saved an average of $412," syou probably won't believe me. but you can believe this, real esurance employee nancy abraham. look her up online. esurance, it's surprisingly painless. the straight story every night. here's tucker. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." there was a lot of drama on capitol hill today. democrats and the president continue battling over a border wall. yesterday, you probably saw, the house speaker nancy pelosi asked president trump to postpone his state of the union or have it somewhere else, not in congress. she argued the shutdown had created security concerns. that was not confirmed by anyone who actually provide

security but that's what she said. today, the president struck a blow of his own. he cancelled a congressional trip abroad at the very last minute that pelosi was planning to take. fox chief national correspondent ed henry has been following every bit of this and he joins us tonight. >> shortly after returning from government on my christmas vacation in hawaii, you will render, and a mere hours before her government jet was at the take off again, before president trump dismissed it as a public relations event. today, pelosi was that he was all kinds of government security for an official congressional trip to a war zone in afghanistan, as well as multi-day stops in egypt and belgium, where the speaker would spend more taxpayer money come on, yes, security but also hotels, cars, meals, you get the idea. in fact, there was a bus full of lawmakers that was headed from the capitol to joint force base andrews to meet an air force jet to take pelosi and the group overseas.

her spokesman told us the speaker wanted to thank our men and women in uniform and obtain what they called critical national security briefings on the front line. the president brought that bus to a screeching halt with a letter marked "dear madam speaker." he wrote, "due to the shutdown i'm sorry to inform you your trip to brussels, egypt and afghanistan has been postponed. we will reschedule this seven day excursion when the shutdown is over." among the grounded was adam schiff, who was supposed to be on the trip with pelosi and complained this was what he called fifth grade conduct by the president. white house aides said this was not a tit-for-tat. the president thinks pelosi should stay in washington to negotiate, oh, and theyay say while the military aircraft a has been put on hold, it is pelosi's prerogative to fly commercial if she wants to. tucker? >> tucker: highly amusing. ed henry, thank you veryck much. michelle richie is a former press secretary for the house democratic policy and communicationsig committee. she joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> thanks, tucker, thanks for having me. >> tucker: so the president described the speaker's

planned trip to afghanistan and brussels and egypt as a publicity stunt, a p.r. move. she reacted angry and said, no, it was not. if it wasn't, what was it? what is her position on our continued presence in afghanistan? >> i think her mission was quite clear from what camesi from her staff. they were going to meet with nato officials in brussels and they were going to meet with our men and women in uniform and, look, it seems like this fight between godzilla and king kong is just going to go on for quite some time now. but i do think that it is a tit-for-tat and i think that this just exposes the president's lack of maturity l when it comes to running our government. >> tucker: of course it was a tit-for-tat.nt obviously. >> right.or >> tucker: it does raise, i think -- a highly amusing one -- but it also raises a couple of real questions and i k think it's worth talking about. what is the speaker's position on keeping troops in afghanistan? >> i don't know exactly what her mission is as far as keeping troops in afghanistan. >> tucker: isn't that a key question? >> that's more the president's decision more

than the speaker's decision on whether -- >> tucker: why is she -- you make a solid point it is his decision. the congress really doesn't manage our foreign policy at all these days. so, if it's his decision, why is she going to afghanistan at public expense? >> um, i don't think that it was at the public expense. i really disagree. >> tucker: it was at public expense. >> i disagree this was a public relations move. first of all, i worked in public relations for quite some time. >> tucker: i understand. whether you have a p.r. event, the one thing you don't do is keep it a secret. this is not a p.r. stunt. >> tucker: okay. leaving that characterization aside, you sst said that she doesn't have a role in deciding whether or not our troops remain in afghanistan. so why was she going there? >> why can't she go there? >> tucker: i'm not saying that she shouldn't. >> thank our men and women in uniform? why can't she go there and meet on the ground with some our officials? >> tucker: i'm not proposing that we bar her from doing it and she is not barred. she can fly on an air force plane after thehu shutdown. >> the bigger question here, tucker, is what does this really do for the president?

i think his decision -- >> tucker: that's nots the bigger question, actually. the bigger question is, should we keep troops in afghanistan? and no one seems interesteddd in that. if that is an actual question. a speak of the president is more interested in keeping our fellow workers from getting paid. that's what he is interested in. >> tucker: right. i'm surerd that's his goal. let me ask you though, why shouldn't -- straightforward question once more. why shouldn't she stay in washington until this crisis is resolved? you just said it's very important that our federal workers get the salary they are due. so why shouldn't she stay herere and work on it until that happens? >> well, it seems like conservatives are acting like nancy pelosi was going over there for two weeks to lay on a beach. that's not what's happening. >> tucker: you already couldn't tell me why she was going there. we still don't know why she was going. >> one, i don't work for nancy pelosi, but i can tell you thehe reason why her team says she was going was to thank our men and women in uniform. that's what i know and that's what you know. >> tucker: right, okay.ht but you are not answering my question which is, if itit is so important to end the shutdown, and i think it

probably is, then why wouldn't she stay here until she negotiates the end of a shutdown? >> i think that pelosi, as well as schumer, have had three opportunities put in front of the president for him to have funding for his wall. you remember in january of 2018, they offered him $25 billion, in february of 2018 -- >> tucker: i've followed it. >> over 10 to 12 years. they gave him install the of $2.5 billion and he still decided to shutdown the government. it's on him. he walked out of the office. he said bye-bye. >> tucker: what you are say something either he accepts their previous offers or the government remains shutdown forever? i'm confused as to what you are saying. there is no more negotiating to do? is that what you are saying? >> there is absolutely morey negotiating to do it. >> tucker: why was she leave? >> she was leaving, tucker, as you know, as have you reported, because she was going to brussels to meet with nato officials and afghanistan to thank our men and women. >> tucker: to thank our troops. t>> i don't know how many times we need to say it. >> tucker: in the middle of a government shutdown, that you say is hurting people, but she doesn't want to stay

and negotiate it because she needs to, quote, thank our troops. >> she has absolutely stayed and she's worked with this president on multiple occasions. he got up from the table and left the office the last time they sat down and had a discussion. >> tucker: it's an adult question. why would she be mad about this? it probably is fair probably she should stay. this isn't helping anybody the shutdown, i mean it. why not stay and figure it out? now she has this bad idea to go toha t afghanistan to thank our troops who are serving in a war that she is not sure whether she supports or not. >> this is so pointless! >> tucker: it's totally real. >> no, it is real but it's noannoying to me, because we're sitting here talking about a woman taking a trip. she is not going now. we can all really just get over it. what i would like to know is when this president is going to sit down with the democrats and reopen the government. >> tucker: i guess, now --- >> people are not getting paid. >> tucker: that's a fair question. >> people that i know personally and people that i care about that are not getting their paycheck. >> tucker: i live here, too. isn't this a good thing? i'm not sure why you are complaining about it.

now he can sit down with nancyy pelosi because he has prevented her from leaving the country. why wouldn't you applaud this? >> i don't applaud it because he did it as a tit-for-tat. he's immature. that's why he did it. >> tucker: but you are happy about the outcome but you don't like his motives? >> no. i definitely don't like his motives at all. i think his motivations are to build a wall that is pretty much, instead of make america great again, he might as well to say to mexico, if you are brown turn around. that's what the message is. >> tucker: i think you may have gotten your talking points confused. i appreciate your mustering. >> no talking points.ng straight conversation. >> tucker: no talking points. you just made that up on the fly. brilliant. [laughs] rochelle, thank you. federaloa shutdown continues. democrats coalesce around a rationale for continued opposition to a border wall. they are no longer telling you walls are too expensive. that was a laughable argument coming from the left, so they have given up. they're not telling you walls don't work because obviously they do. everybody knows that the probable they are now telling us, you just heard it, is that god doesn't like

walls. they are immoral. as beto o'rourke noted the b other day walls, "ensure death." building the wall is the same as committing murder. democrat ilhan omar of minnesota has been in congress a matter of weeks. already she strongly agrees with this. >> and i demand that the president end his temper tantrums and quest for a racist and sinful big wall. >> tucker: racist and xenophobic, that's what walls are. once you understand that, it does make you think there are an awful lot of walls inul this country. now we know they are an offense against god, how can we let them stand? that's a real question for? the city of el paso, texas. el paso is on the border right across from juarez, mexico. el paso was a calm and peaceful and great place. juarez is violent and chaotic. one of the most dangerous cities in the world.c. how can these two places exist side by side? simple. there is a wall between them. congresswoman veronica

escabar now represents the city of el paso. she just replaced beto o'rourke. she says it may be time to knock down that sinful wall. >> we know that walls don't work. that they don't stop drugs, that they d don't stop migration. >> el paso has a wall. you say it doesn't work. would you ever call for the removal of the wall there? >> you know, it's really ugly. it is, i think, a monument to division. we have always had fencing along the u.s.-mexico border. it's existed -- i'm a lifelong resident. it always was there. but the bigger and taller and uglier that they get, they really just become sinful. >> tucker: a monument to division, thatg is what el pasos new congressman says about the wall. she is right. wall does divide. that's the point of having them. there are some things people would like to be divided from, like endemic corruption and murderous drug cartels. how do you accomplish that without walls? well, nancy pelosi has been

thinking about this recently. here's her solution. >> and then we talk about technology, as i said, several hundred million dollars, ranges from half a billion to $700 million, for the technology to scan the cars coming through the ports of entry and that is to detect guns. it's like an electronic dog almost. to detect drugs, guns, and other contraband. >> tucker: an electronic dog. of course, how obvious. it was right there in plain sight and we missed it.cu the rest of us were thinking about security and old-fashioned medieval terms, walls, fences, actual livingg dogs. but leave it to the congresswoman from our technology capital out in california to think a lot biggergg than that. you are looking at the solution of the future. an electronic dog. brilliant. this show has exclusively obtained a prototype of the speaker's digital canine..

you are watching it right now. just kidding.at we pulled that off the internet. probably not so different from the real thing though. we will see. in the meantime, let's takenc nancy pelosi and beto o'rourke and the entire editorial staffs onff the other cable channels seriously for a moment. let's concede that walls are, in fact, inherently immoral. how do we respond once we have accepted that? we can't simply prevent donald trump from building a wall. that's not enough. we have got to do something about the countless walls of wickedness that degrade and pollute america's moral landscape. for example, the wall that keeps poor people out of barack obama's home in washington. thege wall that protects george soros' place in south hampton. the wallhe at the pelosi compound in napa, not to mention the wall around mark zuckerberg's estate in hawaii. brentwood, the walled gardens of brooklyn. level them all. all of them. make them flat. in fact, do it tonight for an angry god turns us all to

pillars of salt for ignoring anti-wall commandment speaker pelosi, tear down these walls. once have you done that turn the bulldozer of righteousness outward to the world. israel, for example, surrounded by walls on all sides. does nancy pelosi know that? would she withhold billions in military a aid until their walls are gone? what's a moral question now. what's the answer? how about tunisia and jordan? we helped pay for those countries' walls. we are implicated in those walls. will we pay to take them down? how much do we really care about our souls? we contacted the speaker today to find out. she didn't reply. neither did the other democrats we called. it turns out they have no plan to eliminate anyone else's walls and certainly not their own. they just don't want a wall to protect america. they don't think our country deserves that. just yesterday, a the "new york times" ran a a piece that demanded that the u.s. get rid of its borders entirely, no borders. of 10 million, 100 million, billion people want to move here, so be it.

it's not our right to keep them out. it's only our obligation to pay for it. that's the democrats' position. they are telling us that god agrees with them. mark morgan, the head of the border patrol under president obama, and he joins us tonight. mr. morgan, thanks very much for coming on. so to the new congresswoman, congresswoman escobar from el paso, i think it's a fair question. what would happen, since walls are immoral, if we removed the wall that separates el paso, a great city, from juarez, mexico? >> we would take a huge step backwards. again, i lived and worked in el paso for two years.or >> tucker: yes. >> the drug cartels, we were able to almostab eliminate the avenues that they have for all the things we have talked about before, drugs,bo human trafficking, illegal trafficking as well. and by doing that, by building walls, we increased the border patrol's operational capability and stance to more effectively respond and stop bad things and bad people from coming in. nancy pelosi, i agree with her, the ports of entry, absolutely. by building a wall, for example, in el paso, what

they did was increase the border patrol's operational capability and cut off that avenue and it funneled people to the s ports of entry, where we stand a better chance of interdicting. >> tucker: what's so interesting about el paso, you lived there, democrats want to make everything about border security a racial question. you heard a guest we just had saying, you are racist if you are for a wall. there is a wall separating el paso from the disaster right across the border. el paso is 80% hispanic.r. it's not a city. i have been there many times. it's noted for racial tension. so people of thehe same ethnicity living in the united states are supporting a wall and they are sort of happyy t to live there. so, like, there's no inherent racial component to any of this. unless i'm missing something, is there? >> it's even more outrageous from that in my opinion. instead of opinion, let's look atea fact. the fact is, yuma county sheriff just got on this week and he talked about during his time there, his deputies found and recovered ieover 100 bodies of people

trying to illegally enter the country that died of exposure and other issues. we just heard tragic deaths of two kids, two children that died. they didn't die from the hands of americans. law enforcement. they died at the hands of the coyote making m the perilous trek without medical attention and nutrition. the united states border patrol, not hundreds, but they execute thousands of rescues every year of illegal aliens trying to enter the country in between points of entry. the wall takes that avenue the way. the very people saying the rhetoric out there is tremendously strengthening the cargo hold hold on the southern border and exploiting harm in doing harm to the people they say they want to protect. >> tucker: bad people thrive in chaos. what we have now is chaos. when you hear beto o'rourke say, constructing a wall will cause people toe die, it's an act of murder to construct a wall, how do you respond to that? >> it's almost impossible to respond to that because it's not based in reality. it's not based in. fact. again, they are not

listening to the experts. they just totally discount when the sheriff of yuma county that's done this his entire life said we recovered 100 dead bodies. how does beto then say that the wall kills people? that's absolutely false.pl >> tucker: that we kill people. amazing. mark morgan, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> absolutely.ht >> tucker: well, magazine here inre washington says it is time to impeach the president for general badness, called upon the congress to do it. mark steyn read the piece. he suggested it and he will respondnd after the break. ♪ -we're doing karaoke later, and you're gonna sing. -jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive.

-oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ]

♪you can be the best ♪you can be the king kong ♪bangin on your chest ♪you can beat the world you can beat the war♪ ♪you can talk to god while bangin on his door♪ ♪you can throw your hands up you can beat the clock♪ ♪you can move a mountain you can break rocks♪ ♪you can be a master don't wait for luck♪ ♪dedicate yourself and you can find yourself♪ ♪standin in the hall of fame ♪yea ♪and the world's gonna know your name, yea♪

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, "the atlantic" magazine, which used to be good before it became rigid and inflexible and humorless and stupid and uninteresting, is leading the latest march issue with a piece calling on the congress to impeach the president because is he a bad guy. plenty of democrats already agree with this. they have been demanding impeachment for quite a while now. >> do you still think the president should be i impeached? t >> absolutely. >> impeachment is not dead. one step closer to impeachment.'s yesterday's resolution brought us one stepp closer. >> i will be dedicating 100 percent of my time, effort, and resources to one cause. working for mr. trump's impeachment and removal from office. >> tucker: tom steyer,

ladies and gentlemen, he's a much better person than you are. he has been calling for impeachment for long time. but during the 2018 midterm campaign, democrats tried their best to mute that message. their leaders told the base be quiet, shhh, you don't want to scare people. no more talking about impeachment. we believe in democratic solutions to leaders we don't like. they are still saying that sort of in public, but will they be able to keep the impeachment enthusiasts in their party under control? that's thehe question. mark steyn has been thinking about this quite a bit and he joins us tonight. ncmark, what did you make, since you are a long-time, long-time magazine writer, you read this piece what did you make of the argument it made for impeachment? >> well, first of all, i agree with your assessment of the diminished statement of "the atlantic monthly."

i used to write for "the atlantic" a decade or so back. i'm not saying i'm one of their giants, but go back through the years mark twain and lord molten and all kinds of great people writing for them.ti this thing goes wrong right from under the subheadline, starting, "the process of impeachmentnd will reign in a president with american ideals and debate into congress where it belongs." actually american ideals, american values, however yout, want to phrase it, those transcendental values, they are the province of the people and that is the prerogative of the people, not of bureaucrats, administrators and pseudo-judicial process in washington. as foror the debate about his fitness, bringing it into in congress where it belongs, no, that too, his fitness for office, that, too, is in the gift of the people and we're teaching a very dangerous lesson here. basically, they are not disputing that trump was

elected according to the lawful mechanisms of what they are say saying is they don't like the result of that election. you are teaching the people a very dangerous lesson there. you are saying that voting doesn't matter. and, in essence, thereby, setting in motion essentially revolutionary conditions. if you tell people in a free society that your vote doesn't matter. >> tucker: i think you are absolutely right. i think there are leaders on the democratic side who sense that what you are saying is right. y and there could -- they could be unleashing forces they can't control and might be hurting themselves. what do youms think would happen politically if impeachment commenced? >> oh, i think it would be an absolute fiasco. one of the most deplorable trends in this country in the last few years is the attempt to actually criminalize opposition. basically this guy's piece is written in a

pseudo-scholarly, pseudo-judicial form. but it's full of what lawyers would call conclusory allegations that you are not allowed to make in a legal complaint. he used -- you called it general badness. he accuses trump of attacking the bedrock of american democracy. well, you know, that's the -- that's kind of fancy writing. but what does that actually mean? there t is not a -- there is no bedrock of american democracy. it's not down there by the fence in el paso and you take a pick ax to it. you can't actually litigate you can revile this president.n you can loathe this president. >> tucker: right. >> robert mueller has been investigating him for two years and has come up empty, except for papadopoulos lying about a cocktail he had with the australian high commissioner to the united kingdom in a bar in london. that's after two years off this rubbish.

>> tucker: it was a very dangerous cocktail, though. mark steyn put it better i know.one thank you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: syria isn't the only military commitment america has abroad right now. or our largest. 14,000 troops remain in afghanistan. there arefg reports the president is considering withdrawing some or all of is that wise? what should our policy toward afghanistan be? how does it effect our contest with china? our biggest rival? robert caplin has been more places than anyone i'm aware of. he's a senior fellow at the center for new american security and he u joins us tonight. mr. caplin, thank you very much for coming on. >> it's my pleasure to be here. >> tucker: so you have written about afghanistan, thought about afghanistan a lot about afghanistan. in youry judgment, what's the right course going forward? afghanistan? >> well, first of all, let'see lay out some facts. the united states has been in afghanistan for 17 years. the troops being deployed there now were in diapers, literally, when we first

went in october 2001. we have no chance to militarily defeat the taliban. and we have little chance to leave behind either a self-sustaining democracy or even a self-sustaining, very well-functioning enlightened dictatorship. all the trend lines are bad, it seems, unfortunately. and what we're sustaining at the moment is a moderate level of chaos, where war lords, ethnic groups compete with each other and if we pulled out, unfortunately, there would be a much greater level of chaos and, in fact, the regime might actually collapse in the way that the saigon regime collapsed in 1975. therefore, either this president or the next president, whoever, is going to face the choice of how to pull out of afghanistan. because the terrorist threat

is still there, but the question becomes, is spending $45 billion a year there the right way to deal with international terrorism? because the iranians, the indians, thehe pakistanis, the chinese all have strong, strategic interest in afghanistan. we do not. our strategic interest there, and it's complicated to explain, we don't have time now, are much, much less. so we're going to have to pull out under this president or the next one. >> tucker: so what you just said sounds right, and it sounds like it's probably a conclusion that's been clear for a while. what does it say about our policymakers here in washington that nobody, thatsh i'm aware of,, is debating this at a high level in public anyway and that thisis has been allowed to persist in this kind of counter productive limbo for so long? >> yes. this is a classic case of

where many people in washington, many thoughtful people, know what needs to be done, but nobody dares utter it. remember, afghanistan is not syria. syria, you don't have gold star families where we have had 2300 soldiers killed as we have hadd in afghanistan. you don't have very esteemed generals' reputations built around syria, whereas in afghanistan we have had a number of very senior, esteemed, famous generals who have been commanders there. pulling out of afghanistanan would be politically much more difficult, i believe, for this president or any president than pulling out of syria. pulling out of syria domestically, politically, is a washington debate more or less. pulling out of afghanistan may become a national debate. >> tucker: i think that's right. mr. kaplan, thank you very much for coming on tonight

and explaining that. i appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: well, a prominent house democrat, it's hard to believe this, but is accused tonight of firing a staff member after that staff member made an allegation ofof rape. amazing. we have got details after the break. ♪ go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today.

♪all around the world, we are one♪ we are one♪ and we're usaa members for life. ♪so where did we all go wrong?♪ ♪woo ♪where did we all, where did we all go wrong?♪ ♪love, love, love, love ♪love, love, love >> pretty amazing story not >> tucker: pretty amazing storyt not getting enough attention tonight. a house democratic staff isbe suing a democratic member of

congress. the staff says she was fired for making an allegation of rape. foxx correspondent david was on this story tonight for us. david? >> tucker, as you were saying, disturbing allegations coming from a former employee of long time texas congresswoman sheila jackson lee. this former employee claims she was raped by a former black caucus foundation employee and fired by jackson lee's office a after the employee planned to sue. the former jackson lee staffer named jane doe in a lawsuit filed last friday said a former intern coordinator for the caucus foundation named, a man named damian jones. she is saying he raped her in 2015. supervisor at the time. doe reported the alleged rape to authorities but the investigation was inconclusive when it came to evidence. well, when she went to tell authorities, fast forward to 2017, jane doe took a jobwa with congresswoman jackson lee out of texas, who became chair of the congressional black caucus foundation. jane doe found out that damion jones was also going to be working with her again and shee reported to authorities that she had a prior situation with him.

now jane doe says that she repeatedly reached out to congresswoman jackson lee, who would not meet her. to be clear, we have reached out to damien jones, mentioned in this lawsuit, for comment. we have not heard back. we do have a statement from congresswoman jackson lee's office. i want to read it. in part it, "the office adamantly denies the allegations that retaliated against her otherwise improperly treated the plaintiff. it is against office policy to discuss specific details about internal personnel matters. congresswoman sheila jackson lee has an outstanding recordd of supporting civil rights and nondiscrimination both in legislation and in her office." when she came to congress, she was a strong proponent of the congressional accountability act, which protects congressional employees. the statement says jackson lee is confident when the facts come to light her office will be exonerated and the matter will be put toer rest. tucker? >> tucker: her defense, i'm a good person.

david spent, thank you very much for that. >> you bet. thank you. >> tucker: well, as america's opioid epidemic continues, in some ways worsens, a new feature is coming to a decaying metropolitan near you, it's called a safe injection site. rathergs than help addicts get off drugs, many cities are trying to create publicly funded areas where addicts can shoot drugs intravenously legally. denver just approved one. de blasio would like one in new york, seattle has been fighting to open one for years. the question is will any of these sites, if they're opened, open up anywhere near the homes of the people who want to build them? the answer is, of course, no. what is it like when one opens in your neighborhood?r a radio host joins us tonight. thank you very much for coming on. so this is one of those ideas that's been discussed for many years. it existed mostly in the realm w of the theoretical. what happens when it becomes real?? what's the effect of one of esthese sites? >> the effect is exactly what you probably think it is. it has the capacity to ruin

went up to i went up to vancouver and british columbia. i happened to be there on vacation. i decided let me go to the heroin injection site area. and it's devastating. you see lots of people who are living out on the streets with addiction that's clearly not being treated. i saw, you know, a drug deal going down when i was there,e, which apparently is not supposed to happen when you have these heroin injection sites. and it's just sad.te and the debate has been, at least here in seattle, i'm assuming in denver soon, we don't want them necessarily in our neighborhoods. >> tucker: it also is sad -- this has been tried in europe. i believe this was tried in switzerland 20 years ago and it was stopped because it was too depressing. doesn't it suggest that municipalities are giving up on the people? we're not going to try to heroin and give you treatment, we will let you do it until i guess you die? is that they are saying?

what are they saying? >> it's an unfortunate reality. when they first started to talking about it in seattle it was about saving people, right? it was about helping people who were addicted to heroin. and then it started of to become okay, well, now it's just about making sure that when they do inject themselves with this deadly drug, they don't die of an overdose which is something, you know, no one wants to see overdose deaths. i think -- >> tucker: of course not. >> in some cases, a lot of these people's hearts are in the right place. a really safe way to deal with this is to get thers person off of heroin. we can offer treatment on demand, which is something that, you know, we have the money for, in a state where the governor, who president -- he's not going to be. he suggested $1.1 billion to save the orcas in the puget sound, and saving the orcas very important. but he offered 30 million to deal with the opioid crisis. and it would feel more appropriate if maybe you switched those numbers around. >> tucker: right. that's for sure.e. >> human life is a little more valuable here. >> tucker: leaders are

supposed to, need to, care about the people they lead or else they can't lead effectively. ispo there a parent in the world who,at upon finding out that his kid was using heroin, do you think, would say, you know what? i'm going to get you clean needles, you can shoot up inin your bedroom. i can't stop you, but i want you to inject safely at home. would any parent say that or would a parent say i will do whatever i can to help get you off it. >> parents who support it saype they were a parent in that circumstance they would. when you talk to normal people and talk to the average everyday person, of course they don't want that happen. i feel like if we're not going to do that with our own kids, perhaps we should not do that with other people's kids. i know it's difficult. i know that it is expensive. and i know that when people are addicted to heroin, you know, they have to be in a place where they feel ready to overcome that addiction. waything that gets in the of them getting ready, is handing them a needle and say, shoot up. it's seattle, it will be crazy. we will set the mood light right. we have smooth jazz in the

background.bo that's not an appropriate way to go about this. i would rather we spend, focus our energy on actual services to save them, to get them off of this drug. >> tucker: exactly. so nicely put. it is difficult. it is complicated. but that's what you do when you care.. and when you don't care, you do exactly what they are doing now. they don't care, do they? >> it's -- i don't want to say none of them care. right? i think there are some people whose hearts are in the right place -- >> tucker: yes, i bet that true. a >> it does seem to be a lazy way.thhy it's just lazier. and i have been trying to think about why some people support this and i haven't really gotten a straight answer. some people who basically want a to legalize heroin. there is a small group ofsi people but there are folks in this community who are fighting for heroin injection sites who are of the opinion that you can live a normal life and have normal relationships and be basically a functioning addict. and i suppose that's certainly possible with some cases. but i don't think the risk is worth it and so you start

talking to people, and they just feel like it seems like they don't want to offend someone who is addicted and they want to be there when you are ready and it's a veryk. emotional approach. again, i appreciate the emotion behind it, it's just doesn't work. that's how the conversation apparently, again, started we are saving people. okay. well, how many people are actually getting off of their addiction, and magically there is no data that they can cite. >> tucker: exactly. junkies don't feel anything. you can'tou be alive if you don't feel things. jason, thank you. it was really smart and interesting and helpful. appreciate it. >> m it thanks for having me. >> tucker: time for "final exam." we have a pretty different kind of arrangement tonight. a special husband vs. wife edition. which member of the duffy family will take home the commemorative eric wemple find out after the break ♪ ♪

♪ >> tucker: time now for "final exam" where we put contestants who follow the news it comes to an hour to see who's been paying closer attention. we've got a double special edition of "final exam." two contenders this evening, have married each other, not tonight, years ago. rachel campos-duffy is regularly here on fox. her husband is a member of congress from wisconsin, congressman sean duffy, and hopefully this will strengthen rather than divide their union. it's great to see you! >> thank you. >> great to see you, too. >> tucker: plowing new ground here. >> i'm excited to be part of that. >> tucker: we're excited too. you know the rules but i will repeat them for the sake of people watching ato home. first contestant to buzz gets to answer the question. you must wait until finish asking it in order to answer. you can answer once i acknowledge pricing your name. each correct answer is worth one point. if you get it wrong, we detected ... the accrual method of "final exam."

the best of five wins. >> tucker: rating does not get you a victory. that's another show entirely. [laughter] according to the rules laidto ot by the national game show commission, all of today's questions must be either about food or animals.st we went with food. so the first question is, multiple choice, please listen closely. president trumpke says he doesnt care what lawmakers call the border wall and ordered -- offered a food-related suggestion, which name did he suggest? was it a: quarter pounder with cheese? b: pancakes? c: cheesecake? the judges have weighed in on that. >> i will go with c. >> tucker: is it peaches? >> whatever you want to call it, it's okay. they can name it whatever. name it peaches. i don't care what they name it.

we need money. peaches. >> b peaches. >> tucker: you both knew that. >> i did. i thought the question -- >> tucker: you knew it too well. >> all multiple choice, have to be -- >> tucker: you have to wait until we finish asking the question. can do at this time. costco, the store, says it has sold out of a 27 type of food that is a shelf life of 20 years. what type of food was it? >> oh, -- 's i hit it first. >> macaroni and cheese. >> tucker: you have to hold it down. >> i hit it first. >> tucker: macaroni and cheese? is it? >> everybody loves macaroni and cheese. but now you can get 27 pounds. that's apparently -- >> tucker: you need to invest in that. that's a pretty good deal. i'm getting one myself. >> i'm kind of a proper myself.

>> tucker: don't admit that on tv. your official position on prepping is, oh that's crazy. question three, and other multiple choice. a world record was at this week for the most liked instagram photo ever. the picture does not feature a famous person or an exotic place, or the nearly 50 million likes. it's a plain, boring photograph of what? a: a banana. b: a lemon. c: egg. congressman? >> i will go with kylie jenner and egg. did not she tweak that out? >> tucker: i don't know. i'm not a member of congress. >> world record egg. an account with that weary name posted this single photo, a picture of a egg. there egg currently has 26 million likes. how does that work? >> tucker: either you live in ts whole country and you still don't understand it.

>> is theree a egg commission that provides a eggs? is there a bonus on this one? >> tucker: the poultry lobby. [laughter] >> that's probably true. [laughter] >> tucker: question four. one last multiple-choice. >> and when you come though, right? >> tucker: it's not for me to keep score. the viewers are watching. chaos at flagstaff, arizona, on monday when a tanker truck flips over, spelling 3500 gallons of which a liquid all the highway? a: chocolate. b: coffee. c: beer. >> tucker: was it c, b or? >> 3500 gallons, that is how much liquid chocolate spilled. a chocolate river, they described it. [laughter] >> i was losing. i figured beer. >> tucker: double down. i admireir that. >> she is she's from wisconsin.

of course she said beer. [laughter] >> tucker: final question. the clemson tigers invited to the white house for a candlelit dinner to celebrate the recent victory over alabama. what type of food to the president serve the team? congressman duffy? >> i was there this morning. mcdonald's. from the mcdonald's that the food came from, i was there this morning. >> tucker: was at mcdonald's? >> we have pizzas, 300 hamburgers. many, many french fries. all of our favorite foods. i want to see what is here in relief. i don't think there will be muc much. >> and carlos owns the store. >> tucker: i just want to say. it was not exclusively, we are hearing,ep mcdonald's, but mcdonald's was represented. you are right. you still win because mcdonald's, wendy's, and what was the last one? >> i was going to say fast food. >> tucker: burger king. it was an ecumenical.

>> carlos owns the mcdonald's that gave the fruit of the white house. >> tucker: impressive! >> and a shutdown, he's had a lot of -- i've been home with the kids!! [laughter] >> tucker: is a shared victory. really a victory for your family. we are pro-family on the show. i will reward the erik wemple commemorative mug do you, rachel. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: congratulations to you both. >> i watched the episode that you had with him on. it's great. >> tucker: when i'm feeling sad, sometimes i watch it. >> or if you are and they shut down -- >> tucker: exactly. [laughter] amazing. that's it for this week's "final exam." pay attention to the news all week. come back thursday to see if you can beat the experts. we'll be right back. ♪ since you're heading off to school, i got you this brita.

dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, the hosts of "the view" are about the most rigid partisans on television, most of them anyway. you will neverer hear them criticize anyone faintly related to the dnc mothership. today, they did go after a democrat, believe it or not. bill de blasio of new york. why did theyat do that? trace gallagher has the story. >> hi, tucker. bill de blasio was on "the view" show 8 minutes and used most of the time to boast aboutua his progressive agenda for new york city will guarantee healthcare for everyone including hundreds ofti thousands of illegal immigrants.

as expected, except for conservative meghan mccain, de blasio got very little resistance until actress comedian and well known liberal whoopi goldberg called the mayor out about bike lanes in manhattan. watch. >> so, i like all of that, that all sounds good. do you know it makes me really mad? >> what? y i have never heard you mad before. >> no, you actually haven't. [laughter] >> you built 83 miles of protected bike lanes. >> goldberg's complaint adding bike lanes, which is being done by liberal politicians across the country, invariably leads to traffic gridlock. de blasio defended himself saying fewer car lanes means fewer fatalities. watch. >> slow down. >> what you -- you go through this city with a police escort. i come in every day. [laughter] i come in every day and i find that, because you can't make a turn anywhere, youu can't go straight anywhere,

when there is a storm, people can't move anywhere.>> >> you didn't hear there, but the audience turned against the mayor. finally, de blasio was asked if he is running for president in 2020 and he ndodged the question. tucker? speed wow >> tucker: [laughs] trace gallagher, thank you. i appreciate the increase in public urination since he has been in office. it's great. you probably know by now that your smart phone has a lot of functions and one of them is to spy on you full time on your personal life. it's notti just tech companies who are tracking your every move. it turns outut they're selling thatth data to other people. so now it's possible for virtually anybody to know everywhere that you go without your knowledge and get rich from it. brett larson is an anchor at fox news headline 24/7 he has been investigating this for us and he joins us tonight. >> hey, tucker. it is yet another tale of the technology we love and rely on. turning over sensitive information without our consent. so, when your cell phone is on, it is in constant

communication with nearby cell towers. that way, when you get a call or text or open up an email, the signal you need is right there. one slight issue. that data is collected by the mobile operators and it turns out some of them have been selling it, and not to law enforcement, but a variety of them, like bail bondsmen, and emergency roadside assistance. some of these companies that get the data they may be turning around and selling it again. which means if you have got someone's cell number and money can you find out in real time where that phone is. this isn't anything new. last year there were grumblings on capitol hill. oregon senator widen sent subpoenas to the cell providers to t get the situation under control. there was a flurry of providers but here we are in 2019 and it's still happening. example last week from

online site, motherboard, they found with a little cash and phone number they were able to get location of a user's phone. within a few days of the report, all the major wireless carriers said they have stopped or they will stop selling your data, with a few exceptions like those for safety reasons and so probably nothing's going to change for now. >> tucker: yeah, falls to ron widen of all people and good for him to keep abreast of this. so, let me ask a dumb enestion. when you sign up for one of these phones, buy it, get the plan, is there any indication -- is there any way to know, if you are an average person with bad eyesight, they are going to be selling your data? >> there is no way to know. all of this stuff so far has not been an opt in situation. you are not getting a message that says, hey, we are about to tell somebody exactly where your phone is, are you okay with this. all the carriers said yeah, they are supposed to be doing that, if they're not doing that, they are in violation of our agreement. but they are still telling -- they are still selling the data and people can get their hands on it. >> tucker: i t don't know why i'm laughing. it's horrifying.

>> we shouldn't be laughing but it's horrifying -- oh, my gosh,y what do we have to do to make it stop? >> tucker: worse than you tthink it is always. thanks for proving that, brett larson, good to see you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: be back tomorrow night 8:00 p.m. the show that's the sworn enemy of lying,o pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.f good news for you! four seconds early, turning over to our friend sean hannity. >> sean: all right, tucker, great show as always. welcome to "hannity." what a great day this has been. in the middle of a partial government shutdown, speaker nancy pelosi, she was all set to leave on a jet plane. well, actually a u.s. military plane on your dime to embark on a 7-day excursion with other democratic members of congress. that is until president trump pulled the plug in a letter. the president wrote nancy pelosi, "due to the government