This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 4, 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.” For months and months, all the little Democratic Party mouthpieces you see on television, which is pretty much all of them, lectured you about how there was absolutely no crisis on the Mexican border and you have to be some kind of white nationalist freak to think otherwise.

Those caravans they told you were a racist mirage. Everything is fine, shut up and obey or we will kick you off YouTube. Now, suddenly you are not hearing many people say that. It's too obviously untrue. It's a lie too implausible even for cable news. Everyone knows our immigration system is a joke. All of Central America understands that.

Show up with a minor in tow and you are in. We can never make you leave. Thousands arrive every day to exploit our weakness now. Millions more are coming. It turns out the average Honduran migrant knows a lot more about our immigration system than the entire primetime lineup on CNN.

If there is at least one person that knows even less than your average cable news anchor, she is a new member of Congress, the loudest one. She still thinks the whole immigration question boils down to racism. If you are for borders, you are a racist, period.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: Guess what? I'm 29. I'm the youngest woman to ever be elected to the United States Congress. I have plenty of time to learn and I'm not afraid to make mistakes and iterate in public either. And, frankly, if the mistakes that I'm making are just a one-off like rhetorical thing, you correct it, acknowledge it and move on. At least I'm not trying to cage children on the border and inject them with drugs. That's not a mistake. That is a deliberate policy to attack people based on their national origin. That's not a mistake. That's just hatred. That's just cruelty. That's just wrong.


CARLSON: Well, like a lot of narcissistic children, Ocasio-Cortez does not believe in honest disagreement. Everything is a moral question. If you agree with her, you are virtuous. If you don't you are a monster. There can be no compromise.

Policy debates are pointless. There is only the battles between good and evil. If you are on the side of good, which is Ocasio-Cortez's side, of course you have endless leeway. You don't have to know what you are talking about. You can wade half-cocked into the country's most important debates, prove yourself and idiot and as she just put it, move on. No problem.

But if you are on the side of evil -- the other side -- watch out. There is no mercy for you. There is no forgiveness. Nothing about you is good. None of your motives are pure. You exist only to hurt and destroy. You are like a demon in a horror film.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: The reason Republicans hate me so much is because I confront them directly. Their moral -- their lack of moral grounding on so many issues. And, not just that, but the reason they are so upset and they act like that girl in "The Exorcist" that's like vomiting pea soup that's like them and negativity.


CARLSON: Negativity. That's what the activist left now calls disagreement. They are not interested at all in what anyone outside their tiny little world has to say. Every day, you see Democratic presidential candidates endorsing some new policy that has pretty much zero public support, but it sounds like something woke baristas in Brooklyn would be excited about.

Banning I.C.E., ignoring Federal immigration law, giving amnesty to millions. Decriminalizing illegal border crossings which is to say totally open borders. Anyone can come. When they get here, give them free stuff. Nobody really wants any of this even most of the people saying no, it wouldn't work.

The public would revolt if you tried it. If half of Guatemala moved here tomorrow, which is exactly what would happen, it wouldn't help anyone. This is all fantasy.

Countries have borders. That's what makes them countries. Someday, the AOC moment will pass. It's too stupid to continue. And at that point, sober Democrats will wake up and rejoin the adult conversation and progress. What do we want from our immigration system?

Well, here are some of the questions they should have to answer when that happens. First and most obvious, how many immigrants should we admit every year? What's the ideal number? We currently take a little over a million every year, legally. Should we double that to over two million? How about 10 million immigrants a year? How about 20 million? Is there any number that's too high? And if so why?

While we are at it, what's the ideal population of the United States? Immigration effects population size more than any other factor. We're at about 325 million people in the United States today and that's a lot.

Our highways are crumbling, many of our cities are painfully overcrowded. How big should we get? Four hundred million? Six hundred million? A billion people? And if you are pushing to increase the size of our population and they are, what's your plan for keeping our natural environment pristine?

Crowded countries are polluted. Every single one of them. Tell us why we should want that here? What sort of skills and education should we look for in immigrants? Not all immigrants are the same? Some start wildly successful companies. Many others go on food stamps. They are not interchangeable widgets, they are human beings. Who should we prefer? What's the ideal level of education an immigrant to this country should have?

Big business doesn't want you to ask this question, they like their immigrants low-skilled and cheap. Ocasio-Cortez does, too. But what happens when technology kills their jobs? And it will. All the major Democrats running for president take money from the technology barons, many of them support self-driving cars. So what do you do with hundreds of thousands of unemployment immigrant cab drivers? Do they all go on welfare?

And speaking of, what sort of government services are immigrants entitled to exactly? Democrats promise universal healthcare. Do immigrants get that, too? Who pays for it? How many immigrants can our system support? Do we have enough doctors and nurses and hospitals to treat the number of immigrants we want to admit? Same question for schools?

The real answer is, of course, nobody knows. Because as of today, we have no idea how many immigrants live illegally in the United States. Shouldn't we find out before we make more plans? And once we do find out, what do we do with them? Who gets deported? Anyone? Or do all of them get to stay? What if the real number of people living here illegally is north of 25 million? And that's entirely possible. That's bigger than the population of 48 out of 50 states. It's enough to change this country completely and forever.

Do all of them get citizenship and voting rights? What about gun rights? And do they immediately start paying into the Reparations for Slavery Fund that Democrats are now promoting? How do you explain that to them? Can we watch that conversation?

And finally what about America's ideals? Democrats are always talking about values when the subject of immigration comes up. They quote from the poem on the Statue of Liberty and tell you about their grandparents.

Well, previous waves of immigrants were asked to buy into this country's most basic ideals -- religious pluralism, free speech, political freedom, equality under the law. Our schools made them learn English and tried to instill patriotism. We called it assimilation. We thought it was critical to our social cohesion. Are we still for that? Do we still think we have values to impart or do we imagine that huge groups of people with nothing in common can share the same country without fighting each other?

It's an important question -- maybe the most important question of all. We never hear anyone ask it. Anyone who dares ask it is banned from Twitter. Instead, you hear the endless drone of self-righteous children barking about racism. That's not enough. The decisions we make today about immigration are irreversible. It will help determine the health of the country we leave to our grandchildren. We should be a lot more serious than we are.

Enrique Acevedo is a Univision anchor and he joins us tonight. Enrique, thanks for coming on. You are relentlessly promoting immigration into the United States often on this show. Have you thought about these questions and what are the answers? What is the ideal number of immigrants you would say we should admit every year?

ENRIQUE ACEVEDO, ANCHOR, UNIVISION: I don't remember promoting immigration in to this country.

CARLSON: Ceaselessly.

ACEVEDO: I remember promoting a comprehensive immigration reform that fixes a broken system and that allows the U.S. to take the full benefits of immigration.

CARLSON: I'm not sure that changes my question.

ACEVEDO: Without the chaos and the humanitarian crisis that we are seeing at the border, Tucker.

CARLSON: Okay, but that doesn't change my question. You say the United States benefits immeasurably from immigration.

ACEVEDO: It does.

CARLSON: And I would agree that we've benefited from immigration for sure, but not all immigration is the same. And so my question to you is, what's the ideal number? Since you are promoting this, how many immigrants a year do you think we should take in? And how big should you are country get and who is going to pay for it?

ACEVEDO: Well, it's an interesting question. Just today the "New York Times" published a report that says by 2034, two thirds of the counties in the country are going to have a deficit in terms of the population that is economically active in terms of the adult population that is joining the workforce.

So without that population, inner cities across the country, two thirds of the countries are going to have a lot of trouble generating economic activity. That's going to hurt our prospects in terms of economic growth.

CARLSON: Unless Americans can afford to have their own children instead of deporting them.

ACEVEDO: From three percent to four percent, so how do you keep that economic growth going? We have --

CARLSON: I'm sorry, you are kind of dodging my question.

ACEVEDO: Well, it's part of fixing the problem and having immigration reform passed through Congress.

CARLSON: Okay, but you are doing what everyone does, which is sort of skate along on platitudes and please don't quote the poem at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty for me. You do this for a living and you haven't thought of the most basic question, which is how many people should we admit a year? Three hundred and twenty five million in the country? Should we get to 500 million? Would it be a better country?

And should the people we admit take part in our universal healthcare program that we are clearly getting, should they?

ACEVEDO: Well, let me give you an example. Canada has a guest worker program with Mexico. It's very successful. Every year thousands of Mexicans get on a plane with a permit. They go to Canada. They work for six to eight months. Canada -- the government establishes how many it needs. They have, you know, full rights in terms of the benefits they have as workers, and they have an important service to the Canadian economy. Once they are done with their job after six to eight months they get to go back to Mexico and they go back to their families and so that's how immigration looks like in a country that is not completely hyperpolarized and stuck in the issue of immigration between open border and serve their economies.

CARLSON: Hold on. So, no, no -- we're hyperpolarized because whenever you try to ask honest questions as I am trying to do right now, you are met with either accusations that you are a racist or a white nationalist or whatever that is, you are a bad person in other words or you're met with these, again, platitudes.

So we don't have a worker program like that. We are not flying anybody in. A lot of them are walking across and they are not leaving and no one on the left wants them to leave.

So just give us a glimpse of what the plan is, what's an ideal worker? How many do we need? What should the population of the country be? Do you have any idea? Can you answer any of those questions?

ACEVEDO: Well, like I said, you know, I'm not an immigration expert. I'm a reporter. I shouldn't have to fill this void in your show of people of people who dedicated their lives to starting the issue of immigration and can come up with these answers.

CARLSON: And you are advocate for illegal immigration.

ACEVEDO: I think we elect people to Congress so they can come up with these answers.

CARLSON: So you don't feel any obligation to think through the policies that you are espousing.

ACEVEDO: What I am here to do is to report the facts and the facts are what is aid, you know in 2034, we are expected to have two thirds of the counties in the country with a deficit in terms of the workforce and we need immigration and, you know, orderly process in terms of immigration to --

CARLSON: Obviously you don't know the answers. So let me ask you one more kind of thematic question here. If your population isn't reproducing, if it's not replacing itself, if people aren't having enough --

ACEVEDO: Which is what is happening in the country, you agree, right?

CARLSON: It's what's happening, and one of the main reasons this is happening is because people can't afford to have children. The middle class is dying in this country.

ACEVEDO: That's one of the explanations probably, yes.

CARLSON: Why wouldn't you take a minute to figure out how to help them have kids because news flash, people want to have kids and if they can, they will. If they can afford it, they will. But they can't afford it. So why are we spending all of this time worrying about the populations of other countries and not at all about our own? Has that occurred?

ACEVEDO: Well, you know, I've said this a hundred times on your show, we can spend more money in places like Central America, countries like Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador which are not Mexico.

CARLSON: Central America.

ACEVEDO: It is important to say that on your network, and see the benefits of that on our border or we can keep spending billions of dollars in our border without making any difference in the countries where these people are coming from.

CARLSON: Wait a second, Americans can't afford to have kids so we need to send more money to Guatemala?

ACEVEDO: That's why it's important to worry about those populations. If you don't want them here, spend more money to keep them there. That's I think pretty common sense.

CARLSON: Okay, so pay them off to go away. Okay, how is that different from like a classic mafia shakedown, is it?

ACEVEDO: From what? I'm sorry?

CARLSON: You know, I wouldn't want this new window in your store to get broken, so why don't you pay me 40 bucks. That's kind of what you are saying.

ACEVEDO: No. I think it's in our best interest to generate, you know, the conditions for these people to stay in their countries, is I would say, an intelligent plan looking forward.

CARLSON: It's our best interest -- all right, yes. Our best interest is to have a country where people can have their own children.

ACEVEDO: I don't know how closing the border or cutting off aid to those countries is going to solve the issue of undocumented immigration. It's just going to make it worse and everybody knows that. So you know, I think it's in our best interest in terms of national security and economic interest to have a well developed region -- North America, Central America.

CARLSON: Okay, we're out of time, but I appreciate it. Thanks for flacking for El Salvador. Good to see you. Absolutely. All right. Now we are done. Thanks.

Mark Morgan, head of the Border Patrol under President Obama. Today, he was on Capitol Hill to testify about what's happening there and he joins us tonight. Mr. Morgan, thanks very much for coming on. So give us a sense of the scale of what's happening on the Mexican border?

MARK MORGAN, FORMER HEAD OF BORDER PATROL: So this is what I have been saying and this is a question that people really need to pay attention to. I am saying, based on 30 years of public service that the crisis we face right now along the southwest border is actually the worst we have ever experienced in our history -- the worst.

And people want to talk about the number back in the 2000s -- 1.5 million. It's the demographics, Tucker. Back then, 90 percent, the overwhelming majority were Mexican males and we were deporting them. Now, it is family units and because of our -- and unaccompanied minors -- and because our laws are broke, we are allowing them in.

You said it right, grab a kid and set one foot on American soil, you are in -- sixty five percent. So we are going to reach a million this year. That means we are going to allow 650,000 into this country most of which we don't know who they are and we will never hear from them again.

CARLSON: So you deal with this -- you have dealt with this issue for many, many years, it was the center of your life. You've dealt with a lot of people on the other side of this, the open borders people. Have you ever met anybody who has made an economic case for it? Who has said, I've studied the numbers and we need to admit a million more people without high school diplomas because it will make our economy thrive?

MORGAN: Exactly, and actually, the facts will show. Illegal immigration, that's what we are talking about. Illegal immigration serves no purpose for anybody. Not the American citizens, or the people that we're allowing to illegally enter. It doesn't help them or us. It's legal immigration.

And with all due respect to your previous guest, first of all, we -- this country is the most generous country in the world. We let a million people in legally last year. We have hundreds of thousands of academic visas, of work visas. So we already are doing that.

The crisis we are talking about at the southwest border is about illegal immigration.

CARLSON: Well, so I mean, I guess since you've brought up the charity and the basic decency of the United States wholly unacknowledged most of the time.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: I have to ask you about a factual claim that a member of Congress recently made that the United States is taking children, keeping them in cages and injecting them with drugs. Have you ever seen that?

MORGAN: I'll tell you what, I am trying to restrain myself with this answer because first of all, the United States Border Patrol, they should be applauded for what she is talking about cages.

In 2014, when this crisis started, they did an incredible job of scrambling, throwing money and putting a facility together to actually care for them properly because their facilities were overcrowded. In 2015, the administration then, we're saying what an incredible, great job the Border Patrol did. And those cages, the reason why they are designed that way is for the safety and security of the people that are in there.

So those comments she is making are, first of all, she is wrong. They are reckless and irresponsible.

CARLSON: That was my assumption. This doesn't seem like a country that would be cruel for cruelty's sake, but that's what they are saying.

MORGAN: And Tucker, that's absolutely right. The men and women, I have been there. I watched the men and women of the Border Patrol. They took care of those kids and they still do today like they are their own kids. I have seen it with my own eyes.

CARLSON: It is shocking that a member of Congress could say something like this. It is slander.

MORGAN: It is.

CARLSON: Mark Morgan, thank you very much. Good to see you. Well, according to the left, there is a new toxin in our environment. It's not mercury. It's not arsenic, it's something called masculinity and it's deadly. Mark Steyn tackles the new poison of masculinity, after the break.


CARLSON: The 2020 Presidential Campaign is already well underway. On the Democratic side, there are dozens of candidates in the race and possibly dozens more to come. On the Republican side, there is just the incumbent President. Everyone assumes he wants to be reelected, most Presidents do.

But what if Donald Trump had decided he has had enough? Too many investigations, too much nastiness, too few upsides. It wouldn't be a crazy conclusion. How would you like to spend your 70's locked in the White House?

So let's say Trump had decided he wants to lose in 2020 and get back to his old life? How would he do that? Let's see. He might start by proposing more than half a billion dollars in Medicare cuts. That's something that nobody outside the libertarian symposia circuit really wants to see, so you do that.

Then he would slash funding for the e-verify program that would allow companies to keep hiring illegal alien labor in violation of a key campaign promise. After that, he would announce we're bringing in even more low- skilled workers that would push down the wages of the people who voted for him - the most vulnerable group in the country.

Finally, he would release a bunch of drug dealers back on to the streets, right in the middle of the worst drug epidemic in history and he'd continue our pointless military intervention in Syria which in no way benefits the United States.

If the President did all of that, the message would be very clear, he has no idea what he ran on in 2016, he just wants out.

Well, let's say voters still didn't get the message. Maybe they were too distracted by the Russia hoax to notice. At that point you have to do something really extreme to get their attention, something so mindless and counterproductive that there is literally no way you could get reelected after doing it. You would raise gas taxes. And in fact, the administration is proposing just that.

According to news reports, the White House is negotiating with Democrats to hike taxes on gasoline in order to fund, quote "infrastructure." This is one of those ideas that everyone in Washington loves. It costs them nothing. They are too rich to care what gas costs and by the way they don't drive.

But if you live outside the coastal cities and you're not rich, higher gas prices are a disaster. They hurt you immediately. That's always true. Anything that raises the price of gasoline whether it's the Green New Deal or some new tax scheme promoted by a fake conservative think tank, crushes the weakest in our society.

Normal people hate it. Many of those people voted for Donald Trump the first time. It's nuts. And it's not like there aren't other smarter less regressive options if you want to raise money, there are many of them. We could roll back some of those 2017 tax cuts which went overwhelmingly to high earners and big companies.

We could tax the billions in remittance flowing from the United States to the rest of the world. Remember that idea? We could tax carried interest like the income it's so obviously is. We should do that anyway just on principle. We can even capital gains like we tax salaries. Mitt Romney might finally pay the same rate as your dentist and that would be satisfying.

And then we could get creative. How about an 80 percent tax on all lobbying produced by former Members of Congress? That's a good one. How about an iPhone tax? Or how about a tough new tax on a trillion-dollar Seattle based internet retailer whose entire business model depends on using public roads to deliver their packages?

Companies like that have put an awful lot of American businesses out of work. They clog our roads. Why aren't they paying for infrastructure? We could go on -- plenty of obvious ideas out there. Hiking taxes on working class rural people is not on the list. Unless you secretly want to retire early, in that case if you are really sick of the job, go with the gas tax.

Democrats are united on one question. Climate change is bad, very bad. As bad as World War II. In fact, existentially bad. We will all die from it.


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The singular crisis that we face, a crisis that could, at its worse, lead to extinction.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If we don't have the bravery to take it on as the most important challenge of our lifetime, then we don't care about those children.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are running outs of runway to be able to fix this problem.

JERRY BROWN, D-CALIF. FORMER GOVERNOR: People are going to die. Habitat will be destroyed. Seas will rise. Insects will spread.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: We're like -- the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change. Like this is the war -- this is our World War II.


CARLSON: So bad they're running out of adjectives. So what's to blame for this world ending cataclysm? Well, a new research paper has the answer. It is, you are not going to be surprised -- toxic masculinity. That's causing global warming.

The paper argues that being environmentally conscious is a stereotypical feminine trait, so men in response assert their masculinity by deliberately destroying the environment and hogging the remote. They drive gas guzzlers. They use plastic bags. They light things on fire. That's what men do.

If we want to save the environment, we have to suppress men. It's like World War II, sort of, anyway.

Author and columnist, Mark Steyn has thought a lot about this question. In fact, he may be adding to the carbon footprint just by his masculinity. He joins us tonight. So Mark, what do you make -- I mean, is this the science that you grew up with?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, I confess I was at first skeptical. If I understand this thesis, my insecurities about my masculinity are causing rising sea levels in the Maldives. And at first I didn't really buy that, but as I think about it, I think in fact it's actually one of the least risible climate science thesis of recent years. So I'm kind of on board with where they are going on this.

CARLSON: But, I mean, how did we wind up with a country in which feminists do science? I mean, isn't that you're sort of bound to get a study like, this right?

STEYN: Yes, I think, in fact, it's very difficult to tell with social science as with climate science whether or not it's an ingenious parody. It's almost impossible to tell in fact, I think this goes back to -- I think the important point here is toxic masculinity.

They are saying that they did a survey here. This is the kind of hard core science behind it in which they gave someone a Walmart gift card and it was pink and had lots of flowery patents on it, so it looked a bit girly, it looked a bit sissy, it looked a bit milk toast panty waist.

So the guy given this gift card went out and bought a lot of very macho masculine things that melt the polar ice caps. Whereas, if you give him something, if you give him -- he is so impressionable, this toxically masculine male that if you give him a masculine type card, he just thinks, "Oh, that's really nice," and he goes out and he buys as Sierra Club tote bag and saves the planet.

This is the kind of social science that the higher education institutions of America are spending a fortune investigating.

CARLSON: I thought climate science was all about ice core samples, but it's about Walmart gift cards?

STEYN: No, no, that's ridiculous because basically climate science is a state of mind, so if you want to go out, you can go and take tree ring samples in the middle of nowhere if you want, but that's for losers.

The big banks are doing a survey where, in fact, you decide that what's heating up the planet is men. A couple of weeks ago on this show, Tucker, you had a report that they were introducing vegetarian days in the New York City schools because red meat has toxically masculine overtones. And, basically, if you look at half the stories you cover every night, toxic masculinity is the sort of underlying subtext of it.

So, basically, when Jerry Brown says we all have to be worried because insects will spread, I mean, these guys are literally predicting a plague of locusts now and the only good thing about the plague of locusts is that they will kill all the men if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's flatulent Holsteins don't get us first.

But between the plague of locusts and plague of flatulent Holsteins, toxically masculine men will be over and then the planet will be saved.

CARLSON: This is just -- I wish there was a Latin term for government by unhappy crazy people because that's what we're witnessing now. Mark Steyn, it is so -- as long as we are having a revolution, I'm glad you are here to chronicle it with us. Thank you.

STEYN: Okay, thanks a lot, Tucker. Good to be with you.

CARLSON: Well, a young man in Kentucky fascinated the country when he claimed to be a boy who vanished without a trace eight years ago. Today, that story took a strange twist and we will tell you what happened, after the break.

Plus, Barack Obama has ignored the scandal, the Joe Biden hair sniffing scandal. But, wait, he was very close to Biden, really his best friend. Where is Obama tonight as his former Vice President twists in the wind? That's just ahead.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: The Best Vice President America has ever had, Mr. Joe Biden.

(Cheering and Applause)

OBAMA: This also give the internet one last chance to -- talk about our bromance.


CARLSON: And now to a story in the Midwest that caught a lot of people's attention today. A young man went to police in Kentucky. He said he had been a six-year-old boy who went missing eight years ago. The nation was fascinated. Today, that story took a strange turn. Fox News' Matt Finn reports on the case for us tonight.


MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT (voice over): This is a six-year-old Timmothy Pitzen next to a computer generated age progression model.

Neighbors in Newport, Kentucky called 911 Wednesday to report a suspicious teen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It broke my heart to see him standing there like he had not a friend in the world.


FINN (voice over): But then shock, as that teen claimed he was Timmothy Pitzen. Pitzen's family said they were cautiously optimistic. Now the FBI tweeting, "A local investigation continues into this person's true identity. To be clear, law enforcement has not and will not forget Timmothy and we hope to one day reunite him with his family. Unfortunately that day will not be today."

In 2011, six-year-old Timmothy Pitzen's mother checked him out of his kindergarten class in Aurora, Illinois. She spent a few days with him at a zoo and water park. Then, apparently killed herself in a Rockport, Illinois hotel leaving behind a chilling note saying her son was okay, but would never be seen again.

Here is Timmothy's family responding.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We know that you are out there somewhere, Tim. And we will never stop looking for you, praying for you and loving you.


FINN (voice over): And tonight, this mystery deepens -- who is the teenager that came forward and where is the real Timmothy?


FINN (on camera): And Tucker, this evening we have now learned the person claiming to be that teenager who suddenly resurfaced is actually a 23-year- old man, Brian Rini of Northern Ohio, apparently a convict. We will continue to investigate why this man put the Pitzen family through this heartache and if there is any silver lining to the story, it's that the case is back in the spotlight perhaps helping the investigators find the real Tim Pitzen -- Tucker.

CARLSON: That is just so cruel. Matt, thank you. And speaking of frauds tonight, we have a Fox News Alert for you. The City of Chicago has announced it is suing the actor, Jussie Smollett for the cost of investigating his fake hate crime back in January.

Prosecutors dropped felony charges against him last week despite ample evidence that he was guilty. Shortly after that, city officials sent him a bill for $130,000.00. It would have been wise, obviously, just to pay it and hope it goes away. But Smollett was refused and now, he is being sued by the city.

Hopefully, the full truth will come out for the sake of the real victims of this hoax, ordinary Americans who have the wrong skin color or supported the wrong presidential candidate. We will continue to follow it, obviously.

Now to an exclusive story for you. A Russian woman tells Fox News she thinks she was manipulated by outside forces in order to entrap Donald Trump adviser, Michael Flynn. Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports exclusively for the show on this story.


SVETLANA LOKHOVA, HISTORIAN (via Skype): I am not a Russian spy and I have never worked for the Russian government. I believe that General Flynn was targeted and I was used to do that.


CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT,(voice over): The allegations center on around the 2014 seminar and dinner at England's University of Cambridge. At the time, General Mike Flynn ran military intelligence for President Obama. Lokhova spoke to Fox News via Skype.


LOKHOVA: General Flynn was the guest of honor. I sat on the opposite side of the table.

HERRIDGE: Were you alone with General Flynn, before, during or after the dinner?

LOKHOVA: I have never been alone with General Flynn.


HERRIDGE (voice over): According to a flier, the Cambridge events were organized with the support of American, Stefan Halper who was later identified by media outlets as a Professor who reportedly assisted the FBI's Russia probe.

In December 2015, as a private citizen, Flynn was paid $45,000.00 to speak at a Russia Today event in Moscow where he shared a table with President Vladimir Putin.


HERRIDGE: Did you ever discuss traveling to Moscow with General Flynn after the dinner?

LOKHOVA: There was absolutely no discussion of going to Moscow with General Flynn.


HERRIDGE (voice over): In February 2016, as Flynn's role in the Trump campaign became public, out of the blue, Lokhova says she was invited to a private dinner with Halper.


LOKHOVA: It was very, very unusual to me. I was an obnoxious academic who absolutely hated all Russians. During the 2016 campaign, Halper also contacted Trump campaign aids. Halper has refused requests for comment about his government work.

In 2017, as Flynn was forced outs as national security adviser over lying about contact with the Russian ambassador, Lokhova says three American media outlets contacted her over a four-day period alleging suspicious contact with Flynn in 2014.


HERRIDGE: Was it a coincidence or do you think it was coordinated?

LOKHOVA: I think there is a high chance that it was coordinated, and I believe it needs to be properly investigated.


HERRIDGE (on camera): Lokhova says she is, quote, "collateral damage" in the Russia probe and she is speaking out to clear her name and to get answers about American, Stefan Halper specifically whether she was used to you target or smear General Flynn -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, that's an amazing story. I think we need to know much more about Stephan Halper.

HERRIDGE: I will stay on it.

CARLSON: I hope you will. Thank you. Catherine Herridge, as always.

HERRIDGE: You bet.

CARLSON: Joe Biden is facing the gravest political crisis of his career, at least this decade anyway, he's had a few. Interestingly though, Barack Obama has remained completely silent. He is not sticking up for the man he claimed was the best Vice President ever. Why is that? That's just ahead.

But first, time for "Final Exam." See if you can beat two experts here at Fox in remembering what happened this past week. After the break, we'll return.


CARLSON: Time now for "Final Exam" where our hardened news professionals compete with one another to find out who has paid the closest attention to the news this past week. Our first contestant tonight Fox contributor and a frequent guest on our show, Lisa Booth. She will be facing off against another frequent guest on our show, Fox Business anchor, Melissa Francis.



CARLSON: Again, I can't even anticipate who will win this.

BOOTH: I did some pushups to get the adrenaline.

CARLSON: Did you really? That's important.

BOOTH: I did some stretching so my arm is limber and with good reach.

CARLSON: It helps. It helps. There is an aerobic element to the game.

FRANCIS: I read the Encyclopedia Britannica twice.

CARLSON: Did you really?

FRANCIS: I'm ready.

BOOTH: Melissa probably prepared --

CARLSON: One person on this set went to Harvard, we are not going to say who.

FRANCIS: Oh come on.

CARLSON: It's the encyclopedia reader.

FRANCIS: It's not me.

CARLSON: Okay, here are the rules. You know the rules. I want to read them for our audience anyway. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. The first person who buzz gets to answer. You have to let wait until I finish asking the question before answering it. You can answer it once I acknowledge by saying your name. Every correct answer is worth a point. If you get it wrong you lose a point. Best of five wins. Makes sense?


CARLSON: All right, we're going to start. Here's question one.

BOOTH: We're ready.

CARLSON: MSNBC is very concerned about the President's threat to shut down the southern border, but not for the reason you'd think. Americans panicked over a possible shortage of which fruit?

BOOTH: Yes, avocados.

FRANCIS: It's rigged.

CARLSON: Lisa Booth?

BOOTH: Avocados.

CARLSON: Avocados.

BOOTH: It's a big crisis, Tucker. Take it seriously.

CARLSON: We have the guacamole crisis.

BOOTH: What we do with a world without guacamole.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The U.S., listen to this, would run out of avocados in three weeks if President Trump shuts down the border with Mexico.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Three weeks before avocados run out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The United States would run out of avocados in three weeks.


FRANCIS: Everybody knew it was avocados.

BOOTH: Oh come on, Melissa, give me some credit.

CARLSON: We need like our own American supply of avocados.

FRANCIS: We do, well, I mean, 15 percent of the avocados we eat come from California. The little other small part comes from Peru.

CARLSON: Are you listening to this?

FRANCIS: It's true.

CARLSON: How did you lose that?

FRANCIS: I know. I knew it was avocados.

BOOTH: Because I stretched, Tucker.

FRANCIS: She is an athlete. I'm ready with the buzzer this time.

CARLSON: Okay, this is a multiple choice. So you have to wait until you hear all the potential answers before you answer.

BOOTH: Okay, so I have got to be patient.

CARLSON: A wild new video on the internet shows tourists running for their lives after a glacier falls into the ocean sending a giant wave crashing to the shore. In which country did this country take place? Was it A. Norway? B. New Zealand? Or C. Iceland?

FRANCIS: Iceland.

CARLSON: Was it? I don't know the answer to this.

FRANCIS: Yes, it was.

CARLSON: Lots of ice in Iceland thought. Was it Iceland?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're going to see nature's power send a group of tourists in Iceland running. That's a glacier tumbling down sending the tourists sprinting for their lives. The collapsing glacier triggered a huge wave -- you're going to see that coming now. That came crashing towards the visitors, now thankfully -- this is a little bit of a spoiler, but no one was hurt thankfully.


FRANCIS: Do you know what's that called? Calving is when that --

CARLSON: You not only knew the answer you knew the back story.

BOOTH: Same with the avocado.

CARLSON: Same with the avocado.

FRANCIS: That was a good story. I watch "The Five" is what happened there. That's how I knew that.

CARLSON: What percentage of American domestic avocado consumption comes from Peru.

FRANCIS: Like 2%, I think.

CARLSON: Two percent, in that range.

FRANCIS: Something like that, yes, yes.

CARLSON: Just checking.

BOOTH: There is extra credit?

CARLSON: We're setting a baseline for the next question. This requires two answers so please listen carefully.


BOOTH: Okay.

CARLSON: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez complains quite a bit. This week, her gripe was about food. Specifically the price of an item at La Guardia airport in New York. It was too expensive she says. What food was she complaining about and how much does she say it costs? Melissa Francis?

FRANCIS: Croissant, 7 bucks.

CARLSON: Seven dollar croissant?


BOOTH: Yes. I've got the minimum --

FRANCIS: I mean, she's an idiot if she bought it. I don't know, I wouldn't buy a $7.00 croissant --

CARLSON: Was it a $7.00 croissant?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is demanding more dough. Here's what she tweeted, "Croissants at La Guardia are going for seven dollars a apiece. Yet some people think getting a whole hour of personal dedicated human labor for $15.00 is too expensive."

Republican Senator Ted Cruz tweeted back, "Oh the humanity."


BOOTH: Darn, I knew that one.

FRANCIS: I knew the avocado one.

BOOTH: That's true, all right.

FRANCIS: So it's like a draw at this point.

CARLSON: That is good. Man, you both are on this.

FRANCIS: I don't think there are any prizes anyway, so I don't think we should not worry about it.

BOOTH: The most important prize ...

CARLSON: There is -- of course, there is a prize. I'm not going to tell what you it is. Don't say it. You will find out. This is question four, also multiple choice. Engineering company, Boston Dynamics unveiled a creepy new robot -- all robots are creepy by the way -- that resembles a bird. This robot can stack boxes and move around the warehouse by itself. What type does the robot does the robot look like? Don't answer. Is it A. A penguin? B. An ostrich? Or C. A flamingo? What is it? Melissa Francis.

BOOTH: Ostrich.

FRANCIS: Ostrich. B. An ostrich.

CARLSON: Okay, is it ostrich robot?

FRANCIS: I don't even know what that is.

CARLSON: It's a box stocking ostrich robot.

FRANCIS: Boston Dynamics. Remember, the last one was that creepy dog.

CARLSON: For no points at all, I am just going to ask you this because I can't control myself. Will that robot make our lives better?


CARLSON: No, you're right. You are absolutely right. You don't get points. But you deserve them.

BOOTH: That's cool.

CARLSON: I know, but it's true. But you had the right answer. Okay, final question. Two-point question. Today's daily double. Some customers add McDonald's over this week were angry after the restaurant introduced a brand new burger on April 1st and then admitted it was an April fool's prank. What was the name of the strange new McDonald's burger? Melissa Francis?

BOOTH: I've lost it.

FRANCIS: This is my favorite story of the week. McPickle.

CARLSON: McPickle, that's not a burger.

FRANCIS: Yes, it was a burger made of pickles. We thought about doing it on the 4:00 p.m. show, "After the Bell." You've got to watch it, it's a good show.

CARLSON: I know. I mean, I watch it, anyway.

FRANCIS: You have too. We did most of these stories on "After the Bell" that's what's wrong with this. Sorry.

CARLSON: Is she right, was it the McPickle.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: McDonald's some customers going after the chain after jokingly it teased this McPickle burger in Australia, they say, they want it on the menu for real.


CARLSON: Can I just ask you, why didn't you do that story?

FRANCIS: I think we blabbed in another segment and so we ran out of time by the time we got to this.

BOOTH: Can she lose a point for not doing the story?

CARLSON: That was so good.

FRANCIS: Those were like all of our kickers from the week. That's basically what we do on "After the Bell." I shouldn't be allowed to do this anymore because this is basically what we like to do at 4:00 p.m.

CARLSON: That's unbelievable. So you've just won the covered Eric Wemple mug. This is Eric Wemple from the Jeff Bezo's website. He came on the show once and loved it as can you tell. This is for your morning coffee.

FRANCIS: Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Drink and think of us.

FRANCIS: And we're going to have him sign it at some point or his wife or whatever.

BOOTH: Disgraced my family and myself tonight.

FRANCIS: I love it. Do you want to share it?

CARLSON: Lisa Booth --

FRANCIS: You know what, I am going to give her the mug.

CARLSON: I know it's unattractive, but it's still a prize.

FRANCIS: It is. It's fabulous.

CARLSON: Thank you, Lisa. Thank you, Melissa.

FRANCIS: She knew avocado.

BOOTH: You're a great guy. I knew it, but you know, I wasn't quick enough. Stretching was in vain.

CARLSON: We will see you both very soon. That's it for "Final Exam." Pay close attention to the news all week -- McPickles included and we'll see you back every Thursday. See if you can beat our experts. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: When a small army of heavily armed Federal agents arrested Roger Stone at dawn two months ago, they took every precaution. They closed the street. They closed the canal behind his home. Stone's neighbors stayed indoors. The only witnesses to the arrest, a crew from CNN.


JOHN BERMAN, ANCHOR, CNN: Exclusive footage you're looking at right now from CNN as the FBI arrives at Roger Stone's residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida taking him into custody.

They arrived before dawn there, before six or just after 6:00 a.m. A dozen officers, we're told.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FBI, open the door.


CARLSON: So, how did CNN get that exclusive? How did they know to get there early? Well, they were tipped off, obviously, by their friends in the Mueller investigation. That's how these things work, always. Ask anyone in journalism.

But instead of admitting that, CNN attacked anyone who dared to ask questions as an alt-right conspiracy theorist.


OLIVER DARCY, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER, CNN: On the right, on the fringes of the right, a conspiracy theory spread. And I won't get into it. But it was about CNN or Robert Mueller and it spread.


DARCY: Right.

STELTER: -- by Mueller.

DARCY: Sure.

STELTER: Give me a break.

DARCY: Right. To embarrass Roger Stone and to record his arrest, so I guess it would embarrass him. It's like they were saying that's propaganda.

A lot of people, including some mainstream commentators and journalists, started asking questions about this conspiracy theory. And, I think, as journalists, we have to be very careful not to allow bad faith actors to hijack the conversation, and to move the story away from what it really should be.


CARLSON: How dare they ask questions -- that's not allowed. Okay, let's get this over with. Let's see the proof. Let's find out for sure. "The Federalist" tried to do that. They filed a FOIA request to get CNN's e- mails to the FBI on the day before the arrest, but the FBI shut them down. They covered for their allies at CNN.

We mentioned this on last night's show and CNN went ballistic. They're guilty as hell and therefore highly defensive. You're liars, they screamed. Well, let's see.

Why doesn't CNN push the FBI to abide by a legal Freedom of Information Act request and release the relevant e-mails, add some facts to this debate -- it's called reporting. We called CNN to see if they planned to do that. Of course they never responded to us because they're lying.

For eight years, Joe Biden served dutifully as Barack Obama's Vice President. By all accounts did a good job. According to Obama, it was more than a political arrangement, it was a deep and personal friendship.

Two years ago, he surprised Joe Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and he described the Vice President as both a trusted elder statesman and one of his closest friends.


OBAMA: It was eight and a half years ago that I chose Joe to be my Vice President. There has not been a single moment since that time that I have doubted the wisdom of that decision.

Joe's candid, honest counsel has made me a better President and a better Commander-in-Chief. So, all told, that's a pretty remarkable legacy, an amazing career in public service, it is as Joe once said, a big deal.



CARLSON: Two years later, Biden is running for President and he's the middle of one of the worst stories that's ever surrounded him, one of the most damaging to his political career. The mob wants him out of the race for the sin of hugging people.

If there's anybody who could halt this scandal immediately, it's President Obama, with a single statement. Nobody else on the left commands as much respect as he does. So what has President Obama done to help his old friend? Well, it's not about him, so nothing, nothing at all.

Dana Perino hosts "The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino," here on Fox. One of the great people in the building, we'll just say the greatest person in the building and she joins us tonight.


CARLSON: So this is where the Biden story in my view gets poignant. So, Biden served Obama in the most self-effacing possible way and took a lot of patronizing abuse from Obama staffers I happen to know in the White House and he put up with it.

Now he needs Obama only to issue a two-line statement saying, "He's not a molester, he's just hugging people," and Obama won't do that. Why is that?

PERINO: Well, one, I think that Obama -- I think Obama is doing this right. I think he has only one chance to weigh in either as the kingmaker in his primary or to step in at the last moment, if there's a real nasty primary at the end, he only has one shot to do that.

Biden has to prove that he can win this on his own. Imagine if Obama had to come out and try to save him now. Besides hundreds of more women could come out and say they have similar experiences with Joe Biden. He's been hugging people his whole life, is what he says.

So I think that President Obama is doing the exact right thing. Now, it's possible that Michelle Obama who is on an extended book tour, maybe she gets asked about this on the trail, and if she says something, that could help him, but you know, Stacey Abrams, the woman who will not concede that she lost in the Georgia election, she kind of threw Joe Biden a lifeline today. She said, "We do not need our candidates to be perfect. This cannot be -- perfection cannot be a litmus test."

This helps Joe Biden. Besides, for all those other candidates, they don't really need to commit murder when your opponent is committing political suicide.

CARLSON: No, no. It's true.

PERINO: So let Joe Biden be out there and he's going to have to prove he can win on his own. Imagine if they were like, "Oh, you have to have Obama come and save you." That would be bad.

CARLSON: I just think if it was -- I know for a fact, because I know you very well, if it was your friend whose character was being attacked, you would defend him.

PERINO: It would be very hard for me not say something, but I wasn't President. I honestly think that the best thing that Obama can do is stay out of this until he is needed possibly at the last moment or until there's a nominee.

Besides, what if Obama comes out and says this -- it chills everybody else. And also, Joe Biden doesn't even actually have a campaign yet. So, I wouldn't do it. And that's Joe Biden's fault. I mean, his timing is his timing. But I think Obama is doing the right thing.

CARLSON: Man, I want my friends to stick up for me.

PERINO: I would stick up for you.

CARLSON: But it's politics. It's a different world, you're right. Dana Perino, who sticks up for her friends, for the record. Great to see you.

PERINO: Yes, thank you. I do.

CARLSON: Thank you. That's it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and group think. We will be back. Good night from Washington. But the night is not over. Stay right where you are in ...

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.