This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 1, 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." Joe Biden isn't yet technically in the presidential race, but according to every poll, he is the frontrunner as of right now, but that could change due to new reports of Biden sniffing the hair of unwilling women. The Joe Biden hair sniffing scandal -- more on that ahead.

Also the Jussie Smollett story continues to unfold. We will talk to the lawyer for the Nigerian brothers who told police they were hired to attack Smollett. That's just in a moment.

But first tonight, there is always something a little poignant about the end of something. Maybe that's why people get drunk on New Year's Eve to forget it. It is sad to think that a whole year is over. But if you think New Year's is depressing, how would you feel if you thought that all life on this planet was ending soon. Three million years of human history erased forever. Sad, isn't it?

Chris Hayes thinks so. Chris Hayes is what every man would be if feminists ever achieve absolute power in this country. Apologetic, bespectacled and deeply, deeply concerned about global warming and the patriarchal systems that cause it.

On Friday, Hayes hosted a town hall event on MSNBC with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It was designed to promote her Green New Deal. This apparently seemed like a wise idea to executives over at NBC. The very same news outlet that spent two years lying to you about Russia brings you a 29-year-old former bartender to teach you about science.

Hayes framed the terms at the outset of the show. Unless, you do exactly what Dr. Ocasio-Cortez says, the entire human race has only 12 years to live.


CHRIS HAYES, ANCHOR, MSNBC: What we have to do to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change is to cut emissions in half in 12 years. Twelve years. That's the project we have been tasked with by the Earth.

Has come a bold new policy proposal that might be the most controversial thing in American politics at the moment. You've probably heard about it. It's called the Green New Deal. Some people call it a socialist monster, some people call it our only hope for survival here in the way of life that we hold dear.


CARLSON: He looks like Ellen, kind of a fusion show. But did you hear what he said? Our only hope for survival. Holy smokes. That is terrifying. Help us Chris Hayes. Where is this life raft? This humanity saving antidote that alone can prevent the death of our children?

Well, the good news is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has the cure for human extinction. All we have to do is obey her and be very, very good people.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: In my framework, it is my belief that we not just have a wealthy society, but that we have a moral society.


CARLSON: Wait a second, you may be wondering. How does a Member of Congress who hasn't yet turned 30, someone who has never even raised children, get the right to lecture me about morality? Well, that's the difference between you and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is a highly decent person.

Listen to her explain how she doesn't resort to ad hominem attacks unlike her enemies who by the way are xenophobic white supremacists.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: We are actually talking about something substantive. We are not calling anyone names. People say tea party of the left, and I find this phrase very interesting - this phrasing very interesting because the grounding of the tea party was xenophobia, the underpinnings of white supremacy.



CARLSON: Yes, stop with the name-calling you racist white supremacist xenophobe. So, it's official. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a moron and nasty and more self-righteous than any televangelist who ever preached a sermon on cable access.

She is not impressive, she's awful. So how did she get so famous? Why do people like her? Well, if we are being honest, we've got to say it's because not everything she says is wrong. Listen to this clip, it's from the same town hall. Ocasio-Cortez takes a break from her idiotic climate theology to offer what turns out to be a fairly insightful critique of the American economy.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: We have run away income inequality. We are at one of our most in-equal points economically speaking in American history. We are dealing with a crisis of how our economy is even made up. Our economy is increasingly financialized, which means we are making profits off of interest, off leasing your phone, off of doing all of these things, but we aren't producing and we aren't innovating in the way that we need to as an economy.


CARLSON: Okay, you hate to admit it, given the source, but try to ignore the way she said. Maybe, just print it out and read it. A lot of it is basically true. No other party wants to talk about this.

The Republicans are in fetal position. They just don't want to be unpopular anymore. They will do anything not to be unpopular. The Democrats want what they have always wanted, total and complete control over you and this country.

Neither Party will say that our economy, at its core is badly distorted. Any economy, based on interest payments isn't really an economy, it's a scam. Healthy countries innovate. They make things. They don't treat people like interchangeable widgets, they don't worship finance.

In a healthy country, bankers aren't heroes. Private equity is not the highest paid profession. Nobody brags about working at a hedge fund.

In America right now, we have the opposite, unfortunately, and that's why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a constituency, not because she is impressive, she is not, but because she is one of the very few people who will say the obvious about growing corporate tyranny in this country.

It doesn't mean she is right about anything else. Taking power from the banks and giving it to Ocasio-Cortez as she proposes would not solve our problems. It will just put an even dumber person in charge. But she is right about the financialization part.

Nomiki Konst is a former Bernie Sanders surrogate and she joins us tonight. Nomiki, thanks so much for coming on.


CARLSON: So here's the way I assess policies having lived in Washington a long time. We don't know everything about the Green New Deal, we know some of the proposals.

Name one proposal in the Green New Deal that you're aware of that would not increase the power of the Democratic Party?

KONST: Well, the Democratic Party is a very big party and right now, I don't know if you heard, there is a divide in the Democratic Party between those like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who are not taking corporate money and oil money and those like the establishment, you know, you just mentioned Joe Biden, perfect example, taken a lot of corporate money, big hedge fund money and oil money. So there is a divide in the Democratic Pary.

CARLSON: I get it, but I am talking about the policies.

KONST: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: I just mean the policies. I know the Party has got all kinds of problems. We rejoice them every night. But the actual proposals that would have --

KONST: You guys are fine Republicans.

CARLSON: I am half kidding, but they would affect us, like the real things they plan to do, which one wouldn't increase the power of the Democratic Party?

KONST: Well, that's essentially the point.

CARLSON: It is the point.

KONST: The Democratic Party was the big business party. Now, it's not going to be if more people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are elected. So the Green New Deal is essentially saying is that the cost of climate change, which we have to admit, there are costs associated with it, are not being put on every day people, not being put on the people who are fleeing their homes, whose homes have been hurt in storms, whether it's hurricanes or tornadoes or they are dispersed from their communities.

But on the 1% who is extracting from these people and making money off of disasters.

CARLSON: Well, I'm just going to ask you a third time and I am just going to go ahead. I understand what the talking points are for the proposal.

KONST: That's not a talking point that's economics.

CARLSON: No, no. It's good for everybody. It's fair, it's equitable. It makes us more moral. I mean, I just heard Congresswoman Bartender explain all of that.

KONST: That was the green economics.

CARLSON: But what I want to know is who gets more powerful?

KONST: The people.

CARLSON: Whoever administers -- no. Whoever administers this plan will have control over a fifth of the U.S. economy -- our energy sector -- will be administering the largest building works project ever attempted, will have control over every building in the continental United States, that's more power than anybody has ever had. It will be invested in the hands of Ocasio-cortez and the people who support her, the politicians who do. So this is a power grab. Maybe it's also good, but it's a power grab.

KONST: So here is my question for you, who would you rather have controlling the future of our livelihood? A bunch of big banks who right now are determining whether or not they there is a jobs program, whether or not homes are built or is there an infrastructure planned? They control most of Congress.

Or would you rather have people -- her campaign was people funded -- controlling their futures? I vote for the people.

CARLSON: Which people -- okay, no, no --

KONST: Every day Americans, working people.

CARLSON: I am familiar with the slogan. I am familiar with the slogan, but if you believe that climate change is an existential problem for the planet, if it's going to end the planet in 12 years, which by the way is not science, it's religion, so we should drop that talking point because it's actually not supported --

KONST: Ninety eight percent of scientists disagree.

CARLSON: That's not -- 98% of scientists do not claim that the planet will end in 12 years, that's just not true.

KONST: Well, it's going to be irreversible.

CARLSON: As a factual matter, I have Google, I checked it. But let me just ask you this. There would be at the heart of the proposal something that's good for the planet, but that does not make Ocasio-Cortez more powerful.

But everything in this proposal that I have read would make the Democratic Party more powerful, so you can see why we would be a little nervous about it, no?

KONST: I think the Democratic Party is more nervous about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and future AOCs and Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar's and Rashida Tlaib's and Ro Khanna's who ran people funded campaigns. I think they are more concerned about that than handing over the wheel again to Donald Trump.

So ultimately, when we are talking about solving climate change, it is going to take electing more people funded politicians who represent the people and not the banks whether a Democrat or a Republican.

CARLSON: I get it, but okay, but if you are using climate change as a pretext for taking over the most basic decisions in my life, how big my toilet can be, whether I can have a wood stove, how cars I can own and whether I can flag fly? These are the basic -- no, I am serious, these are the basic decisions, then shouldn't you know something about the science? Shouldn't you know that there is not a consensus among scientists that the planet is going to end in 12 years, that's just not true.

KONST: There's pretty much a consensus that in 12 years it's irreversible. I would say 95 percent.

CARLSON: There is not a pretty -- there is no such thing as a pretty much consensus in science.

KONST: A consensus. It is a scientific consensus that the majority of scientists believe and know --

CARLSON: What percentage?

KONST: It's 98.9 percent say that in 12 years --

CARLSON: Ninety eight point nine percent.

KONST: It is irreversible. In cities like New York, just in 10 years in cities like New York ...

CARLSON: Okay, well hold, just really quick we're out of time, but I just want to be able to check the fact, is there some place, is there a website 98.9 percent of scientists dot com.

KONST: scientists who understand climate change.

CARLSON: But is there a place where the scientists get together and agree with Ocasio-Cortez? Is there a membership committee that allows them in?

KONST: Yes. The Association of Scientists.

CARLSON: Like where does it come from -- Association of Scientists. Okay, great. We'll check that.

KONST: International.

CARLSON: Nomiki Konst, I want to thank you and the Association of Scientists, 99 percent of whom agree with you.

KONST: I'll see you underwater, Tucker. We can wave underwater.

CARLSON: I'll see you there. Thank you. Bjorn Lomborg the author of the book "Cool It." The skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming and he joins us tonight. Mr. Lomborg, thanks very much for coming on. So I keep hearing just from watching television in this country that many people are dying of climate change in the United States. Is it a leading cause of death here?

BJORN LOMBORG, AUTHOR: No, by no means and, look, we actually have pretty good data for how many people actually dying from weather related disasters, so climate related disasters and the truth is, over the last hundred years, it's dropped dramatically.

Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world. Now, we've quadrupled the population and, yet, the number has dropped like a stone. It's 95% reduced. We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year.

This is not because of global warming. This is simply because getting richer means you stop being in trouble when the weather is bad.

CARLSON: So if the problem as measured by death rates is getting better, the threat is in decline, why the focus on it? Why not a focus on cancer or diabetes or Alzheimer's or suicide or drug ODs? These are all rising.

LOMBORG: Yes, absolutely. And if you ask people around the world, the U.N. did that a couple of years ago. They asked about 10 million people, "What do you want us to focus on?" And they told us, perhaps not surprisingly, if you are really poor, you worry about healthcare, food and education. Those were the top things that came out.

At the very end, number 16 of 16 priorities came global warming. Not surprising, if you are poor, but if you are rich and well-meaning, this is one of the things you can start worrying about, and look, global warming is a real problem, but it's not anywhere the size of what most people let you believe.

CARLSON: So, maybe it's an easy problem for the richest in our society to focus on because it doesn't really require anything of them. They can still fly private and have four houses and be deeply concerned about this problem. Maybe that's why they have chosen it.

LOMBORG: Well, I think it certainly gives a lot of people a sense of "I'm really trying to do something good." "Oh, I have cut down. I'm no longer eating meat," or something like that.

But the reality, of course, is if you really wanted to cut carbon emissions dramatically as many people talk about, you would have to experience a cost that would be much, much higher.

So if you take, for instance, the Green New Deal, Bloomberg estimates and this is just one of many estimates that it would cost every year about $2.1 trillion - that's two thirds of the U.S. budget.

So, no, we can't afford that, and even if you did, the impact would be fairly small in a hundred years. It would be very small and inefficient way of helping people very little.

CARLSON: Okay, so assuming this is about helping people and I don't believe that it's clearly about grabbing power, but let's just pretend that it's about helping people. In the name of helping them, you would probably wind up killing more than you would save because poverty does kill people, we know that.

LOMBORG: Exactly. What you have to be very careful about is to say how do you go and help people, for instance in Bangladesh and other places? Well, a lot of people will say, "Well, we need to cut carbon emissions so that they will have less of a problem in 100 years." But of course, the reality is, most people in Bangladesh wants to get out of poverty and we should help them by having more free trade, having more opportunity, having more technology. Those are the things that will make them much richer so that when 2100 comes around, they will not only be better able to tackle global warming, but also all the other challenges Alzheimer, cancer, all the other problems you were talking about.

CARLSON: So you're a man who writes about science, who's fluent in the terms of science? How do you feel when you start hearing politicians discuss scientific issues with theological terms, talking about the morality of your society and making claims to their own virtue? Does that make you uncomfortable?

LOMBORG: Well, I'm an economist, actually. So I look at all what the scientists are telling us. They're telling us global warming is a problem. But it's also at moderate one, they tell us by the end of the century, global warming will cost somewhere between 2 percent and four percent of global GDP.

Remember, by then will be about 10 times richer, per person, so about 1,000 percent richer, and then we'll have to pay two percent to four percent. That's a problem, not the end of the world.

When politicians go and tell us, we've got to go morally, do something that's really nice. Cutting off meat or not driving your car or something. In order to pacify this problem, they've simply talking against the better opportunity of actually dealing with this problem, because that's not going to happen.

You can't tell people to do this. So what you need to do is to focus on technology. Well, Americans and everyone have had many problems in the past. We have not solved those problems by telling people, could you please do with less? What we've done is, through technology, enabled people to do more with less, actually be able to be better off with technology.

So this is all about innovation. We need to innovate the price of green energy down below fossil fuels. And then of course, everyone, not just rich well, meaning Americans and Europeans, but also the Chinese and the Indians will want to switch.

CARLSON: Right. No, got it. That's not even, of course, that's not what is on the table. Thank you. Mr. Lomborg, I appreciate you.

LOMBORG: It should be.

CARLSON: It should be. Good to talk to you tonight.

LOMBORG: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you. Joe Biden is pulling at the very top of the Democratic Presidential field, but now that we know he's been a decades long an inveterate, snuggler and hair sniffer, can he maintain that position? Mark Steyn joins us after the break.


CARLSON: Before we begin this next segment, a warning to our viewers at home, this is a show with a sense of propriety, a family show. We try not to put anything on the screen that we would be ashamed to show our own children. So with that in mind, you may see pictures as this progresses that make you uncomfortable, you might want to leave the room.

It's about Joe Biden. Joe Biden was supposed to be the front runner for the 2020 Presidential nomination on the Democratic side, and the polls show that he's still is, but the former Vice President has had a terrible weekend. He has faced backlash for controversial behavior, physical behavior around women.

Former Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores on Friday accused Biden of making her feel deeply uncomfortable by kissing her without being asked on the back of the head at a 2014 campaign event. She wrote a piece about it. Former Democratic Congressional aide, Amy Lamppost, meanwhile, accused Biden if inappropriately touching her head in 2009. It's a head thing.

Flores says that in her view, Biden should not run for President.


LUCY FLORES, FORMER NEVADA ASSEMBLYWOMAN: So I've answered this question many times in saying that personally, I do not believe that he should run.


CARLSON: Hair sniffers have no place in the modern Democratic Party. The rules are changing fast, but that's apparently where we are right now. In any case, it is not a great look for Joe Biden. Keep in mind, he is the man who has over the years and many times recently bemoan the fraying of America's moral fabric. That invisible moral fabric, the holes of society, a democracy is being shredded.

There's an invisible moral fabric.

There's an invisible moral fabric.

There's an invisible moral fabric.

This invisible moral fabric.

There's an invisible wall fabric that holds up all societies.

The invisible moral fabric.

The moral fabric.

The moral fabric of society is invisible, but essential.

Stop this enormous erosion of the moral fabric that's at the hands of Donald Trump and the Republicans.


CARLSON: The moral fabric is fraying. The good news is the moral fabric softener smells amazing. So should Biden stay out of the Democratic race? Well, the other candidates quite can't make up their minds on that question. Watch.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe Lucy Flores and Joe Biden needs to give an answer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should he not run as a result?

WARREN: Look, that's for Joe Biden to decide.

JULIAN CASTRO (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I believe Lucy Flores. He's going to decide whether he's going to run or not.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: People raise issues, and they have to address them and that's what he will have to do with the voters if he gets into the race.


CARLSON: Author and columnist, Mark Steyn, joins us tonight, so Mark, one of the many reasons I'm glad you're with us tonight is to help make up my mind on this question. I mean, on the one hand, you think he is a warm person, I know him, he is warm. On the other hand, it's a lot of hair sniffing. This is the guy who the Secret Service said used to swim naked in front of them, including female agents. There's something a little creepy here. What should we think about this?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, you know, Tucker, there's an invisible moral fabric that's fraying and it's holding up the back of that ladies dress, which is why Joe Biden has got his nose between her shoulder blades, trying to keep it from fraying any further.

You mentioned -- you mentioned those Secret Service agents, and I've heard a lot of people I respect like Brit Hume earlier today, and Brit was saying that he doesn't think there's anything at all sexual about that. And I think that that can be true and yet still not be a mitigating factor.

You mentioned that his habit of swimming naked in front of female Secret Service agents who are there to take a bullet for the Vice President. When he removes his swimming shorts and tosses them over their heads, that's not really the bullet they're supposed to be taking. There is something that is actually slightly presumptuous about this behavior in the way that it was when Charlie Rose used to do over at PBS. He used to do dress rehearsals undressed. It's a power thing. It is the presumptuousness and the Democrats are completely morally in different on this, unless it serves their ends.

And what they want to do is take this guy out, the other candidates want to take him out the way Jeb Bush was taken out by Trump two to four years ago, but they haven't got a Trump to take out Jeb Bush with a single well-placed adjectival insult, low-energy Jeb. So you use what you have. And that's why all these Democrat candidates have basically decided this is the bullet that takes out Joe Biden.

I don't think he's going to run because I don't think he wants to be defending a lot of this stuff between now and November next year.

CARLSON: That's a lot. There's a lot of hair sniffing. I would just say, my one concern, obviously, I'm enjoying this deeply, I think Joe Biden is fraudulent in a lot of ways and shouldn't run, but you don't want to live in a society that's even colder, and more atomized, and more standoffish, and more suspicious than the one we're already in.

I mean, maybe the one good thing about Joe Biden is, you know, arm around the shoulder, which he's done to me many times. I mean, you don't want to kill that entirely, do you?

STEYN: Well, that's actually an interesting point, Tucker, because in fact, I was talking to someone just a couple of days ago, who said he's actually a bit overly touchy-feely with men, too. And you're right. But I think the real -- I think realistically in this age of moral panic, and #MeToo, I mean, actually, if I were a male Democratic candidate, I'm not trying to actually want to stand on a stage with female Democrat candidates, I'd certainly want to put a lot of physical space between us.

But the fact is, this is an utterly cynical move. You use what you have and we're now two months from the equivalent point where Trump came down that escalator at Trump Tower and disrupted the whole Republican process. They haven't got anyone that big -- all the Kamala Harris's, all the Cory Booker's want to get rid of Joe Biden and get on with the real primary and this gives them what they --

CARLSON: That's what's happening. Mark Steyn, so smart. Thank you.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, the one thing about the Democratic Party, of course, it's the party that believes survivors. So why aren't they pouncing to denounce Joe Biden more than they already are? Richard Goodstein good is an attorney, a former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton and he joins us tonight. So I'm -- as you can tell, normally we'd go into these conversations, you and I, Richard, and I've got a clear point of view, but I really am of two minds on this.

On the one hand, there's a lot of hair to sniff, just a lot of hair to sniff. And on the other hand, I think if the other candidates don't like Biden, maybe they should argue against what he is saying, and not just attack him, sneakily in the way they are.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON: So let me address both of your points. I mean, what it's not is grabbing women by the genitals and then bragging about it. It's not forcing somebody down on a bed and putting his hand over their mouth. It's not having an affair with a Playboy Bunny, while his wife has a newborn.

CARLSON: It's not Juanita Broaddrick.

GOODSTEIN: It's not that.

CARLSON: It's not Juanita Broaddrick is what you're saying, it's not Paula Jones. It's not being accused of rape or something like the Bill Clinton's, I get it.

GOODSTEIN: It's not -- Biden proudly says, you're not running against the Almighty, you're running against the alternative. And this year, the alternative in this election will be Donald Trump, all of whom, you know, that we've been kind of talking about.

CARLSON: But, wait, hold on. To be fair -- hold on. I'm the one who's -- I'm actually more forgiving of Joe Biden and I think if people in general, because I am flawed, all people are. I'm more forgiving than the other Democratic candidates who are like, "Oh, I can't believe it. He's such a bad man." You know, it's like, really?


CARLSON: They're the ones who leaked this stuff.

GOODSTEIN: I think if Democrats run Joe Biden off because of this, they deserve to lose, because Joe Biden -- look, standards change. You know, the founding fathers had slaves. You know, Barack Obama was against same sex marriage and Biden brought him around and what Biden did, you know, some years ago, it's not something that people. This Flores incidentally, she was a Bernie Sanders person in 2016.

My guess is, she wants Bernie Sanders, not Joe Biden to be the Democratic nominee.

CARLSON: Well, wait a second. Hold on, I am sorry --

GOODSTEIN: And even she said it wasn't assault.

CARLSON: Okay, now you're confusing me more. I thought that we believed all women, I've been taught that. I listen carefully to what they tell me on the "The View."

GOODSTEIN: Nobody is saying --

CARLSON: You believe are women, even if they supported Bernie Sanders. So you're saying that her political views make her less believable?

GOODSTEIN: No, I'm saying even Joe Biden doesn't take issue with the credibility of what she's saying. He's saying his intent was not kind of anything negative. And if she took offense, he wants to listen to her. He's not -- so it's not basically saying that she's not to be believed, it is saying that if you believe her, it's not something that should be his undoing because you're looking at the totality. The voters should decide.

CARLSON: Okay, the man is -- just one question -- and this is sincere -- hold on -- a sincere question. I am not attacking Biden. There's a lot of hair sniffing, I'm not making this up. This is not something I want as talking point. What is that about? Have you ever sniffed a stranger's hair? Honestly?

GOODSTEIN: He's a handsy guy.

CARLSON: That's not hands. That's a nose thing. That's an olfactory thing. What is that?

GOODSTEIN: I'm just saying. He's a handsy guy. He likes to kind of feel that -- he is touchy guy, so you know, you when you have him on your show, you could ask him what that's been about.

CARLSON: I am going to ask him. I am going to ask him. And by the way, I'm not going to judge him like you like to sniff people. Totally fine. You know, that's -- that's your thing.

GOODSTEIN: Yes, I don't think it's about a question of sniffing. I think it's a question of kind of humanity, and I think if we turn our back on that, shame on all of us.

CARLSON: I love it. Richard, great to see you tonight. Thank you.


CARLSON: Jussie Smollett has still not admitted what is obvious to everyone else in America. He staged a fake hate crime. Instead, he's telling us the two body builder brothers who he worked with have attacked him apparently, while wearing white face and he was confused he didn't know it was them. The attorney for those brothers joins us after the break. Stay tuned.


CARLSON: Jussie Smollett is still dividing American. Nearly a week after the Illinois State's Attorney Kim Foxx dropped all charges against him for so obviously faking a hate crime. Today, supporters and opponents of Foxx held competing rallies in Chicago. Matt Finn was there. He joins us tonight with an update -- Matt?

MATT FINN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, the Jussie Smollett tension came to a head today right here in downtown Chicago outside of Kim Foxx's office. The Police Union protested against Kim Foxx saying that she has a history of being anti-police, that she has exonerated known gang members, and they're demanding that Kim Foxx resign after dropping the 16 charges against Smollett.

Well, it was a clash of protests as Kim Foxx supporters led by Jesse Jackson rallied against police. Both sides got in each other's faces. At one point, police had to step in to calm things down. Jesse Jackson tells Fox News today that he thinks the Chicago Police Superintendent's investigation is quote, "very wrong" and alleges Kim Foxx is reforming the criminal justice system here in Chicago and is the target of political attacks.

Kim Foxx is still defending her office's actions, writing in an op-ed and the "Chicago Tribune" quote, "Since it seems politically expedient right now to question my motives and actions and those of my office, let me state publicly and clearly that I welcome an outside, non-political review of how we handled this matter."

Chicago Police Union fired right back in a statement writing in part quote, "The FOP believes the article barely merits a response. A grand jury returned a 16-count indictment. It is Ms. Foxx's duty to prosecute this crime. She refused to do so."

And today, a former Illinois Appellate Justice Sheila O'Brien also wrote in the "Chicago Tribune" that she is going to personally petition the courts here in Chicago to assign a special prosecutor to investigate Kim Foxx -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Matt Finn from Chicago. Thanks a lot for that. Well, even Kim Foxx acknowledges she believes Jussie Smollett is guilty of faking a hate crime. But the actor will still not admit that. Instead, his lawyer says the Osundairo brothers may have put on white face to attack him.


SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, HOST NBC: According to the court records Smollett was very clear with the police on the night of the attack that his attackers were white. He said, they had masks on and gloves, but he saw their eyes and he saw the skin surrounding their eyes, that he saw the skin surrounding their eyes. Was that a false statement?

TINA GLANDIAN, ATTORNEY FOR "EMPIRE" ACTOR JUSSIE SMOLLETT: Obviously, you can disguise that. You could put makeup on. It took me all of five minutes to Google, you know, I was looking up the brothers and one of the first videos that showed up actually was one of the brothers and white face doing a joker monologue with white makeup on and so it's not -- it's not implausible.


CARLSON: It's not implausible. Is it implausible? Gloria Schmidt is an attorney who is representing those brothers, and she joins us tonight. Gloria, thanks very much for coming on. So you heard that suggestion that your clients without the knowledge of Jussie Smollett attacked him while wearing white face makeup? Did they?

GLORIA SCHMIDT, ATTORNEY FOR OSUNDAIRO BROTHERS: It's preposterous on top of more ridiculousness for her to come out and say that. You know what, of course anything is possible in that world. But probable, no.

CARLSON: So do your clients -- these brothers can see that they were part of this hoax?

SCHMIDT: Absolutely. They've cooperated Tucker from day one. I mean, their main focus was always to not be part of a fraud. And, you know, Tucker, if you look at the very little media that they've done and the releases that we've made, they've apologized for their role, and they feel tremendously regretful for their participation in this.

CARLSON: So were they employed by --

SCHMIDT: We're waiting on that for -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

CARLSON: So I just want understand, were they employed by Smollett? I read that one of them had worked for the show -- had worked for his show, and they had worked for him in some capacity, is that correct?

SCHMIDT: That's correct. Remember that there was a friendship. They had met on set. They had known each other for, you know, not more than a year. So they really put their trust in someone who they thought was their friend. Someone who had influence, someone who could, you know, make a game change for them in their career.


SCHMIDT: That's what this is really about, and we're seeing that in the news on various different fronts, people putting their trust in the wrong person and the worst of Hollywood.

CARLSON: So they follow his lead. They take money from him in order to pull off this fake hoax. They get caught. So do Smollett. He blames them for it, and lies about it and then beats all the charges. What do they make of that?

SCHMIDT: Here's the thing about the Osundairo family, and I'm very proud to be able to say this. They are amazing people. It would have been very easy for them to stay lawyered up, for them to just say, "We're not seeing anything. We're not going to help the public heal." You know, "We're just not --"

They wanted to make sure that they weren't part of that fraud. And their value system really came out while they were in custody, and they went through a realization process that what Jussie wanted to do was tear people apart more, not bring them together. And one of the first statements we released actually, we said that, that they were not homophobic, they were not racist, and that they were not anti-Trump.

CARLSON: So what do they think the motive for this was? There have been a bunch of explanations, but why do they think Smollett did this?

SCHMIDT: You know, I -- and I hate to that answer a question on your show, Tucker. But truthfully, the motives and their intentions, their feelings, things that go to those things, I think will be better said from them. And when the time is right, they will come out and say their story. It's just not the right time.

CARLSON: Of course, they're welcome here anytime, it goes without saying. Finally, are they -- do they face any legal jeopardy at all? Are they done with this process?

SCHMIDT: They're done. There's been a lot of questions about, well, now, are they going to get investigated? Are they looking at co-conspiracy charges? You can't be a co-conspirator to something that is not illegal. So Tucker, for example, if I asked you to, you know, go out to the street and put a noose around my neck, which I would never ask you to do that.

CARLSON: Thank you.

SCHMIDT: But if I had, that's not illegal. That's just not illegal. But calling the police and saying that somebody did, that is illegal. My clients didn't do anything illegal.

CARLSON: And they didn't wear white face to beat up their boss without his knowledge. So thanks for clarifying that, Gloria Schmidt.

SCHMIDT: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Thank you for laughing, because it's worth laughing at. Good to see you.

SCHMIDT: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, many top Democrats have staked out amazingly in the past couple of months. The Democratic Party is the party of infanticide. Most Americans are not for that. The question is do more Americans want abortion? More abortion or less abortion? Simple question. Straightforward answer after the break.


CARLSON: You've heard a lot recently about how newly elected Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota doesn't like Israel. That's definitely true. She does not like Israel. But you've heard next to nothing about how Omar doesn't like this country. Omar dislikes Israel, probably more than she dislikes Israel. This doesn't seem to bother anybody. It should. Here's what Omar recently told "Vogue Arabia" in an interview.

She described living in the United States as quote, "An everyday assault. America is so racist and hateful," she says that she feels quote, "threatened, demonized and vilified every day." It's difficult for her even to go to work.

In many ways, things were easier growing up in a refugee camp in Kenya, she says, quote, "When you're a kid and you're raised in an all-black, all Muslim environment, nobody really talks to you about your identity you just are. There is freedom in knowing that you are accepted as your full self," unquote. That freedom Omar says doesn't exist in America.

So pause and think about that for a second. Ilhan Omar's country collapsed. As a child she lived for years in Kenya in the refugee camp. She may have died there without outside help. But help came from where from? From here. America. And this country didn't just welcome Ilhan Omar to America, we paid to locate her family and many others from a foreign continent purely for the sake of being good people -- for altruism.

Because no country in history has been as generous as we are to places we have no ties to and no obligation to, we've been kind anyway because that's who we are.

Despite her humble and foreign birth, Omar has been elected to our national lawmaking body and good for her. So how does she repay her adopted country? The one that may literally have saved her life? She attacks it as hateful and racist. And for that she's applauded by the Democratic Party because they view this country as hateful and racist, too.

The more Ilhan Omar's America has, they believe the better. But is that what's best for America? Here's another suggestion we should think about. Maybe our immigration system should prioritize people who actually like this country and are grateful to be here. Why wouldn't we do that?

Well, in just a few months, the Democratic Party has become way more radical on abortion than any party on Earth. New York has legalized abortion up until the moment of birth, literally the moment. In Virginia, the governor there, Ralph Northam defended infanticide, and that was barely a scandal. Democrats were far more upset about his face paint 30 years ago.

Is that in step with what America wants? The movie "Unplanned," a pro-life movie did very well at the box office this past weekend, far above expectations, despite having its Twitter account briefly shut down with no explanation. No, of course, you know what the explanation is.

And then the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the state legislature, they just banned abortions conducted based on a child's sex, race or disabilities. That law was immediately challenged by the ACLU, which does not have anything to do with civil liberties. But we thought it was a fascinating step and so we're grateful to talk tonight to Matt Bevin. He is the sitting Governor of Kentucky. He signed that bill. Governor, thanks a lot for joining us tonight.

GOV. MATT BEVIN (R), KENTUCKY: Great to be here with you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So a bill that bans abortion on the basis of sex, disabilities or race, you wouldn't think you would need a bill like that because you wouldn't think someone would do something that horrifying.

BEVIN: And yet, sadly, they do. And this is a non-eugenics bill, essentially saying you cannot kill a child based on its race, its gender or a perceived disability. Ironically, aligning -- intentionally aligning very specifically with a lot of Federal statutes in whether it's the ADA or other things that literally prevent and defended by the ACLU, in people who are outside the womb, but they felt that was too much to expect of a child who has not yet been delivered and it is reprehensible.

The guild to your point --

CARLSON: But they are against defending a child, a fetus as they call on the basis of race? Really? It's okay to have a race selective abortion?

BEVIN: You can kill a child and by their estimation, they think it's a step too far to say that you should not kill the child based on its race, or its gender or some perceived disability.

It is to your point, this guild has come off the lily of it being rare and safe and legal. They don't care about that anymore. It never was intended to be rare. It is now literally when and however somebody would want to see this happen. And so it's reprehensible to me that you have the ACLU, just not even trying to serve its past defense of Civic Liberties and literally attacking a bill that is on its face, something that we should applaud.

CARLSON: Sex selective abortions are very widespread across the world. It is one of the reasons India and China have so many more girls -- I mean, boys than girls rather, it targets girls. Is there any support for sex selective abortion in this country? Have you seen the polling? Is there like 40% of the population that has to have their sex selective abortion?

BEVIN: Sadly it is done -- to what degree it is supported by the general populace? I think people would be offended at this and for good reason. And I applaud -- we have legislators in Kentucky who are leading the charge on this boldly.

We have young legislators -- you know, young senator, Matt Castlen who sponsored a bill related to the heartbeat, you know, six weeks or whenever a heartbeat is first detected that abortion beyond that could not be performed in Kentucky, that also was immediately challenged. Melinda Prunty was the one who sponsored this bill that you're talking about, this non-eugenics bill.

CARLSON: Did you get any Democrats to support it?

BEVIN: There were. In Kentucky, I tell you this, in America, increasingly, the more we know about medicine, the more we know about science, the more we know about what really is happening inside of the womb, it is evident that that is a human being. There's -- that child is not going to be born and come out as a chicken or something. I mean, this is a human being. Nobody is under the impression it's anything other than that. And the more we look with technology, the more we know this to be true.

CARLSON: So Planned Parenthood as a matter of policy supports sex selective abortion? Is a little weird to get lectures about morality from people who align with Planned Parenthood?

BEVIN: Here's the thing, think about the history of Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of Planned Parenthood was one of the greatest apologists a hundred years ago for eugenics, which believed that removing unfavorable people, people that were unpleasant, people that would water down the gene pool of humanity, people who were immigrants, people who were of color people who were poor, people that were disabled, she felt that these were undesirable character traits, and that they needed to be removed from the human gene pool. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood.

So the idea that a hundred years later, they still give awards in her name and that they are still practicing the very same thing should not be shocking.

CARLSON: They are, and that's why they put the Planned Parenthood clinics in the inner city. They still think that way.

BEVIN: Exactly. Targeting.

CARLSON: Governor Bevin, it's -- we're grateful to have you tonight. Thank you for that.

BEVIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Racial segregation, amazingly, one of the worst things this country ever did is coming back courtesy of the left. What do past victims of segregation think of that? After the break.


CARLSON: Well, for almost 100 years, strict racial segregation was a fact in parts of this country and it was a stain on this country. Thankfully it was eliminated a half a century ago, but now it is making a comeback in some places where the left is dominant, primarily college campuses.

Radicals are openly endorsing segregated housing, graduations, social groups, Harvard has a segregated graduation. Young white liberal say, it is needed to fix racism, but do normal African-Americans think? Good question. Filmmaker, Ami Horowitz just investigated that in New York and here's what he found.


AMI HOROWITZ, AMERICAN FILMMAKER: Would you support segregated housing for black people?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think a lot of like schools have like interest housing were like black students can like -- and students of color can like live together.

HOROWITZ: Separate from white people?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, that's like a normal thing in most campuses today.

HOROWITZ: And you guys are cool with that?


HOROWITZ: Campuses and the schools say we're now going to offer black students separate housing?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I would support it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't see a problem with that.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I would be supportive of it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to be living with people like me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It wouldn't change anything for me because, I mean, as you can see, I am a bit less than --

HOROWITZ: I couldn't tell. Do you support black students having their own separate graduation?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am sure that's what they wanted.

HOROWITZ: So you'd be okay with that?


HOROWITZ: Separate graduation?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I definitely would.


HOROWITZ (voice over): Just several blocks away from the campus bubble in the local black community. The opinions on this issue were unanimous.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why? Are we going back in time? Why are you separating? We're all together.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait, I don't understand the logic there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like that basically segregation. We should all graduate together.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel that that's segregation and that shouldn't be happening.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's obviously terrible when you separate people by race.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Discrimination might not be the ultimate goal. But people take it that way.

HOROWITZ: Do you think it's almost racist to do that?



CARLSON: It is really the greatest ever. What a brilliant idea. Did you -- Ami, thanks so much for joining us. Was that pretty much the universal reaction from African Americans you spoke to?

HOROWITZ: I didn't find a single person who thought this was a good idea. They were gob-smacked. I mean, some of these guys were looking at me like, "I don't know what you're talking about."

CARLSON: Did you tell them it's really for your own?

HOROWITZ: That's right. That's right. The white man is telling you what's good for you. You should be -- look, Tucker. This is so dangerous on so many levels. Never mind that --

CARLSON: Yes, it is. I agree.

HOROWITZ: It reawakens this notion of segregation that we've been fighting for generations. But it's focusing on this politics of racial identity and playing on that in the absolute worst way.

You know, when they asked Harvard about their policy that they have, Harvard said, "Well, we want to give something for our marginalized students." I'm thinking to myself, what in any place on planet Earth, a black person feels the least marginalized in all of Earth on a university campus? If marginalization was the yardstick for what they need to segregate people, conservatives should be the only ones that have their own separate housing and gyms and campuses.

CARLSON: I certainly think that really only people make under 100 grand a year should be making our social policy -- of all colors. Because if you ask any normal person, like is this -- you know, this or any other thing? Can you change your sex just by tapping your shoes together? No, it's like transparently dumb. And most people know that, I think.

HOROWITZ: It's totally insane. Although, I have to say I did find a group of people that did agree with us, you didn't play the end of the video. They go -- people want to see the end of the video, was I actually found a group that is so woke, they've been this woke for generations.

I spoke with the head of the KKK in North Carolina, and he loved this idea. His wife was so happy she was crying. She was so thrilled what these people are doing to the black students. So there you go, we found a group that actually enjoys it.

CARLSON: It's like the scene at the end of animal farm where the pigs and the men are eating together and you can't tell one for the other. It's like talking about betraying the revolution. I mean, that's really unbelievable. Very smart and interesting and deep. Ami Horowitz, thanks very much.

HOROWITZ: My pleasure. Thank you.

CARLSON: We are out of time. Amazingly, I don't know where the hour went. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying pomposity, smugness and groupthink, all of which are in overabundance right now. But don't worry, things will get better.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.