This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 30, 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,” widespread political violence erupted in Venezuela today. Two factions both claiming to be the legitimate government of the country. The beginnings of what could easily become a brutal Civil War.

Meanwhile, thousands of miles to the north here in Washington, our foreign policy establishment pushes for American intervention -- U.S. troops in Venezuela. Yet, another conflict in a faraway place. Suddenly that looks entirely possible.

We'll have much more on this developing story throughout the night, but we want to begin with an assessment of what exactly is happening in Venezuela right now. For that, we're going to go to Trace Gallagher who is -- actually, I'm correcting now, we're going to go right to Caracas, Venezuela and speak to Juan Carlos Lamas who is on the ground there. Oh there he is. Juan Carlos, thank you for joining us. What is happening?

JUAN CARLOS LAMAS, CORRESPONDENT: Well violent street battles have robbed it across the capital of Caracas after a very dramatic morning. Juan Guaido urged Venezuelans to take part in what he calls operation freedom in a final push to topple President Nicolas Maduro,.

Guaido said he had the support of the brave soldiers in Caracas and he calls on the military to help him end Maduro's rule trying to encourage them saying that they will be on the right side of history if they were to support him. Violence followed as people took to the streets, all across the country with erupting clashes between opposition supporters and armed military vehicles as protesters threw rocks and Molotov bombs, they were repelled by tear gas and water cannon.

At one point, an armored car drove directly into a crowd, buses were set on fire here in Caracas and dozens of people have been reported injured across the country. The political situation meanwhile remains incredibly fluid. May 1st, May Day, the traditional workers holiday comes tomorrow, schools and offices will be closed and no plans announced by the opposition so far to take to the streets in the following days.

CARLSON: Juan Carlos Lamas live from Caracas, thank you very much for that. What you just heard there is a lot going on, but there is also much we don't know at this hour. What we do know is that Venezuela's current government has done a poor job of providing for its own people. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, yet it remains one of the most impoverished and the most dangerous places on the planet. That is beyond dispute.

Everything else is up for debate. Will the overthrow of Maduro make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for the United States? Lots of people claims to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected, few things ever do. But that has not stopped the geniuses in Washington, it has not even slowed them down.

This afternoon, on a bipartisan basis, they agreed that the United States ought to jump immediately face first into the Venezuelan mess. Watch Florida senator, Rick Scott explain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Do you think that our presence there would make a difference?

SEN. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA.: Absolutely. I was down at the Venezuelan border last Wednesday. This is just pure genocide. Maduro is killing his own citizens.

CAVUTO: Is it worth however, strongly, you feel, sir losing American men and women to do just that?

SCOTT: Neil, here is what is going to happen. We are in the process, if we don't win today, we are going to have Syria in this hemisphere. So we can make sure something happens now or we can deal with this for decades to come.

If we care about families, if we care about the human race, if we care about fellow worldwide citizens, then we've got to step up and stop this genocide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: All right, I just want to make sure that it is clear. "If you care about families and you care about the human race, if you want to stop genocide, you will send your children to Venezuela to fight right now, without even thinking about it, without even weighing the consequences. You will just do it." Assuming you are a good person, of course, if you don't care about families or the human race, if for some reason you despise human happiness and support genocide, then you will want to join Satan's team and embrace isolationism, the single most immoral of all worldviews. That is what they're telling you. That is what they are demanding you believe.

Message is received. We've heard it before. But before the bombers take off, let's just answer a few quick questions starting with the most obvious, when was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country? Has it ever worked? How are the democracies we set up in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, and Afghanistan tonight? How would Venezuela be different? Please explain and take your time.

Next, are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and work here, in effect, permanently as many have before with no fear of deportation. Are we prepared for that?

Are we prepared to absorb millions of new Venezuelan migrants? All of them great people, no question, but many with little education or skills or English. Finally, how exactly is any of this good for the United States? Our sanctions on Venezuela have already spiked our gas prices, that hurts our struggling middle class more than virtually anything we could do, so what's is the point of doing that?

So our lawmakers can feel like good people? And if they are indeed good people, why did they care more about Venezuela than they care about this country? The one that they run. They are happy to send our military to South America at the first sign of chaos, but U.S. troops to our own border to stem the tide of a hundred thousand uninvited arrivals a month? "No way," they tell us. That is crazy talk.

So what is the thinking here? To find out, we are joined tonight by Congressman Mario-Diaz Balart of Florida. Congressman, thanks very much for coming on. So I can see a lot of ways this would be helpful to factions within Venezuela, maybe to the country as a whole. How would intervening in Venezuela help your constituents, American citizens?

REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART, R-FLA.: Tucker, when you talk about foreign policy -- U.S. foreign policy -- the number one principle has to be the national security interest of the United States.

CARLSON: Amen.

DIAZ-BALART: So they claim. Absolutely, and that is above anything and everything else.

CARLSON: Right.

DIAZ-BALART: So the question is, does the situation in Venezuela present a national security threat to the United States? So what do we know? We know that there 20,000 to 25,000 Cubans in Venezuela. We know that there are Russian troops in Venezuela. We know that we have Hezbollah, Iranian presence in Venezuela. We know that we have Chinese presence in Venezuela.

So is that a potential risk for the national security interest of the United States? Absolutely. The question is, of that is the case, and you know, some may disagree that having all of those folks there is a problem, I don't. I think it is a national security threat to the United States. If that's the case, what steps should the United States do to protect our national security interest?

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I don't think -- no one is surprised at the world's bad guys are congregated in a country like Venezuela. We have seen similar things happen many times in history. The question is, does intervening help the situation? And does it help the United States? That is the really simple question.

DIAZ-BALART: And that is a very good question and I would tell you that military intervention always has to be the last -- the last thing that we should always do.

CARLSON: Well, Rick Scott, you know, your senator is saying it should be the first thing. If you care about humanity and want to stop genocide, we need to intervene. Why is that not crazy?

DIAZ-BALART: No, I think that -- well, because I think what Rick Scott is aware of is that, in my opinion and his opinion that there is a huge national security threat to the United States and then the question is --

CARLSON: What exactly is the threat? I mean, please be specific.

DIAZ-BALART: To be specific, when have a country that is -- that we now have Middle Easterns with real legal Venezuelan passports that we have found, you have Hezbollah, you have Cuba, you have Iran, you have Russia, you have China there, so imagine if this regime that now is receiving a lot of international pressure, right, survives, is it or is it not potentially a green light, an open door for the Russians and for the Chinese and for others to increase their activity against our national security interest right here in our hemisphere?

CARLSON: Yes, no. I mean, it's kind of hard to see what you're talking about exactly. Are you suggesting they are going to invade?

DIAZ-BALART: No, they don't -- look, the United States -- the closest we ever came to nuclear war was because the Russians put missiles, right, nuclear missiles in Cuba.

CARLSON: So are you suggesting the Russians are going to put nuclear missiles into Venezuela?

DIAZ-BALART: What I am suggesting is that they are already there. What I am suggesting is -- I am not suggesting --

CARLSON: Why should I care if they are there? I mean, no offense, but --

DIAZ-BALART: Right, and I think it's is a very valid question. You know, why should we care what the Chinese, what the Russians do anywhere around the world? But I think particular we should care what they doing in this hemisphere, in our own hemisphere.

CARLSON: Okay, but the Chinese as you know have built infrastructure in virtually every country in this hemisphere.

DIAZ-BALART: That is a different animal.

CARLSON: And we -- I don't think it is. We haven't done anything about it and so they have a small number of Russian advisers there, I'm supposed to think it's a threat because why? No one really explains. Why should I not be worried about eight million people leaving Venezuela?

DIAZ-BALART: Oh, we should.

CARLSON: And some of them coming here, and why should we give any of them temporary protected status? Why would we do that?

DIAZ-BALART: We clearly should.

CARLSON: But why?

DIAZ-BALART: Because remember, the reason that they are fleeing in Venezuela -- from Venezuela, by the way, what 20 years ago was one of the wealthiest countries in the planet, right? Is because of this tyrannical regime, anti-American regime with close ties to the worst thugs and anti- American --

CARLSON: Well, I am not defending Maduro.

DIAZ-BALART: I know you're not. I know you're not.

CARLSON: And I am wondering, so our interest is not to have gas prices spiked?

DIAZ-BALART: No, no. Let me try to get to your point, because I think you make a very valid point. The reason Venezuelans are leaving is precisely because of that regime. It is the largest refugee crisis this hemisphere has ever seen and by the way, we spend a lot of time obviously focusing on the Middle East. There are more refugees that have left Venezuela than left Syria.

CARLSON: I get it. That is why I am worried about making it worse.

DIAZ-BALART: You do not make it worse, you do not make it worse by helping the Venezuelan people get rid of the regime that is causing that to happen.

CARLSON: Well, you make it worse by saying in public, as you have said that if you make it here illegally, we will let you stay and that we will give you amnesty, which you have said.

DIAZ-BALART: No.

CARLSON: That you suggested temporary protected status for Venezuelans who are here illegally. And why is that not an inducement to them?

DIAZ-BALART: And I think it's a very good question. Look, the reason the Venezuelans are in Colombia and Brazil, again, you know, over three million have already left Venezuela and the forecast are that if the Maduro regime persists and that to the point that you were making, you are going to have another five million leaving. So that is caused by that regime. So it is in our interest if all we care about is stopping that from happening, we have to do what we can to make sure that that regime is no longer there.

CARLSON: Or that the regime remains there, but there isn't a scene like this, that there aren't fires and conflict. I mean, that is kind of the message from Syria. But let me just ask you really quickly. Everyone in Washington bipartisan, not just you, lots of Democrats do, for these sanctions on Venezuela because the government is bad. I think the government is bad, I agree. Fine.

But those sanctions have increased the price of gasoline for middle-class Americans because why exactly? How to they benefit from that? I'm confused by that.

DIAZ-BALART: Tucker, the Venezuelan oil company, the proceeds of that money, of those funds go directly to the regime. The regime uses it for, not only repressing their people, but for again, anti-American activities, now --

CARLSON: But what is more anti-American than rising gas prices? Does that actually hurt Americans more than anything the Venezuelans have ever done?

DIAZ-BALART: No, because if you look at the production of Venezuelan oil, it has been dropping dramatically because it is a socialist disaster country. But even though the revenue is going down, a hundred percent of that revenue -- I shouldn't say hundred percent, but pretty much, a hundred percent of the revenue is used by the Venezuelan regime to do nefarious things. And let me tell you --

CARLSON: We're almost out of time, sir.

DIAZ-BALART: I commend the Trump administration because they have done a very responsible job trying to pressure the regime, help the Venezuelan people to avoid a catastrophe that one day it might force the United States to have to intervene.

CARLSON: Okay, well, I hope that day is far away. Congressman, thanks very much for explaining all of that. I appreciate your willingness to come on.

DIAZ-BALART: Great pleasure to be with you.

CARLSON: Thank you. Colonel Douglas MacGregor is a retired U.S. Army. The colonel authored the book, "Margin of Victory," a frequent guest on this show and he joins us tonight. Colonel, this is no way a defense of the Maduro regime, which never even occurred to me to defend, I never would. But I am not sold on the idea that I should feel afraid of the Venezuelan government, should I?

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RET., U.S. ARMY: Well, keep in mind, first of all, we have the Washington War lobby which is bipartisan and has decided we should intervene there. That is in and of itself is something we should be concerned about.

The second thing is, our interest there are not so crystal-clear. First of all, we don't need to control the Venezuelan oil market, which is on the minds of many people right now inside the beltway. We are a net exporter of oil, so we don't need to reassert our dominance in that market which we were dominant in for many, many decades.

The second thing is, it's a lose-lose proposition for us. We are playing puppet master. We want to replace Maduro, the communist with Guaido, the socialist. Guaido is going to inherit all of the problems that brought Chavez to power, a huge under class, which wants to be permanently dependent upon the government and expects to be cared for. He has got to do that.

If we are going to put him into power and keep him into power, we have to spend billions of dollars to keep him there. So we turn Venezuela into the 51st state effectively pouring resources into keeping him there. Over time our history in Latin America is a disaster. We will incur the hostility of the population. They will want us ultimately to leave and if he is viewed as a puppet, he is going to have trouble lasting.

CARLSON: So I have done, I don't know, 50 interviews with people. You say, well, why should the United States absorb a third of the population of El Salvador? And if you push them far enough, they will say because the United States interfered in the internal affairs of El Salvador, therefore, you have a moral obligation to accept the population. Why is that not going to happen in 20 years from now with Venezuela?

MACGREGOR: Well, first of all, we don't know what will happen in 20 years, except that in 20 years, Venezuela is going to look a lot like it does today contrary to popular belief an dour intervention there isn't going to change a damn thing. But here is what is important because the Congressman brought this up, all of the threats that he discussed are in Mexico. They are actually in greater numbers in Hezbollah, in terrorist organizations connected to the Middle East and Africa. They are greater and stronger in Mexico than they are in Venezuela. The Venezuelan army transships drugs.

CARLSON: You're not allowed to criticize Mexico.

MACGREGOR: Well, we are doing it. The Venezuelan Army transships drugs to Mexico. They work with the Mexican cartels to ship those drugs in the United States, whether Maduro is in charge or Guaido is in charge, the Venezuelan Army is going to continue to do that because it is a very lucrative trade and that is how the generals enrich themselves.

CARLSON: So the world is not as simple as Bret Stephen says it is. I mean, I'm taking notes now. Colonel, thank you very much. It is great to see you.

MACGREGOR: Sure, good to see you.

CARLSON: The Democratic Party is now completely woke. Your moral worth has nothing to do with your actions, it has do to with how you look. So why is Joe Biden leading the presidential race as a Democrat? It is a puzzle and we have the answer after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Joe Biden's third try for the White House has been underway for only about a week now, but already he is the clear front-runner. A new CNN poll of Democrats and liberal-leaning independents has 39 percent of them supporting Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders who we assumed would be the front- runner is a distant second tonight. He has got 15 percent support and the rest of the field barely even shows up in the numbers.

So based on that poll anyway, the odds are pretty good that a year from now Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. What will that mean for America? Well, right now Biden says his motto is a little different from that of the sitting President's. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC ANCHOR: The President has a motto, "Make America Great Again." Do you have one?

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Make America moral again, make America return to the essence of who we are, the dignity of the country, the dignity of people, treating our people with dignity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Make America moral again. That ought to make him nervous. Whatever politicians of all people start lecturing you about morality, I am a good person. Be like me. I'm a good person. Not like you. You should be nervous.

In fact, just last week, Joe Biden, the same Joe Biden was praising Antifa -- in other words, violent lunatics in blackface masks are more moral than you are. All right, so what exactly is Biden's plan to make America more moral? A silly question. He doesn't have a plan. Just last month, he was attacking due process under the law as a tool of white male supremacy. Biden is the kind of guy who will say anything if he thinks it is useful. He probably doesn't even understand half of what he says.

But he's winning anyway, and that raises a very interesting question about the Democratic Party and it has nothing to do with Joe Biden really. If there's one thing that unites Democrats in 2019, it's attacking people for their sex and their skin color.

Just today, the leading progressive philosopher, Joy Behar, explained that even impoverished white men are in fact privileged, way more privileged than Oprah and must therefore be punished.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOY BEHAR, ABC HOST: I think that we have a problem in the country sometimes with white guys who don't have a lot, who are struggling and they don't see themselves as having any kind of white privilege. So that's where -- the conversation needs to go with people like that who don't really see that and it is even though you're having a hard time, you still have a privilege if you're white, even if you're poor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So even as you're dying as a fentanyl OD, even as you're collecting disability and sitting in your trailer, you should know, according to Joy Behar that you're privileged. White male privilege is ubiquitous. Even white men with no privilege at all have that kind of privilege. All Democrats agree with that.

But here's the funny thing, it's hard to understand. Democrats keep telling pollsters that they prefer rich white men for President, the most privileged white men for President. Today, it's Joe Biden, tomorrow it could be Bernie Sanders or Beto O'Rourke or Pete Buttigieg. It's probably not ever going to be Stacey Abrams or Al Sharpton -- ever -- in a million years, it will not be them.

So what's going on here? Could it be that once again, the left is projecting? They see white privilege everywhere, but in fact it only really exists inside the Democratic Party.

Quentin James is the founder of Collective PAC and he joins us tonight. Mr. James, thanks a lot for coming on. Will you --

QUENTIN JAMES, FOUNDER, COLLECTIVE PAC: Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: Will you unravel this mystery of white privilege for me? So even people dying of fentanyl ODs are privileged if they're white and male and that's bad, but then Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, who is like literally a Rhodes Scholar, they're the frontrunners? Like how does this work?

JAMES: Tucker, I think we're dealing with different things here, so you know, we're not talking about privilege if we look in the political system. White men have -- they supposedly have more political power than any other group in this country than what we know from history.

CARLSON: In the Democratic Party, they do, that's for sure.

JAMES: But in like a period, right, of any both parties, but when it comes to the Democrats, choosing a nominee, I think, one it's really early, but Joe Biden has a clear advantage. Look he has the most name recognition, the most experience in the field, and so right now, he is leading in the polls and I think that's going to hold for a while until you start seeing more candidates get out there and build organization.

I think right now Bernie Sanders probably has the best organization of all the candidates, but when it comes to identity politics, you know, people really care about issues first and foremost and yes, we care about representation, we care about equality, but as well as the issues. And I think what we're seeing right now is that Joe Biden is right there with Barack Obama for eight years.

CARLSON: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. I mean, look, I don't want to be mean. I don't want to be mean, but if it is always -- hold on, hold. About the issues. These guys don't disagree in any way. Hold on, these guys, A, they don't disagree on anything. B, Pete Buttigieg or whatever his name is, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana doesn't have any kind of organization. He came out of nowhere and the Party fell in love with him because he was a white man, he looks like to me. I don't really see another explanation.

And why isn't Stacey Abrams, who just had the last election stolen from her according to Democrats, who went to Yale, why isn't she the front-runner? I'm asking a sincere question. I mean I believe in merit, okay, but the Democrats don't. They believe in race, so why is she not the front-runner, but these rich white guys are, for real?

JAMES: Tucker, one that's ludicrous, right?

CARLSON: It's not ludicrous.

JAMES: Look, if Stacey wants to run -- if Stacey Abrams want to run for President, she will do so and I think she would do really well. We have the most diverse pool of candidates we've ever had in history. We are seeing progress. We have the most diverse Congress like the last cycle.

So, I think we're heading in the right direction in our country, but just because Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders is leading in the polls right now, it doesn't mean that Democrats don't value diversity. I think what we are seeing again is that the most experienced --

CARLSON: But wait, okay, but hold on, if they value diversity, then wait, then why are the two leading candidates elderly, rich, white men? I'm just -- look, I'm using the same standard that Democrats use all the time. When they look at a picture and there are too many white people, and we hate white people. They can't have that picture or whatever. They're always mad about this stuff, white privilege. But why not live by their own standards, that's all I am saying.

JAMES: Again, Joe Biden has the most name recognition and the most experience of any candidate running. Period. He was right there next to who? The first black President for eight years, right? So, again we have the most diverse pool of candidates in history. We'll see where the primary goes over the next couple of months.

CARLSON: Are you bothered by it at all?

JAMES: But it's also really early. I'm not -- I'm actually really encouraged by that. That what we're seeing in the party right now is more ideas, more candidates stepping up and again, for candidates of color who are running for President, we've never had this type of pool before of folks who are viable running for President, and so --

CARLSON: Okay, last question, and now I am being sincere. I was kind of yanking the chain a little bit.

JAMES: Of course.

CARLSON: But isn't it time to stop with the racism and the white privilege stuff, attacking people on the basis of their skin color? Could we just call it truce and just not talk like that anymore?

JAMES: I really -- Tucker, sincerely, I wish we could, but what we have been seeing under this President is a rise in white domestic terrorism, a rise in white nationalism --

CARLSON: Do you have to attack white people?

JAMES: And so -- no, I don't. I think it's the opposite actually. I think what we're seeing is that people like Dylann Roof are getting more radicalized right now under our President and so what we want to see is a unifier for this country, and I look forward to that.

CARLSON: I wonder why. Wait, I wonder why when you have the view of being like even if you're really poor, we hate you because of your skin color. You don't think that radicalizes people? Maybe a little bit? I mean, honestly.

JAMES: Now, how we message these issues, you know, we need to get more specific and more direct, but to your point, I think --

CARLSON: But some things are racist, they might have to, I think.

JAMES: We're all looking for a more unified country. And I think the Democrats are going to provide that in the coming election of 2020.

CARLSON: I am, okay, well on that point then, I agree with you. Thank you so much.

JAMES: Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Great to see you. Brit Hume is Fox's senior political analyst. He joins us tonight. As someone who has known the former Vice President of the United States for many, many years and leaving aside the dumb questions of identity politics which are central to the Democratic Party, but in real life are irrelevant in my view. Will you assess Biden as a candidate? Do you think this is real? Do you think his numbers will stay up? Do you think he wants to run? Can he win?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Before I say anything else, Tucker, I can't help but note in passing that the acronym for his slogan, make America moral again would be MAMA.

CARLSON: Yes, it would.

HUME: It has been said in the past, the Democrats are the mommy party and the Republicans are the daddy party.

CARLSON: Right over my head.

HUME: I suspect that would submit -- that would cement that idea in voters' minds. Yes, I think Joe Biden is going to be with us a while. He has tried this twice before. This is his last chance at the advanced age. He is about my age. He is a little older by a few months. He is now 76 and you know, I think he has got credit with a lot of Democrats for being a loyal Vice President to President Obama whom they all appreciated and he's been around a long time.

He has been pretty liberal. He has fought on the side of the left on most issues and so he's got some standing and remember, you know, for all of the energy that's coming from the young wing of the Democratic Party from the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's and the rest, you know, most Democrats aren't young. They're older and know they're comfortable with Joe Biden.

He is able to raise money, so he is going to be with us a while. Now, he has flamed out in the other two times he tried it. In 1988, he was found to have plagiarized huge chunks of a speech by British Labour leader, Neil Kinnock and that did it for him then. There were also questions about things in his resume and then and when he ran in '08, I guess it was '08, he finished fifth in Iowa and that was the end of him.

So he has never been a tremendously effective presidential candidate, but he's got more experience now. He is also older. So we'll see how all this plays out, but I think he's going to be with us awhile for sure.

CARLSON: It sure seems that way. I mean, he has gone up faster than I certainly would have expected given the rhetoric of his party. Brit Hume, thanks very much for that. I appreciate it.

HUME: Okay, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, the big tech companies have automated virtually everything in American life -- cars, homes, millions of jobs. Now, Amazon has a new computer that can fire you. No human gets involved. You're fired by a machine. Welcome to America. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A corrupt prosecutor in Chicago allowed Jussie Smollett to beat criminal charges for his fake hate crime last January, but the actor's career has been deeply damaged anyway. It's probably over. 20th Century Fox Television, which is now owned by the Disney Corporation says that while Smollett remains under contract with the network, it currently has quote, "no plans to bring back his character on the show "Empire."'

Members of "Empire's" cast and crew recently signed an open letter calling for Smollett's return saying he is quote, "filled with integrity and simply the victim of a racist justice system," like so many. We will continue to follow this story in the hope that maybe there is justice someday.

Amazon is a high tech company, but when it comes to employee quality of life, they have a lot in common with -- I don't know -- the ancient Egyptians. Now, they have invented a computer that can fire people without any human input at all. Brett Larson of Fox News Headlines 24/7 is on our brave new world beat. He joins us with more on that, plus an update on all the ways Google can spy on you at home. Hey, Brett.

BRETT LARSON, HEADLINES 24/7 ANCHOR: Hey, Tucker. This is how it starts. Google has some ideas on what you should wear and Amazon can now fire employees as you mentioned without the need for any human interaction. Now, we have already heard and seen the stories inside of Amazon's warehouses and the conditions those workers face, but as the online shopping behemoth continues to grow, it is placing an increased need on warehouse workers.

Forget Spacely Sprockets. You are literally a cog in the wheel at an Amazon Factory where they use a system to track your productivity to the point that some workers skip bathroom breaks. There have also been reports that Amazon's delivery drivers are so pressured to keep up with demands of their job. They're not just skipping bathroom breaks or making use of their time behind the wheel to relieve themselves into bottles, they're actually doing that. They're also skipping stop signs and ignoring speed limits.

And worse if the system decides a worker isn't meeting productivity targets, it will automatically issue a warning and even terminate employment. Though Amazon says, a supervisor can override this system.

And Google filed a patent last week that shows the tech giant wants to do the thinking for you. The patent application describes a Home Assistant that would keep track of items you have worn for future suggestions. It lists the example of the Home Assistant telling the user quote, "Why not try switching your black shoes for the tan pair you wore on Tuesday?" And if you're wondering who left the dirty dish on the kitchen counter, Google will know the answer, quote "Jane Doe placed the dish there at 1:23 p.m. on Thursday April 27th." This is all on par for Google of course.

Google critics have described the company's business model as surveillance capitalism. We looked deep into that. The user is the product as Google uses your data and your everyday behavior to show you increasingly more relevant advertising. Apparently, maybe even some new roommates that will put their stuff away.

CARLSON: I think we're being manipulated in ways we know nothing about. Thank you, Brett for shedding light on that.

LARSON: Yes. Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: That's for sure. Well the "Sports Illustrated" Swimsuit Edition just came out. "Sports Illustrated" still exists, barely, but still. On this year's edition, Somali-American model Halima Aden posed in a burkini, that's a full body swimsuit worn by some Muslim women. Immediately, the press came out in strong support of this. It turns out that covering your body is a deeply feminist ideal. Today, the "Today Show" explained why that is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Speaking of trailblazers, a woman named Halima Aden, she made history as the first "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit model to wear a hijab and a burkini. This was in the magazine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's what makes models, models because they have that confidence because they are them and they're putting themselves out there and this is her being allowed to be her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel like every year, we're trying to kind of push the needle forward with our inclusivity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A woman who challenges our traditional notions of beauty and that's you know to celebrate that as you're on the cover. Well done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Zuhdi Jasser is President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of the book, "A Battle for the Soul of Islam," which is excellent if you haven't read it and Zudhi joins us tonight. So, thanks a lot for coming on, Dr. Jasser.

ZUHDI JASSER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: It's great to be with you Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: Unlike so many doctors who come on our show, you're an actual doctor. By the way, I should say a physician, a real doctor.

JASSER: Yes, sir.

CARLSON: So this -- there's something kind of patronizing about this, it would seem to me, but you're the Muslim and the expert on this. Give us your take on this picture and the reaction to it?

JASSER: Well, Tucker I have to tell you, this is insanity. I mean, as a Muslim, it's almost like the episode of "Coddle the Islamist" has now shifted from Congress to "Sports Illustrated" because it's almost -- let me give you the two perspectives.

One, let's take the Muslim perspective. So you have a group, a constituency of Muslims that are conservative Orthodox that believe in not objectifying women, so are they a big subscriber base for "Sports Illustrated"? Are they sitting around waiting for the Swimsuit Edition to come out so that we can please that group? That doesn't make any sense and yet why not please the Conservatives among the Jewish or Sikh community or other faiths? It doesn't make sense other than that they have this bigotry of using Muslims for just sort of the clicks, if you will.

Then let's look at the left's attitude about this. I thought they were the ones about women's rights and equality and not objectifying women? And the #MeToo folks, so how does this use of the hijab and the burqini in which it's used to torture women in Iran and Saudi Arabia, if they don't wear it, if they don't comply; it's a symbol of actual oppression now somehow the "Today" show folks think this is a symbol of equality and expression, I mean it really is irrational no matter which way you look at it.

CARLSON: It's so interesting though, it doesn't -- it seems political rather than religious. None of the people I see on television seem to even know anything about Islam or any religion. They're all completely secular, but they're using this as a political tool.

JASSER: It's so true because it dehumanizes Muslims into thinking well, this individual might believe she is, you know, expressing herself through a burqini, but at the end of the day, you talk to most Muslim women that are conservative and wear hijab, they don't -- they think that she is being objectified, too, as much as the rest of the magazine is in this issue.

So it doesn't make any theological sense. It doesn't make any sense other than the political use of Muslims as a prop to say they defend minorities and somehow absolve themselves of the guilt of whatever it is and ignoring actual Muslim issues related to the real Civil Rights fight of the 21st Century which is inside the mosques, inside Iran, Saudi Arabia and across the world where women are at the back of the mosques, not at the front of the mosques.

CARLSON: Such a smart point. Zuhdi Jasser, thank you very much, doctor. Good to see you tonight.

JASSER: Nice to see you, Tucker. Thanks.

CARLSON: Handshakes have been around for all of human history. You probably enjoy them. It's real human contact. Now, companies are banning them to appease the woke generation. Tami joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: This is a Fox News Alert, there are new reports that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller was dissatisfied with the Attorney General William Barr's summary of his report. The other networks are all over it. Breaking news. Well, tonight, the DOJ tells us in part, we're going to quote this, "After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller's letter, he called him to discuss it. In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading, but he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis."

Of course, the entire report has now been released, so if we could just summarize it for you, is Trump a Russian agent? Many people said he was, it turns out, he is not. Not a Russian agent. Kind of what you need to know.

Defeated gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams of Georgia has announced she is not running for the Senate seat open in Georgia next year and she has not decided whether she is going to run for President or not, but she doesn't really need to run for anything, she's already considered a frontrunner to be for the 2020 Democratic Vice Presidential pick, no matter who the nominee is.

And that's a little worrisome since Abrams seems a little delusional. We're not being mean, assess for yourself. In a new interview with "The New Yorker" magazine, Abrams says that she won her 2018 gubernatorial race against Brian Kemp. That she won. She is the Governor.

The funny thing is though, she lost, in fact she lost by 55,000 votes. That's about 1.5 percent of all votes cast, but it doesn't matter. Abrams believes the right thing. She went to Yale, so apparently, the election must have been stolen.

Three years ago, Donald Trump said he wanted to wait until the election to accept the results and that was taken as an attack on democracy and yet, by 2020 in the Democratic Party, admitting defeat will be treason or colluding with Russia. Things change fast.

Handshakes for several thousand years probably since we left the caves or even before have been a sign of goodwill. Literally, they're depicted on pots from 500 BC, but now everything is changing. Everything is turned upside down and many things are being abolished because the woke generation just won't have them.

A survey by the website Total Jobs found that many would like to see a ban of all physical contacts, complete physical contact, including handshakes in the workplace. This would be done in order to avoid any confusion over what contact is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Tammy Bruce has been around long enough to know what's acceptable. She is a radio host, President of Independent Women's Voice, sits in and this seat when I'm gone. She is our friend. She joins us tonight. I'd shake your hand, but it makes me a little nervous all of a sudden. Should we get -- do away with handshakes?

TAMMY BRUCE, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know the people that responded to that voluntary online poll clearly must also not have very exciting lives if they can't -- if they're very nervous about any kind of touch.

CARLSON: That's true.

BRUCE: Just think about living that way, right? It's like, "Oh, what do you do?" The fact is, handshakes are fabulous. It is an important -- especially for women in the workplace -- it's the first for many people impression you get of someone. Their sense of themselves, their confidence. It's a gesture about agreeing, it's about meeting, it's a sign that you can be trusted, part of it is, is that you're allowing that other person, yes, to take away effectively an archaic sense of the bill of the notion of it, your weapon hand, that you're suddenly -- you're not able to reach for a weapon or you would not be handling a weapon because you've been stopped from doing so.

And you offer that in a friendly fashion, so that's instinctually it's key, but for women especially, men have always of course had done the handshake now as women entered the workforce and now, as we go into more jobs and have more important positions, that is a genuine gesture that men have enjoyed and now women are in exactly the same position and can deliver that same hand shake.

Now, I personally have practiced my handshake. I think it's important to make sure that it's serious and it's a balance between being strong without hurting someone and it's secure and it matters. It is the first impression very often.

CARLSON: Of course and for good reason because human contact matters.

BRUCE: Yes.

CARLSON: What happens to babies in orphanages for example who do I don't get enough human touch? They wither and die ultimately.

BRUCE: And hospitals have some women and men who go in to just touch the newborns who don't have someone there to touch them and hold on to them.

CARLSON: Well, exactly. So what is it -- what are we to think of any group, any movement that would like to make this country more sterile and make it so we can't even touch each other? What are we to think of that?

BRUCE: Well, exactly and this is the problem with the individuals who want to do that. One, it says that there's no solution to some of the other issues we might find at work and that it's a zero-sum game. That it's a total destruction if you will, but it is of course, it signals that it's a group from a group of people that they don't trust any other human being and that of course, those are not the people we want making decisions in the workplace or anyone else.

CARLSON: I totally agree, and say what you want about the French, they would laugh this down if you ever proposed it in France. Hey, Tammy, thank you very much.

BRUCE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Great to see you tonight.

BRUCE: Appreciate it.

CARLSON: We have an update for you on the unfolding and violent situation in Venezuela after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Fox News Alert for you, Venezuela appears to be moving towards some kind of Civil War and the U.S. could be on the brink of some type of intervention in that war. Trace Gallagher has more on the rapidly evolving situation -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, the U.S.-backed opposition, Juan Guaido dubbed this "Operation Freedom," and there are opposition protesting clashes under way as we speak in Caracas.

Late today, Guaido claimed the final phase was under way to oust Maduro, but so far, there are no reports that his supporters have taken control of any military bases and Nicolas Maduro who has not been seen today is claiming that the military has shown total loyalty adding that he quote, "has nerves of steel," and that, "we will win."

And there were graphic scenes today of armored vehicles plowing into opposition protesters. It is unclear if anyone was hurt, but more than 70 people had been injured in various classes. If the military is standing by Maduro, it would be a staggering change of events considering Secretary of State Mike Pompeo say that early today, Maduro was headed to Havana quote, "He had an airplane on the tarmac. He was ready to leave this morning as we understand it and the Russians indicated he should stay."

The Russians and Cubans are Maduro's primary supporters and President Trump has now threatened Cuba with a quote, "complete embargo and the highest level of sanctions." U.S. National Security adviser, John Bolton says what is happening in Venezuela is not a coup because the U.S. recognizes Guaido as a legitimate leader trying to take command of his military. And the U.S. say all options are on the table. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The option to use military force is available if that is what is ultimately called for. We hope it is not. We hope that there can be a peaceful resolution and that Maduro will leave without violence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Now, it remains unclear what would happen if this uprising quickly fails, Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher. At the top of the hour, we had an exchange with A Republican Member of Congress, Mario Diaz-Balart on Venezuela. Here is part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIAZ-BALART: So imagine if this regime that now is receiving a lot of international pressure, right, survives, is it or is it not potentially a green light, an open door for the Russians, for the Chinese, for others to increase their activity against our national security interest right here in our hemisphere?

CARLSON: Yes, no. I mean, it is kind of hard to see what you are talking about exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Anya Parampil is a reporter who just spent a month in Venezuela reporting from the ground there and she joins us here in studio. Anya, thanks very much for coming on.

ANYA PARAMPIL, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: thank you so much for inviting me.

CARLSON: So what do you make of the news coverage of this?

PARAMPIL: Your viewers will not be shocked to hear this, Tucker, but the news media, the fake news media are lying about the situation in Venezuela. Let me put it for you this way, imagine if Hillary Clinton had refused to admit defeat after losing to President Trump in 2016 and banded together a group of 24 U.S. soldiers and attempted to take the White House by force? I don't think that she would be walking freely on the streets the way Juan Guaido is walking right now in Caracas.

And I certainly think the news media would be calling it rightfully a coup. And let me just tell you when it comes to a what is happening on the ground there, I can tell you, I was there for a month earlier this year. The opposition has no popular support. Juan Guaido proved today once again that he will only ride into power on the back of a U.S. tank and what's more? We hear about a humanitarian crisis there, Tucker, but we never hear is that is the intended result of U.S. sanctions which have targeted Venezuela since 2015, sanctions which according to a report that was released just last week by the Center for Economic and Policy Research has led to the deaths of 40,000 Venezuelans and will lead to the deaths of thousands more if these sanctions are not overturned.

President Trump if he truly cared about the Venezuelan people and the American people for that matter, he would end the disastrous policy. He would end the sanctions and he would look into John Bolton's eyes, into Elliott Abrams' eyes and Mike Pompeo's eyes and say, "You are fired. You are leading me down a disastrous path, another war for oil," something that the President said he --

CARLSON: You are passionate.

PARAMPIL: He was celebrated by the American people when he said Iraq was a mistake and now he is willing to do it again.

CARLSON: But it is a bipartisan thing -- I mean, Biden came out today and said he agrees.

PARAMPIL: Absolutely, it is a bipartisan issue.

CARLSON: It is interesting. It would be interesting to know why that is. I believe in an open debate, and I'm not sure I agree with everything you said, but I'm glad that you could say it here, and you were just there, and I don't think that you would be allowed at any other show to say that.

PARAMPIL: No, I certainly don't think, I would be and so I really appreciate you.

CARLSON: You will never. And we're out of time. No, no.

PARAMPIL: Because President Trump promised to drain the swamp and he flooded his national security team with that exact swamp.

CARLSON: Well, I agree with that, actually. Anya, thank you very much.

PARAMPIL: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: For your perspective. Good to see you.

PARAMPIL: Thank you.

CARLSON: We are out of time. We will be back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn and total sincere enemy of lying and there is so much of it, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. We will be back tomorrow.

But in the meantime, guess who is next. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a surprise for you. Sean Hannity live from New York City.

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.