This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," June 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” There was a time not so long ago, when if you wanted to commit treason, you had to work for it. You meet your handler in a public park in Vienna and pass him the nuclear codes, or instead have a shortwave radio transmitter in your basement and call in troop movements to the enemy.

That's how people used to betray their country. The standards are much lower now though.

According to Democrats, Donald Trump committed treason merely by answering a hypothetical question from a reporter. Here's how it happened.

In a recent interview, George Stephanopoulos asked the President, what he might do if a foreign government offered his campaign damaging information about one of his opponents.

Here's how the President responded.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC HOST: In your campaign this time, if there were foreigners -- if Russia, if China if someone else offers you information on opponent, should they accept it, or should they call the F.B.I.?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don't -- there's nothing wrong with listening.

If somebody called from a country -- Norway -- we have information on your opponent. "Oh," I think I'd want to hear it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You want that kind of interference in our elections.

TRUMP: It's not an interference, they have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the F.B.I. if I thought there was something wrong.


CARLSON: So here's the scenario. Norway calls and tells you something embarrassing about Beto O'Rourke. Maybe he wears a wig, or maybe those big Bobby Kennedy teeth of his are actually dentures. Who knows what kind of dirt the Scandinavians have on Beto?

But you're happy to hear it no matter what it is because why wouldn't you be? Plus, it's kind of amusing. Big mistake. Guess what, pal? You just committed treason, a death penalty offense.


REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: Accepting assistance from a hostile foreign power like Russia is treasonous behavior.

REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.: What Donald Trump said is un-American, unpatriotic and unbelievable.

REP. STEVE COHEN, D-TENN.: He is so wacko. You'd think -- you know, last week it was go to the Mars and forget the moon; a month ago is go to the moon. He ought to go to the moon. Ralph Kramden ought to send him and not Audrey Meadows.

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think the President's answer to George Stephanopoulos yesterday underscores the importance of moving forward with impeachment.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: Everybody in the country should be totally appalled by what the President said last night.


CARLSON: Totally appalled. You know, you've reached a moment of maximum ridiculousness when the people who reflexively side with -- I don't know -- the government of Guatemala over our own citizens decided to tell you what's patriotic or not. "That's an American," says Ted Lieu. Hilarious.

But if you think that reaction was hysterical, wait until you see how the talking head community responded. Pure pandemonium.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is a traitor to the pillars of our democracy. That's what that interview shows --

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: What Donald Trump just did was the founding fathers worst nightmare.

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I've run out of adjectives to react, to describe my reaction to this.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: If any other President had said anything resembling this, you know, Republicans in Congress would have understandably, you know, called him a traitor.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: It is unthinkable what he said. It disintegrates at the very core of what our democracy is about.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the definition of collusion.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it is treasonous. I think it is compromising. I think it is dangerous. I think it is wrong. It's illegal.


CARLSON: Dangerous, wrong, illegal -- in a word, treason. That's what it is when you take damaging information about a political opponent from foreigners. Okay, just so we're clear on the terms. Wait a second. Are we sure we're comfortable with this new definition? It seems like it might have some unintended consequences.

Some of the very people making red-faced accusations of treason appear by their own standard to have committed treason themselves.

Consider, for example, the Trump dossier. Remember that? Everybody in Washington read the Trump dossier. John McCain's staff made absolutely certain of that.

Our Intelligence services then used the dossier to justify extensive spying on American citizens. But here's the thing with the dossier. It wasn't American. Our agencies -- the C.I.A. and F.B.I., they did not compile the dossier. The dossier came from a man called Christopher Steele, a longtime employee of British Intelligence.

In other words, a foreign operative. Steele's information, the information that from the basis of the dossier didn't come from this country. It came from foreigners, it came from Russians.

Everybody knew this at the time. Steele said so out loud.

Here's a 2017 tweet from Hillary Clinton's Press Secretary Brian Fallon, quote, "I regret I didn't know about Christopher Steele's hiring (by the Hillary campaign) pre-election," he said. "If I had known, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him," end quote.

Fallon went on to say that the Hillary campaign was proud to get opposition research from foreigners, quote, "I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election," end quote.

Now when Fallon says "this," Fallon was referring to salacious dirt from Russians. So by Ted Lieu standards, you just heard them, that's anti American. That's treason.

And yet the funny thing is, Brian Fallon is not behind bars tonight. He's never been charged with treason or anything else.

Nobody on Hillary Clinton's campaign has. They're all still walking free despite being -- and we're quoting MSNBC here, "Traitors to the pillars of our democracy," whatever the hell that means.

But at this point, some of them have probably moved on, maybe they are lobbying for foreign governments. That's common. It's a well-worn path for political consultants hoping to cash in. It's also by definition, a betrayal of America.

And yet, it's so common in Washington that nobody really notices anymore, which tells you a lot.

Jay Jacobs is Chairman of the New York State Democratic Party. He joins us tonight. Mr. Jacobs, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So explain the outrage, if you would, taking information from the Russians or from foreign governments, in general, is treason. And yet, almost everything we've talked about for the past two and a half years is based on a document that came from the Russians, by the admission of the person who put it together, Christopher Steele. I'm confused.

JACOBS: Well, that's not exactly -- that's not exactly the way the whole picture comes together. And there's two very different scenarios.

CARLSON: What am I missing?

JACOBS: Well, if you might. First thing is the President is saying that he would do what he was accused of doing in the last election, he would have no problem if he was approached by the Russians. And I would have to remind you, that's an adversary, a hostile adversary to the United States with information on an opponent. He wouldn't go to the F.B.I. necessarily. He'd listen to it, and he might use it.

Here in the Steele matter, the steel dossier, it was a little different.

CARLSON: Wait. I'm sorry -- I'm sorry to stop you. I'm sorry to stop you. That's actually not what he said. We just played the tape. We can play it again, if you'd like. But let me paraphrase. He said, and the example he used by the way was Norway, not Russia, for whatever it's worth, not a hostile foreign power.

JACOBS: Stephanopoulos referenced Russia.

CARLSON: So Stephanopoulos said, "Would you go to the F.B.I. or would you would you read it?" And Trump said, "Well, both." So he didn't say he wouldn't go to the F.B.I. but he said he would take in the information -- it's in the recording, "Maybe both."

JACOBS: Something he made very clear at first. He made very clear first, he goes, "Who does that?" Who would go to the --

That's not how it works. We wouldn't do that. And he even disagreed with his F.B.I. Director.

CARLSON: I can read you the verbatim.

JACOBS: His F.B.I. Director said, he said, "No." He is wrong.

CARLSON: Look, we just played the soundbite. We just played the soundbite, so I think you -- let me play it again for you?

JACOBS: I heard it. No, you don't need to, Tucker. I heard it, but you haven't played all of the soundbites.

CARLSON: But hold on. But you're eliding over the point that actually matters. I'm not here to defend Trump's interview with Stephanopoulos. Why would you have given an interview to Stephanopoulos in the first place? It's a very good question.

But I'm here to ask why it's okay that the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign used information from the Russians as opposition research in the campaign. I thought they were a hostile foreign power? You just told me that. That's treason, isn't it? Why isn't it not treason?

JACOBS: There's a little bit of difference. If I might, there's a difference between the Steele dossier and how it came about, and what happened here in this circumstance, or in this hypothetical, and what may have happened before.

And the difference simply, Tucker is that this was an opposition research project that frankly was started by a conservative media outlet to begin with, it was then handed over to the Democrats and American outlet, Fusion GPS started by a "Wall Street Journal" reporter by the name of Simpson who had this this effort on to look at Republican candidates.

Steele -- Christopher Steele was engaged by them. He is not and was not at the time employed by the British government by the way at MI6 where he previously was at.

CARLSON: Hold on. He was a career British Intelligence officer on the Russia desk.

JACOBS: Former, retired. Retired.

CARLSON: But that's the point that's why he was hired because he was a foreign Intel officer.

JACOBS: Okay, but he --

CARLSON: For his entire career, but hold on --

JACOBS: He worked on opposition --

CARLSON: But he has said that the information -- hold on. This is -- there's just too much BS and we're almost out of time. I just want to nail you down to one thing.

Steele said the information in the dossier -- he said what we already know -- came from Russia. The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC used information from Russians, from Russian Intel sources, the Russian government to attack Trump. That's okay. Why is that okay?

JACOB: The difference here is a hostile power approaches the candidate. Governmental and Intelligence levels approaches the candidate's campaign to give you information. That's wrong. They should go to the F.B.I.

CARLSON: But it's okay to approach a hostile foreign power to solicit information which the Hillary people did.

JACOBS: But it's a big difference between finding out -- it's not about finding out the information. It's who has approached who. You had a hostile adversary approach a campaign and you have a President saying he doesn't have to go to the F.B.I.

CARLSON: So it's okay for Hillary to --

JACOBS: That's wrong.

CARLSON: Okay. But he didn't actually say that. But bottom line last question, it's okay to solicit that information from a hostile foreign power. The Hillary campaign used a cut out to get information from the Russian government, and that's okay with you?

JACOBS: The Hillary campaign went to an opposition research firm, they happened to engage Steele, who is a former British Intelligence officer, a whole different scenario here.

CARLSON: The information came from the Russians -- all right, totally different, okay.

JACOBS: Between Russian Intelligence officers coming in and contacting the Trump campaign. That's all.

CARLSON: I don't think I am -- it's okay when you contact them, not when they contact you. I get it. Just for future reference. If I'm up on death penalty charges, I just want to know what the rules are. Jay, thanks very much. Good to see you.

JACOBS: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Aaron Mate has been covering this story from day one. He is a contributing writer at "The Nation" and he joins us tonight. Aaron, you're much better versed in this than I am. It does seem -- and this is not to - - even with reference to the President's conversation with George Stephanopoulos. But am I missing something?

The information at the core of the dossier came from Russian sources, did it not?

AARON MATE, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NATION: Well, the understanding of the Clinton campaign which paid for the dossier and paid for the entire duration it's it paid for the entire sum of the supposedly Russian dirt that was all under the DNC's watch.

But yes, the understanding of the Clinton campaign at the time was that this was coming from high level Russian sources. If I had to bet, I think it's actually false. I think that Steele and whoever his sources were, were making all this up.

But the understanding of the Clinton campaign was indeed, that can --

CARLSON: Can stop you right there? That's -- I actually think you may be right about that. I thought that from day one. We don't know that. But that's a very good point. But your point is the Clinton people believed it was coming from Russian sources.

MATE: Certainly, Steele himself said that his sources were high level Russian officials. And that intelligence from him or quote unquote, "intelligence" from him was being used to, you know -- as part of Clinton campaign messaging, calling Trump a Russian agent.

It helped inform the F.B.I.'s investigation. It was even used in a FISA warrant. So if we're concerned about foreign dirt, I mean, certainly I think it's fair to highlight the foreign dirt that the Clinton campaign was paying for from Christopher Steele.

It's also fair, I think, to highlight the hypocrisy of the Clinton camp and Democrats who are, you know, fulminating about foreign dirt when they themselves met with Ukrainian officials in the early campaign in 2016, spring of 2016. And they use dirt obtained from Ukraine to basically help oust Paul Manafort because Ukrainian officials shared dirt on Paul Manafort, which ultimately led to his resignation.

Nobody is calling on Democrats to call the F.B.I. to report their own dealings with the Ukrainian officials.

CARLSON: Very good point and lost in much of this conversation. Aaron Mate, thank you very much for that.

MATE: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Much needed. One other incident in the Persian Gulf today, the United States says Iran is to blame. Are we moving toward conflict with Iran in the Persian Gulf? After the break, we'll let you know.


CARLSON: Tensions on the rise in the Persian Gulf once again. The United States says Iran is behind attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf. Now lawmakers say the Trump administration says it already has the legal authority to begin a war with Iran. Trace Gallagher has been on this all day and joins us tonight. Hey, Trace.

GALLAGHER: Hey Tucker. Just before dawn today, a Norwegian oil tanker filled with petroleum product bound for Taiwan radioed for help saying it had been attacked. Minutes later, a Japanese tanker filled with oil bound for Singapore also radioed for help.

At the time both ships were in the Gulf of Oman 25 miles off the southern coast of Iran. The U.S. Navy responded to both emergency calls and evacuated a total of 44 crew members. There were no fatalities and senior U.S. officials now reportedly say the U.S. has picture of an unexploded mine near the side of one of the tankers.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says based on Intelligence, the type of weapons used and the expertise needed to execute the operation, Iran is responsible. Watch.


MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: These unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran.


GALLAGHER: U.S. officials also suggest that at least one of the attacks was conducted using a mine similar to one used against oil tankers off the United Arab Emirates last month.

Iran just moments ago released a statement categorically denying any involvement and now says it will help secure maritime passageway. The U.S. is also considering military escorts through the very important and very much used Strait of Hormuz corridor.

It's also notable that at the time the Japanese tanker was attacked, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Tehran meeting with Ayatollah Khomeini -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Interesting. A lot going on. Trace Gallagher, thank you.

Mark Hannah is a research fellow at the Eurasia Group Foundation and joins us tonight. Mark, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So a lot of this is confusing. It's hard to know exactly, obviously, what's going on in the Persian Gulf who would be responsible for these attacks. But the broad outlines are clear, there are people in Washington, quite a large faction in our foreign policy establishment that would very much like to see a conflict between the United States and Iran.

You have done a lot of polling on what the public wants and thinks about this. Tell us what you found?

HANNAH: Sure. So at the Eurasia Group Foundation, we conducted a poll called Worlds Apart - American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, and we asked a question about Iran. If you remember, back in last May, when President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, we asked the American public if they were to get back on track with a nuclear weapons program, what kind of response would be warranted?

You're not going to be surprised to hear 80 percent chose some sort of diplomatic remedy, some diplomatic solution, but what you might be surprised is actually a majority of both Republicans and Democrats of the remaining 20 percent thought that Iran had the right to have nuclear weapons to defend itself. More said that than we should launch some sort of preventive war or preventive attack or strike on Iran.

So the American public wants no piece of war. I think what we're seeing here is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, frankly, the National Security adviser, whispering in the presidency who are serving their own agenda, not necessarily his agenda.

I think the President's instincts here are correct. He has been restraint in this. He wants to negotiate a better deal for Iran. So you know, I think he is -- I don't he wants to go to a war. He knows how catastrophic that will be for American lives, for American treasure, for American prosperity and it's not worth two oil tankers -- a Japanese and a Norwegian oil tanker aren't worth getting quagmired in another war in the Middle East.

CARLSON: So this is one of those topics, foreign policy more broadly, war in the Middle East, specifically, that proceeds really with no reference at all to what the public wants. That's not how a democracy is supposed to operate, is it?

HANNAH: Not at all. The elected representatives and people who conduct foreign policy on behalf of the American people, on behalf of their constituents should respect and engage with the popular will, should engage with what people want.

And what we found on a number of issues, the American people want a more restrained U.S. foreign policy, and they're not getting that from the kind of neoconservative hawks that want to flex American military muscles every time there's a skirmish somewhere in the world and liberal interventionists who want to parachute in and promote democracy at the tip of a rifle.

The foreign policy establishment inside the beltway is largely out of touch with the American people. This is what we found in our report that you can read on our website,, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.

CARLSON: Well, they seem to have no interest at all in what the public wants -- at all. I mean, the poll that I read that you all did, and maybe you're talking about a different one, I think it was eight percent wanted a preemptive attack on Iran.

HANNAH: That's right. Yes, 80 percent want diplomatic action; eight percent want a preventive attack, and there are 12 percent of people who think that Iran -- we shouldn't intervene at all, we shouldn't even do economic sanctions because Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

So this President, you said this time last year on your show that a war with Iran would destroy the Trump presidency. I agree wholeheartedly with you. I think it would be a disaster for him.

CARLSON: Yes, he's not being well served by those running -- particularly, I would say by John Bolton.

HANNAH: Absolutely. No, he has got to go.

CARLSON: Thanks very much for coming on tonight.

HANNAH: Thanks, Tucker. Good to see you.

CARLSON: Thank you. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has been hit with yet another scandal. This one involving marriage fraud. Even her hometown newspaper has turned on her. Details from Minnesota after the break.


CARLSON: More tragedy in the Dominican Republic, this time though Mother Nature is the culprit, not violence or illnesses we have seen so frequently in the last few months.

In this case yoga instructor, Shirley Miller was swimming off the coast of Puerto Plata province when she was sucked two miles out to sea by a rip current and tragically drowned. She leaves behind three sons. She is the eighth American tourist to die in the DR in a span of just a few months. We'll continue to monitor what's happening in that country and bring it to you as warranted.

Well, it's been a scandal plagued fix six months for Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and now even her hometown newspaper is getting fed up. According to "The Star Tribune" quote, "Every month seems to bring a fresh problem.

First, there were improper speaking fees and then remarks that were interpreted by many is anti-Semitic. Now Omar, is paying thousands of dollars in fines for improperly filing joint tax returns with the man she wasn't married to while being married to a different man.

Scott Johnson is a Minnesota attorney and blogs over at Power Line Blog. He has been following her career since it first began and joins us tonight. Scott, thanks a lot for coming on.

SCOTT JOHNSON, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY: I appreciate your interest in this story, Tucker.

CARLSON: Oh, well, it's hard to turn away. It's a car wreck, I would say. But your hometown newspaper is liberal; presumably supported Ilhan Omar previously. What did it take for the paper to criticize her today?

JOHNSON: The editorial page has actually been critical of her. They didn't endorse her when she ran for Congress and won in November of 2018. But they've treated her like a superstar on the news page all along the way.

And in fact, they are -- "The Star Tribune" as you know, the keystone of a liberal establishment in the state and a part of the problem here.

But the problem this time around, you know Ilhan Omar has a problem when she's not talking. And what isn't she talking about now? We learned exactly a week ago that in 2014 and 2015, she filed joint tax returns with a guy who was not her husband. In fact, she was married to another man, and that is just blatantly illegal.

"The Star Tribune" has run one news story on that fact, and Omar has given a statement written for her by somebody else and refused to talk, and that's how you can know when she has a big problem going.

The obvious follow up question is, over what period of years did you file joint tax returns with this guy who wasn't your husband? Well, eight years she was married to this guy whom she filed the tax returns to illegally with in 2014 and 2015. So the story shouldn't be over. You say it's hard to turn your eyes away. But a lot of people are turning their eyes away. And this story really needs some exposure. I appreciate your taking a look at it.

CARLSON: What do you think the explanation is?

JOHNSON: For which part of it?

CARLSON: Why did she do this? And for how long if you had to make an informed --

JOHNSON: My guess is these the -- her relationship with this guy -- this guy is the father of her three children. Going back, she has had a relationship with 2002 that she says she entered into at that time a cultural marriage with him, followed by a so-called cultural divorce before she married this guy in the year 2009.

CARLSON: I'm sorry to interrupt you, what's a cultural marriage and a cultural divorce? I've never heard of that.

JOHNSON: Well, we've always wondered about that. And no, that's another story that nobody has really looked into. No imam has stepped forward to talk about any involvement in Islamic -- she is talking about an Islamic marriage and Islamic divorce.

I just posted on Power Line the marriage certificate for her 2009 marriage to another Somali Muslim. And that one is signed off on by a Christian Minister. There's no cultural aspect to it. So you know, there are so many questions that pervade her career since she became a public figure in August of 2016 and we have gotten very few answers in the meantime.

CARLSON: But all of it is rattling of sleaziness. I guess not surprisingly. Scott Johnson, thank you so much. And I hope you'll join us again when we find out more.

JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Thank you. Well, it's time for "Final Exam." The question is, can you beat our professionals at remembering every bizarre thing that happened over the past week? Great lineup tonight. We will unveil it in just a moment.


CARLSON: Canada's prison system is on the brink of openly abetting heroin use by prisoners. America isn't that far gone yet, but we're getting close.

In the State of California, a judge has just ruled that the state's legalization of marijuana applies to prison inmates as much as anyone else. As a result, prisoners are now allowed to bring marijuana with them into prison. The state can't do anything about it.

For now, the state is still allowed to stop inmates from smoking marijuana, but of course that will go away eventually, too. That's infringing on the rights.

Prisons you'll remember used to be about protecting society first and foremost, and then trying to rehabilitate prisoners.

Now, Soros-funded prosecutors do their best to keep dangerous criminals on the streets, while judges hand addictive drugs to the people who actually are put away. It's like we've invented the dumbest possible system and then codified into law.

Time now for "Final Exam" where we invite two of the best informed people we know to see who is the Master of News this week. Lisa Boothe comes on this program a lot to break down the 2020 race. How good will she be at everything else going on in the news? We'll find out in a moment which takes on our defending champion, "The Five" and "Watters' World" host, Jesse Watters, ladies and gentlemen.

Great to see both.

JESSE WATTERS, HOST: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: This is one of those contests I have no idea who has the advantage.

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Tucker. We don't either.

CARLSON: But I'm grateful you're both here. We're going to find out. Now, you know the rules, but we're going to repeat them for the sake of those just tuning in. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions, the first one to buzz in gets to answer the question.

Critically, you must wait until I finish asking the question before you answer it. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Every correct answer worth one point. Every incorrect answer subtracts a point from your total. Best to five wins. Are you ready?

WATTERS: We are ready.

BOOTHE: I don't like that. Oh, yes, I was born ready for this moment right now.

CARLSON: I like the conference. We'll see if it's warranted. First question is multiple choice. Wait for all options please before answering. This is a tricky one. The President just met with the President of Poland at the White House. The two signed a new defense agreement. What is the name of Poland's leader? Is it A. Novak? B.Petrov? Or. C. Duda? Jesse Watters.

WATTERS: It is C. Duda.

CARLSON: As in zippity.

WATTERS: Zippity duda.

CARLSON: All right, if that's your guess. We'll see if it's right. Is it Duda?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Critics complain that President Duda has been backsliding on democracy. President Trump said he has no concerns about the strength of democracy in Poland. But the leaders did part ways on Duda forcing more than two dozen Supreme Court justices into early retirement.


CARLSON: Perfect.

WATTERS: Zippity duda.

CARLSON: President Duda. Zippity Duda.

BOOTHE: It doesn't feel like a zippity duda day right now.

CARLSON: Good job all right. One to zero. The judges just told me that Jesse was lightning fast on the response to that one that may be the key to his was winning.

BOOTHE: I think that's encouragement.

CARLSON: Oh, no, I'm just -- they're just critiquing the performance. And in fact, knowing that might help you with this one. We'll see. Question two. A Des Moines Register poll asked 600 Iowa democrats for their first and second choices for President. Two candidates in the race out of 22 did not receive a single vote. One of those candidates was the mayor of Miramar, Florida. Who was the other? Lisa Boothe.

BOOTHE: Mayor Bill de Blasio.

CARLSON: The mayor of New York City was the other. That's what you're saying?

BOOTHE: The worst mayor. Yes. Yes, the worst mayor in America.

CARLSON: Well, you're right about being the worst mayor, was he the one no one chose. To the tape.



ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: ... information that not one single Iowa voter named you as a first or second choice in this new polling?

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-NYC, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Ana, it's a poll of 600 Iowans eight months before the caucuses. This is just the beginning of a very long process.


WATTERS: Only 600.

CARLSON: He is -- you should win the game just for describing him correctly as the worst mayor of the history of New York City because you're absolutely right.

BOOTHE: Bonus points. It's your show.

CARLSON: Bonus points, all right. So it's all right, our judge now -- but I'm not in charge of the segment, it's the judges and they're saying one to one.

BOOTHE: Fair - fair.

CARLSON: Moving into question three. In their match against Thailand this week, the American women's soccer team won the most lopsided game in the history of the World Cup. What was the final score? Jesse Watters.

WATTERS: Thirteen -zero

CARLSON: Thirteen-zero.

BOOTHE: I knew that.

CARLSON: Is that correct? Was it really 13-zero?



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tonight the U.S. women's soccer team is on defense after that historic World Cup win against Thailand 13 to zero. Facing blowback not just for the record number of goal scored, but for celebrating every last one.


CARLSON: Very impressive. Both your answer and the victory, 13 to zero.


CARLSON: Of course, we're being criticized for running up the score. Good for them.

BOOTHE: And nobody should apologize for winning.

CARLSON: I totally agree. Especially when it's America doing the winning. Question four. Uber Eats, the food delivery service. Both of you are no doubt dependent on it is expanding the way it delivers food to customers. What type of vehicle will it now use? Jesse Watters.

WATTERS: They are going to be using a drone to deliver food.

CARLSON: Man you were up on the news this week. Is that right? Is Jesse right? Are they going to be using a drone?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fast food deliveries by drone. Uber Eats testing air delivery with McDonald's in San Diego. They plan to expand to other restaurants later on this year. They're going to be doing this test over the summer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Basically the drones drop it off to an Uber Eats delivery person and it could possibly even land on cars with a QR code.


BOOTH: That's Susan Li, do I get any points for that?

CARLSON: Okay, congratulations.


CARLSON: So our judges are saying the final question is a daily double. It's a two-point question.

WATTERS: I hate when you do this.

BOOTHE: I can't lose again.

CARLSON: Well, you could win. We'll see. Here it is. The Game Show Commission in Billings, Montana wants us to end on another multiple choice and so we are. Here it is.

An intense dust storm was seen sweeping through Lubbock, Texas, it created a massive wall of dirt that seriously reduced visibility. This type of phenomenon goes by another name. Is it A. A sand cloud? B. A haboob? Or C. A dust cyclone?


CARLSON: I'm sorry.

BOOTHE: I don't know.

CARLSON: Okay, so our judges are saying that Lisa Boothe may have buzzed a little bit early, but we're going let the tape decide. Dust cyclone C is your answer.

BOOTHE: I actually have no clue. I am not going to lose anything, so whatever.

CARLSON: You went for dust cyclone.

BOOTHE: I did.

CARLSON: Is it dust cyclone?

BOOTHE: It seemed great. I don't know. Maybe it is wrong.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But also windy weather. Look at this, a haboob blowing in to Lubbock, Texas. I mean, a dust storm of proportions. Visibility drops, really unbelievable as the front moves in, you can see all that dust being blown up.


WATTERS: What's a haboob?

CARLSON: It's hard to believe that's real.

WATTERS: I won on a haboob?

CARLSON: That it's really called a haboob.

BOOTHE: This is even more embarrassing when --

CARLSON: Yes, I feel a little bit like a haboob even saying it, but our judges are saying that that is a real term.

BOOTHE: What do you think I feel like? This is even worse than when Melissa Francis beat me I'm at negative.

WATTERS: Zippity Duda.

CARLSON: Well, no, you're in -- yes, you are a negative numbers, but you're a positive person.


CARLSON: And that's what matters. Jesse Watters. Congratulations.

BOOTHE: See I'm a good sport.

WATTERS: Bye-bye.

CARLSON: We've got mugs in the mail. Really quick, Jesse, did you know it was a haboob?

WATTERS: I had no idea.

BOOTHE: Neither did I.

WATTERS: She just blew it, so I won.

CARLSON: I did not. I wasn't even sure it's real. Thank you both.

WATTERS: Thank you.

CARLSON: That's it for this week's "Final Exam." Pay attention to the news each week. Tune in Thursdays to see if you can beat our experts. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are making socialism the mainstream position of the Democratic Party all of a sudden. Some candidates though are going even farther than that, they want full communism right now.

In the city of Denver, a woman called Candi Cdebaca just won a seat in the city council. Cdebaca says her political agenda is quote, "community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of resources." That is a word communism. Comrade Cdebaca said she is willing to bring it about, quote -- this is a real quote, by the way, "by any means necessary."

Now, it's possible she has no idea what she's talking about, or a just rhetorical flourish, but you don't really know. Communists have been very literal about by any means necessary in the past, just ask 50 million dead Russians and Chinese.

We look forward to finding out what exactly Cdebaca meant. We will follow her when she is inevitably elected to Congress in the next few years, at least we hope that's where she goes. The alternative would be running a labor camp.

Well President Trump is touting his new agreement with Mexico to secure the border, but for the time being. Border communities are still struggling to cope with tens of thousands of migrants. This is happening across the country. It's especially intense in the town of Uvalde, Texas. That's a small town 60 miles of the Mexican border.

Despite its small size, the town is receiving two dozen or more migrants from the Border Patrol every single day. Some of these migrants have come all the way from Africa lured by the knowledge that if they can get across the border, they almost certainly won't be deported.

Don McLaughlin is the mayor of Uvalde and he joins us tonight. Mr. Mayor, thank you for coming on.

DON MCLAUGHLIN, TX, MAYOR: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: So, so tell us those of us who don't live anywhere near the border, how your town which is not on the border, 60 miles is what we had in the script. I think that's right. How are you getting migrants dumped into your community?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Tucker, the towns of Del Rio, Texas, and he you Eagle Pass, Texas. Eagle Pass is about 55 miles from Uvalde, Del Rio is about 68. They're getting inundated with illegal immigrants every day.

They're catching anywhere from 750 to 1,500 a day. They're taking them into the stations and processing them and they just don't have the capacity to hold them. And so the Border Patrol came to us and told us they were going to have to start releasing these immigrants in our community.

When they first came to us, we had a choice of letting be released at our HEB, our Stripes or at Walmart. And the County Judge and myself got together with the Border Patrol, which we have a great relationship with in the Uvalde and we were able to work up a system where we could would, as these immigrants were released, we could put them on a bus and send them to San Antonio, to the bus station there where they could go into further areas.

You know, it's really sad what's going on with the border and the City of Del Rio -- Manzano in Del Rio, and Maverick County in Eagle Pass. They're just getting slammed. They're getting -- they're really getting 120 to 160 a day released in their community. In Eagle Pass, 500.

CARLSON: How are you absorbing those people?

MCLAUGHLIN: We're not. I mean, you know, volunteers are trying to take them to help them as much as they can. But I mean, this has been going on now for in Eagle Pass and Del Rio probably for 60 days, probably 30 days now in Uvalde.

We're not equipped to handle it. It's not that we don't want to help people, but we're not equipped to handle it. And the problem that we're doing, we're acting like we're doing these people a favor, and we're setting them up to fail. They don't -- they don't -- they're not even allowed to work.

They're being released in the United States, 250,000 people have been released in the United States in the last two months. Those people by law are not allowed to get a job. But yet we're sending them all over the country in all of these places where they have no way to take care of themselves. We're setting them up to fail. We're not doing them a favor.

CARLSON: A quarter million people. This is an invasion. It is terrifying and you're seeing obviously the brunt of it. Mr. Mayor, thank you.

MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, sir. Thank you.

CARLSON: Good to talk to you tonight. I appreciate it.

MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, sir. I appreciate it.

CARLSON: We want to bring you an exclusive story about big tech's plans to control the public discourse. New leaked internal documents from Facebook obtained by Breitbart News, reveal the criteria that company uses to label certain groups and individuals as so-called hate agents.

And if you believe the wrong things, talk to the wrong people even get the wrong tattoos, Facebook is ready to ban you just like they already banned Alex Jones and many others.

Alex Marlow is editor-in-chief of Breitbart News and he joins us tonight. Alex, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So when Facebook says that they are not politically biased in the way they treat its users, tell us what these documents suggest about whether or not that's true.

MARLOW: Yes, this this is clearly something that is a big deal breaking exclusively here with you Tucker and by right now.

Allum Bokhari, who's the best in the game on this is reporting details behind the hate agents list. And what they're doing is they're tracking, they're giving you a literal score, a hate agent score, and how do you get a point, you commit hate? And how do you commit hate? Well, Facebook -- it is up to them. And they're doing it entirely anonymously, they're not providing the details.

And when you get a certain threshold, then you get de-platformed. And this is what they're doing, as I believe a pilot program, which will be used to apply to whoever they want to get them off of their platform to sanitize it.

CARLSON: These are not public? These ratings?

MARLOW: They're not even public for the people who are getting de- platformed. They're not even told what violations they had. And in fact, Tucker, as you noted, they don't apply only to things that are reported on Facebook or posted to Facebook.

These are things that happen if you're in public life, they are things that happen in your personal life. It could even be conversations you had private if Facebook becomes aware of them, you're tattooed. You could have a hate item, you could literally have a piece of merchandise that could be determined hateful, a MAGA hat, maybe perhaps, we don't know, because Facebook won't explain even to the people who are being de-platformed.

CARLSON: This is absolutely grotesque. Hate agent, that's the term that they use.

MARLOW: Yes, they literally refer to you as a hate agent. Now who's a hate agent? Overwhelmingly, people on the right. Trump supporters in particular, of course, and also some people from other groups as well. But the key factor here is that they're trying to sanitize their platform in a major way. And after they're done sanitizing the people who are the low hanging fruit, they could be going after you next.

CARLSON: How does Facebook define hate?

MARLOW: They don't define hate and they acknowledge that is per our definition. They literally admit in the document that they are the ones who are defining it.

Remember, they're collecting two years' worth of data to give you your hate agent score, they can redefine at any moment, Tucker, so things you and I could have done two years ago, might not categorize as hate today, but they can just move the definition whenever they feel.

One thing that's very interesting, you note the political bias here is that they're tracking literal violence, but only against protected groups of people. They're not protecting it -- they're not tracking violence, if it is not against a non-protected person. For example, illegal aliens, Facebook is tracking violence against them, but they're not tracking them against non-protected people.

So I'm guessing, Tucker, when you were attacked at your home and your family was attacked, that might not be an example of hate, according to Facebook, but if a non-American is attacked, then it is hate.

CARLSON: That was just a totally legitimate protest in the eyes of Facebook. Very, very good point. So you all came into possession of this information.


CARLSON: We interviewed a former Pinterest employee yesterday who leaked documents showing their efforts to censor pro-life groups. He made the point that there are within some of these tech organizations, tech companies, people who dissent and who are willing to blow the whistle on what they're doing in secret.

Are you all the beneficiaries there? Are there other people in Facebook who are helping you?

MARLOW: Absolutely, there are people in Facebook. They're in Google. They're in every major organization, and they're being silenced by this totalitarian leftism and globalism that pervades Silicon Valley.

Mark Zuckerberg himself admitted, it's a single party town and these people are so powerful and part of the danger, Tucker is they will not come clean and no one has had a peek under the hood.

This is the closest we've gotten. "The Daily Caller," the great scoop earlier this week on Google literally having blacklist that are referred to as blacklist, these are real. This is happening.

And after they're done with us in public life, they'll come to you in private life for sure.

CARLSON: I would just of course, as we've encouraged before, but anybody watching who works in these companies who wants to get the truth out there, they are always welcome on the show. Doubtless, you would have them on Breitbart, of course.

MARLOW: Absolutely.

CARLSON: In a moment -- all of this, I just want to remind our viewers, all of this is only possible, this censorship is possible because the Congress of the United States has given these companies a special exemption that you don't enjoy and that we don't enjoy, but they do. Hopefully, that will be revoked soon.

Alex, it's great to see you tonight. Thanks a lot for that scoop.

MARLOW: Thank you chapter.

CARLSON: Well, this shows on the air five nights a week. We take the weekends off because everyone needs a day of rest. But for two days this fall, we are making an exception for live events. The first will be October 5th in Baltimore and the second week later, October 12th, in Reading, Pennsylvania.

Tickets go on sale tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. You can get details. You can get online for tickets now on our website, It ought to be a very fun time. Hope to see you there.

We are out of time tonight, sadly, but we will be back tomorrow night 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and especially groupthink, the hive mind. It's everywhere. Don't join it.

Have a great evening. When we see you next, it will be Friday. In the meantime, the great Sean Hannity awaiting from New York City.

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.