic.
I want to point out a neighbor right next to China, North Korea, the Hermit Kingdom is claiming today they don't have a single case.
I ask you, Tucker, do you believe that? I certainly don't. But talk about lack of disclosure. A virus is something that doesn't obey boundaries. It's public health.
The world needs to come together here to solve this problem before it really gets out of control.
CARLSON: The Spanish Flu of 1918 made it to the most remote Aleutian Island. So that tells you everything. Dr. Siegel, thanks so much for that update. We'll see you soon.
SIEGEL: Absolutely. Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: A week ago on this show, we told you about the New Way Forward Act. If passed, that law would welcome dangerous violent criminals into the United States. Let them stay here, even if they commit more crimes and then amazingly, require taxpayers to pay for criminals who've already been deported to come back to our country.
You'd get to buy plane tickets for armed robbers to move here from Guatemala. It's lunatic.
The bill wouldn't just remake American immigration policy, it would remake the country itself. That's the point of course, and supporters of the bill often say openly, America's criminal justice system is racist.
If you want crimes punished and criminals kept out of your country, you are racist, too.
Only a truly radical party would consider a piece of legislation like that. The Democratic Party of 2020 is every bit that radical.
If Democrats win this year's presidential election, some version of this insanity will almost certainly become law.
But immigration isn't the only issue in which Democrats have become dangerously radical. It's now virtually every issue, including believe it or not, banking regulation.
America has about 8,000 separate banks and credit unions and every one of them receive what's called a Camels rating.
The rating evaluates a bank's financial health based on its assets, earnings, sensitivity to market risk, and other relevant factors.
Crucially, all six parts of a Camels score are financial in nature, as you would imagine, or related to running a functioning business. Bad Camels score don't just mean a bank is in danger of failing and that investors should be wary of it. No.
Low scores frequently trigger regulatory intervention by the Federal government. They can destroy a bank. It's a big deal.
Now, congressional Democrats are pushing to add a seventh factor to the Camels rating, a nakedly political one. A bill called the Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Banking Act is currently working its way through the House.
The bill would impose a so-called diversity mandate on banks if they want to stay in business, and we're not talking about diversity of assets that might make sense. No.
This is the age of wokeness. Nobody cares about math anymore. Instead, regulators would monitor banks to see that they're providing enough anti- bias training and would keep track of their hiring practices based on race. They get out the ledger and see what color everyone is.
Any bank with more than a billion dollars in assets would be required by law to have something called a Diversity and Inclusion Officer reporting directly to the CEO.
Now, why are Democrats doing this? To make the country better? Right? No. It's a shakedown, like everything else they do.
Listen to this strikingly clear explanation from the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. AL GREEN (D-TX): We need to change it and we need to change it right away. The excuse of we can't find any that's what I'm hearing from some of you. That's not acceptable.
When you have power, you have to use it. We have the power. Regulations may be the thing to do.
I think the carrot was a good idea. But after having heard things today, I think we've got to move now to the stick. That's regulations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: When you have power, you've got to use the stick. That's Congressman Al Green of Houston.
At the same hearing, Green peppered witnesses with questions about whether it was time for, "race conscious regulations in banking."
You probably had no idea race had anything to do with banking, and most Americans of course had no idea that any of this was going on.
But banks got the message loud and clear. Higher diversity commissars, the same kind that have done so much to destroy higher education in America, or the Feds will crush you.
So where are congressional Republicans while this has been going on? Well take a guess.
As is so often the case, they're playing along. At the same Diversity Subcommittee hearing, Ranking Member, Ann Wagner of Missouri praised banks for their work instituting unconscious bias training.
By the way, something that has never been shown to do anything other than deepen racial wounds and divide this country -- ever.
Now, it's a given that all of this is stupid and wasteful and divisive. It certainly is, but it's also dangerous to the country.
So we already know what happens when the government pressures financial institutions to make financial decisions based on political considerations.
We've seen it recently. Starting in the early 90s, and continuing through both Democrat and Republican administrations, banks face steadily rising pressure to make more risky loans to borrowers with lower income, thinner credit histories, and a much greater risk of default. Banks comply. They are afraid not to.
So millions of Americans received subprime loans. Remember that? Down payments were cut or eliminated altogether. In most cases, the intentions behind this weren't bad actually. The government wanted more people, especially people in minority groups to own homes. Again, that's a laudable goal.
Homeownership is a good thing for everyone. It gives all of us a stake in our society, something to be proud of, and by the way, a legacy to leave our children.
But the way to promote homeownership is to make homes less expensive, and to create an economy robust enough that people can afford to buy them. They didn't do that. They ignored reality. That doesn't work. It never works.
But for years, the government demanded that banks follow the rules whether they made sense or not. And the result, as you remember was the 2008 financial meltdown. It was the worst economic crisis in this country in 80 years since 1929.
America still has not recovered from it, nor apparently has Congress learned a thing.
We live in the age of woke colleges and woke tech companies, woke billionaires, woke investment banks. Now, we have -- of course we do -- woke dating.
Mark Steyn joins us to discuss why more and more Americans refuse to date outside the narrow band of their ideology.
But first, time for Final Exam. Mark Steyn will be facing off against cable legend, Lou Dobbs. The Battle of the century. That's next.
CARLSON: Time now for a special genius edition of Final Exam. This is of course the segment where the smart people in our building compete in the show, who has been paying closest attention to the news this week, and of course, to win prizes from tuckercarlson.com online store.
Our first contestant, a true cable news institution, someone with whom I worked 20 years ago. Lou Dobbs hosts "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Fox Business, a fantastic show.
His challenger is one of our favorite guests, most frequent guests, author, columnist, singer/songwriter and many other things, Mark Steyn.
MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: I'm like Joe Biden.
CARLSON: I can't believe you're both here.
STEYN: I should do a Joe Biden and just fly to South Carolina right now. This is going to be sixth place humiliation for me.
CARLSON: I don't know. I wouldn't want to go up against Lou Dobbs, I'm just saying that, but luckily, I don't have to.
STEYN: Yes, I know. I am the sacrificial virgin and he is the volcano.
LOU DOBBS, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": I love this man having expectations. I'm trying to get as small as I can now.
CARLSON: It's so good. All right. Now you know the rules, but I'm going to repeat them for the sake of our audience. Here they are. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. The first one to answer the question gets to buzz in.
This is the critical point. You must wait until I finish asking the question before you try to answer it.
You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Every correct answer is worth one point. If you get an answer wrong, we will take a point away from you. Best of five wins. Ready?
STEYN: As ready as we can be.
CARLSON: OK. Here we go question one. This is a multiple choice. So wait to all the options are read. The National Game Show Commission in Billings, Montana requires a dog question. So here's one about the Westminster Dog Show.
As you may have heard, the winner of that competition was a standard poodle named Siba. But it was another dog, not a poodle, a golden retriever who won America's heart. He's been given the nickname America's dog. Is his name A. Arthur? B. Kenny? Or C. Daniel? Mark.
STEYN: I would have to go with Daniel. That's a great dog's name.
CARLSON: Daniel. It is. Daniel is leaving tonight in a plane. OK. Was it Daniel? Roll tape, please.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Siba is the fifth standard poodle to win Best in Show, but the internet are divided on this one. Some say it should have been, Daniel the golden retriever who had won over hearts across America after taking number one in the sporting category and hugging his handler. Look how cute?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Point to Mark Steyn. I don't know how you would know that.
STEYN: Well, I was only because right after New Hampshire, Joe Biden also came a poor fifth at the Westminster dog show. It's just been a terrible week for him, Tucker.
CARLSON: It has been. Yes. OK. I won't even go there. Question two. Again a multiple choice. Three possible answers. Here it is. A British Airway's Boeing 747 from New York to London just set a new record for subsonic flight across the Atlantic helped by strong winds. How long did that flight take? Was it A. Under five hours? B. Under four hours? Or C. Six hours and 14 minutes? Lou.
DOBBS: That would be under five hours.
CARLSON: Under five hours. Was the flight under five hours? To the tape we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A new record for British Airways, the Boeing 747 left JFK Airport in New York overnight Saturday and landed at Heathrow Airport in just under five hours. That set a new speed record for subsonic or slower than the speed of sound commercial aircraft to fly between the two cities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEYN: You still have to get to airport and three hours to board.
CARLSON: A point to Lou Dobbs. It is now tied. That's nice. OK. One to one, going into question three, a third multiple choice with three possible answers. Here it is.
A quote from a contender for the Democratic nomination, someone now running is getting a lot of attention this week, because it makes literally no sense. It's like a Zen Koan. Here it is.
The shape of our democracy is the issue that affects every other issue. Who said that? Was it A. Mayor Pete Buttigieg? B. Joe Biden? C. Elizabeth Warren? Mark Steyn.
STEYN: I feel this is a bit unfair actually, Tucker, because I didn't really recall having been asked about this by some guy on TV called Tucker Carlson. But -- so if you want to give the question to --
DOBBS: No, no. No.
STEYN: Are you sure? Sure?
DOBBS: I am sure.
CARLSON: No, look, I mean, Joe Biden wouldn't remember it, so it's really a test of your memory.
STEYN: Yes, that's true. That's true. You're right. Thanks for pointing that out, Martha. Anyway, this was said, I believe the shape of our democracy, which in my mind, ought to be shaped like Marilyn Monroe, but isn't. I would have to go with Mayor Pete on that, I think.
CARLSON: A curvy democracy.
CARLSON: Was it the slightly taller mayor? To the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: And now deep thoughts with Mayor Pete.
BUTTIGIEG: It's not a sizzling glamorous issue, but the shape of our democracy is the issue that affects every other issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Trapezoidal. Mark Steyn, all right.
DOBBS: I understand how Mark remembered that. It's unforgettable.
CARLSON: I know it's unforgettable.
STEYN: It might have changed shape by now. It should have shape shifted.
CARLSON: So question four, our judges are telling us, question four is a two point question. OK. And it's a multiple choice. Here it is.
A man in Great Britain recently took this photograph while out climbing. It looks like an angel descending from heaven, but in fact it's a rare weather phenomenon that occurs under certain conditions. What is this phenomenon known as? Is it A. An angel orb? B. A sky pudding? Or C. A broken specter?
DOBBS: I'll race you.
CARLSON: For two points. Angel orb, sky pudding -- oh Lou buzzed in. All right, Lou.
DOBBS: I love the idea of sky pudding.
STEYN: Skype pudding, yes.
DOBBS: It may not be right, but I like the idea.
CARLSON: Sky pudding. At this point it doesn't matter because it's such a good answer. I don't know the answer. So let's find out. Is it -- it should be sky pudding, is it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... a man sharing this photo of what appears to be an angel in the sky in England. It's actually a shadow, a phenomenon that is known as a broken or mountain specter.
It happens when a person stands above the upper surface of a cloud with the sun behind them. It usually occurs on mountains or on high ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEYN: Sky pudding is better. Sky pudding is much better.
CARLSON: OK, so sky pudding was by our producer.
STEYN: Well, he should get a point, but you know, British Airways which just broke that transatlantic speed record, they actually serve pie in the sky. They have a dish on their menu called pie in the sky.
CARLSON: They do.
STEYN: So Lou's sky pudding actually should get a point for that, I think.
CARLSON: And I totally agree. And by the way, if meteorologists had any kind of imagination, they'd call it that. OK, final question. This is multiple choice.
DOBBS: I think this is much better about being stupid now.
CARLSON: We're not making this up. This is for two points. Here it is. A two-point question. An American restaurant chain has partnered with Crocs, the famous rubber footwear to make a fast food themed clog. Which chain dares to do this? Is it A. Kentucky Fried Chicken KFC? B. Pizza Hut? Or C. Burger King? Mark Steyn.
STEYN: I'm going to go with Pizza Hut.
DOBBS: Pizza Hut.
CARLSON: The Pizza Hut -- that seem perfect.
STEYN: I wear pepperoni loafers all the time. That's --
CARLSON: When I shuffle into Pizza Hut for a Hawaiian slice, I'm wearing the clogs. All right. Is that correct?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now, the ugly KFC Crocs. Whatever you would want in life? KFC and the shoe giant collaborating to make a limited edition bucket clogs. The fried chicken printed one, set of chicken charms and actually smell like the original recipe.
CARLSON: All right so that brings us to zero-zero and now we're going to go to our bonus round. It's sudden death. One question. It's very tough. Here it is, and this is no multiple choice. What is the capital of Peru?
CARLSON: Lima? Is it Lima? It's not Cusco. It's Lima. Lou Dobbs for the win.
STEYN: Oh no.
CARLSON: Good job, Lou. I cannot see -- I told you, Mark.
STEYN: The bonus question is usually the capital of Canada. I knew that one. I was closed.
DOBBS: Well --
CARLSON: I know, but we had to.
DOBBS: I got robbed of sky pudding.
CARLSON: Yes, you are from Canada. We couldn't ask that question.
STEYN: No, no, no, no.
CARLSON: I'm sorry about that.
DOBBS: Oh this, I will treasure.
CARLSON: Congratulations to Lou Dobbs. Oh there it is, the Erik Wemple mug from "The Washington Post" online. Great to see you both. Great job.
That's it for this week's Final Exam.
STEYN: We're going for sky pudding, Tucker.
CARLSON: Sky pudding. Yes. I love it. Pay attention to the news every week. Tune in Thursday to see if you're better than the smartest people at Fox. We'll be right back.
CARLSON: Online dating apps are already reordering human relationships and maybe sapping some of the joy from them, but now they're getting woke, too.
OKCupid is running ads encouraging users to fill out questionnaires about their political beliefs in order to help the website find a partner for them.
Unfortunately, it's a good business move. New York is full of people with strong progressive political views.
Polls show that 83 percent of those who despise the current President would never date someone who doesn't hate Donald Trump.
We just saw Mark Steyn in Final Exam. He rejoins us tonight. Mark, what does this tell you?
STEYN: Well, I think the fact that actually all the categories, particularly all the advertising, where they say it's OK to choose Mr. Right based on how far he leans left or it's OK to date someone who is prochoice, these things actually suggest that it's woke people who are finding it harder than anyone to get a date. And that's kind of rather sad.
That's actually borne out by the statistics that in fact, there's been a collapse of dating rituals and a collapse of dating and a collapse of relationships.
You know, love can strike you where it finds it, and politics shouldn't be factored into that to the degree this is, that people actually have litmus political tests.
Years ago the BBC used to put me on shows, they put me up against radical Marxist feminists thinking they'd get a lot of fireworks and it would make for great television.
And about two minutes in, I'd usually think wow, this really severe radical Marxist feminist telling me what a racist bigot I am is kind of turning me on and I get all flirty and the show would fall to pieces.
So I think it's kind of sad that the idea of being able to find love, where one might. The idea of choosing your partner based on their attitude to these kind of dreary political considerations is rather --
If you feel like that, why not just go to an Eric Swalwell rally? In the unlikely event that there's anybody there, you might want to date, you already know the check will be --
CARLSON: I was about to say because the sample set is too small. There are only 11 people, so the odds are low.
But you point something, I think really important now, which is at the root of all this woke stuff, of the woke culture is kind of a sad dark pit of loneliness actually.
CARLSON: A lot of these are sad people.
STEYN: Yes. And actually, as I said, all the statistics bear that out that in fact, young people are finding it more and more difficult to form relationships, in part because of all these rules.
By the way, like all woke corporations, they're slightly behind the curve on this. You have things like there's -- for example, there's a situation in Britain where a transgender lady made a criminal complaint because she'd been booked for a pornographic movie.
And when the porn star found that she was in fact transgender and was non- conforming, as I believe, if you know what I mean, she -- he fired her and she complained, and she's actually expecting a judge to order this guy to have sex with somebody he doesn't want to have sex with.
That's what super woke is. Super woke, it doesn't matter whether you're straight or CIS or gay or whatever, you've got to just show how super woke you are by having sex even if you don't want to. That's how -- that's dating in the super woke era.
CARLSON: That is woke, be willing to sublimate your most basic desires for a political agenda.
STEYN: Yes. Yes. I am not attracted to --
CARLSON: That's zero-zero stuff.
STEYN: Yes, yes. So you go on a dating website and you pick someone you're not in the least bit attracted to, just to show how progressive you are. It's brilliant and I have found to work out well.
CARLSON: I don't think even the camera roosted that. They let you sleep with anyone you wanted.
STEYN: Yes. Yes.
CARLSON: Mark Steyn. Great to see you tonight.
STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker. Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you. Genius. We'll be back tomorrow night, every week night, 8:00 p.m. The show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.
Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.