This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 3, 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.” Looking back, January of 2017, it seems like another age. So much has happened in the year since then. But in other ways, not that much has changed at all. Donald Trump had not even taking the oath of office yet, but by the first week of the New Year of 2017 -- in case you don't remember -- permanent Washington had already committed to destroying his presidency and Trump seemed to know it.

A little after 8:00 p.m. on the night of January 3, 2017, the President elect wrote a tweet. He took a veiled dig at U.S. Intelligence agencies for their handling of the then newly initiated Russia castigation.

And pretty much the same moment, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was arriving at MSNBC's Midtown Manhattan Studios. He went to the set and the anchor of the show he was on that night, Rachel Maddow pulled up Trump's tweet on a screen live on TV and asked Chuck Schumer to comment on that tweet. And sure, he hadn't seen the tweet before, of course, he couldn't have known it was coming.

From one of the most calculating politicians in Washington, it was a rare unscripted moment. And so for the first time in a long time, Chuck Schumer just went with the unvarnished truth. Watch what he said.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: Let me tell you, you take on the Intelligence Community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he is being really dumb to do this.


CARLSON: So Schumer went on to say he didn't know exactly what the spy agencies would do to Donald Trump as punishment for being dumb enough to criticize them in public. But he warned and this is a verbatim quote, "From what I am told, they are very upset about how he has treated them and talked about them," end quote. Very upset. Got it?

There's no mistaking what that was. That's a threat issued on live television with grave seriousness by a politician who has been in Washington long enough to know that it's absolutely real.

In the end, Donald Trump ignored it, or more likely, he decided to defy it. Day after day, he gave the finger to the permanent Washington establishment often on Twitter, sometimes at press conferences, but always with unmistakable relish.

Trump acted like a man who had won an election in a democratic country. He seemed to feel free to say exactly what he really thought. He didn't appear to believe that the Intelligence agencies had veto power over his agenda.

In a thousand different ways, the new President refused to bow, and for that crime, more than any other crime, he was punished, most recently by the manufactured Ukraine scandal.

The Intel world meanwhile, has become increasingly defiant. Just yesterday, former C.I.A. Director John Brennan expressed outrage that anyone would dare impose oversight on the Intelligence agencies that secretly oversee our lives.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER C.I.A. DIRECTOR: I'm supposedly going to be interviewed by Mr. Durham as part of this non-investigation. And then William Barr, you know, when he was testifying in front of Congress, he said he didn't understand the predication of the counterintelligence investigation that was launched into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

I don't understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt either real or imagined that would discredit that investigation in 2016 into Russian interference.


CARLSON: Well, John Brennan is a naked partisan, and he is a liar. He has acted in ways that would have shocked and horrified previous C.I.A. Directors and that's saying a lot. But John Brennan is not ashamed. Far from it, he is proud, and so are his many acolytes in Washington.

Phil Mudd is a former C.I.A. employee, like so many partisans from the Intelligence world, he is now a contributor at CNN. Last night Mudd said on-air warning to the President and his lawyer -- back off or prepare to get hurt.


PHIL MUDD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I spent a lot of time in government. There are State Department officials who will testify; Intel guys, DoD - Department of Defense people, all of us are sort of a brotherhood and sisterhood.

Rudy Giuliani parachutes in from Mars. The people who will testify are going to look at him, including State Department officials and say, I don't have to protect that guy. He didn't operate by the rules. He didn't do what you're supposed to do in government. I suspect, he is worried about what the Congress will do.

If I were him, I'd be worried about whether people in government stick a shiv in his back. He is in trouble.


CARLSON: So it's a brotherhood, says Phil Mudd, the C.I.A., a brotherhood that will stab you to death if you disobey. What Phil Mudd is describing is not a conventional government agency. It is nothing like what most of us imagine when we think about Washington is doing on our behalf.

The C.I.A. of John Brennan and Phil Mudd does not exist for our benefit. It exists solely for the benefit of the people who work there. We pay for the whole thing, but they do what they want, and they punish anyone who criticizes them. They brag about that.

Now, that's scary, of course. It's a perversion of democracy. It's exactly what the people who created the C.I.A. feared most. But it's, also, if we are going to be honest, it's annoying, because for all of the hype, the C.I.A. in the end, isn't even very good at its job.

Now, remember, this is an Intelligence agency. So it's fair to judge their performance against whether or not they predicted crucial events over the past 70 years. And again, and again, they didn't.

The C.I.A., for example was shocked by the Korean War. It didn't predict the Soviet atomic bomb, not a small thing. It missed the Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. It spent decades trying to bring down Fidel Castro -- to kill Fidel Castro. So naturally, his regime never fell, Castro lived into his 90s.

We know the C.I.A. spent decades propping up the Shah of Iran, so naturally, he tumbled from power. They didn't even provide a warning before that happened because they had no idea it was going to happen.

When the Iron Curtain finally fell in 1989, the C.I.A. was completely blindsided by it. They thought they had just predicted in fact that Soviet Union was as strong as ever. And things didn't get better after that.

The C.I.A. had no idea that Saddam Hussein planned to invade Kuwait the next year, in 1990. They were totally surprised by India's atomic bomb test eight years later. By 2003, they were totally confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In fact, their biggest success in the past 50 years may have been creating the Taliban.

If John Brennan had been working for a nonprofit business, there would have been a shareholder revolt a long time ago and probably criminal charges. He would have been John DeLorean. But because it's a secretive government agency, the C.I.A. has not been restrained. In fact, it's only become more powerful and more autonomous. Powerful enough to take down a President? We'll see.

One reason that permanent Washington is so powerful, of course, so resistant to change your oversight is that it makes alliances with some of the least impressive, but most ambitious Members of Congress.

Just days ago, for example, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff claimed his office had no contact whatsoever with the C.I.A. whistleblower.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First off, have you heard from the whistleblower? Are you -- do you want to hear from the whistleblower?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower, we would like to --


CARLSON: Schiff also claimed to know nothing about what was in the whistleblower's complaint before it came out. But yesterday, The "New York Times" revealed that both of those claims were lies.

Schiff apologized in a way, saying he quote, "should have been much more clear." Right. Schiff now admits his office spoke to the whistleblower, who by the way, we learned tonight is a registered Democrat, but insists his office did nothing to shape the complaint itself. But why would we believe that at this stage?

Congressman Devin Nunes is right in the middle of all this. He's the Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee, and he joins us tonight -- former Chairman of it.

Congressman, thanks so much for coming on.

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: It's great to be with.

CARLSON: Do you believe this explanation?

NUNES: No. No.

CARLSON: So it looks --

NUNES: Schiff's explanation. Yes, absolutely not.

CARLSON: Yes. So it looks from the perspective of people in the outside, like Adam Schiff's office guided this complaint, like it was a setup.

NUNES: Well, and it looks like he knew something beforehand, because you know, this was in the press, then you had tweets, you had stories written by known Fusion GPS reporters. And then you fast forward, he had a couple of times that he could have told us in private, that this had happened. Okay, now, nothing by law makes him -- he didn't have to tell us. But he clearly gave no indication that he had ever met with the whistleblower or anybody on his team had ever met with a whistleblower.

I mean, that's the real issue here. Two opportunities -- I'm talking about two opportunities behind closed doors, and he didn't tell us.

CARLSON: So this is not, you know, one among many stories, this is the basis for the impeachment of the President of the United States, and so it's not a small thing. It's the opposite of that. How can any of us have confidence that this isn't just a pure partisan invention?

NUNES: Yes. Well, it is a partisan adventure. And it's not a real impeachment, the way that impeachment process has worked the other times it's been used. Okay. I just came from the Capitol. And we had, I mean, nine hours of Ambassador Volker, which if you listen to the mainstream media and the Democrats, this was going to be the guy that was going to give up all the goods on Rudy Giuliani, and because this was the Special Envoy to Ukraine on behalf of the Trump administration.

Of course, they went on and on and on. Why did they keep going on and on? Because they weren't getting what they wanted. I came in there at the end, I was -- I felt horrible for the man in here. Yes, he has been a public servant. He is getting married in a few weeks. And he just wants this to be done with.


NUNES: And of course, you know, you wouldn't know that by number one, what leaked out before his testimony and what's leaked out ever since then.

CARLSON: So I have to ask you about the C.I.A. since you oversaw it. You were in charge the oversight of the C.I.A. and the other Intel agencies as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Do you feel that our Intelligence agencies are properly over seen by the Congress? Does the Congress -- democracy have control - full control - of these agencies?

NUNES: I think you could argue over the F.B.I. counterintelligence area that started this investigation into the Trump campaign. No. Zero. The F.B.I. has not cooperated throughout this investigation, perhaps with what the Attorney General is doing, running an investigation into the beginnings of the Russia probe. Yes.

With the C.I.A., I think the challenge has been what we've -- what Republicans have been pushing, when you go on to the hinterlands, you've got to remember, these agents put their lives on the line. Okay. The people that are out in the field.

The challenge you have is there's way too many Intelligence officials and consultants and former agents that are now pontificating on networks that live here in the swamp. And look, there's a reason to have a small cadre of folks here in the swamp.

CARLSON: I get it.

NUNES: But you know -- and I can't give the number, but I can just tell you that a majority of people are here in the swamp, which is not where they should be,

CARLSON: No, of course not -- a majority, really?

NUNES: I would think it's about a majority. When you take the Department of Defense, C.I.A., D.N.I., and all the other 17 different --

CARLSON: They're hanging around the capital city, of course, they are.

NUNES: They are lobbying for more money for their programs.

CARLSON: Of course, they are.

NUNES: And I'll tell you one thing that people forget. You know, I was the one ironically, in the spring of '16, when they're opening an investigation into the Trump campaign for colluding with the Russians, I went out and said the biggest Intelligence failure since 9/11 was our inability to understand Vladimir Putin's plans and intentions -- in the spring of 2016.

And of course, you know what they did to me, the press corps in this town, and the Democrats.

CARLSON: Yes, you were the --

NUNES: I was the secret Russian spy they were looking for all along.

CARLSON: You were, in fact -- we are communicating, I think in Russian when we would meet secretly in the park. Congressman, great to see you.

NUNES: Thank you. Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Terry Turchie is a former F.B.I. Deputy Director of Counterterrorism, and he joins us tonight. Terry, thanks so much for coming on tonight. So when you hear former Intel officials threaten elected leaders with punishment for disobeying bureaucrats, what's your reaction to that?

TERRY TURCHIE, FORMER F.B.I. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COUNTERTERRORISM: Well, it's just sickening to watch that, and I want to make sure I say right away, Tucker, that I'm not part of any brotherhood with Philip Mudd, and I can pretty much tell you neither is anyone I've ever worked with. And most of the guys there today and ladies, I doubt that they would be anything but appalled at what he said last night.

But you have to put it in perspective and look at the last two years. For the last two years, John Brennan and Philip Mudd and a number of other people, unfortunately, as Devin Nunes talked about have gone on television and have essentially called the President of the United States a Russian agent.

And we don't have time to even get into it, but most of those people had no room talking about anything like that, because they have plenty of problems themselves that anybody that would start reading about them would know.

So this is really awful, and we're here. It is very interesting. We've come full circle. We started with the Intelligence Community and Adam Schiff a couple of years ago and Russia; and now we're back, only we're here with him in charge of the Intelligence Committee, and we're talking about the Ukraine.

And what strikes out at any person who has really worked cases, and I like to talk about them as real F.B.I. agents, most of us learn from a mentor or an F.B.I. at the F.B.I. Academy or in our first field office, when you want to do an investigation and you want to get to the bottom of something, then look for what is abnormal, find out what the normal is, whether it's a company, a group or whatever, and then find the abnormal.

And all along, we saw the abnormalities in this. It began with Susan Rice. Susan Rice and the unmasking. Tucker, I was in the F.B.I. 30 years. I worked nothing but mostly national security cases. I never made a request to unmask anyone and I never had a politician make any kind of request to unmask any case that I've been working on. That's just abnormal.

And then she got on TV in 2017, and in a direct response to Judy Woodruff, lied about it. She was asked, do you know anything about what Devin Nunes has said? And she said, I don't know anything.

And you see that play out in all of these examples. Christopher Steele was closed as an F.B.I. asset. That's the term in counterintelligence for an informant. And then he was worked by a Department of Justice attorney. Totally abnormal.

CARLSON: Yeas. The country changed a lot under the Obama administration for eight years in ways that we're just now coming to understand. Terry Turchie, thanks so much.

TURCHIE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: While Democrats were screaming for impeachment, sometimes literally screaming for impeachment before Donald Trump even took office, Rashida Tlaib is selling impeach the mother-effer t-shirts. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still wants you to know that impeachment really was a final resort. It's a very, very sad thing. She keeps telling us that. She is so sad it turned out this way. She'd like you to pray with her about it.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: This is a very serious -- very serious challenge that the President has put there. It's very sad.

So yes, it's there. It's said.

This is a very sad time for our country.

First, let me say that this is no cause for any joy. This is a very sad time for our country. It's really sad. We have to be very prayerful. I pray for the President all the time.

This is a very sad time for our country. There's just no joy in this. It's sad.


CARLSON: The best is that the news anchors, the hair hats, the morons, the robots nod vacantly when she says we really have to pray for President Trump. It's very sad. I mean, I haven't been this sad since all the other guys, really, really. Very sad.

Richard Goodstein is a former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he joins us tonight. How sad are you? Are you as sad as your Speaker?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON: My reaction to this is there's a lot of projection that happens between ...

CARLSON: There certainly is.

GOODSTEIN: ... the Trump supporters, and I think here's a case where they can't quite fathom that a Speaker could feel this because they never felt anything like this around the Clinton impeachment. You never heard a soul on the Republican side feel any sense of remorse for going after him, trying to kick him out of office, talked about a coup, because he had sex and didn't want to talk about it on the --

CARLSON: That is true.


CARLSON: What you said is true. I was there. That's absolutely right. If you were to ask Republicans in Washington now, including the Republican in Washington, who led the impeachment charge, of course, the then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and we just talked to about this. All of them would tell you it was a mistake. All of them would express regret.

All of them, you know, they don't like Clinton, but that was not a good idea. So I just wonder like, if -- since you brought that up, two years from now, are Democrats really going to say it was a wise idea to make up this ludicrous, unbelievably dumb story about Ukraine?

No one even has their heart in it. No one really believes anything bad -- the impeachable happened. Do you really think in two years, Democrats would say that was really smart to do that?

GOODSTEIN: Do you ever think of this whole hoax business about Ukraine. It's the President's word, whether the whistleblower is an R or D or came from Mars, or whatever they blew the whistle about, we see the so-called transcript --

CARLSON: I agree.

GOODSTEIN: Incidentally, it's an abbreviated truncated version, because it doesn't come close to being 30 minutes worth of words.

CARLSON: What do you think is missing?

GOODSTEIN: Well, you tell me. I mean, you know there is no damning that the public increasingly with each passing wheel is more and more inclined to say, yes, actually, I think you should be impeached.

CARLSON: It is so sad. So what's your -- I mean, let me just ask you very quick, or do you really think that the transcription office at the White House is collaborating in a conspiracy run by Donald Trump to hide who knows what? A spying agreement that he reached with the President of Ukraine, like, seriously?

GOODSTEIN: We know they tried to hide it, right?

CARLSON: You think there's relevant information that's been excluded from the transcript?

GUTFELD: Well, so we have the -- you know, the gap, the Rose Mary Woods gap from Nixon --

CARLSON: Because it's too dumb.

GOODSTEIN: Well, it's not too dumb because what they revealed and what they went to the trouble to hide, ultimately was damning. The public now thinks he should be impeached for it. But what we've actually seen --

CARLSON: Do you really think this is what -- I mean, look, there's an election in the year, if you don't like Trump. That is the referendum. It's a democracy.


CARLSON: No, we have to take him out.

GOODSTEIN: He was having sex with an intern. But he is trying to get China and Ukraine and Russia to make sure that we don't have a fair election. Trying to get -- yes, he said that on the back lawn of the White House today.

CARLSON: Really? It's pretty funny, after literally the Democrats for the past 30 years, just gave away our entire country with the help of corporate Republicans to China, and now they're like, oh he is collaborating with China. The only President's take on China in American history --

GOODSTEIN: And hats off to him for doing that, incidentally. I'm just saying I just think that he is seeking help from them to help him win and the other side lose, that's the problem.

CARLSON: That's just saying dumb stuff at news conferences, as you know. Richard, good to see you.

GOODSTEIN: Sure, thanks.

CARLSON: Mark Steyn will be here in just a minute. Also, Congresswoman and AOC squad member Rashid Tlaib says Detroit Police need to hire people based on their skin color. We're not exaggerating, we have it. We're going to speak to the Police Chief of Detroit.

Plus, can you beat our two news professionals in remembering everything weird that happened this week? "Final Exam" just around the corner.


CARLSON: Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib made an astonishing demand today, bring back Jim Crow. We're not overstating that. She said she wants people hired or fired from their jobs solely on the basis of their skin color. Kind of remarkable.

Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher has more on this story. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, Congresswoman Rashid is on the record saying she opposes facial recognition technology because she thinks it misidentifies a disproportionate number of darker skinned people even though the technology works on facial measurements not race or gender.

When the Detroit Police Department started using the technology in its new crime center, Tlaib quoted wrote this on Twitter, "Detroit Police, you should probably rethink this whole facial recognition BS." Though she used the whole word. So the Police Chief invited her down for a tour which became combative. Watch.


REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MICH.: They almost need to be African-Americans, not people that are not. I think non-African-Americans think African-Americans all look the same. I've seen it even from the House floor, people calling Elijah Cummings John Lewis and John Lewis, Elijah Cummings and they're totally different people.


GALLAGHER: The Police Chief responded that he trusts people who are trained regardless of their race, but Tlaib again, pushed the idea of a built-in bias. The Chief later said many of his staff members black and white told him they were outraged by Tlaib's remarks -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks, Trace. James Craig is the Chief of Police of the City of Detroit and he joins us tonight. Chief, thanks so much for coming on tonight.

JAMES CRAIG, CHIEF OF POLICE, DETROIT CITY: Hey, how are you doing, Tucker? Glad to be here.

CARLSON: Really well. What did you make of this demand from the Congresswoman?

CRAIG: You know, is disturbing, delusional. There's nothing to it. The key points that keep getting missed the conversation of a facial recognition is we understand that the technology is flawed. We have built- in safeguards and I can't speak for other police departments.


CRAIG: But the safeguards are that we have trained analyst, professionals, and then is peer reviewed by yet a second analyst. And then only after that does a supervisor come in and concur with their findings.

And so we understand that if we let the technology run on its own, there's going to be Misidentifications. We recognize it. But what the Congresswoman misses, she never talks about the victims, and the cases that we have solved -- some pretty big cases -- involving mass murder suspect, it's almost as if, well, does it really matter? It's just a deflection and it's constant.

And you know, most Detroiters and I will tell you, not just Detroiters, but across this country over the last 48 hours, I've gotten so many messages from Americans saying we support you, we know what you're doing. Stand your ground.

CARLSON: So just to be clear your employees who screen this information, who interpret the data don't have to be of a specific race in order to do their jobs.

CRAIG: Absolutely not. They can get the same training. They're professionals. You know what it's akin to, Tucker. It's almost as if saying, okay, a white police officer cannot work in an African-American community.

I've been in this business 42 years, and I've always worked in diverse police departments, LA, for example. Black and white police officers working together very effectively.

But it doesn't mean that there are individuals that are going to do bad things, both black, white, Brown, and so her statement was based on nothing. She provided me what she calls a peer review study about why blacks tend to better recognize other blacks.


CRAIG: But what's missing in this study, it has nothing to do with the professional training that analysts get. And as you indicated, Tucker, measurements. It's not about race. It is biometric training based on measurements.

CARLSON: Well, exactly. I mean, well, I should point out to our viewers about that. I know and I believe you were the Police Chief of Portland, Maine.

CRAIG: Portland, Maine, yes.

CARLSON: One of the whitest cities in America and a very popular and very successful Chief of Police there. So, it's not about race.

CRAIG: Well, thank you.

CARLSON: It's about competence.

CRAIG: It's about -- yes.

CARLSON: Chief, thanks so much for coming on tonight. I appreciate that.

CRAIG: Thank you. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: It's been an unexpectedly tough year for putative Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden. His Democratic demographic profile is decades out of date for the party he wants to lead, something he didn't realize, but has since learned.

Elizabeth Warren is now leading him in Iowa and New Hampshire. His party is planning to impeach Trump, meanwhile, it revolves around highlighting his own family's corruption. That's not a good thing. So is it over for Joe Biden? He says, it is not. In a soliloquy last night, Biden said he is not giving up.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, let me make something clear to Mr. Trump and his hatchet men, and the special interest funding these attacks against me, I'm not going anywhere.

(Cheering and Applause)

BIDEN: You're not going to destroy me and you're not going to destroy my family.

We have to do more than beat Donald Trump. We have to beat him like a drum.


CARLSON: So that was the verbatim take. That's what Biden actually said, but we will concede that to us here on the show, it sounded a little more like this.


CARLSON: Author and columnist, Mark Steyn, always has music in his head. He joins us tonight. So Joe Biden, you have watched -- I wouldn't say you're a professional Biden connoisseur, but you certainly watched him carefully for three decades or more. Where are you now on Joe Biden?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, where was on the original Broadway run of "Dreamgirls" where she comes out and she sings and I'm telling you, I'm not going for 15 minutes. And at the end of it, she goes.

And that's going to be the same thing here. Joe Biden can say, I am telling you not going, but he will be -- by the way, when he said it, just like that, it reminded me of a character on Ellen de Generes's old sitcom who gets sick and her boyfriend takes her hand and says, don't worry, Paige, I'm going nowhere. And the character -- and Paige says back to her boyfriend, that's a whole other issue.

When Joe Biden says he is going nowhere. He is right. But that's a whole other issue.

CARLSON: So there is a kind of sadness about this. I mean, looking back, and it's always clear, of course, in retrospect, but Biden was never going to be the nominee, was he?

STEYN: No, and I think in part because what's happened in recent days confirms it. Last time around, the Democrat enthusiasm was for Bernie who was full-blown socialism, and so-called moderation and centrism was represented by a kleptocrat racket, which was Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

Now, we have the same situation. There were all kinds of -- there's Bernie. There's a distaff Bernie in Elizabeth Warren. There's younger prettier Bernie's in the in the Seven Dwarfs and all the rest of them, and centrist moderation is represented by another corrupt kleptocrat.

There's no reason why Hunter Biden, a middle-aged man who should have moved out of his father's home by now should be riding around on Air Force 2. There shouldn't be an Air Force 2, but that is another issue. But if there is an Air Force 2, Hunter Biden shouldn't be jetting into China and Ukraine.

Joe Biden in his first presidential campaign plagiarized Neil Kinnock, the Welsh Labour Party leader and said that he was the first Biden in a thousand generations to go to college. He stole that line. Hunter Biden is the first Biden in a thousand generations to become a Ukrainian oligarch, and Trump is perfectly capable of hanging that round his father's neck all the way to Election Day.

CARLSON: I think that's exactly right. I mean, I do -- I think a lot of the Trump people are worried most about Biden, but I think Biden would be the easiest to beat for them.

STEYN: Absolutely. I think -- and I think he is not where the party is, you would have the same issues that Hillary had. I noticed, by the way, today, he says, never mind, Iowa and New Hampshire. He's got a Super Tuesday firewall.

I had an e-mail from Mike Murphy, Jeb Bush's campaign consultant to that effect exactly four years ago, saying the same. The old Trump may win in New Hampshire, but we've got everything after that. So no, Biden is going nowhere.

CARLSON: They don't believe it. When they say it, they don't believe it.

STEYN: No, they don't.

CARLSON: Murphy or Biden. Mark Steyn, great to you tonight. Thank you for that.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: A small group of civic-minded volunteers managed to clear 50 tons of trash from the streets of Los Angeles in a single day. It's not like the California budget isn't big enough to afford things like this. Why haven't they tried? The organizer of that event joins us next.


CARLSON: We've got a very intense "Final Exam" face off in just a minute. Sorry to brag, but we do. So stay tuned for that. But first, California is one of the most heavily taxed states in the nation. That's one reason the middle class has fled to so many other states leaving by the day.

But despite that huge tax burden, though the government can't even keep the streets clean, far from it. Los Angeles, San Francisco, other cities are sinking under a tide of garbage, needles and human waste. Is it really that hard to provide such a basic service? Well, only if you're a California government official, it turns out. Otherwise, it's not that hard.

Scott Presler proved that. He is an activist and founder of the #ThePersistence. He took a crew volunteers to Los Angeles where they managed to clean up more than 100,000 pounds of trash in just nine hours. Scott Presler joins us. So Scott, thanks so much for coming on.

SCOTT PRESLER, FOUNDER, #THEPERSISTENCE: No, thank you, Tucker, for having me.

CARLSON: So you first did this in Baltimore.


CARLSON: And Baltimore is famously troubled, but also a dirty city. You spent a lot of time cleaning it up, and you got quite a reaction from the left.

PRESLER: Yes, we came in with one tweet, I asked for help. I said, please, come to the city of Baltimore. Let's pick up trash and do it as a family. We picked up 12 tons of trash in 12 hours with only 170 volunteers. And you know no good deed goes unpunished, unfortunately.

"The Baltimore Sun" wrote a scathing editorial and I never thought, Tucker, in a million years as an adult, I would be criticized for picking up trash.

CARLSON: It's almost unbelievable that they took the bait and admitted that you basically pointed out their incompetence and their lack of caring, their callousness. So in Los Angeles, what did you find?

PRESLER: In Los Angeles, again, we were walking then -- this was a homeless encampment. So with the 50 tons of trash, in the 100,000 pounds of trash, there were homeless veterans. There were homeless people sleeping next to this.

And you know when Dr. Drew Pinsky is talking about potential typhus, potential bubonic that means that this is a health hazard for American citizens. We were welcomed in and we picked up 50 tons of trash with only 200 volunteers and nine hours without the help of the city, without the help of the Governor, without the help of the Mayor. We did it as private citizens because we don't need big government.

CARLSON: What kind of trash?

PRESLER: Everything. We found needles, we found mattresses, we found anything that you would make to build a home, furniture and a lot of it was food. Some of it was human waste. I mean, this was serious garbage. It was worse in Los Angeles than it was Baltimore.

CARLSON: So when, for example, Dr. Drew Pinsky says this is so filthy, it poses a human health hazard. That doesn't not an overstatement.

PRESLER: No, it's accurate. This is absolutely -- if they want to talk about the potential of an epidemic, look no further than Los Angeles.

CARLSON: I'm just confused. So you don't live in LA.


CARLSON: You know, I live here in the Washington area. You just show up there. You're trying to make a point. But you actually did it.


CARLSON: Why doesn't the City of Los Angeles do it?

PRESLER: Thank you. Great question. Why did an East Coast boy have to go to the West Coast to show that I care and picking up trash? You know, where are the elected California officials? Where's all of these billions of taxpayer money dollars going to?


PRESLER: I want to know.

CARLSON: Well, especially since it's -- and verify this for me if you would, it's not that hard, right? It's not that complicated to pick up trash?

PRESLER: No. Very, very true.

CARLSON: You lean over and then you close your fingers around it and then you put it in a bag, right?

PRESLER: Yes. And then you remove it and make sure it goes to a dump yard. Yes, sir.

CARLSON: So it's not decoding the human genome?

PRESLER: No, no, no. This is something that anybody can do. When we were in Baltimore, even an 81-year-old four, 4'10" Miss Louise was helping us sweep up trash and if she can do it, bless her heart, then anybody can.

CARLSON: Yes, well, that just -- it just tells you everything. Scott, thank you very much for that.

PRESLER: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Elizabeth Warren tells us that as President, she would rein in the power of big tech, but Silicon Valley doesn't seem to think she means it. So why should we think she does?

But first, it's time for "Final Exam." Two experts from Fox Business Channel are here to battle it out for an Erik Wemple mug. That's next.


CARLSON: It is time for "Final Exam" where two of the smartest best informed news professionals at Fox News compete to win fabulous prizes from store. It's a Fox Business showdown tonight to celebrate the relaunch of the daytime lineup. It is called, "Invested In You." Fox Business correspondent, Susan Li won a t-shirt last week -- and a handsome one. This week, she is hoping to win an Erik Wemple mug.

Her challenger for that mug is Liz Claman, host of the "Claman Countdown" which airs on Fox Business every afternoon at three, which I watch which is excellent.


CARLSON: We're really grateful that you're here. And also my condolences because Susan Li is just a savage on the stage.

CLAMAN: I know. Ruthless.

CARLSON: It's amazing. Anyway, good luck to you both. Here are the rules. But I meant that in the nicest way. Okay, you know what the rules are, but for our audience, I am going repeat them. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. First one to buzz gets to answer the question. Critically, you have to wait until I finish asking before you answer.

CLAMAN: Oh, okay.

CARLSON: You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Every correct answer is worth one point. If you get a question wrong, you lose a point.

CLAMAN: What? What? What?


CARLSON: The cruel math of "Final Exam."

CLAMAN: You are vicious, Tucker.

CARLSON: I don't make the rules. I am a marionette controlled by New York. All right. You ready?


CARLSON: Question one. This is a multiple choice. So wait for all the options. In what looks like a bad omen for the future of his presidential campaign, which 2020 candidate had to give a speech in the dark at for the venue where he was speaking had a blackout? Was it A. Pete Buttigieg? B. Andrew Yang? C. Julian Castro? Susan?

LI: I'm going to say Buttigieg. A.

CLAMAN: I knew that.

CARLSON: Was it Pete Buttigieg who spoke in the dark?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg was plunged into darkness after the venue went in sparks and lost electricity.


CARLSON: There's a lesson here. When you constantly invoke God on the campaign trail, sometimes he responds.

CLAMAN: They just don't have a good generator.

CARLSON: Or that. Yes. Good point. Okay, question two. Is it not a multiple choice. Japan Airlines says they want to make your flight a little more comfortable. When you choose your seat on their website, there is now a map that will help you avoid sitting next to whom or what?

CLAMAN: A baby.

CARLSON: Liz Claman, a baby.

CLAMAN: A baby.

CARLSON: A baby?

CLAMAN: A vicious crying baby.

CARLSON: Is it a vicious crying baby. Roll tape.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Japan Airlines has a possible solution. It's booking website lets passengers know where children under two years old would be on a flight before they choose their seats. Passengers don't sit next to screaming kids. Parents might just end up with a row to themselves.


CLAMAN: Well, yes, I mean, I'd rather know if I'm sitting next to a mini horse, right?

CARLSON: An emotional support mini horse.

CLAMAN: Exactly, Tucker.

CARLSON: This is the most -- this is such a poignant question. It made me a little sad reading it. Here it is. Question three. This is a multiple choice once more. People in Britain are concerned that a once very popular indeed iconic name is now going extinct. In fact, last year or in 2016, only three babies in all of England and Wales received this name. Is it A. Arthur? B. Nigel? C. Reginald? Liz.

CLAMAN: I may lose my point here, Reginald?

CARLSON: Reginald.

LI: That makes sense.

CARLSON: Is the name -- that's understandable. Is it the name Reginald?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In recent years, the name has been on the brink of extinction in England and Wales with fewer than three Nigel's born --


CARLSON: I've got it wrong, too when I was just doing the quiz alone in my office because Nigel, I thought most men in Great Britain were called Nigel. But no,

LI: There are more Nigel's than Reginald's.

CLAMAN: And Arthur's.

LI: More Reginald than Nigel's. Wow.

CARLSON: It's shocking. All right, question four. Which presidential candidate --

LI: Wait, is this a multiple choice?

CARLSON: No, this is a single answer.

LI: Okay, single answer. Very important.

CARLSON: So you have to wait until I finish asking it, but I'm just going to warn you, the phrasing of the question and I just read the teleprompter like a lot of you, okay.

So I'm just telling you the phrasing may give it away. So pay close attention. You ready?

CLAMAN: Okay. Okay. Okay.

CARLSON: Here we go. Which presidential candidate known for over sharing in his personal life, just posted a video of himself getting a flu shot? Liz?

CLAMAN: That one's Beto.

CARLSON: It's got to be Beto.

CLAMAN: It has to be Beto.

CARLSON: It's got to be Beto. Is it Beto?


CARLSON: Man, he's going to be flossing by the end. I mean, that's really what narcissism looks like. Would you imagine anyone would want to see your flu shot? Would that even occur to you? No. I won't put up with his. Here's our final question. It's multiple choice and this of course is sudden death. This is one to one. Here it is. Multiple choice, you have to wait for all the options.

In an interview this week, which 2020 candidate revealed that she and not her husband was the one who proposed marriage. Is it A. Kamala Harris? Is it B. Elizabeth Warren? Is it C. Amy Klobuchar? Liz.

CLAMAN: I'm going to blow it. Amy Klobuchar.

CARLSON: Did Amy Klobuchar take control and ask her husband? To the tape.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And he walks back and his -- he looks down at me and he says well, what did you think? And I said, great, will you marry me? And he said --


WARREN: Yes, and that was it.


LI: And that was it.

CARLSON: Of course, the caveat is, we don't know if that actually happened. But I would have, by the way, Liz, I would guessed -- I would have guessed what you guessed, but unfortunately for you, that was not correct. Susan Li remains the champion.

CLAMAN: She gets the mug.

CARLSON: It's amazing.

LI: Oh, wow.

CARLSON: That was such an even match up.

LI: Look at that. Thank you. Look at that.

CLAMAN: I want a sippy cup. Can I get a Tucker sippy cup?

CARLSON: Of course you can. I think we have one on the website. I'm going to have check it, but congratulations you both on the Fox Business revamp. It looks amazing.

CLAMAN: Thank you, Tucker. Here comes the confetti.

CARLSON: We'll watch it all day long. Thank you, both. We'll be back next week easily on Thursday. So pay attention to the news all week and see if you can beat our experts at remembering the weird things that happened. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: So we promised you a story about Elizabeth Warren in this space and we're going to bring it to you, but it's going to have to be tomorrow because we made a snap decision here.

A bizarre moment occurred just a few minutes ago at an Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez Town Hall in New York. One of her constituents said she is so worried about global warming, that we need to eat children. Assess for yourself.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: We only have a few months left. I love that you support the Green Deal. But it's not -- you know getting rid of fossil fuel is not going to solve the problem fast enough.

A Swedish Professor is saying that we can eat the dead people, but that's not fast enough. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this, we've got to start eating babies.

We don't have enough time. There's too much CO2. All of you, you know you're a pollutant. Too much CO2. We have to start now, please.

You are so great. I'm so happy that you really support a New Green Deal, but it's not enough, you know, even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people, too much pollution. So we have to get rid of the babies. That's a big problem. Just stopping having babies, that's not enough. We need to eat the babies.


CARLSON: So is that real? We don't know. Was it a swifty in parody? Was it clever trolling of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Maybe it was. Maybe that's just someone who believes the rhetoric of the left.

Either way, what did you hear? That was most interesting part. If someone said, we need to eat the babies wouldn't your first response be, what? No, of course not. Eat the babies? That's the one thing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't say. Huh? Pretty revealing. We will have more tomorrow.

Have a great night. In the meantime, we'll be back 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.

Sean Hannity from New York right now.

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.