as passed of the bill for $5 billion for the wall, we will see where it goes from here. you thought it might slow down this time of year, not so much. that is "the story" on this thursday night that we will see you tomorrow night at 7:00. tucker carlson up next in d.c. good night, everybody. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." a couple weeks from now, democrats take control of the house of representatives. before that happens, one final battle remains in congress, over the wall we have been promised along the border with mexico. for two years, democrats and their allies in the republican leadership have worked hard to keep that wall from being built. they are still working to prevent it, just five days before christmas. the thinking is if they can delay funding just a few more weeks, the wall will never be built. killing the wall, of course, would be a big political win for the left, no question about that. congratulations. but there are other considerations, too, like what about america? why shouldn't we have secure

borders? i'm pretty sure democrats will have to explain that to the country. congressman jim clyburn of south carolina took a stab on it today on cnn. here's how it went. >> why would a wall help improve security at the border? >> because we think of the wall is 10 feet high, they will get a 12-foot ladder. that is just simple arithmetic to us. >> tucker: ah, the 12-foot ladder argument. we've heard that before from both parties. jeb bush used to drop the ladder argument at fund-raisers in palm beeped, people would smirk and go "12-foot ladders." only dumb people believe in walls, as congressman clymer said, walls don't work, they never will fear that is why nobody builds them anymore. but wait, plenty of countries still build walls beard some nations are allies of ours, countries we support and subsidize. they build walls because walls work well, nothing works better, in fact. and everybody knows that.

so in some ways, clyburn is behind the curve, still trying to make a fact-based argument, even a ludicrous one feared most democrats are far beyond that. the reverend luis gutierrez, also a congressman from illinoi illinois, made the theological case against walls today, as he questioned homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen. he noted that people who support walls hate jesus, it is that simple. watch. >> the majority on this committee must think you are doing a fantastic job because they barter this hearing so that you could come before us and look tough and remorseless in time for the holidays. it is repugnant to me, and astonishing to me, that during christmas -- the holiday season is inclusive, but during christmas, the majority always wants to just call it christmas. during christmas, a time in which we celebrate the birth of

jesus christ, a jesus christ who had to flee for his life with mary and joseph. thank god there wasn't a wall that stopped him from seeking refuge in egypt. thank god that wall wasn't there, and thank god there wasn't an administration like this. >> tucker: yep, trump is worst than pharaoh. jesus hated walls, the book of obama, all of the people said amen, can i get a honolulu yard? how do they respond to a sermon like that? watch secretary nielsen try to respond. pay special attention to the right reverend gutierrez as she talks. watch. >> the policy of family separation, any family encountered what i would separate from any family i found at a port of entry, i would separate. that means every single family

that i found illegally crossing, we would separate. we did not have those. what we did do is uphold the laws congress passed, and we prosecuted those who choose to come here illegally. >> tucker: when you ask questions and then don't stick around to hear the answers, people might start to suspect that you are not really interested in learning anything. of course, they are not interested. people who support open borders, do it out of self interest, more money, more voters. but also on faith, they just know they are right, they know for a fact that you are evil. it's obvious. maybe they are right. maybe they are good people, and you are irredeemably sinful. but that is not enough. winning on virtual alone is not how our system works, you don't make people shut up and obey for so long. you can silence them for a while, you can bully them into submission by calling them racist or throwing fake bible verses at them, but that is only a short-term fix. at some point in a democracy, you have to convince them, and that starts by answering their questions.

why not a wall? nothing else has worked. there are likely more than 20 million foreign nationals living illegally in america right now, always making a mockery of this country and our laws. it is totally dysfunctional. it is disgraceful, everybody knows that. trump, whatever his faults, took the problem seriously. he promised a border wall. in the end, he did not deliver on that, that is on him, but instead of proposing a better idea or even acknowledging the seriousness of what is a legitimate crisis, the left decided to pretend everything is fine and you are a bigot if you disagree. that is on them. they may not know it yet, but by winning the last election and stopping the border wall, the left just inherited responsibility for one of the biggest problems we as a country face. what is that problem? and their plan now? congressman jordan is a republican resenting ohio in the middle of all of this, and he joins us tonight. congressman, thank you for coming on. the obvious question, the final debate over the wall, the final hours of the republican congres

congress, why now? like two years later? >> you are right, we should have done it earlier, we should have done it on march with the big spending bill, we told the american people we would. then december, didn't do it, then we said we we will do it r summer 21st, we did it tonight in the house. just a few minutes ago, it passed, even though last week in the oval office, nancy pelosi said the house can't get people to past a border security wall, funding for a border security wall, we just did a few minutes ago, 217 votes. think the democrats have 185. we passed it in the house, that is step one, now goes back to the senate, and we will see what happens from there. we need to stand firm on this because, as you said, as the president's hand, this is a central promise we made to voters in 2016. this is our last, best chance to do what everyone knows is good, common sense. everyone but the democrats knows, good, common sense. >> tucker: it is fair for the rest of us to press deeper and ask why it didn't happen. you are absolutely right, it should have happened, you would

have preferred for it to happen earlier. >> of course, right. >> tucker: but it didn't, but that means people prevented a paired speaker ryan was one of them. who else? so the rest of us can keep score. >> to do something that really counts and has lasting value and meaning is never easy. so anything worth doing is always difficult, but congress always has a way of trying to take the least resistant route and do the easy thing. that is why it happened, i thin think. >> tucker: i know you were for it, but the tax bill was definitely hard. there was a lot of opposition to it, and the leaderships decided they are getting this done, this is something that trump ran on, but they wanted it, and they got it done. they came on a show and made the case for it. didn't do that with a wall, why? i think it is fair to know, since you are on the inside and we are not, who prevented that? >> i think the intensity was more for the tax cuts that it was for replacing -- repealing

and replacing obamacare and building a border security wall. at the end of the day, we have been pushing, and like i said, we just passed a bill that puts $5 billion for border security wall, and that is a good first step. >> tucker: amen to that. congressman, thank you for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: a former chief counsel to the democratic side of the house judiciary committee, a long time guest on the show. thank a s a lot for coming on. it's pretty late in the process, this is not going to happen, democrats will say -- pelosi will say we made good on the promise to stop the wall. then there is the day after that, when you have, by yale's estimate, over 20 million people here illegally, using fake ids, it is out of control. what is the plan at that point to secure the border? >> let's talk about good faith. i think the question you are asking representing representas a good one.

he told the president he did not care about the wall. the per republicans have been in control for two years. why haven't they passed -- >> tucker: you don't need to ask me that. >> they like to tell the viewers and the voters they are for. >> tucker: i think paul ryan would like to leverage the enthusiasm and the donations of ordinary republicans to win, and then subvert their will on behalf of his donors paired speaker you're being honest. >> tucker: i don't work for anybody. >> let's talk about good faith only democrats part, which is what you asked about. i think the democrats have to say, in unequivocal terms, we are completely against open borders, we are against illegal immigration, we are for illegal immigration. they have done that. in the past, democrats have voted for border security, and putting 700 miles of fencing. schumer is on record doing that. donald trump's position has changed from 2,000 miles of

border wall to 700 miles of border wall, there is actually consensus for physical security, border security, physical security, a wall, fencing, where it makes sense. not where it doesn't. two-thirds of the border area is owned by the states or owned by private individuals. if you got all the funding done today, you will be tied up in corn courts on ten years for legal talents, challenges, and eminent domain. >> tucker: $5 billion for the wall as a start, we just met 906 906t $7 billion on a farm bill that literally gives tax dollars to nieces and nephews of farmers, it is disgusting. this whole idea that it is too expensive is so transparent a lie it's not worth addressing. here's what i'm struck by. rather than make an adult argument, we are getting gutierrez lecturing us about jesus. and speaker of the house

lecturing us about jesus. i'm a pro-jesus, but lecturing about jesus -- you know what i mean? is insulting. >> let me try to make an adult argument. i think it is political symbolism. i think it is something the trump campaign at the road at election time, and the reason i say that is because, if you were serious about illegal immigration, which i think democrats and republicans ought to be, he would go after things that were going to make a difference. the primary suction tube of illegal immigration is visa over stays. most people come here, they come on b cells, they overstay their visas. going after lisa over stays. >> tucker: looked, it is a given, i agree. what's wrong with the wall? those are all components, we are in total agreement, but the wall works in a bunch of different countries, it works famously on israel's border with egypt, but we claim -- it's a lie, why not just say it works and try it?

what's wrong with that? >> where they will make sense i am in complete agreement. i don't think we ought to do it too thousand miles, because many of those areas are completely impractical. they are incredibly mountainous, waterways. >> tucker: that's fine. >> we already do have border security. >> tucker: can we both agree, a lot of illegal immigration comes from visa over stays, but there are still man's of people who snuck over the border and are still living here. why reassure the american people that we can calm down and focus on a smart immigration policy, emotionally decelerated from where we are now. people feel like it is out of control, because it is. >> it is getting better. we had 3,000 border apprehensions last year. the number of immigrants coming across the southern border is way, way down. >> tucker: hundreds of thousands. that's much bigger than the city i grew up in. that is a lot of people. why not just wall it off and

have a rational conversation? >> let's go back to the adult conversation, if we can paired i agree there should be physical barriers where it makes sense. i don't think the parties are engaged in that conversation right now. .2, the problems are not border crossings. the real problems are visa over stays, as we just talked about, and the second is employers. undocumented immigrants stay here is because of employers. if republicans, and i think democrats should be here, as well, if they are so serious about this problem, why is it that they do things that will upset the business community? be when you are preaching to the choir completely. the activist left aligned with rapacious employers looking to exploit labor is a little bit stunning. that is a republican have always done, and all the drones on the progressive side, the intersectional side, we are on the side of amazon hiring cheaper labor -- what? >> we are making a little bit of

progress. physical security where it makes sense, not where it doesn't. go after visa over stays, employer sanctions. the last point i would make to you, i don't think mexico is the enemy here. most of the illegal immigration that occurs on the southern border is central america, not mexicans. more than half of illegal immigrants -- mexico actually has a rather effective border security. >> tucker: they have encouraged illegal immigration. >> they have deported hundreds of thousands. >> tucker: telling people how to sneak across the border. >> i think mexico could be much more of an ally. >> tucker: they could be. julian, thank you very much. california democrats have been very proud of the new century state law. now a man released from prison thanks to that law apparently killed two people. trace gallagher has the details on this. >> tucker, and the fan of a few hours, he carried out 11 crimes, including killing a stranger and

shooting at others before being killed in a high-speed police chase. authority saying garcia louise also killed another man a day earlier. last week, he was arrested in central california for being under the influence of drugs. when i.c.e. learned he was in jail, they placed an immigration detainer on him, asking deputies to notify him before releasing him. under sp 54, california's sanctuary law, because the suspect wasn't being held on a felony, law enforcement were prohibited from honoring i.c.e. detainers. i.c.e. says this "is unfortunate and an extremely tragic example of how public safety is impacted when laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies abilities to cooperate with i.c.e." he is a known convicted of, violent criminal, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, et cetera. under sp 54, none of that can be used to notify immigration agents. here is the sheriff.

>> that tool has been removed from our hands. because of that, our counties know my county was shot up by a violent criminal. it could have easily been prevented if we had the opportunity to reach out to our fellow counterparts. >> the sheriff said he doesn't want to enforce immigration laws, he just want violent criminals off the streets. tucker. >> tucker: trace gallagher for us, thank you very much, trace. france is still burning tonight over efforts to impose a child know my climate change agenda there. some in our congress are anxious -- we will give you details after the break. ♪

>> tucker: secretary of defense and general james mattis announced today he will be leaving his post, quitting in february, after two years on the job. in his resignation letter, mattis pointed to policy disagreements he has with the president. he addressed the president directly in the right letter, writing "because you have the right to have a secretary of defense whose views are aligned with yours, i believe it is right to step down from my position." it came as something as a surprise, also came shortly after the president's equally surprising announcement he is withdrawing u.s. troops from syria, a deeply unpopular decision. mattis reportedly opposed that withdrawal, as well, as well as with forces in afghanistan. in a statement on twitter, the president said this, "general mattis was a great help to me in getting allies to help pay their share of military obligation. a new secretary defense will be named shortly.

i greatly thanked him for his service." it may be surprising that the president is breaking with one of his top advisors, but there is another way to look at it. the president was told they could defeat isis and leave syria. once he did, they did, and now everyone is washington is demanding to stay in zero to counterbalance russia and iran. it would greatly improve things in that country, that turned out to be completely false, the situation seems worse than ever. of course, for two years, the president has been told if he would just be patient, he would have his border wall. how did that turn out? he apparently is not paying heed to their advice anymore. ♪ >> tucker: the administration today issued a strong condemnation of a major foreign power that routinely hacks american infrastructure, steals national secrets, technology,

personal information, and huge quantities bear the director of the fbi call this country the greatest long-term threat to america's well-being. russia -- sorry, china -- misread that. more than two decades now, it has always been china. america's greatest geopolitical rival. you wouldn't know that from watching television. even this week, with the new news about china, there is only one foreign power on the radar considered a threat. you know what it is. >> the russians exploited a massive back door into the foundation of our democracy. moscow's attack on american democracy. >> the work by russian agents to try to destabilize american democracy. >> everything you need to know about the threat to our democracy. >> the long-term damage is going to weaken our democracy. >> you have republicans who are silent and seemingly okay with this kind of attack in our democracy. >> tucker: these people are so stupid, it is amazing they are employed. director of the senate for chinese strategy, author of "100

year marathon," a strategy no longer secret thanks to his boo book. michael pillsbury joins us tonight for thank you very much for coming on. this seems like a confirmation, this announcement today, but we may have known. but still striking. >> only director of the fbi called china our main arrival, and specifically said it their goal is to replace us as the global superpower, that is the subtitle of my book. it is not just good news for me, it shows the recognition of the problem of china, now getting quite widespread. >> tucker: give us the scale of the hacking efforts by the chinese government. >> they are marble number one,. they have a number of techniques, some revealed today. there is this wonderful term i hope you will start using called "stone panda," the code name for the chinese units that have been doing this. >> tucker: it sounds like a

restaurant. >> according to the declassified material, it seems to go back 12 years, it seems to focus on american companies. the data they stole could help with business negotiations with companies. they also get trade secrets. it is massive, and it seems to be focused on the high-end technology sectors that china would need to dominate by 2030 or 2035 to be the world leader. in other words, they are to steal their way to global leadership, let's put it that way, more polite than domination. the fbi is blowing the whistle today, along with the deputy attorney general, there has been a big leak that steve mnuchin and the treasury department are going to offer sanctions today as punitive for these things, doj and fbi are fighting. for some reason, the last last minute, treasury pulled out. they are putting the sanctions forward. this leak shows dissent inside

the trump team, and chinese have a strategy that vice president pence spoke about back in october, that they want to divide the trump administration. this is good news, it raises public awareness for what china is up to. there were no actual sanctions announced, other than the indictment of the two chinese hackers, out of possible 10,000, let's say. >> tucker: michael pillsbury, thank you very much. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: for more than a month now, france has been wracked by aggressive massive . they began in response to a plan gasoline tax. why was the french government raising gasoline taxes? obviously, climate agenda. while, in washington, people only care about russia, so they barely notice this. they think the carbon tax is still a great idea. such a great idea that outgoing arizona senator jeff flake has

teamed up with delaware democrat chris coons to impose a nationwide carbon tax. a california radio host, joins us tonight. you very much for coming on. i think it is pretty clear, from what is happening in france, that may be the public, globally, isn't on board with this because most people care about gas prices, because they don't have their own planes, or drivers, so why would you come in the name of fighting i may change, crush the most vulnerable in your society? it doesn't seem fair. >> we have two issues going on, first off is in france, emmanuel macron, he did a massive tax cut on the rich, that is part of what the protests are about. it is not just about the gas tax, it is also the fact that people feel like he is getting away giant tax cuts to the wealthy, that sounds familiar in the united states. simultaneously, the u.s. proposal is actually fundamentally different from

france. what senators flake and coons put forward is a revenue neutral carbon tax and dividend. meaning whatever tax money comes and gets distribute it out to the american taxpayer. it will be a progressive -- >> tucker: so we are going to raise gas taxes and filter the money through a massive unionized bureaucracy, and somehow it will drip back down to you? i thought trickle-down economics didn't work, but i guess we are for it now? >> that is not trickle-down economics. >> tucker: i think it kind of is, trickle through a public union first. a different kind of trickling, but you are still getting wet. >> the difference is, we are using a market force to dis- incentivize pollution. one of my big issues with the carbon tax, you can argue all you want about whether climate change is man-made or not, but we do know that mercury pollution is a potent neurotoxin, we do know that

sulfur pollution has significant health effects, we do know that ground-based ozone, because of burning of fossil fuels, causes people to die. i'm a big fan of reducing pollution. if we can use market solutions to incentivize being more efficient and dis- incentivize polluting -- >> tucker: some of this, i can't wait in on one way or another because i'm not a scientist, but i do understand who is getting the short end of the stick. wouldn't it be a display of good faith of the people behind this legislation said first thing we are going to do is ban all private air travel? because climate change is that serious, next essential's right to the human race itself. then we will talk about taxing everyone else, like people making $40,000. >> we actually agree on a private plane issue, i hate when people will tell me how to live my life and then they do the

exact opposite, i can't abide hypocrisy. >> tucker: do you see that happening with politicians who fly private, actors who fly private, al gore who flies private -- does that upset you? >> i'm offended about that, i wrote about it in my book. >> tucker: good for you! let's just ban it. i don't want to be authoritarian, i was always kind of libertarian, but it's important. if you show up at the private airport, just put you in prison. >> i'm actually a little bit on your -- no. here's what happened, with the carbon tax, suddenly a private jet, instead of being $3,000 an hour, because of the tax on your burning of the fossil fuels, will suddenly cost you $5,000 an hour. >> tucker: i guess i take climate change more seriously than you do, you must be a denier. every private plane banned.

>> we make it expensive. and then you will think twice about doing it. >> tucker: ethan bearman, thank you very much. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: pretty much every college in america, almost every college in america, restricts free speech dramatically. it is a signature factor college. and it is grotesque. can we do anything about it? that is after the break. ♪

♪ >> tucker: america's college campuses were designed to be havens for free expression, and for good reason. free speech is a requirement for three free thought, and free thought essential for universities, no other reason to have it. but universities where those freedoms under the gravest threat. a new foundation for the institution of individual rights finds that 90% of american college campuses have some kindt restricts what students are allowed to say, and by extension, this is intentional, what is acceptable for them to think. when they control what you say, they control what you think. exam director, he joins us tonight to robert, thank you very much for coming on. when you say there are speech codes, is that strictly speakin speaking? are these rules that say you are

not allowed to express certain ideas or say certain things? or the they informal? >> these are literally formal rules telling you what you can and cannot say on college campuses. you are right, about 90% of them have codes, if it is a public university, are unconstitutiona unconstitutional, or if it is a private university, it violates their own promises of free speech. they only rank the codes that are written down, if the college is engaging in informal censorship. >> tucker: every college in america receives federal funding, everyone. so they would all be subject to the conventional protection, civil rights, voting rights, why are they not required to uphold the first amendment to the bill of rights, freedom of speech? >> it's interesting, there are some civil rights protections. title ix is probably the most

well-known one, racial discrimination, as well. those are requirements you get federal funding, but actually following the first amendment is not one of the requirements. we don't make that requirement of colleges to take federal funds. you are right, it is virtually all of them. >> tucker: why wouldn't it be simple for congress to pass a law saying if you are taking tax dollars, have to follow the bill of rights? that doesn't seem like a tough ask. >> that is something congress could do, and it wasn't on back in the civil rights era. now you would see a lot of resistance on political basis, because there is a lot of support out there, particularly among college administrators and folks working at colleges for these kind of restrictions. i think you see a lot of opposition to that. i don't think you see a lot among average americans. >> tucker: if we ever get a republican congress, maybe they will do it, build a wall, stuff like that. here's hoping. robert, thank you very much.

>> thank you for having me. >> tucker: jason nichols is right in the middle of this debate, an actual professor, teaches african-american studies at the university of maryland peer thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: it seems like a baseline for university to have pretty much absolute freedom of speech, a prerequisite for freedom of thought. what is the point of having colleges if you can't say whatever you think? >> i think number one, and society, we don't have complete freedom of speech. >> tucker: true. >> there is libel, there is defamation, there are threats of violence, and inciting violence. those are limits on free speech. i think we have this idea that freedom of speech means you can say anything at any time. >> tucker: no, we know what it is, because of brandon versus ohio in 1967, the famous supreme court case, very specifically outlined the boundaries of free speech. libel is not allowed, of course, imminent threats of violence are not allowed. everything else is allowed. everything else is allowed.

apple, amazon, of some big company -- colleges exist to be an oasis in the middle of commercial society for free thinking. so why would they be the places where freethinking is punished most aggressively? >> i agree that there are many cases -- you and i actually discussed a case a little while ago where there was a college professor who said something he shouldn't have said, and all of a sudden, people are talking about he needs to be fired, this is why we actually have tenure, to protect people so they can say what it is they want. there have been all of these attacks, people trying to put limits on what it is you say, and i think that is problematic. but, overall, colleges do protect freedom of speech. >> tucker: what would happen if you went into your class -- i like that donald trump, and what i like about him? i like family separation, i like the wall, he is right that mexico doesn't send us his best.

if you read portions of a trump speech. how would that work out? >> i think students would disagree, and they have every right to disagree. >> tucker: of course they would come i would never contest their right. >> even if they protested me, that is part of their first amendment right. >> tucker: you are getting no debate for me on that. i believe in the free exchange of ideas, and despite efforts to shut us down and shut us up, we're still doing it. but if you said that in a faculty meeting, no one would engage you. people would just say, you know what, i know you are african-american, but obviously some kind of freaky bigot. they would treat you like they treated kanye west. no one would engage you and say talk through those ideas. you really think family separation is a good idea? now, they would shout at you. >> i think people would disagree, and they would have every right to disagree. >> tucker: of course, the whole idea college as you say one thing, i say another, then we talk about them. isn't that the goal? >> the conversation doesn't always have to be comfortable. >> tucker: of course not.

>> we can yell at each other, we can sit there and try to shut one another down, that is part of free speech. >> tucker: of course, i guess the macro question is have you ever met a group of people with smaller mind than those who teach and america's colleges? less open to new ideas, to challenging, truly challenging concepts? >> that is literally what we do on college campuses, challenge concepts and popular ideas. >> tucker: when you go to your next faculty meeting, just say, for the record, abortion is murder. at [laughs] i want to see how that works. >> every semester, we have abortion activists who come out and litter the campus with pictures of aborted fetuses, pregnant women walking across campus crying and all of these kind of things. it is still there first amendment right. >> tucker: of course it is. people complain, but what would your colleagues say if you said that? >> i'm sure they would be disgusted and upset with me,

somewhat. they don't have to be open -- >> tucker: but they should be. they are not supposed to be small minded, theirs was to be broad-minded. >> these are people who are probably studied the issue -- >> tucker: no they haven't! >> people study for a living. >> tucker: that is the irony wrapped in the riddle. you are none of those things, which is why we're so grateful you come on this show. >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: time now for final exam. can you do better than the news professionals that are mentoring the news? what happened this week? we don't know, do you? find out after the break. ♪

♪ >> tucker: the best and call must moment of the week, time now for final exams. pardon me, professionals compete to win a mug and be crowned news champion. we are pitting top correspondence against each other, lauren blanchard and jenkins join us on the site. a longtime former champion, though i think every match you have one not, you had an arm sling on. >> 4-0 run in a sling. the first time it came off, we lost.

>> tucker: we found out that lauren is a great competitor. you know the rules, we will repeat for the audience at home peered hands on buzzers, i asked the question, the first want to pause in gets to answer the question. this is key. you must wait until i finish asking the question in order to answer it. you can answer one technology by saying your name. each correct answer is with a single point, each incorrect answer detracts a point from your total. the cool math of a "final exam." best of five wins. ready? good luck. we are going to begin with multiple choice question. in a marketing move that is either brilliant or insane, what fast food chain is now selling fire logs to make your whole house smell like their food? is the restaurant a, burger king, b, kfc, c domino's? lauren blanchard. >> it is kfc. >> tucker: kfc, you are definitive on that. is it kfc? >> if you're looking to kick start your christmas season, you might want to get yourself one

of these. this is the kfc 11 herbs and spices fire log. you put in your fireplace, it smells like fried chicken. >> tucker: it smells like your car in college. >> no, absolutely not. >> going to run out and get one. >> tucker: lauren blanchard, you are up by one point. question two. traffic in los angeles is notoriously awful, but thanks to the brilliance and the foresight of elon musk, relief may be on the way. the billionaire inventor just unveiled what new, faster way of getting around los angeles? griff jenkins. >> tunnel. >> tucker: tunnels? under l.a.? i don't believe you, let's check the tape. >> how about this? on underground tunnels to beat traffic congestion. they ensure they don't run into each other, despite going speeds over 125 miles per hour. >> elon musk with bright ideas. >> tucker: because when you're

near the san andreas fault, what you want is to drive undergroun underground. it's california, it won't even exist. question three -- congratulations on that. this way, a man in missouri was sentenced to a year in prison for illegally poaching hundreds of deer. the judge also mandated while the poacher is locked up, he is required to watch which classic disney movie once a month? lauren blanchard. >> "bambi." >> tucker: that's cruel and unusual. is it "bambi?" >> a judge ordering a man who killed hundreds of deer's to watch the disney classic "bambi" during his a jail sentence. >> that is fantastic peered >> tucker: that man has eaten a lot of venison. question four, another multiple-choice, so wait for each option. this week releasing the list of the richest celebrities of 2018. the top spot this year went to a filmmaker with a network netwof

$5 billion. lauren blanchard. >> george lucas. "star wars," right? >> tucker: george lucas and "star wars." >> michael jordan, a surprise, steven spielberg, and coming in at number one, "star wars" creator george lucas with a net worth of $5.4 billion. billion. >> tucker: did you know that, or did you guess? >> no, i feel like i knew that. i'm from michigan, we don't really take the s.a.t., so act. >> tucker: i bet you got 100. >> i wish. i have brothers, i have to fight for a lot of things growing up. >> tucker: i can tell, boy, you are the first one. all right, final question.

which '90s child actor famous for starring in a popular christmas movie has reprised his role for a new ad for google? lorrain. >> macaulay culkin. >> add aftershave to my shopping list. hey google, add this to my shopping list. >> tucker: amazing. all the metrics in front of them on the "final exam" control room board, and they are saying both of you have buzzed in, but your reflexes are so lightning quick, you are like a ninja. >> it is like those old western movies where the guys, that's it. >> tucker: dead before you hit the ground. griff, great job. it lauren. we award you with the mug.

we have had demand for this month, so that is how coveted it is, we feel the same way about him. he is atop our christmas tree. i want you to drink your coffee every morning and think of us and him. >> i will. >> tucker: merry christmas to both of you. that is it for tonight "final exam." watch the news closely each night, tune in every thursday, to see if you can be to the professionals. i don't know if you can. we will be right back. ♪

this b6 cnn just hates it when they are called fake news and the president's brother gets all upset but, one guy who was a investigative journalist in

germany, he was honored as journalist of the year. now he's being canned, he was caught inventing many of his stories. and it's probably not surprising, they were absurd stories. one was a profile of a minnesota town called fergus falls that had a number of trump supporters and he went and stayed for a number of weeks to mock them. he wrote a number of absurd claims to make them sound ridiculous and at one point he said the movie "american sniper" was still playing to sold-out crowds two years later. it took years for him to be caught and one of the main reasons is he wrote exactly what his audience wanted to hear. of course cnn never noticed, they wanted to hear it too. author and columnist mark steyn joins us tonight, this guy was hiding in plain sight. >> this is a very traditional kind of story. the europeans and they enjoy it.

they like to send their reporters out into the great wastelands of the american interior and report back that all the people there are inbred, stump tooth snake handling crazies who like nothing better than a jigger of moonshine and to bunk up with her sister before they go down to have their church renamed after trump and do a couple of scripture readings from the art of the deal. so basically this guy -- you laugh, but that is actually what these newspapers and want. i guy called matthew engel, his editors told him to go to the most backward parts of america and find the most inbred crazies to write about, and his heart wasn't really in it so he went to a suburban olive garden restaurant and wrote it up as if he was stanley in africa,

discovering livingston. that's how they think of the interior of america. this guy was completely ridiculous. he said the town manager was a who had never been to the ocean and these guys in fergus falls post a photograph of the town manager standing on the ocean shore with the woman that he lives with. i mean this guy got there, discovered the story wasn't there but decided to write it for his readers anyway. >> sean: can i ask you super quick, i first met you when you were writing for about five different newspapers. do you think journalists are getting dumber or is it just my imagination? >> i think the herd mentality of all sitting around in the washington bureau or whatever and the idea of them actually all agreeing -- i think the groupthink, the herd mentality is far less than it was 20 or 40

years ago. >> sean: i needed a reality check. the great mark steyn, thanks very much. >> sean: the current battle over border wall funding says everything about the state of modern american leadership. washington easily agrees on the amount of funding on the war in afghanistan, giving tax breaks to powerful monopolies. but protect american sovereignty, help actual americans secure the border? the agreement is completely impossible. for a blueprint there's a new book called "ship of fools." the title was formulated about a year ago, it seems more accurate than ever, sadly. anyway, a pretty good christmas present if you have someone that wants to be informed with the press. we hope we will see you tomorrow

night at 8:00 p.m. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. five days until christmas so it's time to buy some presents. "hannity" is next, and dan bongino is sitting in for sean tonight. >> dan: welcome to this special edition of the "hannity." law and order in america. i'm dan bongino in tonight again for sean. as we speak, a planned fund for border security hangs in the balance. president trump remained steadfast in his commitment to build a wall on our southern border. joining us now at the very latest is our own ed henry. >> this day started with mark meadows and the frieden caucus meeting on "fox & friends" that house republicans fumbled the issue by not getting the money for the wall over