This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 17, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Well good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” There was a lot of drama on Capitol Hill today. Democrats and the President continue battling over a Border wall.

Yesterday, you probably saw, the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi asked President Trump to postpone his State of the Union or have it somewhere else, not in Congress. She argued that the shutdown had created security concerns that was not confirmed by anyone who actually provides security. But that's what she said.

Today, President struck a blow of his own. He canceled a Congressional trip abroad at the very last minute that Pelosi was planning to take.

Fox Chief National Correspondent, Ed Henry, has been following every bit of this and he joins us tonight.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, great to see you.

CARLSON: Thanks, Ed.

HENRY: Air Pelosi has now been officially grounded shortly after returning from Christmas vacation, you'll remember, in Hawaii and mere hours before her government jet was set to take off again before President Trump dismissed today as a pricey Public Relations event.

The latest skirmish between these two leaders, remember yesterday, as you noted, Pelosi trying to delay the President's State of the Union address for what she called security concerns that the Secretary of Homeland Security quickly said did not really exist.

Yet today, Pelosi was set to use all kinds of government security for an official Congressional trip to the war zone in Afghanistan as well as multi-day stops in Egypt and Belgium, where the Speaker would spend more taxpayer money on, yes, security, but also hotels, cars, meals, you get the idea.

In fact, there was a bus full of lawmakers that was headed from the Capitol to Joint Base Andrews to meet an Air Force jet to take Pelosi and the - and the group oversees. Her spokesman told us the Speaker wanted to thank our men and women in uniform, and obtain what they called, critical national security briefings on the front lines.

But the President brought that bus to a screeching halt with a letter marked "Dear Madam Speaker," he wrote, "Due to the shutdown, I'm sorry to inform you your trip to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan has been postponed. We will re-schedule this seven-day excursion when the shutdown is over."

Among the grounded, Democrat Adam Schiff, who was supposed to be on the trip with Pelosi, and complained that this was what he called, fifth grade conduct by the President.

White House aides insist this was not a tit-for-tat that the President merely thinks Pelosi should stay in Washington to negotiate, oh, and they say, while the military aircraft has been put on hold, it is Pelosi's prerogative to fly commercial, if she wants to.

Tucker.

CARLSON: Highly amusing! Ed Henry, thank you very much.

HENRY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Rochelle Ritchie is a former Press Secretary for the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, and she joins us tonight. Rochelle Ritchie, thanks very much for coming on.

ROCHELLE RITCHIE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thanks, Tucker. Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So, the President described the Speaker's planned trip to Afghanistan and Brussels and Egypt as a publicity stunt, a - a PR move. She reacted angrily and said, "No, it's not." But if it wasn't, what was the - the purpose? What is her position on our continued presence in Afghanistan?

RITCHIE: Well the - I - I think her mission was quite clear from what came from her staff. They were going to meet with NATO officials in Brussels, and they were going to meet with our men and women in uniform.

And look, it seems like this fight between Godzilla and King Kong is just going to go on for quite some time now. But I do think that is - it is a - a tit-for-tat. And I think that this just expose the President's lack of maturity when it comes to running our government.

CARLSON: Well but of - I mean, of course, it was a tit-for-tat. I mean, obviously.

RITCHIE: Right.

CARLSON: But it does raise, I think, a highly amusing one, but it also raises a couple of real questions. And I think it's worth talking about them. What is the Speaker's position on keeping troops in Afghanistan?

RITCHIE: Well I don't know what her - exactly what her - her mission is--

CARLSON: Oh, OK.

RITCHIE: --as far as keeping troops in Afghanistan. And actually, I--

CARLSON: Isn't that kind of a key question?

RITCHIE: --I think that's more of her - I think that's more of the President's decision more than the - the Speaker's decision on whether--

CARLSON: Then - then why is she going to - well--

RITCHIE: --there are not (ph) our troops are in Afghanistan.

CARLSON: --you're - you make a solid point. It is his decision. The Congress really doesn't manage our foreign policy at all these days. So, if it's his decision, why is she going to Afghanistan at public expense?

RITCHIE: I don't think that it was at the public expense. And I really disagree.

CARLSON: Well it was. It's a public expense.

RITCHIE: I disagree that this was a Public Relations move. First of all, I've worked in Public Relations--

CARLSON: OK. But--

RITCHIE: --for quite some time.

CARLSON: --I understand.

RITCHIE: And when you - you have a PR event, the one thing you don't do is you don't keep it a secret. So, this was not a PR stunt.

CARLSON: OK. OK. OK. But - but it - leaving - leaving that characterization aside, you just said that she doesn't have a role in deciding whether or not our troops remain in Afghanistan. So, why was she going there?

RITCHIE: Why can't she go there? Why can't she go there--

CARLSON: Well, I'm not saying - I'm not saying she can't.

RITCHIE: --and thank our men and women in - in uniform.

CARLSON: OK. But--

RITCHIE: Why can't she?

CARLSON: OK. But--

RITCHIE: Why can't she go there and meet on the ground with some of our officials--

CARLSON: Well I'm not - I'm not proposing--

RITCHIE: --why?

CARLSON: --that we bar her from doing it. And she's not barred. And I - I guess she can--

RITCHIE: I think the bigger question--

CARLSON: --fly on a, you know, an aircraft--

RITCHIE: --I think - I think the bigger question--

CARLSON: --an Air Force plane after the shutdown, but--

RITCHIE: --the bigger question here, Tucker--

CARLSON: --but it's a sincere question.

RITCHIE: --the bigger - the bigger question here, Tucker, is what does this really do for the President. I think that his decision to cancel her trip--

CARLSON: That's not the bigger question actually.

RITCHIE: --is very counterproductive.

CARLSON: The bigger question is - the bigger question is should we keep troops in Afghanistan. And no one seems interested in that because--

RITCHIE: Well is the President interested in that because he's more--

CARLSON: --that is an actual question.

RITCHIE: --interested in - in--

CARLSON: Right, OK. All right.

RITCHIE: --keeping our federal workers from getting paid. That's what he's interested in.

CARLSON: Right. I'm sure that's his goal.

RITCHIE: It is.

CARLSON: Let me ask you though, why shouldn't, straightforward question once more, why shouldn't she stay in Washington until this crisis is resolved? You just said it's very important that our federal workers get the salary they're due. So, why shouldn't she stay here and - and work on it until that happens?

RITCHIE: Well it seems like Conservatives are acting like Nancy Pelosi was going over there for two weeks to lay on a beach. That's not what's happening. This is not Puerto Rico.

CARLSON: Well you already couldn't tell me why--

RITCHIE: This is a war zone.

CARLSON: --she was going there. So, we - we still don't know--

RITCHIE: I don't work for--

CARLSON: --why she was going. OK.

RITCHIE: --one, I don't work for Nancy Pelosi. But--

CARLSON: Just so - OK but--

RITCHIE: --I can tell you that the reason why our team said that she was going was to thank our men and women in uniform. That's what I know.

CARLSON: OK. To - to - to thank our men (ph) oh, right--

RITCHIE: And that's what you know.

CARLSON: --OK.

RITCHIE: Yes.

CARLSON: OK. But you're not answering my question, which is if it's so important to end the shutdown, and I think it probably is, then why wouldn't she stay here until she negotiates an end to the shutdown?

RITCHIE: I think that we need--

CARLSON: Why would she leave?

RITCHIE: --I think that Pelosi as well as Schumer have played - have had three opportunities put in front of the President for him to have funding for his wall. You remember in January 2018, they offered him $25 billion. In February of 2018, he was offered $25 billion--

CARLSON: No. I've - I've followed it.

RITCHIE: --over 10 to 12 years. They gave him an installment of $2.5 million--

CARLSON: I--

RITCHIE: --and he still decided to--

CARLSON: --so that's it?

RITCHIE: --shut down the government. So, it's on him.

CARLSON: So, OK, I - look, I--

RITCHIE: He walked out of the office.

CARLSON: --so - so it's - so it's either, so wait--

RITCHIE: He said bye-bye (ph).

CARLSON: --so what you're saying is either they - he accepts their previous offers or the government remains shut down forever. Is that what - I'm - I'm confused as to what you're saying? They don't have any more--

RITCHIE: Well the President is--

CARLSON: --negotiating to do. Is that what--

RITCHIE: --the President--

CARLSON: --you're saying?

RITCHIE: Oh, there's absolutely more negotiating to do.

CARLSON: Then why is--

RITCHIE: But the President has made it clear that he would--

CARLSON: --she leaving?

RITCHIE: --she was leaving, Tucker, as you know, as you have reported because she was going to Brussels to meet with our NATO officials, and she was going to Afghanistan to thank our men and women in uniform.

CARLSON: To thank our troops.

RITCHIE: I don't know how many times we have to say it--

CARLSON: Right. But in the middle of a--

RITCHIE: --and go back and forth to that.

CARLSON: --government shutdown that you say is hurting people, but she doesn't want to stay and negotiate it because she needs to "Thank our troops?"

RITCHIE: She has absolutely stayed, and she's worked with this President on multiple occasions. He got up from the table and he left the Office the last time that they sat down--

CARLSON: OK. But - but I guess my point is - I mean, look, as an adult--

RITCHIE: --to have a negotiation, that is on him.

CARLSON: --as an adult question, why would she be mad about this? It probably is fair actually she should stay. This isn't helping anybody, this shut down. I mean it.

RITCHIE: No, it's not helping anyone.

CARLSON: Why not just stay and figure it out? OK. So, now, she had this bad idea to go to Afghanistan to thank our troops, who are serving in a war that she's not sure whether she supports or not. But why not just stay here and--

RITCHIE: This is so pointless.

CARLSON: No, it's not.

RITCHIE: This is--

CARLSON: No, it's totally real.

RITCHIE: --no, it - it is real. But it's - it's - it's annoying to me because we're sitting here talking about a woman taking a trip. She's not going now. So, we can all really just get over it. What I would really like to know is--

CARLSON: OK.

RITCHIE: --when this President is going to sit down with the Democrats and re-open the government for the people that are not getting paid.

CARLSON: Well I guess now we put--

RITCHIE: People that I know personally.

CARLSON: --well that's a fair quest - that's a fair question.

RITCHIE: People that I care about that are not--

CARLSON: Oh, I know. Right, right, I know.

RITCHIE: --getting their paychecks.

CARLSON: I live here too. So, isn't this a good thing? I'm not sure why you're complaining about it. Now, he can sit down with Nancy Pelosi because he's prevented her from leaving the country. So, why wouldn't you applaud this?

RITCHIE: I don't applaud it because he did it as a tit-for-tat. He's immature. That's why he did it.

CARLSON: But you - but you're happy about the outcome but you don't like his motives.

RITCHIE: I don't - no, I definitely don't like his motives at all. I think that his motivations are to build a wall that is pretty much, instead of saying Make America Great Again, he might as well say to Mexico, "If you're Brown, turnaround." That's what the message is.

CARLSON: OK. I think you may have gotten your talking points confused. But I - I appreciate your--

RITCHIE: No talking points. Straight conversation.

CARLSON: --mustering the, you know, (ph) talking points. Yes, you just made that up on the flood (ph). Brilliant!

RITCHIE: Oh, yes.

CARLSON: Rochelle, thank you.

RITCHIE: I'm that good.

CARLSON: Good to see you tonight.

RITCHIE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well as the federal shutdown continues, Democrats have coalesced around a rationale for their continued opposition to a Border wall. They're no longer telling you that walls are too expensive. That was a laughable argument coming from the Left, so they've given up.

They're not telling you that walls don't work because, obviously, they do. Everybody knows that. The problem, they are now telling us, and you just heard it, is that God doesn't like walls. They're immoral.

As Beto O'Rourke, noted the other day, walls "Ensure death." Building a wall is the same as committing murder. Well Democrat Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has been in Congress for only a matter of weeks. But already, she strongly agrees with this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ILHAN ABDULLAHI OMAR, D-MINN.: And I demand that the President end his temper tantrums and quest for a racist and sinful big wall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Racist and xenophobic. That's what walls are. And once you understand that, it does make you think there are an awful lot of walls in this country. Now that we know that they're an offense against God, how can we let them stand?

Well that's a real question for the city of El Paso, Texas. El Paso is on the border, right across from Juarez, Mexico. El Paso is a calm and peaceful and pretty city. It's a great place. Juarez is violent and chaotic. It's one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

How can these two places exist side by side? Well, simple. There's a wall between them. Congresswoman Veronica Escobar now represents the City of El Paso. She just replaced Beto O'Rourke. Escobar says it may be time to knock down that sinful wall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR, D-TX: We know that walls don't work, that they don't stop drugs, that they don't stop migration.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY CO-ANCHOR: El Paso has a wall. You say it doesn't work. Would you ever call for the removal of the wall there?

ESCOBAR: You know, I - I - it's - it's really ugly. It - it - it is, I think, a monument to division. We've always had fencing along the U.S.- Mexico border. It's existed. I'm a lifelong resident. It always was there. But the bigger and taller and uglier that they get, they really just become symbols.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: A monument to division. That's what El Paso's new Congresswoman calls her city's wall. And she's right, by the way. Walls do divide. That's the point of having them. There are some things people would like to be divided from, like endemic corruption and murderous drug cartels. How do you accomplish that without walls?

Well Nancy Pelosi has been thinking about this recently. Here's her solution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: And then we talk about technology.

As I said, several hundred million dollars, ranges from a half a billion to $700 million for the 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: An electronic dog, of course. How obvious? It was right there in plain sight, and we missed it. The rest of us were thinking about security in old-fashioned medieval terms, walls, fences, actual living dogs.

But leave it to the Congresswoman from our Technology Capital out in California to think a lot bigger than that. You're looking at the solution of the future, an electronic dog. Brilliant! This show has exclusively obtained a prototype of the Speaker's digital canine. You're watching it right now.

Just kidding! We pulled that off the internet, probably not so different from the real thing though. We'll see.

In the meantime though, let's take Nancy Pelosi and Beto O'Rourke, and the entire editorial staffs on the other cable channels seriously for a moment. Let's concede that walls are, in fact, inherently immoral. How do we respond once we've accepted that?

We can't simply prevent Donald Trump from building a wall. That's not enough. We've got to do something about the countless walls of wickedness that degrade and pollute America's moral landscape.

For example, the wall that keeps poor people out of Barack Obama's home in Washington, the wall that protects George Soros' placed in South Hampton, the wall at the Pelosi compound in Napa, not to mention the wall around Mark Zuckerberg's estate in Hawaii, the gated communities of Brentwood, the walled gardens of Brooklyn.

Level them all, all of them. Make them flat. In fact, do it tonight before an angry God turns us all to pillars of salt for ignoring his anti-Wall commandment. "Speaker Pelosi, tear down these walls." Once you've done that, turn the bulldozer of righteousness outward to the world.

Israel, for example, surrounded by walls on virtually all sides. Does Nancy Pelosi know that? Will she withhold billions in military aid until those walls are gone? That's a moral question now. What's the answer?

And how about Tunisia and Jordan? We helped pay for those country's walls. We are implicated in those walls. Will we pay to take them down? How much do we really care about our souls?

We contacted the Speaker today to find out. She didn't reply. Neither did the other Democrats we called. It turns out they have no plans to eliminate anyone else's walls, and certainly not their own. They just don't want (ph) a wall that protect America. They don't think our country deserves that.

Just yesterday, The New York Times ran a piece by a man called Farhad Manjoo. He demanded that the U.S. get rid of its borders entirely. No borders. If 10 million, a 100 million, a billion people want to move here, so be it. It's not our right to keep them out. It's only our obligation to pay for it.

That's the Democrats' position. They're telling us that God agrees with them.

Mark Morgan was the Head of the Border Patrol under President Obama, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Morgan, thanks very much for coming on.

MARK MORGAN, FORMER BORDER PATROL CHIEF: Yes.

CARLSON: So, to the new Congresswoman, Congresswoman Escobar from El Paso, I think it's a fair question. What would happen, since walls are immoral, if we removed the wall that separates El Paso, a great city, from Juarez, Mexico?

MORGAN: We - we would take a huge step backwards. Again, I - I lived and worked in El Paso for two years.

CARLSON: Yes.

MORGAN: And the drug cartels, we were able to almost eliminate the avenues that they had for all the things we've talked about before, drugs, human trafficking, illegal trafficking as well.

And but - by doing that, by building the walls, we increased the Border Patrol's operational capability and stance, to more effectively respond and stop those bad things and bad people from coming in.

Nancy Pelosi, I agree with her, the ports of entry, absolutely. By building the wall, for example, in El Paso, what that did was increase the Border Patrol's operational capability. And it cut off that avenue, and it then funneled (ph) people to the ports of entry, where we stand a better chance of interdicting.

CARLSON: What's so interesting in El Paso, which, as you've said, had a wall, you lived there, is be - Democrats want to make everything about border security a racial question. And you heard a guest we just had saying you're racist if you're for a wall.

There is a wall separating El Paso from the disaster right across the border. El Paso is, I think, is a 80 percent Hispanic. It's not a city, I've been there many times, as noted for racial tension, so people of the same ethnicity living in the United States are supporting a wall, and they're sort of happy to live there.

So like, there's no inherent racial component to any of this unless I'm missing something. Is there?

MORGAN: No. And it - it's - it's even more outrageous than that from my opinion. So, instead of opinion, let's look at fact.

And the fact is Yuma County Sheriff just got on this week, and he talked about, during his time there, his deputies found and recovered over a 100 bodies of people trying to illegally enter the country that died of exposure and other issues.

We - we just heard tragic deaths of two kids, two children that died. They didn't die from the hands of Americans law enforcement. They died at the hands of the coyote making the perilous trek without medical attention and - and without nutrition.

And Unites States Border Patrol, not hundreds, but they execute thousands of rescues every single year of illegal aliens trying to enter the country, in between the points of entry. The Wall takes that avenue away.

So, the very people that - that are saying the rhetoric out there is actually strengthening the cartels' hold in the Southern border, which is actually doing harm and exploiting the very people that they say they want to protect.

CARLSON: Well because bad people thrive in chaos. And what we have now is chaos. So, but when you hear Beto O'Rourke say, "Constructing the wall will cause people to die. It is an act of murder to construct a wall," how do you respond to that?

MORGAN: It - it's - it - it's almost impossible to - to respond to that because it's not based in reality, and it's not based on fact. I, again, they're not listening to the experts. They just - just totally discount when the - when the Sheriff at Yuma County that's done this his entire life said, "We recovered a 100 dead bodies."

How - how does Beto - Beto then - then say that - that the wall kills people? It's absolutely false.

CARLSON: That we kill people, amazing!

MORGAN: Right.

CARLSON: Mark Morgan, thank you very much for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Well a magazine here in Washington says it is time to impeach the President for general badness, calls upon the Congress to do that. Mark Steyn read the piece. He's digested it, and he'll respond after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well The Atlantic magazine, which used to be good before it became rigid, and inflexible, and humorless, and stupid, and uninteresting, is leading its latest issue, the March issue with a piece calling on the Congress to impeach the President just because he's a bad guy.

Plenty of Democrats already agree with this. They've been demanding impeachment for quite a while now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER LOFFREDO HAYES, ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES HOST, MSNBC: Do you still think the President should be impeached?

REP. RASHIDA HARBI TLAIB, D-MICH.: Absolutely.

REP. ALEXANDER N. GREEN, D-TX: Impeachment is not dead.

One step closer to impeachment. Yesterday's resolution brought us one step closer.

THOMAS FAHR STEYER, DEMOCRATIC FUNDRAISER: I will be dedicating 100 percent of my time, effort, and resources to one cause, working for Mr. Trump's impeachment, and removal from Office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Tom Steyer, ladies and gentlemen. He's a much better person than you are. And he's been calling for impeachment for a long time.

But during the 2018 midterm campaign, Democrats tried their best to mute that message. Their leaders told the base, "Be quiet. Shh. You don't want to scare people. No more talking about impeachment. We believe in democratic solutions to leaders we don't like."

They're still saying that sort of in public. But will they be able to keep the impeachment enthusiasts in their party under control? Huh. That's the question.

Mark Steyn has been thinking about this quite a bit, and he joins us tonight. So, Mark, what do you - what did you make this - since you're a long time, long time magazine writer, you read this piece. What - what did you make of the argument it made for impeachment?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR, COLUMNIST, STEYNONLINE.COM: Well, first of all, I agree with your assessment of the present diminished state of The Atlantic Monthly. And you said I was a magazine writer. I used to write for The Atlantic a decade or so back.

And I'm not saying I'm one of their Giants, when you go back through the years. But they've had Mark Twain and Lord Moulton, and all kinds of great people--

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: --writing for them.

This thing goes wrong right from under the - the sub headline. Starting the process of impeachment will reign in a President, who is undermining American ideals, and bring the debate about his fitness for Office into Congress where it belongs.

Actually, American ideals, American values, however you want to phrase it, those transcendental values, they are the province of the people.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEYN: And that is the prerogative of the people, not of bureaucrats and administrators, and the pseudo-judicial process in Washington. And, as for the debate about his fitness, bringing it in to him about his fitness for Office into Congress, where it belongs, no, that too, his fitness for office, that too is in the gift of the people.

And we're teaching a very dangerous lesson here. Basically, they're - they're - they're not disputing that Trump was elected according to the lawful mechanisms of elections in the United States. What they're saying is they don't like the result of that election.

And you're teaching the people a very dangerous lesson there. You're saying that voting doesn't matter and, in - in essence, thereby setting in motion, essentially, revolutionary conditions, if you tell people in a free society that your vote doesn't matter.

CARLSON: I think you're absolutely right. And I think that there are leaders on the Democratic side who sense that what you're saying is right. And there could - they could be unleashing forces they can't control, and they might be hurting themselves.

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: What do you think would happen--

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: --politically, if impeachment commenced?

STEYN: Oh, I think it - I think it would be an absolute fiasco. I mean one of the most deplorable trends in this country in the last few years is the attempt to actually criminalize opposition. Basically, this - this guy's piece is written in a kind of pseudo-scholarly, pseudo-judicial form.

But it's full of what lawyers would call conclusory allegations that you're not actually allowed to make in a - a legal complaint. He uses - you called it general badness. He accuses Trump of attacking the bedrock of American democracy.

Well, you know, that's this - that's kind of fancy writing. But what does that actually mean? There is not a - there is no bedrock of American democracy. It's not down there by the fence in El Paso, and you take a pickaxe to it. You can't actually litigate that.

You can revile this President. You can loathe this President.

CARLSON: Right.

STEYN: But Robert Mueller has been investigating him for two years, and has come up empty, except for Papadopoulos lying about a cocktail he had with the Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom in a bar in London. That's - that's after two years of this rubbish.

CARLSON: It was a very dangerous cocktail though. Mark Steyn, put it better than anyone I know. Thank you. Good to see you.

STEYN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well Syria isn't the only military commitment America has abroad right now. Or - our largest 14,000 troops remain in Afghanistan.

There are reports the President is considering withdrawing some or all of them. Is that wise? What should our policy toward Afghanistan be? And how does it affect our contest with China, our biggest rival?

Robert Kaplan has been more places than anyone I'm aware of. He's a Senior Fellow at the Center for the New American Security, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Kaplan, thank you very much for coming on.

ROBERT KAPLAN, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY SENIOR FELLOW: It's my pleasure to be here.

CARLSON: So, you've written about Afghanistan, thought about Afghanistan, a lot about Afghanistan. In your judgment, what's the right course going forward in Afghanistan?

KAPLAN: Well, first of all, let's lay out some facts. The United States has been in Afghanistan for 17 years. The troops being deployed there now were in diapers, literally, when we first went in in October 2001.

We have no chance to militarily defeat the Taliban. And we have little chance to leave behind either a self-sustaining democracy or even a self- sustaining, very well-functioning, enlightened dictatorship. All the trend lines are bad, it seems, unfortunately.

And what we're sustaining at the moment is a moderate level of chaos where warlords, ethnic groups compete with each other. And if we pulled out, unfortunately, there would be a much greater level of chaos. And, in fact, the regime might actually collapse in the way that the Saigon regime collapsed--

CARLSON: Right.

KAPLAN: --in 1975. Therefore, either this President or the next President, whoever, is going to face the choice of how to pull out of Afghanistan, because the terrorist threat is still there.

But the question becomes, is spending $45 billion a year there the right way to deal with international terrorism, because the Iranians, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Chinese, all have strong strategic interests in Afghanistan.

We do not our strategic interests there, and it's complicated to explain. We don't have time now or--

CARLSON: Right.

KAPLAN: --much, much less. So, we're going to have to pull out under this President or the next one.

CARLSON: So, what you just said sounds right. And it sounds like it's probably a conclusion that's been clear for a while.

What does it say about our policymakers here in Washington that nobody is, that I'm aware of, is debating this at a high level in public anyway, and that this has been allowed to persist in this kind of counterproductive limbo for so long?

KAPLAN: Yes. This is a classic case of where many people in Washington, many thoughtful people know what needs to be done, but nobody dares utter it. Remember, Afghanistan is not Syria. Syria, you don't have Gold Star families where we've had--

CARLSON: Right.

KAPLAN: --2,300 soldiers killed as we've had in Afghanistan. You don't have very esteemed Generals reputations built around Syria, whereas in Afghanistan, we've had a number of very senior esteemed famous Generals who've been Commanders there.

Pulling out of Afghanistan would be politically much more difficult, I believe, for this President or any President than pulling out of Syria.

CARLSON: Right.

KAPLAN: Pulling out of Syria domestically, politically, is a Washington debate more or less. Pulling out of Afghanistan may become a national debate.

CARLSON: I think that's right. Mr. Kaplan, thank you very much for coming on and explaining that. Appreciate it.

KAPLAN: My pleasure.

CARLSON: Well a prominent House Democrat, it's hard to believe this but, is accused tonight of firing a staff member after that staff member made an allegation of rape. Amazing! We've got details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Pretty amazing story that's not getting enough attention tonight. A House Democratic staffer is suing a Democratic Member of Congress. The staffer said she was fired for making an allegation of rape.

Fox Correspondent, David Spunt, is on this story for us tonight. David?

DAVID SPUNT, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Tucker, as you were saying, well disturbing allegations coming from a former employee of longtime Texas Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee.

This former employee claims that she was raped by a former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation employee, and was fired by Jackson Lee's office after the employee planned to sue.

The former Jackson Lee staffer named Jane Doe in a lawsuit filed just last Friday says a former Intern Coordinator for the Caucus Foundation named a man named Damien Jones, she's saying that he raped her in 2015. Jane Doe says that Jones was her Supervisor at the time.

Doe reported the alleged rape to authorities. But the investigation was inconclusive when it came to evidence, well when she went to tell authorities.

Fast forward to 2017, Jane Doe took a job with Congresswoman Jackson Lee out of Texas, who became Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Jane Doe found out that Damien Jones was also going to be working with her again, and she reported to authorities that she had a prior situation with him.

Now, Jane Doe says that she repeatedly reached out to Congresswoman Jackson Lee who would not meet her. Now, to be clear, we reached out to Damien Jones mentioned in this lawsuit for comment, but we have not heard back.

We do though, Tucker, have a statement from Congresswoman Jackson Lee's office. I want to read it in part.

It says, "The office adamantly denies the allegations that it retaliated against, or otherwise improperly treated, the Plaintiff. It is against office policy to discuss specific details about internal personnel matters. Congresswoman Jackson Lee has an outstanding record of supporting civil rights and non-discrimination, both in legislation and in her own office."

Now the statement goes on to say that Jackson Lee, when she came to Congress in 1995, was a strong supporter of the Congressional Accountability Act, which protects Congressional employees.

The statement also says, Tucker, that Jackson Lee is confident that when the facts come to light, her office will be exonerated and the matter will be put to rest. Tucker.

CARLSON: Her defense? I'm a good person. David Spunt, thank you very much for that.

SPUNT: You bet, thank you.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: DRUGGED.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well as America's opioid epidemic continues, in some ways, worsens, a new feature is coming to a decaying metropolis near you. It's called a safe injection site. So, rather than help addicts get off drugs, many cities are trying to create publicly-funded areas where addicts can shoot drugs intravenously, legally.

Denver just approved one. Bill de Blasio, of course, would like one in New York. Seattle has been fighting to open one for years.

The question is will any of these sites, if they're opened, open anywhere near the homes of the people who want to build them? The answer, of course, is no. But what is it like when one opens in your neighborhood?

Jason Rantz is a radio host, and he joins us tonight. Jason, thanks very much for coming on. So, this is one of those ideas that's been discussed for many years that exists mostly in the realm of the theoretical. What happens when it becomes real?

JASON RANTZ, THE JASON RANTZ SHOW HOST, AM 770 KTTH: Yes.

CARLSON: What's the effect of one of these sites?

RANTZ: The - the effect is exactly what you probably think it is, which is, it has the capacity to ruin neighborhoods that went up to Vancouver and British Columbia. Happen to be there on vacation, and I decided, let me go to the heroin injection site area, and it's devastating.

You see lots of people who are living out on the streets with addiction that's clearly not being treated. I saw, you know, a drug deal going down, when I was there, which apparently is not supposed to happen when you have these heroin injection sites.

And it's - it's just sad. And the debate has been, at least here in Seattle, I'm assuming, in Denver soon, we don't want them necessarily in our neighborhoods.

CARLSON: It also is sad, I would think, for the acts (ph). By the way, this has been tried in Europe. I believe, this was tried in Switzerland 20 years ago, and it was stopped because it was too depressing.

But doesn't it suggest that municipalities are kind of giving up on the people like we're not going to try you to - to convince you to stop using heroin and give you treatment. We're just going to let you do it until, I guess, you die. Is that what they're saying? What are they saying?

RANTZ: It - it's an unfortunate reality because when they first started to talk about it in Seattle it was about saving people, right? It was about helping people who were addicted to heroin.

CARLSON: Right.

RANTZ: And then it started to become OK, well now it's just about making sure that when they do inject themselves with this deadly drug, they don't die of an overdose, which is something, you know, no one wants to see overdose deaths. I think--

CARLSON: Of course, not.

RANTZ: --in a lot of cases, some of these people's hearts are in the right place.

But, you know, there's a group of people like myself who say, well, a really safe way to deal with this is to get the person off of heroin. We can offer treatment on demand, which is something that, you know, we have the money for.

I'm in a state where the Governor who desperately wants to be President, he's not going to be, he suggested $1.1 Billion to save the Orcas in the Puget Sound. And saving the Orcas, very important, but he offered $30 million to deal with the opioid crisis, and it would feel more appropriate if maybe he switch those numbers around--

CARLSON: Right. That's for sure.

RANTZ: --if you've got the money. Yes, human life to (ph) think is a little bit more valuable here.

CARLSON: So, leaders are supposed to, need to care about the people they lead, or else, they can't lead effectively.

Is there a parent in the world who upon finding out that his kid was using heroin, do you think would say, "You know what? I'm going to get you clean needles. You can shoot up in your bedroom. I can't stop you. But I just want you to inject safely at home?"

Would any parents say that? Or would a parent instead say, "I'm going to do whatever I can to get you off it."

RANTZ: The people who don't have kids who are supportive of this will say that--

CARLSON: Right.

RANTZ: --if they were a parent, and they were in that circumstance, they would. But when you talk to normal people, when you talk to the average everyday person--

CARLSON: Exactly.

RANTZ: --of course, they don't want that to happen. And I feel like if we're not going to do that with our own kids, perhaps, we should not do that with other people's kids. I know it's difficult. I know that it is expensive.

And I know that when people are addicted to heroin, you know, you - they have to be in a place where they feel ready to overcome that addiction. But something--

CARLSON: Yes.

RANTZ: --that gets in the way of feeling ready is handing them a needle to say, "Hey, shoot up here. We'll supervise it. And it's Seattle, so it's probably going to be a little bit crazier. We'll set the mood light rights. We'll - we'll have some like smooth jazz in the background," like that's just not an appropriate way to go about this.

I would rather we spend focus our energy on actual services to save them to get them off of this drug.

CARLSON: Exactly. So nicely put. It is difficult. It is complicated. But that's what you do when you care, and when you don't care, you do exactly what they're doing now. They don't care. Do they?

RANTZ: It's a - it - I don't want to say none of them care, right? I think there's some people whose hearts are in the right place. But it does seem to be the more--

CARLSON: Yes. I bet that's true.

RANTZ: --lazy way. It's - it's just lazier. And I'm not - I've been trying to think about why some people support this, and I haven't really gotten a straight answer. There are some people who basically want to legalize heroin. It's a small group of people.

But there are folks in this community who are fighting for heroin injection sites, who are of the opinion that you could live a normal life and have normal relationships and be basically a functioning addict.

And I'm - I suppose that's certainly possible with - with some cases. But I don't think the risk is worth it. And so, you start talking to people, they just feel like, it seems like they don't want to offend someone, who's addicted.

CARLSON: Yes.

RANTZ: And they want to be there when you're ready, and it's a very emotional approach. Again, I appreciate the emotion behind it. It just doesn't work. And that's how the - the conversation weirdly (ph)--

CARLSON: That's right.

RANTZ: --again started, "We're saving people that it's OK." Well how many people are actually--

CARLSON: Yes.

RANTZ: --getting off of their addiction? And magically, there's no data that they can cite.

CARLSON: Exactly. Junkies don't feel anything. I know (ph), you can't be alive if you don't feel things. Jason, thank you. It was really smart and interesting and helpful. Appreciate it.

RANTZ: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Time for Final Exam. We have a pretty different kind of arrangement tonight, a special Husband versus Wife edition. Which member of the Duffy family will take home the commemorative Erik Wemple mug? Find out after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: FINAL EXAM.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Time now for Final Exam, where we pit contestants who follow the news against one another to see who's been paying the closest attention. We've got a double Special Edition of Final Exam.

So, our (ph) two contenders this evening have married each other, not tonight, but years ago. Rachel Campos-Duffy is regularly here on Fox. Her husband is a Member of Congress from Wisconsin, Congressman Sean Duffy. And hopefully, this will strengthen rather than divide their union.

REP. SEAN PATRICK DUFFY, R-WIS.: I look forward, Tucker (ph).

CARLSON: It's great to see you.

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.

CARLSON: You're brave enough to do (ph)--

DUFFY: Good to see you too, Tucker.

CARLSON: Evidently, we're ploughing new ground here.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I'm excited to be part of that.

CARLSON: OK. Well we're excited too.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: OK.

CARLSON: Now, you know the rules. But I'm going to repeat them for the sake of people watching at home. I'm going to ask the questions. The first contestant to buzz gets to answer the question. You must wait until I finish asking it in order to answer.

You can answer once I acknowledge by saying your name. Each correct answer is worth one point. If you get it wrong, we detract a point, the cruel math of Final Exam. Best of five wins.

DUFFY: All right.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: OK.

CARLSON: Are you ready?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I'm ready.

CARLSON: All right.

DUFFY: Is there any way I win this Tucker. I mean I think we're not two (ph) so I really don't--

CARLSON: No, there's - there's - there's literally no chance. And, by the way, winning doesn't--

DUFFY: Yes. Mean I won--

CARLSON: --actually get to a victory, yes, there you go (ph). That's another show, entirely.

DUFFY: I think it (ph)--

CARLSON: OK. So, according to the rules laid out by the National Game Show Commission, all of today's questions must be either about food or animals. We went with food. So, the first question, this is multiple choice, please listen carefully.

President Trump says he doesn't care what lawmakers call the Border wall and ordered a food - offered a food-related suggestion. Which name did he suggest? Was it--

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: --A, quarter pounder with cheese, B, pancakes, C, peaches?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

DUFFY: That sounds (ph)--

CARLSON: I think it goes by definition to your husband. I'm sorry. The Judge - the Judges have weighed in on this.

DUFFY: I'm going to go with C, peaches.

CARLSON: You're going to go with C? Is it peaches?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP: Whatever you want to call, it's OK with me. They can name it whatever they can. Name it peaches. I don't care what they name. But we need money.

Peaches.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: Peaches.

CARLSON: Peaches. You both knew that.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I did. And I thought the question was over (ph) by mistake.

CARLSON: You know you knew it too well. I think that's what it was.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I did.

DUFFY: But she has to wait for - all multiple choice has to be--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: OK. I got it. I'm sorry.

CARLSON: That is correct.

DUFFY: --presented (ph).

CARLSON: All (ph) you have to - you have to wait till we finish asking the question. OK.

DUFFY: OK.

CARLSON: We'll - we can do it this time. I know.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Oh, yes.

CARLSON: Costco, the store, says it is sold out of a 27 tub of food that has a shelf life of 20 years. What type of food was it?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

DUFFY: Oh, that was not - that's not right.

CARLSON: Rachel?

DUFFY: I hit it first.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: It was macaroni and cheese.

CARLSON: Macaroni. I think you have to hold it down.

DUFFY: Oh, I - OK. I hit it first for sure.

CARLSON: It was macaroni and cheese. Is it macaroni and cheese?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Everybody loves macaroni and cheese. But now you can get--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: How'd you know that?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --27 pounds of--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: That's my voice. That's how I knew it. I did that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --with apparently has a shelf life--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I did that commercial (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --of 20 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: How many - how many children do you have?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: We have eight.

CARLSON: OK. You need--

DUFFY: OK. That's not fair.

CARLSON: --obviously, you need to invest in that.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.

CARLSON: Because that seem like a pretty good deal. I'm getting one myself.

DUFFY: I'm kind of a prepper (ph). Sounds like I'll do--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: It--

DUFFY: --I'll buy them (ph).

CARLSON: You got to prepper (ph) it too.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: If it lasts for 20 years, so it can last--

CARLSON: Don't admit that on TV.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --for our grandkids.

CARLSON: Remember, your official position on prepping is, "No, that's crazy."

DUFFY: I do - I - I don't want to sound like that (ph).

CARLSON: Yes, no, God, no. You're like crazy (ph)--

DUFFY: Bit crazy.

CARLSON: --just to - OK. Question three, another multiple choice--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.

CARLSON: --OK? A world record was set this week for the most liked Instagram photo ever. The picture doesn't feature a famous person or an exotic place. It has already nearly 50 million likes. It's a plain, boring photograph of what? A, a banana, B, a lemon, C, an egg?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Congressman.

DUFFY: I'm going to go with Kylie Jenner, I believe, and C, an egg. Didn't she tweet the egg out?

CARLSON: I have no idea.

DUFFY: Let's check it out.

CARLSON: But I'm not a Member of Congress. Is it C, the egg?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFEID MALE: World Record Egg. An account with that very name posted this single photo. It's a picture of an egg.

The egg currently has 26 million likes and counting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: How did that - I'm sorry. Either you live in this country--

DUFFY: Right.

CARLSON: --your whole life and you still don't understand it. What is that?

DUFFY: There must be like an Egg Commission that promotes eggs. They - they - they're getting a bonus. They're getting a bonus on this one.

CARLSON: The Poultry Lobby is behind it. I mean, it's true (ph).

CAMPOS-DUFFY: That's probably true.

CARLSON: You live in Washington, in other words (ph).

Question four. One last multiple choice. Chaos--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: OK.

DUFFY: I'm - I'm winning it, right? It's two to one.

CARLSON: --I'm not going to--

DUFFY: OK.

CARLSON: --it's not for me to keep score. Our viewers are watching.

Chaos hit Flagstaff, Arizona on Monday when a tanker truck flipped over, spilling 3,500 gallons of which liquid all over the highway? Was it A, chocolate, B, coffee, C, beer?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Rachel.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Beer, C.

CARLSON: Was it C--

DUFFY: I don't know.

CARLSON: --beer?

DUFFY: I don't know.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFEID MALE: 3,500 gallons. That's how much liquid chocolate spilled in Arizona--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Oh.

CARLSON: Oh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFEID MALE: --Interstate. A Chocolate River, they described it, forming after a tanker carrying it (ph)--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: I thought it was beer too.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFEID MALE: --crashed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I just took a guess.

CARLSON: You don't see (ph)--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I knew I was losing and I figured beer. Why would chocolate be on a truck?

CARLSON: You know what? You doubled down. And I, you know, I admire that.

DUFFY: Because and she's from Wisconsin. So, of course, she's thought beer.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I thought beer.

CARLSON: Of course, it's (ph) beer. She's not being like whatever (ph)--

DUFFY: Yes.

CARLSON: All right, final question. The Clemson Tigers, invited to the White House for a candlelit feast to celebrate their recent victory over Alabama, what type of food did the President serve the team?

(BUZZERS SOUND)

CARLSON: Congressman Duffy.

DUFFY: I was there this morning. McDonald's, from the McDonald's that the food came from, I (ph) was there this morning.

CARLSON: Was it McDonald's?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have pizzas. We have 300 hamburgers. Many, many French fries, all of our favorite foods. I want to see what's here when we leave, because I don't think it's going to be much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: And Carlos (ph) owns the store.

CARLSON: And it wasn't - I just want to say, it wasn't exclusively, we're hearing from our Judges--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: It's fast food.

DUFFY: Oh.

CARLSON: --McDonald's. But McDonald's was represented.

DUFFY: Oh.

CARLSON: So and - and our - and you're right. You still win because McDonald's--

DUFFY: So then (ph)--

CARLSON: --it was McDonald's, Wendy's and what was the last one?

DUFFY: OK.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I was going to say fast food.

CARLSON: Burger King. So it was an--

DUFFY: Burger King.

CARLSON: --it was an ecumenical sort of (ph).

DUFFY: I - I just know that Carlos (ph) owns the McDonald's that gave the food to the White House where I saw (ph) this morning.

CARLSON: So impressive. Congressman, well first of all--

DUFFY: Look, it's been a shutdown. He's had a lot of time. I'm--

CARLSON: Exactly. But I would also say--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --I've been home with the kids.

CARLSON: It really is all a (ph)--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Of course, he knows.

CARLSON: --it's a shared victory. It's really a victory for your family. We're pro-family on this show.

DUFFY: Yes, we are (ph).

CARLSON: So, I'm going to award, in fact, our Erik Wemple commemorative mug to you, Rachel.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Thank you. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you. That was great. Congratulations to you both.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I'm - I'm truly honored.

DUFFY: Thank you. I went and watched the episode that you had with him on, it's great. YouTube it.

CARLSON: It really - when I'm feeling sad, sometimes I pull it up, and it just--

DUFFY: It makes you smile.

CARLSON: --just kind of lifts me up.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Or if you're on a shutdown--

CARLSON: Exactly, that's right.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --pull out (ph) the YouTube video.

CARLSON: It's amazing. It's like Andy (ph).

CAMPOS-DUFFY: All right.

DUFFY: Good, Tucker (ph).

CARLSON: All right, that's it for this week's Final Exam. Pay attention to the news all week. Come back Thursday to see if you can beat the experts. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well the hosts of The View are about the most rigid partisans on television, most of them anyway. You'll never hear them criticize anyone even faintly connected to the DNC Mothership.

But today, they did go after a Democrat, believe it or not, Bill de Blasio of New York. Why'd they do that? Trace Gallagher has the story. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker.

Mayor de Blasio was on The View for eight minutes, and used much of that time to boast about his progressive agenda, including his plan that New York City will guarantee healthcare for everyone, including hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

As expected, except for Conservative Meghan McCain, de Blasio got very little resistance until Actress, Comedian and well-known Liberal, Whoopi Goldberg called the Mayor out about bike lanes in Manhattan. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, THE VIEW CO-HOST, ABC: So, I like all of that. That all sounds good. You know what's really pissing me off?

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: What?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Uh-oh.

DE BLASIO: I've never heard you pissed off before.

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

GOLDBERG: No, you actually haven't.

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

GOLDBERG: You've built 83 miles of protected bike lanes.

DE BLASIO: Mm-hmm.

GOLDBERG: OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Goldberg's complaint is that adding bike lanes, which is being done by Liberal politicians across the country invariably leads to traffic gridlock. De Blasio defended himself saying, fewer car lanes means fewer fatalities. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DE BLASIO: Slow down the traffic.

GOLDBERG: But you've screwed the city up. Well it's not--

DE BLASIO: No.

GOLDBERG: --just - wait but--

DE BLASIO: No, listen, listen--

GOLDBERG: --once you (ph) listen--

DE BLASIO: --they've made it safer.

GOLDBERG: --you're going through the city with a - with a police escort. I come in every day.

(CROWD LAUGHTER)

GOLDBERG: I - I come in every day.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We come (ph).

GOLDBERG: And I find that because you can't make a turn anywhere, you can't go straight anywhere. When there is a storm, people can't move anywhere.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: You didn't hear it there. But the audience also turned against the Mayor. Finally, de Blasio was asked if he's running for President in 2020, and he dodged the question. Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thank you. I just appreciate the increase in public urination--

GALLAGHER: Yes.

CARLSON: --since he's been in office. It's great.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: TECH TYRANNY.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well you probably know by now that your smartphone has a lot of functions, and one of them is to spy on you full-time on your personal life. But it's not just tech companies who are tracking your every move. It turns out they're selling that data to other people.

So now, it's possible for virtually anybody to know everywhere that you go without your knowledge, and get rich from it.

Brett Larson is an Anchor at Fox News Headlines 24/7. He's been investigating this for us, and he joins us tonight. Hey, Brett.

BRETT LARSON, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS HEADLINES 24/7: Hey, Tucker.

It is yet another tale of the technology we love, and have come to rely on, turning over sensitive information without our consent.

So, when your cell phone is on, it is in constant communication with nearby cell towers. That way, when you get a call or text or open up an email, the signal you need is right there.

One slight issue. That data is collected by the mobile operators. And it turns out, some of them have been selling it, and not to law enforcement, but a variety of companies like bail bondsmen, car dealers, even emergency roadside assistance.

But some of these companies that get the data, they may be turning around and selling it again, which means if you've got someone's cell number and some money, you could potentially find out in real-time where that phone is.

Now, this isn't anything new. Last year, there were some grumblings on Capitol Hill. Oregon Senator, Ron Wyden, sent letters to the wireless providers and the FCC to get the situation under control. There was a flurry of responses from the wireless providers saying they'd put a stop to it.

But here we are in 2019, and it's still happening. An example from just last week, from online site Motherboard, they found that with a little cash and a phone number, they were able to get location information of a user's phone.

Within a few days of the report, all the major wireless carriers said they have stopped or they will stop selling your data with a few exceptions like those for safety reasons, and roadside assistance.

So, probably nothing's going to change for now.

CARLSON: Yes. It seems to be following (ph) to Ron Wyden, of all people.

LARSON: Yes.

CARLSON: And good for him to keep abreast of this. So, let me just ask a dumb question.

LARSON: OK.

CARLSON: When you sign up for one of these phones, buy it, get the plan--

LARSON: Right.

CARLSON: --is there any indication - is there any way to know, if you're an average person with bad eyesight that they're going to be selling your data?

LARSON: There is no way to know. And all of this stuff, so far, has not been an opt-in situation. You're not getting a message that says, "Hey, we're about to tell somebody exactly where your phone is. Are you OK with this?"

And all the wireless companies have said, "Oh, yes, yes. We're - they're supposed to be doing that. And if they're not doing it, they're in violation of our agreement."

But they're still selling - they're still selling the data, and people can still get their hands on it.

CARLSON: I don't know why I'm laughing. It's - it's horrifying. And I'm--

LARSON: It is horrifying. You seem to be (ph) laughing. But it's that horrifying like--

CARLSON: --it is horrifying.

LARSON: --oh, my gosh, what like what do we have to--

CARLSON: Yes.

LARSON: --do to make this stop.

CARLSON: It's worse than you think it is always.

LARSON: Yes.

CARLSON: Thanks for proving that. Brett Larson, great to see you.

LARSON: Thanks, Tucker. Good to be here.

CARLSON: We're out of time tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night, 8:00 P.M., the show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

But don't fret. We have good news for you. Four seconds early, we're turning over to our friend Sean Hannity live from New York.

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.