most-watched, most trusted, most grateful you spent this evening with us. good night from washington. i am shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." we don't do a lot of weather segments on the show, but we couldn't help but notice this phenomenon called a polar vortex that's descended on the midwestern united states this week. temperatures dropped to lows that didn't even seem real. parts of the state of illinois fell to 38 below zero this morning. that's a new state record. in thief river falls, minnesota, the temperature approached 80 below. ugh. cold like that will turn hot coffee to ice crystals before it hits the ground. stay outside for any length of time and you will die and a number of people did in that region. they were found froze toou death in the last few days. meteorologists -- and this is the good news -- say it will warm up soon. climate change will continue as it always has.

spring will come. but this is a good reminder of something. energy matters. it keeps us alive. what would happen if you didn't have energy? that's something we maybe need to consider very soon because of something called the green new deal. what is that? it's not clear. take a look now at a description by the chief proponent of the green new deal. watch. >> you are talking about zero carbon emissions, no use of fossil fuels within 12 years? >> that is the goal. it's ambitious. >> how is that possible? you are talking about everybody having to drive an electric car?ri >> it's going to require a lot of rapid change that we don't even conceive as possible right now. >> tucker: so no fossil fuels within 12 years. there's a lot we don't know about this plan, but that would definitely be the headline. they've spelled it out very clearly. before we can assess whether getting to that point,

no fossil fuels in 12 years, is even possible, it is, as the congresswoman just said, an ambitious goal, let's consider what it would mean for the united states. no fossil fuels would mean no coal, no oil, no natural gas. and that would mean no cars and no airplanes. it would mean shutting down the single most vibrant part of the u.s. economy which is the energy sector. it would mean putting at least 6 million americans out of work immediately. as of today, america is thee largest oil producer in the world. the country exports more natural gas than any other place. more than 90% of all of our energy comes from fossil fuels and nuclear power. we would have to figure out a way to replace that in 12 years using primarily solar and wind power. ambitious? that's one way to describe it. more destructive than a major war on u.s. soil woulde be another way to describe it. senator kirsten gillibrand calls the prospect of all of t this "a really exciting thing." kamala harris agrees. bernie sanders isn't simply

a fan. he says eliminating fossil fuels immediately is a moral imperative. >> that it is absolutely imperative and a life and death issue that we have got to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy. [applause] >> tucker: what's so interesting about that is that the party of science somehow forgot to consult actual scientists about their plan. talk to someone who studies energy and see for yourself. we are nowhere near being able to do any of this. wind power is a scam. it's an elaborate rip-offnd perpetuated on impoverished rural america by a few heavily subsidized corporations that arf getting rich for making the landscape uglier. solar is a promising technology actually,pe but we are still far from being able to efficiently store the energy it producesll and storage is key in a power grid. solar is not a replacement for fossil fuels now or any time soon.

anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't bothered to learn anything about it. n that would be describe most of the people pushing the green new deal. how well is wind power going to heat your house when it's 30 below? what is the range exactly on those new solar passenger jets? they don't know, and they don't care, because none of it applies to them. it never does. we think the science is really interesting so we want to go with it quickly daniel turner director of the power future. mr. turner, thanks very much for coming on.r you are hearing an increasing number of people and i wanteo to be open-minded about this but say we are going to get rid of all fossil fuels in the united states and switch to something called renewables in a dozen years. could we do that? >> not at all. the technology doesn't exist right now.w. and i'm optimistic. we may get there one day, but right now here's a case in point. the largest solar farm in the nation does not produce enough kilowatts

to power the new york city subway system. and that farm is 4,000 acresal five times the size of central park. when representative alexandria ocasio-cortez says we are going to powerhe the entire country on there isn't the lane to come up with the solar farm or wind necessary to have these renewables. the science does not equate to the way we run our n economy. >> tucker: what are they saying exactly? we are going to do this butng there is no science to back up that promise so why are they saying it? >> yeah. this is all part of the 2020 presidential campaign. everyone who has run has come out in favor of a green new deal with one exception michael bloomberg. he is a complete environmentalist. he has given tens to almost close to $200 million to the sierra club alone to fight coal. he has said this is pie in the sky. he realizes the green new deal is not a real policy proposal whatsoever. >> huh. the american energy sector is the great success story of our entire country economy. almost never really covered

but the growth sector for out last few years biggest supporter of natural gas in the world. what would it mean to kill that in 10 years. >> how it powers every single thing we do from agriculture. every part of our economy isst dependent on cheap, reliable, abundant domestic energy. it frees us from the shackles of international conflict. gives us a lot of autonomy. it lowers the cost of all the goods from everything we eat. there is environmentalists watching this show eating avocado in new york. does the person realize this is only possible because of nd energy?dantsi >> tucker: maybe i'm getting old but it seems yesterday both parties, democrats for sure, were saying we need to become energy independent so that we are not tied to these lunatic countries in the middle east that hate us. we did that. notice.eemed to now we are going to kill it? >> exactly. this all happened despitehe

what the previous administration did to the coal industry. right? natural gas and fracking has when a phenomenon for our country and the economy. it decimated: america. they didn't like coal for some reason. why do we want these politicians so far removed from understanding how out energy section works tinker with policy when they are so far out of their league? >> tucker: i think those are fair questions. thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: a former dnc>> communication director has thought about this question. mr. brandon, thanks very much for coming on. >> thanks for having me on, >> tucker: what are they going to do about airplanes. >> it's not like anybody is going to do away with airplanesy the point of the great new deal is to push us further. we have good allies in thehe petroleum industry itself. british petroleum touts its self as beyond petroleum. plenty of the most significant investments in renewable energy are coming from the fossil fuel industry. >> tucker: i know how terrified.

big business is an ally of the left. obviously i'm very awaret of that. i'm aware of these orwellian statements that the pr department has put out. the fact is you have people running for president at the very top of the democratic party promising us and the country we will be off all fossil fuels in a dozen years. a lot of questions stem from that. the first one, since it's at continental country. what are you going to do about airplanes? >> there is a variety of proposals. what you are talking about is one proposal from alexandria ocasio-cortez and apparently senator markey. there is going to be other perspectives on this. nancy pelosi has appointed a commission to look at this and to identify ways that we can move forward more aggressively on making a transition responsibly. nobody is talking about shutting down the airline industry. what he would talking about is that this polar vortex are going to continue to happen if we don't take aggressive areps, to reduce carbon emission.

>> without getting into the global warming question which is a separate one. it's just so striking that the united states has achieved this amazing victory over dependenceru on middle eastern oil. no one really acknowledges it. >> despite donald trump's promises coal mines are closing.es >> tucker: you are writing the script for me. once natural gas is done this amazing thing, a cleaner form of energy, now every democrat running for president has promised to kill natural gas. >> it's one vehicle. we need different sources. >> tucker:r: we had many sources ofof energy. why would s you want to kill the single most successful homegrown, cheapest, cleanest form of energy that actually works? >> give the american people more options. if you do it smartly, you can do it in a way to create more jobs.

we have opportunity zones that are going to allow people to defer to their capital gains investments, potentially eliminate with ao on that entirely over ten years to put into revitalizing communities thatat have been left behind ovr the last many years. you can actually combine that with other programs that help install renewable energy systems. >> tucker: i know. >> retrofitting buildings. >> tucker: i'm not against infrastructure. >> nobody is talking about strong airplanes. >> actually, a member of conscious whose tape i just play you had stopping all fossil fuels. >> the idea is to transition to new forms of energy. >> i'm saying why would i listen to policy makers who know nothing about thef policy. none of these people know anything about energy and making promise us that are insane that they can't keep why are they credible? >> i'm not asking you toca listen to them, right? i'm asking you to consider

we need people like that to help bring the debate up. then we can have a lot of u different sectors. >> tucker: let's have this debate. wind power is not an efficient form i of power. i think solar is promising. wind is not. and yet it is the scourge of rural america. every community has a winmail and offshore communities are getting rich from it. why are there no windmills -- p >> expand wind power and make it more efficient. solar has tremendous promise. >> tucker: shouldn't we evenly share the burden? why are there no wind farms -- >> one of the examples of how solar has been so effective a lot of power companies used to give up a lot of incentives to install solar panels. if you exceeded what you use ota in energy because of what you were collecting and kick back into the grid you got a lot of credit. a lot of power companies in states like arizona ande others are trying to cut back on those credits because there is so much

electricity from the solar grid. >> tucker: they can't store it. that's the problem.to they don't know what they are talking about. the question is not generating electricity. it's storing it so that you can release it when you need it at peak usage times.n >> it's going to have to be a combination of technologies. we have toal have this debate ad whethers or not you agree with congresswoman acadia cortez, the important thing is that we have people pushing the debate. i want to science to continue to evolve. >> tucker: stop lying for once. that would be great. democratic party lurching from pro-choice to pro-infanticide. if you think we are being unfair, you have probably seen the tape. we are not being unfair. it's real. what is the new standard? that's after the break. i'm a veteran

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible,

by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> tucker: on this show last night, we told you how the newly radicalized democrat party is changing abortion laws in a number of states.ne in virginia, a lawmaker called kathy tran has introduced a bill that, by her own description, would allow the killing of children as they are being born. we are not exaggerating, though it sounds like we are. watch her describe it. >> where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth. she has physical signs that she is about to give birth. would that still be a point ll at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? she is dilating. >> mr. chairman, that would be

a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point. >> i understand. i'm asking if your bill allows that. >> my bill would allow that yes. >> tucker: that was a blunt description and it would have horrified many democrats just a decade ago. it's embarrassing some even today. one of tran's co-sponsors has disavowed the bill claims she never even readea it. many others have jumped to tran's defense and the governor of virginia ralph northam is one of them. he said pediatric neurologist. the bill would allow not only abortion at the time of birth but killing the child after the child is born, infanticide, and that's okay. >> it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's nonviable. in this particular example if a mother is in labor i can tell you exactly what would happen. the infant would be delivered. the infant would be kept comfortable.

the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. >> tucker: killing a child who has already been born. is that the new pro-choice position? well, yesterday, we invited professional democrat onrd the called monica klein and asked her to explain. we didn't get far in that. the conversation devolved immediately into a barrage of bumper sticker slogans. here is a selection in case you missed it. there is a point where i the mother and physician can decide whether to kill the infant or not. what do you think of that? >> look, tucker, i understand that you want to go back to a time where roe v. wade was illegal, where women were having back alley abortions. >> tucker: don't give me that. come on.pt >> it isn't about babies. it's about health care. it's about you attempting to try to control women's bodies. >> tucker: please don't be a robot.

this is the governor of virginia saying this. i want to know what you think oq it. does it bother you? it's a sincere question. >> okay, it bothers me that you are attempting to control women's bodies. a this is about a woman's right to choose and you as a man should not have a single say in that. >> tucker: wow. so it went on and on like that. nobody learned a thing in the end. the question remained what exactly is the new democratic position on abortion? it's worth talking about. we would like to settle it tonight. julie alvin worked at "time" and bustle. thanks for come on. >> thanks for having me.e. >> tucker: the video of the governor of virginia who was asked about it today and said he stood by everything that he said. he didn't say he misspoke. it evokes the obvious question, is it okay, is it pro-choice to kill a child who has already been born. so i ask that question of you. >> i think this has actually been a gross mischaracterization of northam's comments and he did clarify some today what he meant.rt so basically what we are talking about is people who are seeking an abortion thatut late in their pregnancy are women who either are atha

severe health risk because of going through with the pregnancy or because their fetus is facing severe abnormalities. it may be incompatible with life. when he was talking about was an unviable fetus who's been delivered and it's probably only going to survive outside of the room for a short period of time. that's a decision as far as how to proceed for those couple of hours between the physician and between the mother. he's not talking about a full-term, healthy mother and a full-term healthy child, giving birth and then committing infanticide following that birt birth. it's >> tucker: that's actually not what he said. and, of course, it wouldn't apply to mothers who faced a health risk from giving birth, because the child has already been birthed. >> in this particular situation, that's true. as far as this bill goes. >> tucker: it is true. i'm talking about northam's comments. i think it's so interesting my impulse would be that's

obviously you don't have the right to kill a human being who didn't commit a crime and so, why would that be okay? but the impulse of so many is to defend. i'm confused. what are the standards? he said and i think i'm quoting exactly "profound abnormalities." he didn't say the child is goine to die anyway. the child is disabled for example. that's a real thing.g. it's legal in some countries. should it be legal to kill a child who is disabled and who gets to make that choice. >> again, you are mischaracterizing northam's comments. he said that would be a discussion between the mother and physician. atch no point did he say this child is going to be killed. i think you're mischaracterizing it and the fact that any person could eventually have this procedure. it's people who are in crisis and who are dealing with potentially an unviable fetus, severe birth defects. these women are in crisis themselves i believe they deserve sympathy. >> tucker: it's not that i don't have sympathy for the women. >> it certainly seems back. >> tucker: asking adult questions is our obligation.

what is the standard? what's the conversation with the doctor and her physician have? the conversation should the child live or die? are you comfortable with killing? at this point it's not part of the woman's body. it's a distinct human being. any society has to ask itself why is it okay to kill somebody? why are we dodging this question? why is it okay to kill somebody that's been born? >> i think you are mischaracterizing the comments. a specific set of circumstances in which this baby was not going to live much longer. >> tucker: you don't want to t address it. so under this law in virginia and in the state of new york, a woman does not have to prove that her life is in danger, as you know. that's the change that's taken place. or that the child can't live outside the womb. in both states, it's now illegal or would be if this law in virginia passes to kill the child asked the child was being born. is that okay with you? >> i don't think you are

characterizing this properly. for example, we are knocking tg about -- no one procedure is called dilation and extraction. it happens in 2% of abortions. typically it is something that happens when the mother has carried the baby full-term and the baby is not going to surviv survive. >> tucker: the law doesn't require that. >> unfortunate situation for the mother and unfortunate situation for the child. >> tucker: of course it's unfortunate. you are mischaracterizing the lodge assigned by the governor of new york. doesn't require that the child be in any way ill come about to die.e. it doesn't mention any of that. >> absolutely clarifies that the child needs to be in danger to have severe abnormalities, fetal birth defects.t >> tucker: that's not true. i am quoting the law. it's the physicians good judgment. a child who has no abnormalities could be killed as a child is emerging from the birth canal. i'm just asking you. is that all right with you? it's a super simple question. >> if physician were to say that

perfect a healthy child is able to leave the womb and be killed, thenle no, that would not be oky with me. i think we are dealing with well trained physicians. we are dealing with physicians who signed a note p to say they are here to protect. >> tucker: i'm confused. hold on. wait a second. this doesn't make any sense. if it's a woman's body and her choice, then why are you letting some mail physician make the decision for her. >> it doesn't say it's a male physician. could be male or female. i know you are aware of that. >> tucker: of course i am aware of that. if it's a woman's choice, why does the physician have a say? >> it'ss a conversation between the two of them. i this is why this is a private decision. it's something needs to be happening in the hands of physicians and women and it needs to not be in the hands of legislators who clearly don't really understand the process. >> tucker: i don't understand because no one will give me a straight answer to any of these questions. >> i am working with here, okay?

>> tucker: [laughs] i appreciate. you've tried harder than anyone i've talked to on on the subje. thank you. >> sure. >> tucker: roger stone couldld die in prison for the crime of lying to congress. turns out others have lied to congress, too.e are they going to die in prisonr one congressman has an idea about that. he joins us next to explain. stay tuned. woman 1: i had no symptoms of hepatitis c. man 1: mine... ...caused liver damage. vo: epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. vo: whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. woman 2: i had the common type. man 2: mine was rare. vo: epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. man 3: i just found out about my hepatitis c. woman 3: i knew for years. vo: epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. vo: before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up, and could cause serious liver problems during

and after treatment. vo: tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b, other liver or kidney problems, hiv, or other medical conditions... vo: ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. vo: taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. vo: common side effects include headache and tiredness. vo: ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure.

>> tucker: the mueller investigation sure knows how to make a splash hear nothing and then on cnn they are there with guns.s. federal agents descended one the home of poor roger stone. they dragged him away barefoot. the crime that justified this military style capture of a 66-year-old man: lying to congress. people lie to congress all the time.rg we can tell you that. almost none of them get charged with anything. should that change?

congressman matt gaetz represents the state of florida and joins us tonight. am i imagining this or is lying to congress is common as the sun rising? >> it happens daily. i found robert mueller was supposed to be investigating russia collusion. now he's become a glorified home water enforcing the provisions of lying to congress. i am introducing the justice for all act which would create criminal referrals for the other people that we know have lied to congress. hillary clinton said she didn't send or receive any classified emails. we know that's a library jim comey said he was never the source or never the director of leakedea information. he later admitted that that was not true, even though it was a subject of his sworn testimony before congress. clapper told all of the american people before congress that there was no bulk collection of data. the deputy director of the fbi, mr. mccabe, lied four times. he lied so frequently he was demoted and referred for criminal prosecution but a whole lot of these other people haven't been and it's's

the greatest evidence that robert mueller is not a person in search of the truth. he is out to get trump and the people close to trump because if he wasn't, if he was unbiased, you would have seen similar charges brought against these other people. instead, he sends an army bigger than the force that killed bin laden to chasein down roger stone in fort lauderdale. >> tucker: amazing. you will refer all of that to the department of justice. i hope you will come back and tell us what happens. i think that will be revealing.. congressman matt gaetz of florida. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> tucker: it's hard to think of a recent innovation that has changed our society t more profoundly than the smart phone has. a machine many times more powerful than the super computers that guided the moon landing shrunk to the size of a krackel bar. suddenly it's possible to text your college roommate in burma or facetime with your grandkids in cape town. you can order toilet paper on amazon while flying to los angeles. you can answer every question on "jeopardy"

correctly without learning a thing. the sum total of human knowledge resides right in your pocket. there's no longer reason to stare out the window. entertainment now fills the space where reflection used to be. you can play candy crushsh at red lights. you can slay foes on fortnite while waiting in linedy at the dmv. nothing is the same since we got the smart phone. we've have only had it for about a decade. imagine where we will be 20 years from now. you probably can't imagine that, actually. imagination takes concentration, and if you are like most of us, you no longer have the capacity to concentrate for very long. you are too distracted by your smart phone. when was the last time you read a book cover to cover? when was the last time you sat through an entire dinner without wondering who was texting you or talk to your spouse or kids for more than an hour without checking your device? been a while? the cost of all of this progress has been high. how high? the signs are all around us. endemic loneliness, a rising suicide rate,

a country where huge groups of people hate each other. at some point, we will know exactly what we've traded in exchange for faster sushi delivery. in the meantime, though, it's worth considering what this technology means for our children. about a quarter of kids under 6 now have smart phones. by the age of 10, the devices are ubiquitous. the average teen spends atat let 9 hours a day staring at a screen online. parents abet this. they buy smart phones because their kids demand smart phones. and we justify this by telling ourselves it's for their safety. now you can reach your daughter after soccer practice or yourhe son when the movie gets out, and that's all true. what are the other effects? science is just beginning to answer that question, and the results are grim. a new study in america's top pediatrics journal finds that high levels of screen time are associated with delayed cognitive development in small children. studies by the national institutes of health have found the same thing.l hours spent staring at devices lowers kids' scores on thinking

and language tests. smart phones have made our kids dumber. it's measurable. but they have also made our kids much less happy.he thanks to smart phones, kids have nonstop access to facebook, instagram, and other social networks. the science is very clear on that. the more time you spend liking social media postse and updating your facebook status, the less healthy you are. a 2015 university of l missouri found that facebook use made people more depressed and increased their envy of others. a 2016 study found that quitting facebook boosted psychological health. last fall, a study in the journal of social andl clinical psychology found that social media use is directly tied to feelings of loneliness and depression which can lead to life-threatening psychiatric disorders. it's not surprising then that rates of mental illness and suicide among teens begann to surge right around 2012. that's just as smart phones a and social media became universal. you probably didn't need

a study to know all of this. if you are a parent, it's obvious.y smart phone use makes your kidsp sadder, slower, and more isolated and, over time, can kill them. that's all certainly obviousil to the people who make the phones. and that's why so many executives in silicon valley restrict their own children's technology use. the software they make is addictive. it was engineered to be that way. as facebook's first president once explained in a burst of candor, "we need to give you a little dopamine hit once in a while. god only knows what it's doing to our children's brains." well, now we do know. w we know enough anyway. the question is: what are wewe going to do about it? most parents will do nothing. not because they don't want what's best for their kids. they do. because in real life, it's just too difficult. try taking an iphone away from a seventh grader. you learn a lot about what addiction means. it's like trying to get a junky in to rehab. you cannot do it alone. a parents need help, and there is no reason that the congress,

which made smart phones possible in the first place shouldn't be part of the solution. so here's an idea. ban smart phone use for children. pass a federal law tomorrow. why wouldn't we do that? an addictive product that science has determined gravely harms kids? sound familiar? once upon a time, people actually argued against age limits for cigarette sales. it's hard to remember exactly what their arguments were. they seemed so mindless and embarrassing now. well, in case you haven't been convinced that big tech is a direct threat to the health and happiness of your children, here'sec another data point. since 2016, facebook has been paying kids as young as 13 to install a programoo on their phone that unbeknownst to them, gives facebook access to all of their phone data. josh hawley is a senator and he represents the state of missouri. we are glad to haveat him in washington and on our set. senator, great to see you. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: is this legal that facebook has been secretly monitoring yourin kids?

>> it may be legal, but it's certainly a breach of trust, tucker. i have to say the more evidencel we get about facebook, every time you turn around, you see them doing something else creepy. t and whether that's lying to congress. you were talking about thatng a second ago. mark zuckerberg said not long ago to congress that every piece of data thatat a user has on facebook belongs to him or her. we know that's just not true. we know they have been selling user data without users' consent and now they have been paying teenagers, 13-year-olds to spy on them. it's unbelievable. >> tucker: will there come a time, do you think, where congress decides to push back in a substantial way? >> i hope so. i hope so. i think that time is here. it's time to do it. number one, we need to know if, facebook, i think, is violating their consent decree from 2011. they were investigated by the federal trade commission for all sorts of privacy violations. it looks to me they are in violation of that decree. they should be beingey getting investigated and having that decree enforced. we may need additional legal protections forin children especially.

>> tucker: the fda is threatening right now to shut down juul, which is an e-cigarette maker, on the grounds that e-cigarette use might be harmful to kids. there's no actual evidence that it is, but it seems like it should be. we have a lot of evidence that using smart phones hurts kids in a measurable way. why shouldn't somebody at least begin the conversation of banning this? >> we need to have a conversation about society wide effects of social media and smart phones on children, on youth violence. juvenile delinquency. and, look, i think it's time we thought about reallyy stringent protections, privacy protections, for young adults.te and should, for instance, f advertisers be able to target young adults? should they be able to collect all this data on them? maybe not. maybe it's time we embodied those restrictions. >> tucker: yeah, like tomorrow morning. do you think there will it be bipartisan support or will it just be conservatives? >> i would hope there would be bipartisan support. what parent in america isn't concerned -- i'm the father of two little boys --

what parent in america isn't concerned about what these companies are pushing to their children, what data theser companies are collecting on their children, and then whom they are selling it to. >> tucker: i don't think -- just an endless stream of porn and video games, do you know what i mean? and privacy violations that we know makes you dumb,es depressed, possibly suicidal, and violent. i don't think it's a big deal. maybe some day. do you know what i mean? >> yeah. >> tucker: senator, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> tucker: good to see. time for "final exam." can you beat the experts at remembering the news of the week?ee that's after the break. a new picture of kamala harris with stacey abrams just surfaced. it really tells you everything about the moment we are living in now. if you haven't seen, this get your popcorn. we'll be right back.

♪ >> tucker: oh, the best part of the week. the shelter from the storm. "final exam," the quiz show where news professionals compete against one another to see who has been paying the closest attention during the preceding seven days. the defending champion this week and this has been true for a while now is fox news correspondent lauren blanchard. last week she defeated a sitting member of congress. this week she faces fellow correspondent lawrence jones. wow. you ready,w. lawrence? >> i don't think i am. [laughter]

>> tucker: she is so deceptive in the way sheol approaches it. >> she has all these notes a whole dossier. >> tucker: it is a dossier. not a discredited one. this is a little bit different this week. and we, the judges have analyzed this and lauren knows her stuff but she is also so fast on the buzzer we're going to try it this week without a buzzer. just a bit of -- to see how this works. instead you will raise your hands, and first one to raise his or her hand gets to answer the question. you have to wait until i finish asking it to raise your hand. once you are acknowledged by name then can you tell me what the answer is. each correct answer is worth one point. if you get it wrong, you lose a point. best of five wins. by the way, i'm going to allow the judges to decide whose hand went up first. are you ready? a little complex. you can do it. >> get it. >> tucker: back to the land version.an no technology. question one, super bowl 53

sunday.ay to celebrate that event, sam adams the famous beer brewing company iswi releasing a brand new beer that honors which competing player? lauren blanchard? >> tom brady. >> oh. >> is it tom brady? >> sam adams is releasing a new beer in honor of tom brady. tom brady goat beerto honors the man they consider the greatest of all time.or >> tucker: you are not even from new england.ea >> no, michigan. tom brady went to michigan. >> tucker: he did. that's right. i'm impressed. leveraging a little hometown knowledge. okay.. question two. which former governor wentme on television for a boozey late night interview and said he would have been a better president than our current president? >> ooh. >> tucker: lawrence, say our judges. >> chris christie.e. >> was it chris christie boozey interview. >> would have you been a better president than trump? >> yes. [laughter] [applause]

>> i like that. best night? >> rule one. no drinking on tv. >> not bad. >> wow, 1 to 1. okay. a tie question a central pennsylvania man is getting global attention thanks to a strange attachment to an animal. that emotional support animal weighs 60 pounds, is 5 feet long and called wally. what kind of animal is this? lauren blanchard. >> it's an emotional support alligator. >> tucker: do you believe that? >>to yes. >> tucker: that's mymy reaction, lawrence jones. >> my friend got to meet it. >> tucker: is it an alligator. >> wally is my emotional support alligator from my home. >> oh, my god. >> w nope. >> we are invited everywhere. i do take him to lowe's and home depot and is he usually always welcome there. >> getting out of hand. w

>> tucker: it's my supportrt alligator for my home use. stop right there. we don't want to know more. question four. this is multiple choice. don't get tripped up with an early answer.. you may have noticed it's very cold in some parts of the united states.nay minneapolis, minnesota, one of the coldest places wind chill there reached the lowest temperature recorded since 1985. how cold was it a, negative 40. b, negative 55. c, minus 70 degrees. lawrence? >> a. >> tucker: a, minus 40. was it minus 40? >> look how cold it got,us 55 below wind chills in minneapolis, minnesota, chicago, 52 below the feels like.ic the coldest wind chills y'all have seen since 1985. so it's seriously once in a generation here. [buzzer] >> tucker: we had to take a points. our judges are saying look, nobody is going to beat lauren and no shame in

this by the way. so we're going to make the last question worth two points. tie breaker. when you said 40 you shook your head. >> we just had a crew out there covering this my co-worker. i got to watch him and his eye lashes. froze to his scarf. >> tucker: i don't know who your supervisor is at fox you need a raise. i will make the case on your behalf. >> thank you. >> tucker: road workers were called to repair a sinkhole in theai street. when they arrived on the scene they realized it was not a sinkhole at all but a 50-yard underground tunnel heading toward, what? lauren? >> a bank. >> tucker: you are ridiculous. was it a bank? >> it was. >> a tunnel discovered leading right toward a bank. >> the tunnel at least 50 yards long the entrance of the woods, a pair of boots, generator, a rope and wagon. the tunnel leading right to a chase bank nearby. the mysterious tunnel

and suspect. >> tucker: wrong business. you should be a professional jeopardy player or something. it's unbelievable. lawrence, there is no shame in losing to her. there is no way i could beat her. >> she is just too good. >> tucker: thank you for come and doing it anyway. >> great job. >> tucker: lauren, i don't know which number erik wemple mug this is, but you have a whole set. unbelievable. >> she is just good. >> tucker: see you next week. >> tom brady level. >> tucker: final exam. pay attention to the news all week. tune in next thursday to seeee if you beat lauren blanchard and whoever has the heuvos to line up across from her. 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, every age has an iconic photograph, an image that captures everything about a moment. here's one that says a lot abou. the time we are living in. it's a tweet from a california senator, kamala harris, she's running for president. attached iser a picture of her laughing with her friend, stacy jim, from georgia. "there is no better person to speak the truth after the state of the union." it is the perfect distillation of every stale cliche that our ruling class uses to celebrate

itself. but then, a sharp eyed twitters user noticed something about the picture. zooming something to the background. behind the laughing politicians as a reminder that this country has changed quite a lot from 50 years ago that shape the sensibilities of our baby boom leaders. there is a man there, lying on a bench unconscious, a can of malt liquor underneath them. there are thousands of men like this right now and every big american city. maybe that is why harris and abrams didn't notice him. just a feature of the landscape. the world they created, and they are happy with it. american politics is increasingly haunted by a strange new specter, the woke billionaire. they got a ton of money but otherwise, they sound a lot like socialists. how does that work exactly? venture capitalist recently declared that alexandria ocasio-cortez is at the very beating heart of american politics and he's more that we had walked.

>> it's easy to call what aoc is doing as far left but nothing can be further from the truth. twhen you advocate for economic policies that benefit the broad majority of citizens, that is true centrism. what howard schultz represents, the centrism he represents, is really just trickle-down economics, tax cuts for rich people, the regulation for powerful people, and wage depression, and benefit cuts for everyone else, without the overt racism. he is not the centrist. aoc is a centrist. >> tucker: ooh, it's woke billionaire versus woke billionaire. meanwhile, tom steyer uses his vast wealth, a lot of which he got from fossil fuels, to organize and lead impeachment rallies. he may be the woke asked. >> i'll be dedicating 100% of my time, effort, and resources to one cause, working for mr. trump's impeachment and removal from office. >> start impeachment now. >> now the impeachment question has reached an inflection point.

>> 100%. for impeachment. >> insist that this president be impeached and removed. >> sean: so when billionaires started noticing socialist policies, call meme skeptical bt you think maybe there is a scam a foot? how are they benefiting from this? you know they are. author and columnist mark steyn has some ideas and he joins us tonight. what is going on? >> i think the woke billionaire is a phenomenon of our time. the way you get rich now is not the way you got rich in the days of the 19th century robber barons in the gilded age. it's possible to do it now while being ever more disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people. so these woke billionaires, i think, are a lot like rock star rock stars, you know, bono for example goes on about debt forgiveness for africa. but when he wanted to save money, he moved his music publishing firm from dublin to amsterdam for the lower taxes.

he doesn't move it to ouagadougou and give a big injection into the african economy. and i think that is actually the way these guys are. they understand that they are in a world in which striking attitudes that preserve their own power base is actually more important than anything else. >> tucker: well, exactly. and they are smart enoughh because they are smart, by and large, that is how they got rich, to understand that there is a lot of roiling politics right beneath the surface, and the main theme going forward is to be populist economics and guys like them will get crushed. do you y think this is a defense move? >> yes, i think it is. we have declining social mobility in the united states. it's a tragedy. and we have come across the planet, a huge rise in the grows controlling a small group of about 2,000 billionaires -- conn ever greater share of the world's wealth. it's easy to strike attitudes at

home while then taking advantage of tax loopholes abroad. so google doing the old double irish as they call it by routing its money from one irish company to another, and then to a british tax haven like bermuda. the whole point is to actually create a world in which there is an elite at the top and a vast, mass underneath, and not a lot of -- and the escalator from the bottom to the top is running ever slower and with an ever fewer people able to get on it. >> tucker: don't you think there should be some standard? if you are a billionaire who is going to go on msnbc on call for revolution, shouldn't we get to see her tax returns and assess the tax savings that you are using to prevent paying your fair share? 's and that sort of the minimumy requirement for this? >> actually, on the left, there is a huge acceptance now that

the rules they once applied to others don't apply to them. as of a few major money in, say, coal, or construction, and you want to keep your -- and you want to get that money in the cayman islands or bermuda, you are bad person. but if -- you don't even have to be a businessman. if you are the southern poverty law center, and you have that ridiculous name, and yet you have billions in, as i said, british colony tax havens, that is okay. the left has a high degree of tolerance because they actually think it's different when they do it. that is their basic view of it. i think that is true with these guys. i mean, everyone knows, you can get all your money away in these irish-bermudian tax loopholes, not to pay a tax year but still get invited to the obama white house and to be standing between obama and bill clinton. it wouldn't affect that. >> tucker: there's never been

a more hypocritical age or a smarter analyst of it that mark steyn. thank you for that. >> thanks a lot. >> tucker: will be back tomorrow. still the enemy of line, paucity, smugness, and groupthink. we'll see you tomorrow. until then, sean hannity in new york. >> sean: great show as always. welcome to "hannity." bei breaking news night. we begin, "hannity watch" on the extreme radical left. as important as we begin, you ask yourself some questions. do you want the government to have more control over youren daily life or last? do you want the government to take more of your hard-earned money or last? do you want the government to be more involved in your business or less involved? do you want the government to have more control or total control of your health care or last? and do you believe the government has a duty to protect your borders from the thief, heroin, thanked all my friends and all, traffickers, gangs, and the criminal elements, not the a better life cover that come to