This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 24, 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 a brief and shining moment earlier in the week, the National Press Corps felt a mild pang of conscience for mishandling the Covington High School story so thoroughly.

But that moment has passed, just a blip on the screen. And the press is now renewing its attack on that group of High School boys while giving their accusers a pass. We've got details just ahead, it's nauseating. That's a preview.

But first, the Border wall battle's approaching a climax today. Republicans and Democrats in the Congress held votes on two competing proposals that would have ended the government shutdown, but in the end, did not.

Chief National Correspondent, Ed Henry was there, as always, and has the latest for us. Hey, Ed.

ED HENRY, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, good to see you.

As I've often said, you know this Tucker, you can try to teach a goat how to climb a tree but you're better off hiring a squirrel in the first place. Actually, I've never said that before until now.

That was actually said by a Republican Senator, John Kennedy. You see him there on the left. I'm of course quoting the always-folksy, Republican Senator Kennedy, who was trying to explain one plan pushed by Chuck Schumer there.

Kennedy's point being, we know a squirrel can actually climb a tree just as we know a wall or a barrier of any kind will provide some kind of defense. But Kennedy said the Schumer plan would not get the job done on border security because it would have opened the government without money for any kind of barrier.

A half dozen Republicans in the Senate broke ranks, including Lisa Murkowski, you see her there, supported the Democratic plan because she said the plan was flawed, but she wants to get the government open, so she supported it anyway.

Joe Manchin was the only Democrat who broke with his party. He voted for the Republican plan by Mitch McConnell that would open the government, but also fund the wall and make changes to the DACA that not just the President wants, but many Democrats have previously backed.

Neither plan though got the needed 60 votes, so we're still stuck. So, back to Senator Kennedy, he said it's like a scene in the movie Pulp Fiction, where John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson are driving along, Travolta accidentally shoots a character named Marvin in the backseat, Kennedy said federal workers are innocent and they are caught in the crossfire tonight.

And, in fact, the President, a short time ago, told reporters, he respects those furloughed employees, and is now considering a third plan, where he would agree to open the government for three weeks if he gets a down payment on the $5.7 billion for a wall, for a barrier while they negotiate. So, he wants a down payment tonight, Tucker.

There are also White House officials saying in private he's considering the possibility of finally declaring a national emergency, Tucker.

CARLSON: Sounds like we may be getting closer to that moment, Ed. Ed Henry for us. Thank you very much, Ed.

HENRY: Good to see you.

CARLSON: So, what exactly is the Democratic Border Security proposal? Would it actually secure the border? Well we had some time today, so we checked. And in a word, no, it would not.

The Democratic bill, in the Senate that Ed was just telling you about, simply restores previous funding levels for the Border Patrol and other existing programs. So, you have to ask yourself, when you consider that, was the border secure in December before the shutdown?

Well, no, it wasn't. And that's why we're having this debate right now. Then, how would it be more secure after a bill that doesn't change anything passes? Well, it wouldn't be more secure, and that's the point of the legislation, to maintain the broken status quo, let's be honest about that.

Meanwhile, in the House, Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Bennie Thompson says he plans to introduce a bill that contains billions for border security, but nothing for a wall.

Thompson has a brand-new idea, he's telling us. He says he can secure the border with the marvels of technology. He recently told PBS that cutting- edge machines can help us, quote, identify those vulnerabilities on the border.

Thompson's plan can expect enthusiastic support from the Congresswoman from Tech-Land, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Here's her most recent suggestion for the border. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing.

Technology to scan the cars coming through the ports of entry, and that is to detect guns. It's like an electronic dog almost to - to detect drugs, guns and other contraband.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It's really like an Electronic Dog that can detect contraband. On level (ph), that's hilarious. We've laughed about it before. But it's also patronizing, really. You'd have to be totally ignorant of what's happening on our Southern border to believe that more surveillance is going to solve the problem.

We have an awful lot of surveillance technology there already. We've got drones, cameras, sensors, radar, dirigibles. We have it there, in part, because the Bush Administration put it there. That Administration spent more than a billion dollars on something called the Secure Border Initiative Network.

They use technology to watch about 50 miles of our Southern border. Congressman Bennie Thompson himself called that program "Grave and expensive disappointment." Well Thompson was right about that.

What's changed is that Democrats now support grave and expensive disappointments. They specialize in grave and expensive disappointments. They're pushing one now. And that's short-sighted.

Leaving the politics aside, it's not a good idea because our Southern border is one of America's most dangerous vulnerabilities. That's not a talking point. It's literally true, and here's why.

As of tonight, Mexico is an intact country. Will it remain an intact country? Maybe but maybe not. Mexico is a deeply unstable place, not an attack on the Mexican people. It's an acknowledgment of what anyone who knows anything about the country will tell you.

The national murder rate in Mexico is five times ours. Since 2006, more than 250,000, a quarter million people have been murdered in Mexico. That includes hundreds of politicians and judges. There is a war going on there, and it's spurred by drug cartels that reach into the highest levels of the Mexican government, not an exaggeration.

The Attorney General of an entire Mexican state recently pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges. The Governor of a state on the U.S. border took bribes to let cartels operate freely, which they did.

And then, just the other day, Mexico's previous President was credibly accused at trial in court by a witness of taking a $100 million bribe from "El Chapo" Guzman. In effect, Mexico has become a narco-state.

But it's not even the most volatile country in the region. Nicaragua is in severe turmoil right now. That gets no coverage but it's real. Parts of El Salvador are largely controlled by gangs. Venezuela, meanwhile, is literally falling apart.

A recent Brookings Institution report predicted that a total collapse of Venezuela, which could happen any day, might create 8 million refugees. For perspective, that's more refugees than fled the entire Syrian Civil War. And keep in mind that that flood of humanity upended all of Europe.

Something similar could easily happen here, to us, and it likely will, if we ignore the problem, which we are doing. And yet, the position of Democrats in the Congress is that everything is fine, and you're nuts if you disagree. Nothing needs to be done.

Well that's the definition of recklessness. In fact, it's worse than recklessness. It's like letting your kids play in traffic. You wouldn't do that to people you cared about. You prevent it from happening.

Democrats have become extremists on the question of borders. But you never know that from watching television or reading the paper. The media won't say it, and nor will most Republicans, by the way.

Even in the Trump Administration, some officials seem intent on making Nancy Pelosi's case for her. The Republicans are the real extremists here.

Here's what Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross said today when he was asked about workers who aren't being paid during the shutdown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILBUR ROSS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: The people might have to pay a little bit of interest, but the idea that it's paycheck or zero is not a really valid idea.

There have been ads run by a number of the public-sector credit unions.

Those have announced very, very low interest-rate loans to bridge people over the gap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, more debt, more interest payments, that's the solution? No, it's not. Those are the last things that most Americans need. That was an idiotic thing to say. Look for Wilbur Ross' words to be aired every day for the next three years on CNN. They know a propaganda win when they see one, and it's a shame.

And it's also a distraction because it doesn't change the nature, the fundamental nature of this crisis.

Our borders remain vulnerable, and the stakes are higher than they have ever been, thanks to the chaos just south of them. Leaders who cared about this country would be staying up late, trying to fix that problem. Democratic leaders are trying to make it worse. That's the bottom line truth.

Enrique Acevedo is an Anchor with Univision, he joins us tonight. Enrique, thanks a lot for coming on. So--

ENRIQUE ACEVEDO, UNIVISION ANCHOR: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --there is actual chaos. I don't need to tell you. You cover the region. In Latin America, in Mexico, it's ongoing. Salvador, it's ongoing. Nicaragua, it's been going on for a little more than a year, about a year. And in Venezuela, it is boiling over.

So, Brookings says we could have 8 million refugees, which will come not simply to the United States but to neighboring countries, but a lot of them would come here, a lot of them have come here. So, why shouldn't we be taking steps to control our border in the face of a looming threat like that?

ACEVEDO: I think we have for the past half a century, Tucker. The problem here is not border security. The problem is that border enforcement has become the only strategy, not part of a more comprehensive larger strategy in the U.S.

We want to seal the border. But we're really suffocating the border by investing billions of dollars in making it one of the most, I would argue, the most guarded region in the entire world just, I mean to - to take their data the--

CARLSON: Right.

ACEVEDO: --the numbers. Our security presence in the U.S.-Mexico border is similar to the one we keep between South and North Korea in terms of manpower. So, I would argue that the - the border is as secure as it's ever been. And we're ready to--

CARLSON: OK. How--

ACEVEDO: --to try to, you know - yes.

CARLSON: OK. I'm - I'm just laughing by the - I mean look, this is cable news. We - we don't have an hour.

But let me just say, if you're interested, if you're watching at home, look up the stats you just heard on Google and you'll see that they are invalid to put it plainly (ph). Now here's the--

ACEVEDO: They can look up the - the kind of man - of manpower we have at the border--

CARLSON: --here's the - here's - here's - right. OK. OK--

ACEVEDO: --the - the, you know, over 21,000 our men, military drones--

CARLSON: --but - but look here's - here's - here's the point. I mean we've done (ph)--

ACEVEDO: --etcetera.

CARLSON: --look, no one, I think, makes an argument again - against immigrants. I'm not making argument against immigrants. I'm for immigrants. But we've got over 20 million in our country, whose identities we can't ascertain because they're here illegally. So, whatever we're doing is not working.

But my point is about what could happen, not what's already happened. 8 million people could be displaced and moving north. If you had a 100,000 people forming in Tijuana, in the San Ysidro border, you couldn't control them. They would swarm the border like that's a real thing.

It's happened all over the world. It's happened in Latin America, which is why Brazil has militarized its bordering. Guyana has. Are they racist for doing that? I mean, seriously.

ACEVEDO: They're actually - they're actually taking Venezuelan refugees, Brazil, Colombia, all the neighboring countries over around 3 million since the - the humanitarian crisis--

CARLSON: OK. But please don't dodge the question.

ACEVEDO: --really it got worse in Venezuela. No, but you're saying--

CARLSON: OK.

ACEVEDO: --8 million people could flee Venezuela. 3 million people already have, and the vast majority of them--

CARLSON: OK.

ACEVEDO: --are in neighboring countries. Will all of them come to the U.S.?

CARLSON: And it's deeply destabilizing, look--

ACEVEDO: That's really unlikely.

CARLSON: --OK. OK. OK, hold on. It's deeply destabilizing to the countries that border Venezuela because mass migration always is destabilizing.

ACEVEDO: It is a challenge.

CARLSON: Doesn't mean the people are bad. Doesn't mean you don't sympathize - I would do the same thing.

ACEVEDO: I agree.

CARLSON: I'd get out of Venezuela today. I get it. But the bordering countries have a right to determine who comes in because it affects them. Look what's happened to Europe--

ACEVEDO: By all means.

CARLSON: --in the wake of the Syrian Civil War. So, in the face of this, which is happening right now, you and the other lunatics are telling us, "Oh, it's wrong. It's wrong to secure your border," like on what grounds are you saying that--

ACEVEDO: I - I'm--

CARLSON: --exactly.

ACEVEDO: No, I'm saying it - I'm saying it right now. We've - I've always said this on your show, Tucker, we agree on this. The U.S. has every right to secure its border.

CARLSON: Right.

ACEVEDO: I just think we don't agree on this strategy.

You want to keep spending billions of - of dollars in militarizing the border. You want to keep spending billions of dollars in trying to seal the border. I say let's spend more money on the root causes of immigration. Let's spend more money on trying to prepare--

CARLSON: So--

ACEVEDO: --for the humanitarian crisis we're facing for the new reasons why people are migrating--

CARLSON: Well I'm - I'm - wait, wait, wait, hold on. You - this - this is - hold on, this is - this is--

ACEVEDO: --like climate change instead of just focusing on border security like this is the--

CARLSON: --this is (ph) BS.

ACEVEDO: --the magic solution.

CARLSON: I can't keep - I can't keep up here. Very quickly, let's just isolate one of the claims you just made that we need to spend more money (ph)--

ACEVEDO: Yes.

CARLSON: --in the root causes. So, the root cause of what I think is imminent immigration from Venezuela here is the collapse of the Venezuelan government. What should we do - that's the root cause. What should we do about that exactly, seriously?

ACEVEDO: Well, first of all, I think that, you know, a - important contingent of Venezuelans have come here legally with visas with--

CARLSON: OK. But please don't dodge the question.

ACEVEDO: --you know--

CARLSON: You said we need to - we need to--

ACEVEDO: No, but--

CARLSON: --address the root problem. That's the root problem. The Ven--

ACEVEDO: Right.

CARLSON: --the Maduro government is collapsing.

ACEVEDO: Well finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in--

CARLSON: So, what should we do about it?

ACEVEDO: --Venezuela is a good - good first step.

CARLSON: What would that be? What would be the peace--

ACEVEDO: Today, President Maduro has said--

CARLSON: OK. But what can we do about it?

ACEVEDO: --well negotiations. I know he has been manipulating and abusing negotiations and dialog for over the past five years and he's now (ph)--

CARLSON: Should we send troops there?

ACEVEDO: --I - I don't think a military intervention with a history of--

CARLSON: Oh, you don't have an answer. There's no answer.

ACEVEDO: --no, no, look, but - but look at the history of military interventions--

CARLSON: I mean the U.S. can't fix Venezuela, I mean come on.

ACEVEDO: --in the U.S. You're just talking about Central America right now and about Nicaragua and other countries--

CARLSON: But we're making the same point.

ACEVEDO: --where a lot of - most of the refugees are coming from and that has to do (ph)--

CARLSON: We're making the same point.

ACEVEDO: --in large parts with - with the history of--

CARLSON: OK. It's America's fault. OK, so--

ACEVEDO: --of U.S. intervention in - in Central America.

CARLSON: --so you're - you're kind of - you're kind of undercutting--

ACEVEDO: You have to recognize that, Tucker.

CARLSON: --you're undercutting on argument. You're saying the U.S. has to get involved in these Latin countries in order to prevent--

ACEVEDO: Not militarily, of course, not.

CARLSON: --it is - well not militarily.

ACEVEDO: I didn't say (ph) militarily.

CARLSON: We need to send them more money. We send them a lot of money.

ACEVEDO: Not at this point.

CARLSON: And it hasn't helped at all. OK. So, we need to send them more money and then they'll stop coming here? Are you making that argument? How much will we have to send to keep them stop coming here?

ACEVEDO: No, in the case - the - the reasons why people are feeling from Venezuela are different from the reasons they're fleeing from--

CARLSON: So, what do you do about this root cause?

ACEVEDO: --countries in Central America.

CARLSON: Why not just build a freaking wall--

ACEVEDO: But saying - if you want to talk about Venezuela--

CARLSON: --and call it a day.

ACEVEDO: --if you want to talk about Venezuela where, by the way, diplomats - U.S. American diplomats are today remaining behind despite grave danger without being paid. And that's, I think, truly heroic.

But if you want to talk about Venezuela and the reasons why people are fleeing, maybe finding a peaceful solution to the conflict there would help. And having the U.S. which has played--

CARLSON: OK.

ACEVEDO: --I think the Trump Administration a very positive role in this sense--

CARLSON: OK.

ACEVEDO: --could - could, you know, be--

CARLSON: Yes. Whatever! It's not our country.

ACEVEDO: --be part of that solution.

CARLSON: This is our country. And the prospect of being invaded by desperate people--

ACEVEDO: Yes, but we - we live in an international (ph) world whether we like it or not.

CARLSON: --no, I don't know. I - and I actually--

ACEVEDO: You can't remain isolated.

CARLSON: --don't like the idea that you could be invaded, and you're not allowed to do anything about it. That seems like a kind of baseline--

ACEVEDO: And look - look how well multilateralism has--

CARLSON: --request.

ACEVEDO: --has worked in the case of Venezuela. All of the world is backing--

CARLSON: OK.

ACEVEDO: --the U.S. on this. Maybe the Trump Administration will now learn, hopefully, that it works when you, you know, you--

CARLSON: Let me - let me just bottom-line it. I'll--

ACEVEDO: --your working with partners will be good (ph).

CARLSON: --I'll get the last word for once. If the rest of the world is backing it, it's got to be bad for us. I think that's a - that's a kind of fair assumption.

ACEVEDO: I don't think so.

CARLSON: Yes, I think so. Enrique, great to see you.

ACEVEDO: That's - that's where we disagree the most.

CARLSON: You got the last word. Good job.

ACEVEDO: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you.

Well after a very brief period of regret, almost instantaneous, the press is renewing its offensive against those dangerous Catholic school children in Kentucky who must be suppressed. We'll show you evidence, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the media war against the menacing children of Covington Catholic at Kentucky continues tonight. The brief moment of media regret has been forgotten entirely.

Yesterday, the TODAY show, questioned especially terrifying Covington student Nick Sandmann, they suggested that he had attacked a grown man, Nathan Phillips by not bowing down or running away, when Phillips approached him as he should have.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH CLARK GUTHRIE, CO-ANCHOR OF TODAY, NBC NEWS: There's something aggressive about standing there, standing your ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It's just - don't just stand there, it's aggressive.

Well today, that same anchor over at NBC interviewed Phillips. He's the Native American Elder you've been hearing so much about.

And that anchor had no shortage of material to ask Mr. Phillips about his numerous false statements, which he has made on tape recently, his misrepresentation of his military record, or this interview in which Phillips describes a group of passive stationary children as a "Lynch mob." Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATHAN PHILLIPS, OMAHA NATION ELDER AND ACTIVIST: The same faces that were on the crowds of those youth at - at on - at the D.C. was the same faces of - of the youth that were surrounding the young Black woman who was trying to get an education.

And the scorns and the scowls that were on the pictures there, the same pictures of when you see pictures of lynchings, the same faces on the - on the folks that were doing the lynchings, that's what these young people's faces looked like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: This is becoming a society that speaks almost exclusively in cliches, and that's a - that's a sign of decline. In the case of the tape you just say, that was false. It was totally misleading and slanderous. And lies like that will hurt these kids for life.

So, maybe Phillips could have been asked about that, but no. Instead, he got the softest interview network has - television has done since Princess Die. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUTHRIE: He does wish that he had walked away. Was that enough for you, or do you think he should have apologized?

PHILLIPS: Me. I'd be, like, way down on the list of his people he needs to apologize to.

GUTHRIE: Did you hear anyone say, "Build that wall?" It isn't audible on the video clips, I think, that are out there, but did you hear that?

PHILLIPS: You know, I did hear that. And I have seen some out there on the - on the internets where there's - you can hear them saying, "Build that wall."

GUTHRIE: And how did you feel in that moment? Did you, yourself, feel threatened?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Joe Concha writes about Media for The Hill, and joins us tonight. Joe, I know the anchor you just saw who's very - actually a very nice person, I would say, I don't think a mean person, but that's not journalism. It's nauseating, actually.

And why would - didn't some producers say, "I'm sorry. You have to do a real interview at some point. This is a news story. Do a news interview." Why weren't they willing to do that?

JOE CONCHA, THE HILL MEDIA REPORTER: Or Tucker, after the fact when Nathan Phillips said, "I saw videos where you could hear the students chanting Build that Wall!" NBC News needs to go back and say A, review all the tapes, and then, B, once they come to the conclusion that every other news organization has come to, which is no one has heard anyone chant "Build that Wall!" they have to tag it out, and you know what a tag is, after the reports say, NBC News could not verify what Nathan Phillips was saying.

And you're right about that being a softball interview. He was - he was asked by Savannah Guthrie in the beginning, "How are you doing? How are you feeling?"

And how can you ask, if you're Savannah Guthrie, how do you not have the self-awareness to just know that if you ask the 15-year-old kid that was exonerated by all those videos if he should apologize, how do you not ask Nathan Phillips that same question?

That's all people at home want. Just some--

CARLSON: Exactly.

CONCHA: --consistency. You ask him to apologize. You have - have to ask Nathan Phillips to apologize as well.

CARLSON: You know, Conservatives spend a lot of time complaining about how tough the media are on Trump and his supporters, OK.

I don't mind it when journalists are tough. We almost never point out the real crime, which is, they go soft on everybody else. Everything is cheesecloth in front of the lens, soft focus. I mean it's disgusting actually.

CONCHA: Yes, the soft part, you're - you're right about that.

Read The New York Times today where they did a full feature on the Black Israel rights - Israel right - Israel rights, excuse me, where at - at no point do they reference the homophobic slurs that this group traffics in, the racist slurs that they traffic in, then juxtapose this with Dan Levin, New York Times Reporter tweeted out earlier, and I - I had the producers do a full screen quote on this, just so everybody could read along at home because it's remarkable.

"I'm a New York Times reporter writing about #exposechristianschools. Are you in your 20s or younger who went to a Christian school? I'd like to hear about your experience and its impact on your life."

Gee and (ph) do you think this reporter's going in with a nefarious agenda? And, by the way, you could paint any public institution if you solicit enough people--

CARLSON: Yes.

CONCHA: --as a horrible place whether it be a public school, private school, Hebrew school, Muslim school.

And this reporter is going to then present a story that's going to be seen as objective by his editors to readers who won't know better to take down the Catholic institution, #exposechristianschools.

This is - I don't use this word very often, Tucker, because I don't like the whole hyperbole cable news thing, this is disgusting for a reporter--

CARLSON: I agree.

CONCHA: --to do this.

CARLSON: I agree with that. Joe Concha, thank you very much for that.

CONCHA: All right, thank you.

CARLSON: You don't want to be a young man in America right now. And that is, again, is not hyperbole. Look at the numbers. Their economic prospects are worse. The education system is built to favor girls. And now, their entire sex is routinely attacked with smears about toxic masculinity or their evil smiles.

How do parents respond to this? Let's say you have a son. What do you do exactly? Melissa Braunstein has thought a lot about this. She's a Senior Contributor to The Federalist, which is excellent, and she joins us tonight.

So, this is a real question for those of us who have boys. How do you respond to a culture that hates them for being boys?

MELISSA LANGSAM BRAUNSTEIN, THE FEDERALIST SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR: Well that's something I'm - I'm starting to figure out. We have three girls, and we had our first son last fall. So, we're new to the whole boy thing.

But it is - it is a huge question on my mind at this point because it became very apparent to me, last year, when I was pregnant and starting to think about these things that our culture is sending very different messages about being a girl in America and being a boy.

CARLSON: Yes.

BRAUNSTEIN: Where, as my daughters are constantly told they can be whatever they want to be and whoever they want to be, which I applaud--

CARLSON: Me too.

BRAUNSTEIN: --I feel like the - the messages being sent toward my son are much more negative and narrow, and that he's being already warned, even at the size of a doll, that toxic masculinity is an issue.

And I - to me that this is so ridiculous that we're pigeonholing boys into this category, everyone is terrible, and girls, we somehow - somehow, we're able to recognize there's - everyone's an individual--

CARLSON: But the effects are--

BRAUNSTEIN: --and the others are (ph).

CARLSON: --failure, suicide--

BRAUNSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: --drug addiction.

BRAUNSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: I mean and you can see it in the numbers. So, this is - it's - it's actually a crisis, for real.

BRAUNSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: So, what do you do?

BRAUNSTEIN: Well I think it's important, in terms of boys, making sure they have positive male role models--

CARLSON: Yes.

BRAUNSTEIN: --especially fathers, to have engaged and involved fathers as much as possible. If not, for whatever reason, to have people in the community that the boys can look up to, who are demonstrating positive leadership role model behaviors, whether it's being a scholar or a teacher or warrior--

CARLSON: Yes.

BRAUNSTEIN: --or any other of an array of things just to make sure the boys know there are wonderful ways to be a man, masculinity is not toxic, and that there's no reason to be ashamed or to feel sidelined.

CARLSON: The way you are is not a crime.

BRAUNSTEIN: Yes.

CARLSON: It might be worth repeating that to them. Good luck! Good luck raising your boy. He's lucky to have three sisters.

BRAUNSTEIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you.

Well Big Tech is becoming much more like Big Brother every day, China leading the way on that. Mark Steyn has thought this through. What will our country look like a 100 years from now, or maybe two years from now? He joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: TECH TYRANNY.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well modern technology is supposed to make our lives easier and freer. That's the promise. Increasingly though, some suspect that the gadgets we use every day are becoming tools to control us.

A recent piece in Wired magazine, and it's worth reading, and it captures this phenomenon and the threat (ph) of it. It describes what's happening in China right now under its social rating system. Here's the lead of the piece.

"A friend of mine, who runs a large television company in the car-mad city of Los Angeles, recently noticed that his intern, an aspiring filmmaker from the People's Republic of China, was walking to work.

When he offered to arrange a swifter mode of transportation, she declined. He asked why, she explained that she "needed the steps" on her Fitbit to sign in to her social media accounts.

If she fell below the right number of steps, it would lower her health and fitness rating, and that's part of her social rating, which is monitored by the Government of China. A low social rating could prevent her from working or traveling abroad."

That's what's going on there.

Author and Columnist, Mark Steyn joins us tonight. So Mark, I'm not paranoid by temperament. But - but it seems like this regi - this regimen in the world's most populous country might be getting more attention than it is in this country. It's getting no attention.

MARK STEYN, STEYNONLINE.COM: Right.

CARLSON: And that makes me nervous. Why do you think our press is ignoring this?

STEYN: Well I - I think you're right to be nervous. Tocqueville actually, two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America asked this question. He said that theoretically, in Europe, the King wielded absolute power.

But in practice, he couldn't actually do much about it because--

CARLSON: Right.

STEYN: --he was in his palace hundreds of miles away, and you're in your hovel. And once every half decade, a pantalooned emissary might show up in your dooryard and give you a hard time about something. But for the rest of the time, you got on with your life undisturbed by his absolute power.

CARLSON: Right.

STEYN: And Tocqueville wondered what would happen if the Administrative State evolved to the point where it could control every aspect of social life and individual existence.

And with three companies now, Amazon, Google YouTube, and Facebook, we're now seeing dangerous signs in China, in Europe, and in the United States of the alliance between big government and Big Tech. And Big Government plus Big Tech does equal Big Brother 24/7.

CARLSON: So, what are the ways in - I mean presumably, like everything, these things start in a subtle way. So, the - the Fitbit example from the People's Republic of China doesn't seem at first blush, authoritarian. They're not forcing to believe anything (ph).

STEYN: No.

CARLSON: They just want you just, you know, be fit because like cardio health--

STEYN: Right.

CARLSON: --is really important. And if you want health insurance--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --you're going to get your steps. But that is--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --authoritarian.

STEYN: Yes, it - yes, it is. And I think it's worth thinking about how quickly our thinking has evolved on this. If you remember, after 9/11, the Left made a huge fuss because President Bush was supposedly monitoring what library books people checked out of public libraries.

CARLSON: Right. Right, I remember that.

STEYN: Now, not a lot of people - not a lot of people actually check out books at public libraries. The Public Library System is dying.

But as we objected to that, just 15 years ago, we're now completely OK with the fact that everybody wears an electronic ankle bracelet that lets people know where you are on the planet any hour of the day. That's a thing called, what we used to call, the telephone. A telephone now tracks your movements.

And the - and the three companies that - that - that - that are the principal repositories of that information, for example, Amazon's deal with the CIA and the NSA here, Google's design of a kind of knowledge - access to knowledge compliant with the Chinese Politburo, in Europe, Monsieur Macron and Angela Merkel meeting with Facebook to decide how the bounds of free speech that Facebook will permit during election seasons, the - the Left and - and what's left of the non-internet media are absolutely silent on this and the threat it represents.

CARLSON: So, when Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York says, in effect, if you don't agree with my politics, if you dare to oppose me, you can't do business in the state or you can't bank. It's what he's done to the NRA in the State of New York.

STEYN: Right.

CARLSON: Why wouldn't that become universal?

STEYN: Well, I think that's right. I mean we - we actually talk about Amazon, for example, just started off as a - as an online book competitor with Borders. It then put Borders out of business, and it's now becoming essentially a retail outlet, a one-stop retail outlet for the world.

We talked a couple of weeks ago about the way that these companies are now actually developing an alternative to money. So, people think, "Oh, it seems - it seems ostensibly quite sensible to say, oh let's give up check books and let's give up paper money."

But essentially, what that means is that every time you spend $4.75 on a cup of coffee at Starbucks that the state actually knows where you are--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --and that transaction. And that's leading us. I mean we now live in an age where Big Brother is following you. And, unlike George Orwell, we have largely accepted that.

CARLSON: Why were the Luddites wrong? And that'll be the topic next week when you come back. I'm not sure they were.

STEYN: OK.

CARLSON: Mark Steyn, great to see you. Thank you.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, last year, criminal justice policies changed dramatically in the City of Philadelphia after a new D.A. Larry Krasner took office. He was backed by George Soros. And Krasner massively scaled back law enforcement in the city.

Prosecutors stopped prosecuting numerous crimes. They stopped seeking cash bail for even some felonies. They deliberately impose shorter prison sentences. Dozens of prosecutors were fired. So, what happened? Cause and effect? Well the most murders in a decade.

We spoke recently with the President of Philadelphia's Fraternal Order of Police, John McNesby, and here's what he told us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Mr. McNesby, thank you very much for joining us tonight. So, Philadelphia--

JOHN MCNESBY, PHILADELPHIA FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

CARLSON: --got a new District Attorney, as we just said, with the backing of George Soros. He made changes to the way that crimes were prosecuted in Philadelphia. What was the result?

MCNESBY: Well the result is that, I said at this time last year that crime would be through the roof. Excuse me. Over the last year, there's been 6,500 less cases brought before the Criminal Justice Center here. Crime is up. 4,000 felons are on the streets running the City of Philadelphia.

And it's, you know, everybody's pointing the fingers to police officers, to the Police Commissioner. And we're - fact of the matter is we're out doing the job.

He's decimated the Philadelphia District Attorney's office. He has a great disdain and dislike for law enforcement. He let go many prosecutors his first week in, 31, to be exact. There's a 30 percent turnover rate. So, all that while we're out there trying to protect the community.

CARLSON: So, an ideologue comes in with Left-wing backing and guts the criminal justice system. Crime rises, and then the police get blamed for it? Is that what you're saying?

MCNESBY: Well everybody's pointing the fingers at "What's the police going to do? What's the police commissioner going to do?" Fact of the matter is we have officers out there arresting people on a daily basis, and they're walking out the back of police stations.

He's cutting deals with defense attorneys. He's cutting deals - one, just a couple of weeks back, where a - a felon who had 14 priors, 14 priors, goes into a store, shoots the owner with an AK-47, and he cuts a deal without the victim knowing for 3.5 to 10 years.

I mean that's - that's insane. And that's not happening once or twice. It's happening so many times now that the Judges in the City of Philadelphia are getting wind of it, and they're - they're starting to check and double- check and triple-check these deals.

CARLSON: What - what's the motive here? I mean to the extent we know, why would a District Attorney want to let felons - felons out of prison and give lighter sentences to people who commit violent gun crime? Why?

MCNESBY: Well he's actually - he was a - previously he was a Defense Attorney. He filed before taking office. And I think he's turned the District Attorney's Office into the Defender Association.

I forget - I think he forgot the oath that he had taken to uphold the law and enforce the law in the city. But he was prior a defense attorney, and sued the City and the Philadelphia Police Department over 70 times during - during his tenure.

On top of that, he has now a Do Not Call list, where he has not one, two, three, 10 officers. In fact he has (ph) few hundred officers on this list, and I don't know how or he's not explaining how officers get on that list, get off the list, what's the just cause of being put on the list. He's running his own show here, and it's like a Carnival act.

CARLSON: What - what's the effect on poor neighborhoods in the city?

MCNESBY: Well it's not - I think everybody's catching wind now that it's not just, you know, it's not - it's - it's not just the victims of these crimes, although that's very, very important, because he's not letting them know anything.

Now, it's the community that are seeing people run rampant in their neighborhoods, shoot at each other, whether it's poor, whether it's affluent, it really doesn't matter. It's - it's across the City of Philadelphia. They're not picking and choosing.

These aren't people that you let out and - and we're all for, you know, reform, and--

CARLSON: Yes.

MCNESBY: --and we're open-minded.

But the fact of the matter is, is when you let 4,000 felons out on the street, they're not going back and getting jobs anywhere that it - that it really - that make any sense. They're back out doing what they did to put them in jail. And that's - and that's hurting the community.

CARLSON: The enemies of civilization, for sure. Thanks very much for telling us what's going on in Philadelphia. I appreciate it. Good to see you.

MCNESBY: You got it, you got it.

CARLSON: Thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Time for Final Exam. Can you beat the experts at recalling the news of the week? How's your short-term memory? Find out after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: FINAL EXAM.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, the world's going (ph) crazy, obviously. But we have a safe space for you. We call it Final Exam. It's the game where experts face-off against one another to determine who has paid the closest attention to the news this week.

Our reigning champion is Fox Correspondent, Lauren Blanchard. Her challenger tonight, Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, who, defeated his own wife, also a Fox News Contributor, and our friend, last week.

Lauren had the week off for training. Do you feel rested and ready?

LAUREN BLANCHARD, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I hope it's going to give me an advantage. But this is like two returning champs.

CARLSON: I know. This is making me nervous. So, you know the rules, obviously. But I'm going to restate them because those are the rules.

Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. First one to buzz in answers the question. You must wait until I finish asking the question before you answer it. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name.

Every correct answer gets you one point. Lose a question, and a point is detracted from your total. Best of five wins. Are you ready?

BLANCHARD: Let's do it.

REP. SEAN PATRICK DUFFY, R-WIS.: You bought (ph) a ring on it, Tucker. I'm ready. Let's go.

CARLSON: These are tough. These are really, really tough.

DUFFY: I know.

BLANCHARD: All right (ph).

CARLSON: I didn't even know the answers. I never do.

Question one. This is a multiple choice question.

DUFFY: OK.

BLANCHARD: OK.

CARLSON: Amazon's newest delivery system is a four-wheeled robot that will bring your package right to your door because that's what America needs. What is the robot's name? Is it A, Rover, B, Wheelie, or C, Scout?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: It's Scout.

CARLSON: How would you know that?

BLANCHARD: It's a little blue box that just wheels around.

CARLSON: Let's see if you're right. Is it Scout?

DUFFY: That's right (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: AMAZON SCOUT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: Yes.

DUFFY: I read the article and I didn't remember the name.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amazon will use robots to deliver packages in the suburbs of Seattle.

It's the (ph) size of a cooler.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: God (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They roll along sidewalks at a walking pace. They're designed to navigate around people and pets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: Scout.

BLANCHARD: There would have to be one of those that just stayed around me.

CARLSON: That's unbelievable. And, by the way, it looks better than a clay pigeon. I bet 12-gauge sales (ph) will - will spike after that thing hits the street. Sorry, thought experiment.

OK. Question two. If you thought life couldn't get better than it is now, you are wrong. Which fast food chain is now selling a scented candle that'll make your whole house smell like gravy?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: It's KFC. They had the Yule Log. Now they have the Gravy Candle.

CARLSON: The thing about your answers is they're very definitive. And I don't know if that's opposed (ph) or not. Is she right? Is it KFC?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want to see capitalism at work? KFC announcing a limited release Gravy-scented candle, to fill your home with that "Incredible aroma of KFC gravy."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: Yes, nope. Never getting that (ph).

DUFFY: Are you - did you prep for this?

BLANCHARD: I have studied--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know if the KFC company will (ph)--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: --very hard all week.

CARLSON: It's I mean how could you study for this test?

BLANCHARD: I read a lot of news.

CARLSON: I guess she's doing (ph).

DUFFY: And prep for your show. I had no idea.

CARLSON: OK. So, this is a very tough one, OK?

BLANCHARD: OK.

CARLSON: So, we'll see if you know and this again--

DUFFY: Is this - is this multiple choice? You tell us beforehand.

CARLSON: This is - this is multiple choice.

DUFFY: OK. Just waiting for the multiple choice, that's fast (ph).

CARLSON: This is multiple choice.

BLANCHARD: Multiple choice (ph). OK.

CARLSON: No, that's a - that's a fair point. This is multiple choice. And this is another mandate from the National Game Show Commission. We have to have an animal question, so here it is this week's.

The craziest video of this week shows an angry animal chasing a group of snowboarders down a mountain in Colorado. What kind of animal was it? Was it A, a moose, B, a mountain lion, C, a black bear?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Congressman Duffy.

DUFFY: It would be a moose, Tucker.

BLANCHARD: It was a moose.

CARLSON: A moose?

DUFFY: Yes.

CARLSON: Well I would have guessed a mountain lion.

BLANCHARD: A moose on the loose.

DUFFY: Moose.

CARLSON: Is it a moose.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A moose is on the loose and charges at skiers and snowboarders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: Yes, yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at this video, wild video--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: That's terrifying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --showing the giant animal chasing the group in Aspen, Colorado. They say it followed them for half a mile.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: Moose was terrifying (ph).

CARLSON: And it's too (ph)--

DUFFY: There we go (ph).

CARLSON: --actually, they are the most dangerous. They will kill your dog, by the way.

DUFFY: Yes.

BLANCHARD: Mm?

CARLSON: They read dogs as wolves, yes.

BLANCHARD: Oh.

CARLSON: Keep your dog away from moose.

BLANCHARD: But they're (ph)--

CARLSON: Question four, this is a tough one.

DUFFY: OK.

CARLSON: There was a rare cosmic, literally cosmic, not marijuana-related, but cosmic, as in sky, event, a few nights ago. It was seen around the world. A Super Moon passed through the Earth's shadow during a total lunar eclipse, dude (ph). It turned it a deep red. What was the name of this cosmic event?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: It is a Super Blood Wolf Moon. Doesn't that sound intense?

CARLSON: Are you kidding me? Well is that--

BLANCHARD: Yes.

CARLSON: --like a double rainbow. Probably a little bit (ph).

BLANCHARD: It was - people were freaking out.

CARLSON: Was it - it was a Super Wolf--

BLANCHARD: Super Blood Wolf Moon.

CARLSON: Super Blood Wolf Moon, is that correct?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

SANDRA SMITH, HOST: Incredible images of last night's total lunar eclipse known as the Super Blood Wolf Moon. The rare cosmic event happened at the same time as a Super Moon--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: Are you kidding me?

CARLSON: Who thinks this up (ph)?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: --sunlight passing through

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: This is - this is not fair (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: --the earth's atmosphere turned the moon a rusty brick red.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: Yes.

DUFFY: That's good (ph).

CARLSON: You - you think if the Astronomy community has kind of stayed in Germanic but actually they're pretty groovy.

BLANCHARD: Wolf Moon, yes (ph).

CARLSON: Yes, it's a Wolf Moon.

BLANCHARD: Who wrote that (ph)?

CARLSON: All right, final question.

DUFFY: All right, last (ph).

CARLSON: We're going to wrap things up with one more multiple choice. So, wait for all the options. This is--

DUFFY: Is this for two points because I can't win on ones.

CARLSON: You know what? You could score a moral victory with this one.

DUFFY: OK.

CARLSON: And let's see if you can.

If you're one of those people who can't put down your iPhone, even for a moment, you're lucky, because a new invention lets users do two things at once with a phone that is physically connected to their A, fork, B, hairdryer, C, coffee cup.

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: It's a - it's a spoon and a fork. You can put it onto the case and scoop and eat.

CARLSON: You're like - I don't know if you're reading the questions or not.

BLANCHARD: It's a - a spoon and a fork--

CARLSON: Is that - is that true? What is the answer?

BLANCHARD: --that pins on the (ph) phone case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA PERINO, HOST: A new phone case comes with spoon and fork attachments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did it. I did it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: Yes, Millennials, man, we know about this stuff.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --you don't have - have to go hunting for a spoon or a fork while you're busy--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: I mean come on (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --tweeting or browsing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHARD: No (ph), I would never - never do that (ph).

CARLSON: OK. Congressman, I still think you're the smartest Member of Congress.

DUFFY: If I had a tail, it'd be good (ph). Now, and I want to go back to here (ph). You are awesome.

CARLSON: No, no, but, you know, you - you don't - you don't need to feel ashamed.

DUFFY: I am - I am not worthy.

BLANCHARD: Thank you (ph).

CARLSON: If you get flattened by this 18-wheeler (ph), you don't need to be embarrassed because I would be too. There's no chance I can--

DUFFY: Of course.

CARLSON: --I can win.

DUFFY: Awesome yes (ph).

CARLSON: Still the smartest in Congress. You're a star.

BLANCHARD: Thank you (ph).

CARLSON: And here's another Erik Wemple mug for you.

BLANCHARD: Thank you.

CARLSON: Drink your coffee--

BLANCHARD: I will.

CARLSON: --with joy.

DUFFY: It doesn't say much for Congress.

CARLSON: Very good. That's it. Thank you both.

DUFFY: Thank you (ph).

CARLSON: That's it for this week's Final Exam. Pay close attention, Lauren Blanchard-level attention to the news this week. Tune in next Thursday to see if you could beat our experts. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: First they came for your plastic bags. Then they came for your plastic straws. Sense a theme here?

If it's an organic polymer, and it makes your life easier, California is against it. Latest example, the City of Berkeley is targeting single-use plastic and paper cups, having solved every other problem in town. The City Council there just passed an ordinance that will require all businesses to charge customers 25 cents for the privilege of using a disposable cup.

Greg Gutfeld uses disposable cups. He also hosts The Greg Gutfeld Show, which is excellent, and co-hosts The Five, of course, every night. He joins us tonight.

So Greg, this signifies, laws like this, the - the victory over the more prosaic problems that most cities face, like bad roads or crappy schools, like obviously Berkeley has already fixed those.

GREG GUTFELD, HOST: Yes. And, you know, and - and I love how this - they always do the same thing. They never, you know, try to figure out who this might help or hurt because who uses paper cups?

Generally working classes that are going to get a cup of coffee--

CARLSON: Yes.

GUTFELD: --on the street. They never examine the consequences of their actions because then none of their actions would be adopted because they're so terrible.

There's no proof that this theft, which it is, theft, will help the planet. It's like, if you look at recycling, for example, none of the - most of the recycling, we've been separating them in bins. Now we find out that most of those bins just end up in landfill because nobody's actually buying it.

Think about all that time that could have been better spent drinking. Instead, we're sitting there spreading this stuff out all over the place in the kitchen. I absolutely hate it. I am for recycling, as you know. If you watch The Five, you hear a lot of my talking points over and over again, but that's economical.

CARLSON: Yes.

GUTFELD: It's economical. Recycling is expensive, and it doesn't contribute to a better planet, neither does taxing the working class, so it could be - so it can make you feel better.

Again, this is another virtue-signal, Tucker, you know, a virtue - it's a symbolic action that does no good.

CARLSON: But isn't it also incredibly frivolous? I mean if you had a child, and I think our leaders should care about us, as we care about our children, if you had a child who is addicted to drugs, and failing out of school, and pregnant in the seventh grade, would you say, you know, the real problem is, "I don't like the shoelaces you have on."

GUTFELD: I mean we--

CARLSON: Wouldn't that kind of be missing the point?

GUTFELD: These are easy things to tackle. There's - there's a weird inclination among politicians these days to ban things.

CARLSON: Yes.

GUTFELD: It's like if - if they actually mistake banning for productive action when, in fact, it just limits more freedom, if people, you know, the look - let's look at the plastic straws.

Did they think about what that did to the disabled? The disabled need plastic straws. And - and they didn't think about that because, you know, they thought, "Oh, it's polluting."

There's an interesting fact. Do you know that 95 percent of all the plastic waste in the oceans comes from 10 rivers, eight are in Asia, two are in Africa? America is not the offender in polluting these oceans. It's other countries.

Yet, we are doing this. And we're actually harming a segment of the society that needs these plastic products. There, I actually gave you some hard news.

CARLSON: Well you did, and I'm trying to digest it now. But if that's true, and I'm obviously taking your claims on faith here.

GUTFELD: I made it up.

CARLSON: I don't have the Google machine in front of me but why wouldn't we be saying something to the countries that are actually polluting the environment?

GUTFELD: Because--

CARLSON: Why wouldn't we be mad about that?

GUTFELD: Because that's no fun. It's no fun, Tucker. We have to be in the - in this - in this Left-wing universe, especially in the media, we are the oppressors, no matter what.

CARLSON: Yes.

GUTFELD: So, it's like it's - it's we are at fault. We have to pay these indulgences. When you find out that it's China or the Philippines, even Brazil is - is more of a pollutant of plastics in the ocean than we are, then it's no use. You can't use it politically against the United States.

CARLSON: Right. You went all (ph)--

GUTFELD: So why bother?

CARLSON: No, it goes back to the root cause which is self-hatred.

GUTFELD: Yes.

CARLSON: I don't hate myself. I'd like to opt out of this system.

GUTFELD: I - you know, I hate you.

CARLSON: Maybe we can someday.

GUTFELD: I hate you enough for you.

CARLSON: That's OK.

GUTFELD: I do, I do.

CARLSON: You do. You got - you got us both covered. Greg Gutfeld, great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

GUTFELD: I wish I could say that to you.

CARLSON: So more tech news, Twitter, today, briefly shutdown a popular parody account. It was called Beto's Blog. It consisted of fake diary entries from the Democratic front-runner, Robert Beto O'Rourke.

Now, we don't know if Beto complained to Twitter about the account. But, if so, we can see why he did. The entries were spine-tinglingly embarrassing, the kind of crap you wrote in a spiral notebook freshman year after breaking up with your high school girlfriend, and discovering marijuana.

Pretty amusing! Here's a selection from them.

"Have been stuck lately. In and out of a funk. My last day of work was January 2nd. It's been more than 20 years since I was last not working. Maybe if I get moving, on the road, meet people, learn what's going on, where they live, have some adventure, go where I don't know and I'm not known, I'll clear my head, reset, I'll think new thoughts, break out of the loops I've been stuck in."

By the way, no periods in that sentence, just commas.

Or this, "Drove to Dalhart. Ate at the Grill. Was last there in August of 2017. Green Chile cheeseburger. The table over asked if I was Beto."

Or this, my favorite, "Found some crab claws. Maybe left by a bird. Walked out on a pier. Looked out, took some pictures. Leaned over, scooped up water and washed my face. Picked up beer cans that someone had left," and so on like that.

Hilarious stuff! But you can see why Beto wanted it sup - oh, wait, no so (ph) we totally screwed that up. Those are actual quotes from Beto's real online diary. In other words, we couldn't make it up, but the Twitter feed was funny too.

That's it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night, 8 P.M., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. We have a surprise for you tonight, one night only, 9 P.M., Sean Hannity live from New York is next.

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.