tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News June 20, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
thank you for joining us on "the story" tonight. tucker carlson is up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." since 9/11 the u.s. has spent trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives trying to remake the middle east in our image. it is sad to say it out loud but we have to. it hasn't worked. many of us thought it would but it hasn't. by every measure our foreign wars ended in dismal failure for the united states. however noble their intentions. some did have noble intentions. donald trump was one of the rare politicians honest enough to admit this. he said it out loud three years a and promised not to repeat the same mistakes if elected president. partly because he said that, he was elected president. now something fascinating is happening. the very people, in some cases
literally the same people who lured us in to the iraq quagmire 16 years ago are demanding a new war. this one with iran. the president to his great credit appears to be skeptical of this. very skeptical. iran recently downed an unmanned american drone. the president speaking today seemed to suggest this shouldn't necessarily trigger a conflict with iran. watch. >> president trump: iran made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters clearly. we have it documented. i would imagine it was a general or somebody who made a mistake shooting that drone down. fortunately that drone was unarmed. there was no man in it, there was no -- it was just, it was over international waters. clearly over international waters. be you we didn't have a man or woman in the drone. nobody was in the drone. i would have made a big difference. let me tell you. i would have made a big difference. i find it hard to believe it was intentional if you want to know the truth. it could have been somebody
who was loose and stupid that did it. >> tucker: so that is not nearly bellicose enough for the current foreign policy establish. in washington many of whom crave war with iran. senator graham says americans should be ready fight and die for shipping lanes on the other side of the world. watch. >> here is what to watch for. if the iranians follow through on their threat to start enriching again at higher levels to basically take their enrich. program a nuclear level in terms of the weapon-grade production, israel is in a world of hurt. so the best thing the president can do is stop that. how do you stop that? to make iran understand you are not going to let it happen, put the oil refineries on a target list, look to sink the iranian navy if they attack shipping again. >> tucker: uh-huh. so in washington there are no real consequences for being wrong. as a result, policy-makers
are. they make the same mistakes again and again. it's certainly not just lindsey graham. at the "new york times" left wing war monger bret stephens calling to sink the iranian navy. john bolton cheers him on in the white house. bill crystal nods with approval outside the white house. none of the people would admit the actual intention. they don't really want a war with iran. that is a crock. they want a war badly. badly enough to lie about it. that is why they are putting american troops in situations where conflict is inevitable, to start a war. everyone in washington knows exactly what is happening. they have seen it many times before. fred fleiss, former chief of staff and central intelligence agency analyst and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. why do you suppose, when you look at the polling data on this question, conflict with iran, almost nobody outside of washington favors a conflict with iran. and yet, the entire foreign policy establishment in d.c.
seems open to it. why the disconnect would you say? >> not at of it. i don't want a war with iran. this president was elected to get us out of wars and not to start new wars. the president wassing right to o pull us out of the nuclear deal. but some people say the president is responsible if iran responds with violence because we withdrew. that is fraudulent. we don't stay in a deal because the other party threatens with violence. the president responded with restraint. he has given an opportunity to deescalate the situation and he handled it white today. >> tucker: we are not deescalating it by definition. we are sending additional troops to the region which is the definition of escalating the situation. we are doing it, as i think you know, because a lot of the people who are behind it would like to see an open conflict with iran. why don't we just say that out loud? >> i believe there is strong intelligence of increased threats from iran.
the president does not want to use force. he does not want to go to war. but the use of force is on the table if iran threatens our interest. it doesn't mean that the president will do this, but he can't ignore clear intelligence that iran is planning to respond to violence to the policies. the president won't give in to blackmail but he doesn't want to use force if he doesn't have to. >> tucker: what is the point of this? i have lost sight of that. iran doesn't appear to be a threat to the united states. there is a lot of talk about how it is. i don't remember any americans dying in terror attacks backed by iran since the iran nuclear deal. we are in it, energy exporters now so it's not clear why the persian gulf is the center of the strategic thinking. we face other threats. namely, from china. why with refocused on iran? i'm confused good arguments. the president decided to increase the military presence in the region because of intelligence that iran was responding to his policy to pull out of the iran deal with
violence. he is preparing to defend our interest. it doesn't mean he will attack. look, you have talked to the president about this. i have talked to the president about this. he is very clear he does not want a war with iran. he wants a peaceful resolution. but unlike barack obama where the use of force was never on the table, it is on the table with this president. but he is not going to use it unless he absolutely has to. >> tucker: but you can very easily see this slipping beyond his control or anyone's control. i mean we are trying to provoke a war. again, i don't think anybody watching this carefully is going to mistake it for something else. that is what is happening. we are pushing for a war with iran. i'm wondering what would we get out of that? and when americans are killed in that war what do we say to their familys? why did they die? because of what cause? i honestly don't understand. >> i think when you say "we are pushing for a war" you are talking about all the president's advisers and the foreign policy establishment.
>> tucker: correct. >> the president makes the foreign policy. you know the president does not want a war with iran. he told you that recently. i discussed with him. he does not want a war with iran and he won't let anyone push him to a war with iran. if iran is preparing to attack our forces and commits act of terror the president does a responsible thing to prepare to defend our interest. that is what is going on here. >> tucker: when was the last time iran committed an act of terror against americans? >> well, iran was responsible for a terrorist attack of bombing of a train. what was going to be bombing of a train from toronto to the united states in 2011. iran was behind an attack, well, a planned attack to kill the saudi embassador to the united states also during the obama administration. but i mean, look, those may or may not be good arguments but that is not what is at stake here. >> tucker: so there aren't my americans who have been killed by iran in recent
memory, in this generation. >> how about in iraq? how about the i.d.s ie.d.s in iraq? >> tucker: with respect i don't understand why so much disk space devoted to iran when there are other threats. >> it's the new intelligence that iran is planning attacks against us. that is what is at stake here. not the other issues you raise. >> tucker: thank you very much. douglas mcgregor former u.s. army colonel and author of "margin of victory" and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> sure. >> tucker: don't want to be paranoid but i have watched this before. it does seem as if the president is strongly opposed to conflict with iran. he knows it will define his administration. he knows that it doesn't serve american interest. but people who work for him are pushing the united states in to a position where war is likely if not inevitable. am i imagining this? >> no. i don't think you are.
he had his first vietnam moment. he walked up to the abyss and looked over the edge and said no thank you. he followed his instincts and he walked back. he has no interest in going to war but you are right. he is sur rounded by people in the defense department, chain of demand, his own national security staff and the state department who are absolutely committed to finding ways to attack iran. i think the president understands that an attack on iran would result in an all-out war. the notion of limited strikes is absurd. the iranians would respond with everything they have because their economy is in ruins, their backs are against the wall. he knows that. he doesn't want that. we should be grateful. but at the same time the president has begun to figure out wars destroy presidencies. it destroyed l.b.j. and ultimately "w," george w.
bush. he doesn't want to join the pantheon and failed presidents that embarked on wars that were not supported by the american people. again, if the american people don't support it, forget. we don't want to do it. >> tucker: exactly. and they don't. finally, is there some good reason to maintain this level of sanctions against iran? are we getting something out of that? >> well, i think the idea was to destroy the iranian economy and to bring the nation to its knees. that is really not what we should be trying to do at this point. i think the president senses that there is now an opportunity for diplomacy. for a new approach to iran that could deescalate this set of conditions. and produce a positive outcome. look, this will ruin our economy if we engage iran in aer what. iran will instantly have support from around the world. they will be the victims of this limite limited strike being
discussed. limited strike is insanity. it will provoke a war. everyone, china, russia, india, many european states will come to the aid of iran. we'll end up with a larger coalition of the willing against us than we have seen in decades. i think the president has figured this out. he has good instincts. but he needs to get rid of the war mongers and throw these geniuses that wanted limited strikes out of the oval office. the last thing -- >> tucker: exactly right. >> last thing the america first agenda needs is a stupid pointless, unnecessary war with iran. he knows that. so he needs to act. >> tucker: as much as bret stephens and bill crystal would welcome that. >> yeah. >> tucker: insane. i agree with that. colonel, thank you. good to see you tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: joe biden remains the favorite for the democratic nomination. that is what they keep telling you. so why are his rivals and the other cable channels suddenly denouncing him as a racist.
has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why 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. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.
age-related macular i've degeneration, with which could lead to vision loss. so today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision. because it's my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandson's beautiful face. only preservision areds 2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. because it's my sunset,
you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass. >> tucker: it's a confusing time to be a democrat in the country. if you're a good democrat you spent the last three years learning how donald trump and everyone who supports him a racist. they represent the past, the backward ideas headed to the dust bin of history. you by contrast, in your party, the democratic party supports progress and decency and equality. but if you're a democrat the news this week might have confused you. your party's top presidential candidate is joe biden.
he was vice president for barack obama. he must be a good person by definition. but wait. if you turn on cnn or msnbc, a new official story. joe biden it turns out was a racist all along. it began with remarks that biden made at a fundraiser in new york city. he lamented that politics in america used to be more civil and he cited the past relationship with the pro seeing regation lawmakers like mississippi democrat james eastland. biden said i was in a caucus with james o. eastland. he never called me "boy." he always called me "son." me referre referred to herman te and said we didn't agree on anything but we got things done. that got the wrath of cory booker who accused biden giving cover to racism and white supremacy and demanded immediate apology. biden refused to apologize and said booker should apologize
to him. watch. >> what do you feel like the democratic rivals see you as racist? >> they know better. >> apologize? >> apologize for what? >> cory booker is calling for it. >> cory should apologize. he knows better. there is not a racist bone in my body. i was been involved in civil rights my whole career. period. >> i'm not a racist says joe biden. the second he said that, cory booker already won. biden is the democratic front-runner. booker to put it mildly is not. you need a powerful microscope to find cory booker's support. it's beneficial to booker for fighting with biden. >> for him to say you should apologize i'm not a racist is so insulting and missing the larger point he should not have to have explained to him. this should not be a lesson
that someone who is running for president of the united states should have to be given. >> tucker: if the currency of policy was sanit sanctimony. booker has more of that than votes. but others saw that biden was wounded to apiled on the attacks. >> to sing praises for people who were segregationists is not somebody -- >> he was talking about working with them. >> i'm not so sure about that. >> to coddle the reputations of segregationists, of people who if they had their way i would not be standing here as a member of the senate. is misinformed and wrong. >> it's never okay to celebrate segregation.
never. >> why on earth would a democrat speak nostalgically of working with a segregatio segregationist. >> it's as if the whole of washington woke up and said wait, joe biden personally knew and worked with supporters of segregation. of course he did. he's a democrat. for the entire history of jim crow democrats were the party of segregation. guess who created it and maintained it and defended it? 101 members of congress for example signed what was the southern manifesto. 99 out of 101 for democrats. of course he caucused with segregationists and worked to pass legislation. every democrat who held office in 20th century did the same. john f. kennedy did.
al gore did. nancy pelosi did. it doesn't mean they supported segregation but they made common cause of people two did. even barack obama did. barack obama caucused with a segregationist. he was in the senate alongtime robert bird of west virginia. he filibustered the civil rights out. he was a recruiter of the k.k.k. not a momentary member. he was a klan recruiter. i didn't stop barack obama from eulogizing bird at his funeral. watch. >> senate icon, party leader. an elder statesman. he was my friend. may god bless him. >> tucker: barack obama at the klan funeral. guess who else is there? who is that behind obama with the goofy smile? it's kirsten gillibrand. back then she was happy to follow the democratic crowd.
go to klan funeral. but now she is dennounceing biden for doing the same thing she did. >> i don't think you should brag on working on a bipartisan basis with segregationists. >> tucker: c'mon now. let's be serious. be honest about what is happening. nobody, not even someone as dim as kirsten gillibrand -- that is saying a lot -- actually thinks joe biden is a racist. or nostalgic for segregation. c'mon! of course he's not. whatever his many faults. this isn't about biden's feeling on race at all but about the modern democratic party. they are the party of wokeness. just as 80 years ago they are still judging people's worth by the skin color. now they are also judging based on sex and age and immigration status and sexual orientation, too. on every one of the categories joe biden is on the wrong side. his policy positions are irrelevant. nobody cares. the party's ideological leaders literally can't stand
the sight of him. he can't be the party's nominee for president. i'm sorry. he is an old white guy. not allowed. that is why they are erupting against him. and why they will keep doing it until he gets out of the race. which he will. you watch. julian epstein former chief counsel of the house judiciary committee. i don't want to be mean and i'm not defending eastland or talmadge or any of those guys. they are all creepy. certainly not robert bird, the klan recruiter. but the hypocrisy is too much. to say because joe biden served in the same caucus as bad people he shouldn't be allowed to run? why doesn't anyone stand up and call b.s. on that? >> i don't think anyone is seriously saying that. first, your point about senator bird. he denounced the segregationists views before he passed. with respect to booker's criticism of biden, what booker is saying biden is glossing over the reference to a grown man as "boy" rather
than "son" or "son" rather than "boy." it's clear and offensive racial overtones and the dark history of referring to grown men as "boy." that was booker's criticism. >> i'm confused. >> let me finish my point. >> tucker: biden is not black. how is it offensive to say he never called me "boy," he called me "son"? >> it was clumsy of biden. he should haven't introduced it. because it's confusing. somebody could say well, you know, he was referring to -- the southern segregationists could work with biden because he was a bid white senator. if he had been african-american senator they could have referred to him as "boy." it's confusing. booker is saying you shouldn't use the language. a bigger issue to defend biden on -- this is not an issue limited to the democrats,
tucker. it happens on both sides. this country is being torn apart by the culture of contempt. what i think arthur brooks at the american enterprise institute, you should have on the show. he is brilliant. he has written about the outrage industrial complex that feeds on contempt for the other side. that doesn't listen to the other side. that has no interest in working with people that you may disagree with. and is more interested in demeaning and villainizing the opposite side. >> tucker: but that is not what is happening here. it's not the other side. hold on. this is an intra-democratic party dispute. no one is arguing about belief. or the issues or the positions. it's only about identity. so much on the left is now. only about identity. you tell me how a party who explicitly hates old white men -- that's explicitly.
we hate old white men. got it. how will they nominate an old white men? how does it work? it won't happen? >> i disagree with you. i think first of all the point i'm making is that i think there is a culture of attempt that occurs on both sides. the notion that this is a party that doesn't want an older white man to be the nominee is just false. it's betrayed by the polls. he has been ahead, far ahead in every single poll. he is probably likely to be the nominee. what we're getting at there are things here that i think biden said were foolish. >> tucker: doesn't make sense. >> biden said that were foolish in the point about the "boy" reference, the "boy" versus "son." the larger point is that more in common which is a group trying to find common ground between democrats and republicans and conservatives and liberals found in a poll last year that 93% of the americans want us to work together more with people we disagree with.
and find solutions. >> tucker: i agree with that. i'm defending joe biden here against the mob. my only point is to judge people on their skin color is a dead end. that is what they are doing to biden. >> it is important to make a difference between the elites, the twitter community, the screaming talking heads on tv that thrive on contempt. >> tucker: fair point. >> this voters want to see joe biden and they want to see them work across the aisle the way ted kennedy did. >> tucker: i don't believe it. i hope you are right. >> polling shows it. >> out of time. >> kennedy worked with eastland to get americans with disabilities act pass. >> tucker: thank you. good to see you. newly released e-mails from inside the f.b.i. reveal collusion between the f.b.i. and the media.
e-mails obtained by judicial watch show the "new york times" reporter michael schmidt gave f.b.i. official corton advanced information about a story concerning jared kushner and the contact with the russian ambassador sergey kislyak. he was not seeking comments for a story. he was only supplying information. he was the source, in other words. you are not supposed to do that because it's not journalism. that is political consulting. schmidt by the way is the same reporter who published memos to jim comey that later admitted leaking to the press. molly hemingway is following the story and she joins us tonight. is this what it seems to be, collusion between the federal law enforcement agency and the "new york times"? >> well, we have known that this story, this russia collusion hoax was perpetrated in part by people inside the government. and in part by a complaint media that was willing to uncritically accept leaks, or willingly taking part in the hoax. what is interesting about this e-mail you get some beef to
it. you get to see that michael schmidt is volunteering information about a story his kriegs are working on. russia collusion hoax story. one of the many bombshells we heard that will convince everybody there was evidence of treasonous collusion to steal the election. mueller report came out with not a single american indicted for treasonous collusion indicted. and michael schmidt is interesting because his name appears all over the mueller report. he was receiving leaks from the f.b.i. then writing stories which were used as evidence to support further investigation as part of the special counsel probe. this circular relationship is unhealthy journalistically. you want healthy relationship. this shows we didn't have enough skepticism from the key reporters about the law enforcement agents they were working with.
>> tucker: the schmidt kid seems like a total lackie for the f.b.i. why does he get to call himself a reporter? if he is calling to pass information on to the f.b.i., doesn't it make him, i don't know what it makes him? a source, a snitch? it doesn't make him a reporter does it? >> it's not the first time we saw it even with this probe. we had reporters sharing information, volunteering information about paul manafort with the special counsel probe. this is something that is being looked into. maybe not the media role so much. but we have an investigation looking into how the hoax was perpetrated, who was involved inside the government and who was involved outside the government. >> it's fascinating. details are amazing. mollie hemingway, thank you. we have a county clerk who is not going along, he has respect for the law. and that clerk will join us next.
>> tucker: lawmakers in new york just passed a new law allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses. one county official says it won't be happening under his watch. michael kearns is the county clerk for erie county, new york, where buffalo is located. he is refusing to grant licenses to people here illegally and he joins us from buffalo. thank you for joining us tonight. >> good evening, tucker. >> tucker: on what grounds are you denying this? refusing to do this because of why? >> the state intervention in this issue must mirror federal objections. under the 1986 conflict immigration reform and control act, it's illegal to hire people who are here illegally. and the memo of the sponsors of the bills state one of the reasons why they want to grant illegal immigrants a license is to get them to and from work. i took an oath of office to support and defend the constitution. i'm not going to violate federal law. >> tucker: that seems very straightforward reason.
it raises a couple of questions. one, why are other clerks, because that is so straightforward why are other clerks bowing to the order and issuing licenses in violation of federal law? >> i used to be a new york legislators. clerks are nice people. really good people. they are paper-pushers. that is a good thing. i love being a clerk. however, in this instance, they are not used to working with the legislature. they are taking advantage of the clerks. they did not work with the clerks and ask for our input. i believe that is a response to congressional value to address immigration. for many of the clerks, they are scared. the governor has the power under the state constitution to remove us from office. so i do believe many of them are complying because they don't want to lose their position of office. >> tucker: what has the response been to you after you announced you are not playing along? >> i received tremendous support. however, even today as we are
speaking, the new york state legislature, they're in session and they are now voting for automatic voting. meaning, people can come to the automobile, the d.m.v. and they will be automatically registered to vote. we have many different failings. i believe this is not about the driver's license. this could be about voter fraud. i'm not going to be part of that. people have been very responsive and very supportive. i will continue to fight this in district court. i believe other clerks, there are other clerks out there who are now joining me in this stance saying we are not going to issue illegal driver's licenses. one thing we have been facing, this is a security issue, tucker. i talked to homeland security. they are very concerned about crime and people getting new identities. >> tucker: so they are giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. they are automatically registering them to vote. they are preventing any kind of citizenship or i.d. check
at the polling places. yes, i would say they are abetting voter fraud and thank you for saying int outloud. you are a brave man. good to see you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: they arrested a refugee who they said was plotting an attack on a church in pittsburgh. but instead of flowing isis he sympathized with the group. he hoped that the attack would inspire others. he is a high profile case but there are plenty of criminal immigrants throughout the united states deliberately protected by the sanctuary city policies. the white house leased a list of the serial murders who committed crimes after being released from local jails due to the sanctuary policies. we have the acting director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. >> good to be with you, tucker. >> tucker: so you have a list, the administration has compiled a list of serious criminals who would not have committed their crimes had
they not been shielded by the sanctuary laws of various cities. how has the left responded to this? >> well, they are very quiet about that. it's interesting that many of them say oh, we want you to deport criminal aliens. well, we would love to deport criminal aliens except you are harboring them. and the two things are very much at odds. so, right here, 10, 15 miles from where i'm sitting talking to you in washington, d.c., less than a month ago ms-13 killed a 14-year-old girl. the defendants, now defendants had previously been released on other crimes. p.g. county proudly declared we are not cooperating with i.c.e. backed up by the maryland attorney general who says no, we defy the federal government on this. there is a dead 14-year-old girl. not 10, 15 miles from where i'm sitting. that girl's family, illegal or
not, she deserves to live of course. they should be suing p.g. county and maryland for aiding and abetting that murder. it's happened this week in seattle, washington, and maybe even worse. man rapes a woman in a wheelchair. they put him in prison for neighbor months. nine months. he is release and he goes back to her house and does it again. where king county refused to report him to i.c.e. not only did they know the person was a rapist, he just got out of prison. he went back and revictimmized the same person. she should sue king county for her injuries. and for the harm, of course, any sexual assault victim will tell you the harm doesn't go away. it's not like getting punched in the nose. these horrendous criminals are not being turned over to be deported from this country and to make communities safe in
america because of defiant sanctuary city and sanctuary state supporting people typically on the left. >> tucker: it might be worth talking to the attorney general. i seems the justice department -- it seems the justice department could take criminal action against p.g. county, king county, montgomery county, any county that abets citizens with the sanctuary policies would be liablelibel, right? >> if they take active steps maybe there would be a case to be made. but the problem here is they are being passive. but it doesn't mean they don't have an obligation to the citizens of their communities who are then harmed. they are in the best position to take up, to take this battle the courts. better than the federal government, believe it or not. >> tucker: yes. well, i hope they are listening tonight. >> i do, too. >> tucker: people deserve to be punished for that. mr. cuccinelli, thank you for
joining us tonight. >> good to be with you. >> tucker: here is the weirdest story of the week. maybe the year. teenagers appear to be growing mysterious horns on their head. i'm not making this up. there is a reason. i'll tell you what it is in a int many. but first, time for final exam. can you beat the news experts? get a pencil. get ready to play along. we'll be right back. everyone's got to listen to mom.
when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet, coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar.
balanceus.org >> tucker: oh, it is time now for "final exam" where we quiz the so-called news professionals to see if they really are professionals. this week's defending champion, once again jesse waters. host of waters world. co-host of "the five." graduate of trinity college in hartford, connecticut. he is defending the honor of fox. from fox contributor and
attorney emily campano who is very smart. this could be tough for jesse to hold on. emily, thank you for joining us tonight. good luck to you. >> thank you for having me. jesse, have you prepared as much for this as you don't for "the five"? >> very funny. i don't like your attitude already. >> we'll see. >> tucker: this should be good. the rules are hands on buzzers. sky the question. the first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. you have to wait until i finish asking critically before you answer. you can answer once i acknowledge you by saying your name. every correct answer worth one point. if you get it wrong you lose a point. the best of five wins. make sense? >> yes. >> yes. >> tucker: perfect. question one. here it is. this is multiple choice, by the way. a town in israel with a population of just 10 people is getting a new name. it's being named after the american president. what is the town's new name? "a," trump town. "b," trump heights.
"c," donald's cove. jesse. >> it's "b," trump heights. >> i strenuously object to the buzzer time. >> tucker: i like that. are you right? is it trump heights? >> israel's prime minister named a settlement after president trump. benjamin netanyahu inaugurated the settlement in golan heights sunday rebranding the area "trump heights." they hope the new name may spur a new wave of residents there. there are currently just ten. >> tucker: nice! trump heights. not donald's cove. not waterfront i don't think. question two. another multiple choice. wait until the options are presented. huntington park, california, has a new member of the police force. robot. machine that rolls with cameras to keep an eye on the city's public parks. creepy, needless to say. which movie theme named did the robot receive? "a," robocop.
"b," dirty harry. "c," serpico. emily? >> robocop. >> tucker: robocop. we'll see. is she right? >> yes, yes! champion. clearly. you have to be bold, jesse. >> tucker: you are correct. all right. 1-1. moving to question three. not multiple choice. here is the question. a new record was just set for the most expensive piece of sports memorabilia ever sold. the item in question once belong told babe ruth. what was it? jesse? >> was it his jersey? >> tucker: was it his jersey? i was going to say candy bar. you said jersey. are you right? >> babe ruth still breaking
records. jersey worn by the legendary slugger set the record for the most expensive piece of sports memorabilia ever sold. it went for over $5.6 million to anonymous buyer on saturday at yankee stadium auction. >> good guess. >> tucker: not bad, jesse waters. >> jersey or the bat. >> tucker: first three questions of all had correct answers. 2-1 going to question four. here it is. nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, has given mitch machine kochnel, the senate majority leader, a new nickname. it sounds unflattering but mcconnell loves so it much he put it on t-shirts. what is the new nickname? jesse? >> i think it's "the grim reaper." >> the grim reaper. is it the grim reaper? that would be hilarious. >> speaker pelosi has a new nickname for senate majority leader. mitch mcconnell. the grim reaper.
>> got it right! for the first time in my memory, i agree with nancy pelosi. i am indeed the grim reaper. [laughter] >> he likes it. >> tucker: amazing! you were right. jesse waters. 3-1. the final question is a two-point question. if emily gets it right would bring it to parity and we'd need a tie-breaker. with that in mind this is the last question. multiple choice once more. here it is. this week passengers on a flight, united flight from venice, discovered a nightmare infestation on board. certain type of insect emerged from the overhead bins and started to crawl over passengers including on their faces. what insect was it? "a," ants. "b," beetles. "c," crickets. emily? >> "b," beetles. >> tucker: "b," beetles.
was it "b," beetles? >> a colony of ants found in the overhead compartment and started to fly over the passengers. >> i went "b," beetles. >> at least they were not bed bugs. >> tucker: wow! jesse waters, ladies and gentlemen. crushing it. emily, that was valiant. you don't get actual points for losing as badly as you just did but you get moral points for betting it all in the final moments. you do. our audience appreciates your bravery. jesse waters you win again. congratulations. >> thank you. >> tucker: this week we have a lying pomposity, smugness and group think mug that has been handed to me. you can get it on the website. tuckercarlson.com. good mug. made in america. we're sending you one, jesse. you already have one mug. >> i haven't gotten it yet. thank you. >> tucker: you will. it's on the way. thank you, both. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: that is it for this week's "final exam."
pay attention, close attention to the news all week. tune in thursday to see if you can beat the experts. we'll be right back. my experience with usaa has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why 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. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's
we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. people, our sales now appla new low!10 frames. at visionworks, our sales are good on over 500 frames. why are you so weird? see great with 2 complete pairs for $59. really. visionworks. see the difference.
>> tucker: you think the world is getting crazier, scarier, more threatening -- here's evidence. horns growing out of the heads of teenagers, it's hard to believe this is happening but researchers in australia are saying it is. they have discovered a small bone spurs from the back of skulls on teens who are heavy mobile phone users. which is basically everybody. dr. marc siegel is a fox news medical contributor, he joins us to sort out mysteries like this one. is this real? >> this is real, not only are we seeing alienation and anxiety and depression from frequent use of smartphones and too much screen time, we are also seeing
physical changes, blurry vision, headaches, we are seeing something called text neck where the muscles of your neck get weakened and guess what happens when your muscles get weakened? your body responds by making more bone and it's making these external occipital protuberances that are spurs that are growing at the back of our heads, especially teens. they are going to be transmitted to the next generation by something called snow genetics. if you got one, your kids are going to get one and it shows what we are doing to ourselves. because of all the time we are spending watching things rather than interacting face-to-face with something. >> tucker: is it possible? if teens are getting these protuberances, by the time they are my age, 50 -- they will be visible, right? >> you can feel them, it's in the middle of your head.
i happen to have one, my daughter doesn't but she will have one and a couple years and i'm watching for this. they are growing to a larger than an inch in these studies so we are going to be able to identify people. this is how we are going to say hello rather than shaking hands we are going to be feeling to see if we have a spur in the back of your head from too much screen time. >> sean: will be shed the member or are they permanent? >> they are permanent, they are helping us to keep our muscles tied to our heads, so they have a purpose but they are going to be transmitted. your grandkids are going to have them and they are going to get larger and larger the more screen time you have. i have a prescription, i want us to go out to dinner with each other, not bring our smartphones, to exercise, to talk to each other, to hug each other -- maybe the spurs will shrink if we go back to hugging each other. >> sean: our horns will go away. lucky for that wise advice.
will be back tomorrow night, the show that this lease worn and sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink in all the things they produce. for now, sean hannity live from new york city. >> sean: great show as always, buckle up. all eyes are on the middle east, earlier this morning a surveillance drone flying above the strait of hormuz over international waters shot out of the sky by an iranian missile, this act of aggression is not going to stand, the president is putting the mullahs of iran on notice, tonight they should be very, very worried. this was a bad idea, take a loo look. >> iran made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters, we have a documented, documented scientifically, not just words. they made a bad mistake.