nbc had taped interviews with a number of weinstein's victims. they had weinstein himself confessing to grope ago model caught on audiotape during a nypd sting operation. nbc had harvey weinstein cold, busted. no honest editor in america would have passed on that story. and, yet, nbc news chief noah on pen heim did pass. he claimed there still wasn't enough evidence to run. so the network killed it. nbc standards for what is news have changed quite a bit in a short period. just a year ago, that network leaked the now famous access hollywood tape to the "the washington post" on the eve of a presidential debate. apparently hoping to influence the outcome. nbc could not air that tape itself due to legal concerns. but its executives had no qualms about secretly passing that story to another news outlet and then repeatedly lying about it noah ope openheim's. classmate in college in harvard. they worked together on the school newspaper, reportedly they were friends. now nbc news executives have never explained how that tape, which was their company's propriety property got from nbc's offices to david farnhold at "the washington post." and they are still not saying. you wouldn't be crazy to connect the dots. by the way, and it may or may not be relevant, noah on pen heim was a groomsman in chelsea clinton's wedding. a fiery champion of the oppressed, bloom once sued the catholic church over its sex abuse scandal. she sued the boy scouts because at the time they didn't admit girls. she represented one of bill cosby's accusers and three women who said bill o'reilly sex real harassed them. she is on television all the time. in the case of harvey weinstein, lisa bloom took the side of the predator over the prey. likely because the price was right. in the original "new york times" piece exposing weinstein's behavior, bloom appears as weinstein's attorney, advisor, confidante, explainer in chief. she tried to explain away his behavior as the fumblings of the confused relic from an earlier age. in her words, an old dinosaur learning new ways. according to lisa bloom, weinstein didn't realize that groping terrified women might be perceived as, quote, intimidating. well, within days, the public outcry over weinstein's crimes became so intense that lisa bloom, sensing diminishing returns, fled the scene. she began denouncing weinstein herself. she really had no idea how bad harvey was, she said. right. but now new reports indicate that lisa bloom's pr campaign for harvey weinstein may have gone well beyond spin into something much darker. in a facebook post over the weekend, actress rose mcgowan who says harvey weinstein raped her accused lisa bloom of something approaching bribery. mcgowan says bloom contacted her and offered secret payments if she would recant and declare harvey weinstein a changed man. lisa bloom denies this. are her denials believable? we will let you decide. before you do decide, consider a long and well-sourced piece in the columbia journal's review this weekend accuses lisa bloom of similar behavior and yet another sexual harassment case. this is of an amazon entertainment executive recently fired for propositioning a colleague. as in the case of harvey weinstein, lisa bloom was paid to provide moral cover for a man accused of predatory misdeeds against women. his career in jeopardy he hired lisa bloom to explain away his problems. and because she is precisely that kind of feminist for hire, lisa bloom took the job. >> joining us now radio talk who he shows mark simone. mark, thanks for joining us tonight. so, there are reports that lisa bloom had a business relationship with harvey weinstein that went beyond your lawyer/client relationship. that he was working to develop a project based on a book she wrote. have you heard any indication she plans to give that money back? >> well, it's like remember hillary clinton said when asked about giving the donation back. she said there is nobody to give it back to. she may use the same excuse. how do you know when you hit rock bottom? when your own company fires you, when your company has to change the name. when the academy throws you out. i think it's when lisa bloom has to leave because you are hurting her reputation. that is it. so,. >> >> tucker: i mean i agree with you completely about lisa bloom. i have watched this for years. she is for hire. she, you know, someone who has no moral authority from what can i tell. yet, she is taken seriously by virtually every news outlet out there as a voice of authority on the abuse of women, as a moral voice. how unethical is it to be working on a development deal with the guy representing in a sexual harassment case? >> it's the worst thing you could ever do. i never saw anybody excite for harvey weinstein destroy their brand so fast. how would anybody go to her again? when she was first involved, i assume he hired her just to neutralize her. if you hire an attorney, they can never come against you from the other side. but it turns out she has been on this for a long time. rose mcgowan says she was offered $6 million. that's an amazing amount of money. that's how seriously they took this. harvey is famous for years for offering editors, whoever, screen deals, development deals. noah oppenheim, am i in the mistaken is he a screen write his or her probably is looking for a deal. >> tucker: who has said he has had no business relationship with harvey weinstein. >> nbc universal for years. universal has been distributing harvey weinstein's films. weinstein produces television for nbc like project runway. think about this. they ran a thousand trump stories based an anonymous sources. ronan farrow came in with a police report. you haven't nailed it down yet. the double standard is ridiculous. >> tucker: nbc has never explained how its property, the access hollywood tape, which was shot more than a decade before, wound up moving from nbc's offices to the "the washington post." they have never explained. doing an investigation. we don't know the answer. last month you saw one of the anchors on msnbc said some unattractive things in a commercial break. the tape was leaked. nbc immediately found the producer imresponse cybil for leaking it and fired him. while can't they find out how that tape got from their offices to the "the washington post." >> it's being run the same way as the hunt for oj's real killers. they will never let up until they find it. >> tucker: not a real all hands on deck. mark simone, good to see you. >> thanks. >> tucker: personal implications of the weinstein scandal are bad enough. business implication continue to grow as well. tomorrow the weinstein company is holding a board meeting. increasing evidence the company is in danger of outright collapse. for the latest on that we are joined by deadline.com dominic patton who has been on top of every detail on the story from day one. dominique, what do you know? >> tucker, what we're going to see happen tomorrow, let's just back a little bit to a couple of hours today. after being kicked out of the movie academy weekend people oscars. harvey weinstein today was essential liver the first step of being kicked out of producer's geld of america. oscar winning producer is being kicked to the curb. he has six days to respond, plea his case. honestly with the board meeting that's happening tomorrow in new york city which he will be phoning in from rehab which i'm sure is quite nice and heavyweight hollywood lawyer patty glasure will be representing him. they will go to war about was he correctly terminated from the weinstein company on october 8th. that was, of course, three days after the "new york times" expose came out and just before the new yorker expose came out. >> tucker: huh. so there have been a number of reports that all of this grew out of a battle between harvey weinstein and his brother bob. are those reports accurate, do you know? >> well, i would say that those reports, i mean, look, bob weinstein has essentially said that he and his brother divorced about five years ago. bob went to run dimensions film which is a very profitable arm of the weinstein company. this is what is interesting. talk about is it for sale not for sale. bob weinstein put out a statement last week saying it's not for sale. today colony capital. people run by tom barrick, a good friend of the president's actually u said they are injecting a ton of cash into the weinstein company. we hear they are looking at buying up some of the assets for basically what would be a fire sale. very similar to what they did to bob and harvey's previous company miramax back in 2010. here is other thing to add. you take with that meeting harvey owns 23% of the weinstein company. what's going to happen tomorrow in this meeting that he will be phoning in to is they will determine whether or not he will get a payout or rethrone himself. the thing is, what is there to come back to and what is there worth coming back to. colony capital could be the ones holding all the cards here if they decide they want to grab the weinstein company assets and best they can what's remaining for what is essentially a crippled company. >> tucker: i'm no branding expert it strikes me it won't remain the weinstein company for long, right? >> you said it and previous guest said it very well. have you ever seen a brand implode as fast ats weinstein company and harvey weinstein? you remember it's less than two weeks ago the "new york times" broke their story. just over a week ago we got the story from the new yorker. dozens and dozens of women. you talked about lisa bloom and rose mcgowb ashley judd gwyneth paltrow and angelina jolie have come out. this is evolving. something else your viewers might be interested. in we have seen the movie academy and producer's guild. we hear talk that the tv academy because weinstein produced a lot of shows like project runway that they, too, are now serious yuresly looking into tossing him out. sea producer without a home. a producer without a company and a reputation that's in the toilet. >> tucker: nicely put. dominic, thank you for that update. appreciate it? >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: harvey weinstein gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians and to the clinton foundation over the years. in a statement today, the clinton foundation announced that it is not returning the money. it's refusing saying that money was spent a long time ago on what it called, apparently without irony charitable efforts. something only time weinstein has given big to the clinton family. almost 20 years ago weinstein was only one of a handful of people that donated the maximum to bill clinton's legal defense fund during the monica lewenski impeachment scandal. wrote the book clinton cash and joins us tonight, peter, it seems to me there is a cost in not returning the money. if you are hillary clinton and bill clinton who spent a better part of a week not responding to your old friend's sexual harassment scandal, why wouldn't you give the money to some virtuous charity and call it a day? why would you refuse? >> that's a great question, tucker. i mean, look, they are kind of in a pickle, the clintons. this is not a relationship with a celebrity or a hollywood person that was sort of a flash in the pan. as you pointed out, they have known each other. they have had financial connections going on for 20 years. and weinstein, you know, had an interview with bill clinton in 2012 on cnn in which he talks about the fact that they're friends and that he considered bill clinton a mentor. weinstein is not what you would call a modest person. so if he is saying that, he probably really means it so the clintons are in a tough spot. but, you know, that said, there really is no other choice other than for them to give this donation to someone else. i'm not buying that this was spent well to help other people. there was an internal review done of the clinton foundation that chelsea clinton ordered. they scud clinton employees of the foundation to rate the effectiveness of the charity on a scale from 1 to 10. the average score was a 4. some of them gave it a 1. so clinton foundation employees don't consider the foundation very effective. and we know that that money was probably not spent in a very effective way. >> tucker: yeah those were not right wing partisans. my understanding it doesn't do helping people. conferences where rich people gathered on helping people. have you got to wonder if its finances aren't a little tight right now. they will don't have anything to sell because the clintons no longer have positions of power. how is their fundraising going? do we know? >> well, it's not going great, based on public reports. they had, you know, two arms of this. the clinton foundation and then, of course, the clinton global initiative, cgi. cgi shut down after the 2016 election. it no longer exists. that was really the central marketplace for inner influence peddling. clinton foundation has tried to position itself in a different way. they tried to amass an endowment over the last couple of years so they probably have got $150 million parked away so they can certainly give this money to someone else. they have it. but the long term and medium term prospects are not good. they don't have access to sell as that same chelsea clinton review pointed out, an internal review that a lot of the high dollar donordonorsdonors were expectind pro quos. if you don't have anything to sell, people are not just going to give money to your organization. that's precisely the problem the clintons are running into. >> tucker: that's exactly right. why would the salt tan of iran or abu daby give you anything? it's least fixture way to spend money. peter schweizer, thank you, for your deep reservoir of clinton knowledge. new mysteries in the las vegas investigation. a lot of the them. geraldo rivera joining us next with the latest. ♪ filibuster ♪ >> tucker: it's now been two full weeks since the shooting massacre in las vegas. wars have been fought and won in less time literally. even now investigators are still trying to understand why stephen paddock murdered 59 people. how he was able to do it. basic questions remain unanswered. mysteries multiply by the day. for example, security guard jesus campos was apparently the first man at the scene of the shooting. initially he was reported to have descrupped the shooting spree possibly saved many lives that was widely reported. then it emerged that compose was actually the first victim of the attack and shot or perhaps wounded by a ricochet, even that's not clear, before paddock targeted the concert goers. that he was the case under the current guideline anyway which could end up changing again. we can't talk to campos because he has disappeared. he scheduled an appearance on hannity and a couple of other news programs late last week then didn't show up. a union representative says he may have checked into a walk-in health clinic instead. every walk-in health clinic contacted in las vegas said we have never heard of this man. now he is gone. where is he? nobody knows. most people don't seem to care, which may be even weirder. for the latest developments fox correspondent geraldo rivera who has covered an awful lot of stories like this joins us tonight. geraldo, it's almost not even obvious where to begin but let's just start with campos. it's not clear to me whether he was shot or wounded by a ricochet, not that it matters. it's another example of the bad reporting that has clouded the facts of this case from the beginning. the fact that we don't know where he is strikes me as very odd. >> well, i think that in the campos situation i would submit that it is probably a function of his employer, the mandalay bay resort that is keeping him out of contact with the outside world for fear of incurring civil liability. if it can be shown that as a security guard or security afternoon rat tuesdaapparatus wl failed. is there any liability on the hotel's part? i think timing will play a role in that. >> tucker: i would agree with you there except for the union rep how think campos would talk to as much as he would talk to his employer has said we are actively searching for the guy. and it is the union. unions are strong in las vegas still as you know. he said we have no idea where this guy is it's a little strange. >> i think that what the tone of your voice implies is that you are skeptical of the official account of what happened that awful night. >> tucker: i'm skeptical of everything. i'm serious i don't have a secret theory i'm pushing. >> there is lack of a motive. millionaire by all accounts. why did he suddenly become this evil killing machine? so there is no motive. i have heard he was isis. he was antifa, he was the ailluminati. he was satanic blood cultist. so the lack of motive plus the confused time line allows us to ponder and as talk radio and the conspiracy theorists get their hands on it, it becomes a lot like in a sense although the crimes are obviously so very different, it becomes like the kennedy assassination in the sense that we have evidence that seemingly contradicts the official account, therefore, we are skeptical. there are dark forces at work here. you know, playing with the facts and the circumstances to make a political goal. this is a false flag operation to bring on gun control. et cetera, et cetera. i think, i mean, i will just tell you what i think and you -- thank you for crediting me with my deep experience in these kinds of crimes. i think that because of the enormity of this act and the murders committed and the extraordinary circumstance of the 32nd floor of the hotel becoming the sniper's nest where they could poor down, rain down death and destruction on just average ordinary americans. we run wild. we don't want it to be the bality of a simple, horrible, evil creature like lee harvey oswald. >> that's not true. we don't want to believe that our authorities are incompetent. i don't believe to believe that people come to this country precisely because they think our authorities are competent and justice system is on the level and our law enforcement knows what it's doing. they are revealing themselves. look, they left his house unguarded. this campos guy. i'm not suggesting did he anything wrong. i am suggesting if you want to get the time line right you better talk to him him. authorities don't know where he is they revised the basic facts in the time line three times. why should i have faith in their account? >> why doubt someone like lombardo, the sheriff, who seems such a straight shooter to me. i mean, no one -- no one has ever dealt with a crime of this magnitude. this is the worst mass murder ever in american history. and it sudden bel suddenly thrun the las vegas sheriff to lead the investigation. he has all the feds and state guys and everybody is behind him. it's all coming from this fulcrum, the sheriff, i think he is just out of his depth in the sense that he is sincere, honest person. but he just doesn't give me the vibe. >> >> tucker: i'm not saying he is lying. it's not even crossed my mind. i don't think he has some weird agenda. i think it seems like he doesn't know what he is doing. it rocks my faith. and by the way it leaves space for the conspiracy people. like if the official account isn't credible, you know, conspiracy theories fill the void. >> i think the official account is credible. i think there was great confusion. i think there was jesus campos particularly. no one knew exactly when he got wounded. they didn't have the transcripts of the radio communications. it's not clear at what point he went on his walkie-talkie to call the cops, the shooter is up here. how long did it actually take him to dial 911. and because the carnage is so awful. we feel so bad. we want it to be the comeys, we want it to be the aliens. >> tucker: we don't know what it is thanks to them. >> it's stephen paddock. >> tucker: up next, do immigration numbers prove that numbers are changing faster than you thought it was. we have those num what started as a passion... ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪ >> tucker: the essential makeup of this country is changing rapidly in the face of massive immigration over the past 50 years. how quickly is it changing? well, a new report for the center for immigration studies finds as of last year, america contains 43.7 million immigrants. that's an increase of nearly 1 million since the year 2000. that's 2,000. you remember 2000. it's not that long ago. immigrants are 13.5% of the population. that's the highest figure in more than a sen dry. you may like it. you may dislike it but it's a big deal. steven camerota wrote that new report and he joins us now. the first question is an obvious one. which is no matter where you are on immigration, this is a massive deal. it's changing the country at the most basic level and, yet, i don't ever see this reported anywhere. why is that? >> it's a great question. look, most of this immigration is legal. remember, it's not the weather. it's something we can control. the immigrant population you just ran through some of the numbers. let me hit with you some more. the immigrant population has doubled since 1990, tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970. mostly legal. illegal in there too. mostly legal immigration and we don't have the kind of national debate about this that we probably should. the impact is enormous. let me just give you one. 1/3 of all the children in poverty today in america live in an immigrant household. about half of immigrant households receive some form of welfare. but, again, we're not getting much discussion. all we ever get is well, we have illegal immigration. should we amnesty them? should we not. the bigger question of what number of people can we assimilate and what makes sense for our country is seldom ever asked. >> tucker: even more rarely asked what does the public want? it's their country it belongs to american citizens. i don't see them being notified about. this in general the survey shows the public likes the immigrants they know. they mostly think the number is too high. lower level would help with incorporation of the immigrant assimilation and so forth. so i think the public on the one hand likes the individuals but wants less immigration. but there are very few politicians who actually articulate that point of view. >> tucker: that's how i feel personally. i met very few immigrants i don't like. they are mostly great. what does this mean for our population going forward? >> very roughly, over the next 50 years immigration is going to add maybe 100 or 105 million new people above what it would otherwise be without immigration. so, that's roughly equal. >> tucker: 100 million. >> a little over 100 million. that's roughly equal to the population of great britain and canada together. all the projections show it. census, pew, my own, everybody kind of agrees about 100 million. >> tucker: out of a country of 320, that's a totally different country. >> right. it's adding a whole third to the population of what we currently have. and that has implications for the environment and traffic and congestion and pollution. but, again, very little discussion of just these basic numbers which really are not in dispute. >> tucker: no discussion. i mean, none that i ever hear. that's weird. steven, thank you for that i appreciate it? >> sure. >> tucker: nice to have some facts. for reaction to these new numbers we are joined now by fox analyst and co-host of the five our old friend juan williams. thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: i think steve camerota summed it up well of the american public most people like immigrants. that's how i feel. i never met one i didn't like. they are hard workers. they buy into america. they are great. but the macroquestion remains unanswered which is what's the effects on the population here? you can't switch out your population to this agree and not have some type of social volatility. why does the average person not to get to weigh in. >> i think we do weigh in. go back to 1965. they had a change in terms of the immigration act that changed the premise of it and i think made it more about family unification. bringing families together. and then you have the argument in the current context, i think especially after last year's campaign, tucker, where there is sort of a populist tribal instinct that says wait a second, these people are coming in zero sum game. they may be taking jobs. they may be driving wages down. but what we have seen from studies is that long term, in fact, they generate economic activity, create jobs, and then have you people held up like, you know, sergei, google, or steve jobs at apple. >> tucker: that's not a serious economic point. nobody argues with real dated tanchts right. >> tucker: that our current immigration policy is a net boone to the economy. >> oh, yeah, they do. >> if it were, california wouldn't have with the most immigrants in the country the most people in poverty, which it now does. california is far poorer than it was when i grew up there. there is only one issue, immigration. that's not really a points. >> no, wait a second. i'm interested in hearing you on this. because california, first of all, their economy is doing pretty good. you said a high level of people who are impoverished. they have a very high immigrant population. you just heard from steven a high percentage of children in our country who live in poverty are in immigrant families. that means they are at the lowest level of income. they are competing at the lowest level. >> tucker: exactly. >> they are doing everything they can to get a foot hold in our society. it doesn't mean it's a negative in terms of the american economy though. >> tucker: right. well, i mean i don't think you are making the points with respect. let me ask you a bigger question. so we are at a moment and every survey shows total division in our society. people have less in common with each than they ever have. asking basic questions what ties us all together? why are we all in this together? do you not see any correlation between massive immigration since 1965 and where we are now in the country much less united, much less willing to basic questions like is the bill of rights worth continuing, things like that. that's not related to immigration? of course it is. >> i don't know anybody who is challenging the bill of rights. >> tucker: the entire left. the first amendment has been invalidated on college campuses. i do this every night. trust me. >> okay. i watch you. but i'm going to say i think, in fact, what the key here and i feel like i'm reiterating something steve said earlier is assimilation. do you share american values? do you believe in god-given rights and democracy and representation and law and order? that's the key. and but it's not about, at this point, a sort of tribal fight between native born americans and immigrants. >> tucker: we're trying to tell immigrants that law and order is a core american value which is a core western value. >> yes. >> tucker: what the is message that we send with, say, sanctuary cities or the dreamers. aren't we telling them in the clearest possible terms that when it's politically inexpedient we are ignoring the law. that's the message we are sending newest immigrants you have the right to be here illegally. that's the law and order you hope to inculcate in our immigrant population? >> i don't see it as the left. i'm listening to you because when i hear from the chamber of commerce. when i hear from the sheriff's. >> tucker: they are for it, too. >> that's not the left, tucker. >> tucker: no, no. that's a fair point and a point i often make on this show. business interests and the radical social left are aligned on this. when nancy pelosi congrats a little dreamers for coming here illegally and thank you for breaking the law that the congress, which she is in, passed. does that send a law and order message, do you think, to immigrants? >> no. the key here is and i think this is the reason the sheriffs are on it, we want law and order. we want you to talk to police. cooperate with police. residence the police. so we don't want you to see us as coming -- so that's a larger conversation. but my point to you is. >> tucker: short conversation. >> absolutely central to bringing immigrants in if this is goings to be skillful. so far, look where wall street is right now. look at our economy. our economy is not suffering because of immigrants. >> tucker: no. in fact, immigrants are a massing boon for the affluent. it's cheap labor. that's why they love it. no one loves it more than rich people. juan, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: well, has radicalization on the left created a permanent culture war? our next guest says yes, it has. and that's the whole point. stay tuned. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: americans are, of course, divided in how they vote. always have been though. increasingly they are divided on pretty much everything else as well. summer blockbusters, professional sports. even what you eat for dinner. who you date. all now political battle fields. writing over at the federalist john daniel davidson says both sides of the political divide are radicalizing, but the radicalization on the left is more dangerous, more prone to violence. more likely to cause a culture war that is, quote, going to encompass everything and that will never end. john daniel davidson joins us tonight. john, thanks for coming on. so the core of your piece is a response to a new pew poll on polarization in american life. so give us the quick overview of how deep these divides are. >> sure, the pew poll is a series of 10 questions that the pew research center has been asking americans for a number of years. going back to 1994. and what they found is over time, the median, the average answers that republicans and democrats will agree to, different statements have moved farther and farther to the extreme. so what used to be a very common middle ground has now moved out to the edges and the numbers of things that americans agree on is fewer and fewer in the gaps between the two groups is widening. and you can kind of see it's fascinating to see it over time from 1994 to 2004, it was more or less the same. from 2004 to 2017, boy, it's changed a lot. it really represents the divisions that we see everywhere now in american society. >> tucker: so to sum it up in a kind of blunt way. conservatives seem annoyed by liberals. liberals seem at total war with conservatives. have you this amazing quote from a writer, not a very fluent writer but something of a moral leader now on the left. he has a new book out, i think last week about race. and you quote an interview he did with ezra klein over at vox where he asks how can we get rid of white supremacy. characterize the answer he gave. >> he more or less said that he didn't think that we could get rid of white supremacy without something like the french revolution. this is something that he does a lot. he kind of faints towards violence and then backs off. right? but the implication is clear that he thinks america is endemically white supremacist country that is irredeemablely racist and only thing that will reform the racism of america is kind of a violent revolution and upheaval. he never comes out and says it but he implies it everywhere. >> tucker: for our viewers who don't believe that it's worth. his speaking and writing styles are so hard to take that i'm not going to inflict them on our viewers. it's worth actually reading. what was so striking about in this is guy who won the mccarter genius award. i think. unfettered by the intellectually left deeply serious person. as someone who listen to. someone whose words are indeindispensable. is he suggesting that blood may be the only way to atone. that is a listen level to me it? >> is a different level. all of this comes down to the fund mention question. is the declaration of independence true or not? and is america good or bad? and the problem with the left and the reason that the left's radicalization is more dangerous than radicalization among republicans is that the left answers that question no. the declaration of independence is not true. it's a cynical document. no, america is not a good place. it's not a place where we can get along as a big diverse group of people. it's a zero sum game of political tribalism. that's the fundamental difference between left and right. the left increasingly has concluded that they can't share a country with people that disagree with them. >> tucker: you know, those are the mathematics of identity politics right there. nicely put. terrifying too. john, thank you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: economists said that all married people should be punished because some groups in america don't get married as often. huh. it's called feminist economics. that's next. ♪ >> tucker: well, there are thousands and thousands of economists out there. not all of them competent. so, of course there are just about as many economic schools. cansism, marxism, the austrian school. now we have something called feminist economics. studies shown that marriage is one of this country's most potent antipoverty weapons. it's not surprising that government benefits marriage tax code. ban that way for a long time. john j. college of new york city say those benefits ought to be abolished certain groups have lower marriage rates and wrong to express preference for something not shared across the board. michelle vice president of legal progress at the center for american progress. and she joins us tonight. michelle, it's great to see you. >> hi, tucker. great for having me. >> tucker: feminist economics. i have never heard that. i never heard feminist applied to science. feminist gravity? what does it have to do with this. >> i'm sure there is. >> tucker: really? >> essentially what we are thinking about is how do we put different views in place? right? and so we talk about economics. but we don't often think about all of the views that should be represented. and actually at our event, what we were really trying to think about is are we meeting the needs of all families today? >> tucker: okay. but you are not suggesting that the actual, i mean, economics i'm joking it's not a real science. it's like made up like psychology. a lot of it is just totally made up. you are not suggesting that feminism could be applied. is there a feminist biology? is there a feminist theory of gravity that's different? >> i think we are focusing on kind of the term as opposed to really looking at the. >> tucker: i was joking. >> that's final. >> tucker: the question of marriage. i don't think anyone disputes that when people are married they're far less, like far less likely to be in poverty. in fact, it's the single most consistent marker for being in poverty is a broken family. why would you in any way want to encourage that? >> i think marriage is great. i have been married to my very good-looking husband for 11 years. >> tucker: good for you. >> i hope we have 50 more. i think what we are really trying to look at is are we doing the things necessary? do we have policies to support all families? the reality is there are about 8 million grand parents in this country today who are raising or helping with their grandchildren under the age of 18. we have about 26% of families are led by sings gel mothers wh --single motherse children. >> tucker: let me ask you a question. do you see that as good or bad. if a quarter of families led by single mothers. policymaker that's a disaster. it really has obvious consequences like higher imprisonment rates, lower high school graduation rates. more malnutrition and poverty. when you see that number does it make you sad or is that okay? >> what i think is we don't look at the reality of how families are composed today. so let's think about this. 64% of mothers are bread winners. about 42% are the sole or primary yet we don't have policies in place like paid family medical lee or adequate child care how are we talking about caring for families if we don't look at all of the needs of families. >> tucker: i'm not for excluding anybody. >> neither are we. >> tucker: a matter of social policy what we are talking about. and tax code is part of our social policy. >> correct. >> tucker: can we start it on the same baseline can we acknowledge when the majority of kids in a community are born out of wedlock that is unequivocal disaster? that's not good in any way? do you agree with that. >> all families deserve to have support, flight. >> tucker: that's a bumper sticker. get to the core issue which is something that wasn't the case 50 years ago in many communities, the majority of children, not just black communities, a lot of white communities in poor areas. the majority of kids are born out of wedlock. that is a disaster. can you say that with me? >> so what i can say that all families deserve to have. >> tucker: why wouldn't say that since we know that single parent hood leads to terrible outcomes why wouldn't you say it's bad. >> you can look at ben who is your hud secretary. the fact is if we have policies. >> tucker: that's not an answer. >> it speaks to all of our needs. >> tucker: you are dodging it? >> tucker, let's say. this. >> tucker: is it preferable? >> are we prepared to say we want to support all families or not? >> tucker: are we prepared to stop with the bumper stickers and slogans. >> we should support all families. >> tucker: what you are doing is being a hack and give me a fake answer. >> actually what i'm saying is the reality of where we were 50 years ago is not where we are today. >> tucker: do you think that. >> if we are thinking about grand parents. >> tucker: i give up. i give up. nobody takes the left seriously. this is an actual issue that cuts across races. >> it does. >> tucker: cuts across the whole country. >> exactly. this is not a part son idea. >> tucker: you don't admit it's a disaster because they vote democrat. >> his daughter saying they have to do something about it. >> tucker: they are wrong. trump and his daughter are wrong if they don't see single parenthood on the scale we see it now as a disaster because it is. >> tucker, we need to say faith without works. we said it in james. make sure we are protecting and taking care of all families. >> tucker: we are encouraging as you know. michele thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: we had a piece of tape we were going to wait until friday to show you. so great people often say fox is the strongest name in news. there is another contender for that title. stay with us, >> tucker: you got your christmas present. we thought we can't wait to and a half months to give it to you is who we are giving it to you behind the scenes, here is tape from the cnn morning show, anchor and hero chris cuomo showing off one of his many talents. there was sword swallowing and fitting a dozen quarters in your nose. can you do that? that's unbelievable. watch carefully. incredible. [laughs] she's missing it but you are not. it's so great. we will probably show it to you tomorrow. that is unfortunately it for us tonight. what a great night it's been. tune in every night at 8:00 for the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. sean is next. >> sean: thanks, tucker. an announcement about breaking new is coming up in the show. the uproar with harvey weinstein, more and more hollywood elites are being exposed as hypocrites, responsible for covering up the deeds of a predator. we will reveal just how close weinstein was to the clintons and how democrats, hollywood, and those of the press in this country all helped enable this predator. you will hear from two women about just how bad the casting couch is in the entertainment industry. the nfl's national anthem controversy is not going away.