This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," March 19, 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.” When the founders of this country designed the American Republic, something we're grateful for obviously, but not everyone was impressed by it at the time. Much of Europe scoffed at the idea not just because they were monarchists, though many of them were, even free thinking people of the time.

Contemporary liberals were worried it wouldn't work. They didn't think it would. They thought that democracy was an inherently weak system. At some point they believed, unscrupulous politicians would come to power, change the rules in their favor and establish a one-party state. What began as government by the people inevitably would become tyranny. That's what they said at the time. It has not happened.

For more than two centuries, this country has relied on our institutions, our brilliantly designed and remarkably durable institutions to survive as an intact democracy and we have through a Civil War, two World Wars, the great depression, 9/11 and more. All of those events put great stress on our system. None of them broke it.

Then came 2016. Donald Trump's election has convinced many on the left that our institutions no longer work. They must be torched and replaced by a system that will prevent Trump and anyone like Trump from ever being elected again. That's their goal and they're starting with the judiciary.

At least four leading Democratic presidential candidates have suggested packing the Supreme Court of the United States. Enlarging its size, adding more Democratic appointees, making it explicitly political, a tool of elected officials rather than an independent branch of government.

Here is Elizabeth Warren explaining that changing the court is a form of revenge for the crime of having a Republican President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: First, they steal a Supreme Court seat, then they turn around and change the rules on filibuster on a Supreme Court seat and so when it swings back around to us what are we going to do? My answer on that is -- all the options are on the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, apparently Cory Booker got the same talking point. The left is not in charge of everything at the moment, therefore, the Supreme Court is illegitimate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, ANCHOR, MSNBC: Eric Holder the former AG is talking about expanding the number of people in the United States Supreme Court beyond nine to get more progressives on there. Where are you on that?

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we need to fix the Supreme Court. I think they stole a Supreme Court seat.

MATTHEWS: Can we keep it at nine? Should we keep it at nine?

BOOKER: I think I would like to explore a lot of options and we should have a national conversation term limits for Supreme Court justices might be one thing to give every President the ability to choose three.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Every President gets three justices. Keep in mind that for a century and a half, the court has been limited to nine justices and by the way, it has worked just fine. Some of the court's decisions have been wise, others have been misguided, some have been appalling, but Americans still generally trust that the court is a real institution. It's on the level.

And that trust in the court and other institutions keeps this country stable. Would the public still have trust in the court once it becomes an arm of the Democratic Party? Well the feeling is "Who cares what they think?" How people feel is not a concern for the Democratic Party right now. They want their power back now and forever and that's why we're hearing calls to abolish the Electoral College.

State by state, Democrats have already been working to circumvent electors and award the Presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. Democratic presidential candidates strongly approve.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... getting rid of the Electoral College, is an idea that you would support?

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDITATE: I there is a lot to that because you had an election in 2016 where the loser got three million more votes than the victor. So I think there is a lot of wisdom in that.

WARREN: We can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College and everybody --

[Applause]

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: In fact, the Electoral College does not favored one party or another and hasn't in history. In 2012, for example, it favored the Democrats. If that election had been tied in the popular vote, Barack Obama still would have won.

The Electoral College keeps the country from becoming a colony of California, Chicago and New York. It demonstrates that America is a union of equal states, not a collection of provinces that revolve around a few powerful cities. The Electoral College also discourages the rise of factional parties that dominate only a small portion of the country. We could go on.

But the best argument for keeping the Electoral College is pretty simple for 230 years it has worked, better than any other country systems in history. But because it didn't help the left win a presidential election two years ago, they want it gone forever, and along with it, any restrictions at all on who can vote -- violent felons, illegal aliens and even children. That's the new Democratic coalition. Whatever it takes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I myself have always been for lowering the voting age to 16. I think it's really important to capture kids when they're in high school, when they're interested in all of this, when they're learning about government to be able to vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: The Supreme Court, the Electoral College, voting restricted to citizens, burn it all down -- what else stands in the way of the left's quest for power? Well, let's see. How about the Senate?

Left wing intellectuals are already arguing the Senate should be abolished. The border? Well, the left is already telling us it's immoral to defend our border. The First and Second Amendments, they hate those. They are speed bumps on the way to total control. They are relics of a lesson late in time.

Our newly packed Supreme Court could get rid of them and maybe they will, but keep in mind once your institutions have disappeared, it's nearly impossible to rebuild them.

Chris Hahn is a radio host and a former staffer to Chuck Schumer of the United States Senate. He joins us tonight. Chris, I understand -- I do, sincerely understand why Democrats were shocked that Trump won. They're appalled by his presidency. I get it.

But I don't think burning down our core institutions like the Electoral College or the Supreme Court is an answer that's going to be worth it a hundred years from now, do you?

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO HOST: Well, you couldn't just burn it down. First of all, remember, President Trump ...

CARLSON: How about abolishing it?

HAHN: ... was for getting rid of the electoral -- President Trump was for getting rid of the Electoral College before he won it.

CARLSON: I don't care.

HAHN: Now, he loves it.

CARLSON: I am sure he was, but that doesn't make it wise.

HAHN: But I think that we should have a national debate about whether or not there should be national voting at this point in time in our lives.

CARLSON: Okay, well, let's have one now.

HAHN: In 1789, an Electoral College may have worked, but right now, we've had two Presidents in the last 20 years that lost the popular vote and won the presidency.

CARLSON: Yes, we did. That's true.

HAHN: How many of those can you have?

CARLSON: Look, it's frustrating, and actually, I'm being sincere. I understand why that's frustrating. I mean, it is a Democratic Republic and you want the majority's will expressed in elections. I understand completely

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: On the other hand, getting rid of the Electoral College would mean that this country is basically run by three states. So, it would mean Gavin Newsom and Bill de Blasio would be some of the most important political figures and everybody else could go suck an egg.

HAHN: Well, Texas would be --

CARLSON: So do you really want to disenfranchise the weakest and poorest people in the country -- rural America -- at a time like this? Why would you do that?

HAHN: Well, both New York and California have recently had Republican governors. So to suggest that a Republican couldn't win those states is not really looking at the facts as they stand. And the third largest state or the second largest state in our union is Texas, which always elects Republican governors lately.

So I think, look, we've got three states that are actually the economic engine and the population centers of this country whose wills are not necessarily demonstrated both in the Electoral College and in the United States Senate, which needs some reform, too. It is absurd to me that California has the same vote in the Senate as Idaho does.

CARLSON: Okay. But that's the way it's set up. That's the way it has always been. There are reasons for it. I know you're an attorneys so you know what those reasons are.

HAHN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: They are not hazard or random and it has served this country's interest really well. It's kept it stable for one thing. You have had only one Civil War in the continental country with a vast population.

HAHN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: That's hard to pull off and we've done it.

HAHN: Right.

CARLSON: And the Electoral College is one of the main reasons we've done it because everybody is represented and now, Democrats lose an election and they're like, "You know what, we really don't care what rural America thinks. We hate them. They're dying. Unlike everybody else, their life expectancy is going down and we want to disenfranchise them further." Really?

HAHN: Well, I'm not for disenfranchising anyone. If you had a national election, New York's votes would count as much as say Ohio's votes, which is a much smaller state than New York, but their votes matter more. People don't campaign in New York and Texas and California. They do campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan. Well, they should campaign in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, so you know it goes both ways, Tucker. I hear what you're saying. And we've got to find a balance. We need to have a long conversation.

Obviously, it would take amending the Constitution. Nobody could do it with the stroke of a pen. It would require -- it will require a natural consensus on how to change it.

CARLSON: Okay, I get it and it is not likely to happen now. I guess, what I'm so struck by though is that after two years of lecturing us of how Trump is a threat to institutions, none of which he has really changed it all, despite all the hysteria about it, Democrats are saying. "Actually, let's just burn it, and let's pack the Supreme Court." Are you joking? Get rid of the Electoral College and legal aliens and children vote like, who is destroying institutions here?

HAHN: Yes, I'm not for packing the Supreme Court. I'm not for allowing non-citizens to vote in Federal elections. I am not for lowering the voting age at this point in time.

CARLSON: Okay, well then you know what, you're too right wing --

HAHN: But I do think that we should have some more Democrats --

CARLSON: We are going to have to change your chyron.

HAHN: We should do something to make our Republic more small D democratic.

CARLSON: You know what? You're now our alt-right guest. You're like -- you know what? You should be banned from Australia, you're so right way. Chris Hahn. Welcome to our side. Good to see you tonight. Thank you.

HAHN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, it took this country centuries to fulfill the Declaration of Independence's words that all men are created equal. It's another tradition the left is attacking.

In 2009, it is the party of reparations. Presidential candidates say Americans should be rewarded or punished based on their skin color. Here you go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: So I believe it's time to start the national full blown conversation about reparations in this country.

JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER HUD SECRETARY: I've long believed that this country should address slavery, the original sin of slavery, including by looking at reparations. Why wouldn't you compensate people who actually were property?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Jason Nichols is a Professor of African-American Studies at the University of Maryland. He joins us tonight. Professor, thanks very much for coming on.

JASON NICHOLS, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: I actually agree that slavery is America's Original Sin. I think it has had consequences that rippled through the centuries. The question is, what do you do about it? And because it's actually not a very racist country, we've had a ton of intermarriage and even more immigration over the 150 years since slavery ended. So how exactly would this work? How would you decide who gets rewarded and who doesn't?

NICHOLS: Well, number one, I don't think we should think of it as a reward, we should think of it as a debt that's being paid that's been owed for a very long time. So I think that the idea of reward or punishment is misguided.

CARLSON: The money -- who gets the money?

NICHOLS: You know --

CARLSON: I mean, you decide, it's a real -- I mean, at some point, if it's a policy, you have to make real decisions on who qualifies.

NICHOLS: Again, and what people are calling for now is actually what John Conyers has been calling for, for a very long time and that is a national conversation about how you would dispense this? What is the right way?

CARLSON: Good, well, that's why this is -- everyone always calls for conversations. No one wants to have them. I always do.

NICHOLS: I am all --

CARLSON: I know you are, so let's get super specific.

NICHOLS: Sure.

CARLSON: Who gets the money and who pays for it? If my ancestors came in 1980, am I on the hook for paying? And if your ancestors came in 1975, do you get the money?

NICHOLS: No, this is for the descendants of enslaved Africans.

CARLSON: Right.

NICHOLS: So if you -- if your ancestors came in, you know, 1960 that would not necessarily fall under this, you know, under the purview.

CARLSON: Necessarily.

NICHOLS: But what I will say is --

CARLSON: But wouldn't it at all, right?

NICHOLS: Again, the idea that this is something that is being paid by individuals rather than by the United States of America, we're talking about the country's debt that it owes to descendants of African -- of enslaved Africans.

CARLSON: Okay, but the people who live here would be paying for it. So no one alive participated directly. But there are a ton of people here who are descended from the Union soldiers who were killed trying to end slavery or whatever or even more who are the children of recent immigrants, so would they be on the hook? And I guess the answer is yes.

So let me just ask you a most basic question which is, if we did this -- I am not even arguing against it -- would the slate clean? Could we try to become a less racialized society? Could we end affirmative action? Could we end preferences in hiring? Why wouldn't we?

NICHOLS: Well, first of all, I think when we talk about reparations, for the most part, we're talking about the economic issues that are involved or that came from the institution of slavery.

CARLSON: Right.

NICHOLS: Now, when we talk about affirmative action, and many of the other programs that have been used to address discrimination, a lot of times they're used to address discrimination right now. And the other thing is about discrimination --

CARLSON: Wait so just to be totally clear, so we pay reparations, but we keep affirmative action and we keep --

NICHOLS: And by the way, affirmative action - the primary beneficiaries, despite what you'll hear from Abigail Fisher and Jennifer Gratz and all those other people who complained, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women.

CARLSON: Oh, I agree.

NICHOLS: Not African-American.

CARLSON: I mean, the system has been scammed like no other. Elizabeth Warren was a beneficiary, but I'm against -- nobody should be a beneficiary of a reward based on something they couldn't --

NICHOLS: We don't know that Elizabeth Warren --

CARLSON: I think we do.

NICHOLS: Oh, we don't. There's no evidence.

CARLSON: The school brag that she was the first tenured law professor of color.

NICHOLS: Sure, but there's nothing that says that she got anything from affirmative action.

CARLSON: That's how the system works.

NICHOLS: That's what racist people say.

CARLSON: So she claimed to be another --

NICHOLS: You're there, the country of black. You're there because you're so --

CARLSON: No, no. But she wasn't American Indian. She exploited somebody else's culture and I'm the racist for pointing it out?

NICHOLS: Look, again --

CARLSON: I love that.

NICHOLS: I didn't call you a racist.

CARLSON: No, I know you didn't.

NICHOLS: Other people do, but I didn't call you that.

CARLSON: They all do. That's pretty funny. Professor, it is great to see you, as always.

NICHOLS: Absolutely. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you for clarifying that. And you can always have those conversations on this show.

NICHOLS: Thank you so much.

CARLSON: Rising tuition rates and student loans are strangling America's middle class and hurting an entire generation of young people. Has our academic elite become maybe part of the problem with our economy and with our dwindling and dying and besieged middle class? Yes, and there's a solution and we'll tell you what it is after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Student loans have become the single biggest burden weighing down young people in this country. Total student debt in America exceeds $1.5 trillion and that number gets bigger every year. Even successful young people are taking far longer to get off the ground -- buy homes, get married, have children.

Millions more are finding themselves completely mired in debt servitude. This is changing our society. Young people are not leaving their parents' homes. When they do, they live with roommates. They're delaying as we said marriage. Some are not having no children.

Colleges, though, by profound contrast are doing great. And if you haven't seen how great they're doing, drive out and take a look at one. Why are they so affluent? Well, because they hike tuition every year, and there are no consequences. With this money, they have funded a building boom that has lasted for decades. Top administrators live like feudal lords enriched by a population of student serfs. The cost of college is distorting our society in a way that is fundamentally unsustainable.

Well, the last time we proposed to fix to this, a very simple one -- make colleges share the risk by co-signing student loans of their students. If a student can't pay the debt, college is on the hook.

Michael Simkovic is a Professor of Law and Accounting at the University of Southern California and he joins us tonight. Professor, thanks very much for coming on.

MICHAEL SIMKOVIC, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND ACCOUNTING, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Thank you for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: So this seems like something that somebody would have proposed a long time ago, I can't find a record of that, I am not sure why. If you and I go into business together, we assume we're going to share the upside. But we're also on the hook for the downside, if it goes in the wrong direction. Colleges have this amazing deal where it's only upside for them.

They get Federally-back student loans that make them incredibly rich, and if the kids don't succeed once they leave, it's on them. Why is that fair?

SIMKOVIC: So Tucker -- Tucker, let's talk about the upside of education, right? The upside of education is people who are educated earn substantially more money, they're more likely to be employed. They are less of a burden on social insurance programs like unemployment and disability, and that provides benefits to the student, but it also provides benefit to the government - to government budget in the form of higher income tax revenue, higher payroll tax revenue and lower expenses and the benefits to the government in the form of higher revenue and lower expenses.

And the benefits to the government in the form of higher revenue and lower costs are actually larger than the benefits to the educational institution in the form of tuition. So if we had the government --

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I think that's true. I mean, a lot of what you said is true. You want an educated workforce, and a lot of people benefit from college, especially in the sciences. I would never deny that. But the student loan bubble is larger than any other form of debt other than mortgage debt right now, and it's clearly crushing an entire generation of young people.

Colleges as you know, because you work at one are richer than ever, why shouldn't they share in the risk? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for that debt and colleges assume no responsibility for it? What's the answer to that?

SIMKOVIC: Well, Tucker, if they were sharing in the upside as well as the downside, colleges would actually be being paid more as far as the size of the student loan debt -- $1.5 trillion. To put that in context, household net worth is $104 trillion according to the Federal Reserve. The present value of government spending, if you just do a discounted cash flow analysis, and that's $200 trillion.

CARLSON: I am confused, so are you arguing that student debt --

SIMKOVIC: The present value of the U.S. economy is $1,000 trillion, so the amount of student loan debt is actually quite small --

CARLSON: Okay, so it's smaller than the galaxy, too, but that's not -- okay, but those comparisons don't mean very much. I don't think you're arguing the student debt isn't having - isn't exerting downward pressure on the way young people live? Because you know that it is. It is distorting the society.

SIMKOVIC: Actually no, it's helping people to live better because they earn substantially more money --

CARLSON: Student debt --

SIMKOVIC: If you looked at household net worth, if you look at income, if you look at any measure, people who are more highly educated are doing better than people who are less educated and the way in which they finance that is through student loans.

CARLSON: All right, okay, but not everyone who go -- all right, okay, so but not everyone who goes to college winds up highly educated. Many don't get their degrees in the first place. They're still on the hook for student debt. Thousands take, you know Women's Studies courses and become Women's Studies Majors. They're obviously not situated to succeed well in the marketplace.

Well, let me give you some example. So at Baylor -- I just picked this up right at the top -- Baylor University in Texas. President Ken Starr. I know him, fine guy. His compensation about $5 million a year. The average debt for someone graduating from Baylor $44,000.00. The average early career pay for a graduate $54,000.00.

So you tell me if those numbers make any sense at all. The college gets rich. Kids assume massive amounts of debt, and there's not an economy to support them and pay off that debt. Why are they getting scammed?

SIMKOVIC: So most people do pay off their loans, student loan default rates at four-year institutions that are either public or private nonprofit are only around 6% to 7%. And recovery rate is around 80% and the programs are profitable for the Federal government -- those are lending programs without even getting into --

CARLSON: Good, so you shouldn't have any problem co-signing for them. Look, if it is a good deal, then why wouldn't you cosign?

SIMKOVIC: Without even getting into all of the benefits to tax revenue. The problem that we have, Tucker, is really under investment in education. There are huge economic benefits, in terms of higher earnings, more innovation, and faster economic growth. And there are countless studies which show this. And it's not just associated with education, it's actually caused by education.

CARLSON: Yes, studies show us -- well, as someone who lives in this country, I could tell you those studies or a crock because actually young people are now socialist because of it.

SIMKOVIC: So to get back to your question about university pay since you talked about socialism, and whether we should be concerned about Presidents making too much money, there's a market for managerial talent. If you look at how much executives make ...

CARLSON: Yes, there's a market. It's a free market.

SIMKOVIC: ... of companies, executives of companies make around --

CARLSON: I will say this -- I am sorry, we're out of time for this segment, but I didn't think we'd find someone who would defend student debt, you will and I really hope that you will come back and we can talk about this at a greater depth.

SIMKOVIC: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you very much for joining us, Professor.

SIMKOVIC: Thank you.

CARLSON: Brian Brenberg is also a Professor at King's College in New York. He Chairs the Business and Finance Program and he joins us tonight. Professor, thank you very much for coming on. So you just heard one of your, I suppose, colleagues in the same business anyway argue that student debt is a great deal. It doesn't hurt kids at all. Colleges have no responsibility to put any skin in this game whatsoever and everything is fine. Is that true?

BRIAN BRENBERG, PROFESSOR, KING'S COLLEGE NEW YORK: Well, this is the problem, your previous guest was really interesting. You notice he said something time and time again. He said, "Look, students who go to college are more successful in their careers." It's this insidious view that students who succeed in life are dependent on the college education they got.

There's another view out there, Tucker and that is, "Look, students who can succeed in life go to college, but college doesn't have anything to do with their preparation and we look at colleges and we see what's going on, people look at the way money is spent. They look at the classes students take and they say, "Wait a second. Is college really the key to students making it in life? Or is college simply a weigh station on the way for them, but without it they would have been just fine.

Your previous guest didn't answer that question. He's operating on that assumption that unless you go to college, you don't have a shot, and that's just patently not true.

CARLSON: So I guess -- and this has this been going on for a long time and I'm on your side on this question, but what I have never looked at until recently where the numbers on where the money is going.

So here, you have a taxpayer-backed program created by lobbyists in effect, exempt from bankruptcy law that funnels billions and billions of dollars into these left-wing citadels, our colleges and they don't have any liability whatsoever. It's just free money for them.

I mean, there's just no downside at all. Isn't that the definition of a scam?

BRENBERG: Well, it is, look, schools ought to have skin in the game. There's no question about it. And you're right when it comes to these big institutions that have been around for a very long time. They just don't have a lot of skin in the game because they're living on their reputation.

I think what's interesting if you look at younger schools, upstart schools that are trying to disrupt this space, it's a different story for them. They don't have that reputation. Every student they send out to the marketplace, they've got skin in the game. Because if that student doesn't perform, people aren't going to hire students from your college, your reputation takes a hit.

So you're right there, it is a scam, and it is taxpayer funded. This is really -- we talk about socialized costs, this is socialized cost.

CARLSON: And it's hurting a whole generation of kids.

BRENBERG: Well, they don't - they are getting awful preparation for the real world. They're just -- they are skimming through college. They're not being challenged. When they are challenged. There's always somebody swooping in saying, "No, no, no. Don't punish them." You're not going to make it in the real world like that.

CARLSON: I've noticed. Professor, thank you very much for that.

BRENBERG: You bet.

CARLSON: Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez says that her approval ratings are low and the reason, you're racist. We will tell the real reasons after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So many of these Republican senators have turned their back on not just Dr. Blasey Ford and her testimony, but they've turned their back on America's women. They have turned their back on survivors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, you heard it. Kirsten Gillibrand is drawing a pretty clear battle line. Republican senators are sexist bigots. They don't care about women. Gillibrand, by contrast, is their champion. Was she friends with Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein? Yes, but whatever. She cares about women.

And yet now, Gillibrand faces accusations that she mishandled -- gravely mishandled a sexual harassment situation -- inside her own office. Trace Gallagher is on that story for us tonight -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, most damaging to Kirsten Gillibrand is that a former staffer says the senator knows exactly what happens in her office and is fully aware of all complaints. In other words Gillibrand, who is an outspoken supporter of the #MeToo Movement and who called out former senator, Al Franken and former President Bill Clinton for inappropriate sexual behavior is now being accused of turning a blind eye to sexual misconduct in her own office.

Last July, a female staffer accused 34-year-old Abbas Malik, Gillibrand's military adviser of unwanted advances and sexist remarks. Three weeks after the young staffer filed the complaint, she resigned, saying Malik had retaliated against her and the office failed to question staff members who would have corroborated her story. Gillibrand says the matter was investigated. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GILLIBRAND: Her allegations did not rise to sexual harassment, but we did find evidence of derogatory comments.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: But no action was taken until POLITICO broke the story and then Malik was fired and Anne Bradley, Gillibrand's longtime deputy Chief of Staff who headed up the investigation resigned and because that matter went public, we also learned that in 2017, another Gillibrand adviser, 32-year- old Marc Brummer resigned because of alleged sexist remarks to young female staffers, but despite his alleged misconduct, Brummer reportedly continued to be paid for three months.

One aide told "The Washington Examiner" off color remarks were common, but discipline only happened when Gillibrand was being contacted by a journalist or running for President -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher. Thanks a lot for that. Well, here's an interesting new poll. It's from Siena College, and it shows that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has wasted no time in becoming deeply unpopular among voters in her home state of New York.

A total of 33% of those polled said they liked Ocasio-Cortez, a whopping 44% did not. How did someone who has been in Congress only a few months turn off so many people and so quickly? Well, the Congresswoman has a ready answered for that as she does for most things. As she explained on Twitter, Republicans working in concert with that dastardly Fox News quote, "Otherize and demonize anyone who isn't quote, 'a white male.'"

In other words, it's bigotry, pure and simple. Those may look like bad poll numbers. What they really are, is racism. Now it's possible you will scoff at this explanation. It is whiny and predictable and totally self- serving. It's also unsupported by evidence. So skepticism is a fair response. But let's go a little deeper for a second. What we have here is not simply a cynical excuse for personal failings when we've heard a thousand times from politicians, racism. What Ocasio-Cortez has given us instead is a litmus test for our souls.

It's simple. When you agree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you are a good person. When you disagree with her, you are not. You're racist, a bigot, a hater, a loathsome human being. Got that? Okay, prepare for the exam. We're not proctoring this test. We're on TV right now and you're at home or in a bar, we're going to have to use the honor system here. We're going to play you a series of clips.

Now be honest about how you feel about them. Everything hangs in the balance. First, we're going to consider AOC's views on children. She doesn't have any and there's a reason for that. She cares too much. Her heart is too big. Watch her explain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Our planet is going to get in disaster if we don't turn the ship around. And so it's basically like there's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question. You know, should - is it okay to still have children?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Is it okay to still have children? That is AOC's question to you. Now, if you answered, are you kidding? Of course, it's okay to have children, and by the way back off you, authoritarian creep. How many kids I have is none of your business. If you answered that way, you failed the test. You're probably a white supremacist.

If on the other hand, you paused for a moment; thought deeply about climate change and realized that actually some unmarried 29-year-old member of Congress probably should be in charge of your childbearing decisions, then congratulations you passed. You are virtuous, not a racist at all.

Okay, on to number two. This one is about food.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DESUS, HOST, SHOWTIME: My Twitter mentions -- I'm getting a lot of references about cow farts. I think that's a reference to your Green New Deal.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes.

DESUS: Can you explain that for us?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: We've got to address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn't be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So the question is, how many hamburgers should you be allowed to eat in the course of a day? Now, there are two possible answers here. The first is "Huh? What kind of question is that? Isn't this America? And hey, stop eating off my plate." That unfortunately is the racist answer. It's the one that Bull Connor would have given if he were still alive enough to eat Big Macs. The correct answer is, I will eat exactly as many hamburgers as Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez allows me to eat and I will be grateful for them. If that was your response, congratulations to you, you are a good person.

Now to number three. This one's about immigration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Also women and children trying to come here with nothing but the shirts on their back to create an opportunity and to provide for this nation are acting more in an American tradition than this President is right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So the question is who is more American? Actual Americans or foreigners who spit on our customers and mock our laws by sneaking into our country illegally and calling us racist if we try to make them leave? This is a tough one. Keep thinking. Okay, time is up. The answer is -- illegal aliens are the real Americans. Duh, if you doubted that for a second, please hate yourself. You deserve it. And now for the final question on our test. This one is the Daily Double. Let's see how you do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, ANCHOR, CNN: Criticisms of you is that your math is fuzzy. "The Washington Post"recently awarded you four Pinocchios.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely factually and semantically correct than about being morally right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Factually correct -- now this question gets right to the heart of it all. Are you one of those troglodytes who still cares about facts, about numbers and evidence and physical reality? It's 2019, man. Physics is just a preference. If you persist in being factually correct and continue to read books, speak in complete sentences, please know that you are committing racism. You sir, are a bigot and Congresswoman Ocasio- Cortez condemns you. She by contrast is morally right and really certain of it. On this test, that is all that matters.

Lisa Boothe is a senior fellow at Independent Woman's Voice. By the way, I should note that a second ago, this was -- this is a reflection of generosity of the spirit of this show. We said that Ocasio-Cortez was admired by 33% of New Yorkers, actual number 31%, so we gave her two points just because we're nice.

LISA BOOTHE, SENIOR FELLOW, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE: Also, I failed your test.

CARLSON: How did you do on the test?

BOOTHE: I failed your test.

CARLSON: You did. You're a bad person, Lisa Boothe.

BOOTHE: No. I hope my parents aren't watching. I'm a terrible person. And Tucker, what's hilarious is the Siena College poll that you reference, President Trump is actually more popular with New Yorkers right now than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is, so I found that little tidbit interesting as well.

And it turns out, Tucker, Gallup also had a poll on March 15th, which found that her unfavorable ratings have increased by 15 points since the last poll they did in September 2018. And the reason being is that the more Americans find out about her, the less they like her. The more that they get to know her, the more that they form an opinion on her, the less likely they are to like her because back in September 2018, 50% of Americans didn't know who she was. They didn't have -- they hadn't formed an opinion of her. Now that number is down to 29%, so it turns out people actually don't like her, the more they hear from her or the more they get to know her.

CARLSON: Wait a second. You already told me that you failed our test. So why shouldn't I suspect that you're just being defensive and trying to pass the buck?

BOOTHE: Well, I could say that you could go to the Gallup poll and look at it for yourself, because that's what the Gallup poll found. But, you know, Tucker look at it this way. I think a lot of Americans don't like the fact that she went out -- she was at an event last month and told people, her critics, "I am the boss." This is a 29 year old member of Congress. She's a freshman, mind you, telling people that if you don't agree with her, she's the boss. This is someone who holds you know, quite frankly, kind of dumb ideas.

When you look at our support for the Green New Deal and the document that she put out. I think most Americans don't want to give economic security to people who are unwilling to work. I think most Americans don't look at cow farts as some sort of imminent problem that's coming up here.

And I think most Americans --

CARLSON: Correction, correction. Most Americans are just racist if they don't like AOC. She has said that, you know, she would be an interesting person if she wasn't just so self-involved and dumb. It's a shame. Lisa Boothe, thank you very much.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: For coming on tonight. A month ago, this press speculated that the White House conspired with who knows -- tabloids or shadowy foreign secret service agents to attack their beloved Jeff Bezos. That turned out to be a total lie. We remembered it though and will tell you who actually did it. After the break.

BRIAN KILMEADE, HOST: Everybody, it is time to get your free trial of Fox Nation. Our new streaming service that is the perfect complement to the Fox News Channel. Fox Nation features exclusive shows from your favorite Fox News personalities, including, okay, me.

Here's a look at Season Two of "What Made America Great."

This monument belongs to every American. The historic home of Thomas Jefferson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where you can have a beer where George Washington did.

KILMEADE: This is what people want, right? They want to see what it was like.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: To their credit, liberals used to be suspicious of plutocrats and huge corporations. But those days are long gone. Billionaires are now woke, so the Democratic Party loves them for the power they wield on their behalf. Here's one example. When Jeff Bezos' leaked personal text got him into a feud with the "National Enquirer," instead of being amused onlookers, the press rallied behind the world's richest man. Boy, did they.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bezos, wealthiest man in the world, the founder of Amazon, going from being the punch line of this sordid affair to all of a sudden becoming - praised as a hero of journalism.

DONNY DUETCHE, HOST, MSNBC: Makes him almost human just like "Us" magazine, "Hey, he's just like you and me." You know, and he's playing this brilliantly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a certain amount of bad assness about Jeff Bezos that I think makes us all proud to work for them. They messed with the wrong guy and they have found that out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a source close to Bezos told me last night, do not poke this Bezos bear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Don't hurt Bezos bear. Whatever you do. The press didn't just defend Bezos bear, stroked him lovingly. They also speculated wildly that his tax were leaked by President Trump in collusion with Saudi Arabia presumably when he wasn't busy helping Russia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, ANCHOR, CNN: We know how he despises Jeff Bezos. Is AMI still doing Trump's dirty work? What is going on here?

RYAN LIZZA, POLITICAL ANALYST, CNN: I don't know that. I mean, the two leading theories seem to be that AMI I is either doing the Saudis dirty work, President Trump's dirty work or a combination of the two.

JERRY GEORGE, LA BUREAU CHIEF, NATIONAL ENQUIRER: Trump has had a hard on for Bezos. So it's no surprise that that he turned to his good buddy, David Pecker at the "Enquirer" to you know, to do a hatchet job on him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gavin De Becker told us that he does not believe that Jeff Bezos' phone was hacked. He thinks it's possible that a government entity might have gotten hold of his not believe that Jeff phases his phone was hacked. He thinks it's possible that a government entity might have gotten hold of his text messages.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: A government entity, Don Lemon agrees. It was a ludicrous theory from the start. There was never any evidence to show that it was true, and now it turns out, it's false. Yesterday, the "Wall Street Journal: revealed that Bezos' texts were in fact sold by the brother of his girlfriend. The ridiculous theory has been exposed as a sham. But what are the consequences for this reporting? Does anybody stand up and say, at least "I'm sorry, I lied to you." No.

Richard Goodstein is an attorney. He helped advice Bill and Hillary Clinton. He is a Wise Man in the Sea of Insanity and he joins us today.

So I guess the first macro question is, why is everyone sucking up and defending Jeff Bezos?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, ATTORNEY: Because he stood up to extortion. It wasn't because he leaked things, he leaked what he did, which was didn't put him in a very good light because AMI, the parent company of the "National Enquirer" tried to extort him and he has tapes and e-mails and so forth and it raises the question, "Who else do they extort?" Because we know what they did. They stipulated in court that they made contributions to help Trump win and they engaged in felonious conduct which is why Peckers got an immunity deal.

CARLSON: So they did to him what Stormy Daniels did to Trump. Trump caved. He didn't and good for him for not caving, by the way. I don't think you should cave to extortion ever. But I mean, more broadly. So here you have a guy who is the richest person in the world who runs this giant company that's crushed American retail and put countless millions out of work that runs distribution centers where people regularly call in suicide threats to 911 because they're so unhappy and the left acts like he doesn't exploit anyone. He's just a great guy.

GOODSTEIN: Well, the fact is, I think any big organization regrettably has people who are little unstable. Look, the left didn't like him because Amazon is driving out all these brick and mortar stores right?

CARLSON: It's hurting people.

GOODSTEIN: Exactly. Except for everybody who benefits from a lower price or and the ease of ordering something and when he stood up --

CARLSON: Right, more classic --

GOODSTEIN: But again what turned it was his standing up to extortion. It wasn't because of anything else, but then they thought, "Hey maybe this guy actually kind of had some common sense after all."

CARLSON: Are you bothered by the fact that the world's richest man owns the biggest newspaper in its capital city, personally owns it? I mean, we're very upset about William Randolph Hearst owning newspapers. He owns the only real newspaper in Washington, D.C. It is a lobbying arm for his business and nobody says that.

GOODSTEIN: Right, except there is zero evidence. I happened to be with Marty Baron, the editor-in-chief of "The Post" and he said this publicly and privately, zero influence that Bezos has over editorial decisions or reporting decision.

CARLSON: Oh, zero

GOODSTEIN: And if anything, they report all the time any story that --

CARLSON: Oh, you're saying. This is reassuring. So you're saying that one of Jeff Bezos' highest paid employee says he likes Jeff Bezos.

GOODSTEIN: I'm saying that if there was any reporter, it would be the story of the year or the century if in fact Bezos had any influence and all these reporters who are aspiring to win a Pulitzer didn't disclose that.

CARLSON: What do you mean? He personally owns the newspaper.

GOODSTEIN: Right.

CARLSON: He has a propaganda arm in the center of D.C. It's the most influential news organization in this city. It is lobbying in effect for him. And that's totally cool because Marty Baron is happy to get a salary. What?

GOODSTEIN: Except it's not lobbying for him and they've done frankly exposes about Amazon's influence on the consumer sector.

CARLSON: Oh, yes, they did a lot of hard hitting -- I guess we're all sucking it up to billionaires now.

GOODSTEIN: Well, we're not sucking up anybody.

CARLSON: Yes, we are.

GOODSTEIN: If he starts exhibiting any influence, you'll call it out. I'm sure you'll be the first one.

CARLSON: That paper is disgusting. Richard, should thank you very much.

GOODSTEIN: Okay.

CARLSON: Former "Nightline" host, Ted Koppel did something brave recently. He said something that was obviously true. During the remarks of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Koppel said the press has abandoned objectivity and is now pursuing a political vendetta.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED KOPPEL, FORMER HOST, NIGHTLINE: I'm terribly concerned that when you talk about the "New York Times" these days, when you talk about the "Washington Post" these days, we are not talking about the "New York Times" of 50 years ago. We are not talking about the "Washington Post" of 50 years ago. We're talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Fox senior political analysts, Brit Hume worked with Ted Koppel for many years and he joins us tonight. Brit, I don't think of Ted Koppel as a conservative figure at all. But he just said something that I think many on the left will hate. Is it true? And why did he say it do you think?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's unmistakably true, Tucker. And you're right. I did work with Ted Koppel for many years. He's old school much as I am. We come out of the same tradition which is neutrality in news coverage, opinion is reserved for communists and editorial writers and in broadcast journalist, you have certain commentators and you have a correspondent to cover the news and those lines of separation have become increasingly blurred and in the age of Trump, as Koppel suggested, they've gone completely out the window because of a sense among journalists that the election of Donald Trump constituted a national emergency.

And it was their duty as patriots to resist it and do and to do all they could undo this presidency, which they have deciduously, in my judgment tried to do and we see it reflected constantly.

CARLSON: I suppose what I find so infuriating about it is how indirect and dishonest it is. I mean opinion people are pretty straightforward about it. We are on this show. Rachel Maddow, I'm not mad at Rachel Maddow. She says exactly who she is. There's no misleading anybody about being an opinion person. Why shouldn't news people who decide to become activists just say so out loud?

HUME: Well, I agree with that. But I think -- look, I think what happened here is that Watergate really is a factor here. Because in that moment, which was the most exciting, the most the most extraordinary moment in modern journalistic history in the United States, you know, these two young reporters that were seen as bringing down a President of the United States, we know we'd all been told that the fourth estate was powerful and so forth. But we, none of us had ever seen anything like this. This was truly remarkable.

It was glamorous. They were celebrated in movies. They were, you know, they were the subject of endless books and so on. And it was it was an extraordinary moment and it created an atmosphere in which I think journalists want to relive that and here comes a target even more unpopular than Richard Nixon was in the person of Donald Trump, and they have gone about their business and it is -- and you know, back in those days, the "Washington Post" reporting on Watergate, which was so celebrated was pretty darn solid.

CARLSON: I know.

HUME: But when Donald Trump gave his State of the Union address this this year, the headline -- the headline in the next day's "Washington Post," banner headline said "A discordant appeal for unity." Now that is an opinion. You didn't use to see that in headlines and the news pages of any newspapers, let alone the "Washington Post."

As Ted Koppel said, things have changed and they have and not for the better in my judgment.

CARLSON: No, they're undermining their own currency, for sure. Brit Hume, thank you for that. It's great to see it.

HUME: You bet. Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, a new investigation, an amazing investigation reveals how the policies of the left have destroyed -- not an overstatement -- the city of Seattle. Are local leaders ready to change at all? Wait until you see the pictures. After the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Ask anyone who's been to a lot of cities around the world. They will tell you Seattle, Washington is one of the most beautiful places on this planet. It's also politically one of the most liberal and as a direct result of that, Seattle is now a haven for homelessness and drug use.

Now the documentary by the local news station, KOMO warns of the consequences. Normal middle class people cannot live in Seattle anymore because the city is dying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This city mayor doesn't give the cops authority. That's the problem.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is one of the most beautiful regions in the entire world, and right now, with lack of a better word, it looks like [bleep].

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's infuriating. Every camp I walk into, there was a weapon, multiple weapons. I found modified weapons. I was constantly on the side of the road talking to people that were swinging machetes.

MELISSA BURNS, HOMELESS: I have not met anyone else on the street who is not in some phase of addiction. I mean of use, of serious use. And I think that that's the starting point. You just have to address that. You have to figure that out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said call 911. Do you understand that the police have told us to vote you all out so that they can do their jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Putting the whole video on our Facebook page, by the way tonight. It's remarkable. They did a great job. Jason Rantz is a Seattle radio host and he joins us tonight. Jason, that video is really stirring. Do you think it accurately depicts what Seattle is like right now?

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RADIO HOST: I mean, look, if anything it underplays exactly what's happening. In the last 10 days, there was an instance in which a mentally ill homeless man, six foot three, 270 pounds, tried to throw a woman over a highway overpass. That same exact freeway I-5, a major freeway just last week had a bunch of homeless people burning garbage dangerously close to a gas pipe.

The Seattle Fire Department had to put out a memo saying, we're worried about the structural integrity here. And then just today, literally hours ago, in the community of Ballard, there was a homeless man who was attacking people with a crate. He hit one individual in the head, you know, they asked the question as to whether or not Seattle is dying? Not only a Seattle dying, but we've got a bunch of leaders who are letting it die.

You've got a council and a mayor's office that is playing politics, they're being ideological. They go after anyone like me, who happens to say, "Hey, maybe we should be helping these people, putting them into treatment, putting them into housing," but they say, "Well, we would just be inconveniencing them." That it's not compassionate to move them from site to site.

I'm sorry. It's not compassionate to let them live like this. Your compassion is killing people.

CARLSON: No, and they're drug addicts. So it sounds like your mayor doesn't care about Seattle at all.

RANTZ: The mayor on this particular issue loves to talk about how much she cares and that's sort of a theme going on all across the country with some progressive. They like to tell us how much they care, but they don't actually follow it up with any action. We have a governor right now who's desperately trying to become President, who is talking about how amazing Washington is, while completely ignoring that a major city in Washington, a hub for business and the economy is dying because of a lack of leadership and it's a shame.

CARLSON: I mean, it's absolutely shocking that this could happen. Is there anybody and I wish we had more time for this -- but is there anybody in elected office in Seattle who is going to fix this?

RANTZ: There are some Republicans and Democrats who are in Olympia, in our capital who are looking at this at a sort of from a bigger picture, they're going to help in small quantities, but unless we get a change in leadership in the council in Seattle and the mayor's office, I just don't think they're going to be able to move anything through, but there are some Democrats and Republicans who are taking this really seriously because they live in the neighborhoods that are impacted and the problem with Seattle politics, they tend to spread to other parts of the state.

CARLSON: I hope they do because what's happening is cruel and awful. Jason Rantz. Thank you for that. Good luck there.

RANTZ: Thank you.

CARLSON: You can't overstate how well done that one hour news documentary was. It's by KOMO, the station out in Seattle. It is posted on our "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Facebook page. I hope you'll take a look at it.

We are out of time tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. And there's a lot of all of those things going on right now. But someday, it will be better.

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.