This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 2, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Donald Trump ran on the promise that he would secure our southern border when he ran in 2016. He ran on other things, too -- trade, Obamacare and ending the Iran deal, but it was immigration that resonated. No other candidate was saying anything like it. Voters loved that's why they yelled, "Build that wall" at his rallies.

More than two years later, we have less control though over immigration into this country than we did the day Trump launched his campaign. Entire populations from Latin American are moving north. In February, authorities apprehended 76,000 arrivals at the Mexican border, but last month that number had ballooned to 100,000.

They are coming because they know that they can come. Our current system can't stop them. If illegal immigrants show up here with children, they are almost certain to be released into the United States. They will never be deported.

Close to 100 percent of children and families detained at the border last year are still here. It's a scam. Before 2013, only one percent of aliens arriving at the U.S. border sought asylum based on credible fear in their home countries. Now, more than 10 percent do. They know the script. Even CNN can't lie about it anymore.

Yesterday, to his credit, one of their anchors went to the border and talked to people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. Watch this conversation. It is the most honest thing that has run on CNN in a long time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR, CNN: Why did he take his kid with him to come here if it's just to work.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [Speaking foreign language].

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As what you and I were talking about, he says that if he comes here with his son, then he is allowed to stay.

CUOMO: He thinks --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He thinks he is allowed to stay.

CUOMO: He think he is allowed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: [Speaking foreign language].

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [Speaking foreign language].

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: [Speaking foreign language].

CUOMO: He says it is word of mouth.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Coyotes, smugglers, word of mouth.

CUOMO: The smugglers are telling him, you bring your kid, you can get in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: If he comes here with his son, then he is allowed to stay. Our current political class has spent years pretending that is not true. In villages across Central America, they know it is true. Come to America and bring your kids, free schools, free healthcare, higher wages. They can't kick you out.

If you lived in Honduras, you would come here, too. We are begging them to come here. No wonder immigration is out of control. They know that we are happy to give our country away as we are.

Our lawmakers are allowing this to happen. They could close the loopholes that allow it in about an hour, but they haven't done that. They likely won't do it. They show no interest in the effects this invasion is having on normal Americans -- the suppressed wages, the stolen identities, the clogged emergency rooms and failing public schools, the fentanyl crisis. They don't care.

The Chamber of Commerce tells us that everything is fine. Just yesterday, they attacked the White House for even suggesting we might have to shut down the border to protect the country. Guacamole prices might rise. Democrats, meanwhile, rejoice in the scale of this disaster. More illegal immigration means more power for them. They are actively for it.

Everyone running for the Democratic nomination agrees on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, ANCHOR, MSNBC: If you could, would you take the wall down now here?

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes.

HAYES: Like you have a wall.

O'ROURKE: Absolutely.

HAYES: You'll knock it down.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Offer a home to refugees. That is who we are. That is our values. That's part of what we do.

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So, instead of building a wall or closing the border, we should choose compassion instead of cruelty.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We welcome refugees and bring people out of the shadows.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Spending as a down payment $5.7 billion on a wall is not an effective use of tax dollars when we talk about border security. There are better ways to do it.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Immigration is not a security issue. It is an economic and a humanitarian and family issue. There is no such thing as an illegal human.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: There is no such thing as an illegal human says the sitting United States Senator. So no, Congress is not going to fix this. Our big cities won't help. They are all sanctuaries for illegals now. The Courts aren't helping, it's not their job to protect the border anyway, it's the job of the Executive Branch, it always has been. So how are they going to fix this?

Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of Homeland Security and she joins us now. Madam Secretary, very much for coming on.

SEC. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: My pleasure.

CARLSON: So what is the Executive Branch doing now to fix this?

NIELSEN: Well, you probably don't have enough time to tell you all of the things. I mean, look, just as you said at the top of your introduction, the President predicted this as a candidate. He predicted this before he was a candidate. He continues to show leadership and to raise the alarm bells. But only now are we starting to see a mainstream press not on this particular channel, but there is a crisis and that's what there is.

So what we are doing is we have announced that we are sending more migrants back to Mexico to await their immigration proceedings. We are pulling folks from the ports of entry to help interdict those who are choosing to come here illegally. It is a crime, despite what you just showed, sitting senators saying it is a crime to come illegally between ports of entry. To stop them and to provide humanitarian assistance.

By the smugglers, they are coming through remote areas. They are sicker than we have ever seen before.

CARLSON: Yes, so will we see an executive order from the White House to make e-verify nationwide to punish employers who are setting the bait in this trap, who are encouraging illegal aliens to come into this country.

NIELSEN: That is part of the problem. I mean, I think what you saw also in the clip that you showed is many of the people coming are economic migrants. They are not truly seeking asylum.

CARLSON: Right.

NIELSEN: We want to help those who are. But many of them have been given magic words to come in and to get a job and take that job away from Americans. So we are looking to increase rates of e-verify. We have made it easier for employers to comply with it, but we are looking to do everything we can throughout the system to apply penalties where we can.

CARLSON: Well, how about this, why wouldn't your agency write an executive order, present it to the President and have him sign it and do it tomorrow?

NIELSEN: Everything it on the table. We will do everything we can within our authorities.

CARLSON: What is the argument against doing that?

NIELSEN: There is just a debate with Congress as to whether the Executive Branch has the authority to do that. We can expand the program, but right now, it is only authorized in a voluntary way, not a mandatory way. So we can do it, but as you know, what happens when we do is we get enjoined by the Courts. So it is one of many issues we are looking to work with Congress on and we will continue to drive that.

CARLSON: Do you think -- I mean, it looks from -- I mean, you probably have fresher knowledge than we do out here, but it looks like Congress is not going to act because one party has a vested interest in changing the population and the other party is in effect controlled by people who want illegal immigration.

So would there be a down side for the President to act unilaterally on that question or for example, birth right citizen? Would you be willing to draft an executive order eliminating birth right citizenship?

NIELSEN: I think you know, Tucker, I think the President has been clear. All of that is on the table including to close down the border. We have to stop this flow into our communities. We have to stop the drugs. We have to stop the smuggling and trafficking and gangs. He is very serious about it, so yes, I think everything is on the table.

In the meantime, I remain optimistic in the sense that I refuse to believe that the United States Congress will not act. It's not a partisan issue.

CARLSON: No, it's not, and of course, I agree and we've spent countless hours on making that exact point. But here you have a President who ran on the promise, it really was the central promise of his campaign to secure the border and things seem less under control now than they did then, and so when you ask about the answers, well, Congress won't act, well, everyone knows they are never going to act and so, it does seem a little like buck passing if you see what I mean.

NIELSEN: Yes, I do. I would say, I would expand that group a little bit. You mentioned the courts. We have a lot of, in my opinion, court decisions that do not understand the full situation, the operational realities that that we face every day.

But it's also the criminals, and I think you saw that in the clip, too. The smugglers are more active than ever before in advertising how to come into this country with a child. We've broken up so called child recycling rings, if you can believe it in the last couple of months which is where smugglers kidnap a child, they give it to an adult to cross the border, present themselves as a family.

Once they get in, because as you know, we can only hold families for 20 days. They send the child back and bring the child back with another family -- another fake family, another adult.

So the criminals play a huge part of this. We are working to crackdown on all the transnational criminals, the gangs and smuggling and trafficking, but I cannot be clear and I don't think the President can be any clearer, he will take every action within his authority to stop this flow.

CARLSON: Yes, so do we -- does the U.S. government know exactly how many people are living in this country illegally? I've seen academic studies to put that number between 11 million to 22 million, maybe more. What is the real number?

NIELSEN: Yes, we debate it. I think that's inaccurate.

CARLSON: So we don't know.

NIELSEN: No. And part of that, I think about it, part of it is because we do not have the wall that the President continues to advocate for. We cannot in every circumstance tell you who is crossing the border. We have a much better --

CARLSON: So you run a law enforcement agency among other --

NIELSEN: I do.

CARLSON: You have many roles, but it's law enforcement --

NIELSEN: The largest law enforcement agency in the country.

CARLSON: Exactly. That's right. Probably the world, actually.

NIELSEN: Yes, probably.

CARLSON: So, that must be a grave concern to you that we potentially have more than 10 million people here whose identities we don't know could be over 20 whose identities we don't know, like they could be anybody.

NIELSEN: Yes.

CARLSON: And so why is that not the single most pressing problem the country has.

NIELSEN: In my opinion, right now, this is one of -- if not the biggest crisis this country has faced in a decade. Truly, I mean, security aspects of this, the humanitarian aspects of this have got to be addressed.

So I agree with you. I would -- this is at the very top of our list of DHS. We've announced today that we're now treating this like a massive Cat 5 hurricane disaster. We are bringing all of the interagency together. We're asking everybody to chip in. We need to surge down as many resources as we can to the border.

But Congress needs to look at this as a hurricane, too right? Where is the supplemental? Where are the additional authorities?

CARLSON: Of course.

NIELSEN: Where is the way to address this?

CARLSON: But I mean, I've covered hurricanes and natural disasters, and you see men in uniform with rifles, you see the National Guard there. I read a bunch of background quotes from flag officers in the United States military who said that is a frivolous duty for us. We've got -- our a real duty is over in Syria or whatever, some other country? Why wouldn't we put the U.S. military along our border? If it's really a crisis of that magnitude?

NIELSEN: I think we're looking into that. We've made the request. I'm in constant contact with the Acting Secretary of Defense. I talked to some of the combatant commanders today. We are in fact pushing more and more military resources to the border. And that's what is required.

CARLSON: Who is in charge? I mean, but the President is the Commander-in- Chief of the Military.

NIELSEN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Would it be possible for him to say we're moving troops to the border tomorrow? And this is -- I mean, he could say we're moving trips to Venezuela tomorrow, if he wanted, but he can't do a tour on the border?

NIELSEN: No, I think he absolutely, of course, says full authority to defend our country.

CARLSON: Right.

NIELSEN: And I think that's what he's moving to do. I mean, his statements in the last week about closing the border, a perfect example, he will take all action that is required to do this. So yes, it's on the table. We're actively moving in discussions about moving more troops down now. We're working with the National Guard's, we're working with the states. But absolutely, DoD plays a huge part of this.

CARLSON: So just one last question and I don't even know if you have an answer, but why is it that the press, many in Congress don't seem to recognize the magnitude of this? Do you think it's that they don't know the details or they don't care? Do you have -- do you want to speculate as to why no one is responding?

NIELSEN: I mean, look, at this point, I'll be blunt. I think they're blinded by politics. Unfortunately, they are blinded for what they see as a request from this administration, instead of looking at the requests and the way in which it is directly affecting Americans. I mean, you mentioned fentanyl.

CARLSON: Yes.

NIELSEN: Last year alone, CBP and I.C.E. interdicted more fentanyl to kill every American four times. I mean, the effects that this is having on American society cannot be understood.

CARLSON: I agree with that. Do we have any sense of how much got through without being --

NIELSEN: We do not. But the good news is, the President requested in did receive additional resources at the border to interdict drugs, and we are actively implementing this. But to your point, the facts don't lie. So I don't believe that they don't see it, or they don't understand it. They are just willfully choosing to ignore it. But the more Americans who suffer, they are going to have to look at this. I hope they do it sooner than later.

CARLSON: Yes, I hope so, too. Thank you very much.

NIELSEN: My pleasure. Thank you.

CARLSON: Appreciate it. Brit Hume is the senior political analyst here at Fox News, and he joins us tonight. Brit, thanks a lot for coming on.

You just heard the DHS Secretary describe our immigration system, the state of it now as a quote "massive Cat 5 hurricane disaster." Doesn't seem like anyone in Washington is acting like it's that?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think the President is trying. I mean, he's talking about closing the border. That's no small thing, and you heard all the caterwauling that all across town today when he said that. So yes, he's doing what he can. And he's never stopped talking about this issue. There really is a problem, though.

As you pointed out, Tucker, the media only now are beginning to wake into the fact that when the President said there was a crisis on the border, an emergency at the border, that he was absolutely right. And the circumstances that you described, Tucker, of the confluence of the state of our laws and leaving them vulnerable -- our border vulnerable to people who show up claiming asylum, which didn't used to be the case. That wasn't the way it used to work.

It used to be, you know, as you pointed out, single men sneaking across the border. Now, it's very different. And the combination of our laws and what the Courts and how the Courts have interpreted them have left us more or less defenseless against this surge of migrants across the border.

And this -- it really is an issue that requires a change in the law, and the Democrats do not want to play along now. Now, they may be awakening to the fact that people are starting to get really upset about this, but they have two reasons. One is ideological, they really do believe many of them that we are this great land that should take care of the downtrodden people of the Earth.

And make no mistake about it, Tucker, these people who come from those Central American countries are among the downtrodden people of the earth.

CARLSON: For sure.

HUME: Those places are terrible, and they're making a harrowing journey through Mexico to get here. But the second reason is obviously political. They believe that these are the kinds of people that you know, if they are the compassionate party that encourages them to be led into the country that they will end up voting Democrat.

So for reasons, both ideological and political, they don't want to do much about this. Now, it may be getting so bad now that they'll have to. But so far, that's been the situation.

CARLSON: So you heard the Secretary say, and I guess we knew this, but it's so striking to hear a senior official admitted that we really have no idea how many people -- foreign nationals are living illegally within our borders to within 10 million people, we have no idea. How could that be?

HUME: That's right, that's -- well, it could be for one thing, because you know, they melt away into the interior. And you know, we lose track of them. So we don't know how many are here, people get deported and sneak back in, we don't know how many have crossed the border that we didn't see or catch or didn't come through a port of entry.

This current group, of course, is more likely to be able to be counted, because they're not trying to really sneak in, there just trying to get on American soil and give themselves up knowing that they can't be immediately deported. But there's also that -- which gets to the question about the administration that wanted to put on the census form, which is whether you're an American citizen or not.

CARLSON: Right.

HUME: And that's so far been blocked. And, you know, for the political reasons that you and I have discussed. But that would be one way to do it, wouldn't it?

CARLSON: It would be and another way maybe to address the problem would be to penalize people for making the problem worse. And you would do that by making e-verify national. And why wouldn't you do that by executive order?

HUME: Well, from what she said, it sounds as if there are some legal issues involved in that. I'm not an authority on that. But obviously, it makes sense to do that. And every bill that ever comes along, you know that's ever offered, you can't pass one. That every bill that's ever offered has that provision in it to make e-verify universal.

CARLSON: Yes, the previous President had no problem increasing illegal immigration, with executive orders, I noticed. And he did.

HUME: Well, he surely wanted to increase legal immigration. Of course, one of the debates among immigration restriction is whether we have not only too much illegal immigration, which nobody says they favor, but we also have -- we also have in their view, too much legal immigration.

CARLSON: Yes.

HUME: We obviously don't have a hard headed immigration policy where the people that we admit are people who have who you know, meet some criterion of likely to succeed here and make a contribution to society, which would be, you know -- it would be a hard headed policy.

In fact, you know, the most hard headed policy of all, I don't know -- you could never enact it, it would be one where your likelihood of being able to stay would depend on how hard it was for you to get here. Like the Vietnamese people who crossed in those boats after the end of the Vietnam War and became tremendously successful in a generation that made an enormous contribution to this country.

And it's not at all clear to me, Tucker that these people who are coming across from Mexico through Central America in that harrowing trip, who show the world what all they do to get here might not end up making excellent citizens, but under the current circumstances, you know, they just melt way into the interior and we lose track of them. And I'm not even sure their prospects are very good under the circumstances. I mean, they remain -- they're living in the shadows.

CARLSON: If you begin your time here by scamming our system, it's not a good way to start, I would say.

HUME: Exactly.

CARLSON: Brit Hume. Great to see you tonight. Thank you very much.

HUME: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: A Sheriff for the state of Colorado tonight says he will go to jail before he enforces the law he believes is unconstitutional. It's a law that would take guns away from law-abiding citizens without due process. We will investigate what's happening out there after the break. Plus, new developments tonight in the ongoing saga of Jussie Smollett. That's straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Lawmakers in the state of Colorado are currently considering what they're calling a red flag bill on firearms. The legislation would allow the seizure of guns from law abiding citizens. The only requirement is that a family member, roommate, somebody or the police petition a judge that that person poses a danger. No due process, no criminal conviction required.

The Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, Steve Reams says the law would be unconstitutional. Not only can you not uphold it, he will not enforce it and go to jail if forced to.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE REAMS, SHERIFF, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO: If the bill becomes law, I don't have the option to enforce this. I think it violates the Constitution. And that, in turn, would force me to violate my oath of office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Colion Noir is an NRA TV host and he joins us tonight. Colion, thanks a lot for coming on?

COLION NOIR, NRA TV HOST: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So why is it the Second Amendment is the one right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that can be stripped from a citizen without due process?

NOIR: Well, the problem is, is that you have a group of people in this country who understand the power and influence of the Second Amendment, which basically gives the power to the people. And when you're talking about a group of people who want to exercise control, well, that's going to be the biggest threat to that.

So what do you do? You come up with laws that create a fake due process, so to speak, in order to take that right away from people? Because that's essentially what this is. It's kind of a tofu due process.

CARLSON: That's not actually fun. That's exactly what it is. But no one is suggesting -- I mean, first of all, we have a process. No one is arguing that the mentally ill, people who pose imminent danger ought to be waving guns around, but we have a process for disarming them, right? If you commit a crime, and you are convicted, you don't get to possess a firearm. So that's in place. Is anyone suggesting a process for taking away your right to vote without a trial?

NOIR: Not that I'm aware of.

CARLSON: So but if you're not -- if we don't trust you to have a gun, why would we trust you to choose our leaders?

NOIR: Exactly. And that's what I'm saying. It's almost as if they're trying to create a kind of quasi Minority Report system in America. I can understand that there's an element in this country that does not like the idea of the Second Amendment. And that's fine. You cannot like the Second Amendment. But guess what, it's still a constitutional right. And we have to abide by that.

And because it's a constitutional right, that means you have to afford me due process when you decide that you may or may not want to take that right away from me. That's the way this country works.

CARLSON: Right. And you would think that people who went to law school is virtually everyone running for President did, almost all of them, not all. Senator Cory Booker, for example, went to Yale Law School. You are releasing a new video about his rhetoric at a recent Town Hall. You wanted to show some of it tonight to our audience. We've got a preview right here.

NOIR: Absolutely.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NOIR: I get that Cory Booker thinks he's some modern day Spartacus.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am Spartacus.

NOIR: But on the issue of the Second Amendment, he's more like a constitutional oligarch. Where it's guns okay for us, but not for you all.

To actually admit without realizing it that the draconian gun laws of New Jersey, which you adamantly support, don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns because as you put it --

BOOKER: The majority of guns that we recovered don't even come from New Jersey. They don't come from criminal gun runners who are not law abiding citizens who should have the First and Second Amendment rights.

NOIR: Exactly, Cory. When you push law that takeaway guns from law abiding citizens, the only people who will have them will be the criminals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That whole video is on our Facebook page, by the way, and that's excellent. So I loved your point about the oligarchy. So Cory Booker is not suggesting that his bodyguards disarm, is he?

NOIR: Oh, no, not at all. Even more so in New Jersey, like people ask me all the time, like, what's my biggest issue with Cory Booker on the Second Amendment? Well, all you have to do is look at the state of the Second Amendment in New Jersey. It's practically dead.

You can barely own a gun, much less be able to carry one yet he is supposed to be a protector of the Constitution. This is the same guy we want running our country when he doesn't even respect the Second Amendment for everyone else. This is supposed to be the man of the people, the Spartacus, so to speak, it's a joke.

It's the same type of joke that you have with these red flag loss that supposedly have due process, they don't.

CARLSON: But what's interesting is, every politician I'm aware of in the state of New Jersey has a retinue of armed state employees around him. Whereas if you live in Newark or Patterson or Camden or one of the many poor places in that state, you can't defend yourself.

NOIR: Exactly. It's straight up and down elitism. That's pretty much what this is. It's basically saying, "I'm important enough to be protected by guns." You are not. Only that, I don't want you to even have the guns to possibly maybe sort of kind of use them against me because they make me feel uncomfortable with a regular normal people having firearms.

And that's essentially what we're looking at here with respect to New Jersey and this is the same person who wants to bring this to a national level. I'm sorry, I'm not for it.

CARLSON: Yes, you disarm first. I'm important enough to be protected by guns. You are not. I'm putting that on my fridge.

NOIR: Putting on your fridge.

CARLSON: Coilon Noir, thank you. Good to see you tonight.

NOIR: Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Well, Jim Comey appeared on CNN today, as he often does, but for once Comey was not the least impressive person on the set. That title went unequivocally to CNN chief international anchor, Christiane Amanpour, likely the most overrated person in journalism.

At one point, Amanpour asked Comey why the FBI didn't move to suppress public criticism of Hillary Clinton during the last election. She actually said that. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, ANCHOR, CNN: Of course, "lock her up" was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you, in retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, I mean, the people in charge of law and order had shut down that language that it was dangerous, potentially that it could have created violence, that it is kind of hate speech -- should not have been allowed.

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: That's not a role for government to play. The beauty of this country is, people can say what they want even if it's misleading and it is demagoguery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Do you wish you had shut that down. Mr. FBI Director? So according to CNN's most famous anchor, Federal agents with guns should have swooped into Trump rallies and arrested anyone who loudly criticized Hillary Clinton because it's quote, "hate speech," meaning speech, Hillary Clinton hates.

Christiane Amanpour said that on television, you just saw it. She didn't miss speak. That's what she thinks. That's what a lot of people on the left think. The very same people calling you a fascist. Because you don't believe in academic gender theory or the global warming apocalypse or whatever other dumb idea they're forcing down your throat.

They'd like the FBI to arrest you for saying the wrong thing. Let's just pray they never get power.

Well, Democrats are now the party of #MeToo, they believe all women, obviously. And yet Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax is still in office. Joe Biden looks like that he survived new accusations against him. Some accusations in just about 20 minutes ago. What's going on over there? Tammy Bruce after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Joe Biden spent decades sniffing the hair of strangers and delivering unwanted Eskimo kisses. Just tonight, two more women have come forward to say his touching made them uncomfortable. Biden is being attacked for all this by some. But so far, the people who matter -- Nancy Pelosi and Valerie Jarrett -- among many others have defended the former Vice President.

Democratic presidential candidates aren't demanding he stay out of the race, it seems increasingly likely that Biden could survive these stories. Whatever happens to Biden, misconduct allegations increasingly dominate internal democratic disputes. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax is still combating sexual assault allegations from two separate women.

In a new interview, one of those women says that Fairfax preyed upon her specifically because she'd been assaulted before. Tammy Bruce is radio host and President Independent Women's voice and she joins us tonight. Tammy, thanks so much for coming on.

TAMMY BRUCE, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So I think that there's a lot to criticize about Joe Biden. I think he's weird. I think this behavior is creepy. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a country where people are afraid to hug each other because I think hugging each other is a good thing.

BRUCE: Yes, sure.

CARLSON: And then I also think the Democratic Party is appallingly hypocritical and power hungry. So I have all these conflicting emotions and I hope that you will sort out these stories for us.

BRUCE: Well, I'll try because what Joe Biden is doing, the average man, if he did it at work would be fired. There is a difference between hugging somebody and we've all been through that and in Mr. Biden's case, in the new case and also in the Flores case, there was a restraint of someone physically and in Flores' case, he restrained her by her shoulders; in other cases, he restraints women by holding their jaw line or their neck area and Ms. Flores described him coming up behind her. The "Washington Post" said he placed his hands on her shoulders, he was restraining her and then he moved in to -- and his face moved into her hair. It was an intimate action that you would normally reserve for a loved one, a spouse or someone you know and you love.

And then after a while, he then slowly kissed the back of her head. That's not hugging somebody a spouse or someone you know and you love. And then after a while, he then slowly kissed the back of her head. That's not hugging someone. That's --

CARLSON: You've really brought it into stark relief with that description.

BRUCE: Right, and especially because you can also hug a man. Now, what we have never seen Joe Biden do is that very same thing to a man because maybe he doesn't want to give the wrong impression or he doesn't want to be punched in the nose. But you usually -- my advice to people who have been in companies, if you wouldn't do it to a man, don't do it to a woman. That usually is your gauge if something's appropriate or not.

And so in this particular case, of course, we want to be able to have a demonstrative society. And this is not brain surgery, that if -- and it's not about even your own intention. It's that -- why would you -- if you would do something, if someone is recoiling, if you have to restrain them in order to be able to do it, if you're doing it from behind. If you are, of course -- this is what's fascinating with the Democratic Party. There are men who whether it's Harvey Weinstein, which is an issue, of course of rape, and certain issues of just sexual harassment, perhaps in this case with Mr. Biden, and other issues with Mr. Fairfax is that these are men who claim to be the champions for women, who claim to be the, you know, the facilitators like Joe Biden of the Violence Against Women Act.

And yet that's the excuse that their defenders use. It's like, look at what they've done for us. And that has kept women from feeling comfortable talking about the nature of what's happened to them. It's an interesting dynamic that we have to be aware of.

CARLSON: No, I think that you just changed my mind on it completely. Tammy, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

BRUCE: Thank you, dear. Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Jussie Smollett's fake hate crime isn't the first time he's played around with the news in order to make a political statement. Amazingly, we have a great update --= fascinating update on that story after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Jussie Smollett famously hired two men to pour bleach on him and wrap a noose around his neck. He may have been trying to boost his career, but he was also willing to stoke race hatred in order to do it. But it wasn't the first time he used a noose.

A new music video which is actually an old music video, but recently dug up of Jussie Smollett shows that he's used the noose before. Matt Finn has the very latest on this development -- Matt.

MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, Jussie Smollett's 2017 music video "FUW" which stands for "Blanked Up World" shows a President Trump mask being run over and also a man with a noose behind his neck, some similar themes to Smollett's alleged hate crime here in Chicago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, AMERICAN ACTOR: "Build the wall. It will keep us from loving each other."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FINN: Smollett's music video shows a President Trump mask being run over by a person in a wheelchair and also a man with a noose behind his neck and clearly implies it's a messed up world because Mr. Trump is President.

A portion of Smollett's lyrics read quote, "Build a wall. It will keep us from loving each other. Rewrite the laws. It won't keep us from loving each other. Build a wall. It will keep us from loving each other. Never going to build a wall."

Jussie Smollett reported that his attackers in Chicago were President Trump supporters who put a noose around his neck and yelled "This is MAGA country." Smollett stands by that story and innocence and says he was targeted because of his activism against the President.

Chicago's Mayor calls Smollett a liar. Chicago's police investigation concluded Smollett staged a hoax. There's also a Federal investigation into alleged death threat letter that police say Smollett sent himself which also has a MAGA return address. And right now the City of Chicago is demanding that Jussie Smollett pay $130,000.00 in restitution and the clock is ticking because the City's Law Department warns if he doesn't pay that within seven days, it might bring new charges against the actor -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Not much of a lyricist, apparently. Matt Finn from Chicago. Thanks, Matt.

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently lost its founder Morris Dees and it's President Richard Cohen, after multiple allegations that the organization they ran had become a hotbed of sexual harassment, sexism and racism. But that's not an SPLC's only problem right now. It calls itself an anti-hate organization. But in fact the SPLC strongly resembles a racket.

They've amassed more than half a billion dollars by calling any enemy of the Democratic Party a racist or an anti-gay bigot or whatever works in an effort to purge them from society.

For doing all of that, they get an indirect government support because they are a tax exempt entity. Senator Tom Cotton is a Republican that represents the state of Arkansas, he recently sent a letter to the IRS urging them to investigate the SPLC's tax exempt status.

Senator Cotton joins us tonight. Senator, thanks very much for coming on. So just the obvious question first, this is an organization of a small organization that has a half a billion dollar endowment, how are they tax exempt in fact?

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.: So the Southern Poverty Law Center has over half a billion dollars. About a quarter of it, Tucker is parked in overseas accounts as best we can tell. I don't know many charitable advisers that say it is best practice to send your endowment to overseas accounts in the Caribbean. That's one reason why Charity Watch gives them an F rating -- a very well -- very well deserved F rating.

Because as you said, Tucker, they've really become kind of a hate group themselves. They have the so called hate map and they use it to stigmatize their political opponents, you know, respectable center right organizations like the Family Research Council, their Alliance Defending Freedom.

It's fine if you don't agree with those organizations. There are plenty of groups on the left I don't agree with, but I don't try to stigmatize them as a hate group and then go peddle that to CNN, the "New York Times" to try to attack their donors.

CARLSON: Well, of course. And it's not a question of disagree -- I mean, that you're not calling for lots of liberal organization to lose their tax exemption, but if you are a clearly fraudulent organization that mismanages your money, and you're basically running a for profit organization. How do you keep your tax exemption?

COTTON: And that's what I've asked the IRS to investigate. I mean, funding lawsuits to include left wing lawsuits and what you think is the public interest is a tax exempt purpose. Serial repeated defamation against your political opponents is not a tax exempt purpose. And then talking about misusing funds Tucker, I mean, Morris Dees, the founder there was paid $400,000.00 a year, apparently to do nothing other than consistently sexually harass young women working at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

CARLSON: And according to its own employees, commit acts of racism even as they claim to fight racism. So is there nobody -- so once you receive as a procedural question, once you receive tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service, do you just keep it forever?

COTTON: So the Internal Revenue Service is responsible for adjudicating initial tax exemptions and then also reviewing it as well. That's why I've asked the IRS to review the Southern Poverty Law Center's tax exempt status. They were founded decades ago. They claim that their role was to fund lawsuits to eliminate the democrat system of Jim Crow and segregation. Now they've turned into just a serial defamer of their political opponents. That's why the IRS needs to relook at their tax exempt status.

CARLSON: And I hope they will. And what about Media Matters? Which also has tax exempt status, but which was caught -- I mean, without any question at all, coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign in violation of Federal tax law, and yet they retain their tax exempt status.

COTTON: So tax exempt charity should not be coordinating with any political campaign, they shouldn't be engaged in political activities. I think it says something about the Southern Poverty Law Center that they recently hired Tina Tchen, the Jussie Smollett fixer, Michelle Obama's former Chief of Staff to come on and fix their workplace culture, or perhaps take advantage of the $500 million they have and former super PAC to attack the President and the Republican Party next year in the election.

CARLSON: There's no body that can essentially audit the -- I mean, what it needs is an audit, clearly.

COTTON: No, it needs -- it needs an audit very badly. I hope the IRS will do that as part of their investigation and unveil to the American people that the Southern Poverty Law Center has become nothing but a racket that's designed solely to slander and defame its political opponents.

CARLSON: So the IRS was caught under President Obama, hurting conservatives, refusing to grant their organization's tax exemption for purely political reasons and no one was ever really punished for that. Can you get them to pay attention to your request, do you think?

COTTON: I certainly hope we can. The letter that I sent today is just the first step I'm taking to try to get the IRS focused on this serious problem. You have, again a $500 million so called charity that has systematic racial and sexist discrimination problems. And at the same time, it's simply using that money to target its political opponents. That's not what American taxpayers are subsidizing when we give people tax exempt status. We get those things to churches or adoption shelters or shelters for battered women, not to defame your political opponents, sexually harass every woman that works in your office and discriminate against minorities.

CARLSON: It would be nice to get the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ over there. Maybe they can do what they did with Roger Stone.

COTTON: Or the Department of Labor or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

CARLSON: Senator Cotton, it's great to see you tonight. Thank you.

COTTON: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Student loans have crushed an entire generation of young Americans that's why they're not buying homes or cars or getting married or having kids. Meanwhile colleges are richer than they've ever been. Shouldn't they have some skin in the game? We will debate that with a college professor after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: America's total student loan debt now exceeds $1.5 trillion. That makes it the largest source of personal debt in the country after home loans. That debt falls overwhelmingly on this country's middle class young people. That's the group least able to afford it. The average graduate owes almost $40,000.00 by the time college is over.

Many owe hundreds of thousands, some never even received degrees, but they still owe them money. And thanks to an extensive lobbying campaign here in Washington, student loans are the only form of debt that cannot be erased by bankruptcy. Kids are stuck with it for life.

Colleges love this deal. They're getting rich from it. There's no risk to them at all. A hundred American universities now have billion dollar endowments. They've doubled their administrative staffs. It's hard to see why this isn't a scam. Here's an easy fix to it, make colleges co-sign their student loans, give them some skin in the game. What exactly is the argument against that?

Well, to find out, we've invited Austan Goolsbee who chaired Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. He now works at the University of Chicago, and we're happy to have him tonight. Austan, thanks a lot for coming on.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER CHAIR OF BARACK OBAMA'S COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Yes, great to see again, Tucker.

CARLSON: So I'm not making an argument against college or against student loans, against education. I'm just wondering how we have a system where for colleges, there's only upside, they get Federally-backed student loans, and they've gotten very rich from it. But they share none of the risk. So why wouldn't colleges co-sign every student loan for their students?

GOOLSBEE: Well, let me say, I applaud you're paying attention to this getting people a higher level of educational payments, one of the most important things for economic growth in this country. Now, I think you've gotten a little off track, perhaps on the details of these.

The first is nonprofit -- not for profit universities don't get rich, for profit educational institutions have become a way disproportionate share of the student loan defaults and are absolutely one of the biggest problems that's going here. But that's different than the big endowment schools.

CARLSON: So -- no, no, wait. But hold on. They haven't gotten rich, you work at a university that has an $8.2 billion endowment whose president makes almost $2 million a year. You've gotten rich from it, driving through the University of Chicago, it's in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, 40% of the people in your neighborhood are below the poverty line. So you're rich from it. It's Federally-backed. Students have to live with that debt for the rest of their lives until they pay it off, but you are not on the hook for it. So why wouldn't you co-sign the loan? It's super simple.

GOOLSBEE: Okay. I'll give it -- why would you not put co-signing responsibilities on to the university? Because that would leave the universities to then do a credit check and deny the student loans to exactly the kinds of people who don't have family income. They would become a higher risk credit.

CARLSON: Why would the University of Chicago discriminate against poor people with bad credit histories? You've got an 8$.2 billion endowment. Why would you discriminate like that?

GOOLSBEE: It's not discrimination. Tucker, as you know, when they use the endowment for financial aid, that's a different proposition than co-signing for a loan just like if you had in a mortgage.

CARLSON: But I am -- I'm sorry, I just want to ask this question because I think it's really important and you are not really answering it.

GOOLSBEE: You are confused, I agree.

CARLSON: So you're saying that you can't co-sign the loan because you would discriminate against people who might not pay it back. So they should be stuck with it --

GOOLSBEE: It's not that you can't co-sign the loan, it's that you would want to take the lowest financial risk if you're signing up financial aid. The University of Chicago does not make the loans, as you know, Tucker.

CARLSON: I'm aware. The U.S. government now does, thanks to Obama and U.S. taxpayers back those loans up so basically --

GOOLSBEE: Yes and the four ...

CARLSON: You're outsourcing the risk to taxpayers.

GOOLSBEE: ... classic sector of education where the default will happen.

CARLSON: Moreover, because of lobbying from you guys and other billion dollar endowment schools ...

GOOLSBEE: No.

CARLSON: ... kids are stuck with these loans. They can't get out of it with bankruptcy.

GOOLSBEE: Tucker, you are right to be concerned ...

CARLSON: I am right.

GOOLSBEE: ... about the for profit education.

CARLSON: I am not concerned. I'm right to call you guys out for the scam you're perpetrating.

GOOLSBEE: The default rates of for profit schools are approaching 50%, Tucker.

CARLSON: You are trying to shift the blame --

GOOLSBEE: The massively disproportionate share of the student loan --

CARLSON: Okay, that's great. I am not defending the University of Phoenix. What I'm doing is asking you --

GOOLSBEE: You shouldn't.

CARLSON: You work at a school with an $8.2 billion endowment in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, okay, talk about rich and poor. And you're saying you won't co-sign the loans because you don't feel like it? And I'm saying maybe you could help a little bit.

GOOLSBEE: Tucker, that's -- if you want to make the pay back of loans tied that you would get forgiveness of loans, for example, if you entered a public sector job, or if you took a job where your future income would not be high. I think that's a -- that is a valid point that we should look at.

CARLSON: But why aren't you helping? You're asking taxpayers to help? And by the way, what about that? It's just -- I just have got to ask, I've always wondered this, as you walk out of the University of Chicago into a neighborhood where 40 percent of the people almost live below the poverty line. Do you ever think maybe we should let them eat in the cafeteria? Do they -- can people from the neighborhood eat in the cafeteria at Chicago?

GOOLSBEE: I live there, Tucker. Yes, there's a pay cafeteria at the campus and anyone can walk in and go to Taco Bell or wherever they want to eat.

CARLSON: Can they go to classes, too?

GOOLSBEE: If they pay tuition.

CARLSON: But they're poor. Forty percent live below the poverty line right next to your school with an $8.3 billion endowment.

GOOLSBEE: I live in the neighborhood, Tucker. You went to an elite college, you went to elite schools. You don't have to tell me what is in the neighborhood.

CARLSON: I am just asking you, what are you doing to help? Well, I don't know.

GOOLSBEE: It is open to the public. You have --

CARLSON: So they can go to your classes, poor people can go to your classes at Chicago? They can just walk in and go?

GOOLSBEE: if they are enrolled as students, they can go to my class.

CARLSON: If they pay $77,000.00 a year.

GOOLSBEE: Just like every other school in the country.

CARLSON: Right.

GOOLSBEE: The majority of students, Tucker, this country in college are at community colleges and junior colleges. There are some 80 plus percent in state universities.

CARLSON: Right. No, but you want to shift the blame, I'm talking about the most prosperous, the most fortunate colleges, the one that you work at and I am asking what you're doing to help.

GOOLSBEE: Yes, which means, you're changing the subject from the student loan problem.

CARLSON: Nothing, not really anything to help.

GOOLSBEE: Tucker, schools like the ones you went to are the ones I went to or not the student loan problem in the country. That's not where the default rates are.

CARLSON: Oh, you're not the problem. It's not a problem for you, $8.2 billion endowment, it sounds like no problem at all. It sounds great.

GOOLSBEE: No, here we go again. You want a tax endowment, but you don't want --

CARLSON: I don't want to tax, I just want you to pay your fair share and stop lecturing America about how it is immoral while you get $8.2 billion sitting in a bank account and the neighborhood around you is in poverty.

GOOLSBEE: Spare me the drama, Tucker. You went to the elite schools of this country.

CARLSON: I did. I did.

GOOLSBEE: What we should focus on is making ...

CARLSON: And that's why I know it's a scam.

GOOLSBEE: ... college affordable and making it so that people can pay back their loans.

CARLSON: All right.

GOOLSBEE: And that means not cutting their financial aid, that means --

CARLSON: Make college affordable, so tuition has risen much faster than inflation. It's $77,000.00 to go to Chicago.

GOOLSBEE: Not at the University of Chicago, but yes.

CARLSON: University of Chicago is $77,000.00, at least as of today. Why haven't you kept it down to $30,000.00? Since you've got $8.2 billion in your endowment?

GOOLSBEE: They have given literally billions of dollars of financial aid for people who have middle and low income so that they don't pay that list price. I don't think that people like you, for example, Tucker, who could afford to pay the full amount should have your children going with a subsidy from the other students. They should use the money from the endowment to pay for low and middle income students, not for --

CARLSON: It's not just me, it's middle class people who get stuck with that number. You're ripping them off and you know that you are and I hope at least, there is some effort to make the problem that you created a little better, that's all I am asking.

GOOLSBEE: Tucker, you sided the statistics. If you get a college degree ...

CARLSON: Yes, I know what the statistics are.

GOOLSBEE: ... you make $25,000.00 a year, more every year for the rest of your life on average today.

CARLSON: That's true in some places. Forty percent of flight attendants have college degrees.

GOOLSBEE: That is on average in America.

CARLSON: Forty percent of flight attendants have college degrees. The median wage is 50 grand a year, tell me that's a good deal for them. It's not. It's a rip off.

GOOLSBEE: So I -- you know what, Tucker, I agree with you. Let reinstate that gainful employment rules so that people who can't make back the money to pay off their student loans do not get ripped off by for profit education providers.

CARLSON: All right. I appreciate. Austan Goolsbee, we're out of time. I wish we had more time. I'll see you at the cafeteria at Chicago.

GOOLSBEE: Yes, it's always fun to debate you, Tucker.

CARLSON: That's it for us tonight. Another hour gone. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink on the one channel where anchors get to say what they really think, where there is no party line, where we are free, and we're grateful you're watching that channel.

Good night from Washington. We have a special surprise for you tonight at 9 o'clock this evening, 18 seconds from now, from New York City, I want to introduce a man we're calling Sean Hannity.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.