This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 28, 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." The North Korea Summit ended early. The President rejected North Korea's negotiating position as unacceptable and bad for the United States. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We'll find out just ahead. And then Democratic Presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard has all but been expelled basically from her party. Her crime? Opposing war. Always happy to talk to her on this show though. She'll join us later.
But first, Michael Cohen spent a decade as Trump's high-profile lobbyer, toady, defender and personal attorney. And then one day, he decided that he hated Donald Trump and became Donald Trump's mortal enemy. A big change. How did that happen? Well, Cohen told Congress this week that he had a kind of a road to Damascus experience. He was personally and is morally offended by what his boss said in two occasions.
First, after the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, that was the summer of 2017 and later, when he watched Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland about a year later. Those two scandals, both of them fraudulent, entirely manufactured by the left and its servants in the media changed Michael Cohen's mind forever.
Democrats must have been gratified to hear that. Michael Cohen is a sensitive, progressive now. He is tormented by climate change and his own toxic masculinity. He is basically a one-man crusade against privilege. He is a new man. That's his story.
Well, now comes a "Daily Mail" piece that puts a different gloss on it. It turns out, just weeks before the FBI raided his offices last summer, Michael Cohen was shopping a book proposal. In the manuscript, which the "Daily Mail" has, Cohen professes love and admiration for Donald Trump.
In the book proposal, Cohen defends the President against claims that he is quote, "crazy, dumb, paranoid, in over his head or a liar," all claims that Cohen made this week before Congress. Keep in mind that Cohen wrote the book proposal well after Charlottesville and Helsinki, those scandals that just changed him as a man.
It turns out that Michael Cohen is not a very reliable narrator. But too late, he is the narrator the Democrats have chosen, and they are stuck with him. They brought him to Capitol Hill yesterday in the hope, the expectation that he would prove the Russia conspiracy true. He didn't, instead he demolished that conspiracy. Nobody on the left wants to admit that, but we have the tape.
Let's start with the claim that Cohen held secret meetings with Russian agents in Prague in an effort to steal the 2016 election. On its face, it sounds nuts, but they have been telling you that for years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS MATTHEWS, ANCHOR, MSNBC: McClatchy is reporting right now that Special Counsel, Robert Mueller has evidence that Trump's personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen secretly made a late summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign. According to the news sources familiar with the matter, confirmation of the trip would confirm from part of the Steele dossier.
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: When I hear now that there are reports that Mr. Cohen was in Prague, despite his denials, repeated denials, there is more and more indications that there is something here that is far, far from being anything near a witch hunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So that was John Brennan. Whatever his faults, he was literally the head of the CIA, the most powerful intelligence agency in the world and as you just saw, he claimed to believe that. Oswald went to Mexico City, Cohen went to Prague. It's the perfect conspiracy. Except that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague. He testified to that yesterday, and by the way, he had no incentive to lie about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RALPH NORMAN, R-S.C.: Have you ever been to Prague?
COHEN: I have never been to Prague.
NORMAN: Never have?
COHEN: I've never been to Czech Republic.
NORMAN: I yield the balance of my time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Never been to Prague, but I kind of like the music. How frustrating it must have been for Adam Schiff to hear that, "Never been to Prague." This was the part where Michael Cohen was supposed to admit swapping micro-film with Vladimir Putin in the sauna at the Prague Marriott. Instead, he looked kind of mystified and admitted he had never even been to the country.
Michael Cohen is from Long Island. He pretty much stays there. Okay, let's try this again. How about the claim that Vladimir Putin's agents have video of Donald Trump cavorting with hookers and that's how they've managed to blackmail Trump and to say nice things about Russia. We've been hearing about that since the day BuzzFeed first claimed it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, ANCHOR, MSNBC: The most incendiary claim in the Steele dossier was of course that a foreign adversary, Russia, has dirt on the President of the United States exposing the President to blackmail.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: There is a very real possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What do the Russians have on Donald Trump? Politically, personally or financially?
CARLSON: Okay. If there is a hooker tape out there, I think it's fair to assume that Michael Cohen would know about it. He is that kind of guy, a hooker tape kind of tape. Now would probably be the time he would tell us all about it, but no.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN, D-MD: Are you aware of anything that the President has done at home or abroad that may have subjected him to or may subject him to extortion or blackmail?
COHEN: I am not, no.
RASKIN: Okay, are you aware of any videotapes that may be the subject of extortion or blackmail?
COHEN: I've heard about these tapes for a long time. I've had many people contact me over the years. I have no reason to believe that that tape exists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Oh damn, he did it again, straying from the script. Instead of confirming the Russia conspiracy that dominated and controlled American politics for more than two years, Michael Cohen just refuted it. What kind of witness is this guy anyway? This is getting very frustrating. Where do we get to the part where he blows the Russia case wide open and they lead Big Orange away in handcuffs and Hillary can be the President?
Well, here is an idea, let's just ask him directly. Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russian government during the 2016 election? Michael Cohen would know. He was there. By the way, it's almost a rhetorical question. Democrats have long been absolutely certain that it happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I think there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.
REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Trump has the Kremlin Klan surrounding him. There is more to be learned about it. I believe there has been collusion.
JOHN PODESTA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: It's starting to smell more and more like collusion.
PELOSI: We saw cold, hard evidence of the Trump campaign, and indeed the Trump family eagerly intending to collude, possibly, with Russia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: These people, "plenty of evidence; cold, hard evidence." Well, if anyone can provide that kind of evidence, it would be Michael Cohen, after all, he was Donald Trump's -- is that really his name? No, it's Donnell Troponovich - he was Donnell Troponovich's personal attorney during the years that Troponovich was accepting suitcases full of rubles in exchange for subverting American democracy. So what is the answer, Mr. Cohen?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, D-FLA.: Based on what you know, would Mr. Trump or did he lie about colluding and coordinating with the Russians at any point during the campaign?
COHEN: So as I stated in my testimony, I wouldn't use the word "colluding." Was there something odd about the back and forth praise with President Putin? Yes, but I'm not really sure that I can answer that question in terms of collusion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The balloon just deflated. Talk about a let-down. No meeting in Prague. No blackmail. No collusion. No Russia conspiracy at all. It was all a hoax. It was a much less interesting Loch Ness monster. You've got to be feeling a little silly right now if you ever believed any of this.
But wait. We've got one last idea. There is still a way Michael Cohen could send Donald Trump to prison even without Russia. What if Cohen confirmed that Trump once told him to lie to Congress? That would be obstruction of justice to the very least, it would certainly be a crime. BuzzFeed ran a story alleging that happened. Yes, BuzzFeed is a cat blog run by unhappy people in Brooklyn. But who knows? Maybe there is something there. Certainly, cable news was convinced.
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER, CNN: This would be certainly a bombshell information.
JIM SCIUTTO, ANCHOR, CNN: BuzzFeed's latest bombshell report.
WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, CNN: The White House is slamming a bombshell report by BuzzFee.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in a bombshell report from BuzzFeed.
CHUCK TODD, ANCHOR, MSNBC: If the BuzzFeed bombshell is true --
ERIN BURNETT, ANCHOR, CNN: If the bombshell report ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The latest bombshell from the cat blog. Our last hope to end this infernal presidency and return to the happy status quo of 2010. Our hopes are on you, Michael Cohen. Did it actually happen? The reveal, please?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GREG STEUBE, R-FLA.: You lied to those congressional committees, is that correct?
COHEN: Yes, sir.
STEUBE: You stated that Trump never directed you to lie to Congress, is that correct?
COHEN: That's correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: No. Four for four. Michael Cohen strikes out. Game, set, match. The Trump presidency continues. The other team looks despondent. You can hear weeping from the press box. But wait, before we head to the parking lot and drive home, one final piece of business, what about all of the lies you just heard, not from Cohen, from the others? "Blackmail, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia." Are any of the liars who told those lies going to be punished for lying? Is anybody going to lose a job or reputation? Or a contributor contract? Maybe just what happened to Carter Page? That might be enough.
Is there any penalty for being relentlessly and recklessly dishonest for two solid years for intentionally misleading the public in the service of a political agenda and a political party? The Democratic Party? Is a single person even going to concede what just happened, much less apologize for it? Of course not, it's Washington. They will all be promoted tomorrow. You watch.
Mollie Hemmingway is watching. She is a senior editor at "The Federalist." And she joins us to tell us what she thinks of Donnell Troponovich and his attorney. Nice to see you, Mollie.
MOLLIE HEMMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: Great to see you.
CARLSON: I am sorry to get so spun up. It's just that we sat here for two years trying to take this seriously. It's been conclusively disproved again and again, and here, the key witness just shot down the entire dumb conspiracy, and no one is acknowledging that happened.
HEMMINGWAY: It's been several years of having this being a daily drum beat of information and there was, you know, you had news outlets that really devoted a lot of resources to really feeding this conspiracy theory about Russia, and it really did all kind of come down to Michael Cohen.
Apparently, even at this late date, people thought he was the linchpin and he was the linchpin according to the dossier. He was the guy who went to Prague who had this secret meeting with the Russians. He was the guy who had all of the information. And the only way yesterday's hearing make sense was if they were really trying to interrogate this Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
It doesn't make sense to ask questions about Donald Trump as a businessman because that's not a proper area for government oversight. It's not very seemly to have Congressional investigators facilitating a violation of attorney-client privilege. The only way it makes sense is if, you know, if he is going to give the goods on this Russia collusion theory. He did exactly the opposite and yet, you don't hear people making -- realizing what happened.
CARLSON: Well, I feel like I am going crazy, and I mean, when they raided his office, I remember thinking, I am not committing any felonies, but if somebody raided my lawyer's office or subpoenaed my college roommate or tortured my wife to get it, you know what I mean, this is an intimate person in Trump's life.
And so if he doesn't have the goods and they have all of this documents and all of his communications, then like, where could be the evidence be if Michael Cohen doesn't have it?
HEMMINGWAY: Well, I mean, this is the thing, they always say that the real evidence is just around the bend. The fact that the Russia collusion story has fallen apart in front of everybody's eyes does not mean that they are going to stop trying to unseat this person from his real crime, which was of course, defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections. There is always more to be had. People who fall for these conspiracy theories, as you know, are not held accountable. The very few people who were skeptical and demanded evidence before falling into this theory, there are too few of those people around.
CARLSON: Yes, I mean, we tried to take it seriously because you know, weird things are happening. You don't know? You know what I mean? I don't work for Donald Trump. If he's working for Russia, I'd say so. But there was never any evidence.
HEMMINGWAY: At the same time, it is true that while there is no Russian collusion conspiracy or there is no evidence for that, there is a lot of evidence of shenanigans of people buying wholesale into a Democratic research product and weaponizing it at the highest levels of our Federal government.
CARLSON: No, what you're missing is those are good people trying to do good things.
HEMMINGWAY: Well, to restore trust, the American people need to have trust in our law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.
CARLSON: Yes, but they are good people. Way better than we are, Mollie, so who is that - who are we to judge, honestly?
CARLSON: Apparently. Nice to see you. Julian Epstein is a former chief counsel in the House Judiciary Committee and he joins us tonight.
So Julian, I think we should pause, just in the interest of acknowledging reality and concede that Michael Cohen would know an awful lot about Donald Trump as his right-hand guy and personal lawyer. The FBI has all of his documents, and he has publicly stated about a man he hates, Donald Trump, that none of these widely believed threats and the Russia conspiracy are true. Shouldn't we at least pause and say, "You know what, I'm sorry for repeating something that was untrue." No one has apologized, why?
JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I think we should concede that. I largely agree with that. I largely agree that Michael Cohen would have reason to have a lot of information if there was a Trump conspiracy with the Russians; that he didn't provide any new information about that.
I have said on your show and on other shows for well over a year now that there is no evidence that Donald Trump - President Trump conspired to violate the criminal laws with the Russians -- conspired with the Russians to violate criminal laws.
But I have also said and I hear just so few of the networks whether it's MSNBC, CNN or Fox, just kind of giving the basic balance. So while I think there is no evidence that Trump conspired to violate criminal laws relating to Russian election interference, on the one hand, there are a lot of things still that are worth investigating on the other, that are still worth investigating. Michael Cohen is not the last word. The fat lady has not sung. I think we should wait see what the Mueller report says.
I mean, look, Trump's campaign manager was sharing polling information with a Russian intelligence agent. The family, his son was eagerly taking meetings from Russian surrogates wanting to spread dirt on Clinton, from Russia intelligence surrogates wanting to spread dirt on Clinton, so while I think there is no evidence that Trump violated the criminal laws in a conspiracy with Russia, I think there are things that are still worth looking at.
CARLSON: So, I mean, look, I don't know if that's exactly true or not. Probably semi-true, I would be happy to concede that, but we know that Hillary Clinton campaign had paid someone to talk to Russian intelligence assets about Donald Trump.
So like, I am willing to say, "Look, it's a presidential campaign. People get information." I, as a reporter, many times have gotten good information from sleazy people. I am not ashamed of that. Why would I be? So like, if it is a crime for Trump, this would be a crime for Hillary to do it.
EPSTEIN: This isn't just getting opposition information.
CARLSON: Yes, I mean, that's where it comes from.
EPSTEIN: No, no. I think you are wrong on that. The crime -- the crime that came here, Tucker, was not getting opposition research. The crime was on the election hacking and the election -- the computer fraud law says that if you not only - if you break into someone's computer, but if you cause it to then be disseminated, you are guilty of a violation of criminal law. The criminal laws also say, if you coordinate with a foreign entity on a social media dis-information campaign, which people suspect Manafort was doing, if you coordinate with a foreign entity on a social media dis- information campaign, that's also a violation of criminal law.
CARLSON: I am trying not use - to spell out the word BS on TV. But I mean, let's just be honest here, we have had parallel investigations, actually, a tri-pronged investigation from a bunch of different agencies and the independent counsel into this exact question and nobody has been charged with it.
So at a certain point, it's like you either committed the crime or you didn't. We can prove it or we can't.
EPSTEIN: Right, I agree.
CARLSON: And people have been charged with a bunch of different things, but nobody has been charged with anything like that. So maybe we should just concede it didn't happen or someone would have been, maybe?
EPSTEIN: Well, I think that's semi-true to use your phrasing.
EPSTEIN: The Russians have been accused of that. The Russians -- Mueller indicted has indicted a dozen Russians for exactly that.
CARLSON: But they are Russians. I mean, they are never going to come to trial.
CARLSON: And they are Russians, so of course they are doing that. That's what they do.
EPSTEIN: But he did -- and that was for computer fraud. That was for defrauding the United States.
EPSTEIN: And that was for illegal electioneering. So the question is, when Manafort was meeting with Russian intelligence agents or when Donald, Jr. was meeting at Trump Tower with Russian intelligence agents, was there some kind of discussion or was there some kind of encouragement to commit those kinds of crimes.
CARLSON: But at this point like, we would know because we've have had the largest investigation in my lifetime into anything that I am aware of, of a politician take place and the charges are like you didn't register under FARA? Like talk about a BS charge. Nobody in Washington registers under FARA as you well know, or tax evasion. I mean, it's like ludicrous. Is there actually going to be a collusion charge or not? And if there isn't, why don't they apologize to us for wasting our lives?
EPSTEIN: I would -- I just wish people would stop using the world collusion because it's such an ill-defined word.
CARLSON: I am just quoting Pelosi.
EPSTEIN: The question is conspiracy. The question for impeachment which is at the top of everyone's mind right now is whether the President conspired with the Russians to violate the laws that the Russians were charged with. And I have said on this network, I've said on other networks, as well that there is no evidence of that. I think the final word on that will be the Mueller report.
CARLSON: Well, I hope they impeach, let's just take this out of the intel agencies and bring it out into the political sphere and we can all assess it, just impeach him, go ahead.
EPSTEIN: That is the Holy Grail. If we don't -- I think if we don't get evidence of that, I think impeachment is going to be dead in its tracks.
CARLSON: Then I hope some people will apologize though. I mean, do you know what I mean? Like let's hold people to account for lying.
EPSTEIN: Look, Tucker, I mean, you and I went through this 20 years ago with Clinton.
CARLSON: Oh, I know. I know. And that's -- it shaped my life.
EPSTEIN: I mean, when we, when Vince Foster was not a suicide. You know your previous guest said a business deal shouldn't be investigated.
CARLSON: I never claimed that, but whatever.
EPSTEIN: What about Whitewater? I mean, when you are on the receiving end, there is a lot of unfairness on it, so I think the Mueller report is going to be final word. It will be facts within --
CARLSON: So it's all justified. Okay, all right, we are out of time. I can't re-litigate Whitewater here, though I do -- I wish I could hire Hillary as my investment adviser now that you remind me. Great to see you. Thank you.
EPSTEIN: Good to see you, too.
CARLSON: The President's North Korea Summit ended without a deal. Is that good or bad for the United States? And what comes next? That's after the break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: You always have to be prepared to walk. I could have signed an agreement today and then you people would have said, "Oh, what a terrible deal. What a terrible thing he did." No, you have to be prepared to walk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was the President summing up his meeting with North Korea n dictator Kim Jong-un. Second ago, he landed at Joint Base Andrews outside of Washington, presumably watching cable news on the way home.
There were high hopes for that Summit, but as you just heard, the talks collapsed. The United States pulled out last night. Harry Kazianis from the Center of National Interest said, "A peace deal should be reached at the Summit." What is his view of how things turned out? He joins us now to tell us. Harry, great to see you.
HARRY KAZIANIS, DIRECTOR OF KOREAN STUDIES, CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST: Great to see you.
CARLSON: So you had high hopes for this?
KAZIANIS: I did.
CARLSON: Your assessment now?
KAZIANIS: I still have high hopes. Look, the bottom line is, Tucker, is that we are not at war with North Korea and for me that is actually the most important thing. Now, I know some people are going to say, "Oh, that's very low expectations."
Let me just tell you a very quick story. Back in 2017, I did a war game where I looked at what happens if there was a nuclear war with North Korea in 2020. You know what happened in that war game? Eight million people died. And the reason why the deal toll didn't go any higher is because the computer broke because we didn't hit the casualty assessments high enough and the programming broke.
So the thing is this, we need to understand the most important thing with North Korea that we need to have is peace.
Because look, let's face it, a lot of countries have nuclear weapons. That's terrible. That makes me feel uncomfortable. But you know what? Deterrence works. Because Kim Jong-un knows one thing, if he uses nuclear weapons, he is dead.
So we need to have a little bit more realistic expectation about what is going on with North Korea because our threat perceptions are out just way out of whack. I mean, we really need to be a little bit more realistic.
CARLSON: So we pressured Muammar Gaddafi to get rid of his chembio stock piles, his weapon stockpiles after we invaded Iraq and convinced him to do it. He did it. Once he did that, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power in the Obama administration had him killed. So that kind of sends the wrong message to people we are trying to get to disarm, doesn't it?
KAZIANIS: Exactly. Because regime change is a foolish policy. And you think we would have learned this by now. But look, we saw what happened in 2017 together. We covered it. I mean, everybody was calling for a regime change in North Korea. Let's do a bloody strike. Do you know how many armaments North Korea has? They might have as many as 60 nuclear weapons. If he decided to use them, millions of people would be dead.
So look, the first thing that we need to do is we need to start a dialogue with North Korea. That's why last night, I was so adamant about a peace declaration because how are you going to convince Kim Jong-un to disarm if you are at war with him technically.
So I think that's the first step. But the most important thing is this, let's put the actually nuclear disarmament at the end of the process. Let's start at the beginning of having with some sort of relationship. That's not appeasement. That's not being Neville Chamberlain, that's just being realistic.
CARLSON: Yes, I think that's exactly right. Harry, thank you very much.
KAZIANIS: Thank you.
CARLSON: We'll have more to say on the Hanoi Summit later in the show. We are going to sit down with Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard. She will be on the set with us. Plus, Sean Hannity interviewing the President himself. That's just ahead as well.
The Green New Deal meanwhile, rapidly becoming policy orthodoxy in the Democratic Party. We are going to talk to one environmentalist, a longtime professional environmentalist who says that wind and solar actually don't work. It's some ideological point that's rooted in science and he will explain after the break.
CARLSON: Live pictures for you there. That is Joint Base Andrews Air Force Base right outside the city of Washington, D.C. That's the President of the United States returning from his trip to the northern part of Vietnam, Hanoi. The Summit with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ended abruptly last night. The President said the terms were unacceptable to the United States of America and he flew home. There he is.
Back in this country, the Green New Deal almost overnight it seems like has taken over the environmental agenda of the Democratic Party. Young pioneer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says we are going to ground our planes, ditch our cars, and stop having kids for the sake of the planet. We even need to stop eating hamburgers.
Tough Ocasio-Cortez's Chief of Staff was just caught downing one for dinner the other night. But even if we went entirely to wind and solar, as the Green New Deal ordains, would that fix the problems we need to fix?
Michael Shellenberger has spent many years looking at this and he doesn't think so. He is the President of the group, Environmental Progress and he joins us tonight. Michael, thanks very much for coming on.
MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: You wrote a piece on "Quillette" this morning that I thought was really smart and interesting and I recommend it to everyone watching because of the level of scientific details in it. But it's about wind and solar. And the claim that we could shift the grid to rely on renewables like wind and solar overnight and be okay. And you say that's not possible.
SHELLENBERGER: Yes, and I was one of the founders of sort of the original Green New Deal back in between 2003 to 2007. People don't remember President Obama, we spent $150 billion on renewables between 2009 and 2015 and we just kept encountering the same kind of problems everywhere that were related both to the essential unreliability of solar and wind.
They just depend on when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, which is 10% to 40% of the years and then also something that people are not as aware of which is the low energy density of sunlight and wind and basically what we have been finding is that the lower the energy density of the fuel, in this case, the sunlight and the win, the bigger the environmental impact, you just have to use a lot more natural resource including land to generate very much electricity.
CARLSON: So it's not good for the environment was your point, then you point to another form of energy that has a checkered reputation, but you made a very powerful case for, nuclear.
SHELLENBERGER: Yes, I mean, we were in the process of trying to figure out how to deal with things like climate change or even, if you are not as concerned about climate change, how to deal with air pollution.
SHELLENBERGER: We found that we just had a number of friends who said, "What about nuclear?" And we were like, "Well, but nuclear is scary and we had ..." you know, I had all the have concerns that most people have about nuclear. And when I read up about it, all of the accidents and was shocked actually by how few people died in Chernobyl, and the most recent accident, Fukushima, the scientists agree that nobody will die from the radiation that escaped, and that, too is explained by the energy density.
So what we find is that bio-mass, burning wood and fossil fuels kill about seven million a year from smoke. And so that smoke is just a function of all of that waste product being in the air, people breathing it. With nuclear, even in the worst accident, only a tiny amount of material escapes, and so the energy density of the fuel also determines just how much air pollution there is going to be.
CARLSON: So the people who wrote the Green New Deal and proposals like it must have consulted scientists before they did and so they must know what you just said is true because it demonstrably is true. So why --
SHELLENBERGER: I don't think so.
CARLSON: Why isn't nuclear part of the solution? Why are they against nuclear?
SHELLENBERGER: It is very disappointing. Well, I mean, there are sort of three big reasons why people are against nuclear. I mean, the first is that they associate it with the bomb, which is wrong. They are two separate technologies. The second is that in the '60s, more in the '60s, but still around today, there were concerns that too much cheap energy, too much nuclear energy would result in over-population and over-consumption. And then the third one, which in some ways is the most powerful is just a really strong desire to use energy to harmonize with the natural world that turns out to be a bad idea, because the more natural resources we use, the worse it is for the natural environment.
CARLSON: Well, exactly. And I would just -- we are unfortunately, out of time. I would recommend your piece on "Quillette" to everybody watching because it really changed my mind completely on the subject. Mike Shellenberger, thank you very much.
SHELLENBERGER: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: In just a minute, we are going to talk to Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard about her foreign policy views, which has turned out to be pretty controversial on the Democratic Party.
But first, it's time for "Final Exam." Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld go head-to-head with a special "The Five" match. That's next.
SEAN HANNITY, ANCHOR: It's time right now to get your free trial on Fox Nation, our new streaming service. It is the perfect complement right here to the Fox News Channel and foxnation.com features exclusive shows even for me and your favorite Fox News personalities, people you know, and people you're just meeting.
Here is a preview of Season Two of "What Made America Great."
BRIAN KILMEADE, HOST: I'm going to bring it to Lincoln Memorial. But I'm going to bring you to a place that you've not seen before.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the most visited monument, the iconic place to be in Washington and across the world.
KILMEADE: You promised me a visit. Can we go?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go.
KILMEADE: All right. We're really going in?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're really going in and we're going to go down the stairs below the Lincoln Memorial. It's so grand, the public should see it, too. What we're going to do is going to go into the Grand Chamber and I'm going to show you some fascinating art that is really a time capsule back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To 1914 to 1922.
CARLSON: Time now for "Final Exam" where the news experts compete to see who has been paying the closest attention to the news this week.
Tonight a special "The Five" edition of "Final Exam." Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld, two names you may be familiar with join us from the largest city in the United States tonight.
The winner will face off next week just the 12-time "Jeopardy" champion. In the meantime, we want to address the unsubstantiated allegation present on Mr. Gutfeld's t-shirt, our judges -- and we are not going to weigh in one way or another on this. They are saying they are not going to deduct points preemptively for the insult that you have thrown at Mr. Watters, so we are just going to leave it at that, if that's all right?
JESSE WATTERS, HOST: Fake news, Tucker. Fake news.
CARLSON: Look, man, I don't get involved in the hair question.
GREG GUTFELD, HOST: Well, I thought I was actually having a rematch with Dana.
CARLSON: That would have been -- you know what, I'll stay out the hair question.
CARLSON: Okay, you guys know the rules. So I am going to repeat them for our viewers just tuning in now from the real "Jeopardy," so hands on buzzers. I ask the questions, the first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. You must wait until I finish asking before you answer. You can answer once I acknowledge by saying your name. Every correct answer is worth one point, get it wrong, you lose a point. Best of five wins. That's what we call journalism math, simple. You guys ready?
CARLSON: All right, let's get started. Question one: Which television billionaire who was named a Biblical figure lost $50-million on a Weight Watcher's investment after fewer people signed up for its diet? Jesse.
WATTERS: Oprah Winfrey.
CARLSON: Oprah Winfrey.
GUTFELD: You know that he hit before the question ended.
CARLSON: You know, I cantt -- I am not. Our judges are going to have to assess. You guys are in the Metropolis 200 miles -- okay, the buzz counts. That's what they say.
WATTERS: All right.
CARLSON: Was it Oprah Winfrey?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN KILMEADE, HOST: $50-million, that's how much Oprah is losing after Weight Watchers' stock plunges. Oprah owns part of the company, which blames the stock drop on less people signing up for its program. I hope you didn't pay an analyst for that evaluation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUTFELD: Oh, Kilmeade.
CARLSON: By the way, can I ask you guys, did you know that Oprah was a Biblical name?
WATTERS: I did not know that.
CARLSON: I didn't either, but I am an Episcopalian, so I guess I wouldn't.
GUTFELD: I mean, it's Harpo backwards.
CARLSON: Well, I knew that. And it's the name of the famous studio.
GUTFELD: The Marx brothers were in the Old Testament, Tucker.
CARLSON: They were.
CARLSON: They may have written it.
GUTFELD: Very brutal, brutal trio of brothers.
CARLSON: Okay, hands on buzzers. Question 2. This is multiple choice. So wait until you get all of the options.
CARLSON: The President's working lunch with the dictator of North Korea in Vietnam featured a very interesting menu. The dessert consisted of a certain vegetable in a white sugary syrup. Was it A. Green beans? B. Wood ear mushrooms? Or C. Chinese water chestnuts? Gutfeld.
GUTFELD: The second one. The mushrooms.
CARLSON: Wood ear - that sounds repulsive, but waas it wood ear mushrooms?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Listen to this for the finish, a traditional Vietnamese dessert of lotus seeds and mushrooms in a light, sugary syrup.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: Oh, he's got it.
CARLSON: Oh, that's repulsive. How did you know that?
GUTFELD: I am actually a chef. You didn't know that. Yes, I cook almost every night for the children.
CARLSON: I didn't know that.
GUTFELD: I go down to the orphanage and I cook.
WATTERS: Everything he is saying is wrong.
CARLSON: But you do everything for the children. I am not totally surprised.
GUTFELD: I am a selfless human being.
CARLSON: You and Richard Branson. Okay. Question 3. It's another multiple choice. 2020 candidate Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is in the news for her strange behavior while dealing with her staff. One former aide recalls a time when he witnessed the Senator eating her salad with which unusual item. Was it A. A pair of scissors? Was it B. A comb? Or was it C. Her bare hands? Greg.
CARLSON: Comb, not her bare hands. Was it a comb?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The "New York Times" reporting Amy Klobuchar berated a staff member at an airport back in 2008 for failing to bring her a fork with her salad. So Senator Klobuchar ate the salad using a comb from her bag and then handed the comb to her aide and told him to clean it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUTFELD: Hey, Tucker --
WATTERS: I knew that.
GUTFELD: Do you know what the collusion story and Amy Klobuchar have in common?
GUTFELD: A dirty Come-y.
CARLSON: That's pretty good. Question 4, which loud member of Congress who used to be a bartender is now featured as a sword-weilding super hero in a cringe inducing comic book?
GUTFELD: Greg Gutfeld - AOC - can you be more specific?
GUTFELD: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
CARLSON: Was it AOC?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's AOC. The New York Congresswoman is now the star of a comic book satire called, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Freshmen Force." One cover shows the Democratic socialist with a sword and Superwoman style outfit with the caption "New Party, who this?"
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So we have two notes, it's three to one. We have two notes from the judges. One keep hands on buzzers and second, this final question is worth two points. You could easily tie.
GUTFELD: What? No, no, no.
CARLSON: Look, I don't make the decisions here. I am a marionette controlled by the control room in New York.
GUTFELD: Wait, you guys just changed the rules.
CARLSON: I am just telling you, I do what I am told.
GUTFELD: This is -- you know what this is?
CARLSON: Exactly. We do it often by the way.
GUTFELD: No, you never do this.
CARLSON: Never apologize and never explain. Therefore I won't. Final question.
WATTERS: It's because they don't like you, Greg.
CARLSON: If you wish your beer tasted more like marsh mallows you are in luck tonight. A Virginia brewery is now selling a beer that tastes like which sugary breakfast cereal?
GUTFELD: Lucky Charms.
CARLSON: Greg Gutfeld.
WATTERS: Oh, God. I knew that.
GUTFELD: I crushed you like a bug.
CARLSON: But is that true, let's check the tape.
GUTFELD: Crushed him like a bug.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY, HOST, FOX BUSINESS NEWS: Lucky Charms favored beer. Saturday morning IPA is made of toasted marshmallows and fruity calypso hops. If you drink enough of them, you'll even seen a leprechaun, too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Greg Gutfeld, you are impressive. I will give you my Eric Wempel mug next time I see you. You're going to face off against the 12-time "Jeopardy" champion. Good luck.
GUTFELD: You keep promising me the mug.
CARLSON: Jesse Watters, you are a good man.
WATTERS: I knew all of the answers. He is closer to the buzzer.
CARLSON: I know you did. Look this is --
WATTERS: He is closer to the buzzer.
CARLSON: Our producer, Justin is bringing you a mug right to your office right now. Thank you, gentlemen. That's it for this week's "Final Exam." Tune in next week and see if you can beat the experts. Gutfeld versus the "Jeopardy" champion. Whoa. We'll be right back.
greg gutfeld versus the jeopardy champion. we will be right back. your brain changes as you get older.
CARLSON: Suddenly there are a lot of Democrats running for their Party's presidential nomination. There are some disagreements between them. But one thing many of them appear to agree on is wholeheartedly embracing the foreign policy agenda of Bill Kristol, whether it is Syria or Venezuela, or Russia, there is an opportunity for the United States to sponsor violent conflicts somewhere in the world, they support it.
The only exception to this is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She is a sincere progressive. She is a veteran and she says she wants to keep America out of pointless foreign wars and for that, she has been repeatedly attacked in Washington.
Congresswoman Gabbard joins us tonight. Congresswoman, thanks very much for coming on. I know that you have been criticized for straying out of approved media outlets. I am sure you'll be criticized for coming on the show tonight. I just want to reassure Democratic voters, we disagree on many, many - probably most things. You are a sincere progressive, but one place that I admire your courage is your unwillingness to go along with the foreign policy views of everyone else in Washington. And really have been attacked for it. Why do you think that is?
REP. TULSI GABBARD, D-HI: Look, Tucker, I am a soldier in the Army National Guard. I have served now for nearly 15 years, served on two Middle East deployments, and I know personally firsthand the cost of war.
In Congress now for over the last six years, I have served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as the Armed Services Committee and I have seen how self-serving powerful politicians from both parties have continued this foreign policy regime change war view, where they think that we, the United States should be acting as the policeman of the world and that we should continue to go around and overthrowing and toppling dictators or countries who we don't like, costing us, the American people trillions of dollars in the process, causing more suffering in the countries where we go and wage these wars and oh, by the way undermining our own national security as we are seeing playing out before our eyes in countries like North Korea.
GABBARD: Where Kim Jong-un has clearly stated that he is holding on to these nuclear weapons as his only deterrent against the United States coming in and waging a regime change war in North Korea. So while I am deeply concerned about the fact that this Summit yesterday ended without an agreement, because we need to see denuclearization in the Korean peninsula, it's not surprising because of this policy, this regime change war policy, that again, leaders in both parties in the Foreign Policy establishment here in Washington have perpetuated over and over and over again.
CARLSON: What is so interesting is that world view, the regime change world view, I mean, if it worked -- at one time I thought it sounded like it made sense. But we've had almost 20 years of it, and it demonstrably hasn't worked. There's really kind of no debate about how badly it has gone, why would people still support that?
GABBARD: Well, that's a great question, you know, if you look at the military industrial complex that benefits off of these continued regime change wars, you look at those in Washington who has invested their entire careers built on continuing to wage these wars, and the most unfortunate thing is they sell them under the guise of humanitarianism to the American people who want to be able to do good things, who want to be able to help people who are suffering.
But not pointing out the fact and not facing the truth that in each of these different example of regime change led by the United States, it has resulted in far more suffering for the people who they are supposedly trying to help. And there's a lot of different motives for this. You can look at corporate greed. You can look at who actually benefits financially from these wars if you want to see why they are continuing and why it perpetuates again by self-serving powerful politicians and leaders in both parties.
CARLSON: Has anyone - no, you have been attacked quite a bit, I am not going to make it relive it, including by some people I know who should know better, to be honest with you. But nobody has engaged you in the argument you just made. And so they've dismissed you as sucking up to this dictator, you are a bad person is basically what they are saying. Has anybody actually debated you on the points that you are making?
GABBARD: No, no. Constantly, I see, again people from both parties instead resorting to name calling or superficial attacks because they refuse to engage on the substance of this argument about why they continue to push for and try to wage these regime change wars ignoring the disastrous consequences on the people in those countries and the American people.
The reality is, these wars are costing us, the taxpayers trillion of dollars, dollars that should be here that should remain in our pockets or invested in things like rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, invested in the needs of our people.
CARLSON: Exactly. I just want to say again, just to be totally clear, we disagree on many things, but I admire your bravery for saying that out loud and you are always welcome on this show. I appreciate your coming. Thank you very much.
GABBARD: Thanks, Tucker. Appreciate it.
CARLSON: The other night, we warned you about the left's discovery that knitting is racist and after we aired that segment, we got a massive response, which we feel honor-bound to bring you and we will, that's after the break.
CARLSON: At the beginning of the show, we called for Washington to apologize for the Russia hoax. Now an apology of our own. The other day, we covered the left's discovery that knitting is racist. Right after that segment aired, you e-mailed us in volume. Here are a few. From Linda Devine, quote, "Hey, some of those shorts were of crochet, not knitting. Please don't lump us in with those horrible knitters." Fair point. Charles Doby wrote this, "I am offended that this video is showing crocheters who use one hook instead of two that is used in knitting. Make it stop!" Exclamation point. And this from Myca Lynn Beller, quote, "You know a man probably put that segment together and has no clue about the difference between knitting and crocheting." Oh, busted.
It's true. We would never want to lump crocheters in with those racist knitters, but we want to warn people that crocheting could always choose to self-identify as knitting. So actually, there's some fluidity in the handicrafts community that we should think about. We will be back tomorrow.
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.